America, the Bushieful

...beautiful, it ain't.

Eighty-eight verses and climbing:
O Bushieful for... Obamaful for...
1) Specious lies 16) No-bid mercs 31) Change and hope 51) Occupy 71) Coverage yanked
2) Spookdom's gapes 17) New Orleans 32) Bush redux 52) FEMA camps 72) Kiev coup
3) Heroes killed 18) Uncle Buck 33) Detentions 53) Failed false flags 73) New trade deals
4) PNAC's plans 19) Kenny Lay 34) Drone attacks 54) Syria 74) Bundy's stand
5) Double games 20) Wellstone's plane 35) Doubling down 55) Commie pervs 75) ISIS miss
6) Open doors 21) Bonesmen's Tomb 36) Peeping pervs 56) Creeping night 76) Nazi hate
7) Terror scares 22) Black box votes 37) Health reform 57) Swelling tides 77) Ferguson
8) Neocons 23) "New Freedom" 38) Nuke loopholes 58) Romney's thugs 78) Scotland's "Yes!"
9) Preemptions 24) Foolish pride 39) Gushing gunk 59) Diplomats 79) "War on war"
10) Dollar's doom 25) Beast-like men 40) Cap and trade 60) Sandy Hook 80) Borders breached
11) Opium 26) Closet gays 41) Groping goons 61) Rand Paul's stand 81) Shellackings
12) "Shock and awe" 27) Presstitutes 42) Wikileaks 62) Boston's shame 82) Amnesty
13) Toxic troops 28) Abramoff 43) Rising youth 63) Orwell's fears 83) Boehner's tears
14) Genocide 29) Trillions lost 44) Telescreens 64) Hasting's pen 84) Oil's crash
15) Torture camps 30) Patriots' dream 45) Fallout's rain 65) World War III 85) Yemenis
46) War times 3 66) Putin's play 86) U.S. tanks
47) Goldstein's death 67) Cruz control 87) Secrecy
48) No-fly zones 68) Shutdown stunts 88) Charleston
49) Mounting debt 69) Mom shot dead
50) Native sons 70) Website woes

Sunday, August 29, 2004

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!

" 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.

" 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.

" 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


Post a Comment

<< Home