who is responsible?

when you look at all the fighting in iraq, at everyone killed by the u.s. forces and the insurgents and the jihadists and the shiite militias and the sunni militias and the kurdish militias, and all the vast numbers of people permanently wounded or disabled, or who will get cancer or birth defects from depleted uranium, and ask who is responsible, the answer is clear. george w. bush. he is completely responsible for all of the bloodshed. not just those people killed or injured by the american troops, or given cancer and birth defects by american use of depleted uranium. he is also completely responsible for all of the atrocities done by the insurgents and the militias. he is responsible for the beheadings and the kidnappings of journalists and the looting and EVERYTHING bad that happens in iraq. why is he 100% responsible for what happens in iraq? because HE STARTED THE WAR. if saddam hussein were still in power, none of this would have happened. there would not be any insurgents or jihadists. and the one part of iraq where things are going well, the kurdish north, would still have things going well even if saddam were still in power! why? because he hasn’t controlled that part of iraq since 1991! so every time you hear about another atrocity in iraq, done by some terrorist group, try and remember that the real responsibility for all the carnage lies with whoever STARTED the bloody conflict in the first place. and with all his friends and buddies like don rumsfeld, condoleeza rice, dick cheney, scooter libby, karl rove, paul wolfowitz, alberto gonzalez, and everyone at fox news. all of them are directly responsible for this bloody carnage. they are directly responsible for the destruction of the most holy sites in shiite islam. they are directly responsible for inciting tensions between sunnis and shiites to the point of a civil war. because, if the war had not happened in the first place, none of this would have ever happened. that fact, and that fact alone, puts all of the blame for everything that went wrong solely on bush’s shoulders. and for that fact alone, even if he had done everything else perfectly in his entire presidency (which is the opposite of what happened), he should be impeached. because the united states constitution obliges us to abide by international treaties that we sign, and we signed the united nations charter. and according to the united nations charter, the war in iraq is an illegal, pre-emptive, unilateral invasion of aggression. and bush recently came out with a new national security strategy document that re-affirms the central importance of pre-emptive war! what an arrogant butcher he is! according to the u.s. constitution, violating international treaty obligations is an impeachable offense. and judging by the massive carnage in iraq unfolding every single day for the last 3 years, such an impeachment would be richly deserved by the man directly responsible for every single death and injury caused by the war and its aftermath, who to this day is unapologetic about his lies about weapons of mass destruction. and so what if he believed those lies? all that means is he is an idiot who cannot tell fantasy from reality! all the more reason to impeach the bastard! so i am watching with great disdain as the cowards in charge of the democratic party distance themselves from the courageous and noble senator from wisconsin, russell feingold, and his motion to censure the president for his unconstitutional domestic wiretapping program. and the republicans are all such brain-dead syncophant zombies, it makes my blood boil listening to their nonsensical jeering about this censure motion. they talk as if it is treasonous to dare to question the commander-in-chief at a time of war. complete and utter nonsense! what is treasonous is NOT to question the bastard, and to sit idly by while people are dying and our constitutional rights are taken away one by one. and the most treasonous person of all is our commander-in-chief himself, who is directly responsible for taking away many of our civil liberties while using torture to instigate terrorism that he can pretend to “defend” us from! this notion that we cannot question the commander-in-chief while at war is so utterly ridiculous, on so many levels, that whenever a republican says it, i wonder how they manage to have the basic cognitive ability to speak and understand the english language in the first place! what if president bush suddenly decided to pre-emptively nuke north korea, iran, russia, china, india, pakistan, israel, the united kingdom, and france, all at the same time? would they still say that we cannot question the commander-in-chief at a time of war, up until the moment they are blown to smithereens by the massive nuclear counterattack? or maybe they would finally realize, hey, the fact that there is a war going on means that there is that much MORE reason to question our commander-in-chief, not LESS! i mean, DUH! somebody should start a store where functional human brains capable of rational thought can be purchased in exchange for money, and invite republicans to pay a visit. i mean, seriously...