Friday, February 14, 2003

The Dow Likes Peace

Well, this is a pretty strong indicator. The stock market has been in the doldrums for weeks. It has falling several hundred points as the Bushies have pounded the war drums harder and harder. Even Alan Greenspan in his testimony suggested that all the war talk was holding back the U.S. economy. Blix delivered his report this morning and much of the UN seems to be siding with the idea of continued inspections and no war...for now. And the stock market goes through the roof! So, not only is Bush's foreign policy fucked, it is fucking with his economic policy as well. Unfortunately, we are the ones getting screwed.

Remember when we used to have a press that would dare to criticize those in charge?

They're all stupid

Sean-Paul has a copy of a letter he sent Chirac and Schroeder up on The Agonist. In it he acknowledges that Bush is a jerk. But he also urges France and Germany not to sacrifice the UN and NATO in response to Bush's arrogance. I posted the following in the comment section on the post:
It is a good letter Sean-Paul. I agree with you that France and Germany cannot dictate for America what America sees as being in its best interest for national security. But, and this is a big but, what if France and Germany believe that America is reading this situation totally wrong and that America's actions may actually be a national security threat to themselves? Are France and Germany supposed to sacrifice THEIR sense of their own national security and cede to America all authority in deciding what is best for the world? Alliances are a two way street. That is if those who are partners in the alliance view each others as equals. The problem is that Bush views Europe as the 52nd state (Canada being the 51st) and thus gives no respect to their concerns for their own interests. France and Germany should be concerned about what America is concerned about. But America should be equally concerned with what France and Germany are concerned about. That is what friendship is all about.


Steve Duin, a columnist for the Oregonian, has written a column that I think comes closest to correctly describing the attitude of the muddled middle as far as Iraq is concerned. I think it would be useful for both sides in this debate (pro and anti) to read what he has to say and consider how their comments are playing in Peoria.
Can we stick by our guns without drawing them? 02/13/03 As the United States moves inexorably toward another dead-of-night invasion, the president's certainty and our ambivalence about war with Iraq are equally disconcerting. The use of the first-person pronoun is purposeful. Most of us share a resolute skepticism about where to go from here. While a majority of Americans are tempted to give President Bush and Colin Powell the benefit of the doubt, we don't share their passion for war. As we listen to the most zealous arguments, nothing is more convincing than the suspicion that both the peaceniks and the radio-booth patriots have another agenda up their sleeve. We aren't uninvolved in the debate, just unpersuaded. We hate bullies like Saddam Hussein, but we're not sure he can't be corralled and contained like Libya's Moammar Gadhafi. We despise the French cowards and apologists, but we're not invading France. We know the Iraqis need a fresh start, but we can't ignore the scent of oil in the neighborhood. We are sick and tired of trembling before a cowering psychopath in an Afghan cave. But while we believe Sept. 11 justifies the Bush administration's shift toward pre-emption, we think this week's propitious link between Iraq and al-Qaida means 9/11 has become a cynical part of the administration's PR campaign. Most of us, I think, are comfortable with the United States' unofficial designation as "world cop," whether we're walking the beat in Bosnia, Somalia or Iraq. We live in a global community and only the United States recognizes the moral imperative for community policing. But it's hard not to be unnerved by this country's long-running good-cop-bad-cop routine in the Middle East. In 1972, Henry Kissinger, then national security adviser to President Nixon, was the bad cop. When Kissinger met with the Shah of Iran and agreed their interests were served by destabilizing the Ba'athist regime, both sides encouraged Kurdish rebels to step up hostilities in Iraq. The United States didn't want the rebellion to succeed, just distract the regime that would eventually spawn Saddam. And we forgot to tell the Kurds we would abandon them when it struck our fancy . . . which it did in 1975. After the Shah and Saddam made peace, the United States withdrew military support and Saddam had a green light to take his revenge on the Kurds. When he grew bored with the tools of conventional torture, he blanketed the rebels with chemical weapons and mustard gas. If we're seeking the moral high ground in Iraq, in other words, we're voyaging into uncharted territory. This may explain why the Iraqis share our ambivalence about their imminent "liberation." Offered the opportunity for this police action in 1991, the first President Bush said, "We've done the heavy lifting. We will not intervene." At a time when most Americans are more concerned about the sanctity of our borders, Bush's son is dead set on intervention on the far side of the globe. As unnerved as we are by that prospect, are we sure he's wrong? That's the troubled state of our ambivalence: Even as we lean toward one conclusion, we hear the siren's song of the opposing argument. Saddam is a monster who has gassed his own people and dodged the honest scrutiny necessary to determine if he's prepared to nuke ours. Only the United States is equipped to stare him down. Our resolve should mean something, even if the United Nations' doesn't. North Korea, after all, may be watching. Do we trust our president to examine all alternatives short of war? Can we eliminate Saddam without eviscerating Iraq? Is it possible for the world's one and lonely cop to stick by its guns without drawing them? The best columns, they say, are sparked by great conviction, sustained by a passionate argument and close with a final twist of the knife. This one may fail on all three counts because the essential war requires so much more.
I am ambivalent about war with Iraq, so I agree with most of what Duin has to say in this column. But I am not ambivalent about Bush's honesty. He has none. Therefore I come down reluctantly on the side of no

Thursday, February 13, 2003

Good News From The Front

Just a little something to lift your day. Here's a post from the bartcop forum, courtesy dedalus, that discusses what "real" people (i.e., people who don't spend so much time online bitching about Bush) feel about Dubya.
"Catching that Anti-Smirk Feeling--my father-in-law anecdote" I haven't had too much time to participate here recently, as my in-laws have been visiting. They're pretty apolitical people--I'm not sure I've had a political discussion of any weight with my father-in-law in the 20 years I've known him. But that's in part due to his own "political" skills. For years, he ran a small store in Chicago and headed up the merchant's association in his area. So he's quite skilled in getting along with everyone and tries to be really accomodating to people of all stripes. Well, while they were down here, I'd occasionally slip in a jab or three at the Smirk whenever CNN was on, just to see if I could get a response. I'd also add some supplemental info on whatever stories they were (not) covering. But he'd just sort of nod. Finally, on the last day, as we sat on the couch and W. was spouting some nonsense at some rally, my father-in-law says out of nowhere, "I hate that man." Now, I'm not sure I've heard him use the word "hate" in all the years I've known him. But then he started in on how not only has his own retirement portfolio gone south, but he doesn't think Bush has a single clue. He also said that whenever he visits his health club, he always tracks down the one guy who had been urging him to vote for Bush back in 2000. My FIL says he goes up to him every time and says, "What about your boy now?" And he then told me, the last time he did this, the friend flipped--he too now admits Smirk is a disaster. Anyhow, there's my little ray of hope for the day. The anti-Smirk feeling is catching on in all walks of life.

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

An interesting article about what we've been doing to get the Turks on our side:
... A poll released Sunday showed that 94 percent of the Turks surveyed oppose a U.S. war against Iraq, Turkey's neighbor to the south, and only 2.5 percent say that Turkey should support the United States by offering military facilities and forces. With that level of opposition, analysts and politicians here said, the Turkish parliament, whose approval is constitutionally required before foreign troops can be based here, could vote against admitting U.S. troops or delay the vote. A rejection of a second U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq could complicate the vote for some Turkish lawmakers, who insist that any war have "international legitimacy." But many analysts said approval seems likely. ... Many analysts and politicians here agreed that because of the long and close military ties between the United States and Turkey, the military issues would likely be the easiest and quickest to resolve. More difficult, they said, are outstanding issues surrounding the size and guarantees of an economic package to compensate Turkey for what it will spend in any war and to protect it from losses that could result from a conflict. Previously, officials have said that the package of loans, grants and other aid could be as much as $14 billion. But several Turkish lawmakers and media accounts in recent days have said that the amount is inadequate, and that the price tag could balloon to as much as $25 billion. Even more important than the size of the package, officials here say, is how the U.S. will guarantee that it will deliver. Increasingly, lawmakers, other Turkish officials and opinion-shapers are demanding action by the U.S. Congress to guarantee that money promised by the Bush administration is actually given. The debate reflects distrust by Turks who say the United States promised economic relief during the 1991 Persian Gulf War but broke its word. According to Egemen Bagis, an adviser to Gul and a member of parliament, U.S. economic commitments "better be made public, better be very convincing, and better be before the 18th," when the vote is expected. ...
Great! We can't even be trusted to bribe them correctly!

(image courtesy riggs2002 over on the bartcop forum).

Part of what sunk Trent Lott was not just his pining for the Dixiecrats but the repeated revelation over the subsequent weeks of other examples of similar offensive comments. The other day Bill O'Reilly used the term "wetbacks" when referring to illegal mexican immigrants. It turns out it may not be the first time he has used that term (link courtesy JB Armstrong of MyDD).

William Saletan nails lying Colin's ass:
You can write the next paragraph yourself. Sixteen months ago, Powell wanted to isolate Bin Laden from other Muslims, so he said Bin Laden was lying about being involved in Iraq. Now Powell wants to justify war against Iraq, so he says Bin Laden is telling the truth. Same claim, same media outlet, same speaker, same U.S. official assessing the claim, same congressional venue, different U.S. agenda, different result. The punch line? Bin Laden was talking about hypocrisy.
And to think I once seriously considered voting for this man for President.

Further Evidence That Bush Endangers America

From Maureen Dowd:
In the past, Condi Rice has implored the networks not to broadcast the tapes outright, fearing he might be activating sleeper cells in code. But this time the administration flacked the tape. And Fox, the official Bush news agency, rushed the entire tape onto the air. So the Bushies no longer care if Osama sends a coded message to his thugs as long as he stays on message for the White House?
Pretty much Maureen. This administration will lie about Iraqi/Al Qaeda connections. It will allow alleged Al Qaeda terrorist camps to exist unobstructed for months. It will ignore all evidence to the contrary in order to get what it wants. Osama bin Laden is now an ally of the Bush government.

Tuesday, February 11, 2003

Further evidence of media complicity in Bush's war

The headline on CNN's web page right now is "Purported bin Laden tape backs Iraqis". This is called lying with the truth. bin Laden did express support for the Iraqi people. But he also condemned Sadaam Hussein's Baath party as "infidels". Assuming this tape is real, and Powell was acting this morning like it was, then this is almost proof positive that bin Laden does not support Sadaam Hussein. Yet CNN does not report that in its headline. Instead it leaves the deceptive statement that "bin Laden backs Iraqis". This leaves the casual reader with the impression that bin Laden is supporting Hussein against the United States. CNN wants its war!

Perhaps you should check your facts first Mr. Powell

The bin Laden tape proves that he is linked to Saddam?
Message apparently from bin Laden is broadcast Statement said to be from al-Qaida leader calls for Muslims to repel U.S. attack on Iraq Feb. 11 — An audio tape purported to carry the voice of Osama bin Laden called on Iraqis to carry out suicide attacks against Americans and defend themselves against a U.S. attack. “We stress the importance of martyrdom attacks against the enemy,” said the speaker on the tape, aired on the al-Jazeera Arab satellite station. THE STATEMENT also calls Iraqi President Saddam Hussein an “infidel,” but stresses that the paramount battle for Muslims is with the United States and its allies.
I used to think Powell had just put his soul in trust when agreeing to work for the Bushies. But he's opened the lockbox and turned it over to them completely. He can never be trusted again with anything.

Insight Alert

I just flashed on something while thinking about my previous post. Glenn Reynolds appears to approve of the US manufacturing a lie (a fake bin Laden) tape. As part of that justification he links to an MSNBC column he wrote in which he says that, in wartime, everyone lies. I agreed, but pointed out that we are not yet at war. It was this that gave me my insight: Mr. Reynolds thinks we ARE already at war with Iraq. It is not surprising then that Mr. Reynolds reacts to us on the anti-war side as if we were equivalent to people who would be calling for peace with Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Indeed, this may explain the belligerence of people like Bush and Rumsfeld. They also think we are already at war and that those of us who are trying to stop the bombing before it happens are simply appeasing the already declared enemy. Could this be the fundamental disagreement between the two sides?

Glenn Reynolds: Conspiracy Theorist?

HOW CONVENIENT. Personally, I think this is evidence that Osama is dead, and that the CIA is supplying these tapes for purposes of its own. (Not that there's anything wrong with that).
Glenn actually thinks the tape is a fake from the CIA? But he seems to think its okay for a US government agency to deceive us into thinking that bin Laden and Hussein are allied? Why does Mr. Reynolds approve of his government lying to him? Glenn links to one of his own columns on MSNBC (the "wrong" link) in which he says: "Of course, in wartime, everyone lies." Yes Mr. Reynolds. They do. But you forget one thing: we are not at war yet. Lying in war is a useful tactic that can deceive the enemy into thinking you are one place when you are, in fact, in another. The point is that it is something you do to your enemy. It is not something you do to your own people. That is, you don't do it unless you consider your own people to be the enemy.
But now that he's admitting a "partnership" with Iraq, it's going to be tough for people who've been saying "you can't even catch Osama" to deny this evidence. Heh.
I can barely make sense out of this sentence. The best I can make of it is that Glenn thinks that if this tape is genuine then it proves that bin Laden and Hussein are in cahoots. Which, as I described in this post, is nonsense and only proves that Mr. Reynolds has no understanding of the Islamic mind.

Jeanne D'Arc asks the right questions (link courtesy of The Road To Surfdom)
* Does American public opinion matter? I've given up on trying to read polls. They're up, they're down, they're blowin' in the wind. But my instincts tell me most Americans have a sense that this war doesn't smell right. They can't explain why, but they know that if there's a necessity for war, it shouldn't be so damn hard to explain why we have to fight. Are Americans going to jump on board as soon as war starts, especially if it's "successful" – meaning few Americans die and the Ba'athists are a bad memory? What about when they realize the cost of the war?
I think this is as good a test as any. Going to war is the most serious action any nation can take. It should never be done lightly and needs the support of the people (especially in a constitutional democracy in which the citizenry is, nominally, the sovereign). Therefore, if the reason for going to war cannot be explained in a way that is convincing to most of citizenry, perhaps we should wonder if the reasons are very good to begin with. The Bushies like to say that it is up to Sadaam Hussein to prove that he has disarmed. They are correct when they argue that Hussein wants to turn it into a question of whether the inspectors have found enough. Well, couldn't it also be said that it is up to the Bushies to prove that we should go to war? Why should it be up to us, the ones who oppose war, to prove that we shouldn't go to war?

There are some odd things about the following AP report that I would like to point out.
Powell: Iraq Crisis Rift Threatens NATO By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer ... He told the committee that what appeared to be a new statement from al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) shows why the world needs to be wary of Iraqi ties to terrorists. Powell said he read a transcript of "what bin Laden — or who we believe to be bin Laden" was saying on the al-Jazeera Arab satellite station Tuesday. "Once again he speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq," Powell said. Al-Jazeera chief editor Ibrahim Hilal told The Associated Press Tuesday night, hours after Powell read the transcript at the hearing, that al-Jazeera had just received an audio tape with bin Laden's voice.
Ummm. Did I just read that right? Powell says that he read a transcript of something that was broadcast on al-Jazeera. But the editor of Al-Jazeera says that they only just received the audio tape after Powell talks about reading a transcript of it? Is this just bad writing, or did Powell have access to the tape even before Al-Jazeera broadcast it? And if
As broadcast, the voice purporting to be bin Laden's urged Iraqis to confront any U.S.-led invasion with camouflaged trenches and suicide bombings. "We stress the importance of martyrdom operations against the enemy, these attacks that have scared Americans and Israelis like never before," the speaker said. "With all the might of the enemy, they were unable to defeat us" in Afghanistan (news - web sites), the speaker said. "We hope that our brothers in Iraq will do the same as we did." Al-Qaida and Iraq, the speaker indicated, are bound by a common hatred of the United States. In his testimony, Powell told the committee, "This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored."
This proves that Powell is either lying or he doesn't understand a fundamental aspect of the Islamic faith: the Ummah. The Ummah is the brotherhood of all Muslims. It is the Islamic equivalent of the old clan system that dominated pre-Islamic Arabia. One central aspect of the Ummah is that, While any one Muslim may hate another Muslim, they would still support each other if either of them were attacked by someone outside of the Ummah. So of COURSE bin Laden is going to call on other Muslims to defend Iraq. It would matter if he personally hates Sadaam Hussein and would be more then happy to see him removed from power. Such would be acceptable to him ONLY if it was done by other Muslims.

Is this report accurate?
US urges quick end to Hajj so it can prosecute war Mohamed Gamal Arafa for IslamOnline 8 February 2003 The Saudi authorities have decided to cut short the rituals of this year’s Hajj (pilgrimage) in response to a US request to clear the peninsula of pilgrims so it can pursue a war with Iraq as soon as possible after the annual gathering. The policy has been adopted as a "necessary" measure taken in accordance with a fatwa (religious edict) to that effect, a leading Egyptian paper reported on Saturday, February 8. The semi-official widely-circulating daily Al-Ahram quoted the head of Egyptian delegation of pilgrims as saying that "the Saudi officials grounded their shortcut in a fatwa to the effect that pilgrims might not stay overnight in the Mina area and move directly for Arafat plain." In the first day of the Hajj, pilgrims travel a few miles to the plain of Mina and encamp there. From Mina, pilgrims then move the following morning to the plain of Arafat where they spend the entire day in earnest supplication and devotion. That evening, the pilgrims move and encamp at Muzdalifa, which is a site between Mina and Arafat. Muslims stay overnight there offering more prayers. According to the latest modification, the pilgrims would leave directly for Arafat, without earlier encamping in Mina. The reported announcement raised questions whether there is an American request for an evacuation of the pilgrims amid great prospects for launching a military offensive against Iraq after Eid Al-Adha (Day of Sacrifice), an Islamic celebration marking the end of Hajj.
Imagine if a country was to ask Israel to change the date of Yom Kippur or another country were to ask us to move the date of Christmas. The Hajj is one of the five pillars of Islam. It is a central tenent of the religion. And here the United States is asking the Islamic nations to "cut it short" because it would be inconvenient for OUR war schedule? What colossal arrogance! I would hope this report isn't true.

Monday, February 10, 2003

Lies And Deception

Dennis Hans provides a 15 point case arguing that the Bush administration has lied and obfuscated the truth it knows (and does not know) about Iraq in order to persuade and scare the American people into supporting a war to remove Sadaam Hussein from power. He backs up each point with examples of said deceptions and points out precisely how they are deceptive. This case is far more devastating in its indictment of Bush than was Powell's presentation against Iraq.
Lying Us Into War: Exposing Bush and His 'Techniques of Deceit' By Dennis Hans President George W. Bush and his foreign-policy team have systematically and knowingly deceived the American people in order to gain support for an unprovoked attack on Iraq. Before I catalog the Bush administration's 'Techniques of Deceit,' let me acknowledge that no U.N. resolution requires the president to be honest with the American people. The fine print of Resolution 1441 imposes no obligation to treat Americans as citizens to be informed rather than suckers to be conned. He may mislead, distort, suppress, exaggerate and lie to his heart's content without violating a single sentence in 1441. So if compliance with 1441 is all that matters to you, read no further. Turn on the TV and tune in Brokaw, Rather, Jennings, Blitzer or Lehrer, to name five of the journalistic imposters who control what you hear and see, who seem psychologically incapable of conceiving of Bush as a liar, and who wouldn't have the guts to call him one even if they reached that conclusion. But if you are an American citizen who believes in the bedrock democratic principle of 'the informed consent of the governed,' read on.

My fear: now that a judge has said that there won't be a march on Feb. 15th in NYC I am worried that the march will happen anyway, the police will try to stop it, tempers will flair, and the resulting mayhem will be blamed entirely on anti-war forces. Of course, that could be precisely the point.

Paul Krugman gets to the heart of the matter once again by repeating something I have said often: Bush hasn't demonstrated any reason for people to trust his word.
The Wimps of War By PAUL KRUGMAN George W. Bush's admirers often describe his stand against Saddam Hussein as "Churchillian." Yet his speeches about Iraq — and for that matter about everything else — have been notably lacking in promises of blood, toil, tears and sweat. Has there ever before been a leader who combined so much martial rhetoric with so few calls for sacrifice? Or to put it a bit differently: Is Mr. Bush, for all his tough talk, unwilling to admit that going to war involves some hard choices? Unfortunately, that would be all too consistent with his governing style. And though you don't hear much about it in the U.S. media, a lack of faith in Mr. Bush's staying power — a fear that he will wimp out in the aftermath of war, that he won't do what is needed to rebuild Iraq — is a large factor in the growing rift between Europe and the United States. ... In the United States it is taken as axiomatic that America is a country that really faces up to evildoers, while those sniveling old Europeans just don't have the nerve. And the U.S. commentariat, with few exceptions, describes Mr. Bush as a decisive leader who really gets to grips with problems. Tough-guy rhetoric aside, this image seems to be based on the following policy — as opposed to political — achievements: (1) The overthrow of the Taliban; (2) . . . any suggestions for 2? Meanwhile, here's how it looks from Paris: France was willing to put ground troops at risk — and lose a number of soldiers — in the former Yugoslavia; we weren't. The U.S. didn't make good on its promises to provide security and aid to post-Taliban Afghanistan. Those Americans, they are very brave when it comes to bombing from 10,000 meters, but they expect other people to clean up the mess they make, no?
Better watch out Paul. That's the kind of talk that got Bill Maher cancelled.
In the days ahead, as the diplomatic confrontation between the Bush administration and the Europeans escalates, remember this: Viewed from the outside, Mr. Bush's America does not look like a regime whose promises you can trust.
Bush is a doer. He is a go-getter. He is a master of the universe. He is not a janitor. Unfortunately, the world needs a janitor more than it needs a cheerleader.

WampumBlog makes an interesting discovery. Go to this URL to find out who owns the DNS domain for Iraq. UPDATE: I did some googling on Alani Corporation. It appears it is a Texas company by registration only as the contact number is in Baghdad. See more here (PDF file converted to HTML by google).

Sunday, February 09, 2003

Bush To Throw Tantrum? Take Ball Home If Europe Doesn't Play By His Rule?

Well, it's not that bad, yet. But this could be the precursor to Americas withdrawal from NATO.
U.S. Military in Europe May Change Government Is Considering Revamping Structure to Reflect New Era By Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 10, 2003; Page A16 The United States is contemplating radically changing the nature of its military presence in Europe, moving from a "garrison" system of big, heavily staffed Cold War-era bases to a more expeditionary posture in which troops would be deployed to the continent on a rotational basis, said members of the U.S. delegation flying home yesterday from an annual conference on security issues in Munich.
Who would have imagined all this could happen in two short years?

I'm just numb

Read this:
White House Floats Idea of Dropping Income Tax Overhaul By EDMUND L. ANDREWS WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — President Bush, having already set off a firestorm over his proposals to cut taxes and revamp retirement accounts, suggested today that the time might be near to drop the income tax as a whole and replace it with some form of consumption tax.
Does it occur to anyone besides me that Bush is kind of like a serial killer who keeps getting more and more outrageous in his behavior in the hope that someone will catch him and make him stop?
The idea was outlined in the White House's annual economic report to Congress. The report, prepared by the White House Council of Economic Advisers and signed by Mr. Bush, offers a scathing critique of the current system and an exuberant description of radical alternatives. The report does not make formal recommendations, and White House officials emphasized that sweeping tax overhaul was not an immediate policy goal. But many administration officials have made no secret of their fondness for fundamental tax overhaul, and the report today lays out a detailed rationale for a system that taxes spending rather than income.
Perhaps it's all just a cunning plan (Baldrick and Dubya? Hmmmm). To wit: fuck up the tax code as it currently is, then ride in on the white horse and save us from the fuckups with this brand-spanking new tax code! Lord save us from think-tank eggheads who secretly dream of one day having the power to put their graduate thesis into practice.

Terrorist Training Camp: Time To Make The Donuts

So, it turns out the "Al Qaeda terrorist camp" may have been nothing more than a bakery. So I guess Bush shouldn't be impeached for letting a terrorist training camp exist for political reasons. He should be impeached for lying about a terrorist camp existing. (Hey, they impeached Clinton for a lie. Right?) Yes, I know. Reporters are not inspectors and shouldn't be trusted to know what is and is not a chemical weapons factory. And, of course, the Al Qaeda terrorists could have just cleared out since Powell's briefing and left behind only a bakery. But then, that's what I said yesterday didn't I? If there was in fact a terrorist training camp here and the Bush administration did nothing about it but let Powell go and use it in a PR stunt thus causing the terrorist to scuttle away in the night then Bush has once again put American lives in danger for political purposes. The case looks better and better for arguing that Bush has violated his oath of office and should be impeached and removed from office. The safety of America demands it.