57% of Americans say Bush deliberately misled
By on Nov 9th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
57% of Americans say Bush deliberately misled
the nation into war, according to a new NBC News/WSJ poll.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
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.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Now how can that be when we are just a bunch of crazy left wing people that only make up 10% of the population.
/sarcasm = off
November 9th, 2005 at 8:50 pmSpudge,
Unfortunately the religious terrorists have reproduced since Nixon, it’s more like 25% of americans that are utterly whacko now…
November 9th, 2005 at 8:55 pmThe winds of fate are a blowing and the house of cards ( House of Bush ) is coming down.
November 9th, 2005 at 8:55 pm#2
Ryan,
My post was a play on the trolls saying that we progressives only make up 10% of the population and that the rest of the country thinks we are insane.
The way it looks now is that 57% of the country think the way we do, so the majority of the population must be insane right?
Riiiiiiigggghhhht.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:00 pmThis is all very encouraging but it won’t help much until we can get him out of the oval office.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:00 pmThe dire news of today is one year too late.
Spudge,
Yeah, I know what you were doing, I was making a bad stab at humor :)
And republicans always rely on the majority as an absolute ‘mandate’, but they never seem to honor that mandate when it goes against them. Just another example of republican hypocrisy in all things…
November 9th, 2005 at 9:03 pmI thinks this is a classic example of giving republicans enough rope to hang themselves. With the clear control over basically every branch of government, republicans have no one to blame for every dismal failure but themselves. Of course they keep ‘trying’ to blame republicans, but the more they do this, the more they look like inept and poor politicians. Americans gave republicans a chance at full power, because republicans promised to do a better job – that and they scared the pants off many of them with ‘terrorism’ alerts.
The ether has worn off. Americans have woken to the reality of an impotent and ineffective president. Americans have realized that they put their trust in the wrong party and the wrong ‘values’. This poll simply demostrates how many ‘independents’ have swung hard away from republicans. In the end, republicans have proven their own worst enemy, which appears to always be the case whether the topic is economics, foreign policy, civil rights or any other subject.
Republicans are by nature self destructive, like any alcoholic, addict or compulsive. Much of what drives republican values is formed around obsessive and selfish tendencies. This by nature is self destructive. It is no coincidence that bush is a ‘dry drunk’ with a ‘religious addiction’. These sorts of compulsive and dysfunctional traits are by their very nature republican traits…
November 9th, 2005 at 9:09 pmI meant republicans keep trying to blame ‘democrats’ – I really need to start proofing my postings :)
Dohhhh!
November 9th, 2005 at 9:09 pmNow if we could get all the “smart Republicans” to understand what happened we would be at 58%.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:14 pmPerhaps the Democrats by example are showing us that it’s okay to change your mind about the war build-up. I fell for the hype and supported the war. I was not ashamed to admit I was duped, however. Many were and still are.
I’m also not afraid to try alternatives to fighting Islamic terror. It can only get better, right?
November 9th, 2005 at 9:28 pmI agree with the “rope” theory. The Neocons complain the Dems won’t offer suggestions. Why should they?! This is the monopoly the Cons wanted. They F*CKING deserve to flounder. F*CK ‘EM.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:30 pmfrom the MSNBC website breakdown of the poll….looks like both parties should be concerned. It’s still a long way off for 2006, many changes in the political landscape are possible.
quote
So are Democrats poised to take advantage of this situation and pick up seats in the 2006 congressional elections? Not necessarily. While the poll shows that a plurality of 43 percent views the Republican Party negatively, the Democratic Party doesn’t fare much better — just 33 percent view them positively, vs. 36 percent who see them in a negative light.
unqoute
richb
November 9th, 2005 at 9:31 pmthis ain’t gonna help the poll numbers….from C&L
quote
Susan Ralston, chief of-staff to presidential adviser Karl Rove, is scheduled to appear again before Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald who is investigating the circumstances surrounding the leak of Plame’s identity in the media—As Rove’s assistant covering for him from policy pronouncements down to housekeeping issues, Ralston works very closely with George Bush’s senior adviser Karl Rove
unquote
November 9th, 2005 at 9:35 pmrichb
RichB in Carroll County md,
I would bet if Fitz were a moral person who felt he was being obstructed he might be pissed and out for blood. Ben Stein called him a thug yesterday. If the Neocons hate Fitz he MUST be doing the right things.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:37 pmFor background on White House and Republican stonewalling on the uses – and misuses – of pre-war Iraq intelligence, see:
- “Roberts’ Iraq Stonewall Crumbles”
- “Fitzgerald and the Truth About Pre-War Iraq Intelligence”
November 9th, 2005 at 9:40 pm#14 From what I can glean about Prosecutor Fitzgerald he’s a total professional with meticulous evidence gathering and no political agenda.
in other words, the perfect guy for this case.
richb
November 9th, 2005 at 9:42 pmtoo bad 57% of Congress won’t impeach this mofo…
November 9th, 2005 at 9:50 pmThe key word in the NBC/WSJ poll is “deliberately”.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:53 pm#12
From your MSNBC quote:
“36 percent who see them [Dems] in a negative light.”
God these people are stupid. Will we always have to deal with the fact that 36-38% of Americans are complete idiots?
It doesn’t matter what poll, what question where. There are always 36-38% of people that love republicans and hate democrats. They are clinically insane to think Bush is doing a good job as president.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:04 pmOff topic — sorry – the House Republicans have decided to remove the ANWAR drilling from the budget bill.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:17 pmThink they might be a little skittish after last night’s voting, and today’s oil company hearings? Or am I reading too much into this?
I want to think it is all unraveling for them, but we must change the regime.
Impeach Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and of course brown nose Condi!
Take back America.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:20 pmWhat is REALLY SAD, is that ONLY 57% think he was misleading!!! =/
When he was governer of texas, and passing laws that allowed the execution of inmates who commited violent crimes, BEFORE they were adults… I knew then that this was a Bad/Immoral person/puppet.
Then he ran for president and actually WON!! I knew then that this country was in trouble. I know now that there is STILL nothing that we can do about it. =(
November 9th, 2005 at 10:21 pmI am for drilling in Alaska if it means no more mid east oil. It should be done cleanly and temporarily.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:22 pm#20
Marie, do you have a link or site? That is very interesting and I would have to agree that it is because of yesterday.
The republicans are now using “in the past, off year elections haven’t shown what will happen during on year elections” to take the spotlight off the fact that they are going down.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:22 pmSpudgeBoy, I guess if the definition of a “good job”, means uniting our enemies and dividing our friends, turning peace into war, surpluses into cavernous deficits, losing 2,000+ American soldiers, causing 100,000+ Iraqi civilian casualties, poisoning the environment, safe guarding the assets of the country’s wealthiest .5% and telling countless lies to the public in order to accomplish those goals, then Bush gets an A.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:23 pm#23
ATV,
Drilling in Alaska will not stop our dependence on Mid East oil. That is a lie.
Here is why:
There isn’t an oil shortage. That is a lie. There is plenty of oil. We are just being screwed by Big Oil. Bush, Cheney, et al are oil people. They don’t want to help us, they want more goddamn oil to sell to us.
The US will continue to use Mid East oil. Why? Because the US comanies are over there drilling the sh!t.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:26 pmMarie, I think anyone running on the GOP ticket is very worried.
Bushie has become a liability. The war on terrorism won him support and he failed miserably. There is more terrorism in the world now then ever. Remember the days when a terrorist attack happened every year or two? Today major attacks occur (outside of Iraq) monthly.
Like the war on drugs, the war on terrorism is a complete failure.
Bushie is a failure.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:26 pmSpudge, try MSNBC and Foxnews. They both have the note.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:26 pm#25
Yes, Bush gets an A….in Bizzaro World.
Bizaarrrrrrroooooo!
November 9th, 2005 at 10:27 pm#28
Got it thanks.
You could say that is another win. Big time win. Bush’s oild buddies aren’t going to be happy about this.
Boo frickin’ hoooo.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:30 pmI agree with SpudgeBoy on the oil issue. We know for a fact that oil is plentiful at a good price. Exxon Mobile can try the denial method but its not working. They are the most anti-American company in the world. Their profits prove it.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:30 pmMy worry is that since this isn’t a year ago Bush has three more years to “rule”. He may be a lame duck, but he’s still capable of doing a LOT of damage – and three years is a long time. Even rudderless the US is better off than having Bush in control. But “rudderless” isn’t good either.
I hope we can recover from this Administration, but it’ll take *decades* even with effective policies.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:32 pm#23 ATV, I am all for alternative fuel and less dependence on fossil fuel, no matter where it comes from (Canada, Venezuela, Middle East and Domestic are our four main sources, I think). But drilling the Arctic Refuge would take ten YEARS for the oil to get out of the ground and into use. Most experts say the amount of oil there would last anywhere from 6 months to 18 months before it was exhausted. So it hardly seems worth it in cost, damage to the environment, and further put off the search for alternatives, for so little benefit.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:32 pmMy my my – where are all the trolls? Could it be that all this exposure to daylight and clean air is causing them to retreat back to their caves? Pardon my unseemly gloating… it’s good to get some of the dirt piles out in the open where people can see just what these filthy scumbags have done to this country.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:34 pmI also think Spudge and Susan are right. The oil companies and the oilmen in office ARE indeed using the fuel problem to their own purposes. They are making a killing in the market — did you see any of the hearings today?
November 9th, 2005 at 10:41 pmFossil fuels are finite – we will run out sooner or later – that’s why I think research in alternative methods should be subsidized by the government but it will never happen when the guys in the White House are making their fortunes in oil, and on our backs.
Marie, did you see British Petroleum’s (BP)new television ads? They claim to be working on alternative methods. Problem is, I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them.
A real American company who has America’s best interest should be introducing alternatives. We don’t need the government just good scientists and business people.
I wish I had the capability, I’d love to monopolize the market and become a major player.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:48 pmSusan, I have seen those commercials — I think they are designed to make us feel better, but like you, I trust them as far as I could throw them.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:58 pmBut, back on topic. It is good that more people are starting to understand what we have been shouting about for 3 years.
These guys planned on going to Iraq, long before 9/11. That was just the launch pad for them to use. I can trace back to January 8, 2002 (Bill drafted much ealier). Do we all know what that date is? That is the date that No Child Left Behind was signed.
Why no Child Left Behind? Because Bush and friends knew they would need lots of bodies to fight this unjust war.
Here is how:
Page 559 & 560/670 total
‘‘SEC. 9528. ARMED FORCES RECRUITER ACCESS TO STUDENTS AND STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION.
‘‘(a) POLICY.—
‘‘(1) ACCESS TO STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION.—Notwithstanding section 444(a)(5)(B) of the General Education Provisions Act and except as provided in paragraph (2), each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings.
‘‘(2) CONSENT.—A secondary school student or the parent
of the student may request that the student’s name, address, and telephone listing described in paragraph (1) not be released without prior written parental consent, and the local educational agency or private school shall notify parents of the option to make a request and shall comply with any request.
‘‘(3) SAME ACCESS TO STUDENTS.—Each local educational
agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide military recruiters the same access to secondary school students as is provided generally to post secondary educational institutions or to prospective employers of those students.
‘‘(b) NOTIFICATION.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, notify principals, school administrators, and other educators about the requirements of this section.
‘‘(c) EXCEPTION.—The requirements of this section do not apply to a private secondary school that maintains a religious objection Deadline.
20 USC 7908.
20 USC 7907.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:24 Jan 29, 2002 Jkt 099139 PO 00110 Frm 00559 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL110.107 APPS24 PsN: PUBL110
115 STAT. 1984 PUBLIC LAW 107–110—JAN. 8, 2002
to service in the Armed Forces if the objection is verifiable through the corporate or other organizational documents or materials of that school.
‘‘(d) SPECIAL RULE.—A local educational agency prohibited by Connecticut State law (either explicitly by statute or through statutory interpretation by the State Supreme Court or State Attorney General) from providing military recruiters with information or
access as required by this section shall have until May 31, 2002, to comply with that requirement.
Sorry, I don’t normally go so long, but this is important and is on topic.
This tiny, comparable to others, section describes how schools must give up name, address, phone number and other contact information to military recruiters or lose their Federal Funding.
So, in a huge 670 page document, they have a short 346 word section that demands the Americans people’s childrens contact information.
There is a Consent clause. Does anybody know how to keep there kids info from being distributed. Considering the fact that I am all over this and I don’t know how, I can tell you the average person doesn’t know how to do it.
The other intersting thing you will notice is an Exceptiong clause that excludes religous schools from having to give up information on the religous children.
Then you will notice that there is another Special Rule clause that gives exception to the entire state of Connecticut. What is so special about children in Connecticut?
You will remember not long ago, there was a big uproar about a database being built by the DoD of High School students for recruiting, then the story went away. The reason being is that it is legal. Nothing wrong with it, thanks to No Child Left Behind.
You will also notice that No Child Left Behind specifies all the way down to Middle School. WHere I am from, those are 7th graders.
These bastards are tracking our kids to try and get them to fight their illegal “war against terrorism.”
Sorry for the rant.
November 9th, 2005 at 11:07 pmAnother example of the bait and switch tactics of this unethical man and his government. NCLB was a con job from the start, a sham and a lie foisted on the public and its children. They mislead us by the names they use for their projects which make them so appealing; it is when you get into the fine print that you see the flimflam.
November 9th, 2005 at 11:18 pmWhat they are doing in the schools for recruitment is detestable and underhanded.
Very informative rant Spudgeboy…I knew the No Child Left Behind Act was an arm for the military. To date that particular part of the bill is the only part that has been sucessful.
I’m thankful that Michael Moore and others enlightened parents about the “opt out” clause.
November 9th, 2005 at 11:21 pmDid anyone else see that DEAD YELLOW ELEPHANT!
November 9th, 2005 at 11:29 pm#19 Spudgeboy, here is a great link http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20263/
November 9th, 2005 at 11:45 pmto an article proving your point: 3 out of 4 Republicans believe administration propaganda even after it has been debunked. In fact on some points more Republicans believed the lie after it was debunked than they did before the debunking.
And the best evidence has not even been shown yet.
Oh boy, he’s in big, big trouble.
But is it too little, too late, New on EWM: “Rove out, Rover in.â€
November 9th, 2005 at 11:52 pmScaled down agenda includes a “war on gingivitis†and plans to occupy Aruba.
Here is an excellent article explaining how to exploit Bush’s decline in the polls: http://www.crisispapers.org/essays-p/giant.htm
Read it; you won’t be disappointed.
November 9th, 2005 at 11:53 pm#43, The Muse; this administration will botch the “war on gingivitis†just as they did the one in Iraq, the Katrina relief effort and the Miers nomination. But the invasion of Aruba sounds a lot like spring break. Where do I sign up for that?
November 9th, 2005 at 11:58 pmI’m glad that 57% of the country finally agrees with Michael Moore.
November 10th, 2005 at 3:02 amBushCo = LIARS
November 10th, 2005 at 3:10 amSpudge, Susan, and Marie,
You all agreed that there is no oil shortage and as much as I’d like to believe that those crying peak oil and dramatic changes looming re: oil are wrong, I have to strongly disagree. Have any of you been following peak oil closely?
Please read this article about the looming crisis:
http://www.energybulletin.net/8112.html
It sums up the situation pretty well.
Also, if you’re serious about understanding the looming oil crisis, this site is indispensable:
http://www.energybulletin.net
November 10th, 2005 at 7:27 amAnother point regarding oil and its availability.
There’s no question that the clowns that sat down in front of the legislature yesterday representing Big Oil are ripping off their consumers but I think its more of a “final killing” before the realities of the looming shortage take hold and the market dictates their collective fate. Their grabbing their pieces of the pie while there’s still some pie left. There also may be a short-term glut due recent disruptions in refining…but that has little to no bearing on the bigger picture. Thousands of smart scientists have been thinking about how society is going to cope once the curve starts its downward trend and many of them see that the urban sprawl that has developed as a result of the era of cheap oil will naturally recede as will our movement-based economy. Local food growth will become essential once again and their will be migrations back to cities. The ones that give advice say: get out of debt, get out of debt, get out of debt. The sooner our “leaders” start initiate the inevitable cutover of our oil-based economies to softer the landing will be. It’s time everyone got used to the idea of living without oil.
November 10th, 2005 at 7:51 am#36 – Susan
November 10th, 2005 at 7:55 amYou can buy BP solar panels at Home Depot.
not much, but somehting.
This is somewhat off topic but I thought it might be interesting to those of you here who think Tuesday’s results mean more of the same in next year’s elections.
It’s been more than a decade since these off-year results seem to have foreshadowed elections that were still 12 months away. In 1993, the success of Republican gubernatorial candidates Christie Todd Whitman (in New Jersey) and George Allen (in Virginia) preceded 1994’s GOP triumphs. The last two cycles haven’t augured anything: Republican wins in 1997 were followed by Democrat congressional gains in 1998; the reverse was true for 2001 and 2002.
November 10th, 2005 at 7:59 am#52 WOW The solar panels only help if you have alot of Sun. We had put up solar panels up in the late 1980’s early 1990’s. They worked to heat our water in the summer but in our state we don’t have alot of sun in the winter. We moved to a different place and I don’t know if the village of Sussex would let us put this on our property.
November 10th, 2005 at 8:21 am#50, Dennis Bauer, Buckfush, Buckfush7, Maximus, Anonymous, (AKA SPAMMER)
Dennis, glad to see your peddling the same boycott garbage. How’s your campaign working? I think I saw you on the news! Ha! If you want people to take you seriously, maybe start with the poor quality website. It looks like a 12 year old made it. No offense. Maybe then people will buy your t-shirts. Just a thought
November 10th, 2005 at 8:37 am#54 Mary P. you can now get solar shingles that look (can’t tell from the street) and perform just like an asphalt shingle. They would fit most any local code or ordinance. The manufacturer’s name is Uni-Solar and you can find them at realgoods.com and elsewhere.
November 10th, 2005 at 8:50 am#54 – Mary Poppin.
True enough.
But BP did put up a solar farm on their former Paulsboro NJ terminal site, it is used to partially power their remediation system. (clean energy to clean up a gasoline spill, ironic, i know)
I’ve worked as an envi consultant for a few of the majors, and frankly, they all bite in their own way, but BP bites the least, in my opinion.
November 10th, 2005 at 9:04 am#50, I DO think fossil fuel is finite and alternatives are necessary — what I don’t believe are the oil companies excuses for price gouging, and propaganda commercials. (#35)
November 10th, 2005 at 9:48 amMarie, yes I see that now, sorry about not reading that thoroughly. You are dead right.
November 10th, 2005 at 9:55 amThe only answer to these high gas prices is to develope a marketable alternative energy industry. The democrats want to address this issue, but the republicans are keeping us back. Talk to any Republican on the internet and most of them believe that alternative energy methods are not viable, which of course is complete propaganda and garbage.
Just increasing the fuel efficiency standards on vehicles will dramatically reduce our dependance on foreign oil, as well as promoting smaller vehicles and hybrids as well. Also, our gas prices are some of the cheapest in the world because of low taxes, I think it’s about time we increase the gasoline tax and use that money to invest in alternative energy. For example, in Canada they are paying an averge of almost $4.00 a gallon for gas, in Europe it’s around $6.00 a gallon and i here its hovering around $2.20 a gallon around??? And we have done hardly anything to reduce our dependance.
The solar panel shingles are a EXCCELENT idea! There are solar panel packages out there to retrofit your house as well for around $30 000 or higher and in states like Califronia and Nevada you can get government subsidies (correct me if im wrong) to help pay for those packages.
There as MILLIONS of things we can do to reduce our dependance, but Republicans just don’t want to address the issue and they go out of their way to even frown upon it. I mean, these are the people who refuse to sign into the Kyoto protocal! We have right wing radio pundits out there broadcasting to the nation that humans have no effect on rising temperatures and that it is a natural cycle. This is just complete garbage! There is overwhelming evidence that humans are causing this warming. Most of the other countries have accepted this evidence and are acting.
Why can’t republicans see that they are a tool of big bussiness????
November 10th, 2005 at 10:04 amahhhhhhh…57% of America is waking up, bloggs are working and the truth is rising.
November 10th, 2005 at 10:19 am57%, that’s gotta hurt.
November 10th, 2005 at 10:45 amTime for the Pigs to impeach the Idiot
and hang his buddy.
GLORIOUS!!!
November 10th, 2005 at 11:32 am#53: cynicon implant: Again pointing fingers to the past. Look at what’s happening now. The American people were duped by Bush and the Republicans. American’s don’t like being made fools of. Bush and company are hanging themselves by their own actions, not by smear campaigns organized by liberals or Democrats (because liberals and Democrats know how disgusting the Bush and Republican lies and smear campaigns are). This country is finally being taken back by the people, and out of the hands of thus criminal administration, corrupt Republicans, neocons, and religious fanatics. It’s about time!
November 10th, 2005 at 1:15 pmThank God/Goddess/The Force/The Great Spirit/Brahma/The Void, etc. for the Alternative Press and Blogs!!!
As bad as things are right now, it boggles the mind to ponder how much worse they’d be if men like Bush and Cheney succeeded in their goal of total information control.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:41 pmThe 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. (as documented in my latest book “Lying for Empire: How to Commit War Crimes with a Straight Face”)
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.”
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.”
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”
November 10th, 2005 at 2:31 pmLeave it to Ryan to pimp Al Jazeera lies and propaganda. Anti-American Soros-Bitch-Hate-Monger-Traitor.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html
The fighting in Fallujah, Iraq has led to a number of widespread myths including false charges that the United States is using chemical weapons such napalm and poison gas. None of these allegations are true.
Qatar-based Internet site Islam Online was one of the first to spread the false chemical weapons claim. On November 10, 2004, it reported that U.S. troops were allegedly using “chemical weapons and poisonous gas” in Fallujah. (”US Troops Reportedly Gassing Fallujah”) It sourced this claim to Al-Quds Press, which cited only anonymous sources for its allegation.
Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used “outlawed” phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.
There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using “outlawed” weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq.
November 10th, 2005 at 3:11 pmWhiskeyPete,
You’re a LIAR AND A FOOL. The March edition of Field Artillery Magazine (A MILITARY MAGAZINE) says the exact opposite. It is YOU who are being a liar and a propagandist. Compared to you, Al Jazeera looks honest! How bad is it when the US military not only commits war crimes, but republicans lie about it outright when caught by your own publications! YOU ARE A TERRORIST, A LIAR AND A TRAITOR AMERICAN VALUES PETE!
http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf
November 10th, 2005 at 4:17 pmWP is not a WMD or an illegal weapon and was not used as described by your al jazeera propaganda, dipshit. Read carefully, soros-bitch.
November 10th, 2005 at 5:44 pmFunny. Seems the State Dept has updated Whiskey’s cut-n-paste reference to add a reference to Ryan’s reference
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html
November 10th, 2005 at 6:35 pm#70
You are coorect:
WP is not an illegal weapon.
It is illegal to use it on people, which was done in Fallujah.
I was in the 4/5 Field Artillery Fort Riley Kansas 1st Infantry Division.
You are not aloud to use WP on people.
November 10th, 2005 at 7:20 pmI agree with 49. BOYCOTT ALL THINGS RED. I’ve been saying this since Bush won in 2004 due to the resurgence of the so called religious right. If corporations are going to kotow to the right and fund the right’s political agenda by supporting conservative political candidates, then those of us on the left should boycott such corporations. Beyond that I suggest boycotting RED states. For example, if you have a choice taking a beach vacation in Florida or California, go to CA and write Jeb Bush and tell him about your decision.
November 10th, 2005 at 8:57 pmThere is now an update to the information Whiskey Pete posted:
“(…) U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.
[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, 'as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes ….' The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.]”
The Department of State identified misinformation in its own “Identifying Misinformation” page, and had to correct it.
From the article “Fight for Fallujah” p.26: (Ryan Neat provided the link)
“b. White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [High Explosives]. We fired ’shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.”
So, the rounds of phosphorous were not “fired into the air” but directly at people.
From a North County Times article, in the section titled “Shake ‘n’ bake”:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt
“‘Gun up!’ Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.
‘Fire!’ Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.
The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call “shake ‘n’ bake” into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.”
Here we have a description of phosphorous rounds being fired into buildings, directly at people, within city limits, and not “fired into the air”.
As to the DoS’ claim that White Phosphorous was only used against military forces, this is what Jeff Englehart, a Marine who served in Fallujah said during an interview with Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now”:
“We were told going into Fallujah that every single person going into the combat area that was walking, talking, breathing was an enemy combatant.”
“It seemed like just a massive killing of Arabs. It looked like just a massive killing.”
“Yes. Burned bodies. Burned children. Burned women. White phosphorus kills indiscriminately.”
Find Jeff Englehart’s blog here: http://www.ftssoldier.blogspot.com/
And the full text of his interview here: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/1516227
November 11th, 2005 at 12:10 amWP is not a WMD or an illegal weapon and was not used as described by your al jazeera propaganda, dipshit. Read carefully, soros-bitch.
Comment by Whiskey Pete — November 10, 2005 @ 5:44 pm
The CIA released a document in October 2002, titled “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs”. The document included an item in the list of WMDs called “Chemical Warfare Programs”: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
By the CIA’s definition, chemical agents are Weapons of Mass Destruction.
This other CIA document specifically mentions White Phosphorus as part of Iraq’s chemical warfare programme: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html
White Phosphorus is both a chemical agent and a WMD, and is used as an incendiary weapon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary
From the Wikipedia: “The Vietnam War era slang Willie Pete, Whiskey Pete or Wiley P is still occasionally heard.”
The contention that WP is not an illegal weapon, although technically true, is misleading. Also from the wikipedia:
“Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians.”
By their own admission, the U.S. military have used White Phosphorus in Fallujah in areas with high concentrations of civilians: They have fired White Phosphorus rounds within city limits, into buildings, directly at people.
The U.S. military have used WMDs in Iraq.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:57 amSamsa,
November 11th, 2005 at 11:46 amThanks for showing us proof that Iraq had WMD.
Samsa,
Thanks for showing us proof that Iraq had WMD.
Comment by D.V.D.A. — November 11, 2005 @ 11:46 am
I suggest you read the report.
It is common knowledge that Iraq used WMDs during the Iran-Iraq war, and against the Kurds. I am not arguing against that.
As a matter of fact, the CIA report in its section “Full Capability, 1981-1991: Ambition†provides ample information of the manufacturing and use of the WMDs by Iraq.
However, the CIA report, in its section “The Decline, 1991-1996 – Destroying Iraqi Weaponsâ€, states that: “During the Gulf war in early 1991, Coalition Forces destroyed or extensively damaged most of Iraq’s CW infrastructure, including many of the agent and precursor production facilities at Al Muthanna. Then, in April 1991, the UN adopted Security Council Resolution 687, which established a ceasefire in the Gulf war.Iraq was required to verifiably disarm as a prerequisite to lifting of the oil embargo imposed by UNSCR 660 of August 1990.â€
Also, at the very top of the document, in the section “Key Findingsâ€, the report says that:
“While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.â€
Also, “The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW-related efforts.â€
Another excerpt: “Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure, although its overall industry had not fully recovered from the effects of sanctions, and had not regained pre-1991 technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). “
One more: “Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line†or last line of defense. However, ISG has no information that the plan ever included a trigger for CW use.â€
So, contrary to the Bush II administration’s claims, Saddam Hussein’s regime had all but abandoned its Chemical Weapons programme by 1991. When Iraq was invaded in 2003, it had not produced Chemical Weapons in years, had no capability to produce them, and had only a very small number of old, abandoned rounds that dated back to the 1990s.
November 11th, 2005 at 1:01 pmDVDA is like most republicans, they have english language comprehension problems. They can’t read effectively, thereby they continue to make stupid and irrational statements that must be repeatedly re-debunked. It just demostrates their stupidity… That’s why the hate the ‘elite liberals’ – we can read standard english…
November 11th, 2005 at 1:41 pmSamsa,
First you post:
“By the CIA’s definition, chemical agents are Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Iraq had WP according to the report you linked, so they had WMD. Then you turn around and say they didn’t have WMD. Which is it?
November 11th, 2005 at 2:28 pmIraq had WP according to the report you linked, so they had WMD. Then you turn around and say they didn’t have WMD. Which is it?
Comment by D.V.D.A. — November 11, 2005 @ 2:28 pm
You are trying to find an inconsistencies and/or contradictions where there are none. I provided links to two CIA reports, one released in 2002 and another in 2004.
First things first: Hussein’s regime did, at some point, manufactured and possessed WMDs. There is no arguing that. But its capacity to produce them was greatly diminished during the first Gulf War and by the sanctions imposed on Iraq until 2003. By the time the UNSCOM team was inspecting Iraqi facilities Hussein’s regime was largely complying with U.N. terms and was not producing WMDs anymore.
Second: The 2002 report by the CIA is a pre-war assessment of the suspected capability retained by Iraq to produce WMDs, and it is highly caveated. It clearly states a strong suspicion that Iraq has continued its WMDs programmes because Iraq has rebuilt several facilities, but does not provide conclusive evidence. Not a bad reflection on the CIA –they simply did not have access to insiders.
Third: The January, 2003 UNSCOM report to the U.N. Security Council basically says that what the commission is looking for are stockpiles leftover from 1991 –not newly produced biological or chemical agents. It also describes how Iraq’s capability to produce WMDs is practically non-existent. The inspectors did not find evidence of any chemical or biological agents produced after 1991. See the UNSCOM report here: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
The 2004 CIA post-invasion report also confirms that, indeed, Iraq had no WMDs capabilities by 2003 and that the few rounds discovered dated from around 1991 –the year of the first Gulf War. You read my quotes from the 2004 report. The UNSCOM report and the CIA 2004 report are consistent.
What this means is that between the October 2002 CIA report and the UNSCOM January 2003 report, the assessment of Iraq’s WMDs capabilities improved dramatically, thanks to the ongoing inspections. While the CIA in 2002 strongly suspected Iraq had an ongoing WMDs programme, the UNSCOM report in 2003 dispelled that notion. By 2004, the CIA had concluded that, in spite of its previous assessment, Iraq had not had the capability to produce WMDs in years. Those are the quotes I included in my previous post.
Finally, I am not the one saying Hussein’s regime did not have WMDs. The UNSCOM and the CIA 2004 reports did that for me.
Also, It has been widely reported that the Army’s Task Force in charge of uncovering Iraq’s WMDs had to leave that country empty-handed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40212-2003May10?language=printer
David Kay, former U.S Chief Weapons Inspector, also said in January of 2004 that Iraq had no WMDs: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, stated the same thing in October of 2004: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
Bush himself made jokes about the inability to find those pesky WMDs during the 2004 annual dinner with the Radio and Television Correspondents: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/bush.wmd.jokes/
November 11th, 2005 at 4:12 pmYou still haven’t explained why white phosphorus is WMD when it’s our possession and it’s not WMD in when it’s in Saddam’s possession.
November 11th, 2005 at 5:33 pmYou still haven’t explained why white phosphorus is WMD when it’s our possession and it’s not WMD in when it’s in Saddam’s possession.
Comment by D.V.D.A. — November 11, 2005 @ 5:33 pm
White Phosphorus is a WMD regardless of who has it. But, as the links I provided show, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq did not possess it or even had the capacity to produce it by the time of the invasion in 2003. His regime had not had the capability to manufacture that, or any other biological or chemical agent in years.
It is not me saying it –it is the CIA, the UNSCOM, David Kay, Charles Duelfer, and the Army’s 75th Exploitation Task Force.
November 11th, 2005 at 5:54 pmvisa card…
grossly Malraux Wolf…
January 16th, 2007 at 9:23 pmVacation Rental Travel Search Engines Costa Rica Travel
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:23 pm