Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Iraq: Grand jury closer to finding President linked to war crimes

Does non-sense and absurdity get louder the closer you are to the truth and power?

Those most absurd arguments are floated. Not simply as a ruse, but in hopes of sucking energy out of the Downing Street Memo coalition.

The President is under a real threat of being found to have committed war crimes. And the Fitzgerald grand jury continues to remain a credible threat to the RNC vital interests.


Fitzgerald continues to make headway. He continues to gather evidence.

And the President is worried. He's not sure what the grand jury is doing. He hopes to affect the investigation by rallying the nation. Rove and the President are working together to distract attention from Fitzgerald, to make people believe "there is nothing there."

But behind the scenes they are working to put pressure on the Senate to have Fitzgerald interfered with. To have questions and doubts thrown his way.

Their goal is to not simply obstruct justice, but it is to make the public believe that "whatever Fitzgerald comes back with" is not credible.

Surely, if Fitzgerald was "not credible" he would not have been appointed. But he was.

Indeed, if Fitzgerald "had nothing to worry about," there wouldn't be so much effort to discredit him; nor would there be the recycling of absurd comments about the Iraq invasion.

Iraq remains a nation that is an unlawful war of aggression. The comments below show there are many people who want to insulate the President using all sorts of non-sense.

Yet, some would like to argue that there are compelling arguments to justify the invasion of Iraq. Some have asserted that it was Libya's reaction to the war that has left us better off. Too bad all the arguments justifying war are both unlawful and inconsistent with reality.

If the RNC-leadership has a problem with the "poor arguments," it's time to stop shifting attention to the public to "prove" the other position. Rather, the appropriate response is to have an inquiry into the Downing Street Memo.

Yet, this comment made me pause and say, "I think this guy has something."

Not nice to call Republicans Scum

If you want to call yourself a scum, do so. But don't call "republicans" scum. That word isn't all that descriptive.

Further, you cannot claim that you are the resident Republican, as there are other Republicans like myself who speak out against the RNC.

Apply the label narrowly to yourself

As the resident "scum-publican" that replies here,

Speak for yourself.

Twisting the story

The people who decided to speak out, are the ones who are getting attacked with fowl comments.

It is absurd to accuse those who "speak out" as having the problem.

Thus, this comment simply asks us to embrace some absurd sense of reality: That somehow, the target of the attacks is the one who is responsible.

It's appropriate to speak out against an unlawful war of aggression.

Shifting attention

I am shocked and appalled that the Blue Star Mothers of America would respond in this way.

If there was no problem. . .

One tactic to approach the issue is to rationalize the misconduct, or couch it in terms that are permissible.

In this case, the author is doing something called, "Association," whereby they deflect the attack by saying, "It is not appropriate. . ." because in X, Y, Z -"other situation" it is not appropriate.

Well, there's one small problem. We're not talking other situations; we're talking about this mother.

Further, the RNC-Rove machine has already shown that they do attack, smear and discredit all ranks, whether they be demonstrators, mothers, activists, or officials in government.

Why are you defensive?

It is a mistake to attach this event however to the Bush administration as it would be inappropriate for me to attach any of you to any leftist organization and say that any appalling thing they do you are responsible for.

You're not making any headway in "saying that the RNC isn't responsible." The Republicans do this all the time.

And they have apologists like you in the party that like to do this as well.

Still chasing fantasies

Remember, we're talking about a mother who's been smeared for speaking out against the war.

What's the RNC approach? To keep digging back in history to "justify" the war. This is a diversion from the issue: Why are people attacking those who speak out against an unlawful war of aggression?

No answer from the RNC apologists below. Notice what they're doing:

  • Still trying to rationalize in their own mind "why they invaded illegally"

  • Trying to explain away the Downing Street Memo

  • Distracting from an unlawful war of aggression

    Illusory links

    I have to say however that there are specific ties to 9/11 that Iraq has, and the point of the Iraq war was to disarm known hostile countries in the Middle East of any potential weapons they have been known to have.

    There are no links between 9-11 and Iraq.

    The "point" of the Iraq invasion was to invade, regardless of the facts.

    There's been no disarming, there's no WMD.

    The Downing Street Memo shows that the facts were fixed.

    Iraq was under the surveillance/watch of the no fly zone and an embargo.

    The US was the one that was being hostile.

    It is absurd to change the "excuse for the war" from "imminent threat" to "potential threat." That violates the UN Charter. So, by admitting it was a "potential threat," means that in response other nations can "attack the US potential preparations for a pre-emptive war"? If that's the case, then throw out Geneva because we have perma-escalation to pre-empting the pre-emptive pre-emptive.

    Hello, Hobbes and the nasty, brutish, and short uncivil-society.

    More fantasy

    The following statement is absurd. Every time Iraq complied with the requirements, the US changed the goal post.

    There were multiple resolutions, and Iraq was cooperating.

    The problem wasn't Iraq's compliance; but that the US couldn't trip-up Iraq. Despite no evidence, the US and UK unlawfully invaded Iraq.


    A resolution was drafted and not complied with.

    The above just asks us to accept an RNC-version of rewritten history. Go ask George Orwell whether he's changed his name to George Bush.

    This is utter non-sense

    The US is asserting absurdity.

    The following statement incorrectly asserts, without proof, that there was "non-compliance."

    This has been proven to be an utter sham. The White House wanted to set up Iraq; and the US asserted, without proof, that there were problems.

    To date, the US has not been able to justify it's actions.

    White House-PNAC propaganda

    At the time any act of non-compliance had to be dealt with and Saddam Hussein did not comply with the resolution.

    The US has committed war crimes by unlawfully invading Iraq; there were no "non-compliance" issues. The Downing Street Memos show that the facts were fixed, as were the arguments for war, without regard to reality.

    Bush is an alleged war criminal and should be indicted. Let's hope Fitzgerald finds evidence before the fascists in the Senate get in his way.

    The diplomats were not allowed to work

    Bolton was sent in to discredit Brazilian inspectors. The inspectors were making progress, but the US defined them as "unreliable."

    Small problem: The US trained the inspectors at an UK FSO training center north of London.

    The following comment is just making light of a serious matter: war crimes.

    There was no basis to divert the discussion from war crimes to "diplomacy."

    Bolton had the diplomats fired

    What were we supposed to do? Send a diplomat in and ask pretty please?

    Notice they ask the question. It is open, they still have no answers. It is a diversion from the war crimes which Bush committed.

    Here's a clue: How about follow the laws of war. If the US truly "wanted to disarm" and "find out" what was going on, why didn't the US believe the information that was coming back?

    Answer: The US was ignoring the information. Scott Ritter has been proven correct. And Ambassador Wilson has been proven to be credible.

    Moreover, the CIA analysts have been shown to have been dissuaded; and now that they are speaking out, the US Government is going after those who dare speak of reality.

    How many other NonOfficial Covers in the US is the US government intimidating to be silent about the physics and chemistry that show the Iraqis were not an imminent threat.

    The 45-minute reaction number left out many steps, but that number was repeated by MI6 in operation mass appeal.

    Illusory problems

    The following quote incorrectly asserts that the Iraqis failed to comply. This is a ruse.

    The US kept changing the standards.

    The facts were fixed; and the US had planned to invade so long as the inspectors could be discredited.

    War crimes

    Pakistan complied with our requests, Libya complied, and Iraq didn't.

    Libya didn't respond to military threats. Libya had already been working with the US priority to the Iraq invasion to gain commercial benefits.

    Libya wasn't worried about an invasion, as much as it needed commercial ventures to turn itself around.

    Beginning of the story

    War crimes, indictments, false statements to congress, impeachment, and jail time for the fascists in DoD and the US military and JTTF/DOJ who are committing war crimes; have detained an tortured people; and who engaged in violations of the US constitution both at home and abroad.


    End of Story. pg=1

    You're dreaming. This President is in serious trouble.

    There's so much non-sense floating around, how does the RNC keep track of it all? They have no answer.

    The RNC is living in denial. This story hasn't even started.

    Think Nuremburg. Think Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury getting more evidence.

    Original Comment

    As the resident "scum-publican" that replies here, I am shocked and appalled that the Blue Star Mothers of America would respond in this way.

    It is a mistake to attach this event however to the Bush administration as it would be inappropriate for me to attach any of you to any leftist organization and say that any appalling thing they do you are responsible for.

    I have to say however that there are specific ties to 9/11 that Iraq has, and the point of the Iraq war was to disarm known hostile countries in the Middle East of any potential weapons they have been known to have. A resolution was drafted and not complied with. At the time any act of non-compliance had to be dealt with and Saddam Hussein did not comply with the resolution. What were we supposed to do? Send a diplomat in and ask pretty please? Pakastan complied with our requests, Libya complied, and Iraq didn't. End of Story. pg=1

    You sound like you're still not quite convinced.

    Feel free to to get a better version of your talking points from the professional trolls. They are paid quite well by the RNC.

    Steve graciously responds

    Hello, Steve!

    Thank you for your kind remarks. I have carefully reviewed your point about "not providing a link." You are correct.

    You have one link, and I have none.

    However, my only "link" I can provide is the Downing Street Memo: Which is the basis for my concern.

    In my view, the Downing Street Memo is the core problem for the arguments related to war.

    In my view, you make a strong case for the war. You do a good job at outlining the reasons for war. And you do a fine job at explaining very clearly why the war was needed.

    However, in light of the Downing Street Memo, I'm somewhat concerned.

    My primary concern is that if the facts are fixed, then I'm not clear that the reason for war was truly for an "imminent threat." Granted, reasonable people point to the well placed concern that Saddam had an ongoing program and that the WMD was moved out of the country.

    Indeed, we are remiss if we do not take action to defend America. We cannot afford to be surprised.

    Yet, the Downing Street Memo makes me concerned. Because when I read into the details, I discovered that the 45-minute number from David Kelly missed many steps. And that the 45-minute number missed many things.

    The Downing Street Memo also gave me pause, because I wondered, "What facts were fixed."

    Then I read about the pressure by Bolton put on the Brazilian, and I thought to myself, "Why would someone want to dissuade a report form a chemical inspector?"

    Let's pretend that all that I've said above is false and has no support. Here's my problem.

    You sound like you have made your points well. There is some concern. At this point, you have beaten me. I have no link to point to.

    That's my problem. Just as the President spoke to us about the need to act, so too do I share that concern. We need to act to defend America. We need to do the right thing.

    And that's why I support you in speaking out. For me to be able to give you a link, I need to be able to link to something besides the Downing Street Memo.

    I can't do that. That's why I want to know what really happened.

    That's why I support you in speaking out. We need to know the answers. That way, if there's an inquiry and I am wrong, I can provide a link from my site and say, "Steve, the only link I can point to is one that says I am wrong."

    Right now, I have nothing except Steve's link.

    I'm willing to link to something from an inquiry, but there isn't one.

    Steve's #2 Comment

    The link

    Wow, I have to say I am utterly flattered by your reply to my Friday post and the incredibly thorough breakdown of my words and your "defeat" of them.

    If we are trying to establish who was using facts and who wasn't between your reply and my original post, I am afraid your reply has as much if not more speculation than mine. My original reply has supplied links documenting my claim and yours just has your words so I am afraid mine would appear more factual at the moment.

    Let's also get one more thing straight. There will be no grand jury or impeachment of Bush. Why? Because it's a waste of time. In using military action to defend a country it is hardly practice or plausible to convene a grand jury. I mean, it wasn't like Bush lied under oath or anything, right? (sorry couldn't resist the Clinton gag)

    I hope you get some nice reaction to your blog-ply of my post. It won't change anything.

    You are correct, my blog will not change anything. No one actually reads this blog. It is one of those dormant blogs that is at the edge of the blogosphere. I'm not even sure that's its listed anywhere.

    And you are also correct in that it is a waste of our time to debate issues when we have no facts. That is why I have decided to listen to you. You make succinct arguments. And you are also stating your position well. You sound like you have your arguments well placed. That shows you have thought alot about this.

    My problem is that I have no facts. That's why I need more information. But where do I go?

    The only thing I need is something that will back up what actually happened.

    You are correct that there will be no impeachment of Bush. Because the RNC controls all three branches of government. And as you well know, the only way that the President can be impeached is if the House Judiciary Committee acts. That will never happen.

    But there is the Fitzgerald grand jury that is going on.
    But we don't know what the Grand Jury is looking at. I believe that the questions surrounding Rove and Plame are touching on things related to the decision to go to war.

    Here's where I am puzzled. I also believe that the decision to go to war is creeping into the Grand Jury.

    In order to show why the White House either did or did not smear Plame; or [was/was not] reasonable in their statements about Wilson, there has to be some review of [a] comparing what the President said about WMD ; vs [b] what Wilson did find when he was acting in the investigator-review capacity before he read the editorial.

    I suspect the real target of the Fitzgerald effort to jail Plame is the evidence of "why we need to look at the legal foundations for war".

    Thus, my conclusion is that the real target of the Fitzgerald Grand Jury is the President. I also suspect that the President knows this, as evidenced by the hiring of a criminal defense lawyer named SHORT.

    That is why, in the absence of a formal inquiry, I believe that Fitzgerald is going to do what I have asked for above: Look into the Downing Street Memo and the legal foundation for war and compare what Bush said to what was actually in the Wilson memo.

    Then I will be able to point to a link and say, "Steve, you were right. The President has no problem. There's nothing to worry about. And we can go on."

    But there's one small problem. I don't have that link that you have asked for. So I am stuck.

    You have made a good case for why the war was waged. The small problem I have is, in light of the Downing Street Memo, I am not clear what real threat there was at the time.

    As you well know, we can only protect the country if we take action to defend ourselves. We shall never ask for permission to defend ourselves against anyone.

    But if we are taking action that is not lawful, then we only inspire others to do things that "justify in their mind" doing things to the US.

    I cannot speak for them, or their cause. But perhaps you have a suggestion on how the US can defend itself, and stay within the bounds of the law, while at the same time doing nothing to provoke those who, in response to our actions, feel justified in waging war.

    We cannot defeat the enemy that uses its defeat as a catalyst for more. They do appear crazy.

    But, at the same time, the Downing Street Memo makes me wonder: If we didn't lawfully do what we have done, are those who stand up to unlawful war justified?

    Perhaps you have some thoughts.

    My main concern that when the military is used to defend the country, that defense must be based on lawful reasons. Clearly, if the defense is needed, then there is no need to ask for permission.

    But Iraq is different. That is offense. Perhaps it was a gathering threat. Perhaps the WMD were moved. Maybe there were programs that were about to become a problem.

    But the problem is: The rules at the time said an imminent threat. I don't see it. All I can point to is the resignation of the Downing Street Attorney General who said the war was a war of aggression.

    If the Downing Street Memo is to be believed [and that is something that is up in the air, and needs an inquiry to ask], then there is a problem: The President has taken action without there being an imminent threat.

    We don't ask for permission to defend. Ever.

    But we also don't have the right to make up things to justify an invasion. Even if we are doing for "good reasons." The laws, as they existed at the time, were clear.

    Now, if the law needs to change. I'm for that.

    But we didn't do that.

    That's the problem I have. The rule of law and the military are there to protect our constitution and way of life.

    Our "way of life" is the rule of law and Constitution. If we take action that is outside that rule of law, then we are not better than those we fight.

    We should rise above their example, and meet our standards.

    We should not use their conduct as an excuse to lower ourselves.

    The UN Charter through Article VI of the US Constitution makes the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter "laws of the land."

    You are correct that as Commander in Chief of the Armed forces, the President is responsible for defending the nation. And he is obligated to act. Even when the storm is gathering.

    But if that storm is not actually there, and he knows it, and has taken action to silence those who told him there was no real problem, then he needs to explain:

  • What is the basis for his reorganization efforts of the CIA/

    There are many things that have not been looked into. That's why I would like there to be an inquiry to the Downing Street Memo.

    In turn, I suspect that Fitzgerald, because of the Plame-WMD-Iraq-Wilson issue, is rubbing up against this.

    The issue is: Will the reasonable request for "finding facts" so that I can provide a link, be satisfied by Fitzgerald?

    I think the answer is yes. That's why I think the President needs more people like you speaking out so that we get to the bottom of this.

    If we have an inquiry, I can give you a link. At this point, it's up in the air.

    So don't let anyone back you into a corner. Let them know that you're doing a good job at explaining the President's position. And that your job is to remember that if they lash out at you, it is just them not being able to meet the standards that they expect of others.

    That is not right. It is not fair. And it is simply doing things to you that nobody should put up with, even if they are wrong. Here's a list of things that mean people do to Steve that really makes me upset.

    Nobody does anything to support their cause when they are rude to you, especially when you have been very polite. You have simply used the information available to all to arrive at reasonable conclusions and making decisions that are in the national security interests of the country.

    The issue appears that they do not like your reasonable conclusions. That is their problem. SO don't let them ruffle you up. And don't take it personally.

    Encourage them to provide you with links. And encourage them to have answers with a formal inquiry. More evidence is on the way with the Grand Jury.

    Then we'll be able to make a decision about whether we really have all the facts. As you well know, we're not there yet and can only speculate.