Stardate 20030514.1532

(On Screen): I have to give Ramsey Clark credit for one thing: he says what he thinks. Of course, what he says demonstrates that he's a raving lunatic:

Inside the press club, Clark said, "U.S. militarism threatens the destiny of humanity."

"This country of ours has committed the most serious act of aggression in its history by engaging in a war of aggression without a declaration of war by Congress," Clark said, referring to the recent war with Iraq.

He said he did not see how "any reasonable person" could believe Iraq posed any kind of threat to the U.S., adding that weapons of mass destruction never made a difference in the decision to go to war with Iraq.

"The greatest danger we face is ourselves," Clark said. "We harbor the vast majority of all weapons of mass destruction ... yet we demand absolute obedience to our will."

Clark also called for Congress to impeach President George W. Bush.

"I urge everyone who cares about the integrity of our Constitution to take back the Constitution by insisting that the House of Representatives, which has the sole power of impeachment, process impeachment proceedings now against President Bush for launching this war of aggression," Clark said.

However, Clark admitted that getting Congress to act would be difficult since "the media shows no interest," and "the people are uninformed." He also acknowledged the difficulty in toppling a popular president.

Or perhaps it's that the people are informed, but don't agree with Clark.

A lawyer of Clark's stature should know that the claim that there was no declaration of war in Iraq is false, but that is a "big lie" that extreme leftists have been trying to push through sheer repetition. It's true that no bill was passed which included the phrase "Declaration of War". It's also irrelevant.

Congress passed a formal resolution under the War Powers Act, and the bill itself says that This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq". From a constitutional standpoint, this totally satisfies the requirement for Congressional involvement in the decision to go to war. It didn't say "declaration of war" anywhere in it, but it was a declaration of war nonetheless.

Clark says he doesn't see how "any reasonable person" could believe Iraq posed any threat. He apparently hasn't seen the news reports about the discovery that Saddam had been directly cooperating with al Qaeda for years, or the discovery of training camps for Palestinian terrorists, or the discovery of hundreds of explosive belts (hidden in a school) ready to be used in suicide attacks.

The claim that the US demands absolute obedience to our will is tripe. The US obviously has interests and is trying to advance those interests, but if we were trying for absolute obedience from anyone, we've been doing a pretty lousy job of it.

The basic claim is that the war was wrong because it was a "war of aggression". This is a term which has been tossed around a lot, and no one has ever really done a very good job of explaining what it means. In fact, one of the things which can be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court is "aggression", but the treaty doesn't even attempt to explain what that means and left the effort to try to formally define it for later.

As a practical matter, what Clark and his ideological allies actually mean by "aggression" is "attacking someone when they don't attack you first." The aggressor is the one who strikes the first blow.

Clark and other tranzis think this is a crime, and Clark wants to use that as justification for impeachment as "high crimes and misdemeanors". But it isn't a crime under US law, and "emerging international law" isn't justification for impeachment. In this as in everything else seems to be saying, he's either lying or deluded.

If the President waged an illegal war without Congressional approval, that would be an impeachable offense, but that didn't happen. And waging a "war of aggression" may be a crime in some people's minds, but it isn't a crime under US law and also isn't an impeachable offense.

Clark reveals his true colors in comments about other upstanding world leaders:

When asked if he believed Saddam Hussein had tortured his own people as alleged, Clark said the charges amounted to a "demonization" of Hussein. He said in America today, people who don't say anything bad about Louis Farrakhan or Fidel Castro are themselves labeled "bad."

"I don't believe demonization is very helpful," Clark said. "I don't even believe in demons."

Saddam wasn't evil, he was just misunderstood. To demonize someone is not very helpful.

But Clark seems to have no difficulty demonizing President Bush. He's not only a raving lunatic, he's also a hypocrite.

Clark's own words impeach him more thoroughly than anything else could. No one who hasn't already drunk the Tranzi kool-aid can possibly take anything he says seriously any more.