‹ ‘The Wartime Economist’ Takes on the Drug War •
It seems that Richard Perle has now finally admitted that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.
While he may not have admitted that it would have still been unethical to invade even if it was legal, it is one less alpha hawk in denial about this specific point.
What about those pesky US bases that were in Saudi Arabia? Wolfowitz has admitted they were a motivating factor for al-Qaeda’s actions.
And one shouldn’t forget the memorable 1994 interview with Dick Cheney regarding the potential quagmire of invading Iraq:
Via Robin Tovson. See also: Rudy’s Reading List
It was not illegal. Saddam invaded Kuwait in August of 1990. Under the aegis of the United Nations we expelled him from Kuwait and he signed a peace treaty. He subsequently violated and made a farce out of that treaty. On those grounds alone we had a right to take him out. But that is besides the point.
Doesn’t the President of the United States take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? Don’t all members of Congress take that same oath? So our duty is to the United States, first and foremost. International law, whatever that may be, is important and I’m not saying we should not take it into account, but ultimatly we are a sovereign nation and we have a right to act without saying “Mother, May I?” to the United Nations.
Saddam Hussein and Iraq did not violate the Treaty made after the First Gulf War. The United States and Britain violated it before the ink was dry.
Four despicable killing advocates.
I never thought the man was stupid, & what has happenned in Iraq over the last few years has gone exactly to plan. Places like Falluja were destroyed on purpose. The whole insurgency/ethnic cleansing/genocide has been orchestrated & fuelled by USA, as it has been in US interest to destroy the country and the infrastructure that keeps it together. Even years after the ‘we have prevailed’ statement there is only about 2hrs of power a day in Bagdad, why? It makes it easier to control a country when the populous is on its knees & desperate.
The American Elite have all made good money out of this war & as long as it continues, the profits made will be vast, so I see it continuing indefinately.
Exactly, the destruction of Iraq is deliberate policy, if concealed under “nation-building” and the rest.
Indeed, Halliburton and Blackwater and the rest have made good money out of it, but the guiding hand was the NeoCons’ and their goal to fragment Iraq, and the eventually the whole Near East, for the seeming benefit of Israel.
Iran and Pakistan, if they have their way, next up.
Bush himself, and even the Republicans, are dispensable. Perle’s abandoning the ship early signaled a move over to the Democrats.
Neo-Con social conservatism is skin deep and a rhetorical tactic to win support among and control over the Born Again Theo-Fascists.
Lieberman is a Neo-Con in what counts, as is Bloom, and with the former as Gore’s Vice President, the boys had the bases covered both ways.
Typos: “and eventually”, “Bloomberg”.
Do remember Tim R. that violating the US Constitution, specifically Article VI used to be considered a crime.
The Congress with a 2/3 vote ratified the UN charter,
so there is no “Mother may I”, it is the law of the land.
Article VI is violated all the time. I specificially refer to the “Pursuance” statement contained therein…”This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;…” How many of our laws were (are) made in pursuance of the Constitution? I would bet that a close inspection of most laws would find they contain language that violates tenants of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The only authority the United States has is in pursuance of the Constitution. So, if a law or treaty is not made in pursuance of the Constitution (violates a tenant of the Constitution or Bill of Rights), it is not a valid law or valid treaty. NAFTA, GATT, WTO, LOST, gun control, come to mind.
You conveniently left the part out about April Glaspie, didn’t ya?
Another fine post from “Benedict Arnold” Tim R.
Tim
nothing to read,you are not American but Isreali so go back home,no place for a racist to post
Isn’t running an empire wonderful!
When I consider the extream Corruption prevalent among all Orders of Men in this old rotten State, and the glorious publick Virtue so predominant in our rising Country, I cannot but apprehend more Mischief than Benefit from a closer Union. I fear they will drag us after them in all the plundering Wars, which their desperate Circumstances, Injustice, and Rapacity, may prompt them to undertake; and their wide-wasting Prodigality and Profusion is a Gulph that will swallow up every Aid we may distress ourselves to afford them. Here Numberless and needless Places, enormous Salaries, Pensions, Perquisites, Bribes, groundless Quarrels, foolish Expeditions, false Accounts or no Accounts, Contracts and Jobbs, devour all Revenue, and produce continual Necessity in the Midst of natural Plenty. I apprehend, therefore, that to unite us intimately will only be to corrupt and poison us also.
Ben Franklin, writing from London, February 1775
The United States has a “Constitution?” But didn’t Congress outlaw our Constitution? America has boat loads of political expedience. Piles of ‘executive signing statements’. Congressional treason. Political corruption that is both rampant and pervasive. Presidential treason, vice-presidential treason, torture, willful violation of human rights, and gross arrogance that borders the insane. But America has a “Constitution?” Yeah, maybe once but not any longer.
Doesn’t the President of the United States take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? Don’t all members of Congress take that same oath? So our duty is to the United States, first and foremost. International law, whatever that may be, is important and I’m not saying we should not take it into account, but ultimatly we are a sovereign nation and we have a right to act without saying “Mother, May I?” to the United Nations.
Dude, read the Constitution.
I’m not sure what “we” Tim R. is referring to, but the U.S. government was seriously in the market for a “splendid little war” to justify the military-industrial complex, what with everybody talking about a “peace dividend” following the implosion of the second superpower. The U.S. government was actively encouraging Kuwait to be as big a nuisance as possible to Saddam (e.g. “slanted drilling”), while April Glaspie reassured Saddam that the U.S. couldn’t care less when one Arab country invaded another. And then we had the U.S. government lying about “incubator babies” and Iraqi tanks massed on the Saudi border. In January of ‘91 it was pretty clear Saddam was waiting for the deadline to expire so he could save face by beginning a phased withdrawal *afterward*; Bush began Desert Storm almost the moment the deadline expired, because the last thing in the world he wanted was for the situation to be resolved by some means short of war. He needed the war to sell large military establishments for the world policeman, even in a unipolar world.
So I don’t know what “we” those goddamn lying, murdering bastards are supposed to represent, but they sure as hell don’t represent me!