Also see below:     
David Swanson | Civil War and Ending the War    [

    Iraq: Pure War, Pure Crime
    By David Swanson
    t r u t h o u t | Statement

    Friday 03 March 2006

Remarks: March 3, 2006, at the City Club of San Diego.

    The Iraq War is a pure war, a war for the sake of war. Congress is debating whether to spend another fortune on it, another fortune that could completely remake this nation if spent on useful projects, and Congress has no reason for the war. The reason is purely that the media won't like you if you vote against a war, but there's no actual reason for the war - not the weapons of mass destruction that Bush always knew weren't there, not the ties to 9-11 that Bush always knew did not exist on behalf of a ruler who, anyway, is no longer in power, not reducing terrorism which has been increased by this war, not improving global relations when this war has driven global opinion of the US to a record low, not preventing a civil war which the US attack and occupation have created, not supporting the troops when most of the troops want to come home - and almost half of them openly admit to pollsters that they don't know why they're there.

    This is a pure war, but the vote for more funding will not be a pure vote. It will include nothing that the Iraqi people need, unless you think they're longing for larger prisons. But, it will include crumbs for all sorts of noble excuses to vote buckets of taxpayers' money for war - things like Hurricane Katrina relief, VA benefits, etc.

    But any Congress member or Senator who claims to be voting for a war that neither Americans nor Iraqis want because of the crumbs for good things had better be signed onto Congressman Jim McGovern's bill to simply end funding for the war. Otherwise that Congress member or Senator is a hypocrite and a murderer lacking the nerve of a Texas idiot to stand up and say, "I am a murderer, what are you going to do about it?"

    Because, let's be clear: an aggressive war without UN sanction, whether marketed on a mountain of lies or not, is a crime and the legal equivalent of mass murder.

    Of course we all know, and we should remember since we've been told enough, that Bush HAD NO IDEA that he and his staff had promoted lies about Iraqi weapons and ties to 9-11, and punished any officials who questioned the lies. Bush had no way of IMAGINING that so many experts who said the Iraqis would resist a foreign occupation would be proven right. And we know from recent reports that Bush couldn't possibly have CONCEIVED of the damage that Hurricane Katrina would inflict.

    Someone should have told Bill Clinton not to say "I did not have sex with that woman." He should have said "I had no way of IMAGINING that would happen when she crawled under my desk."

    I wanted Clinton impeached, though not for sex or lies about sex. He too launched missiles and bombs that were not in self defense. I dearly wish his warmongering wife would leave the Senate and stay off television. I have no interest in revenge for Clinton's impeachment or in promoting one political party over another.

    But if Bush and Cheney are not impeached, removed from office, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned, we will have removed impeachment from the Constitution and sanctioned aggressive wars in the near and distant future by this and other administrations.

    The rest of the world understands this. Look at Bush's welcome in India and Pakistan. Back in DC we hope to pack the streets with protesters on March 14th and you can read why at www.KatrinaMarch.org.

    You know, there are those who argue that Bush's negligence before, during and after Katrina is enough reason to impeach.

    Others say the same of the ports deal, or of the leaking of classified intelligence, or of the manufacture of phony news reports, or of the retribution exacted on whistleblowers, or of the pre-911 negligence or of the various war crimes (targeting civilians, using chemical and nuclear weapons). There's also the ongoing manufacture of biological weapons and the refusal to investigate the 2001 anthrax attacks.

    The Center for Constitutional Rights has laid out a comprehensive case for four articles of impeachment, and it does not include any of the crimes I've just mentioned. It doesn't need to.

    Instead it focuses on the spying without court approval, the use of torture, the imprisonment without charge or trial, the illegality and fraud of the war, and the numerous violations of the separation of powers.

    Our impeachment cup runneth over.

    And there are probably more crimes, more scandals, and more evidence of the old crimes that I don't know about, since I've spent the past day traveling.

    The question, again, is what are we going to do about it?

    We've reached smoking gun fatigue. We have new memos and testimony on the war lies every week, and we've been collecting the evidence at www.afterdowningstreet.org.

    But I'm not sure I need to tell you. The 27 Congress members currently co-sponsoring John Conyers' bill for an investigation into grounds for impeachment include a number of Californians, and not a single representative of my state - Virginia.

    The Governor of Virginia has spoken up for impeachment, saying "Guilt wherever found ought to be punished." Sadly, that was Governor Edmund Randolph in 1787 arguing for making impeachment central to the system of checks and balances in the Constitution.

    Two other Virginians, George Mason and James Madison, worked out the language: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

    My neighbor Thomas Jefferson thought that impeachment was central to giving the legislative branch the power to check the executive and judicial branches.

    The legislative branch, of course, writes laws. 322 times in American history, prior to Bush, presidents wrote signing statements stating what they thought a law meant as they signed it. Bush alone has done that 435 times. And in doing so he's rewritten the laws he's signed. As a result, torture is self defense, war is peace, and dictatorship is democracy.

    To those who think we can end the war without impeaching Bush and Cheney, I would ask "What will you do when Congress ends the war and Bush signs a statement clarifying that the war will not end?"

    Let me close by mentioning that we've created a political action committee called ImpeachPAC to fund congressional candidates who are committed to impeaching Bush and Cheney. Please go to www.impeachPAC.org. Thank you.

 

---

    Civil War and Ending the War
    By David Swanson
    t r u t h o u t | Statement

    Friday 03 March 2006

Remarks: March 3, 2006, at University of California - San Diego.

    Fox News titled a recent segment "All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?" Presumably, it could from the point of view of the Bush-Cheney gang, if it gets in the way of all-out resistance to the occupation. That is, Bush almost certainly would prefer to see Sunnis fighting Shias than to see both fighting Americans and collaborators.

    From the point of view of the Iraqi people, the people of the Middle East, and the people of the United States either type of civil war is just more very bad news. In either type of war, or a combination of the two, it makes sense to call it a CIVIL war, since Iraqis are doing most of the killing and dying - and most of those dying are civilians.

    In any case, the war cannot be resolved without the US soldiers leaving. Only leaving provides the chance for a peaceful solution. Financial aid for reconstruction, combined with assistance from the United Nations, can increase the likelihood of a democratic and peaceful Iraq. There are no guarantees, except that the present course will make things worse.

    The idea that the US occupation must continue because things would get worse if it ended is clearly not what the White House actually cares about behind closed doors. But, taking the claim on its own terms, it quickly falls apart. Things in Iraq have been getting steadily worse during the occupation, and the escalating violence is driven largely by anger at the occupation.

    After three years and a quarter trillion dollars, infrastructure, water and electricity are worse than before the war. Investment is going into prisons, oil pipelines and waste at Halliburton. And there is no functioning government even able to police the streets. Security is being privatized, and assassinations and torture are everyday occurrences.

    Most of the corpses in Baghdad's mortuary show signs of torture and execution. And much of it appears to be done by groups working for the government. Meanwhile the US government lacks the moral authority to even speak, since there is no behavior so foul that our government is not doing it.

    We are also aggravating sectarian tensions that have historically been fairly low. The longer the chaos created by the occupation persists, the more people will look to religious identity groups for protection.

    And as long as the occupation actually works with one group to abuse another, this process will accelerate. Already Sunnis and Shias are forcing each other out of certain neighborhoods.

    Still, I think there is reason to believe that reports of religious hatred are overblown.

    I have heard from various Iraqis who say that this is a Western myth along the same lines as the WMDs and ties to 9-11.

    The BBC reported that al Sadr called for revenge on Sunnis following the recent bombing of a Shiite Mosque. In reality, he said no Sunni could have done it and all Iraqis should protest the occupation.

    Other sectarian leaders said the same.

    Al Sistani said people should "express their protests through peaceful means. The extent of their sorrow and shock should not drag them into taking actions that serve the enemies who have been working to lead Iraq into sectarian strife."

    It's possible that we will see sectarian violence generate intense anger which is then directed toward the longstanding source of anger: the US occupation. 82% of Iraqis want the US out, and 47% support attacks on US troops.

    But our role is neither to analyze this, nor to wait for it to happen, nor to support violence. Our role is to make clear to the world that this is NOT a US occupation. It is merely an occupation by Bush, Cheney and the US Congress. It does NOT belong to the American public.

    I saw an editorial in Le Monde that said the US should get out, but do so in such a way that the "jihadists" don't think they've won.

    But what could be more advantageous for unifying the Iraqi people than a collective victory? It seemed to work wonders for our 13 colonies.

    I think the US military should get out in such a way that Iraqis, Americans, the world and the rule of law all win.

    Even more important than what happens in Iraq when our kids come home is whether or not international law survives the blatant violation that this war is. Otherwise any nation is free to attack any other.

    That means the US must completely withdraw, that we must leave neither bases nor corporations behind (unless a democratic Iraq chooses freely to work with US corporations), and we must not bomb Iraq after pulling our troops out.

    But, most importantly, those guilty of launching this war must be held accountable for it. Or what is to prevent the next one?

    That begins with a process that may actually need to be achieved before we can end the war.

    Imagine that Congress votes to end funding for this criminal adventure. Will that end the war? 435 times Bush has signed bills and added a signing statement. That's over 100 more times than all previous presidents combined. These statements have made clear that torture is a form of self-defense, revenge can be taken against someone who didn't do anything, and Congress no longer exists as a meaningful institution.

    How does a nonexistent Congress end a war being waged by a unitary executive?

    One word. We can IMPEACH.

    We who support impeachment are a majority according to the polls. We CAN impeach.

    The Center for Constitutional Rights has laid out a strong case for four articles of impeachment, so strong that if we do not act we will effectively be removing impeachment from the Constitution.

    Usually when I give a speech, I like to rattle off some of the latest pieces of evidence. But lately we seem to have hit smoking gun fatigue. People are tired of the evidence and want to know what we can do about it.

    We must impeach.

    Start by making sure that your Congress Member co-sponsors House Resolution 635 for an investigation into grounds for impeachment.

    Then come to www.afterdowningstreet.org to see what else you can do.