Iraq US Crime Against Humanity: Why No Inquiry?

Pelosi said she had to impeach Trump for his crimes, namely talking to the Ukrainian president about corruption and going to Court instead of obeying Congress right away (all presidents have always gone to Court when ordered by Congress, it’s part of check and balances, as the Legislative branch can’t order around the Executive branch without arbitration by the Judicial Branch). Pelosi said “Our democracy is what is at stake, the president leaves us no choice but to act.“ 

But the crimes in Iraq were much higher and greater than those alleged from Trump: millions died. And the war there is still going on. How come no inquiry? Could that be because Pelosi and Biden were principals in that iraq invasion abomination?

Could it be that Democrats impeach Trump, following the strategy pure religious types, such as the Puritans, always followed, impeaching others for crimes they themselves committed, on a far greater scale? The greatest US crime committed in the last 30 years was the war against Iraq. Among other gifts, it brought us the Islamist State.

Pelosi and Bush are now among those politicians world history will forever spite. Differently from Nero, whose culpability was sometimes unclear, Pelosi has admitted to crimes against humanity and conspiring to implement them. With Bush. Just listen to the tape. The CNN tape. All Americans who thinks that’s all right have sunk to the level of Germans thinking it was alright to invade Poland in 1939.

Right now the US is reviled in Iraq. New York Times itself, a shill for the US establishment, and a proponent of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, makes that assessment (see footnotes for quotes). How come there was no inquiry? How come there is still no inquiry? Because the guy, the criminal suspect, more exactly, who authorized the Iraq War is running for president? And has the highest probability, at this point, to succeed Trump?  

US policy under Bush I, Clinton (extensive blockade, including of medical drugs), Bush II, arguably resulted in the death of at least one million Iraqis… Even before 2003. 

But then in 2002 the US government accused Iraq, in blatant contradiction with evidence, to be an allied of Al Qaeda (which had destroyed the World Trade Center in New York, but was also initially created and sustained by US agents (CIA) and their pawns (SIS), for many years, committing atrocity after atrocity in Afghanistan to expel Russian and French influence, in the hope of mastering Afghan mineral wealth, and preventing others to rise).

As this was not enough, the US disingenuously accused Iraq of having Weapons Of Mass Destruction (WMD), including sci fi biological weapons developed inside trucks, as demonstrated with kiddie drawing by Sec of State Powell at the UN. The lies were horrendous and insulted the world community’s intelligence. Oil man Bush was more motivated by oil and personal vengeance (because his dad had cut short the first Iraq war, and may have been targeted by Iraqis later))

The number of casualties in the Iraq War remains disputed, however a recent estimate, using the best information available, shows a “catastrophic estimate of 2.4 million deaths“ since the 2003 invasion, including more than 5,000 dead US soldiers… and countless numbers of US soldiers reduced to suffering vegetable status (I know one US marine personally who goes from painful brain operation, to the next; he may as well be living nailed on a cross. The only clear thing is that he will die from it soon…) 

In the end it prevented durably Iraq to export oil. In turn, that, and shorting out Iran for oil exports too, enabled the US to  develop fracking on an enormous scale under Obama (who called US fracking the “fuel bridge to the future”).

Where is the inquiry in all this? How come US policy makers, some candidates for supreme office right now, were not asked formally the proper questions? Ever? War of aggression as Bush II engaged in, without proper UN mandate (and strong opposition by France) is a crime against humanity. However, as there was bipartisan support to devastate Iraq, here we are. This is no way for a democracy to operate. Foreign war should be engaged only when it seems there is no alternative, and the decisions leading to the engagement should be systematically examined later, to make sure no crime was committed, and to become an example, not just to the world, but to history and to create templates for progress and civilization. 

Unpunished crimes only encourage further corruption, not just in other countries, but in the US themselves, where power of money has never been stronger. We just learned that the Shah of Iran was able to flee to the USA, escaping Iranian justice, thanks to the influence of a major bank on the Carter administration. Never any official inquiry on this, perpetrators went on as influencers. 

Patrice Ayme

***

***

New York Times: “How a Chase Bank Chairman Helped the Deposed Shah of Iran Enter the U.S.
The fateful decision in 1979 to admit Mohammed Reza Pahlavi prompted the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran and helped doom the Carter presidency.

….“as the jet touched down, the only one waiting to receive the deposed monarch was a senior executive of Chase Manhattan Bank, which had not only lobbied the White House to admit the former shah but had arranged visas for his entourage, searched out private schools and mansions for his family and helped arrange the Gulfstream to deliver him.

“The Eagle has landed,” Joseph V. Reed Jr., the chief of staff to the bank’s chairman, David Rockefeller, declared in a celebratory meeting at the bank the next morning.

Less than two weeks later, on Nov. 4, 1979, vowing revenge for the admission of the shah to the United States, revolutionary Iranian students seized the American Embassy in Tehran and then held more than 50 Americans — and Washington — hostage for 444 days.”

***

Joe Biden Is A Perpetually Lying War Criminal Lying About His Crimes Against Humanity From 2002 To 2019:

There are two sorts of war criminals; those who deny they did anything wrong, and the others. Biden aspires to be of the first sort. However, like Pelosi, he has a videotape problem. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the authorization vote was cast, Joe Biden was at the forefront of the machine to destroy Iraq (which profited to US frackers, their Wall Street backers, and fossil fuel plutocrats, all over the world, especially the USA). Biden could have blocked in 2002 the use of war against Iraq. Instead he authorized it.

The day the Iraq war was launched by Bush II, Biden told CNN: “There’s a lot of us who voted for giving the president the authority to take down Saddam Hussein if he didn’t disarm. And there are those who believe, at the end of the day, even though it wasn’t handled all that well, we still have to take him down.”

Many Iraqis feel that it is the USA which has to be taken down. (The Biden quotes about Iraq are many; he tried to lie about them in 2019… then admitting he “misspoke”…)

Further on Biden said: ….”what you are sensing from some Democrats, as well as Republicans, is a frustration relating to the lost opportunities of maybe being able to do this with others, maybe, if we had others with us, not even having to go to war. So I don’t think it’s anything other than a frustration.

But I think it’s time we stop all that. We have one single focus. And that is, we’re about to send our women and men to war. The president is the commander in chief. We voted to give him the authority to wage that war. We should step back and be supportive.”

***

New York Times, December 31, 2019. in “Protesters Attack U.S. Embassy in Iraq, Chanting ‘Death to America’: “The United States has about 5,200 troops in Iraq — down from a peak of 170,000 in 2007 —  in addition to an unclear number of civilian contractors. The troops — stationed primarily at a base in Al Anbar Province, northwest of Baghdad, and at another in the Kurdish-controlled north of country — are tasked with training Iraqi security forces and helping to prevent a resurgence of the Islamic State.

After years of military and political investment in Iraq, the United States finds itself in a position where few powerful Iraqis are willing to stand up for it and its role in the country.

Condemnation of the recent airstrikes continued on Tuesday. Mr. Mahdi, the Iraqi prime minister, announced an official three-day mourning period for the men killed in the strikes, which he called an “outrageous attack.”

***

Iraq war Carnage:

Officially admitted on the US side, more than half a million Iraqis died during the Iraq War. So did 5,000 American troops. The war strengthened the radical extremism it was supposed to fight while costing American taxpayers more than $2.4 trillion, much of which went to defense contractors like then-Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company Halliburton. And George W. Bush started the war based on the lies that Saddam Hussein was helping Al Qaeda, and sitting on an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

But Nancy Pelosi doesn’t think that was impeachable. Right Nancy voted against the Iraq war then and September 2004, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called the war in Iraq a “grotesque mistake”. However, she could have done more.  

In a CNN video, Nancy Pelosi says that she knew George W Bush was lying to the public to start a war, but she did not feel this was an impeachable offense.

Nancy Pelosi: I Knew Bush Jr Was Lying About WMD To Start War, But Didn’t See It As Impeachable

Incredible. In footage from a CNN Town Hall, Pelosi said she knew that the infamous WMD-narrative created by the Bush administration wasn’t real. She was one of four on the Intelligence Committee, as the “Ranking Member”, and she knew there was none of what the elected officials of the Bush administration claimed there was. But ‘they had made a representation”, and “they were elected”. So be it. 

Actually, only Bush II had been elected. All the other officials, including Cheney the Vice, were on his coattails. Nancy just had to impeach Bush… And Cheney. Interestingly, then she would have become president:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

So lying to We The People of the World is OK, and it’s cool (even if one doesn’t become president in the process, although one could have been). That should be unsettling on its own, and Nancy should be prosecuted on this ground alone. 

There is no expiration date for crimes against humanity, and complicity therewith. So Bush, Cheney, Biden (the authorizer of the 2003 Iraq war), and accomplice Pelosi should be prosecuted for lying to We the People, and killing 2.4 million.

But the candor and casualness with which the Speaker reveals her crimes is astounding. This poorly educated girl has no moral backbone whatsoever. Even on live television in 2019, it doesn’t occur to Pelosi just how bad her high crimes against humanity sound. In an orgasm of wanton hypocrisy, she chalks up her passiveness in pursuing Bush’s impeachment to “not wanting to make [impeachment] a way of life” for Americans. Her decision to allow the president to continue an illegal war (started because of a lie she was aware of) was therefore rational because it spared us another impeachment debacle.

Pelosi’s reasoning doesn’t make sense—starting a war based on a coordinated conspiracy by dozens of the highest elected officials to imprint upon the public a Hitler sized lie is illegal. It is more than enough grounds for impeachment. The total number of Iraqis killed by US policy since 1990 may be as high as 3.4 million, and Pelosi as a top US political operator and influencer is fully responsible. So is Biden. 

***

Bush, Oct. 7, 2002: “After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.”

Dispelling Lies Exalting 1776 To Smear 1789.

It’s traditional among Anglo-Saxon historians and pundits of the sort who get on the payrolls of the “best” (that is, wealthiest, most plutocratic) universities, and top media, to spite the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789, and propagandize against it…

While celebrating the US Declaration of Independence of 1776. It’s condemning apples to celebrate death caps. 1776 was anti-plutocratic, right, yet tribal: it didn’t free the slaves. 1789 is universal, and did free the slaves. Ironically, the US Constitution also appeared in 1789… but was not as universal as the French constitution, so that US ersatz has been hardly mentioned ever since as a competitor to France 1789… Most US citizens, pundits and propagandists don’t realize the French and US Constitutions were elaborated simultaneously in 1789… And everybody knows about the French one, because of its universal claims.  

Typical of the plutocratically inspired spite for 1789, is this from the New York Times, July 4, 2019: Robespierre’s America

We need to reclaim the spirit of 1776, not the certitudes of 1789.

You mean we should forget the certitudes of the United Nations’ charter? And the New York Times to insist: 

“Armed with the ‘truth,’ Jacobins could brand any individuals who dared to disagree with them traitors or fanatics,” historian Susan Dunn wrote of the French Revolution. “Any distinction between their own political adversaries and the people’s ‘enemies’ was obliterated.” 

Amusing, if said in elementary school, by an exalted toddler, but not funny if considered to be serious scholarship. And even less so when it is used, as it is, to smear the entire French Revolution. When one speaks of the Terror one speaks of a period during which the French Republic was at war with the rest of Europe, which was controlled by bloody plutocrats threatening to kill millions, and boasting of it, to further their rule of terror. The counter-terror of the Republic festered only during a short period in 1793, and part of 1794… and it arose for reasons exterior to France. The word “Jacobin” was initially an insult, and was invented well after 1789.[2]

Pseudo-humanists can say whatever catches their fancy, completely irrelevant to any sort of reality: this is how the United Nations Charter was born, at Valmy, September 20, 1792… Thanks to superior French explosives… And the Republican élan…

The French Revolution of 1789 was such an excellent thing that the Charter of the present day United Nations is founded on it. However, in their will to hatred, and plutocracy, many smear the Human Rights and Citizen Rights Proclamation of 1789 with what happened in 1793: total war, invasions by several monarchies, the Jacobins tearing each other up, the Terror, 17,000 executed. They also omit to say that, in the meantime, all of Europe monarchies had attacked France in 1792, promising Paris “military execution”, and that the king and queen had betrayed the country, France, that they had been put in charge of leading. [1]

Smearing 1789 with 1793, omitting 1792, is conducive to… hatred. Hatred for progress, human rights, etc.. Thus smearing 1789 is to embrace the love of plutocracy, inequality, fracking, excess CO2, over-exploitation of resources, disregard for human rights, or even human lives (see US life expectancy going down, ever since the latter rule of Obama the Great), etc. Exactly the agenda the English North American colony leaders tended to exhibit and cherish since 1610 CE.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] On the Valmy Battle, September 20, 1792: After threatening Paris with “military execution”, the coalition plutocratic army invaded France. France was still a monarchy, and France was still led by the king who launched the revolution, Louis XVI, who had been king for EIGHTEEN (18) years.  

The military execution threat was made in July 1792, raising the stakes of the total war of plutocracy against the Rights of Man and the Citizen.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/how-genocide-starts/

Just over half of the French infantry were regulars of the old Royal Army, as were nearly all of the cavalry and, most importantly, the artillery,[3][5] which were widely regarded as the best in Europe at the time.[6][7] These veterans provided a professional core to steady the enthusiastic volunteer battalions.[8]Combined, Dumouriez’ Army of the North and Kellermann’s Army of the Centre totalled approximately 54,000 troops.[9] Heading towards them was the Duke of Brunswick’s coalition army of about 84,000, all veteran Prussian and Austrian troops augmented by large complements of Hessians and the French royalist Army of Condé.[9]

 

The invading fasco-plutocratic army of proto-Nazis handily captured Longwy on 23 August and Verdun on 2 September, then moved on toward Paris through the defiles of the Forest of Argonne.[6] In response, Dumouriez halted his advance to the Netherlands and reversed course, approaching the enemy army from its rear.[3] From Metz, Kellermann moved to his assistance, joining him at the village of Sainte-Menehould on 19 September.[6] The French forces were now EAST of the Prussians, behind their lines. Theoretically the Prussians could have marched straight towards Paris unopposed, but this course was never seriously considered: the threat to their lines of supply and communication was too great to be ignored. With few other options available, Brunswick turned back and prepared to do battle.

 

When the Prussian manœuvre was nearly completed, Kellermann advanced his left wing and took up a position on the slopes between Sainte-Menehould and Valmy.[6] He centered his command around an old windmill, which he quickly razed to prevent enemy artillery spotters from using it as a sighting location.[11] His veteran artillerists were well-placed upon its accommodating ridge to begin the so-called “Cannonade of Valmy“.[3] Brunswick moved toward them with about 34,000 of his troops.[9] As they emerged from the woods, a long-range gunnery duel ensued and the French batteries proved superior. The Prussian infantry made a cautious, and fruitless, effort to advance under fire across the open ground.[3]

The French troops sang “La Marseillaise” and “Ça Ira“, and a cheer went up from the French line.[12] Confronted to this discouraging and thoroughly unexpected élan, to the surprise of nearly everyone, Brunswick broke off the action and retired from the field. The Prussians rounded the French positions at a great distance and commenced a rapid retreat eastward.

Never doubt the efficiency of the Marseillaise…

The First French Republic was proclaimed the next day in Paris, as the news of the victory arrived.

French troops soon struck forward into Germany, taking Mainz in October. Dumouriez once again moved against the Austrian Netherlands and Kellermann ably secured the front at Metz…

***

[2] I studied on the exact street from which the word “Jacobin”, initially a put-down, comes from. There was an old Catholic institution partisans of the secular Republic took over, to work from. It was on rue Saint Jacques… So the enemies of the Republic called the secularists that way, to make fun of them, as if they had embraced Saint Jacques (now, as in 1789, French topmost high school and the Sorbonne bracket the rue Saint Jacques)..