Town Square

The most serious threat to our security

Original post made by Albert, Duveneck/St. Francis, on Feb 27, 2007

This Administration is a Threat to Our National Security
Bush and Cheney Must be Impeached Before it's too late.

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.


Posted by Robin
a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 27, 2007 at 10:15 am

The criminality and treachery goes far beyond just Bush and Cheney.

Take the experts at the Hoover Institute, for example. Surely they knew that removing Saddam would only bring real chaos and real misery to a nation well-understood to be extremely factionalized. And yet most of them publically endorsed invading Iraq.

These same experts are now fiendlishly silent about this disaster that they endorsed, or they busy themselves pinning the blame exclusively on Bush and Cheney. And notice how most of these "loyal" citizens have waited nearly FOUR YEARS to alert us that Team Bush was screwing up. Worse still, these same cowards are doing NOTHING to stop our pending attack on Iran.

Until we hold these individuals accountable for their murderous and costly blunders, you can kiss good-bye to any positive notions of American citizenship.

We are to blame if we don't stop these criminals and they take comfort and amusement knowing that.

Posted by The Cohen Borother
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 27, 2007 at 5:31 pm

I think that we have reached an unprecedented stage in our collective history where the Bush regime, for the survival of the nation, needs to be removed, either through impeachment, or through peacful civil resistence that would paralise that regime and force it to disband, maybe using the toppling of Ferdinand Marcos as an example. Our lives and future is at stake.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 27, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Anyone want to fantasize about what would have happened had we not pushed Saddam out of Kuwait? How about if we allowed Saddam to continue violating the terms of his cease fire?
Sometimes all choices are bad and you need to select the lesser bad. As an example. Jumping out of a tall building is a bad decision - but staying and burning is worse. Only an idiot or a liberal would presume to criticize either choice.

Posted by Robin
a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 27, 2007 at 8:41 pm

No Arab nor Muslim nation has ever attacked USA or even threatened to attack USA.

Never in our entire history.

Posted by um
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 27, 2007 at 8:52 pm

Our embassy in Iran was attacked and hostaqes were held for over a year. Or does that not count somehow?

Posted by um
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 27, 2007 at 8:55 pm

and wait...

what about those towers in New York?

Posted by wow
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Feb 27, 2007 at 10:43 pm

You forgot about Iran threatening to destroy America.

Posted by Robin
a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 28, 2007 at 6:19 am


1.) The revolutionary guard had no choice but to liquidate the US embassy in Tehran because for many years the embassy was used as a cover for CIA covert operations, including the CIA's Operation Ajax, a USA-sponsored coup, which overthrew Iran's elected leader and installed a US-puppet dictator.

2.) Please cite the Arab nation or Muslim nation that is responsible for 9/11. Did Arabs or Muslims touch the 48-floor WTC Building #7? If not, who did? Cui bono?

Posted by Robin
a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 28, 2007 at 6:21 am


Not true.

Iran's leaders had vowed to defend Iran from US pre-emptive attack.

Any other response on their part would be criminally negligent.

Posted by sarlat
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 28, 2007 at 7:01 am

Back in the early 1950's, the CIA had instigated a coup that removed from power a democratically elected Iranian president and replaced him with a US controlled puppet. The country was run for years from the CIA wing at the Teheran embassy. This alone gave the Islamic Guards the right to storm the US embassy in 1979. All the talk about how terrible the embassy takeover had been is nonsense. They took their country back from meddling foreigners. We would have done the same.

Posted by um
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 28, 2007 at 7:28 am

We are derailing the original posters call for impeachment, I dont want to stop his attempt to get it discussed. Not that I believe in any of the previous claims as being impeachable, but their have been enough previous threads on the mideast on this board and he deserves to let his topic run.

Besides I know I wont convice you and you wont convince me, so why waste the energy.

Posted by Your Kidding
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 28, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Wow! You have got to be kidding about impeaching Bush and Cheney. President Bush is one of the most honorable men we have had in the Oval Office for a long time. There is a real threat to the security of our great country, but it's not President Bush.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 28, 2007 at 4:45 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Carolyn
a resident of another community
on Feb 28, 2007 at 8:20 pm

Didn't get a chance to see what Wallis said, unfortunately, but have a feeling I agree. It's amazing to think Bush could be perceived as honorable after he took away our precious habeas corpus. If I'm arrested for criticizing our authoritarian government, I may not be told why, but you'll know.

Posted by Wolf
a resident of Palo Verde
on Mar 1, 2007 at 12:04 am

I actually agree that Bush is one of the more honorable presidents in recent years. One can argue about the wisdom of some of his decision, but it is hard to argue about his behavior. And he doesn't chase the winds of public opinion, like some presidents did.

I am sure that many (most?) left wingers disagree with that. For them, Bush lies whenever he opens his mouth, regardless of what he says. But then, this is not an argument against Bush...

As to habeas corpus, enemy combatants never had it; nor did people outside US territories. It's hard to take away what one never had.

Finally, impeach Bush for WHAT? He did not commit any crime. Again, one can disagree with his political decisions, but this is supposed to be resolved through the ballot box, and not through impeachment. In fact, it was. Twice. In 2000 and in 2004.

Posted by Carolyn
a resident of another community
on Mar 1, 2007 at 8:24 am

Bush's priority is to uphold thr Constitution. Please watch the video commentary on the passage of The Military Commissions Act passed in October of last year:

Web Link

I would think that we would want to extend habeas corpus to aliens as well as to citizens anyway, otherwise we are hypocrites, no? but all that is moot now that we citizens no longer have the protection of habeas corpus either.

One only has to be a supporter of an "enemy combatant" to be arrested, even without charge, and held indefinitely. Donating to a cause that is deemed "hostile" to our government can be cause for arrest. I wonder if Amnesty International is on the list.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 1, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Making war against the United States is not a crime, it is war. that is why war rules are applied, not criminal justice rules. I live in fear that the two prisoners I captured November 26, 1950 will show up on my doorstep and sue me because I did not read them their Miranda rights. What criminal sanction will deter someone who is determined to kill you even if he dies in the killing? Threaten to take away his library card?
I despair of Feather Merchants, products of the New Wave education, ever understanding war. Try negotiating with a forest fire. Just don't get in the way of the folks who are doing what is necessary. Dom't stand on the fire hose.