BUSH VIDEO: “We Must Always Ask Ourselves Not Only What Is Legal, But What Is Right”
Filed Under: Ethics
By on Oct 26th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
BUSH VIDEO: “We Must Always Ask Ourselves Not Only What Is Legal, But What Is Right”
George W. Bush, 10/15/01:
Let me say a few words about important values we must demonstrate while all of us serve in government. First, we must always maintain the highest ethical standards. We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right. There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity.
Second, I want us to set an example of humility. As you work for the federal government there is no excuse for arrogance, and there’s never a reason to show disrespect for others. A new tone in Washington must begin with decency and fairness. I want everyone who represents our government to be known for these values.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
93 Responses to “BUSH VIDEO: “We Must Always Ask Ourselves Not Only What Is Legal, But What Is Right””
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Drudge
Earmarks
Economy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Graham
Hagee
Health Care
Housing
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Petraeus
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sports
Torture
Veterans
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Now if only the president lived up to this.
R2000
October 26th, 2005 at 12:36 pmBathroom Review
Its important to point out that this speech only applies to members of the Democratic party.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:36 pmMaintain the highest ethical standards? Like lie until you get the war you promised before your election? Oh, you tried to correct your statement, but we all know what you really wanted.
We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right? You mean like identify legal and right and just do what you want anyway?
There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity. And 2001 dead soldiers just aren’t enough for you yet dumbya.
Second, I want us to set an example of humility. As you work for the federal government there is no excuse for arrogance, and there’s never a reason to show disrespect for others. I seem to remember in 1985 when your daddy shouted at a mother of a MIA…”shut up, just shut up! You people make me sick” and I see that Crash-cart cheeney shares your infinate respect for all…. what was his favorite quote…. oh yes “Go fu*%^ yourself”… right back at ya
A new tone in Washington must begin with decency and fairness. Yes, like don’t admit using torture, but fight like hell to see that it is not outlawed…Ya Vol!
I want everyone who represents our government to be known for these values. Sure you do.
Well dumbya, with you in office, as God is my witness I will NEVER FEEL STUPID!
October 26th, 2005 at 12:43 pm“First, we must always maintain the highest ethical standards. We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right. There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity.”
i guess that’s why someone like wilkerson spoke out, followed closely by scowcroft… they actually BELIEVED it…!
maybe scott ritter was moved to say what he said because he believed it as well…
“…you have people who have no regard for the rule of law. These aren’t people who appreciate the Constitution, to them the Constitution is an impediment, it’s an obstacle, it’s something in the way, it’s something to be avoided. They are married to an ideology of global domination, of global imperialism and they’re not going to deviate from this.”
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/ 2005/ 10/ scott-ritter-on-embattled.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ articles/ october2005/ 241005weaponsinspector.htm
October 26th, 2005 at 12:44 pmHis actions, speak a lot louder than his words. He has to go and fast.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:47 pmMore code…. What the prez is really saying: “While it may not be legal, it’s okay if it’s right — for the right!”
October 26th, 2005 at 12:47 pmBWAAAAAAHAAAHAAAAHAA!
(alternated with)
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETCH!
October 26th, 2005 at 12:48 pm(sniff sniff, whats that i smell? oops georgies bricking it)
October 26th, 2005 at 12:50 pmRemarks at a Swearing-In Ceremony for New White House Staff, January 22, 2001 includes this gem:
“First, we must remember the high standards that come with high office. This begins with careful adherence to the rules. I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries that define legal and ethical conduct. This means avoiding even the appearance of problems. This means checking and, if need be, doublechecking that the rules have been obeyed. This means never compromising those rules. No one in the White House should be afraid to confront the people they work for, for ethical concerns. And no one should hesitate to confront me, as well. We’re all accountable to one another. And above all, we’re all accountable to the law and to the American people.”
October 26th, 2005 at 12:54 pmHumility???????????
Ethics?????????????
To him they’re merely words with no meaning. He’s clueless.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:54 pmHe’s like a villain in a B movie.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:55 pmWho is this dullard trying to kid? Ethical standards? Integrity? “…no excuse for arrogance…”? Does he think the people listening to his dribble just fell off the turnip truck?
The virtues of ethics, integrity, and humility are things that flow down - be it from your parental units, a sibling, a coach or mentor of some sort, or even a boss. Our Douche-Bag-in-Chief has never displayed these virtues. His request for a tone of “decency and fairness” will start the day he and the rest of the Rethuglicans are run out of town on rails.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:56 pmI reeeeeeally reeaaally want to believe you Bush, just like I wanted to believe you when you said Iraq had something to do with 9/11. I wanted to beleive you because I didn’t want to live under a lying president.
But it’s HARD for me Bush, it really is. You’ve taken away all my trust now. I SO MUCH would love to know that you’ve become hoesty and good - it would put musch of my life at ease, beleive me. Trust me when I say, I have NOT liked that bad things you’ve done. I do not want you to continue doing bad, even though it gives me something to write about.
But unfortunatly you’ve spent 5 years violating my trust, and my defense mechinisms are up - and I see no way of letting them down, at least not right now.
So while your words are nice, i don’t beleive them. It’s time that you actually step up the plate and give us EVIDENCE that you and your adminstration is trying to be the way you say you want them to be.
Until I see some evedence, I’m not succumbing to you.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:56 pmNo doubt that speechwriter was taken to the toolshed.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:00 pmFLIP FLOP, FLIP FLOP! ;-)
October 26th, 2005 at 1:02 pmDon’t forget to note that he slipped in a plug for his “Freedom of Management Act”. Well, can’t expect the GOPFascistmachine to avoid being partisan. Is there ANY speech he’s given that doesn’t have one or more plugs for their secret partisan agenda? Unfortunately, Bush doesn’t know what all those big words in that there speech mean, because if HE meant it he’d be cleaning house right now. I would actually stop ragging on the guy if he’d actually put his money where his mouth is… just once, on one sane issue (that is, something other than war and nuclear weapons… I am glad they shelved the bunker-buster nuke). Hey, Mr. Bush, how about you get all the traitors out of our government. That would really help out.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:04 pmBut really this is just posturing in preparation for the indictments. They hope that people will assosciate the words of “integrity”, “ethics”, etc. with the administration that remains. This is “pre-emptive damage control”. And the base will eat up anything he says, and refuse to match up actions against words: to the GOP base, the words are everything.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:17 pm“Trust me. I’m ethical.”
He makes me SICK! He makes me ASHAMED.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:17 pmIf you think that was breathtaking you should hiw live speech now on cable to the Econmoic Club of Washington.
Now that is breathtaking.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:21 pmdon’t take this quote out of context… Bush was speaking about Democrats here… these principles don’t apply to him and his homies…
seriously, when is Bush going to remove these cancerous lesions from his administration?
October 26th, 2005 at 1:24 pmBush is one giant talking puppet.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:28 pmhe’s not going to remove anyone. there won’t be any indictments. next week the whole thing will be gone from the papers. what’s new?
no doubt the headlines will be back to britney spears and other mushmouth drivel.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:28 pmWho is this dullard trying to kid? Ethical standards? Integrity? “…no excuse for arrogance…� Does he think the people listening to his dribble just fell off the turnip truck?
History has shown that the people listening did, in fact, just fall off the turnip truck.
The red state voters make it real hard for the rest of us not to look down on them as a bunch of dumb hicks.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:28 pmI’d like the hypocrisy with a side of arrogance. Can I get some lies sprinkled on top? And how about a super-sized corruption to wash it all down…
October 26th, 2005 at 1:38 pmDammit, I hate quicktime!
October 26th, 2005 at 1:39 pmKing George, right now, as I am typing this, is giving a speech and someone must have stuck a broom handle up his kazoombie.
He is reviving talk of his plan to bring social security into the 19th century.
The man is apeshit.Like I commented the other day, he has never, ever asked for the passage of a bill that would aid or comfort the people of this nation. All he ever asks for his more controls over the people. He is bragging about signing a bill where if a person invents something legal they cant be sued over it.
He also bragged about the bankruptcy bill and protection of the gun industry.
See what I mean.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:40 pmPablo I turned him off as he was talking about making tax cuts and how they have put more money in the pockets of taxpayer and the federal gov. He was talking about not letting the federal gov. overspend..
This ba***rd is just a black hole for Americans money.
He is no different than any other dicator who takes everything from the people and leave them with nothing but sticks to warm themselves by….
He is a lying muther……. and I would tell him so to his freaking face…….
October 26th, 2005 at 1:50 pmtake note of the date of that speech…he could get away with that kind of message then - just over a month after sept.11…we ALL wanted to believe our president then…i knew better, in my gut, but i wanted to hope……
October 26th, 2005 at 1:50 pmTry not to forget junior, this is your architect, your little turd-blossum. You two are connected at the hip, dip-shit, never to be separated. When he’s indicted, it’s on you too, because he’s your best man … errr turd.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:01 pmThe man is a hypocritical jackass.!.!.?
October 26th, 2005 at 2:02 pmI’m the PREZNIT - words mean whatever I say they mean…
And everything else.
Do YOU wanna take over this office and be Preznit?
Well, uh… you CAN’T. So THERE.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:04 pm[…] Check out the video from Think Progress. Filed under: Bush and Co., Audio/Video — LindseyD @ 1:06 pm […]
October 26th, 2005 at 2:10 pmMajor bush crime family operations are over.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:51 pmCheers, James K. Sayre
I will not be poop-duped by president pnut butter.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:52 pmDUHbya got his proverbial mammary gland caught in the laundry appliance again. He could at least have some first grade teacher read and explain his speaches before he reads them out loud. To coin an adage: It is better to keep quiet and let people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Click on Clyde.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:55 pmI see it differently. Bush was letting everyone in his ‘base’ know that Government would no longer follow the Rule of Law; that their ‘values’ and their ‘ethics’ will be the arbiters of the administration’s behavior. We have all seen the results over the last few years: We went to war because of neocon ‘truths’ that turned out to be lies and rather than do what is legal we do what someone in a Washington think tank (can you say PNAC?} thinks is ‘right’ or ‘ethical. This is nothing new in history. The Marxist-Leninists call it dialectic materialism. say one thig to mask the fact that you mean the opposite. There are two rules for understanding neocons:
October 26th, 2005 at 3:06 pm1. They will usually do the opposite of what you think they mean.
2. If you’re not sure what they intend, follow the money.
Meaningless words:
“[A] leader must uphold the honor and the dignity of the office to which he had been elected. (APPLAUSE) In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal, but what is right. (APPLAUSE) Not just what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves. (APPLAUSE) In my administration, we’ll make it clear there is the controlling legal authority of conscience. (APPLAUSE) We will make people proud again, so that Americans who love their country can once again respect their government.”
October 26th, 2005 at 3:20 pm–GWB 10/26/0
Vile liar and Hypocrite of the first order. Exile him to Saudi.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:24 pm“We Must Always Ask Ourselves Not Only What Is Legal, But What Is Rightâ€
~ W
That’s something the Liberals never ask. They only ask “will it give us more power and what’s the downside if we get caught”.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:27 pmThere are two rules for understanding neocons:
Comment by Dumm0crat
Bush isn’t a neo-con dumbass, he’s a theo-con. But what’s really astounding about your idiot comment is how you, leftwingratbastardcommiemofo that you are accuse Bush of Marxist trickery. You got some brass ones loser.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:31 pmIRI.
Contrary to you wth none at all.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:08 pmThe rule with IRI, is if you replace democrat with republican, he almost always tells the truth. And if you replace moral with immoral, he almost always tells the truth. And if you replace secular with religious, he almost always tells the truth.
In otherwords, he lies all the time - it’s his pathology.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:14 pm“We Must Always Ask Ourselves Not Only What Is Legal, But What Is Rightâ€
~ W
That’s something the Liberals never ask. They only ask “will it give us more power and what’s the downside if we get caughtâ€.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — October 26, 2005 @ 3:27 pm
There are two rules for understanding neocons:
Comment by Dumm0crat
Bush isn’t a neo-con dumbass, he’s a theo-con. But what’s really astounding about your idiot comment is how you, leftwingratbastardcommiemofo that you are accuse Bush of Marxist trickery. You got some brass ones loser.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I
Bush is an idiot and a tool. Just like you, ya fvckin’ chump!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:18 pmA Theo-con! LOL! You are dumb!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:19 pmIf Bush is anything he is a theo-con-con. He has fooled the bible-belt cousin-lovers that he is their type of a religious bigot.
W just uses them to drum up the scared-of-homos vote and after the election is over he ignores them like the hired help.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:23 pmThat’s nice George. How’s that ethical standard working out for ya?
October 26th, 2005 at 5:06 pmThe more he repeats the lies the more people believe him. Rice gets up and repeats the same obvious lies about the connections with 911 and Saddam, everyone by now knows this is a lie. But they just keep repeating them. Fox news just keeps repeating it over and over again. People are being hynotized by the BIG LIE.
They have been unable, so far, to rob the Social Security Fund. So, they get the money elsewhere, look at the appalling profits the oil companies in the US and Great Britain are making, ripping the money right out of our pockets. All the while running adds in newspapers about “how they feel our pain” Lies, lies, lies……
Just wait for the huge ones coming……about Cheney, Fitzgerald…they’ve already begun….
October 26th, 2005 at 5:33 pm“The rule with IRI, is if you replace democrat with republican, he almost always tells the truth. And if you replace moral with immoral, he almost always tells the truth.
Comment by Ryan Neat — October 26, 2005 @ 4:14 pm
It’s easy to take the calls of “Bush-Bashing” once you replace “Bush” with “tumor”, or “cancer”.
Example: “What a delusional bunch tumor-haters you all are!” See how simple?
October 26th, 2005 at 5:39 pmConservatives - like chimpy - May ask “what is legal, what is right?” But they follow that up with, “Now that we know what is legal and right, let’s subvert it with lies and spin.”
October 26th, 2005 at 5:47 pmWhat a low class hypocryt…
October 26th, 2005 at 5:59 pm#47 Better- Nice use of the language! You’re going to go far in left wing politics, you’ve got that sense of decorum that’s perfect for left wing political activism.
October 26th, 2005 at 6:29 pm#48 Liberal- I’m afraid “better” has you beat in the “embarrass yourself with vulgarity” department but don’t get discouraged, you have real potential.
Turk has spoken, he is Spartacus
Turk,
I would rather listen to someone use vulgar words, than have a president who implements vulgar policies. The fact you can’t distinguish between these items, and their impact on society show’s why you’re such a hypocrite. You defend vulgarities in morality, you even post lies (which I find much more vulgar than swearing), and yet you choose to claim decorum.
You may consider vulgar words having a lack of decorum, I consider spreading lies, smears and propaganda to have no decorum. So clearly you and your entire movement continues to show the world why you are the party of hypocrisy…
As for us reaching our audience, 65% of americans disapprove of your guys handling of the government - how’s that decorum thing working for you again? Is that anything like Cheney belittling the decorum of others as he cursed on the senate floor? I say what cheney said - and right at you bucko!
October 26th, 2005 at 6:53 pmGeorge Bush’s core value…. bullshit artistry.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:14 pmIt’s laughable to look back and see that he was SO BUSY trying to say, “I don’t have sex with interns in the Oval Office” that he forgot that he was a loser who had gotten by on shim-shamming every obstacle with family power and nepotism who, after stealing the election, installed a bunch of crooks, torture artists, and incompetents in even the lowest-level positions. My guess is, the White House photocopy person hasn’t yet figured out how to get the machine to stop spitting out blank pages. “Oh…yeah…I need an original…”
October 26th, 2005 at 7:22 pmTo I-Right-I
You’ve got to be kidding. WE never ask those questions? Are you serious? Tell that to the parents of Dead Soldier No. 2000, whose grief the LEFT tried to prevent by marching in the streets for MONTHS before your “noble Right” started its murder campaign. Just curious: When we get to Dead Soldier No. 3000 or 10,000, will you FINALLY get a clue?
October 26th, 2005 at 7:26 pm#47 Better- Nice use of the language! You’re going to go far in left wing politics, you’ve got that sense of decorum that’s perfect for left wing political activism.
#48 Liberal- I’m afraid “better†has you beat in the “embarrass yourself with vulgarity†department but don’t get discouraged, you have real potential.
Turk has spoken, he is Spartacus
Comment by Turk Fowler — October 26, 2005 @ 6:29 pm
Su madre es un puta, pendejo.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:46 pmI got yer decorum hanging, bitch! But you’ll have to get in line, right behind yer mother and your sister, but that just means there’s one person ahead of you.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:58 pm#44 U-Wrong-U: “accuse Bush of Marxist trickery”.
Wrong again dipshit. We accuse Bush of Hitleresque Fascism reality. If Bush had one inkling of Marxism in his body he’d be just a tad bit more concerned about workers and their families and their futures in this country.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:08 pmActions really do speak louder than words, Dubya.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:48 pmYour a hypocrite of the purest kind.
DO AS I SAY! not as I do.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:06 pmJust like the great line in 9 1/2 Weeks, when he tries to act like he wants more than to just have sex…..it is too late for that now.
Bye
October 26th, 2005 at 10:13 pmBUSH makes me want to VOMIT. He’s a PERFECT horse’s
October 26th, 2005 at 10:37 pmass.
Was he speaking in code?
October 26th, 2005 at 10:42 pmWait - he’s not smart enough for code.
But he surely didn’t mean what he was saying.
He hasn’t gotten anything honestly and with integrity in his entire life. As for humility, this is the guy who said he’d like to be a dictator.
arghhh the bastard!
October 26th, 2005 at 11:04 pmOld Bushies would not know RIGHT if it hit him in the FACE.
October 27th, 2005 at 8:12 amThe Impeachment of a War Criminal
There has been an undercurrent of unrest over the call for the impeachment of President Bush that is now bubbling to the surface. Several recent polls are showing a shift in public opinion towards impeachment of the president while a number of organizations are campaigning to convince the House of Representatives to lay charges. There are many impediments towards impeachment not the least of which is the fact that the House is Republican. Nevertheless, it is a healthy step forward that the American people may be finally realizing that the President is devious and lacks integrity.
On June 30/05 a Zogby Poll reported that “(42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.†More recently an Ipso Public Affairs conducted between October 6/05 to October 9/05 found that 50% of Americans agreed with the statement “If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war against Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him.†The Santa Cruz City Council voted 6-1 “…to send a letter to members of the House Judiciary Committee asking the panel to investigate…†impeachment if “President Bush …deceived the American public about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.†Veterans for Peace have called for the impeachment of the President on a number of charges none of which refer to international law.
Calls for impeachment of President Bush based on his lies about weapons of mass destruction are misguided and misplaced. While lying about weapons of mass destruction to persuade Congress to grant approval for a war against Iraq is a serious offense, it is overshadowed by President Bush’s actions following the approval. President Bush and his administration have perpetrated major war crimes in Iraq and should be held accountable for violating the War Crimes Act.
The U.S. constitution states that “The President…shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.†(Article II, Section4) Constitutional scholars agree that a serious criminal act constitutes grounds for impeachment. If President Bush has violated the Geneva Conventions, he should be charged under the War Crimes Act.
The War Crimes Act states that “Whoever…commits a war crime…defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party†will be “fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.†According to the Nuremberg Principles, if war crimes have been committed under this act, President Bush, as head of state, should be held responsible.
President Bush began violating international law the moment the U.S. started bombing Iraq. According to international law, there are only two criteria for a legal war: self-defense as defined in the United Nations Charter, Chapter VII, Article 51 and authorization of the Security Council. There is no specific UN resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq in 2003 and none of the former resolutions pertaining to Iraq authorize the use of force.
The Bush Administration cannot justify the war under the spurious defence of a preemptive strike because no such term exists in international law. International law states that an act of war only qualifies as self-defense if there is an actual or imminent threat. Administration legal spinners can’t legitimately demonstrate that Iraq posed such a threat. The UN charter also states that “Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.†(Chapter VII, Article 51) By completely bypassing the Security Council, the Bush Administration has forgone any opportunity to claim that the war was legitimate.
President Bush has also violated a number of clauses in the fourth Geneva Convention which states that “In the case of armed conflict…Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms…shall in all circumstances be treated humanely…[and] the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and at any place: a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds; mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; b) Taking of hostages; c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.†(Part 1, Article 3) It also states that “The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation.†(Article 6)
As well, he has violated clauses in the first Protocol of the Geneva Conventions including “The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy protections against dangers arising from military operations†(Chapter II, Article 51) and “Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals.†(Chapter III, Article 52)
Fallujah is a typical example of American forces ignoring the rights of civilians and the protection of non-military targets. The objective of the November 8/05 assault on Fallujah was to kill all the insurgents who were in the city and to instill fear as a deterrent from further action on the part of all insurgents throughout Iraq.
Preceding the attack on Fallujah, American warplanes conducted nightly air strikes on residential buildings, restaurants and mosques. Before the actual assault began, U.S. warplanes reduced the Nazzal Emergency Hospital in the center of Fallujah to rubble. American forces then encircled the city with a cordon of more than 10,000 armed troops and were supported by all the American warplanes in the area. According to a CounterPunch Newsletter, November 17/04, “Women and children were allowed to leave the doomed city, but all males ‘of fighting age’ were turned back if they tried to leave…They were turned back to face the coming attack.†U.S. marines set up blockades so that ambulances and other vehicles transporting dead or injured residents could not reach a hospital. (Doug Lorimer, Scoop Independent News, November 18/04) Fallujah General Hospital was taken over by American marines and “Patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs.†(New York Times embedded reporter, ZNet, False Dawn, November 8, 2004)
After blasting Fallujah with tanks, U.S. marines traveled from house to house and threw hand grenades into each room before determining whether persons were there. A quarter of its homes were completely destroyed and most of the remaining homes were severely damaged. (Michael Schwartz, ZNet, January 14/05) Erik Eckolm of the New York Times described the city as “a desolate world of skeletal buildings, tank-blasted homes, weeping power lines and severed palm trees.†(Michael Schwartz, ZNet, January 14, 2005)
According to Michael Schwartz, “When the first medical teams arrived in January they collected more than 700 unburied and rotting bodies (reputedly including those of 550 women and children) in only one-third of the city; and these obviously didn’t include the dead already buried during the battle or hidden under the debris.â€
Many of the 200,000 refugees who were forced to abandon their homes brought nothing with them and ended up in refugee camps without any facilities or help from the American or the Interim Iraqi Government.
Even one death in an illegal war would have constituted a war crime. In Fallujah, innocent people were killed, buildings were destroyed, and refugees ignored, all of which violate the clauses of the Geneva Conventions stated above.
Alberto Gonzales, former White House Counsel, declared that provisions of the Geneva Conventions are obsolete and therefore, the U.S. can opt out of them. International law was not created as a set of guidelines under which nations could pick and choose which laws they will honor. If the United States Government believes that certain clauses in the Geneva Conventions should no longer be operative, the legitimate course of action would be to convince the signatories to the Conventions to discuss changes in the proper forum. As well, the White House lawyers should read Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution which declares that “All treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.†In other words, the UN Charter and Geneva Conventions are a part of American law and violating either of them is tantamount to violating American law.
To impeach President Bush on the grounds that he lied about WMD will further weaken the United Nations and the international regime of laws which criminalize wars of aggression and civilize war to the furthest extent possible. By only charging Bush with lying implies that the war would have been legitimate had the Americans found any WMD. The mere presence of WMD in Iraq does not qualify as an actual or imminent threat. One of the most basic issues in a claim of self-defense is whether Iraq had the delivery capability for its WMD to reach American soil. The inspection teams, UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, and the International Atomic Energy Agency had found no evidence of WMD and no delivery capability. According to Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC “Iraq on the whole has cooperated…access has been provided to all sites.â€
Ignoring the war crimes of the President also diminishes the role of the United Nations as the only instrument for resolving disputes and authorizing war. Congressional approval for a war does not override the United Nations Charter which has become part of American law. If nations decide not to relinquish some of their sovereignty over foreign and defense policy to a world body such as the UN, the world would be reduced to a state of war and disorder.
President Bush is guilty of lying to the American people and violating international law. Both are serious offenses but to ignore the latter is a disservice to the United Nations and to the people of Iraq who have died or suffered at the hands of this war criminal.
AUTHOR OF “LYING FOR EMPIRE: HOW TO COMMIT WAR CRIMES WITH A STRAIGHT FACE”
October 27th, 2005 at 8:45 am#69 Would that be the Left or Right side of his face? I merely ask because since he is NOT a good Christian he WON’T turn the other cheek. (ha) If 9/11 is an example, he’ll run and hide for a few days.
October 27th, 2005 at 8:46 amTo I-Right-I
You’ve got to be kidding. WE never ask those questions? Are you serious? Tell that to the parents of Dead Soldier No. 2000,
Comment by Fed Up
Lady, the Left doesn’t give a damn about our soldiers. Cindy Shegoat is a perfect example that boy that died is no longer her son, he’s a tool she put in the hands of the enemy. The Left will walk over the bodies of our dead just to ridicule the President and our country and in doing so they aid and abet the enemy. Maybe you care about the dead men and the families they left behind but the fact is men die in war. Agitating against the war as the Filthy Left does goes beyond civil rights and treads the ground of treason.
I say feed the bastards to the sharks and the rest of you peace -love -dove females just shut up and suffer in silence. What makes you better or smarter than every other woman in history who lost a man but understands that men must sometimes die so that others may live? What makes you think you have a right to speak for the mother’s and father’s of the 2000 we lost? The dead men understand that and to sully their memory and increase the danger to others as the Filthy Left does is deserving of 20 years in prison at the very least. I look forward to the day when we start hanging some of these bastards.
October 27th, 2005 at 9:13 amPresident Bush is guilty of lying to the American people and violating international law. Both are serious offenses but to ignore the latter is a disservice to the United Nations and to the people of Iraq who have died or suffered at the hands of this war criminal.
AUTHOR OF “LYING FOR EMPIRE: HOW TO COMMIT WAR CRIMES WITH A STRAIGHT FACEâ€
Comment by David Model
I’m thinking tar and feathers would be about right for a sonofabitch like you. Keep it up and maybe you’ll be the first to taste justice as it is served up by an angry nation. War criminal indeed. You stupid bastards support more international criminals and terrorists than this country could ever produce. Worthless POS.
October 27th, 2005 at 9:18 amWho is that guy..? He looks just like the President.
October 27th, 2005 at 10:08 amBush will defend to your death his right to his opinion.
October 27th, 2005 at 11:15 amBush will defend to your death his right to his opinion.
Comment by Navy Vet
Give up your service benefits, renounce your citizenship or STFU. Navy vet my ass.
October 27th, 2005 at 11:24 am#72
“Lady, the Left doesn’t give a damn about our soldiers.”
Where does this assumption come from? “The Left”, as you put it (which in the terminology you are using means anyone who is not hardcore Republican), tends to care about each person more than the riight. Look at the policies. Part of the cuts Bush has made have been to veterans benefits, particularly the disabled benefits for the soldiers permanently maimed in this conflict. You may be surprised to learn that the soldier’s political leanings tend to mirror the nation’s: that is, they are pretty evenly split. There are a lot of “Lefties” out there fighting this war FOR you.
“Cindy Shegoat is a perfect example that boy that died is no longer her son, he’s a tool she put in the hands of the enemy.”
How any person deals with the loss of a loved one is not for you to question as long as the law is not being broken. It is patriotic to question the leaders in a free democracy. It is, in fact, our obligation (if you read the Declaration of Independence). She is not a tool of the enemy, else she would have been planting bombs and shooting at people when she was within gunshot range of Bush’s ranch. She is protesting a military action, and it is her Costitutional right to do so on ANY grounds. Or do you hate our Constitution?
“The Left will walk over the bodies of our dead just to ridicule the President and our country and in doing so they aid and abet the enemy.”
People are protesting an illegal military action (illegal by all international standards, at the least), and pointing out the deaths involved in an incident is NOT “walking on the bodies of the dead” - it is stating fact. Questioning the President does not aid and abet the enemy. To claim that is to claim that it is Bush, and only Bush, and his reputation, that is holding the enemy at bay. But last I checked the enemy (the terrorists) have more in their ranks now than when Cheney helped build them. Their ranks have not swelled because of Sheehan - they have swelled because of the invasionary force, and because of the war crimes committed by the invasionary force (regardless of whether they were “rogue elements” or ordered from above - the actions of EVERY person acting in the name of our country is a direct refelction on our country, and ourselves).
“Maybe you care about the dead men and the families they left behind but the fact is men die in war. Agitating against the war as the Filthy Left does goes beyond civil rights and treads the ground of treason.”
Didn’t you just claim, twice and without exception, that the ‘Left’ doesn’t care about the soldiers? Men also die in conflicts that are not war. When exactly did America declare “WAR”? I don’t recall Congress declaring war, and by our governmental system ONLY Congress can declare war. If one man holds the power to declare war it is not a democracy - it is a dictatorship. Protesting a military action is not treason. Misleading the public as to the jusstification for military action IS treason: it is an abuse of power and trust.
“I say feed the bastards to the sharks and the rest of you peace -love -dove females just shut up and suffer in silence.”
Who do you mean? It sounds like you are referring to the soldiers. And the second statement is quite a piece of chauvanism: “females just shut up and suffer in silence” - sounds like you like the “barefoot and pregnant” approach to domestic life. That old thought that women are just naturally crazy, and should be obedient charms for your amusement. Oh, and they should just shut up.
“What makes you better or smarter than every other woman in history who lost a man but understands that men must sometimes die so that others may live? What makes you think you have a right to speak for the mother’s and father’s of the 2000 we lost?”
So, a woman has to be better and/or smarter than any other woman in history who lost someone in an armed conflict? Why? What is the rationalle behind that? And what makes you better or smarter than any other man in history who wholeheartedly supports a military action and signs up to fight? You are 100% behind this combat, but you have not, and will not join the military and go to the front lines to fight this battle that you claim is unquestioningly important to our safety and our way of life. If a war is worth fighting, it is worth dying for - and those who support it should be on the front line proving their conviction. Just as you feel you have the authority to speak for those dead and their families (which you do), so do other people, who may have a different view. You claim to knkow the minds of the soldiers and the families, when you do not, and neither do you have any military experience to draw your conclusions upon.
“The dead men understand that and to sully their memory and increase the danger to others as the Filthy Left does is deserving of 20 years in prison at the very least. I look forward to the day when we start hanging some of these bastards.”
Again, YOU believe that YOU can speak for 2000 dead soldiers that you don’t know (” The dead men understand…” - are you communicating with the dead now? Do you hear voices? (6th Sense reference… humor)). The danger to soldiers is not increased by people questioning the action. You know, as well as I, that the terrorists don’t give a damn about what we feel about the military action - they are going to attack the soldiers as best they can regardless. They don’t say to each other, “Hey! Some of those infidel Americans are against the invasion! Woo-hoo! Lets double our efforts!” No. They will do what they do. How about sullying the memory of all the men and women who died in the Revolutionary War? They died for principles that include everything in the Declaration of Independence - which includes the thought that the people SHOULD question government. At one point not too long ago you made the comment along the lines that “Jefferson was an idiot”. What memories of dead Americans are you sullying? …. oh, and hangings for questioning a military action?…. Hitler would be so proud.
October 27th, 2005 at 11:39 am#60- valle con dios, amigo (my spanish is rusty but I’m just spreading the love)
October 27th, 2005 at 3:15 pm#61- Leave my mom out of this, my sister is fair game, however…..God Bless….
Miers Pulls Out. Fitzgerald Move Forward
The two big topics of the day, reported on the WB42 5:30 Report and blogged by darn near everyone. Here are some prime samples.
October 27th, 2005 at 4:07 pmTo I-Right-I
You’ve got to be kidding. WE never ask those questions? Are you serious?
Comment by Fed Up
Yeah, I’m serious as death. Speaking of “Doing the Right Thing”, “Blood for Oil” and “Bush Lied People Died” and all those other favorite quips of the Filthy Left here’s something to think about. All you “We invaded Iraq and let Ossama go” idiots; what do you want to do about this?
IRAN HARBORING 25 QAEDA BIGS
October 27, 2005 — At least 25 high-ranking al Qaeda members — including three of Osama bin Laden’s sons — are reportedly living free in Iran and beyond the grasp of the U.S. military, it was reported yesterday.
“This is not incarceration or house arrest,” a Western intelligence agent was quoted as saying by the German monthly Cicero. “They can move around as they please.”
Saad bin Laden, who is said to be his father’s successor, has been reported to be living in Iran. The Cicero report claims two other sons — Mohammad and Othman — are also harbored there…
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/30170.htm
October 27th, 2005 at 5:05 pmMiers Pulls Out. Fitzgerald Move Forward
The two big topics of the day, reported on the WB42 5:30 Report and blogged by darn near everyone. Here are some prime samples.
Trackback by The WB42 5:30 Report With Doug Krile
Hardly the big story, it’s just what you Leftist wingnuts are focused on. You guys better keep your eye on the ball or you’ll lose another few percentage points in the next election. HA!!
October 27th, 2005 at 5:08 pm#60- valle con dios, amigo (my spanish is rusty but I’m just spreading the love)
#61- Leave my mom out of this, my sister is fair game, however…..God Bless….
Comment by Turk Fowler — October 27, 2005 @ 3:15 pm
Blow me. Yer mom already did.
I look forward to the day when we start hanging some of these bastards.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — October 27, 2005 @ 9:13 am
You and what army, you chickenhawk fvck?
October 27th, 2005 at 8:59 pmYou and what army, you chickenhawk fvck?
Comment by KillCon Now
I might be wrong but my guess is we’d just use the National Guard. They’re good enough to take out the trash. We could probably warm them up by ordering them to shoot the next bunch of rioting negroes that pop up. If you survive that we’ll just get you later. Loser.
October 28th, 2005 at 8:30 amIs there a mirror of this anywhere? It won’t stream for me.
October 29th, 2005 at 11:01 pm[…] When President Bush first took office in 2000, he took significant steps to surround himself with experienced men. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had held prominent White House positions dating back to the Gerald Ford era. Secretary of State Collin Powell was an extremely likable moderate with strong military and foreign policy credentials. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil was a well respected CEO meant to reassure Wall St. Attorney General John Ashcroft, as much as I dislike everything that he stood for, was an independent thinker and well qualified to hold his position. Even some of the new people that Bush brought in, NSA Condoleeza Rice, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, and of course right-hand-man Karl Rove, were smart and respected people within their respective fields. And President Bush was supposedly just the man to keep all of these people in line, to make sure that they did, to quote Mr. Bush himself, “not just what is legal, but what is right”. These were the people that we elected as much as Bush, to make up for his average intelligence and poor qualifications. […]
November 6th, 2005 at 9:39 pm[…] Ethics Quote to Quote RS Janes posted this on November 19, 2005 at 9:16 am | In , George W. Bush, Quote Of The Day, Neoconservatives, The Dying of the Right because we can. “Let me say a few words about important values we must demonstrate while all of us serve in government. First, we must always maintain the highest ethical standards. We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right. There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity.” – George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2001. […]
November 19th, 2005 at 8:12 am[…] To paraphrase President Bush, this isn’t a question about what is legal, it’s about what is right. […]
November 21st, 2005 at 3:40 pmTalk is fine — I love talk — but what are we going to DO to remove these people from power?
November 21st, 2005 at 10:46 pm[…] To paraphrase President Bush, this isn’t a question about what is legal, it’s about what is right. […]
November 22nd, 2005 at 2:52 am[…] To paraphrase President Bush, this isn’t a question about what is legal, it’s about what is right. « Blair talked Bush out of bombing al-Jazeera […]
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:07 am[…] As was noted in the original post, paraphrasing President Bush, “this isn’t a question about what is legal, it’s about what is right.†[…]
November 25th, 2005 at 10:31 am[…] “Let me say a few words about important values we must demonstrate while all of us serve in government. First, we must always maintain the highest ethical standards. We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right. There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity.” – George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2001, after 9/11. […]
January 8th, 2006 at 10:16 am[…] […]
March 10th, 2006 at 1:46 am[…] […]
March 11th, 2006 at 12:24 pmHey Dude ! Great site !
April 25th, 2006 at 12:26 amHave a nice week.
I just have a question just for goerge bush, why to you say this is a free contry if you have a border from mexico to the us i am not saying that i dont agree, i am just saying i went to mexico once just to figer out why all of them are here and now i know why there is no work over there and the beroly have food to eat. I just wish that all the people in the world really could be free i mean god made us all equal and he only made us different because we tryed to build a tower to heaven and he had to stop it.
So kinda think about it i mean i am only years old and i wish i could understand.
Oh and i really do think you are a good president but i wish you would do more.
Hope to meet you one day,
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:28 pmmichelle
good blog i love it and keep your blog alive …btw your design is not that good.. thanks
January 11th, 2007 at 2:51 pm