Bush Administration's Response to North Korea Reveals Much

I fail to understand the rationale (if that's what you can call it) of the Bush Administration's reaction to North Korean nuclear tests. Back in 2002 and 2003 the Bushies were positively foaming at the mouth to invade Iraq, who supposedly had WMDs. They even fabricated ties between Al Quaeda and Iraq to convince us that Iraq represented an imminent threat.

The [Iraqi] regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. - George Bush, 3/17/2003

They continued these fabrications long after we'd invaded Iraq.

Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, 1/14/2004

(Incidentally, you can find an enormous wealth of awesome lies by Bush and his administration at Bush on Iraq.)

Today, even though North Korea proudly claims their own nuclear test, and has brazenly stated their ambitions for nuclear weapons, the administration seems much less eager to wage war. Sure, they've condemned North Korea's actions, but today it appears that they're even downplaying the threat. Here is an excerpt from a Reuters article, W.House raises doubts about N.Korean nuclear arms:

But asked if he considered the reported test a big deal, [White House Spokesman Tony] Snow replied, "No, I think it's an important deal" and noted that "there are a lot of ifs, aren't there?"

Now, first let me say that I'm no fan of invading other countries. I didn't think we should have invaded Iraq then, and I certainly don't think we should invade North Korea now. But what's interesting here is how the Bush administration has changed its tune when it comes to WMDs in the hands of "rogue nations." When they were rallying support for an invasion of Iraq, they were publicly absolutist and unswerving in their resolution to protect the American people. When they were accused of just going after the oil, Bush and his cronies all claimed that it would be the same with any other country who threatened the U.S.. They pushed the invasion of Iraq so hard that it divided public opinion here, and seriously strained our previously good relationships with most of our allies. Where were the "ifs" back then?

I'd like to think that they've learned a thing or two about the mistakes they made regarding Iraq, and that is why they're so much less hawkish concerning North Korea. But I fear that the reality is more insidious. I think they just don't care as much about North Korea. They can sit back and call for sanctions, and then just let U.N. and North Korea's Asian neighbors worry about it. From the administration's perspective, an invasion of North Korea just isn't worth it. There's no oil to gain control of, no new territory to establish military bases, and China would never stand for it.

The administration's behavioral dissonance only bolsters my conviction that President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld (and many others) misled the public leading up to an invasion of Iraq. They were bound and determined to go into Iraq and they were willing to lie to the public in order to do it. They didn't stop to ask whether or not there were any "ifs" left to be answered.

A great read for those of you who are beginning to lose hope

David Swanson, one of the founders of AfterDowningStreet.org, has written an excellent essay on the current status of the impeachment movement. In his article he provides an up-to-date summary of the known offenses and evidence. We found it to be encouraging.

We've known for some time that the president and vice president should be impeached. Now we'll find out if the media and our political representatives will figure it out as well.

Impeachment Anyone?: The case for taking the tape off our mouths.

Illegal Warrantless Wiretapping Program Officially Declared Illegal

Federal District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled yesterday that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, conducted by the NSA, violates the Constitution. This is the official word we've been waiting for, confirming what everyone already knew to be true. The Executive does not get to do whatever they want in the name of protecting the country.

This is also a vital step in the impeachment process. In Articles of Impeachment, it's one thing to claim that the program is illegal. It's quite another to be able to show that the judicial branch agrees.

Clearly, the administration will not allow this decision to rest - they've already pledged to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Should it go that far, it will be very interesting to follow. Conservative blogs are already frothing with charges of "activist judges, " and "liberal media bias." Which is no surprise since the RNC followed the ruling yesterday with a post, "Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda To Weaken National Security."

The Republican support for the warrantless wiretap program ALWAYS excludes the very heart of the matter. Because of past abuses by the Nixon administration (and likely others), there is now legislation (FISA, for example) that requires investigators to get a warrant to spy. The law allows for urgent requests, so even when there is a last-minute need to eavesdrop, the process is designed specifically not to get in the way. It's even allowed that you apply for the warrant after the fact. Yet, the administration feels that it need not obtain these warrants, so they simply ignore the law.

If the administration claims are true - that, while eavesdropping on a conversation, "one of the parties on the call is a suspected Al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist," WHY is it so difficult to do it legally? If they're suspected, don't you have evidence to support your suspicion? Can't your evidence be shared in the secret FISA court to ensure that there is substantial reason to spy? So far, there is no clear indication that there is a need to suspend the balancing effect of the judiciary on the executive.

I guess it's just easier to claim that liberals and others concerned about civil rights are "soft on terrorism."

Israel Invades Lebanon, Bush Cheers

Responding to the abduction of 2 soldiers and other terrorist activity, Israel invaded Lebanon this week. Despite the enormous number of civilian casualties, the Bush administration has repeatedly issued statements of support for Israel's campaign.

None of this is surprising. From the Bush perspective, Israel is doing what every country has a right to do - bomb terrorists into oblivion, even if a large number of innocent civilians are killed in the process.

Secretary of State Rice should have been over there on day one trying to shut this thing down. Unfortunately, she and her boss share the belief that peace can only be attained through violence. Even Bush the First approached the Middle East as a broker of peace.

For a thoughtful writeup about the situation in Lebanon, check out this opinion piece by Michael Young in the NYT.

Local Efforts to Initiate Impeachment Proceedings Against Bush and Cheney

I love reading the "headlines" on GOP.com. The posting on June 6, "The REAL Dem Agenda: Impeachment," concerns all of the local - but nationwide - initiatives for impeachment that have met with success.

And, classically, the RNC's point is that seeking impeachment is a really radical thing to do, and that only the "liberal elites" of the "ultra left" support such a shocking thing. All of this gets back to the GOP talking point about "loony liberals." In other words, you must be CRAZY to think about impeaching the president.

As mentioned on www.bushscrewedamerica.com, we point out that impeachment isn't at all as radical as the Republican leadership would have you believe.

...this is another attempt to make the impeachment movement sound like something only radicals could get behind—which is ridiculous. Public support for impeachment has been growing for quite some time. As far back as October 2005 a poll found that 50% of Americans agreed with the statement, "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him." (AfterDowningStreet.org commissioned the poll, which was conducted by the non-partisan group Ipsos Public Affairs.) In mid-March 2006, another poll by the American Research Group showed that 48% of voters polled favored Sen. Feingold’s plan for censuring Bush. Notably, so did 29% of Republican voters who were polled. From that same poll, 43% of voters favored impeachment – 18% of Republicans included. In May 2006, a non-scientific poll on MSNBC showed that 84% of respondents favor impeachment based on the illegal wiretapping, and the misinformation leading up to the Iraq invasion.

In other words, the impeachment movement is not relegated to the fringes of society after all.

And why do the Republicans want to you to think it's such a crazy idea? Because they're complicit in the illegal activities of the administration. If Bush and Cheney are impeached and convicted of their crimes, guess who's next in line.

Pelosi Rules Out Impeachment

In an effort to steal a rallying point from Republicans,* Nancy Pelosi has indicated that she will not support the impeachment movement. As quoted in the Washington Post article, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said, "impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it."

While this does seem to take some of the wind out of our sails, it also reinforces our opinions about the current Democratic leadership. They have given up their role as champions of fairness and equality for the role of the whiny opposition. Their strategy is itself only based on the strategy of the Republicans. You have to give the Republicans credit for what they've done. They organized and executed a long-term campaign to shift the entire national dialogue to the right. Now the Dems are sitting around with wide eyes just shouting to be heard.

One of my classes in college used a textbook (can't remember which) that showed the timeline of political parties on our great country. Over the history of politics in the US, political parties have come and go when they no longer speak for a large enough consituency. As I've watched the Democrats of today hem and haw, that timeline has come up more and more in my mind. Are we seeing the final days of the Democratic party? Have they shifted so far to the right in the last 15 years that they can no longer represent the environment, fairness and integrity? Or is it just a low-spot?

*How ironic it is that efforts to impeach Bush, guilty of so many "high crimes and misdemeanors," should become a rallying cry for Republicans. It wasn't that long ago that the members of the Republican Revolution successfully impeached Clinton for such weighty offenses as lying about his triste in the Oval Office.

Welcome to the BushSCREWEDAmerica.com blog!

Here we'll post our thoughts as necessary regarding the evolution of the impeachment movement, developments in foreign or domestic affairs, etc.

Please note, comments will be moderated. Opposing views will be posted, so long as they're respectful and coherent. We promise to strive for the same!

If you want to read more, please visit www.bushSCREWEDamerica.com.