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  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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 
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


0 posted 06-09-2008 09:13 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


1 posted 06-09-2008 10:43 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

So what's new?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


2 posted 06-09-2008 11:05 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I didn't hit the link (yet) but um, Jen?

When Bush pardoned the Pope (for collusion of cover-ups in child molestation by priests) he pardoned himself for possibile future litigation of war crimes.

Now either he had a power surge and one of those lightbulbs sparked bright, or...smile, he might have some legal consultation.

It's almost over, hon. Almost over.

(Karen scratches another line in the wall of her cave...)

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


3 posted 06-09-2008 11:11 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

He's talking about Katrina right now.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


4 posted 06-09-2008 11:45 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

tsk...

I'm gonna have to wait for this. (my computer is still slow as a slug in salt)

but thanks for the heads up.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


5 posted 06-10-2008 01:32 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Karen, you should be able to find a transcript tomorrow via this link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/

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


6 posted 06-10-2008 06:15 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Full Text Articles of Impeachment:
http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf

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


7 posted 06-10-2008 09:20 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Jennifer, that last link deals with Iraq, not Katrina.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


8 posted 06-10-2008 09:38 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

On April 17, 2007, Kucinich sent a letter to his Democratic colleagues saying that he planned to file impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney, the Vice President of the United States.[85] Kucinich planned to introduce the impeachment articles on April 24, 2007, but in light of Cheney's doctor's visit to inspect a blood clot, Kucinich decided to postpone the scheduled press conference "until the vice president's condition is clarified."[86]

Kucinich held a press conference on the evening of April 24, 2007, revealing US House Resolution 333 and the three articles of impeachment against Cheney.


Some people collect baseball cards...he impeaches.

He attended Tel Aviv University from 1967 to 1970 (expelled from school due to drug-related accusations).

Maybe old habits die hard?
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


9 posted 06-10-2008 11:39 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

The link works ok for me, but I'll post it again just in case.

Full Text Articles of Impeachment:
http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


10 posted 06-10-2008 12:01 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, Jennifer. It works fine but deals with Iraq, not Katrina.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


11 posted 06-10-2008 12:06 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

There are 35 articles, one of them deals with Katrina.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


12 posted 06-10-2008 01:23 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



This isn't a thread that is limited to Katrina, is it, Balladeer?  We have another thread about Katrina that anybody might use for that discussion should they so wish.  Many of us have, yourself included, and an interesting discussion it's been proving to be.   All I see is that JM is proposing we talk about Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush.  Bringing up the details of the charges of impeachment as a new thread specifically in The Alley seems appropriate, given that they were just brought up again last night.

     I find the prospect exciting, actually, though I happen to feel fonder at this point in my life of following up on Vincent Bugliosi's idea of putting President Bush on Trial for the Murder of the 4000 soldiers we've lost in Iraq once he leaves office.  I think that there isn't time for an impeachment hearing in the House nor a Trial in the Senate, and that the penalties for murder are more severe.  More people can be brought to trial and  there is no statute of limitations.  


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


13 posted 06-10-2008 03:19 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote, Balladeer:
quote:
  
He attended Tel Aviv University from 1967 to 1970 (expelled from school due to drug-related accusations).



Dear Balladeer,

          Where do you come up with this stuff, Balladeer?  Have you been listening to Fox News again?  Rush Limbaugh?  Those guys will turn your brain to mush.  I've just spent the best part of an hour and a half trying to track down some web article or hint that there's some support of your comment here.  Did you know that Kucinich was elected to the Cleveland City Council in 1969?  That piece of information was available in a few places.  Apparently it took him about seven years to get through Case Western Reserve because he was working to put himself through, sometimes part time, sometimes full time, and that he finally took his BA in 1973, then his MA in 1974.  He worked, he took out loans.  Apparently the little guy even tried to enlist, unlike Rush or Cheney or most of those fellas.  The army wouldn't take him though because of his asthma.

     While you say he was in Tel Aviv getting into trouble with drugs, Wikipedia says," He attended Cleveland State University from 1967 to 1970.[5]"  That would be while he served on the city council too and worked.  Was that the time when Our President was busy not flying for the Texas Air National Guard. helping keep Texas safe from the Louisiana and Oklahoma forces of Communist aggression?

     Or was that during the time when his records got lost and other people can't seem to remember him being anyplace in the area?  Or was that later still, during the time when he was released two years early from his six year obligation?  It's so long ago and as I recall that was well before he got sober or quite his use of cocaine.  He did acknowledge his use of cocaine as I recall, didn't he, when he told the American public that God had caused him to be Born Again, and that these things were no longer issues.  I do believe in people being Born Again, by the way, Balladeer.  With our current President, though, I suspect he may require a religious and moral period of re-awakening in the spirit at present.  I'm not saying I wouldn't be helped by one as well, though my path may be a different one, but I'm not in a position to destroy the world either, if I don't get my way.  About the worst I can do is get petulant in a really really annoying way.

     And call my friends to task for making pretty much unsupported allegations of drug use against folks that sure seem to be pretty hardworking public servants.  You don't have to vote for him or even like him.  Heck, I'm even trying to get you to vote for people I don't like, you know how important I think that is.  Just try to check it out a little better, please.

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


14 posted 06-11-2008 12:10 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

This isn't a thread that is limited to Katrina, is it, Balladeer?

Not at all, Bob. That was in response to Jennifer saying he was talking about Katrina, pointing to a link that began with his reference to Iraq.


Where do you come up with this stuff, Balladeer? Just try to check it out a little better, please.

I'm going to tell you something, Bob, that I know there is not one chance in a million you will accept and it really doesn't matter because, with the shoe on the other foot, I wouldn't buy it either. Guess where I got that quote about Kucinich and Tel Aviv University? From WIKIPEDIA. Guess what? It's not there now. I copied it yesterday and today it is not there, This is more mind-boggling than I can imagine. I feel fairly sure I haven't lost my mind yet. No, I didn't get it from fox or Limbaugh or anywhere else. I got it straight from Wikipedia because that is a factual and unbiased source of information....and it's gone. I can find no mention of him and Tel Aviv University anywhere on the net. I am at a complete loss for words over this.

Unfortunately I used Firefox and do not have the day-to-day history to check back on.

I copied and pasted the sentence I used back into Google and it doesn't show up anywhere on the internet. Since I copied and pasted it originally to put into this thread, that should be impossible.

I'm speechless, to say the least.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


15 posted 06-11-2008 01:54 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          Nope, I actually do believe it.  Anybody can edit Wikipedia.  It depends on the readership as a whole to keep the information honest and the fact that the funny stuff was only there for a short while is proof that the system works pretty well.

     It also says that I should have more faith in my friends and that the egg is certainly on my face.  I owe you a hearty "I'm sorry," and I'm delivering it right now.  I am very sorry.  I should know you better than that by now.

     One foot in the mouth for Bob, one enormous goof for Bob-kind!

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven  

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


16 posted 06-11-2008 09:21 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
  It depends on the readership as a whole to keep the information honest and the fact that the funny stuff was only there for a short while is proof that the system works pretty well.

Pretty well, Bob? Then why did Mike (and probably several thousand other people) see bad information?

This isn't an isolated incident. If information was food, and Wikipedia was a grand buffet, there would be a whole lot of people coming down with serious cases of food poisoning. The fact that someone is always there removing the tainted food as quickly as they can isn't much reassurance to those suffering.

We need to be more careful where we eat.  
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


17 posted 06-11-2008 10:13 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

I’m a little curious as to why, seemingly, it was more important to attempt to shoot the messenger (Kucinich) rather than examine the message?

Waiting for a cheap, used copy of Bugliosi's book to hit Amazon, Bob K.  Kind of blew my book budget for the month already. Received Johnson’s “Tree of Smoke” via interlibrary loan, which I'll read this weekend and his “Incognito” is coming next.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


18 posted 06-11-2008 09:12 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Ron,

           Can't say that I believe you're terribly off base there, Ron, about needing to watch where we eat...  On first glance, your observation seems perhaps more compelling than it does after closer examination, though.

     Let's start out by acknowledging you're right.
     Then let's see what we agree you're right about.  I'm quoting here what I believe to be the heart of your statement:

quote:


This isn't an isolated incident. If information was food, and Wikipedia was a grand buffet, there would be a whole lot of people coming down with serious cases of food poisoning. The fact that someone is always there removing the tainted food as quickly as they can isn't much reassurance to those suffering.




     In other words, Wikipedia makes errors.  It makes errors on a more than isolated basis.  People who depend on Wikipedia for solid information are made to feel foolish by these errors because the errors are not spotted quickly enough.  The constant review process and constant updating of text doesn't make people who've made errors as a result feel better.

     I think that about catches the gist of your analogy and translates it into straightforward digital language.  There is nothing in there that I disagree with, if my paraphrase of your analogy is correct.

     What, however, are the alternatives that you suggest?

     Error is a function of any attempt at communication, even on a level as simple as making typos or spelling errors, hippos or spelling terrors are certainly as much a possibility as my first attempt to communicate the thought.  And possibly a better one, from some perspectives.  Errors of this sort creep in all the time.  We often catch them, often we don't.  They certainly may escape uncorrected into print, where they may very well never be corrected at all, ever.

     Not only can inadvertent errors creep into printed texts, but inadvertent errors of fact may creep into texts.  These may be used as sources for scholars or later authors who go about building cases on the bases of inadvertent errors.  Because these errors are published in printed sources such as journals and books, the corrections that may have appeared in later editions or issues could well never have made it back to the original publication.

     There is not enough editorial power available to the publisher to stay on top of the text and the literature to keep the articles current.

     There are issues in which the discussion is heartily politicized and certainly in the case of textbooks, this will affect which version of the facts will appear in print in books.  The version of the facts that in most palatable in Texas, according to my friend who is a free-lance textbook editor, is the version of the facts that will most likely appear in grade school and high school textbooks of history and science, for example.  This is because the State of Texas seems to have the largest single market of kids of the proper ages and they have very clear ideas about the facts they want their kids to learn.

     New editions come out every few years, and the facts are re-confirmed.  Do you think the facts will coincide with the facts that you might have learned if you've done a broad and in-depth study of the facts that fits the actual primary sources?

     These are facts you will not see corrected, not even between different editions of the same book.

     So when you look at Wikipedia you will see occasional major gaffes like the one that poor Mike suffered the other day, and which I wrongly held him responsible for.
You will also see that Wikipedia is able to make a very fast correction and set the record straight, and that not much gets past them for very long.  For the most part, people actually seem to want decent information and are willing to work at keeping it there.

     Beyond that, I guess, there is another thought that needs to be considered.  That is that, while we are people who do need to do research on things, we have pretty much given up on doing go.  The result is that we get impressed with ourselves when we do any research at all.
We have given up on being skeptical of our sources of information.  If one or two sources say so, that doesn't make it so.  Does that source fit with other pieces of information we have?

     Like with the sources of information used to justify this current war, all information comes to the CIA with a grading about reliability.  The source on the reliability of much of the information given—an agent named Curveball, who was working for the Germans—came with a warning from the Germans themselves that the man's information was judged to be unreliable.  When we put together a research picture, we try to put together a picture out of the best information we can, but preferably not from  a single source.  And preferably with something of a skeptical eye.

     What we have in Wikipedia needs to be graded for reliability.  The fit of any one particular piece of information needs to be examined with that of other pieces of information with a practiced and skeptical eye in the same way that any other piece of information should be checked.  I looked at the web for an hour and a half before I looked at Wikipedia to see if there was any hint of information anywhere.  I had no idea where Mike had gotten his information from and I wouldn't have thought to look there for report of an tabloid type incident in the first place.  If I had seen it there, I would have looked for sourcing on it anyway.

     Mike is very trusting of authorities.  He is a respectful man, and one of the best of respectful men.  He believes in respect up the line and down the line, as those raised and led in the finest of military traditions.  He has trouble believing that not everybody in power returns his full faith and trust.

     Me, I try to listen very very hard to exactly what people say and exactly how they say it, because they will often say exactly what they mean, especially when they're joking.  But now I've wandered far to far afield.

     The advantage of Wikipedia isn't that their mistakes are fewer or less serious than other print or audiovisual media, but that their correction speed is much swifter and that their loyalty toward the truth seems to be much higher.  It doesn't mean anything more than that.  How often do you see corrected information displayed with the same prominence as the prior error the second the correction is made anyplace else?  How often can you say that somebody attempts to acknowledge all the biases he displays and that asks for documentation about conclusions he can't quite back up yet believes true?

     Happily yours, BobK
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


19 posted 06-11-2008 10:54 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
I got it straight from Wikipedia because that is a factual and unbiased source of information


Please tell me there was some sarcasm in this?

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


20 posted 06-11-2008 11:15 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually, Stephan, there was no sarcasm, only stupidity on my part. I was not aware that Wikipedia could be edited by just anyone. I considered it to be more like the encyclopedia of the internet, giving straight, factual and unbiased informations on millions of topics. The egg is on my face.

Ron, thank you for the heads up and I will be sure to remember that in the future and not quote Wikipedia as factual certainty. Feeling a little foolish right now.

Bob, no problem. I understand your accusation, not knowing that I didn't know how flexible Wikipedia really is. All is well.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


21 posted 06-12-2008 11:40 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmM4MTM2ZDI3OTNkZmMxNzY0ZDA1OTJlY2YwNmViMmM=&w=MA==


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


22 posted 06-12-2008 06:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"The reality is that SSCI Democrats, among other Democrats, had access to the exact same intelligence about Iraq that Bush officials had. Indeed, many of them had it for years before there was a Bush administration. Like back in October 1998, when those selfsame Democrats were passing the Iraq Liberation Act, signed by none other than President Bill Clinton, which made regime change — the removal of Saddam Hussein from power — the official policy of the United States."

True enough, John, but don't expect it to influence anyone's thinking. They just prefer to ignore these things.

The committee didn’t think those statements were worth assessing. Nor, to take another example, did the SSCI scrutinize this gem by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who claimed to have consulted her own advisors rather than simply relying on the available intelligence or the Bush administration:

   It is clear . . . that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. . . . [T]his much is undisputed. - Hillary

Who are we to disagree with Hillary and her personal advisors?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


23 posted 06-12-2008 07:01 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Dear Huan Yi,

          http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Intelligence_Estimate

      You may find of particular interest this somewhat left wing but very well footnoted and referenced site on The National Intelligence Estimate that, in fact, contrary to what your folks in The National Review suggests,  tells us that everybody did not have access to the same information.  

     First, the National Intelligence Estimate that was requested by the Senate Intelligence Committee  was not produced. That Committee had wanted information on all policy issues related to Iraq; all the CIA produced (The CIA is an Executive Branch Agency) was a paper on the state of WMD in Iraq.

     Secondly, the Classified version of that information was for distribution only to members of that committee and not, as I understand it, for the Senate or the Congress as a whole.  The Unclassified version brought protest from Bob Graham, the then Chair of that Committee because it omitted all dissent to the (incorrect) opinions offered in the since infamously flawed report.

     Also, with the constant pressure from the White House
to have the vote on war authority before the mid-term elections when the country was quit hysterical with war frenzy, The National Review seems amazingly memory free of the tactics it encouraged to get the result it wanted from the Democrats.  The fact that it seems ethics free about the same tactics is not a surprise.  If the National Review had actually wanted a clear vote of the actual opinions involved rather than a vote on whether the politicians thought they would be of more use to their constituents in or out of office, then they would have waited until after the elections.  Certainly the Administration knew that there was no danger of waking up to a mushroom cloud; despite their rhetoric, they had no evidence that such a thing was happening.  The Germans were telling them that the Curveball intelligence was of very low grade and the inspectors were telling them that they were finding nothing and that the Iraqis were totally cooperative.

     The CIA kept trying—unsuccessfully—to keep the president from actively lying outright in his speeches about the aluminum tubes and the President or his advisors keep trying to find ways of fitting the lies back in to one speech after another.

     The lies were ongoing.  The president knew about them.  He knew more and differently than the members of the senate and the congress.

     The presence of al-Zarqawi in Iraq is of course true but misleading.  He was present in the Kurdish areas where Saddam Hussein was unable to reach him because of US and British overflights and the exclusion zone prevented him from doing so.  Saddam was a secularist.  The way he ran his country was even more upsetting to Bin-Ladin than it was to us.  Hussein and Bin-Ladin hated each other, and ultimately Hussein saw himself as a much more likely long term ally for the United States than he did for any fundamentalist regime.

     Might I also add that history would have been on his side in making that judgement.  We had finished not so long before being his ally in an eight year war against Iran.  We had a lot of oil and the Bib Ladens of this world did not and should they have acquired any would have been unlikely to want to sell any to us.

     Realpolitik and being swell fellas do not often have much to do with each other.  The wretchedness of Hussein as a person shouldn't have kept us from dealing with him as long as he hadn't had any part in 9/11, and the evidence is that didn't.  The part that the Taliban played in protecting Osama Bin Laden should have had us making sure that Bin Ladin was dead and the Taliban was severely
taken aback for a long time to come.

    We have completely deserted the principles of a rational foreign policy to follow after this National Review Fairy Tale.  I've simply gotten a little bit gun shy about all the times somebody from the National Review's tried to tell me "And then they all lived happily ever after."

     It all begins to sound very much like a prelude to the next loud cry of "Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! owitz..."
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


24 posted 06-12-2008 07:27 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Yglesias pretty much sums up my views:

quote:
Fred Hiatt's preposterous editorial denouncing anyone who accuses Bush of having "lied" about Iraq has sparked renewed interest in this question. On some level, though, it's completely absurd that this question has dominated our national debate with, in particular, the "serious" and "grownup" position being that you can never say Bush lied. After all, we're right now in the middle of a major presidential campaign.

The campaign, as campaigns tend to be, is waged by big league politicians. And I've heard Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and all the rest all try to mislead the voters on a whole variety of subjects over the course of the months.

Nobody finds this particularly shocking.

Indeed, anyone who doesn't recognize that there's a lot of BS and hocus pocus out there on the campaign trail would be dismissed as a naive child.

Meanwhile, the war sales pitch was deeply dishonest.

No fair-minded person could possibly deny that the overall effect of the way the administration talked about Iraq was designed to get people to believe that there was a short-term threat that Saddam Hussein would transfer a nuclear weapon to al-Qaeda for use against the United States of America.

It's equally clear that this was not supported by the evidence.

But more to the point, it's perfectly clear that the whole pitch was made in bad faith.

The administration had a different, more nuanced and more medium-term set of concerns about Iraq.

It believed that preventive war was the best way to deal with those concerns. And it also believed, correctly I think, that the public would not support an action of pure "anticipatory self-defense."

Thus they took bits and pieces of real intelligence plus some very flimsy stuff plus some made up stuff plus some rhetorical excess and they weaved their dishonest tapestry.

The reason a lot of people seem reluctant to admit that this is what happened is that they were in on the scam.

No doubt Fred Hiatt understood perfectly well that the administration was presenting an alarmist account of the Iraq issue, calculated to induce panic and misunderstanding rather than accurate assessments of the situation.

It's just that Hiatt believed, as did most elites on the right and the hawkish segment of the left , that the sheeplike American were insufficiently attuned to the genius of aggressive warfare and that a good scare story was needed to roust them from their isolationist slumbers.

But then it turned out that the war was a disaster, and the much-feared "isolationist" impulse which said that war is a tool to be used to counter bona fide aggression rather than on speculative ventures was vindicated.

So now everyone wants to pretend that it was an honest mistake, some kind of whacky mix-up like the time I took a huge gulp of vodka thinking it was water then spit it out all over the table, rather than a serious ideas-driven blunder that deserves to discredit the ideas that motivated it.


The simple fact is that Ron is right. We got what we wanted (Somehow, saying that I didn't vote for Bush seems as hollow as saying that he should be impeached -- now).

We all new it was being pushed, we all new that even the WMD's were trumped up, that Iraq was never really a threat to us.

We all knew.

And now, a permanent presence in Iraq (Fifty bases? Why? It doesn't matter, we will extend our military presence whenever, wherever we can regardless of its effectiveness). In the back of my head, I knew this was going to happen (and I think most people on this board knew, too).

McCain will continue this policy (it happened under Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan as well). If Obama tries to change it, he will be considered a radical and that will render him ineffective. My guess is he won't touch it and personally I don't think he should -- maybe slow it down but I don't think he can stop it.

But let's stop pretending that we are fools.

We can be for it or we can be against it, but let's stop saying that we didn't know.


 
 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