 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 03 Nov 07 - 01:55 PM Dennis Kucinich is soon going to be bringing a bill to the floor of the House that will be for impeaching VP Cheney. He needs people to contact their representatives to tell them to vote against any motion to table the bill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zisvf7Ci70Y Kucinich is expected to offer his privileged resolution on Tuesday. He expects to continue pushing it until the House acts. That action is likely to be a successful move by Democratic leaders to table the measure. http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=44941 Here's the text of the email that I sent to my Congressman... Dear Congressman ...... I am a voter in your district. I ask for your attention to the following matter when it comes before you on the floor of the House. Congressman Kucinich will soon be invoking a privilege of the house by submitting Resolution 333 (motion to impeach Vice President Cheney), and asking for consideration of the bill. I ask that you please vote against any motion to table this bill. I ask you this for the sake of the future of our country. History is watching. What is done or not done in the next few months will be critical for the preservation of our most sacred and cherished institutions, for ourselves and for future generations. Thank you for your time and consideration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: katlaughing Date: 03 Nov 07 - 02:29 PM I have written to our Rep. Thanks, Carol. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: artbrooks Date: 03 Nov 07 - 03:27 PM Cheney and Bush should both have been gone long ago, but it isn't going to happen for another fifteen months. A vote in the House for impeachment can never be anything but symbolic, since there is absolutely no possibility of getting a 75% vote in the Senate for conviction. A long and bitter impeachment trial would eliminate any prospect of the more moderate Republicans collaborating with the Democrats to accomplish anything. This really only provides more ammunition for those who are saying this is a do-nothing Congress. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 03 Nov 07 - 03:46 PM Of course you're entitled to your opinion, artbrooks, but my own opinion is that if we don't impeach, the erosion of our Constitution that the Bush administration has worked so hard to bring about will become precedent for future administrations. As long as this precedent remains, I personally don't see any chance of there ever being any moderate Republican or Democratic administrations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: artbrooks Date: 03 Nov 07 - 03:54 PM 1. There is a vote for impeachment in the House. 2. There is a trial in the Senate. 3. There can be no conviction, because that would require half of the Republicans voting for it. Fat chance. 4. So Cheney is acquitted...i.e., he wins, and (from the Right's point of view, at least) the precedent stands-legally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 03 Nov 07 - 04:14 PM Those are interesting points, artbrooks. I don't think I agree with them though. If there is a trial in the Senate, I think a lot of evidence will come out that would make it very difficult for even most Republicans to vote against conviction. The number of voters in the US who support impeachment is even higher for Bush/Cheney than it was for Nixon. It could become very uncomfortable, if enough evidence surfaces (and I think it would), for the Senate to fail to convict. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Peace Date: 03 Nov 07 - 04:19 PM "Twenty Questions About Impeaching a Vice President" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Peace Date: 03 Nov 07 - 04:26 PM As Carol pointed out, this would be a good time to see what prospective Dems and Repubs are like in terms of right/wrong. If they can't vote for law now, what damned good will they be to y'all AFTER the next election? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: artbrooks Date: 03 Nov 07 - 05:16 PM If one considers that the Senate should vote on the basis of right/wrong rather than considering political expedience, than it is fairly certain that Bill Clinton would have been convicted when he was impeached for lying about not having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky...and then we would have had Al Gore as President in December 1998. Interesting thought, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Peace Date: 03 Nov 07 - 05:53 PM That then becomes the real issue, Art. If the legislative bodies cannot vote based on right/wrong according to law when they themselves make the law, what does that say about law in the USA? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: artbrooks Date: 03 Nov 07 - 06:03 PM Mostly that it is the same as it has always been, Peace...which is a shame. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Nov 07 - 06:44 PM Good luck to you all down there in the USA with this. Mr Kucinich is a brave man, in my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,MarkS Date: 03 Nov 07 - 08:28 PM Sorry about the above - pushed enter too soon! What is Cheney said to have done which has got Kuchinch so worked up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 03 Nov 07 - 08:45 PM Here you go, MarkS. The resolution and supporting documentation... http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 03 Nov 07 - 08:47 PM He's incredibly brave, LH. He's already survived a few attempts on his life (back when he was the mayor of Cleveland). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Nov 07 - 12:52 AM MarkS - People who don't know why Cheney needs to be impeached are either just plain ignorant in a general sense...or they are willfully, deliberately ignorant...or they're in some state of denial. He has lied about WMDs in Iraq. He has concealed intelligence reports from military intelligence. He has lied about a supposed relationship between Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) and Al Queda. He has illegally, openly and repeatedly threatened to attack Iran, a nation which has not attacked the USA and doesn't even have the means to attack the USA in the first place. He has encouraged a similar illegal attack on Iraq already, another nation which did not attack the USA and had no means of doing so. Those are illegal actions. They are criminal, both by the USA law and by international law. Cheney has committed high treason against the USA and international war crimes, and he should be tried for both. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,MarkS Date: 04 Nov 07 - 11:18 AM Thank you. CarolC, for your straightforward answer to my request for information. Thank you too, Little Hawk. You too answered my question, but your response is somewhat blemished by your first sentence. Did you really need to make that dig? Thanks again all Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Nov 07 - 11:23 AM Well, pardon me for that, Mark. It was pretty rude of me. I was assuming you were probably just a troll screwing around here on this thread for the hell of it, but I guess maybe I was wrong about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Peace Date: 04 Nov 07 - 11:41 AM Allow me to introduce you two: Little Hawk, Mark; Mark, Little Hawk. Both good guys IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: MarkS Date: 05 Nov 07 - 12:06 AM OK all - I've reset my cookie! Gotta learn to do that before posting so I do not come up as a guest! Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: balladeer Date: 05 Nov 07 - 12:40 AM Ah Hawk. From the hip as ever .... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: John Hardly Date: 05 Nov 07 - 05:32 AM Yeah, brave. Like the celebrities on Dancing With the Stars. It's inspiring to see someone reach so far out of their comfort zone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 05 Nov 07 - 07:25 AM Check this out, Mr. Hardly... http://youtube.com/watch?v=20sRFPAbDQw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Midchuck Date: 05 Nov 07 - 10:52 AM People who don't know why Cheney needs to be impeached are either just plain ignorant in a general sense...or they are willfully, deliberately ignorant...or they're in some state of denial. You don't do your position of damn bit of good by responding to a sincere question with an ad hominem attack on the person who asked the question, just for asking it. (And if you didn't believe it was a sincere question, you should have presented your evidence that it was not, for the benefit of other readers.) In Cheney, we see the arrogance of the conservative. In people who use that technique in responding, we see the arrogance of the liberal. Which is why I tend, more and more, to walk away from politics, muttering, "A plague on both...." Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Nov 07 - 10:55 AM Point taken, Midchuck. I have already said as much myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 05 Nov 07 - 10:58 AM There's definitely some big rifts between people who identify with one camp or the other, but my hope is that people who feel alienated from either side or both sides will try to see past all of that and just look at the resolution and judge it on its own merits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Peace Date: 05 Nov 07 - 11:03 AM "Kucinich Schedules Nationwide Call-in Monday to Address Cheney Impeachment Measure WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Thousands of supporters, political activists, and other interested citizens are expected to dial in Monday (tomorrow) evening to a nationwide conference call to hear Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich explain why and how he plans to force an up-or-down vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on the impeachment resolution against Vice President Richard B. Cheney. Last week, the Ohio Congressman announced that he will be offering a "privileged resolution" on Tuesday, November 6, that will, within two days, require House members to vote on what to do with the impeachment measure, which currently has 22 sponsors. Dozens of supportive organizations have advised the Kucinich campaign that they will be lobbying Congressional representatives heavily over the next few days to support the Ohio Congressman impeachment resolution (House Resolution 333). The conference call is expected to begin at about 7:30 p.m. ET on Monday. It will be open to anyone, including representatives of the news media. Additional details will be posted on the campaign website, http://www.dennis4president.com. SOURCE Kucinich for President 2008" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Peace Date: 05 Nov 07 - 11:40 AM http://www.dennis4president.com |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Donuel Date: 05 Nov 07 - 01:49 PM TOO LATE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Peace Date: 05 Nov 07 - 02:03 PM Better late than never. Might send a loud message to the incoming electees. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Donuel Date: 05 Nov 07 - 07:55 PM I believe with no hesitation that GWB will follow the lead of Pakistani president dictator Mussareff and declare a national emergency to activate executive order #51. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Nov 07 - 07:58 PM If he does, Donuel, things are going to get very, very ugly. I hope you are mistaken in your expectation, but I express no particular opinion about it one way or the other. It certainly could happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 05 Nov 07 - 08:21 PM I love Dennis but... ... I am also very concerned that with the American public fed up with "politics" and the timing isn't right... Yeah, both Bush and Cheney should be impeached... They shoule be charged for war crimes of which they are both terribly guilty... And they should be imprisoned for life!!! Yes that is what they deserve... Bush make Saddam look like a friggin' Boy Scout... But nevermind that stuff... If American has any chance of surviving it's own nilistic self than, oh, how I hate to say this, it's going to have to elect the friggin' Dems in numbers that they can control the agenda... This is kinda a last shot here... A Hail Mary pass... I have liitle Faith in the Dems... Very little... But the cuurent guys have allready shown that they are not up to the task... Impeachement, at this point in time, would be an early Christmas gift to the Repubs going into the '08 election... Now back to the Dems... Progressives, IMO, have no other game in town right now... We have tried to get their attention with our Green Party and to a certain extent we have done just that... No, rather than play into the Repubs hands, I belive that progressives should beat up the Dems and leave the stinkin' Repubs alone... Everyone alrerady knows they stink... Leave the creeps alone... Jus' MO.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: MarkS Date: 05 Nov 07 - 10:52 PM To kind of expand on Boberts post, the biggest problem Kucinich has right now is internal. I recall Nancy Pelosi saying, oh, about a year ago, that impeachment was not on the table, or somesuch. Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 06 Nov 07 - 04:28 PM Motion to table failed. They're now voting on whether or not to refer it to the Judiciary Committee. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 06 Nov 07 - 04:34 PM Looks like the motion to refer the bill to the committee has passed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 06 Nov 07 - 04:51 PM More Republicans voted against tabling the motion than Democrats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Nov 07 - 05:50 PM Well, that certainly is interesting...! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 06 Nov 07 - 05:56 PM Yes, it is. I should rephrase my last post for accuracy, though... More Republicans voted against the motion to table the bill than Democrats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: JohnInKansas Date: 06 Nov 07 - 06:51 PM Article at: Debate on Cheney impeachment averted John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: artbrooks Date: 06 Nov 07 - 06:51 PM Well sure. That's good tactics on the part of the Republicans. Now the House Judiciary Committee can be tied up wasting their time for the next month or so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 06 Nov 07 - 07:13 PM Thanks for the article, JiK. Dennis is now going to put together a big "town hall" type of forum where everyone will be able to discuss the issue of impeachment. One of the reasons Dennis has given for his pushing the bill at this time is to try to prevent what he sees as a largely inevitable march to war on the part of the Bush administration against Iran. For this reason, Bobert, I don't think I can agree with your assessment of whether or not this impeachment bill is a good idea at this time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 06 Nov 07 - 08:04 PM Just as I said... The Repubs would love nothin' more than to have this bill out front and center... This is a political version of the rope-a-dope... The dems were smart to get this thing buried if they want to win in '08... Hey, llok at it like this... '06 was like gettin' a few folks on base... '08 has the potential for the dems to take it out of the park... Now, if one looks at our recent history, when one party has control of both Congress and the White House, they can purdy myuch have their way... Conventional wisdom says "Table that sumabich"... Does this make me some big ol' dem-lover??? Heck no... But they might just be our last chance and Repubs are used to gettin' beat up by progressives but if we put half a million folks in the streets a month after a dem sworn into the White House, you can bet that the dems won't as easilly dismiss it as the current crooks... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 06 Nov 07 - 09:02 PM I guess I don't share your confidence that the Democrats would be substantially different than the Republicans have been on the subject of endless war, Bobert (consider their past history in this regard, and the voting records of those currently in office), unless they are shown that those, like Bush and Cheney, who will wage illegal wars of convenience using the armed forces of this country will be held accountable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:26 PM That's right. Only if there is a serious personal price to pay for war crimes and lies committed while in office will the Democrats think twice about continuing this endless war. They've always done so in the past, seems to me. Johnson campaigned as the "peace" candidate in '64, remember? Goldwater was portrayed as the "whacko" who would lead the country to war. Then Johnson led the country to war. Clinton also led the country to war...in the Balkans and Africa. But I understand the conundrum, Bobert. There simply isn't anyone else who CAN get elected to replace the Republicans except the Democrats. What a total drag. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 07 Nov 07 - 07:09 PM No, Carol, I have no confidence in the Dems... But less in the Repubs... Like I said before, it's gonna take an army of street doldiers to force the Dems to act like an opposition party... And then there's Ron Paul... Okay, I don't agree with everything the guy is asying but the most imporrtant part of his message that is being taken seriouly by progressives is that our foriegn policy is so expensive that it might just take down our economy and then our country... This message is getting thru to just about everyone and the Dems have to know just what a popular message this is and one that can not be ignored... This is a real movement of "thouhgt" and the Dems just might get *stuck* with it... That, in essence, could make the Dems a true opposition party by defualt... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 07 Nov 07 - 08:08 PM That army of street soldiers needs a carrot and a stick, Bobert, if they're going to have any effect on how the Democrats do things. The carrot is their votes, and the stick is impeachment. That's how the founding fathers planned it, and that's why they provided impeachment as a corrective tool when the politicians behave like dictators instead of servants of the people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 07 Nov 07 - 09:03 PM Problem is that you and I don't represent the general electorate... If we did then I'd have both Bush and Cheney impeached but also with one ways tickets to Iraq... Reality, tho, is that in doing so we'll end up with Rudi Guilani... If you want President Rudi then go ahead with an impeachment that won't work anyway... That is the reality of the situation, Carol... Americans are still purdy pissed off about the last impeachment... It was a collasal waste to tax payers money and a collasal waste of time... If the Dems want to insure a lose in '08 they could do this... This ain't got one thing to do with the guilt of Bush and Cheney but 100% about the Dems chances of winning it all in '08... They ain't stupid... Yeah, you and I might want it to be different but it ain't... It is what it is... Gear up to fight with the Dems and leave these current crooks for the historians... They will get it right... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 07 Nov 07 - 11:27 PM When Nixon was impeached, it didn't result in a Republican getting elected in the next election. It got Jimmy Carter elected. The reason is because the majority of people saw that Nixon was not acting in their best interests or in the country's best interests. When Clinton was impeached, a lot of people got pissed off because they saw that the people trying to impeach him were not acting in their best interests or the country's best interests. But that didn't stop a Republican from getting elected in the next election cycle. If Cheney and/or Bush get impeached, people will see the evidence for themselves and, as with Nixon, the majority of people will see that Bush and Cheney are not acting in the best interests of the country or the majority of Americans, and as with Nixon, I don't think that will result in a backlash against the Democrats by the majority of voters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 08 Nov 07 - 01:54 AM Only problem with that CarolC was that Richard Nixon was NEVER impeached, he resigned, I would have thought as an American that you would have known that. Also gone through the link supplied relating to Dennis's impeachment proceedings aimed at Dick Cheney, Article by Article and reading through the "so-called evidence". Thankfully for Mr Kucinich it is not put before a court of law, as not one shred of what he imagines is evidence would stand up. Equally thankfully there are enough members who think in legal terms for a correct decision to be reached - i.e. the impeachment process will go nowhere. Your self serving politicians in the US have got more important things to think about over the next twelve months - their re-election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 08 Nov 07 - 07:07 AM Good point, Teribus. However, as with the common misperception among voters in the US that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, it is also a common misperception that Nixon was impeached. As you have noted, even I forgot for a while that he was not. On the other hand,the US House of Representatives did carry out investigations and hearings on the subject of impeaching Nixon, and they passed three articles of impeachment. It was a safe bet that the Senate would convict, and that's why Nixon resigned, so it was only Nixon's resignation that prevented his impeachment. I think it's an honest mistake for people to think he was actually impeached. Nevertheless, under the circumstances, I think it's perfectly reasonable to use Nixon and Watergate as an example of a case in which carrying on an impeachment investigation and passing articles of impeachment will not cause a backlash, but on the contrary, will help to restore a greater measure of democracy in this country. Had he been impeached rather than having resigned, I think the result would have been the same. Concerning your supposition that none of the evidence would stand up, John Dean, former counsel to Nixon (an attorney), who was serving in the Nixon administration during Watergate, says otherwise. I think I'll trust him before I'll trust you on this subject. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/06/1354218 Plus, the evidence doesn't need to stand up in a court of law. It only needs to stand up in the US House of Representatives, and in the US Senate. Their standard for impeachment is left entirely up to them to determine. If they believe that the president has not faithfully executed his oath of office (remember - the oath he takes is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States), or if it is their opinion that he has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors", they can impeach. Because impeachment is not a legal proceeding. It is a political proceeding. The only consequence of being convicted in an impeachment proceeding is to be removed from office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 08 Nov 07 - 08:19 AM Impeachment is not possible under the current circumstances... Therer are too many Repubs in Congress... Yes, Nixon was headed for impeachment had he not resigned but their was a solid Dem Congress... Bill Clinton was impeached by a solid Repub. Congress... The numbers aren't there, Carol, to pull it off... Rather than the Dems "wasting tax money" and time trying to pull off something that the Repubs would certainly accuse them of as "show boating", which would ceratinly be seen by the general public as somehting they have come to hate: politics... the Dems will be better served by continuing to use hearings as the vehicle to carry the real story... Do I like it this way??? Heck, no, I don't... If the numbers were there to actually pull it off, I'd say "Go for it" but they aren't... The Dems don't have much margin for error in the '08 presidential election... My own state, Virginia, might be the swing state that elects a Dem... Virginias ain't gonna vote Dem on the heals of a failed impeachemnt attempt... This is reality, Carol... Pure and simple reality... But I still loves you... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 08 Nov 07 - 01:23 PM Time will tell, Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Nov 07 - 02:36 PM Nixon resigned because he knew he was going to be impeached if he did not resign first. And so did everyone else. That is why people say that he was "impeached", although it isn't literally true. He was simply about to be impeached, that's all. I would agree with Carol that impeachment proceeding would nail the coffin shut on the Republicans for the next election, not hurt the Democrats. That's my opinion. I might be wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: artbrooks Date: 08 Nov 07 - 04:11 PM Congress already has an approval rating hovering around 40%, primarily because they haven't been able to accomplish much since the Dems took over. This is, as anyone who looks at the numbers can easily see, because any legislation has to get through a Senate that is nearly evenly divided and then withstand a veto threat - which (in practical terms) means any significant legislation has to have a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate. Impeachment proceedings will eliminate any remaining possibility of anything at all being accomplished by this Congress, at least until after the 2008 elections, and it will open the very real possibility, since Congress' approval rate will only go lower, of voters becoming even more fed up and the Reps regaining control. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 08 Nov 07 - 04:42 PM A Bush veto got overridden today. Maybe this will get the ball rolling. But the sad truth is that the democrats are so spineless that even if they had the votes to impeach, they wouldn't have the guts to go through with it. Pelosi didn't table it because the wouldn't be enough votes, she just tabled it. She's a lousy, rotten backstabbing, ugly bitch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 08 Nov 07 - 05:05 PM Impeachment proceedings will eliminate any remaining possibility of anything at all being accomplished by this Congress The way I see it, if they have impeachment proceedings, the most important thing of all will be accomplished... they will have - finally - fulfilled their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The reason their numbers are so low is because of the war, and the reason the Democrats' numbers are so low is because they campaigned on the promise to end the war, and they're not living up to that promise. And some of them even campaigned on the promise to impeach the president and vice president, and they're not living up to that promise either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Nov 07 - 05:17 PM Dead right, Carol. They would finally be doing their job. The Emperor (meaning the entire government, both the president AND congress) has no clothes...and the public knows it. That's why their ratings are low. They are both failing the country and betraying their oaths. They are not protecting and defending the Constitution, they are protecting and defending their own personal interests (in a political sense) and the interests of their primary financial backers in the corporate sector. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: artbrooks Date: 08 Nov 07 - 05:34 PM The Democrats in Congress have a clear choice - spending a lot of time, effort and money doing "the right thing", and having nothing to show for it except an even more divided Congress or compromising and getting at least something done, no matter how far it might be from the ideal. Since I'm the one who pays their salaries, I know what my choice is. Others are entirely entitled to their own opinions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 08 Nov 07 - 06:10 PM having nothing to show for it except an even more divided Congress While you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I don't agree with your characterization of what we and the Congress would have to show for it. I know that protecting and defending our Constitution is the most important duty the members of our government are charged with. That's why they must take the oath to protect and defend our Constitution in order to be allowed to take office. Nothing else they do will ever matter if they allow our Constitution to be undermined or destroyed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 08 Nov 07 - 06:32 PM Well, waht we have is a terribly flawed situation... Poll after poll tells politicans that the American people are fed up with "politics"... The Repubs have been deft at turning everything the Dems attempt to do as "politics"... If you think the Swift Boat Liars havd a field day wtih John Kerry you ain't seen nuthin' if the Dems push this too hard... And what screwed this up was the impeachment of Bill Clinton... It left a very sour taste in alot of moderates minds... Moderates are the new swing vote block and the Dems know it... So do the Repubs and the moderates are telling pollsters t6hey are sick of politics... This has nothing to do with the crimes that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Peral/Wolfowitz War Machine have perpetrated on the planet... Those are a different subject... If we look back on the discussions that have occured here in Mudville since the Mad-Dash-to-Iraq we see that there isn't any new territory... The facts are out there... Even if the House began "serious" impeachemnt proceedings today, the Repubs could filibuster and filibuster and use parlimentary manuvers to hold the Dems off well into next year... Plus, think about this... There are a lot of Denms in the House who have been elected from Red States... It would be suicide for them... And let's look at this in a differnt light... We have serious problems that need fixes... As Ron Paul has so aptly pointed out we have a foriegn policy that if continued witl take us down... We have a serious problem with distribution of wealth, health care, global warming... I'd rather see the energy spent on those problems than trying to get Bush and/or Cheney out a couple months earlier... Make no bones about it, these problems will be shoved aside if impeachement takes hold... Will impeaching either or both of these creeps get US out of Iraq one day earlier??? I doubt it... If the dems wanted to get US out of Iraq they could have done it by suspending the rules ("The Nuclear Option") and the war would be over... So for my anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Cheney friends here, I'm 110% with you on just how screwed up these creeps have gotten our country... There is absolutley no difference in our thinking here... But these creeps are going to do what they are going to do and the only way to stop them is for the Dems to out flank them in framing of issues... In this climate a frontal attack is not the smartest idea... Yeah, I'm one of those who most folks think should be the strongest behind such an attack but, if I'm a chess player and want to win, or if I'm in fist fight and want to win, flailing ain't gonna get me there... That's is my opinion... Now with that said, if this movement picks up steam, I'd like the opportunity to revisit my thinking, regarless of my cureent opinion as to the wisdom of a frontal attack on Bush and/or Cheney... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Nov 07 - 07:00 PM Yes, I understand your viewpoint on that, Bobert. It's ironical. The Republicans pretend they are the party that is against "Big Government". Ha!!! They have increased the authority of Big Government and reduced the civil rights of the ordinary citizen. They have increased surveillance of citizens and opened up extra-legal and unconstitutional torture facilities offshore. They have enormously increased federal spending and the national debt. When they hire private contractors to do government work, what do they pay them with? Tax money, that's what! Private contractors are now serving as mercenary soldiers for this government, at home and abroad, and getting paid big bucks from the public purse to do it. What a con game the Republicans are playing. They're the most draconian Big Goverment in action that I've seen yet in the USA. They ARE what they accuse others of being...terrorists and promoters of authoritarian BIG government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 08 Nov 07 - 07:20 PM Actually, Bobert, there have been a few polls that have shown that the majority of voters want impeachment. They don't see it as politics at all, but a restoration of our Constitution and our democracy. That's certainly how Dennis sees it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: artbrooks Date: 08 Nov 07 - 07:30 PM I am all for impeachment and conviction. The probability of conviction is exactly zero. Impeachment without conviction equals exoneration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 08 Nov 07 - 07:50 PM Yeah, Carol, and I have read some of the polls but with numbers, at best, in the 40% for inmpeachment and at worst at 30% if you do the math then you see that such a tact would piss off between 60 and 70% of the voters... Now back to what I was saying... The margin for victory in winning the White House is very, very small... One mis-step and they will again be defeated... They need to coax at least one Southern state out of the Southern Stategey... My state, Virginia is probably the only one in play and that is assuming that the Dems can win Florida... I can absolutely guarentee you that on the heels of an impeachment that Virginians will turn back toward the Repubs... This will happen... All I hear and read in Virginia newspapers is that the current crop of Dems that have been winning are winning because they don't come off a s Bush-haters... They are talking about issues... Do you realize that it was the Repubs in the House who were voting for impeachment??? What does that tell you??? Well, it tells me that their pollsters see impeachemnt as another Swift Boat and impeachement is a Repub dream come true... Hey, I love democracynow... I love Amy Goodman... I love being part of the left... But what I hate is when the left falls into a Swift Boat trap... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 08 Nov 07 - 08:06 PM Artbrooks is all for impeachment and conviction. Now for life of me I simply just cannot understand why. There are absolutely no grounds for the one and no evidence for the other. You, i.e. most on this forum, are demonstrating and advocating the traits that caused the Soviets and the rest of the world to laugh aloud at the lot of you during the "Jimmy Carter" years. Having been attacked on the 11th September 2001, you find yourselves, through pure leadership, to be in a position that you have neither the guts nor the will to see through, even although you are brilliantly equipped to do so. Your military have by training and by capability both the will and the resolution to see it through, but you are not prepared to stay the course and back them, and by doing so you guarantee your own demise. I would never have thought that a country so well blessed could have defeated itself so comprehensively twice in under fifty years. The first time you managed to recovered from it, this time you will not. High time you woke up to the fact that you are fighting for your survival and start acting accordingly. Britain had it in 1940, now its your turn. Now who amongst you are going to act so that someone will state that this was your finest hour - sadly I think no-one, because when push comes to shove you are just not up to it, you are fully prepared to talk about freedom, rights and liberty, you are simply just not prepared to fight for them or defend them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 08 Nov 07 - 08:19 PM No, T-Bird... Waht had the reat of the world fallin' down holdin' their sides in laughter was the impeachemnt of Bill Clinton for getting a friggin' blow job... As for guts??? You are very much mistaken... It ain't about guts... It's about attacking the right people... Irag had nothing to do with 9/11 and its there that is draining our tax dollars and killing our economy... Tell ya' what, if George Bush siad tomorrow that he needed folks to go to Sadan then I'd give it a thought... We ain't pickin' the correct battles... And "liberty and freedom" are fine words but the Bush folks couldn't care less about any of that stuff... Thay don't have any partiuclar love for democracy, for that matter... No, what we have had is a war of choice fought for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time by folks who haven't been part of the so-called econimic recovery and paid for by folks who are also loosing ground in terms of quality of life... That is the reality... No UN Resolution going to change that reality... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 08 Nov 07 - 08:29 PM I'm for impeachment and conviction, too, artbrooks. I don't share your belief that conviction is impossible. It may seem so now, but I think, after the evidence is examined publicly, it will become very difficult, politically, for even the Republicans to try to defend Bush and Cheney, I've seen a few polls with the numbers for impeachment around 53 percent, Bobert. You never will, understand, either, Teribus. You have consistently shown that you do not understand our form of government nor what forms the foundation of our government and what it is that makes us a nation. It's no good trying to explain it to you, either. I know, because I've tried. We are not an empire. We are not an imperial nation. Some people have tried to make us these things, but that is not what we are, by the very nature of our founding documents, which are the highest authority in this land. Victory is meaningless if it is the victory of the oppressor... something that you clearly are incapable of understanding or appreciating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 08 Nov 07 - 09:07 PM When I see a credible poll at 53% then I'll jump on the band wagon, Carol... All I've seen and heard is 30's and low 40's... Not that I'm all that poll driven in general but in these days with yet another Repub administration being the probably the last nail in the coffin I'm not too quick to fall into any Repub traps... "We will not be fooled again"... Or will we??? And, T-zer??? What Carol said... You are not wired to understand some things... Tho I will admit that there are certainly a number of imperialist within the Bush adminisration but they do not represent the will of the average Anerican but the interstes of corporate American, big oil and the folks who profit from war... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: artbrooks Date: 08 Nov 07 - 09:59 PM Terebus, if the military to which I gave over twenty years of my life wasn't being destroyed by being required to fight the wrong war, at the wrong time, against the wrong enemy, without adequate plans or equipment, I might be slightly inclined to listen to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Ron Davies Date: 08 Nov 07 - 10:15 PM artbrooks is dead right. There has never been a US president impeached and convicted. Probability of conviction now, as he says, is zero. Reason: the electorate at large is not ready to pressure their representatives to convict. I believe strongly that if Bush were to invade Iran without any Congressional approval, he-- (and Cheney, who'd be in it up to his neck)-- would be impeached and convicted. But I would hope you would not be in favor of the invasion, even with that result. Only thing to do now is examine with a fine-toothed comb exactly how the propaganda campaign to bring the US public behind the Iraq invasion worked. That's the only way to prove Bush and Cheney's culpability--and possibly stoke enough outrage to bring the public at large behind a push to impeach---and convict. Right now it is not there--and as several posters have already pointed out, this means that an impeachment push now will do nothing but thoroughly alienate the--majority-- of the electorate who sees such an idea as "politics as usual" on steroids. But the investigation has to come first--before the impeachment push. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 08 Nov 07 - 10:26 PM Here you go, Bobert (it's the one at the bottom)... http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/impeach/ Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney? 7/5/07 Favor Oppose Undecided All Adults 54% 40% 6% There's a poll from 2005 that, if I remember correctly was around 53. I believe that one was a Zogby poll. I'll try to find it later. Here's an interesting narrative of the events of yesterday... "This is how it happened" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 08 Nov 07 - 10:29 PM >>Having been attacked on the 11th September 2001, you find yourselves, through pure leadership, to be in a position that you have neither the guts nor the will to see through, even although you are brilliantly equipped to do so.<< Ask George Bush. He started the war. He told everyone to just go about their business and not concern themselves with this little skirmish in the Middle East--that he would handle everything. He has called every shot. It is he who has not the guts or will to finish what he started. He can't secure Afghanistan because he got himself mired in Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9-11. Now he's running this "brilliantly equipped" military into the ground. Now you're expecting Americans who were told by him not to bother themselves with the Middle East to volunteer to go there and get their asses shot up? Why doesn't he just use his brilliant equipment? That was the whole idea, remember? Lean, stripped down units with heavy technology. That was the future of warfare. Didn't quite work out, did it? >>Your military have by training and by capability both the will and the resolution to see it through, but you are not prepared to stay the course and back them, and by doing so you guarantee your own demise.<< Nobody is stopping George Bush from doing anything. He has not withdrawn a single soldier nor done anything else the antiwar movement has been calling on him to do for going on 5 years now. He has done exactly as he pleased with no oversight. And those soldiers that still support him are still insisting it can be won--and that's where it stands--them telling us we're winning but unable to prove it by bringing troops home. They say the results are there and we're waiting to see them. The antiwar movement has had little to no effect on Iraq policy--it is going on exactly the way George Bush is demanding that it be allowed to. He's just incompetent and is trying to buy time so he can get out of office before his house of cards crumbles and idiots like you can blame everybody but the ones responsible. >>I would never have thought that a country so well blessed could have defeated itself so comprehensively twice in under fifty years.<< Aren't you British? You should well acquainted with that feeling. It shows how stupid Bush is to want Britain on his side after the way they embarrassed themselves a fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands. >>The first time you managed to recovered from it, this time you will not. High time you woke up to the fact that you are fighting for your survival and start acting accordingly. Britain had it in 1940, now its your turn.<< Fuck Britain. We don't exist for you. We don't care what happens to you. We never did and we're not going to start now. You're our bitch and we will do with you as we please and we will be finished with you when we say we are finished with you. Not your choice to make. You should know that. Blair did at least. He's silly and stupid but he knows who butters his bread and it's about high time the rest of you did. Don't tell us what we should be doing when you can't do it yourselves. >>Now who amongst you are going to act so that someone will state that this was your finest hour - sadly I think no-one, because when push comes to shove you are just not up to it, you are fully prepared to talk about freedom, rights and liberty, you are simply just not prepared to fight for them or defend them.<< Against whom? A dictator that posed no threat to us or the president assaulting our constitution and eradicating out habeus corpus? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 08 Nov 07 - 10:33 PM Ron, the impeachment push is what's going to bring about the investigation. Not the other way around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 08 Nov 07 - 10:37 PM Now who amongst you are going to act so that someone will state that this was your finest hour - sadly I think no-one, because when push comes to shove you are just not up to it, you are fully prepared to talk about freedom, rights and liberty, you are simply just not prepared to fight for them or defend them. LOL Actually, the correct answer to this question is Dennis Kucinich. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 08 Nov 07 - 10:47 PM For those who want to help, here's what's needed right now... http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=156831770&blogID=326746475 Dennis Kucinich is asking for emails supporting impeachment and he will deliver them to Pelosi! Here you go: info@dennis4president.com ********************************* There's almost always some strange twist to how things move through Congress. The most recent example was just this past Tuesday, Nov. 6th, when 165 Republicans voted to force a debate on the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, and Democrats voted against it. Somehow both parties thought that an open debate about the crimes of Dick Cheney would embarrass the Democrats. Here is what happened: As promised, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) requested a floor vote on H.Res. 799 (formerly H.Res. 333), a bill he had introduced to move a process to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney forward. Rep. Steny Hoyer -- who as Majority Leader is in the second highest position in the House -- moved to table the bill. Then all hell broke loose, as 165 Republicans voted with Rep. Kucinich and 85 other brave Democrats to force a debate on impeachment. Determined to block that debate, Rep. Hoyer moved to send H.Res. 799 back to the Judiciary Committee. That motion passed with the support of all but 5 Democrats (Kucinich, Bob Filner, Marcy Kaptur, Maxine Waters, and Ed Towns). Read a live blog of the proceedings here. United for Peace and Justice recognizes the significance of this development, and we urge you to help move this process forward. Here are some things you can do: 1. Call the House Judiciary Committee at 202-225-3951 and demand full and thorough hearings on H.Res. 799/333. 2. Sign this petition to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee. 3. If you live in the district of a House Judiciary Committee member, call his or her office and say that you're a constituent and you want immediate hearings on H.Res. 799/333. (Click here to look up your rep and find out if he or she is on the committee.) You can also join a local Congressional District Impeachment Committee and organize activities to keep the pressure on your representative, with letters to the editor, calls to local radio talk shows, and pointed questions at every community forum attended by your representative. 4. If your representative is not on the House Judiciary Committee, call and ask him or her to co-sponsor H.Res. 799/333. (Click here to find his or her office phone numbers.) If your rep is one of the 22 who have already co-sponsored H.Res. 333, call and offer your thanks and urge him or her push for immediate hearings on H.Res. 799/333 in the House Judiciary Committee. 5. Start a media campaign, including op-ed articles on impeaching Cheney, letters-to-the-editor about the Kucinich resolution, and informational picketing in front of the offices of local media. Click here to find a media activism kit. __________________________________________ In the last link I posted, Dennis is saying that there is some interest among some members of the Judiciary Committee to start an investigation. So anything people can to do apply pressure to help move that along will make a difference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 09 Nov 07 - 02:47 AM Guest 282RA: "Aren't you British? You should well acquainted with that feeling. It shows how stupid Bush is to want Britain on his side after the way they embarrassed themselves a fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands." Oh yes we know the feeling 282RA, after all WE allied with our Commonwealth were the only nation during the entire course of the "Cold War" to successfully defeat communist backed insurgencies not once but three times. While your lot were getting their arses kicked in Vietnam we were winning in Borneo having successfully defeated the insurgents in Malaysia shortly before (Took us some 17 years to do but we stuck to it and completed the task). Vietnam you cut and ran; Beirut you cut and ran; Somalia you cut and ran, not through any fault of your servicemen or women, but because of pure lack of political will at home, it is more than likely the same will happen in Iraq (where finally progress is beginning to be made, haven't heard recently from Joe Binden about how the "Surge" has failed) and in Afghanistan (Where ISAF and the US Forces are actually winning hands down). Again over a distance of some 12,000 miles (The longest ranged invasion force launched in history) we succeeded in driving out an invader who was based only 400 miles away - that was embarrassing ourselves??? The whole thing done and dusted within 3 months, our forces had the full support of the British people as, more importantly, did the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands, that was backed up by the political will to carry the task out from start to finish irrespective of what it would take. That 282RA is how you get things done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 09 Nov 07 - 01:31 PM This is what I said in my email to Nanci Pelosi... Dear Congresswoman Pelosi: History is watching you and your colleagues in the United States House of Representatives. You are now faced with the challenge of deciding upon the right course of action - for the voters of this counrry, for the country itself, and for the future generations who will be impacted by the decisions you make today. What is it that makes us a nation? Is it our shared landmass? Is it our shared culture? Is it the accumulation of experiences that makes up our history? The answer, of course, is that it is none of these things. Because each of these things is fundamentally subjective. We each experience these things in different ways, and we respond to them in different ways. It is our founding documents that make us a nation, and nothing else. Our Bill of Rights and our Constitution are what make us a nation, and without these things, we are just a bunch of people sharing a landmass with ever shifting boundaries, but no national identity. You have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. This is your first duty. This duty supercedes every other consideration that you bring to your role as a member of the Congress of the United States. If you do not uphold this duty, your role as a member of Congress becomes completely irrelevant to this nation, and if you, by inaction or by wrong action, become complicit in undermining the United States Constitution, your role as a member of Congress becomes subversive, and a perversion of the trust that is placed in you by the voters of this country. History is watching you. Do you want to be remembered by history and by future generations as the person who, through inaction or wrong action, and for the sole purpose of protecting your access to power, did not fulfill your oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? Because if, though not holding accountable those in the Bush administration who are working very hard to destroy our Constitution, you do not fulfill your oath, you will be just as responsible as they for its destruction, and history and future generations will remember you for that. And only for that one thing. That will be your permanent legacy, and nothing you can ever do will erase or mitigate that legacy. I call upon you to take the leadership role in pressing for an investigation into the question of impeachment for Vice President Cheney and President Bush. It is time. History is watching you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Peace Date: 09 Nov 07 - 01:47 PM "Democratic leaders have famously declared that impeachment is off the table. But their view does not fall in line with recent polling figures. An American Research Group poll in July found that fifty-four percent of Americans support beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney. Seventy-four percent of Democrats were also in favor. " From http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/09/1455244 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 09 Nov 07 - 06:45 PM Well, Carol, I'm not yet convinced... Yes, I read thr poll and if you look at the date of the poll and, more importantly, the other questions in the poll I believe that taking the Cheney response solely on it's own it not indicative... There is a trick that pollsters can play in asking the correct leadup questions to get a certain response to a certain question... I believe that was the case in this poll... But never-the-less, what the Dems have done since that poll is laid the groundwork to win in '08 with a very distinct "brand" which emphasizes "solutions" and "non-partisanship"... The Repubs have lived at the ideology plate for a couple decades now and have won becuase they have come off as belieiving deeply in this or that... Behind the scenes the Dems have quietly figured out just what it is that can be used to counter the Repub success formuula... They used it effectively in '06 in not being sucked into the emotionalism of gay marriages and abortion by ignoring those questions and keeping things like income inequeity, health care, the economy, education and the environment as their swords... And it worked... It has just worked here in Virginia last week where the Dems retook the state Senate after being in the minority for over 2 decades!!! Now, yes, I will allow that these gains are in part gains that they would have gotten if they did nothing because of the poor record of the Repubs but... ... they have been very disciplined and I do give them credit for that... And I give them credit for figuring out what their "brand" should be... So, here's the rub... If half of their brand is non-partisanship then an attempted impeachment of Cheney would set half of what is working for them on fire... If that were to happen I can almost predict with a good amount of certainty that they will loose their shot at the White Hosue in '08... My own opinion is that I can live with Cheney another 14 months... I think that Jim Webb and other Dems have the smarts to keep the Bush/Cheney War Machine checked as much as if the impeachment were to go forward... I also belive that I would rather fight with the Dems in Jan, '09 than fight with yet another arrogant Repub asdministration... But like I said, if I feel this impeachement movement gather real steam, outside the progressive movement, I'm willing to jump in with both feet... Until then, I'll stick with my position that we can hurt the Bush/Cheney War Machine more with Congressional investigations and hearings on the same details that would come out in an impeachment preceedings... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 09 Nov 07 - 07:09 PM I was wrong about the Zogby poll. That one was about impeaching Bush and not Cheney. Only two polls have been conducted on Cheney, the other one being only for Vermont voters (overwhelmingly in favor of impeachment). We really don't have any measurement of how much support there is for impeaching Cheney since those two polls. It could be even higher than 54 at this point. There's no way to tell for sure. But never-the-less, what the Dems have done since that poll is laid the groundwork to win in '08 with a very distinct "brand" which emphasizes "solutions" and "non-partisanship"... I don't know how you can say that. Their approval ratings are even lower than Bush's approval ratings. That's how the voters feel about their approach. On the subject of the Judiciary Committee, I read today that Congressman Wexler of Florida, a member of the Judiciary Committee, has called for hearings on the subject of impeachment. I called his office to verify, and they said it's true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 09 Nov 07 - 07:13 PM >>How about a resolution to impeach Pelosi for failing to uphold her sworn constitutional duty?<< No shit. She's been nothing but a major disappointment. Everybody has their price and she should be finding out when the pubs in Congress are asking for in order to cast yes to an impeachment. A little back-scratching here and a little feet-to-the-fire there and it could be done. She's just not interested. I think that is criminal in itself. >>Oh yes we know the feeling 282RA, after all WE allied with our Commonwealth were the only nation during the entire course of the "Cold War" to successfully defeat communist backed insurgencies not once but three times.<< But you couldn't win in Iraq and now you're leaving. Very impressive. >>While your lot were getting their arses kicked in Vietnam we were winning in Borneo having successfully defeated the insurgents in Malaysia shortly before (Took us some 17 years to do but we stuck to it and completed the task).<< Yet you jumped in as a very 2nd fiddle to help us invade Iraq knowing we have a knack for getting our asses kicked even while you clean house. What's wrong with that picture? >>Vietnam you cut and ran; Beirut you cut and ran; Somalia you cut and ran, not through any fault of your servicemen or women, but because of pure lack of political will at home, it is more than likely the same will happen in Iraq (where finally progress is beginning to be made, haven't heard recently from Joe Binden about how the "Surge" has failed) and in Afghanistan (Where ISAF and the US Forces are actually winning hands down).<< Right but the American people want so badly to lose that we're refusing to recognize these clear victories. I mean if the surge has worked--bring em home! Is the Afghan rebels are beaing beaten hands down--declare and come home! Don't tell me--show me. I don't if you're right about this or not as long as our people start coming home. So either we're winning but prefer to stay there using exhausted guys on stop-loss and mercenaries we have a pay fortune to or they won't lift a finger OR we're unable to leave because the country will go to hell if we do. Hmmm, which of those two possibilities sounds more likely to be the case? Okay, keep em there! Let us know when you're ready to come home. I'm going shopping as my great president requested I do rather than worry myself silly about what's going on in Iraq. Mission accomplished and all that, eh what? >>Again over a distance of some 12,000 miles (The longest ranged invasion force launched in history) we succeeded in driving out an invader who was based only 400 miles away - that was embarrassing ourselves???<< Man, you guys are so great!!! So why didn't you prevail in Iraq? You know Bush was too stupid to conduct that war right. But you went along like lemmings and now you're getting out before anymore of you die like lemmings. >>The whole thing done and dusted within 3 months, our forces had the full support of the British people as, more importantly, did the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands, that was backed up by the political will to carry the task out from start to finish irrespective of what it would take. That 282RA is how you get things done.<< So why are you leaving Iraq without a victory?? And if you're claiming one, why aren't we coming home? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 09 Nov 07 - 07:47 PM Well, yeah, the Dems are a big disappointment... They could have eneded this stupid war a week after gaining majorities on both houses of Congress by simply "suspending the rules".... Yeah, no whwere in the US Constitution does it say that the majority party has to have 60 votes to cut off a filibuster... Those are rules that Congress itself has placed on itself... Yes, the Dems are a major disappointment... hey have been, ahhhh, purdy much forever... In a way, you have to admire to the Repubs who have told the progressive movement to shove it... That, at least, is honest... I've been a Green Party supporter and voter going back a long way so, yeah, I have no love for the Dems... I guess as I have gotten older I'd rather fight with folks who say they "feel my pain" than folks who tell me to "stick it"... Either way it's gonna be a fight 'caue there ain't much difference between the Repubs and Dems other than a few courtesies... Policy differnces??? Not much... As for the low approval ratings of Congress??? They have earned 'um, fair and square... But my real question is this... Why were the Repubs pushing the Dems last week to impeach??? Because they believed that Cheney would actually be impeached??? Think about that one... Tell ya what... I'd rather the facts be told and retold and retold about the Bush Cheney lies than get bo0gged down in a slobberknocker over impeachement where emotionalism will override the facts... Heck, you still have about 30% of the population who thinks Saddam was in on 9/11... Dop you think an impeachment movement will change that??? Well, I don't... Get the friggin' facts out there if you have to have a thousand hearings with folks saying this was a BIG LIE!!! I don'tr give a danged about revenege right now... There is a war to stop... There's some serious crap being pushed to the back burner... Lets get on the Bumocrats and demand that they ***perform*** on ending the stupid war, on exposing the lies that got us into it, about why health insurance companies can take yer friggin' money and then drop you if you get sick, about lots of real things that effect each and every one of US... Yeah, Bush and Cheney have screwed themselves... Let them twist in the wind... Time to fight the folks with the power and that is the Dems... They are the "new boss"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 09 Nov 07 - 09:46 PM It has nothing whatever to do with revenge, Bobert. It's about saving this democracy before they deal the final death blow. That's what it's about. They could have eneded this stupid war a week after gaining majorities on both houses of Congress by simply "suspending the rules".... Yeah, no whwere in the US Constitution does it say that the majority party has to have 60 votes to cut off a filibuster... Those are rules that Congress itself has placed on itself... Nancy Pelosi could end the war all by herself in a second by simply refusing to allow a vote on funding the war any further. The head of the committee that deals with funding of that sort could do the same by not allowing a funding bill to leave the committee. It wouldn't take a single vote to do it, and it wouldn't require cutting off any filibusters. They're lying when they say they need votes to do it. And they're lying because they don't want to end the war. That's why they keep funding it. But my real question is this... Why were the Repubs pushing the Dems last week to impeach??? Because they believed that Cheney would actually be impeached??? Think about that one... They knew that the people who elected the Democrats want Cheney impeached, and they forced the Democrats to show more openly the fact that they are not complying with the wishes of their voter base. I'd say it worked. Spectacularly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 10 Nov 07 - 04:34 AM Guest 282RA the UK went into Iraq in March 2003 as part of the "Coalition of the Willing" with around 45,000 troops (23% of our total armed forces). Our Sector, as defined by the US Command was the South. Once active operations against Saddam's military ended there was a progressive draw down of forces that was both planned and predicted. As Iraqi Units were trained they took over province by province, next month they will take over Basra. We will remain in a supporting training capacity for as long as the Iraqi Government want us to - We Guest282RA have done our job and have drawn down our forces accordingly. If you have a problem with that - tough shit. The US fronted up some 245,000 personnel (17% of your total armed forces) of all arms not all were atcively engaged on operations. So as far as being second fiddle goes Guest282RA our commitment of armed forces proportionally was greater than that of your country. While Britain honoured its obligations under the NATO Treaty and fully agreed with the US that Iraq left unchecked posed a threat to the region America's other allies did not - OK Guest282RA who do you want standing beside you in a tight corner France or the UK. Here's a comparison 282RA from very early on. In the South we opened up the port of Um Qasr and created employment, very quickly we were patrolling on foot in soft headgear faces uncovered, we built football pitches and played against the locals, fatalities around 170 since March 2003. Up in Fallujah very early days the US Forces arrive and find that the only building with services intact in the city is a school, so they boot the children and their teachers out of the school and take it over as their HQ. When the teachers and the parents protest they are fired upon. Patrols are undertaken from Humvees or from armoured vehicles, troops are always dressed in full combat gear, US fatalities to date 3,889. OK Guest 282RA which of the above indicates progress and implementation of a "Hearts and Minds" Policy. A concept the US Military has never ever understood and feels that it is so unimportant it does not even teach it to its Officer Corps in training. Us "Brits" on the otherhand coined the phrase, we bloody well invented it and it has worked well for us in the past. Now then Guest 282RA explain to me again how we embarrassed ourselves in the Falklands - that was your contention wasn't it? After all these were your words were'nt they: "It shows how stupid Bush is to want Britain on his side after the way they embarrassed themselves a fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands." Pssst Guest 282RA if it's embarrassment you want, what about Grenada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Nov 07 - 09:38 AM Speaking of "Coalition(s) of the Willing", I recall that Hitler was able to put together just such a coalition back in 1941 to launch an unprovoked attack on Russia. ;-) It included the Germans, the Italians (who were sort of reluctantly willing, but only just...), the Hungarians, the Finns, the Rumanians, and the Bulgarians (all enthusiastically willing). That Coalition of the Willing went nobly forward on a pre-emptive war of choice against the Soviets. A first strike. Just like Bush's war in 2003, except for one small detail: they took on someone capable of meeting them on even terms and capable even of eventually beating them. That was a serious mistake on their part, but I bet they were mighty proud of themselves for having put together a genuine "Coalition of the Willing" to fight evil and restore peace and harmony to the world! ;-) It sounds so noble and upright, doesn't it? "Coalition of the Willing". Oh my, who wouldn't want to join something like that? Only traitors, sellouts, and fellow travellers would refuse to flock to the banner, I should think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 10 Nov 07 - 11:35 AM Here's a comparison 282RA from very early on. In the South we opened up the port of Um Qasr and created employment, very quickly we were patrolling on foot in soft headgear faces uncovered, we built football pitches and played against the locals, fatalities around 170 since March 2003. Up in Fallujah very early days the US Forces arrive and find that the only building with services intact in the city is a school, so they boot the children and their teachers out of the school and take it over as their HQ. When the teachers and the parents protest they are fired upon. Patrols are undertaken from Humvees or from armoured vehicles, troops are always dressed in full combat gear, US fatalities to date 3,889. This is a perfect example of why the US cannot be trusted to do the job of winning the peace in Iraq. We aren't making things better there, we are making them worse. But it's not incompetence that's causing this. The Bush administration intends for it to work out this way, because it has been their plan all along to create a justification for permanent bases and a permanent US occupation in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Nov 07 - 06:08 PM Correct. They are not there to free Iraq. They are there to dominate Iraq by armed force, divide its people against each other, and establish permanent bases in that region, and use those bases as staging areas for further wars. Iraq was just one stage in a larger plan. Bush may think it was all his idea. It wasn't. Bush may think he's really in charge. He isn't. He's temporary and expendable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Barry Finn Date: 10 Nov 07 - 08:37 PM We are in complete opposition to our founding fathers! On all fronts! Free Iraq? We are succeeding, where? Tell that to the many thousands of dead Iraqis! Their nation is about to split in 3, tell that to those that could are gone & to those that aren't gone but are praying they could go & to those that are dead. They aren't giving thanks to the "Coalition of the Willing" & neither are their surviving relatives & neighbors who will hate US for generations to come. We're doing the right thing? NOT!! No one has done their job, not the US, not Britan, not Austrailia, none of the "Willing". Yes, I'd would rather have had France, Russia & Germany stand in our corner before we took on the job in the 1st place. They had it right from the start & the balls enough to say so, that is who Britan & others should have been paying attention (20/20 hind sight sucks) not following an idiot like our man Bush, that part is on your head. We have more than our share to be guilty of here, don't go around thinking that because you may have had some straw to grab on to that you are free from any blame or shame. Someday hopefully heads will roll around the world for what the "Willing" have done. T, you are always trying to up hold you & yours from being in any part of the trash heap that you're playing in & then you try to clear your way from out under the stink. But when you play in the sewer with the rest of the low life your stink is just as bad & you are just as much the low life that you play with. You cannot find a silver lining in a sewer that's become a blood bath just because you upheld your end of cesspool! You shouldn't have gotten into the swimming/cess-pool in the 1st place! Reach, throw, row or go, both we & you dove in head 1st without thought & nobody went in kicking either, except those of us who were steamrolled over. But now that you're there & hopefully on you way out, you can't just wash off the stink, it doesn't work that way, sorry, we will all be trying to cleanse our souls & wash our hands of this for a mighty long time. We will all pay dearly, starting in the present. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Barry Finn Date: 10 Nov 07 - 08:58 PM The longer thse guys are in office the more we will pay & the longer that payment will last. Impeachment should wait for nothing, not timing, not policy, not politics & not the polls. When there is good cause it should be acted upon right away, that's what it's there for, so there is no slippery slope to slide down when it becommes to late. No one should be in a position that Bush now sits in. He's split our nation, pit our government against it's own citizens as well as invading other nations & doing the same thing there. He's violated our Constitution as well as tearing it apart bit by bit, he's tossed out 1000 yrs of basic western law & now he sits in the position of being one small st away from declaring himself a dictator. The founding fathers installed checks & balances so itcould never come this close. We are already to close, the time has lasped, he should've been impeached already, there is no time to lose. We are already too vulnerable!!!! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 11 Nov 07 - 05:39 AM Disagree completely CarolC/Little Hawk/Barry Finn. Things are not worse in either Iraq or Afghanistan, anyone stating that must have a very convenient memory, not that any of you, or the media spin doctors that you listen to, ever paid much attention to what was happening in either country before when Saddam and the Ba'athists ruled one and the Taleban ruled the other. In exactly the same way as none of you give a damn about what is happening in Darfur, or Burma for that matter because you cannot blame it on GWB, or the USA. Under Saddam and his sons the Iraqi population had no hope whatsoever of any improvement in their lot. The only direction things were headed in Iraq was downwards. Left alone and ignored Saddam's main trading partners (Russia, China, France and Germany) would have pressed for ending UN sanctions years ago (Not that they were ever effective anyway). Saddam's rearmament programme would have clutched into high gear the minute the whistle had been blown on Iran's secret uranium enrichment plants (Anyone thinking that Saddam would have sat back and done nothing while Iran made itself nuclear capable is living in cloud-cuckooland). Things are slowly improving in both countries and will continue to do so, provided the fledgling governments of both are given the support they require. So far I have seen absolutely no evidence to suggest that the US want to remain in Iraq or Afghanistan for one minute more than they have to. They are there at the moment under the terms of a UN Mandate that is reviewed in effect every six months and at the request of the elected government of Iraq. The US has no interest whatsoever in "controlling" the middle-east, it has neither the will or the means to do so. To project power in the region, as long as the US Navy remains at it current strength, the US has no need of permanent land bases in Iraq, which are vulnerable to attack - a deployed Carrier Strike Force on the other hand is not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 11 Nov 07 - 06:42 AM From todays BBC coverage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7089168.stm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Barry Finn Date: 11 Nov 07 - 08:16 AM "It's getting better all the time" You're the only one whistlng that tune, blind & deaf. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 11 Nov 07 - 10:57 AM I might well be the one whistling that tune Barry but if so I would not be the one that was either deaf or blind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Nov 07 - 11:46 AM I don't think thinks are getting better in Iraq, Teribus, I think they've gotten a lot worse...ALTHOUGH...I might add...they were not exactly ducky before the Americans and the Coalition of the Bribed and Persuaded went in. However, Iraq under Saddam prior to his totally misguided and disastrous attack on Kuwait was the most modernized, liberal, and westernized country in the Arab world and was in far better shape as a society than it is now. It was doing well economically, most of its citizens' lives were far more secure than at present, its museums had not been pillaged, its cities had not been smashed up, its Shiites and Sunnis had not been set at each other's throats in sectarian violence, and it was not teetering on the edge of becoming an Islamic fundamentalist regime in alliance with Iran. Iraq is so much worse off now than it was before the 2003 invasion that it amazes me anyone could think they are better off for it. No one is better off for it, with the possible exception of the Kurds, and a few Shiite political/religious bosses. Americans are worse off. Most ordinary Iraqis are far worse off...or else they're dead. You're supporting a bankrupt and wrongful political policy, Teribus, just like loyal soldiers and people anywhere throughout history who have made the initial error of backing the wrong people. It's perfectly understandable. Millions of Germans and Japanese made that same mistake in WWII, they did it in all honesty, and they did not realize at the time that they were making a mistake. Lots of people can be found backing any given policy, no matter what it is, and they all think they're right. Pre-emptive, unprovoked attacks of choice on small countries are not right. They are illegal aggression, they are a violation of international law, they are what Hitler and Tojo and Mussolini did in the 30's and 40's, and you are backing the wrong people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Barry Finn Date: 11 Nov 07 - 11:49 AM If you think things are going well or that they're getting better "T" then there is something wrong with your vision. After all before this thing got under way both you & I were aruging that this war: you; this war was a good & proper thing & me; that this war was wrong & we'd be in a mess before we knew it. Who's vision is impeared? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 11 Nov 07 - 12:33 PM The proof will be in the pudding, Teribus. You yourself have pointed out the stark differences between the job that has been/is being done by the UK forces in Iraq and the job that has been/is being done by the US forces in Iraq. And as has been noted, the UK forces are in the process of significantly drawing down their numbers and handing the job of providing security over to Iraqis. The US, on the other hand, has many, many times more forces in that country, and we are being prepared in this country for the continuation of the war in Iraq beyond the year 2012. The US intends to have permanent bases in Iraq, and it intends to keep a permanent occupation force in that country. The government of the US will do whatever is necessary to create a pretext for keeping a permanent occupation in Iraq. The examples of incompetence that you yourself have noted are not by accident. They are by design. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 11 Nov 07 - 04:09 PM "However, Iraq under Saddam prior to his totally misguided and disastrous attack on Kuwait was the most modernized, liberal, and westernized country in the Arab world and was in far better shape as a society than it is now. It was doing well economically, most of its citizens' lives were far more secure than at present, its museums had not been pillaged, its cities had not been smashed up, its Shiites and Sunnis had not been set at each other's throats in sectarian violence," - Little Hawk Saddam ruled Iraq through fear and intimidation on a massive scale for just under 24 years Little Hawk. On average depending on what figures you take as being true he murdered 154 to 282 of his subjects every day of his time in power. The Shia and Sunni were not at each others throats because the Sunni had their boots firmly on the necks of those Shia Arabs and those necks were pressed against the ground, if they complained or tried to do anything about it they were killed. While it's museums had not been pillaged the number of mass graves in the countryside increased annually, but you have somehow managed to overlook these trifles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Peace Date: 11 Nov 07 - 04:19 PM I can't talk fancy like y'all who post erudite and incisive comments reagrding Cheney. I'll be brief: That sumbitch gotta go! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Leadfingers Date: 11 Nov 07 - 04:44 PM 100 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Nov 07 - 05:05 PM I am not overlooking any of those "trifles", Teribus, regardless of your bland assumptions that I am. I know it would be very handy for your rhetorical purposes if I did overlook such things, but I am not. It would be handy for your rhetorical purposes if everyone who disagreed with you about Iraq was a drooling, obviously insane, and gibbering lunatic, but they are not. No, life is just not that convenient for you, sir, and it's never going to be. Your adversaries will never be the uniformed prats and morons you wish they all were. ;-) I am simply saying that Iraq was far better off never being invaded by Bush's armies in 2003, regardless of the rotten things Saddam did to his people over the years (while the USA supported him through most of that time). And I hold to that. George Bush has done more harm to Iraq and Iraqis in general than Saddam was ever able to. Far more. He has killed more of them than Saddam did and ruined more lives there than Saddam and done more harm to the country than Saddam, AND he's trespassing, because he is NOT an Iraqi, and his soldiers have no business messing around in that country at all. They are committing unprovoked aggression against a country that was no threat to the USA in 2003...or indeed, at any time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 11 Nov 07 - 05:08 PM In the action forum on Dennis' campaign website, already there's a new member who said he previously supported Hillary, but has permanently switched his support to Kucinich because of Dennis' impeachment bill. I think there will be quite a few people who will switch their support to Dennis for that reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 11 Nov 07 - 05:56 PM "I am simply saying that Iraq was far better off never being invaded by Bush's armies in 2003," Your opinion Little Hawk which is completely and utterly clouded by your almost pathological hatered of all things American, because they gave you a rough time as a child. "regardless of the rotten things Saddam did to his people over the years" Please do tell us about the rotten things that Saddam did to his people, give it some dimension and scale. "(while the USA supported him through most of that time)" Popularly believed left wing myth Little Hawk. Let's take a detailed look at that: 1967 - Diplomatic ties cut between the USA and Iraq 1978 - Saddam's coup where he murders 684 party members still no ties diplomatic or otherwise between US and Iraq 1980 - Saddam attacks Iran 1984 - December, the "Rumsfeld Handshake" 1989 - November diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US re-established 1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait 1991 - US led Coalition Forces attack Iraq and drive Iraqi Forces from Kuwait ending in the Safwan Ceasefire Agreement 1991 - 1998 - UNSCOM attempt to supervise Iraqi disarmament process 1998 - December US attacks Iraq in Operation "Desert Fox" 2002 - US goes to UN in order to get previous resolutions enforced, Iraq given one last chance with UNSC Resolution 1441 2003 - US plus it's Coalition Partners invades Iraq and sweeps Saddam from power. Now what was yuour contention again Little Hawk that "the USA supported him (Saddam) through most of that time". Now that time would be from 1978 to 2003, correct? Thats 25 years Little Hawk. Did the US support him between 1978 and 1984? - No it did not. Did the US support him between 1984 and 1990? - Yes. Did the US support him between 1990 and 2003? - No it did not. So how do you work out that the US supported Saddam for most of his time in power when it can be clearly demonstrated and established that for all but six years of that 25 year period the US and Iraqi Governments were completely at odds with one another. "And I hold to that." By all means "hold to that" if you wish to believe in lies "George Bush has done more harm to Iraq and Iraqis in general than Saddam was ever able to." Now that I would very much doubt, I know you certainly cannot substantiate that claim, which may be shown by your reluctance to actually look in detail at the extent of Saddam's crimes against his own people "Far more. He has killed more of them than Saddam did and ruined more lives there than Saddam and done more harm to the country than Saddam," Where is your proof and what are your grounds for making that ridiculous and totally false statement. "AND he's trespassing, because he is NOT an Iraqi, and his soldiers have no business messing around in that country at all." MNF Troops are present in Iraq at the specific request of the elected government of Iraq and under the terms of a United Nations Mandate, so unfortunately Little Hawk nobody is trespassing at all. "They are committing unprovoked aggression against a country that was no threat to the USA in 2003...or indeed, at any time." US intelligence community disagrees although they identified the threat early in 1998 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Nov 07 - 06:47 PM Well, it's a matter of opinion, isn't it? We differ on our opinion of who has done more harm to Iraq, George Bush or Saddam Hussein. And I suspect we will always differ on that. Your support of the American policy in Iraq is just as worthy of criticism as my opposition to it. Your perceptions of good and bad in the world were also formed by your growing up experiences, but you haven't been open (or foolish) enough to reveal much about them on this forum, so I can't take cheap shots at you about your childhood. Again, it's strictly a matter of opinion. Every invasion has its fervent supporters and its fervent opponents. I oppose the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I oppose it utterly. You don't. You support it. We will continue, obviously, to disagree about that, and we will both be sure that the other person has fallen for misleading propaganda. And one day we'll both be gone, and someone else can argue about it in our place. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: DougR Date: 11 Nov 07 - 07:46 PM Neither Bush or the VP will be impeached. Why? Because neither of them have commmitted an impeachable offense. If they had, they would have been drawn and quartered by the left-wing of the Democratic Party long ago. The Republicans would welcome a vote for impeachment in the Senate because they know they would win. The Democrats don't want a vote in the Senate because they know they would lose. The Democrats are making a show of it to please their left-wing base. After all, some of them will be up for election in 2008 and they certainly want to be able to say, "Well, I tried." Anyone who does not recognize that the surge in Iraq is improving conditions in Iraq simply has his/her head in the sand. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 11 Nov 07 - 07:59 PM The Democrats are pretty much as bad as the Republicans, DougR. A lot of them have committed impeachable offenses themselves. I tend to suspect that for a lot of them, one of the reasons they're so adamantly against impeachment hearings is because they're afraid their own bad behavior will come to light, if hearings take place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 11 Nov 07 - 08:27 PM Now, as for Iraq being better off these days, where do you get your information, T-Bird??? I mean, lets face it, in these days of McCartyism and media running from real news in favor of entertainment and the governemnt controlling what is "real" *(haha) news, how can nayone say that things are better??? All you are doing, T, is propagating mythology that the governemnt has furnished you... You are not in Iraq... You don't have a friggin' clue what is going on... Nor do too many folks becuase the so-called news that is coming out of Iraq is being wriiten purdy much by the occupiers... The have the microphione and they want you to think that thinks are peachy... What I have gleened from the occupier's story is that the US military has purdy much given up in many areas of Iraq and has circled the wagons in the Summi areas and is trying to buddy up with them seein' as they are scared they will be innialted without some protection... This may seem like a success but, geeze, you still have a civil war going on and when the US ever pulls out the Sunnis are going to have to fend for themselves... (But, Bobert, if the US pulls out and the Sunnis all get killed, then wouldn't this be looked at as the US allowing genocide???) Well, fair question and one that Bush should have considered ***before*** going to war since there were folks out there saying that this would happen if Bush ordered up an invasion... But to answer the question... Let's be frank here... We have two choices... Stay forever until our own existence is about to go down the tubes from a spending so much of our money on an Iraq occuaption that threatenes our very existence or get the heck outta a place we shouldn't be, revamp a foriegn policy that isn't based on wackin' folks and deal with our faltering economy... This, at least to me, is a no-brainer.... Got the heck out... There is no victory to be had... No Bush legacy to save... Just get out!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 11 Nov 07 - 08:47 PM Dennis sent this letter to Representative Conyers, who is the head of the Judiciary Committee... Dear Chairman Conyers I am writing in support of H. Res. 799, the Articles of Impeachment which were referred to the committee relative to the Impeachment of the Vice President of the United States of America. Recent reports indicate that the Vice President is attempting to shape the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran to conform to his misperceptions about the threat Iran actually poses. Much like his deceptive efforts in the lead up to the Iraq war, the Vice President appears to be manipulating intelligence to conform to his beliefs. If the reports are true, they add additional weight to the case for impeachment. I believe impeachment remains the only tool Congress has to prevent a war in Iran. This information relates directly to the Article III charges in the resolution. I urge your timely consideration. Sincerely, /s/ Dennis J. Kucinich Member of Congress |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Nov 07 - 09:39 PM I bet half the people in BOTH the Democratic and Republican parties have committed impeachable offenses by now. ;-) They're scoundrels, and they're in it together, as Carol has suggested, so why be surprised by what's going on? They're (almost) all just playing politics...angling for advantage as the next election approaches. The usual thing, in other words. It's a game. People who are silly enough to believe the game is what it pretends it is...real democracy and a real choice...well, I guess maybe they deserve the government they get. Not that they really have any choice, because the $ySStem is set up so they can only realistically elect more Democracts and Republicans...meaning almost no real choice at all. It's like the silly elections they used to have in the Soviet Union where you could choose this Communist or that Communist (the "liberal" or the "conservative" Communist?) to vote for in your region. Wow! Great choice, eh? In the USA you can vote for this corporate stooge or that corporate stooge. One is a Democrat who might pretend to be "liberal", the other is a Republican who definitely WILL pretend to be "conservative". They will BOTH pretend that they are more patriotic than their opponent! In Canada, on the other hand, it's entirely different! (joke, okay?) We normally get a choice between as many as 3 or 4 corporate stooges (Liberal Stooge/Conservative Stooge/NDP Stooge/etc.)! And they ALL pretend various unlikely things in their effort to snag votes. LOL! Yup, real democracy in action..."Uh-huh, yup, pass the chip dip, eh? Tell me when it's over." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 12 Nov 07 - 01:21 AM "Well, it's a matter of opinion, isn't it? We differ on our opinion of who has done more harm to Iraq, George Bush or Saddam Hussein. And I suspect we will always differ on that. Your support of the American policy in Iraq is just as worthy of criticism as my opposition to it." - Little Hawk The main difference is that facts and circumstances upon which I base my opinions can be backed up. As I pointed out in my post of 11 Nov 07 - 05:56 PM yours are either dowright lies at worst or complete and utter misrepresentation (e.g. "while the USA supported him through most of that time") Doug R is perfectly correct there will be no impeachment proceedings because no impeachable offence has been committed, those in the Senate and House of Representatives know that. Kucinich is bleating on about this for one reason, and one reason only, it helps his Presidential election campaign for the moment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 12 Nov 07 - 09:50 AM DougR also assured us that the US would not invade Iraq a few months before it actually did, so I don't see any need to take his predictions very seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Nov 07 - 11:58 AM Well, I can understand why he would have thought so, Carol...there was no rational or sane reason for invading Iraq at the time, and Doug probably assumed that the Bush administration was rational and sane, not to mention morally upright. DougR is a gentleman. He may well be wrong on occasion, but at least he's not a complete and utter tosser, like someone else I could mention. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 12 Nov 07 - 12:43 PM An impeachable offense is whatever Congress decides it is. Certainly the impeachment of Clinton proved that. Congress could impeach if it wanted to. It just doesn't want to. Too many powerful corporations are getting rich off this little escapade and, as Little Hawk points out, both parties are beholden to them. As far as the surge working, we already know that millions have fled that country which certainly cuts down on casualties and we know that Muqtada al-Sadr has agreed to have the Mahdi army stand down for a while. The Sunnis are getting arms from the US now so they don't want to upset that and al-Qaeda's presence was always an exaggeration. And the army admits it kind fudges numbers when it calculates the death toll (not to mention that "contractor" are never counted). What this means is that al-Sadr has been promised Iraq and it will be his as soon as we leave. There is no other reason he would agree to stand his army down. As we can see, they were the primary insurgents in this whole thing. We were not fighting al-Qaeda, we were fighting the Shiites--the very people we put in power. The deal is this: the US has told all the parties to give us time to convince the American people that the surge has worked so that the US can declare victory and get out. We will be leaving by election time, folks. We're out of people--we just can't stay. Not only are we running out of soldiers but Blackwater is history and this war cannot continue without them. So the administration is swinging deals to give us time to get out in a way that we don't lose too much face. So al-Sadr has bought into that. Why not sit back and wait for the Americans to leave? Al-Maliki wants us gone because he is furious that we armed the Sunnis. Probably the ONLY group that doesn't want us gone are the Sunnis. We're a big screen for them to hide behind now. But now they have plenty of American arms to carry on the conflict after we're gone. So that is how it will shake out. Iraq will fall into al-Sadr's hands and the Republican party will crow about having achieved the objective. Whether the public buys it or not remains to be seen. After all, this war was never about al-Sadr or al-Qaeda or the Sunnis--it was about Saddam's non-existent WMD and Iraq's non-existent ties to al-Qaeda that we were told was such an urgent matter that Iraq had to be invaded right now at this moment. And, of course, bin-Laden is as elusive as ever. The idea that we liberated Iraqis (whom the majority of Americans feel only the deepest hatred and contempt for) would be laughable were the whole thing not so tragic. But anyway, expect the press (that liberal press that never reports about all the GOOD things in Iraq--remember that?) to play up on this "the surge is working" crap for the next few months. It's necessary in order for a victory to be declared so that we may then cut & run because we have discovered that Humpty-Dumpty doesn't go back together very well no matter how much money and lives you waste trying to achieve it. The Brits know it and that is why they left. The same goes for the Japanese and the Italians and the Dutch and everyone else. It's funny, a few weeks ago I read about Iraqi refugees returning to Iraq because they are out of money and cannot find work. One Iraqi girl likened it to returning to death row. NOW I'm reading that Iraqis are returning because the streets are safe!!! Funny too how the surge is working while at the same time 2007 has been the most deadly year for American soldiers yet. And if Iraq is now so secure why is the Bush admiinistration is begging Congress on the sly for another $23 billion for "security." In the end, I don't care. Let's just get out. Declare your little victory and get our people out of there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bill D Date: 12 Nov 07 - 12:56 PM "...here will be no impeachment proceedings because no impeachable offence has been committed,.." piffle! There are several 'probable causes' for believing that impeachable offenses HAVE been committed, but of course it won't happen, because it would take beyond the end of his term to go thru the processes and have the trial, and it would consume the congress when little is getting done anyway. And if we impeach Bush, we get Cheney, and in my crowd, that's worse. No, Bush will finish his term....I just hope he doesn't get us into another war before he's done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 12 Nov 07 - 01:03 PM This impeachment isn't for Bush, BillD. It's for Cheney. Didn't you even bother to read the thread? Not even the opening post? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Amos Date: 12 Nov 07 - 03:43 PM Actually, I do think things are going slightly better in Iraq since the surge. From cataclysmically bad, they have gotten merely intolerable. The fact that Bush deemed it approrpiate to dig the U.S. into such a deep hole in the first place is not easily forgiveable, given the other options he had. The means he used to persuade the country to back him are not easily forgiveable and constitute false testimony. His biggest offense is being far more ignorant than he had any right to be given the responsibililties he was stealing. Going from -100 to -95 is not a recommendation in any kind of work. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 12 Nov 07 - 05:54 PM Little Hawk, the fair, the impartial, the "open-minded", the self-examining, what's up? How come that you are incapable of detailing some of the "rotten things that Saddam did". You must have some idea or notion to so fervently declare that what GWB and the US has done in 4 years amounts to so much more than Saddam achieved in 24. Or are you just naturally reluctant to go into details. How come that you are incapable of explaining how you manage to work out that the US supported Saddam for most of his time in power when it can be clearly demonstrated and established that for less than six years of that 25 year period the US and Iraqi Governments were completely at odds with one another. You blythely state - "He (GWB) has killed more of them (Iraqis) than Saddam did and ruined more lives there than Saddam and done more harm to the country than Saddam". And we are supposed to take this onboard as truth? Why just because you say so?? Give you a little clue Little Hawk, GWB and the US have got one hell of a lot of catching up to do before your statement has any substance (Saddam's total fatality tally lies somewhere between 1,349,040 and 2,470,320). Even if the ludicrous and fictitious Hopkins figures are taken into account you'd still not be anywhere close. Trespassing Little Hawk??? Still say that MNF Troops are not there at the specific request of the elected government of Iraq Little Hawk? Do you still say that MNF Troops currently stationed in Iraq are not there under a perfectly legal and duly approved United Nations Security Council Mandate? With reference to your PM, this, for my part, is not, nor has it ever been, about winning anything. It has been more about exposing lies such as yours, repeatedly trotted out in order to misrepresent, deceive and to sustain the ludicrous myths you seem to hold so dear in order to sustain your downright prejudice and bigotry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: DougR Date: 12 Nov 07 - 06:01 PM Bill D.:If either the president or vice-president had committed an act that could be considered impeachable the Democrats would be on him like flies on you-know-what. And they would do it regardless of the amount of time they both have in office. Holding hearings and investigations is about all the new Congress has been done since they took control of the house and senate anyway. As to whether or not the surge in Iraq has improved conditions, I really don't think most on this forum could be convinced there has been improvement by anything or anyone. To argue that Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam is ...well, just plain dumb. For proof try Googling mass graves found in Iraq (sticking my neck out because I haven't Googled it either but I will). More and more Iraqi citizens who fled Irag are returning to their homes and that is reported by the drive-by media or mainstream media if you prefer (a group not friendly to the Bush administration regardless of what you refer to them as). DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 12 Nov 07 - 06:14 PM >>More and more Iraqi citizens who fled Irag are returning to their homes and that is reported by the drive-by media or mainstream media if you prefer (a group not friendly to the Bush administration regardless of what you refer to them as).<< HAHAHAHA!! What did I just get done explaining? Good god, we're doomed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 12 Nov 07 - 06:25 PM Well, well, well... Another absolutely ***taken-on-faith-from-the-exactly-whom?-T-bird dact***... 1.3M to 2.4M people killed by Saddam??? Ahhhh, who were these folks, T??? Do you have a list of their names and nationalities??? This is another bogus number that you couldn't prove if your life depended on it... Oh sure, you can finf links of folks who have come up with these numbers but the folks who ciome up with these numbers have agendas... What was the agenda of the Johns Hopkins folks??? Do they hate Bush??? Or Cheney??? I really don't believe anyone, given the facts when Bush booted the inspectors out or the facts a month later, a year later or even today could possibly still, in their heart of hearts, not know that they are were and are still wrong on this invasion... It has achieved nothing but death, destruction, regional instability and hatred of the United Sates... As for impeachemnt of Dick Cheney, okay, in spite of my stated reservation, what the heck, go for it!!! He still a very dangerous man and maybe it will take his impeachemnt to stop him from influencing Bush to bomb Iran so... Impeach away!!! I'm now on board... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Amos Date: 12 Nov 07 - 06:59 PM You can add some weight to your feelings asbouty the issue by filling this out. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: DougR Date: 12 Nov 07 - 07:56 PM I just Googled "Mass graves found in Iraq" and it was as I predicted. RA282:Pardon me. I didn't realize you were addressing me. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Nov 07 - 07:56 PM Missing me, are you, Teribus? ;-) Awww....poor lonely chap, you are. I'm gonna let you fight with some other people here instead for a bit, you pathetic tosser. Hold that thought, okay? We've got to keep your kind off the street, you know, and I figure appealing to your obsessive-compulsive need to endlessly defend the indefensible is the perfect way to do it. Carry on, mate. Cheerio and all that...until I feel like wasting more of my time trying to teach the pig to sing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 12 Nov 07 - 08:14 PM Yo, LH... T doesn't care who he is fighting with... You, me, TIA, Dianava,, Carol, 282... We are all interchangable in T's eyes... He just plugs in the SOS, no matter... He only has one song in the repetoire and it's gettin' a tad stale... He spouts off "facts" as if they are, ahhhhhh, "facts"... But lets look at the history of T-facts and where they have gotten us... Look around... Don't take a weaterrman to tell which way the wind blows and Georege Bush has just about blown the entire planet up on a "war of choice"... Things are very much out of control... Every earthling who is paying half-attention is worried about the consequences of Bush's policies... He has indeed made a real mess of everything... And to make things worse, he changes the goal posts regulary... It ain't all about Irag but one dasy he's for democracy (he says) and the next day he's cozyin' up with dictators??? I mean, there is nothin' consitent with the man... He's a loose cannon... Yet, the T-Bird will always find a silver lining in Bush's sh*t storm because the T is on Bush's payroll... Why Bush thinks that paying T to shill for him here in a site of folk singers is well beyond my powers of comprehension but then again Bush's policies are likewise... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bill D Date: 12 Nov 07 - 10:28 PM No, Doug...even with my silly mistake of coming back to the thread and forgetting what I had read earlier, (advanced CRS), I do NOT believe that the Democrats would start impeachment procedings against EITHER of them at this point, even with suspicions that they 'might' win.....for the reasons I cited. My opinion....but not mine alone. Many pundits with better credentials than I have noted that impeachment procedings could be justified, but are not likely. Name one? Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington law school and "J.B. and Maurice Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center" Can't remember the several others right now. (semi-advanced CRS) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 12 Nov 07 - 10:55 PM The Democrats have started proceedings against Cheney. At least one of them has, with the help of a lot of Republicans. The bill is in committee. The only question now is how long it will take for them to take the next step, which is to start hearings. Dennis has already accomplished the near impossible by getting a bill past the motion to table. I won't be surprised if they start hearings before too long. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 13 Nov 07 - 01:59 AM As I thought Little Hawk - (12 Nov 07 - 07:56 PM) - No answers at all - Just lies to fuel your prejudice. And as you have done so often before when faced with a reasoned arguement and facts that dispute and call into question your so dearly held myths you resort to personal attack. Aye turn and run little man, go hide under your rock for a while, that has been your style from childhood, go and create another fictitious character to appear here as. How many do you post as on this forum at the moment little chap three or four? Stick to your wargaming and comic books where you really can make your lies appear "real". You are a compulsive "knocker", to whom life has been unfair, a "tooth-sucker" capable of offering nothing constructive, but only too eager to point out the faults of others. Alternative perspectives you wouldn't recognise one if it bit you on the arse, your own prejudice prohibits you from looking at any situation from any other perspective but your own. Tosser, up until a few months ago you didn't even know what the term meant - that's strange really when all you actually ever had to do was look in a mirror. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 13 Nov 07 - 04:48 PM There won't be any impeachments. Let's not kid ourselves. The dems don't have the guts to go through with it. Quite frankly, the stupid public doesn't really want it either. It will only be about 5 years from now when the whole stinking truth comes out about this administration that the public will be infuriated the way they should be now. And only THEN will they demand to know why Bush&Cheney weren't impeached. Meanwhile, the State Department is still having trouble getting diplomats to serve in the now so safe and secure Iraq. One of them called it "a potential death sentence." Apparently he hasn't gotten the word that the surge is working. Neither did Condi rice when she testified before Congress about Blackwater's behavior a few weeks ago. She justified a Blackwater piece of shit gunning down an Iraqi security guard after bragging that he felt like killing somebody. Ms. Rice said that in a war zone it's a life or death thing and people have to act quickly and sometimes can't put good judgment to use. She was reminded that this occurred within the Green Zone to which she replied that it made no difference. Hmmm, Condi--Condi, baby!--haven't you heard your husb---er, I mean--the president? The surge is working, old girl!!! The surge is working so well that a DynCorp mercenary has gunned down a taxi driver in cold blood. You know, I'm starting to believe that the mercenaries' job is to create such hatred for Americans that the Iraqis will demand we leave and then we can just walk away from the whole thing and justify it with, "But they told us to go!!!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 13 Nov 07 - 05:57 PM LOL, T-zer... You know callin' LH a liar... My mother used to say, "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"... You have set the bar when it comes to misrepresentation of facts... You make LH look like a Boy Scout and you should be ashamed... (Well, Bobert, if Terrible does respond to this, then he'll prolly call you a liar, too...) Oh, how friggin' scarey... B;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Nov 07 - 06:28 PM Ho hum. The Terrible Tosser is trying to get under my skin, Bobert... heh! As if it mattered. As if any of the political yak-yak in this place really mattered. But it's fun for idle minds, right? ;-) I think it's really too late in the Bush term of office to be trying to impeach Cheney, but I may be wrong. I certainly can't blame Kucinich for at least attempting to get it to happen. The reasons given for doing so can easily be ascertained just by reading the motion brought forward, so why should I or anyone need to repeat them once again? Just more yak yak is all that would achieve. Life has been good to me, Tossibus. Quite good. But it's not been very good to the Iraqis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bill D Date: 13 Nov 07 - 09:59 PM "... At least one of them has, with the help of a lot of Republicans.." sure...Dennis is being joined by Republicans who want to embarrass the Dems by HAVING hearings that will go nowhere. When I said above that the Dems would not push impeachment, I should have been clear that MOST of them knew better. Dennis either does NOT know better or he is just making a point. Perhaps he has Don Quixote syndrome...it is not that rare. I repeat ..there will be no impeachment... as much as there SHOULD be a reckoning for both Bush & Cheney, most Democrats are being more careful where to choose their battles, preferring to concentrate on being sure to win the next election instead of conducting a referendum on the last one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 13 Nov 07 - 10:11 PM You are correct, Bill... However, should the Dems find the necessary balls to do the deed, I am with them... That purdy much sums up what alot of folks feel... Most of us are resolved to having to endure another 14 months just hoping that Bush doesn't start any more wars... And, unfortunately, that is not a given... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Amos Date: 13 Nov 07 - 10:35 PM It's easy to pundit and decree that there won't be an impeachment. But let me point out that we could have the bastard out of office (Cheney) in ninety days, and possibly have Bush out in another thirty. That would spare the country ten months of his interference and possibly prevent another war. That's a chance worth putting punditry aside and making a boid for, wouldn't you say? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:21 AM Somewhere I read that there are Generals who have said that if they are given the order to attack Iran, they will refuse to comply if there is an impeachment process underway, but that they won't refuse to comply if there isn't. That alone, in my opinion, makes it imperative that we have an impeachment process underway, regardless of how that effects the outcome of the next election. No, Bill, Dennis is the one who knows better, and the others are complicit in the war mongering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:42 AM If you cannot answer the questions that have been raised in reponse to some of the wildly inaccurate and incorrect statements that you have made on this thread little hawk, why not just admit it, or is that too much of a wrench. 1) Rotten things that Saddam has done 2) Less than five years of contact between Iraq and the USA in a period spanning nearly 24 years = US supported Saddam for most of his near 24 years in power. How is this contention supported by fact or logic. 3) GWB killed more Iraqi's and did more harm to iraq than Saddam - Some substantive evidence to back that claim up please. 4) Trespassing in Iraq by MNF troops. Please state whether or not they are there at the specific request of the elected and universally recognised Government of Iraq. Please state whether or not that all MNF forces currently in Iraq are present under the direction of a perfectly legal United Nations Security Council Mandate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Nov 07 - 11:56 AM Eh? You called me a liar, Tossibus. Remember? One doesn't idly call someone else a liar in an online political discussion if one expects to be responded to in a decent oivilized manner...or even responded to at all. Retract that statement. If not, go kindly fuck yourself. I don't have to answer any of your questions. Why should I even give a damn? I can't take you seriously, given your attitude toward people you disagree with in political matters. I have seen no shred of any sense of humour in you. None. Not about yourself, not about anyone else. That makes you a real pain to talk to. I call you a "tosser" because it's funny-sounding to a North American. No North American would be insulted by being called a "tosser". It just sounds downright hilarious to our ears. So I say it back to you, with tongue firmly in cheek, because it sounds so damn funny...Tossibus. If I was really going to insult you, I'd call you an asshole. I haven't done that yet. ;-) But I would never call you a liar. I would never call anyone on this forum whom I am discussing politics with a liar, because private people (people other than politicians, that is) DON'T lie when they talk politics... They do make errors sometimes. They do state untruths sometimes, unaware that they are stating untruths. They may repeat untrue things that they have gleaned from some supposedly reliable source and imagine that those things are true...but they don't consciously lie...and it has to BE conscious and deliberate to be a lie. You have been attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill over a couple of things I said away back....something you apparently consider vitally important, although no one else in the world, including me, gives a holy toss about it... LOL! Get a grip, man. You are engaging in the usual obsessive-compulsive need to prove others wrong. Me, in this case. Who fucking cares? What difference could it make? You should get a life. Go outside, walk around, breathe the fresh air. Do some cardio-vascular workout. Take your wife out to a nice restaurant. Take the dog for a walk. Clean up your office. Anything. No one in this world gives a shit about something I said about Saddam or Iraq several days ago you, my dear fellow. You are giving it far too much importance. It simply doesn't matter. They should put you under sedation for a bit for your own sake, if not for the rest of us, because you are verging on some sort of psychotic state in your zeal to prove that you are right and I am wrong. No one cares. We aren't running for office here, old sport, and the press is not hanging on our every word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 14 Nov 07 - 12:27 PM >>It's easy to pundit and decree that there won't be an impeachment. But let me point out that we could have the bastard out of office (Cheney) in ninety days, and possibly have Bush out in another thirty. That would spare the country ten months of his interference and possibly prevent another war. That's a chance worth putting punditry aside and making a boid for, wouldn't you say?<< Don't tell us--tell Congress. They're the ones bullshitting around. Between Conyers and Kucinich, we could have the resolutions ready to impeach both turds in the White House. Then Pelosi should sit down with the pubs and ask, "What do you want from me that will secure a yes vote for impeachment?" And, yes, it's really that simple. She hasn't done that because she either supports Bush or she is too lazy. I'll let the individual decide on that. I can tell you this, though: If I ran Congress, there would impeachment proceedings going on right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Amos Date: 14 Nov 07 - 12:53 PM 282RA FOR CONGRESS! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 14 Nov 07 - 01:43 PM Wow Little Hawk, what a TWAT you prove yourself to be. That (lay apart the language) is the sort of outburst one would expect from an infant - keep taking the medication - open one of your comics - or go paint another tank and pretend your Rommel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Amos Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:10 PM Boys, boys, none of these ad hominem attacks, now. Stick to the issues. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bill D Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:53 PM *GRIN* reminds me of an old pop song.. "I love she and she loves me - Pardon if I boast. Sometimes we fight All the live-long night 'Bout who loves who the most!" Only now it's "who hates Bush & Cheney the most" and we fight all night about how best to 1) Get rid of, 2) neutralize, 3) outwait them! (no 4), as assassinations are kinda frowned on 'round here.) And while everyone dithers over whether to impeach them, ridicule them, ignore them or push legislation by them, they are spending more lives and billions of dollars we don't have. I flatly do NOT believe we could carry off an impeachment in 90-120 days. The details and evidence and laws are just too complex...and the votes simply would not be there. **DISCLAIMER** I would dearly love to SEE them tossed out on their ears...I just doubt it can be done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 14 Nov 07 - 03:21 PM The laws are actually quite vague. The Congress actually has quite a bit of latitude on this matter. As I said before, it's not a legal proceeding. It's a political proceeding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bill D Date: 14 Nov 07 - 03:46 PM Not a legal proceeding? Tell Nixon that...or Clinton..but, insofar AS it is a political proceeding, it will get bogged down beyond belief with hearings, foot-dragging, and accusations that it is ONLY a political ploy by Democrats...which could backfire at election time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 14 Nov 07 - 04:13 PM It's a political proceeding because the only consequences that can be imposed on the one who is convicted in an impeachment proceeding is removal from office. That makes it political and not legal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Nov 07 - 06:37 PM It wasn't an outburst, Tossibus. It was a calm, quiet, if somewhat intense statement made with a wry smile on my face...as I chuckle at the folly of mankind in general and yourself in particular. But you wouldn't know that, because you aren't here to see my face. You assume an "outburst". Oh, my! Dear me! I almost never get upset enough to make an outburst about anything on this forum, because nothing important enough ever occurs here to merit one. It's just casual amusement posting here. Something to fill in the time when the work is done. You're just too proud to apologize for openly calling someone else a liar, that's all. It would mean...giving in just a smidgen. Admitting to having overstepped the line a tad. That's too much for you, isn't it? I bet you've never apologized to anyone for anything you've said to them on this forum, have you? I have. Several times. I'm not as afraid of that as you are. I believe my ego can survive such experiences. Perhaps yours cannot? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: TIA Date: 14 Nov 07 - 07:21 PM Teribus, You are a bully. A scared little boy who puffs up to compensate. While you were so busy dishing LH a heapin' helpin' of crap about not being able to back up statements, you forgot entirely about your own little full-retreat (that you hope everyone has forgotten). Before you dish out any more you better go visit this one again, or the hypocrisy meter will throw a rod. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: artbrooks Date: 14 Nov 07 - 08:01 PM It seems to me that any process that must follow certain steps laid down by law is, almost by definition, a "legal procedure". I think it is worthy of note that the members of the House who voted to not table the impeachment bill were overwhelmingly Republicans. They really want to tie Congress up, so that "do nothing" finger can continue to be pointed. That is really their only hope to regain a majority in 2008. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 14 Nov 07 - 08:38 PM The distinction, artbrooks, is that when someone is convicted in an impeachment process, one does not suffer consequences that would be imposed by our legal system (going to jail, paying fines, etc.). Instead, when one is convicted in an impeachment, one only loses his or her political office. And because it is a political body, not a judicial body that makes the determination to convict or not convict. Also, it's the Congress who determine what constitutes impeachable behavior (on a case by case basis), not any particular legal code. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: artbrooks Date: 14 Nov 07 - 08:44 PM IMHO, you are wrong, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:56 PM What, TIA said, T-zer except the "bully" part... You wish you were a bully but that would require you to have the strength to be one... No, in our country (the US) and even perhaps in Canada you would be considered a "punk"... Your arguments are week... Your focus is narrow... Your thinkin' lacks the critical part that allows you to sift thru partisan propaganda and see correct paths... That makes you a punk... Oh yeah, you can ignore me... That's really fine with me... You can call me a liar because I once stated that the US had killed oevr a 100,000 Iraqis, a number you'd probably settle with these days... Heck, like LH has said... I couldn't care less... You are a miserable little man who was on the wrong side of the worst war of my life time and now you think you can just attack people who, unlike you, had the wisdom to see the falaccies in Bush's decision to invade Iraq.... You were wrong then and you are wrong now... But if your little punk ego needs a boost, fire away... LH and I can, unlike you, *calmly* sit back and watch you twist your ownself into a knot... So, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, in the words of your hero, "Bring it on"... B;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Amos Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:58 PM It is a process in law. But it certainly has political ramifications and origins. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: artbrooks Date: 14 Nov 07 - 10:16 PM In the sense that the Constitution of the United States is a political origin, that is certainly true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 14 Nov 07 - 10:32 PM I'm not particularly attached to the idea of you agreeing with me, artbrooks, but I'm having some difficulty determining which part of my 14 Nov 07 - 08:38 PM post you believe is wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Amos Date: 14 Nov 07 - 10:39 PM Well, I think it cannot be gainsaid that i is a legal process which becomes a political football, is often pursued for political motives, and has far-reaching political consequences. But it is one that is provided for in law, and is undertaken by lawmakers. So maybe it's a breath mint AND a candy mint. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Nov 07 - 11:17 PM That's a kind of whimsical analogy, Amos, but I like it. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 15 Nov 07 - 02:35 AM Wow, Amos, you are a genius! Do you think you could offer a mint to teribus? I think he needs a breath mint. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: artbrooks Date: 15 Nov 07 - 06:53 AM CarolC, I suppose that my core objection to your argument is that you seem to be limiting your use of the word legal to matters of criminal law, subject to the penalty of imprisonment. To me, and in my experience, anything that is covered by statutes and governmental administrative procedures is a legal issue, although it may come under a heading such as commercial law, administrative law, personnel law, and so forth. If you wish to use "legal" that way, that is entirely your choice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 15 Nov 07 - 11:57 AM Hi TIA, (re: your link) guess you and Ron missed this then: "Teribus - PM Date: 06 Oct 07 - 08:19 PM "Now did Bush have UN approval for his invasion? Yes or no? No agonized explanation necessary." - Ron Davies Actually Ron Davies and others on this forum the question is not whether or not George W Bush Bush had the approval of the UN, he didn't require the approval of the UN. He was presented quite clearly with the case that Iraq under the governance of Saddam Hussein would pose threat to the United States of America, the allies of the United States of America or the Interests of the United States of America. That answer had actually been given three years before during the Presidency of one William Jefferson Clinton - that answer was yes Iraq did pose a threat to the United States of America. Now this is not the opinion of Teribus it is recorded fact, now I know that the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd here on this forum do not want to acknowledge this fact but the least you can do is have the honesty to give your sources if you dispute anything that I have said, you will be hard pressed to refute what Bill Clinton laid out in February 1998." And TIA, Ron's discussion relating to Bush having UN approval and his subsequent question was directed more at BB than me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 15 Nov 07 - 12:21 PM Okie dokie, artbrooks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Amos Date: 15 Nov 07 - 12:28 PM Teribus: Have you stopped beating your wife, by the way? Do you think there is no difference between the Saddam position during the Clinton years, and the Saddam position by the time W. arrived? Does the fact that the UN inspectors found no signs of such threat, other than the remnants of a prior threat since dismantled have no weight in your reflections? And as far as I recall Bush had no authorization from the Iraq government to invade their country. Nor explicitly from the United Nations. I believe the invasion of Iraq was unilaterally elected by the Bush administration; was planned, in general, before 9-11; and was not justified by the factual evidence available. If there WERE any justifying evidence available, do you think Colin Powell would have been forced to do his slideshow with none? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 15 Nov 07 - 05:49 PM Well, one thing is completely known now by just about evryone with an I.Q. greater than that of an animal cracker and that is that neither Saddam nor Iraq posed any threat to the United States... But lots of people knew that during the panic-attack-mad-dash-to-Iraq that the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Rice/Pearle/Teribus war drum poundin' days... Scott Ritter, for one, knew it and tried to get uit out... He was black-balled by the Washington Post and by Judith Miller of the New York Times... George Tenant knew it but he and the rst of the CIA were under constant Cheney pressure to suck up and get with the "office-speak"... Million of people seemed to sense that the entire story just didn't add up and took to the streets in dozen of countires a round the world to say, "Hey, what just a danged inute here, President ChickenHawk, before ordering kids to go out and do what you hid from during the Vietnam War!!!" Yeah, there were alot of folks who knew that Iraq and Saddam were not a thret to the United States... Lots... But Bush wanted his war and now he has it... Hundreds of thousands of folks have either been killed or wounded... The entire Middle East is now less stable than any time in several decafes... The US has had to borrow unpresidented amounts of money to fund Bush's war and occupations and this borrowing has destabilized the dollaar as well as the US economy... But Bush has his war... And it will be his legacy... Yeah, he pumps out his chest now and has come up with his um-teenth reason for his war as being a supporter of "freedom & deemocracy"... What a joke... He supports dictators all over the planet... Love of freedom and democracy??? Come on... But Bush has his war... And so does the rest of the planet... Thta's the bad part... As for UN Resolutions... Here's 89 cents... Take it with a UN Resolution to the local Quik-Mart and get you a cup of coffeee... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Ron Davies Date: 15 Nov 07 - 11:07 PM Teribus-- You are truly the master of the old soft-shoe. But, as TIA has pointed out, you still somehow have managed to avoid actually answering the question. Once more with feeling: Did Bush have UN approval for his invasion of Iraq? Yes or no? Now we've seen your song and dance. Broadway beckons you. But we'd just like a yes or no. And if you didn't want to be addressed on the issue, you always had the option of not commenting on the UN and Bush. But you did--so, like BB, you are now cordially invited to cite the UN resolution giving Bush authority to invade Iraq. NB: If by some chance you, BB etc. are unable to do so, you are admitting the UN never did give Bush the authority. And in that case, please be so good as to refrain---forever--from quoting UN resolutions as an excuse for Bush's invasion--since they are only up to the UN--or its chosen agents--to enforce. And therefore your erudition on the subject of UN resolutions--though truly wondrous to behold, and, I'm sure, very impressive when you recite them around the house--is totally irrelevant to Bush's invasion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 16 Nov 07 - 01:00 AM Ron you are likewise cordially invited to show me where it states that a nation has to get the UN's permission to defend itself. Did Clinton act with the backing and authority of the UN in Kosovo? I would chance to venture that there are hundreds of thousands wish that someone had acted likewise in Rwanda, Sudan and in Burma, but unfortunately for them they, mistakenly have put their trust in the United Nations, and consequently are dying like flies. Did Clinton act with the backing and authority of the UN in Iraq? According to US interpretation of UN Resolution 687 he did. Did the US and the coalition of 43 countries that invaded Iraq in March 2003 do so with the Authority of the UN? Yes it did in accordance of the US interpretation of UN Resolutions 1441 and 687. This by the way is priceless: "please be so good as to refrain---forever--from quoting UN resolutions as an excuse for Bush's invasion--since they are only up to the UN--or its chosen agents--to enforce." Oooh the indignation!! "...only up to the UN to enforce" Eh Ron? What with? At Safwan Ron who signed on behalf of the UN? The Safwan Cease-fire: Iraq formally acceeded to coalition terms for a permanent cease-fire at a meeting at Safwan Airfield on March 3, 1991. Safwan Airfield is located six kilometers west of the intersection near Safwan, in Southeastern Iraq, just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border. The meeting lasted two hours between seven Iraqi Generals and General H. Norman Schwarzkopf. It was observed by coalition generals from Saudi Arabia, Britain, France, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria, among others. The meeting resulted in Iraqi Generals accepting all of the U.S.-led coalition's conditions for a permanent cease-fire. I know you don't read that well Ron but do you note one abbreviation that is singularly absent in the above? The answer to my question regarding who signed on behalf of the UN Ron is nobody, because when it comes to the actual fighting of wars Ron the UN does not exist. And here's how the above was interpreted a little later on: "The allied coalition invokes U.N. Resolution 687 and the Safwan Accords -- the cease- fire agreements between Iraq and the coalition forces on March 3, 1991 that banned Iraqi interference with allied air operations -- to enforce "no-fly zones" in Iraq. The Clinton Administration maintains that there is sufficient authority in Resolutions 678 (authorizing use of force in the 1990-91 Persian Gulf conflict), 687 (the main cease-fire resolution), and 688 (demanding Iraq not oppress its people) -- and existing congressional actions -- for the President to strike Iraq because of actions such as its incursion into northern Iraq. Resolutions 678 and 687 were written under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, dealing with peace and security, and are interpreted as allowing military action to enforce these resolution." So yes Ron the US did have the authority and what is more it acted in accordance with precedent. If North Korea broke the terms of the cease-fire that brought hostilities to a close in 1953 would the fighting resume? If Japan or Germany had violated the terms of the cease-fire that brought hostilities to a close in 1945 would fighting have been resumed? Of course hostilities would have been resumed, and quite rightly so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 16 Nov 07 - 12:43 PM >>Ron you are likewise cordially invited to show me where it states that a nation has to get the UN's permission to defend itself.<< I think we can safely conclude that Teribus cannot bring himself to admit that Bush had no endorsement from the UN to ivade Iraq. If he dances around that question one more time, people are going to start mistaking it for a maypole. He can't even come up with one of his trademark "I'll-just-flood-em-with-a-shitload-of-facts-figures-and-numbers" attempts. >>Did Clinton act with the backing and authority of the UN in Kosovo?<< The ol' "It's all Clinton's fault" argument that died after the 2006 midterms proved conclusively that nobody intelligent is buying it. So naturally that doesn't stop Teribus. >>Yes it did in accordance of the US interpretation of UN Resolutions 1441 and 687.<< According to the way the US interpreted it. Well, we all know all-too-well that George Bush can and will interpret "Don't invade Iraq because you have no evidence for what you're accusing them of" to mean "Please invade Iraq and do whatever the hell you want." He's one of the most bizarre characters it has been my misfortune to be governed by. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 16 Nov 07 - 01:24 PM Guest 282RA, I was asked a question, to which I have given my answer. The fact that you do not like that answer, or do not agree with it, does not matter, I personally don't give a flyin' you-know-what. Oh, yes before I forget, exatly how was it us Brits embarrassed ourselves down in the Falklands, I have asked before but the question seems to skipped your mind. Or was that just another occassion where you engaged your mouth before clutching in your brain. But one thing any casual observer/reader of this thread will note is this. Anything I state is normally backed up with reason and with facts, those who disagree never challenge any of those, they merely resort to personal attack, exactly as you have done. Now then Guest282RA, you found yourself inspired enough to reply to my last post so let's see what by ommission you seem to find no fault with: 1. A nation does not require the approval or consent of the United Nations to defend itself. Glad we agree on that. 2. Regarding my question relating to whether or not Clinton had UN backing or authority to act in Kosovo. The rather inane reference "Clinton's fault" is rather mystifying. Well 282RA he didn't because as in Rwanda he knew that the UN would not act and people were dying so he took the matter out of their hands and used the NATO military alliance - rather clever because that effectively removed the French, the Russians and the Chinese from the decision making process, in that their UNSC vetoes were of absolutely no use to them. 3. That Iraq did violate the cease-fire agreement signed between Iraq and the United States of America at Safwan on 3rd March, 1991. Again glad we agree on that. 4. That those violations and disregard for the cease-fire terms and conditions have been used to justify US attacks on Iraq in 1996, 1998 and in 2003. 5. No-one represented the United Nations at the signing of the cease-fire at Safwan and that no-one from the UN was present. Glad we are agreed on that, because that means that that cease-fire was arranged by the combatants, unlike the one say brokered between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon (Note Guest282RA - UN had to do that because Hezbollah do not represent any country or member state of the UN). The UN has nothing to do with it, the individual combatants can interpret the agreement in any way they want, the combatant nations decide whether it has been honoured or violated, not the UN. 6. Glad to see you agree with the principle that if the terms and conditions of a cease-fire are broken it can naturally result in a resumption of hostilities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 16 Nov 07 - 04:36 PM >>A nation does not require the approval or consent of the United Nations to defend itself. Glad we agree on that.<< That was not the question. And you still haven't answered it and it is plainly obvious that you never will. >>Regarding my question relating to whether or not Clinton had UN backing or authority to act in Kosovo. The rather inane reference "Clinton's fault" is rather mystifying. Well 282RA he didn't because as in Rwanda he knew that the UN would not act and people were dying so he took the matter out of their hands and used the NATO military alliance - rather clever because that effectively removed the French, the Russians and the Chinese from the decision making process, in that their UNSC vetoes were of absolutely no use to them.<< Translation: Clinton didn't go to the UN so Bush didn't have to either. Ergo, it's all Clinton's fault. But don't fret. You'll have a new President Clinton to whine endlessly about in a few months. As for the rest of your points, I didn't read them because I didn't read most of your original post to which I was replying. Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 07 - 05:40 PM GUEST,282RA It seems typical that you choose to reply without reading the post you are replying to. As can be seen from your arguements ( as presented here, you don't pay much attention to the facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Ron Davies Date: 16 Nov 07 - 11:28 PM Teribus-- When will you be opening your dance studio? As I said, the old soft-shoe is obviously your specialty. But you're also no slouch at propaganda. It's amazing when after several years you don't recognize the Bush propaganda campaign to bring the US public behind his planned Iraq war. But you're a master at generating your own propaganda. Sorry, 282RA has you nailed. The UN did not give Bush authority to invade Iraq--and your tortured logic claiming that it did has been declared unconstitutional--cruel and unusual punishment of the English language. But just to clarify matters, since you are convinced of your argument, I'm sure you'd want us to also be convinced. So please give the exact quote by the UN giving Bush authority to invade Iraq. I'm perfectly willing to be persuaded by proof--all we need is that quote. And just think, you'll be able to save your ego after all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Barry Finn Date: 17 Nov 07 - 12:02 AM Congress didn't do it's job when it handed it's responsibility off to GWB, they failed this nation. He also failed his nation by slanting the outlook on the war he was presenting so that the nation would see the going to war in the light that he wanted it to be seen in. He tried the UN way & he didn't convince them, they weren't biting. He went into Iraq & the UN gave no authority, there is no statement or UN resoultion stating the UN said it was OK to go to war, none, no matter what anyone wants to read into this. He deceided to "go it alone", "those not with US are against US". The tide has, slowly turned against him. It's time he, his VP & his cabinet were dragged from their offices, impeached, tried for war craimes, crimes against humanity & treason & if found quilty of they should be excuted. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Sandy Paton Date: 17 Nov 07 - 01:33 AM I have permission from my friend aand neighbor, Tony Piel, to pass around this article which he wrote in our local weekly newspaper last week. It's long, but there are some contributing to this thread who don't seem to believe that Bush/Cheney have commited illegal acts and are susceptible to impeachment -- and conviction. I urge them to read this. A Primer on the Law of Torture By Anthony Piel t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed Thursday 15 November 2007 President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney as well as a succession of current and former attorneys general, legal counsels, secretaries of defense, judicial appointees, CIA agents and others seem to be having difficulty figuring out what constitutes torture or other cruel and inhuman treatment as a matter of law. For example, does "waterboarding" constitute torture? Perhaps they could do with a primer on the subject. What does the law actually say? According to the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment: "The term 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession ... inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or any other person acting in an official capacity ... No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." Could any statement of law be clearer? The Convention continues: "No State Party shall expel, return ('refouler') or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." In short, "rendition" is also flat-out illegal. Conviction of acting officials in the chain of command for such violations that are part and parcel of war crimes or crimes against humanity, pursuant to the US inspired, post World War II Nuremberg Doctrine, makes those officials, irrespective of rank, title or position, subject to punishment by life imprisonment or the death penalty. This is no laughing matter. It's not even a matter of impeachment of a few wayward officials. Is the US bound by the law? Yes. Can the US president grant immunity? No. The US government crafted, promoted, adopted, signed and ratified the 1984 Convention Against Torture, which therefore automatically becomes the "supreme law of the land," pursuant to the US Constitution, which itself forbids cruel punishment. No enabling legislation is required to give effect to these basic principles of law. Only the details of how cases are dealt with are subject to further legislation or executive order. Each state party is required by the Convention to enforce its terms under its own national criminal law. The failure to do so is itself a violation of international and US Constitutional law. Note that the Convention, and therefore the national and international law on torture, makes no reference and provides no escape clause for treatment that amounts to less than "organ failure" - a vile concept prefabricated by the Bush administration, with absolutely no basis in law. It is absolutely irrelevant whether "waterboarding" does or does not produce organ failure. Repeated drowning, revival and drowning again causes acute suffering, whether performed in a full-size bath tub, a bucket or basin, or by means of a cloth stuffed over the face and in the mouth while water is poured over the victim. Waterboarding constitutes torture; it is utterly immoral and illegal, period, full stop. Besides, more than 50 detainees are known to have died under Bush's secret program of interrogation, and many more are suspected of the same under Bush's secret program of illegal rendition. During World War II, with so much hanging in the balance, we Americans did not torture prisoners to obtain information or confession. Even more telling, we did not use torture during the Cold War when we faced the real possibility of massive exchange of surprise nuclear strikes. This was especially striking in Germany in the 1950s. At that time, I was personally involved in the physical capture of a Soviet agent working in a Warsaw Pact spy ring. I attended as he was interrogated all night long in a detention center. Professional interrogators threatened him with both carrot and stick, but they never used torture. The agent finally chose the carrot. He broke down and yielded reliable and verifiable information (which torture would not have yielded) and this led, within weeks, to the mopping up of the entire spy ring. (At the time of which I speak, many of today's leaders and actors were still crawling around in diapers.) The moral of the story: We don't "do" torture, because torture is illegal, it is immoral, we are Americans, and we don't want others to torture us. It's that simple. Torture, within the meaning of the 1984 Convention Against Torture, continues to be secretly and systematically inflicted and condoned by various officials at the highest levels of the Bush administration. Most of these high-level officials have no experience of combat, of imprisonment or of interrogation. They have trashed the reputation of America around the globe. As a result, they are contributing to the rise of international terrorism. These leaders and actors appear to lack the imagination, intellectual capacity and moral compass to understand what is at stake, and keep America on the moral high ground. They need a primer on the basics. They better learn quick, because there is no statute of limitations on war crimes and crimes against humanity, and as our US president has himself said, in a not-dissimilar context, "They can run, but they can't hide." ---------- Anthony Piel is a former legal counsel of the World Health Organization and a former member of the US Army's 2nd & 4th Armored Divisions. This article first appeared in The Lakeville Journal on November 9th 2007. --------------------------------------------------------------------- If you got all the way through Tony's column, I suggest you take it one step further and read Elizabeth Holtzman's article, published by TruthOut, Common Dreams, and the Huffington Post, all three. Holtzman, a lawyer, a former NY prosecutor, and once a member of the House of Representatives, is entitled to your attention. I can't print it here, but I challenge you to follow this link and read it there! Now you might consider joining in the Kucinich effort. Impeachment is no longer "off the table." Sandy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Sandy Paton Date: 17 Nov 07 - 01:37 AM I guess I've forgotten how to do a blue clickie thing. Here's the web address for the Holtzman article as it appeared in TruthOut. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111407R.shtml Read it! Her credentials even more impressive than Tony Piel's. Sandy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 17 Nov 07 - 04:01 AM Ron, No Head of Government, or leader of any nation needs UN authorisation to act in order to defend that nation or that nations interests. Guest282RA: "Clinton didn't go to the UN so Bush didn't have to either. Ergo, it's all Clinton's fault." You are the one talking about fault, and just in case it slipped your notice, Bush did in fact go to the UN. What Clinton did, presumably on the advice of his security advisors, was to invoke the measures authorised by the UN in relation to UNSC Resolution 687, which did authorise the use of force, to ensure that Iraq complied with the terms and conditions it agreed to at Safwan. Now when this was done first in 1996 and then again in 1998, where was the great outcry from you lot then. Both those occassions set a precedent upon which any US Administration could justifiably feel free to act upon, so why the great surprise when one did, after going to the UNSC to table it's concerns. Barry Finn: "He tried the UN way & he didn't convince them, they weren't biting." Oh but he did convince them Barry Finn, how otherwise can you explain the unanimous vote given for Resolution 1441. What next stopped that resolution being carried out was interference by Iraq's main trading partners France, Russia and China, who held out the opportunity to Saddam Hussein to resume his course. They would thwart US moves in the Security Council while working to get UN sanctions against Iraq removed. The man who was assigned to Saddam during his time in prison has written a book in which he says that Saddam openly admitted that he did everything in his power to convince everyone that he still had WMD, WMD development programmes and missile development programmes running in Iraq. His stated reason for doing this was to deter Iran. Now this IIRC I came up with years ago. Unfortunately for Saddam he believed the French, the Russians and the Chinese. Unfortunately for Saddam the French, the Russians and the Chinese did not pay heed to precedent and completely misjudged the mood of the US Administration. Bill Clinton found a way around vetoes in the UNSC in Kosovo, George W Bush found a way round those same vetoes over Iraq. The correct course of action both times IMHO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: artbrooks Date: 17 Nov 07 - 07:12 AM While this certainly comes under the generally-accepted meaning of "weasel-wording", this clause was added when the US Senate ratified the convention in October 1994: That with reference to article 1, [which defines "torture"] the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. "Severe" and "prolonged" are not otherwise defined. This is only one of many reservations the US made (most nations who ratified the treaty-Iraq and Iran did not-had very few, if any). The full set of reservations and signatories may be found here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 17 Nov 07 - 12:09 PM Thanks for posting that, Sandy. I'd say waterboarding certainly constitutes a "threat of death", since people who are being waterboarded feel like they're going to die. That's the whole point of waterboarding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 17 Nov 07 - 12:24 PM >>GUEST,282RA It seems typical that you choose to reply without reading the post you are replying to. As can be seen from your arguements ( as presented here, you don't pay much attention to the facts.<< Huh? What?? You were saying something? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 17 Nov 07 - 12:32 PM >>You are the one talking about fault, and just in case it slipped your notice, Bush did in fact go to the UN. What Clinton did,<< Let's stop right there (that's as far as I bothered to read it). Anytime a rightwinger puts Clinton and Bush in the same sentence it is NEVER for any other reason than to justify whatever it was Bush has done by saying that it was actually Clinton who did it or made it inevitable for Bush to do it. The man left office nearly 8 years ago but everything that has happened since then is all his fault. Insulting your own intelligence appears to be your hobby--keep it that way and leave the rest of us out of it. And you STILL haven't answered the question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 17 Nov 07 - 12:42 PM Clinton was a part of the same globalization effort that Bush is a part of. It's just that when the Democrats are in office, because of the nature of their voter base, they have to be working on different aspects of the overall plan than the Republicans can work on. But Clinton was certainly working toward the same goals overall. He still is, and so is his wife. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Ron Davies Date: 17 Nov 07 - 04:48 PM Teribus-- Obviously no leader of a nation needs UN approval to defend itself. I never denied that. Please, however, be so good as to stop citing UN resolutions as a reason for Bush's invasion of Iraq--unless you can come up with the UN resolution authorizing Bush's invasion. And we've been waiting years for BB, you or any other Bush apologist to do so. It begins to appear that your theory of UN authority given to Bush might just be complete drivel. Call it US self-interest, as seen by Bush, not carrying out UN wishes. I totally disagree that it was in the US interest to invade Iraq, but at least that's more plausible than your insistence on the UN figleaf. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bill D Date: 17 Nov 07 - 05:44 PM "No Head of Government, or leader of any nation needs UN authorisation to act in order to defend that nation or that nations interests." Now you've ADDED 'that nation's interests' to your first formula. When we went into Afghanistan, we were certainly defending our nation, as that's where the major bad guys were hiding, and no UN resolution was needed....but **IRAQ**?? Piffle! There WAS no threat from Iraq until WE went in there with faked justification,(without any resolution), and created conditions that LURED various Al Qaida operatives there, because it was not a LOT more convenient to kill Americans and cost them lots of money. There is just no way you can dance around that...and clenching your eyes shut and refusing to hear that we did those things is simply.....ummmm...very Bush-like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 17 Nov 07 - 06:32 PM "There WAS no threat from Iraq until WE went in there with faked justification,(without any resolution), and created conditions that LURED various Al Qaida operatives there," - BillD Well you have stated your opinion, and just under ten years ago Security advisors and the combined intelligence agencies of the United States of America correctly believed otherwise and briefed their President accordingly. At the time I believe that they were better trained and equipped to form their opinion. Why is it BillD, that you completely dismiss the threat that "The Axis of Evil" poses? Why is it impossible? Why can it not happen? Guest282RA do not put words into my mouth or have the bloody nerve to tell me what I mean, especially if you cannot be bothered to read the text you seem to so bloody keen to argue about. Very simple rule in life if you believe in equality - "What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the Gander". The question I asked before if the justification for Clinton to attack Iraq on a number of occasions was UNSC 687 and there was no uproar about it, why all of a sudden did Bush need a special dispensation in 2003 when exactly the same reason was invoked backed up by 1441 "Iraq's Last Chance". By the bye Guest282RA if you do not believe in Law based on precedent, then whatever law you do believe in is subjective and worthless. Ron, having studiously ignored all previous questions relating to the UN, here's another one for you to ignore: "Call it US self-interest, as seen by Bush, not carrying out UN wishes." - Ron Davies. What are the UN's wishes Ron? The others were: Who was present and represented the UN at the signing of the Safwan Cease-Fire Agreement on 3rd March, 1991? The UN enforces things with what exactly Ron? For those who do not want to wait for Ron to ignore those questions the answers are as follows: 1. The UN has no wishes. 2. The UN was not a signatory to the cease-fire agreement at Safwan. They were not represented at Safwan therefore have no say whatsoever in the combatant countries interpretation of that cease-fire agreement. 3. The UN itself can enforce nothing as it does not have the means to enforce anything and has clearly demonstrated time after time that it most certainly does not have the will to enforce anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 17 Nov 07 - 07:15 PM It surprises me that you are still using that Safwan red herring, Terribus, considering that it has been thoroughly debunked here in this forum... Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released From: CarolC - PM Date: 22 Jun 04 - 04:06 PM There were three cease-fire arrangements following the 1990-1991 Gulf war. UNSC Resolution 686, the Safwan Accords, and UNSC Resolution 687. The terms of the Safwan Accords have never been formally published. The Safwan Accords: "Refer to the cease-fire agreements made between allied military commanders and iraqi officers, under the provisions of Resolution 686, above. On March 3 1991, the U.S. commander, U.S. Army General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, and other allied commanders met with Iraqi offecers at the town of Safwan in southern Iraq and agreed on several matters: return of prisoners of war, removal of mine fields, and procedures to prevent any further outbreaks of fighting between Iraqi and allied forces. The Safwan Accords also provided for a temporary cease-fire line, with the understanding that allied forces would remain in sourthern Iraq until a permanent cease-fire agreement came into effect." That permanent cease-fire agreement was UNSC Resolution 687, "which established a formal cease-fire and imposed a number of long-term requirements on Iraq." So UNSC Resolution 687 is the agreement that Iraq would have been in violation of, along with Resolution 1441. The Safwan Accords were superceded by Resolution 687, the terms of the Safwan Accords were never formally published, and from what I have been able to see of the things they covered, they became obsolete after Resolution 687 was adopted. So again, it was a UN resolution that Iraq was in violation of, not the Safwan Accords, and therefore it was the perogative of the UN to decide how Iraq's violations of the relevant UNSC Resolutions should be dealt with. Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: CarolC - PM Date: 07 Jul 04 - 10:53 AM Teribus, under the terms of the temporary Safwan ceasefire, it (the Safwan ceasefire) became null and void as soon as UNSC Resolution 687 established a permanent ceasefire. This (UNSC Resolution 687) is the ceasefire agreement that Iraq would have had to be in violation of since the Safwan ceasefire had become obsolete many years before the timeframe in question. Since it was a UN Resolution that was being violated, it was the perogative of the UNSC to determine what the consequences should be, not the perogative of only one UN member nation.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Barry Finn Date: 17 Nov 07 - 10:00 PM Will you quit with the "Clinton's attacks on Iraq" line of justification. First off it was just that an attack & not a decleared war, 2nd, 2 wrongs does make a right, it doesn't even set a "precedent" & 3rd Clinton hasn't been in office in the past 7yrs & when he left we were NOT at war, we did have a surplus, the US was much more respected internationally than at present, our civil rights were still intact, the job market was healthy, global warming was an issue as well as climate change, the educational system was better & more affordable & our health system even though not in what I'd consider good shape (thought they tried but met up with to many roadblocks) was far better than today. You may dislike Clinton all you want but when he left, he left us a far better nation than we are today. Bush could've/should've built on that! Any incoming leader would give their eye-teeth to be left a nation in the shape Clinton left ours but NO, Bush couldn't build on that, he had to fuck it up royally, he had to do it his way, he had to buck the UN, the international community, the UN, he couldn't listen to anyone except those spouting what he wanted to hear. So he, his cabinet, his right & left hand asses had to plunge US into a out of controled tail spin that we may not pull out of. While we'er at it please stop with he relied on the best info available atthe time slop. He didn't! He ruined the careers of more than a few when they came up with opposing info. He even ruined Powell, the only 1 on his staff that had integrity! I won't get into Flame & her hubby, the "NewClear Flasher from Africa". Bush should've made dam sure any & all info was verified, checked all sour sources, not tried to strong arm the media & silence everybody & everything that spoke in opposition. Any great leader knows well enough to have an open mind & to LISTEN to all reports, this man can't even read & he for sure can't hear the advise of others unless they agree. Bush put more spin on his promo of the war & all that followed in the aftermath that the Bushites are lost in the worldwind of flatulent & hindsight. "Barry Finn: "He tried the UN way & he didn't convince them, they weren't biting." Oh but he did convince them Barry Finn, how otherwise can you explain the unanimous vote given for Resolution 1441. What next stopped that resolution being carried out was interference by Iraq's main trading partners France, Russia and China, who held out the opportunity to Saddam Hussein to resume his course. They would thwart US moves in the Security Council while working to get UN sanctions against Iraq removed."" This is double talk Teribus, you're blowing smoke out of your ass with this. You admit here that the resolution was stopped & thwarted, that means what, please explain????????????? Where is that wording in that resolution that says the UN gives it's OK to an invasion of Iraq? Not what might be used if Iraq was in non-compliance but the wording that states the UN is in support of the US's invasion of Iraq? Where is the statement that the UN is in support of the US's invasion of Iraq? I needed to repeat that so you won't think that I'm asking for more of your double talk! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Barry Finn Date: 17 Nov 07 - 10:12 PM This administration has shot itself in the face, opps, sorry, in the foot! Sorry, that should be in it's friend's foot, no,no,no in it's friend's face. Hell, might as well be shot US all in our asses! Wait,,,,,,,,, Impeach them now before we all end up shooting ourselves in the!!!!!!!! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bill D Date: 17 Nov 07 - 10:45 PM "....the combined intelligence agencies of the United States of America correctly believed otherwise and briefed their President accordingly." well, they SAID they believed that...but even then, clear evidence was available that proved otherwise! The Plame/Wilson incident proved they only looked for what they wanted to find. Congress gave the president the benefit of the doubt, because he was SUPPOSED to have clear, 'slam-dunk' information gathered by his masterful intelligence community. Too bad they totally blew it! "Why is it BillD, that you completely dismiss the threat that "The Axis of Evil" poses? Why is it impossible? Why can it not happen?" Where did I say anything like that? I am aware of the 'bad guys' in the world, but I also know there are more bad guys than we can wage war on...Iran, N. Korea, Afghanistan (even with a supposed ally in charge), Syria (probably), ...why not Venezuela, too? and Somalia? and what ARE we to do about Pakistan? and 8-10 more who are no immediate danger, but just naughty folks who treat their citizens poorly? Like Myanmar...are we to chastise them? (When it became obvious that Iraq HAD no WMDs, Bush retreated behind.."Isn't the world safer with Saddam gone?"...well, is it? Doesn't feel like it to me. And **IF** that "axis of evil" seriously tried anything, we have the ability, with air power, to make them very sorry in about 48 hours. Nope, Teribus...I am not a bit convinced that we need fear any major attacks...which is not to say we should not stay alert and exercise proper measures to see it stays that way....but swaggering around, threatening air strikes, just builds animosity and makes it MORE likely some group will keep pot-shoting at us...most likely in places like embassies in foreign countries. All I can hope for is to get Bush and his crew's fingers off the trigger(s) and get some sane Democrat in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 18 Nov 07 - 12:18 AM Resolution 1441 has specific language in it instructing all member nations to honor the sovereignty and borders of the other countries, and to not interfere with the work of the inspectors. This means that according to 1441, the US was not only not authorized to attack Iraq, but it was required to not do so, and it also means that the US is in violation of 1441 because of its invasion and occupation of Iraq. We've already covered this ground many times, but Teribus seems to think that our memories are as short as his is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 18 Nov 07 - 12:32 AM Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released From: CarolC - PM Date: 21 Jun 04 - 02:24 PM UNSC Resolution 1441 does not authorize any nation or nations to attack Iraq on the basis of that resolution or any other resolutions. It says: Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States, Then it talks about the decisions it has made with regard to inspections and what Iraq needs to do to be in compliance with the resolution, and it: 10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates... ...and then it says that it: 14. Decides to remain seized of the matter. And that's that. The US violated the terms of this resolution by not keeping it's commitment to honor the territorial integrity of Iraq, and by interfering in the inspection process by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, by attacking Iraq and thus ending the ability of the inspectors to continue to do their job. * http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement It's not possible to uphold a UN resolution by violating a UN resolution. * I changed the clicky to the pdf with the actual resolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 18 Nov 07 - 06:05 AM Rather a large number of inaccuracies and contradictions there BillD: "The Plame/Wilson incident" I believe was a damn sight later that February 1998. By the bye BillD it was in 1998 that regime change in Iraq became official US State Policy. "Congress gave the president the benefit of the doubt, because he was SUPPOSED to have clear, 'slam-dunk' information gathered by his masterful intelligence community." Please correct me if I am wrong here BillD but in the immediate wake of the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the combined security and intelligence agencies of the United States of America were tasked with identifying what constituted the greatest threat to the nation. At the same time in parallel the Congressional Security Committee were requested to evaluate exactly the same thing. They both came up with the same scenario, a three part recipe for disaster to which the USA was particularly vulnerable as had been demonstrated by the attacks of 911, i.e. an international terrorist organisation; a rogue government or regime; access to WMD material, technology or to the actual weapons themselves. The Security Committee consisting of members from both houses identified a short list in order of merit it ran Iraq, Iran, North Korea as most likely candidates to fulfil the "rogue government" part of the axis. Congress did not "give anybody the benefit of the doubt" - They actually identified the most likely candidate as Iraq and presented that finding to the President. "HE (The President) was SUPPOSED have" - wrong way round BillD the evidence and the evaluations were given to the President. "HIS masterful intelligence community" - wrong again BillD, the security and intelligence agencies were those of the United States of America, they most certainly were not the "President's Men" damn near all of them had been in their jobs for years, they were the same men that had advised Bill Clinton of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq three years before. Now you as President of the United States of America, a nation just recently subject to the most devastating attack carried out by foreign nationals on American soil, are advised by the security and intelligence srvices of yhe country and by an independent evaluation carried out by Congress that Iraq under Saddam Hussein poses the greatest threat to the nation - You would ignore that??? If you blythely ignore that advice BillD, that would be an impeachable offence. Where did you say anything to the effect that "The Axis of Evil" poses no threat? This sounds awfully like it BillD - "Piffle! There WAS no threat from Iraq until.. etc,etc" You feel that the world isn't any safer because of what has transpired. But the demonstrable fact is that it is safer BillD. Now let's see what you advocate as what should have been the way forward: "**IF** that "axis of evil" seriously tried anything, we have the ability, with air power, to make them very sorry in about 48 hours." Really BillD, what ability, without the enforced choice "Either with us or against us", without international co-operation because of Jimmy Carter the US security services were completely blind when it came to human intel relating to the middle-east in 2001. You are not now because counter to what you may believe most of the world's security and intelligence gathering agencies are firmly on the side of the US, their governments had to make a choice. Use of "Air Power", Eh BillD? That's your solution, that's your response - Again correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that what Bill Clinton tried on numerous occasions during the 90's and in so doing singularly failed to protect either the United States of America, the interests of the United States of America and the allies of the United States of America. With an asymetric "Axis of Evil" type attack as described BillD, who is it that you make "very sorry in about 48 hours"? On what proof do you attack anybody and where would you attack them?. Clinton did that and knocked out a powder milk factory and killed a few civilians. In the aftermath of 911 Bush was not stupid enough just to go and bomb Afghanistan, he first opened a line of communications to the Northern Alliance and then helped them to remove both Al-Qaeda and the Taleban from their position of power in that country. Now here's the biggest contradiction of all - you say that you don't feel any safer but at the same time you state that -"I am not a bit convinced that we need fear any major attacks" Oh sorry BillD, again I thought you claimed that you had never dismissed the threat posed by "The Axis of Evil". Don't know about you Bill but sounds awfully like it to me. Or is it that you feel that you need not fear any major attacks because as a nation you are now alert and that proper measures are exercised - One question for you BillD, who was it put you as a nation at your current state of alertness, who was it implemented those proper measures. They certainly would not have existed following your recipe for inevitable disaster, i.e. "swaggering around, threatening air strikes", because correct me if I am wrong but "we have the ability, with air power, to make them very sorry in about 48 hours" is precisely that isn't it - "swaggering around, threatening air strikes". You say that it, "just builds animosity and makes it MORE likely some group will keep pot-shoting at us...most likely in places like embassies in foreign countries." You mean exactly as happened throughout the 1990's BillD. Since March 2003 BillD how many times have your embassies been bombed? How many attacks have been carried out on the mainland of the United States of America. Now let's go back to the "piffle": "Piffle! There WAS no threat from Iraq until WE went in there with faked justification,(without any resolution), and created conditions that LURED various Al Qaida operatives there, because it was not a LOT more convenient to kill Americans and cost them lots of money." Your solution in the face of a declared threat appears to be to basically sit back and wait for the attack to come. That approach has not served you in the past and would be disastrous when faced with the threat described by your current President in his State of the Union Address in January 2002. By sitting back and waiting you surrender initiative to your enemies, it is far, far better to engage your enemy whenever and wherever you can find him. Give them something to think about. By all means lure them with their own ideology and propaganda into fighting you on a ground of your choosing. Cut the ground out from under them, as long as you do that their main concern is their own survival not attacking you at home. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 18 Nov 07 - 11:06 AM Well, T.... Seems that you just can't seem to grasp the concept of "office speak"... The Washington Post descibed the phenomana as "culture"... Strange word, same concept... In the aftermath of 9/11, Dick Cheney alll but lived at the CIA... Records of just how mnay days and with whom he spoke are being kept a secret under Execitive Priviledge, just as the records of the folks who helped write out nation's socalled "Energy Policy"... But here's the way it really went down and historians will get it correct as the Bush/Cheney War Machine was purdy sloppy about covering it's footsteps... Intellegent analysts have already come forward saying that they were pressured by Cheney to dig up stuff that could fit in with the PR propaganda campaign to whip up war sentiments in the general population... But not all of the intellegence folks bucked and the Washigton Post has reported in several articles over the last couple or so years that they voiced their grave misgivings that what what being used in the propagande blitz was not accurate and /or wasn't presented in the manner that it was given to Bush/Cheney... This is the way it went down... You can scream you head off and write reems and reems of garbage but this is the way it went down... Only a "True Believer", who is incapable of accepting facts that would force one to re-evaluate one's positions, can continue to ***believe*** that the Bush/Cheney War Machine didn't cherry pick and fabicate stuff in making a case to invade Iraq... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 18 Nov 07 - 03:34 PM Bobert, Dick Cheney was where in the CIA in the latter part of 1997 and during January and early February of 1998? Because that is when intelligence Agencies of the United States of America first identified Iraq under Saddam Hussein a threat, in the aftermath of 911 they merely reconfirmed their earlier evaluation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 18 Nov 07 - 04:47 PM >>Guest282RA do not put words into my mouth or have the bloody nerve to tell me what I mean,<< Or what? You're gonna get really really mad? I'll do what I like and if you don't like it, I guess you can...oh, I don't know...jump in a lake? >>especially if you cannot be bothered to read the text you seem to so bloody keen to argue about.<< Because you're so bloody keen to respond. You don't really think I give two shits what you think about anything, do you? You're someone who has to be right about every single thing and that is somebody that is NEVER to be taken seriously. >>Very simple rule in life if you believe in equality - "What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the Gander". The question I asked before if the justification for Clinton to attack Iraq on a number of occasions was UNSC 687 and there was no uproar about it, why all of a sudden did Bush need a special dispensation in 2003 when exactly the same reason was invoked backed up by 1441 "Iraq's Last Chance".<< Once again, you are not answering the question and continuing to place the blame on Clinton. You know how to avoid that, Teribus? YOU QUIT BLAMING CLINTON FOR WHAT BUSH DOES!!! And how do you do that? By not even mentioning Clinton at all. This has NOTHING to do with Clinton. If you can't defend Bush's actions without resorting to hiding behind Clinton, then you don't have a case. Now wasn't that easy? >>By the bye Guest282RA if you do not believe in Law based on precedent, then whatever law you do believe in is subjective and worthless.<< And another thing, when you're getting your ass handed to you in an argument, DON'T try to change the subject. Now ANSWER THE QUESTION or admit defeat. (This will be good!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Ron Davies Date: 18 Nov 07 - 06:10 PM Teribus-- It should be obvious--even to you---that the UN only has the power nations are willing to delegate to it. I hope you can grasp that complex point. And it can OK use of force by member states, if it chooses. It did not however, do so in this case--it did not grant its authority to Mr. Bush to invade Iraq. Therefore your fig leaf has fallen off. And what's underneath is ghastly. It appears to be now just a question of whether you are so obtuse as not to understand this, or just desperate to save your incredibly tender ego, which can't stand even one admission you are wrong. Also, as I've said earlier, you and the other Bush apologists should be thanking the UN every day. It was only the UN's willingness to act as honest broker which made possible in 2004 an Iraqi face on the opposition to the insurgency.--and that therefore the US commitment would not be open-ended. And that in turn gave the lie to the idea that Iraq was Vietnam Part II---at least until after the 2004 election, conveniently enough for Mr. Bush. Without the UN's good offices it's obvious Bush would have lost in 2004. Even as it was, the election was close. It would not have taken many more voters' fear of a second Vietnam to make the difference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 19 Nov 07 - 02:26 AM Teribus - Please explain what you mean by a declared threat or "the threat described by your current President." Just because someone says they are being threatened, doesn't mean they are being threatened. Are you saying that Bush can invade any country if he feels threatened? Where do you think he got that information? For all I know, he was being informed by Shaha Riza. I thought it had already been established that he acted on scanty and unreliable intelligence. Whose fault is that? You'll have to come up with a better excuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 19 Nov 07 - 04:54 AM Unfortunately Guest282RA, the situation the USA found itself in in both Afghanistan and Iraq has a great deal to do with Bill Clinton and his Administrations handling of things, which were ineffectual, indiscriminate and ill-considered. The anti-Bush, anti-war, chattering left on this Forum have worked themselves into a lather bleating about how all the muslim Arabs hate us because of what Bush has done. Utter crap, they hated you long before that, they declared their war on you long before that, or was the attack in Beirut and the first attack on the WTC in 1993 just a figment of everyones imagination. Oh, hang on wait a minute we'll probably get some TWAT post and tell us that that attack had something to do with some dark sinister corporation's scheme to further their goal of world domination that was only possible because George W Bush's second cousin fifteen times removed knew someone who's Aunt's brother was a janitor in the building. Subsequent to the signing of the cease-fire agreement at Safwan and issue of United Nations Security Councile resolution 687, of which paragraph 33 states: "Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);" Hope you all note that the UN is not mentioned, whereas Iraq, Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait are. That, for those a bit slow on the uptake, clearly states the parties involved in the cease-fire and for the benefit of Ron, Guest282RA, Dianavan and CarolC, shows that the UN ain't one of them. If any of the signatories to that cease-fire held Iraq to be violation of the terms agreed, then they were free to take whatever action they saw necessary to bring Iraq into a state of compliance, that was what "grave consequences" meant in 1991, roughly the same as "serious consequences" was taken to mean in 2002. For Guest282RA's benefit the following is the list of occassions when this was invoked subsequent to issue of UNSC Resolution 687 on 3rd April 1991: 1991 - Summer: Royal Marines inserted into Northern Kurdish region to provide a protective screen to permit Kurdish refugees to flee Saddam's forces 1991 - Start of Northern and Southern "No-Fly" Zones to deter air attacks on Kurdish and Shia population of Iraq 1996 - Intensification of Air effort within "No-Fly" Zones in response to Iraqi interference with UNSCOM inspection efforts 1998 - UNSCOM Inspectors withdrawn followed by "Desert Fox" 2002 - Summer: Build up of US and Coalition Troops in Kuwait 2002 - September: Saddam invites return of UN inspectors (UNMOVIC) 2003 - March: US and Coalition Troops invade Iraq. No "UN Authorisation" for any of them - TRUE? The reason for that is that no "UN Authorisation" was ever required. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 19 Nov 07 - 10:50 AM Dianavan, according to what Teribus has said in this thread, the president of the US doesn't need to feel threatened. He (or she) only needs to feel that US interests are threatened. What that means is that (according to Teribus' wording), if the US feels that they might lose a pineapple plantation somewhere in Central America because the people of that country have voted to bar foreign interests from owning pineapple plantations in their country, the US has a right to invade and occupy that country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 19 Nov 07 - 04:55 PM >>The anti-Bush, anti-war, chattering left on this Forum have worked themselves into a lather bleating about how all the muslim Arabs hate us because of what Bush has done. Utter crap, they hated you long before that, they declared their war on you long before that, or was the attack in Beirut and the first attack on the WTC in 1993 just a figment of everyones imagination.<< So because a handful of fanatics attacked us, that means we can fabricate intelligence to justify invading a country that was no threat to us, destabilize all of the Middle East, drive literally millions out of their homes, get hundreds of thousands of people (many of them women and children) killed, hold people in prison indefinitely and torture them as much as we want. Have you ever been to the Middle East? Well, I have and I was amazed at how much they liked us. The average Muslim there basically liked the US and had a positive view of us. They don't now. THAT's what we're talking about when we say they hate us now. But, of course, to you, there's no difference between a fanatical killer of Muslim persuasion and an average Middle Eastern person who gets up in the morning and goes to work and tries to provide for his family and who just wants a good life same as you and me--and happens to be Muslim. You really are a hopeless asshole, aren't you? Yes, you are. >>Oh, hang on wait a minute we'll probably get some TWAT post and tell us that that attack had something to do with some dark sinister corporation's scheme to further their goal of world domination that was only possible because George W Bush's second cousin fifteen times removed knew someone who's Aunt's brother was a janitor in the building.<< Sorry to disappoint you but the response you're getting is the one above. Especially the last two sentences. >>No "UN Authorisation" for any of them - TRUE?<< True, as far as I know. >>The reason for that is that no "UN Authorisation" was ever required.<< To my knowledge you are exactly correct. Now, can you answer the question below with a simple yes or no? Was any authorization by the UN ever given to Bush to invade? You have STILL not answered that. NOBODY here is disputing that Bush needed UN authorization. At least I'm not and Ron is not if I understand him correctly. What we're asking you is to back up your assertion that Bush did in fact HAVE such authorization. THAT is what we are asking. You were wrong. Why can't you just admit it? You are super-anal about the need to be correct about every little thing. You must have driven your family out of their minds as a kid. Christ, I thought I was bad. Even I admit to being wrong as much as I hate to do it but I at least have enough integrity to admit when I can't deny what is in front of my face. But you...good lord, I've never seen anyone like you and I hope I never do again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 19 Nov 07 - 06:09 PM "Have you ever been to the Middle East?" - Yes, I have worked there often as well in other muslim countries around the World. And yes Guest282RA You really are a hopeless asshole. "Sorry to disappoint you but the response you're getting is the one above. Especially the last two sentences." You mean that you are a TWAT, or are George W Bush's second cousin fifteen times removed who knew someone who's Aunt's brother was a janitor in the building. If the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 687, which we know they did, and if they issued 1441, which we know they did, and the USA invoked those Resolutions in the face of Iraqi non-compliance then they had the Authority of the United Nations to act. The UN did not have to give any instructions - it never does. The UN did not have to say directly to the USA, "Go get 'em", as both you and Ron seem to fondly imagine - not the way it works. Oh and Guest282RA you have never seen me period. Now tell me Guest282RA how was it exactly that us Brits embarrassed ourselves down there in the Falklands, outnumbered 2:1, with only 12 aircraft air-combat-capable operating some 8,000 miles from home through one supply base. Now come on Guest282RA just tell us how we embarrassed ourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 19 Nov 07 - 07:39 PM >>If the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 687, which we know they did, and if they issued 1441, which we know they did, and the USA invoked those Resolutions in the face of Iraqi non-compliance then they had the Authority of the United Nations to act.<< Okay. Now can you quote for us the relevant statements that the US says gave it the go-ahead to invade Iraq? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bill D Date: 19 Nov 07 - 07:43 PM Well, Teribus, I simply do NOT have time this week to tear apart your critique(s) of my opinion. The short version is...you continuously re-frame what I say to sound weak & awkward & uninformed, then reply to assertions I did NOT make. This is a pretty old technique, and I have to admit, you do it better than most. (one example - "Your solution in the face of a declared threat appears to be to basically sit back and wait for the attack to come." No, that is NOT implied by what I said...but it does assume that there will BE a serious attack - something I tended to doubt in the first place. We can disagree whether it is likely or not, but you can't USE it to knock down my position. One of the things it does is put ME in the position of having to type twice as much as you to answer you by saying "That is NOT what I said" and then to clarify what I said, then to dispute what YOU seem to be saying. You make statements that are phrased to sound like obviously truths, but which are merely linking YOUR interpretation to half-truths. I don't don't care to struggle with that way of arguing. Somewhere in there are just points on which we flatly differ,(beyond matters of 'fact'), and perhaps it's best to just leave it at that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 19 Nov 07 - 08:03 PM Teribus is flat out lying, he's not giving half truths. This one, for example... If the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 687, which we know they did, and if they issued 1441, which we know they did, and the USA invoked those Resolutions in the face of Iraqi non-compliance then they had the Authority of the United Nations to act. I have posted resolution 1441 and quoted the language that the UN gave member nations instructing them to honor the "sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq", and to "to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates". It is not possible to "invoke" a resolution while violating it. If Teribus is willing to lie about this, we can be pretty confident that most of the other "facts" that he puts before us are also lies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 19 Nov 07 - 08:30 PM Resolution 687 simply laid out how Iraq would make reparations after the Gulf War. It had to disarm and it had to pay back Kuwait. The only way it could be used to justify an invasion was if Iraq did not disarm. That was precisely why the UN inspectors were there in the first place!! They were trying to see if Iraq was complying with 687 and, as far as they could see, yes. Resolution 1441 was introduced by the US and the UK--the very countries seeking to instigate a military confrontation and occupation of Iraq. It lied to the world that Iraq was not living up to 687 when, in fact, all the evidence (or rather lack of) says that it Iraq did indeed comply. Nor did any of the 15 or so countries that unanimously passed 1441 agree in any way that the resolution allowed the US to make war--and that opinion was shared by the US and stated outright by John Negroponte. So if Bush used 1441 to go to war, it was one made up of his own lies--er, I mean--"bad intelligence." It is mystifying that a document that boldly asserted that Iraq was rearming with WMD and blowing off 687 would need to be "interpreted" by the US as a case for a preemptive strike. It hadn't yet been proven and Bush called off the inspections before they were finished because the finding were not going to support 1441. He had to strike right then and there or miss his window or the UN would have concluded there was no evidence for 1441 and killed it. He had no case for using 687 and 1441 as one for war. It was not simply an interpretive error--it was blatant twisting of intelligence specifically performed in order for the US to have a pretense for invading Iraq and overthrowing its sovereign govt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 19 Nov 07 - 08:33 PM On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15 to 0 vote, which included Russia, China and France, and Arab countries, such as Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution. Although the Iraqi parliament voted against honoring the UN resolution, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein over-ruled them. While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said: " [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.[2] " The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said: " We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3] " The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria: " Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[4]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1441 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 19 Nov 07 - 08:54 PM Far from Teribus proving his case for UN resolutions sanctioning the US to invade Iraq, he's actually cited two, 687 and 1441, that prove, if anything, that Bush should be impeached. He told the world that Iraq violated 687--that was a blatant lie. He used that imaginary breach to introduce a resolution that he hoped would legitimize his lie--1441. Then to prevent it from being discredited, stopped the inspections and launched his invasion to prevent the UN from concluding that Iraq had no WMD. These are not the actions of a man acting on bad intelligence. These are the actions of someone determined to manipulate the situation in any way he could get away with in order to carry out his objective--to invade and occupy Iraq. These actions are in themselves illegal and therefore impeachable. These actions have destabilized an already fragile situation. These actions have displaced millions and ruined their lives. These actions have cost hundreds of thousands of lives--well over 4000 of them being American. Among the survivors, these actions have, again, ruined their lives. These actions have provided an extremely valuable training ground for thousands and thousands of terrorists and future terrorists. These actions have allowed unscrupulous crooks to make off with billions of dollars billed several times over for fraudulent services never performed once much less 5 times. These actions have allowed these thieves and con men to get away scot-free. These actions have driven a once great and proud army into the ground. These actions have mired two nations into a political/military/economic quicksand neither has any hope of escaping. All over a pack of long discredited lies. These actions we hold to be self-evidently impeachable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:43 AM I remember distinctly that Bush invaded Iraq in somewhat of a hurry because the UN was about to vote on a resolution (expected to pass) explicitly telling the USA *not* to invade Iraq. A far cry from the supposed "UN authorization" Teribus keeps hyping. In fact (in February 2003 -- I think -- immediately after Powell's infamous propaganda fest) the US sponsored a UN resolution that would have explicitly authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it garnered little support in the General Assembly (and was opposed by almost all of the NATO allies), and faced a certain veto from France and Russia in the Security Council. To avoid the embarrasment of a failed resolution, and the implied rejection of the invasion authorization that such failure would provide, the USA withdrew the resolution without a vote. No doubt alarmed by US war-mongering, the UN then began working on a resolution explicitly *not* authorizing force. It was then that the US invaded - quick before such a resolution could be voted on. All claims of supposed "UN Authorization" conveniently ignore this sequence of events (as well as the wording of the supposed "authorization" resolutions that Carol C has now posted perhaps six times in the last four years - to no avail of course). So, the US violated two UN resolutions in order to enforce them, and did exactly the opposite of what the UN was explicitly asking them to do in order to comply with the UN's wishes. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 20 Nov 07 - 10:18 AM Yes, TIA, and Hanz Bliz had made a speech in the UN saying that Iraq was cooperating with the weapon's inspectors...I don't know how this keep gettin' buried under the carpet but as I recall it was Powell who won the argument with Cheney on the inspectors and then when it looked as if the inspectors were making headway, Cheney bullied Bush into pullin' the plug on 'um, tellin' them to get the heck out 'cause "Shock 'n Awe" was on the way... "Shock 'n Awe"... What am joke... What was Bush thinkin'??? It was just going to be like a big fireworks display, everyone would cheer, go home and be happy??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 20 Nov 07 - 10:26 AM Now let's see Guest TIA: "the UN was about to vote on a resolution (expected to pass) explicitly telling the USA *not* to invade Iraq." Now for the UN Security Council to vote on a resolution "explicitly telling the USA *not* to invade Iraq", that would have to mean that that draft resolution would have had to have been proposed, seconded and tabled. Guess what Guest TIA there is no record of such a draft resolution ever having existed - and it was "expected to pass" was it Guest TIA - that would have been extremely doubtful even if such a resolution had been tabled, it would have been stillborn from the outset as both the USA and the UK would have vetoed it (Fortunately it is not only the French, the Russians and Chinese, or should I collectively refer to them as Saddam's trading partners, who have veto rights). Guest282RA wishes to give the impression that United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 simply related to payment of reparations by Iraq in the aftermath of their invasion of Kuwait and subsequent ejection from that state. This of course is not the case, and I believe that Guest282RA knows it. UNSC Resolution 687 drew together all previous resolutions relating to Iraq and their invasion of Kuwait, all thirteen of them. It detailed the need to take certain measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter. Those measures were described in thirty-four points that were grouped as follows: 1. That the measures and Iraq's agreement to comply fully with them would form the basis of a formal cease-fire. 2. Group A – Measures 2, 3 & 4 relate to formal and binding recognition of the borders defining the states of Iraq and Kuwait and refers to previous signed agreements ("Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters", signed by them in the exercise of their sovereignty at Baghdad on 4 October 1963 and registered with the United Nations and published by the United Nations in document 7063, United Nations, Treaty Series, 1964) 3. Group B - Measures 5 & 6 relate to the formation and deployment of a UN Monitoring Force to patrol a demilitarised zone 10km wide inside Iraq and 5km inside Kuwait – This Force was never deployed. 4. Group C – Measures 7 to 14 inclusive relates to Iraqi abandonment of WMD, WMD programmes and disarmament (Includes Nuclear/Chemical/Biological weapons as well as missiles with range greater than 150km) – Iraq never fully complied with the requirements of these measures. 5. Group D – Measure 15 relates to return of Kuwaiti Property – Never complied with. 6. Group E – Measures 16 to 19 inclusive relates to payment of reparations by Iraq. 7. Group F – Measures 20 to 29 Sanctions restricting trade with Iraq and arms embargo – Iraq never fully complied with the requirements of these measures. 8. Group G – Measures 30 & 31 relates to repatriation of foreign nationals abducted by Iraq – Iraq never fully complied with the requirements of these measures due mainly to the fact that Saddam executed his hostages. 9. Group H – Measure 32 relates to support for international terrorism or acts of international terrorism – Iraq never fully complied with the requirements of this measure. 10. Group I – Measures 33 & 34 relate to conditions and timing when the formal cease-fire between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait comes into effect. Hey Guest282RA (aka Hopeless Asshole) four out of 34 - not too bad, it does give a fairly good indication of what you mistakenly consider to be representative of the resolution content. hey pal, take a look at how many of those sections Saddam/Iraq was never in compliance with, and that, as the UNSC stated was the basis of the cease-fire. So you tell me, if the conditions and terms of the cease-fire are agreed, which they were, and were not complied with, does the cease-fire still hold. I would say no it does not. Kofi Annan (Masterfully): "Now then Saddam regarding the 13 outstanding resolutions, we are going to give you one last final chance to comply with the Security Councils demands, or there will be serious consequences" Saddam Hussein: "Awa and bile yer heid ya Numpty" After a period of 12 months the Iraq file somehow manages to struggle to the top of the pile on Kofi's desk. Kofi Annan (Slightly less masterfully): "Now then Saddam regarding those outstanding resolutions, we are going to give you another last final, final chance to comply with the Security Councils demands, or there really will be serious consequences" Saddam Hussein (presenting the finger): "See you ya bam, swivel oan this" This progresses indefinitely, just keep adding the finals to the final chances and the really, reallys to the serious consequences until it suddenly dawns on anyone sensible observing this pantomime that nothing is ever going to result from this process - such is the power of the United Nations - Non-existent. Now let's look at this "final chance" which mentioned serious consequences, encapsulated in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which among other things: Recognised the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security. So it would seem that if most on this Forum did not recognise the threat that Saddam in Iraq posed the UN certainly did, again my apologies I'll go along with what was the UN's take on the situation at the time. The UNSC recalled that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area. Note the language: "authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement....all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area." The UNSC further recalled that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area. The UNSC deplored the fact that Iraq had not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991). The UNSC deplored also that the Government of Iraq had failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq. The UNSC recalled that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein. The UNSC stated its determination to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance. Now the "resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance" could only refer to the resolutions already passed, not ones to be made in the future as they would have to be tabled and voted on, they therefore could not be predicted. Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations (that is the invoking part), 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; Now what does "full and immediate compliance" mean? President George W Bush, on behalf of the United States of America, left both the United Nations and the Government of Iraq in absolutely no doubt what he took to mean "full and immediate". To the UN it was put in extremely stark terms, you act or we will. No room for doubt there. The UN chose not to act, after three months of UNMOVIC reports detailing that they were not receiving full co-operation from Iraqi Authorities, they thought that they could relapse into the "game" that had been played for the previous eleven years - then to the surprise and consternation of all - The United States of America (a signatory of the Safwan cease-fire) and its coalition partners drawn from 43 countries called a halt to the game and acted. There certainly was going to be no other way to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq. Saddam was given 48 hours to quit the country, he decided to ignore that offer, his choice, but he did ultimately discover what serious consequences meant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Donuel Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:39 AM I remember how easy it was to get rid of Spiro Agnew. I should add that he was axed in a time of war. Why is it impossible, unwise and treasonous to admonish and impeach this Dick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Amos Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:53 AM BEcause no-one will give him a blow job, probably. Gag at the thought! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Donuel Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:54 AM Cheney's War 'The Country Of Men, Not Laws' Jim Kirwan 11-20-7 Five decades ago this nation was undergoing one of the most pivotal battles over rights and powers in our history. At the center of this campaign was the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) which was expanded on by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950's. The topic was red-baiting, and the nation was spell-bound by the scope of the 'investigations' which were little more than a sanctioned witch-hunt for communists within the government and Hollywood. Richard Nixon was one of the committee's attorney's, behind the scenes, while Ronald Reagan, as president of the Screen Actor's Guild, was the Committee's man in Hollywood who played a major role in selecting who ought to be questioned before the committee. Through their 'work' these two men went on to become future presidents of the United States. The rein of Joe McCarthy finally came to an end, but not before 'Blacklisting' had become part of the public vernacular, just as 'censorship' became publicly acceptable under 'certain circumstances. It was there here that the specter of an increased executive power first began to gaze upon an expanded role for the office of the presidency. Cheney's role began under Gerald R. Ford, when he and Rumsfeld first made their places within government felt. Over the intervening years there were many continuing challenges to the expanded power of the presidency, most of which were turned back: until 911 changed the entire nature of this arbitrary discussion. In between Newt Gingrich polarized the congress and set up the mindset of what is still in effect today: a government with an entrenched Congress that remains hostage, to the illusory executive prerogatives, of dubious constitutional standing. Until George W. Bush took control under the fists of Dick Cheney and the Crazies, no real threat of this presidential coup was even remotely close to an actual takeover of this government. This is where "Cheney's Law" entered into the record books and when the United States ceased to be a Republic and became a Dictatorship of one branch of the government-in effect the only branch of this government. Because at the core of Cheney's Law is the belief that because of 911 the United States must now be 'a government of men not laws.' Many months before 911, the White House began to spy on US citizens, illegally. "Now, as the White House appears ready to ignore subpoenas in the investigations over wiretapping and U.S. attorney firings, FRONTLINE examines the battle over the power of the presidency and Cheney's way of looking at the Constitution. "The vice president believes that Congress has very few powers to actually constrain the president and the executive branch," former Justice Department attorney Marty Lederman tells FRONTLINE. "He believes the president should have the final word -- indeed the only word -- on all matters within the executive branch." After Sept. 11, Cheney and Addington were determined to implement their vision -- in secret. The vice president and his counsel found an ally in John Yoo, a lawyer at the Justice Department's extraordinarily powerful Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). In concert with Addington, Yoo wrote memoranda authorizing the president to act with unparalleled authority. "Through interviews with key administration figures, Cheney's Law documents the bruising bureaucratic battles between a group of conservative Justice Department lawyers and the Office of the Vice President over the legal foundation for the most closely guarded programs in the war on terror," says FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk. This is Kirk's 10th documentary about the Bush administration's policies since 9/11. In his most extensive television interview since leaving the Justice Department, former Assistant Attorney General Jack L. Goldsmith describes his initial days at the OLC in the fall of 2003 as he learned about the government's most secret and controversial covert operations. Goldsmith was shocked by the administration's secret assertion of unlimited power. "There were extravagant and unnecessary claims of presidential power that were wildly overbroad to the tasks at hand," Goldsmith says. "I had a whole flurry of emotions. My first one was disbelief that programs of this importance could be supported by legal opinions that were this flawed. My second was the realization that I would have a very, very hard time standing by these opinions if pressed. My third was the sinking feeling, what was I going to do if I was pressed about reaffirming these opinions?" As Goldsmith began to question his colleagues' claims that the administration could ignore domestic laws and international treaties, he began to clash with Cheney's office. According to Goldsmith, Addington warned him, "If you rule that way, the blood of the 100,000 people who die in the next attack will be on your hands." Goldsmith's battles with Cheney culminated in a now-famous hospital- room confrontation at Attorney General John Ashcroft's bedside. Goldsmith watched as White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andy Card pleaded with Ashcroft to overrule the department's finding that a domestic surveillance program was illegal. Ashcroft rebuffed the White House, and as many as 30 department lawyers threatened to resign. The president relented. But Goldsmith's victory was temporary, and Cheney's Law continues the story after the hospital-room standoff. At the Justice Department, White House Counsel Gonzales was named attorney general and tasked with reasserting White House control. On Capitol Hill, Cheney lobbied Congress for broad authorizations for the eavesdropping program and for approval of the administration's system for trying suspected terrorists by military tribunals. As the White House and Congress continue to face off over executive privilege, the terrorist surveillance program, and the firing of U.S. attorneys, FRONTLINE tells the story of what's formed the views of the man behind what some view as the most ambitious project to reshape the power of the president in American history." (1) Throughout this administration numerous clashes between the congress and the president have been threatened, and subpoenas have been used to obtain critically needed information yet the information has not been provided, under threat of the possibility of Executive Privilege. The public is still waiting for the congress and the courts to show some backbone and demand the emails and the documents requested without further delay. Yet from Washington there is only silence amid 'business as usual.' There is no more important business in this nation today than to prosecute violations of law by the executive or by any other branch of government, to the fullest extent of the law. As the video makes abundantly clear, there are virtually thousands of instances where the president has broken if not shattered the laws of this Republic, and still after almost seven years, the congress is unwilling to do anything of substance about any of these major crimes against the constitution and the people of the United States. This coup has succeeded in full view of the American public and the world. Congress must forego vacations and dedicate itself to removing these criminal actions from the books, along with all those who are responsible for having created this entirely 'other world' of powers and practices that are utterly abhorrent to the nation and the world, in addition to being illegal by any real study of the laws that have been massively by-passed. "The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution . . . what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world-in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment. There have been violations of these principles by many presidents before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA, FBI, NSA against Americans. All these violations were impeachable had they been found out at the time but in nearly every case the violations were not found out until [the president was] out of office so we didn't have the exact challenge that we have today. That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson, Kennedy and others. They were impeachable. They weren't found out in time. But I think it was not their intention, in the crisis situations that they felt justified their actions, to change our form of government. It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 1970s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but [they] have believed in executive government, single-branch government under an executive president-elected or not-with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint." (2) This has all been made very clear in the FRONTLINE video ~ so the "facts" involved herein are a matter of public record, and have been for most of the nearly seven years of this administration. Cheney's Law must be revoked and silenced forever, along with its author and chief architect that should stand trial for his crimes along with the entire cadre of his henchmen in this attempted theft of this nation! kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net 1) FRONTLINE: Cheney's Law video http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/ 2) Pentagon Insider Has Dire Warning http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/pentagon_insider.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Barry Finn Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:57 AM George Bush was not acting in behalf of the USA, T, someone else surely but certainly not in behalf of the people. If he was he'd had laid out the whole truth, nothing but the truth, no spin, no sway, no lies of ommission, no misleading threats. The truth now & as it always has been = WE WERE NEVER IN DANGER FROM ATTACK FROM IRAQ, it doesnt matter what he & his commrades said, thought or were told! WE WERE NOT IN DANGER! Some of us here spoke up & told him, we were called traitors, the world spoke up & told him, he called them his enemies. He was wrong, for that alone he should be impeached. When a CEO failes their company they step down, he should be hanged, like Saddam. He failed US at every turn, every move, moved US into a worst position & he still moves US towards more disaster. Hang 'em! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 20 Nov 07 - 12:18 PM When you combine "full and immediate compliance" and "serious consequences", Teribus, with "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States", and "10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates", and "Decides to remain seized of the matter.", you have what the people that 282RA quoted, including the US ambassador to the UN, said they intended, which was for any violations by Iraq to be referred back to the Security Council for a further resolution that would authorize the use of force. No such resolution was made, and so therefore the US is in violation of Resolution 1441. Time to hang up your gloves, Teribus. You are wrong, and you have been shown to be wrong on numerous occasions. The only thing you are convincing anyone of at this point is that you cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 20 Nov 07 - 12:37 PM Here's the text of Resolution 687. Perhaps Teribus could tell us how in the world he came up with all that gobblegegook he responded to me with: http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 20 Nov 07 - 12:39 PM Here's a Wiki synopsis of 687: United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 which was on 3 April 1991 set the terms with which Iraq was to comply after losing the Gulf War. It required the destruction of all chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, as well as all ballistic missiles with range greater than 150km. These actions "represented steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons"(paragraph 14) The resolution also required Iraq to honour all its international debts and pay war reparations to Kuwait. The rest of the resolution reiterated the Iraq sanctions regime begun in UN Security Council Resolution 661, and laid the groundwork for the Oil-for-Food Programme by taking charge of the petroleum exports (paragraph 19). The resolution was passed by 12 votes to one (Cuba) with two abstentions (Ecuador and Yemen) after a very extended meeting.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_687 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 07 - 01:55 PM "It required the destruction of all chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, as well as all ballistic missiles with range greater than 150km." Then you must concede that Saddam DID NOT comply with the terms, as I had posted information previously about the * UN * finding missiles with a greater range, as well as shells for chemical weapons AFTER the invasion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Amos Date: 20 Nov 07 - 02:39 PM I believe they were scraps and fragments of left overs, not actually in any shape to be deemed munitions, BB. Please correct me if I am wrong. Never mind, I am sure you would. But from you, I can handle it readily! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 07 - 03:25 PM Yes, BB..they in fact DID find a couple of old missles with a technical range greater than 150KM... and YOU have probably stopped 7 inches beyond the legal 'line' at a stop sign...(or not come to an absolute complete stop. It is not clear that even the Iraqis remembered those missiles were there. Hardly a salient point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 07 - 03:37 PM 1. the stockpile of chemical artillary munitions were ready to be loaded with the active chemicals, which is only done immediately prior to use. The prohibited missiles were engines and stage assemblies capable of greater than 180 KM, I think- I'll look the up and get exact figures. So, HOW much beyond the limit imposed by the UN will be allowed before you admit that Saddam was in violation??? After all, the US only sent in just over 130,000 troops- since we have over a million, can you really call that an invasion???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 07 - 03:39 PM "It is not clear that even the Iraqis remembered those missiles were there" Except they were purchased ( from who, one might ask) after 1996.... IN VIOLATION of the sanctions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 07 - 03:40 PM "The prohibited missiles were engines and stage assemblies capable of greater than 180 KM, I think- I'll look the up and get exact figures. " When mated to the allowed 150 km range missiles that Saddam had ready to use... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 07 - 03:49 PM thread.cfm?threadid=77314&messages=119 thread.cfm?threadid=70594&messages=167 thread.cfm?threadid=86221&messages=766#1602213 I see no need to repeat the whole discussion. Since everyone has already decided what the "facts" are without reference to what was physically found ( based on pre-concieved ideas of what they wanted to have found), it is pointless to either correct you (Amos) or attempt to show that the violations cannot be thrown away as " Hardly a salient point", when that fact of those violations IS the point being used to justify the legality of US actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 07 - 03:53 PM http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020924-usia01.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 07 - 04:05 PM 27. According to intelligence, Iraq has retained up to 20 al-Hussein missiles, in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 687. These missiles were either hidden from the UN as complete systems, or re-assembled using illegally retained engines and other components. We judge that the engineering expertise available would allow these missiles to be maintained effectively, although the fact that at least some require re-assembly makes it difficult to judge exactly how many could be available for use. They could be used with conventional, chemical or biological warheads and, with a range of up to 650km, are capable of reaching a number of countries in the region including Cyprus, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel. Sounds like a little more than "7 inches beyond the legal 'line' "- Over 4 TIMES the allowable range... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Donuel Date: 20 Nov 07 - 04:05 PM Why did Saddam not fully comply? It is now known it was part ego and part not wanting to make his military appear totally impotent to Iran. but still http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/judge_dees.jpg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 07 - 04:51 PM well, quite apart from the nit-picking about missles, and re: the topic... Just released: Scott McClellan has written a book in which he states that 5 people, including Cheney & (evidently)Bush, lied to him (McClellan) directly about the Plame leak, causing him to lie in the press briefings. I am not surprised, but never thought he'd admit it. It takes a lot to get ME to agree to bogging the country with proceedings, but what the hell...impeach 'em ALL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 20 Nov 07 - 04:53 PM >>Then you must concede that Saddam DID NOT comply with the terms, as I had posted information previously about the * UN * finding missiles with a greater range, as well as shells for chemical weapons AFTER the invasion.<< You know if they'd found any type of missile cache ready to go, Bush would have been vindicated. That fact that he has not been vindicated and never talks about WMD being his reason for invading anymore proves you to be full of shit. You're trying to pull a Rick Santorum on us when he tried to use this same info to "prove" Bush was right and the State Dept shot him down saying the govt already knew about that stuff and that was not what they were looking for. Since we already knew about it and allowed Saddam to keep it without any accusation of his violating 687 (including Bush himself), your point is rather blunted. When Bush tried to say Saddam violated 687, he was referring to the incredible pack of lies in his SOTU address in 2003: "Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened. "The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. "The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. "U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them. "From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them. "The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 07 - 04:59 PM "Since we already knew about it and allowed Saddam to keep it without any accusation of his violating 687 (including Bush himself), your point is rather blunted." 1. The fact tah we knew about it was not the same as allowing his posession: The UN was derilict in failing to insist on the destruction of prohibited material. "When Bush tried to say Saddam violated 687, he was referring to the incredible pack of lies in his SOTU address in 2003:" Pray tell me what of the list you gave have ever been proven to be wrong? IN ALL CASES Saddam failed to show credible evidence that the prohibited items had been destroyed. "You know if they'd found any type of missile cache ready to go, Bush would have been vindicated. " Fine. I will acknowledge that YOU have declared Bush to be vindicated by the discovery of those prohibited missiles and weapons systems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 07 - 05:04 PM "He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it." "Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them. " Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them." Since the UN report states these as fact ( Saddam gave NO EVIDENCE that he destroyed the items/facilities in question) I fail to see how any thinking person could state that the restatement ( OF THE UN REPORT) was an "incredible pack of lies " Please tell me where YOU got your information, since the reports the UN gave out do not agree with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 Nov 07 - 05:20 PM "Pray tell me what of the list you gave have ever been proven to be wrong? IN ALL CASES Saddam failed to show credible evidence that the prohibited items had been destroyed." BB- Please prove to me that you have stopped beating your wife. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 07 - 05:30 PM 1. I never have been accused of beating my wife. Is this something ( beating your wife) that occupies a lot of YOUR time? 2. I am not married, and HAVE no wife. Do you have an extra one for me to have? 3. I NEVER signed any international agreements that I had been beating any wives I may have had, and that I would provide conclusive evidence that I was no longer beating them, in order to keep you from destroying me. Now, prove to me that you are capable of reading English text as written by the UN. Just try it- you might actually learn something. If a criminal has a gun, and is know to have a gun: When the police show up and demand that he throw out the gun I do NOT think they would accept " I never had it, I destroyed it, and I am unarmed" as a good answer. He will probably get shot, for refusing to DEMONSTRATE that he is unarmed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 07 - 05:34 PM So, where are the lies??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 07 - 06:14 PM durn, Bruce, you present iron-clad logic.......just not to the point. Interesting metaphors do NOT necessarily do what they call in logic "one-to-one mapping"..i.e., show the connection properly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 20 Nov 07 - 06:55 PM >>1. The fact tah we knew about it was not the same as allowing his posession: The UN was derilict in failing to insist on the destruction of prohibited material.<< But the State Department said it was NOT what they were looking for. So it had nothing to do with Bush's accusation that 687 had been breached. He could not have been talking about that stuff--whatever it was. I had heard it was old munitions and much of it was past its shelf life. They knew about it and it was not an issue. It was not what the US govt was looking for or talking about during the run-up of the war. It's a non-issue, guy. >>Pray tell me what of the list you gave have ever been proven to be wrong? IN ALL CASES Saddam failed to show credible evidence that the prohibited items had been destroyed.<< According the CIA, he was failing to show he had any to destroy and they attached memos to that effect on the NIE that Bush & Cheney used to concoct their invasion. The UN NEVER endorsed Bush's decision to invade. He invaded when it became obvious the UN would not endorse it once the inspections were complete. The UN obviously never believed Hussein possessed all that weaponry or they wouldn't have made clear that 1441 did not give the US the right to invade Iraq. The UN obviously never thought an invasion, occupation or war was necessary. Bush muttered out a pack of lies at SOTU 03 designed to scare the public and intimidate Congress into falling in line with him. It is an impeachable offense. >>Fine. I will acknowledge that YOU have declared Bush to be vindicated by the discovery of those prohibited missiles and weapons systems.<< I don't know that they found any missiles at all. I have no idea what they found. But I know very well what they didn't find. They didn't find 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical weapons and this is apart from the tragically sad belief in Saddam's mobile weapons labs. And we know the 16 words are a blatant lie based on the already-debunked "Italian Letters" just as we know Mohammed Atta did not meet with Iraqi agents in Prague. In short, they found nothing. It was such an incredible case of wishful thinking that I am convinced Bush is not rooted in reality very firmly. He walked us into this shithole situation based on propaganda and deception from the likes of Curveball, Ahmad Chalabi and the INC. He believed his own propaganda. One of their informants mentioned by Bush in his speech couldn't locate the secret plant where he claimed to have worked when he was taken back to Iraq in 2005 to verify his story. There was nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:15 PM >>Since the UN report states these as fact ( Saddam gave NO EVIDENCE that he destroyed the items/facilities in question) I fail to see how any thinking person could state that the restatement ( OF THE UN REPORT) was an "incredible pack of lies<< The man couldn't have very well produced evidence of destroying what he didn't have. That's why people keep asking you if you are still beating your wife. Even if you say you don't have a wife, all the other person has to say is "prove it." You can't. Hussein was left trying to prove a negative whioh can't be done. I can't prove god doesn't exist even though I don't believe. But I'm not supposed to be the one to prove it. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim that god does exist. Bush needed to prove Hussein had WMD and it was totally disingenuous to threaten Hussein to prove the negative or else. Bush had the burden of proof and all he did was offer accusations which have since proven themselves tragically false. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:39 PM Hey there HA "Bush's accusation that 687 had been breached"??? Bush's accusation? Hows about this, taken from United Nations Security Council resolution 1441: Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); Oh and all that stuff you referred to when you came out with: "When Bush tried to say Saddam violated 687, he was referring to the incredible pack of lies in his SOTU address in 2003:" If you want to see a list just like it go and read the Report that Dr. Hans Blix and Scott Ritter submitted for presentation to the Security Council of the United Nations in January 1999. So are you telling us that UNSCOM lied? If so why? Job protection perhaps? I'd like to see your substantiation for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:11 PM " I had heard it was old munitions and much of it was past its shelf life." Not the prohibited items found that I referred to. "Bush needed to prove Hussein had WMD" The WMD referred to HAD been proven to exist: It was the DESTRUCTION that Saddam had to verify, and did not. Try reading what was written instead of making invalid comparisons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:13 PM The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim that items previously known to be in his possesion were no longer there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:21 PM How exactly does one go about proving they don't have something, bb??? He allowed imspectors to come in search... What more would you suggest he could have done to prove he didn't have them??? Yeah, I'll be really intersted in your response, just as I was during the mad-dash-to-Iraq when I posed the same question and got no answer... Yeah, I got long (no, make that very long) recitals about this or that which really didn't have anything to do with how one proves that don't have something... So, bb, let's say that I accuse you8 of havin' WMD... Convince me that you don't... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:23 PM >>>Bush's accusation? Hows about this, taken from United Nations Security Council resolution 1441: Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);<<< That's why there were UN inspections going on at the very time 1441 was sponsored (by the US and Britain) in November 2002, they were trying to ascertain if Iraq was complying with 687 and, as far as they could see, they were complying. All the evidence pointed to Iraq as having disarmed. Bush got mad about it and threatened to invade and Blix begged for 3 more months to complete the inspections and Bush said no and ordered the invasion--if he'd waited he would have lost his international support. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:26 PM >>If you want to see a list just like it go and read the Report that Dr. Hans Blix and Scott Ritter submitted for presentation to the Security Council of the United Nations in January 1999. So are you telling us that UNSCOM lied? If so why? Job protection perhaps? I'd like to see your substantiation for that.<< I can't find any such report. Ritter didn't submit anything in 1998 because he had left the year before. What does Ritter say about all this? SCOTT RITTER: Well, first of all, the reason that we're there. They think that this was an accident, that this was a noble cause, that people like the President, like Bill Clinton before him, like their respective administrations, journalists like Judith Miller just honestly got it wrong. And I don't think – you know, here we are today in Iraq, and it's a disaster. I don't think anybody's going to debate that statement. Some people say though, 'We're working towards a continuation of this noble objective. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. That's a good thing. And now we're going to try to build on that good.' And I'm not going to debate whether or not getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a good thing or not. But, you know, if you embrace the notion of the ends justify the means, that's about as un-American a notion as you can possibly get into. We're talking about solving a problem. We have yet to define the problem. And the problem isn't just what's happening in Iraq but it's the whole process that took place in the United States leading up to the war, this dishonest process of deliberately deceiving the American public. And it's not just George W. Bush. For eight years of the Clinton administration, that administration said the same things. The C.I.A. knew, since 1992, that significant aspects of the Iraqi weapons programs had been completely eliminated, but this was never about disarmament. They knew it, (a) because of their own access to intelligence information, and (b) because of the work of the weapons inspectors. In October of 1992, I personally confronted the C.I.A. on the reality that we had accounted for all of Iraq's ballistic missile programs. That same year they had an Iraqi defector who had laid out the totality of the Iraqi biological weapons program and had acknowledged that all of the weapons had been destroyed. The C.I.A. knew this. But, see, the policy wasn't disarmament. The policy was regime change. And disarmament was only useful insofar as it facilitated regime change. And that's what people need to understand, that this was not about getting rid of weapons that threatened international peace and security. This has been about, since 1991, solving a domestic political embarrassment. And that is the continued survival of Saddam Hussein, a man who in March 1990 was labeled as a true friend of the American people and then in October 1990 in a dramatic flip-flop was called the Middle East equivalent of Adolf Hitler. JUAN GONZALEZ: You were involved for quite a long time with UNSCOM. At what point did you, as you were working for the United Nations, reach the conclusion that regime change really was the intent of the program that – well, the United States intent behind the program that you were involved with? SCOTT RITTER: It wasn't a matter of reaching a conclusion. When I joined in September of 1991, that was already the stated policy of the United States government. I outlined this in the book. The fact that in April 1991, the United States helps draft and then votes in favor of a Chapter 7, Resolution 687, that creates the weapons inspections, call upon Iraq to disarm and in Paragraph 14 says if Iraq complies, economic sanctions will be lifted. This is the law. A few months later, the President, George Herbert Walker Bush, and hia Secretary of State say economic sanctions will never be lifted against Iraq, even if they comply with their obligation to disarm, until which time Saddam Hussein is removed from power. It's the stated policy of the United States government. What we weren't quite aware of is just to what extreme they would go in undermining the credibility and integrity of the United Nations inspection process to achieve this objective. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:28 PM Sorry, I meant Ritter didn't submit anything in 1999 because he had left in 1998. And here's what Blix had to say about Iraq's weapons in 1997: Hans Blix, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, writes in a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan that there is no evidence that Iraq has an active nuclear weapons program. Blix says that the agency now has a "technically coherent picture of Iraq's clandestine nuclear program," despite some missing evidence and gaps in knowledge. He states with certainty the following: (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency 10/6/1997) "There are no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq's explanation of its progress towards the finalization of a workable design for its nuclear weapons is considered to be consistent with the resources and time scale indicated by the available program documentation. However, no documentation or other evidence is available to show the actual status of the weapon design when the program was interrupted." (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency 10/6/1997) "Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of HEU [high-enriched uranium] through the EMIS [electromagnetic isotope separation] process, the production and pilot cascading of single-cylinder sub-critical gas centrifuge machines, and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon." (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency 10/6/1997) "There are no indications to suggest that Iraq had produced more that a few grams of weapon-usable nuclear material (HEU or separated plutonium) through its indigenous processes, all of which has been removed from Iraq." (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency 10/6/1997) "There are no indications that Iraq otherwise acquired weapon-usable nuclear material." (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency 10/6/1997) "All of the safeguarded research reactor fuel, including the HEU fuel that Iraq had planned to divert to its 'crash program,' was verified and fully accounted for by the IAEA and removed from Iraq." (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency 10/6/1997) "There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency 10/6/1997) http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=hans_blix&printerfriendly=true |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:56 PM I very highly suggest to everyone to read every word of those links I provided in my last two posts. They are phenomenal, shocking, eye-popping revelations. Blix called the accusations made in 1441 "baseless" and that Powell was denouncing Iraq's written proof of disarming as being recycled pap from earlier sources before most of material had been translated. Blix stated that 500 to 600 pages had yet to be translated when Powell made his assertions. Powell's assertion could only have been a lie. And it was. Iraq had disarmed. Ritter states that disarming Iraq was never the objective. Regime change was the objective. Bush I had made the mistake of pronouncing Saddam another Hitler and was therefore obliged to take him out. He and James Baker announced that even if Iraq met with all the provisions laid out by the UN, which promised the ending of sanctions, the sanctions would not be lifted. Only the removal of Hussein would lift them. Yet the Gulf War fell through and Saddam held onto power. The CIA announced that sanctions would be so crippling that Saddam would fall within 6 months but Saddam held on. He became an embarrassment and the govt wanted him gone. When Clinton took over in 92, he at first tried to lift the sanctions and get Iraq back on its feet but Congressmen, both dem and pub, became extremely upset because they had painted him as Hitler to their constituents and promised his immediate removal. Clinton reversed himself and started talking about Saddam rearming. It wasn't true and Ritter knew for a fact Iraq had no missile system by 92 but Clinton was making accusations after that. Neither Ritter nor Blix ever believed a word of it. It's very fascinating reading!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 20 Nov 07 - 09:05 PM >>The WMD referred to HAD been proven to exist: It was the DESTRUCTION that Saddam had to verify, and did not. Try reading what was written instead of making invalid comparisons.<< No, I have just proven that neither Blix nor Ritter EVER made any such accusation that Iraq had WMD. Their own words prove that they never gave any such assertions credit. If they made these accusations in 1999 as you and Teribus insist, please show us the relevant document. I can't find it and neither Blix nor Ritter ever believed Iraq was in any "material breach" of 687. THEIR OWN WORDS PROVE THIS! Read those links and weep! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 20 Nov 07 - 09:32 PM Exact point I was tryin' to make, 282RA... Doesn't matter if it was Blix or Ritter, Bush had the burden of proof but sidestepped it and ordered up the war... Saddam was powerless to prove he didn't have the stuff... That is the case... No reason to complicate it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 07 - 10:41 PM I have to disagree, Bobert. Saddam was KNOWN to have certain prohibited material ( from previous inspections, purchase records and his own stated inventories. The UN Inspection teams were there to see to the destruction of those materials: Saddam could not produce them, nor any proof that they had been destroyed. Nor did he allow the access that the UNR called for to facilities or personnel. If I see you sometime with a weapon, the presumption is that after that time, if you cannot show that you have gotten rid of the weapon you are considered armed and dangerous. NOT that the police have to prove you have a weapon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 20 Nov 07 - 10:49 PM Bush sidestepping the burden of proof doesn't necessarily mean that Hussein had no weapons. That only proves Bush is an idiot rather than a statesman. The testimony of Blix and Ritter, however, cinch that Hussein had no WMD. That exposes Bush's pose. He only demanded Hussein disarm PRECISELY BECAUSE he knew Hussein had no WMD. If Bush knew that Iraq had no WMD programs or hardware, then he was definitely lying when he took us into war. That is an impeachable defense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:00 PM >>I have to disagree, Bobert. Saddam was KNOWN to have certain prohibited material ( from previous inspections, purchase records and his own stated inventories. The UN Inspection teams were there to see to the destruction of those materials: Saddam could not produce them, nor any proof that they had been destroyed. Nor did he allow the access that the UNR called for to facilities or personnel.<< Here's what Scott Ritter says: "Look, let's be honest. The Iraqis were obligated in 1991 to submit a full declaration listing the totality of their holdings of W.M.D., and they didn't do this. They lied. They failed to declare a nuclear weapons program. They failed to declare a biological weapons program, and they under-declared their chemical and ballistic missile capabilities. "Saddam Hussein intended to retain a strategic deterrent capability, not only to take care of Iran, but also to focus on Israel. What he didn't count on was the tenacity of the inspectors. And very rapidly by June 1991 we had compelled him into acknowledging that he had a nuclear weapons program, and we pushed him so hard that by the summer of 1991, in the same way that a drug dealer who has police knocking at his door flushes drugs down a toilet to get rid of his stash so that he can tell the cops, "I don't have any drugs," the Iraqis, not wanting to admit that they lied, flushed their stash down the toilet. They blew up all of their weapons and buried it in the desert, and then tried to maintain the fiction that they had told the truth. "And by 1992 they were compelled again because of the tenacity of inspectors to come clean. People say why didn't Saddam Hussein admit being disarmed? In 1992 they submitted a declaration that said everything's been destroyed, we have nothing left. In 1995 they turned over the totality of their document cache. Again, not willingly, it took years of inspections to pressure them. But the bottom line is by 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, there was no more production capability in Iraq, because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control. "And we knew that while we couldn't account for everything that the Iraqis said they had destroyed, we could only account for ninety to ninety-five percent, we knew that: (a) we had no evidence of a retained capability and, (b) no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting. And furthermore, the C.I.A. knew this. The British intelligence knew this; Israeli intelligence knew this; German intelligence. The whole world knew this. They weren't going to say that Iraq was disarmed, because nobody could say that. But they definitely knew that the Iraqi capability regarding W.M.D. had been reduced to as near to zero as you could bring it and that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Ron Davies Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:11 PM Teribus-- From your own brilliant analysis of the immediate pre-war Iraq period: "To the UN it was put in extremely stark terms, you act or we will. No room for doubt there. The UN chose not to act." Exactly right. In other words, the UN did not act against Iraq, but Bush did. Without UN authorization--you have just admitted it. Furthermore, the invasion was also against the US' own position as stated by John Negroponte---which gives the lie to your attempted justification of the war by UN authorization of Bush. Negroponte 8 November 2002--Explanation of Vote on Resolution 1441: "This resolution contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with regard to use of force". That is, he recognizes 1441 does not authorize the use of force by the US. He continues: "If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12 (2)" Not "the matter will return to the Council or Mr. Bush, whoever wants to attack Iraq first."--which seems to be your interpretation. You may assail the UN for its impotence, since that seems to make your tiny heart beat a little faster. And you can be sure we recognize that--and above all else, we want you to be happy. But the bedrock fact remains: 1441, as admitted by the US ambassador to the UN, did not authorize US use of force against Iraq. Nor did any other UN resolution. As usual, your ship is sunk--with barnacles growing on it. Don't you ever ask yourself why you always lash yourself to the mast of sinking ships? But let me compliment you on the amazing creativity you show in shooting yourself in the foot in so many varied ways, on so many topics. And I'd like to say I stand in awe of your status as a medical marvel, since you have indeed shot yourself in the foot so many times--you must at least be alternating feet-- that it's truly amazing you can hobble at all, much less walk. Please, don't ever change. I can't begin to tell you how bereft we'd be without you. And I assure you it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you always present such a nice fat juicy target for all and sundry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:32 PM What Mr. Ritter's words tell us, Bruce, is that we did not know what Hussein had after 1995. We couldn't say with certainty that he had completely disarmed but we knew his weapon production and storage capacity was effectively reduced to zero. If we knew what he had then we could say for certain whether he was armed or not. It's only because we are unsure that we cannot say what he has if anything. Now, think about that. By 1995, there are no WMD in Iraq nor any possibility for them. By 1997, Blix was saying that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program and when they dismantled it, the UN received an accurate accounting of all their material. This info is in those links in the very words of those men. Then somehow, according to you and Teribus, Iraq suddenly had 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent and 30,000 munitions for delivery of chemical agents along with mobile weapon labs and trips to Africa to get uranium. And they get this expensive, expansive, ambitious, sophisticated, thoroughly professional, efficient, diabolical weapons system having nothing two years before while being closely watched and while suffering under severe sanctions--amazing!! Then, three years later, 9-11 goes down but Blix and Ritter are dismissing claims that Iraq had rearmed and by 2004, Blix is calling the so-called material breach of 687 as stipulated in 1441 "baseless." So apparently Iraq went from a nation with WMD capability to a nation with no WMD capability but then mysteriously regained it very suddenly but then lost it again a couple of years later so completely that neither Blix nor Ritter even think to suppose they could have had anything to do with 9-11. Something's wrong with that picture and that something is the assertion that Blix and Ritter stated that Iraq had rearmed to alarming proportions in 1999. Could we see what document you refer to? If you remove this anomaly, you get a smooth record of Blix and Ritter never believing the rearming stories. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Barry Finn Date: 21 Nov 07 - 03:01 AM After 4 yrs they are still no where to be found, who fucked up????? BB, can you prove that you don't have a wife hidden some where? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 21 Nov 07 - 03:36 AM Guess what, I cannot find anything anywhere where the good Doctor Blix says that Iraq possess no WMD, no WMD Agents, no R&D programme. Nowhere, absoutely nowhere. The man was part of the inspection programme from the outset and was in charge of UNMOVIC and at no time does he categorically state that Iraq was in compliance with any of UN Resolutions relating to WMD in Iraq. Al-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, on the other hand was far more definite and stated that he was ALMOST certain that Iraq no longer had a viable nuclear weapons programme, He did however admit that the technical knowledge to recreate one still existed within the country. GUEST,282RA your post of 20 Nov 07 - 11:00 PM, is complete and utter nonsense. "Saddam Hussein intended to retain a strategic deterrent capability, not only to take care of Iran, but also to focus on Israel." - Scott Ritter. This I believe. "..we pushed him so hard that by the summer of 1991, in the same way that a drug dealer who has police knocking at his door flushes drugs down a toilet to get rid of his stash so that he can tell the cops, "I don't have any drugs," the Iraqis, not wanting to admit that they lied, flushed their stash down the toilet. They blew up all of their weapons and buried it in the desert, and then tried to maintain the fiction that they had told the truth." - Scott Ritter If that were indeed the case there would have been traces, plus the blatantly obvious, if it was buried it could be exhumed - True?, as nothing was found in this manner Ritter's contention above does not appear so convincing. "But the bottom line is by 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, there was no more production capability in Iraq, because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control." - Scott Ritter "But they definitely knew that the Iraqi capability regarding W.M.D. had been reduced to as near to zero as you could bring it and that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction." - Scott Ritter If that were the case why was this clear unequivocal statement not made by UNSCOM, of which Scott Ritter was a part in 1995. If indeed UNSCOM was "monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control." How come they were continually baulked by Iraq's deception and intimidation measures. I find it rather odd that Ritter does not mention those. Recent reports from Saddam's liason officer while in captivity states that Saddam Hussein deliberately fostered and encouraged the belief that Iraq still possessed WMD to counter Iran. The amounts referred to in the list constituted the amounts of WMD that UNSCOM could not account for, that list having been constructed from purchase orders, shipping records, import records, manufacturing data, etc, etc, seized by UNSCOM and submitted by the Iraqi Authorities themselves. Greatest threat to United States of America identified as an attack mounted by an international terrorist group, with the covert backing of a rogue state with access to actual WMD, WMD technology, WMD material. I would disagree with Scott Ritter when he states that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction. And this one is absolutely priceless: "three years later, 9-11 goes down but Blix and Ritter are dismissing claims that Iraq had rearmed and by 2004, Blix is calling the so-called material breach of 687 as stipulated in 1441 "baseless." Please refer to my opening paragraph. By 2004 Blix is calling blah, blah, blah....... What a great pity the stupid dithering bastard couldn't have been a bit more forthcoming about that earlier then wasn't it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 21 Nov 07 - 08:33 AM You still are confused, T... No one is saying that Dr. Blix said that Iraq didn't have any WMD's... What we are saying is that Blix said the Iraqi's were cooperating in letting the inspectors do their jobs... Is that simple enough fir ya, T??? If not, maybe someone else can make it simpler so that you can keep up with the discussion... Geeze... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 21 Nov 07 - 11:53 AM BB- your insistence that the burden to prove that he *did not* have W's of MD fell upon Saddam Hussein is a perfect example of the logical fallacy of "argumentum ad ignorantiam". See Example (i) below. With full credit to Dr. Stephen Downe: ********************************************************************* Fallacies of Distraction Each of these fallacies is characterized by the illegitimate use of a logical operator in order to distract the reader from the apparent falsity of a certain proposition. . . . Argument From Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) Definition: Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must ether be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59) Examples: (i) Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist. (ii) Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't. (iii) Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false. Proof: Identify the proposition in question. Argue that it may be true even though we don't know whether it is or isn't. Reference: (Copi and Cohen: 93, Davis: 59) . . . ********************************************************************* from: < http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm > |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Nov 07 - 02:09 PM YOU miss the point that 1. Saddam DID have prohibited items before 1999. KNOW FACT- See UN reports. 2. SADDAM could not provide the proof that he had destroyed it, as he claimed. The burden of proof is on SADDAM to prove that he destroyed it. Thus, your arguement is of no validity to this discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Amos Date: 21 Nov 07 - 02:14 PM SADDAM could not provide the proof that he had destroyed it, as he claimed. That's what the UMOVIC inspections were for; they should have been allowed to continue. And their results accepted. But the neocons had their own reasons for not doing either. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Nov 07 - 02:19 PM "No one is saying that Dr. Blix said that Iraq didn't have any WMD's... What we are saying is that Blix said the Iraqi's were cooperating in letting the inspectors do their jobs..." "UN weapons inspector Blix expressed skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said. "There has to be solid evidence of everything, and if there is not evidence, or you can't find it, I simply say, 'Sorry, I don't find any evidence,' and I cannot guarantee or recommend any confidence."" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Nov 07 - 02:21 PM But the Anti-bush folks had their own reasons for not believing that Saddam was not in compliance, as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 21 Nov 07 - 04:29 PM >>If that were indeed the case there would have been traces, plus the blatantly obvious, if it was buried it could be exhumed - True?, as nothing was found in this manner Ritter's contention above does not appear so convincing.<< As usual, you're not paying attention. They found plenty of dismantled weapons. Soldiers even found an IED that was an old military bomb wired to explode. The problem was that it was filled with sarin and could never have exploded like a conventional weapon. Whoever wired it up obvioulsy did not know what was in it. How did he get it? Obviously, it was sold off after a weapons system was dismantled. And remember Bush invaded before teh inspectors could finish their jobs so your point is once again blunted. >>If that were the case why was this clear unequivocal statement not made by UNSCOM, of which Scott Ritter was a part in 1995.<< They did. Blix had stated unequivocally that they had found nothing. What were you watching during the run-up to the war? Old reruns of The Avengers?? The UN inspectors protested that they needed more time and had not found any evidence of any WMD program in progress. >>If indeed UNSCOM was "monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control." How come they were continually baulked by Iraq's deception and intimidation measures. I find it rather odd that Ritter does not mention those.<< What deception and intimidation measures?? Read the link, buddy. Ritter answers every concern you're raised albeit not in the manner you want to read so that's why you won't read it. There were no intimidation or deceptive measures and he makes clear that Saddam never booted out the inspectors but that Clinton did. This man was there and one of the chief in charge, I think he knows something of what he's talking about. Unlike you. >>Greatest threat to United States of America identified as an attack mounted by an international terrorist group, with the covert backing of a rogue state with access to actual WMD, WMD technology, WMD material.<< Which had nothing to do with Iraq. >>I would disagree with Scott Ritter when he states that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction.<< And, of course, you're so much more an expert than Scott Ritter. >>Please refer to my opening paragraph. By 2004 Blix is calling blah, blah, blah....... What a great pity the stupid dithering bastard couldn't have been a bit more forthcoming about that earlier then wasn't it.<< A few posts before you were telling me to check out what this stupid dithering bastard said about WMD in Iraq believing it would support your contentions. Unfortunately for you, I did check them out and they do not support you and so now, the men you were citing to me as an authority whose findings could not be argued with is suddenly a stupid dithering bastard and Scott Ritter is just so wrong. Where i come from, we call that back pedaling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 21 Nov 07 - 04:36 PM >>Saddam DID have prohibited items before 1999. KNOW FACT- See UN reports.<< Please show them to us because I can't find them. When I looked for them, I found the links I gave you that prove unequivocally that neither Blix nor Ritter ever believed that Iraq had rearmed. I tried to find this 1999 UN report you mentioned but nothing comes up. Could you PLEASE show it to us?? I've asked you several times now. >>SADDAM could not provide the proof that he had destroyed it, as he claimed.<< He did provide the proof and Ritter affirms that. Read the link. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 21 Nov 07 - 04:42 PM >>"UN weapons inspector Blix expressed skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said. "There has to be solid evidence of everything, and if there is not evidence, or you can't find it, I simply say, 'Sorry, I don't find any evidence,' and I cannot guarantee or recommend any confidence.""<< That was pre-1995 when Iraq DID hide evidence of a weapons program. But by '95 everything was on the table because the inspectors rooted it out. I've already provided a link showing Blix's notes to the UN in 1997 stating there was no evidence of a nuclear program in Iraq. Ready to throw in the towel yet? And also, could you PLEASE provide the 1999 UN document authored by Blix and Ritter that stated Iraq had huge caches of anthrax, botulism, sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents and munitions capable of delivering chemical weapons? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 21 Nov 07 - 05:51 PM Some reading for you HA: Notes for briefing the Security Council regarding inspections in Iraq and a preliminary assessment of Iraq's declaration under paragraph 3 of resolution 1441 (2002) Dr Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC 19 December 2002: During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated. Such was the situation at the end of 1998, when inspectors left Iraq. The many question marks are documented in a report to the Council early in 1999 (S/1999/94) and in the so-called Amorim Report (S/1999/356). To these question marks, nearly four years without any inspection activity have been added. I now turn to some inconsistencies and issues that will need clarification. In the biological area, Iraq previously provided, in its submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999, a table concerning the additional import of bacterial growth media. Growth media was used by Iraq in the production of anthrax and other biological warfare agents. This table has been omitted from the current Declaration and the reasons for the omission need to be explained. In the civilian chemical area, Iraq has declared that it has repaired and installed equipment that had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, under Council resolution 687 (1991). The equipment is now at a civilian chemical plant and used for the production of chlorine and other chemicals. An UNMOVIC team has recently inspected both the plant and the equipment. Consideration will now need to be given to the fate of this equipment, as well as other equipment, which was presumed destroyed. As there is little new substantive information in the weapons part of Iraq's Declaration, or new supporting documentation, the issues that were identified as unanswered in the Amorim report (S/1999/356) and in UNSCOM's report (S/1999/94) remain unresolved. In most cases, the issues are outstanding not because there is information that contradicts Iraq's account, but simply because there is a lack of supporting evidence. The issues that have previously been identified include the unilateral destruction of indigenously produced "training" missile engines, the accounting for 50 conventional warheads declared to be unilaterally destroyed but not recovered, 550 mustard gas shells declared lost after the Gulf War, declarations concerning the production and weaponization of the nerve agent VX, the declared unilateral destruction of biological warfare agents and Iraq's declaration concerning the material balance of bacterial growth media. While in most cases issues are outstanding because there is a lack of supporting evidence, in a few cases, there is information in our possession that would appear to contradict Iraq's account. At this point, I will only mention that there are indications suggesting that Iraq's account of its production and unilateral destruction of anthrax during the period between 1988 and 1991, may not be accurate. NOTES FOR BRIEFING THE SECURITY COUNCIL Dr. Hans Blix, Executive Chairman, UNMOVIC 9 January 2003 Comparisons between the Iraqi Declaration and earlier full, final and complete declarations have shown several cases of inconsistencies in terms of numbers declared. The so-called Air Force document, which was provided separately from the Declaration, relates to the consumption of chemical munitions in the Iraq/Iran war. It was hoped that the submission of this document would help verify material balances regarding special munitions. After having analysed the document, we have concluded that it will in fact not contribute to resolving this issue. There remains therefore, a significant discrepancy concerning the numbers of special munitions. I will also note that Iraq, in the Declaration, has declared the import of missile engines and raw material for the production of solid missile fuel. This import has taken place in violation of the relevant resolutions regulating import and export to Iraq. Inspections have confirmed the presence of a relatively large number of missile engines, some imported as late as 2002. We have yet to determine the significance of these illegal imports relating to the specific WMD-mandate of UNMOVIC. Another outstanding issue regards the chemical agent VX. We have found no additional information in the Declaration that would help to resolve this issue. Instead, it contains information that is contradicted by documents previously found by UNSCOM. Iraq will have to further clarify the matter. THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION (AS DELIVERED) Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current "unresolved disarmament issues" and "key remaining disarmament tasks" in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports (UNSCOM document S/1999/94 of January1999 and the so-called Amorim Report of March 1999 (S/1999/356) as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. (The two reports he referring to here are the UNSCOM Reports that detailed the "unaccounted" items that formed the intelligence for the WMD that Iraq was suspected of holding on to - the items listed were not made up by George W Bush or by Tony Blair - here Blix is saying that UNSCOM reporting of those "unresolved" issues was justified - But wait a minute Scott Ritter's contention is that Iraq had no WMD or prohibited items in 1995, these reports were dated 1999, so which one of these tossers is lying, or was Ritter just hard at work selling a book) The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared. There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq. I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders (Can't be right, Scott Ritter says that there was no interference with the UNSCOM Inspections). It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC. The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. (For all those left wingers who insist that the US supplied Saddam with all his chemical weapons pay attention to the dates 1983 to 1988 - Rumsfeld handshake was just before Christmas 1984, ties not established until November 1985 - anybody see any mismatch in the time-line there) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 21 Nov 07 - 07:56 PM Okay, so you don't have a 1999 UN report prepared by Blix and Ritter stating that Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, etc. The only thing you've shown me in response to my repeated requests to read this document is something from 2003 showing why inspections were necessary and which were, in fact, being carried out until Bush interrupted them permanently and quite deliberately. Yes, inspectors had legitimate concerns about what Iraq might still have in their arsenals but apparently Bush didn't because he cut the inspections short in a way that proves he placed no weight on them at all and didn't care about them one wit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 21 Nov 07 - 09:04 PM >>>(The two reports he referring to here are the UNSCOM Reports that detailed the "unaccounted" items that formed the intelligence for the WMD that Iraq was suspected of holding on to - the items listed were not made up by George W Bush or by Tony Blair - here Blix is saying that UNSCOM reporting of those "unresolved" issues was justified<< Right. There were questions of what Iraq could still have left. That was why inspections were necessary. According to Ritter, Iraqis were very compliant except in certain areas for security reasons. He explains it carefully--read the link. >>- But wait a minute Scott Ritter's contention is that Iraq had no WMD or prohibited items in 1995, these reports were dated 1999, so which one of these tossers is lying, or was Ritter just hard at work selling a book)<< Well, then, you didn't read it closely. Ritter said that no one could say for certain if Iraq had fully disarmed but that 90-95% of Iraq's weapons were dismantled or destroyed. There was still a 5-10% not accounted for. That's what the UN inspectors wanted to check on. Ritter said there was no capacity for large WMD caches in Iraq after the inspections. But there could still be some nasty weapons still around. That was what the inspectors were trying to find out. What rankled Bush about the inspections was that they were conducted from the outset as already discounting that Iraq had a large number of WMD and were only looking for whatever might still be left around--it wouldn't be much but it might still be pretty lethal. So the UN wasn't taking Bush's assertions seriously--they already knew what Iraq's weapons capacity was and they knew it wasn't anything like what Bush was pushing. So Bush didn't much care for the inspections anyway. There was no chance their findings would support him and he knew it. If he allowed the inspectors to finish, the conclusion would be that Iraq was not rearming and had no viable WMD systems and his international support would have dwindled to nothing pretty quickly. So he did the only thing he could do if he wanted to get his invasion going--invade before the inspectors could finish. And that's what happened. The whole thing was driven, as usual, by politics and politics only. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Nov 07 - 10:13 PM So, Teribus, now that your theory that UN Resolution 1441 authorized Bush to invade Iraq lies a smoking wreck, what's your next brilliant idea to ensure that you and Bush can hide behind the skirts of the UN--and you can preserve your amazingly fragile ego? Inquiring minds need to know. Or do you finally realize the UN never gave its blessing to Bush's invasion? I don't really expect you to give a direct answer--you never do. But that's OK--I've learned that patience--a lot of patience--is required when dealing with you. And I will eventually squeeze a direct answer out of you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 22 Nov 07 - 02:21 AM Disagree entirely anonymous Guest (22 Nov 07 - 12:29 AM). The Subject of the Thread is impeachment on the grounds that Vice President Dick Cheney lied to Congress in order to start a war in Iraq. If that is so, then the source of evidence needs to be looked at very closely. My understanding and recollection of events, all of which can be substantiated, is as follows: 1. Iraq was identified as posing a threat to the United States of America, the interests of the United States of America and the allies of the United States of America, not by President George W Bush, or his Administration, but by the Joint House Security Committee and the combined security and intelligence agencies of the United States of America. 2. The stocks of WMD suspected of being held by Iraq that might be supplied to an international terrorist group in order to carry-out an "Axis of Evil" type attack were taken from UNSCOM document S/1999/94 of January 1999 and from the Amorim Report S/1999/356 of March 1999. 3. In 1998 and again in 2002, the intelligence and security agencies of the United States of America fully believed that Iraq did possess these weapons. The UNSCOM view was that Iraq MAY possess these weapons. From a security analysis and evaluation point of view, in the wake of the attacks of 911, the worst case scenario was quite rightly selected. 4. The US addressed its concerns to the Security Council of the United Nations and demanded action on their part to enforce Iraqi compliance with regard to outstanding UNSC Resolution 687. As a result of this UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed and entirely due to US efforts Iraq invited the UNMOVIC inspection teams to return late 2002. 5. UNSC Resolution 1441 called for full pro-active co-operation from on the part of Iraq and for full and transparent disclosure. In his report of 27th January 2003 the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix referred to this as the key requirement of co-operation and Iraq's response to it. He described the co-operation required as being in two equally important parts, what he termed substance and process. In his subsequent reports to the UNSC he reported co-operation with regard to one and an unco-operative attitude and reluctance with regard to the other. 6. With regard to UNSC Resolution 1441 there were all in all seven "material breaches" of its terms and conditions. The UK prepared a second Resolution which President Chirac of France said he would veto unread. The second draft resolution was never tabled. The US had made it clear to the UN from the outset that they viewed their concerns (i.e. whether Iraq possessed these weapons or not had to be established once and for all, and if Iraq did possess them Iraq had to be disarmed) as justified and that if the UN failed to act, the US would resolve the matter independently. 7. From the US perspective Iraq had not honoured its obligations under the terms of the Safwan cease-fire agreement and was in material breach of UNSC Resolution 1441. The US advised the UNMOVIC Inspectors to leave Iraq, gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to quit the country or the US and her coalition partners drawn from 43 different countries would invade in order for them to remove Saddam and his Ba'athist regime from power and guarantee Iraqi disarmament. As a signatory to the Safwan cease-fire agreement the USA required no prior approval from the United Nations to resume hostilities and enforce the terms of the cease-fire. 8. The President and his Administration put matters before Congress. I do not believe that they purposefully lied, or knowingly misrepresented, the situation on the evidence or intelligence information available at that time. Both Senate and House of Representatives gave their approval. Counter to the title of this thread, I do not believe that any action for impeachment warranted or needed, quickly or otherwise, I do not believe that the grounds exist for it. Additionally, with a Presidential election less than 12 months away, I do not believe that, with US troops engaged in hostile operations in two countries, the presidential hopefuls, or their parties, will want to get caught up in a process that can only damage their chances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: CarolC Date: 22 Nov 07 - 04:44 AM The war is hardly the only reason for impeachment. Bush and Cheney have committed numerous impeachable offenses here at home as well. But in the long run, it really doesn't matter what Teribus thinks or believes about anything, since impeachment can just as easily be driven by the voters as by anyone else. If the voters want the president impeached, he will very likely be impeached. And if the members of the Senate perceive that it is in their interests to convict, they will probably convict. Since removal from office is a political act rather than a judicial one, the voters can decide what constitutes sufficient reason to remove a sitting president or vice president from office, if they apply enough pressure to their elected representatives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Nov 07 - 09:52 AM The Iraq war is however by far the most powerful argument for impeachment--and conviction, which is essential. And to do that, as I said earlier, the general public needs to be guided through the despicable propaganda campaign which the Bush team engaged in to hoodwink the electorate into supporting his planned war. This can only be done through in-depth investigation and hearings. And it must be done before the major push for impeachment. Otherwise you put the cart before the horse--and you condemn your campaign to disaster--and alienation of the electorate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 22 Nov 07 - 10:03 AM The main quesdtion that many of us have asked T-zer over and over and over that he somehow has no answer for is why Bush pulled the plug on the inspections??? This is really the crux of the discussion... The rest is purdy much just smoke and mirrors... So, T, why did Bush pull the plug on them??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Nov 07 - 10:05 AM And please, Teribus, don't forget to tell us exactly which UN resolution authorized Bush to invade Iraq. Since your 1441 idea has crashed and burned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 22 Nov 07 - 11:57 AM Well, Ron, I'm not a betting man but if I were I'd say it's safe bet that T will respond with another signiture "War and Peace" lenght post that is a rehash of the same old hask that he's been slinging for 5 years now and that nowhere in that rehashing will he answer either your question or mine... Yeah, that's a safe bet 'cause T is a one-trick-pony... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Nov 07 - 12:04 PM Actually, Bobert and Ron D, T. has answered YOUR question, several time. YOU may not like his answer, but you have NOT addressed what he has said- just what YOU want to discuss. And I have yet to see either of you answer T.' questions, with anything remotely like supporting evidence ( quotes, refernces to UN reports, facts that are proven and not opinion, etc. And who of those opposed to the war demanded that Saddam COMPLY with UNR1441, instead of just demanding that Bush NOT make any effort to force his compliance??? Please give names, quotes, and dates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Nov 07 - 12:21 PM OK BB, since you supposedly have answered the question, surely you wouldn't mind helping out your old buddy Teribus, who, it seems, can only shoot himself in the foot. And no doubt you can specify exactly the UN resolution which authorized Bush to invade Iraq. I've already pointed out exactly why 1441 does not fit the bill. Good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Nov 07 - 12:23 PM Or if you think Teribus has answered the question, exactly which UN resolution was it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 22 Nov 07 - 01:55 PM >>And I have yet to see either of you answer T.' questions, with anything remotely like supporting evidence ( quotes, refernces to UN reports, facts that are proven and not opinion, etc.<< Are you talking about this apparently spurious January 1999 UN report prepared by Hans Blix and Scott Ritter that specifically stated that Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin? I'm still waiting for either you or Teribus to furnish me with a link because I certainly would like to read it. Teribus provided me with facts and figures, yes, but was presenting them as "this is proof of what Iraq had and here is the UN saying so" but all he furnished was the mop-up questions that still existed ever since Iraq had disarmed by 90-95%. They were not saying Iraq had any of that stuff, they were saying there hangs a question of whether Iraq still had that stuff or if they ever really had it or in what quantities--they wanted to and needed to investiagte as per paragraph 7 of Resolution 687. That was what the inspections were set up for--to find what else may have been left in order to determine how much of the accusations leveled at Iraq in Resolution 1441 were true. The inspectors had found nothing at the time Bush ordered the invasion which put an end to the inspections. Since that time, nothing further has turned up. A few people like Rick Santorum tried the same tack you and Teribus are taking now and were shot down not by liberals, dems and antiwar terrorist sympathizers but by the State Dept itself. The bottom line is nothing has been found that vindicates the Bush administration's charges until which time they shall remain falsehoods. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 22 Nov 07 - 02:27 PM Let's examine the pertinent part of SOTU 03: "Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened." This statement is loaded. It states Iraq HAD "banned weapons" and was refusing to disarm. The inspectors were NOT there to see if Iraq was in the process of disarming but that Iraq had disarmed completely as it had reported in 1995. The answer appears to have been yes. It is disingenuous of Bush to talk about Iraq not complying with inspectors when he would cut their inspections off and order an invasion two months later specifically to avoid hearing the UN's conclusion that Iraq had not rearmed. "The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it." The United Nations concluded no such thing. Anyone with proof to the contrary please produce it. "The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it." The United Nations concluded no such thing. Anyone with proof to the contrary please produce it. "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them." Which intelligence officials estimated this and what did they base it on? Nothing like has turned up in any way, shape or form. "U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them." Which US intelligence indicated this and what was it based on? Nothing like has turned up in any way, shape or form. So it makes sense that Saddam gave no indication he's destroyed them--he would have had to lie to do so. "From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs." A lie. No such mobile labs were ever found. The equipment identified as mobile labs were merely filling stations for weather balloons. This info came from one of these three "defectors"--Curveball--who has since been thoroughly discredited and who was not believed by anyone other than the Bush administration. None of these three defectors were credible. Anyone with evidence to the contrary, please produce it. "These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.<< Once again, he cannot produce such evidence without lying because he definitely never had any such mobile labs. He never disclosed them for the same reason. Anyone with evidence to the contrary, please produce it. "The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb." A lie. Hans Blix's own notes and memos to the UN secretary-general and to the IAEA in 1997 prove unequivocally that nobody other than the Bush administration and their blind loyalists believed that Iraq had a viable nuclear program in the 1990s. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The infamous 16 words--a lie is so blatant that even the normally compliant George Tenet of the CIA tried to persuade Bush not to include that statement in SOTU and Bush ignored him. We now know that the British govt learned no such thing and that the rumors did not even originate with Britain. They originated in Italy when a guy named Rocco Martino offered to sell Nigerian documents composed in French to reporter Elizabeth Burba which alleged that Iraq was attempting to procure an enormous amount of uranium secretly. Burba turned the documents over to the CIA chief in Rome who filed them through proper channels but nobody put any stock in it. When a report of these documents (now called "the Italian Letters") was included in an NIE that went to the White House, officials there liked it and decided to use it as propaganda to convince the world of the need to invade Iraq despite the fact that no one believed it for the simple fact that Iraq could not possibly keep such a procurement secret and no intelligence agency in the world had ever heard of this attempt by Iraq. It was a lie. Bush's address to the American people was composed entirely of lies with regard to Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 22 Nov 07 - 04:53 PM Amazingly easy, this is the UNSCOM Report 25th January 1999, the one that details the "unaccounted for" bits and pieces of Iraq's WMD: "Letter dated 25 January 1999 from the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission established by the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 9 (b) (i) of Security Council resolution 687 (1991) addressed to the President of the Security Council With this note, I have the honour to forward to you two reports drawn up by the Special Commission: one on the current state of affairs with respect to the disarmament of Iraq's proscribed weapons; the other on ongoing monitoring and verification in Iraq. It is thought that these materials may be useful to members of the Council. (Signed) Richard BUTLER (Pages 3-280 are offset) Enclosure 1 REPORT : DISARMAMENT 1. The present report is intended to address those disarmament issues under relevant Security Council resolutions for which the Special Commission is responsible. It comprises four main parts: record and methodology; priority issues in disarmament; three annexes providing the status of verification of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes; and an annex on actions by Iraq to obstruct disarmament;" Who was it said that the Iraqi's did not obstruct disarmament. Oh Yes Scott Ritter, maybe he can explain how his boss has got a whole section on it. Whole report here if anyone wants to read through it. For some it might be quite horrifying as some of your most dearly held myths are blown sky high. http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s99-94.htm This, by the bye, is where the figures came from, they were not invented or made up by George W Bush, or Tony Blair. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 22 Nov 07 - 05:07 PM Hey HA, here's the other one for you: Amorim Report S/1999/356 of March 1999: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/Amorim%20Report.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Bobert Date: 22 Nov 07 - 06:09 PM "Unaccounted for" does ***not*** = "posession"... As 282RA, Ron, myself and others have pointed out going back 5 years... That is why the inspectors were sent... Now, here is my question to both BB and T-zer: Why did Bush pull the plug on the inspectors just as Dr. Blix was reporting that Iraq was cooperating in letting the inspectors do their job??? And can either of you just state your answers without writing reems and reems... Just answer the friggin' question in as a direct manner that it is being put to you, please!!! I mean, if you think that Bush had information that Saddam was getting ready ti invade the US then just say it... I'd respect both of you if you would just speak clearly here without the Hillary Clinton gooble-dee-gook, por favor... I mean, this ain't a tough question... Why did Bush pull the plug??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,292RA Date: 22 Nov 07 - 07:41 PM Teribus, Do you know the difference between a report that says that it is possible Iraq could have such and such weapons and a report that says Iraq actually does have those weapons? You have consistently posted documents showing why the inspectors wanted to go into Iraq again. If they knew Iraq had these weapons, there would be no need for inspections. No one knew for certain if they had them or not, hence the inspections. And if Bush really cared, why did he cut the inspections off by invading? What I am asking you for and which you have failed utterly to produce is the January 1999 UN document stating that Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. According to you, this report exists and was authored by Blix and Ritter. So far, you have failed to produce it despite telling us to check it out. This makes you a liar. You referred us to a document you obviously have never seen because it doesn't appear to exist. When someone bothered to check it out, your lies quickly became apparent. Your response was to post UN documents going over what Iraq could possibly still have and for which the inspectors would make a concerted effort to get answers. At the time of the invasion, nothing had been found and after the invasion, new teams of searchers also found nothing. That means the documents you posted were answered--Iraq did not appear to have any of the things inspectors feared that they might. So those documents were obsolete by the time the invasion went down. Or at least as far as we know since Dickhead cut the inspections off like a petulant, stupid child. But then no one found anything after the invasion either so all the points raised in your documents are moot. So, once again, be so good as to produce for us the January 1999 UN document alleging that Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. It is you saying it exists so show us--prove it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: Teribus Date: 23 Nov 07 - 02:21 AM "Unaccounted for" does ***not*** = "posession"..." Very true, and completely irrelevant with regard to Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687 and 1441. And with the mandate given to UNSCOM and latterly to UNMOVIC. One person and one person alone put Iraq in the position of having to prove a negative to the international community - that person's name was Saddam Hussein. One person and one person alone could have single-handedly prevented the invasion in March 2003 - that person's name was Saddam Hussein. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,282RA Date: 23 Nov 07 - 10:04 AM Teribus, Be so good as to produce for us the January 1999 UN document alleging that Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. It is you saying it exists so show us--prove it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly) From: GUEST,Wesley Date: 25 Apr 08 - 09:25 PM http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/index.html |
