jump to navigation

Let’s Impeach Bush—Liberal Anti-American Election Strategy August 17, 2007

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Bill Clinton, campaign finance, Dick Cheney, disnformation, elections, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, impeachment, Iraq, liberals, lies, Nancy Pelosi, news, Ramsey Clark, war, weapons, WMD.
trackback

Will a liberal dominated Congress cave in to public pressure also led by liberal democrats to impeachment of President Bush and his administration? Democrats have already proposed two bills of impeachment. They want the heads on both Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Vice President Dick Cheney on the golden party plate. Washington State Democrat Jay Inslee
leads the effort to impeach Gonzales while Ohio Representative Dennis Kunich leads the charge to impeach Cheney. Democrats and other liberal haters of President Bush are dedicated to winning their war against the Whitehouse. By trumping up charges against Gonzales, they may be able to eliminate one particularly disliked conservative from sitting on the Supreme Court. By removing Cheney from office, power-mongering Pelosi would move into Cheney’s spot. Democrats would then be in a position to impeach Bush and replace him with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

That has to be a better strategy than the failed attempt of liberal-led rigging of the 2000 chadadelic elections. If power-drugged Democrats succeed, the 2008 presidential election might include a reelection campaign of President Pelosi. After all, Americans do tend to vote for an incumbent. By employing such a strategy, Democrats just might win the 2008 Presidential election.

Democrats have reason to doubt certain victory. Their front-runner is a die-hard liberal parading as a conservative with an illegal campaign fund raising lawsuit hanging over her head. She is married to a debarred lawyer, which retribution came after a conservative House attempted to impeach him. They tried to impeach Clinton because he lied under oath. Their failure to try him for usurping Congressional powers through executive order and for attempting to place America under the UN Criminal Court without Congressional approval is still unconscionable. Hopefully, President Bush has terminated Clinton’s past acts of lawmaking by fiat. Besides her political baggage, using the same strategy as her husband and making impeachable centrist speeches does not mean Hillary is actually anything other than an unscrupulous liberal democrat. That leaves voters with the contender Senator Barak Obama, who is still seen by some as an inexperienced freshman.

By trumping up dubious charges against Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales, a desperate bunch of liberal Democrats may intend a coup d’état of the Whitehouse, which just might give them considerable advantage in the 2008 elections.

If the above seems like conspiracy paranoia, then consider the rancorous impeachment movement. One of the leading activists of Impeach Bush campaign is Impeach Bush campaign is Ramsey Clark. During the presidency of John F. Kennedy, Clark was employed as Deputy Attorney General, and he was later appointed Attorney General by Lyndon Johnson. Clark is a member of the global elite with membership in the socialist organization Workers’ World Party. In 1992, he brought charges against George H.W. Bush for alleged war crimes against Iraq. He defended Saddam Hussein before the World Tribunal against charges of crimes against the Iraqi people as well as support of terrorism against the US, Israel, and other nations. He brought charges against Israeli officials alleging they perpetrated various crimes against the Palestinians. He even defended Nazi war criminals. His latest prosecutorial activism is the pursuit of war crime charges against our current president. It appears that Clark aspires to the position of global attorney general by self-appointment.

Then there is the Impeach Bush Pac. This Pac is composed of Democrat members of Congress seeking to raise money to inspire candidates to follow Ramsey’s lead. Like Ramsey’s movement, they claim to represent the sentiments of the American people. Along with Ramsey’s Impeach Bush campaign, they are primary sources of information about Bush’s alleged lies. However, they do not represent the people; the people who support their campaign actually represent their views and propaganda.

What then is President Bush’s impeachable crime? According to the impeachment-crazed bunch, Bush lied to the American people about Iraq’s threat to America and the world. They allege Bush’s illegal war makes him culpable for crimes of aggression and other war crimes against the Iraqi people. Bill Moyer’s documentary “Buying the War” attempts to offer support for those accusations, which he has been trying to sell again on PBS.

One of the problems with Bush’s accusers is their selective use of the facts. For example, they ignore the fact that Hussein perpetually lied about his weapons program. According to a report by Ibrahim al-Marashi, Saddam Hussein invested much time and resources to lie about and conceal the most important components of his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program. Because of that fact, Bush had no reason to believe Hussein did not have weapons hidden somewhere. Before the commencement of the Gulf War in 1991, Yossef Bodansky reported to Congress that Hussein shipped out weapons and equipment to Libya and Sudan. After Hussein was captured, Qadhafi turned over his WMD program. Why didn’t other terrorist states turn theirs over as well? Could it be because Qadhafi possessed part of Hussein’s WMD—the evidence? Another transfer of Iraq’s weapons materials occurred shortly before the war began in 2003. Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay acknowledged intelligence of military convoys transporting barrels and equipment out of Iraq and into Syria. Later some or all of the suspected weapons material was sent to Lebanon and possibly to Sudan. The Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD by Charles Duelfer proved that Hussein continued plans to rebuild his WMD program. These are only a few of the facts ignored by Bush’s accusers. (See my previous article on Bush’s War.)

It is true no stockpiles of WMD were found in Iraq by weapons inspectors. That is prior to 2005. During that year, coalition forces discovered 500 bombs filled with chemical agents. In Iraq’s WMD Programs: Culling Hard Facts from Soft Myths,, Stuart A. Cohen, Vice Chairman of National Intelligence Council, defined stockpiles of WMD in terms of 500 megatons of weapons grade chemical agent and not actual bombs. One hundred megatons could fit in a backyard swimming pool making hiding or shipping 500 megatons very easy. Cohen said the intelligence community believed Hussein possessed that amount, which posed a very serious threat. Hussein’s capability to produce stockpiles of bio-chemicals agents rapidly was another important factor determining whether Iraq was a real threat. The National Intelligence Estimate referred to by Cohen indicated that Hussein possessed both short- and long-range missiles capable of being converted into WMD. The Interim Progress Report on Iraq’s WMD by David Kay revealed that Hussein did have most of the needed elements to restore a full-scale production of WMD. This was confirmed in Charles Deufler’s Comprehensive Report . Possibly, the most serious threat of all was Hussein’s access to WMD outside of Iraq. According to Bodansky, Hussein partnered with Sudan and Libya to produce biological, chemical, and nuclear WMD. Hussein supplied equipment, some materials, and the scientists to continue his WMD program in those countries. Therefore, President Bush was confronted with a multi-faceted threat, which explains why he believed a preemptive attack was imperative.

Bush’s accusers also continue to wage a disinformation campaign about Iraq’s support of terrorists including Al Qaeda, the connection between Iraq and 9/11 terrorist Atta, and similar circumstantial evidence. They deny the commonly held view among nations like Germany, Britain, Israel, and other member states of the United Nations that Hussein was an international threat. They are silent about the long held legislative view of Congress that the threat posed by Hussein necessitated his removal from office. The legal expression of their view was The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which became public law before Bush came into office.

A more damming evaluation of President Bush’s accusers comes from a former KGB official. Ion Mihai Pacepa charges Bush’s accusers of imitating Communist anti-American disinformation tactics. In a August 7th Wall Street Opinion Journal article, Pacepa wrote,

“Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. The communist effort to generate hatred for the American president began soon after President Truman set up NATO….”

He went on to compare current efforts of liberals to discredit Bush with the continued efforts of the KGB at discrediting America and its war-time presidents. As the bitter anti-war protests of the Vietnam War era illustrate, the Soviets were very effective at creating anti-American sentiments even among Americans. Yet, the atrocities our troops were accused of committing against the Vietnamese–and that many still claims were committed—were actually fabrications of the KGB, according to Pacepa.

<digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/Let_s_Impeach_Bush]We should not be surprised though. It is no secret that many of the past and present leaders of the liberal left visited and adopted the ways of the anti-American European socialist club. Ramsey Clark and followers are card-carrying members. Besides, spreading disinformation just might give liberal democrats an advantage over those theocratic right-wingers as they seek the presidency in 2008.

Technorati Subscribe by Email Permalink

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Pit Boss - September 22, 2007

I believe there are many americans who don’t believe that impeachment can be accomplished, especially after the democratic win that proved almost fruitless.

On top of that, the movement is seen as a fringe. I would guess only 10% of supporters would actually march. We need the energy to go into pins, bumper stickers, wristbands and the like.

We follow trends. If we see more people, especially friends and colleagues showing their support, we are likely to ask more. Marchers and protesters are preaching to the choir and cause us to appear as a fringe movement. That is why i started http://www.inapeach.com. A different subtle way to get friends and colleagues to ask questions. Strangers won’t.

Bush is on the verge of walking away unscathed. Don’t let him.

Pit Boss


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: