[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
War, War, War See other War, War, War Articles Title: Mr. McClellan's Memoir - ((And the Case for Justice)) We have no particular interest in Mr. Scott McClellan's thesis as discussed in his memoir, which says President Bush knew the American people would not accept the real reasons the President wanted Gulf II, so he faked reasons. Why? Because we knew the US President was faking. Why didn't we say anything? Because we thought the lies were for a very good reason, which was US intended to destroy the House of Saud, the financier of Islam terrorism and to bring the 21st Century to the Middle East. We thought the idea of occupying Iraq was to create a bridgehead from which America could strike East against Iran, West against Saudi, and North against Syria. And we thought that since this grand effort would inevitably disrupt oil supplies, the US planned to ramp up Iraq's production back to at least 6-million bbl/day and to build up reserve stocks so as to reduce the impact of a disruption. Then the revolution to democratize the Middle East could begin, a process that might have taken from 20 to 50 years depending on the target country. Nor did we know at that time that the President/Vice President/Karl Rove were deliberately suppressing dissenting views so that they could not be challenged by other high officials who were every bit as patriotic as the above-mentioned Mr. McClellan says all that Mr. Bush wanted was to spread democracy over the Mideast. In other words, what we thought was the secondary objective was not even the first objective, it was the only objective. If Mr. McClellan is right, we're afraid we'll have to return to an old theme at Orbat.com: there needs to be an impartial inquiry conducted into the fiasco that Gulf II has become; indictments have to be handed down; indicted personnel have to be tried by special courts; and sentences have to be carried out, regardless of the rank of the person on trial, and including death sentences. Because it's not just that the Administration has failed in its objectives, its objectives were incorrectly defined, incorrectly executed, and have proved detrimental to American interests. Whoa, Whoa, you say. You want high-ranking officials all the way to the top to be tried and if found guilty imprisoned or hanged for incompetence? Isn't this completely off the wall? Not a bit. The Commander-in-Chief holds the power of death over the whole country. This power is not as total as it was in the Nuclear Age, where we handed over to the President the authority - if he decided it was neccessary - to risk incineration, injury and death by fire and radiation, and a slow death for the survivors because our society would have collapsed. This authority existed not just over some small percentage of the population, but over 20-60% if an all-out exchange with the Soviets had occurred, to 99% if nuclear winter came about as a consequence. Suppose now that such an exchange had resulted because the President had one objective which he hid while pursuing a second, on which he invited no debate. Now suppose that thanks to his incompetence, everything went wrong with his plan, so that nothing was achieved, and further, America suffered direct and indirect casualties running north of 270-million. Suppose further - as would have happened in the nuclear winter scenario, that 90% of the world's population died as a consequence. All for nothing, absolutely nothing, because of the president's whims and fancies. Would you then, if you were a survivor, object to putting the President and all his high officials on trial for their life because of their incompetence? we don't think you would; indeed, you wouldn't be a person of honor if the very least you demanded was death for those who killed the country. Incompetence would not be a plea you would have accepted, had your parents been burned to death, your wife died painfully of radiation burns, and your children were dying because there was no food, no clean water, no shelter, no medical treatment. We wager you'd have been among the first over the White House barricades screaming for blood - and for justice. So then where is the problem with putting the Administration on trial over Gulf II? Well, you might say, ONLY 4000 Americans have died; ONLY 20,000 have been wounded; we've ONLY lost a current and future $2-trillion dollars; and not to mention that ONLY unknown tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, become refugees, or live in daily terror in their country. After all, who REALLY cares about a bunch of dirty, sniveling, sand-eaters, right? Okay, to heck with the sniveling sand-eaters. But if you argue against the toughest action to be taken against our leaders, it will only be because you feel the degree to which America has suffered is insufficient for hanging people. Right. In that case, what exactly is your threshold? 40,000 dead and $20-trillion? 400,000 dead? 4-million dead? And please also tell, what is your threshold if the Editor had directly caused the death of your child and done so on your credit card for which you are liable, and done all that on his whim, what would be your reaction? Just let him go free? We don't think so. So why should America collectively not hold its high officials responsible for their errors and lies? Allowing them to resign, and simply standing by as they finish their terms in office is hardly holding them responsible. Okay, so may say "This whole argument you're making is a huge stretch." Yes, it is a stretch if we give God-like immunity to our leaders/officials. But where does it say that we required to give them immunity? Men made the laws by which this Republic is governed. President Bush and Company do not have the divine right of kings. They are ordinary people like you and me. And they should be punished just as you and me would be punished if we made similar mistakes - not due to bad luck, but simply because we didn't want to listen to anyone. Looked at it that way, our argument is neither off the wall, nor a stretch, nor inane. It is a good first step among many that are required to make America a great nation once again.
Poster Comment: He makes a solid case for the type of investigation many here would like to see. As Poppy Bush would've said "Ain't gonna happen, wouldn't be prudent".
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#1. To: swarthyguy (#0)
Their house is crumbling down all areound them. This makes them even more dangerous. They are capable of anything. They went from being mere rattlesnakes to being black mambas.
Iran AlQaida connection, anyone?
#4. To: swarthyguy (#3)
mummer mummer rumble whisper, repeat.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||