I once read in the book, Psychology of Persuasion, about a technique asking someone to state an initially simple belief, then tying that simple belief to the belief you want them to have. If you believe A, and AB is somehow similar to A, then you must believe AB and subsequently B, right? It is amazing how far away B could be from someone’s belief system, if they previously stated they believed it (especially publicly), you can bet on human nature that person will stick to their original statements. The reason for this is a person’s need to appear consistent, whether to themselves or to others. Many people will go along with a poor course of action in order to avoid appearing inconsistent. It’s an effective sales trick.
It could also be why bad wars and bad politicians continue receiving core support. Some people may not be able to admit their original choice went wrong. Of course, I refer to the Iraq War and President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The tide is turning against our administration, with polls beginning to show overwhelming support for impeachments.
President Bush has proven numerous times that he is incompetent to lead our government. His approval rating is now at 25%. Injured Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, our nation’s heroes, have resorted to suing our government for not paying disability pay or providing adequate health treatments. Hurricane Katrina response, prescription drug package, No Child Left Behind, billions of dollars in oil company tax subsidies, heck the man cannot even spit a sentence out correctly.
However, his uncountable number of incompetencies do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. They merely embarrass Americans.
Previous U.S. Presidents have faced impeachment, but none until Bush involved actions that directly resulted in American deaths, and none until Bush were considered more than flimsy political attacks. Now we have a president who is alleged to have violated several parts of our constitution, reportedly calling our constitution “just a g-ddammed piece of paper” when questioned in a meeting with lawmakers.
This time it seems different. Many Americans are calling for the dual impeachment of both President George H.W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Many of the charges are clearly criminal, clearly violate the constitution which both Bush and Cheney swore to uphold, and many could rise to the threshold of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
Specifically, the most serious charges include
- Violating the National Security Act of 1947 by leaking classified information to reporters.
- Violating 18 USC 1001 by presenting false evidence to congress regarding Iraq WMD, conspiracy to present false evidence, and presenting false evidence about Iraq’s uranium fishing expedition in Niger.
- Violating 18 USC 1505 by concealing nature and existence of domestic spying programs.
- Violating our 4th Amendment by ordering domestic wiretaps without going through the established FISA procedure.
- Violating our 8th Amendment by ordering and/or clearing torture methods on suspects.
- Violating our 6th Amendment by detaining thousands of people at Guantanamo Bay without due process or effective representation.
- Violating the Geneva Convention with torture on captured prisoners and shipping prisoners to secret prisons.
- Violating the law hundreds of times with signing statements which appear to give the President authority to subjectively interpret and do the opposite of what the signed law intended.
There are probably others, these are just the ones that jumped out at me. In fact many people list many other problems with Bush, but I considered those to be more of Bush doing a poor job than being an impeachable offense.
If there were one or two, we would probably grumble and go on with our lives. Unfortunately there are several items here, and all of them pose very troubling questions about how our commander-in-chief has exerted his presidential power.
I resisted publishing this article for months now. I only publish now because there are two separate impeachment resolutions in congress, at last count 14 congressmen have signed onto the bills, and polls are showing 75% of Americans are dissatisfied with our president and over half of Americans favor impeachment.
It appears the impeachment movement is reaching a crescendo, and the topic is absolutely appropriate for serious discussion. Of course, this article is published near the area where Bush received the most votes in the United States (Madison County).
So what do you think?
Popularity: 15%
Related posts:
It WAS all he had to say about it!
:@:)
Loading ...
{ 277 comments… read them below or add one }
I made clear before that I support dual impeachment of both Bush and Cheney, try them both at the same time and hold the impeachment votes immediately one after the other, separated only by minutes. The reason for this is that you know Cheney will pardon Bush immediately.
Would you support impeachment if these actions were taken by bill clinton? What if they were taken by hillary clinton? I hope we can separate the person from the crimes.
I’m all for impeaching Bush! I have been for the past 4 years now! He’s a menace to society and has completely ruined the trust and faith the rest of the world had in us. He’s got the mentality of a 6th grader and he can’t even speak to the American public without making himself look like a complete idiot! We impeach President Clinton for lying about having sex with a skank (I would have too if it was with Monica Lewinsky!), yet President Bush has totally abused his powers as president and has brought this country to the brink of disaster! Wake up people and wipe the oil out of your eyes! This president needs to be impeached NOW!
I appreciate your comment, but I would hate to see this turn into a Bush-Bash-Fest. Personal feelings and politics aside, I really just want to see a discussion on the merits of impeachable offenses. I think that is the only way we can keep it civilized. Unless you think his personal failings merit impeachment, but I do not think they do.
What about the points of law that Bush is alleged to have violated?
There may be more. Yesterday Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez dug himself in deeper by A) revealing too much sensitive information in a hearing and B) revealing there were other secret programs that some key senators were supposed to be briefed on but were not.
Now Bush is in the awkward position of saying his AG lied to Congress or admitting there were other illegal operations conducted. One could cause the AG to get closer out the door, the other could be grounds for another impeachable offense.
It’s not about personal feelings, although I do feel strongly about this. But you just put a huge laundry list of offenses up there. How many more reasons do we need?
One word…. Patriot Act!
(ok 2)
I think he deserves impeachment but I also think that this close to an election it would just be pointless because by the time Congress, who moves slower than a snail, got it done he’d be nearly out of office. The impeachment should have come two years ago when it became painfully obvious that Iraq was a boondoggle and that there never were any WMD’s.
The democrats are better off at this point just taking the high road rather than drag the country through a lengthy impeachment that would probably fail anyway.
Past impeachments have only taken a few months. I have heard this impeachment could take weeks or even days due to existing video evidence. Do we give him a free pass for his remaining 18 months because we cannot be troubled to do something quickly enough?
I think we can all agree that Bush has kept many things shrouded in secrecy, whether you agree or not with the reasons for the secrecy. Half of these charges were things that came out of that secrecy.
The question is also how many other potentially illegal activities has Bush and team done that we do not know about yet?
I think not impeaching Bush and Cheney sends the signal that we do not value our own constitution and freedom. I think not impeaching implies to Bush and the next president that it is okay to do these things and more.
The bar has been lowered by Bush, how much lower will the next president feel they can take it because of our apathy?
Why bother with any elections or government at all if we will not enforce the laws in place?
I am not much of an expert on politcal issues, and frankly, I am abiout ready to move to the Alaskan bush because I am sick of it all — but seriously, how many items on that list really SOUND bad, but are actually legal in emeregcny situations when we are involved in a war? I am not excusing any of it. I am just saying that if all these “crimes” were comitted — and they were actually crimes — then charge the man. Don’t call something a crime if its not. The terror attacks of Sept 11 2001were really now, quite some time ago. Since then we have had many years — the Olympics, Superbowls, Parades, Holidays, and many, many large events at which Americans gathered and could have been wiped out in mass. It hasn’t happend. AMAZINGLY it hasn’t happend. If you had tole me on Sept. 12 2001 that by July 2007 we would not have had a single new sucessful attack perpetrated by these animals on American soil I would have laughed in your face. How many of the “crimes” on that list helped keep the country safer and allowed us to get to July 2007 without a serious situation? How many things on that list are actually legitimate CRIMES not covered by some other law related to executive power during war or any other time for that matter? I don’t know. And if you don’t, then you should not comment.
Machiavellianism: the end justifies the means.
The end result justifies evil methods.
Evil is okay if there is a good outcome.
The way you play is not as important as winning.
“Si guarde el fena” We must look to the future.
But another part of looking to the future, to the end result, is how we got there. What values have we lost along the way? What values have we taught future generations are acceptable?
If we are the greatest nation on Earth, why can we not do it the right way? Why must we sink to the levels of those we oppose?
After 9-11, we had most of the world’s support behind us. Each day/week/month/year, we lose more support from the world’s community. I am very much in favor of impeaching the Bush/Cheney team. During the debates prior to Bush being elected, I felt they were both war mongers and they have proven me right. To me, the reasons for going into Iraq didn’t make a lot of sense. Invade a country where the majority of the population was under 18? Yes, Hussein needed to be taken out, but what about the others who were committing atrocities against their people? John Taylor for one. But wait — there wasn’t oil involved. Silly me. The way our returning disabled vets are being treated is an embarrasment and a disgrace.
When you put the infractions of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in a list as you did, it does not speak well for our judicial system or our country. But I guess having sex in the oval office is worse than violating our constitution and sending our young people to their death.
Joe, I am sorry but you have been hanging out on Daily Kos site too much again.
By your own reasoning, we should have impeached FDR as well for creating war time boards to censor information on the war effort, interning Japanese Americans, for allowing Pearl Harbor to occur with fore knowledge, etc. (BTW FDR’s actions also had the consequence of American deaths)Add Lincoln to the list for suspending Habeus Corpus and spying on the South.
Americans are truly ungrateful for all the abundance we have and for the men and women fighting a war to keep us safe here. You say, well let’s just do it the right way…we are the greatest country in the world. Sure, that is well and good on paper. But stop to look at the position the President has been in: Thousands of Americans murdered, others threatened, Al-Qaeda cells in the US, i.e. remember Buffalo, New York, and a growing Islamic Fascist presence around the globe.
Do you just sit on your haunches and hide your head in the sand? This is like saying we should have taken the time to be nice to criminals and maybe they wouldn’t have broken into our homes or raped our women and children. We can’t even build a border fence due to environmental concerns about upsetting a species of frogs. It amazes me that the President was able to move the bureaucracy and agencies like the CIA, FBI, NSA to cooperate more than they did before.
You can criticize Bush for being a fascist or criminal but stop and think about the overall picture: you are safe and sound, the country has not been attacked in 6 years, and America is not in decline as the media would have you believe. These stories about the Geneva Convention are baloney. How can you be subject to Geneva Convention if you don’t wear a uniform? GUESS WHAT-YOU CAN’T. But the media won’t tell you that! It is an inconvenient truth. The also don’t get it…the Constitution does not apply to enemy combatants overseas. You wanna play nice with the terrorists and not interrogate them? Would you feel the same way if they had information that could stop an attack? Or is that just another inconvienient matter at hand. Joe, you spent time in the military. Using force is all these guys understand. You can’t talk to these people. They intend on desecrating and destroying our way of life. If you spend all your time on Daily Kos and lap up the garbage they spew out then I can see why you would write such a spoiled and distasteful story.
My challenge to you is to write a story from a different point of view that includes how the country has reacted in times of war–and how the country has prospered because it’s leaders made decisions that were in keeping with preserving this Republic. Wanting to impeach Bush would be laughable if not so serious. But then again, isn’t that what this country does best…it turns on those that defend it (Vietnam ring a bell with anyone). You know, all those soldiers were just baby killers back then. John Kerry says our modern day soldiers are just out breaking in and terrorizing women and children. And of course, Bush is the biggest terrorizer of all!
The real question being missed here is whether Americans want liberty or security? It is a legitimate question to ask. However, in a time of war and IT IS WAR…naturally security wins out. Do you honestly belief that Bush is not looking out for the best interests of the United States? What possible political motive could he earn personally or for his party with all this mess of invading Iraq. Think about it? What does he have to gain?
The answer is absolutely nothing. However, the country stands to gain by standing strong and resolute against those persons that would shut down this web site and probably torture and/or kill all of those that participate here. It is too easy to clamor for impeachment. The harder path is to decide how we continue to fight against radical islam–and win the fight on many fronts. We are not sinking to the levels of those we oppose. We are fighting to win. However, some of us are fighting to lose this war and have it brought home to our streets. Spend more time talking about things that matter. Impeachment is just a code word that was used by the left and right for political gain. This is should not be about politics. It is about our survival.
Mike, well said…
I like the challenge to Joe to come up with an article that has real meaning.
In your whole diatribe, I see only one objective response to the question posed. The point about Geneva Conventions only applying to soldiers of a national army. Has the Supreme Court taken that up yet, or is it still working it’s way through? Has the U.N. or another international judicial body reviewed that legal question yet?
Beyond that, you’ve completely missed the point. I am not surprised, either. It only took a few comments to illustrate what Bush defenders tend to do, evade the question and challenge the integrity of anyone who questions Bush.
I have written hundreds of articles here on topics I have been interested in. I have encouraged others to submit articles they want published. I have only blocked 3 articles: 2 from people that got banned site-wide, and 1 which was actually good but on religion and it was at the time we were talking about not doing that anymore.
I will write what I want to. I challenge you back to submit your own article on the topic you are interested in seeing. community resident, meaning is in the eye of the beholder, where is your submitted article?
So again, what about the points made? If I went to court on several legal charges, what would be thought if I tried distracting arguments? The judge would order me to address the charges at hand and not go off track.
Believe it or not, I cut back a lot of what I was going to publish. I read through it, thinking what some of my critics would say, and tried to keep the topic just on the impeachable offenses. I did that for you. The least you can do is respond directly without evasion and trying to impugn my integrity.
It’s about time the people of this country wake up & see what Bush/Cheney have done to the “rule of law.” In the name of the War on Terror, they have tried to do away with some of the core principals of our republic. I see that some people are still willing to let them rule by fear instead of law, but at least people are talking impeachment now more than ever.
And it’s not the politicians talking about it this time-Pelosi & Conyers have been dragging their feet over the issue since the election easily showed them that this is what the majority wants. Americans are sick & tired of the “honorability & respectability” Bush has brought to the White House. Give me a real man who wants a BJ every now and then, rather than the warmonger we have now!
Make no mistake, as long as the Republicans are in power we will always be in a War on Terror. It will never stop, & our civil liberties will never be restored. Remember the premise of “1984″ was that the nation must always be at war, in order to control the people. The War on Terror is perfect for that job, don’tcha think?
Excellent rebuttal on post 12 Joe.
I appreciate the posts you write and if I enjoy or am interested in the topic I post my thoughts and/or feelings. If not I move on and don’t let it bother me. I think that’s what others should do if their not interested in a certain topic. But it seems they’d rather moan and complain about it instead.
Oh well.
Thanks anyways!
Joe, can I ask you this, what is the good that will come of an impeachment at this time?
How is it going to help the American people at this time and is that the only answer with all that has been going on in our country and the world?
The reason I ask is because a proposal such as this warrants an understandable outcome or replacement plan, don’t you think?
Excellent question community resident.
Nixon’s impeachment was before my time, but I hope some of the folks who remember can describe some of those discussions. I heard that was a big discussion at the time, many people were worried about greater damage to our country from the impeachment than from upholding the law.
Of course, historically, upholding the law and our democratic principles won out.
Anyone from that time recall those discussions?
You make a good point community resident, but I think Joe already answered that by stating…..what does it say to the rest of the world when we let Bush/Cheney get away with these atrocities? Wouldn’t it be better to impeach them and show the world that the American public is still in charge of it’s government. Or do we continue to sit idley by and not do anything about it. Just because elections are next year?
One of the reasons I ask is because I doubt many citizens think beyond the initial impeachment and that if it happens right away they believe it would solve all the current governmental problems.
And how do you explain the fact that congress has less support and is less popular, according to the polls, than the President?
By impeaching one man out of office, what happens to the rest of the government officials who may be breaking laws as well?
I see, and that’s a good point that life is not perfect after an impeachment. I heard the whole country was in a kind of funk during the 70’s after Nixon.
One reason Congress could have even less approval is because voters gave the Democrats a majority to get us out of Iraq and they have failed to do so. Many people wanted Bush impeachment hearings to have started already, and Pelosi lost her will.
What happened after Nixon and Clinton? The appropriate people who were doing wrong were investigated individually to whatever ends they met. The same would happen after a Bush or Bush/Cheney impeachment.
In fact we would probably see more justice done after an impeachment. Bush would not be able to commute his buddys’ prison sentences, and the rule of law would be shown that it can be enforced. Maybe.
So what about the allegation of “Violating our 4th Amendment by ordering domestic wiretaps without going through the established FISA procedure.”
The president had the method to do these wiretaps, and he chose to ignore them. Impeachable offense?
So, if we impeach the dummy and the ventriloquist, who do we get as president…Pelosi?
I can’t help but think that if we throw the bastards out the world will think we have regained some semblance of sanity and that cooler minds have at last prevailed in this country.
Mike, I have to disagree with you on this one. I agree with Congressman (R-Tex) Ron Paul’s assessment that 9/11 may not have happened if we had not had troops on Saudi soil. Bin Laden’s followers martyred themselves by fanatical suicide attacks in an effort to punish us infidels for our Judeo/Christian presence in their holy land.
Yes, Mike, we are the greatest country in the world but we are too fat and lazy to develope the necessary technologies that would free us from the addiction to Middle-East oil. It is easier to just send our young men and women to war to protect those strategic oil supplies. Gunboat diplomacy will always be our calling card when the only thing we have for export is our military might and our ability to wage war. What happened to the days when we brought our best minds together to solve problems similar to those we are now facing?
Perhaps we first need someone in government who will admit that our troops are dying to protect our oil supply. If the Australian Defense Minister can admit that they are in Iraq to guarantee access to oil…then why can’t someone of equal status in our own country admit the same?
The best way to bring our kids home from that war is to replace the architects of that conflict and show the world that we aren’t the warmongoring lunatics that we now appear to be.
…just be clear, by “impeachment” are you referring to articles of impeachment, like Clinton (for perjuring himself) or actual removal from office? Even Nixon wasn’t removed from office, remember, he resigned…
I am no Bush fan, believe me, but what about Congress’ actions or lack thereof??? the President cannot declare war; only Congress can and they did; why aren’t our other elected representatives bearing some of the blame for Iraq?????
One word. YES.
He has so many things to hide, he doesn’t want anyone to say anything.
I personally don’t like the government listening to my phone conversations.
I don’t want to upset anyone, but…it’s about time people in Eastern Idaho realize how horrible he is.
I didn’t vote for him the first time, or the second time.
If anyone stands up for Bush, I want to know WHAT he has done for this country making him so special?
I feel better about the war when he sends his little alcoholic brats to Iraq.
I feel better when the rest of the world doesn’t hate us.
Let’s get rid of the greater evil first, Karl Rove.
Something I’d like some Bush supporters like Mike to answer:
1) How many WMD’s have we found?
2) How many ties to 9/11 did Saddam Hussein have?
3) How many 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq?
I’ll save the trouble and answer all of them with one word – ZERO.
You see, people like Mike can talk in vague generalities and distractions like security. But people like Mike ignore the truth and the truth is the reason for impeachment is not security, rather the issue is Iraq and the fact that Bush had us invade a country for BS reasons. Bush used 9/11 and WMD’s as justifications yet those are clearly false.
I don’t support impeachment simply because it would fail.
And if I had my way Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, and other key figures in his administration would be on trial for war crimes in the world court for attacking a sovereign nation without justified cause.
P.S. I fully supported Bush in attacking Afghanistan. You see there was this thing called the Taliban there that was funding some guy Bush calls “irrelevant” and the rest of call Osama Bin Laden. A Taliban that was funding Al Quaeda unlike Saddam Hussein who told them to get the hell out of his country (because he had his own pet terrorists groups – I’ve never said Saddam is a good person – he just hadn’t attacked the US and wasn’t about to). So its not about sitting with heads in the sand. Its about actually fighting the war on terror instead of fighting a war for oil, daddy’s honor, and distracting the public from Mr Irrelevant Bin Laden.
P.P.S. I await the “But Hilary voted to attack Iraq” type of argument. Yes she did because she got suckered along with everyone with Bush’s doctored evidenced. Shame on all of us for believing Bush’s lies.
If anyone reads Confessions of an Economic Hitman you will understand the awkward situation with the Saudi terrorists and why we will not attack Saudi Arabia.
no one really: yes, I mean articles of impeachment like Clinton. I realize Nixon was not actually impeached by the House or tried by the Sentate, but because the articles passed the House Judiciary committee and the it was certain he would be impeached, Nixon effectively had the same experience as an impeachment. I think what the country went through with Nixon was about the same as if he had been fully impeached.
I’ve heard the point about “Congress voted for the war” and that is addressed by the charge “Violating 18 USC 1001 by presenting false evidence to congress regarding Iraq WMD, conspiracy to present false evidence, and presenting false evidence about Iraq’s uranium fishing expedition in Niger.”
I too was dumbfounded when Colin Powell made his presentation to the U.N. I figured I had it wrong and the Bush team must have had it right.
It was only after no WMD’s were found, and Colin Powell and several others revealed the intelligence and evidence had been cooked that we realize we have been had by Bush/Cheney.
BTW, the conspiracy charge relates to the Downing Street Memo, as I understand it, perhaps there is more to it.
..so, you are saying that Congress is so easily led and so dumb, so lacking in their own convictions, that the evil “genius” George Bush led them to declare war????
I don’t buy that…I don’t like Bush but I think Congress bears an equal or greater responsibility for the war……….so shouldn’t we impeach all the members of Congress who resolved to go to war with Iraq???
Moreover, re: the charges about firing the US attorneys that someone mentioned: how many U.S. Attorneys did Janet Reno fire on order of Bill Clinton??? Oh, that’s right: 93!!!!!!!!!!!
I dislike Bush; but, folks, let’s spread the blame around and be fair, shall we???
I don’t know that they are so dumb, but correct me if I am wrong in thinking the FBI and CIA fall under executive branch jurisdiction / management?
I think only the President can see the raw intelligence, I do not think that congress can see the raw intelligence. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Congress essentially has to trust what the President presents, right? I suppose they can call in the intelligence officers to ask if everything is true, but that takes even more time and hearings.
I do not think the attorney firings are impeachable offenses.
It would be refreshing if that when something was said about Bush that Clinton wasn’t brought up. Do you suppose that this is because people can’t find anything positive to say about Bush? Clinton’s deeds or misdeeds have nothing to do with our present situation. Congress isn’t entirely blameless in our current situation.
The fact that there was such an “upheaval” in the last election showed that the majority of the population also felt this way. However I’m disappointed at their lack of action. I do what I can at the polls, but being from Idaho it is sometimes a losing battle, but I will keep trying. Many of us grew up with a popular saying from our parents and grandparents: A New Broom Sweeps Clean.
Its called the playing the Clinton Card. When you can’t defend Bush you just sling the mud by bringing up something Clinton did as if two wrongs somehow make a right.
I agree that bringing up Clinton is really getting old. It just deflects attention from the issue. Just like saying that Congress is to blame for authorizing Bush to go to war. They trusted him. Could you imagine how hard it would be to ever get anything done if the legislative and executive branches didn’t trust each other to a degree? Granted, the trust is probably less now than ever, and that is a tragedy. But blaming Congress when Bush deliberately misled them is only blaming the victim. Blaming the victim is a pathetic excuse for a discussion.
I think the Clinton impeachment can be relevant to this discussion insofar as the procedures and methods. I think it’s distracting to whine about Clinton beating the charges or other “wish this had happened”s. It is as distracting as bashing Bush or trying to shift blame to other people.
The CIA website confirms they “exist principally to serve the needs of the executive authority” though they claim they “also make… a large part of its output available to the legislative branch.”
However, scope and depth of intelligence shared with Congress has never been defined or specified, so it is difficult if not impossible to know how much of our total intelligence picture that Congress had. Wasn’t it CIA Director George Tenet who called Iraq WMD’s a “slam dunk case”? Since then we have learned there was much disagreement over the intelligence estimate, and that the “right” intelligence was cherry picked by Bush and/or Cheney.
Again, this is not to slam their methods, it is to point to objectively impeachable offenses that Bush/Cheney have committed.
Another clue that Congress probably did not have the full Iraq picture was the six years of majority Republican rule in Congress. I do not think anyone can deny that the Republican majority and the Bush White House scratched each other’s backs a lot over those six years. Newt Gingrich complained that Bush did not have to sign everything the Congress gave him. Many think that Bush did this so Congress would rubber stamp everything Bush was doing and not dig too deeply into his claims.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/intro.htm
Wait a minute: I am only bringing up Clinton because he, too, was impeached yet not removed from office: what is the plan for Bush??? If you will recall that was my question; no Clinton “bashing”, just discussing impeachment of presidents…. I also mentioned Nixon and will throw in Andrew Johnson, our only kicked-ou-of-office President as a bonus ha ha…
Second, the “last election”…umm, Kerry lost, decidedly. No real “upheaval” that I recall.
Third, I think maybe I am not making my point clear. I dislike Bush as well as the next person (apparently everyone on this site ha ha)…but, my point is and remains: was Congress, with all the resources, aides, access to information at their disposal, so easily led that Bush, who everyone says is an idiot, was able to lead them down the primrose path???
All I am saying is that maybe the real story is more complicated; maybe everyone, including Congress was justifiably enraged by 9/11 and also looking for somewhere to place blame when they declared war …..it is too easy for everyone to keep saying “Bush lied and poor, easily decieved Congress bought it”.
Regarding Doug’s post in #24:
People think of WMD’s in terms of only nuclear weapons. How many mass graves did they find of Kurds who were killed with chemical weapons? Too many. Hundreds of thousands of Kurdish people were exterminated by Saddam. Sadaam was attacking Iran with WMD Chemical Stockpiles too. Any doubt he would use them against the United States in a prolonged conflict? This is an often missed point by the media…there were caches of WMD’s just not nuclear that were found. A chemical weapon can kill you just as much as a nuke.
As for your second point, it is clear from CIA estimates that Iraqi Intelligence was collaborating with Al Qaeda interests in sharing and gleaning intelligence from each other. I will grant that on it’s face Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. However, much like present day Syria which also has a Bathist type government-and is now supporting Al Qaeda-Iraq was prepared to do the same. Think about it: Iraq and Syria are primarily over 80% Sunni. Al Qaeda is not Sunni or Shiite. They are primarily Islamic Wahhabists.
A little history lesson about past intentions of Wahhabists (Al Qaeda types) to gain power in Iraq is useful here:
The Saudi Arabian kingdom’s founder, King Abdel-Aziz bin Abdel-Rehman, successfully quashed the Ikhwan movement (not to be confused with the Muslim Brotherhood) when it began to threaten the interests of the state. The militant Wahhabi movement played a major role in King Abdel-Aziz’s attempts to conquer most of modern-day Saudi Arabia in the early 1900s. But when the group wanted to expand its operations into Iraq (then under British control)-a move that threatened the interest of the king’s British allies-and when it wanted to impose its own brand of Islamic law in the kingdom, King Abdel-Aziz had its members annihilated. Many decades later, in 1979, when the Kaba in Mecca was taken over by a militant Wahhabi group led by Juhayman al-Utaibi, the Saudis were again able to act against the group, even storming the Kaba to flush out the militants. Many of the hijackers from 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia–granted they were not Iraqi’s but putting political boundaries aside, whether the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia or Iraq makes no difference from the stand point whether to invade or not. What is clear is that Sadaam’s government was in bed with the Wahhabists as is the present government of Syria because they align more closely in belief than they do with Shiite dominated governments, i.e. Iran.
To leave Sadaam’s Bathist party in place was aiken to leaving the fox in the chicken coop hoping the fox wouldn’t do any damage. Doug, this soverign nation that you talk about was a state sponsor of terror against it’s people and the region in general–and yes, against Saudi Arabia…and they were concerned that Sadaam would threaten their oil through both direct and indirect means of the Wahhabi movement.
I think it is interesting that so many people look at this issue in terms of Bush not telling the truth when the truth is out there for everyone to see. I will state that the White House has done a terrible job communicating this to the American people. So many folks don’t wish to understand the true history of the region and the alliances in place. It is complex. I suppose that most Americans prefer to watch American Idol and forget about the rest. The old addage: throw the bums out takes center stage.
Everybody here wants to impeach…well, that is your perogative. However, I guarantee you that the next President will be up wringing their hands trying to figure out how to fight these groups as much as George Bush has had to. The real debate should be to discuss and learn from both the success and mistakes this president has made and not repeat the same the next 4 years. I want the next president, Democrat or Republican, to succeed and defeat the Islamic fascists. People make fun of George Bush when he says if we don’t defeat the Fascists over there they will follow us home. Recognize from history that this is indeed the case. Their desire to form a one-world califate is their stated and intended path. It does not stop at the borders of the Middle East. So, while ya’ll are arguing about impeachment take a moment and reflect on the stakes here. It doesn’t get anymore serious than it is right now. The political landscape will change again when another attack happens in this country. So, when the next President does what Bush has done to protect the United States I wonder if there will be all the same cries of impeachment? Strangely, I think not. This has been a ‘hate bush’ thread. Google the term ECHELON and read up on it. This system of spying has been in place since after WWII. Democratic and Republican Presidents have presided over it’s growth for decades. So, blame Bush all you want but he is using established resources to protect this country from people who want to kill us. I don’t have a problem with that. Apparently guys like John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton didn’t either. But hey, just blame Bush it will help you sleep better at night.
“This is an often missed point by the media … there were caches of WMD’s just not nuclear that were found. A chemical weapon can kill you just as much as a nuke.”
This is an often mistaken point! There were no chemical weapons found in Iraq. The lady in charge admitted about a year after our invasion that she did not record destroying them because she had dumped them outside the gates of one of Saddam’s palaces, and she did not want to admit it to him. Believe her story or not, but there were no chemical weapons found. If you dispute this fact, please provide evidence when and where they were found.
Yes Saddam had WMD’s that Rumsfeld arranged for him in the 80’s, but he did not have any when we invaded.
The intelligence community was in strong disagreement over this point, but Bush presented it as though they all agreed. That is why the charge of manipulating intelligence to get us into a war is one article of impeachment. Essentially the charge is that Bush lied, Americans died, and now he must pay for his crime.
The terrorists have not restricted our freedoms or violated our rights. Bush has.
I’ve read a couple comments that really do discuss the articles of impeachment, but mostly I am reading comments that try to distract by pointing to historical viewpoints (which are not complete) and past presidents and unknown dangers.
These are not reasons to impeach or not. They are merely distractions from the impeachment discussion.
Bush admitted flat out that he violated the 4th amendment by circumventing the FISA court.
That is a blatant violation of the constitution he swore to uphold. Now are you going to equivocate his crime by saying the end justified the means, or are you going to support upholding our laws?
If he gets away with violating our laws in these manners, what is to prevent him or the next president from violating other laws, say our freedom of religion, speech, or right to bear arms?
How many laws must the president break before his core supporters admit cannot support him anymore?
To be a weapon of mass destruction the weapon must be capable of causing mass destruction. Its kind of obvious isn’t it. Yet neocon apologists can’t seem to understand that.
They dredge up remanants of stuff from the 80’s that we gave to them as proof. We all know Iraq HAD chemical weapons at one time. But after the first war all that stuff went bye bye. Oh sure, here and there you fight find rotted remains of a shell (like the ones found a year or so ago that neocons briefly trumpeted as proof while neglecting the fact they weren’t useable).
And Congress does not have access to the same information the president does. Important information goes to the president first and is then disseminated. Bush and his masters chose what to forward on and what to hide. The forwarded anything that might give some credence to their wild hopes of WMD’s so they’d have an excuse to invade and ignored the majority of the evidence pointing out that there were none. Oh sure Saddam wanted WMD’s. I want a million dollars. Doesn’t mean either of us actually have what we wanted.
I agree with Joe but just impeach Bush and let Dick take over, the stress will over work his defibrilator battery and he’ll go in often for a re-charge unless they hook him up to a nuclear reactor then he’ll be “Super Dick”. Forget the WMD’s, War on Terrorism, the reason Frip and Frap invaded Iraq in the first place is OIL!, Larry Craig pretty much admitted that point the other day. Congress, both houses, Republican and Democrat, know thats why we went into Iraq but none of them have the integrity to say it much less do anything about it. Cheney, the Real Decider, met with the House of Faud too many times before and continued to do so. Both Bush and Cheney are made of oil, Daddy Bush did it in the first Gulf War then when things went bad for Junior he sent in the Baker/Hamilton bunch to help Junior but Junior couldn’t see the gift he was handed. Something of concern, theres still another Bush out there that could become President.
Joe, I would like to have some more substance to these allegations. Is there a site you took these from that gives more details:
Violating the National Security Act of 1947 by leaking classified information to reporters.
Violating 18 USC 1001 by presenting false evidence to congress regarding Iraq WMD, conspiracy to present false evidence, and presenting false evidence about Iraq’s uranium fishing expedition in Niger.
Check out this link from the United Nations UNMOVIC group. It addresses Iraq’s WMD’s-chemical (CW)and biological (BW)and missle technology. BTW we forget some history here (which Joe indicated was not appropriate to cite because it is incomplete). It is a historical fact that UN inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in late 1998 to late 2002. This was yet another reason Iraq was invaded and this “minor” point is forgotten.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/unmovic-udi-working-doc_6%20march03.pdf
Page 3 addresses statements from Iraqi military leaders justifying the need for WMDs due to Israeli and Iranian threats. Check out page 8 for BW, bottom page 11 for CW agents produced, bottom page 14 for concurrent civilian technological and scientific abilities to produce CW and BW. Page 15 addresses expanded surges in missile technology. Page 41 addresses scud missile warheads fitted for WMD-50 CW and 25 BW warheads. Page 47 addresses R-400 bombs fitted with BW gasses like Sarin. The overarching theme in this report is Iraqi declarations after late 2002 that they were not involved in and proscribed manufacture of WMD from 1998 to 2002. Numerous findings did not back up Iraqi claims. This UN report is the declassified version. They state they left out sensitive information. What is in the report is a collection of intelligence relied upon by the United States, in part to justify invasion. So, should we nail the UN now too. They are not exactly a toaty for Bush are they?
I would like some more substance to this allegation:
Violating 18 USC 1505 by concealing nature and existence of domestic spying programs.
Violating our 4th Amendment by ordering domestic wiretaps without going through the established FISA procedure.
Joe, you stated, “Bush admitted flat out that he violated the 4th amendment by circumventing the FISA court.” When and where did this occur. THe government recently prevailed in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on this very issue. There was no admission of violation of the 4th Amendment. In fact, the 4th Amendment did not apply because the Echelon program I referenced earlier was used to intercept calls coming into the United States from overseas by persons on known terrorist watch lists. The calls were monitored overseas by Echelon and other foreign governments. There is no 4th Amendment violation by this use of this technology. Numerous Court rulings have affirmed this. So, if you don’t like it-change the law. Otherwise, like liberals are so fond of saying “The Court has spoken”. The FISA provisions only come into play in domestic situations monitoring calls that originate within the United States.
Another “minor” point not spelled out or understoof by the media.
Violating our 8th Amendment by ordering and/or clearing torture methods on suspects. Are you referring to Abu Grahib? Or just the CIA methods of interrogation. Problem here: captured terrorist says he was tortured. Gonna believe him? Waterboarding a problem? I don’t think so. The 8th Amendment is the last refuge of desperate folks that can’t argue the merits. We want protection. We demand protection. We want our officials to get info. out of terrorists and prevent innocent deaths both civilian and military…yet we are shocked to learn how they do it? Come on, get real and understand that no one is dying in custody. If you want to play nice with terrorists then you will get nothing out of them. Captured Al Qaeda training handbooks have sections on what to do or say when captured and interrogated. It also talks about playing up Geneva Convention Protections….which we covered is not applicable because they are not in a uniform. This is why they earn the title enemy combatants and have less rights than prisoners of war. Not our rules–these are from the Geneva Accords.
Violating our 6th Amendment by detaining thousands of people at Guantanamo Bay without due process or effective representation.
Joe, you find this immpeachable? What about FDR? No clamor against him for interning Japanese Americans? The Courts have forced some changes in the military tribunal system, but there are very limited 6th Amendment protections here. Even the Courts refused to release these guys. They simply don’t have the same rights as normal Americans.
Violating the law hundreds of times with signing statements which appear to give the President authority to subjectively interpret and do the opposite of what the signed law intended. Joe, are you referring to Executive Orders here? Need some more definition of what you mean.
So, basically, impeach the President for protecting the United States? As laughable and ridiculous as impeaching Clinton for Lewinsky-even if he did lie about it.
My overall point is that we don’t pay attention to history. We don’t pay attention to detail. And if our media can’t spit it out in a 10 second sound bite they don’t explain the entire circumstances because it is either too hard for them to understand or they have this inkling that the American public can’t or won’t bother to listen to it either.
Impeachment is being pushed by a few radical congressmen who are exploiting the issue to look good to their constituents. As for polls that 75% support impeachment, that is near impossible. Maybe 75% of some liberal blog. Heck, we can’t get 75% or more to agree on most anything. I would love to see the source and see how the question(s) were asked in this poll. Overall, impeachment is a loser issue that is only cared about by nut jobs like Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink. This is not an issue that even most independents care about.
Place extra taxes on those who voted for President Bush and now pretend they didn’t. Make those pay for their mistakes.
I’m in favor of sitting back and waiting for the Tacumsah Curse to take him to hell.
Mike…Would more Iraqi people have died had we left Iraq a week or two after Saddam was captured rather than staying and trying to force a democracy on them (and seeing more than 700,000 of their people die for our efforts)? It seems to me that their own political power bases would naturally sort out winners and loser in that struggle, regardless of our presence there and perhaps with less loss of life.
Our job was done once Saddam was no longer a threat to the oil stability of the region. Our military occupation of that part of the world can only incite further hatred for us Infidels.
This civil war we find ourselves in the middle of should not be decided by our presence there, it should be decided by the Sunnis and Shia (which seems to me to be as much a class struggle as a conflict amongst religious sects). The oil will still flow to us regardless of the victors, Shia, Sunni or Wahhabists and hopefully it will be a less volatile region than when Saddam was in power no matter which faction comes out on top.
We are 5% of the world’s population and we consume 25% of it’s oil. It’s high time we went on a diet. When we invade sovereign nations (to preserve our gluttonous, oil-addicted lifestyle) we are nothing more than a pariah in the world.
We used bases in Saudi Arabia, at the behest of Saudi royalty, to drive Saddam out of Kuwait and quell Saudi fears that they were next, but remember it was Saudi Muslim extremists who flew those planes at us on 9/11. Saudi Arabia’s home grown Muslim extremists attacked us for our military presence on their sacred soil and not so much for our “decadent” lifestyles.
It seems that we have ample reason to throw Bush and Cheney out and in so doing show the rest of the world that few of us support their regime and military occupation of a country (Iraq) that didn’t attack us. I’m not sure this country can survive another year and a half under their leadership.
I have a son in Iraq. Serving his second tour. They are still finding caches of weapons. He writes that the people there, and he was out in the farmside, only want to farm and live their lives. They like the American’s but would really like to get back to a ‘normal’ way of life.
That said….. What has Bush done for this country? Our unemployment rate is down to 5%. The economy is up.
Wars don’t start overnight and they can’t be ended in a heartbeat. 9-11 should never be thought of as…. a distant memory.
I think we all need to go take a history/government class and remember just how dependent every country is on the others. The US has it’s fingers in a lot of other countries pots and they in ours. None of us would survive without the alliances and trades that we have with each other.
Meso,
I was understanding your comments up until the last paragraph. You seemed to have a good understanding of some points. I can appreciate your comment about not wanting us in the middle of a civil war. It is not an envious position to be in.
However, when you state, “It seems that we have ample reason to throw Bush and Cheney out and in so doing show the rest of the world that few of us support their regime and military occupation of a country (Iraq) that didn’t attack us. I’m not sure this country can survive another year and a half under their leadership”…
are you suggesting that by impeaching Bush we are currying favor or trying to impress someone or some group? If so, are you referring to the Jihadists? Would this be a ‘peace’ offering so they won’t attack us? Please clarify. Thanks.
Anonymouse…
Two and a half centuries ago, England had her fingers in our pots and with occupation troops on our soil to protect her “right” to our raw materials. What we called American patriots the English called terrorists or insurgents when this country fought to free itself from that foreign domination.
It’s fine to make alliances and trading partners in the world but not when you have to quarter troops on the soil of those resource-wealthy nations in order to secure your own economic survival and prolong your addiction to, in this case, their oil.
I hope your son comes home safe and sound from that conflict, those troops deserve our utmost respect for the job they have been asked to perform. But yes, it’s time to bring them home, and if that can only be done by impeaching the architects of that conflict, then the sooner the better. We need to send a message to the rest of the world that saner heads have prevailed in this country and we have taken back our government.
Remember, it wasn’t the Iraqis who precipitated 9/11 but they are showing the same fanatic zeal in their suicide attacks on our occupation troops that the Saudi plane hijackers did when they flew into the twin towers and the Pentagon, and yes, those images are ever present in the memories of most of us.
Mike,
I’m not suggesting a Neville Chamberlain approach to this dilemna and an acquiescence to the Jihadists. I am simply trying to equate our presence there to that of imperialist nations down through history. How long can we remain the bully on the block before we see the rest of the world unite against us?
It now appears that Bush is favoring the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia to be the heirs to Iraqi oil fields when we pull out. http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_plans_massive_arms_deal_for_0727.html
Did he forget it was Saudi Muslim extremists who attacked us on 9/11? We shouldn’t be favoring either side in this conflict on who will control the oil fields in that part of the world…we should let the chips fall where they may and just get out!
I think it is an unfair characterization to state that because the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi born that Saudi Arabia was/is to blame. It would be just as unfair if they were Iraqi born to blame Iraq.
A more important distinction is that they were Wahhabists…not Sunni’s. The Saudi Arabian government is Sunni. No doubt, they want to see a Sunni government in place in Iraq–not the current Shiite government. This is what is fueling fears–and probably rightly so–that Saudi’s are engaging in sabotage of the Iraqi government. Interestingly, there is ample evidence the Saudi’s have been bankrolling other jihadist elements in Syria, Jordan, and even Lebanon. The Saudi’s have done this in the old adage…best to keep your enemies close to you. The Saudi government has been very successful in fighting jihadists because they knew who they were due to funding these groups! They tried to appease Bin Laden and other jihadi groups in efforts to keep them fighting elsewhere. However, the jihadi groups are now starting to turn against the hand that has fed them and fight back.
I think it is disingenuous to say we should just let the chips fall where they may as you suggest. This is a dangerous proposition to the security of the region and the United States. However, it is clear that this arms deal proposed by President Bush is not necessarily a good idea–even if we provide Israel weapons as well. Yet, we also have to counter-balance the Iranian threat in the region. Many people argue that we should just fund them the weapons and LET THEM kill each other. I am not sure that is a palatable idea either. We need a strategy that keeps the US in control of the flow of resources and allows for stabilization to this region. Especially in light of Iran’s determination for nuclear weapons. The question becomes: Who do we trust? Sunni’s or Shiites. Presently, we are seeing many Sunni clans leaving insurgency groups and providing intel for American units in the surge. This has resulted in more captures and killings of Shiite and Wahhabi jihadi group members. My only concern is that we need to plan for the eventuality when the Sunni’s reassert control over the region.
Meso, do you really think we can just leave that region and have no effect on the United States. I would be interested in hearing more about what you envision a middle east without American military presence. No bait here. Just interested to see what you think. Thanks.
I say we leave the region and let the chips fall where they may as well. Let them kill themselves if they want. Who are we to stop them? As soon as we leave, the strongest party will take over, just like Hamas did by taking over control of Palestine from Fatah.
We’re suppossed to be fighting a war on terror, yet we let an entire terrorist organization take over a region. How you say? By pressuring the Palestines to hold elections. Well what do you know….Hamas takes over. The fighting in the middle east will NEVER end. Whether we’re there or not. Meanwhile the Taliban is coming back in full force in Afganistan because we’re too worried about trying to make an entire country believe in our system and run their country like we run ours. Those people have a whole different mindset. You cant make a country do something they don’t want to do. You can’t force OUR beliefs and OUR democracy and OUR way of life on these people. And this is exactly what our idiotic president is trying to do!
The fact of the matter is, we’re no longer liberating a country from an evil dictator, but occupying a country and killing thousands of innocent civilians in the process. All the while doing absolutely nothing to help the Iraqi people improve their lives OR their country. The president made the Iraqi people promise after promise, and like the promises he made to all of us, they all turned out to be broken. The Iraqi people no longer want us in their country. Everytime our military attempts to put together a police force in Iraq, 90% of them turn on us. 80 percent of the Iraq military we’ve attempted to recruit and train have all turned on us. Our military was in such a rush to put together an Iraqi military and police force, they didn’t bother to check who they were allowing to join. This problem is never going to end. We’ve given them weapons and uniforms and they’ve turned against us and we’re only making matters worse.
We will continue to spend billions upon billions of dollars and lose thousands of brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts & uncles in the process. Get our military out of that country and do it yesterday. We’ve done enough damage as it is. This war has cost us more than any other war in history. Not in lives or money, but its cost us our good standing in the world community. And that my friends is priceless. It’ll be decades before we will ever get that trust back. IF EVER! Other countries don’t respect us
and only see us as the bullies that George W has made us out to be. And who can blame them? We need to swallow our pride and get the hell out of there. We’re fighting a battle that can’t be won.
Mike,
You say…”I think it is an unfair characterization to state that because the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi born that Saudi Arabia was/is to blame”.
Then you admit that…”The Saudi government has been very successful in fighting jihadists because they knew who they were due to funding these groups! They tried to appease Bin Laden and other jihadi groups in efforts to keep them fighting elsewhere”.
So, on the one hand they need our military presence there to protect the oil resources and their wealth, yet they are funding the very people who are trying to hurt us…very perplexing, indeed.
If one were to look at that region as a class struggle…the haves: Saudi princes who are Sunnis and who control the wealth, and the have nots: the Shiites and Wahhabists, who tend to be more idealistic and devoted to an Islamic state, then it seems reminiscent of those days when we supported the late Shah of Iran and, one might suggest, just as much a tenuous, house of cards situation.
Is it wise for us to arm the present Saudi princes with our sophisticated weaponry only to see those arms used against us should that house of cards topple? I think not.
Bush and Cheney can do a lot of irreparable damage to this country in the next year and a half. If they had spent taxpayer money in an effort to find a remedy to our oil addiction instead of funding a war to insure our access to same, then we might have something to show for the billions spent already. Hey, Haliburton might have become a leading producer of electric cars or windmills or whatever.
With 3500 of our troops dead and many times that amount severly wounded, and nearly a million Iraqis dead…it’s time to say enough, let’s throw them (Bush/Cheney) out before they can do further damage to this country and the world.
Mike you say, “We need a strategy that keeps the US in control of the flow of resources and allows for stabilization to this region”. Why should the US be “in control” of another country’s resources? It seems to me that our strategy should be to free us of our need for those resources so as not to embroil ourselves in wars to control same. Where am I wrong?
I don’t think you are wrong. I wish Halliburton would go into alternative energy sources and electric cars….would probably get more results.
I also agree with you about energy independence. I wish the country would use more nuclear and get away from the coal and oil sources that pollute the planet and fund nut jobs in the middle east. There is disagreement on this from environmentalists as well.
However, I also understand the practical realities in play. Whether a democrat or republican is in office the simple fact is that the US has and will always be involved in managing and acquiring resources. So, unless you want the US to be a third rate nation and our standard of living to suffer it requires some of that good ole imperialism you talked about. This is a practical problem that the country has been unable to grapple with effectively because there is no easy answer without alot of sacrifices. I think when push comes to shove Americans are not ready to do this on many levels….precisely what the oil companies are counting on as well as the environmentalists.
There are alot of reasons to continue business as usual. My desire is to focus on energy independence. However, even with this in place we still have reliance on oil overseas. For instance Nigeria is our 4th largest producer of oil. That country is in strife as well. We will always have our hand in world affairs. Unforunately, with the New Global Economy and trade agreements like NAFTA we are getting sucked into more entanglements everywhere. Isolation is not an option, even if we wanted it. So, we are left with dealing weapons to creeps. Your history with the Shah you pointed out and even with Sadaam are sobering examples of how American willingness to fund foreign governments turned on us.
So, I think we agree on most points with the exception that I fear that we can disconnect ourselves from overseas resource acquisition, even with technological developments at home.
Mike, this country once prided itself in being the leader in science and technology and we exported much of our goods overseas. We are now in 7th place worldwide. http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6502725.stm
We should be producing the lithium ion batteries, the plug in hybrid vehicles, the solar, wind and nuclear generating technologies, etc., etc. and exporting them around the world. We should lead the world in the production of non-fossil fuel technologies. We have the infrastructure, the scientists, the engineers…all we lack is the motivation and we will until the day comes when we have to pay the real price for that gallon of gasoline.
Like I said in a previous post, if the price of keeping the oil spigot open over there (with our military presence) were factored into the price of a gallon of gas at the pump…the price would be about $15 per gallon. That alone should be enough of an incentive to want to find alternatives, if you think losing troops to IED’s isn’t enough.
If we are to be a respected world power we should do it by setting the example and not by flexing our military muscle (except when needed to protect from invaders, terrorists, etc).
I’m not calling for isolation, far from it. I’m saying we need to be a world power in an economic sense as opposed to the military bully that the world perceives us to be…that’s all. We have become the bully nation that feels we have a divine right to consume 25% of the worlds oil. And you thought Manifest Destiny/American exceptionalism ended with Teddy Roosevelt. No, it’s alive and thriving under Bush/Cheney.
You’re right, Mike, I may be a naive idealist who thinks we should lead by example in an age of clashing military ideologies. Surely you’re old enough to remember when we prided ourselves that we did not commit the atrocities (torture, imprisonment without trial, and the killing of innocents) now being ascribed to us.
Sure, let’s manage and acquire resources, but not with our military might, but rather, in the world marketplace, in open competition, with other countries.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/jubilant-iraqi-captain-scores-political-goal-as-well/2007/07/30/1185647827415.html
It’s time to get out.
NY time report: You decide?
In Case You Missed It: Believe it or not, the NY Times reported this…
By Princella Smith at 08:29 AM
Support for Initial Invasion Has Risen, Poll Shows
Americans’ support for the initial invasion of Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until at least the fall. In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said that looking back, taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq.
Please everyone read this link and comment please. OP ed by two liberals of the new york times on Iraq and how we just might win.
I would love everyone including Joe to look at this and please do share your opinions.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/07/30/shocking-new-york-times-op-ed-iraq-war-we-just-might-win
Give me a break! So you read one article and that supposed to make people change their minds about their opinion regarding the US staying in Iraq? Not so much!
It’s BS….plain and simple!
True…it is one article….but I think what anonymous was saying was look at the article and comment about the content…not the fact that it was one article.
I don’t read one article or listen to one guy like Al Gore and make my mind up either. However, the content is an interesting read, especially from the NY Times. They are certainly far from a Bush mouthpiece.
This goes back to the question of what the Middle East would look like if we pulled out completely or in varying degrees. That debate is worth having. If we are pig headed about not having the debate because either we are totally PRO or ANTI-war it misses the point that we need to ask ourselves what the United States needs out of the situation to maintain our security and that of our Western allies. This means reviewing and learning from our failures and success stories.
It is very easy to say “stay the course” or “it’s time to get out”. The tougher questions are rooted in reality and have practical implications for this country. These questions have been ignored by both sides in a blind allegiance to the ‘truth’ as they see it. That is a mistake. I for one am glad to see a discussion of what is going right in Iraq….and I hope a discussion of what solutions are on the table beyond the fringes of the same old war or the same old pacifism.
Hope springs eternal. Maybe Gen. Petraeus can make a difference. I’m still skeptical…but ever hopeful.
Found this clip:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
……very interesting; goes a long way toward outlining what “everyone” (Congress, for example) knew well before the Iraq war began……..this is Al Gore complaining that Bush senior had not been tough enough on Iraq, largely because, in Gore’s opinion, Saddam Hussein had ties to terrorists and also was stockpiling WMD……
this was in 1992, folks……hard to say that Bush, Jr., created all this hype in 2001 when here is Gore outlining why Saddam needed to be destroyed, because of his links to terrorists and because of Iraq’s weapons cache….
Some funny things happened between 1992 and 2003. So its rather disingenious to use a 1992 speech by Gore to support an invasion in 2003. Funny things like Iraq losing all its WMD capability due to sanctions and UN inspection teams. No one doubts Saddam had chemical weapons prior to the first gulf war and was working hard to get more WMD’s. But after the first war he lost what he had and lost the ability to get more, not that he didn’t want them. No really doubts either that the first Bush president really screwed up by not finishing the job he started.
But none of that is relevant to 2003 and this new war based on W Bush’s fabrications.
I think it was also in Colin Powell’s book that in the weeks before the war started, he began hearing about the intelligence community debate, that many analysts disagreed on the Saddam threat and were getting steamrolled by the White House.
Powell approached Rice I believe, and tried to talk about it, but she said the WMDs were not the issue anymore, that the war had become about regime change.
Powell and other sources have said that immediately after 9/11, Bush and Cheney advocated attacking Iraq, despite zero evidence (especially in those first days) that Iraq had a thing to do with 9/11.
Why is this relevant to the impeachment discussion? It is evidence that Bush and Cheney displayed early motives to manufacture evidence to get us into the Iraq war.
I think you guys missed the point: the above debate references Bush leading an innocent Congress into a war with dangerous falsehoods about Sadaam Hussein and WMD’s……I am simply pointing out that the answer is not that simple….Al Gore was similarly preaching on the evils of Sadaam and his cache of WMD’s well before Bush cooked up his “evil mind control of Congress” plan…..so it wasn’t as clear cut as everyone is alleging…..
ps how did Gore have access to the intelligence he is relying upon, in bashing Bush Senior???
‘Disturbing thoughts’…..eerie, isn’t it, that GWBush’s “fabrications” were those exact concerns that Al Gore had, ten years before the 9/11 terrorist attacks….was Al Gore fabricating them, too????
Once again for you since you didn’t read my first post or didn’t understand.
Prior to first Gulf War, Saddam had WMD’s of the chemical weapon variety. Everyone, including Gore , knew because we gave them to him. He also wanted to develop nukes. This was no secret because once upon a time Ronald Reagan thought Saddam was an ally and we gave them all kinds of weapons and considerations. Then we attacked them after Kuwait. We destroyed their military. We destroyed their weapons caches. We destroyed what ability they had to make nukes. We sanctioned them harshly. And we sent inspection teams in regularly to make sure they weren’t making more. So in 1992 when Al Gore was making his speech he was talking about the Iraq of 1992. The Iraq which was still dangerous, the Iraq that hadn’t been neutered, the Iraq that hadn’t been inspected for WMD’s for eleven straight years, the Iraq that hadn’t been sanctioned for eleven years. Your argument would be the same as arguing that a guy who murdered someone in 1992 is a danger to society (true) and using that argument to say he is still a danger to society in 2003 after he’s been paralyzed from the neck down. Because thats what we did to Iraq. You can argue that he should continue to be punished for what he did the first time but you can’t have a new trial (invasion) over it.
The Iraq of 2003 was much different. It had a paper military that had never recovered since the first gulf war. This is evidenced by how easily our military took over (occupation is a different matter). In the Iraq of 2003, Saddam still wished he had WMD’s but he had none (as evidenced by the complete lack of any found and by numerous pieces of ignored intelligence prior to our attack on them).
Just to add one point to Disturbing Thoughts’ excellent post: Saddam not only wished he had WsMD, he wished the rest of the world to believe that he did. It added to his clout in the region & the world, in his twisted worldview. So he did everything he could to lead intelligence personnel from different countries to think he had WsMD.
“dt’s”, I did, indeed, read your post and clearly understood your opinion……you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am…….
by not allowing UN inspectors in, this dictator, who, according to everyone, including Al Gore, did have a cache of WMDs within the past decade, Hussein created the situation he found himself in.
My point remains that everyone is so certain that the only reason we are at war is the “lies” Bush told about the WMD….again, Gore’s speech in 1992 highlights that everyone at that time blamed Bush Sr. for not taking a hard line in light of the WMDs and for not invading Iraq and eliminating the threat of Hussein once and for all… a mere ten years later, we are supposed to take Hussein’s word for it that the WMDs are magically gone?? Especially in light of his refusal to allow the UN to inspect for same?
What I am saying is this: it is easy for everyone to place all the blame for the terrorists and the Iraq debacle on an unpopular president. It is not so easy to look at the big picture; when we see that other politicians, over ten years ago, were expressing the exact same concerns Bush and Congress had when Congress chose to declare war on Iraq, maybe we can all admit that the truth about this war is that blame cannot be so easily assigned to only one person…
“…a mere ten years later, we are supposed to take Hussein’s word for it that the WMDs are magically gone??”
That is one of the impeachment points, we were supposed to listen to our own intelligence analysts, not rely on what Hussein did or did not say. His blustering bravado was well known.
The intelligence community debates were not well known because the Bush administration quelled the notion of debate. George Tenet called it a “slam-dunk case”, and recently tried saying he did not say that. It was not a slam dunk case, there was plenty of opinion differences.
Intelligence analysts say the ones who produced analysis which the White House wanted were treated like rock stars and rewarded.
As ooh_child said in post 63, Saddam wished he had WMD’s.
Saddam was like a poker player running a bluff. Saddam was holding a pair of threes but bluffing like he had a straight flush. He was only an average bluffer though and anyone who wished to could see through the bluff for what it was.
Problem is that Bush needed a war and Saddam was a good target. I think Bush knew good and well that Saddam had no WMD’s. They were just an excuse for the war he needed for a number of reasons: 1) To distract everyone from our complete and utter failure to capture Bin Laden, 2) Distract everyone from the horrible economy at the time, and 3) Oil.
So I think Bush completely lied and knowingly did so.
One of the largest crimes in America has been allowed by all of our presidents. Making us all pay an Income tax. There isnt even a law that says you have to pay such a tax.
It is like a mafia controlled collections team that uses the court system as muscle to help people like Bush start wars like the war on drugs. The war on americans. the war on earth.
I think he should be thrown from office and tried in court by us the people. Not a judge let us all have a real vote with out computer aid and have several people count and recount votes no possible way for them to lie.
I also think all americans need to buy guns. we might actualy need them. The man controlled our militaryu and the world banks control the U.N
Do you all think impeachment will really help us all? I pray to god we americans find a way to stop our nation form turning into the Roman empire or the ss german empire.
The world hates america thanks to Bush. I even voted for him and wished I would not have.
Did you know joe we all could be arrested with out a lawyer or trial just for talking about the president this way. He makes Sadam look like a church boy.
His war has murdered millions of people.
And trust me its all for profits
Joe do you really believe all of this stuff is true?
I have read on the net several times income tax is unconstitutional and it doesnt say its manditory it says its volintarily and that there isnt even a law saying we have to pay income taxes. I am dead serious I couldnt find the law anywhere and the IRS can’t find me one at all I asked them. And the supreme court ruled there isnt a law requiring us to pay income tax.
The IRS uses fear to get us to do it. And power of courts most people cnat fight them in a court battle becuase they have the nations money to keep going after you and police.
What is happening to America people? Really what is happening? this is really scaring the heck out of me.
I think im going crazy sometimes and everyone acts like you are when u bring it all up.
Do you all see any illegal stuff happening to us all agaist our contitutional rights?
Or am i really imagining it all?
sorry for the bad spelling folks I learned how to write when i was 30 and i have bad disabilities. please bare with me thanks.
kensolar dot com has some educational videos about these topics with some startling events and subject matter about bush go check it out. some of it might be BS so read between the lines a bit.
I’ve heard these income tax protesters before, and I think they are the whinniest bunch of con artists ever.
Here are the main tax protester arguments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_arguments
Basically it comes down to either protesting punctuation in the bills ratifying income taxes, focusing on silly technicalities, or generally protesting the right of government to tax you.
I think this is completely ridiculous. Taxation is part of living in society. Get over it. To follow the tax protesters’ logic, we should also not recognize the government’s right to outlaw prostitution, drugs, reckless driving.
Interestingly, the countries with no income tax tend to be Muslim/Islamic countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#Countries_with_no_personal_income_tax
Makes me wonder if these tax protesters would prefer to live under Islamic law?
I love America…..you’re just TOO funny! Living in a free society comes at a price. Taxes. Try going a few years without paying your taxes and see what happens. Sure you can work and get paid “under the table”, but after awhile, it will catch up to. Taxes are a part of life and just about every country on this planet makes you pay taxes. Get over it already and get a job!
If you’ve got a social security number, then you’re going to end up paying taxes. End of discussion. But even if you don’t pay federal or state income tax, you’re taxed on every single thing you purchase. Perhaps you should go live on an island somewhere and grow your own food and start a nice anti-tax cult.
It’s unbelievable the amount of stupidity that comes out of some peoples mouths.
Taxes are a necessary evil. But how evil they are depends on what kind of taxes.
Raising the sales tax under the guise of lowering property tax – Evil, evil, evil. I wasn’t going to save enough on property tax to offset the increased sales tax anyway. And then to make it worse the county, in order to offset their lost property tax revenue, drastically jacked up the assessed value of my home to a point that my property tax is actually higher this year than last.
Not Bush’s fault, this is 100% Jim Risch and his fellow republican aristocrats, but had to mention it since we’re talking about taxes.
The world hates america… If this is so…. then why aren’t people leaving this country instead of trying to get into this country???
I am just making a statment on a few topics I have seen around the net and also some of the strange behaviors our police and government seem to display thats all. I was only womdering how many people are playing the sheep role and didnt want to hear it. I think everyone should be mindfull about our government and laws they make.
and as far as the world hating America its true they really do. I wish it wasnt true. But our government wants to control the world and also police it.
I think any SS behavior should be a sign something is wrong with it.
Notice how Bush and McConnell always say “allegedly helped” when refencing the telecom companies who went along with their illegal wiretapping schemes?
As in this quote Bush gave today:
“When Congress returns in September the Intelligence committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director McConnell, including the important issue of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001.”
The reason they keep saying “allegedly helped” is because they KNOW the surveillance activities were illegal.
If the President and McConnell know the activities were illegal to the point that they consistently use this manner of speech, then why not impeach?
Remember the movie, Wag the Dog?
Would you impeach a president that:
1 – Sent our army into war
2 – THEN sent weapons to the enemy who used them to kill our forces in-theater
3 – Blamed the neighboring countries for supplied those weapons (syria and iran)
4 – Geared up to wage war against those neighboring countries (iran) on the basis of this accusation, despite being responsible for arming the enemy himself?
These are not accusations from left field. Everyone can agree on these points, right?
We failed to secure the Iraqi army’s weapons, they disappeared, then the weapons were used against our forces, no?
The Pentagon “lost track of” 190,000 weapons, 135,000 pieces of body armor, and 115,000 helmets during 2004-5 alone. These weapons are undoubtedly being used against our forces, no?
So the president essentially armed the insurgents to kill our own forces and prolong the war.
No?
Bush is blaming Iran for the weapons, and indications are he may get us into another war with Iran.
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070808/EDIT/708080307/1003
How many wars are we going to let Bush lead us into?
Sorry about the late notice, but there was a great Bill Moyers Journal episode tonight on PBS discussing the impeachment of President Bush. The show featured constitutional scholar Bruce Fein and The Nation’s John Nichols. It was on at 11PM Eastern here in Michigan, so I assume it will be aired at 10 or 11PM Mountain tonight(Fri. 8/10). Hope you guys get to see it!
What a crew…kind of like the three stooges…Moyers and Nichols are cut from the same cloth. They are both left wing and have axes to grind. Nichols and The Nation are about as credible as Pat Robertson and his 700 Club.
Now, I will grant that Bruce Fein is more credible. He had the hutzpah to call for impeachment for Clinton as well as Bush presently. However, it seems that Fein goes off the deep end too often and shouts impeachment over abuses or slights that he sees that are not at that level. Seems like he has a cookie cutter approach to American government…throw everyone out!
All in all, Moyers special highlighted nothing new and tasted slightly bitter and contrived. Do these guys really have nothing better to do? Geez…maybe they could go join Mia Farrow as hostages in Darfur and make a difference?
Bruce Fein, a credentialed conservative, viewed Bush’s crimes are “more worrisome than Clinton’s” because Bush is “seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress and the Judiciary, to superintend his assertions of power.
He has claimed the authority to tell Congress they don’t have any right to know what he’s doing in relation to spying on American citizens, and using that information any way he wants in contradiction to a federal statute called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
He has claimed authority … without any political or legal accountability. These are standards that are totally in anathema to a democratic society devoted to the rule of law.”
This is off the deep end?
If this sounds like nothing new to you, that should tell you the arguments for impeaching Bush have been the same all along. If the arguments kept changing then it would be an obvious politically-motivated attack.
Mike said: “Do these guys really have nothing better to do?”
Nothing better to do than try upholding our democracy, to try following our nation’s founding father’s prescriptions to remove a bad president? That was a very poor question to ask.
Your question indicates again that you subjectively attack as crazy, shiftless, or unpatriotic anyone who brings up objective impeachment charges.
The spineless Democrats inexplicably granted the expanded FISA powers to Bush and Gonzalez this week. Many are saying this proves the Democrats are willing to leave Bush in power just because they hope he keeps screwing up and they can win 2008 by a landslide.
Four days after Bush got the new FISA law, he already tried using it to dismiss a lawsuit regarding his earlier, illegal spying activities, ignoring that the law is not retroactive.
Every day that Bush is allowed to remain in office is a mockery to our democracy.
But you know what, watch for yourself and decide:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08102007/profile.html
Click the ‘Watch Video’ link on the left side right under the “We the People” image. It is 24 minutes long, played very well without hitches for me.
“The epitome of an impeachable offense, as Alexander Hamilton amplified in the Federalist Papers, is a political crime against the Constitution.”
I think Bush and Cheney’s political crimes against our Constitution are clear. Do we have the resolve to hold them accountable?
Impeachment will never happen because even guys like Harry Reid know in the back of their mind that the Administration has kept them safe from harm of renewed attacks.
I am not even addressing the merits of impeachment itself. What I am saying is that more than a simple majority of Americans would rather be safe and give up some liberties or be free and dead. Pew Research studies have backed this up. In my opinion, for this reason alone, there is no support from impeachment. You can see the political games even Democrats pay by authorizing expansion of wiretapping–they don’t want to be criticized if an attack happens. Impeachment is a non-starter for them. Take today for instance, dirty bomb threats in New York. Can you imagine if an attack like that was successful. The Bill of Rights will get thrown out the window…and more than a majority Americans will support that. Nobody will touch impeachment because they are safe and happy in their homes.
It’s analagous to the police….we want them to protect us. Most of the time, we don’t want to know how they do it…we just care about whether we are safe or not. So, when we see a guy getting beat by say, Los Angeles Police, there is the predictable outrage….but nothing really changes because bad folks will always be out there and there will always be a few bad cops out there that take things too far.
I think we ought to be talking about what policies we can and should support that will keep us all safe without overstepping civil liberties to the extent that Bill Moyers will have something to talk about!!!
Wow Joe you took the words out of my mouth.
I think Bush is an evil dictator and a murderer. He has Weapons of mass destruction and is telling the rest of the world we have to goto war with you because you also have weapons of mass destruction. Its ok if I have them. I know you all never voted for me but I am telling your president he can’t have them on your own soil that belongs to you.
My fellow Americans words and stories and lawsuits will not stop him from taking away our rights as Americans to have privacy,and freedom to put any substance we want in our own bodies. We are being forced to pay taxes on our income. Everything is already taxed to cover services. This is War on the world money. We all should stop paying taxes. We all should SAY NO!!!!!! LOUDLY!!! we need to ban together as a nation and tell our government off.
What will they do ? Arrest us for using freedom of speech?
Who cares.If they get violent we are Americans we can get that way too. Look what we told the english on the 4th of July we won our freedom against a greater nation. This is our country only we the people can take it back . Not we the few. we need everyone. Everyone should bury guns,food,ammo,and just get ready. I bet there is much more coming soon and Americans need to wake up and stand up to them.
We are americans give them hell.
Joe is making good points. Mike is defending a tyrant and for what? For attacks that MIGHT happen on our soil? Yeah ok! Oh no….we MIGHT get attacked, so lets take away this freedom and that from the American public. And you MIGHT have somebody loose control of their car, cross the median and run head on into you on the freeway! We can’t have this country run and goverened by what MIGHT happen! +
Have you traveled lately Mike? Seriously? Do you know how difficult it is to board a plane these days? I mean you can’t even bring a bottle of shampoo with you in your carry on luggage. I flew to Dallas a few weeks ago and had quite a few things confiscated. Shampoo, conditioner, colonge. And why? All because it was more than a 3 ounce bottle! I couldn’t even bring my bottle of water with me through the security gate. I had to buy a new bottle after I had gone through security. Give me a break! The most ridiculous thing I got confiscated was this little leather case that zips shut. It’s got tweezers, two nail clippers and a finger nail file in it, and they confiscated it!! Tell me what I’m going to do with a pair of finger nail clippers, or a three inch nail file?? This whole thing has gotten way out of control and YOU sir are saying “it’s ok if we loose a few of our freedoms for the better good and security of the nation blah blah blah” I SAY B>>>S>>>!!
Have you read the Patriot Act?? Seriously. Have you read about all of the freedoms we have really lost? I don’t think you have, because if you have, you wouldn’t feel the way you do about this situation. Our everyday simple freedoms are being stripped from us little by little all in the name of Homeland Security.
Open your eyes Mike and realize whats going on here.
What do you imagine the terrorists think when they read about our airport hassles, and our patriot act, and Bush admitting they conducted illegal wiretaps of American phone calls, and Bush asserting power to open our mail without permission?, etc? What do you imagine they think when they read about our president asserting dictatorial powers, asserting that he does not have to submit to checks and balances?
Some say the terrorists have already won. After 9/11 Bush said the terrorists hate our freedoms and our way of life. Now we’re loosing our freedoms and way of life.
Is this how you want to win the war, cutting off our nose to spite the face?
And Mike….regarding your “Darfur” comment. I think our troops would be MUCH better off there where their REALLY needed, instead of Iraq. Our government wants to “police the world” but only when it benefits them monetarilly! There’s no oil in Darfur and nothing for us to gain, so who cares if millions of women and children are being raped and murdered on a daily basis?
Gotta love our government!!
My last comment was not debating the merits of impeachment. It was addressing the reality that more than a great majority of Americans prefer security over liberty. I am not saying I necessarily agree, but I was pointing out that on this salient point that this is why there is not a groundswell of support for impeachment on either side of the isle.
Perhaps if folks weren’t so full of venom they could understand this point. Geez…go drink a beer and calm down.
Mike,
Where are you seeing or getting this information that Americans want security MORE than liberty? Please enlighten us. Is this just your opinion or do you have some polls or other pertinent information to back this thinking up?
The problem is: TOO many people are already “calm and drinking beers” and haven’t taken the time to actually read the Patriot Act and see how many freedoms we have lost! TOO many people are just stagnant in life and don’t care. They think that if it doesn’t affect them on a personal level or affect them in their daily lives, then who cares.
We need to lose the “calm down” & “chill out” mentality and realize what our government is actaually doing to it’s citizens Mike! That’s all many of us are saying.
Hey Slim,
Pew Research reports point some of this out:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=949
Try Part 6 towards the bottom of the page. It references the Patriot Act and other categories that divide the country.
Once again, to be clear, I am only addressing the narrow question of why there is not a groundswell of support for impeachment. While I don’t personally agree with impeachment, I felt it would add to the discussion here as to why there isn’t rabid support-except from Cindy Sheehan types. (Probably like in Clinton’s impeachment-the only people that were rabid were the moral majority)
Mike,
For one,you’re using a poll that states, and I quote “while many Americans are only dimly aware of the act from half to two-thirds of most groups in the electorate (this poll) say they know little or nothing about it”. unquote.
They know little OR NOTHING about the Patriot Act!!
This research place that you’re giving us, also tells us nothing about the numbers of people they polled to get these answers. It also states, and I quote” In each contacted household, interviewers ask to speak with ” the youngest male, 18 years of age or older, who is now at home.” If there is no eligible man at home, interviewers ask to speak with “the youngest female, 18 years of age or older, who is now at home.” This systematic respondent selection technique has been shown empirically to produce samples that closely mirror the population in terms of age and gender.” unqoute.
The surveyers are asking for the youngest male or female in each household to derive their answers. Is this really a fair poll of what America really thinks??? I think not.
C’mon Mike, you’ll have to do alot better than this.
I agree with Slim. After reading their “methodology”, the polling analysis on this site does seem rather skewed.
I personally wouldn’t put much stock in it.
I’ve read other polls indicating 45% support impeaching Bush and 55% support impeaching Cheney, so it seems our polls conflict.
Seriously, you guys are over reaching. Think about it-people want to be protected. You don’t need a poll to tell you that.
People don’t want to get blown up in an attack. You don’t need a poll to tell you that.
I will reiterate-what I have been saying in the last few posts is the Americans want to be protected. They don’t care how it is done (at least up front)they just want to continue to exist. Many don’t look at the conflicts between security and liberty until after the fact.
I have specifically steered away from the merits of impeachment–I already made my point on that as all of you have. What I was expressing was some reasoning why impeachment WON’T happen at this point in time.
Slim,
Here is an excellent source of information on this very topic. It even has citations accompanying the text for you. It points out some of the challenges of security vs. civil liberties.
githush.blogspot.com/2007/05/civil-liberties-v-security.html
Think about it, people don’t want to lose their freedoms. You don’t need a poll to know that.
Perhaps some would give up some freedoms for some security. Right now, Bush is not the person many folks want to give up their freedoms to. Bush has stained himself in deceit and dishonesty too many times. He has raised too many suspicions about his intents with his deceit and his signing statements.
Have you heard that Bush’s grandfather, Prescott, was part of a plot to overthrow FDR and install a fascist government? Prescott was a nazi war profiteer, a fan of fascism, and this latest treasonous plot just came out a month or so back. I encourage you to google it.
Bush is not the president to whom we will give up our freedoms for. There may never be a president we do this for, but it certainly will not be Bush or Cheney.
True Mike, people DO want to be protected, but at what cost? I cetainly don’t want MY freedoms stripped from me by laws passed at the 11th hour like the Patriot Act. This law was passed and the American people had no say whatsoever about it.
I strongly encourage you and everybody else to really look into this group of laws they call the Patriot Act and really find out all the freedoms that were taken from us in one fell swoop. ALL in the name of that farce that is called “Homeland Security”.
Sure 9/11 was a horrendous act of terrorism, but we’re still the safest country in the world and we were before 9/11 and we will continue to be. The only reason 9/11 happened is because securities and normal everday measures that SHOULD have been in place, weren’t in place with our airlines & the TSA. Cockpit doors should have been secure long BEFORE 9/11. Pilots should have been able to carry firearms BEFORE 9/11. This was a senseless tragidy that could have been avoided on many different levels. We need to get back to being a country that kicks @ss and takes names and stop whining about every little thing.
So the terrorists got lucky. Does that mean our government has the right to barge in my house anytime it wants, or listen to my phone calls without me knowing it? NO!
I believe the terrosists HAVE won. Look at the price we pay now just to board a plane. The horror stories abound! And the terrorists are sitting around laughing about it. While Mothers are being told by flight attendants to drug their children to keep them quiet. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19735896/ And kicking them off the flight because the kid was excited and starts saying “Bye bye plane, Bye bye plane”.
Look what Slim had to go through with his recent flight. It’s crazy!
And then we have those saying…. well Mildred, that’s just the price we have to pay for our security. NO, it’s not.
Instead of spending billions of dollars to hire people to tell me i can’t bring a bottle of shampoo on my flight or to take off my shoes, why not spend that money where it’s needed the most, the Canadian border? That border is a wide open back door for terrorists to just walk right into our country. And has it improved since 9/11? Not at all. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/7/4/125334.shtml
Excellent points guest. You are absolutely right. There were and are no-nonsense approaches that can and should be taken to make it harder for 9/11 incidents to occur.
There are also improvements in the laws that need to occur to allow for more information to be shared amongst federal agencies. Technological advances in communications have also necessitated advances in the law. We can’t bury our head in the sand and let the government do everything they want just to protect us….but we also cannot be so naive to love freedom so much that we tie the hands of people trying to protect us. I think this last stunt of Democrats putting in place changes in the law that allow for more surveillance of foreign communications of known terrorist connected persons ENTERING the U.S. without a warrant might be a good thing. Some might not see it that way. However, it was shameful how it was enacted at the 11th hour. I don’t care what the issue is: if you rush it through (like they tried with immigration) it usually is bad law that is either thrown out as unconstitutional, abused, or ends up being ineffective. It was laughable that they put a 6 month sunset provision on the laws passed before they recessed. It is time to stop playing with our security like a political football. In the end, we all lose the game….and in this case we could lose our lives and/or liberty to government encroachment, incompetence or both.
My greatest fear is that if another 9/11 happens we will see even more encroachment by government–and the public will be even more willing to give away the store. I don’t want to give away the store….I just want to fix it so that it is darn hard to mess with that store. We are too focused on Bush. We need to be focused on who is writing these laws and have more deliberative hearings and conferencing in place to discuss workable and effective strategies to protect ourselves. All of our energy is going into how bad Bush or Cheney are. Why not look at the situation more in terms of fixing the problems through passage of laws that make sense and are not passed as part of the natural reaction to be knee jerk? Like Joe mentions on the Michael Moore thread…alot of people are complaining about Big Brother….not alot of constructive solutions are being put forward. How long do we keep this up? Until the next major attack? I hope not.
Fortunately, Alberto Gonzales has resigned, along with Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Meirs and Rove. Their resignations are a good beginning, but inadequate to repair the damage done to our nation, constitution, Bill of Rights and democracy. The Nixon White House collapsed quickly, when Congress began issueing subpoenas and holding hearings. Congress should not fear a backlash from impeachment. Democrats gained the Presidency when they impeached Nixon – Republicans gained the White House when they impeached Clinton.
Impeachment of Cheney and Bush is vital to restoration of the republic. The Bush administration apparently is operating an illegal politically motivated domestic spying program, in violation of the fourth admendment, and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. President Bush has written over 700 unconstitutional “signing statements.”
The Iraqi civil war continues, with no end in sight and Bush continues to veto every bill Congress passes to limit spending for this disastrous military misadventure. Dick Cheney knew invading Iraq would be a mistake, in the 1990’s and went on record, explaining why, in this televised interview.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2879&id=10983-4283714-qFj.aJ&t=2
Congress has been unable to accomplish anything significant, since Bush vetoes any meaningful laws passed by Congress. The minimum wage increase was passed but was so minimal and obviously inadequate that it is not significant. Nancy Pelosi is wrong – Cheny and Bush must be impeached, if Congress is to accomplish anything significant.
Here is one of many specific high crimes, which was commited by Vice President Cheney:
George Bush and Dick Cheney passed false information to Congress about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities, to wit, their possession of chemical weapons, biological weapons, and delivery systems. Furthermore, George Bush and Dick Cheney passed false information to Congress by falsely stating that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States and that military action was therefore necessary. The false statements are detailed, on Dennis Kucinich’s website.
Law violated:
18 USC 1001.
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Eighteen Representatives have now cosponsored H Res 333, Articles of Impeachment for Dick Cheney. Even a poll paid for by Republicans found a majority favored Impeachment of Cheney. Adequate evidence of high crimes and misdeameanors already exists and more will emerge, with investigations.
I do not believe 34 Republican Senators would be willing to risk their seats, by opposing a Cheney conviction in the Senate. Twenty two Republican Senators are up for relection, in 2008. Republican Congressmen persuaded Gonzales to resign, before he was impeached. Republicans will force Cheney to resign, to avoid repeated coverage of Congressional investigations of Cheney’s crimes and probable political advertisements, emphasizing Cheney’s crimes.
If Cheney is not removed before the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, next August, both parties will be targeted with daily Impeachment demonstrations. Republicans will want to avoid this and prevent losing even more Senators. Loss of 22 Senators, supporting Dick Cheney would be disastrous to the Republicans, in 2008, with a Democratic president, Democratic House of Representatives and Democratic Senate.
It is time to circulate Resolutions for Impeachment petitions locally, at the city, county and state level, to help our cowardly Congress find courage to perform their constitutional duty.
The founding fathers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor, with a firm reliance on divine providence, to establish this republic. When will the House of Representatives take an effective stand against the culture of corruption, in the Republican administration, by passing Articles of Impeachment?
I’m ready to sign. Now only to find a place to sign.
clifwest, seriously, using the moveon.org website as a credible-fair-balanced source?
Dennis Kuchinich used by Clifwest as a source…..I think that speaks for itself. I also agree with why not….Moveon.org is not a credible source and moreover, they would prefer to dismantle the United States entirely and create a communist utopia for all of us to live under. They definitely are anti-American and don’t deserve the time of day.
I don’t think Moveon is a great source either. Their bias is pretty obvious, it’s difficult to imagine they would put out the full facts on any issue.
However, I don’t understand blowing off Dennis Kucinich as a source. A few weeks ago I thought I heard of some survey that showed a large majority of Americans actually aligned their views with his. The survey went something like asking questions on issues, and comparing your answers to what the candidates beliefs are, and Kucinich surprisingly came out as the person most closely aligned with current American values and concerns.
Instead of falling back on the very tired excuse of questioning the bias of particular sources, I wish people would just focus more on the issues. Who cares about the bias of one source? There’s plenty of news sources available to us these days. 24/7 news channels, the internet[s] (hee hee), magazines & newspapers – so why pick on clifwest for using one source for the Cheney info, when it’s available from so many other news outlets? Why not, instead, deal with the issue at hand. Cheney knew Iraq would be a quagmire once we got in, and didn’t tell the American public that’s what he thought. Finally, people are waking up to that fact.
Really, folks, quit smearing the messenger & deal with the message.
I really don’t think people HAVE woken up to the fact! Its been my perception that nobody really cares unless it affects them directly or personally in some way.
The war is happening on the other side of the world, and many people don’t have their children fighting and/or dying over there, so they could care less. If they DID care….I honestly don’t think we’d still be over there. People would have gotten together and protested like the Vietnam war and pressured our government to bring our troops home by now!
but that’s just my 2cents
Interesting observation Cartman. I think your comments are on target to some degree. However, I would add that there are those that are just as committed and have opened their eyes to the fact that Iraq is one of many battlegrounds against Islamic Jihadists that are content to fight to the death to end Western Civilzation and impose Islamic Law to suppress and kill everyone that does not agree with them.
As for the earlier post about Cheney talking about not invading Iraq during the first Gulf War in the early 90s, his assertion at the time was based on a variety of VERY different geopolitical factors. For instance, Al Qaeda was not strongly established and blowing up embassies, US destroyers, World Trade Centers or Trains. Iran was also not very strong at that time due to the Iran/Iraq War and there was not a major threat to Israel and Pakistan from Hezbollah, and other radical Islamic groups that were threatening to topple the Pakistani government and seize nuclear weapons.
We can take alot of comments out of context and use them to belittle politicians. For instance, in 1994, Al Gore made a speech that we should take Sadam Hussein out of power because he was a terroristic dictator killing his own people and destablizing the region. Should we use that speech and call Gore a hypocrite too? I don’t hear too many people rushing to post that….why? This is all about impeachment as the answer to kick guys out of office that people politically disagree with…..if this country operates that way no one will be in office, it will be like a tennis match of impeachment.
Liberals have gotten too used to using the courts to conduct social policy that they could not pass at the ballot box. The impeachment process is an extension of those type of efforts to punish political foes because they put policies in place that people disagree with. The Republicans used the Lewinsky scandal to punish Clinton because they didn’t like his policies either. This type of reaction is extremely undemocratic and dangerous because it latches onto people’s emotions rather than logical thought.
Fortunately, IMO, the American public has not latched onto this scam and have their eyes wide open. No matter what side you are on- having your eyes wide open and looking at what is going on is better than blindly following calls for impeachment based on charges that haven’t stuck because they just aren’t as serious as groups like Moveon.org would like us all to believe. The American people are smarter than Kuchinich and Moveon.org would like.
So, let’s all keep our eyes wide open and advocate for the type of change we feel is best for the United States. All this negative energy spent on impeachment is a waste and allows too many politicians and groups to run cover to their real intentions if they seize political power. Keep your eyes open and look at what these groups and persons who clamor for impeachment really want to do if they seize power. That is a much more important question to ask and have answered that whether Bush or Cheney are going to ruin the United States. For example, while people claim the war in Iraq is illegal and Bush lied no one is asking what Iraq and the Middle East would look like if we leave. No one is asking how do we deal effectively with Iran to keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons. No one is asking these tough questions because they don’t have answers–except impeach.
If we impeach tommorrow where are we then? This lack of questioning and planning is the same mistake the Bush Administration made in planning for keeping the peace after the war was “won”. Shame on us if we care more about impeachment than about what kind of policies the United States should hold to keep us alive and prospering into the 21st century.
Idaho Native,
There are many impeachment petitions available to sign or print off, on the internet. One site is http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/88?ad=l1
(I am actually an independent,who agrees with Ralph Nader, who said, “The two party system, is one choice short of a dictatorship.” Presently, the Republican Party is much closer to a dictatorship, than the Democratic Party)
Something else you can do is put an impeachment bumper sticker on your automobile. I have had people pull up beside me, at traffic lights, roll down their window and tell me they like my sticker. Neighbors walking their dog have also stopped and told me they like the Impeach Cheney First sticker. I am buying some bumper stickers for friends and neighbors and plan to keep some in my car, available for people who ask about them.
A nationwide directory of pending Impeachment resolutions is available, at http://www.impeachpac.org/resolutions-list
IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST bumper stickers are available from cafepress.com (I have no financial relationship with them)
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin
“Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Margaret Mead
Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear facility, previously, with a bombing attack and I believe they are more than capable of destroying an Iranian reactor, if it is necessary. The United States does not need to destroy Arab or Iranian nuclear facilities.
Brilliant Post #105….so let the Israeli’s do the dirty work. The fact is that if we had not reigned in the Israeli’s during the recent war in Lebanon they would have stepped up bombing and probably have bombed Syria. This would have incited more violence and bloodshed and given the Iranian’s a perfect way to get involved under the guise of protecting themselves. This in turn would have brought the United States into the fray directly to defend Israel. This is not a Bush cooked up plot to defend Israel. This has been the long standing policy of Democratic and Republican Administration’s for decades.
If we are to become involved militarily even more than we are now, it should be on our terms and at a time and place of our choosing. Clif…your comment suggests totally abandoning the region and letting the Israeli’s defend themselves. Would you like it if the Israeli’s defended themselves with their nuclear weapons they currently possess. This comment suggests a naivete towards foreign policy implications of letting Israel go it alone. Further, IMO, it suggests a naivete about the importance of fighting terrorists abroad. Your forte is impeachment. I will ask you what you really think impeachment achieves? How does it strengthen the country? Do you seriously think Nancy Pelosi could or would stand up to the terrorists? You have got to be kidding me. Her congressional district won’t even allow the military to recruit in San Fransisco. These people hate America and it’s military and they are Americans! Think of what a boon this would be to terrorists. This was certainly the case when the Republicans were impeaching Clinton, arguably it distracted him from forcefully responding when the USS Cole was attacked and when Al Qaeda was on the march….if one believes the path to 9/11 Clinton had a chance to kill Bin Laden and was preoccupied with the Lewinsky Scandal and impeachment. Did that serve the country well? IMO I think not. The case for impeachment is weak. The case for protecting this country is much stronger and where the majority of the American people want the focus to be.
The Marine Corp conducted an exercise to determine how many Marines were required to protect the entire US border. Only 16,000 Marines and some drone aircraft were required. We still have not protected our own border, or identified the illegal immigrants who are here. When we secure our border, provide employers with access to Social Security and other government records necessary to avoid hiring illegal immigrants and fine them for hiring illegal immigrants, and decrease our reliance on middle eastern oil, I may believe we are actually serious about protecting the country from terrorists.
There were no major reactions to the Israeli strike, on the Iraqi reactor.
If we leave Iraq, the Islamic terrorists will continue fighting each other, as they have for over a thousand years. We need to get out of their way.
Mike,
Californians do not hate America. Please stop the sophmoric slander, of patriots who disagree with you.
International peacekeeping bankrupted the Roman empire and nearly bankrupted Britain. It will bankrupt the United States, if we continue fighting unwinnable wars like Vietnam and Iraq, which are not in our nation’s national interest. Lyndon Johnson lied about the Tonkin Gulf attack, to cause a gigantic war escalation, in Vietnam; Bush and Cheney lied and witheld accurate intelligence from Congress and voters to persuade Congress to authorize an attack on Iraq. Johnson should have been impeached. Bush and Cheney should be impeached.
If Cheney resigns, McCain may be offered the Vice Presidency. McCain would be an improvement over Cheney, since McCain has been to war and demonstrated some integrity and honesty.
I do not have much confidence in Nancy Pelosi, but at least she does not appear to be brain damaged, like George W Bush, who can not even speak complete sentences – Bush is a dangerous man.
I think Bush should have been impeached when we all found out he is a liar. the only weapons of mass destruction we found are the ones we have on our own soil and used on Iraq during the invasion. Fellow Americans wake up and do something about it.
So lets impeach or demand the removal from office, or make sure every one who lied to the American People about Iraq and WMD do not get into office.
I hope you who are going after Bush for lying about WMD will use the same vigor to go after all the politicans who said Iraq had WMD.
I’ll start the list
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” – President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” – Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” – Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” – Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” – Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep. – Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
It sure gets old when the Bush and Cheney apologists try to divert all of the criticism back to others, especially Democrats. Not surprising though, they don’t have much good they can say about Dubya and Dick.
Plenty of good things to say…..Guest in Post 111, you are still alive and kicking to write on this site. America has not been attacked again. Lord knows the terrorists have tried. I suppose we give Bush credit for that small insignificant tidbit?
Excellent post in 110. This information was spoken by Dems even before supposed briefings were geared up to support war in Iraq. The overall point is that both sides are politicizing this war for party gain. After 9/11 we had bumper stickers that said “United We Stand”. Has American politics become so fractured in the name of political gain that we are relegated to bumper stickers that say “Bush Lied”. We The People complain that politicians don’t behave well and we all suffer because of it. Could it be that the pols respond to wisecracks like the above and behave badly as a result? Is that what qualifies as political debate now? Name calling?
As for your earlier post clifwest…you said in part: “International peacekeeping bankrupted the Roman empire and nearly bankrupted Britain. It will bankrupt the United States, if we continue fighting unwinnable wars like Vietnam and Iraq, which are not in our nation’s national interest.” This is exactly the debate we need to have now. Is the continued war in Iraw and the middle east in the United States National Interest?
IMO it is highly in our interest and that of Western civilization. Think about it, if an army of David Duke or Louis Farahhkan types began attacking Americans and threatening our way of life would we just cave into them? I think not. People would stand up against oppression and threats to America. Why is it any different than the stated intentions of the Islamic Fascists? They want to destroy America, Israel and whoever else does not agree with them.
Our society wants immediate results for everything now. We pop a pill to make sickness go away. We have remotes to change channels. We have fast food. Wars and fighting an ideology (NOT RELIGIOUS ISLAM)takes time and patience. Seriously, this country has Attention Deficit Hyperactivty Disorder! Flags fly at half staff today because over 3000 of US were killed by THEM. Appeasement of terrorists will not work.
If the politicians would simply get out of the way and let the military fight the situation would improve dramatically. We are starting to see that now. In 2004, we had Fallujah surrounded and Al Sadr in our sights. In 2004, we had 200 Taliban attending a funeral and a Predator Drone ready to take them out. We didn’t pull the triggers because of politics. The American people want to be protected and the politicians want that too. Unfortunately, you can’t keep talking out of both sides of your mouth demanding safety without being willing to take the necessary steps to achieve it.
What we have right now is a failure of some Americans to understand how dangerous this enemy is. Isolationism is not possible and in this case can be deadly to many Americans if we choose that course that many Democrats want us to take. If the Dems had a better strategy than Neville Chamberlin did with Hitler it would be winning the day. Problem is they don’t. You either take flight or fight. Count your lucky stars that we have brave men and women that are willing to keep us safe and sound.
Mike, this is your entire problem right here:
“If the politicians would simply get out of the way and let the military fight the situation would improve dramatically.”
See, the whole point of the surge was to allow the politicians in Iraq to ‘get it together’ & take over the country, democratically; y’know, politically. At least, that’s the latest reason being held out to the American public as to why in the hell we’re in Iraq.
We’re not there to “kick ass”, as you & Bushie now seem to think.
The main difference between the other leaders who were decieved into believeing Iraq should be attacked, and Bush/Cheney is that Bush and Cheney deliberately lied and misheld accurate intelligence from Congress, Secretary Powell and the American public, in addition to mismanaging the war, after it started.
I do not understand how we can protect our nation from terrorists, without securing our border from terrorists and the Bush Cheny supporters seem to totally ignore the problem.
Who cares what happens over there. If we would just protect our own borders and stop letting the terrorists into our country, we wouldn’t have a problem, and 9/11 would have never happened.
I personally think we need to wipe the slate clean and get rid of all the politicians and everyone in our government, start all over.
ooh child….the point of the surge was to use additional military force to allow the Iraqi government and population to stabilize from fear and violence. This in turn would assist the political process in achieving benchmarked goals for debathification, oil revenue sharing and other political goals. The “political” surge cannot occur without the military surge taking stage front and center and being successful. In order to do this, military operations can’t be run by a bunch of politically correct individuals that don’t want to prosecute the war as it should be run.
The fact that you believe the President and others like myself think we are there to “Kick As s” is way off the mark and totally untrue. IMO this also points to reckless bias about the intentions of the President and military. My point earlier was in 2004 there were many examples of the military not carrying out war duties properly, i.e. finishing the job. Like any job one starts you have to finish it properly. In this case the military surge if continued to be carried out properly with counter-insurgency contingenies built in will be a proper set up for the Iraqi government and it’s people to take charge of their country before the Iranians and/or Al Qaeda types do.
Clifwest, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the border issue. It is despicable that Bush and the Congress won’t get serious about protecting our borders. We have the resources of active duty military training for duty and National Guard Units to complement the Border Patrol and Customs Enforcement.
As for George in 115, what happens over there does matter. If oil supplies are shut off or curtailed it would have a huge effect on the United States and nations worldwide. Stock Markets would potentially crash and you could see gas prices hit $7.00 or more a gallon overnight. Another George, George Washington, advocated isolationism at a time when this country was an infant. While isolationism was thought to be acceptable by some, practical realities forced a different course. The case is no different than today. Like it or not, plans like NAFTA have forced us into globalism for better or worse. We cannot abandon the middle east without danger to our national security.
Even if the Democrats buckled tommorrow and allowed us to start down the road to energy independence by drilling in Anwar and promoting nuclear power growth in the United States through building of new high power nuclear reactors it would take over 10-15 years to free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. So, the stakes are very clear right now. You won’t hear the Democrats talking about these issues. Their mission is short sighted to gain political power and give the people what they think they want right now. Some Republicans are starting to join them as well. IMO this short sighted policy will win elections but it will damage the United States in the long run.
Mike,
I am pleased to see you agree with me about securing our borders. This is the first priority, in defending our nation from terrorists.
You apparently live in the Rocky Mtn region. How easy would it be for terrorists to set forest fires?
Anyone who has lived in the West knows how expensive and destructive they are.
Mike, I’m not the one claiming “we’re kicking ass”, Dubya is.
http://thegate.nationaljournal.com/2007/09/bush_says_were_kicking_ass_in.php
So what’s untrue about my statement, then?
Clifwest is worrying about terrorists setting forest fires? Are you kidding me? Now thats funny! Terrorists aren’t going to bother setting forest fires….I think they go with a little bit larger scale targets than a few mountain homes and a few thousand acres of forest. Besides, we’ve got enough idiots that live in Idaho that set forest fires.
With all the lighting strikes we have each year, forest fires are a normal occurence that have always happened, and will continue to happen.
That reminds me of the Japanese plot during WWII to sent balloons with incendiary devices attached toward the west coast mainly Oregon and Washington to burn down our forests, and eventually the entire country. And as you can see it wasn’t very sucessful.
ooh child. Thanks for link. I have no qualms about the President saying we are kicking as s. The point is military solutions have never been the sole answer. Nobody, including Bush has been saying that.
There was a time when Maliki wouldn’t even let us put up roadblocks without his permission. There were certain missions we couldn’t even run without approval. That had changed. Thank goodness. What is reprehensible is that we allowed that baloney in the first place. You can’t “kick some as s” if you have to ask permission first and give away valuable target info.
I will fault Bush and mealy mouthed generals like Casey (Petraeus’ predecessor) for allowing US military power to be checked by an Iraqi government that was only effective at stalling US troops from finishing off Al Sadr and his Shiite Militias.
In my estimation, this cost us American lives unnecessarily from people sitting in cushy rear eschelon positions of authority that didn’t have to conduct fighting on the ground face to face.
The same can be said when Casey pulled out American Sniper forces in 2004 because a few got killed. Those sniper units were rough on the enemy and were detecting terrorists planting IED’s. Terrorists were getting shot and killed in the streets and not able to operate with full impunity. This was another example of certain military leaders not prosecuting the war in such a fashion to “kick some as s”.
I see this major change in offensive tactics and counter-insurgency efforts as getting us closer to putting the pressure on the Iraqi government to act or be replaced. If the Shiite gov. fails to act, and we get the Sunni’s back into the political process (they abandoned it the first time out)there is a better hope for a new government being formed that will take control of the situation.
If Iraqi politicians feel like the US will sell them out and leave or be forced to leave, then they have no willingness to vote for laws and rules that improve the country and the standing of Kurds, Sunni and Shiites. Think about it: If we leave, the Iranians fill the power vacuum and kill off reform minded legislators. The people in Congress should understand this all too well. If you don’t think you have support, you do nothing rather than rock the boat and get voted out of office. In the case or Iraq it’s not about getting voted out-it’s about getting killed.
You know what I thought was interesting was, the ABC news program “I-caught” yesterday was talking about a controversy that was surrounding our soldiers in the field, with the posting of video content on You Tube and other online video sites, in which the government stated important information was made available to insurgents something like 81 times. Yet, on our own governments websites, they gave away important information that was valuable to the insurgents over 1800 times. Now you tell me what kind of idiots we have running our country & this war?
Mike, the time for kicking ass was 4 years ago, not implementing a “surge” after millions of Iraqis have already been displaced. Bush/Rummy/Cheney should have listened to the early generals who predicted a need for at least 250,000 troops to preserve order.
The fact is, the country of Iraq is already partioning itself due to sectarian violence. Why do you think Baghdad, which was once overwhelmingly Sunni, is now predominantly Shia?
It doesn’t matter what our military does now. the people there are splitting up the country, or leaving it all together. All we are doing is providing an alternative target for insurgents & the newly-formed Iraqi Al Qaida. Nothing can be done, militarily, to stop the partition.
Of course, that frustrates the Bushies no end, since no oil deal has been cut yet. Since it seems less & less likely that will happen, what with the country falling apart and all, what’s wrong with redeploying our troops to a fall-back position until the split is complete? We all know that’s the political solution the Iraqis are headed for.
Are you suggesting that the Biden plan for splitting up the country into three states (Kurd, Sunni and Shia) is the answer here?
I’m suggesting that no matter how we try to control it militarily, Iraq & its people will decide how the country ends up. They are the ones partitioning themselves, not Joe Biden. He was just one of the first Americans to recognize it for what it is.
the Iraqis have the answers, Mike, not us.
Mike and others continue to divert the impeachment discussion to Iraq, Clinton and other issues.
The question concerning who would replace Bush or Cheney and the order of impeachment is important.
One impeachment should closely follow the other.
If Cheney resigns, as I believe he will, Republicans will be allowed to choose his replacement. Choosing his replacement will motivate Republicans to ask him to resign and avoid a Pelosi Vice Presidency, at least till Bush is impeached.
A previous post asked about the Nixon impeachment. There were some differences, between now and then. Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned, prior to investigation of Nixon. Agnew plead no contest to construction contract kickback charges, while he had been Governor of Maryland. Gerald Ford, who was respected by both parties, for his personal integrity, was chosen by Nixon as Vice President. Large Antiwar demonstrations, of tens of thousands of protesters were occuring in Washington and many other cities. We also had the Selective Service draft, during most of Nixon’s presidency and part of the protest seemed motivated by draft age youth.
I think the absence of a corrupt, unpopular Vice President and the large antiwar protests are the main differences, between then and now.
Regarding current impeachment efforts, an advantage presently, is that the corrupt Attorney General Gonzales has resigned. Attorney General John Mitchell, who was involved in coverup, of Republican Party crimes, resigned, during Congressional investigations, of Republican Party crimes, as increasing evidence was revealed. After his resignation, support for Nixon quickly unraveled, as more and more Administration officials testified honestly, to avoid prosecution or reduce their sentences.
Another major difference in the two administrations, is that Nixon was a well read, intelligent, self made man, who had a brilliant Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. George Bush appears to suffer brain damage and appears to have accomplished almost nothing without extravagant financial support, from his father’s wealthy friends.
Public apathy appears much higher now, and apathy is the main obstacle to impeachment.
Another difference now is the internet and internet blogosphere, which hopefully will counteract the limited coverage by the heavily corporate influenced mass media, which is generally more interested in who raised the most campaign contributions, instead of the issues and who and why someone should be elected.
Absolutely amazing! All this comes from the guy who talks about terrorists setting forest fires!
Delusion #1:
“If Cheney resigns, as I believe he will, Republicans will be allowed to choose his replacement. Choosing his replacement will motivate Republicans to ask him to resign and avoid a Pelosi Vice Presidency, at least till Bush is impeached.”
Cheney is not going to resign unless his heart falters and he can’t go on medically. He has been a strong VP. The read on the ‘Pelosi Vice-Presidency’ is a joke. Pelosi will not be VP at any time. She only suceeds into office of the President if both persons are dead or incapacitated. Yet, with your name calling about Bush having brain damage maybe you have a point there–in your own mind.
Delusion #2:
“Regarding current impeachment efforts, an advantage presently, is that the corrupt Attorney General Gonzales has resigned. Attorney General John Mitchell, who was involved in coverup, of Republican Party crimes, resigned, during Congressional investigations, of Republican Party crimes, as increasing evidence was revealed. After his resignation, support for Nixon quickly unraveled, as more and more Administration officials testified honestly, to avoid prosecution or reduce their sentences.”
The fact that Gonzales is gone has nothing to do with Bush or Cheney being impeached. They had every right to fire attorneys if they wanted too. Gonzales problem is that he didn’t have the fortitude to be straight about his involvement in the firings and as such couldn’t be counted on to tell the complete truth. Trying to tie Gonzales to Bush and Cheney is laughable. Gonzales is his own man and made his own bed and has to lie in it (pardon the pun). Every president fires attorneys when he wants to. That is not an impeachable offense.
Delusion #3.
“Another major difference in the two administrations, is that Nixon was a well read, intelligent, self made man, who had a brilliant Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. George Bush appears to suffer brain damage and appears to have accomplished almost nothing without extravagant financial support, from his father’s wealthy friends.”
If Kissinger was such as smart guy why did it take so long to get out of Vietnam? Is it an impeachable offense to have a dumb person working for you? Or more to the point is it an impeachable offense to have Condelleza Rice working for you when she is a distinguished professor and National Security expert that worked in the Reagan administration and had bonafide credentials? By the way, is it an impeachable offense to have a father with wealth? Come on. That is a stretch and lacks total substance. You want to talk about distractions? You are attacking personal qualities that have nothing to do with impeachment.
Delusion #4.
“Public apathy appears much higher now, and apathy is the main obstacle to impeachment.”
It’s not apathy, it’s the lack of substance and it also had to deal with the primary fact none of you guys on the left will give credit to Bush for–the American people wanted safety after 9/11. Bush gave it to them. If there were to be another attack on the US I am certain you guys would throw that out as an impeachable offense. You can’t have it both ways. This is a major reason why the public won’t get behind these loony impeachment arguments–because like it or not Bush is doing his job protecting this country and guys like yourself that hate him.
Delusion #5.
“Another difference now is the internet and internet blogosphere, which hopefully will counteract the limited coverage by the heavily corporate influenced mass media, which is generally more interested in who raised the most campaign contributions, instead of the issues and who and why someone should be elected.”
Democrats are raising more money than Republicans have. They did so in 2004, 2006, and are on target to do so in 2008. This is a major reason why they have been successful electorally. I suppose that is Bush’s fault too and he should be impeached for that as well.
The content of your last post had nothing to do with impeachment and more about attaking the President because you disagree with him politically. Dennis Miller said it best when he lampooned Moveon.org for not moving on and getting stuck on the old WMD’s and Bush Lied diatribe. It’s old, it’s tired, and lacks substance. Instead, it becomes more about calling the president brain damaged and resorting to dirty tactics that the majority of American’s are not apathetic about–they are sick of mud slinging and want real solutions to problems. Wake up and smell the coffee–impeachment isn’t one of accepted solutions. Spend your time getting Democrats elected. It will do more for your mental health and well being than parading this around like Cindy Sheehan wanting to impeach Bush and Cheney.
You make a lot of claims there Mike, but are they all true?
You say the public isn’t supportive of impeachment, but polls show otherwise. Upwards of 45% support Bush’s impeachment, & over 50% support Cheney’s. This doesn’t look like the American people thinks it’s “loony” to me.
You state that the president can fire anyone he likes, but you neglect to mention the second part of the objection: that USA’s were either kept or fired based on political considerations. This is not acceptable in my book, nor is it ethical according to career justice department workers. Nice try Mike, but you presented a “cherry-picked” description of Gonzales’ actions.
You also claim this is just “Bush hating.” Look, we don’t hate Bush. We hate the death he’s brought to the world. We hate his willful lack of intellectual curiosity which allows him his “Dead Certain” judgements about Iraq. He didn’t even know there was a difference between Sunni & Shia muslims! It’s not a personal hate we feel for Dubya, and to diminish our concerns & try to dismiss them as just being hateful is truly disgusting. We love our country just as much as you do.
Speak for yourself Oohhchild. I’m not afraid to admit it. I hate Bush! He’s an idiot and a war monger! Did you see him at the Austrailian APEC summitt the other day? He kept calling it the OPEC summitt. He’s the leader of our country and he’s got the brains of a 6th grader! He’s made a mockery of this country and has left our country at a vulnerable state with the majority of our forces overseas. THAT in itself is a scary thing! Thankfully we only have to put up with his ignorance for just a little while longer. Who cares about impeachment? He’ll be out of office soon enough. Good riddance I say!
Impeachment appears to be the only legal way to remove an incapitated or brain damaged president.
I actually believe we would be better off impeaching Bush first, since Cheney does not appear brain damaged.
Since Cheney is more unpopular, I believe his impeachment first is more achieveable.
My biggest concern, if we do not impeach these corrupt liers, is another electronic election fraud, sponsored by Diebold, a large Republican campaign contributor, who said something to the effect that our purpose is to elect Republicans. I believe Bush will veto electronic election reform, till he is removed.
Hopefully the thread will not be diverted to Clinton again. I favored his impeachment, since there were potential abuse of authority issues, plus perjury and obstruction of justice issues. The impeachment issues with Bush and Cheney concern important constitutional, national and international issues.
We need to impeach more often.
Power to the people!
Just a few recent examples of brain damage:
“Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your introduction. Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit.” –George W. Bush, addressing Australian Prime Minister John Howard at the APEC Summit, Sept. 7, 207
“As John Howard accurately noted when he went to thank the Austrian troops there last year…” –George W. Bush, referring to Australian troops as “Austrian troops,” APEC Business Summit, Sept. 7, 2007
“More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming out any other way.” –George W. Bush, Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
“One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be.” –George W. Bush, on military benefits, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007
(he may have been truthful, in that one)
“I’m a strong proponent of the restoration of the wetlands, for a lot of reasons. There’s a practical reason, though, when it comes to hurricanes: The stronger the wetlands, the more likely the damage of the hurricane.” –George W. Bush, New Orleans, March 1, 2007
“And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I’m sorry it’s the case, and I’ll work hard to try to elevate it.” –George W. Bush, interview on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007
My 5 y/o daughter can speak better than this idiot! He’s an embarrasment to this nation. He’s suppossed to represent our country….what does it say when he can’t carry on a simple conversation with pretty much anybody he talks to without becoming the butt of everyones jokes. Its a sad state of affairs, and i’m glad his term is almost over.
I’m proud to be an American, but I’ve never been more embarrassed to be a part of this country, then while he’s been in office. We’ve literally lost decades of respect from the world community since he’s been in office!
If anyone needs examples of Bush’s lack of intelligence just watch “Great Moments in Presidential Speeches” on Late Night with David Letterman. I think they have a new one every night and they are hysterically funny. Or sad.
Bushisms fill entire daily calendars now. I don’t think anyone will claim he’s brighter than a dim bulb, but “brain damaged” is such an extreme term that you’ll handicap (no pun intended) the rest of any argument you make after you throw that term out. Besides, being a dummy is not cause for impeachment. We’ve had plenty of dim-witted presidents before that stayed in office because they did not commit impeachable offenses.
I could actually support the maneuver described before, where Cheney resigns and Bush appoints another Republican as Vice President to take over in the event Bush is impeached. I agree Pelosi would not be any good as President.
It seems the impeachment buzz has plateaued for awhile, if not backslid a bit. Maybe because we have gone a few weeks (finally) without new Bush scandals being revealed weekly/daily. If more scandals do not emerge in the next several weeks, I imagine the impeachment debate will be over. If more scandals do emerge…
I am not going to respond to those who call the President brain damaged. Your comments speak for themselves. However, I will speak to ooh child’s reasoned objections to my post. Polls you mentioned are skewed based on how the questions are asked. You can ask a question three different ways and get different results that are not scientific. I don’t put much stock in polls. Besides if you look at what is politically popular vs. what is right they are two different things. We want our politicians to stop being politically correct and do the right thing. Fighting terrorism is the right thing to do and will keep this nation more safer than if we retreat.
Second point on the attorneys. While it is true that it would be questionable for a President to remove appointees if they were investigating crimes close to the White House this was not the case in the firing of the 8 attorneys. Clifwest will recall the “Saturday Night Masacre” during the Nixon years when US attorneys investigating CREEP and Watergate type issues were sacked WAS dead wrong and frankly, it was obstruction of justice.
I can think of one case in New Mexico where the attorney was removed. Some thought it was because the attorney did not file voter fraud charges against a democratic candidate before the elections. This is as close as it comes to a “political” removal. Another attorney in California was removed because of failure to enforce/prosecute drug crimes to the satisfaction of the Justice Dept. Gonzales was much like Larry Craig. He should have faced the heat instead of hiding or lying about it! The issue itself was no big deal….the coverup or loss of memory as to the events became more damaging than the actual act.
As for the criticisms about quotes showing speech gone awry you can find that with every politician. So what if he called it the OPEC summit. You try flying around the globe under intense scrutiny day after day for a week or more, changing time zones and a demanding schedule and let’s see you be perfect 100% of the time. This is yet another attempt to take a stab at the President to score political points. Problem is: It doesn’t support impeachment and shows the real intent here which has nothing to do with love of country as much as it does with political disagreement with the person. Cliffwest….you mention that we should impeach more often. I disagree. It should be reserved for high crimes. Impeachment is no more an answer to political disagreement. It is a slippery slope that penalizes people entering and participating in the political process. It does have a chilling effect on office holders and can end up paralyzing a President from taking action to protect us: case in point-Clinton after the USS Cole was bombed. He was hamstrung over impeachment. The Wag The Dog argument took center stage and the United States looked weak. Bin Laden himself said when Clinton failed to strike back it was then and there he knew the United States was a toothless tiger and he began planning 9/11.
By the way, I think you have Bush confused with Democratic Congressman Salvador Reyes who took over the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. He had no clue on the difference between Shiites and Sunni Muslims.
Overall, this thread is about impeachment. People disagree with the Iraq policy and they want to impeach. That is dangerous. We didn’t have people calling for impeachment when Clinton put US troops in the Balkans. What if the next President puts troops in Darfur. Do we impeach them too? This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. The fact that it is thrown around without abandon cheapens this check on Presidential Power and makes it more unlikely that it would be accepted and used in cases where it was truly needed.
The thread is about impeachment. It should not be about 101 reasons we hate Bush and his policies, therefore we want to impeach him. This is what elections are for. I suppose next we will have somebody asking if we can impeach Petraeus next?
I really think Mike is blinded by the Republican party and is willing to support whoever is in office no matter what he’s done. I just don’t see how you can honestly dismiss everthing that is wrong with this President. Take off the blinders and put down the kool-aid.
And no….not every President was as idiotic in their public speaking as Bush has been. He spends a month relaxing at camp David and still can’t give an intelligent interview, how do you explain that? Honestly.
It would just be nice if you admitted he was at fault for something during his administration. But obviously that’ll never happen. Your a die-hard Bush lover and that’s all there is too it. There’s no debating with someone who won’t have an open mind or even see the issues that are right in front of his face. No President in history has had such a hard time public speaking. Even as bad as Carter was, he didn’t hold a candle to the idiotic remarks that come out of Bush’s mouth on a daily basis.
Since you claimed to know the minds of the American public, Mike, I wonder where you get that idea, if not from polls? Just asking around to your group of friends doesn’t really represent the mood of US citizens, does it?
Anyway, no I didn’t confuse anyone with Dubya’s apparent disinterest in muslims sects. According to Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. diplomat, he was unaware of the differences as late as January 2003. Pretty foolish considering he was planning to invade Iraq, don’t you think?
I never thought Bush was stupid, but I’ve come to understand he really is intellectually uninterested. Say what you will about Bill Clinton, you can’t deny his voracious capacity to investigate. Even his die-hard critics give him that. Bush has no curiosity outside of his comfort zone, & it’s his Achilles’ heel.
As far as the USA’s go, I’d love to go over each case with you to show the systematic way Rove & his Rovbots tried to subvert the judicial system. How about Carol Lam? Funny how she was targeted for firing right after a successful investigation against a Republican, and intended to investigate a CIA official. But since 11 people have resigned already over this scandal (with more to surely come), is it really necessary?
It is nice to know that I have blinders on, drink cool aid and probably have some brain damage along the way. On numerous threads in this post I have made critical comments of the Administration. I am not some toaty for Bush or any politician. I am a realist and operate under the guiding principle that America is engaged in war with an enemy that knows no bounds on wanting to destroy our way of life–yours, mine, and our neighbors.
This thread has continually been twisted into personal attacks on the President and not so much about impeachment. When push comes to shove I will always support our President-Democratic or Republican when we are in a war. These attacks have more to do with politics than crimes that require removal from office.
The basic tenet of impeachment is to check Presidential power when the President has committed high treason or crimes of such a nature to call into question judgment and ethical behavior(s). There is currently no basis for impeachment. It is a political argument that is solved at the ballot box. Even Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi know that and that is why they are not pushing for impeachment. So, who is drinking the kool aid now?
Mike,
Why do you spend so much time argueing against impeachment, when you claim it will not occur, because Bush has protected us so well, from terrorists?
Why do you not work to obtain secure US borders and provide our nation some actual protection, from terrorists?
SPECT, fMRI or functional PET brain scans would indicate impairment in King George’s brain, most likely in the left temporal lobe, which involves speech and prefrontal cortex, where executive function is located. His problems are not in his colon.
Oh my!! That one made me LOL!
Sorry…..That was too much.
It looks like we need to just agree to disagree on this one. Nobody is budging in their beliefs.
Which guess what….that’s exactly how it is in Iraq. We’re not budging and the Iraqi’s aren’t budging. It’s a no win situation here Mike and the sooner you and the other blinded Republicans realize that….the sooner we can bring our men and women home and stop all the bloodshed. We can’t change a people that have been brought up with this type of mentality for the past thousand plus years. Like Clifwest, myself and others believe, we need to bring our troops home and focus more on securing our own nation and it’s borders. Then and ONLY then, will we be able to prevent terrorism on our soil. It’s not rocket science Mike and it’s not our job to police the world like we’ve been doing for decades. Other nations are getting fed up with it and I personally don’t blame them. You certainly wouldn’t want Russia telling us how to live our lives in our own country if they were the #1 super power, or would you?
With the move that Putin made the other day, we may start having problems with Russia again with another cold war right around the corner. Our nation is making enemies faster than it’s making friends, and frankly that scares the hell out of me!
Impeachment protests are occuring nationwide tomorrow. Sorry, I have not been able to find one in Idaho.
We really do need that Rocky Mtn regional primary, so presidential candidates pay some attention to us. Sorry to go off topic, Mike,but I believe you might actually agree with me, on the regional primary.
I would support either a “rocky mountain primary” (hadn’t heard of it but i get the gist),
or a nationally-revised primary system of 10 weekly primary contests, with smallest states going first and largest states going last.
But there appears to be a backlash against states that try to jump the primary ladder.
Post 139 was out there….PET scans, MRI’s….absolutely crazy. What a conspiracy theory. Nuf said on that.
Poster 140, thank you for your constructive comments. I agree with you on part of your post. We will have to agree to disagree.
As for the part about us policing the world, many see it as imperialist America calling the shots abroad. Many see it as America supporting buregoning democracies. Nothing being perfect of course, there are always problems with certain regimes we have backed. However, if we use your logic and pack it up we will be fighting these guys at our doorstep. The war in Algeria killed over 100,000 fighting Islamic Militants trying to take over that country all within the last decade. We didn’t pay much attention but it is a fact. Islamic Fascism is on the rise in Europe. Even in France, their recent elections put Sarkozy (more right wing) in the Presidency because people are genuinely getting worried about terrorism that the socialist/leftist government was unwilling to confront.
I suppose if we were in WWII you would have been advocating just beefing up our borders and keeping Hitler from crossing the Atlantic. It wasn’t workable then and thank god the United States stepped in to stop totalitarianism and fascism in it’s tracks. Al Qaeda is no different, if not worse than the Nazi’s and Japanese were.
You will recall Beslan, Russia, Islamic Militants (Chechen Rebels) took 320 children hostage at school and killed 172 of them. They make no bones about killing innocent women and children.
Our nation has always had enemies since it’s inception. America has made many enemies over the decades because we have stood up for freedom around the globe in many hot spots. The conflict in Iraq is no different. I understand your point about historical conflict between Sunni and Shia. While this is an important point to handle, it is not impossible to bring the country together. With the rise of the Wahabist sects in the Middle East both Sunni and Shia are threatened. We are starting to see Sunni’s moving to our side. We also have certain Shia sects in our camp as well. Democrats don’t want to buy it. They aren’t interested in hearing good news that American can and will succeed with strategies that are now being implemented. It makes me angry that we had to wait this long to do what we should have done in the first place. Rumsfeld is definitely to blame in that area.
We can come home and plant our head in the sand but terror attacks will continue here and abroad. The only way you eliminate the threat is to kill it and work to reshape perceptions and build alliances. We are doing those exact things in Iraq now since the Surge began in June.
We made alot of enemies when Reagan dealt the Soviets a blow through the strategy of peace through strength. In the end, America freed millions of people from Soviet Communism. I am not worried about Cuba, Venezuela and other repressive countries being “mad” at us and stirring the pot. Why do people flock to America if we have so many enemies around the globe? It is because America has supported freedom around the globe and given people more opportunities to avoid being killed over political speech, beliefs and behaviors.
I see nothing wrong with securing our borders. However, we cannot be so naive to think that American interests abroad and at home will be uneffected by Al Qaeda and other terror groups if we just pack up, go home, and apologize to them. We were tough with Libya and nailed them into a corner of giving up terrorism and nuclear weapons. We didn’t just throw in the towel and allow proliferation to occur. The historical statement you made: “We can’t change a people that have been brought up with this type of mentality for the past thousand plus years.”….needs to be looked at in the proper context as well. If you study up on Islamic Sharia Law and the belief in the return of the 13th Mahdi, you will know that historically what Al Qaeda and Iran are bringing to the table is world domination by an Islamic Califate (One World Government). They make no bones about it. Bin Laden issued Fatwah’s that it was the duty of every able bodies Muslim to kill any American that did not convert to Islam. You brought up the history lesson–it is time to understand what it means to our National Security. IMO the best way to fight it is over there before it becomes entrenched and threatens Europe and our other NATO partners like Turkey, Greece, and other partners like the Phillipines, Thailand, Singapore, and others. No one is immune. That is why it truly is a global war on terrorism.
Do you remember the old Fram oil filter commercial? You can either pay me $15.00 for a filter now or $1500 for a new engine later. I realize this is simplifying the issue but this is the framework I operate with. This war will take time. It is not a traditional war. The time, energy and effort we put in to this operation now will prevent us from having to pay an even greater price later. This is a longer term view than most American’s are comfortable with. However, I believe it is the correct path. Senator’s Joe Lieberman and even Joe Biden understand this point. Too many Democrats and some Republicans are using the war for political gain. That is wrong and immoral while our brave men and women are fighting and dying in Iraq to save this country and others like it.
While I understand that folks on your side want out and to bring everyone home. IMO short term this would be widely praised by alot of people and put smiles on alot of faces. The problem is that long term we will have to go back and fight against these fascists who threaten all of us–Democrat and Republicans. After 9/11, it was truly amazing to see the country come together and live, breath and eat the phrase “United We Stand”. Unfortunately, that has dissapated and we are divided again. I respect your concerns for the country. I truly believe that most folks don’t want America to lose and by retreating back here it is not viewed as a loss. If I were convinced that fascism would not infect and affect us at home and abroad, I would be on board with you to bring the troops home. To me, this is not about a win or a loss–it is about survival of our institutions and way of life. SlimJim thanks for your comments.
Still no answer from Mike explaining why he spends so much time argueing against impeachment, when he claims it will not occur.
There was a time in my life when my philosophy was to support our President, honor our flag, be the best darned American I could be. After all we lived in the Land of the Free, we had the American Dream, we were the envy of every other country in the World. But somewhere along the years, these ideals were trampled on and our Presidents and other elected officials became more interested in personal gain, wealth and prestige than in our Country’s welfare. Flags were being burned, they were turning up on articles of clothing and not revered anymore. Our country is becoming a laughing stock in the World. Only the very rich can get in power. People are still flocking to the U.S. because we are still the “land of plenty”, but we aren’t the super country or power we were years ago. We open our borders and then forget our ideals and change our laws and policies to accommodate the people coming in. Which in some cases is probably not all bad, but we need to remember who we are and what out forefathers fought for when they came here. Our politicans are becoming more and more corrupt. To put it indelicately, our reputation is going “down the toilet”.
Politicians are elected based on their wealth, not on their credentials. I think a cap should be put in place so that each politician can only spend “X” number of dollars. How long has it been since a multi-million dollar president has not been elected? I think it is sad when a worthy candidate has to drop out of the race or not even enter the race because s/he doesn’t have enough money.
Even Hillary Clinton said on the Letterman show that the amount of money being spent on campaigns was getting out of control. But it doesn’t seem to slow her down.
We blindly sit by and let things like “The Patriot Act” get passed. How many of us actually even know what is in that Act. I bet the majority of us have not read it or could even tell someone the main gist of it.
So what do we do? My current plan this year is to probably not vote for any incumbent. Probably not a wise move and one that I will deviate from when I am at the polls, but as the old adage says “a new broom sweeps clean”.
Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
In Modern Era, Only Nixon and Truman Scored Worse, Just Barely
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; Page A03
President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling.
The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey shows that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush’s job performance, matching his all-time low.
In polls conducted by The Post or Gallup going back to 1938, only twice has a president exceeded that level of public animosity — Harry S. Truman, who hit 67 percent during the Korean War, and Richard M. Nixon, who hit 66 percent four days before resigning.
The historic depth of Bush’s public standing has whipsawed his White House, sapped his clout, drained his advisers, encouraged his enemies and jeopardized his legacy. Around the White House, aides make gallows-humor jokes about how they can alienate their remaining supporters — at least those aides not heading for the door. Outside the White House, many former aides privately express anger and bitterness at their erstwhile colleagues, Bush and the fate of his presidency.
Bush has been so down for so long that some advisers maintain it no longer bothers them much. It can even, they say, be liberating. Seeking the best interpretation for the president’s predicament, they argue that Bush can do what he thinks is right without regard to political cost, pointing to decisions to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and to commute the sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff.
But the president’s unpopularity has left the White House to play mostly defense for the remainder of his term. With his immigration overhaul proposal dead, Bush’s principal legislative hopes are to save his No Child Left Behind education program and to fend off attempts to force him to change course in Iraq. The emerging strategy is to play off a Congress that is also deeply unpopular and to look strong by vetoing spending bills.
Hmmm..post 144…still no answer from Clif why he spends so much time arguing FOR impeachment when it’s not going to happen. BTW Cliff, I already answered your question about why impeachment was not optionable.
I also wanted to state that post 145 was excellent. I thought it made alot of excellent points how I am certain many of us feel betrayed by all of our current set of so called leaders.
And finally, back full circle to Clif….your article makes my point about polls. They are based on popular whim at the time. History is the real judge. Truman is widely regarded as one of our best Presidents and an honest man that did what he thought was best for the United States. Truman, unlike Bush, didn’t have to contend with bloggers and hack journalists like Baker questioning everything he did and reporting every nuance of the Korean War. If CNN had been on the job back then I am sure they would have driven American Public Opinion even farther in the negative direction, especially after battles at Inchon occurred and Chinese incursions into the war in support of the North Korean Army. Truman probably would have faced calls to be impeached and General Douglas McArthur would have been called a liar as well. So, go right on with the attacks but understand that even if you don’t like Bush, at least in the area of the war he has been unwavering in his position and done what he thought was right without regard of trial balloons, focus groups, or criticism from the likes of Pelosi and Reid who would just as soon see the United States lose so they could gain more seats in Congress.
Mike,
Is a one world government by an Islamic Califate any more threatening to our western civilization than a one world Christian government is to the Moslem world? Do those fundamentalist Muslims believe any more fervently in their Promised Mahdi than do our Christian zealots in their belief of world dominance after the return of their Christ? Remember it was people like Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell that got Bush elected. Small wonder that he (Bush) described this military foray into the oil rich middle east as a “crusade”.
Kill them before they can kill us seems to be a popular battle cry these days with the caveat that it is better to fight them over there than here on our shores. Doesn’t this sound vaguely like the domino theory espoused during the Viet Nam War era…stop Communism over there so we don’t have to fight it here?
We were attacked on 9/11 by Islamic extremists who believed it was their holy duty to punish us for our military presence in their part of the world. If the tables were turned, I could envision a similar retaliatory response by Christian fundamentalists to a foray into our nation by a Saudi, Iraqi or Iranian army.
I would hate to think that George W. thinks that he is doing God’s will in hastening Armageddon and returning Jesus Christ to rule the world…I would suppose, rather, that he is waging this war to protect the West’s access to their strategic oil supplies (God knows we’ve gotta keep our Hummers and land yachts running). Perhaps it’s a little of both.
I suppose the biggest concern I have, other than this unwinnable war, would be Bush’s replacement for Supreme Court Justice Stevens, should he retire during Bush’s term. It just seems that there’s a lot more damage this man could do to this country if he isn’t stopped now.
Articles of Impeachment for Cheney gained an additional cosponsor- 19 cosponsors plus sponsor Kucinich, now.
I think House Democrats will replace Nancy Pelosi, with a more effective Speaker, before impeaching Bush or Cheney.
I also suspect Bush may choose Condeleeza Rice as Vice President, if Cheney resigns.
I like both ideas of replacing Pelosi with another speaker and replacing Cheney with Rice. Both of those would appear to be in line with what most Americans want.
At least Greenspan knows why we’re in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html
IMPEACH BUSH FOR VIOLATING 18 UNITED STATES CODE 1001
Bush knew:
Bush had been informed by intelligence officials months before his speech that the uranium sale likely never took place and that the documentary evidence had been forged.
Timeline
January 2, 2001 – Niger Embassy is robbed of worthless documents, perfume, stationery and stamps. [VanityFair]
Summer 2001 – Reports of the documents reporting an attempted sale of yellowcake to Iraq are given to the CIA.
February 2002 – Wilson sent to Niger by the CIA after Cheney requested that the uranium sales story be investigated. [CommonDreams]
February 2002 – Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Wilson that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. [CommonDreams]
After a thorough study, Wilson concluded there was no evidence that a sale had occured and that it would be extremely unlikely.
March 2002 – Memo from State Department states “Sale of Niger Uranium to Iraq unlikely” and points out serious flaws in the Italian documents.
March 9th, 2002 – Wilson report given to White House. [Time]
September 2002 – In a closed Senate hearing, CIA directorGeorge J. Tenet and his top weapons analyst, Robert Walpole, expressed strong doubts about the uranium story. The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, likewise, called the claim “highly dubious.” [WashingtonPost]
On or before October 7, 2002 – CIA Director George Tenet argues “personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley,” that the Africa-uranium claim should not be included in Bush’s October 7 speech because the allegation is based on only one source. (WashingtonPost, WashingtonPost)
January 28, 2003 – After much discussion with the CIA, Bush uses this story about uranium in his State of The Union speech. Bush said “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”. The phrase “the British Government has learned ” is used so they can try to argue that technically Bush didn’t lie, because the British government did receive that false information. But according to the definition of fraud, if one makes statements knowing that they are misleading then it is still fraud.
Law violated:
18 USC 1001.
WHOEVER, IN ANY MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ANY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY falsifies, CONCEALS OR COVERS UP by any trick, scheme, or device A MATERIAL FACT, OR MAKES ANY false, fictitious or FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS OR REPRESENTATIONS, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, SHALL BE FINED under this title OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH.
(Misdemeanors do not carry prison sentences, exceeding two years. Violating 18 USC 1001 is a federal felony and an impeachable high crime)
EMPHASIS ADDED
Early February 2003 – IAEA receives copies of the documents purporting a sale of uranium to Iraq from Niger. [FindLaw - letter from the IAEA to Rep Henry Waxman]
March 7, 2003 – In a speech to the UN, Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA reports that they have “concluded that Iraq’s efforts to import these aluminium tubes were not likely to have been related to the manufacture of centrifuges” and that “documents – which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger – are in fact not authentic”. [IAEA][UN]
March 19, 2003 – Bush invades Iraq.
April 18, 2003 – The lie is repeated in a statement titled “Disarm Saddam Hussein” from the White House that said Saddam “recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, according to the British Government.”
This is just one of the many crimes Bush commited, which he should be impeached for.
It is time for the silent majority to make themselves seen and heard, by demanding the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
The Democrats are smart enough to replace Pelosi with a more presidential Majority Speaker, before the Majority Speaker, becomes a Vice President. I will be surprised if Pelosi lasts a year, as Speaker of the House, since she has been so ineffective.
yawn. Good night.
I have read through a lot of argument here for and against impeachment of Bush/Cheney. It is my opinion that many of you have fallen under the spell of the anti-Bush media blitz that has overtaken the airwaves of this contries televisions and newspapers for the past few years. What they don’t tell you is about all of the good that the current presidency has done for this country. They don’t want you to know.
Before you fire up the electric chair try to chase down the facts for yourselves, don’t rely upon reporters whos opinions are expressed as facts in thier reporting.
United Nations reports state that there are still Thousands of TONS of chemical and biological warefare agents unaccounted for in Iraq. Where they are? nobody knows. We can’t find them and the Iraqis are not saying what happened to them. Does this mean that they still possess them for use? I don’t know, do you?
It is easy to be critical of situations, but before any of you cast the first stone, be sure you have all of the facts, not just what the media wants you to hear.
Our history is full of men like Bush/Cheney. That is why you have the right to be openly critical of you own government and not have you and your family shot for it.
Try living in a country for a few years where the people have no rights, no freedoms. Then lets see how critical you are of your government and it’s processes. I have, have you?
One last thought. Right now the terrorist factions are attacking well armed and trained American troops in Iraq and Afganastan. If we pull our troops out, who will the terrorist start attacking then? My guess is unarmed American civillians, most likely right back here on our own soil.
The above opinion is that of the writer, a freedom given to him by the vetrans and current members of our millitary, to whom this writer is eternally gratefull.
to bodlvr: So there are thousands of TONS of chemical and biological weapons still unaccounted for in Iraq? Are you saying they are still there? How many years have we been running that country now? And we haven’t found them? All the more reason to get rid of the criminally inept Bush/Cheney. Oh, and your living in another country that doesn’t have our freedoms has absolutely nothing to do with Bush/Cheney being incompetent liars and helping their friends profit from the war. So what if we still have it better than some other countries? We should have it better than we do.
I think the point the poster was making was that for all the talk of our freedoms being abridged try going to other countries that put limits on speech, and even imprison or kill those that try to exercise the rights and privileges we have in the USA. This mean that your boy Bush hasn’t taken those freedoms away and ruined the Constitution like you would like the rest of us to believe.
well said Mike… sheesh, some of these kids need to think a little before spewing, or at least consider what they are responding to and use sensible argument
To Mike & why not:
It’s no surprise to see the Bush apologists attacking his critics again. Are you saying that we haven’t lost any freedoms since Bush has been in office? I disagree with that. And the fact that we have it better than some other countries has nothing to do with the qualifications of Bush & Cheney. Freedom of speech has been around a lot longer than they have.
Maybe “why not” should take off their blinders before they accuse others of “spewing” and not using sensible argument.
It’s no suprise to those of us that folks with more venom than common sense attack the President and support appeasement of terrorists by withdrawl. There how’s that for taking the blinders off Guest111.
Seriously now, why not, myself and others have made legitimate points on this thread, just as some on the other side of the argument have made points. The difference here is that many supporters of impeachment are so rabid in their approach and arguments (i.e. Bush is brain damaged) that it detracts from serious discussion of the pro and con and gets into a sparring match. Last time I checked this site wasn’t like Moveon.org, the Daily Kos, or some wing nut conspiracy site with lunes spouting off. I think the majority of us have argued responsibily for our positions, with the exception of a few that always seem to creep in. Just because you disagree with myself, why not and bodlvr doesn’t mean you have to disparage our character, intellect, or person to bolster your point(s).
Sorry Mike, it was MY character and intellect that were disparaged by others first. And I never said a word about withdrawal. Do you ever think first before typing? Who has more venom than common sense? Look in the mirror.
So that makes it ok for you to do the same Guest111? All Mike was trying to say is don’t bother posting unless you got something intelligent to say and/or discuss, besides bashing Bush and his administration.
You’re right, Jose Cuervo, that doesn’t make it okay. But if you go back and read my previous posts prior to my being bashed, they were relevant to the discussion. The replies that I received were not. Buh-Bye now, I’m done here.
Adios muchachos!
Mike is complaining about posters being disrespectful, when he claims those who disagree with him are part of a “wing nut conspiracy,” and his “considered” response to a posting of a prima facie case for impeachment is “yawn?” Mike engaged in sophmoric slander by stating that Californians hate America, when many died in combat, defending America.
BTW, Mike is the only one who inferred that Mike is brain damaged. Mike was not called brain damaged by anyone here, but perhaps himself.
In many posts, I read the on-going statement that Cheney is expected to resign. To be truthful, I have not read or heard of that from anywhere but here. I admit that sometimes I do have selective hearing, but I can’t believe I haven’t heard this. Because this would have definitely been in my “selection”. Is there any substance to this or is it just a rumor that has been started?
Let’s not forget that it was Ambassador Joe Wilson who exposed the Niger uranium story as bunk. Why do some posters keep saying that it is anti Bush media that is responsible for the story. Mike, your “yawn” response was not in keeping with your otherwise thought out retorts. Shame on you. Clifwest had some valid points, but, it seems that you (Mike) and Clifwest are still missing the big picture…OIL! When Greenspan tells us the Iraqi War was for oil…I believe him. All the pretenses, i.e., WMD’s, uranium acquisition or the fact that Saddam was a despot seem but a smoke screen for the real reason we have troops occupying Iraq.
If Saddam or anyone had been, or were, able to disrupt the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz by twenty to twenty five percent, the price of a barrel of oil would rise 50%. Perhaps it’s time we called this war what it is…the insured, unhindered access to Middle Eastern oil, so vital to the lifeblood of this and other Western nations. The U.S., with 5% of the world’s population, uses 25% of the oil consumed in the world. Unless we’re willing to sacrifice more lives and the 10B dollars a month this war is costing us, we had better do something to reduce our oil addiction. We need to put our brightest minds on solving our energy crisis, we simply can’t afford dragging this war on any longer and the fact that we have a president who is so beholden to big oil interests that he is not leveling with the American people about our reason for being in Iraq is all the more reason for his removal…the quicker the better.
My yawn comment was about the same old beating a dead horse with Cliff citing how Bush violated 18 USC 1001 yet again. It is an old argument that has been tested and rejected by legal minds on both sides of the isle.
As for the brain damaged comment, it was about what Cliff called Bush (not me). I never stated Cliff called me brain damaged. The point is that with all the same tired arguments being made over and over again and the name calling being made over and over again it isn’t worth replying to and being the same broken record. Real simple. Sorry if someone was confused or expected a response to items that have already been responded to since this thread has been going on.
Mike, get over the playground…he called me this and I say he’s dumb crap and address issues.
Will we be able to pull our troops out of Iraq and risk a skyrocketing price for a barrel of oil and the inevitable effect that would have on the western economies? Or would a troop pullout initiate a take over by Saudi Arabia. The administration recently announced that the Saudi kingdom would receive $30B in U.S. weaponry. Are we hoping that leaving them in charge would be better than a Shiite takeover with fundamentalist Moslems Ayatollahs in charge of an oil market that supplies infidel, western nations.
Mike, put your brain to work on what solutions we might adopt in this country to free us from our oil dependency. That 10B dollars a month we’re spending to protect oil could go a long way towards developing nuclear power, electric cars, photovoltaics, fuel cells, etc. etc…anything that will help to end our oil addiction.
Please give me your thoughts on this, Mike, I would look forward to reading them. I would hope that you would admit that oil is the real reason we’re there and the reason we’ll remain there for a very long time as long as our economy is so dependent on it. Putting the military price tag for our oil gluttony on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren just ain’t right.
Occupation of Iraq does not help keep open Straits Of Hormuz. The Navy and Air Force can keep the Straits open.
Bush led the wrong way again, with fuel economy, providing tax credits for Hummers, while failing to renew tax credits for fuel efficient hybrid autos, which could reduce our dependence on
Mideastern oil. Six and a half years down the road to dependence on Mideastern oil, with no increase in automotive fuel efficency standards, which Bush repeatedly opposed.
I shake my head at the current standoff between Bush and Congress over children’s health insurance.
As far as I can tell, congress wants ton increase the funding from $1 billion to $30 billion. I don’t know the details, but anything increasing the health care of American kids sounds generally good to me.
However, in the bizzaro-world that Bush lives in, the Democrats are jeopardizing the health care of these kids because they know he will veto the funding increase.
But wait, if Bush signed the bill, wouldn’t the kids would have increased health care? Nope, according to Bush, congress is acting recklessly here.
Just an example of the backwards Bush logic that he tries to sell.
As many like to say about the media, just because Bush says it does not mean it is anywhere near the truth.
Joe,
You need to take a closer look at these alleged “children’s health care” programs…..see what (and who) they cover, and more importantly, what they don’t….just more “pork” for congress to toss around…..
Thanks for the opportunity to respond meso. Our interest in the region is certainly over oil supplies. However, we also have an issue of terrorism occuring that threatens American interests abroad and at home from the Phillipines to Europe. We are fighting on multi-fronts to erradicate terrorism. Iraq is one of many battlegrounds in this effort.
As for a troop pullout, I wouldn’t necessarily see that effecting our access to oil. However, I believe it would have the effect of increasing the price. Right now, we are in bed with Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations to stay in the region to protect their ability to sell us oil and not have interference from the Iranians and Al Qaeda to either cut production to drive up prices and/or blow up oil refineries to shut off production and drive up prices. Many OPEC nations are wary of the Iranians and their fanatical drive for an Islamic califate. By our presence and logistical support these regimes check Iranian and Al Qaeda influence and we get a sustained supply of oil at ‘reasonable’ prices. So, if we pull back, this arrangment has the ability to fail and if the Iranians filled the power vacuum in Iraq and took over (like they tried to do during the 1980s Iran/Iraq war) the situation would be drastically dismal for American interests. We also have the real prospect of more territory for Al Qaeda to use as a sanctioned training ground for jihad against the West. So, if we pull out we may have to commit to arming the Saudi’s and others to the teeth–and be prepared for prices to rise substantially as a result. We should also then be prepared for the eventual all out war in the region between Arabs as well as an attack on Israel. This in turn would force the United States into reactionary military action to preserve middle east oil reserves….if you think we are hated now, wait until the next President had to take this unilateral action to protect the United States and see how popular we would be and what a recruiting tool this would be for Islamic jihadists.
This leads to the next question about energy independence. Locally and globally we have the opportunity to slowly but surely walk away from oil. Nuclear power is a great asset we have at our disposal. We need to begin harvesting our technical abilities and put this resource to work for us. Many years ago in my physics classes I learned about available technologies developed in the 1950s for ceramic enginesthat increased fuel efficencies as well as the electric cars developed and then destroyed by General Motors. We have a variety of technolgies available “on the shelf”. The next President needs to declare these technologies a national security resource and harness them in the marketplace. Big oil won’t be happy, but with appropriate political leadership on this issue we can put science and technology to use to save us from continually bankrolling corrupt Arab governments for decades to come. We must also look at domestic drilling of oil reserves in places like Anwar Range in Alaska–with appropriate environmental controls in place.
I want to take a moment to address clifwest. Clif, you have been banging the drum of impeachment for awhile. You have made a number of statements that I questioned. However, your post in #169 was the clincher as to your reckless disregard for the truth. You said: “Occupation of Iraq does not help keep open Straits Of Hormuz. The Navy and Air Force can keep the Straits open.
Bush led the wrong way again, with fuel economy, providing tax credits for Hummers, while failing to renew tax credits for fuel efficient hybrid autos, which could reduce our dependence on
Mideastern oil. Six and a half years down the road to dependence on Mideastern oil, with no increase in automotive fuel efficency standards, which Bush repeatedly opposed.”
I will not spend much time arguing with you about the Straits being kept open. True, they can be kept open…but if you have no oil to ship out on the ground it doesn’t matter if the water way is open.
More importantly, the reason I don’t take your comments seriously is due to the fact that you just blatantly lied about President Bush in your post. The President never approved tax credits for Hummers and never failed to authorize continued tax credits for other vehicles. Here is the Internal Revenue Service Summary List for Tax Credited Vehicles.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=157557,00.html
Additionally, you might be interested to note that Democratic Representative John Dingel and Democratic Senator Carl Levin (both from Michigan) have been ardent opponents of comprehensive auto efficency standards for many years. Read the post below for more details so you can get the picture that this is not a Bush signature issue. Google automobile efficency standards for more reading that points to the same issues.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/19/rep-john-dingell-drops-his-fuel-economy-proposal
In my opinion, your lack of objectivity and unwillingness to tell the truth put you in the same category of the man you say lied to the American people. If you really expect people to believe you when you tell falsehoods then you’re either a politician or delusional. You can spout an opinion all day but back it up with facts. Don’t make up facts to fit your theories and try to convince people your argument is right. If your beliefs are so strong, so correct, then why the need tell falsehoods? Or could it be that your arguments is based more on smear tactics than logical and factual realities? This is the same type of tactics we saw when Moveon.org took out the ad smearing General David Petraeus before he even testified. It is exactly these type of tactics that make impeachment unlikely.
from Hybridcenter.org
Hybrid Watchdog: SUV Tax Loophole vs. Hybrid Tax Credits
“A Hummer of a Loophole”
Origin of the SUV Tax Deduction: “A Hummer of a Loophole”
A 1997 provision in the U.S. tax code (Section 179) provided small businesses with a tax write-off of up to $25,000 for a vehicle weighing more than 6,000 pounds- used 50% of the time for work purposes. The original intent behind this provision was to encourage investments in pickup trucks, minivans, and other needed service vehicles. A far smaller incentive was provided for cars–less than $7,000 over two years.
Today’s average vehicle fuel economy is at a 20 year low (24 mpg on government tests).The explosion of SUV, pickup, and minivan sales in America’s passenger vehicle fleet has turned this small business benefit into a massive loophole in the tax law. Currently, 38 different passenger SUVs including the Lincoln Navigator, which nets a combined 15 miles per gallon according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Cadillac Escalade (16 mpg), the BMW X5 (18 mpg), the Mercedes-Benz ML55 (16 mpg), and the notorious Hummer H2 (estimated 11 mpg) all weigh more than 6,000 pounds. This loophole allows some of the most fuel-inefficient passenger vehicles on the road today to qualify for a significant tax break.
In 2003, the Bush administration proposed increasing the tax deduction to $75,000. Lawmakers responded by expanding it to a whopping $100,000 as part of the $350 million tax cut package. Yet Congress did not change the weight-based classification of the vehicles, creating a huge benefit for the largest, least efficient vehicles.
Accountants, SUV dealers rush to capitalize
Around the country, auto dealers such as “the Car Guy” Jerry Reynolds in Texas and hundreds of accountants and online tax management sites have been encouraging small business owners such as doctors, lawyers, and realtors to rush out and take advantage of this tax windfall. One advertisement from Dugan & Lopatka, an accounting firm in Wheaton, IL, reads, “Write-Off 100% of Your New SUV? Yes, If It’s Under 100,000!”
According to a November 7, 2003, article in the Washington Post, Dugan & Lopatka were so inundated with phone calls regarding their advertisement they nearly had to shut down their switchboard. Industry analysts predicted a spike in purchases last November and December due to the typical year-end rush to claim the deduction for tax returns.
Senators push for closure of loophole
Several proposals have been offered to fix the loophole. At one point, the Senate Finance Committee staff actually proposed raising the weight limit to 14,000 pounds, enough to disqualify even the Hummer. Bills introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA) would take a different approach to closing the SUV tax loophole. In The SUV Business Tax Loophole Closure Act, they propose that SUVs weighing 6,000 pounds or more simply be reclassified as cars under the tax code.
100 years ago Ford’s Model-T got better fuel economy than today’s average SUV.In October, after the House Ways and Means Committee approved a 3-year extension of the $100,000 loophole, a House-Senate conference committee negotiated a roll back in the deduction to its original amount of $25,000 as part of the larger Corporate Tax Bill. While tightening this loophole is certainly noteworthy, it is by no means the end of significant tax breaks for gas-guzzling SUVs. According to an analysis in the Detroit News, besides the $25,000 basic equipment deduction, SUVs will still qualify for “bonus depreciation,” an added write off of 30 percent of the purchase price above $25,000. Beyond that, additional costs can be deducted according to regular depreciation rules, or 20 percent in the first year. For example, a business owner purchasing a Hummer H1, with a sticker price of $106,185, would be able to deduct $60,722 in the first year under the revised rules: a $25,000 equipment deduction, $24,356 in bonus depreciation, and $11,366 in regular depreciation.
Hybrid vehicle credits & The CLEAR Act
In May 2002, the IRS declared gasoline/electric hybrids eligible for tax deductions as “clean fuel” vehicles under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (PL 103-486). The deduction ceiling began at $2,000, with the tax deduction set to end in 2006, with $500 less available each year as the deduction is phased out.
UCS has been working with a bipartisan group of senators and representatives to develop a comprehensive package of tax credits for the purchase of a full range of alternative-fuel and advanced-technology vehicles. This package was introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Congressman Dave Camp (R-MI) as the CLEAR Act in March 2003. Improving on current tax law, these incentives are designed to be performance-based, ensuring that credits go to vehicles that get significant fuel economy and low tailpipe emissions.
Hybrids are more expensive than their conventional brethren, but don’t just look at the sticker price. Take into account the $2000 federal tax deduction, the money savings on gasoline, and any state or local incentives into account before you buy.The CLEAR Act passed the Senate Finance Committee with strong environmental provisions intact, but unfortunately, the House dramatically weakened the bill by removing the hybrid tax credit and replacing it with a credit for diesel vehicles. If and when a final version of federal energy legislation emerges it could contain some form of these tax incentives. UCS will continue to push for performance-based tax credits that will help make the cleanest vehicles more affordable.
As a stopgap measure, Congress recently extended the existing federal tax deduction at the original $2,000 level for fiscal year 2005. After this, the tax deduction will reduce to 75 percent and then phase out in 2006 as passed in the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. While this extension will certainly help continue the promotion of hybrid technologies, it has neither the duration nor the environmental performance criteria contained in CLEAR Act language.
Bad tax breaks are a fiscal waste and send the wrong environmental message
While Congress takes small steps back-and-forth on hybrid vs. SUV tax breaks, the U.S. market has shown what course U.S. policy should take as Toyota Prius sales recently passed the Hummer H2. Given the pressing environmental and oil security issues America currently faces, wasting taxpayer money on incentives for vehicles that contribute to both problems simply does not make sense. Fully correcting that loophole and embracing a broader investment program committed to bringing more advanced, economical, and environmentally friendly vehicles to market would be a far wiser course of action.
Admittedly Bush did not singlehandedly increase tax credits for Hummers and other wasteful, fuel inefficient vehicles and some Republicans (I do believe in giving Republicans credit when they deserve it )did attempt to join with Democrats to reduce tax breaks for these inefficient vehicles, but Bush got his way, with a Republican Congress.
Mike,the Navy and Air Force have kept the Straits of Hormuz open, since before the first Gulf War, without ground troops in Iraq.
When was the last time Iraq exported oil?
Cliff, thanks for all the information. It was nice to know that the 1997 law you quoted: “Origin of the SUV Tax Deduction: “A Hummer of a Loophole”
A 1997 provision in the U.S. tax code (Section 179) provided small businesses with a tax write-off of up to $25,000 for a vehicle weighing more than 6,000 pounds- used 50% of the time for work purposes. The original intent behind this provision was to encourage investments in pickup trucks, minivans, and other needed service vehicles. A far smaller incentive was provided for cars–less than $7,000 over two years.”,
was the origin of tax credits…too bad Bush wasn’t in office in 1997. Bill Clinton was President then.
I will give you credit though. After all the paragraphs of interesting reading you did admit my point that “Admittedly Bush did not singlehandedly increase tax credits for Hummers and other wasteful, fuel inefficient vehicles and some Republicans (I do believe in giving Republicans credit when they deserve it )did attempt to join with Democrats to reduce tax breaks for these inefficient vehicles, but Bush got his way, with a Republican Congress.”
However, looking at the IRS rules on tax credit vehicles what I see is tax credits on vehicles that are Hybrids. How is that still a slam on Bush or a Republican Congress? Further, how does that support impeachment? It doesn’t!
As for the last time Iraq exported oil, Iraq has the 2nd largest reserve of explored oil. Estimates put the reserve at over 112 billion barrels. Only Saudi Arabia has more oil reserves on tap. There is another 100 billion barrels in unexplored areas that are estimated to exist. In 2002, Iraq exported over 2.5 million barrels a day. Post war Iraq only exports 1.1 million barrels a day (see link from the BBC–I tried to cite a more objective source on current export data).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4574954.stm
So, Iraq continues to export oil, they are sitting on billions of barrels and yep, this is a large part of why we are there. Can you imagine a troop pullout that could lead to Iranian takeover of the Iraqi oil supply?
Check out this excellent link to give some points to consider about how Iran and Iraq have interacted in the last 20 years. After reading the FACTUAL history between these two adversaries it will be very clear about the Iranian designs on Iraq.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraqchron.html
The Iranian designs are not well known in the United States or appreciated for their significance of the threat to the United States. If we are to discuss impeachment as a result of going to war in the Middle East, the Iranian part of the picture needs to be looked at in the totality of the circumstances. It is also important to note that the President has considered this in his calculations to stay the course (yes, I know the phrase is derisive)….but it speaks to a measured understanding of the threats to United States National Security. In my view, ignorance of the Iranian threat and threats by Islamic Jihad would be grounds for impeachment itself. Failing to take steps to protect the country are not in keeping with the office of the Presidency.
Clinton did nothing after the attack on the Cole. Bin Laden cited the lack of an American response as a signal that “….the tiger (the United States) had no claws” and moved planning on 9/11 forward.
Read the link from Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
So, we come full circle. You believe Bush lied. Many other believe Bush has protected the United States and gone on the offensive to fight terrorism and secure US oil and support US allies that provide US oil.
I will say it again, if we talk impeachment, if we talk withdrawl we need to be looking at not only Al Qaeda influence, but Iranian influence as well. No one is talking about this. America is fixated on two options (stay or go) and is not examining the unintended consequences of continuing business as usual or burying our head in the sand and hoping things work out well. The media and both political parties are to blame for trying to simplify an issue that is much more complex than they give the American public credit to be able to understand.
Reports surfacing that Bush could have paid Saddam Hussein a measly $1 billion to leave willingly and go into exile.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=484162&in_page_id=1811
Instead, we are spending nearly a trillion bucks, and nearing four-thousand American soldiers killed in action.
Is it presidential dereliction of duty that Bush had this opportunity to avoid the war, but he brushed it off? Does this dereliction of duty rise to the level of an impeachable offense?
It has been the policy of the US to not pay off terrorists or thugs. This was the same policy under Clinton. I can’t believe that Congress would have gone along with this stunt for starters. However, assuming that Congress approved the money if Bush had gone along with this he SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED. You don’t reward bad behavior with bribes and payoffs that would be criminal.
Weren’t the Haiti dictators bought out right before we almost invaded? They supposedly went into a cushy exile.
Payoffs would have been a much better option than spending $10B a month to occupy Iraq. Where are the Henry Kissingers of our generation when we need them?
Yeah, I am sure Saddam would have taken the money and thumbed his nose at the US. He was a narcisist. This would have proven to be used by Saddam as a political tool to show that the US was trying to bribe him into leaving. Not even Kissinger would have advocated such a crazy policy. I also recall the Democrats trying to make hay over Reagan paying arms for hostages in 1981. I seriously doubt that anyone would have gone along with this crazy scheme as it was not enforceable or practical. Sure, it sounds better than the alternative, but it would have never worked. Even if Saddam stepped down someone else from the Bath party would have kept tight reins on the country. It would have been business as usual in most respects. The Bathists, including Saddam were not about to give up power.
BTW-Joe, regarding the Haiti comment: Do you recall when this supposedly happened. There was a brief planned incursion of US forces in 1993 to train the police..it fizzled when the port was blocked and the US turned back troops to avoid bloodshed. That is all I really am aware of.
I don’t have the facts on it. I just recall things from that time, and from reading autobiographies by Buzz Paterson and Colin Powell.
As I understand it, we were set to invade Haiti, had the planes in the air, Clinton was yelling at Carter to get on the plane and leave, and the dictators finally took a deal. They took a bunch of money and left peacefully several days after U.S. forces landed. I am not sure if they just took the money from Haiti or if the U.S. gave them some, or both. The last word I heard was the dictators are in “exile” somewhere in South America.
As a citizen of the richest nation in the world, I don’t think we should be particular about buying our diplomatic wants. I think it would ultimately be cheaper to invest in these “terrorist” nations, export our culture to them, and pacify them like Americans are pacified by malls, Pepsi, and Britney Spears. Much less bloodshed and bad-will to America.
Mike,
It appears you falsely accused me of falsely accusing Bush, in the following statement, which I posted:
“Bush led the wrong way again, with fuel economy, providing tax credits for Hummers, while failing to renew tax credits for fuel efficient hybrid autos”
In 2003, the Bush administration proposed increasing the tax deduction to $75,000. Lawmakers responded by expanding it to a whopping $100,000 as part of the $350 million tax cut package. Yet Congress did not change the weight-based classification of the vehicles, creating a huge benefit for the largest, least efficient vehicles.
Bush actually proposed increasing the deduction to $75,000, then the Republican Congress increased it to $100,000.
Tax credits were allowed to expire after October 1, 2007 for all of the following vehicles
Notice 2006-78
(3) For vehicles purchased for use or lease on or after October 1, 2007, no
credit is allowable.
2007
Make Model Credit Amount News Release #
Chevrolet Silverado 2WD Hybrid Pickup Truck $ 250 IR-2006-108, July 11, 2006
Chevrolet Silverado 4WD Hybrid Pickup Truck $ 650 IR-2006-108, July 11, 2006
Ford Escape Hybrid 2WD $2,600 IR-2006-98, June 21, 2006
Ford Escape Hybrid 4WD $1,950 IR-2006-98, June 21, 2006
GMC Sierra 2WD Hybrid Pickup Truck $ 250 IR-2006-108, July 11, 2006
GMC Sierra 4WD Hybrid Pickup Truck $ 650 IR-2006-108, July 11, 2006
Honda Accord AT $1,300 IR 2006-183, Nov. 22, 2006
Honda Accord Navi $1,300 IR 2006-183, Nov. 22, 2006
Honda Civic CVT $2,100 IR 2006-183, Nov. 22, 2006
Lexus* GS450h Purchase Date IR-2006–67, April 25, 2006
1-1-06 / 9-30-06 $1,550
10-1-06 / 3-31-07 $ 775
4-1-07 / 9-30-07 $ 387.50
10-1-07 $ 0
Lexus * RX 400h 4WD Purchase Date IR-2006-154, Sept. 30, 2006
1-1-06 / 9-30-06 $2,200
10-1-06 / 3-31-07 $1,100
4-1-07 / 9-30-07 $ 550
10-1-07 $ 0
Lexus* RX 400h 2WD Purchase Date IR-2006-154, Sept. 30, 2006
1-1-06 / 9-30-06 $2,200
10-1-06 / 3-31-07 $1,100
4-1-07 / 9-30-07 $ 550
10-1-07 $ 0
Mercury Mariner Hybrid 4WD $1,950 IR-2006-98, June 21, 2006
Saturn Vue Green Line $ 650 IR-2006-110, July 11, 2006
Toyota* Camry Hybrid Purchase Date IR-2006–67, April 25, 2006
1-1-06 / 9-30-06 $2,600
10-1-06 / 3-31-07 $1,300
4-1-07 / 9-30-07 $ 650
10-1-07 $ 0
Toyota* Prius Purchase Date IR-2006-154, Sept. 30, 2006
1-1-06 / 9-30-06 $3,150
10-1-06 / 3-31-07 $1,575
4-1-07 /9-30-07 $ 787.50
10-1-07 $ 0
Toyota* Highlander Hybrid 2WD Purchase Date IR-2006-154, Sept. 30, 2006
1-1-06 / 9-30-06 $2,600
10-1-06 / 3-31-07 $1,300
4-1-07 / 9-30-07 $ 650
10-1-07 $ 0
Toyota* Highlander Hybrid 4WD Purchase Date IR-2006-154, Sept. 30, 2006
The following four vehicles appear to have retained some tax credits, since total accumulated sales have not exceeded a pre-specified limit:
2008
Make Model Credit Amount News Release #
Ford Escape Hybrid 2WD $3,000 IR 2007-22, Jan. 31, 2007
Ford Escape Hybrid 4WD $2,220 IR 2007-22, Jan. 31, 2007
Mercury Mariner Hybrid 2 WD $3,000 IR 2007-22, Jan. 31, 2007
Mercury Mariner Hybrid 4WD $2,200 IR 2007-22, Jan. 31, 2007
Review of this information indicates that I did not make a false statement, since Bush proposed increasing tax credits for Hummers, in 2003 and they were increased. Bush does appear to have allowed tax credits to expire on many hybrid or extremely fuel efficient vehicles, in 2007.
I am not aware of whether all of the vehicles, on the 2007 list are hybrids, but they all apparently received tax credits, due to high fuel efficiency.
Sorry about the tables being scrambled, by the program. You may need to open the link to tables, in the IRS documents.
you’ll never convince Mike that Bush is evil. Dubbya can do no wrong in Mikes eyes and he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread!
But then again he can’t see too well with all that wool pulled over his eyes.
No hard feelings Mike…we still enjoy your posts even though we don’t like your choice of Presidents. (let alone political party)
I wonder why conservatives seem to always accuse liberals of drinking kool aid and liberals seem to always accuse conservatives of wool pulled over their eyes?
Really, I’d rather see both sides address objective criteria rather than insinuate others have some mental block preventing them from seeing “the truth”.
Good information in 182, clifwest, I don’t know what’s true anymore so I appreciate both sides debating this (when they debate it).
LOL…good point Joe!
And you’re right, both sides have their issues. Why don’t we have any real independent parties running for office? Aside from Micheal Bloomberg or some strange Baptist preacher from Florida?
Well, fellas, today I saw an issue that really upset me about Bush. The President sent orders to Texas and 8 other states that they had to allow foreign nationals in custody to communicate with their consulates. The case emminates out of convicted double murderer and rapist Jose Medellin in Texas. Medillin, a Mexican national, raped and murdered two young teenage girls. He was caught, convicted and Mexico sued in the World Court that the US violated the a 1963 treaty that entitled foreign nationals to be notified that they could speak to their repsective foreign consulate.
Apparently, Texas committed an oversight and didn’t advise Medellin that he had the ability to speak to his consulate. In reaction to the World Court decision Bush bended and sent a loony order to the States that they had to allow for this and review the sentences of these killers. The Administration argued before the Supreme Court today that Medellin’s conviction should be vacated and he should be retried.
There is no doubt to Medellin’s guilt. He confessed and evidence corroborated his guilt. No treaty can subvert the United States Constitution. No President can or should attempt to subvert the Constitution in such an obvious move that places international law above US law. It is not a far stretch to see how this move would embolden nations to subvert our sovereignty and take away our Bill of Rights, i.e. the 1st & 2nd Amendment rights of free speech and the right to bear arms. The list goes on.
The last time I checked it was the job of the President to protect the United States and preserve the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I don’t see that in this case. Bush should have told the World Court to shove it. Because he did not, this is a move that places me in a reluctant situation that impeachment is necessary (just not for the same reasons as Clifwest) for the protection of the United States Constitution.
Mike,
I usually agree with most of your posts, but this one I have to disagree. If I were arrested in a foreign country I certainly would want to communicate with the American Consulate in that country. Otherwise you could be scooped up and never seen from again. If we don’t do it here, how would we expect other contries to respect international laws and treaties? Just because they can communicate with their Consulate does not mean they will be set free. It gives them opportunities to pass messages to family members and to let that country follow the case and monitor the treatment of thier countrymen, just like the U.S. Consulates do when Americans are arrested in other countries.
Texas was not denying the guy the ability to contact his consulate. I could see that as a troubling issue but that is not what happened. It was merely that he was not informed about his ability to speak to the Mexican consulate. Frankly, that is not the job of the States. If the feds signed the treaty then they should be the ones to give blanket notifications to foreign nationals picked up for crimes. This is certainly no justification to allow an admitted rapist and murderer another trial. His confession was given voluntarily. Talking to the consulate would not have changed the verdict at trial. When we start allowing the world court to dictate our policies and procedures we are in trouble.
Bush and the Constitution
“Just a Go**amned Piece of Paper”
By GARY LEUPP
Doug Thompson, publisher of Capitol Hill Blue, says he’s talked to three people present last month when Republican Congressional leaders met with President Bush in the Oval Office to talk about renewing the Patriot Act. That act, passed by legislators who hadn’t read it, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 (when most people were shell-shocked and lawmakers in particular disinclined to use their brains), has of course been criticized as containing unconstitutional elements. All three GOP politicians quote their president as saying: “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It’s just a go**amned piece of paper!”
At least one of Thompson’s sources says the president, when told his insistence on preserving some provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives following the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination disaster, stated, “I don’t give a go**amn: I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
Date of last article I posted was
December 14, 2005
Sorry about date being cut off.
The reasons for the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq, are not valid today. The resolution was based on lies that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which were not found. Iraq does not appear to be a threat to any other nation and does not have the capability to threaten bordering nations. Saddam Hussein was captured and executed. The 2002 authorization does not authorize the Iraq occupation.
George Bush has repeatedly demonstrated his dishonesty, incompetence and inability to manage a hurricane relief operation or a military occupation. The Iraq occupation is illegal and unconstitutional. ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR Congress needs to stand up to Bush and defend the Constitution.
In 2006, the United States imported approximately 17 percent of our oil, from the middle east. The average fuel economy, in the United States, appears to be about 25 mpg. Many safe, comfortable, affordable automobiles are capable of obtaining 35 mpg. I have seen used Toyota Prius hybrids advertised, for $16,000. I bought a great, used station wagon, for $3,000, which looks and runs like new, and obtains 31 mpg, city and 38 driving mountain highways. An increase to 30 mpg appears capable of eliminating our need for middle eastern oil. The illegal Iraq war is reported to have cost us over one trillion dollars, or about $7,000 per taxpayer, if we provide adequate care for our injured, and traumatized veterans. If we had provided tax credits of $7,000 per taxpayer, for fuel efficient automobiles, even low income taxpayers could have traded less fuel efficient vehicles for efficient vehicles, eliminating our oil dependency on unstable middle eastern nations. We could also have made major progress reducing global warming, and given a major boost to our national economy.
Here is an excerpt from a Washington Post article yesterday. The courageous Army Iraq veterans have told the truth, about the Iraq occupation:
The Real Iraq We Knew
By 12 former Army captains
Tuesday, October 16, 2007; 12:00 AM
Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles.
As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we’ve seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it’s like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it’s time to get out.
What does Iraq look like on the ground? It’s certainly far from being a modern, self-sustaining country. Many roads, bridges, schools and hospitals are in deplorable condition. Fewer people have access to drinking water or sewage systems than before the war. And Baghdad is averaging less than eight hours of electricity a day.
Iraq’s institutional infrastructure, too, is sorely wanting. Even if the Iraqis wanted to work together and accept the national identity foisted upon them in 1920s, the ministries do not have enough trained administrators or technicians to coordinate themselves. At the local level, most communities are still controlled by the same autocratic sheiks that ruled under Saddam. There is no reliable postal system. No effective banking system. No registration system to monitor the population and its needs.
The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption. Transparency International ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And, indeed, many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq’s oil industry, which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq’s reconstruction. Yet holding people accountable has proved difficult. The first commissioner of a panel charged with preventing and investigating corruption resigned last month, citing pressure from the government and threats on his life.
Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with “the surge,” we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents’ cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet — moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.
U.S. forces, responsible for too many objectives and too much “battle space,” are vulnerable targets. The sad inevitability of a protracted draw-down is further escalation of attacks — on U.S. troops, civilian leaders and advisory teams. They would also no doubt get caught in the crossfire of the imminent Iraqi civil war.
Iraqi security forces would not be able to salvage the situation. Even if all the Iraqi military and police were properly trained, equipped and truly committed, their 346,000 personnel would be too few. As it is, Iraqi soldiers quit at will. The police are effectively controlled by militias. And, again, corruption is debilitating. U.S. tax dollars enrich self-serving generals and support the very elements that will battle each other after we’re gone.
This is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reality we experienced. This is what we tried to communicate up the chain of command. This is either what did not get passed on to our civilian leadership or what our civilian leaders chose to ignore. While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war — and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.
There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.
America, it has been five years. It’s time to make a choice.
This column was written by 12 former Army captains: Jason Blindauer served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Elizabeth Bostwick served in Salah Ad Din and An Najaf in 2004. Jeffrey Bouldin served in Al Anbar, Baghdad and Ninevah in 2006. Jason Bugajski served in Diyala in 2004. Anton Kemps served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Kristy (Luken) McCormick served in Ninevah in 2003. Luis Carlos Montalván served in Anbar, Baghdad and Nineveh in 2003 and 2005. William Murphy served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Josh Rizzo served in Baghdad in 2006. William “Jamie” Ruehl served in Nineveh in 2004. Gregg Tharp served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Gary Williams served in Baghdad in 2003.
Mike…..did you read post 191? I suggest you read it again. And then when you’re through read it one more time. Then tell me your precious “G.W.Bush” is doing a great job!
Thanks for thinking that I am so worthy to be reminded to read this thread. Nice post.
How many of you remember Richard Nixon using the Internal Revenue Service and Occupational Safety and Health Administration to harass his political enemies, before he resigned, while facing Impeachment.
George Bush apparently wants to read his political opponents sealed mail and listen to all of their phone calls, without a search warrant.
December 20th, 2006
Jeffrey Henderson
Today President Bush signed the H.R. 6407, the “Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. In doing so he added a few signing statements. One of them is particularly alarming.
The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.
Link to news release
Page 65, the second last of the PDF document, addresses the requirement to have a search warrant to open mail. The signing statement declares in effect that if justified by national security the President can forget about this provision. And, re: 404, the signing statement asserts the executive is immune from being taken to court over any possible violation of the law, which opening the mail without a warrant would be.(Here I am not totally certain whether 404 applies to a specific topic or to all provisions of the act.)
This says the Bush can now search our mail without a warrant. There is no arguing that this is exactly what it says. A signing statement does not outweigh our Constitution.
I would consider this a violation of our laws, and yet another attack on our freedom.
When will people say enough is enough? It’s time to Impeach!!
http://www.wikiprotest.com/index.php?title=Bush_signing_statement_claims_he_can_search_our_mail_without_a_warrant
BUSH ATTEMPTED WARRANTLESS SEARCHES PRIOR TO 911
Former CEO Says U.S. Punished Phone Firm
Qwest Feared NSA Plan Was Illegal, Filing Says
By Ellen Nakashima and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 13, 2007; Page A01
A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.
Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week.
Details about the alleged NSA program have been redacted from the documents, but Nacchio’s lawyer said last year that the NSA had approached the company about participating in a warrantless surveillance program to gather information about Americans’ phone records.
In the court filings disclosed this week, Nacchio suggests that Qwest’s refusal to take part in that program led the government to cancel a separate, lucrative contract with the NSA in retribution. He is using the allegation to try to show why his stock sale should not have been considered improper.
Nacchio was convicted for selling shares of Qwest stock in early 2001, just before financial problems caused the company’s share price to tumble. He has claimed in court papers that he had been optimistic that Qwest would overcome weak sales because of the expected top-secret contract with the government. Nacchio said he was forbidden to mention the specifics during the trial because of secrecy restrictions, but the judge ruled that the issue was irrelevant to the charges against him.
Nacchio’s account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 attacks have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its warrantless surveillance efforts.
The allegations could affect the debate on Capitol Hill over whether telecoms sued for disclosing customers’ phone records and other data to the government after the Sept. 11 attacks should be given legal immunity, even if they did not have court authorization to do so.
Spokesmen for the Justice Department, the NSA, the White House and the director of national intelligence declined to comment, citing the ongoing legal case against Nacchio and the classified nature of the NSA’s activities. Federal filings in the appeal have not yet been disclosed.
In May 2006, USA Today reported that the NSA had been secretly collecting the phone-call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by major telecom firms. Qwest, it reported, declined to participate because of fears that the program lacked legal standing.
In a statement released after the story was published, Nacchio attorney Herbert Stern said that in fall 2001, Qwest was approached to give the government access to the private phone records of Qwest customers. At the time, Nacchio was chairman of the president’s National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee.
“Mr. Nacchio made inquiry as to whether a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request,” Stern said. “When he learned that no such authority had been granted and that there was a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process, including the Special Court which had been established to handle such matters, Mr. Nacchio concluded that these requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act.”
Stern could not be reached for comment yesterday. Another lawyer for Nacchio, Jeffrey Speiser, declined to comment on whether the call-records program was the program discussed at the February 2001 meeting
HR Res 333,Articles for Impeachment for Dick Cheney have gained two more cosponsors.
Wow, Clifwest, way to be 8 years old! I have several friends who have children suffering from, as you oh-so-casually put it, “brain damage”. Bet they would love to read more of your wit and wisdom! Excellent proving of Mike’s points!!
Mike lays out compelling arguments for the CONGRESSIONALLY-mandated war in Iraq, and this is the response? The old “brain damage” name-calling?
Wow.
It’s okay Babs, Cliff and I ended up agreeing for different reasons. My reason for coming around to impeachment is found in 186. I still vehemently oppose impeachment on grounds of Iraq. I believe the President is looking out for the interests of the United States. However, I am dumbfounded to see how the President supports this killer and some World Court decision (as well as the LOST Treaty in the Senate now). These decisions betray the supremacy of our Constitution and pave the way for United Nations meddling in our internal affairs.
Mike,
I look forward to reading your Articles of Impeachment. Are you drafting them?
Mike and I agree that Bush should be impeached; that our military should secure and protect our national border, from invaders; and I suspect Mike partially agrees with me that we have surrendered too much sovreignty to NAFTA. Mike and I also agree we should have more electric cars. Personally I think NAFTA is causing considerable harm to us. I readily admit that Democrats helped create NAFTA and have failed to secure our borders, along with the Bush administration.
See Cliff….we weren’t that far off all along. NAFTA stinks. It is amazing that our elected officials can pass treaties and agreements with other countries that trash the US Constitution. No treaty or agreement can supercede the Constitution. It takes 66% to pass a treaty. It takes 75% of the states to pass an amendment to the Constitution. As far as I can determine unless an amendment passes Congress and the President cannot pass laws that threaten US soverignty. Just more evidence Dems and Republicans are giving away the farm.
From 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
I doubt many could seriously claim Iraq poses a continuing threat to US, if our personnel are not there. Iraq may not even be capable of defending itself from Turkey, let alone launch an attack on the United States.
RE: Please do not grant immunity to telcom companies for warrantless searches
Please support Senator Christopher Dodd and uphold the FISA ACT, and Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by denying legal immunity to Verizon, ATT, BellSouth and other defendants, in pending litigation, related to warrantless surveillance and searches of telecommunication records of American citizens. There appears to be considerable evidence that the FISA Act and Fourth Amendment were violated, by the Bush administration and certain telecommunications corporations, prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Startling statements from former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio’s defense documents alleging the National Security Agency began building a massive call records database seven months before 9/11 aren’t the only accusations that the controversial program predated the attacks of 9/11.
According to court documents unveiled this week, former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio clearly wanted to argue in court that the NSA retaliated against his company after he turned down a NSA request on February 27, 2001 ‘that he thought’ was illegal. Nacchio’s attorney issued a carefully worded statement in 2006, saying that Nacchio had turned down the NSA’s repeated requests for customer call records. The statement says that Nacchio was asked for the records in the fall of 2001, but doesn’t say he was ‘first asked’ then.
And in May 2006, a lawsuit filed against Verizon for allegedly turning over call records to the NSA alleged that AT&T began building a spying facility for the NSA just days after President Bush was inaugurated. That lawsuit is one of 50 that were consolidated and moved to a San Francisco federal district court, where the suits sit in limbo waiting for the 9th Circuit Appeals court to decide whether the suits can proceed without endangering national security.
According the allegations in the suit (.pdf):
The project was described in the ATT sales division documents as calling for the construction of a facility to store and retain data gathered by the NSA from its domestic and foreign intelligence operations but was to be in actuality a duplicate ATT Network Operations Center for the use and possession of the NSA that would give the NSA direct, unlimited, unrestricted and unfettered access to all call information and internet and digital traffic on ATTÌs long distance network. [...]
The NSA program was initially conceived at least one year prior to 2001 but had been called off; it was reinstated within 11 days of the entry into office of defendant George W. Bush.
An ATT Solutions logbook reviewed by counsel confirms the Pioneer-Groundbreaker project start date of February 1, 2001.’
The allegations in that case come from unnamed AT&T insiders, who have never stepped forward or provided any documentation to the courts. But Carl Mayer, one of the attorneys in the case, stands by the allegations in the lawsuit.
‘All we can say is, we told you so,’ Mayer told THREAT LEVEL.
All of the cases pending against the nation’s telecoms for allegedly violating the nation’s surveillance and privacy laws could be mooted if Congress gives immunity to the companies, as the Administration and the telcos powerful lobbyists are arguing for.
‘The real obligation is upon the Democrats to demand turnover of these documents,’ Mayer said.
But Mayer and Nacchio may not even be the only two arguing that the NSA started a program of collecting Americans’ phone records before 9/11.
In a January 2006 Slate article that came out before the USA Today totally blew open the call records story in May 2006, Tim Naftali and THREAT LEVEL pal Shane Harris reported:
A former telecom executive told us that efforts to obtain call details go back to early 2001, predating the 9/11 attacks and the president’s now celebrated secret executive order. The source, who asked not to be identified so as not to out his former company, reports that the NSA approached U.S. carriers and asked for their cooperation in a ‘data-mining’ operation, which might eventually cull ‘millions’ of individual calls and emails.
So, the question is was Nacchio the one talking to Harris and Natfali? Or was it an executive from another company?’
The evidence remains inconclusive, but one would think that before telecoms get immunity for allegedly helping the government after 9/11 out of patriotism, Congress should see if the companies began helping out prior to 9/11 with their eyes not on the flag, but on the secret dollars that the NSA could add to their bottom lines.
The question of whether the telecoms acted in “good faith” in allowing warrantless government spying on their customers is already pending before a court of law. In fact, that is one of the central issues in the current lawsuits — one that AT&T has already lost in a federal court.
Yet that is the issue that Jay Rockefeller and Mike McConnell — operating in secret — are taking away from the courts by passing a law declaring the telecoms to have immunity. They are directly interfering in these lawsuits and issuing a “ruling” in favor of AT&T and other telecoms that is exactly the opposite of the one an actual court of law has already issued.
Just read what Bush-41-appointed Federal Judge Vaughn Walker — operating out in the open, in an actual court of law, with both sides present and in accordance with due process — ruled when rejecting AT&T’s argument that they are entitled to have the case dismissed because they operated in “good faith” [Decision (.pdf) at p. 68]:
Just think about what is really happening here. AT&T’s customers sued them for violating their privacy in violation of long-standing federal laws and for violating their Fourth Amendment rights. Even with the most expensive armies of lawyers possible, AT&T and other telecoms are losing in a court of law. The federal judge presiding over the case ruled against them — ruled that the law is so clear they could not possibly have believed that what they did was legal — and most observers, having heard the Oral Argument on appeal, predicted that they will lose in the Court of Appeals, too.
So AT&T and other telecoms went to Washington and — led by Bush 41 Attorney General (and now Verizon General Counsel) William Barr, and in cooperation with their former colleague, Mike McConnell — began paying former government officials such as Dan Coats and Jamie Gorelick to convince political officials to whom they give money, such as Jay Rockefeller, to pass a law declaring them the victors in these lawsuits and be relieved of all liability — all based on assertions that a court of law has already rejected. They are literally buying a judicial victory in Congress — just like Carothers warned that third-world countries must avoid if they want to become functioning democracies under the “rule of law” (“Above all, government officials must refrain from interfering with judicial decision-making”).
And in the process — for good measure — they have ensured that there will never be any judicial ruling as to whether our Government and the telecom industry broke the law in how they spied on us for years without warrants. They have placed what they did literally beyond the reach of any law or judicial determination. And they accomplished all of that by paying enough officials in Washington to obtain those incomparably corrupt gifts. That’s just factually, objectively, what has happened here.
Warrantless searches threaten many foundations of our nation and it’s commerce, including confidentiality of attorney-client, physician-patient, reporter-anonymous source and clergy-parishioner relationships, in addition to trade secret confidentiality. Furthermore, they blatantly violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and threaten the integrity of free elections, secret ballots and our democratic republic. Providing immunity to corporations participating in illegal warrantless searches violates the separation of powers provisions of the United States Constitution, by allowing the Legislative Branch to interfere with the Judiciary, which is already judging pending lawsuits. Let the Judiciary perform it’s Constitutional role, without Legislative interference.
Senate Panel Balks at Telecom Immunity
By PAMELA HESS – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The top members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday that the nation’s courts may be the only way to determine if the White House violated wiretapping and privacy laws when it eavesdropped on Americans without court orders.
The senators remain reluctant to grant legal immunity to telecommunications companies that allegedly helped.
Legal protection for the companies is a top priority for President Bush, who has vowed to veto any eavesdropping bill that does not provide it.
Telecommunications companies face about 40 civil lawsuits nationwide for alleged violations of wiretapping and surveillance laws at the Bush administration’s request. Another five lawsuits have been filed against the U.S. government.
At issue is the interception of American e-mails and phone calls from 2001 to 2007. The so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program was conducted without the consent of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees intelligence agencies’ eavesdropping inside the United States.
The Senate Intelligence Committee provided immunity in its version of a new eavesdropping bill. It bars civil lawsuits against telecommunication companies if the attorney general and national intelligence director certify that the companies acted on written orders approved by the president. The Judiciary panel still needs to act on the bill before it goes before the full Senate.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he would agree to immunize telecommunications only if there is an effective way to scrutinize the Bush administration’s secret surveillance program.
“The lawsuits … are perhaps the only avenue that exists for an outside review of the government’s program, an honest assessment of its legal arguments, especially as the Congress has for years been stonewalled on this program,” Leahy said at a committee hearing Wednesday.
The committee’s senior Republican, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, said the courts are best equipped to rein in presidential powers. “In the long history of this country, the courts have done a much better job in protecting civil liberties than has the Congress from an overreaching executive branch,” he said.
It is amazing that some folks think that they can nail the government for a private company giving information to the government. Like it or not, there is no 4th Amendment Violation by either party in this instance. The Supreme Court already ruled on this very issue years ago when a private company gave information to the government to prosecute an individual. The only prohibition is the company acting as an “agent” for the government–meaning the company gets paid or receives some benefit for acting as a government agent. In a case where it is voluntary there are no prohibitions-that is the law that has been in effect since the early 1970s.
For instance, in Rexburg a teacher takes his computer in for maintenance. The technician for a private computer company detects child porn on the computer and calls authorities. The guy is arrested. He files a motion to supress the evidence as improperly obtainined by the police. He loses. Joe remarked on this in an earlier thread as well when we were talking about private companies giving info. to the government. The 4th Amendment does not protect private citizens information from being released by private companies to any source, let alone the government.
What is really going on here is a Congress trying to pass the buck to Courts when they know the answer to the question already-it is not a violation of the 4th Amendment. Direct case law already exists–but these lawyers won’t tell us that. Neither side will openly take a stand, i.e. legislate no waterboarding, or sharing of telecommunications data and internet material because they don’t want to be seen as soft on terror when the next attack comes.
This is about politics. We saw this before the last Congressional break when the Democrats passed terror eavesdropping laws that they complained they didn’t agree with and justified it to the country that it had a 6 month sunset provision. It’s all politics and no principle.
P.S. The case in question that set the precedent protecting business and government from 4th Amendment Violation claims was United States v. Miller.
This case held that there is no constitutionally protected privacy interest in business records entrusted to third parties, such as the businesses themselves. The reasoning is simple: If we have voluntarily given over information to a business, where it can be accessed by its employees, that information is no longer truly private. And the Fourth Amendment only protects us when the search or seizure at issue invades our reasonable expectation of privacy.
Commentators have argued that we need to revisit this issue, because much more data is now stored about us, in electronic format, and can be used in new ways – for instance, to create so-called “digital dossiers” that aggregate all kinds of data about us and our activities. So far, the Court’s Fourth Amendment precedent stands. But “digital dossiers” and “data mining” do change the terrain, suggesting the Court should indeed revise its views.
As citizens and consumers we often have to relinquish such data in order to gain access to vital services including telephone and Internet service – so we may not be “voluntarily” relinquishing the data.
Even when the Fourth Amendment is not applicable, however, Congress can still step in and provide safeguards to prevent unwarranted government access to our personal data. This is precisely my point–Congress is pushing the issue off on the Court to avoid tough decisions. As teh Democrats have been in the driver seat pushing this issue why have they not acted? Should they be “impeached” instead?
Don’t expect to see this reported in the mainstream media “news”:
Kucinich Will Introduce Privileged Resolution To Force Up Or Down Vote On Cheney Impeachment
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=77847
He has 21 co-sponsors now.
Great news for the Anti-Cheney folks. Good news for the Pro-Cheney folks–who in their right mind would believe a guy who said he saw a UFO with Shirley McClaine?
While the message might have some importance, the messenger is obviously out of his mind ofr other reasons. No chance of passage-IMO.
Mike,
Are you referring to UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the 2ND Amendment case about illegal firearms?
Please provide a citation.
Here is a link to the 1976 case.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=425&invol=435
Was Cheney involved in this?
David Lindorff, an investigative reporter and columnist, links Kucinich’s resolution to allegations of a cover-up of the truth behind the Minot-Barksdale nuclear missile flight. Central to Lindorff’s assertions is the Air Force investigative report’s failure to explain how our nuclear arsenal’s electonic anti-theft alarm system was disarmed in this incident. Here’s a quote:
According to the Air Force report, some Air Force personnel mounted the warheads on the missiles (which are obsolete and slated for destruction), and another ground crew, allegedly not aware that the missiles were armed with nukes, moved them out and mounted them on a launch pylon on the B-52’s wing for a flight to Barksdale and eventual dismantling. Only on the ground at Barksdale did ground crew personnel spot the nukes, according to the report. (Six other missiles with dummy warheads were mounted on a pylon on the other wing of the plane.)
The problem with this explanation for the first reported case of nukes being removed from a weapons bunker without authorization in 50 years of nuclear weapons, is that those warheads, and all nuclear warheads in the U.S. stockpile, are supposedly protected against unauthorized transport or removal from bunkers by electronic antitheft systems — automated alarms similar to those used by department stores to prevent theft, and even anti-motion sensors that go off if a weapon is touched or approached without authorization.
While the Air Force report doesn’t mention any of this, this means if weapons in a storage bunker are protected against unauthorized removal, someone — and actually at least two people, since it’s long been a basic part of nuclear security that every action involving a nuclear weapon has to be done by two people working in tandem — had to deliberately and consciously disable those alarms.
The Air Force investigation resulted in the termination of 70 persons — including the base commander. Here’s another quote from Lindorff:
But a base commander does not have the authority to order nuclear weapons to be loaded on a plane and flown. So who issued that order and why has no one at a senior level in Washington been sacked? There is speculation that the order may have come via an alternate chain of command.
Lindorff speculates that Vice President Cheney may have been at the end of an “alternate chain of command.”
__________________________________________________
It was in the news a week or two ago where a military plane flew over a populated area with a live nuclear warhead and the pilot had no idea what he was carrying. I’m sorry I don’t remember the specifics, but it blew my mind when I read this story and the incompetance & just plain lack of common sense that our military or rather this particular unit in the armed forces portrayed. Some may say it was just human error, but isn’t our military supposed to be trained to such an extent to prevent “accidents” like this from ever happening?
Perhaps somebody remembers this story and can fill in the specifics?
The anonymous post in #211 just goes to show how far some people will go to put blame on the likes of Cheney and Bush. Give me a break! The writer would have us believe that VP Cheney ordered the nukes to be removed from a bunker, placed on a plane and flown to Barksdale for destruction. That is a stretch for any reasonable person to even entertain. It is exactly this type of crackpot reporting and fear mongering that erodes the public’s confidence in media reporting that might actually unearth REAL corruption that needs to be taken seriously.
I think we all remember the story of the little boy who cried wolf. Lindorf is the little boy in this story. He is spouting off with nutty ideas and suppositions that are nonsense. The next reporter that comes along and has a real story to report may not be taken seriously because of this kind of irresponsible reporting. Another reporter by the name of Dan Rather also comes to mind. Rather was so intent on nailing Bush in 2004 for his purported lack of military service that he used documents that he knew were bogus. This gave the media a black eye and called into question the credibility of alot of journalists stories trying to air relevant and FACTUAL stories.
The old fallback position is that they have a first amendment right to say what they want. Media are afforded alot of latitude because of the service they provide to the public in the form of information and checking unfettered government power. Media have an obligation to report facts and not dirty the waters with their opinions on important topics that mold and shape public opinion. Americans should be able to trust our media. What we have right now is a distrust of media. That is not healthy for a democracy that relies on open exchange of information.
Wexler calls for Judiciary Committee Impeachment hearings
Indeed, some House members not associated with Kucinich’s resolution are now openly calling for immediate hearings into Cheney’s impeachable actions—specifically lying the country into a war in Iraq, and threatening war with Iran.
One indication of the change in the political climate in the House is the announcement by Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), a six-term congressman and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, that he will call for the Judiciary Committee to take up Kucinich’s impeachment bill. This is significant because Wexler, no left-wing hothead, is not a co-signer of the Kucinich bill.
In an email message to constituents, Wexler said:
“I share your belief that Vice President Cheney must answer for his deceptive actions in office, particularly with regard to the preparations for the Iraq war and the revelation of the identity of covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson as part of political retribution against her husband.”
“…Cheney and the bush Administration have demonstrated a consistent pattern of abusing the law and misleading Congress and the American people. We see the consequences of these actions abroad in Iraq and at home through the violations of our civil liberties. The American people are served will with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. Only through hearings can we begin to correct the abuses of Dick Cheney and the bush administration; and if it is determined in these hearings that Vice President Cheney has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors, he should be impeached and removed from office. It is time for Congress to expose the multitude of misdeeds of the Administration and I am hopeful that the Judiciary Committee will expeditiously begin an investigation of this matter.”
Also calling for prompt action by the Judiciary Committee in the wake of the Tuesday House vote was Carol Shea-Porter, a first-term Democrat from New Hampshire, who also is not a sponsor of the Kucinich measure. In explaining her vote to send the Kucinich bill to the Judiciary Committee, she said:
“It is the duty of the Vice President to faithfully execute the laws of the United States of America and to defend the Constitution. There is growing evidence that the Executive Branch has ignored some of our laws and has attempted to bend the Constitution to its will. Members of both parties decided that this issue is too important to ignore. I voted with my Republican and Democratic colleagues to investigate the Vice President’s actions in office.”
She characterized the resolution sending the bill to the Judiciary Committee a “strongly bi-partisan vote.”
With these kinds of endorsements and calls for action, it is clear both that Speaker Pelosi is looking increasingly pathetic and out of touch with her “impeachment is off the table” mantra, and also that Judiciary Chair John Conyers (D-MI), who seems to have been intimidated by the Speaker for the past year, but who earlier had been a leader in exposing the crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration, is getting strong support for taking a bolder stand.
Stephen Cohen (D-TN), a member of the Judiciary Committee who is a co-sponsor of the Kucinich resolution, says he thinks that there will be an impeachment hearing in the committee.
Question: does Clifwest EVER post any of his own thoughts or views? Or does he just cut n paste everything?
Maybe we should start calling him Cliffpaste?
Clifpaste….I like that!
House Resolution 333 for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney is off the House floor, and has instead been sent to the Judiciary Committee for “further study.” This maneuver, organized by Pelosi and the Democratic leadership, is consistent with their mantra that impeachment is “off the table.” But, we are told NANCY PELOSI IS REPORTED TO HAVE REPLIED TO THE QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT THAT IF SHE RECEIVED 10,000 HAND WRITTEN LETTERS SHE WOULD PROCEED WITH IT. What are we waiting for?
Cindy Sheehan wrote this:
Dear Friends
Instead of sending your impeachment letters for Dick Cheney to Nancy Pelosi’s office, SEND THEM TO MY OFFICE SO WE CAN GET AN OFFICIAL COUNT.
Please send them to:
Cindy for Congress
RE: Impeach Dick Cheney
1260 Mission Blvd
San Francisco, Ca 94103
Please pass this around and have them sent by Friday, November 16th and we will have them delivered to her office in San Francisco before Thanksgiving.
Spread this far and wide so we can take sacks of letters to her.
Don’t include anything besides the letter.
Love
Cindy
Oh, that is going to be priceless….Cindy Sheehan running against Pelosi for Congress. What a boon that would be to the elite liberal establishment to see Pelosi get eaten by left wing loons that she has supported for all these years.
Nice to know that there is no loyalty in the Democratic Party as they throw their Congressmen under the bus because they are not “liberal” enough. They tried it in Connecticut with Ned Lamont and Joe Liberman. How ironic that Pelosi may get saved by the small band of Republican voters in San Fransisco that couldn’t stomach Sheehan. haha
Thanks Cliff. What a hoot!!
Mike, Cindy is running against Pelosi in the primary. Republicans aren’t allowed to vote in the Democratic primary.
…there is no loyalty in the Democratic Party as they throw their Congressmen under the bus…
I’m not a democrat, but from what I’ve observed the democrats were elected to get us out of Iraq, check Bush’s power grabs, and reduce the republicans’ rampant overspending. They failed on all counts.
You may say it is disloyal, others may say they are holding her accountable for not doing the job she said she would do. I hope accountability is prioritized higher than loyalty.
BTW, any word on what happened to Kucinich’s impeachment amendment? It was supposed to have been voted on in 2 days time, but then I heard it got stopped somehow. Any word?
I don’t consider myself republican or democrat. But in the last presidential election, I voted a straight democratic ticket. Everything the dems said about Bush and Cheney were accurate and it amazes me that people couldn’t see it at election time. People need to stop and think about what is happening, seriously.
Stop, listen; Osama flies his planes into our buildings killing thousands.
Osama is still hiding?? But we’re fighting a fruitless war that is killing thousands of our soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians, in Iraq????? OMG, where’s the sense?
Okay, this is Idaho and I can hear the screams now. But look at facts, then scream and yell and carry on like fools.
Please, we can’t take care of our own people. What a waste of human life, money and time to try to overthrow another government.
Support the soldiers and the innocent. Bring our soldiers home.
Way to go Geees. I’ve never understood the logic of our current administration’s thinking. Why has Bin Laden not been brought down? You can’t tell me that they can’t find him. If we have “spy planes” that can tell what you are wearing when you are inside your own home, I would think they could pinpoint Bin Laden’s location. I would hate to think it is a political ploy. Instead of going after the bad guy (Bin Laden) we attack a country where half the population is under the age of 18, and are killing off our own boys also. Yes Geees, it sounds like we think alike.
My brother said it best – Recent polls show that 29% of the American population support Bush. That means that 29% of the American population, are still stupid.
Hey child, re: post 220…..
Republicans are allowed to vote in California’s Primary elections for any party. Check out the following link.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_decline.htm#history
As for post 222, it is amazing that toppling the Taliban regime is being brought up as a terrible thing. Even Democrats Obama and Clinton conceded that taking down the Taliban was a good thing. The Taliban were allowing terror training camps to operate on their soil….no question about that. They were a repressive regime that kept women in the shadows and were intolerant to freedom of the individual. These camps were training operatives to bomb and kill innocent people in Europe and America. Sure we could have just sat back and let them stay in existence, but at what price? How many more innocent people would have lost their life without taking action? You don’t let a terror state keep churning out terrorists anymore than we allowed the Nazi’s to exterminate the Jews. That makes no sense–unless you live in a utopian world and bury your head in the sand. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin tried that in 1939 and negotiated with Hitler to achieve a peace that was shattered when the Nazi’s reniged and invaded Poland.
The United States demanded the Taliban turn over Bin Laden or suffer the consequences. They refused and we invaded. As for getting Bin Laden, it is tough that he has not been captured yet. Obviously, he has resorted to guerilla tactics and is hiding out north of Tora Bora in Pakistani regions that are not controlled by the government. Would you have us invade SE Pakistan to get him? This has been a fine line to walk. I don’t care who is in the White House. We could not invade Pakistan because it would lead to the overthrow of a Western friendly government and potentially allow nukes to fall in the wrong hands.
Interestingly, since the state of emergency, Musharaff has quietly moved several divisions into this area that was previously off-limits from a peace treaty with tribal leaders that have been protecting Talibani and Al Qaeda types. Wire reports also noted some movements of more US Special Forces into the region. Coincidence? I suspect that the US has told Musharaff to move on the region to capture Bin Laden before he leaves office–probably for a price tag of guaranteed asylum and security. Could this be a Christmas present to the American people with the capture or killing of this vile terrorist? I think it is possible given the evolving situation over there. Of course, keeping the terror camps from operating in the open and keeping them on the run is only possible with US boots on the ground over there. No matter what some of you cumbaya sayers say this is what the military is for–and what the oath of office requires the President to do…”to protect the United States from enemies foreign and domestic”. It is not pretty but it is needed. You don’t play patty cakes with these guys and hope they won’t attack us again. Or do we just retreat and wait for them to hit us again? Remember the old saying, “Fool me once shame on you, Food me twice shame on me”. The greater good demands that we don’t get fooled into letting another 3000 or more Americans be killed again.
what happend to the topic? Do You Support Impeaching President Bush?
You kind of make some good points Mike, but you can’t honestly say that we “overthrew the Taliban”. They’ve re-grouped like they’ve always done in the past and are actually stronger than ever. And where are our troops? In Iraq, suppossedly “stopping the churning out of terrorists”. If for one second you think that we’re even making a dent in “stopping the churning out of terrorists”, you sir are sorely mistaken. We will never, I repeat NEVER stop the Middle East from producing terrorists. It’s impossible and It’s a waste of tax payers money and the lives of our soldiers. The best we can hope to do, is contain them, and keep them from producing or obtaining nuclear weapons. If you’re so concerned about “stopping the bad guys”, tell me then, why haven’t we done anything about North Korea, who’s 100 times more of a threat to the U.S. than Iraq? Or Darfur, or any number of places where the threat is much worse. I’ll tell you why…. O I L …. O I L ….. O I L …No other reason.
I don’t know if anybody caught the interview with the president of Shell Oil on Good Morning America this morning, but that was a joke and this guy is laughing all the way to the bank! When asked what Americans can do to curb their thirst for oil, he came right out and said (in not so many words), nothing. He doesn’t want Americans to stop driving their Hummers and drinking oil like it’s going out of style. When asked what his company is doing to help and why are they continuing to raise gas prices, he said, “We’re spending all our profits towards alternative fuels and energy. When the interviewer asked asked him why he was only spending 1 billion dollars on alternative fuels, when Shell made 56 Billion last year, once again he sidestepped the question and blamed the global economy for the increase in gas prices. This guy was so full of BS, I wanted to reach through the tv and slap some sense into him. It’s the same story with all the big oil companies. Record profits in the billions, and they continue to raise fuel prices for absolutely no reason at all. Throughout the whole interview, she would ask him different ways about the rise in gas prices, and he couldn’t give the interviewer a straight answer as to why they continue to raise the price at the pump.
But that’s not what I’m concerned about right now. What I’d like Mike to explain to the class is why we aren’t going after North Korea or fixing the problems in Darfur? Please enlighten us with your knowledge. (no sarcasim intended)
And please try to keep the BOP comments to a minimum. (for those of you that don’t know….BOP stands for “blow out of proportion” comments)
thx
First, I second Idaho Native to say way to go, Geees.
Second, Mike I know what the rules are in California; I live here. Republicans can’t vote in a Democratic primary. Your link says “decline to state” voters can vote in either primary. Declared Republicans can’t.
I too would like to know Mike’s thoughts on N.Korea & Darfur.
Re: North Korea, last I checked they were shutting down the reactor at Pyongyang. The Intl. Atomic Energy Assoc. has inspectors on the ground now and is monitoring further dismantling of North Korean Nuclear Sites–all without a shot. The difference being that we had economic leverage on North Korea but shutting down banking and other economic ties independent of Chinese efforts to keep them afloat. We don’t have that same leverage with the Islamic radicals because they aren’t interested in finances–they are driven by religious fanaticism and politics.
As for Darfur, they don’t possess weapons of mass destruction, nor has there been as much evidence of this area being used as a terrorist training ground. The United States is supporting Ethiopian and Somali troops that are not muslim extremists to control the situation. Arms and aid is being poured into the region. The muslim rebels no longer have free reign to terrorize the country but it will take some time to control the situation.
I find it amazing that CR67 made the assertion that the Taliban are stronger than ever. Why is it then that Taliban attacks are less than 1/2 what they were last year? I will grant that in recent months the Taliban have moved away from direct military operations–because NATO forces are slaughtering them. What we have seen is more foreign born terrorists coming into Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban–they have brought their own method of cowardly fighting–terror bombings. They are not winning in Afghanistan or Iraq. Has anyone bothered to note that there has not been alot of reporting of news out of either country lately? The amount of civilian and military deaths are down to the lowest levels since the beginning of the invasion. Why is that? Could it be that the counter-insurgency is taking hold? Why won’t the media report on it more?
The United States has been fighting a successful counter-insurgency in the Phillipines since 2001 against Abu Sayef Muslim Terrorists. It has been extremely successful and has been exported to Indonesia and other locations in the South Pacific. This success was one of the main reasons Petraeus was given the go ahead in Iraq. He wrote the book on these oprations and has proven results in SE Asia and is having results in the Middle East–the plain fact is that too many on the left hate Bush so much that they are losing sight of the bigger picture–a Western victory is better for America, her economy, and her security.
If we had the kind of media apparatus and hard left contingent speaking out during the prelude to WWII no doubt in mind that after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor we would have been hearing about all the death and carnage….and we would have been hearing about how we caused Pearl Harbor because the Japanese were threatened by us exploiting resources in SE Asia.
When Roosevelt and Congress moved ahead with war plans the cries for impeachment would have gotten progressively louder with American deaths at the Coral Sea, the Phillipines, Kasserine Pass in Italy, Dunkirk, and the battles in the Ardennes Forest to name a few. How soon we forget that the United States, even while looking out for our own interests, has still been a beacon of light and freedom in the world to many peoples across the globe. Think about what I said–the impeachment crowd now could have said the same things back then. Where would that have left us? The United States would have forfeited control of Europe and Africa to Germany. Japan would have subjugated SE Asia and Amerca would not be the same place we know today. What if George Bush had not taken action against the Taliban? What if we just sat back and let the UN deal with them? Should we ignore our strategic partnerships with NATO nations such as Germany or Turkey and let them go alone against the Islamic Terror Tide?
No one bothers to ask these questions. It is easer to use bumper sticker politics “Impeach Bush” rather than recognize the geo-political realities this country faces. This is not a blown out of proportion alert it is reality speaking to each and everyone of us.
BTW- Our government makes more off gas tax revenues per gallon (35 cents vs. 7 cents per gallon of profit for the oil companies). People don’t seem to be focused on how the pols keep encroaching on taking our money in this areas. Once again, both Dems and Republicans introduce legislation to prohibit gouging on gas. They make us focus on the evil capitalist oil companies instead of their coerced gas taxes that pay for mindless spending projects that do not serve the national interest and only serve the special interests.
This war is no doubt costing us an arm and a leg and many good men and women have sacrificed their lives to protect America. This is no difference than generations before us that paid a heavy price defeating other fascist regimes led by Tojo and Hitler. Yet, we seem content to criticize our leaders when they stand up for America and put the screws to Islamic fascists–the call to impeach is nothing more than sour grapes about a certain select part of our population that would just as soon throw America under the bus, sue for peace and harmony and receive neither at the hands of vicious religious zealots bent on killing us. If you travel the globe and spend more time outside this country you would know how much America is still respected around the world–the media won’t tell you that.
The men and women in the military deserve our support in this time of war. We are embroiled in a conflict that will shape the world for the next 50 years or more. This is no time to give up and impeach people for trying to protect us from harm. Ask yourself if you were in the President’s shoes would you have done anything different? We saw the results of isolationist policies during the Carter Administration–America became weak and experienced an energy shortage, the economy tanked and a general malaise set in. We saw the results of Bush 41 not finishing off Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War, and we saw the results of Bill Clinton doing nothing when our embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania. Sure he fired a few cruise missles when the USS Cole was attacked, razed a few shacks and a pill factory–but the message was clear to Bin Laden–America was a paper tiger with no resolve to fight back. He boldly stated in his fatwas it was the duty of every member of Islam to kill as many Americans, women, children and innocents as possible.
My entire premise here has been to learn from history and not repeat mistakes offered up and accepted by leftists as a course this country should take. We cannot let some left-wingers hatred of George Bush obscure the fact that the foes we face are dangerous to our way of life. For everyone that says, I don’t support the war, but I support the troops–you can’t have it both ways. The Democrats have taken 58 Iraq war votes and are setting up to do another round. At what point does the partisan wrangling stop and collaboration to end this threat begin? Or does the impeachment and anti-war crowd care more about political power at the expense of our armed forces and American supremacy in world affairs?
Ronald Reagan had it right when he implemented peace through strength. We saw the results of policies that promoted American military might–and today more people are able to live in freedom and peace as a result. It was costly. However, ask yourself, what was the alternative? What if we had caved in as the “peace” crowd suggested? What if we had not kept the pressure on the Soviets through placement of ICBM’s in West Germany? What if we had mothballed the Navy and Sub Fleet to avoid confrontation? What if we had dismantled nuclear weapons as proposed by well-meaning but misguided peaceniks. What if the calls for Reagan’s impeachment as a war monger had been taken seriously? How would this have hurt Reagan in negotiations with Gorbachev at Rejacvik, Iceland? You know the answers. We know the answers today too. Impeachment for using American Ofrce in the Middle East is not one of them.
Joe Vandal,
Post 214 is latest info I have on Cheney impeachment.
I am uncertain about whether Pelosi would support impeachment if she received 10,000 handwritten letters. Might be another excuse or runnaround from Pelosi. I would not be surprised if she receives the letters.
I wonder if Pelosi could be replaced as House Speaker at Democratic National Convention or if there is a House of Representatives procedure to do it before 2008.
Mike, you have rapidly fallen into the category of my brothers famous words.
Wake up hon, coffee is brewing.
Thanks, I take your assesment that I am stupid as a measure of your intellect and ability to shape your response to the confines of a bumper sticker. I am certain that this issue deserves more than a passing reference to label one stupid. If that is the best you have got then you truly are lazy, indifferent, or prefer to take your chances until the jihadists are knocking at your door.
I wouldn’t take it personal Mike. This person hasn’t bothered to leave an intelligent post on this topic or too many others for that matter, so they’re not even worth responding to in my book.
You however are one of the more intelligent posters on this site and the fact that you stand up and speak your mind on a variety of topics says alot.
Don’t let em get you down.
Mike, ditto to CR67…..
CR67, you’ve agreed with everything when I’ve used another handle.
Reality is: there is not arguing with diehard Bush fans. They can’t face being wrong. Mike rambles on about nothing. Nothing to argue about. Intelligent people would be able to see Bush/Cheney for who they are without making excuses for them.
Let’s see, if the poll numbers that Geees gave in a recent post are correct, then 29% of the population support Bush. That must mean that at least 50% do not support him. This is assuming that plus or minus 21% of the population are undecided. I guess my question is, where were these people at the last election? I’m just glad they are there now though.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I definitely don’t think we are going about this “War in Iraq” the right way. The last count I heard, we have gotten more of our troops killed than the number that were killed on 9/11. This isn’t counting the ones that have been maimed, or die after they get home. I heard today that we are averaging 20 suicides a month among returned soldiers from Iraq. And the thousands of Iraqi that have been killed — I haven’t heard a number there for quite some time. These numbers are not acceptable to me.
No, I don’t want the jihadist’s knocking on my door. But maybe if we put our efforts and money into securing our borders instead of continuing in a war that doesn’t have a foreseeable closure to it, we wouldn’t have that worry.
I enjoy reading Mike’s posts on this subject, he has mentioned many things that I did not know, but I bet if I listened to O’Reilly, Hannity, and the rest of the right wingers more I might hear a lot (or at least some) of it. So keep posting Mike, I don’t have to agree and it does get me thinking.
Idaho Native; the polls are posted on CNN website periodically. And yes, CNN is a reliable news source.
I too, wish the votes had been different at election time.
Perhaps Mike is stating some verifiable facts. I would look up facts prior to assuming his or anyone’s, are accurate.
I firmly believe that if people would stop listening to the neighbor, the local coffee shop hero, and office gossip, etc., they would have voted differently.
What I would strongly suggest prior to any election, is to look up facts on all the politicians as well as the issues that we face. Joe mentions the Psychology of Persuasion, which I think is what most people live by. And the simple fact is that this psychology can kill us all.
So basically, you change your “handle” when you want to put another poster down, and change back when you want to post something intelligent.
That’s nice.
Nice try Cr67 But this posting was the only one I ever used this handle on and you stated that –This person hasn’t bothered to leave an intelligent post on this topic or too many others for that matter, so they’re not even worth responding to in my book. Hmmm…. Wherever you came up with your facts escapes me.
I’m not the one changing my handle in order to put someone else down. So why change your handle at all? Why not be man enough (or woman enough) to keep the same handle for everything you post? Whether you agree with someone or not. It’s called owning your words. Which is what both Mike, myself and many other on this site do. We may not always see eye to eye on certain topics, but we don’t change our handles in order to put another person down. And we’re man enough to stand up to each other and express how we feel about an issue, whether it’s a different view than everyone elses or not.
If you have been on this site long enough to know Mike, you would know that he has strong convictions and he speaks his mind. He’s not afraid to tell you whats on his mind and he never backs down from a debate. I may not always agree with what he has to say, but I respect him for his points of view and I respect him for sticking to what he believes in and not flip flopping on any of the issues discussed.
Say what you mean and mean what you say, don’t hide behind a different handle to make a statement and then switch back and act like nothings wrong.
You say I’ve agreed with everything you say in other posts, when you’ve used your other handle. (which I find hard to believe) So why bother to flip flop and play both sides of the fence? If you want more drama in these debates, than participate and speak your mind. Don’t change your handle to put down somebody elses views. So what if somebody has a different point of view or different beliefs than you? If something like that bothers you that much, you won’t make it very far in this world. We’re all different and that’s what makes us who we are. Until you can stand up and be proud of who you are and own your words will people begin to respect you as an individual, whether you have different beliefs or not.
This is one of the reasons why I support making people log in everytime they want to post. This way you’re forced to own your words and we wouldn’t run into people like you who like to use a different screen name each time in order to play both sides.
Own your words….that’s all I’m sayin.
Gees! This is what republicans do to throw people off course. I’d love to stay and entertain you CR67, but I can’t. So very sorry! Maybe some time next year?
Brother. Enough.
So does Kucinich have any plans to get his impeachment amendment back into play?
If not, this probably signals the last significant effort to impeach Bush.
OMG thank you Joe. I don’t know the answer to that. But I would vote to impeach Bush/Cheney, without question.
So, after much adeu about nothing I would note a few points:
1) Post 238 cites CNN as a reliable news source and cites poll numbers as reasons to impeach. CNN is the same network that “planted” a question of it’s own in the Democratic Debate Friday. The young woman wanted to ask about Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Facility. The CNN producers told her no and told her to ask Clinton if she liked Diamonds or Pearls. They got caught and minimized it. James Carville was used as moderator in the debate–Carville is a long time friend of the Clintons and worked in Bill Clinton’s campaigns in the past. This was never identified in the debate and his questioning was skewed. Not very objective if you ask me. If I were Obama or Edwards I would have never agreed to this arrangement.
As for the poll numbers, does anyone recall how unpopular President Harry Truman was after increasing prices at home were getting, when the Korean War broke out and hostilities were initiated against the North Koreans and American deaths began adding up? How about when he fired Gen. Douglas McArthur? I recall his numbers were around 22%!
Polls are no reason to impeach a President. I don’t care who is in office. They are cited by both sides, IMO wrongly. Polls are cited that Congress’ approval rating is lower than Bush–do we impeach them also? No. It all depends on how questions are asked by the poll taker. For instance, if I ask 10 people, “Do you approve how the government is handling the war in Iraq?” vs. “Do you approve how the government is handling the war on terror?”, I bet I can get substantially different results that would be statistically significant with a larger pool of participants asked.
2) People want to impeach based on Bush lying to the American people–did anyone catch the new book out by Sadaam’s FBI interrogator. It was noted that Sadaam was giving off signals of having nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction to keep his nemisis, Iran, at bay, while invading Kuwait and dealing with the Saudi’s meddling. Intelligence is not a perfect business. Many analysts made the case for invasion, some may have not; Is it possible that the intel was not completely accurate–certainly. However, we have to look at the available information: Part of this equation was that Sadaam did not believe the US would invade him and he felt the UN sanctions would eventually go away. His projection of having WMD’s on hand to keep Iran at bay is completely understandable to keep leverage against Iran. Sadaam failed to take into account that the US would consider his posturing-albeit only found out later to be fake-would be justification for invasion.
So, if your neighbor says he has dynamite on hand to keep the other next door neighbor in check do you just ignore it? Or do you do something about it? What if it turns out that there was no dynamite? Does this mean that you should have just forgotten about it. While this example is severely blown ‘under proportion’ it is instructive to look at how decision making is exercised. Monday Morning Quarterbacking is to be expected….but to the level of impeachment? IMO, no way.
Which station do you listen to Mike? What station do you consider reliable? Fox?
As for polls being no reason to impeach Bush, you are right. But, that’s putting the cart before the horse. The reasons come before the polls. To state otherwise is a manipulation.
It is clear that you are pro-Bush. But I think that the reasons given are inadequate. Personally, I find his actions to be reprehensible. There is no justification for killing thousands upon thousands of our young soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens, no matter how you slice it.
And all the more reason, I guess, to impeach all the members of Congress who voted on the Act of War; oh, wait, I forgot, it was the “evil genius” who hypnotized all the easily-led elected officials…
yep, impeachment would solve everything. worked well for the mess Slick Willie made.
Mike, keep up the good work…I don’t write often, but I read, with interest, everything you write; you are always insighful and well-researched. You don’t resort to name-calling or stock responses.
Keep it up…..
No name calling “slick willie”?
There are other threads much more interesting and insightful. Have fun.
Um, I wasn’t calling YOU slick willie….I’ll apologize to the man himself if he wants….
Have fun where? Why so nasty, just because I support Mike????? Or are only people who support your opinion allowed to post here????
Good point Babs!
Re: Gees post in 246, thanks for taking it easy on me. I would rather be called Pro-Bush than stupid! lol
I consider myself Pro-America. I am not a big lover of all of Bush’s policies. However, I don’t care if Hillary Clinton were in office–as long as they took the necessary steps to protect the country so my neighbors and my family didn’t get blown up–and our standard of life continued with relatively little interruption then those are the most important items. Painting this as a Democrat vs. Republican thing is off base. There are many Democrats (like Washington Congressman Brian Baird) that stand up to Pelosi and the other peaceniks that would allow this country to be held hostage to terror and oil shortages as a result of instability in the Middle East.
I thought your note at the end, “It is clear that you are pro-Bush. But I think that the reasons given are inadequate. Personally, I find his actions to be reprehensible. There is no justification for killing thousands upon thousands of our young soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens, no matter how you slice it.”….was interesting. While you may not think that there is no justification for war….try telling that to the terrorists that want to kill us and have been very open about their intentions. No matter how you or I slice it, be cannot change the facts presented. No one likes war; however, it has been a staple of the human existence. When American interests are put on the chopping block by terrorists it is up to all of us to band together and protect each other. That does not mean pull back and retreat. It means effectively taking on the threat to our safety. If you act this way in your personal life you get walked on. In this case, you and your fellow Americans can and will get killed. Crossing our fingers and hoping for the best is not good enough….no matter how you slice it.
Scott McClellan, Bush’s White House press secretary from 2003-2006 (though he served Bush for seven years total), is publishing a book titled, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What’s Wrong with Washington” this April.
The publisher’s excerpt:
http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display?book=9781586485566&view=excerpt
ANOTHER CHENEY LIE
Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options. The company has been criticized by auditors for its handling of a no-bid contract in Iraq. Auditors found the firm marked up meal prices for troops and inflated gas prices in a deal with a Kuwaiti supplier. The company built the American prison at Guantanamo Bay.
The Vice President has sought to stem criticism by signing an agreement to donate the after-tax profits from these stock options to charities of his choice, and his lawyer has said he will not take any tax deduction for the donations.
However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded in Sept. 2003 that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities. CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest.
CHENEY TOLD “MEET THE PRESS” IN 2003 THAT HE DIDN’T HAVE ANY FINANCIAL TIES TO THE FIRM.
“SINCE I LEFT HALLIBURTON TO BECOME GEORGE BUSH’S VICE PRESIDENT, I’VE SEVERED ALL MY TIES WITH THE COMPANY, GOTTEN RID OF ALL MY FINANCIAL INTEREST,” THE VICE PRESIDENT SAID. “I HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTEREST IN HALLIBURTON OF ANY KIND AND HAVEN’T HAD, NOW, FOR OVER THREE YEARS.”
RETALIATION AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWER OBJECTING TO NO BID HALLIBURTON CONTRACT
Bunnatine Greenhouse
Bunnatine Greenhouse was the chief contracting officer at the Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that has managed much of the reconstruction work in Iraq. In October 2004, Ms. Greenhouse came forward and revealed that top Pentagon officials showed improper favoritism to Halliburton when awarding military contracts to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR).828 Greenhouse stated that when the Pentagon awarded Halliburton a five-year $7 billion contract, it pressured her to withdraw her objections, actions which she claimed were unprecedented in her experience.829
On June 27, 2005, Ms. Greenhouse testified before Congress, detailing that the contract award process was compromised by improper influence by political
appointees, participation by Halliburton officials in meetings where bidding requirements were discussed, and a lack of competition.830
She stated that the Halliburton contracts represented “the most blatant and improper contract abuse Ihave witnessed during the course of my professional career.”831
Days before the hearing, the acting general counsel of the Army Corps of Engineers paid Ms. Greenhouse a visit and reportedly let it be known that it would not be in her best interest to appear voluntarily.832
On August 27, 2005, the Army demoted Ms. Greenhouse, removing her from the elite Senior Executive Service and transferring her to a lesser job in the corps’ civil works division.833
As Frank Rich of The New York Times described the situation, [H]er crime was not obstructing justice but pursuing it by vehemently questioning irregularities in the awarding of some $7 billion worth of no-bid contracts in Iraq to the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root.@834
The demotion was in apparent retaliation for her speaking out against the abuses, even though she previously had stellar reviews and over 20 years of experience in military procurement. “They went after her to destroy her,” said Michael Kohn, her attorney, who added that the demotion was “absolutely” in
retaliation for her complaints about the Halliburton contract.835
I have stock in Qwest and Verizon. Should I be considered a white house sympathizer who is peeking into records of Americans?
Just because someone is an elected official doesn’t mean they can’t hold stock and make investments. What the law means is they cannot hold a controlling interest in any firm that they have influence and control over to award contracts. I suspect that if you do the math you will find that 433,000 stock options is not a controlling interest. Nice try, I think you would have been better off to comment on Scott McClellan’s bombshell rather than Halliburton ties.
That’s “cut n paste clif”!!
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., is showing some resolve and facing off with Bush with a pledge to press for impeachment if the president authorizes a military strike on Iran.
“The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran and … if he does, as foreign relations committee chairman and former chairman of judiciary, I move to impeach him.” Biden told a crowd during a campaign stop in New Hampshire last week.
Biden got a roar from the crowd, adding, “If you’re going to impeach George Bush, you better impeach Cheney first.”
Kucinich Says He’s Preparing 50-Page Bush Articles of Impeachment
Kucinich addresses many issues at Reno rally
James Ball (JBALL@RGJ.COM), RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
Touching on issues ranging from Yucca Mountain to the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq, presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich spoke to a crowd of several hundred people in Reno Saturday.
Despite a steady snowfall outside, a standing-room-only crowd packed into two meeting rooms at the Reno-Sparks Convention Center to hear what the Ohio Congressman and Democrat had to say about issues he’s most closely associated with: the environment and opposition to the war and the Bush administration in general.
Those expecting Kucinich to deliver harsh words about the president weren’t disappointed, as the half-hour campaign speech soon turned to talk of impeachment.
“On the way over here, I was reading a 50-page document that relates to Articles of Impeachment for the President of the United States,” Kucinich said to a standing ovation. “And I want you to know that I’m actually preparing this document for submission to the House.”
Kucinich said under the current administration, citizen’s rights to due process and fair trial are in jeopardy.
“This is a moment when we’re called upon to reclaim our country,” he said. “You give me your vote, I’ll give you back your country.”
RENO(AP)-Dennis Kuchinich announced he saw another UFO today. He noted President Bush had been abducted by these same aliens. Thus, he urged his fellow lawmakers to take his impeachment resolution seriously. The White House had no comment.
1: Where did you read that Kucinich said President Bush had been abducted by aliens?
2: I’ve known level-headed people who claimed to see a UFO, it is not such a narrow viewpoint anymore.
3. What does Kucinich’s UFO observation claim have to do with Bush’s failures and crimes?
Joe, I think Mike was just being funny. I think his point is, how serious, really, can anyone take a guy who claims to have seen a UFO??? It is not a viewpoint issue, it is a credibility issue: if Dennis K. was claiming he saw Bigfoot, would you really give a lot of credit to anything else he said?
No, not bigfoot, but UFOs yes I can still give a lot of credit to someone. Like I said, I’ve met other people who claim to have seen a UFO, and they were very level-headed and smart folks.
I have an easier time believing in UFOs than Bigfoot or Loch Ness nonsense, though. I don’t know if I’m alone on that, but UFOs seem to be in a different class than the other. Sorry if I did not think it was as funny.
I am not a Kucinich fan, that being said, I’m very delighted that he claims to have seen a UFO…how honest is that, and how easily he put himself in the hot seat for every snickering “I’ll focus on this instead of the issues” voter out there?
He didn’t say he saw a spaceship, or aliens…he saw something that qualified as an Unidentified Flying Object. Millions have seen things they couldn’t identify and assumed the worst or the best.
Stick to the issues if you want to be taken seriously.
As for the issue on this post…no, I don’t think we should impeach Bush. (Nor did I think we should have impeached Clinton).
Did he do all sorts of terrible things, stretching the truth and outright lying? Yes.
Did we let him, and go along like little sheep, for YEARS??? Yes.
More fool us. Move on and let the healing begin.
Joe, I was having some fun at Kuchinich’s expense. Remember he was hanging out with Shirley McClaine when he saw the UFO. McClaine is all hot and heavy for aliens and out of body experiences….the afterlife, etc….I’m just sayin….if this is the company he keeps it speaks for itself.
BTW….has anyone stopped to consider that if Hillary wins in 2008 that America will look like a monarchy? Think about it….America will be ruled by TWO families: Bush and Clinton (if Hillary were to win a second term it would be 28 years of these monarchs ruling us)!!!!!! Now that kinds makes one want to be abducted by aliens and get off the planet!
Ditto to both Mike and Nemesis; good points in both. I guess I also looked at Kucinich as a nut because of his association with Shirley McLaine and his whole “past life experiences” thing, not just his UFO sightings. But I agree with Nemesis that he should stick to the issues; this is, however, apparently a large part of his life (all “otherworldliness,” not just the aliens: his website devotes some time to his beliefs) and could affect his decision-making; look at the brouha about Nancy Reagan and the psychics she employed………
[comment moved by site admin to the religious discussion site]
[comment moved by site admin to the religious discussion site]
So, I guess UFOs and impeachment talk are a welcome side track.
[comment moved by site admin to the religious discussion site]
[comment moved by site admin to the religious discussion site]
So sometimes I can spot a religiously-controversial topic immediately, and sometimes I’m half-asleep and do not spot them. Sometimes I let little ones remarks go by if the comment is mostly about something else and I don’t think it’ll stir up those religious controversies. Here we had a series that kind of built up into that again. I was talking with some folks the other night about possibly revisiting this topic come spring, working out some way to possibly re-integrate those topics into IFz. Personally, I truly do not enjoy editing and deleting comments.
I just happened on this idea, rather than deleting those religious comments (well actually cutting them from your view), I’ll move them over to the religious discussion website (linked on each one). If you want to engage in those discussions over there I’ve said before I’m not moderating any of those comments. Hopefully that is a happy medium solution so your commenting efforts are still preserved, and the controversy does not poison other conversations here. If not, heck at least I tried something new.
So about Bush again, this week I hear the CIA is leaking all over Washington to point the finger at Bush for torture methods and permissions, that they do not want to be left holding the bag for what Bush told them to do, especially since he will be out of office in 13 months (or sooner) and they have to continue fighting for their existence each year after.
I guess MSNBC is running a series this week on “Bush League Justice”, and one segment focused on Bush’s abuse of signing statements (1,100 so far) where he flatly states he reserves the right to break the law he is signing, and to break it at his whim.
Those signing statements are the worst abuse a President can make, they are in flagrant opposition to the law. Yet we never hear about them, just that they were done.
I have already said that I’m not for impeachment, but the sheer gall of this administration is unblievable. And we voted them in after they legally stole it the first time.
We need a new regime boss, that better be different than the old boss.
The NY Times is reporting the incoming Bush administration began discussing plans for domestic phone surveillance within a couple weeks of taking office, well before the 9-11 attacks.
Also, at least some discussions were to put surveillance equipment in facilities which would monitor domestic calls, not international calls.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16nsa.html?ei=5065&en=03d7b2d9209d9d7d&ex=1198472400&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1197900842-lawYD1L0FLLDfG6sCOYFWQ
And this week Bush is pushing Congress hard to pass retroactive immunity for the phone companies in their illegal surveillance-related activities.
I remember reading that there were planning sessions soon after taking office for how to justify invading Iraq and finish the job his daddy started. So the bogus intel about their WMD was just one way to do it, and linking al Qaida to them (also bogus) after 911 was the icing on the cake.
So this does not surprise me but I am continuing to be dismayed.
I liked McCain before, and I wonder, if he had gotten in, would we be having these discussions?
I’m thinking I will have to start voting exclusively Democratic to make a point, but in SE Idaho, that’s a wasted vote for sure.
No Democrats will get my votes so long as they allow Nancy Pelosi to continue as House Speaker. She has wasted the small opportunity they had since being elected, and she has blocked multiple impeachment attempts.
When I think about the maelstrom of wrongs in our government, it all ends up at Pelosi. She is the one failing her job most as the leader of our government’s third balancing branch. I believe our government is failing on multiple counts, but her failure is the most egregious because she has the duty to check executive power. She not only refuses to do so, she stymies everyone else’s attempts.
When the judicial and legislative branches fail to investigate and stop the executive branch, our democracy has become a farce.
When one looks at the district Pelosi reprsents and all the immoral activities that go on at such activities such as Gay Street Fair–all in front of young children–it isn’t a stretch to see how her feigned moral indignation is really a cover for a general feeling that anything goes in her view–including some of Bushes policies.
Ah, Mike. I’m a firm gay rights advocate (there’s my libertarian side) so the people she represents are just fine by me.
But I have been sorry to see that the Dems didn’t produce meaningful change when they had the chance and the voter mandate.
So there it is…ineffective leadership, or arrogant, corporate lackey leadership.
Ewww.
If reading this doesn’t make you want to impeach the dummy, nothing will. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
“In a confidential memo, a long-time Republican operative who has served in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad for the past year says the State Department’s efforts in Iraq are so poorly managed they ‘would be considered willfully negligent if not criminal’ if done in the private sector.
‘We have brought to Iraq the worst of America — our bureaucrats,” writes Manuel Miranda in the memo…’”
Is Manuel Miranda one of those phony Republicans? Apparently not:
“Miranda previously held senior Republican leadership positions on Capitol Hill, including counsel for then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. While on Capitol Hill, Miranda was embroiled in a controversy when he obtained a confidential memorandum written by Senate Democrats and leaked it the press.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4263378