home

I want to know why....?

by Last Night in Little Rock

I want to know why lying about sex warrants impeachment but lying about a justification for war that has killed 1935 and wounded 7700 Americans does not?

I want to know why the Republican members of Congress are openly two-faced and get away with it? They are so rankly political that party loyalty comes before loyalty to their country. Isn’t that a form of treason, or at least a violation of their oaths of office?

I want to know why the Democratic members of Congress don’t have the guts to at least introduce Articles of Impeachment. I think I know the answer to the latter: The Republican “swift-boat” apparatus. Anybody who would take out Max Clellan, a triple amputee Vietnam War veteran for supposedly being “anti-veteran,” has no moral scruples at all. They will lie as a matter of course. As time goes on, as things get worse for the President and the Republican Party, they will ultimately turn GOP from “Grand Old Party” to “Government Operating on Perjury.”

What about Bush’s gross dereliction of duty, both pre-Katrina and for and after Katrina? Does not dereliction of duty as "Commander-in-Chief" mean something? Isn't the "Commander-in-Chief," by definition, supposed to command? Or may he just act like a deer in headlights, paralyzed as he's run down?

How can somebody who has proved himself to be so utterly incompetent, feckless, and useless that he is actually a danger to the people of his country remain in office? Don't expect a resignation. That takes a conscience, something Richard Nixon at least had.

All the Republicans in the House have to do is refuse to do anything. Fine, if that is the best they can do for their country, we can only hope that they go down with him.

Things certainly have changed since the Watergate hearings, which I watched while studying for the bar exam, where the Republicans joined with Democrats to find out the truth. Investigate and find the truth. A noble cause, but an anachronism these days.

Truth is truth. It cannot be changed. Since the late 1990's, however, the Republicans found that truth is something to be molded or “spun” to change its appearance or even mocked. The overwhelming majority of Americans simply refuse to pay attention or have a preconceived or blind notion of "truth." In fact, going back to the Clinton wars, as an Arkansan, I saw “truth” manufactured in the name of Republican justice, and it was ugly. A lot of people were hurt just because they wouldn’t give in to the legal war machine for which Ken Starr was really only the front man.

A disclaimer. I’m from Arkansas. Well, I wasn’t born here, but I’ve lived here for 40 years. Bill Clinton is from Arkansas. Were we friends? No. We barely know each other, but only in the sense that Bill Clinton has an incredible politician’s gift for names and faces.

So, I was here when the plague of locusts called the Independent Counsel's Office, headed last by Kenneth Starr [because the first Independent Counsel, Robert Fiske, was removed because of the ghastly appearance of fairness he carried] came to Arkansas to find anything and everything the locusts could on Clinton to find some way, any way, to indict him. There were reports of arm twisting, overt threats to ruin lives and reputations (some of which were successful), and outright efforts to suborn perjury to get anybody to say anything against Clinton. These reports were running rampant in the legal community in Central Arkansas. Lawyers in Central Arkansas were appalled, and we shared information about a prosecutor run amok. “Amok” is a mild word. These guys were completely out of control, and they were an embarrassment to the federal law enforcement community they purported to represent. Anybody who stood up to them would suffer the [extra-]legal version of a mob “kneecapping” or worse.

Clinton was not universally liked in Arkansas. He had a 45% built-in negative vote whenever he was on the ballot. That was a given. Those that voted for him really liked him and what he did for the State. We knew who and what he was and we didn't care because he was a good steward of the State's business. Those that voted against him hated him. There was no real middle ground. And, many of those who hated him would do anything to harm him. So, Starr had a ready made cesspool of snitches.

The slightest whiff of wrongdoing, no matter what the crackpot source from Arkansas or elsewhere, and, believe me, there were a lot of crackpots feeding information to Starr and his fanatical gang, was investigated, ad nauseum. The myth of the “fair investigation” is reported here.

The Starr investigation cost $40M and proved absolutely nothing, except that Clinton lied about sex. BFD in the overall scheme of things, but enough for fanatical Republicans to vote Articles of Impeachment.

Here we are, five and one half years after the impeachment acquittal, and nothing is being done about far more serious allegations. Why? The Republicans control the House. Period.

“We are fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.” Our rallying cry for the bogus War in Iraq. BS. Al-Qaeda only came to Iraq to fight us there. In fact, Al-Qaeda was also interested in removing Hussein before we were.

They weren’t even there before that. We gave them a reason to come. Gives a new meaning to “We are fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.” We invited them to neutral ground to attempt to kill us.

Those who get their news from the lunatic fringe on the Right don’t know the difference. I talk to a few regular viewers of FoxNews, and I just shake my head at how utterly dense they are. They have ceased thinking. Their thinking is done for them. They sit on their couch and let the Republican version of “truth” wash over them. No thinking required. In fact, no thinking allowed. Think and question us, and you are "un-American." Joe McCarthy is laughing in hell.

I have relatives that fall into that group. “I don’t watch CNN because it isn’t fair.” “No, you don’t watch CNN because it doesn’t kiss the President’s as* every 30 minutes. You don’t know the truth, you will never understand the truth, and ‘you can’t handle the truth.’” I’ve given up. The Paleo-Con press has succeeded in brainwashing them all. Remember civics class in middle school? The Soviet Union’s official newspaper was “Pravda,” meaning “truth” in Russian. It was what the Communist Party wanted them to hear. No more, no less.

The Paleo-Con press is the 21st Century’s Pravda. I watch it and read it like looking at a horrible car wreck on the side of the road, with bodies being removed. I know I shouldn’t, but I can’t help it. It actually pis*es me off, which I find I need a dose of every day. After all, one has to know what the enemy is thinking to counter them.

So, I find myself coming full circle and longing for an Independent Counsel. Everybody in Congress wanted to get rid of the Independent Counsel system: The Democrats for the legal atrocities against Clinton, giving “justice” a bad name; the Republicans because they expected to steal the election and didn’t want anybody snooping around what they were planning to do. The press, after all, is too lazy to be a watchdog any more. They knew the press would be lapdogs.

Yesterday I saw a woman wearing a sweat shirt with an embroidered soaring eagle and the words: “The American Eagle / Symbol of Freedom.” All I could think about was the American Eagle being an endangered species since 1918. I could only see it as “Symbol of Endangered Freedom” because freedom is an endangered species, too.

By doing nothing, we are letting freedom slip through our fingers. Read the Declaration of Independence, and not just on July 4th. Remember why we cast off English governance. Some of those same truths are still "self-evident."

Written 229 years ago, it stirs me with the desire to throw them all out. I read about our pre-Revolutionary War heroes because I long for one of them or someone like them to return and get America off its collective as* and into action to take this country back from those who stole our government from us, the people.

< Bill Bennett: His Wife's Abstinence-Only Program | The Case For Parole >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#1)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Lieing about sex may or may not warrant any reprecussions, but lieing in a legal proceeding does warrant punishment. Clinton deserved some sort of punishment, not for his Lewinski foolings, but rather for obstructing justice. It didn't have to be impeachment, but some sort of punishment was warranted. Sometimes high profile figures receive harsh punishments for thier misdeeds in the legal system to for apperance's sake. President Clinton knew that when he testified. He took a gamble, and it was 7 out. He deserved to be punished. The system worked there. Now look at President Bush. He turned out to be incorrect, but he never lied under oath. Even, for arguments sake, if he did intentionally mislead the public, that's not a criminal offense, so you can't point to a high crime or misdemanor to impeach with.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Even, for arguments sake, if he did intentionally mislead the public, that's not a criminal offense, so you can't point to a high crime or misdemanor to impeach with.
    Didn't he kill 2000 of our soldiers? None dare call it treason...

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Many thanks for this wonderful post. It sums up so well the La La Land that is America today and how so many of our guiding principles have been trampled over. As for the comment from Big Tex, it sorrows me that he/she can not distingush between the harm delivered to this nation by what Clinton did and what Bush has done. The John Dean article somes it up well and given it was written in 2003 many more things could be added, Plamegate to name one.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Putting party first isn't treason. Treason is: • Conspiring to attack, illegally-occupy, and DISMANTLE a country for airbases, over lies and racism, thus giving our enemies the enlistment scandal of their dreams. • Conspiring with foreign governments (Blair, Berlusconi, Aznar) to produce false information for domestic consumption leading to war. • Standing down NORAD, so that only two fighter jets were available to protect the entire east coast and Washington, thus allowing terrorists to multiply their death toll by ten. • Undermanning the mission to bring OBL to justice, thus allowing him to escape. • Violating our standard of prisoner care, including torture, which assists our enemies in recruitment, and endangers our troops. • Deploying mercenaries with legal waivers, which weakens international law and the rule of law itself, thus promoting thuggery and aiding the enemies of democracy. • Conspiring with foreign leaders (the new Pope) to affect US elections; installing a vote-fraud system in 30 states; transfering millions stolen from state budgets into private campaigns; and other vote fraud and conspiracy, too legion to list, which aids the enemies of democracy. • Sending anthrax letters to opposition party leaders; failing to investigate such attacks. ...and other direct aid to our enemies.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#5)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    as long as a politician takes a stand against aborthion and gays, a big percentage of this nation's citizens couldn't care less how imoral or corrupt s/he is.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Last Night writes:
    We knew who and what he was and we didn't care because he was a good steward of the State's business.
    What is the difference then between a patisan Demo and a partisan Repub? Survey says: None. You are just flips sides of the same coin. Difference is that now the Demos are out and complaining, back then it was the Repubs. BTW - The "good steward" part is highly debatable on both sides.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Posted by Jen: "as long as a politician takes a stand against aborthion and gays, a big percentage of this nation's citizens couldn't care less how imoral or corrupt s/he is." Not as big a percentage when the facts come out, Jen. A lot of people are stupid -- that's not really something that is going to change any time soon. But quite a few Bush-supporters dropped their forks noisily into their dishes when they watched the guy diddle and fiddle while Louisiana drowned. And then they went outside and peeled that W sticker off their cars. My own sister went from supporting him over the Christian line, to seeing that he is in fact one of the antichrists she was warned about. None of this bigotry about Americans is going to lead anywhere we can actually get to. IF the people get the information, quite a few will change their minds. The ones who won't, well, they are your problem and mine, on into the future. They are not the majority -- we are.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    If President Bush breaks any laws I'm sure someone will be more than happy to charge him with the crime. The fact that he hasn't been charged with a crime is reason enough for me to believe he hasn't commoted one. All the accusations to the contrary seem to be just so much hot air.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#9)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Thanks, Paul in LA, nice to hear.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Law shmaw, if tha dems had control of the house he would be impeached end of story. He flaunts his lying and knows that it is impossible for him to get in any trouble as long as the Repugs have control. He did hire a lawyer for the Plame case though, some experts believe that is a sure sign that Bush commited a crime.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Lieing about sex may or may not warrant any reprecussions, but lieing in a legal proceeding does warrant punishment. Wait a minute. The Jones case was settled out of court, which rendered the deposition moot. It was as though the deposition never happened. And even if it had gone to court, the lie Clinton told was not perjury, since it was not material to the case and was in reponse to a question the court would not have allowed due to its irrelevance. Meanwhile, even with all the distractions, Clinton's administration improved the economy eight years in a row and met every week to address terrorism. Now the other side of the presidential lie question. Bush has not told any lies under oath because he has refused to swear to an oath, even when testifying before Congress, where everyone else had to swear in. If he was telling the truth, please tell me why the formality of accepting the possibility of a perjury penalty for lying was a problem for our straight-shootin' president. Is the argument that his lies, not being under oath, don't count even if they comfort our enemies and damage the country? Or is the argument that he is so incompetent that he didn't understand what even I understood, that he was not telling the truth? Help me here.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Repack - You need to read this link from CNN.
    Clinton's requested resignation, which stems from an investigation that began in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case years earlier, means he would not be allowed to try a case before the Supreme Court. The former president has admitted that his actions "merited censure," said Clinton lawyer David Kendall. Clinton agreed to the Arkansas suspension and a $25,000 fine on the day before his presidency as ended part of a settlement ending the investigation into whether he offered misleading testimony in the Jones case. Those allegations led to the exposure of Clinton's affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, his 1998 impeachment by the House of Representatives and subsequent acquittal by the U.S. Senate. As is its custom, the Supreme Court offered no explanation for the order. Court observers said such suspensions nearly always lead to permanent disbarments.


    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#13)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Didn't he kill 2000 of our soldiers?
    No, he didn't kill any of our soldiers. The enemy did.
    sorrows me that he/she can not distingush between the harm delivered to this nation by what Clinton did and what Bush has done.
    I do see the difference, but the way our laws are now, what Clinton did was illegal, and what Bush did wasn't. Impeachment isn't a tool for political referrendum, it's a lawful mechanism that has to have criteria met before it can be used. Damage isn't the criteria, high crimes and misdemenors is. Changing the law to fit particular needs/desires outside of the legal process would be the most damaging course of action of all.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Repack - What lies are you saying comfort the enemy? Inquiring minds want to know. Squeak writes:
    some experts believe that is a sure sign that Bush commited a crime.
    So retaining counsel is a sign of guilt? Man, that is funny. really funny. PIL - Diddle and fiddle? The only diddling and I saw was by the Gov and His Honor. Do you really believe all the over the top stuff you write?

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#15)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Jim, Ethics charges require a much lower threshold than criminal cases. "Perjury" is a term of art. It is a crime. "Lying" is plain old english. Lying can lead to disbarment, even if not criminal.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    ppj-slightly different when you are the prez and Fitzgerald is on the job.
    It is possible that Bush is consulting Sharp only out of an excess of caution - despite the fact that he knows nothing of the leak, or of any possible coverup of the leak. But that's not likely. On this subject, I spoke with an experienced former federal prosecutor who works in Washington, specializing in white collar criminal defense (but who does not know Sharp). That attorney told me that he is baffled by Bush's move - unless Bush has knowledge of the leak. "It would not seem that the President needs to consult personal counsel, thereby preserving the attorney-client privilege, if he has no knowledge about the leak," he told me.... Suffice it to say that whatever the meaning of Bush's decision to talk with private counsel about the Valerie Plame leak, the matter has taken a more ominous turn with Bush's action. It has only become more portentous because now Dick Cheney has also hired a lawyer for himself, suggesting both men may have known more than they let on.
    John Dean

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Nowonmai on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Even, for arguments sake, if he did intentionally mislead the public, that's not a criminal offense, so you can't point to a high crime or misdemanor to impeach with.
    Did you miss the part of US laws that it takes an act of Congress to declare war? Not some swaggering fake cowboy with delusions of intelligence? By that action alone, he has helped to kill 2000 US soldiers, and G*ds only know how my Iraq civilians. Mass murder is a helluva lot more illegal than fibbing about a knobjob. (Which BTW, other presidents lied about but didn't get dragged and flogged by the GOP and their sycophants)

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Nowonmai on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Oops, hit enter before I was done. And since his inauguration oath said he would uphold the laws, yes, he did lie under oath... twice.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Sigh. I just love the "lied about the war" charge. Here's the Congressional Authorization for the war. There are 19 justifications, not one. It's interesting how you like to pretend that the war had one and only one rationale - but it had lots of them. Not to mention this simple fact - Congress - not the President - authorized the war. The President merely adjudicates the war once it's authorized (much as the executive branch enforces the law once Congress enacts it).

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Ahh, but the President had control of the documents he provided to Congress. And I think the record is beginning to prove that the President left all documents that didn't support his position off the table. In other words, he lied.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    So Hussein didn't violate any of those UN resolutions then? Which, in light of the 1991 truce, were all the justification needed?

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Oh James, you keep hanging on to Hussein, as though his removal from power will give your opinion some credibility. But if you can recall, way back when Hussein was a point of discussion at the United Nations, your guy, Bush insisted that Hussein had WMD. France, Germany, and others said they needed more proof. Your guy, Bush, said "Can't wait, cuz we're Americans. No Fear, here." So he went to it alone. And you and your friends stopped eating french fries. Now 2,000 young American soldiers are dead. Dead. Dead.Your guy Bush should have waited four months for the United Nations to complete their investigations. If the United Nations had completed their investigations: a) maybe we would have discovered there were no WMD and b) if we did discover there were WMD, we would have had World support, and maybe about three quarters of the American Soldiers who died wouldn't have died because the whole world would have been there, right along with us, but wait, maybe if we had waited, nobody would have died, because there were no WMD, and we could have removed Hussein from power through negotiation.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    What lies are you saying comfort the enemy? Inquiring minds want to know. Pretty much all of them as far as I can tell. Can give me an example of one of his lies that DIDN'T encourage our enemies?

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    I want to know why lying about sex warrants impeachment but lying about a justification for war that has killed 1935 and wounded 7700 Americans does not? I want to know why the Republican members of Congress are openly two-faced and get away with it? They are so rankly political that party loyalty comes before loyalty to their country. Isn’t that a form of treason, or at least a violation of their oaths of office?
    Watch out Cafferty! Anyways, I hear your frustration 100%. It is people like James, every point they bring up has been thoroughly shattered and completely debunked, yet they just wait till next time and expect you to forget? No, they don't get it. James, get a grip.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    repack writes:
    (by PPJ)What lies are you saying comfort the enemy? Inquiring minds want to know
    .
    Pretty much all of them as far as I can tell. Can give me an example of one of his lies that DIDN'T encourage our enemies?
    So you don't have an answer, all you have is a snarky rant. Congratulations. BTW - Speaking of things that hurt America, Check out this. Read it all. It proves media bias beyond a doubt. gentlyweepingguitar - The reason old Europe didn't want to go into Iraq was money. You seem to forget France was building a pipeline and Germany and Russia was selling him weapons. A secondary reason is the same reason they didn't go into Kosovo and Bosnia. They haven't the strength or moral courage to do the right thing. As for the UN, the results would have been inconclusive and we would still be listening to them pontificate while stealing money from the Oil For Food program. In the mean time, Saddam would have be working away to get back into the WMD business as detailed in the Kay Report and this Nov 1998 indictment. BTW - The second link provides proof of the connection between al-Qaida and Saddam's Iraq. Now, you know why.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    repack writes:
    (by PPJ)What lies are you saying comfort the enemy? Inquiring minds want to know Pretty much all of them as far as I can tell. Can give me an example of one of his lies that DIDN'T encourage our enemies?
    JIm writes:
    So you don't have an answer, all you have is a snarky rant. Congratulations.
    Lt. General William Odlum writes:
    “Our invasion of Iraq has made it a homeland for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Indeed, I believe that it was the very first time that many Iraqis became terrorists. Before we invaded, they had no idea of terrorism.” "Too late, Mr. President, has no one told you that you’ve succeeded in accomplishing that yourself?"


    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    I'm making one point, which the left end commenters continue to miss. Never mind WMD, because - in terms of legality - they don't matter. The Congressional Authorization had 19 justifications, not one. Legally speaking, they could have justified a war based on the bad odor underneath Hussein's armpits - it doesn't matter. If Congress passes an authorization, and the President signs, it's all legal. That has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea or not. That has nothing to do with whether the stated goals make sense or not. The only point I was trying to make here is that the constant shouting of "illegal war" is stupid. The people making it either have no grasp of how the system works, or they have an agenda that they would like to wrap in prettier paper. Either way, it doesn't change one simple thing - going to war in Iraq was legal. If you want to make a case against the war, find some more intelligent grounds to use.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Geez Jim, one might almost compare that to a staged propaganda shot of GWBush flying onto an aircraft carrier and congratulating himself in front of a banner reading "Mission Accomplished". Of COURSE the media is biased. You are biased. I am biased. The NYT is biased. Fox is famously biased... Also, "zombietime" is biased as well. The perception of that bias is what determines the depth of that bias. To me, the media is not liberal enough. To you? It is a far left communist conspiracy, as evidenced by a single photograph of a woman wearing a t-shirt. To me? Shrub parading around on a flight deck is a prime example of state run propaganda at it's worst. To you? It is unpatriotic to denounce our president when he is acting like a soldier... To me? Clinton was harassed by the right wing conservative puritans for indulging in something that approximately half of American married men have done-cheat. To you? Impeachable offense.. True, it was for lying under oath, but only an idiot would believe he was even brought to that point out of a sense of duty to God and country. He was brought to that point for the same reason Bush will never be held accountable for anything he screws up. Plus, I still havn't figured out why republicans hated Clinton so much. He acted just like a republican. In fact, he was less liberal than Nixon. The only thing I can think of why wrong wingers hated Clinton is the BJ. Puritanical oppression.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    James Robertson:
    going to war in Iraq was legal. If you want to make a case against the war, find some more intelligent grounds to use.
    James, the mistake you're making here is equating "legal" with "right or "moral". If you want to make a case for "right or "moral", find some more intelligent grounds to use.
    Senator Robert Byrd [says] Bush's moves to destroy time-honored Senate rules parallel Hitler's ramming fascist legislation through his gutted Reichstag. "Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality," said Byrd. "He recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal."


    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    edger - The question to repack was, show me the lies. He hasn't answered. Gen Odum's comments are his, and they are incorrect. You will disagree with me. Beyond that, they also have nothing to do with repack's claim re Bush "lies" and my question for him to prove his claim and his inability to do so. And neither can you. So you try to present some smoke. Remember. I'm the guy in the back of the room grinning at you. BTW - How can you quote an ex-member of the KKK who throws around the N word? Johnny - Bias usually is taken to mean that what a person is incorrect. He is biased in favor of a view. Thus it is basically dishonest. Would you agree that the SF Chronicle's presentation of the photo and story was dishonest? And are you saying you want dishonest news? That is called propaganda. If you had been around long enough you would know that I have commented I didn't care if Clinton got a BJ, and that the Repubs were stupid for making it an election issue in '98. It hurt them, just as the Demos trying to make Vietnam/TANG an issue in 2004 hurt the Demos. My link was just to put some accuracy in the proceedings. But to expand. Attacks about issues the voters either don't care about, or have forgiven, hurt the attackers because the voters see them as unreasonable, and they don't want unreasonable people in power. BTW - That's why the "Bush Lies" chants will hurt the Demos. The voter doesn't believe it. All it does is rev up the Demo base. That's dumb. BTW - Don't confuse me with James Robertson. He would disagree with my position on National Health Care, but he wouldn't attack me the way the Left does because of my position on the War On Terror.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#32)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Tex, The basis for impeachment and conviction, "high crimes and misdemeanors" has nothing to do with criminal law. In other words, it has nothing to do with whether the conduct is "legal" or "illegal". As the National Review points out (and by Ann Coulter of all people) "There is, in fact, no such thing as a "high crime" or "high misdemeanor" in the criminal codes." What this means is that a President can be impeached for any reason that Congress deems appropriate. This includes Bush's lying about a justification for war. I hope this clears up your misunderstanding regarding the impeachment process.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Jim I agree somewhat. This is why most of Europe perceives the American voter as shallow, ignorant and well just plain stupid. They vote on feelings, not facts. They turn complex issues into simplistic chants and slogans, and the parties sell it to those willing to drink it up. Both sides are guilty of this. If they were more perceptive the Demos would be screaming for, and aiding in the construction of, an actual plan. Not to exit, not to bring troops home, but a plan to win the war in Iraq. We can go on for years playing the blame game or we can help create a viable state in the ME that is not going to produce extreme political/religious views. So yes they need to stop with the name-calling and start some real discussion about plans, action and most importantly execution I believe you are right when you chastise the left for crying liar. It’s preaching to the choir at this point.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#34)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    One possible grounds for impeachment is Bush's policy toward detainees. Bush's 'get tough' policy toward detainees may have been in violation of laws against torture and the War Crimes Act. If Bush was aware of torture, such as at Abu Ghraib, and did nothing, he should be impeached. Another area for investigation is whether there was a coverup.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    BTW - That's why the "Bush Lies" chants will hurt the Demos. The voter doesn't believe it. All it does is rev up the Demo base. That's dumb.


    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    How can you quote an ex-member of the KKK who throws around the N word?
    Trying to discredit an idea or an opinion by attacking the speaker doen't fly, Jim. And does not pass a wisdom, it just makes the attacker look like a fool. As you're so fond of saying: "That dog doesn't hunt". I would quote George W. Bush, if I thought he said something that made sense.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    PPJ: edger - The question to repack was, show me the lies. He hasn't answered. Jim, if you can't find a single example of Bush lying, you have been remarkably protected from current events. I'll give you some of the uncountable lies that comforted our enemies. Then it will be up to you to show me one of his lies that DIDN'T comfort the enemy, mmkay? Remember when Bush promised us and the world that he wouldn't rest until he caught and punished the man who killed 3000 Americans? Guy by the name of bin Laden? I'll bet you had a three-day erection when you heard that. Then did you notice that not only did we NOT catch bin Laden, but the president set a new standard of presidential laziness that made Ronald Reagan look positively alert? He rides his bike, he clears brush, he does a lot of things, but he never mentions the name of bin Laden. Seems like he gets plenty of rest. After he stopped talking about bin Laden, stopped even mentioning his name, someone asked him about the progress of his "relentless pursuit," and it turned out that Bush "[doesn't] think about him that much." Did he lie about not resting until bin Laden was caught? Did the straight-shootin', tell it like it is, does what he says he's going to do, Bush fail to do what he promised the American people from the grave of 3000 victims? Don't you think terrorists all over the world celebrated the lie about tracking down bin Laden? How about this lie: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"? If Brown's performance was so exemplary, why was he forced to resign, and why did REPUBLICAN members of Congress feel that they had to lynch him in public? The hits keep coming. Remember when he told us that if anyone in the administration was "INVOLVED" in the Plame leak, that person would no longer work for the administration? That he wanted to "Get to the bottom of this"? (What actions did he take in "getting to the bottom"? Did he ASK anyone anything?) Then once it became clear that there were a lot of staffers involved, the standard changed from "involvement" to conviction of a crime? Surely it comforts our enemies to know that the White House is staffed by people who do not keep secrets and that the presence of traitors (as defined by GWH Bush) is tolerated by the Chief Executive.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#38)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    In other words, it has nothing to do with whether the conduct is "legal" or "illegal"... What this means is that a President can be impeached for any reason that Congress deems appropriate.
    You are taking too simple of a view. Congress likely could not impeach for an act that is clearly legal. The very termonaligy, high crimes and misdamenors, indicates that some illegality need occur before impeachment is constitutional. Even if Congress deemed it appropriate, they could not impeach for completley legal actions such as the President picking his nose or wearing mismatched socks for example. Even if Congress deemed those actions appropriate for impeachment, likely they would not pass constitutional muster, if the Court were to reach the merits.
    The basis for impeachment and conviction, "high crimes and misdemeanors" has nothing to do with criminal law.
    Only partially correct, it does have some bearing on criminal law, and in another aspect indirectly bears on criminal law. It is a Constitutionally mandated protection, and therefore has a major indirect impact on criminal law. If at a whim Congress can change Constitutional requirements, then they could decide to do away with Miranda protections. In fact, they have tried to do away with Miranda protections, but the Court declared the law they passed unconstitutional. Why? Because Congress is not authorized to do away with Constitutional protections, which brings us back to the meaning of high crimes and misdamenors. Interpretation of the clause could be taken to mean either the more limiting High Crimes and High Misdamenors, or the less limiting High Crimes and Misdamenors with any run of the mill misdamenor as impeachable. If the latter is the correct interpretation, then Congress could impeach for nose picking, but only after passing a law barring nose picking and having evidence that the law was broken. So, to restate it more simply, the misdamenor prong could potentially simply be any run of the mill misdamenor, as defined by the penal code. If the more etherial high misdamenor is used, then misdamenors such as failure to use your blinker are likely out, since high is a modifier to misdamenor. Now on to the more difficult high crimes prong. This is likely another term for felonies and so any illegal act is covered. History also speaks against your interpretation. When Congres impeached Andrew Johnson, they didn't use an etherial high crime charge. Rather they passed a law that was going to be broken and then the charge for impeachment was the breaking of that law. Why? To ensure the Constitutionally of the impeachment. Both history and the Constitutional clause point to criminal acts needing to be broken before impeachment can occur. By defination an act is not criminal unless it violates a penal code. The clause gives leeway to choose what act to impeach for, but wearing mismatched socks is not impeachable unless a statute is first passed making it illegal to do so. Then a charge could lie. So, back to the original question, of I want to know... the original answer stands. Lieing about sex isn't impeachable, but lieing in the legal process is, therefore Clinton's actions were impeachable. Lieing about a justification for war is not illegal, therefore there is no charge that can lie for impeachment.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    repack writes:
    I'll bet you had a three-day erection when you heard that.
    Didn't know you had an interest. OBL - That was a statement of fact. I think he still wants him, and he is pursuing him. Now you may want to argue tactics, but that isn't a lie. You write:
    Don't you think terrorists all over the world celebrated the lie about tracking down bin Laden?
    I would say thousands and thousands of them are looking for those virgins they were promised. BTW - Was that rhetorical question? Brown? He resigned as a political sacrifice. You're out of short pants, so I assume you know that. The Plame leak? Well, we're going to have to wait for the wheels of justice to grind through before he can act. Would you have him sully the judicial process? But of course you would if it helped the Left's cause. To steal a phrase from years past, "Sir, do you have no shame?" BTW - You want to parse "involvement.” I'll bet you a $5.00 contribution to TalkLeft that you can't show me a similar critical remark, by you, about the parsing of "what is, is..." by Clinton. Let us face the music and quit dancing, repack. If you can do no better than that the Repubs will ride off into the sunset, laughing. John Horse - I don't seem to remember you, or the Demos, making the same point about Clinton. I hope this clears up your misunderstanding about hypocritical. BTW – I agree with your point, but I think that the founders original intent was that he would have done something besides win a couple of elections and pis* off the Left.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#40)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Tex, I suggest you do a search of the definition for "high crimes and misdemeanors". For example, here. According to InfoPlease you can be impeached for abuse of power and/or serious misconduct in office. Now you can abuse power and commit serious misconduct in office by violating a law but you can also abuse power and/or commit serious misconduct in office without violating a law. Impeachment has nothing to do with criminal law. If you find links showing that this is not so, let me know.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Repack Rider:
    PPJ:
    edger - The question to repack was, show me the lies. He hasn't answered.
    Jim, if you can't find a single example of Bush lying, you have been remarkably protected from current events.
    Link 1: BUSH: "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003 Zero Chemical Weapons Found: Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq ----- BUSH: “U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.” State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003 Zero Munitions Found: Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq ----- BUSH: “We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003 Zero Aerial Vehicles Found: Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq ----- BUSH: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida." State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003 To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed. (besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US) ----- BUSH: "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites." Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002 Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there - IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003 ----- BUSH: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003 The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible. ----- Jim, if that's not quite enough for you, and you're still hungry for more of Goerge's lies, you can also have a look at: Link 2:, or: Link 3:, or you can simply google "bush lies". I'm sure you can do that a well as I can. :) Were you out of coffee when you woke up this morning, Jim? Or did you hit your head on something recently? Are you sure you're allright, Jim? I am absolutely astonished that you would ask Repack such a question... Amazing... go get some fresh air, bud! Jeeeze!

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#42)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    PPJ, Saying that someone can be impeached for noncriminal conduct is different than saying he should be impeached. Where is the hypocrisy?

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    DA-Nice link from MLK. I forgot that he said:
    We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany.
    Which is ever so pertinent these days. Also the quote is from a letter written from his jail cell. It puts Judy Miller's claim to martyrdom in clear perspective. She suffered so much in order to fight for shielding propaganda from any scrutiny and to protect the oppressed neocon warmonger millioniares and vulnerable mega corporations. MLK

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    edger - You should know that someone quoting another source is not lying. BTW - Some chemical weapons have beem found, and we know Saddam gassed his people. BTW - The Brits still say he was trying to buy more - over 200 tons of yellowcake were found - from Niger. BTW - Bush's claim was almost three months before the IAEA inspection. Guess you think he can channel. (Hint: That's John Edwards you are thinking of.) Besides, which facilities are being compared? BTW - Support terrorist? Read this. And this Link. edger, based on the above information, and using your standards, I could easily claim that your are lying. I won't do that because I believe you are just totally misinformed and don't have a clue. Remember, I'm the guy in the back of the room grinning at you. ;-)

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    John H - Before he was, it had to be decided to "do." The Left claimed that perjury, in this case lying about sex and lying under oath about asking for sex, didn't meet the criteria. Now you say it doesn't make any difference.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    ppj- you can not pass of claims that have been debunked by all the world except the Rush Limbaugh crowd. It makes you look bad and a partisan hack. As I know you claim to be some kind of liberal, recirculating garbage quotes does not make your 'liberal' claim credible.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    I'm the guy in the back of the room grinning at you. ;-)
    There is a guy who wanders all day and night up and down a street near where I live, "grinning at" everyone too, and laughing out loud too, when he doesn't take his meds... ;-)

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Edger says: "James, the mistake you're making here is equating "legal" with "right or "moral". If you want to make a case for "right or "moral", find some more intelligent grounds to use." No, I'm not trying to make any such case in this thread. In this thread, I'm pointing out one thing - the war is legal, based on the way US law works. That was the sum total of the points I was trying to make in this thread. As to impeachment, which came up - it's a political act, not a legal act. You'll notice that the House brings the (political) indictment, and the Senate sits in Judgement. They can impeach any President for any reason they care to. Whether they have political backing (completely lacking in 1997-1998) to do so is another matter entirely. You might research the impeachment of Andrew Johnson - it was even more blatantly partisan than the attempt on Clinton. The point? Impeachment has next to nothing to do with the law. It has everything to do with politics. Had Nixon been hugely popular in 1974 (he wasn't), he neither would have resigned nor been impleached, because neither would have been politically possible. The laws that were broken mattered a whole lot less than the fact that the public - and the Congress (including his own party) had turned against him. To get back to the "illegal war" meme, it's just a stupid charge. If Congress agrees to go to war, and gives the President that authority - nothing else matters (legally speaking). This has a lot to do with you aren't getting traction with the anti-war thing. There's no draft (meaning, no mass of students to be concerned about their own fate), and people dismiss the "illegal" charge as silly. No one has to marginalize you - you do it all by yourself.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#49)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    JR makes the argument that only US law applies to the US. Well if one wants to make that argument that each country has a soverign right to make and execute its law then fine. If thats the case then every country should have that right. BUT JR being the flaming hypocrite that he is would never allow such things. According to JR's logic if the Russian government decided to invade the US and voted to do so then it would be legal I wounder if JR thinks we should throw flowers. The truth of it is that JR and the rest of the neocons believe the US should be able to do what it wants whenever it wants where ever it wants. Since we clearly can not back up such empty words people like JR will be the reason this country goes into serious decline. He will find that the rest of the world may decide that they don't need us much any more. More lucrative markets are opening up, we've sold off our manufacturing and outsourced our intellectual based research and development. We need the rest of the world and its key resources more than they need us. So being the international bully who answers to no one will ultimately be our downfall as a nation. It was one thing when we led the world in R& D manufacturing science etc. Those days are gone.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    jr-If the neocons conspired to fix intelligence in order to get Congress to go to war; the war was based on illegal acts. The main charge of Illegality is from the standpoint of the International Community. America went to war against the recommendations of the UN and international community. Ergo the Iraq war is illegal by international standards, and the cause to war was based on illegal conspiracy. Your technical point that Congress granted Bush the power to go to war has never been disputed and is quite shallow.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    soccerdad: ... the rest of the world may decide that they don't need us much any more. More lucrative markets are opening up, we've sold off our manufacturing and outsourced our intellectual based research and development... and used up all the goodwill, trust, admiration and respect the rest of the world had, as well: ""Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" -- one people, one government, one dictator -- accurately describes the current GOP strategy of Karl Rove, Bush's Joseph Goebbels..." --Senator Robert Byrd

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#52)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    PPJ, Let me get this straight. I am being hypocritical not because of what I said or wrote, but because of what other people allegedly said or wrote.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    soccerdad writes: We need the rest of the world and its key resources more than they need us. So being the international bully who answers to no one will ultimately be our downfall as a nation. U.S. Foreign Policy Since World War II:An Essay on Reality’s Corrective Qualities --Cliff Staten, Ph.D. Dean of the School of Social Sciences Professor of Political Science Indiana University Southeast "The horrific events of 9-11 and the unifying theme of a war against global terrorism provided the initial public support for President George W. Bush to embark on a renewed idealistic foreign policy. Several other factors also explain the dramatic change in foreign policy under Bush. One was the failure of the Clinton administration to define a strategic vision for the United States in the post-Cold War era. There was no alternative to compete with the strategic vision of the neoconservatives in the incoming Bush administration. ... In the case of President Bush’s post 9-11 missionary foreign policy, and in the aftermath of his re-election, The United States is reaching a point of reality, a recognition that the nation does not have the resources to achieve ever-expanding and idealistic goals. This reality will soon force—or allow—either Bush or the next president to bring back into balance foreign policy goals with limited resources. ... It is difficult to pinpoint the exact time at which the current "Lippman gap"*** will usher in a shift in U.S. foreign policy from the idealistic to the pragmatic. Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that the time is very near. It is clear that America must begin to reconcile its goals with the limited resources available. Thus, if this analysis of historic patterns is correct, the nation should expect a shift in policy either during the President’s current second term or during that of the next President." ... ***The Cold War: A Study in US Foreign Policy (1947). Walter Lippman was perhaps one of the most influential journalists of the 20th century.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#54)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    John Horse - in a vacuum, and perhaps from a purely technical standpoint, I do not disagree with your contention and link stating that impeachment does not need to be related to a criminal activity. However, impeachment does not take place in a vacuum. As your link pointed out, impeachment is not available for political differences. Three schools of thought exist concerning what is an impeachable offense.
    Lawyers and historians are still arguing about the exact meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," dividing into three schools of thought about the appropriate definition: (1) serious criminality evidenced by breaking existing law; (2) an abuse of office, and (3) the Alexander Hamilton standard (Federalist 65) of "violation of public trust."
    Looking at these three schools of thought it seems only the first school survives scrutiny. Most actions that can be committed in camps 2 and 3 have been made illegal and therefore fall within the first camp because they are illegal. If something does exist in camps 2 or 3, but not in camp 1, there is still other Constitutional indications that imepachment is for criminal actions. Article III, Section 2; Article I, Section 3; and Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution all refer to impeachment and allude to underlying crimes. Link Technically, you may be correct. However, given the Constitutional allsuions of impeachment to crimes, and the history of not impeaching for political differences (established with the failure to convict Samuel Chase) and the history of not impeaching for abuse of power (Set with Clinton) I do not see how it is possible to impeach short of criminal activity even if technically allowable. History also supports this contention. Of the 9 people impeached and convicted, only 1 (John Pickering in 1803) was not impeached and convicted for illegal activity. Judge Pickering was insane. All cases of impeachment have been dismissed if there was no underlying criminal activity. Link

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    PPJ: OBL - That was a statement of fact. I think he still wants him, and he is pursuing him. Now you may want to argue tactics, but that isn't a lie. He said he wouldn't rest until OBL was caught. Then he set presidential records for laziness that will outlast the republic. Is it your contention that the president has been hard at work every day working to organize the effort he said he would do for us? Me: Don't you think terrorists all over the world celebrated the lie about tracking down bin Laden? I would say thousands and thousands of them are looking for those virgins they were promised. BTW - Was that rhetorical question? BTW was that a deflection instead of an answer? No, it was not a rhetorical question. Don't you think that terrorists worldwide are encouraged by Bush's failure to do what he promised the American people he would do to OBL? Brown? He resigned as a political sacrifice. You're out of short pants, so I assume you know that. Are you saying then that Brownie WAS doing a heckuva job? Please tell me whether you agree with the president that the job Brown did was excellent, or with the Congress and 70% of America that it wasn't.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#56)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Tex, I think you demonstrated that there is evidence supporting both our points of view (I was wrong when I said your point of view wasn't supported). Thanks for the info.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    soccerdad: I hate to burst your bubble, but "International Law" is what the powerful countries say it is. That's been true throughout history. Which means, at this point in time, "International Law" is what the US (and it's allies, like the UK and Australia), China, and India decide it is. "Fairness", the UN, whatever else you come up with - it's all irrelevant. That's the way it's been throughout history, and your fantasies about how things "ought to work" are just that - fantasies. As to "other countries not needing us" - right. That's as likely as other countries not being interested in the Chinese market, or the Indian technical labor force.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Some commenter said
    OBL - That was a statement of fact. I think he still wants him, and he is pursuing him. Now you may want to argue tactics, but that isn't a lie.
    From that notorius leftwing site WH.gov

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#59)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    You haven't burst my bubble, i understand perfectly well that the US is run by a bunch of immoral ,crony, imperialist and that morons like you like it that way. Its going to hard to remain powerful with the economy in the toilet[not there yet, but thats where its headed] and no one joining the armed services.
    As to "other countries not needing us" - right. That's as likely as other countries not being interested in the Chinese market, or the Indian technical labor force.
    Exactly why do they "need" us ? Do you think our consumer economy financed on debt can go on for ever?

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    The economy is going to crash, soccerdad? You do know that unemployment is down, interest rates are low, and job creation is up, right? You are aware that at the same point in Clinton's presidency, the unemployment rate was higher? As to debt - the part that matters is the percentage of GDP. And that's not high.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    jr:
    "International Law" is what the powerful countries say it is. ... "Fairness", the UN, whatever else you come up with - it's all irrelevant.
    "Might makes right", James? Everything else irrelevant? By your logic Saddam Hussein, while holding the reins of power in Iraq, had every right to rule his country the way he did. And by your logic he could be removed because Bush, being more powerful, was "righter". Sigh... well... how can I argue with such impeccable thinking.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Sorry folks, I had a network crash. As I was saying GWB says about OBL (from WH.gov): "I truly am not that concerned about him."

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#63)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    So obviously JR is a member of the free-lunch crowd. Unemplyment is down because participation is down, i.e. more people have given up looking for work. Job creation is still lagging that needed to take care of the new people entering the workforce never mind those without a job. If inflation is under control why is Greenspan raising interets rates and warning us about bubbles and froth. The current account deficit is enormous and it will be painful when the rebalancing starts and it will start. Whats going to the US economy as the price of oil continues to rise, which it will because of the demand exceeding supply, or are you and your neocon buddies going to invade Venezula also?

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#64)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Oh i forgot the over 1 trillion dollar cost of the new medicare drug benefit, the war cost, the cost of the hurricaine clean up, but none of this debt matters right? Not to mention the baby boomers starting to retire in a couple of years.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Might Makes Right? Wrong.
    ...the consequences for global governance if a pre-emptive strike is successful. Suppose everything goes right, democracy is restored and the Iraqi threat is removed at low cost (a tall order) - the American initiative will set an important precedent, one sure to be invoked by potential imitators. The first, the widest and the most dangerous interpretation is that it would legitimate the proposition that whenever Country A believes, rightly or wrongly, that there is a "clear and present danger" from Country B, it is entitled to attack first. The 19th-century military historian Carl von Clausewitz claimed that war is a continuation of foreign policy by other means, and that attack is often the best defense. A successful U.S. pre-emptive strike against Iraq will, in effect, reinstate both Clausewitz propositions. Under this doctrine, Pakistan could perceive a clear and present danger from India and attack first, or vice versa. Israel and the Arab states could use the same logic to launch quick first strikes.. ... Legitimating unilateral pre-emptive war would set back the clock to pre-Second World War parameters and negate most of the advances in global governance achieved since then. Let's consider a second, slightly milder interpretation: that unilateral pre-emptive strikes are fine as long as they are initiated by a strong power against a much weaker opponent. During the Cold War, the former Soviet Union possessed frightening weapons of mass destruction. Russia still does and so does China. Should all these states be attacked pre-emptively? Pragmatic geopoliticians will answer no; let us just attack the weaker states. The stronger states can be allowed to get away with murder. The precedent then would be: It is fine to attack first as long as you are sure of winning. This notion is almost as dangerous as the first.
    --by Kimon Valaskakis - Canada's ambassador to the OECD from 1995 to 1999. He [was, at the time of this writing] the president of the Club of Athens, an international initiative involving world leaders interested in better global governance.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    When you guys get tired of being upset over the concept of pre-emptive war, you can recall that it's a common thread in US (and world) history. In fact, WWII is the exception, not the rule. Heck, your golden boy, Clinton, went after Milosevic w/o UN authorization. During the 19th century, the British Empire was the world's policeman. They intervened in world situations that they thought needed intervention. That's the mantle we inherited. Were they always correct? No, and neither are we. However, the world you guys want, where force is never used unless the UN authorizes it, would be an utter horror show. Milosevich would still be in power, as would Hussein. In fact, in your preferred world, every flash point would end up like Rwanda, because the UN wouldn't ever authorize force. But let's go further back, shall we? had the Brits acted the way you would prefer back during the 19th century, the slave trade might well still be flourishing - they stopped it pretty much on their own, while the rest of the world objected. But heck - that would be cool by you guys, since "the international community" is far more important than abstract things like "doing the right thing"

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    edger quotes:
    Under this doctrine, Pakistan could perceive a clear and present danger from India and attack first, or vice versa. Israel and the Arab states could use the same logic to launch quick first strikes..
    Where do they get these guys? Any of that could happen at any time with or without any doctrine. I can't resist. High School Sophomore chant:
    "These are words without reason or rhyme, that can mean anything at anytime."
    edger - Just think of me, in the back of the room, grinning at you. repack - Do you think the President brings in the newspaper and puts out the cat? You know better, you just want to complain. And no, I don't think the terrorists are particular encouraged by anything the President is doing. Now Left wing anti-war demonstrations. YES YES YES Now, since you love to parse. If the President thought Brown was doing a good job, and said so, that is not a lie, but an opinion. I've known several people who were fired for political reasons. SD - I think we must immediately raise Social Security and Medicare taxes to 99.9% with no cap on the income. And the fact that I am retired has nothing to do with my recommendation.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Well, James... the next time someone 4 inches taller than you, outweighing you by 100 pounds, with a 6 inch longer reach than you, beats you up beacause he doesn't happen to like the way you do business or manage your family affairs, I assume you'll be thanking him for being right? Like I asked earlier: How can I argue with such impeccable thinking?

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Just think of me, in the back of the room, grinning at you.
    If I see you there, Jim, I'll be sure to drop a couple of quarters in your hat. I generally do that whenever I pass anyone on the street giggling to themselves. Can't help myself - It's just the latent Compassionate Conservative in me. ;-)

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    I for one will never 'get over' the concept "preemptive war", AKA attack a country that was no danger to the US. I will also not 'get over' torture performed and advocated by the US, I will not 'get over' suspending the constituion, I will not 'get over' illegal propaganda, I will not 'get over' people (including the crooks in the congress and senate) who subvert american elections. And I'm ashamed of any American who does.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    sailor, if you can't "get over" pre-emptive war, then you aren't over the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, the Civil War, any of the Indian Wars, the Spanish American War, WWI (yes, the Germans sunk ships. However, we were funding the Allies), Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Gulf War I, Balkan war, The Somalia adventure, and Gulf War II. Since I mentioned the Indian wars, and since you "can't get over" pre-emptive wars, I expect you'll move off your land, since it was ill gotten gains in your world view?

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    jr-you forgot to mention Hitler's preemptive war. You guys have a lot in common, too bad he commited suicide, or did he?

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#73)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    Tex, As I mentioned to my friend PPJ, even though I believe you can impeach a President for noncriminal offenses, this is different than whether you should impeach the President. The offense should be serious and involve abuse of power and/or violation of trust. For example, you should not impeach a President for getting a jaywalking ticket. Two possible areas that Bush should be investigated is the manipulation of intelligence prior to the invasion of Iraq and autorization of torture. In a democratic society, if a President wants to practice preemptive war, then it is especially important that he be sure of the facts and be truthful to Congress and the American people. The other is whether Bush violated the War Crimes Act and other laws against torture. Accoring to (then) White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, he didn't but this view is not shared by others.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    The question you want to ask is, who is supposed to act as the police? To answer edger's point about the stronger beating the weaker "because they can", we have police to enforce the law after the fact (and self defense, empowered by the ability to own a firearm) to help prevent it in the first place. If you think the UN is going to act positively in the police space, you are on something.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    jr: The question you want to ask is, who is supposed to act as the police?. Question everything, especially your assumptions, that: 1) any country is supposed to act as the police, and 2) that you are morally or otherwise empowered to tell anyone else what questions they want to ask. In your own words: No one has to marginalize you - you do it all by yourself. In a survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and released Thursday, 35 percent of those polled favored using military force to overthrow dictators. Fifty-five percent opposed the idea, the Chicago Tribune said Friday. Seventy-four percent of those polled said they did not believe the goal of overthrowing Iraq's authoritarian government and establishing a democracy was by itself a good enough reason to go to war. Nineteen percent said yes. Visual Aid to Thinking

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    edger writes:
    In a survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
    Are they part of the Chicago Department of State? BTW - I agree that we are not the policeman of the world, and was against our entry into Kosovo and the Balkans. But after we we went, I sat down and shut up, because I support our troops. BTW - Thanks, but can't you afford more? Here I am having to keep up the palatial retirement compound, catfish pond and BBQ Stand and you give quarters? Remember. I'm the guy in the back of the room grinning at you. Squeak - If you are going to use Hitler's attack on Poland, Beligum and France as a preemptive example, please show us the terrorist attacks against Germany.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#77)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    Jim, Before Hitler attacked Poland, he put a bunch of dead bodies in Polish uniforms, and placed them in a German border town. He then told the Germans that there had been a raid. The attack on Poland was justified by this, and it was several years until the public realized that they had been tricked.

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    Jim:
    Thanks, but can't you afford more? Here I am having to keep up the palatial retirement compound, catfish pond and BBQ Stand and you give quarters?
    Quite often actually, to people less fortunate. But, when they start asking for more than the help I offer, I have to make a stand, and dont give no quarter!. Have a nice day! ;-)

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    Jim writes:
    edger writes: In a survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
    Are they part of the Chicago Department of State?
    Dr. Condoleezza Rice Discusses Iraq in Chicago As Prepared for Delivery Remarks by Condoleezza Rice Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations Chicago, Illinois Thank you for having me here today. It is an honor to speak at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations -- an institution with a proud history spanning eight decades. I am a strong supporter of institutions like CCFR, that bring together citizens from all backgrounds to discuss and debate issues that affect the security of our nation...

    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    John Horse: ..even though I believe you can impeach a President for noncriminal offenses, this is different than whether you should impeach the President. The offense should be serious and involve abuse of power and/or violation of trust. Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, currently co-edits The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org), and has written an interesting opinion piece on this subject, titled "Arguments for an Impeachment Resolution", published today on Scoop in which he opines:
    As Bush himself once said about his critics, almost in these words: "So what, I'm the President. What are you going to do about it? What do I care what you think?" As long as Bush is in the White House, with all the power at his command, with all his loyalist toadies keeping real-world consequences away from him, he feels that he and his inner circle in the bunker with him are untouchable. And, to date, he has been. So what are you, what are we, going to do about it? I suggest that anti-Bush critical mass is just about achieved in the body politic, especially after the disgraceful, shameful neglect and bungling associated with the Katrina scandal, which led to the deaths of so many American citizens. Nearly two-thirds of those polled these days agree that the Iraq War is a mistake, and the troops should be brought back home soon. Bush's approval rating is now in the high-30% range. If and when in the next few months indictments are unsealed against key Bush Administration officials -- perhaps including not only Karl Rove and Scooter Libby but John Bolton and, maybe as unindicted co-conspirators, Bush and Cheney -- true critical mass could be achieved.


    Re: I want to know why....? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    TL: My apologies for the skewing url in the post above - enthusiasm got the better of me...