Is George Bush an agent of a Foreign Power?

clipped from news.yahoo.com

BAGHDAD - Nearly half of the foreign detainees held in Iraq are Saudi citizens, and lists of their names were given to Saudi officials during a recent visit by an Iraqi delegation, national security adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie said in remarks aired Monday.

Last week, al-Rubaie said before leaving for Saudi Arabia that the majority of the suicide bombers and "those who drive the vehicles to blow up our innocent civilians, Iraqis, are Saudis." Al-Rubaie, who headed the delegation, said then "we need to stop the flow of suicide bombers, we need to stop the fatwas (religious edicts) coming from Saudis to justify the killings of innocent Iraqis."

In the interview with Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya, al-Rubaie said that he raised the issue of fatwas with officials in the kingdom and "we heard very good news." He did not elaborate.

I think that really should ring some alarm bells about who is behind this war, and who’s going to benefit by it. Seeing as the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, Bin Ladin is Saudi, Al-Queda is Saudi funded - and Bush wants to attack their mortal cultural and religious enemy, Iran? People have gone to the gallows on thinner evidence. The Rosenburgs, the "Haymarket Martyrs" - and just a whole lot of Texans while Bush was Governor.



I think at the very least, Bush should have to go to the Senate to defend himself against impeachment. While Al Gore's argument against impeachment is persuasive IF you are looking at this as the malfeasance of one man, it is in fact about the subversion of our Republic by a coterie of conspirators over a period of 50 years. Bush is their sock-puppet, no more, but someone has to be the fall guy, to be held accountable for the desecration of the Constitution. If there "is no consensus" about Bush, per se, I think that as testomony illuminates under the slimy rocks that composes his power base, that a consensus will emerge.

However, even if it does not, and literally divides the country in two, that might not be such a bad thing. If there are those who truly prefer tyranny, let them go in peace to explore that path.

If there is no such purge, no such broad cleansing of the government, no widespread dismissal and ultimately prosecution of those involved, no return to the Constitution and the rule of law, there can be no credible government. With all due respect to Al Gore, that leaves us in a position where violent revolution is not merely possible, but the exact situation that caused our Founders to "cross the Rubicon" themselves.

Should we consider ourselves lesser men? Do Democrats and Republicans alike presume we have all been neutered?

Without some sign to the contrary, I must presume that Democrats are all in favor of this handy new concept of a "Unitary Executive" and an impotent, irrelevant Congress. I must further presume that Democrats, as well as Republicans, consider the Constitution a "quaint" and inconvenient limitation on the power and scope of magesterial authority. In short, we will be ruled by a King, with fewer checks upon him than King George III.

I don't believe I can stand for that. How about you?