I'm all for schaedenfreude, but...

Image from billmon.org

I'll be at least momentarily pleased if some of the bigger names being bandied about (Rove, Cheney, Perle) do actually come under indictment. But pardon me if I don't jump up and down.

First, assuming Bush doesn't just fire Fitzgerald (and why wouldn't he?), there's the likelihood that the worst "punishment" these men will face will involve perhaps having to step down from their jobs, perhaps some fines, perhaps some public humiliation. But are any of these creatures really capable of shame? I have my doubts.

And second, I have my own problems with the anti-Bush sentiment that's growing. My suspicion is that many are jumping on the anti-Bush bandwagon because he's failing to win a war. To me the question is the war in the first place, and America's habit of solving perceived problems by attacking other countries.

I'll tell you what would float my boat: Cheney, Bush and the whole gang in orange jumpsuits.... In Frog-marching Bush to the Hague, Robert Parry makes a good case for the basic criminality of the Iraq invasion and occupation. Read it and relive the martial splendor of "Shock and Awe" (including the bombing of a Baghdad restaurant full of civilians), the "pacification" of Fallujah, countless instances of "bad apples" torturing Iraqis—completely on their own initiative of course. (He omits one of my favorites, though: "smart" munitions that not only missed their targets, they fell in the wrong country. See also here.)

"In a healthy democracy," writes Parry, "the debate might be less about imprisoning [Lyddie] England and other “grunts” than whether Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other war architects should be 'frog-marched' to the Hague for prosecution as war criminals."

Read the whole article...