Bush's Psychopathic Tendencies on Display

Thanks to Eugene Robinson, who brings us this perspective of President Bush's Monday press conference.

According to the Iraqi government, 3,438 civilians were killed in July, making it the bloodiest month since the invasion. The president was asked yesterday whether the failure of the U.S.-backed "unity" government to stem the orgy of sectarian carnage disappoints him, and he said that no, it didn't. How, I wonder, is that possible? Does he believe it would be a sign of weakness to admit that the flowering of democracy in Iraq isn't going exactly as planned? Does he believe saying everything's just fine will make it so? Is he in denial? Or do 3,438 deaths really just roll off his back after he's had his workout and a nice bike ride?

Here's a link to the rest: http://www.washingtonpost[...]

I am pretty much disgusted. This is shock and awe.

Also, I'd like to point to a piece by Peter Dyer, over at consortiumnews.com. Here's an excerpt followed by a link:

...

On June 13, the Pew Research Group released a poll based on interviews with 17,500 people in 15 countries including the U.S. The poll showed that people in European and Muslim countries see U.S. policy in Iraq as a bigger threat to world peace than Iran's nuclear program.

Because of the disdain of American leaders for international law, manifested so vividly in U.S. aggression in Iraq, the international moral authority of the United States is at an all-time low. The post-World War II vision of a world without war, embodied in the United Nations Charter, has never seemed more out of reach.

Aggression (initiating an unprovoked war) was formally outlawed in 1945 by the Nuremberg Charter (Article VI(a)), a treaty signed and largely written by the United States. And although the Nuremberg Charter was formed for the specific purpose of trying Nazi war criminals, the words of the judgment make clear the intent of the court that the Nuremberg principles must apply to all nations and for all time.

“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. ... Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.”

In 1945, the U.S. also signed the United Nations Charter, a document which was nothing if not an attempt by the world community, as the first sentence states: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” To that end the Charter clearly and specifically forbids violations of the sovereignty of any state by any other state, except in immediate self-defense (Article 2, Sec. 4 and Articles 39 and 51).

And in December 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted Resolution 95 (1), affirming “the principles of International law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal.”

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution includes the Supremacy Clause which makes all treaties signed and ratified by the U.S. the “supreme law of the land.” Because the invasion of Iraq violated the Nuremberg Charter and the U.N. Charter it also violated the U.S. Constitution. Sadly, President Bush’s disdain for many international treaties which the U.S. has ratified has made a mockery of his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” But Article VI has not been repealed. It’s still the law.

...

link: http://www.consortiumnews[...]

I agree Peter, and I have been saying this for a while. We need to impeach, convict Bush and put him someplace where he has an opportunity to right his wrongs, or at least not do anymore harm.