On the Eve of War, Bush Made the Case for U.S. Regime Change

If the charges President Bush made against Saddam Hussein in his speech to the nation on the eve of our invasion of Iraq were true, and such acts justified a forced regime change in Iraq, then George W. Bush's regime stands just as guilty on all counts, and ought to be changed as well.

Let's consider the president's charges against Hussein one by one:

"The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage."

No regime has more cynically used diplomacy as "a ploy to gain time and advantage" than the Bush regime. It is now obvious that from the beginning no diplomatic solution, no matter how many concessions Iraq might have made, could have diverted the Bush regime from war. The Bush regime was hell-bent for a war of conquest against Iraq come what may. It's pre-invasion diplomatic maneuverings were but a sideshow designed to distract from and give diplomatic cover to the Bush regime’s build up an army of invasion in the Gulf.

"It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament."

The Bush regime itself defied the will of the UN Security Council. Having failed to gain a majority of nations on the Security Council to approve of their naked aggression, they went ahead with it anyway, brazenly spitting in the face of an outraged world.

"Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived."

In their desperate attempts to obtain a UN Security Council majority to sanction their naked aggression against Iraq, the Bush regime "electronically bugged, threatened, and systematically deceived" UN officials.

A leaked internal National Security Agency memo revealed a Bush-regime-backed plot to intensively electronically spy on UN diplomats representing countries on the Security Council. The Bush regime's intent was to discover information they could use to compromise key UN diplomats, to "persuade" them to side with the Bush regime.

When it comes to deception, none was more brazenly (and incompetently) deceptive than the Bush regime.

Secretary of State Powell tried but failed to pass off to the UN Security Council plagiarized ten year old college dissertations and magazine articles as first rate American intelligence "proving" a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Powell also claimed at the UN that mere facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill artillery balloons – facilities actually sold to Iraq by the British government -- were “mobile biological weapons labs!”

Later, documents produced by US intelligence agencies and provided to the UN purporting to "prove" that Hussein attempted to procure uranium from Niger were, upon closer inspection, discovered to be "obvious forgeries.”

"Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men."

Peaceful efforts to avert the Bush regime's naked aggression against Iraq by the nations of the world have "failed again and again because -- [they] were not dealing with peaceful men."

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

No regime possesses and conceals more lethal and cutting edge weapons of mass destruction than the Bush regime. Even worse, they are hell-bent to test their toys on other nations, based on the flimsiest of pretexts.

For example, since the end of the Cold War, the Bush-Clinton-Bush regime has poisoned Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq (and our own troops there) with thousands of tons of expended depleted uranium munitions.

"This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people."

The Bush-Clinton-Bush regime has already used weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. And George W. Bush used WMD’s against the people of Iraq in concentrations designed to "shock and awe" them into submission.

"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East."

No regime has a history more replete with reckless aggressions in the Middle East than Bush's own. What else is Bush’s Iraq war but "reckless aggression?” What else was the twelve year continuous bombing campaign against Iraq which preceded it? What else was the cruise missile attack that leveled a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan? What else is the quasi-permanent stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia? What else was the US's arming, advising, and supply of Hussein during the Iran/Iraq War? What else was the many CIA sponsored internal subversions and coups designed to install into power lackeys and thugs who'd do the US regime's bidding?

"It has a deep hatred of America and our friends."

If "deep hatred of America" is manifested by open contempt for her Constitution and Bill of Rights, for the freedoms and rights Americans have historically enjoyed, and for America's historical role as international good guy and upholder of international humanitarian norms like the Genonva conventions, no one has demonstrated a deeper hatred of America than the Bush administration itself.

As for hating our friends, the Bush administration has vilified France and contemptuously dismissed Germany as "Old Europe."

"And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."

No regime has aided, trained, and harbored more terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda, than Bush's regime.

In fact, al Qaeda itself was a CIA-backed creation. Its original purpose was to undermine the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, it didn't stop there. The CIA utilized al Qaeda again in their covert efforts to subvert the Balkans. Bin Ladin's crew provided a key arms and drugs supply line from their Taliban-backed bases in Afghanistan to the CIA-backed Kosovo Liberation Army. As recently as 1998, al Qaeda continued to be a key Spook asset of the United States government.

"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

So, to prevent this extremely hypothetical (and unlikely) scenario, the Bush regime is killing “thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people" – Americans and Iraqis -- NOW!

"The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat."

Iraq did absolutely nothing to deserve or invite conquest by the United States. On the other hand, when the Bush regime set out to commit an unprovoked naked aggression against another sovereign nation, it deserves and invites a defensive response.

"Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety."

"Safety" = an unprovoked, life-extinguishing, "shock and awe"-inducing, meat-grinding war of conquest? Calling George Orwell!

"Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed."

The greatest danger to world peace at this moment is the Bush regime itself.

"The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security."

Then why doesn't Iraq have this same right?

"That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep."

The Constitution Bush swore an oath to defend says that only Congress (not the president) has the sole power to declare war. By waging an undeclared, unconstitutional, and unprovoked war, Bush has brazenly violated his oath of office.

"Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq."

No it didn't. It authorized action against terrorists involved in the 9-11 attacks. It did not authorize war with Iraq, a nation which has no known link with al Qaeda or 9-11.

"America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully."

Yet another lie. The Bush regime obviously had no intent to ever resolve its disputes with Iraq peacefully.

"We believe in the mission of the United Nations."

But only so long as it rubber stamps the Bush regime's planned conquests.

"One reason the U.N. was founded after the Second World War was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace."

And the U.N. did "confront an aggressive dictator, before he could attack the innocent and destroy the peace." But, Bush was determined to attack another sovereign nation without just provocation anyway.

"In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."

On the contrary, the Security Council explicitly refused to authorize or endorse Bush's naked aggression against Iraq.

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you."

The Bush regime is the very model of "lawless men who rule [their] country". They have systematically violated the Constitution since 9-11, from the staged 9-11 faux-terror event itself, through the misnamed USA Patriot Act, to the ongoing congressionally-undeclared war against Iraq.

"In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors…"

But in a so-called "free" America, there WILL be wars of aggression against any nation the Bush regime sees fit to attack, destroy, and conquer!

"...no more poison factories..."

Instead, a Bush-regime-installed puppet government will buy all they need from American defense contractors, just like Hussein did during the Iran/Iraq War.

"...no more executions of dissidents..."

The Bush regime announced shortly before the war began that peaceful anti-war protesters who trespass onto Vandenberg Air Force Base will, henceforth, be shot on sight.

"...no more torture chambers and rape rooms."

The Bush regime has, contrary to American custom and law, embraced torture as a viable and even necessary law enforcement tool. The unspeakable horrors of Abu Ghraib and Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay confirm the Bush regime’s callous inhumanity, utter lawlessness, and base criminality.

"The tyrant will soon be gone."

And a new American tyrant (namely, Bush) shall take his place.

"Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent."

No regime is more violent at this moment than Bush's own.

And there you have it.

Clearly, the Bush regime is little more than monstrous hypocrisy backed by deadly force. If its charges against Iraq justify a regime change by conquest there, then the Bush regime stands equally guilty and worthy of regime change here.

The only difference between the two is this: the Bush regime is, in fact, bristling with weapons of mass destruction, rendering its regime extremely difficult to change, while Hussein's, after twelve years of perpetual bombing and economic sanctions, was but a toothless tiger by comparison.

This essay was first featured at PrisonPlanet.tv

Don't Waste Your Vote

“Don’t waste your vote!”

That’s the mantra invoked every presidential election cycle by braying jackasses or stampeding pachyderms to persuade more enlightened political animals to hold their nose and stick with them rather than vote for sounder, more principled, and far less corrupted third party candidates.

Their mantra not so subtly implies that:

1. Unless one has a reasonable expectation that one’s most favored candidate can actually win, all votes for said candidate are wasted, and
2. Since Democrats or Republicans have won in that past, it’s reasonable to expect them to just keep on winning, so votes for them are never wasted.

But is this really true?

Not at all! In fact, given the way we elect our presidents, tens of millions of presidential votes cast for the Democrat or Republican candidate each election cycle are totally “wasted” in this sense: they have absolutely no effect on the ultimate outcome of the presidential race.

If you know our Constitution, then you also know why this is so. It’s because our presidents are not elected by popular vote, but by electoral votes awarded by state on a winner-take-all basis.

This means that only those popular votes determinative of the winner of each state’s electoral votes actually affect the outcome of the national presidential race. Obviously, then, popular votes are never wasted if cast either for the overwhelming winner of a statewide race or for both major party candidates in states where the statewide race between them is close enough to tip either way. But popular votes are always wasted when cast for the losing major party candidate in states where the winner wins the statewide race by an overwhelming un-closable margin. This is so because the losing major party candidate is awarded ZERO electoral votes from that state regardless and, in presidential elections, electoral votes, not popular votes, are the only votes that ever really count.

Therefore, in states which are overwhelmingly pro-Republican at the presidential level, every vote cast for the Democrat candidate is a wasted vote. The same is true for every vote cast for the Republican candidate in states which are overwhelmingly pro-Democrat at the presidential level.

For example, in the 2000 presidential race, sixteen states were overwhelmingly pro-Republican – Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. In each of these sixteen states, Bush defeated Gore by a margin of 10% or more. Therefore, in these overwhelmingly pro-Republican states, there was no chance for Democrat Gore to ever win any of these states’ electoral votes. Hence, all the votes cast for Gore in these sixteen states – 7,930,843 in all or 15.55% of the total votes cast for Gore nationwide – were totally wasted votes!

On the opposite side of the major party divide in the 2000 presidential race, nine states or territories were overwhelmingly pro-Democrat – Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. In each of these nine states or territories, Gore beat Bush by a margin of 10% or more. Therefore, in these overwhelmingly pro-Democrat states, there was no chance for Republican Bush to ever win any of these states’ or territories’ electoral votes. Hence, all the votes cast for Bush in these nine states or territories – 5,200,303 in all or 10.31% of the total votes cast for Bush nationwide – were likewise totally wasted votes!

So, because of the way electoral votes are awarded, a grand total of 13,131,146 votes cast for Bush or Gore in 2000 had absolutely no impact on the outcome of that election! That means that 12.46% of all the votes cast in the 2000 presidential race were totally wasted votes! The electoral vote count that decides who our next president will be would have been exactly the same in the end no matter how these thirteen million plus votes were cast.

Do you know what that means? These thirteen million plus wasted major party votes could have been cast for third party candidates instead without affecting in the slightest degree the ultimate outcome of the presidential race!

This fact is especially important for voters who are otherwise inclined to vote third party but don’t for fear that, if they do, the greater of the two major party evils will win. Third-party-leaning left-wingers, if you live in an overwhelmingly pro-Republican state, you can vote for the third party presidential candidate of your choice without risking a victory for the Republicans! Likewise, third-party-leaning right-wingers, if you live in an overwhelmingly pro-Democrat state, you too can vote for the third party candidate of your choice without risking a victory for the Democrats!

If these totally wasted presidential votes for the two major party candidates were cast for third party candidates instead, third party alternatives could be built up and made more politically viable without risking the election of an ultimate major party evil, whomever voters might regard that ultimate evil to be!

For example, had the aforementioned 7,930,843 wasted votes for Gore in 2000 been cast for, say, Ralph Nader instead, Nader’s Green Party would have received 10,813,798 votes or 10.26% of the total votes cast. That would have far exceeded the 5% threshold required to qualify the Green Party for a share of the federal presidential campaign matching funds distributed this election cycle!

Likewise, had the aforementioned 5,200,303 wasted votes for Bush in 2000 been cast for, say, Pat Buchanan instead, Buchanan’s Reform Party would have received 5,649,198 votes or 5.35% of the total votes cast. That would have just exceeded the 5% threshold required to qualify the Reform Party once again for a share of the federal presidential campaign matching funds distributed each election cycle!

So, at a bare minimum, by shifting these otherwise wasted major party votes, two third parties, one on the left and the other on the right, could have been lifted up off the mat and made more viable as political competitors with the two major parties.

But there is an even more intriguing possibility: if the anti-globalist, anti-war, pro-Bill-of-Right left and the anti-globalist, anti-war, pro-Bill-of-Rights right could ever put aside their differences on lesser issues and unite behind a single anti-globalist, anti-war, pro-Bill-of-Rights third party ticket, something roughly akin to a hypothetical Nader-Buchanan or Buchanan-Nader ticket in 2000, the wasted votes for Bush and Gore that year combined with all the other third party votes would have given this hypothetical united third party front 17,080,347 total votes or 16.2% of the overall votes cast. That’s within striking distance (less than ten percentage points away) of the 25% threshold needed to attain equal major party status and funding with the Democrats and Republicans!

So, if you’re a third-party-leaning, anti-globalist, anti-war, pro-Bill-of-Rights left-winger in an overwhelmingly Republican state, or a third-party-leaning, anti-globalist, anti-war, pro-Bill-of-Rights right-winger in an overwhelmingly Democrat state, don’t waste your presidential vote by voting for the lesser of two globalist, pro-war, Bill-of-Rights-gutting evils. Instead, help build up for this nation a viable anti-globalist, anti-war, pro-Bill-of-Rights third party alternative at the presidential level. Send a powerful message to both major parties that their current support for globalism, undeclared wars of imperial conquest abroad, and police-state tyranny here at home is simply not acceptable. Vote for the third party candidate of your choice.

Contrary to the false implications of the major parties’ “don’t waste your vote” mantra, voting for your most favored presidential candidate of whatever party is never a waste, but merely voting for the lesser of two major party evils often is, especially in states where the worst evil is likely to win all of that states’ electoral votes regardless. So, in these states especially, don’t waste your vote. Vote third party instead. You have absolutely nothing to lose by doing so, and everything to gain.

You can track your state’s race and plan your presidential voting strategy accordingly at Electoral-Vote.com.

This essay was first featured at PrisonPlanet.com.

Here's the latest from Electoral-Vote.com:
Democrats and anti-Bush Republicans/Independents can vote third party risk-free in sixteen states:	Republicans and anti-Kerry Democrats/Independents can vote third party risk-free in ten states or territories:
Alabama Alaska Georgia Idaho Indiana Kansas Kentucky Montana Nebraska North Dakota Oklahoma South Carolina South Dakota Texas Utah Wyoming	DC Hawaii Illinois Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota New Mexico New York Rhode Island Vermont
Of course, voters who regard Bush and Kerry as equally repugnant and reprehensable can vote third party without risk in all fifty states and DC, since the worst possible outcome for them would be the election (or Supreme Court selection?) of either Bush or Kerry.

A Poem For Goldi-lox

Goldi-lox is moderator of LibertyPost. She's a once liberty-loving moderator gone Bushbot bad.

So, a rival forum, Freedom Underground, was created by ex-LPers who found Goldi's mismoderations on LP intolerable. FU quickly filled up with ex-LPers seeking a new home and a place of refuge from Goldi's sometimes malicious persecutions of non-Bushbots.

The inter-forum rivalry which naturally insued inspired this poem.

Goldi you're a Bushbot but that's OK
You have every right to run your forum your way
Just as we have the right to not want to stay
When you mangle our posts to control what we say

That's why freedom-lovers take flight to FU
Here Bret doesn't try to control what we do
Or stifle critiques with bizarre threats to sue
If we ever critique him, which we rarely do

'Cause here we post our mind and say what we think
There's no control freak mods to stir up a big stink,
Derail our threads, or cast our friends in the clink
As they serve up koolaid for every poster to drink

So, Goldi, know that you are still our friend
This petty forum-feuding really ought to end
Past friendships rent can still start to mend
That's why this peace offering we now send

We hope you receive it in the spirit it's written
Even though with FUers you ain't exactly smitten
Despite the fact we're like some cute little kitten
All fuzzy and warm, until we get bitten

So if inter-forum peace is what you really want
Quit biting our tail and call your dogs off the hunt
Stop making up stories, such a childish stunt
And act like an adult (to be perfectly blunt)

There's no reason FU and LP can't co-exist
Sure whenever you mismod, you'll be promptly dissed
'Cause whenever you mismod, somebody gets pissed
But your mismoderations need not persist

'Cause once your moderations were very good
You once modded just like any moderator should
You had a light touch and you ever withstood
Temptations to censor or ban whomever you could

There's no reason LP can't return to that
If it did that would be the end of our spat
And perhaps LP could get back up off the mat
And restore its once high Alexa stat

All this is possible and much much more
Moreover LibertyPost won't ever be a bore
Like Free Republic (what a Bushbot snore)
Full of minds Jim-Robbed (such a Bushbot whore)

But for LibertyPost, it's not too late
It doesn't have to suffer Free Republic's fate
If you do what's right, it can again be great
Despite losing Neil McIver, your old mod-mate

Or you can hypermod LP into a Bushbot hell
Where no one dares to break Dubya's hypnotic spell
And no liberty-lovers would ever care to dwell...

Goldi, whatever you do, we FUers wish you well!