« Bastards of Creation | Chuck Keller's Blog | Baghdad For Your Next Vacation? »

Bush World or America?


Plaintiffs: The American People

Defendents: Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice et.al.

Going against European law AND the rules of common decency, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice et/al tortured prisoners in secret CIA prisons.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070608/ap_on_re_eu/eu_cia_secret_prisons

This is not and should not be the policy of the United States of America!

Impeach the monsters who allowed/caused/approved this policy!


19 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Sunday the United States should consider a military strike against Iran because of Tehran's involvement in Iraq.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

The U.S. accuses Iran of fostering terrorism and Tehran's nuclear ambitions have brought about international reproach.

Lieberman, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000 who now represents Connecticut as an independent, spoke of Iranians' role in the continued violence in Iraq.

"We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," Lieberman said. "Well, we can tell them we want them to stop that. But if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them."

He added, "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

Lieberman said much of the action could probably be done by air, although he would leave the strategy to the generals in charge. "I want to make clear I'm not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran," Lieberman said.

"They can't believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans," he said. "We cannot let them get away with it. If we do, they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home."

To deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions, Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson said tough negotiation is called for.

"I would talk to them, but I would build an international coalition that would promote and push economic sanctions on them," Richardson said. "Sanctions would work on Iran. They are susceptible to disinvestment policy. They are susceptible to cuts, economic sanctions in commodities."

On Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran's detention of at least four Americans is unwarranted but will not stop Washington from trying to engage Iran on other matters, including its disputed nuclear program and alleged support of insurgents in Iraq.

In an Associated Press interview, Rice also appeared to cast doubt on whether the U.S. would take its tentative diplomatic outreach to Iran any further for now.

The U.S. and Iranian ambassadors in Iraq met last month for the first public, substantive high-level discussions the two countries have held in nearly three decades. Although limited to the topic of violence and instability in Iraq, the talks have been seen as a possible window to better relations.

Immediately after the meeting in Baghdad, Iran announced plans for another. But U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said Washington would decide only after the Iraqi government issued an invitation.

U.S. officials also said they wanted to see Iran follow up on U.S. complaints that it is equipping and helping insurgents who attack American forces.

Lieberman spoke on "Face the Nation" on CBS. Richardson was on "Late Edition" on CNN.

user-pic

Break out the pom-poms.

(Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid's approval rating is 19 percent

user-pic

Lieberman has sold his soul like John McCain.

user-pic

Must have some Haliburton stock??

Or maybe he has a clue.

user-pic

A little humor! I like that! You're probably right about the Haliburton stock. But you're absolutely WRONG about having a clue!

Do you seriously believe that his ridiculous rhetoric about bombing Iran can accomplish ANYTHING?

user-pic

Removing force as an option emboldens the Iranian cause and provides no consequence to their actions.

If you get a chance today watch this video of Vice Pres AL Gore in 1992. He goes on a Rant against G.H.W Bush about ignoring Iraq's terror ties. Pretty funny... Gore, makes alot of the same points I make to you.. He must have been in on the "juicing" of intel like Duuubya.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1602.html

You should check with the SEC Gore may also have a little HAL stock..

user-pic

No Big deal right Chuck?!??

We should negotiate with them some more right??

U.S. Envoy Says Iran Is Arming Taliban

June 12,2007

PARIS (AP) - A senior U.S. diplomat accused Iran on Tuesday of transferring weapons to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan—the most direct comments yet on the issue by a ranking American official.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking to reporters in Paris, said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East—and "Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan."

Iran's possible role in aiding insurgents in Iraq has long been hotly debated, and last month some Western and Persian Gulf governments charged that the Islamic government in Tehran is secretly bolstering Taliban fighters.

user-pic

If the monsters in this administration attack Iran, we will be at war with Russia and China. That's WWIII, Lt. It's insane to stretch our armed forces any more than they are already.

But most of the decisions made by Bush/Cheney could be considered insane so I guess that would be par for THEIR course!

user-pic

What do you think Iran will do when they finally reach industrial scale uranium enrichment?

NEW YORK — Democratic White House hopeful John Edwards, in a major foreign policy speech Wednesday, minimized the Bush administration's War on Terror as nothing more than a "bumper sticker slogan" used to justify the war in Iraq and "bludgeon political opponents."

user-pic

I think they will do exactly the same thing India and Pakistan do with their nukes. Use them to intimidate and scare their neighbors AND keep the US from pushing them around.

user-pic

Chuck,

Should Al Gore have been impeached for what he said about Saddam/Iraq having Nuclear Weapons back in 1992?

Did he, how would you put it.. Sell his soul???

Watch the MAN for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h6gehCPvpk

Al Gore states:

In January 1989 President George Bush was sworn in. Based on plentiful evidence, he had reason to know that his ongoing policy regarding Iraq was already malfunctioning badly. Just last week we learned of a memorandum written in March of that year, just two months after his inauguration, to Secretary of State James Baker, as Baker prepared to meet with a senior Iraqi official in which the author of the memorandum noted that Iraq continued to cooperate with terrorists, that it was meddling in Lebanon, that it was working hard at chemical and biological weapons and new missiles. These are exact quotes from the memorandum to the administration. And most significant of all, in the same month, September of 1989, the CIA reported to Secretary of State Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network of front companies. Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush? Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation with a record of terrorism, continuing, was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological? Well, evidently not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1URMUJHU8Q

user-pic

Chuck, you stated :

"First, the Democrats who voted, as you say, FOR the war in Iraq did NO SUCH THING! They voted to give the President authority to use sanctions and, ONLY AS A LAST RESORT, to attack. That isn't what happened!

NO Democrat in Congress would have voted to authorize this moron to attack a sovereign nation without ANY justification other than lies and "cooked" intelligence which he and his administration KNEW was "COOKED!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64&e

user-pic

Lt.

Things change. Don't use a quote from 15 years ago to validate what these monsters have done. At the peak of Saddam's reign, he may have had nuclear ambitions. But by the time "Georgie" and his bunch decided to start WWIII he was just hanging on by a thread and was no longer the threat he was back in the 80's and early 90's.

user-pic
But by the time "Georgie" and his bunch decided to start WWIII he was just hanging on by a thread and was no longer the threat he was back in the 80's and early 90's.

So why did Clinton, Edwards, and Kerry vote to use force to remove Saddam, since he was just "hanging on"??

But lets go ahead and impeach Bush and Cheney, beacuase as you put it regarding the Iraqi regime:

"he may have had nuclear ambitions".

So things change, why wouldn't Saddam allow UN weapons inspections?

Lets look alittle deeper Chuck,

AL Gore States:

Bush deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible and for persisting in this effort far, far beyond the point of folly. Throughout this period, Saddam's atrocities continued. In March of 1988, Saddam used poison gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja, brutally murdering some 5,000 innocent men, women, and children -- and none of us can ever forget the pictures of their bodies, of parents trying to shield their infants, even in death that were in our news media and around the world.

SO THIS IS WHAT'S IT'S ALL ABOUT?? Democrats play politics with war. You blog about their BS positions and stand behind them as they search for some reason to get themselves elected. The Democrats are not going to change anything in Iraq, THEY CAN'T!! They know what will happen. The anti-war crowd, including yourself, are being used as pawns to get them elected. Just look at the comments/voting record from Hillary Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, and Gore. Anything they said in the days before the launch of the ground war in Iraq, is the exact opposite of what they're saying now...

user-pic

Lt.

We've had this discussion. The Congress DID NOT vote to start a war! They voted to give the Commander in Chief the "authority" to use force if NECESSARY to protect Americans.

"Georgie" and the Neo-Con monsters LIED, MISLED and arrogantly swept this country into an immoral and illegal invasion of a sovereign nation which had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11!

I wish you'd consider what would happen if we were invaded and George W. Bush was dragged from a hole and put to death. The American people would unite as never before to run the aggressors out. That's exactly what patriotic Iraqis are doing now.

It is such a shame that these evil and incompetent people have taken us to a place where good, patriotic Americans like you and I have discussions like this one. We should be united against the exact kind of extreme terror "Georgie" and his bunch have inflicted on the Iraqi people.

user-pic

Saddam COULDN'T admit he had no weapons or Iran would have run rough shod over him! He had to maintain the facade of being strong to remain in power.

You're missing the forest and bumping into all the trees, Lt.

user-pic

Open your eyes CHUCK!

Joe Lieberman:

Friday, June 15, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

I recently returned from Iraq and four other countries in the Middle East, my first trip to the region since December. In the intervening five months, almost everything about the American war effort in Baghdad has changed, with a new coalition military commander, Gen. David Petraeus; a new U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker; the introduction, at last, of new troops; and most important of all, a bold, new counterinsurgency strategy.

The question of course is--is it working? Here in Washington, advocates of retreat insist with absolute certainty that it is not, seizing upon every suicide bombing and American casualty as proof positive that the U.S. has failed in Iraq, and that it is time to get out.

Some of my colleagues in Washington claim we can fight al Qaeda in Iraq while disengaging from the sectarian violence there. Not so, say our commanders in Baghdad, who point out that the crux of al Qaeda's strategy is to spark Iraqi civil war.

Facts on the ground also compel us to recognize that Iran is doing everything in its power to drive us out of Iraq, including providing substantive support, training and sophisticated explosive devices to insurgents who are murdering American soldiers. Iran has initiated a deadly military confrontation with us, from bases in Iran, which we ignore at our peril, and at the peril of our allies throughout the Middle East.

In Baghdad, however, discussions with the talented Americans responsible for leading this fight are more balanced, more hopeful and, above all, more strategic in their focus--fixated not just on the headline or loss of the day, but on the larger stakes in this struggle, beginning with who our enemies are in Iraq. The officials I met in Baghdad said that 90% of suicide bombings in Iraq today are the work of non-Iraqi, al Qaeda terrorists. In fact, al Qaeda's leaders have repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us. That is why it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that the war in Iraq can be separated from the war against al Qaeda--and why a U.S. pullout, under fire, would represent an epic victory for al Qaeda, as significant as their attacks on 9/11.

user-pic

You know, Lt., I try to be fair and have intelligent discussions with you about these matters. I understand you've been indoctrinated masterfully and, although I know you're smart, you have no flexibility when it comes to opening your mind to the FACTS about Bush/Cheney, et.al.

I have to say some of your comments are frivolous. Sending "you tube" links are not arguements, they are fillers. Deanie Mills, one of the greatest writers I've ever read and a true patriot whose son served in Iraq almost stopped blogging because of one of your trivial, ridiculous "you tube" links. I admire Deanie and the courage it takes to oppose these monsters.

I wish you'd think and try to open your mind to the FACTS. I still respect you but sometimes your rhetoric has the potential to do damage. I hope you realize that.

Leave a comment

Chuck Keller

user-pic

Following: 13
Followers: 6

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address