Earthside Comments: This post paints a portrait of the United States today. Look at the news reports and articles in sequence.
In a democracy, in this republic as envisioned by this nation's founders, the people own the government -- public opinion matters. Yet, the central government, both the executive and legislative branches have become incapable or unwilling to fulfill the wishes of the people.
Most Americans see the horror of the occupation and war in Iraq -- 3,160 U.S. troops now killed in that country. Most Americans want a definite timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Yet, the Democrats are still impotent and confused about what to do ... and from the clueless Laura Bush we witness the total arrogance and indifference to death and destruction caused by the Bushites, radical Republicans and neocons.
All of which is leaving the United States in an increasingly precarious situation -- even the hapless General Pace admits that our military strength is sapped and declining.
Which brings us to the last link and article by Ralph Nader. What he writes is true. What he recommends for saving this nation is precisely what we need to do.
Demand the resignations of Bush and Cheney.
And because we know they have no honor in the face of their catastrophic failures, we must demand their impeachment and forced removal from office.
The very fate of the republic is all that is at stake.
A failed assassination attempt left Shi’ite Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi slightly injured and 12 others dead in Baghdad. Throughout the country, at least two foreign nationals and 137 Iraqis were killed today. Another foreign national and 88 Iraqis were wounded in various incidents. Also, a Marine was killed today during combat operations in Anbar province, and the U.S. military that a soldier died on Feb. 24th of wounds received from a landmine in Dujail on Feb. 21st.
Link: Disapproval on Iraq Hits Record | ABC News
A record number of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq, and a clear majority now favors the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces, even if civil order has not been restored there — potentially a tipping point in public attitudes on the war. ...
... Sixty-four percent now say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting, up six points from last month to a new numerical high. (It was 63 percent in October.) A majority hasn't said the war was worth fighting since April 2004, and it's been even longer since a majority has approved of how Bush is handling it. Sixty-seven percent now disapprove; 55 percent disapprove strongly.
In a fundamental change, 56 percent now say U.S. forces should be withdrawn at some point even if civil order has not been restored in Iraq. That represents a continued, gradual departure from the "you break it, you've bought it" sentiment that until now has mitigated in favor of continued U.S. involvement until some stability is attained.
Another part of this change has been a shift in views on setting a withdrawal date. Given pro and con positions (avoiding casualties vs. encouraging insurgents), support for a deadline has risen from 39 percent in late 2005 to 47 percent last summer and 53 percent now.
Link: Democrats Back Away From Iraq Plan | Associated Press
Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit President Bush's war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq. ...
... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meanwhile, said she doesn't support tying war funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. troops.
The comments distanced her from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has said he wants to use Congress' spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.
Pelosi said she supports holding the administration to training and readiness targets, but added: "I don't see them as conditions to our funding. Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops."
Link: Gen. Pace: Military Capability Eroding | ABC News
Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, according to a new report to Congress.
The assessment, done by the nation's top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate.
The report is classified, but on Monday senior defense officials, speaking on condition on anonymity, confirmed the decline in overall military readiness.
Link: Bush and Cheney Must be Impeached | Ralph Nader/CounterPunch.org
The invasion-occupation of Iraq has been described as a classic case of asymmetrical warfare. Unable to begin to match the modern land, aerial and sea weaponry of the United States, the insurgents are fighting back with roadside IEDs, rifles and grenades to sow chaos, death and destruction. Many of these attacks have been in civilian marketplaces. The casualties show the inability, or unwillingness, of the U.S. to keep the peace and protect civilians, as required, by the way, under international law. The carnage, in turn, is supposed to generate more resistance to the U.S. occupation by the people of Iraq.
The idea behind asymmetrical attacks is not to directly engage U.S. forces because that truly would be a series of suicide missions. Almost four years into the occupation, an ominous new phase is revealing itself from the insurgents. They are concentrating on bringing down U.S. helicopters eight since January 20th, more than in all of 2006. Military strategists say they are not surprised. The New York Times reports that "the attackers used a variety of weapons, including shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, heavy machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and unguided rockets that cannot be diverted by the flares helicopters disperse to fool heat-seeking missiles."
Now comes the move to chemical attacks namely chlorine that is used to decontaminate drinking water. Historically, armies fought with physics, chemistry and, less frequently, biology. Moving toward chemistry, the insurgents are opening up the possibility of megadisasters that are very difficult to stop. Again, reports The Times, "the attacks seem to have been poorly executed, burning the chemical agent rather than dispersing it, but more sophisticated weapons involving chlorine could injure hundreds and cause mass panic." Make that thousands. Sabotaging large tank cars with chlorine could generate a deadly cloud that could cover and devastate life over numerous square miles.
Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, an American military spokesman, said "The enemy is adaptive. The enemy wants to win."
Have you noticed how often the attackers escape with their weapons? How often their weapons caches are not located or their transfers are not interdicted. Welcome to asymmetrical warfare.
More than a few military and national security officials in the Bush regime have publicly stated that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is fueling the insurgency and providing a magnet, and training ground, for more violent people from inside Iraq and from other countries, including Al Qaeda, to learn the skills of sabotage and terror. These Bush advisors range from General Casey to former CIA director, Porter J. Goss and former anti-terrorist White House advisor to Bush, Richard Clark. These judgments are widespread. The muzzled U.S. Army opposed the invasion from the beginning.
Over two years ago, author David Halberstam compared the invasion of Iraq to smacking a beehive. Every month more and more beehives are being smacked and the stings are becoming more venomous.
With nearly 70 percent of the American people against this draining and bloody war, along with scores of prominent former high ranking military, diplomats and national security officials, why is Bush so stubborn, ignorant and intending to end his Administration on January 20, 2009 mired in the infamy of the Iraq quagmire? Madness, refusal to admit mistakes and wrongdoing, and the willingness to violate domestic laws and international treaties.
Hold Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney to the rule of the U.S. Constitution. Commence impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives. In the meantime, the public should demand their resignation. Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew resigned for far less "high crimes and misdemeanors." What is at stake here is the global position of the U.S.A. and its own national security.
Comments