Chimpeach

So, let me ask the Republican's.. the war supporters.. and other assorted Bush supporters a hypothetical question.

Suppose the Downing Street memo is correct. Suppose that the administration did "fix the intelligence" to support the invasion. Suppose there was a concerted effort to lie to the American public about the justification for the war.

Suppose that even more British memos are coming to light that shows the American and British forces were deliberately escalating a bombing campaign - prior to the war.

The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began "spikes of activity" designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.

The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was "not consistent with" UN law, despite American claims that it was.

Not "consistent with" UN law is another way of saying illegal, isn't it? If you said "robbing a bank is not consistent with Texas law" that would mean that bank robbery is illegal, right?

Although the legality of the war has been more of an issue in Britain than in America, the revelations indicate Bush may also have acted illegally, since Congress did not authorise military action until October 11 2002.

Isn't that an interesting observation? Why is the legality more of an issue in the U.K. than America? The media has a lot to do with it, but then so does the apathy of the American public.

What if it's all true? What do you do? You like George Bush. You voted for him in the last election. You have "family values", but now you realize that it was all illegal, it was all lies, and there are thousands of people dead.

What do you do?

Democratic congressmen claimed last week the evidence it contains is grounds for impeaching President George Bush.

So.. I'm just asking.. what if it was all true. Do you impeach Bush? Should he go to jail? What about Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, and Powell, and Rice? Should they all be put in jail?

Here's a prediction - Bush is going to get impeached and convicted. It would seem to me that most people see the obvious nature of this situation. Most see how obvious it was that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. Most see how those attacks were used as a smokescreen to invade and occupy a Muslim nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, nor had WMD's, nor posed a threat.

But back to the original question. I'm curious how many people, if they believed the allegations, would still prefer Bush to remain in office, and continue to support him?

Just curious..

Another thing I was just thinking about - is how nice it is to have a blog and be on record, in writing, about various situations going on in the world. I can be caught being wrong, because you can just refer back to the archives and see what my view or prediction was.

The Terri Shiavo situation is a perfect example. Was I right? Yep. Did everything end up the way I thought I would? Check..

So how do I do it? Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out. It's all about Ockham's Razor. The simplest explanation is more likely to be accurrate. That applies to the Iraq war as well.

** update **

When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.

President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.

In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."....

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic.

It would seem that Deep Throat is British this time.. It is also no joke that these offenses are impeachable.