News Analysis
Cutting thru the Propaganda
Fog
Links

Air America Radio

Buzzflash Report


Consortium News

The Daily Kos

Mark Crispin Miller

Democrats.Com

Democratic
Underground


The Smirking Chimp

Huffington Post

Operation Truth

Pre$$titutes


OpEd News

Black Box Voting

Bartcop.Com

Media Matters
for America


Truthout.Org

Center for
American Progress


Talking Points Memo

The Independent Institute

Theocracy Watch

American Prospect


Tom Paine.Org

The Daily Howler

Eschaton

Alternet


People for the
American Way


Americans United
for the Separation
of Church & State


Counterpunch

The Rude Pundit

Online Journal

TV News Lies

Project for the Old American Century

Howling Latina

The Raw Story

The Crisis Papers

Polianna.Com

ToppleBush.com

Where in Washington
is Sun Myung Moon?


Downing Street Memo


Working for Change

Brand New Bag

From the Dark Side

NewsMax.com

Free Republic

Liberal Matrix

Force Ministries
Since the New Deal, Republicans have been on the wrong side of every issue of concern to ordinary Americans; Social Security, the war in Vietnam, equal rights, civil liberties, church- state separation, consumer issues, public education, reproductive freedom, national health care, labor issues, gun policy, campaign-finance reform, the environment
and tax fairness. No political party could remain so consistently wrong by accident.
The only rational conclusion is that, despite their cynical "family values" propaganda, the Republican Party is a criminal conspiracy to betray the interests of the American people
in favor of plutocratic and corporate interests, and absolutist religious groups. 


Why? Because they're evil GOP bastards!
We blow up a Shia mosque in Iraq and the Shiites retal-
iate by killing Sunnis. The Sunnis then stop killing Americans and are forced to look to us for protection. It's a "two-fer."
The Case for Impeachment
Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush
An excerpt from an essay in the March 2006 Harper's Magazine
by Lewis H. Lapham

On December 18 of last year, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) introduced into the House of Representatives a resolution inviting it to form “a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congres-
sional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retal-
iating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.” Although buttressed two days previously by the news of the National Security Agency's illegal surveillance of the American citi-
zenry, the request attracted little or no attention in the press—nothing on television or in the major papers, some scattered applause from the left-wing blogs, heavy sarcasm on the websites flying the flags of the militant right. The nearly complete silence raised the question as to what it was the congressman had in mind, and to whom did he think he was speaking? In time of war few propositions would seem as futile as the attempt to impeach
a president whose political party controls the Congress; as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee stationed on Capitol Hill for the last forty years, Representative Conyers presum-
ably knew that to expect the Republican caucus in the House
to take note of his invitation, much less arm it with the power of sub-
poena, was to expect a miracle of democratic transformation and rebirth not unlike the one looked
for by President Bush under the prayer rugs in Baghdad. Unless
the congressman intended some sort of symbolic gesture, self-
serving and harmless, what did
he hope to prove or to gain? He answered the question in early January, on the phone from Detroit during the congressional winter recess.

“To take away the excuse,” he said, “that we didn't know.” So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, “Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?” when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamen-
tary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that “somehow it escaped our notice” that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.

A reason with which it was hard to argue but one that didn't account for the congressman's impatience. Why not wait for a showing of sup-
portive public opinion, delay the motion to impeach until after next November's elections? Assuming that further investigation of the President's addiction to the uses
of domestic espionage finds him nullifying the Fourth Amendment rights of a large number of his fellow Americans, the Democrats possibly could come up with enough votes, their own and a quorum of disenchanted Repub-
licans, to send the man home to Texas. Conyers said:

“I don't think enough people know how much damage this admini-
stration can do to their civil liberties in a very short time. What would you have me do? Grumble and complain? Make cynical jokes? Throw up my hands and say that under the circumstances nothing can be done? At least I can muster the facts, establish a record, tell the story that ought to be front-page news.”

Which turned out to be the purpose of his House Resolution 635—not a high-minded tilting at windmills but the production of a report, 182 pages, 1,022 footnotes, assembled by Conyers's staff during the six months prior to its presentation to Congress, that describes the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq as the perpetration of a crime against the American people. It is a fair description. Drawing on evidence furnished over the last four years
by a sizable crowd of credible witnesses — government officials both extant and former, journalists, military officers, politicians, diplo-
mats domestic and foreign — the authors of the report find a conspir-
acy to commit fraud, the admini-
stration talking out of all sides of
its lying mouth, secretly planning
a frivolous and unnecessary war while at the same time pretending in its public statements that no-
thing was further from the truth.
The result has proved tragic, but
on reading through the report's corroborating testimony I some-
times could counter its induce-
ments to mute rage with the thought that if the would-be lords
of the flies weren't in the business of killing people, they would be seen as a troupe of off-Broadway comedians in a third-rate theater
of the absurd. Entitled “The Consti-
tution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipu-
lation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War,” the Conyers report examines the administration's chronic abuse of power from more angles than can be explored within the compass of a single essay. The nature of the administration's criminal DNA and modus operandi, however, shows up in a usefully robust specimen of its characteristic dishonesty.

That President George W. Bush comes to power with the intention of invading Iraq is a fact not open to dispute. Pleased with the image of himself as a military hero, and having spoken, more than once, about seeking revenge on Saddam Hussein for the tyrant's alleged attempt to “kill my Dad,” he appoints to high office in his administration a cadre of warrior intellectuals, chief among them Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, known to be eager for the glories of imperial conquest.
At the first meeting of the new National Security Council on January 30, 2001, most of the people in the room discuss the possibility of preemptive blitzkrieg against Baghdad.[3] In March the Pentagon circulates a document entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi
Oil Field Contracts”; the support-
ing maps indicate the properties
of interest to various European governments and American corporations.

Six months later, early in the afternoon of September 11, the smoke still rising from the Pentagon's western facade, Secretary Rumsfeld tells his staff
to fetch intelligence briefings (the “best info fast...go massive; sweep it all up; things related and not”) that will justify an attack on Iraq. By chance the next day in the White House basement, Richard
A. Clarke, national coordinator for security and counterterrorism, encounters President Bush, who tells him to “see if Saddam did this.” Nine days later, at a private dinner upstairs in the White House, the President informs his guest, the
Visit the Hall of Shame Archives
Exposing the ugly truth
about the Republican Party's diabolical plot to replace constitutional democracy with an oligarchic
fascist theocracy...

It's the only rational explanation!
Why does the Republican Party zealously pursue policies so obviously counter to the best interests of ordinary Americans? 

It can only be
because they're...
 
buddha statues, greek statues, egyptian statues, roman helmets,
The Case for Impeachment  Continued
British prime minister, Tony Blair, that “when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.”

By November 13, 2001, the Taliban have been rousted out of Kabul in Afghanistan, but our intelligence agencies have yet to discover proofs of Saddam Hussein's acquaintance with Al Qaeda. President Bush isn't convinced. On November 21, at the end of a National Security Council meeting, he says to Secretary Rumsfeld, “What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq?...I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.”

The Conyers report doesn't return to the President's focus
on Iraq until March 2002, when it finds him peering into the office of Condoleezza Rice, the national security advisor, to say, “Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out.” At a Senate Republican Policy lunch that same month on Capitol Hill, Vice President Dick Cheney informs the assembled com-
pany that it is no longer a question of if the United States will attack Iraq, it's only a question of when. The vice president doesn't bring up the question of why, the answer to which is a work in progress. By now the administration knows, or at least has reason to know, that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, that Iraq doesn't possess weapons of mass destruction sufficiently ominous to warrant concern, that the regime destined to be changed poses no imminent threat, certainly not to the United States, probably not to any country defended by more than four batteries of light artillery. Such
at least is the conclusion of the British intelligence agencies that can find no credible evidence to support the theory of Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda or international terrorism; even the best survey of WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile and CW/BW weapons fronts...” A series of notes and memoranda passing back and forth between the British Cabinet Office in London and its correspondents in Washington during the spring and summer of 2002 address the problem of inventing a pretext for a war so fondly desired by the Bush Administration that Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's MI-6, finds the inter-
ested parties in Washington fixing “the intelligence and the facts...around the policy.” The American enthusiasm for regime change, “undimmed” in the mind of Condoleezza Rice, presents complications.

Although Blair has told Bush, probably in the autumn of 2001, that Britain will join the American military putsch in Iraq, he needs “legal justification” for the maneuver — something noble and inspiring to say to Parliament and the British public. No justification “currently exists.” Neither Britain nor the United States is being attacked by Iraq, \which eliminates the excuse of self-defense; nor is the I
raqi government currently sponsoring a program of geno-
cide. Which leaves as the only option the “wrong-footing”
of Saddam. If under the auspices of the United Nations he can be presented with an ultimatum requiring him to show that Iraq possesses weapons that don't exist, his refusal to comply can be taken as proof that he does, in fact, pos-
sess such weapons.

Over the next few months, while the British government continues to look for ways to “wrong-foot” Saddam and suborn the U.N., various operatives loyal to Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld bend to the task of fixing the facts, distributing alms to dubious Iraqi informants in return for map coordinates of Saddam's monstrous weapons, proofs of stored poisons, of mobile chemical laboratories,
of unmanned vehicles capable of bringing missiles to Jerusalem.

By early August the Bush Administration has sufficient confidence in its doomsday story to sell it to the American public. Instructed to come up with awesome text and shocking images, the White House Iraq Group hits upon
the phrase “mushroom cloud” and prepares a White Paper describing the “grave and gathering danger” posed by Iraq's nuclear arsenal. The objective is three-fold—to magnify the fear of Saddam Hussein, to present President Bush as the Christian savior of the American people, a man of con-
science who never in life would lead the country into an unjust war, and to provide a platform of star-spangled patriotism for Republican candidates in the November congressional elections.

The Conyers report doesn't lack for further instances of the administration's misconduct, all of them noted in the press over the last three years — misuse of government funds, violation of the Geneva Conventions, holding without trial
and subjecting to torture individuals arbitrarily designated
as “enemy combatants,” etc. — but conspiracy to commit fraud would seem reason enough to warrant the President's impeachment. Before reading the report, I wouldn't have expected to find myself thinking that such a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man. We have before us in the White House a thief who steals
the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who enga-
ges the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world's evil, a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation's wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminal — known to be armed and shown to be dangerous.

Under the three-strike rule available to the courts in California, judges sentence people to life in jail for having stolen from Wal-Mart a set of golf clubs or a child's tricycle. Who then calls strikes on President Bush, and how many more does he get before being sent down on waivers to one of the Texas Prison Leagues?
Please support us
by making a
modest donation.
Book Search
 
B&N.com
Support us by using this link to shop with
Barnes & Noble
(a "Blue" company)
egyptian statues
buddha statues
roman helmets, roman armor
March 2006
© 2002 - 2006  evilGOPbastards.com -- All rights reserved.
Material herein (text and graphics) may be used for non-commercial purposes so long as they are unedited or unaltered, and the source, evilGOPbastards.com, is attributed.
View the Karl Rove Playbook Archives

FastCounter by bCentral
Need more proof that the Republicans are evil bastards?

GOP Scandal Scorecard

It Can't Happen Here? The Case for Ballot Tampering in the 2004 Elections


The Madness of George W. Bush: A Reflection of Our Collective Psychosis


It's official: Gore won Florida in 2000


The Florida Republican Recount Riot: A Consortorium report on how paid GOP operatives circumvented the democratic process through mob violence

Timeline of Bush administration's Iraq war lies


Caught on Film: Bush rhetoric versus reality

The October Surprise: 
The Reagan campaign committed treason against the US to ensure the defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980, and got away with it


How heretical cult leader / convicted felon Sun Myung Moon achieved such influence over the Republican Party (and shameless televangelist lackeys like Jerry Falwell)

Bill Moyers on media consolidation and the decline of American journalism


Theocracy Watch: American Taliban endangers freedom from religion

List of influential right-wIng think tanks & foundations

Please support us
by patronizing our advertisers
Hall of Shame
Evil GOP Bastard of the Month
Useless Partisan Hack & Shameless Bush Fellator
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Of the hundred US senators, surely none have proved more useless  than Utah's Orrin Hatch.
Seeking his sixth term in the Senate, his career has been most notable for
his robotic, knee-jerk defenses of the indefensible -- be it radical judges from his lofty perch on the Senate Judiciary Committee, or his recent defense of George W. Bush's Iraq misadventure and of his illegal domestic spying. Hatch described the FISA Act as "not applicable to today's world," but claimed Bush was adhering to 4th Amendment protections. He also deliberately mis-
characterized Saddam Hussein. "Nobo-
dy denies that he was supporting Al Qaeda," he said. But in an attack on administration critics, Hatch added with the priggishly false indignation he's be-
come famous for, "Well, I shouldn't say nobody. Nobody with brains." Save it
for the rubes, Orrin.
   MORE
greek statues
precolumbian statues
hindu statues