How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Kucinich Introduces Articles of Impeachm   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Kucinich Introduces Articles of Impeachment of George W. Bush

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


75 posted 06-22-2008 03:31 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear J.M. and Grinch,

          I think that Grinch is on the money.

           The framers were 18th century folk.  The question nobody seems to ask themselves any more is "impeachment of what?"  We are so used to the term that we think the answer is the name of the office—the President, The secretary of This, The Justice of the Second Whatever Court.  Or we think of the person's name.  President Jones, or Justice Crater.  But I suspect the framers didn't think that way, and that if we were living in the 18th century we wouldn't be thinking that way, either.
Impeachment was designed as a sort of atomic bomb of possible punishments for holders of high office, and I believe that what be being impeached was the actual "Honor" of the person in question.  For a person with  aspirations to gentility, and all that meant, to have one's honor impeached was a blow from which one might well not recover.  It might well mean social ostracism and shunning among the people that you had thought your equals, it would mean loss of face, it would mean disgrace in ways that a person from our century couldn't even begin to imagine.  It would be a stain that no mere trial could actually remove.  The best a trial might do for you is render a verdict of "Not Guilty."  A person of Honor is absolutely clear that "Not Guilty" is a very long way from "Innocent."

     Impeachment was designed to be worse than a death sentence to persons of the political class in the 18th Century.  That's why I believe the constitution is written as it is.  Once Impeached, you would long for any sort of exculpatory finding, though none would be sufficient to satisfy the demands of honor.  No pardon would be sufficient to cleanse the stain.

     That's why impeachment has traditionally been reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors.  Nothing less deserves it.  Anything less trivializes it.  Once trivialized, it redounds to the dishonor of those imposing it.  They themselves are painted and tainted by their hysteria.

     Not that I can think of any examples or anything.

     The sooner we can get both Bush and Cheney busy with some sort of legal defense, the more difficult I believe it will be for them to widen the war and to include Iran in it.
It's one of the few tactics I believe they have that will allow them to hang onto power.  

     Thoughts?

     Sincerely, BobK.
      

    
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


76 posted 06-22-2008 08:35 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
If impeachment is in process at any stage, the incoming president can’t pardon?


YES

quote:
Would that apply now the articles have been presented and referred to committee?


YES

It goes even further than that though Jen.

Impeachment is not reserved for people currently in office - it can be used to prosecute someone after they have left office. To understand it you need to understand one of the main functions of impeachment which is to impose a restriction on anyone found guilty of ever holding a position within a government department or position of influence.

The impeachment laws were framed to ensure that resignation wasn’t an easy way out - to stop a corrupt or unfit individual from resigning and then taking up another office to start all over again.

Here’s a quick guide to Impeachment:

A case (articles of impeachment) is presented to the house of representatives which requires a simple majority vote to agree here may be a case to answer.

The senate tries the case and requires a two-thirds majority vote to convict.

If found guilty the accused is removed from office and can be barred from holding any public office in future (a separate vote is required).

Conviction does not prevent or restrict civil or criminal charges being brought.

The president cannot interfere with the impeachment process or any subsequent civil or criminal charges.

Given the evidence the answer to your next question is yes, Nixon could have been impeached, his pardon wasn’t worth the paper it was written on, but to do so after the new incumbent had issued the pardon would have undermined the new presidency . From a political point of view it was better to draw a line under Nixon’s transgressions and move on.

Which is why I believe Kucinich is acting now, he doesn’t want to impeach the President  because he’d be unlikely to get a conviction simply because few people want the office of President sullied, he wants to impeach an ex-President where a conviction is far more likely.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


77 posted 06-22-2008 02:01 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

"The president cannot interfere with the impeachment process or any subsequent civil or criminal charges."

I really hate admitting how dense I can be, but this is important enough to me to allow myself to be seen wearing my dunce cap.

Let's see if I'm getting closer.

Now the articles have been presented, Bush/Cheney can be impeached anytime, even after they leave office. If the Judiciary finds there's enough evidence, then it goes back to the House for a vote.  All that's required is a simple majority yay vote in the House and then it goes to the Senate for trial. During the impeachment process,  or in the event a crimal case should be brought against either of them,the incoming President can't pardon. Is that it?

So what can the incoming President do? Just pardon after conviction, as Bob K said? Not for the impeachment but for a criminal conviction?

I'm not doubting you, I just really want to understand. Thanks for your patience.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


78 posted 06-22-2008 03:04 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


You’ve got it - apart from one point.

Technically even if the articles hadn’t been presented the impeachment process could still be started after the President left office.

quote:
So what can the incoming President do?


As far as impeachment goes the law is pretty specific - The President cannot interfere with the impeachment process or any subsequent civil\criminal proceedings arising from the impeachment proceedings. He could issue a pardon but it would, in effect, be nothing more than a personal gesture of support , the impeachment could continue and any subsequent findings would stand.

Why impeach an ex-President?

The confusion surrounding this arises because impeachment is generally seen as a way of removing someone from office and that seems pointless once the President’s out of office, but that  isn’t the case. Impeachment is also an important mechanism to bar that person from holding any government position and also to deny access to any pension or gratuity bestowed under the Former Presidents Act by way of punishment.

Successfully, or even unsuccessfully, impeaching an ex-President is, of course, also a clear message that the ultimate checks and balances of American Democracy actually work and that no man, even a President, is above the law.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


79 posted 06-22-2008 04:29 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Thanks very much, Grinch. I appreciate your taking time to explain.

I was reading somewhere yesterday where Bugliosi was saying already there are those interested in going the criminal trial route. And the last few polls I've seen showed anywhere from 60 - 80+ per cent being in favor of impeachment.

Maybe there will finally be some light at the end of this long dark tunnel. A little too late for so many, but perhaps some closure for their families.

Thanks again for helping me understand.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


80 posted 06-22-2008 07:51 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


All this is nonsense.
Bush could have never been born
and we would still be facing the same dilemma.
You don’t believe me; ask the Israelis.

"Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy" and that Casey Sheehan "was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel" and had "joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." Sheehan


At least the Canadians are honest . . .

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


81 posted 06-23-2008 04:08 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:

All this is nonsense.
Bush could have never been born
and we would still be facing the same dilemma.
You don’t believe me; ask the Israelis.




Pardon me, Huan Yi, but what is "this same  dilemma" you believe we would be facing if George Bush had not been born.  I confess that it's possible you may actually be making a cogent point, but without you demonstrating a willingness to supply the missing referent to the word "this," nobody will ever be able to tell.

     I would willingly ask Israeli friends, but they would be struck in the same grammatical bind that I am.  They would probably be at a loss to understand what "all this is nonsense" means as well, since you don't specify that either.

quote:


"Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy" and that Casey Sheehan "was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel" and had "joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." Sheehan





     The second paragraph here appears to be a single run-on sentence.  The sentence appears to be three quotes from Cindy Sheehan—it is "Cindy, isn't it?—about three different subjects.  You've done nothing to link the three quotes together other than to give the name of the speaker.  We do not know if these are excerpts from speeches she has given taken from transcripts or if these are quotations taken from hostile commentary from magazines which may be taking her out of context.  We do not know when and in what context these statements were made and as a result it is difficult to evaluate them.

     You seem to be a fairly bright and literate guy, Huan Yi, and if you want a thoughtful response to these comments, you might make it easier for those of us who would like to supply you with one.  You could make the context clear in which these statements were made.

     If you think about it, how much of American middle eastern foreign policy could either one of us detail, and what percentage of what we might detail would we agree with?  I'm not thrilled with the slave trade in Sudan, for example, or the failure to take a stand of human rights policy in any number of countries in the middle east.  Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt and Israel included.  I think our country has not gotten better as a result of our dealings with the situation over there.

     How do you feel about of Middle Eastern foreign policy, Huan Yi?  Do you love it?  I'd venture to say no, but perhaps I wrong.  I suspect that you're willing to support it because you feel you're a loyal American guy, even though I suspect most of the military isn't all that thrilled with it.
But maybe I'm wrong.

     As for the comments about Israel, I don't believe that you would find all Israelis in agreement about what's good for Israel any more than you would find all Americans in agreement about what's good for the United States.  Simply because the Right wing party has been running the governing alliance in Israel  forever doesn't mean that all Israelis are that far right.  It's a convenience for the right in this country to treat them that way, but a substantial part of Israel knows that some sort of accommodation must be reached with the arabs before any sort of peace can be worked out.  The longer it's put off, the more driven by rage everybody seems to be.

     So why not think through what you're trying to say a bit more clearly, and I'll try to give my best shot at giving you the best answer I can.  I don't pretend that I'll satisfy you, but I will try to keep it straightforward, and I will try to satisfy you by being as honest as I can.

Sincerely, BobK
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


82 posted 06-23-2008 12:52 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/23/appeals-court-rules-against-bush-administration-in-enemy-combatant-case/
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


83 posted 06-24-2008 04:02 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Good news, J.M., on that link you've posted!

                      I'll be out of town till about the fourth of July.  I've got a first draft posted in the critical commentary welcome section if you or anybody else wants to say anything. I find almost anything opens a new way of looking at one of my poems for me;  Jim's already been helpful.  The more the merrier.

     This has been a very interesting thread, so far, and I hope it'll still be running strong when I get back.

     Best to everybody,  BobK.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


84 posted 07-14-2008 05:45 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Huan Yi,

           I venture to say it's been a long time, and you mind may have turned to other more important topics right now.  I would be sympathetic if that were the case.  But if you might give the posting #81 above some thought, I'd like to continue if possible.  I really would like to untangle this mess, the current acceptance that things need to be the way they are in the middle east and that it isn't in our best interest to change them as rapidly as possible, and to stop trying to provoke a war with Iran and other follies.

     I understand that the discussion may have worn on you, and that you may wish to let it be.

Sincerely, Bob K.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


85 posted 07-26-2008 01:05 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsmeNltp1QU
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


86 posted 07-26-2008 05:56 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Jennifer Maxwell,

                          I hadn't seen the clip, but it is an amazing piece of video, isn't it?  Thank you for posting it.  BobK.
Huan Yi?
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


87 posted 07-26-2008 06:32 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell


I think it’s very telling that in the White Paper that went to Congress, the conclusion stating that Hussein was NOT an imminent threat was deleted. The White Paper was prepared at the request of and with the approval of the Bush Administration. Have they ever explained why they deleted that section and why Cheney, Bush, Rice, etc., knowing there wasn’t an imminent threat, stated repeatedly there was? How can they blame it on “faulty intelligence” when it was the Administration that altered the facts?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


88 posted 07-27-2008 07:21 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Bush did not state that the threat was "imminent". He stated that we had to act before the threat became imminent.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


89 posted 07-27-2008 08:18 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

I don’t think he ever actually used the word “imminent" probably couldn’t pronounce it, but he certainly implied imminent threat by using phrases like “threat of unique urgency".
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


90 posted 07-27-2008 11:48 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
He stated that we had to act before the threat became imminent


I’m curious what would you call such an attack?

Attacking a sovereign nation that has attacked you is called a retaliatory strike. Attacking a nation that you had sufficient evidence was about to launch an imminent attack on you is a pre-emptive strike but what do you call a strike to prevent an attack that might never happen?

A presumptive strike perhaps?  Or is it just classed as an invasion?

Any ideas?
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


91 posted 07-27-2008 06:19 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Jen raises her hand high above her dunce cap and replies “A wild goose chase”.

Here’s a link to an old article about the wild goose chase the Bush Administration sent the UN Inspectors on just prior to the illegal invasion:

“The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms. U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


92 posted 07-27-2008 07:38 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Attacking a nation that you had sufficient evidence was about to launch an imminent attack on you is a pre-emptive strike but what do you call a strike to prevent an attack that might never happen?

Any attack that hasn't happened is an attack that might never happen, Grinch.

"Sufficient evidence" is simply an avoidance of the real issue, which is clearly a question of the degree of certainty required. I think one has to either be against pre-emptive strikes or not against pre-emptive strikes. Anything else doesn't require new terminology, because it's really just a disagreement as to whether said sufficient evidence is, indeed, sufficient.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


93 posted 07-27-2008 10:48 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     My understanding is that international law generally regards preemptive strikes as illegal.  I say this as a general impression and without references, and welcoming more accurate and referenced information.  I remember how the United States, the Soviet Union, and Red China seemed to play an almost endless serial game of pin the tail on the aggressor throughout the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties.  Everybody apparently felt their move was justified by the moves of the idiots prior, , and the subsequent fools hoping to gain some sort of advantage.

     Ah, The good old days!
     My understanding is that international law generally regards preemptive strikes as illegal.  I say this as a general impression and without references, and welcoming more accurate and referenced information.  I remember how the United States, the Soviet Union, and Red China seemed to play an almost endless serial game of pin the tail on the aggressor throughout the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties.  Everybody apparently felt their move was justified by the moves of the idiots prior, , and the subsequent fools hoping to gain some sort of advantage.

     Ah, The good old days!

     But I believe the notion that we may be looking for here is "Illegal."

     If you check around, you can see that the current administration came to the White House originally wanting to find a way to remove Saddam Hussein from power.  This was well before 9/11.  
http://www.iraqfact.com/zTL2001-3.html

     As can be seen from the time-line, the administration is ready to sell the notion of Iraqi involvement  by the night of 9/11.  Proof doesn’t seem to be particularly high on their agenda.

Bush is in fact ordering administration officials to find a link between  9/11 and Iraq, even though there is no link evident in the investigation or in the incoming information.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0321-02.htm

     According to still another time-line,
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0321-02.htm

at 12:05 on 9/11 Rumsfeld gets information from his assistant Stephem Cambone that the WTC attacks were probably a n Al-Qaeda operation.  Rumsfeld said that he thought this iformation wasn’t good enough to  warrent attacking bin-Laden.  A few hours later, however, Rumsfeld will use this same information to insist he has a case to blame Iraq..

     As the reader will see, she the reader actually finish this particular time-line, Rumsfeld actually informs President Bush that International law forbids war to punish prior attacks.  And Bush says, basically, that he doesn’t care.  The decision to go to war, in other words, is made with the understanding that the war will be illegal.


[This message has been edited by Bob K (07-27-2008 11:45 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


94 posted 07-29-2008 10:09 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Yes, Jennifer, he actually did use the word imminent(strange as that may seem to you), in the context of having to act prior to the threat becoming imminent. And he wasn't talking about war, he was talking about holding Saddam accountable to the 1st Gulf War cease-fire conditions, and to face the consequences if he did not comply.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


95 posted 07-29-2008 01:44 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Does using imminent twice in a sentence make a non-imminent, sort of like using a double negative? Didn’t Bush say something about Iraq being able to launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes? Was that an imminent threat or an imminent-imminent threat kind of statement?

Anyway, Denise, just curious. In the run up to the war, what was the material breach committed by Saddam of any of the UN resolutions regarding Iraq that justifies in your mind the killing of a hundred thousand or so innocent Iraqi civilians, (Children under 18 make up approx. 50% of the Iraqi population , God rest their innocent souls) the loss of nearly 4200 of our troops (RIP, our hearts go out to their grieving families) and the wounding of 30 thousand more, (Bless them all for the horrible suffering they’ve endured) and spending 500 billion (so far) on a war that most of the rest of the world views as illegal, immoral and unjustified?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


96 posted 07-29-2008 06:14 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It's never easy, actually impossible, to determine whether an action is valid or not based on events that did not happen, since their not happening would make it a non-event. Someone who could have assassinated Hitler because he was able to predict World War II, would simply be tried as a murderer and not a savior of over ten million people. If Bill Clinton had taken Bin Laden into custody when offered, there would have been no 9-11 but clinton would have been regarded as someone who disregarded the rules.

So what were the conditions surrounding the attack on Iraq? Let's examine them. We have 9-11, to begin with. We have a terrorist organization claiming responsibility, supposedly holed up in Afghanistan. We declare a war on terror and attack Afghanistan. Next door we have Iraq, controlled by a dictator who has sworn hatred for the United States. This dictator claims to have weapons of mass destruction and, based on the fact that he used them to kill hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen and the fact that for years he has defied every U.N. attempt to inspect, the world believes him. I do not think it is unreasonable to believe that terrorists on the run from Afghanistan could find safe refuge in Iraq, under control of a madman who shared their hatred for the US and democracy. It is also reasonable to believe that, given the opportunity, Hussein would either use, or facilitate the use of, the weapons he swore to have in further attacks on the United States, still reeling from 9-11.

What to do in a war on terror? Leave Iraq alone in Hussein's hands or remove it as a threat? If he does it, as he did, the threat is compromised. Would it be the right thing to do? Who can say? Any attack that would have occured either from Iraq or from terrorists based in Iraq, would not happen (as none have) so there would be no way to know. If he doesn't do it and an attack or another 9-11 would occur, you can be sure of one thing. Everyone who is now villifying the takeover of Iraq, would be screaming at the top of their lungs,"Why didn't Bush DO something???", citing the same reasons I pointed out above.  HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN!!!
It was not a war on Afghanistan, it was a war on terror. Anyway you look at it, it was a no-win decision.

Jennifer and Bob like to refer to the one hundred thousand Iraqi civilians who have died since the invasion. They, however, both omit the facts that reports state that over 25,000 children per year died of starvation under Hussein's rule. Multiply that times seven and then add in the uncounted thousands who were taken from their houses and sent to prison, never to be seen again, or wound up in the many mass burial gravesites that have since been uncovered. I think you will come up with a figure that makes one hundred thousand look fairly paltry. The loss of the U.S. (and other country's) soldier's is certainly a sad situation and, yet, one wonders why so very many of the soldiers returning state they they believe in the cause and were willing to risk the sacrifice to make the difference being made there.

It's simply a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If it was the right decision, we'll never know. If it was the wrong decision, we'll never know that, either, but it will continue to give fodder to those who want to bash the decision. It was a preventative decision. What it may have prevented or might prevent in the future, we'll never know that, either.

These are my thoughts and opinions. Arguing with me for having them will not change them at all.  
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


97 posted 07-29-2008 07:46 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
These are my thoughts and opinions. Arguing with me for having them will not change them at all.


Would you consider amending them where they were obviously mistaken?  

Take this for instance:

quote:
I do not think it is unreasonable to believe that terrorists on the run from Afghanistan could find safe refuge in Iraq


I think it’s unreasonable, the Bush administration certainly should have thought it unreasonable because at the time the intelligence community (CIA, NSA etc.) reported that it was unreasonable. In addition the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq concluded that it definitely was unreasonable.

The first reason is geographic in nature, as the crow flies (or terrorist runs) it’s roughly 1500 miles from Kabul to Baghdad and to get there you’d have to pass through the whole of Iran at its widest point.

The second reason is that any al-Qaeda terrorists who happened to make the trek wouldn’t be welcomed with open arms when they got there. Apart from the fact that their religious and ideological beliefs were diametrically opposed al-Qaeda actively opposed the Ba’ath party, going as far as sponsoring Kurdish uprisings. The chances they were still on Hussein’s Christmas card list are fairly slim to say the least.

If you were to say that the terrorists would have found refuge in Pakistan I’d wholeheartedly agree, I’m sure they’re making the 90 mile trip between Kabul and the Pakistan border even now but Iraq? Surely you think Pakistan a more reasonable haven.

quote:
We declare a war on terror and attack Afghanistan. Next door we have Iraq,


1500 miles away with the whole of Iran in-between is stretching the concept of “next door”, I mean it’s one heck of a way to go for a cup of sugar Mike.  

quote:
Would it be the right thing to do? Who can say? Any attack that would have occured either from Iraq or from terrorists based in Iraq, would not happen (as none have) so there would be no way to know.


That’s true but you don’t mention another possible outcome, that the attack on Iraq could increase the chance of another attack on America at a future date. In the scenario where no attack by Iraq was going to happen then Bush’s action has just made the situation worse. As you say either way it’s conjecture but given the evidence that seems to suggest that nobody saw Iraq as an imminent threat taking the risk of creating one seems a little foolhardy.

If another attack occurs in the future, perpetrated this time by Iraqi insurgents instead of al-Qaeda terrorists, will Bush accept responsibility or just say “I told you so”? And which would be right?

quote:
25,000 children per year died of starvation under Hussein's rule.


You need to recalculate Mike, you’re supposing the starvation stopped after the invasion - it seems it actually increased.


“Prof Ziegler based some of his analysis on a US study in October 2004 which estimated that up to 100,000 extra Iraqis, mostly women and children, had died since the invasion than would have been expected to before the war.”

Rory Carroll in Baghdad The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/mar/31/iraq.unitednations

[This message has been edited by Grinch (07-29-2008 09:01 PM).]

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


98 posted 07-29-2008 08:19 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

So the terrorist organization claiming responsibility for 9/11 (and its leader) were holed up in Afghanistan (and heading for the Pakistan border) yet Bush pulled troops, notably the 5th special forces group out of Afghanistan for reassignment to Iraq. Why? Why go looking for the boogie man under the bed in Iraq when he’s right in front of your nose? Maybe like McCain, Bush was a wee bit confused about what country borders Pakistan and sent the troops in the wrong direction?

“malnutrition among Iraqi children between the ages of six months and 5 years has increased from 4% before the invasion to 7.7% since the US invasion of Iraq. In other words, despite the 13-years sanctions, Iraqi children were living much better (by 3.7%) under the regime of Saddam Hussein than under the Occupation.” - Medact

“child mortality was not getting any better since the conflict started in 2003 and that the death rate among children was rising.” -UNICEF


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


99 posted 07-29-2008 08:31 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Grinch, I'll get back to you...

Jennifer, you win. McCain is confused, Bush is confused, Bush can't spell, McCain has one foot in the grave and Bush only cuts weeds and plays golf. Well, at least you don't let personal bias interfere with your comments.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Kucinich Introduces Articles of Impeachm   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors