In the international news it appears that the war against terrorism in Afghanistan is going rather bad at this moment. The Taliban terrorists are taking back more and more territory or at least hide there and make it unsafe. While the Talibans looked quite lost in 2002 after the US and allied armies from Europa had fought heavily and successfully against them since autumn 2001, everything changed in 2003-4 by the decision of persident George W.Bush and his government to take out many troops from Afghanistan because those where needed in the Iraq war. Should our president therefore not only be accused of lying (fictious mass destruction weapons in Iraq) but also of HIGH TREASON for neglecting the war on terrorism against the Taliban and Alkaida, and also having the two top terrorist leaders (one of them has died of typhoide in 2006??) escaped due to a lack of military ressources to hunt them?
From Europa? Jupiter's moon Europa? I had no idea they were in on that invasion! No wonder we swept the Talliban away so fast, we all had spaceships and lasers and stuff! Pew pew pew! Your question is probably a futile one, as, to quote Richard Nixon "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." I don't personally believe in that sentiment, but Bush has committed so many impeachable offenses, trod so heavily on the rights of the constitution, and all but turned himself into an American warlord without a peep out of the other branches of government I find it dubious that he will ever be held accountable. I think he is a traitor, but I also think that just isn't something the American people care about, after all Oliver North is the host of his own TV show on FOX "news", instead of being the host of his own 8x10 cell.
Treason requires the deliberate aiding of a country's enemies. We would have to prove that: 1. Bush knew that Iraq posed no serious threat to the USA; Okay I've got no problem with that; 2. and that removing troops from Afghanistan was therefore a ruse for the deliberate purpose of strengthening the Taliban. Well even I don't believe that. I'm willing to believe that he had a personal grudge against Saddam. I'm willing to believe that he was doing his rich Texas oil baron buddies' bidding in some nefarious plot having to do with the supply of petroleum. I'm willing to believe that he's simply a moron and his motivation may be very difficult for a rational person to discern. But I'm not willing to believe that he thought that the Taliban would come back to haunt us if he pulled those troops out and he did it in order to make that happen. Treason must be committed on purpose. You cannot properly be called a traitor because of something that happened by accident, negligence, or--as is probably true in this case--professional malpractice.
Fraggle, you propose an awfully high standard for treason. I would assert that he is a traitor not only if he actively desired to allow the Taliban to return and harry our troops, but if knowing that it would happen he continued on his course anyway. This is the standard I believe makes him a traitor, and I believe that an analysis of his briefings and contacts with the DoD would be able to prove that he knew that he was placing Afghanistan in an untenable situation, and merrily did it anyway. One hears about the difficulty's with the reconstruction of Iraq several times a week, despite the news media's boredom with the topic, but the reconstruction of Afghanistan is something you really have to hunt to locate any mention of at all. No reconstruction plan existed for Iraq when we invaded, except for the notion that it would probably be easy once we were there, and it would be such a blistering success that no one would even question the no-bid cost plus contracts Haliburton was given to do it. No pretension toward a plan, I would presume, existed or even now exists for Afghanistan. Also, we never had any plans of attempting to control the tribal lands on the border with Pakistan, which we knew and know is where the Taliban finds safe harbor from US forces no mater what other parts of the country we may rout them from. To claim that he did not know that this would happen, I think, would be quite a difficult standard to reach indeed.
Have y'all forgotten that not only did the congress of the USA vote to go to war in Iraq, but they've continued to fund that war with millions of dollars on a regular basis. Why the blame is always laid on President Bush is beyond my poor powers to understand. And how to understand that President Bush has somehow turned out nation into a personal empire is also beyond me. Y'all need to think a bit about what's actually happened and when and how, rather than to just lash out with ignorant emotional outbursts. Baron Max
There are a couple issues I have with your question, but I do think I can answer it. First of all the congress never formally declared war on Iraq. What they passed was a resolution that they would not stop the president from making war on Iraq if he wanted to. This is a fairly bizzare point and it is still argued today weather this procedure was constitutional or not, since only congress is constitutionally allowed to make war. Secondly, the Congress at the time was dominated by a large Republican majority. As the highest ranking Republican within the government of the United States the president was a figurehead of the entire party, and other party members, such as congressmen, took their cues from him. Thirdly, the president, his state department, and his pentagon were the prime movers and shakes behind the war. They planned it, they demanded it, and they tried to convince other entities like our strategic allies and the UN that it was justified. Congress, taking its cues from the president, merely shrugged its shoulders and said okay! Fourthly, congress has already been punished for the Iraq war. In the recent election the war party lost its majority to the only marginally less warlike party. The president has yet to face serious consequences for this war. Lastly, you claimed that the congress has authorized "millions" of dollars for the war, you are in fact off by a factor of 100. Iraq war funding, appropriations, and supplements have always been measured in billions, tens of billions in fact, not millions. I hope this answers your questions.
We can still be critical of the implementation of the war, even if one initially supported the idea. While treason is a difficult charge to make stick, the Bush administration's errors certainly amount to gross incompetence. Their manipulation of the intelligence to make Iraq seem like an immanent threat was deceitful, and Bush's legacy will not be of a great "war president".
Well, perhaps ...but it was fully funded (approved) by the congress that was elected by the people of the USA. So if President Bush is guilty of "gross incompetence", then congress is guilty of backing/approving that "gross incompetence". If the president is brought up on charges, then all members of congress should be brought up on charges of backing/funding/approving it all. Baron Max
You know as well as I do that your post answered none of the points I raised. Oh, sure, you used standard bullshit rhetoric, but the reality is that our duly elected congress backed the war in Iraq ....as proven by the fact that they continued to vote to fund it. Baron Max
Who's in charge of funding the war? Or does the President just pull the money from the government coffers whenever he wants some more? Baron Max
But I'm not against the continuing struggle in Afghanistan, only it's failure to get rid of the Taliban and Osama. I think alot of the reason has to do with the diversion of troops to Iraq.
No, it's because we fought the war in the same way as we fought in Vietnam ......politically instead of militarily. If the military had been given the go-ahead, the war would be over by now in Afghanistan ....and probably in Iraq as well. Baron Max
Hmmm...let's go back in history, about 8 or 9 years ago: (link: Republican Statements When Clinton Went to War) You're right, Baron Max. WHY DO POLITICIANS/PEOPLE ALWAYS BLAME THE PRESIDENT? Congress agreed to Clinton's wars, why did Governor Bush (President now) and other Senators/Congressmen constantly complain and blame the President? It's beyond my belief!
Question if GW is so fully in control of our country why did the democrats win the mid-term? I thought that the dictator that you whiney liberals claim GW to be, would never countenance such a thing happening.
