NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267968,00.html

Now this is an interesting twist.

WASHINGTON — Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Tuesday will announce articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney ahead of a series of protests this weekend calling for the impeachment of both Cheney and President Bush.

A spokeswoman for Kucinich, the most liberal member of the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate class, confirmed the congressman's plans but would not discuss why Kucinich was bringing up the impeachment articles now.

According to The Washington Post blog The Sleuth, Kucinich actually crafted the articles of impeachment before the Virginia Tech massacre, but held off introducing them immediately after the mass shooting.

and the charges are:

"One, they misled the nation into war, an aggressive and illegal war that has obviously been catastrophic," Park said. "They are currently violating the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" by ordering wiretap warrants without FISA court approval and they are committing torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

I sure hope that they have the evidence to back all of this up because if they do not, this will boomerang on them just like the Clinton Impeachment boomeranged on the Republicans in 1998.

And here is the CNN link:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/24/kucinich.cheney.ap/index.html

Why only Cheney?

Ah, Kucinich, trying to make a name for himself.


A name no one can pronounce.

Well, one could certainly prepare a long, long list of impeachable offenses by both Cheney and Bush. And there are actually two questions; the first, as stated above, is whether there is enough evidence to prove the charges. The second is whether or not there is the political will in Congress to proceed with impeachment. Even if the answer to the first question is "yes", impeachment will go nowhere if the answer to the second is "no".

Well, one could certainly prepare a long, long list of impeachable offenses by both Cheney and Bush. And there are actually two questions; the first, as stated above, is whether there is enough evidence to prove the charges. The second is whether or not there is the political will in Congress to proceed with impeachment. Even if the answer to the first question is "yes", impeachment will go nowhere if the answer to the second is "no".

I am willing to bet that the answer is no as no one has yet brought this to the Congress before now. Why now when Bush and co. have a year and a half left in office? I do not think this will go anywhere personally. It will just distract the Congress from the real issues that need attending to. Not to mention if it does go forward and it goes to the Senate, all Senate activity will cease to deal with this with the Chief Justice Roberts preciding.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267968,00.html

Now this is an interesting twist.



and the charges are:



I sure hope that they have the evidence to back all of this up because if they do not, this will boomerang on them just like the Clinton Impeachment boomeranged on the Republicans in 1998.


They don't need evidence.

The House votes on an impeachment. It's ike an indictment. It isn't a conviction. Then the Senate holds an investigation and votes on whether to remove the President(or Vice President) from office. That isn't a conviction either.

Then, when the President(or Vice President) is removed form office, criminal charges may be filed.

Evidence doesn't enter into it.

They don't need evidence.

The House votes on an impeachment. It's ike an indictment. It isn't a conviction. Then the Senate holds an investigation and votes on whether to remove the President(or Vice President) from office. That isn't a conviction either.

Then, when the President(or Vice President) is removed form office, criminal charges may be filed.

Evidence doesn't enter into it.

Actually, Evidence does have to enter into this. No grand jury (since that is what the House is in this case) can reach any decision without listening to what the prosecution has to offer. that is why the House Judiciary Committee listens to these charges first then they go to the Whole House for authorization to investigate the charges. When that is all done, then it goes before the House Judiciary Committee again for approval on the articles of Impeachment. If the committee approves it it goes back to the House for formal approval.

Actually, Evidence does have to enter into this. No grand jury (since that is what the House is in this case) can reach any decision without listening to what the prosecution has to offer. that is why the House Judiciary Committee listens to these charges first then they go to the Whole House for authorization to investigate the charges. When that is all done, then it goes before the House Judiciary Committee again for approval on the articles of Impeachment. If the committee approves it it goes back to the House for formal approval.

Well, yeah. Some dipship representative can't just accuse the President of molesting collies and call for a vote. But I'm just saying is that the charges have to be credible, It doesn't meet the evidentiary standards of a criminal trial.

Well, yeah. Some dipship representative can't just accuse the President of molesting collies and call for a vote. But I'm just saying is that the charges have to be credible, It doesn't meet the evidentiary standards of a criminal trial.

But it has to for any charges to stick for a trial to go forward in the Senate.

But it has to for any charges to stick for a trial to go forward in the Senate.

Yeah, well that comes after the impeachment.

Kucinich is right. Bush and Cheney are both guilty of war crimes, violations of international law, and violations of US law in dereliction of their sworn duty to the nation. They both deserve to be not only out of office, but in prison. But it will never happen because other members of Congress are terrified of (a) admitting their own parts in the Iraq war and related offenses and thus ending their own political careers, and (b) opening up a world of investigations that will certainly reveal their own participation in the wholesale criminal corruption of the current administration as well as past ones.

To put right what Bush/Cheney have done wrong, many in Congress would have to choose to end their own careers and abandon their own personal ambitions. They will not do that. Not ever.

I dont like Kucinich.
But I am glad someone is at least making the statement, Bush just pisses all over this country and indeed most of the world for 8 years and then he just walks away.

I also tend to vote republican--I hope this is successful.
It isnt about democrat or republican, its about what is potentially the worst presidency in US history.

But it has to for any charges to stick for a trial to go forward in the Senate.

Don't need evidence to start the proceedings though, look at the Clinton affair. It was just a witch hunt and they found something to make issue of after the investigations into White water.

Yeah, well that comes after the impeachment.

Look at any grand jury testimony. There has to be some evidence presented otherwise there will be zero indictment.

Why only Cheney?

Because the words, "President Cheney" make kittens cry. :(

Don't need evidence to start the proceedings though, look at the Clinton affair. It was just a witch hunt and they found something to make issue of after the investigations into White water.

Yes I know you do not need evidence to start the procedings. I have stated as such in one of my posts. The House Judiciary committee needs the full House to vote to allow for an inquiry to procede. This is where the evidence will be gathered.

Because the words, "President Cheney" make kittens cry. :(

This is true.

So if Cheney gets smacked with the impeachment hammer, will Bush be its next target?

I for one hope so and am amused at the mental image of Cheny getting walloped by a massive hammer.

Look at any grand jury testimony. There has to be some evidence presented otherwise there will be zero indictment.

The President said on National Television that he authorized the warrantless wiretaps. How much evidence does one need?

This is true.

So if Cheney gets smacked with the impeachment hammer, will Bush be its next target?

I for one hope so and am amused at the mental image of Cheny getting walloped by a massive hammer.

I sincerely doubt it for if he was, then we would be stuck with a 2nd unelected president.

The President said on National Television that he authorized the warrantless wiretaps. How much evidence does one need?

Alot more to actually justify it.

And the last time I checked, Cheney is NOT the President.

This is true.

So if Cheney gets smacked with the impeachment hammer, will Bush be its next target?

Unfortunately, the words, "President Pelosi" makes kittens spontaneously combust, so I think we're in a no win situation here. But it'll keep us entertained until 2008. :)

I for one hope so and am amused at the mental image of Cheny getting walloped by a massive hammer.

Be careful, he's armed. ;)

Unfortunately, the words, "President Pelosi" makes kittens spontaneously combust, so I think we're in a no win situation here. But it'll keep us entertained until 2008. :)

Actually, that is not entirely correct. If there is a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, the President is obligated by the Constitution to fill that slot.

Alot more to actually justify it.

*eyeballs spin around* Huh?!?

*eyeballs spin around* Huh?!?

Gotta prove that Cheney was implicit in it too.

I sincerely doubt it for if he was, then we would be stuck with a 2nd unelected president.

Maybe if they time it right whoever it is that takes over the from Cheney* won't be in office long enough to do anything.


*I'm assuming that if Cheney gets impeached someone will replace him as VP in whatever manner the 25th ammendment dictates, and the New VP would take over the country if Bush was introduced to the Impeachment Hammer.

Maybe if they time it right whoever it is that takes over the from Cheney* won't be in office long enough to do anything.


*I'm assuming that if Cheney gets impeached someone will replace him as VP in whatever manner the 25th ammendment dictates, and the New VP would take over the country if Bush was introduced to the Impeachment Hammer.

Actually, that would be the conviction hammer. Impeachment =/= conviction.

Actually, that is not entirely correct. If there is a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, the President is obligated by the Constitution to fill that slot.


With confirmation by congress. *nod*

Maybe if they time it right whoever it is that takes over the from Cheney* won't be in office long enough to do anything.


*I'm assuming that if Cheney gets impeached someone will replace him as VP in whatever manner the 25th ammendment dictates, and the New VP would take over the country if Bush was introduced to the Impeachment Hammer.

I believe that would be Satan.
Yes, I believe Satan is next in presidential succession after Cheney.
Maybe Zombie Hitler, or Zombie Stalin...perhaps Zombie Pol Pot...its hardto say but I believe Satan is in position.

Actually, that would be the conviction hammer. Impeachment =/= conviction.

I thought impeachment removed them from office, then they could be convicted.

*has a rather limited knowledge of these things*

I wonder if we can impeach our president......

With confirmation by congress. *nod*

Indeed and they do have to fill the vacancy otherwise they are in violation of the 25th amendment.

Gotta prove that Cheney was implicit in it too.

I thought we were talking about the burden of proof necessary for an impeachment. In the Presiden't case, admitting to authorizing the wiretaps is sufficient.

In Cheney's case, I don't remember off the top of my head what he's admitted to, but I'm sure one could pull up the tapes from 'Meet The Press' and find a few dozen deliberate lies. ;)

I thought impeachment removed them from office, then they could be convicted.

In the US, Impeachment is just an Indictment against the President. If the House of Representatives impeaches the President, or in this case Vice President, then it goes to the Senate for conviction and possible removal from office.

As I recall, the members of the previous coalition against Iraq, or maybe it was the UN...I cant remember, were REQUIRED to intervene in Iraq once Saddam started to play silly buggers with the UN inspectors. Which means that the second Iraq war would be quite legal under international law, and even sanctioned by the UN.
And dont ask me to find a copy of the UN declaration dealy from the end of the war, because despite my searching I have yet to turn up the full text. Just saying something that I remember, right or wrong as it may be.

In the US, Impeachment is just an Indictment against the President. If the House of Representatives impeaches the President, or in this case Vice President, then it goes to the Senate for conviction and possible removal from office.
Ah, I see.
<snip>
Google (http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=AW1&q=Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikoss yphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon&btnG=Search&meta=) disagrees with your sig.

Ah, I see.

I am glad that I can be of assistence :)

In the US, Impeachment is just an Indictment against the President. If the House of Representatives impeaches the President, or in this case Vice President, then it goes to the Senate for conviction and possible removal from office.
As I understand it (and I may be wrong) impeachment and removal from office are two different votes. The Congress can vote to impeach the President for XYZ but it seems to be somewhat like a vote of no confidence. Then they must vote on what to do about the impeachment. In Nixon's case, he was impeached, but he resigned (under pressure) before Congress voted to remove him.

As for a removed Vice President, Nixon's veep, Spiro Agnew, was forced to resign for extreme corruption, and Nixon selected Gerald Ford to replace him with Congressional approval. So it is entirely possible for an elected official to be replaced by one who was not elected to the position. As far as I know, this cannot be done with a President, though, and that is why there is that extended chain of succession in case the President does get removed for some reason (impeachment, illness, death, etc).

EDIT: I am enthusiastically in favor of removing Cheney from that chain of succession, by the way. The quicker, the better.

As I understand it (and I may be wrong) impeachment and removal from office are two different votes. The Congress can vote to impeach the President for XYZ but it seems to be somewhat like a vote of no confidence. Then they must vote on what to do about the impeachment. In Nixon's case, he was impeached, but he resigned (under pressure) before Congress voted to remove him.

You are mostly correct. The House of Representatives is the the house that does the impeachment procedings. Meaning they vote on whether or not to actually impeach the President. This has only happened twice in American History, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. It is in the Senate where the trial to convict and remove the President, or Vice President, takes place.

With Nixon, he resigned before he was actually impeached. Impeachment procedings were in progress when he resigned from office.

As for a removed Vice President, Nixon's veep, Spiro Agnew, was forced to resign for extreme corruption, and Nixon selected Gerald Ford to replace him with Congressional approval.

You are correct.

So it is entirely possible for an elected official to be replaced by one who was not elected to the position. As far as I know, this cannot be done with a President, though, and that is why there is that extended chain of succession in case the President does get removed for some reason (impeachment, accident, death, etc).

Right. In the case of removal from office, the Vice President of the United States takes over as President of the United States. That is why Gerald Ford has the distinction of being this Country's only unelected President.

I'm a democrat and i don't support this. There is nothing to prove this. And even if they had proof i guarantee not one republican senator would vote to support this. Because you only need a majority in the house to impeach which the democrats have. But they don't have the number in the senate.

Wether it was an illegal war or not is a subjective term. If you believe illegal war constitues an invasion of a country without UN approval then Clinton should have been impeached for the 1999 thing Yugoslavia.

Nearly every President in recent times has invaded a country without UN approval. They were not impeached so i don't support Bush being impeached on this issue.

As for the wiretapping, i don't believe there is enough proof. Remember what happened with Clinton's impeachment. In the Senate his arguement worked, it was along the lines "when i lied i didn't really lie. I said i didn't have sex with her, i never said sexual contact. i just didn't have sexual intercourse, it was just oral". He escaped on a technicality and i believe Bush will be fine here too.

I have a bad feeling this will boomerang on the democrats. I don't take Kucinich seriously as a candidate but this kind of thing if the republicans spin it well could rub off badly on Obama, Clinton and Edwards because i'm sure the republicans will try and go with the old "there are extremist liberals like kucinich, voting for obama, clinton or edwards is the same as voting for kucinich, they are all bad" arguement.

As for Cheney, i can't stand him at all. Bush made a very big mistake when he got cheney to be his VP when cheney was the guy in charge of making a list of VP candidates. In my mind Cheney is a worse version of Bush.

And of course i wouldn't wish death on anyone but in the scenario of a bush assassination i would be sad because that would mean Cheney would be president and he is worse.

You are mostly correct. The House of Representatives is the the house that does the impeachment procedings. Meaning they vote on whether or not to actually impeach the President. This has only happened twice in American History, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. It is in the Senate where the trial to convict and remove the President, or Vice President, takes place.
I see, thanks.

<snip>
Right. In the case of removal from office, the Vice President of the United States takes over as President of the United States. That is why Gerald Ford has the distinction of being this Country's only unelected President.
Well, only president officially acknowledged to have been unelected. As far as I'm concerned, the question is still pending regarding the 2000 election. But that's neither here nor there, unless Kucinich has more information about it. ;)

I see, thanks.

It is not a problem. :)

Well, only president officially acknowledged to have been unelected. As far as I'm concerned, the question is still pending regarding the 2000 election. But that's neither here nor there, unless Kucinich has more information about it. ;)

Hehe.

Ah, I see.

Google (http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=AW1&q=Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikoss yphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon&btnG=Search&meta=) disagrees with your sig.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lopado...pterygon
:)

Couldn't you just impeach him on charges of "generally being a wanker to everyone"?

Couldn't you just impeach him on charges of "generally being a wanker to everyone"?

Um no.

My question: why not Bush?

Um no.
Shame, really.
My question: why not Bush?
Because we can just wait until he's no longer president and then send him over-ripe cream cheese and maybe some bad eggs in the post to make him sad?

My question: why not Bush?

Short answer? Cheney is more unpopular, and if there were any real chance at it happening, you want to go for the lowest hanging fruit. If an impeachment really comes to pass, my bet is that it will be Alberto Gonzales rather than Cheney. As someone said on the front page, impeachment is never about guilt or innocence--it's about the imposition of political will.

Why only Cheney?

Because Cheney is the one really running the country.

Take away Cheney, Bush is harmless.

As for my opinion, impeach him, slap him in Irons, and give all his money to the government. (Execpt for a trust fund for his daughter)

As for charges.
I believe that shooting someone, even accidently, is a crime.

My question: why not Bush?

Because as soon as Cheney seized power he'd sell the country to Halliburton for 5 bucks. He was VIP upper management there. As soon as 09 comes are he's going right back to them. A much richer man of course.

I am willing to bet that the answer is no as no one has yet brought this to the Congress before now. Why now when Bush and co. have a year and a half left in office? I do not think this will go anywhere personally. It will just distract the Congress from the real issues that need attending to. Not to mention if it does go forward and it goes to the Senate, all Senate activity will cease to deal with this with the Chief Justice Roberts preciding.

Well, considering that up until very recently, Congress was the Administration's lapdog, I'm not surprised.

Also, it would take some time to formulate the papers and a case for impeachment once the opportunity arises, so yeah. Makes sense that it's happening now.

Although I am surprised that he is being impeached... didn't think it would happen for some reason.

Also, I wouldn't mind in the least if he were impeached the day before he left office. Set an example.

Of course, I'd rather them go after Bushie, but that'd be a bit more difficult.

As an Ohio voter, there is no denying the fact that Denny K. is a total, freakin' nutter. He's brought nothing but embarrassment to Northeast Ohio. Between his far-left policy proposals that go nowhere, his quadrennial failed Presidential campaigns and his absurdist "Who wants to Marry the President" gimmick as some sort of sick trick to get himself laid, I'm ashamed he's from the same region of the country as me.

I know I posted this in my other thread. I want Dennis the Menace to go away and stop being a blemish on the record of my home state.

Also, I wouldn't mind in the least if he were impeached the day before he left office. Set an example.

That would be pointless.

Of course, I'd rather them go after Bushie, but that'd be a bit more difficult.

No more difficult than the President

Couldn't you just impeach him on charges of "generally being a wanker to everyone"?

yes, provided you had the votes

I briefly read through the thread and if somebody had already said this, sorry but I think it does bear repeating. No laws need to have been broken, proven or unproven, for there to be impeachment proceedings.

The President said on National Television that he authorized the warrantless wiretaps. How much evidence does one need?

i believe the standard is 'proof beyond an unreasonable doubt'.

Indeed and they do have to fill the vacancy otherwise they are in violation of the 25th amendment.

no, the 25th says that the vacancy can only be filled after confirmation from both houses. no confirmation, no filling of vacancy.

no, the 25th says that the vacancy can only be filled after confirmation from both houses. no confirmation, no filling of vacancy.

But yet, the vacancy does have to be filled.

But yet, the vacancy does have to be filled.

and how exactly are you going to force that? It is the power, the SOLE power of congress to approve of appointments in this matter. There is no other branch that can force them. There is no time limit on their acceptance. There is no limitation on how many rejections they get.

Congress needs not accept anyone, at any time, that they do not choose to. and if they just keep rejecting folks over and over again until the term runs out...well...not much you can do. That's their perogative.

But yet, the vacancy does have to be filled.

well, yeah, eventually. say around the time of the next election...

and how exactly are you going to force that? It is the power, the SOLE power of congress to approve of appointments in this matter. There is no other branch that can force them. There is no time limit on their acceptance. There is no limitation on how many rejections they get.

Did I say that there weren't? No I did not. All I said was that the vacancy does need to be filled. So please try to respond to what I actually typed and not to implied statements that I did not make.

Um no.

Well, Clinton was successfully impeached for not committing a crime, so I think that would work.

Well, Clinton was successfully impeached for not committing a crime, so I think that would work.

He did commit a crime but was not convicted of it in the senate.

As for charges.
I believe that shooting someone, even accidently, is a crime.


I agree. There are no accidental shootings. There are only shootings and criminal negligence. *nod*

Did I say that there weren't? No I did not. All I said was that the vacancy does need to be filled. So please try to respond to what I actually typed and not to implied statements that I did not make.

I never made issue of anything you implied. I made issue of what you said. You said it HA to be filled, or specifically, as I am quoting you, "the vacancy does need to be filled".

Why does it NEED to be filled? What constitutional requirement is there that says it must? Moreover I point to your own statement where you said:

Indeed and they do have to fill the vacancy otherwise they are in violation of the 25th amendment.

You said, right there, that they HAVE to fill the vacancy. In what way do they HAVE to? What duty do they violate if they do not? What provision is there that states that they MUST?

He did commit a crime but was not convicted of it in the senate.

What crime?

He did commit a crime but was not convicted of it in the senate.

the question of whether he comitted a crime is....dubious, at best.

And it does.

Says whom? Where does it say the vacancy must, as a matter of law, be filled prior to the start of the next administration.

Please, point it out to me where it says that it must be filled as a matter of law.

In my mind it would be.

I fear your mind is not the wellspring of constitutional interpretation that you think it is.

How about sucession of the President for starters.

Sorry. Doesn't work that way. It says only that only congress may approve a new vice president. It doesn't say they have to. It says only they can.

He did commit a crime but was not convicted of it in the senate.

Wrong. Perjury is only on material issues. Since his relationship with Monica Lewinsky had jack shit to do with Whitewater, he did not commit perjury.

I never made issue of anything you implied. I made issue of what you said. You said it HA to be filled, or specifically, as I am quoting you, "the vacancy does need to be filled".

And it does.

Why does it NEED to be filled? What constitutional requirement is there that says it must? Moreover I point to your own statement where you said:

In my mind it would be.

You said, right there, that they HAVE to fill the vacancy. In what way do they HAVE to? What duty do they violate if they do not? What provision is there that states that they MUST?

How about sucession of the President for starters.

How about sucession of the President for starters.

um, you know that they did plan for the line of succession beyond the vp, right?

Duh!!!

so then you admit you realize that presidential succession is still secured even without a VP, yes?

What, exactly then, is your point?

God it's like arguing with Corneliu. Come to think of it, I'd lay money you are Corneliu.

um, you know that they did plan for the line of succession beyond the vp, right?

Duh!!!

The point is, the Vice President is the President of the Senate. Yes there is a President Pro Tem who is fourth in line and yes the Speaker of the House is next after the president. The point is that IF Cheney is removed (and I highly doubt he is which makes this debate that pointless) President Bush will appoint someone as Vice President as specified by the 25th Amendment and I will lay good odds that he or she will be confirmed.

And if he doesn't, then what?

And if Congres rejects the next nomination, then what? And what about the one after that? ANd the one after that?

What if Congress just keeps on rejecting nominations until Bush's term of office ends?

Who?

Same crap legal analysis. Same rabid dogmatic BS. Same frothing out the mouth nonsense. Same overzealous flag waving. Same puppet with "county" in the name.

Yeah, sure.

so then you admit you realize that presidential succession is still secured even without a VP, yes?

What, exactly then, is your point?

The point is, the Vice President is the President of the Senate. Yes there is a President Pro Tem who is fourth in line and yes the Speaker of the House is next after the president. The point is that IF Cheney is removed (and I highly doubt he is which makes this debate that pointless) President Bush will appoint someone as Vice President as specified by the 25th Amendment and I will lay good odds that he or she will be confirmed.

God it's like arguing with Corneliu. Come to think of it, I'd lay money you are Corneliu.

Who?

And if he doesn't, then what?

And if Congres rejects the next nomination, then what? And what about the one after that? ANd the one after that?

What if Congress just keeps on rejecting nominations until Bush's term of office ends?

That is their right though I do not think that the voters will like it all that much. But then, we all know that Politicians do not care about voters at all. All they care about is looking good for the cameras and spouting the flavor of the month.

Same crap legal analysis. Same rabid dogmatic BS. Same frothing out the mouth nonsense. Same overzealous flag waving. Same puppet with "county" in the name.

Yeah, sure.

oookkkk!!!! Just because I have county in my name I am someone that I am not. Ok, that makes perfect sense.

That is their right

Then I'll ask you again. By what logic or legal analysis did you use to come up with your claim that

Indeed and they do have to fill the vacancy otherwise they are in violation of the 25th amendment.

How did you reach that conclusion?

oookkkk!!!! Just because I have county in my name I am someone that I am not. Ok, that makes perfect sense.

No, you're not him. Just like Eve Online wasn't Deep Kimchi.

Heh, Kucinich.

http://www.hairybaby.com/catalog/images/HBB0114.attentionnavy.jpg

No chance in hell it gets through. Not enough of a majority, and it will probably hurt the Dems in 08.

As for the wiretapping, i don't believe there is enough proof. Remember what happened with Clinton's impeachment. In the Senate his arguement worked, it was along the lines "when i lied i didn't really lie. I said i didn't have sex with her, i never said sexual contact. i just didn't have sexual intercourse, it was just oral". He escaped on a technicality and i believe Bush will be fine here too.


I have to take issue here, because the scenario is much, much more severe than you seem to think.

Let's do a brief recap: in the late 1970's as part of a reaction to the Nixon administration's excesses, Congress passes the FISA bill, which among other things states that if the executive, and by executive we mean agencies such as the FBI, CIA, or NSA, authorizes a wiretap in the United States on an American citizen, then they must recieve authorization from a FISA court to proceed. The president vetoes; congress overrides the veto, and the legislation becomes law.

At this point, it is crucial to remember that in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the President was specifically disallowed from violating a law for national security reasons, even though he (in this case he being Harry Truman) too had vetoed the legislation. The net effect of this ruling is that the President must act in accordance of even those laws he disagrees with and feel violate his perogatives on national security.

Flash forward to 2001: after 9/11, Congress specifically amends FISA to provide for a one-week grace period on the application to a FISA court; meaning in effect that the federal agency in question can at it and the President's discretion wiretap without going to the FISA court for up to one week before judicial review.

In 2005, President Bush admits after its revelation that he in fact wiretapped domestic to international phone calls without seeking FISA approval. The fact that it is well-nigh impossible to create an effective intercept system that doesn't blanket scan all messages means with almost no doubt that American citizens were therefore wiretapped, by Presidential approval, without independent oversight by the judiciary as required under law. According to explicit Supreme Court precedent, a President cannot do this without acting unconstitutionally, nor can he do so without violating his oath of office to faithfully uphold the law and the Constitution of the United States. Given that set of facts, I do not see how reasonable people cannot come to the conclusion that 1) President Bush committed a high crime, and 2) if you really care about the integrity of the Constitution and the rule of law, you cannot let this go without repercussion. The President, therefore, deserves to be impeached and removed from office.

The real question in this matter, however, is to what degree Cheney is guilty of any of these things. In my mind, while Cheney is a thoroughly deplorable political official and the closest America has ever come to having Nero in office, it is highly dubious whether he is in fact guilty of a high crime. On this matter, probably not: it's the President and not the Vice President who makes the call on the issue of wiretapping. Nor still is lying to the public or mismanaging a war an impeachment-worthy offense. The closest we can come to pegging him down with anything is for the Valerie Plame affair, and the only people who could break that case, namely Scooter Libby, aren't talking. As such, Kucinich is in my mind and to my understanding out of line on this one.

As such, Kucinich is in my mind and to my understanding out of line on this one.

Yes he is. Though I don't doubt for a moment that Cheney has commited many crimes worthy of impeachment, proving that would be very hard. He's a slippery bastard.

Then I'll ask you again. By what logic or legal analysis did you use to come up with your claim that

None. I do know what my limits are and I do try to stay within my limits.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Truthfully? I do not know.

No, you're not him. Just like Eve Online wasn't Deep Kimchi.

So are you going to apologize or continue with assumptions which gets people into trouble?

So are you going to apologize or continue with assumptions which gets people into trouble?

Apologize for what? For the assumption that you are in fact another poster who:

1) has on many occassions been trapped making the same types of legal errors you just made
2) had the same far right wing bias you have
3) had the same religious inclinations you have
4) had a puppet with a name extraordinarily similar to yours
5) got banned just miraculously right when you showed up

?

Apologize for what? For the assumption that you are in fact another poster who:

1) has on many occassions been trapped making the same types of legal errors you just made
2) had the same far right wing bias you have
3) had the same religious inclinations you have
4) had a puppet with a name extraordinarily similar to yours
5) got banned just miraculously right when you showed up

?

Yes since I am not that person.

1)If he did then he is very stupid. I admitted my mistake in case you did not realize it.
2)As to being far right wing, I am not far right wing.
3)As to the same religious inclinations that i have, I would not know that.
4)That actually means nothing
5)and that proves what? That I am him/her?

So yes, I expect an apology. I am not going to demand it for demanding things do not get what people want but more grief but I am going to request it.

Why only Cheney?

OH MY GOD! THEY'RE DOING IT! OUR PLAN!

Somebody I know came up with a plan that's...um...for adjectives, I'm leaning towards "Machiavellian." Anyway, so we impeach Cheney. Bush can only choose a new vice president the democrats approve of, and we make it clear that we won't accept any republican or conservative candidate. Then, after Bush caves in and nominates such a person, we impeach him.

Badabing, badaboom, we just choose the new president.

OH MY GOD! THEY'RE DOING IT! OUR PLAN!

Somebody I know came up with a plan that's...um...for adjectives, I'm leaning towards "Machiavellian." Anyway, so we impeach Cheney. Bush can only choose a new vice president the democrats approve of, and we make it clear that we won't accept any republican or conservative candidate. Then, after Bush caves in and nominates such a person, we impeach him.

Badabing, badaboom, we just choose the new president.

. . .And I take it the fact that you've heard not a whif of this from anyone just proves how Machiavellian those damn Dems really are, right?

OH MY GOD! THEY'RE DOING IT! OUR PLAN!

Somebody I know came up with a plan that's...um...for adjectives, I'm leaning towards "Machiavellian." Anyway, so we impeach Cheney. Bush can only choose a new vice president the democrats approve of, and we make it clear that we won't accept any republican or conservative candidate. Then, after Bush caves in and nominates such a person, we impeach him.

Badabing, badaboom, we just choose the new president.

Hmph, why not just impeach 'em both at once and get President Pelosi?

. . .And I take it the fact that you've heard not a whif of this from anyone just proves how Machiavellian those damn Dems really are, right?

Can you develop a sense of humor before making your next post? And a real sense of humor, not any of these goddamn "knock-knock-who's there-the-CIA-the-CIA-who-we-ask-the-questions-here" kinda humor.

And get off my lawn.

It is official. The Articles have been introduced. The chargers are:

He said Cheney fabricated the threat of weapons of mass destruction to justify going to war with Iraq, made up a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda and that he is threatening war against Iran, which he said violates the Constitution

If these are the charges against the Vice President, this will go absolutely nowhere.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/kucinich-takes-steps-to-impeach-cheney.html

I agree. There are no accidental shootings. There are only shootings and criminal negligence. *nod*
Indeed, either Criminal negligence or
Assault with a deadly weapon at least.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.333:

Here is the Articles of Impeachment as they appear on the congressional website.

ow hilarious would it be if Cheney dumped all the blame on Bush and Bush ended up getting impeached and convicted? I'm gonna say massively.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.333:

Here is the Articles of Impeachment as they appear on the congressional website.

You know, the Articles make out one very good point, and one I had not considered:

(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.

(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.

(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal.

(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.

You know, the Articles make out one very good point, and one I had not considered:

So if you are going to point that out, when do we strip Bill Clinton of his Pension over Bosnia?

So if you are going to point that out, when do we strip Bill Clinton of his Pension over Bosnia?

What one president did surely has no relevance to what another person did. This is not a discussion about Clinton, this is a discussion about Cheney.

What one president did surely has no relevance to what another person did. This is not a discussion about Clinton, this is a discussion about Cheney.

You are most certainly right BUT:

(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal.

THAT could apply to numerous President (Including Bush)! Just making a statement nothing more. Not saying Clinton should be stripped of his pension.

If I can ask a general question, how is "keeping all options on the table" threatening Iran? That is all I am seeing under Article III when it comes to threats.

If I can ask a general question, how is "keeping all options on the table" threatening Iran? That is all I am seeing under Article III when it comes to threats.

*shrug* i'm not saying the argument is necessarily valid in this instance. I do, however, note that the argument is a good one, in general concept. I had not considered that, and it does have some degree of elegance to it.

Ah, Kucinich, trying to make a name for himself.


A name no one can pronounce.

Ah, just call him "Sir".
:D

Hmph, why not just impeach 'em both at once and get President Pelosi?
No thanks. I'd much rather have a long term Speaker Pelosi than a President Pelosi for 6 months or whatever. She's far more powerful in the House because she'll be Speaker for the foreseeable future.

ow hilarious would it be if Cheney dumped all the blame on Bush and Bush ended up getting impeached and convicted? I'm gonna say massively.

You obviously don't know your Evil Overlord rules.

Leaders pass the blame onto minions, who pass the blame onto lesser minions, et cetera. So rather than blaming Bush, Cheney would blame, say, his own chief of staff or press secretary or attorney general or somesuch instead, and said minion would be forced to resign. Then the whole controversy would be forgotten due to a new crisis that springs up out of nowhere, and is only remembered much later and without malice. It's a well-respected pattern of politics, and it goes back likely hundreds if not thousands of years.

*shrug* i'm not saying the argument is necessarily valid in this instance. I do, however, note that the argument is a good one, in general concept. I had not considered that, and it does have some degree of elegance to it.

Truth be told, I am in agreement with you :)

No thanks. I'd much rather have a long term Speaker Pelosi than a President Pelosi for 6 months or whatever. She's far more powerful in the House because she'll be Speaker for the foreseeable future.

Unless of course the Republicans take back the House in 2008 which is not outside the realm of possibility.

Unless of course the Republicans take back the House in 2008 which is not outside the realm of possibility.

It's um..it's looking unlikely. It's still a long time off, but right now the majority of this country is in support of what the dems are doing, and a good number think it isn't going far enough.

The typical republican spin machine of "look, look how they're not respecting our troops" is kind of falling apart as more and more american are waking up to the truth and are starting to get pretty fed up of hearing the Republicans yell about how it's the democrats who want to harm our tropps, while at the same time the administration increases length of tours...again. And more soldiers die....again.

If you take the war #s out of the picture, the democrats have always had majority support. The one thing that kept the republicans afloat in 2004 was the war.

And now the tide has turned, and there is NOTHING you can do to turn a populace back on to a war that's lost support. Nothing.

This has, so far, been a good time for democrats. They've regained power, they're pushing the agenda that the majority of americans support. Bush & Co have framed this whole thing up horribly, and the dems led them right to it. Rather than push domestic issues where there really is a split, the dems have manuevered the republican party to talk about one thing and one thing only. The war. And every time bush opens his mouth about the war, their popularity drops.

Moreover, ignoring the house for a moment, of the 33 senate seats up for election in 2008 I believe something like 21 are republican seats. Which means only 12 of Democrat seats are in danger.

Of those 12 democrat seats, only one is considered likely to retire. Sen Joe Biden of Delaware, who is considering running for president. He might also choose to run for senate at the same time, or not.

So 12 democratic seats, 11 incumbants. Now I'm sure I don't need to tell you the benefit being an incumbant gets you.

Of the 20 republican seats, there are four people retiring, or likely to retire. Two of them are from Idaho and Colorado, where the margin is REALLY small

So four republicans might be retiring, two in swing states. Republicans need to keep EACH AND EVERY ONE of their 20, and win in delaware or beat at least one incumbant.

Now one of those republican seats...is new hampshire, which a lot of people believe is in serious danger of switching to democratic hands.
The same, though slightly less likely, can be said of Maine.

Meanwhile of the 12 democratic seats up for re-election, they contain such solidly blue states such as new jersey, delaware, massachussetts, rhode island, michigan and illinois that basically half of the 12 dem seats there is basically no chance that the republicans can take them.

So they basically need to win 21 of 33 seats, and 6 of them are beyond them.

So they need to take 21 of 27 elections. Odds of that? Not so good.

So they basically need to win 21 of 33 seats, and 6 of them are beyond them.

So they need to take 21 of 27 elections. Odds of that? Not so good.

It was the samething they said about the Dems in the last election.

All I said was: Unless of course the Republicans take back the House in 2008 which is not outside the realm of possibility.

Is it out of the realm of possibility? You said it yourself that it is a long way off. Anything can happen between now and November of 2008.

I did not state that they were going to, I said unless they take over the house. That is all so can you please knock off the talking down to part.

Thanks for wasting our time on this nonsense! He is just using this as a keep PR stunt! He won't win the nod no matter what he does and this will go nowhere as most will laugh at him.

Unless of course the Republicans take back the House in 2008 which is not outside the realm of possibility.

It's also not outside the realm of possibility that the Kansas City Royals will win the World Series this year, but it's not very likely. It's possible that I could get struck by a radioactive meteorite and turned into a guy with Brad Pitt's looks and Robert DeNiro's acting ability, but it's not likely either.

It's also not outside the realm of possibility that the Kansas City Royals will win the World Series this year, but it's not very likely. It's possible that I could get struck by a radioactive meteorite and turned into a guy with Brad Pitt's looks and Robert DeNiro's acting ability, but it's not likely either.

QFT.
That reminds me, somewhat, of a recent thread regarding physics ... perhaps i'll edit this post in a moment.

It was the samething they said about the Dems in the last election.

No. Not really. The majority of news sources fully expected the democratic party to take the house. Additionally, of the 6 senate seats they needed to pickup to take the senate, people were virtually sure they would take at least 3.

So really the only debate was whether they'd manage to take an additional 3. Now this was open for debate, and was...unexpected, but certainly not completely unlikely.

Pretty much everybody expected the dems to take the house and make significant gains in the senate.

No. Not really. The majority of news sources fully expected the democratic party to take the house. Additionally, of the 6 senate seats they needed to pickup to take the senate, people were virtually sure they would take at least 3.

So really the only debate was whether they'd manage to take an additional 3. Now this was open for debate, and was...unexpected, but certainly not completely unlikely.

Pretty much everybody expected the dems to take the house and make significant gains in the senate.

Don't you just love the way some people revise history?

It's also not outside the realm of possibility that the Kansas City Royals will win the World Series this year, but it's not very likely. It's possible that I could get struck by a radioactive meteorite and turned into a guy with Brad Pitt's looks and Robert DeNiro's acting ability, but it's not likely either.

Its nice to know you think that something is definitely not going to happen.

Don't you just love the way some people revise history?

Actually no. I just said something that I got wrong. Nothing more. *shrugs*

Proof? There's loads of proof. There's more proof than there are ants.

Kucinich is right. Bush and Cheney are both guilty of war crimes, violations of international law, and violations of US law in dereliction of their sworn duty to the nation. They both deserve to be not only out of office, but in prison. But it will never happen because other members of Congress are terrified of (a) admitting their own parts in the Iraq war and related offenses and thus ending their own political careers, and (b) opening up a world of investigations that will certainly reveal their own participation in the wholesale criminal corruption of the current administration as well as past ones.

To put right what Bush/Cheney have done wrong, many in Congress would have to choose to end their own careers and abandon their own personal ambitions. They will not do that. Not ever.

Two points. First, I understand that many are disgruntled about the war in Iraq, and I don't begrudge them that. There is much to complain about. But what is illegal about the war? Seems to me that opponents of the administration cite the war as being "illegal, immoral, etc.," but none can provide any substance to support the accusations. War is always immoral, I don't dispute that. But what is it that makes this conflict illegal?

Second, in response to your last point, you seem dissatisfied with the conclusion that no one would "end their own career" to make aright the wrongs of this administration. Why? Why would they? Would you end your career so that a man may be brought to justice? If so, how magnificently noble of you. And most people would not--sacrifice for revenge. Smacks of honor offenses that died with dueling a hundred years ago.

Proof? There's loads of proof. There's more proof than there are ants.

If you mean actual quantitative proof, I doubt that claim. The ants are plentiful in numbers that makes even the strongest case pale in comparison. However, if you are referring to the symbolic weight of the evidence, then perhaps, yes, there is more proof in weight in relation to the case against the administration than there is real weight in ants.

Its nice to know you think that something is definitely not going to happen.

I suppose I'm being a bit unfair, but seriously--how much would the country have to change for the Democrats to lose enough seats to lose the House in 2008? Iraq would have to turn into a paradise, Bush would have to become competent, and shit would have to turn into silver. In 1994, when the Republicans took the House by winning an ungodly number of seats, the Democrats had been in charge for decades, they were beset by a number of small but smelly scandals, they had a lot of senior members retire in districts that were going conservative, and they were unpopular. Now it's 2007, the Democrats are popular, Congress's approval ratings are as high or higher than they've been in the last six years at least, and all but 22% of the country (according to the latest WSJ/NBC poll) thinks the country is going in the wrong direction right now. I suppose things could turn around in a year and a half that would destroy that, but damn--what would it take?

But what is it that makes this conflict illegal?

the torture and murder

Wrong. Perjury is only on material issues. Since his relationship with Monica Lewinsky had jack shit to do with Whitewater, he did not commit perjury.

I forget, are you one of our lawyers? If not can one of our lawyers confirm the accuracy of this statement?

the torture and murder



You have to prove he ordered the torture, if not you are screwed.

You have to prove he ordered the torture, if not you are screwed.

he knew it was happening, and approved, and thats enough to hang him. just as a matter of moral principle.

he knew it was happening, and approved, and thats enough to hang him. just as a matter of moral principle.


Whatever you say....

I forget, are you one of our lawyers?

I am.

If not can one of our lawyers confirm the accuracy of this statement?

For the most part, yes. Let's put it this way. I'm on trial for...jaywalking. While on the stand, the opposing counsel asks me "are you cheating on your wife?" and I say no, despite the fact that I am actually getting a little something something on the side.

Have I lied under oath? Technically, yes. Is it perjury? No. The idea is that a lawyer should restrict himself to questions of relevance. I can't be punished for lying on an irrelevant question, since the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

It has to do with the theory behind it. Perjury is a crime because it interferes with justice. However if the question does not, in any way, involve the proceedings we are involved in, then any lie I might tell does not interefere with the pursuit of justice, because the answer is irrelevant.

he knew it was happening, and approved, and thats enough to hang him. just as a matter of moral principle.

Of course a Socialist like your self would take this opportunity. :rolleyes:

Frankly teh lot that stopped us from removing a certain dictator (BOTH republicans and Democrats like Kennedy) shoudl be impeach or removed from the Senate and House period. The whole lot are nothing but useless. But that is just my personal opinion, beggars cant be chosers...get rid of the radical left and right...especially the left in my personal opinion. :sniper:

Of course a Socialist like your self would take this opportunity. :rolleyes:

Frankly teh lot that stopped us from removing a certain dictator (BOTH republicans and Democrats like Kennedy) shoudl be impeach or removed from the Senate and House period. The whole lot are nothing but useless. But that is just my personal opinion, beggars cant be chosers...get rid of the radical left and right...especially the left in my personal opinion. :sniper:

what in hell are you talking about?

And the sniper smilie? Kinda newbish.

For the most part, yes. Let's put it this way. I'm on trial for...jaywalking. While on the stand, the opposing counsel asks me "are you cheating on your wife?" and I say no, despite the fact that I am actually getting a little something something on the side.

Have I lied under oath? Technically, yes. Is it perjury? No. The idea is that a lawyer should restrict himself to questions of relevance. I can't be punished for lying on an irrelevant question, since the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

It has to do with the theory behind it. Perjury is a crime because it interferes with justice. However if the question does not, in any way, involve the proceedings we are involved in, then any lie I might tell does not interefere with the pursuit of justice, because the answer is irrelevant.

Ok, now can some one confirm that, as the poster I replied to implied, that this is what happened with Clinton. That the lie re: getting a Lewinski from Monica was made while he was being questioned in a trial that was not about getting a Lewinski?

Ok, now can some one confirm that, as the poster I replied to implied, that this is what happened with Clinton. That the lie re: getting a Lewinski from Monica was made while he was being questioned in a trial that was not about getting a Lewinski?

Basically what happens in impeachment is this. The House votes on impeachment, setting charges. Basically the house votes to put forth charges against the president.

It then goes to the senate who votes guilty or not guilty.

The House voted in the affirmation for impeachment. Clinton was charged with perjury. However, the Senate found him not guilty of that charge.

The House vote was not a finding of guilty or not guilty. The House only votes to charge the official with a crime. The Senate votes on the guilt of that crime. As a matter of law, Clinton was found not guilty of comitting perjury. Regardless of what we say as hypotheticals, this fact is important. The Senate found him not guilty.

Now as to the matter itself, the investigation itself began as an investigation into Whitewater. It ended in an investigation into Lewinsky. Many folks think that the expansion went beyond the perview of the special prosecutor, and as such, the testimony was not perjury as it was beyond the scope.

Others feel that the investigation became a larger issue. I tend not to agree with this.

Whichever you believe, the important matter is, as a matter of law Clinton was, in fact, found not guilty of perjury.

Moreover the additional argument was that clinton did not, in fact, lie. He stated he did not have sex with Lewinsky. To date nobody has demonstrated that he had any intercourse with her. This might be a technical distinction that makes his position true.

Now as to the matter itself, the investigation itself began as an investigation into Whitewater. It ended in an investigation into Lewinsky. Many folks think that the expansion went beyond the perview of the special prosecutor, and as such, the testimony was not perjury as it was beyond the scope.

Others feel that the investigation became a larger issue. I tend not to agree with this.

Whichever you believe, the important matter is, as a matter of law Clinton was, in fact, found not guilty of perjury.

Moreover the additional argument was that clinton did not, in fact, lie. He stated he did not have sex with Lewinsky. To date nobody has demonstrated that he had any intercourse with her. This might be a technical distinction that makes his position true.

On the other hand the argument that the question was out of the purview of the special perse- I mean prosecutor - might carry more weight with those who bitch and moan over him "getting away with perjury" than does the argument over what the definition of sex is. Especially when coupled with the legal definition of perjury, which I would assume most laymen (myself previously included), thought was any lie told under oath.

It's funny how impeachment is all serious now that it's directed against Cheney, when the neocons fabricated crap after crap (whitewater etc) to get Clinton out it wasn't taken seriously in the least, the whole thing was a mockery.

But when a President breaks international law and violates a sovereign nation and perpetuates wars of aggression and occupation, when he lies to the public about almost every aspect of the war resulting in 3k+ military deaths and thousands more civilian dead. When he puts partisanism above expertise in government, and acts like he's dictator, it's not a big deal......


VO: Since then, Brock has turned against the neoconservative movement. He now believes that the attacks on Clinton went too far, and corrupted conservative politics.

INTERVIEWER (off-camera): Was Whitewater true?

BROCK : No! I mean, there was no criminal wrongdoing in Whitewater. Absolutely not. It was a land deal that the Clintons lost money on. It was a complete inversion of what happened.

INTERVIEWER : Was Vince Foster killed?

BROCK : No. He killed himself.

INTERVIEWER : Did the Clintons smuggle drugs?

BROCK : Absolutely not.

INTERVIEWER : Did those promoting these stories know that this was not true, that none of these stories were true?

BROCK : They did not care.

INTERVIEWER : Why not?

BROCK : Because they were having a devastating effect. So why stop? It was terrorism. Political terrorism.

INTERVIEWER : But you were one of the agents.

BROCK : Absolutely. Absolutely.

You have to prove he ordered the torture, if not you are screwed.

You know, Ken Lay tried the whole "I was in charge but didn't know what was going on" defense too. Didn't work for him. You can still be held accountable for what your underlings do if it turns out you were being willfully ignorant.

He should be shot for treason after he's impeached too.

You obviously don't know your Evil Overlord rules.

Leaders pass the blame onto minions, who pass the blame onto lesser minions, et cetera. So rather than blaming Bush, Cheney would blame, say, his own chief of staff or press secretary or attorney general or somesuch instead, and said minion would be forced to resign. Then the whole controversy would be forgotten due to a new crisis that springs up out of nowhere, and is only remembered much later and without malice. It's a well-respected pattern of politics, and it goes back likely hundreds if not thousands of years.

Ahm but if Cheny blames Bush, and Bush gets removed from office, then we'll all have to bow to Dear Leader Cheney. It's the classic Sith Promotion Method. To advance from apprentice you must kill the master.

Two points. First, I understand that many are disgruntled about the war in Iraq, and I don't begrudge them that. There is much to complain about. But what is illegal about the war? Seems to me that opponents of the administration cite the war as being "illegal, immoral, etc.," but none can provide any substance to support the accusations. War is always immoral, I don't dispute that. But what is it that makes this conflict illegal?

It is illegal for that it was not approved by the UN according to them.

I suppose I'm being a bit unfair, but seriously--how much would the country have to change for the Democrats to lose enough seats to lose the House in 2008?

Depends if they go through with this or not. If they go through with this, those on the right is going to congeal just like what happened when the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton and that cost the Republicans seats in Congress.

Not to mention, we do not know what is going to happen between now and next November. So I cannot fully answer your question because it is still a long ways off.

In 1994, when the Republicans took the House by winning an ungodly number of seats, the Democrats had been in charge for decades, they were beset by a number of small but smelly scandals, they had a lot of senior members retire in districts that were going conservative, and they were unpopular.

I will not argue with you there! Now on the flip side of the coin, the Republicans had alot of scandles that rocked the party. It was these scandles that caused the conservatives (most notably the religious right)to stay home.

Now it's 2007, the Democrats are popular, Congress's approval ratings are as high or higher than they've been in the last six years at least, and all but 22% of the country (according to the latest WSJ/NBC poll) thinks the country is going in the wrong direction right now. I suppose things could turn around in a year and a half that would destroy that, but damn--what would it take?

Another attack will probably do that. Before you pound me on that, I am not slamming Democrats with that for it would affect both parties if that were to happen.

he knew it was happening, and approved, and thats enough to hang him. just as a matter of moral principle.

Actually, as far as I know, that is not enough to hang someone.

It's funny how impeachment is all serious now that it's directed against Cheney, when the neocons fabricated crap after crap (whitewater etc) to get Clinton out it wasn't taken seriously in the least, the whole thing was a mockery.

And this is a mockery too.

But when a President breaks international law and violates a sovereign nation and perpetuates wars of aggression and occupation, when he lies to the public about almost every aspect of the war resulting in 3k+ military deaths and thousands more civilian dead. When he puts partisanism above expertise in government, and acts like he's dictator, it's not a big deal......

OH I love this. This is funny. I do not know where to begin to refute some of this!

1) Violating International Law--do you want a list of Presidents that have done this?

2) Violating a sovereign nation--same list.

3) Wars of aggression and occupation--other presidents have done the same thing

Does this excuse the current Administration? No it does not but when one looks at things from outside and without an agenda, things do become somewhat more clear.

He should be shot for treason after he's impeached too.

He is not being charged with treason :rolleyes:

Kucinich is just trying to get some media attention with this. It is not going anywhere. Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid will not let it. The Democrats do not have the votes to impeach in the House or convict in the Senate.

Let us imagine that they do. It would set off a very interesting chain of events. Cheney would resign. Bush would get to nominate someone...probably someone who plans to run in 2008. Would it be Romney, McCain, or Thompson? Such an event would definitely dictate "front-runner" status and give the replacement a nice boost against the Democratic candidates.

He is not being charged with treason :rolleyes:

Doesn't mean we shouldn't shoot him though :p

Nothing fatal, just a couple through the knee caps should teach him the error of his ways.

It is illegal for that it was not approved by the UN according to them.

War doesn't have to be approved or disapproved by the U.N. The reality is, there is no "legal" war. There is only justified and unjustified war.

That said, given the reasons G.W. gave us for going to war, at the time, we all thought they were justified. If they were not, Congress would not have given G.W. permission to send in troops in the first place.

Looking back, I agree 100% that we and our elected Congress were misled into supporting the war; however, I still firmly believe the Iraq War was justified.

One might ask, how I can believe that. It is simple. In 1992, the Iraqi Army invaded Kuwait. We sent troops to oust the invaders, and succeeded relatively quickly.

Then President George Bush stated on television that if the Iraqi people stood up to their oppressive government we would provide them with support and assistance through any means necessary.

A short time later, the, then Democrat controlled, congress voted to pull further funding for the First Gulf War, and our troops were ordered to go no further than the Iraq-Kuwait border.
.
Next, the citizens of Basra revolt in protest to their corrupt government, and are gassed by the Iraqi Army under ordered from Sadam Hussien. All because we, yes we, are responsible for those deaths, because our elected President made a promise to the Iraqi people, that our Congress chose not to keep.

So this Iraq war was justified, just not for the reasons we were given. And it would not have been supported if G.W. had explained it in these terms to Congress and the public anyway. Which means that in order for us to own up to our promise, and our responsiblity, he had to find anything that could possibly be a credible reason for invasion.

I am not saying that what the second President Bush did was right, by no means, I think he should have said we need to take responsiblity for our actions and correct our mistake, but that would not have achieved his desired outcome. Which was to oust Sadam Hussien, and bring democracy to Iraq.

It even appears that his current effort is failing, in part due to a lack of planning, strategy and thoughtful leadership, but also because the American people can't stand to take responsibility for their actions, or the actions of those they elect to represent them.

Kucinich is just trying to get some media attention with this. It is not going anywhere. Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid will not let it. The Democrats do not have the votes to impeach in the House or convict in the Senate.

I disagree on the House bit but totally agree with you about the Senate.

Let us imagine that they do. It would set off a very interesting chain of events. Cheney would resign.

He would? Clinton did not resign so why should Cheney?

Bush would get to nominate someone...probably someone who plans to run in 2008. Would it be Romney, McCain, or Thompson?

Or any other 2008 Republican Candidate?

Such an event would definitely dictate "front-runner" status and give the replacement a nice boost against the Democratic candidates.

Now that is true.

War doesn't have to be approved or disapproved by the U.N. The reality is, there is no "legal" war. There is only justified and unjustified war.

Agreed.

That said, given the reasons G.W. gave us for going to war, at the time, we all thought they were justified. If they were not, Congress would not have given G.W. permission to send in troops in the first place.

I can agree to that.

Looking back, I agree 100% that we and our elected Congress were misled into supporting the war; however, I still firmly believe the Iraq War was justified.

I am indifferent if it was justified or not. I thought it was to soon personally.

One might ask, how I can believe that. It is simple. In 1992, the Iraqi Army invaded Kuwait. We sent troops to oust the invaders, and succeeded relatively quickly.

ACtually, Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990 I believe.

Then President George Bush stated on television that if the Iraqi people stood up to their oppressive government we would provide them with support and assistance through any means necessary.

And looked how that turned out!

A short time later, the, then Democrat controlled, congress voted to pull further funding for the First Gulf War, and our troops were ordered to go no further than the Iraq-Kuwait border.

I think you need a refresher course in history because I am going to ask you for proof of pulling funding for Operation Desert Shield/Storm.

Next, the citizens of Basra revolt in protest to their corrupt government, and are gassed by the Iraqi Army under ordered from Sadam Hussien.

If memory serves me right, they were not gassed.

All because we, yes we, are responsible for those deaths, because our elected President made a promise to the Iraqi people, that our Congress chose not to keep.

Are you sure it was Congress or was it the President himself?

So this Iraq war was justified, just not for the reasons we were given. And it would not have been supported if G.W. had explained it in these terms to Congress and the public anyway. Which means that in order for us to own up to our promise, and our responsiblity, he had to find anything that could possibly be a credible reason for invasion.

Even if those reasons were wrong?

Two points. First, I understand that many are disgruntled about the war in Iraq, and I don't begrudge them that. There is much to complain about. But what is illegal about the war? Seems to me that opponents of the administration cite the war as being "illegal, immoral, etc.," but none can provide any substance to support the accusations. War is always immoral, I don't dispute that. But what is it that makes this conflict illegal?

Second, in response to your last point, you seem dissatisfied with the conclusion that no one would "end their own career" to make aright the wrongs of this administration. Why? Why would they? Would you end your career so that a man may be brought to justice? If so, how magnificently noble of you. And most people would not--sacrifice for revenge. Smacks of honor offenses that died with dueling a hundred years ago.
1) The substance that supports the argument that the war is illegal is in the various UN treaties ratified by the US, to which the US is a signatory, by which the US is bound, and which, according to US law, become US law by virtue of having been signed by the US government. I, for one, have always been clear about my position on this. I have always tried to be clear that I believe the war to be illegal under these treaties. I do not know it because there has yet to be a hearing on the matter before a court of either US or international law. However, I am confident that there is enough evidence of violation to warrant an investigation and a hearing. I am further confident that such hearings should conclude in the issuance of indictments for war crimes and crimes against humanity against the leaders of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, I am cynical enough to also be confident that this will never happen, that despite evident violations, no action will ever be taken against Bush/Cheney & Co.

But, the level of my confidence in their guilt is such that I personally feel comfortable in stating that, in my opinion, these people have committed crimes that they are going to get away with.

That is my position.

2) I am not impressed by the way you belittle the concept of nobility. To me, it seems like the bragging of a selfish coward, and I will thank you not to try to paint me with your own brush by implying that I would never do what I say others should do. You do not know me, and you have no basis on which to make such an implication. But if we are done trading barbs, then I will simply respond to your snipe by reminding you that our elected officials are "public servants." That means they are elected to serve the public, not themselves. Putting their own career ambitions ahead of what is good for the country is a dereliction of their duty, and should earn them a one-way ticket home the next time they are up for re-election.

Sometimes, I wish the US could be just a tiny bit more like Japan, at least in the way that high ranking officials who really, really, really fuck up their jobs, can be forced, however unwillingly, to admit their failures and resign.

I disagree on the House bit but totally agree with you about the Senate.

In the House, the Democrats only have about a 30 seat majority so around 15 to 20 Democrats voting against impeachment would do it. In 2006, we saw alot of moderate Democrats elected that have to watch their step. Taking a timetable position on the Iraq War is one thing, impeaching of the President or Vice-President is quite another. Many of those moderate Democrats made it very clear on the campaign trail that they would not support the impeachment of Bush. Their position on Cheney would be the same. Such a vote could very well be political suicide in those congressional districts!



He would? Clinton did not resign so why should Cheney?

It is different. Clinton wanted to be an active retired president. To resign, would have hurt him in achieving that goal. Cheney has no desire to be an active retired VP. He would just resign and move on to retirement. To him, that fight would not be worth risk. It would not be good for the party and it's chances of holding the White House in 2008.


Or any other 2008 Republican Candidate?

The GOP nominee will be one of those three, baring a scandal or a serious campaign error.

Sometimes, I wish the US could be just a tiny bit more like Japan, at least in the way that high ranking officials who really, really, really fuck up their jobs, can be forced, however unwillingly, to admit their failures and resign.

And they are a bit more corrupt than the average American politician. Actually, they have made corruption into an artform :D

Actually, Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990 I believe.
I stand corrected.

I am indifferent if it was justified or not. I thought it was to soon personally.

Agreed, we should have waited until we have finished with operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I think you need a refresher course in history because I am going to ask you for proof of pulling funding for Operation Desert Shield/Storm.

I am corrected again; they did not pull funding for Desert Shield/Storm. They simply didn’t approve escalation of the war to help liberate the Iraqi people as our President has promised. Which makes us responsible for the death’s in Basra.



Even if those reasons were wrong?

As I have already said, I think he should have told us the truth, he wouldn’t have had his support, but he still should have been up front with us. I understand why we were misled, but I don’t approve of it. I just believe, that whether we were lied to or not, doesn’t matter. The war was justified in order for us to accept responsibility for commitments we made to the Iraqi people years earlier.

You know, Ken Lay tried the whole "I was in charge but didn't know what was going on" defense too. Didn't work for him. You can still be held accountable for what your underlings do if it turns out you were being willfully ignorant.
Especially, if knowing what's going on is a vital component of what your job actually is. As "commander in chief," aka "the decider," I think Bush can reasonably be expected to know how his war is being conducted. Being a failure is, unfortunately for him, not a defense.

I am corrected again; they did not pull funding for Desert Shield/Storm. They simply didn’t approve escalation of the war to help liberate the Iraqi people as our President has promised. Which makes us responsible for the death’s in Basra.

Again, that is not correct. Bush realized that the entire coalition would collapse if we took down Baghdad.

1) The substance that supports the argument that the war is illegal is in the various UN treaties ratified by the US, to which the US is a signatory, by which the US is bound, and which, according to US law, become US law by virtue of having been signed by the US government. I, for one, have always been clear about my position on this. I have always tried to be clear that I believe the war to be illegal under these treaties. I do not know it because there has yet to be a hearing on the matter before a court of either US or international law. However, I am confident that there is enough evidence of violation to warrant an investigation and a hearing. I am further confident that such hearings should conclude in the issuance of indictments for war crimes and crimes against humanity against the leaders of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, I am cynical enough to also be confident that this will never happen, that despite evident violations, no action will ever be taken against Bush/Cheney & Co.

But, the level of my confidence in their guilt is such that I personally feel comfortable in stating that, in my opinion, these people have committed crimes that they are going to get away with.

In this case, shouldn’t every Congressman or woman that provided them with approval to go to war shoulder the same responsibility? After all, they are also responsible for upholding these treaties just as much as the President and Vice President.

2) I am not impressed by the way you belittle the concept of nobility. To me, it seems like the bragging of a selfish coward, and I will thank you not to try to paint me with your own brush by implying that I would never do what I say others should do. You do not know me, and you have no basis on which to make such an implication. But if we are done trading barbs, then I will simply respond to your snipe by reminding you that our elected officials are "public servants." That means they are elected to serve the public, not themselves. Putting their own career ambitions ahead of what is good for the country is a dereliction of their duty, and should earn them a one-way ticket home the next time they are up for re-election.

Well said, and I totally agree.

And they are a bit more corrupt than the average American politician. Actually, they have made corruption into an artform :D
I dispute that. First, you clearly know little of American politics if you think our pols have ever been less corrupt than Japan's. Second, I say that Bush & Co's corruption, just what has been exposed so far, proves that they are least Japan's equals in criminality.

I dispute that. First, you clearly know little of American politics if you think our pols have ever been less corrupt than Japan's.

Did you not catch the :D next to it?

Second, I say that Bush & Co's corruption, just what has been exposed so far, proves that they are least Japan's equals in criminality.

I will disagree respectfully. :)

War doesn't have to be approved or disapproved by the U.N. The reality is, there is no "legal" war. There is only justified and unjustified war.

That said, given the reasons G.W. gave us for going to war, at the time, we all thought they were justified. If they were not, Congress would not have given G.W. permission to send in troops in the first place.

Looking back, I agree 100% that we and our elected Congress were misled into supporting the war; however, I still firmly believe the Iraq War was justified.

One might ask, how I can believe that. It is simple. In 1992, the Iraqi Army invaded Kuwait. We sent troops to oust the invaders, and succeeded relatively quickly.

Then President George Bush stated on television that if the Iraqi people stood up to their oppressive government we would provide them with support and assistance through any means necessary.

A short time later, the, then Democrat controlled, congress voted to pull further funding for the First Gulf War, and our troops were ordered to go no further than the Iraq-Kuwait border.
.
Next, the citizens of Basra revolt in protest to their corrupt government, and are gassed by the Iraqi Army under ordered from Sadam Hussien. All because we, yes we, are responsible for those deaths, because our elected President made a promise to the Iraqi people, that our Congress chose not to keep.

So this Iraq war was justified, just not for the reasons we were given. And it would not have been supported if G.W. had explained it in these terms to Congress and the public anyway. Which means that in order for us to own up to our promise, and our responsiblity, he had to find anything that could possibly be a credible reason for invasion.

I am not saying that what the second President Bush did was right, by no means, I think he should have said we need to take responsiblity for our actions and correct our mistake, but that would not have achieved his desired outcome. Which was to oust Sadam Hussien, and bring democracy to Iraq.

It even appears that his current effort is failing, in part due to a lack of planning, strategy and thoughtful leadership, but also because the American people can't stand to take responsibility for their actions, or the actions of those they elect to represent them.
Who is this "we" you talk about?

I never bought into any of Bush's pre-war claptrap. Neither did anyone I know. Neither did individuals who made it into the media, like Ritter, Wilson, Shinseki (sp?), Bird and others, who were all shouted down and labeled as unpatriotic for daring to question the propaganda party. And we now know, after the fact, that officials in the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon also disputed Bush's claims but were afraid to say so, or were prevented from saying so, or were pressured into changing their public statements (Powell's about-face on the issue). There was plenty of dissent. It was ignored or squelched. So I wish people would stop trying to excuse their own error in supporting the war by claiming that, at the time, it wasn't an error because "we" all believed Bush's stories.

"We" did not all believe it. Those who did could have listened to we who didn't, but they chose not to.

EDIT: Also, your excuses for why the war "appears" not to be working are as full of bull as the propaganda Bush used to launch it. It "appears" not to be working because it's not "working," whatever that is supposed to mean.

And as for "it was justified, but not for the reasons given," my friend, then it wasn't justified.

Did you not catch the :D next to it?

Smilies have never been enough to distract me from a target, however small a target it may be.


I will disagree respectfully. :)
Suit yourself. Lots of people, it seems, are content to be wrong these days. :D

(See? I can use smilies too.)

In this case, shouldn’t every Congressman or woman that provided them with approval to go to war shoulder the same responsibility? After all, they are also responsible for upholding these treaties just as much as the President and Vice President.
Yes, they should. Personally, I would like to see every single one of them was kicked out of government and barred from ever seeking public office again, forever, just for starters.

I think they should also all be investigated to see if they can be charged with crimes associated with the conduct of the war. Due to their distance from that aspect, they will probably not be subject to such charges.

However, they should also be investigated to see if their political connections tie them to profiteering charges that I think could easily arise from the no-bid deals handed out to corporate friends of Bush/Cheney throughout the war. On that score, a great many more Congress-critters would be in serious, serious trouble.

Frankly, what would make me really happy would be to see the US embroiled in many, many years of investigations, trials and convictions of former public officials, arising out of Bush's war.


Well said, and I totally agree.
Thanks.

Who is this "we" you talk about?

I never bought into any of Bush's pre-war claptrap. Neither did anyone I know. Neither did individuals who made it into the media, like Ritter, Wilson, Shinseki (sp?), Bird and others, who were all shouted down and labeled as unpatriotic for daring to question the propaganda party. And we now know, after the fact, that officials in the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon also disputed Bush's claims but were afraid to say so, or were prevented from saying so, or were pressured into changing their public statements (Powell's about-face on the issue). There was plenty of dissent. It was ignored or squelched. So I wish people would stop trying to excuse their own error in supporting the way by claiming that, at the time, it wasn't an error because "we" all believed Bush's stories.

"We" did not all believe it. Those who did could have listened to we who didn't, but they chose not to.

EDIT: Also, your excuses for why the war "appears" to not be working as full of bull as the propaganda Bush used to launch it. It "appears" not to be working because it's not "working," whatever that is supposed to mean.

And as for "it was justified, but not for the reasons given," my friend, then it wasn't justified.


If you consider that at the time, regardless of who was arguing against it, the majority of the American people, "We", agreed with the reasons we were given.

And the argument that its not working because its not workings is for the birds. Oh, my car is broken because its broken, there can't be any other reason for the problem........maybe failing the maintain it would be the reason its broken. The same goes for the war. It is not working because of the failing of those leading it, including Bush and his cronies, and yes, because "we", the American people can't take responsiblity for our actions. Our own history proves that.

If you consider that at the time, regardless of who was arguing against it, the majority of the American people, "We", agreed with the reasons we were given.
An excuse copped by many people is still just an excuse.

A small number of people said Iraq threatened us and we needed to attack them. Another small number of people said that was not true. The larger number of people chose to listen to the first small number rather than the second small number. They were wrong. Like their public officials, they need to admit it, own it, quit trying to wriggle out of moral responsibility for it, and starting fixing their mistake.

And the argument that its not working because its not workings is for the birds. Oh, my car is broken because its broken, there can't be any other reason for the problem........maybe failing the maintain it would be the reason its broken. The same goes for the war. It is not working because of the failing of those leading it, including Bush and his cronies, and yes, because "we", the American people can't take responsiblity for our actions. Our own history proves that.
Or try this one: My car isn't working because it doesn't have an engine in it, it's made of cheese, and... oh, wait... this is just a model of a car carved out of cheese. A thousand mechanics tinkering for a thousand years will never turn your cheese-mobile a working vehicle.

Likewise, Bush's entire plan is so lacking in everything required to actually run a war, that no amount of tinkering with that plan, expanding that plan, waiting for that plan to run out, staying the course with that plan, or anything else, is going to make it "work" as a war plan.

As for whether the American people who chose to support Bush's idiocy bear any responsibility for the outcome, of course they do, but that is not, in and of itself, the explanation for why the plan is not "working." When, and if, the American people finally decide to grow the hell up, their job will be to replace Bush's policies, not to try to make them work, because they cannot work.

An excuse copped by many people is still just an excuse.

A small number of people said Iraq threatened us and we needed to attack them. Another small number of people said that was not true. The larger number of people chose to listen to the first small number rather than the second small number. They were wrong. Like their public officials, they need to admit it, own it, quit trying to wriggle out of moral responsibility for it, and starting fixing their mistake.

This I totally agree with, and the fact that most of the people that supported the war initially, and now condeming it and pretending they didn't support is in the first place, only underscores my belief that Americas, as a whole, avoid responsiblity for their actions.


Or try this one: My car isn't working because it doesn't have an engine in it, it's made of cheese, and... oh, wait... this is just a model of a car carved out of cheese. A thousand mechanics tinkering for a thousand years will never turn your cheese-mobile a working vehicle.

Likewise, Bush's entire plan is so lacking in everything required to actually run a war, that no amount of tinkering with that plan, expanding that plan, waiting for that plan to run out, staying the course with that plan, or anything else, is going to make it "work" as a war plan.

As for whether the American people who chose to support Bush's idiocy bear any responsibility for the outcome, of course they do, but that is not, in and of itself, the explanation for why the plan is not "working." When, and if, the American people finally decide to grow the hell up, their job will be to replace Bush's policies, not to try to make them work, because they cannot work.

Let me clarify my position why the American people are not willing to accept responsiblity for their actions as a cause for the war not working.

Our elected officials approved invading a soveriegn nation and toppling the government that was running it. Now the vast majority of Americans are all for pulling completely out and leaving the area completly. The American populous does not understand the complexities of our such an action and therefore aren't willing to accept the responsiblity for the consequences of invading Iraq. And the media doesn't help, they keep comparing Iraq to Vietnam, which still had a powerful and operating government when we pulled out.

This I totally agree with, and the fact that most of the people that supported the war initially, and now condeming it and pretending they didn't support is in the first place, only underscores my belief that Americas, as a whole, avoid responsiblity for their actions.




Let me clarify my position why the American people are not willing to accept responsiblity for their actions as a cause for the war not working.

Our elected officials approved invading a soveriegn nation and toppling the government that was running it. Now the vast majority of Americans are all for pulling completely out and leaving the area completly. The American populous does not understand the complexities of our such an action and therefore aren't willing to accept the responsiblity for the consequences of invading Iraq. And the media doesn't help, they keep comparing Iraq to Vietnam, which still had a powerful and operating government when we pulled out.
It is not the responsibility of the American people to understand the complexities of the situation. It is their responsibility to demand action from their government that is different from the actions it has been taking so far in regards to the war. It is their responsibility to make their will clear in regards to a desired outcome -- i.e. no more combat in Iraq; majority of soldiers returned home; significant reduction in amount of money spent there OR proof of significant returns on money spent (i.e. new buildings that are not already falling down, an operating power grid, etc). And it is their responsibility to enforce their will at the polls, in the media, and in the streets.

To that extent, the American people are fulfilling their responsibility in regards to the war.

Now, it is the responsibility of US politicians to figure HOW to carry out the will of the people. It is their responsibility to hammer out plans that actually work, and to explain any compromises that must be made in carrying out the people's will. It is also their responsibility to explain why any given part of the people's demands would actually be bad for us, if it would, and it is their responsibility to provide alternative plans that will still get us closer to the overall desired result. And if they must alter or compromise the plans we demand, then they would be well advised to deliver measurable progress in other parts of the plans to make us have faith in them.

Our government has so far failed to fulfill any one of those responsibilities.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of the American people to keep ratcheting up the pressure on them until they do the jobs we elected them to do.

And finally, although it would be ethical and in our long-term interest to do right by the Iraqis and the rest of that region, it is not the responsibility of the American people to work out a US political policy that is good for Iraq.

But when a President breaks international law and violates a sovereign nation and perpetuates wars of aggression and occupation

He's not the first, and he sure as hell won't be the last. Although, maybe he will. Wars are becoming harder and harder to wage, both in terms of physical cost and political fallout, in addition to getting the appropriate backing to do so. Nuclear proliferation and the weaponization of space look like they could virtually eliminate petty wars.


When he puts partisanism above expertise in government, and acts like he's dictator, it's not a big deal......

"Acts like he's a dictator." Phew. Thankfully we defused that one--we wouldn't want to compare Bush to FDR or Lincoln, no sir.

It is illegal for that it was not approved by the UN according to them.

Did the UN approve World War II? Vietnam? Grenada? The Falkland Islands? Bosnia II? How about the Six-Day War in 1967? Or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Seems to me all war is illegal, well, except Korea. If we look at it and determine that this war was illegal (ie, the only war was the invasion of Iraq in 2003, though not an officially declared one) without condemning every other intervention and inter-state conflict in the past, that is hypocritical. People talk of partisan politics, and yet here is a prime example of lambasting an occupation (not a war, folks, unless you're referring to the greater War on Terror, which is really more akin to a crusade anyway) simply because it serves a political agenda. I'm not arguing against you, I realize you're setting up an argument that is not your own.

It is not the responsibility of the American people to understand the complexities of the situation. It is their responsibility to demand action from their government that is different from the actions it has been taking so far in regards to the war. It is their responsibility to make their will clear in regards to a desired outcome -- i.e. no more combat in Iraq; majority of soldiers returned home; significant reduction in amount of money spent there OR proof of significant returns on money spent (i.e. new buildings that are not already falling down, an operating power grid, etc). And it is their responsibility to enforce their will at the polls, in the media, and in the streets.

To that extent, the American people are fulfilling their responsibility in regards to the war.

Now, it is the responsibility of US politicians to figure HOW to carry out the will of the people. It is their responsibility to hammer out plans that actually work, and to explain any compromises that must be made in carrying out the people's will. It is also their responsibility to explain why any given part of the people's demands would actually be bad for us, if it would, and it is their responsibility to provide alternative plans that will still get us closer to the overall desired result. And if they must alter or compromise the plans we demand, then they would be well advised to deliver measurable progress in other parts of the plans to make us have faith in them.

Our government has so far failed to fulfill any one of those responsibilities.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of the American people to keep ratcheting up the pressure on them until they do the jobs we elected them to do.

And finally, although it would be ethical and in our long-term interest to do right by the Iraqis and the rest of that region, it is not the responsibility of the American people to work out a US political policy that is good for Iraq.


I disagree, in as much as our politicans are part of the voting population, they too and included as part of the American People, therefore it is the responsiblity of the American People to understand the complexities and consequences of our actions as a nation. It is also the responsiblity of the American People to "explain why any given part of the [our] demands would actually be bad for us, if it would, and it is [our] responsibility to provide alternative plans that will still get us closer to the overall desired result." Also since our politicians are part of the American People, we are responsible for working out a political policy that is good for Iraq.

Our government has so far failed to fulfill any one of those responsibilities

In this we agree. Bush's refusal to work with Iran and Syria to achieve a diplomatic end to the situation has angred me to no end, especially since I voted for him twice. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be enough people arguing that we need to work with them, not that Iran is making such an effort easy.

1) The substance that supports the argument that the war is illegal is in the various UN treaties ratified by the US, to which the US is a signatory, by which the US is bound, and which, according to US law, become US law by virtue of having been signed by the US government. I, for one, have always been clear about my position on this. I have always tried to be clear that I believe the war to be illegal under these treaties. I do not know it because there has yet to be a hearing on the matter before a court of either US or international law. However, I am confident that there is enough evidence of violation to warrant an investigation and a hearing. I am further confident that such hearings should conclude in the issuance of indictments for war crimes and crimes against humanity against the leaders of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, I am cynical enough to also be confident that this will never happen, that despite evident violations, no action will ever be taken against Bush/Cheney & Co.

But, the level of my confidence in their guilt is such that I personally feel comfortable in stating that, in my opinion, these people have committed crimes that they are going to get away with.

Do you have a general idea of the substance of these signatory treaties? i intend to look them up and gauge the situation for myself, without dredging through 60 years of UN resolutions signed by the US. :)

That is my position.

Many thanks.

2) I am not impressed by the way you belittle the concept of nobility. To me, it seems like the bragging of a selfish coward, and I will thank you not to try to paint me with your own brush by implying that I would never do what I say others should do. You do not know me, and you have no basis on which to make such an implication. But if we are done trading barbs, then I will simply respond to your snipe by reminding you that our elected officials are "public servants." That means they are elected to serve the public, not themselves. Putting their own career ambitions ahead of what is good for the country is a dereliction of their duty, and should earn them a one-way ticket home the next time they are up for re-election.

Sometimes, I wish the US could be just a tiny bit more like Japan, at least in the way that high ranking officials who really, really, really fuck up their jobs, can be forced, however unwillingly, to admit their failures and resign.

Well, no, I don't know you. You're absolutely correct. To respond to your quaint retort, I say to you that discretion is the better part of valor. You may, as I allowed in my post, be willing to sacrifice yourself for the greater good. And that would be noble. But ultimately is only that, as reckless action achieves little. Better to use your resources rather than throw them away. And while I have no idea what you would actually do, I will tell you that despite the blank face of anonymity we all hide behind, the tone of your response is enough to inform me that you draw offense too easily. If this is so, then yes, my implication--such as it is--is only reinforced. Rhetoric is fine, but emotion is everything. As a suggestion, I would recommend you learn to hide it.

Now public officials are elected to serve the public interest, which may or may not equate to the "public" itself. It is up to the individual delegate to decide to act according to the will of his constituents (a delegate) or in what he views as the best interest of the people (a trustee), or as is often the case, a politico, mixing both delegate and trustee depending on the occasion. They may be elected to "serve the public," but you are disillusioned if you believe they are not elected to also serve themselves. Why run for office? Oh, some will answer "To serve the people!" and other such nonsense, when in fact they are being quite dishonest. Ask any climber why they want to climb Mt. Everest, and the honest answer is "Because its there." Why does anyone want to run for politics? Because the office is there to be filled, and the ultimate motivator is to fulfill one's own personal ambition. So the serving the public is nice rhetoric, and helps you get elected and if you play the game right, it will keep you there. Politics is not so idealistic, I can assure you.

Who is this "we" you talk about?

I never bought into any of Bush's pre-war claptrap. Neither did anyone I know. Neither did individuals who made it into the media, like Ritter, Wilson, Shinseki (sp?), Bird and others, who were all shouted down and labeled as unpatriotic for daring to question the propaganda party. And we now know, after the fact, that officials in the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon also disputed Bush's claims but were afraid to say so, or were prevented from saying so, or were pressured into changing their public statements (Powell's about-face on the issue). There was plenty of dissent. It was ignored or squelched. So I wish people would stop trying to excuse their own error in supporting the war by claiming that, at the time, it wasn't an error because "we" all believed Bush's stories.

"We" did not all believe it. Those who did could have listened to we who didn't, but they chose not to.

EDIT: Also, your excuses for why the war "appears" not to be working are as full of bull as the propaganda Bush used to launch it. It "appears" not to be working because it's not "working," whatever that is supposed to mean.

And as for "it was justified, but not for the reasons given," my friend, then it wasn't justified.

Ah so you would of left that dictator in office over in Iraq then huh? Thats not just unpatriotic, but stupid. But i will wait to see your response before making more comments on that...

Yes Bush is not a saint, so is every other canidate you can bring up you like....and your point?
For one i am not a Bush lover or supporter, WHAT I AM is one that wanted to remove Hussein 16 or so years ago and teh DEMOCRAT pussies in Congress wussied out and wanted to NOT help the Iraqis at that time...i say cowards.....

It is not the responsibility of the American people to understand the complexities of the situation. It is their responsibility to demand action from their government that is different from the actions it has been taking so far in regards to the war. It is their responsibility to make their will clear in regards to a desired outcome -- i.e. no more combat in Iraq; majority of soldiers returned home; significant reduction in amount of money spent there OR proof of significant returns on money spent (i.e. new buildings that are not already falling down, an operating power grid, etc). And it is their responsibility to enforce their will at the polls, in the media, and in the streets.

To that extent, the American people are fulfilling their responsibility in regards to the war.

Now, it is the responsibility of US politicians to figure HOW to carry out the will of the people. It is their responsibility to hammer out plans that actually work, and to explain any compromises that must be made in carrying out the people's will. It is also their responsibility to explain why any given part of the people's demands would actually be bad for us, if it would, and it is their responsibility to provide alternative plans that will still get us closer to the overall desired result. And if they must alter or compromise the plans we demand, then they would be well advised to deliver measurable progress in other parts of the plans to make us have faith in them.

Our government has so far failed to fulfill any one of those responsibilities.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of the American people to keep ratcheting up the pressure on them until they do the jobs we elected them to do.

And finally, although it would be ethical and in our long-term interest to do right by the Iraqis and the rest of that region, it is not the responsibility of the American people to work out a US political policy that is good for Iraq.

Yes our government in the PAST and present HAVE failed. The Democratic held Congress CONTINUES to fail us even now....
Point is this DICTATOR NEEDED to be removed and the UN cowards and far left( i consider myself a liberal)wussed out in removing him in the past and now want to fail again i say purposely. That doesnt mean i want a freakin republican in power again, but i want a leader who is actually going to stay up and be honest and more so then any Bushite or Kerryite or whatever.
I am sick and tired of people and politicans playing ring around the rosy.

I say we remove the UN its useless and weak institution much like the Church or redo the whole system, like actually give it teeth. Which i dont see happening any time soon.

Proof? There's loads of proof. There's more proof than there are ants.
*FLORT*
Sigworthy!
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aktion/action-smiley-033.gif

what in hell are you talking about?

And the sniper smilie? Kinda newbish.

Nice ad hominom attack.

Read my post again and read others like Aurill and mature up and understand the issue and why its frustrating to hear bullshit like impeaching the current president....when we should IMPEACH the whole lot of them to be fair.

Thats not just unpatriotic, but stupid.

Grow up.
And, better get out the lube. You're on a fast losing track, and you have the apparently EXTREMELY poor judgment to use this kind of bullshit on Muravyets.
*shakes head*

Grow up.
And, better get out the lube. You're on a fast losing track, and you have the apparently EXTREMELY poor judgment to use this kind of bullshit on Muravyets.
*shakes head*

I wasnt saying he was stupid, so you grow up. I was STATING my opinion of those that wish to appease the dictators. Get it??? I wasnt pulling ad hominom attacks like some on here.

Did the UN approve World War II?

The UN was not around when World War II began :rolleyes:

Vietnam? Grenada? The Falkland Islands? Bosnia II? How about the Six-Day War in 1967? Or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Seems to me all war is illegal, well, except Korea.

And the Persian Gulf War. As for the Falkland Islands, that can be considered self-defense as Argentina did invade the Falkland Islands.

If we look at it and determine that this war was illegal (ie, the only war was the invasion of Iraq in 2003, though not an officially declared one) without condemning every other intervention and inter-state conflict in the past, that is hypocritical.

Something I actually totally agree with.

People talk of partisan politics, and yet here is a prime example of lambasting an occupation (not a war, folks, unless you're referring to the greater War on Terror, which is really more akin to a crusade anyway) simply because it serves a political agenda. I'm not arguing against you, I realize you're setting up an argument that is not your own.

Not my own? I have not argued for or against the Iraq war in reality. Nor am I arguing that the war was legal or illegal.

Not my own? I have not argued for or against the Iraq war in reality. Nor am I arguing that the war was legal or illegal.


This is something I totally agree with. At this point all of that doesn't matter, we are in Iraq, and we ousted a viscious dictator and soveriegn government. Now we need to accept that we are there, accept that we have a need to correct the situation, and commit ourselves to serving our own long-term interests and provide whatever reasonable assistance the new Iraqi government needs. That includes military, and diplomatic efforts, and unfortunately, our current elected officials, are not quite behind the diplomatic efforts.

Now we need to accept that we are there, accept that we have a need to correct the situation, and commit ourselves to serving our own long-term interests and provide whatever reasonable assistance the new Iraqi government needs.

you are aware that all concerned want the imperialist bastards out and they want them out 3 years ago, right?

you are aware that all concerned want the imperialist bastards out and they want them out 3 years ago, right?

Really?? I hear Iraqis on the radio everyday saying that things would be worse if the Americans left. I hear some saying the opposite too, but my point is that not ALL want the "imperialists" out. Some do, some don't. Its all a matter of perspective.

The UN was not around when World War II began :rolleyes:

Exactly.

And the Persian Gulf War. As for the Falkland Islands, that can be considered self-defense as Argentina did invade the Falkland Islands.

Or the overzealous policies of Margaret Thatcher /DA. The story can be spun multiple ways, as I assume you are well aware. The point remains that arbitrarily judging a conflict as "illegal" is awfully convenient for partisan agendas.

Not my own? I have not argued for or against the Iraq war in reality. Nor am I arguing that the war was legal or illegal.

It is illegal for that it was not approved by the UN according to them.

Yes, I am well aware that you are not arguing for or against it being illegal, hence why I mentioned it was not your own argument. If it is, don't otherwise remove yourself from implication via the above modifier.

you are aware that all concerned want the imperialist bastards out and they want them out 3 years ago, right?

You are aware that that is completely false?

You are aware that that is completely false?

alright, not all. just an absolutely overwhelming majority.

alright, not all. just an absolutely overwhelming majority.

Closer. Perhaps a majority, but certainly not overwhelming. The ones that want us to get out receive more attention, because it falls into line with the general view of those outside of the conflict.

Closer. Perhaps a majority, but certainly not overwhelming. The ones that want us to get out receive more attention, because it falls into line with the general view of those outside of the conflict.

for several years something on the order of 70% of iraqis have favored either immediate pullout or withdrawl over the following year. most of the rest favored a slightly more drawn out retreat, the timeframe of which has already elapsed from when they first were asked. ~80% think the imperialist presence is a bad thing in general.

This thread is about Iraq now? Shocker.

for several years something on the order of 70% of iraqis have favored either immediate pullout or withdrawl over the following year. most of the rest favored a slightly more drawn out retreat, the timeframe of which has already elapsed from when they first were asked. ~80% think the imperialist presence is a bad thing in general.

70% of who? Iraqis? Actually, yes, those Iraqis polled. Not to mention that the poll itself can be skewed just by the wording. I always find it amazing, and slightly disturbing, how our society latches onto hard numbers as if they actually meant anything. My point is, it's impossible to know, and it's the ones whose views fall into line with the mainstream thought of those not in Iraq that get the attention.

Because the words, "President Cheney" make kittens cry. :(

Actually I don't think that he would ever choose that position: As a vice president he can stay for in power as long as the winning person/group has him as the running mate (not sure if that is what it is called).

As such he gains almost all of the power of the president and is in an easy position to control the remainder that he does not have whilst not having to worry about not having more than 8 years in office.

70% of who? Iraqis? Actually, yes, those Iraqis polled. Not to mention that the poll itself can be skewed just by the wording. I always find it amazing, and slightly disturbing, how our society latches onto hard numbers as if they actually meant anything. My point is, it's impossible to know, and it's the ones whose views fall into line with the mainstream thought of those not in Iraq that get the attention.

yes, of course, all the polls done over several years by multiple organizations lie. whatever helps you sleep at night and not dream about the torture and murder, i guess.

I disagree, in as much as our politicans are part of the voting population, they too and included as part of the American People, therefore it is the responsiblity of the American People to understand the complexities and consequences of our actions as a nation. It is also the responsiblity of the American People to "explain why any given part of the [our] demands would actually be bad for us, if it would, and it is [our] responsibility to provide alternative plans that will still get us closer to the overall desired result." Also since our politicians are part of the American People, we are responsible for working out a political policy that is good for Iraq.



In this we agree. Bush's refusal to work with Iran and Syria to achieve a diplomatic end to the situation has angred me to no end, especially since I voted for him twice. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be enough people arguing that we need to work with them, not that Iran is making such an effort easy.
I'm sorry, but what nonsense. If I hire a property manager to run an apartment building I own, I am responsible for making sure that person is qualified and making sure he knows what I expect him to do. If he fails to do it, and badness results for tenants in my building, then I will be responsible for finding a way to fix that badness.

BUT I am not responsible for managing the property. At least, not as long as I am paying him to do it. Are you suggesting that, because elected officials are Americans, then all Americans are responsible for seeing to it that their jobs get done at all, let alone done well? Well, if I had to actually do the work of the property manager, you can be damned sure I would not continue to pay another person to be property manager. And if I, as an American person, am going to be held responsible for getting the job of my senators, reps, and president done, then what the hell do I need senators, reps and a president for? Why should they get paid for a job I am responsible for doing, eh? Hey, since we're expanding responsibility for jobs on the basis of nationality, maybe I should do heart surgery on myself, rather than expect another American who is getting paid to be a surgeon to do it for me. After all, if the American people are responsible for planning and carrying out Iraq policy, why shouldn't we be responsible for other difficult things that require high levels of specialization, too?

Or perhaps you are just beating a dead semantical horse here, waiting for someone to laugh at a joke that never was, rather than focus on the topic under discussion.

yes, of course, all the polls done over several years by multiple organizations lie. whatever helps you sleep at night and not dream about the torture and murder, i guess.

Provide me the polls, and then we'll decide this matter.

Do you have a general idea of the substance of these signatory treaties? i intend to look them up and gauge the situation for myself, without dredging through 60 years of UN resolutions signed by the US. :)



Many thanks.
Aside from the Geneva Conventions, I cannot remember the titles of the treaties, which is why I did not link to them in the first place, since I have other things I have to do today as well as this. To find them, I would also have to dredge through, not 60 years, but about 30 to find them, and since you're planning to look them up anyway, I'll wait on your results.

Well, no, I don't know you. You're absolutely correct. To respond to your quaint retort, I say to you that discretion is the better part of valor. You may, as I allowed in my post, be willing to sacrifice yourself for the greater good. And that would be noble. But ultimately is only that, as reckless action achieves little. Better to use your resources rather than throw them away. And while I have no idea what you would actually do, I will tell you that despite the blank face of anonymity we all hide behind, the tone of your response is enough to inform me that you draw offense too easily. If this is so, then yes, my implication--such as it is--is only reinforced. Rhetoric is fine, but emotion is everything. As a suggestion, I would recommend you learn to hide it.

Now public officials are elected to serve the public interest, which may or may not equate to the "public" itself. It is up to the individual delegate to decide to act according to the will of his constituents (a delegate) or in what he views as the best interest of the people (a trustee), or as is often the case, a politico, mixing both delegate and trustee depending on the occasion. They may be elected to "serve the public," but you are disillusioned if you believe they are not elected to also serve themselves. Why run for office? Oh, some will answer "To serve the people!" and other such nonsense, when in fact they are being quite dishonest. Ask any climber why they want to climb Mt. Everest, and the honest answer is "Because its there." Why does anyone want to run for politics? Because the office is there to be filled, and the ultimate motivator is to fulfill one's own personal ambition. So the serving the public is nice rhetoric, and helps you get elected and if you play the game right, it will keep you there. Politics is not so idealistic, I can assure you.
Alternatively, I would recommend that you learn to shrug it off. I do not consider that my idealistic and demanding take on certain things, including my idea of myself, is anything I need to hide because it is nothing to be ashamed of. So I decline to consider your suggestion. Thanks anyway, Obiwan.

The rest of your post is hardly worth responding to because it is the kind of nonsense typical of a person who has no real argument to make. Running a war, running a government, managing a national budget, etc, are not equivalent to accomplishing a personal challenge that is meaningful only to oneself and affects only oneself. It is telling that you think that analogy had any value at all -- indicative of nothing but self-centeredness desperately grasping for a social justification that does not exist. The fact of politicians' professional selfishness is not proof that selfishness is good for America, nor that being selfish is the definition of their job.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to sound arrogant, you should first check to make sure the person you are trying to talk down to is not more arrogant than you. Do not burden your time on NSG by trying to start a snipe war with me. Trust me, I am a bigger bitch than you.

Ah so you would of left that dictator in office over in Iraq then huh? Thats not just unpatriotic, but stupid. But i will wait to see your response before making more comments on that...

Yes Bush is not a saint, so is every other canidate you can bring up you like....and your point?
For one i am not a Bush lover or supporter, WHAT I AM is one that wanted to remove Hussein 16 or so years ago and teh DEMOCRAT pussies in Congress wussied out and wanted to NOT help the Iraqis at that time...i say cowards.....
If you want to see a response, write a post that is less troll-ful. Throwing around words like "pussies" and "wussied out" and declaring people unpatriotic is not the way to gain respect for your arguments.

I wasnt saying he was stupid, so you grow up. I was STATING my opinion of those that wish to appease the dictators. Get it??? I wasnt pulling ad hominom attacks like some on here.
Bull. Your "statement" of opinion most certainly made it clear that you were declaring me to be an "appeaser" and "unpatriotic" and "stupid." Either amend your language or admit you were doing that and accept the troll-treatment you deserve. No debate for you until you learn how to behave, little one.


(BTW, I'm a she. If you are going to insult me, at least use the right pronouns.)

Alternatively, I would recommend that you learn to shrug it off.

Advice well served for the both of us, then.

I do not consider that my idealistic and demanding take on certain things, including my idea of myself, is anything I need to hide because it is nothing to be ashamed of. So I decline to consider your suggestion. Thanks anyway, Obiwan.

You might first want to understand the argument to which you are responding, instead of jumping to conclusions. You should not hide your take on things, but you can certainly alter the way you present yourself. I'm not saying you need to, just that it helps. Arguing from emotion is weakness, and as soon as you revealed that, I knew I had a lever I can use against you. And it seems, judging by your responses, to be working.


Running a war, running a government, managing a national budget, etc, are not equivalent to accomplishing a personal challenge that is meaningful only to oneself and affects only oneself. It is telling that you think that analogy had any value at all -- indicative of nothing but self-centeredness desperately grasping for a social justification that does not exist. The fact of politicians' professional selfishness is not proof that selfishness is good for America, nor that being selfish is the definition of their job.

Haha, I'm telling you the facts, bud. You can choose to live in your fantasy world where politics is about the people, but when you come back, you'll realize that ambition and selfishness are the driving forces of society. No one acts in the genuine good of others without first seeking to serve himself, or if he does, it is with the equal realization that they will, in so doing, help themselves. I love how you paint a picture of me "desperately grasping" for something--as if you had any higher ground to stand on. Further, that you assumed I meant that selfishness was good for America--which in no way was it mentioned in my post--is indicative of your own self-centeredness. So I suggest you look to the log in your eye before remarking on mine.

But I grow tired of this banter. Yes, yes, lambast me for "sniping" you, for merely grasping at arguments that have no relevance. We are both in the same boat, whether you like it or not.


Oh, and by the way, if you want to sound arrogant, you should first check to make sure the person you are trying to talk down to is not more arrogant than you. Do not burden your time on NSG by trying to start a snipe war with me. Trust me, I am a bigger bitch than you.

That first assumes I'm trying to sound arrogant. I suppose I am, but that is cute. Running away by throwing around meaningless threats is arrogance of the grandest kind: cowardice.

If you want to see a response, write a post that is less troll-ful. Throwing around words like "pussies" and "wussied out" and declaring people unpatriotic is not the way to gain respect for your arguments.

I agree. It's amazing how quickly people get fired up, even from behind the anonymous mask of an internet nation. It's as if people consider these debates to be so awfully personal. I guess its entertaining.

If you want to see a response, write a post that is less troll-ful. Throwing around words like "pussies" and "wussied out" and declaring people unpatriotic is not the way to gain respect for your arguments.

Like you have nt labelled anyone on here? I wasnt pointing you out so get over yourself.

So its ok for you to call others arrogant and ignorant, but not others? I also had other things and points made in my post, you just like to ignore those.....

Bull. Your "statement" of opinion most certainly made it clear that you were declaring me to be an "appeaser" and "unpatriotic" and "stupid." Either amend your language or admit you were doing that and accept the troll-treatment you deserve. No debate for you until you learn how to behave, little one.


(BTW, I'm a she. If you are going to insult me, at least use the right pronouns.)

Riiight....

Just liek you can get away with attacking others on here too....

By the way how in hell am i suppose to know you a female? Thats right dig yourself a hole...

And i wasnt trolling jerk, i was giving an opinion LIKE EVERYONE HERE. Grow up.

And like i said read my whole post. If any one is trolling its the ones that leave with one liners....i havent done that.
And nothing wrong with putting in colorful words, you do it clearly enough in this post with the words arrogant and ignorant. Right?

See how you got this off topic? Nice. See at least i can stay on topic. *claps*

I agree. It's amazing how quickly people get fired up, even from behind the anonymous mask of an internet nation. It's as if people consider these debates to be so awfully personal. I guess its entertaining.

One should talk. Stick to the topic too.

Of course a Socialist like your self would take this opportunity. :rolleyes:

Frankly teh lot that stopped us from removing a certain dictator (BOTH republicans and Democrats like Kennedy) shoudl be impeach or removed from the Senate and House period. The whole lot are nothing but useless. But that is just my personal opinion, beggars cant be chosers...get rid of the radical left and right...especially the left in my personal opinion. :sniper:

See this is my first post and it had a lot of content of opinions, now if you want to start saying opinions are useless, better you shout at the people making one liners on here Miss. If you read closely i said we should impeach all of them and start over fresh. See any attacks here? Nope.

Ah so you would of left that dictator in office over in Iraq then huh? Thats not just unpatriotic, but stupid. But i will wait to see your response before making more comments on that...

Yes Bush is not a saint, so is every other canidate you can bring up you like....and your point?
For one i am not a Bush lover or supporter, WHAT I AM is one that wanted to remove Hussein 16 or so years ago and teh DEMOCRAT pussies in Congress wussied out and wanted to NOT help the Iraqis at that time...i say cowards.....

Then again here i said i was awaiting your response here ot see what your true thoughts are here, yet you come back slinging at me insteadof standing up for what you believe and telling how you think....

I agree. It's amazing how quickly people get fired up, even from behind the anonymous mask of an internet nation. It's as if people consider these debates to be so awfully personal. I guess its entertaining.

No, i would be talking to you and telling you how it is in your face too. See i am who i am here on internet or in RL. Sorry to disappoint you.

Advice well served for the both of us, then.



You might first want to understand the argument to which you are responding, instead of jumping to conclusions. You should not hide your take on things, but you can certainly alter the way you present yourself. I'm not saying you need to, just that it helps. Arguing from emotion is weakness, and as soon as you revealed that, I knew I had a lever I can use against you. And it seems, judging by your responses, to be working.
You assume because I use strong wording that I am emotional while writing, and that is all you are doing -- assuming. You want me to look past your words and focus on your meaning, you should try doing the same.

As for this supposed "lever" you found, tell me, was it your intention to hijack this thread into a critique of my writing style, and do you think it is "working" because of...what? Am I doing something that you cleverly tricked me into doing? Do you feel like pointing out the errors or embarrassments you have crowbarred me into with your little lever? Is it just that I am still writing? Sorry, friend, it was Jolt and Max Barry who tricked me into that, not you.

You say arguing from emotion is weak. I say critiquing the style of the poster instead of the substance of his/her argument is even weaker. You made remarks about what you think is the right way for our politicians to behave and implied that I was lying when I said I expected them to do otherwise, and you made that implication in a condescending manner. I called you on that veiled personal attack and then went on to attack the substance of your argument, pointing out its flaws. You did attempt to defend your position, but you could not seem to come up with anything on point, and now you seem to have nothing left but complaints that I attacked your argument too strongly. You tell me who seems weaker here: me, who speaks strongly and with emotion, or you, who have nothing left to say?

Haha, I'm telling you the facts, bud. You can choose to live in your fantasy world where politics is about the people, but when you come back, you'll realize that ambition and selfishness are the driving forces of society. No one acts in the genuine good of others without first seeking to serve himself, or if he does, it is with the equal realization that they will, in so doing, help themselves. I love how you paint a picture of me "desperately grasping" for something--as if you had any higher ground to stand on. Further, that you assumed I meant that selfishness was good for America--which in no way was it mentioned in my post--is indicative of your own self-centeredness. So I suggest you look to the log in your eye before remarking on mine.
You are not telling anyone facts. You are expressing your opinion. And I am dismissing it based on my own opinions. And you are the one who dove first into personal attacks. Don't complain if they come flying back at you.

But I grow tired of this banter. Yes, yes, lambast me for "sniping" you, for merely grasping at arguments that have no relevance. We are both in the same boat, whether you like it or not.
Good, because this "banter" is off topic.


That first assumes I'm trying to sound arrogant. I suppose I am, but that is cute. Running away by throwing around meaningless threats is arrogance of the grandest kind: cowardice.
That wasn't a threat. It was merely a statement that I enjoy it when people try to personally attack me because it's fun to tear their posts apart. So I never put anyone on ignore or walk out of threads to avoid such fights, and people who try to shut me up by insulting or belittling me always end up frustrated and angry after several days or weeks. I guess I just enjoy goading people who are trying to goad me. Not admirable but there it is. That is why I advised you not to waste your time.

Oh, and cowardice is not the grandest kind of arrogance. Arrogance may mask cowardice, but cowardice is not a form of arrogance. Do try to keep your terms straight.

And while you look them up, why don't you see if you have anything to say about the thread topic and get us all back on track? In the meantime, this side argument is over, as far as I'm concerned. If you want to take any more swipes at me about it, then the last word will be yours.

I agree. It's amazing how quickly people get fired up, even from behind the anonymous mask of an internet nation. It's as if people consider these debates to be so awfully personal. I guess its entertaining.

Meow. What a witty kitty.

Like you have nt labelled anyone on here? I wasnt pointing you out so get over yourself.

So its ok for you to call others arrogant and ignorant, but not others? I also had other things and points made in my post, you just like to ignore those.....
1) Every piece of negative description I have used has been directed at and based upon the explicit content of the posts I was responding to. In other words, I am attacking statements, not people, unless those people choose to make the argument personal.

2) Nowhere has anyone in this thread, including me, ever said anything even remotely like "we should have appeased that poor fellow, Saddam," nor did anyone say anything that was anti-American, nor did anyone but you make this a partisan argument. You interjected those notions, and I believe that is what is known as a strawman argument in Debate 101.

3) Your so-called points were nothing but expressions of your own opinions about those strawman notions, which you apparently brought to this party because, perhaps, you have little to say about the OP or about the arguments concerning Iraq that have actually been posted here?

Riiight....

Just liek you can get away with attacking others on here too....

By the way how in hell am i suppose to know you a female? Thats right dig yourself a hole...
You can avoid making gender specific remarks about people you cannot see. You can also accept the snarky delivery of information with a snarky thank you.

And i wasnt trolling jerk, i was giving an opinion LIKE EVERYONE HERE. Grow up.
Please, somebody sig the bolded part. :D

And like i said read my whole post. If any one is trolling its the ones that leave with one liners....i havent done that.
And nothing wrong with putting in colorful words, you do it clearly enough in this post with the words arrogant and ignorant. Right?

See how you got this off topic? Nice. See at least i can stay on topic. *claps*
You were never on topic, my friend. Unless you have an actual argument to make about something that is going on in connection to Dennis Kucinich, Cheney, or the Iraq war, then this topic is not about Democrats or appeasement or whether war dissenters are patriotic or not.

See this is my first post and it had a lot of content of opinions, now if you want to start saying opinions are useless, better you shout at the people making one liners on here Miss. If you read closely i said we should impeach all of them and start over fresh. See any attacks here? Nope.
Well, let's take a look:

Originally Posted by Earabia
Of course a Socialist like your self would take this opportunity.

Frankly teh lot that stopped us from removing a certain dictator (BOTH republicans and Democrats like Kennedy) shoudl be impeach or removed from the Senate and House period. The whole lot are nothing but useless. But that is just my personal opinion, beggars cant be chosers...get rid of the radical left and right...especially the left in my personal opinion.
Bold = personal attack against the person you were responding to.

Underscore = evidence that you have no argument to make. Opinions may not useless, but they are also not substantive and add nothing to a debate that is about real events. Unless you can tie your opinion to those events, then, yes, your opinions in this instance are useless.

And I repeat, the thread is not about what your post is about, so your opinions are not tied to the events under discussion.

Please, somebody sig the bolded part. :D

I wasn't flaming, how fucking stupid are you?

Then again here i said i was awaiting your response here ot see what your true thoughts are here, yet you come back slinging at me insteadof standing up for what you believe and telling how you think....
No, here you were attacking me without provocation. See bolded part of your post below:

Originally Posted by Earabia
Ah so you would of left that dictator in office over in Iraq then huh? Thats not just unpatriotic, but stupid. But i will wait to see your response before making more comments on that...

Yes Bush is not a saint, so is every other canidate you can bring up you like....and your point?
For one i am not a Bush lover or supporter, WHAT I AM is one that wanted to remove Hussein 16 or so years ago and teh DEMOCRAT pussies in Congress wussied out and wanted to NOT help the Iraqis at that time...i say cowards.....

Inviting me to respond to an attack is not the same as not attacking.

You can avoid making gender specific remarks about people you cannot see. You can also accept the snarky delivery of information with a snarky thank you.


Please, somebody sig the bolded part. :D


You were never on topic, my friend. Unless you have an actual argument to make about something that is going on in connection to Dennis Kucinich, Cheney, or the Iraq war, then this topic is not about Democrats or appeasement or whether war dissenters are patriotic or not.

Read my first post inthis thread Murav. Its not that hard. Really, its not. I made a statement WHY i think attacking ONE political member IS FOOLSIH at best. I seriously think you need to take your self off the high moral stance.

3) Your so-called points were nothing but expressions of your own opinions about those strawman notions, which you apparently brought to this party because, perhaps, you have little to say about the OP or about the arguments concerning Iraq that have actually been posted here?

oh don't you understand? He's obviously a special little flower, who should be allowed to state his opinions as much as he wants, with no basis in fact or reality, with not a shred of substantiation, and should be above all criticism for this.

After all, we must value his opinions, what kind of people would we be if we didn't consider with the highest deference, the gun smilie, unsubstantiated rants of...um....this guy.

Who are you again exactly?

One should talk. Stick to the topic too.

:p Looks like we're all guilty of the same crime.

You assume because I use strong wording that I am emotional while writing, and that is all you are doing -- assuming. You want me to look past your words and focus on your meaning, you should try doing the same.

I already have. Catch up if you can.

As for this supposed "lever" you found, tell me, was it your intention to hijack this thread into a critique of my writing style, and do you think it is "working" because of...what? Am I doing something that you cleverly tricked me into doing? Do you feel like pointing out the errors or embarrassments you have crowbarred me into with your little lever? Is it just that I am still writing? Sorry, friend, it was Jolt and Max Barry who tricked me into that, not you.

Bingo.

You say arguing from emotion is weak. I say critiquing the style of the poster instead of the substance of his/her argument is even weaker. You made remarks about what you think is the right way for our politicians to behave and implied that I was lying when I said I expected them to do otherwise, and you made that implication in a condescending manner. I called you on that veiled personal attack and then went on to attack the substance of your argument, pointing out its flaws. You did attempt to defend your position, but you could not seem to come up with anything on point, and now you seem to have nothing left but complaints that I attacked your argument too strongly. You tell me who seems weaker here: me, who speaks strongly and with emotion, or you, who have nothing left to say?

I gave you some advice after thoroughly refuting your argument. Free advice is worth nothing, as they say. Interesting that you critique my argument for not having anything on point, when yours are substantially less inspired, just little rants. I never said you attacked my argument strongly at all. In fact, it was quite weak. But what was that about opinions? Seems to me that we are equals in this.

You are not telling anyone facts. You are expressing your opinion. And I am dismissing it based on my own opinions. And you are the one who dove first into personal attacks. Don't complain if they come flying back at you.

First off, I wasn't complaining. That's all you. Second, they are facts. You'll realize them when you accept reality. Third, no, no you dove first into personal attacks. You perceived a personal attack where there was, in fact, none. You are an amusing little poster.

Good, because this "banter" is off topic.

Congratulations, Captain Obvious! I'm beginning to like you.

That wasn't a threat. It was merely a statement that I enjoy it when people try to personally attack me because it's fun to tear their posts apart. So I never put anyone on ignore or walk out of threads to avoid such fights, and people who try to shut me up by insulting or belittling me always end up frustrated and angry after several days or weeks. I guess I just enjoy goading people who are trying to goad me. Not admirable but there it is. That is why I advised you not to waste your time.

You're going to have to try harder than that, dear. We're both playing the same game and it'll be awhile.

Oh, and cowardice is not the grandest kind of arrogance. Arrogance may mask cowardice, but cowardice is not a form of arrogance. Do try to keep your terms straight.

Who said cowardice was a form arrogance? Perhaps try reading the posts.

And while you look them up, why don't you see if you have anything to say about the thread topic and get us all back on track? In the meantime, this side argument is over, as far as I'm concerned. If you want to take any more swipes at me about it, then the last word will be yours.

Oh, how noble. :)

No, i would be talking to you and telling you how it is in your face too. See i am who i am here on internet or in RL. Sorry to disappoint you.

:( How awfully disappointing, indeed. Well, carry on then.

Riiight....

Just liek you can get away with attacking others on here too....

By the way how in hell am i suppose to know you a female? Thats right dig yourself a hole...

And i wasnt trolling jerk, i was giving an opinion LIKE EVERYONE HERE. Grow up.

And like i said read my whole post. If any one is trolling its the ones that leave with one liners....i havent done that.
And nothing wrong with putting in colorful words, you do it clearly enough in this post with the words arrogant and ignorant. Right?

See how you got this off topic? Nice. See at least i can stay on topic. *claps*

Yes, we all see the irony. :)

Meow. What a witty kitty.

Wouldn't that make the last word yours? Damn, I'm slacking on my pillar of pretentiousness.

I wasn't flaming, how fucking stupid are you?

now that could be considered flamebaiting or just plain baiting.

now that could be considered flamebaiting or just plain baiting.

or actually blatant sarcasm, if you follow the line of the conversation.

Has the White House responded to this? The reaction alone would make it worth it.

Has the White House responded to this? The reaction alone would make it worth it.

They probably will the usual way, through Rove, talking points and radio pundit insinuations and character assassinations.
Perhaps even through a few illustrious here on NS.
<.< >.>

Has the White House responded to this? The reaction alone would make it worth it.

Probably not worth responding to.

I'm sorry, but what nonsense. If I hire a property manager to run an apartment building I own, I am responsible for making sure that person is qualified and making sure he knows what I expect him to do. If he fails to do it, and badness results for tenants in my building, then I will be responsible for finding a way to fix that badness.

Lets look at your property manager. If he fails to maintain the property, and a building collapses killing a dozen people. Who is responsible for the repercussions his/her actions? Who covers the costs associated with repairs, and damages.? The property manager? No, you are, or your insurance, but my point is, you are paying him/her to do the job, but you still have to take responsibility to be fully informed on what is happening on the property and you are responsible for his/her actions.

BUT I am not responsible for managing the property. At least, not as long as I am paying him to do it.

But you are responsible or his actions. After all you are his employer, and he is in affect representing you, therefore you need to be aware of what his is doing, else when some badness happens, and you end of in court for his failure, the judge isn’t going to allow you to hide behind your ignorance. You will still have to take responsibility for what he did?

Ken Lay proved that with Enron, not knowing what is happening doesn’t make you any less responsible.


Are you suggesting that, because elected officials are Americans, then all Americans are responsible for seeing to it that their jobs get done at all, let alone done well?

No, I am suggesting that because all Americans, including the elected officials, choose who represents us, whether we agree with the choice or not, are responsible for the actions of those we elect, and we must accept responsibility for those actions, and expect to deal with the full extent of the consequences, no matter how much we dislike them.

And back on topic, this includes the Iraq War. The majority of us elected President Bush, he took us into a War with, we ALL now know, false allegations, and now we much all accept responsibility for his actions. Therefore, we much expect to deal with the horrendous consequences of thousands of our men and women dying. And we must commit ourselves to correcting the mistake at all costs. Besides the consequences of a pull out are far, far worse, especially, if the current Iraqi government can't stand up on its own.

Lets look at your property manager. If he fails to maintain the property, and a building collapses killing a dozen people. Who is responsible for the repercussions his/her actions? Who covers the costs associated with repairs, and damages.? The property manager? No, you are, or your insurance, but my point is, you are paying him/her to do the job, but you still have to take responsibility to be fully informed on what is happening on the property and you are responsible for his/her actions.

I have to disagree with this. Since he is the owner of the "property" as a manager/landlord he has the responsibility to make sure things are up and running. NOW, if he makes an effort like our landlord does here in our apartment complex by posting a note on your apartment door asking if any repairs are needed INSIDE your room and you fail to let him know, yes its your fault if a fire starts because lets say a electrical issue. Point is, the landlord is the owner and he should make an EFFORT to find issues, but if the renter fails in his part, then it lands on teh renter.


Ken Lay proved that with Enron, not knowing what is happening doesn’t make you any less responsible.

However, if he is kept out of the loop by others how is it his fault? Its like the landlord/renter, if the landlord is not told by the renter if there is problems, its the fault of the renter, however, if the renter told the landlord and he didnt do a thing, then its the landlord.




No, I am suggesting that because all Americans, including the elected officials, choose who represents us, whether we agree with the choice or not, are responsible for the actions of those we elect, and we must accept responsibility for those actions, and expect to deal with the full extent of the consequences, no matter how much we dislike them.

Thats not correct. If i voted for someone else into office and he didnt win, how is it my responsibility of what that person does in office, especially if i didnt elect him. Only ting i am responsible for is removing that person if he is corrupt or bad. Ones responsible for the elected person is the ones that voting him in. Can't put all under the same responsibility for voting for a person we didnt nessecarly voted for. But i understand your reasoning though.

And back on topic, this includes the Iraq War. The majority of us elected President Bush, he took us into a War with, we ALL now know, false allegations, and now we much all accept responsibility for his actions. Therefore, we much expect to deal with the horrendous consequences of thousands of our men and women dying. And we must commit ourselves to correcting the mistake at all costs. Besides the consequences of a pull out are far, far worse, especially, if the current Iraqi government can't stand up on its own.

I disagree with this, but i also can say if this is the case we are all responsible for keeping Hussein power then huh? By your logic of course.
Thing is i disagree. I am not responsible for voting in Bushy boy nor am i responsible for voting in the other parties canidate, i voted outside of the normal two party system. Sorry i am only responsible for the one i voted for. Yes the majority voted Bush in, but they also are now falling for the other party's propaganda too sadly. But that is a different topic.

I have to disagree with this. Since he is the owner of the "property" as a manager/landlord he has the responsibility to make sure things are up and running. NOW, if he makes an effort like our landlord does here in our apartment complex by posting a note on your apartment door asking if any repairs are needed INSIDE your room and you fail to let him know, yes its your fault if a fire starts because lets say a electrical issue. Point is, the landlord is the owner and he should make an EFFORT to find issues, but if the renter fails in his part, then it lands on teh renter.

In your example, the property manger is not responsible, with that I agree. As I said in my statement, he failed to maintain the property. That means he didn’t make an effort to ask whether something was wrong. In the event of a catastrophe, which would make the property owner, not the property manager responsible for the damages. That does not mean there won’t be consequences for the property manager, he most likely will lose his job, and if he is proven to be negligent, then he could be imprisoned or fined, but my point is still that the property owner is still responsible for the damaged caused by his negligence.




However, if he is kept out of the loop by others how is it his fault? Its like the landlord/renter, if the landlord is not told by the renter if there is problems, its the fault of the renter, however, if the renter told the landlord and he didnt do a thing, then its the landlord.

Again, true, but consider Enron. Ken Lay argued that he was intentionally kept out of the loop of what was being done with the company’s finances. He was still held accountable for the actions of those working under him, even though he didn’t know what they were doing. Now, he died before he could pay for it, but he was still legally considered responsible.


That’s not correct. If I voted for someone else into office and he didn’t win, how is it my responsibility of what that person does in office, especially if i didn’t elect him. Only ting i am responsible for is removing that person if he is corrupt or bad. Ones responsible for the elected person is the ones that voting him in. Can't put all under the same responsibility for voting for a person we didn’t necessarily voted for. But I understand your reasoning though.

I disagree. You took part in a process for selecting our representative government, unfortunately, your choice did not win, but you, I, and everyone else that voted still have to accept the consequences of their actions as representative of us, our nation, in the global scheme of things. After all, a terrorist, or anyone from any other country for that matter, isn’t going to look at you and say, “Oh, your are an American that voted for someone other than Bush so, don’t dislike you.” No, they are going to see you as an American imperialist. They care nothing for how you voted. It makes no difference. They only see what our country, and the administration running it have done.

And this is where I am trying to go with Americans taking responsibility for our actions. In the globe, other nations have no concern for who we, as individuals vote for, they only see the faces that represent is in our government. They only see the people that the majority of the population elected. And in as much as we voted we have to accept that they are human, and will make mistakes, and those mistakes are going to reflect on us as a collective, as a nation, as Americans. That is what we elected them to do, represent us.

So we all have to be willing to accept full responsibility for the good, the bad, and the ugly actions they take. And accept that as a nation we cannot simply turn tail and walk away, because if we do, eventually those actions will catch up with us. It may not be tomorrow, it may not be the next day, but eventually it will catch up with us.

Lets look at your property manager. If he fails to maintain the property, and a building collapses killing a dozen people. Who is responsible for the repercussions his/her actions? Who covers the costs associated with repairs, and damages.? The property manager? No, you are, or your insurance, but my point is, you are paying him/her to do the job, but you still have to take responsibility to be fully informed on what is happening on the property and you are responsible for his/her actions.



But you are responsible or his actions. After all you are his employer, and he is in affect representing you, therefore you need to be aware of what his is doing, else when some badness happens, and you end of in court for his failure, the judge isn’t going to allow you to hide behind your ignorance. You will still have to take responsibility for what he did?

Ken Lay proved that with Enron, not knowing what is happening doesn’t make you any less responsible.
If you had actually read any of my posts, you would know that I have been agreeing with this essential idea all along.

What I object to is the notion which you brought to the table that the reason the war plan being run by Bush is not working is somehow, anyhow, connected to the fact that the majority of Americans made a mistake in supporting the decision to go to war. That simply does not follow, because they are two wholly separate sets of mistakes.

If Bush had initiated a war plan that was actually a good way to run a war (if "good" is a word to use in such a context), then the current situation in Iraq would not be the blood-soaked cock-up that it is. But that does not mean that the war would not have been a bad idea anyway. Just because something is done well does not mean it was the right thing to do.

What we really have here is the American people making the mistake of supporting Bush's war AND the separate series of mistakes made by Bush in running that war. They are two completely different things. The American people (foolishly) said, yes, go run your war. But they did not control HOW Bush ran it. That was his job as commander in chief, and we let him do it, and he did it extremely badly. Just the same, with my property manager analogy -- if I hire a property manager, I, as owner, will be responsible for the damage if he does the job badly, but as long as I am paying him to do it, I must let him do it. If I don't like the way he is doing it, then I must fire him, at which point he will no longer be my property manager. But I am not responsible to actually DO HIS JOB while I am still paying him to do it. It's really quite simple. Would YOU hire someone to do something, then do it yourself, and still keep paying him? No you would not. You would let him do it and then fire him if the results were not what you wanted.

It is unfortunate that in the US we have no way of "firing" an adminstration before their term is up, or else I think Bush and Cheney would have been out of a job last November.


No, I am suggesting that because all Americans, including the elected officials, choose who represents us, whether we agree with the choice or not, are responsible for the actions of those we elect, and we must accept responsibility for those actions, and expect to deal with the full extent of the consequences, no matter how much we dislike them.

And back on topic, this includes the Iraq War. The majority of us elected President Bush, he took us into a War with, we ALL now know, false allegations, and now we much all accept responsibility for his actions. Therefore, we much expect to deal with the horrendous consequences of thousands of our men and women dying. And we must commit ourselves to correcting the mistake at all costs. Besides the consequences of a pull out are far, far worse, especially, if the current Iraqi government can't stand up on its own.
And I suggest that the way we should deal with those horrendous consequences is to take control of the situation away from the people who screwed it up and stop the deaths of any more thousands of people.

You seem to be saying that, because we made a mistake, we should accept the price of the brutal deaths and maiming of our sons and daughters as well as Iraqi civilians for -- how long? Forever?

I say that the first step to committing ourselves to fixing those mistakes is to stop making them. By the way, your mention of pulling out of Iraq is close to a strawman. I never suggested any such thing. All I have been saying is that we must stop following the failed policies and plans of Bush and Cheney. There are lots of possible alternatives to their follies.

In your example, the property manger is not responsible, with that I agree. As I said in my statement, he failed to maintain the property. That means he didn’t make an effort to ask whether something was wrong. In the event of a catastrophe, which would make the property owner, not the property manager responsible for the damages. That does not mean there won’t be consequences for the property manager, he most likely will lose his job, and if he is proven to be negligent, then he could be imprisoned or fined, but my point is still that the property owner is still responsible for the damaged caused by his negligence.

Makes sense.






Again, true, but consider Enron. Ken Lay argued that he was intentionally kept out of the loop of what was being done with the company’s finances. He was still held accountable for the actions of those working under him, even though he didn’t know what they were doing. Now, he died before he could pay for it, but he was still legally considered responsible.

But what worries me is that if he didnt know because he didnt see or understand there is nothing wrong, why not punish the individuals that did the wrong. Now if he knew and didnt do a thing and you are able to prove this, yes punish him. But that can be a fine line.




I disagree. You took part in a process for selecting our representative government, unfortunately, your choice did not win, but you, I, and everyone else that voted still have to accept the consequences of their actions as representative of us, our nation, in the global scheme of things. After all, a terrorist, or anyone from any other country for that matter, isn’t going to look at you and say, “Oh, your are an American that voted for someone other than Bush so, don’t dislike you.” No, they are going to see you as an American imperialist. They care nothing for how you voted. It makes no difference. They only see what our country, and the administration running it have done.{/QUOTE]

And maybe that is why these other nations need to learn that here in America we have a system where you cant blame individuals for what otehr groups do when in power. Its like blaming ALL Iraqis for having Hussein in power, its not possible to do that and not logical. Not only does Americans need a course in other cultures, i think other nations and cultures need a lesson on our culture too, dont you think?

[QUOTE=Aurill;12587009]And this is where I am trying to go with Americans taking responsibility for our actions. In the globe, other nations have no concern for who we, as individuals vote for, they only see the faces that represent is in our government. They only see the people that the majority of the population elected. And in as much as we voted we have to accept that they are human, and will make mistakes, and those mistakes are going to reflect on us as a collective, as a nation, as Americans. That is what we elected them to do, represent us.

But i can't agree with this. I seriously think both Americans and otehr nations of the world need to learn that we all have different views of what a government is responsible for. If i didnt vote for a person, its not my responsibility to take the blame for what he did in his office time, what i am responsible for is removing him if he commited crimes or is not doing what he is suppose to do in office what he promised.

So we all have to be willing to accept full responsibility for the good, the bad, and the ugly actions they take. And accept that as a nation we cannot simply turn tail and walk away, because if we do, eventually those actions will catch up with us. It may not be tomorrow, it may not be the next day, but eventually it will catch up with us.

Your right, we do have to take a responsiblity to remove him or tell him to change his ways, but no tto take the blame for what he is doing. That is one thing that needs to change.

What I object to is the notion which you brought to the table that the reason the war plan being run by Bush is not working is somehow, anyhow, connected to the fact that the majority of Americans made a mistake in supporting the decision to go to war. That simply does not follow, because they are two wholly separate sets of mistakes.

I don’t think I said that the reason for the war plan failing is because the majority of Americans made a mistake in supporting the war. If I did, that was not my intension and I may have just not stated my argument correctly. I agree the two are wholly different sets of mistakes.

What I am trying to argue is that no matter how you feel or felt about the war in the past. We, as Americans, need to accept responsibility for the actions of our elected officials when they make decisions and take actions that reflect on us as a nation.

The way this relates to the Iraq war is simple, we, under the leadership of President Bush, and with the near complete agreement of our Congress, attacked a sovereign nation, and demolished its entire government structure. Now that this is done, whether we like it or not, we are there, nothing we do can magically resurrect Sadam, or any part of his government.

We need to be committed to remaining in Iraq until we correct this grievous error in judgment and we must insist to all our elected officials, that they must work to find a solution that gets all of Iraq neighbors involved, and allows us to return peace to a nation that we wrongfully invaded.

If Bush had initiated a war plan that was actually a good way to run a war (if "good" is a word to use in such a context), then the current situation in Iraq would not be the blood-soaked cock-up that it is.

With this I agree 100%. Although, in all fairness, I don’t think he and his advisors actually expected the combat to last this long, remember he announce an end to the “War” only a few month after the fall of Baghdad.

In truth, their failing was not in the execution of the war, as everything leading up to the fall of Baghdad worked far better than anyone expected. Remember in the early days of the war, when they kept saying that the Revolutionary Guard were going to put up a huge fight for Baghdad. That really didn’t happen and Sadam’s government fell surprisingly quickly.

Where Bush failed was in arming, and preparing our troops, and the American people, for rebuilding a nation and everything associated with those actions, including an insurrection. He also failed in planning how to rebuild Iraq, and this is what angers me the most.

But that does not mean that the war would not have been a bad idea anyway. Just because something is done well does not mean it was the right thing to do.

All to true.

What we really have here is the American people making the mistake of supporting Bush's war AND the separate series of mistakes made by Bush in running that war. They are two completely different things.

Yes, they are. And then there is the third issue of pulling out, or fixing our mistakes.

The American people (foolishly) said, yes, go run your war. But they did not control HOW Bush ran it. That was his job as commander in chief, and we let him do it, and he did it extremely badly. Just the same, with my property manager analogy -- if I hire a property manager, I, as owner, will be responsible for the damage if he does the job badly, but as long as I am paying him to do it, I must let him do it. If I don't like the way he is doing it, then I must fire him, at which point he will no longer be my property manager. But I am not responsible to actually DO HIS JOB while I am still paying him to do it. It's really quite simple.

I agree.

Would YOU hire someone to do something, then do it yourself, and still keep paying him? No you would not. You would let him do it and then fire him if the results were not what you wanted.

You are correct.

It is unfortunate that in the US, we have no way of "firing" an administration before their term is up, or else I think Bush and Cheney would have been out of a job last November.

Again, I am in agreement.

I suggest that the way we should deal with those horrendous consequences is to take control of the situation away from the people who screwed it up and stop the deaths of any more thousands of people.

Yes, we should remove the people that are making the decisions, on in November 2008 that will happen…..as if any of us really have a choice in that. But I don’t, unfortunately, agree with the way many are arguing that we need to stop the deaths.

You seem to be saying that, because we made a mistake, we should accept the price of the brutal deaths and maiming of our sons and daughters as well as Iraqi civilians for --

In a sense, this is what I am saying, but it is more complicated than that. I am saying, we made a mistake, and we need to be committed to fixing that mistake, regardless of how much we dislike the idea.

It is the same thing I tell my children when they make a mistake. “You screwed up; you know you screwed up, now you have to pay the consequences. You aren’t going to like the consequences so just suck it up and accept your punishment. Crying foul, or arguing that you were misled doesn’t change the end result; you still screwed up. Accept complete responsibility for your actions and do whatever you have to do to correct it.”

This same situation fits for the Iraq War. America, under the leadership of President Bush, screwed up. Now we have to pay the consequences, and I absolutely hate saying this, it tears me up inside, much like it does when I punish my children, but one of those consequences is inevitably going to be a loss of life. It is going to include all the nasty things that come with armed combat and war. Unfortunately, there is no way around it.


how long? Forever?
I would hope it wouldn’t be forever, and I can’t imagine that it would be, however, typically, the analysts say that it takes 10 to 25 years to build a country. In fact, I think I heard on NPR recently someone state that rebuilding Iraq would likely take 250,000 troops and a minimum of 10 years. They did not mention financial costs either, however, I am sure that it will be in the trillions.

I say that the first step to committing ourselves to fixing those mistakes is to stop making them. By the way, your mention of pulling out of Iraq is close to a strawman. I never suggested any such thing. All I have been saying is that we must stop following the failed policies and plans of Bush and Cheney. There are lots of possible alternatives to their follies.

With this I agree also, but we have never been good at learning from our past. And we have an awful track record on building, or rebuilding governments.

Also in all the mistakes associated with Iraq, the recent Democratic War Finance bill has a poised to make yet another. Pull our of Iraq, one would think we could look back in our history and find a correlation, and consider ways of preventing it from happening again.

Wait there is an example:

We trained the mujahdeen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, and pulled out when the Soviets were beaten. Civil war broke out and eventually the Taliban gained power, with the financial help of a CIA trained mujahdeen warrior named Osama. Now, the Democrats would have us make that mistake again. Hmm, I wonder who the major terrorist will be in 30 years? I wager he will be Iraqi-born, unless we stop the madness now!

And maybe that is why these other nations need to learn that here in America we have a system where you cant blame individuals for what otehr groups do when in power. Its like blaming ALL Iraqis for having Hussein in power, its not possible to do that and not logical. Not only do Americans need a course in other cultures, I think other nations and cultures need a lesson on our culture too, dont you think?

It would be nice, but logistically isn’t really feasible, and doesn’t alter the reality of the situation. I have been to countless cultural awareness classes, both through work, and through college courses I have taken, and while they help prevent, or lessen stereotyping, the reality will always remain that in a representative democracy a small group of persons represent a large number of people. And whatever actions the small number do is going to reflect on the way outsiders perceive the large number of people.

But i can't agree with this. I seriously think both Americans and other nations of the world need to learn that we all have different views of what a government is responsible for. If I didn’t vote for a person, its not my responsibility to take the blame for what he did in his office time, what I am responsible for is removing him if he committed crimes or is not doing what he is suppose to do in office what he promised.

I understand where you are going with this, but in the instance of Iraq, removing oneself from personal responsibility is correct. I am not advocating personal responsibility for President Bush’s actions. I am advocating collective responsibility, for his actions.

Meaning a national responsibility for the actions our leadership causes the nation to do. After all, taking down another nation’s government is not something a typical person can do alone, without some kind of greater force behind them. In this instance, President Bush, misled the nation, and congress into attacking Iraq and destroyed Iraq’s sovereign, yet immoral and democratically distasteful government. Even though he chose to take this action, he did not walk over there and take down the government by himself. No, he sent in our military to do the dirty work, however, the end result is still the same: Sadam’s government being destroyed and Iraq needing to be rebuilt.



You’re right, we do have to take a responsibility to remove him or tell him to change his ways, but no to take the blame for what he is doing. That is one thing that needs to change.

Again, I am not saying we, personally, need to take the blame. I am saying that we, collectively, need to take the blame. Because if we don’t separate the personal and collective blame, then we end up not taking blame for anything, and it will only make the reputation of the U.S. that much worse. I mean the war is already ruining our reputation, but think about how our reputation will be if we are considered the cause of the Iraqi Civil War because we left the nation without a working, strong-handed government.