BLATHER REVIEW

Barbra Streisand: Childless Mother Superior

Okay, that title's a bit snarky, but so's she. So, let's just proceed......

Babs wrote a post on the Statements page of her website calling for the impeachment of President Bush. She doesn't really offer anything new or insightful here. She aimed to hit all the usual taliking points and she didn't miss a-one of 'em.

If there was ever a time in history to impeach a President of the United States, it would be now. In my opinion, it is two years too late. We should have done this before the election to spare the country the misjudgment, the incompetence and the malfeasance of this administration.

Okay, there's the opening salvo. Now onto the details...

Let us remember that UN weapons inspectors asked for more time to search Iraq for WMDs. Two months into their search, the Director General of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that he found no evidence that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program since its elimination in the 1990s. And Saddam Hussein had begun to comply with the administration's demands.

Yes, that is some of what he said. But, he also said that the Iraqis were being less than "proactive" in handing over documents, and that they had equipment that was banned under earlier UN resolutions. After the war had started he said that, while he'd be "surprised" if a nuclear program was found, that "there could be [a nuclear weapons programme.] ..... I did not certify that Iraq was clean when I left Iraq."

The larger point, however, is that the existance of WMD in Iraq was only one of many justifications for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Justifications include: The myriad violations of the 1991 ceasefire including the ejection of inspecters in 1998, the constant shooting at US airplanes, the payments to the families of suicide bombers, the brutalization of the Iraqi people and the safe-harboring of a most-wanted terrorist, Abu Nidal.

The biggest justification, of course, is the beginning of transforming the backward-looking, corrupt and closed nature of middle eastern governments and the instilling of hatred in their mosques and schools.

Why would you invade a country if there was still a chance for peace?

Because "peace" in Iraq resulted in the unspeakably brutal torture, and killing of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.

Shouldn't war be an absolute last resort?

It was; there was no other way to free Iraq and begin the modernization of the region -- a modernization that is in our vital national interest. Unless, of course, we want to choose isolationism and an end to all diplomatic and trade relations with Islamic states and let them continue to repress the people, swallow up the only democracy that was in the region, Israel, and ban all outward religious expression that is not sanctioned by their theocracies.

We went to war because we were misled.

Yep. Bill Clinton, Jacque Chirac and all the others who were convinced that Saddam had WMD misled us. They all knew better. It wasn't based on the intelligence they had, they just made it up.

And we should be angry because of the 2,000 American soldiers and the 200 armed coalition forces that have died. We should be livid because of the 15,000 American soldiers that have been horribly maimed and wounded. We should be disgusted because of the 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians that have been killed and the 20,000 that are wounded after administration officials claimed that the US was going to liberate the Iraqi people.

First of all, the 2,000 figure includes soldiers who died in Afghanistan.

Secondly, and just to put it into perspective, well over 100,000 people have died in traffic accidents in the United States alone since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, yet there is no outrage and clarion call to ban motor vehicles. Each one of those more than 100,000 people died for nothing, but each and every soldier and civilian who died tragically in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of freedom-hating terrorists, has given their lives in defiance of tyranny.

When does it stop? It stops with the indictment and impeachment of this corrupt, power-hungry, greedy group of incompetent leaders. How many more have to die before this happens?

How many Americans died on Omaha Beach on the morning of June 6th, 1944? How many more Jews had to die before we impeached President Roosevelt for speeding up the extermination process after the allies landed at Gold and Juno Beaches? How was it that we dared to stay in Europe for years after the war, rebuilding it with the money of American taxpayers?

"How many more have to die?" That's up to the terrorists, not us. We don't target civilians in marketplaces, nurseries, mosques or voting booths. We're there to help put an end to that. What we want is a real chance at freedom, prosperity and peace in our time for every deserving soul, not merely peace in our own place and time.

As for "corrupt, power-hungry, greedy group of incompetent leaders"; without specifics I wont bother to respond. I can assume what Babs is referring to and address each of those, but I don't feel like it. Heh.

Impeachment will be difficult. People must understand the power of Congress. When one party controls both the House and the Senate, they control the agenda. They control what hearings are held, what legislation gets voted on, whether subpoenas are issued and which investigations can take place. And they control whether impeachment proceedings can be brought.

Yep.

We were clearly deceived by this administration and now we find ourselves fighting a war under false pretenses. There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, despite Dick Cheney's many assertions.

Neither Vice-President Cheney nor anyone else in the Administration ever claimed that there was a connection between Saddam and 9-11, but that there were connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda. It doesn't matter one charm quark whether or not Saddam had any link to 9-11 anymore than it matters if Muhamar Qaddafy had any link to 9-11. The war is on terrorism and the social mores that instill the martyrdom impulse.

There were no WMD's and the CIA had intelligence which corroborated that evidence.

Source please?

There was no nuclear threat contrary to Condoleezza Rice's "smoking gun becoming a mushroom cloud" scare tactic.

Huh? That sentence doesn't even make sense. Oh, wait. Yes, it does. I forgot for a second that Babs and her fellow travellers simply refu-u-u-use to admit that Bush never called Iraq an imminent threat, but that we didn't want to risk waiting until he does become an imminent threat. My bad.

And there was no yellow cake purchased from Niger by Iraq as former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, along with our European allies, confirmed.

This is a reference to a line in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.

" The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities.

Since this was not U.S. intelligence, but British, it probably should have been left out of the address. Nevertheless, the British stood by that intelligence. The info on the aluminun tubes was correct, however, and they were components that Iraq was forbidden to possess under the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

(The Iraq part of the speech is in the final third, and mentions what the UN itself agreed was fact.)

The specific identification of yellowcake and Niger came from Colin Powell during questioning at the United Nations. The British intelligence, however, turned out likely to be based on a forgery.
(Powell's presentation and the follow-up questioning is a long but fascinating read.)

All of these misconceptions and falsehoods were relentlessly stated. But this administration disregarded the facts because they wanted to wage this war, as we learned in the Downing Street memo.

Heh. Heh heh. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! The Downing Street memo! Oh, Babs, you just can't let a dead horse die, can ya?!

Oh, man... **guffaw**...actually bringing up that Downing Street memo again....**chuckle**... priceless...**wipes tear**...

This President will go down as the worst president in American history.

HEY!!! Coming out of yer mouth, that honor still goes to Ronald Reagan.

His administration ignored and neglected the threats before 9/11.

The same threats you want him to ignore now...?

His team was not prepared to act and react before, during or after Hurricane Katrina.

Because the local authorities never bothered to put out a call for help...?

His policies have contributed to the hastening of global warming,

He's bitch-slapped Mother Nature? Mighty impressive for a bungling fool, that...!

an ever growing national debt,

For once we are in agreement...

a rise in poverty and an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor.

Huh? Source, please? 'Cuz this sounds like Reagan-era blather t'me...

We are watching the middle-class disappear under Bush's leadership. He has taken our economy from the largest surplus in U.S. history to the largest deficit in U.S. history. And he has appointed several people to important positions that are unqualified and loyal to a dangerous fault.

Well, I'm inclined to meet ya half-way there. Cronyism in Washington; Whodathunkit?!

With the recent controversy surrounding the potential indictments and charges of perjury against senior members of the Bush administration, some have made comparisons to the perjury charge that was brought against President Clinton.

Oh, c'mon! Let's not delve into the realm of "potential", shall we? OK, let's...

Perjury under any circumstance is wrong. However, in President Clinton’s situation, the matter was concerning an issue that only adversely affected himself and his family.

Uh...no. It was about the Jobs-For-Silence program that Bubba had a pattern of engaging in. And I don't recall reading comparisons of Libby and Clinton, but, then, I don't get around as much as you do. But, sure, it was all "lies about sex", but it was lies about sex in a sexual harrassment lawsuit! Yeesh, can't we just MoveOn.org?!

But the potential charges filed against Bush’s closest advisors have put everybody’s families and the national security of the United States at risk.

"...the potential charges filed..."?! What in the world does THAT mean?! Could you have possibly meant to write "...the charges potentially filed..." or "...the potentially charged files..." and simply made an error in syntax? Or, could it be, maybe, that you were so eager to include the phrase "...charges filed..." that you forgot how to build a sentence? Nah! Yer just kinda sneaky, ain'tchya? Ain'tchya!

And, just how does "outing" a beaurocrat put "everybody's families and the national security of the United States at risk", anyway? Valerie Plame was never a covert agent, as the MSM keeps repeating. That she worked somewhere in a cubicle at the CIA was "an open secret". (No, I have no link for that assertion. It's too well known...)

Thank god the media and the American public are finally waking up and asking the tougher questions now.

As a Jew, Babs, I'm sure you know that "god" is properly spelled "G-d". Do not invoke the name of a diety whom you do not serve. It's a respect thang. As an athiest/agnostic, I'm jus' sayin' is all...

I keep hearing Harry Truman's famous statement ringing in my brain, "I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who's hitting you?"

That's the best you could come up with?! THAT'S ringing in yer head?!! Oh, I've had enough of this dingbat. I'll expect to learn from her the day pigs fry in Mecca and MTV actually plays some frickin' music...

Posted by Tuning Spork at November 6, 2005 08:01 PM | TrackBack