BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 01:00 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: 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: 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: 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: CarolC
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 12:21 PM

Okie dokie, artbrooks.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:01 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 12:53 PM

282RA FOR CONGRESS!


A

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.