BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Leadfingers
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 04:44 PM

100

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.