The Ethic of Being an American Leader

and its betrayal by the Bush Administration...

"In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal but what is right, not what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves."

- shrubya, October, 2000

Apparently, shrubya holds the public in no small measure of contempt. Which ranks us right up there with the rule of law (both international and domestic), America's tradition of human and civil rights - basically, anything that is not, or cannot produce, money. But no biggie; the feeling is definitely mutual. It's so mutual, in fact, that a majority of Americans would support impeachment if it becomes even more glaringly obvious than it already is that shrubCo lied its collective ass off to get us into Iraq.

Of course, the actual wording of the poll question was "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." But I must ask: "If?!?!" Can this seriously be regarded as hypothetical? Are people just in denial? Do they have to see him "officially" declared a liar for it to be real or something? There is already ample evidence for the scandalous nature of LieraqGate; how much more will it take?

Conversely, let's pretend for a minute that they weren't lying. If that's true, then the only other explanation for the parade of idiocy is that this group is woefully, pathetically, criminally incompetent. To my mind, that is infinitely more frightening than the notion that they lied, lied again, lied some more and then told a few extra lies just for good measure. The proper solution for either scenario, though, is removal from office for the lot of 'em. So, since the conclusion and remedy are the same in either case, can we all just agree that shrubya et al lied and get on with the impeachment proceedings?

Perhaps this Nelson Report can help speed things along:

On the larger topic, law and morality...the NY Times today details last year’s CIA Inspector General’s classified report that Bush Administration torture directives carried out by the Agency “might violate some provisions of the International Convention Against Torture...”...On the CIA IG’s report on violating international law, note the word “might”? We checked with a highly informed/involved former State Department source. His comments:

“...in 1988 when John Whitehead signed the Convention in New York, and then later, when we ratified it, we enacted domestic laws where necessary to make it ‘the law of the land.’ When we made our report, for example, as required by the Convention we had this to say to the UN, copy to the Senate:

‘Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. Every act constituting torture under the Convention constitutes a criminal offense under the law of the United States. No official of the government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form. No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. US law contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for example, during a ‘state of public emergency’) or on orders from a superior officer or public authority, and the protective mechanisms of an independent judiciary are not subject to suspension.’ (Report of the United States to the UN Committee against Torture, October 15, 1999, UN Doc. CAT/C/28/Add.5, February 9, 2000, para. 6.)

Note the language -- as is in the Convention's title -- about other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. It's not merely torture...."

Whaddaya say? Can we, huh, please, huh?


wingtip to Eschaton!