Thursday, July 17, 2008

Is George's Administration Looking Forward to The Future With Anxiety, Anticipation...Or Just Relief?

What's In Store For Them After January 20?

It's interesting how some research can lead to more research, to more, and more...


The International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt) was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, although it cannot currently exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.

As of July 2008, 106 states are members of the Court; Suriname will become the 107th state party on 1 October 2008. A further 40 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute.However, a number of states, including China, India and the United States, are critical of the Court and have not joined.

And the above gave way to this:

(from: Human Rights Watch)

The Bush administration's hostility to the ICC has increased dramatically in 2002. The crux of the U.S. concern relates to the prospect that the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction to conduct politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of U.S. military and political officials and personnel. The U.S. opposition to the ICC is in stark contrast to the strong support for the Court by most of America's closest allies.

In an unprecedented diplomatic maneuver on 6 May, the Bush administration effectively withdrew the U.S. signature on the treaty. At the time, the Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Issues Pierre-Richard Prosper stated that the administration was "not going to war" with the Court. This has proved false; the renunciation of the treaty has paved the way for a comprehensive U.S. campaign to undermine the ICC.

Hmmmm. I wonder why? And that bit gave way to:

(From FAIR - Fairness In Accuracy And Reporting)

CBS, NBC Clean Up Bush's 'Happy' Talk 8/24/06 During his August 21 press conference, George W. Bush responded to a question about the Iraq War by saying that "sometimes I'm happy" about the conflict. But many readers and TV viewers never heard the remark, since journalists edited the statement to save Bush any possible embarrassment.

Then to:

August 29, 2006
Bush Goes Retro to Avoid Prosecution
by Paul Craig Roberts

Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush is definitely a war criminal. The U.S. Supreme Court also exposed Bush to war crimes charges under both the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Geneva Conventions when the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld against the Bush administration's military tribunals and inhumane treatment of detainees.

President Bush and his attorney general agree that under existing laws and treaties Bush is a war criminal together with many members of his government. To make his war crimes legal after the fact, Bush has instructed the Justice (sic) Department to draft changes to the War Crimes Act and to U.S. treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

I'm going to deviate a bit here and ask the question: What do YOU think will happen to them after January 20th? About 90% of you will say "They'll get off scott free and they won't be prosecuted in any way." Think hard: IF they get off without even a slight rumble of repentance, WHAT WILL THEY BE GOING TO? Wouldn't it be interesting (if not fun) to dig deep into their futures and see who's nest is being feathered by whom?

Contracts: Bush refuses to sign an International Criminal Court ratification, but has he refused to sign any contracts involving "advisory capacity" positions? Just how many Boards of Directors will he be on? And whose? Shell? Exxon? And Cheney. What will Halliburton give him after he leaves office? Stock options? His name on oil leases? We shouldn't be distracted by the new administration so much that we don't pay attention to what the old administration is doing.

"What If" is a useless game, but once in a while it hits home the value of foresight. What if the next President were to ratify the contract with the International Criminal Court? What brave souls at the ICC would indict the Bush administration under charges of criminal aggression?

Just a thought.

Again, there always impeachment...

On July 15th, 2008 a vote took place to send a resolution to impeach president George W. Bush to the judiciary committee. The resolution was introduced by congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and lays out impeachment charges against president Bush on one count for allegedly manufacturing evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to sway the American people's opinions in favor of military action in Iraq. The resolution was successfully sent to the judiciary committee by a vote of 218 in favor and 183 opposed. The associated press reports that the democrats are planning on holding a hearing on this resolution which will be televised, and that this televised hearing will include testimony from a number of people including experts, congressmen and military personnel.

Who Put a Fire Under The Diplomatic Dimwit?

Whatever the Situation - Hypocrisy Reigns Supreme!

Then Again, Maybe Halliburton Needs New Clients

There are some people besides Bush who must desperately want him to have a "legacy". But who?

U.S. to establish presence in Tehran: report

Wed Jul 16, 7:05 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - The United States will announce in the next month that it plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years, a British newspaper said on Thursday.

In a front-page report, the Guardian said Washington would open a U.S. interests section in the Iranian capital, halfway towards opening an embassy.

The unsourced report by the newspaper's Washington correspondent said: "The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a U.S. interests section in Tehran, a halfway house to setting up a full embassy.

"The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country."

The Guardian said the development was "a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his time in office."

On Sunday, President Amhmoud Ahmadinejad suggested Iran would consider any proposal by the United States for a U.S. interests section in the Islamic Republic, should one be forthcoming.

U.S. media have reported that the State Department is considering opening an interests section that could mean U.S. diplomats returning to Tehran but operating under another country's flag.

Will Bush send Wilson and Plame? Hey, that's one way of getting rid of people: send them to Iran as diplomats! Then again, the Iranians might die... of laughter.

This story has to go down in history as one of America's craziest turnabouts. Was it Obama's statement that he would be willing to meet with Iran? Hey, Obama had the idea first! Nyah nyah! What does McCain think of having to be nicey-nice with a part of "The Axis of Evil"?

OMG! What will Rev. Rod Parsley think? After all, America was founded to destroy Islam, not be (eeeeew!) diplomatic with it. If the Democrats had any political saavy at all, they'd come right out and say, "Why wasn't this done before? Nancy Pelosi goes to Syria and invokes a Republican outcry. You stupid hypocrites!"

But they won't. Damn. It HAD to be someone else's idea: Bush can't turn around that fast. Is that diabolical Karl Rove in on it for some reason?

What would an American Embassy in Iran look like?

We'd have to impress Iran with our own inimitable style:

Then , of course, there's our tasteful holiday decorations: