It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP/ED: Impeach Bush Now!

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommytrouble
dperry,

I'm I the only stupid one around here??????????? I mean we do live under a Democracy no???????????

Well let's take a gander at the meaning of Democracy...shall we.
Ummmmmmm.........Looks like it means "The people Rule"......or maybe I'm just misreading it??????

en.wikipedia.org...

Well, then why, may I ask, are we still in Iraq when the VAST MAJORITY of people would rather we not be in Iraq??? I do believe it's because George W. said..............I DON"T CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK WE WILL BE IN IRAQ UNTIL I LEAVE OFFICE! UMMMMMMMMMMMM..................sounds like.......looks like...........walks like........smells like........ a dictatorship to me.

Are Dictators Impeachable?

Or maybe it's just me.

And don't give me that Congress OK'd this crap! Congress OK'd taking out Sadam NOT occupying a foreign sovereign country. I for one believe the real problem is that George W. doesn't know the meaning of foreign sovereign.

At least his father had way more brains and knew better than to even think about going into Iraq.he knew it was going to be a never ending rats nest. I mean "Come on" do you think we are going to win a Holy War with the guys that invented Holy Wars thousands of years before the United States even existed!!!! You'd have a better chance knocking out Mike Tyson LMAO.

TommyTrouble


Well, sorry Tommy, your points I do not agree with (but at least you didn't attack me personally, thumbs way up!)

Of course we are actually a Republic, but I see where you are coming from wrt the Democracy question. I will give you that enough to discuss.

WRT whether because a majority of the public want us out of Iraq (actually you say a vast majority), I for one find that a slightly more complicated question to answer. I am darn sure that depending on how the question is posed, you could get a majority of the public to agree to stay in at least until the Iraqi govt/military is strong enough to impose peace/order in the country. Would you not agree? I haven't seen any polls where a majority of the public wants us out now now now regardless of negative consequences. Can you show me one of those?

Your definition of a dictator is not really one I would share, because it seems that you are saying that if a President does something unpopular, and most Americans are against it, then he is a dictator. Sorry, I don't buy that simple a definition.

One of the reasons we were set up as a representational government is to ensure we don't have mob rule. I mean I guarantee you could stage a poll that asked Americans a variety of questions about getting more services and such, and they would (in the vast majority) agree. Is that necessarily what we want? Do we want a mobocracy? Using the same line of reasoning to the extreme, 51% of the country could desire the money of the the other 49%, and they should get their way?

About Congress, you are trying to set the argument in a light that simply isn't true. Yes, Congress Ok'd use of force in Iraq. You even give that they intended to allow Bush to take out Saddam. It is completely unrealistic (and a bit naive) for Congress to have assume that we would take out Saddam and then take off. Contrary to what many of the posters here think, we simply are not looking to just increase chaos in an arbitrary fashion. We accepted the responsibility of removing Saddam, and we are actually accepting the responsibility to bring that country up to a modicum of stability. I can only imagine the braying if we had indeed done what you suggested, leaving a complete vacuum in the country.

WRT Bush Sr, he simply chose to remain within the bounds of the UN. No more, no less (and people complained about it even so.) That Saddam would continue to act as he did for the next twelve years no one could assume; frankly it's not rational to act as the man (Saddam) did.

So unfortunately, I do not agree with your assessment whether Bush is a dictator, and whether Congress intended for Bush to remove Saddam and leave the country in a power vacuum. Please by all means rebut what I have said in the above and tell me where I am wrong.

Again, it is so nice to actually have a discussion in one of these boards that doesn't collapse into name-calling or simply demonizing those you disagree with.

dperry




posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
dperry,

I am very sorry you feel that way. But I've learned that like terrorists, Bush supporters are not to be negotiated with. What good will it do? There is already enough evidence out there that proves that "something untoward" is happening in government. And if I did find something to try and convince you of that, you'd still find it laughable. Not all the indictments that happened during the six years of the Bush Adminstration will make you change your mind.

Until then, keep up the "Four legs good, two legs bad" mentality. It will serve you well in the coming days.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by ceci2006]


Well, there is really no reason to feel sorry for me. You illustrate in no better fashion what I was saying in my posts above. I have read through the 'evidence' presented that states the crimes that Bush has supposedly committed warranting impeachment, and they are filled with hyperbole, half-truths and void of any actual facts! Again, point out one simple fact that is not in the mode of 'he is trashing the Constitution' or some such tripe. I am asking for something so simple, and that would be a single shred of actual evidence...

Are you confused when you refer to 'the indictments that happened during the six years of the Bush Adminstration'. Please by all means let me know what you are talking about. I did an admittedly quick Yahoo search for Bush indictments, and got a lot of wild-eyed speculation from early to mid 2005, of course none of it actually came to pass, so I assume you are referring to something other than the whole Plame situation?

Please don't fall into the anti-intellectual trap of 'they don't agree with me therefore they must be ignorant/stupid'. It is a very simple fallacy and doesn't (I am sure) speak to your actual level of intelligence.

Thanks for your effort, and looking forward to a challenging reply.

dperry



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Believe me. I am not feeling sorry for you. And I'm not falling into the 'anti-intellectualism' trap, that you say--so to speak. I sometimes find that these arguments are partisan. And those that are on the pro side will do anything to preserve their leader from the horrible stench of criminality. However, what I do appreciate is open-minded people who ask questions and will work with others to find solutions. But not ad-hominem attackers who find an opposing view laughable and use mean-spirited words to make their point known.

As for the challenge, I might consider it. But, right now, I am running a little bit short of time. I'll give your post a lot of thought in the meantime.



[edit on 23-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
ceci, that is all I ask, and thanks for the quick reply. It would be good to actually see a debate going on vice mudslinging and insults. I look forward to it. I like you also don't have tons of time to hang out on this board, but I check it daily.

dperry



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
dperry,

Ummm let's compare the United States of America (and the Republic for which it stands) to "The Republic of China"...........ummmm...... not quite the same thing, wouldn't you say?

Saying "we are a Republic" is like saying a "Human Being" is a "Person".

I wonder why every one of our Elected officials wants Iraq to become a Democracy???????? Never heard any of them say anything about making them a "Republic".


I'm not the only one that thinks this President is a Dictator.

BTW...I'm just saying.....I'm for Impeachment.....of any President that would act the way this one does. I sure hope we can get a smater one next time around.


Actually though, having Dick as President Scares the hell out of me. EVERYONE DUCK!


TommyTrouble



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Kind of funny how Dick keeps Bush alive isn’t it.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Were this nation governed by a court of opinion, I would be all too prepared to say Bush should be impeached. I oppose violence in all its forms, which obviously includes war, and I - while unable to prove any of them out - have deeply disturbing suspicions with regard to our government in general, those in the shadows behind it which may (again I say, may) utilize those presently in office as the means by which to achieve their goals - whatever they may be - and others. This isn't an issue of liberalism versus conservatism or a party affiliation issue for me. I hold the same suspicions in regard to democrats in office as I do toward republicans in office.

Nevertheless, this is a nation governed by laws. While it is true that many in power often seem above those laws, it would be the very height of hypocrisy for me to seek prosecution of any person - from the most powerful, to the utterly powerless - without proof. If I were ever accused of something, I would want a fair trial. While I may disagree with much of the justice system we enforce our laws with, I do deeply believe that a system intended to protect our right to due process - even if we're the President of the United States and even if I passionately disagree with his or her views and policy decisions - is sacred, and must be defended. As I believe even one in direct opposition to oneself is worthy of compassion, I hold that everyone is worthy of the benefit of the doubt.

I feel in my heart and soul that something is very wrong here. What isn't clear to me in any verifiable sense is whether our current president is at the heart of it all or not. My instincts tell me he isn't. In the end, that is irrelevant of course, because his presidency may be enabling others to make use of his ideological and social perspectives for their own ends. Furthermore, feeling saddened, outraged, indignant, offended, downtrodden, or as if ones rights are being taken away, doesn't necessarily equate to the existence of credible evidence in the eyes of the people who would matter most were impeachment proceedings initiated. The problem is proof.

Can we prove with absolute certainty - in such a way that would hold true in a court of law or before a commission - that he misled the country, and (and this is the trickier part) that by doing so he committed high crimes and misdemeanors? When we consider...

    *that congress gave their blessing to use force against Iraq
    *that multiple foreign intelligence agencies concurred that Iraq may have at that time possessed some forms of deployable WMDs
    *that the president has never said anything to indicate that he believed anything other than what he said he did at the time (it doesn't matter if we believe that or not)
    *that this president delegates many tasks to others in his administration (this is not a personal attack - I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing)

    and

    *that the Rumsfeld essentially organized his own intelligence gathering team in an effort to zero in on intelligence that took primarily the worst case scenario into account (even if that meant dismissing or downplaying more probable or realistic scenarios overwhelmingly indicated by less dire intelligence)

...the answer isn't a definitive "yes." For all of the above reasons, though I am pained by what we've seen and what may come, and while I take enormous issue with many of his decisions, words, and actions, I simply cannot say, "he should be impeached." I would support an investigation by a genuinely independent commission. If the findings provided evidence that a special prosecutor felt was damning enough to prosecute him, then I might be more in support of - or at least the feasibility of - impeachment proceedings.

Now, if it could be proved or even credibly implied that he knowingly lied under oath, that would be another story entirely.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dperry4930
Wow, most of the posts between this and my last illustrate exactly the point I made before. A lof bluster about what Bush supposedly did wrong, and not a single bit of actual wrong-doing. The FISA court judges themselves do not think anything specifially wrong was commited. So try again on that one. And again with the myth of Florida/Ohio.

And as usual, as the thread gets rolling, even more over the top crazies come out talking about death penalties and such.

Like I alluded to before, this is a simple case of revenge on an unpopular Republican President commited by the ...


blah, blah, blah ... wind bag ... blah, blah, blah ...

But, in the real world ...




A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

www.dailykos.com...




posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
I've been asking that myself for a while.
What are the gorunds for the impeachement ? You can't impeach a man based on the fact that you don't like the War HE AND THE CONGRESS agreed on... unless you impeach the members of the congress that agreed with him... right ? If on has to take a fall, than all of those who agreed with himshould take the fall to.. and that would include n99% of the democrats that are calling for the impeachement...taqlking about a joke !


Well, because everything that's been done by the administration he is responsible for. The good, the bad and the mostly terribly ugly - all of it is your boy's responsibility. Now if you believe no crimes have been committed you might have an argument to present on FOX, the laugh box for the Neocons to self-congratulate and guffaw over the mass dying and mutilation while freedom at home continues to go 'bye-bye'.

But back in reality, your boy lied us into a war by touting (1) Saddam's connection to the self-created 911 debacle and mass murder, (2) that Saddam had WMD while ignoring the intelligence reports which directly contradicted his statements to the Congress, (remember that only the Executive is empowered to select certain, specific intelligence to push on the Congress) of the US public and the United Nations (a/k/a the world), (3) when the public became aware of his lies regarding WMD and Saddam as the head of al queda, he switched gears to make the 'war' about bringing freedom to the Iraqi people.

That's fine. I'm sure the Iraqi people would enjoy true democracy following Saddam's departure. Problem is that they don't have (1) power, (2) clean water (3) fuel - irony, no?, (4) government services, (5) the rule of law, (6) security. The list could go on but you get the point. The other problem is that Washington really doesn't want the Shiite majority to take control as they should in a democracy. The Shiites are aligned with the Iranian's in terms of religion which informs their notion of nationality.

The notion of bringing democracy is also belied by the decisions made by the US over the last 60 years. Remember the Shah of Iran? He was installed by US after the democratically elected govt. began social reforms which the corporate powers that be (BIG OIL) were disinclined to accept. The blowback ultimately was the Islamic Revolution which began in 1979 with the US embassy in Tehran being held hostage for, what, nearly 500 days? The blowback continues today. Rather than have a thriving democracy in the heart of the mid-east in Iran, we have a real serious problem - of our own creation.

What's going on in Iraq will, unfortunately, lead to even worse problems. Is your boy responsible for all this history? Remarkably, through is father, their family is involved in most of it. But I would only seek to hold him accountable for the recent past.

Impeach? OK, but it's far too little far too late.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Tommy, I don't know what your experience is, but looking to a communist country as an example of Republic government is probably not a smart idea. You do realize that PRC, DPRK, etc. use the word 'Republic' in their names, right? Do you know what a republic is?

Please take a gander at:

famguardian.org...

I would suggest Federalist Paper #10, in which Madison spells out dangers of democracy and why a Republic was chosen for the US. A more direct definition of Republic: Republican government. A government in the republican form; a government of the people; a government by representatives chosen by the people. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219.

I unfortunately cannot speak for our elected officials, who also (sadly) are misusing the term democracy, essentially watering down the term, and equating it to the historical usage of republic. For them, to you, I formally apologize


The fact that you are not the only one who feels Bush = dictator is not news in the slightest. That much is obvious just from perusing ATS. That political discourse has sunk to calling the other side dictators (and for some, Nazis), is an unfortunate result of the anonymity of the internet, and the willingness to put up with uncivil behavior.

Thanks anyway. I am still looking forward to some actual evidence of malfeasance.

dperry



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   
dperry

Oh yeah forgot lol................please don't get me started on the whole Iraq deal.

This President and his Administration were warned over and over, that if they took down Sadam (and BTW if we had left him there, he would take out Iran as the rest off the world sighed in relief lol.......DUH!) that there would be utter chaos! I told every one I knew, that it would be George W's Vietnam, what with knowing the nature of the middle east (and apparently I knew better than the Bush Administration ;-P)

But the Pres said.........This will be a Cake Walk the Iraqi People will welcome us with open arms and shower us with flowers and the War will be over in 3 months......6 months tops...........don't say he didn't say that, there is video of him saying it.

Then there is the whole WMD's deal. That's what bugs the hell out of me! He sold a bill of goods to the American People and when we complain he tells us all to go f%&K ourselves.

Sorry D, but I hate when someone treats me like that.

Number one.....if I had been in charge, we would have never gone into Iraq (Sadam was a nut case but he held firm reins over Iraq and everything was fairly stable) and Osama and his boys (lest you forget who took out the WTC) would be dead and Iraq would be at war with Iran................ like it takes a Genius to figure that out..............DUH!

As far as leaving Iraq in a power Vacuum...........I would have pulled out right after we took out Sadamm and his sons and set up a temporary Government and pulled the insurgents into Afganistan and gone after Osama with the full weight of our Armed Forces....he and all of his boys would be dead by now and Iraq would be in a much better state ......... Guaranteed.

We need to do things smarter not harder. Like in Iran now........ we need to go in there and set-up Mc Donald's and Starbucks and Crispy Creme and the Gap and Walmart, the Hilton then get QVC and Desperate Housewives and American Idol on their TV's and eBay on there computers ....etc....etc.... Then they will be us! .................. then we can go on vacation there and all will be well with the world


TommyTrouble

[edit on 23-4-2006 by tommytrouble]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by dperry4930
Thanks anyway. I am still looking forward to some actual evidence of malfeasance.

dperry

There are some still waiting for the same thing for Adolf Hitler, Stalin, etc

Always going to be some people who will not believe no matter how much proof of wrong doing exist.

They don’t want to impeach Bush. Impeaching Bush even thou it is the right thing to do would damage the image of the country. Problem now is keeping him in power is damaging the country more. Cheney will resign soon and another vice president will be selected one that has no ties to all the scandals going on right now. He will have to resign soon, before November republicans can’t risk the Democrats taking over congress. What the democrats must do when Cheney resigns is stall the VP confirmation. Then when they Impeach Bush, Peloski will be president!!!

[edit on 24-4-2006 by DiRtYDeViL]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw

Originally posted by dperry4930
Wow, most of the posts between this and my last illustrate exactly the point I made before. A lof bluster about what Bush supposedly did wrong, and not a single bit of actual wrong-doing. The FISA court judges themselves do not think anything specifially wrong was commited. So try again on that one. And again with the myth of Florida/Ohio.

And as usual, as the thread gets rolling, even more over the top crazies come out talking about death penalties and such.

Like I alluded to before, this is a simple case of revenge on an unpopular Republican President commited by the ...


blah, blah, blah ... wind bag ... blah, blah, blah ...

But, in the real world ...




A federal judge ...



Thanks for illustrating my point. Nice on the personal attack.

On another note, I wonder why this article apparently isn't on dailyKOS, otherwise I am sure you would have found it... www.washtimes.com...

And if I can illustrate the difference in our two sources, yours was back in December, and the info comes from 'associates familiar with his decision' whereas mine is from less than a month ago, and these judges were on record. Am I saying that they are 100% sure of Bush's actions? No, they wavered a bit, but they stated pretty firmly that 'a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order. '

How else would you have me read that statement?

Would you like to come up with something else, or are you going to claim victory somehow?


dperry



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
The loss of civility in political discourse was mastered by the Rovian politicians who surfaced during the "Republican Revolution" and has continued unabated as pushed by Rove and Delay, et al, and enforced by FOX and the other parroting mouth-pieces of the current administration.

To imply that comparing the Reichstag like tactics of Bush et al to Hitler indicates a loss of civility is to demean the vast and continuing violent loss and irreperable damaging of innocent life which their Hitleresque deceptions have led to. It is, in a word, bourgeoisie.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Dperry,

Big D.........yep I know what a Republic is and why we are not a "PURE" Democracy......but.......as a said...your use of the term "Republic"
was a non sequitur :-P


TommyTrouble



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
SeattleLaw

Here......here.........well put my good fellow.......bar keep.....a round for all my mates and two for SeattleLaw.......he Da'Man........


TommyTrouble



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dperry4930

Would you like to come up with something else, or are you going to claim victory somehow?


dperry


If so, it is indeed a hollow 'victory', for it provides nothing of value to the victor. In fact, we are all losers in any event. It is simply a matter of acknowledging reality. I am here solely to encourage the blind to open their eyes and see the naked emporer standing in our midst, covered in the blood of innocents, grasping fistfulls of cash, and laughing like an idiot while the oil rises to his neck. There is nothing victorious in being led by imbeciles and fools.

But I agree that, if given the chance, the Supreme Court would also give Bush and co. pass on the FISA violations. It's nice to have good friends (or servants) in high places.

However their actions clearly violated the plain language of the statute and invalidated the need or purpose of the FISA court. I imagine that the members of the court are interested in remaining gainfully employed by the govt. that pays them a six figure salary with great benefits.

Also, the fact that the Congress (read "Republican Political Machine") is now rubber stamping this openly unlawful action should be no surprise to anyone. There is also a group which believes the earth is flat in 2006. That's fine for them, but if God himself told me the world, in its present condition, was flat I would not agree. You are of course entitled to believe others who state that no law was violated.

You are also free to solicit support for these open violations of law, which seek to spy on American citizens, as much as you like. I would, however, remind you that Bush himself assured the American polity WHILE THE SPYING WAS TAKING PLACE that such could not happen without first obtaining a warrant under FISA. He doth speak with forked tongue, again and again. No amount of apologizing for him will change that fact. He is a liar, a thief and a murderer, and those who apologize for him are accomplices.

It is reality.

I have told people that if Bush and co. were forthright and told the truth about their reasons for going into Iraq the American people might support them. That was when I believed they went in to steal the oil to secure America's national interests. Now it has become clear that the purpose was simply personal gain. The satisfaction of the base motivation of greed, as it were, is and was the goal. The proof is in the pudding. The oil companies continue to post historic profits each quarter while openly gouging the American public. The Iraqis go without fuel, the American public gets gouged and the American military dies (along with tens of thousands of brown people).

It's all about money. Theyre oil men after all. It's what they know. Black gold. And if you think for one minute they're going to let their hooks out of Iraq, well, you're living a fantasy.

Thanks, Tommy. We shall overcome, my friend.

[edit on 24-4-2006 by seattlelaw]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by tommytrouble
dperry

Oh yeah forgot lol................please don't get me started on the whole Iraq deal.

...

We need to do things smarter not harder. Like in Iran now........ we need to go in there and set-up Mc Donald's and Starbucks and Crispy Creme and the Gap and Walmart, the Hilton then get QVC and Desperate Housewives and American Idol on their TV's and eBay on there computers ....etc....etc.... Then they will be us! .................. then we can go on vacation there and all will be well with the world


TommyTrouble

[edit on 23-4-2006 by tommytrouble]


Well, TT (do you like that better than Tommy?), using hindsight can always make you feel like you knew better, that's for sure. However, I think we really need to be honest here. Can anyone definitively say that there was evidence that Saddam's WMD were all eradicated, and his programs were destroyed? I am not asking to proved a negative, because evidence that he had WMDs is all too real (photographic, eyewitness.) I assume we both agree that he used CW against the Kurds and the Iranians? So that he had WMD at one time is definitive.

That being said, Saddam was asked (not by the US, by the UN) to divest himself of all WMD programs (resolution 687). As of August 2002, Iraq was held by the Security Council to be in Material breach of the resolution, and set up Saddam's last chance, resolution 1441.

Take a look at this, it is surprisingly neutral:
en.wikipedia.org...
It gives a pretty good run up, and frankly, explains the US mindset fairly well.

Of course, Iraq never complied, the invasion happened, and no WMD in any substantial amount have been found. What has always bothered me the most, why would Saddam, when faced with his own demise, not finally admit exactly what he had and where it went? Hans Blix himself (hardley a US apologist) stated that Iraq was not in compliance. If Saddam had destroyed his stocks of chem/bio and his nuke program, why act like he still had them?

BTW, your two comments about Iran and Iraq I don't think are very realistic. I had not heard of any tippers or other indications that Iran/Iraq was starting up again. Can you elaborate?

Also, do me a favor and refresh my memory. Can you post a link to that video where Bush says is will be a 'cakewalk'? Thanks in advance.

Of course that wouldn't surprise me. The actual conflict between Iraq and Coalition forces was a cakewalk. The unfortunate truth is we were not ready for stabilizing the country afterwards, especially when considering the insurgent forces, both Iraqi and foreign that worked to gain control of Iraq from coalition forces.

Did we underestimate the insurgency, you bet. I will be the first to admit that. Is that in of itself a crime? No it is not. What would be a crime is to take action against Iraq (which Bush thought was the correct course of action and Congress approved, like it or not) and then to ditch before the country can have a modicum of security. What will be the true failure (as of yet to be seen) is whether AFTER we leave, does the new Iraq simply become a satellite to Iran. If that follows, then the Iraq War will be judged (by me at least) to of course be a colossal failure, and I don't need the DNC to tell me that.

As to OBL, true, if we had concentrated completely on Afghanistan vice Iraq, perhaps we would have found him by now. The drawdown of troops out of OEF to Iraq was relatively small, especially considering we still have 19,000 troops there now, and are now discussing taking out of chunk of them, supposedly the largest reduction of troops there since the Taliban fell.

Again, hindsight is a whacky thing. It is easy to say what could have been done or not done, but I think honestly given what information we had, the proven obfuscation by Saddam, I think the US was correct to remove him. It is (and will continue to be) painful, but if we as a nation have the stomach to complete the task, the end result can be a better country for the Iraqi people, and remove one (of many) potential future threats.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dperry4930

Of course, Iraq never complied, the invasion happened, and no WMD in any substantial amount have been found. What has always bothered me the most, why would Saddam, when faced with his own demise, not finally admit exactly what he had and where it went? Hans Blix himself (hardley a US apologist) stated that Iraq was not in compliance. If Saddam had destroyed his stocks of chem/bio and his nuke program, why act like he still had them?





The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.


www.washingtonpost.com...


It's difficult for me to believe that there continues to exist those who choose to argue that the WMD argument was somehow valid, here ostensibly because Saddam was acting "like he still had them".

There were no WMD following the Gulf War I and everybody knew it. Everybody. We forced through that resolution on a pretext and ensured that Saddam could not satisfy it for how can one 'produce' that which does not exist? Saddam's defecting son-in-law provided details of how and where and when the remaining WMD were destroyed long before the 2003 invasion began. The inspectors knew there were none. Bush knew there were none. The cavalier manner in which Bush dropped the WMD nonesense (mushroom clouds, oh no!) after he got his way indicates how clearly they were fabrications. Similar to his disavowal of the search for bin Laden as soon as he/they got their way with Congress.

It's all so childish. Truly it is.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw
The loss of civility in political discourse was mastered by the Rovian politicians who surfaced during the "Republican Revolution" and has continued unabated as pushed by Rove and Delay, et al, and enforced by FOX and the other parroting mouth-pieces of the current administration.

To imply that comparing the Reichstag like tactics of Bush et al to Hitler indicates a loss of civility is to demean the vast and continuing violent loss and irreperable damaging of innocent life which their Hitleresque deceptions have led to. It is, in a word, bourgeoisie.


Taunting me with class-warfare language unfortunately won't work my friend.

I do take exception to your opinion that Republicans like Rove and Delay mastered the current loss of civility. I tend to think more than a few years ago, and I remember individuals like Carville. Sorry, your accusation doesn't fly.

Again, give me some solid proof of what you darkly allude to. If you wish to retreat into a world of circular logic where the evidence is there but is all swallowed up by the powerful, that one simply has to push that big 'I believe' button in the sky, sorry friend, that just doesn't do. On the one hand you say that all of these events are true, but obviously you can't actually show anything because all of the 'truth' is covered up. Nice...circular...logic. Faith-based conspiracy mongering to me.

I don't know if you actually read the article re: FISA I posted. I did you the service of reading your link. You imply the SCOTUS will give Bush a pass, yet the article plainly states that the FISA court judges themselves said he did nothing wrong. Again, what about that is to be misintrepreted, unless again it is all a big conspiracy.

Any crime consists of an illegal act (broken down most simply.) Simply point to the crime and let us judge its merits.

dperry



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join