Of course he starts with Iraq.
In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion -- by far the highest in our national history.
All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
Right. Seems he must have missed the Authorization to Use of Military Force Against Iraq. That was all that was needed. And there was no defiance of the UN since they had already had several resolutions against the Iraqi regime. But hey, Why should he actually note reality in his stupid tirade?
And it's fascinating that he uses the casualty estimate that is by far the largest and most questioned in it's reasoning and process.
And what of the prisoners that he states are protected by the Geneva Conventions? They don't even meet the definition of a legal combatant. In fact they clearly don't. Since the US hasn't signed Protocol III of the Geneva Conventions that would give these types of combatants status, there is nothing illegal in the actions. The discussion of torture is so brief that it doesn't even make a case for whether it was torture or not. And seeing that he hasn't access to any of the facts, he is completely without the ability to make this case.
It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson's observation: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."Oh come on. The Bush Administration never said that Saddam was involved with 9/11. The congress was the party that brought that into the light of a clear and present danger, not the Bush administration. Deceived congress? I think not. They had access to the same information as the President. If they chose not to review it, then its not the administration deceiving but the negligence of the representatives.
I'm still trying to find any reference of anyone saying that Saddam had nuclear weapons. I'm thinking he must be having a bout of senility.
The basic strategy of the administration has been to encourage a climate of fear, letting it exploit the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks not only to justify the invasion of Iraq but also to excuse such dangerous misbehavior as the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents. The same fear-mongering has led government spokesmen and cooperative members of the press to imply that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world -- more than a billion people.It may not be pleasant, but it has all been reviewed by the courts and has been put into legislation, so it isn't illegal. In fact, it would need to come to the judiciary to decide whether the president went beyond his constitutional powers. There are very good reasons to believe he has worked within those powers even if the likes of McGovern doesn't like it. As for the fear mongering, whose doing that right now? Isn't this whole article trying to stir up fear that the citizens are being violated?
Ironically, while Bush and Cheney made counterterrorism the battle cry of their administration, their policies -- especially the war in Iraq -- have increased the terrorist threat and reduced the security of the United States.No proof, just conjecture. Well I can say just the opposite and would be as valid, but it still wouldn't be proof. And it's not relevant to his argument for impeachment.
Today, after five years of clumsy, mistaken policies and U.S. military occupation, Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism and bloody civil strife. It is no secret that former president Bush, his secretary of state, James A. Baker III, and his national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, all opposed the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.I guess McGovern hasn't watched any news in the past 6 months. Not that any war goes smoothly from the start and all have issues and challenges, but now that it has found some stabilization with the most recent strategy all McGovern can come up with is Baker and Scowcroft didn't like it. How is that relevant now that we are here?
In addition to the shocking breakdown of presidential legal and moral responsibility, there is the scandalous neglect and mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. The veteran CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condenses it to a sentence: "I have never ever seen anything as badly bungled and poorly handled as this situation in New Orleans." Any impeachment proceeding must include a careful and critical look at the collapse of presidential leadership in response to perhaps the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.Oh yes, quoting a reporter is evidence of presidential bungling. It ignores the local and state agencies ignoring the federal warnings and delayed preparations so long that the Fed couldn't get in on time. Yet this is all the President's fault. Idiot! No doubt the Fed could have done better, but since LA and NO politicians decided they wanted to do things their own ways, the problem was made much more severe. It also ignores where the Fed did extremely well with four other hurricanes in Florida that year. But if you can't be reasonable on all actions by the Fed, then you have no argument.
Read it for yourself if you have 5 minutes to waste. McGovern doesn't make his case and uses the usual lame and tired arguments without factual support or contact with reality.