Democrats & Liberals: Archives

To set off an impeachment there would have to be the correct political atmosphere (which we don’t have) and a blatantly reprehensible act commited by the president (which we also don’t have). Interesting post though…

Posted by: Zeek at June 12, 2005 10:27 PM

Maybe in 2006, after the Dems take back congress…

Posted by: Dave at June 12, 2005 10:28 PM

Dave, that’s still just the atmosphere, Bush still would need to do a major screw up to justify an impeachment.

Posted by: Zeek at June 12, 2005 10:31 PM

how many times does this have to be explained?

Everyone! looked at the SAME data and made the SAME decission on the iraq war.

Hell even russia said iraq had WMD and they had MILLIONS$$$ of reasons to say iraq did not have them!

So your take is that BUSH alone had special info that iraq did not have WMD, but hide that info EVERYONE in the world?

Kinda a silly take.

Posted by: www.vipers-pit.net at June 12, 2005 10:36 PM

viper,

Everyone! looked at the SAME data and made the SAME decission on the iraq war.

Really? I was fairly sure that the U.N. was against Operation Iraqi Freedom. I think you’ve been misled. What the whole world agreed upon was an inspection/investigation to see if Saddam had WMDs. Lo-and-behold, he didn’t. Not that Bush gave the rest of the world time to figure that out. He decided to “do his own thing,” shall we say, and insulted some of our biggest allies in the process.

It’s not about info proving Saddam didn’t have WMDs; Bush just had no practical or logical reason to believe that Saddam did. So when you ask:

So your take is that BUSH alone had special info that iraq did not have WMD, but hide that info EVERYONE in the world?

My answer is: no. My take is that Bush had no special info which would prompt/justify invading Iraq. If you have some resounding evidence to prove otherwise, please share. If not, don’t defend Bush on this particular issue like you know something the rest of us haven’t figured out yet.

Posted by: Zeek at June 12, 2005 11:00 PM

zeek

as i remember the UN voted for the deadline and the “resulting action” if sadam failed to do the right thing. the 3 biggest desenters of the war were france germany and russia. and it is common knowledge that the 3 of them were recieving millions of dollors from iraq to stop the un from taking any action.

sadam was promissed the un would never allow the us to stop him. and this is only starting to come out in the press. why are you not calling for kofi annan to be impeached from the un?

if sadam had nothing to hide why did he continue to block the inspecters from looking things over? if i had nothing to hide and i had signed a agreement to allow all such inspections, then i would allow the inspections! is this so hard to understand?

if you say no way you cant look, then what are the people on the outsude to think? “ok he must not have wmd, or he would allow the inspecters in”? if the police ask to look in your car and you say “no” do they walk away? no! it gives them more reson to look.

so the question is, why is the blame going on Bush and not the UN or SADAM?

one is fighting FOR the USA and the other two are clearly AGAINST the USA.

so the question is if you put the blame on Bush, whos side are you on?

if you say you are on the side of “truth” than you have to wait until the “truth” comes out.

Posted by: www.vipers-pit.net at June 12, 2005 11:30 PM

and it is common knowledge that the 3 of them were recieving millions of dollors from iraq to stop the un from taking any action.

sadam was promissed the un would never allow the us to stop him.

Viper,

I suspect we’ll see more unsubstantiated distortions from the Right in this Comment thread, as you try to distract from the issues raised by the Downing Street Memo. From the Sunday Times article:

The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.

Before, Colin Powell went to the UN, before, the Democrats and Congress saw the same evidence against Saddam, before weapons inspectors were denied the opportunity to complete their inspections - Bush had decided to manipulate the Intelligence, in order to purposely deceive Congress and the American people.

This is the issue at hand, and focus of my post.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at June 12, 2005 11:51 PM

Bush had decided to manipulate the Intelligence, in order to purposely deceive Congress and the American people.

what hard proff do you have to back this up? please scan the documents and upload them to my website!!

as for “unsubstantiated distortions from the Right” im not right wing.

im pro gay rights. pro enviroment. def not a “cristian nut” non nra supporter etc…

know you point these 4 things that your 100% sure pres bush did
” - The President made false and misleading statements for the purpose of deceiving the American people
- The President made false and misleading statements to members of the Cabinet and White House aides
- The President frivolously asserted executive privilege
- The President made perjurious, false and misleading statements to Congress “

please show us your proff he did these 4 things

im sure you dont want another special councl to conduct yet another “political witch hunt” the likes of which bill clinton had to suffer. you would be the 1st to say that is a total waste of tax payer money and bad for the country!

Posted by: www.vipers-pit.net at June 13, 2005 12:42 AM

Bert,

All I have to say is…”Good luck with that”…

Posted by: Cliff at June 13, 2005 01:01 AM

Viper,

I see you’re descending into distorting and manipulating things I’ve actually said (or not said), and I will not spoon feed you evidence staring you in the face, while I know not to engage in games of willful ignorance.

Speaking of a ‘waste of tax payer money’, there’s $9 Billion dollars of it that has gone missing in Iraq! And, a Special Prosecutor would be an ideal suggestion, that may lead to accountability, and maybe even new leadership.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at June 13, 2005 01:16 AM

Impeachment? Don’t make me laugh.

The Downing Street Memo that has whipped the far left-leaning blogosphere into such a frenzy (as they demonstrate their feverish desire to overturn the democratic outcome of the 2004 election) contains NOTHING more than the personal opinion of an unnamed British official who believed that America was manipulating intelligence in the lead up to war.

A simpe Google search will find the same opinion voiced in countless public articles and editorials before and after the time period in question. So what’s the story? There isn’t one. It’s truly sad that some latch onto such a thin straw in their desire to cancel out the wishes of the American electorate.

This “scandal” is even more ridiculous when you look at the actual events which led up to war—events which occurred AFTER the date on this memo. The US repeatedly attempted to get the UN to enforce its own resolutions. Bush gave Iraq deadlines to comply with said resolutions—and Iraq refused, even within 24 hours of the first air-strikes. If Bush wanted war so badly, why would he have given so many chances to Hussein to avoid war?

Hussein was given, as anyone being honest can see, multiple opportunities to prevent the war and negate any so-called American determination to launch it anyway. But he refused.

Too bad, folks. Bush won the election and will be president until January of 2009. No unnamed British official opining without evidence will cancel the fact that John Kerry lost the 2004 election.

Posted by: PaulS at June 13, 2005 01:26 AM

Hi All:

Just thought I’d put my two cents worth in the kitty:

Zeek:
You stated:

Bush still would need to do a major screw up to justify an impeachment.

I ask you this, How about we take back control of both houses, once we have done that we get a loud, little, obnoxious, short assed congressman from one of our stronghold states (ala…Newt Gingrich) to jump up and down and claim the GOP isn’t Playing by the rules enough times to make everyone hate seeing him, even before he opens his or her mouth. He was (mis)speaker of the house at the time wasn’t he? Then we get our aging sage and most aged Democratic Senator from
one of our stronghold states(ala…Bob Dole), claiming it his right to be president. We keep these tactics up for Another 6 YEARS. America will be so tired of juniors actions it will be voting blue so much……that we will have a clear mandate…..My guess and this is only a guess mind you clear cut victory 75% control of the house, 70% in the senate, and back by popular
demand A Donkey in the Oval Office.
It is up to US as Democratic Voters To get out there and VOTE!

As always,
Wayne

Posted by: Wayne at June 13, 2005 01:51 AM

Correction to my above post:

America will be so tired of juniors and his successor’s actions it will be voting blue so much

Posted by: Wayne at June 13, 2005 02:03 AM

*sigh*

In December of 2000, before George Bush was sworn into office, democrats.com was calling for his immediate impeachment.

Still today, calls for his impeachment are being thrown around for anything from he can’t pronounce nuclear properly to being evil incarnate and Hitler, Stalin and Lenin all rolled into one.

The fact is, the left is upset that their champion (who was as liberal as Bush is conservative) was impeached for lying to a judge in a case where he was charged with breaking a law that he signed into effect, denying a woman her right to a fair trial for sexual harassment. Leaving aside the amazing result that the women’s rights groups stood behind Clinton and put their movement back decades in the process, it even spawned a political action group that has become one of the most powerful PACs of the resulting two presidential elections.

This is the problem; instead of pointing the blame at Clinton, who was at fault, they blame the ‘Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’, the woman who brought the charges, the woman who Clinton lied about, the woman who brought the truth to the attention of the prosecution (legally and without hiding her identity, rather than hiding and giving the information to a journalist while breaking the law). When that fails, they fall back on ‘it was all about sex’ and ‘it just doesn’t matter.’

Then they turn their anger that doesn’t get resolved onto destroying the next republican president (any of which would have gotten the brunt of this attack IMO) in order to mitigate the damage it did to their party, even the score and prove that they can do it too.

Take a look at the various calls for impeachment over the past 5 years. Soon enough, the cry of wolf just gets old and boring…

And I really thought we could just ‘Move On’…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 13, 2005 02:51 AM

Still today, calls for his impeachment are being thrown around for anything from he can’t pronounce nuclear properly to being evil incarnate and Hitler, Stalin and Lenin all rolled into one.

The Downing Street Memo that has whipped the far left-leaning blogosphere into such a frenzy…contains NOTHING more than the personal opinion of an unnamed British official who believed that America was manipulating intelligence in the lead up to war.

Paul S. and Rhinehold,

As much as you belittle the prospects of an Impeachment charge, and dismiss the veracity of the DSM, an increasing number of Americans will soon be able to see this evidence - and will make that judgment for themselves.

Because of the continuing lost of credibility by the Bush administration, the American people are seeking out other sources for the truth.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at June 13, 2005 03:31 AM

FYI. Iraq allowed the UN Inspectors to look. It was the US that pulled them out because of the imminent invasion. Hans Blix made this clear if you ever bothered to look for yourself.

Posted by: Aldous at June 13, 2005 06:41 AM

‘Hussein was given, as anyone being honest can see, multiple opportunities to prevent the war and negate any so-called American determination to launch it anyway. But he refused.’

Actually the ONLY opportunity Bush gave him to prevent an attack was to bring the WMD forward so it could be destroyed - we dont want to play hide and seek. Apparently this was an impossible to achieve opportunity.

Posted by: Tom G at June 13, 2005 07:50 AM

As more and more conservatives wake up and realize “Bush Lied to us!” his popularity will decrease ever further. As more and more conservatives:
- Realize that The Downing Street Memo was not just “the personal opinion of an unnamed British official” but was the equivalent of an NSA analysis brief and would be a basis for policy construction.
- Believe Paul O’Neill when he said “the Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House”
- Recognize that taxation of the rich is not punishment for their success but is just plain fair treatment of all.
- Understand that the tax breaks given to the rich by Bush was not “making things fair” but was rewarding the rich (he’s one too) for supporting Bush, even at the expense of the middle and lower working classes.
- Understand that there were no WMD’s in Iraq
- Understand that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11
- Understand that Bush used 9/11 to justify attacking Iraq.
- Understand that deficits “do” matter.

Then, When the honest conservative wakes up and sees how he’s been lied to, manipulated, and used, then the GOP will be tossed out on their lying asses.

Posted by: Dave at June 13, 2005 08:09 AM

Viper-
How about this for starters:

Worse Than Watergate by John Dean. This former White House Counsel for Richard Nixon peels back the layers of secrecy and shows how Bush plagiarized the introduction of the Authorization to Use Force and used it as part of the Report he was required to make to go to war. He even called it a Congressional determination, implying that the source was a report congress had done on a subject, rather than the meaningless language that gets tacked on to the front of a bill to explain its purpose. You can also find out here how Bush has used his powers as president to hide much of his dealings, even to the point of destroying congress’s oversight powers. Did I mention that this counts as an impeachable offense in John Dean’s view?

Plan of Attackby Bob Woodward This is the source for the infamous “slam dunk” remark by George Tenet. What’s not been said much is that Bush looks at the hard evidence before him and told Tenet it was thin. We can also see how the case was built up in such an indiscriminate fashion that Colin Powell was having to rip out whole pages worth of reporting because it had no real corroboration.

The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind. This book got much publicity for its recounting of a National Security Council meeting where invasion plans were discussed for Iraq ten days into the new administration’s tenure.

There are tons of books out there, and it would do you well to know the facts.

And Rhinehold?

This isn’t crying wolf. Your president really screwed things up this time. Only in the most partisan of mindsets could one believe that this is about payback in time like this. This is about holding a president accountable who doesn’t seem to be capable of taking responsibility for his actions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2005 08:23 AM

The Republicans impeached Clinton - ie, the House had him dragged into the Senate for trial - in a party-line vote in the House. Their litany of “crimes” didn’t convince any Senate Democrats, and didn’t even convince many Republicans. In my view, it was an embarrassing fiasco for the Republicans.

Call me a pessimist but in 2006, Democrats will not have a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate. There’s no point in spinning our wheels on this, until and unless there is evidence is strong enough to convince hard-line Republicans that Bush did something wrong.

Posted by: William Cohen at June 13, 2005 09:17 AM

Bert and Stephen-

If you believe Carville, the misson of a political party is to win elections.

My question is, do you think impeachment and the other anti-Bush strategies that are currently in play are the key to winning elections?

Posted by: George in SC at June 13, 2005 09:24 AM

William,

Let’s try to be optimistic. Let’s hope that most Bush voters are not “hard-line” and that, as polls are showing, more and more Americans are realizing how they’ve been had. As we wake up, the epitaph will read “GOP reign of terror: 2000-2006”

Stephen,
I tried to read Dean’s book but my Doctor made me stop since my BP went up 30 points while reading it.

Posted by: Dave at June 13, 2005 09:24 AM

Everyone! looked at the SAME data and made the SAME decission on the iraq war.

That’s obviously not true. Congress got the version with the qualifiers and dissenting opinions removed. The Brits didn’t think Iraq was even as much a threat as Libya. And after UN inspectors had crawled all over Iraq for months, no other country seriously believed Saddam had WMD.

if sadam had nothing to hide why did he continue to block the inspecters from looking things over?

According to Hans Blix, the inspectors weren’t blocked. He wrote a book about it. You should read it.

Heh. I remember the Jay Leno monologue at the time Bush gave Saddam the ultimatum. Leno said Saddam now has three days to create a WMD program, produce some WMD, and turn it over to inspectors. Funny how even a comedian could see through the smokescreen.

This is the problem; instead of pointing the blame at Clinton, who was at fault, they blame the ‘Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’

Dude, are you seriously trying to equate some hanky-panky in the Oval Office with unnecessarily getting more than 1,700 US soldiers killed and more than 12,000 crippled? That’s wacko.

What’s not been said much is that Bush looks at the hard evidence before him and told Tenet it was thin.

My favorite part was:

“Needs a lot more work,” Bush told Card and Rice. “Let’s get some people who’ve actually put together a case for a jury.” He wanted some lawyers, prosecutors if need be. They were going to have to go public with something.

I mean, this is from an interview with President Bush himself. Woodward got corroboration in subsequent interviews with Rice and Card. It’s like these guys don’t even care if people know “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

My question is, do you think impeachment and the other anti-Bush strategies that are currently in play are the key to winning elections?

Who cares. This is about manipulating intelligence and leading this country into an unnecessary war. All politics aside, that’s just wrong.

Posted by: American Pundit at June 13, 2005 10:45 AM

My guess is that the Liberal Democrats and their supporters who post here have been advocating those positions for their entire lives and, will for the rest of their lives. Nothing will change that.

I have been a Conservative Republican all of my life and in the last decade have favored the extreme right. I will continue in that vein. Nothing will change that.

“East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.”

The two positions debate, assign blame to the other, demand proof of the opposition points made knowing full well that there will be a rebuttal that will negate the validity of the entire point, etc.

“When we get control, things will change”.

That said, I would welcome the Democrats getting majority control of Congress, the Senate and the White House in 2009 simply so I could be part of the group that blames every shortcoming on them. The beauty of it is that I don’t have to offer a solution, prove my points and so on. All I have to do is condemn.

All advocates of anything have a responsibility to “win people over” to their way of thinking. I understand and support that but, we tend to debate “whats done is done” issues placing blame on “the other guy”.

Would it be so terrible to unify and spend some time coming up with a plan to solve these problems?

Sooner than later we will have a woman holding the office of the President. One can only imagine the fuel for political debate that will provide.

Posted by: steve smith at June 13, 2005 11:00 AM

Mr. Caradine and Your Supporters:
What kind of world are you living in where you give brutal dictators the benefit of the doubt? Why do you blame President Bush for the situation in Iraq instead of blaming Saddam Hussein?

Why do you think the Downing Street Memo proves that the evidence to go to war was completely manipulated? Did you even read it? The Downing Street Memo is a list of meeting minutes! It is not analysis. It is not a policy brief. Stop confusing it for something other than what it is.

President Clinton recognized that Iraq was a problem based on the same intelligence that the Bush Administration used. The idea of regime change in Iraq through the use of force passed through Congress in the 1990s and was supported by President Clinton.

If Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs, then what did he use on the Kurds? They were WMDs! Why is it so hard to believe that a dictator who kills his own people and uses the United Nations to redirect humanitarian aid for his personal use could smuggle weapons out of the country? There are individuals who run worldwide nuclear proliferation operations and yet you refuse to believe that Saddam Hussein, with national assets at his disposal and a country of people that were indefinitely oppressed, was a threat.

What you really need to wake up to is that members of the government that represent the political Left have no plan for the future of America other than to raise taxes to fund social entitlement programs. All they do is oppose every idea that comes from Republicans and offer nothing in return. Do not think that mainstream media coverage of the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress will determine the outcome of elections. You have been doing that for years and yet your party continues to lose.

Posted by: SEPARight at June 13, 2005 11:05 AM

viper,

Everyone! looked at the SAME data and made the SAME decission on the iraq war.

the 3 biggest desenters of the war were france germany and russia. and it is common knowledge that the 3 of them were recieving millions of dollors from iraq to stop the un from taking any action.

Ok, first you said everyone agreed with us, then, once I pointed out your error, you claimed that the three biggest dissenters were receiving pay-offs or something to that effect. I’ll call you out on that one too. To the best of my knowledge there is no credible money link between France, Germany, and Russia anymore than between the U.S. and Afghanistan.

why are you not calling for kofi annan to be impeached from the un?

Because I don’t give a damn about Kofi Annan. Stop trying to change the subject.

if i had nothing to hide and i had signed a agreement to allow all such inspections, then i would allow the inspections! is this so hard to understand?

So let me get this straight, by your logic, if we were to demand an inspection of China, and they refused, that would be fair justification for invading them? Give me a break… Just because someone doesn’t cooperate as much as we would like isn’t a valid reason for invading them.

Also, you asked if sadam didn’t have weapons why would he block us? Well, there could be numerous reasons. But the way you are phrasing it, it sounds as though Saddam DID have WMDs, which he did not.

so the question is, why is the blame going on Bush and not the UN or SADAM?

Again you are changing the subject. As despicable as Saddam is, he didn’t make us go to war, Bush did. And the U.N. was perfectly within its rights to disagree with us and not approve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. So, pretty much most of the blame lies squarely on Bush’s shoulders.

Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 11:17 AM

Here’s one fiscal conservative who is tired of hearing the same old crap. Thrust, pire, thrust, pire. This is getting us no where. I am suprised that d.a.n. has not jumped in with one of his patented 2000 word jaunts saying to throw them all out.

As long as the focus is on the arguement instead of the issue, no matter who is in office, we’re just burnin’ daylight.

I keep hoping against hope for a strong, independent voice to come forth and start speaking the painful or not-so-painful truth about the budget, environment, social security, etc. in a way that both sides can trust.

I think the impeachment/investigation process against Clinton was unfair at best and utterly ridiculous at worst. He should have had the gumption to simply admit he made mistakes and move on. Take the hit and make up for it by doing good for all. Bush is no better. He can not admit any mistakes either and keeps deflecting and dodging to the point that even true fiscal conservatives wonder what the hell is going on. I don’t see how another public debacle could serve any fruitful purpose.

If the dems want to really undo Bush, all they need to do is let him continue on his course, point out where they would have done different (and what), and present a candidate who is not smarmy, who stays away from Carville and his ilk, and intelligently presents alternatives that would actually work. “I have a plan…” could work if the messenger is respectable.

Posted by: Chi Chi at June 13, 2005 11:24 AM

Steve,

Do you think Bush has no accountability for the failures of recent policy? Or do you think these were successes? Do you think Bush43 was a good (or even great) choice or the lesser of 2 bad choices? Do you think $8 trillion of debt means nothing (like Cheyney said)?

SEPARight:
1 - No one said Hussein was a good guy. What’s being said is Bush lied as to why he invaded Iraq and his planning for the aftermath sucked/was non-existent.
2 - These were minutes discussing high level meetings and their assesments. The relevent sections are

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action(…)the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and . his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

3 - Clinton thought it would be good to get rid of Saddam. Yeah, so? What does that have to do with anything?
4 - Saddam no longer had WMD’s. That’s the point.
5 - Blah blah blah. Sounds like you’re saying “Yeah, we suck, but you guys can’t win so Nyah.”

Posted by: Dave at June 13, 2005 11:24 AM

There’s plenty of proof of what Bush did. It’s all over the place. Unfortunately, it’s within sources that the GOP has declared too liberal to trust. This is the blindspot that’s going to kill the Republican majority, sooner or later. There’s going to come a point where the claim of a vast left-wing media conspiracy is just not going to deflect people’s anxieties or blunt their will to find out what’s going on.

The case out there is pretty convincing that Bush’s people knew that they were playing fast and loose with the facts. At the very least, they are guilty of deliberately muddling the flow of intelligence for a pre-ordained political goal.

In ordinary times, such political shaping can be problematic. In times like these, this kind of behavior is not only ethically wrong, but a threat to our national security. I’m not exagerrating. This war is distracting us, occupying us, draining our treasure, and destroying our reputation. All this can do harm to our ability to fight an enemy.

Diplomatically, we don’t have the moral standing to face down tyrants, like we once did. Economically, it’s draining resources that would have been better used for other purposes, including homeland defense. Militarily, it’s putting us in a position where our volunteer forces don’t have the manpower or equipment to confront other enemies, as well as creating a military situation so unpopular people aren’t willingly joining to keep recruitment up. Intelligence-wise, the war is focusing our attentions on this one country, drawing resources that might otherwise be used to track al-Qaeda and the like elsewhere in the world.

These problems aren’t going away, and Iraq is still a bloody mess after two years of the insurgency. We can rack up the body counts, but those can be a deceptive measure of success when the enemy can replace those lost through attrition fairly easily. Our victory must come through the political stability of Iraq, and Bush’s policies have done little to ensure that.

I wish Bush had been held accountable for that, but you know, we just had to ignore anything that smacked of bias, didn’t we? Of course, the problem is, if negativity counts towards bias, you’re never going to listen to bad news unless somebody else can be blamed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2005 11:26 AM

ChiChi~

“If the dems want to really undo Bush, all they need to do is let him continue on his course, point out where they would have done different (and what), and present a candidate who is not smarmy, who stays away from Carville and his ilk, and intelligently presents alternatives that would actually work. “I have a plan…” could work if the messenger is respectable.”

Once again I find us in agreement!

Of course you’re going to hear all of AP’s insights of what Kerry was going to do. But I think we all know that all politicians “talk” about what they are going to do during election time. That dosn’t necessarily mean they would have and there’s no way to know.

Posted by: Traci at June 13, 2005 11:43 AM

Dave,

I have to affirm that I thought Bush was a good choice because I voted for him and I support him.

I think he should have accountability for failures of policy but, IMO many issues that are currently being catagorized as failures are still “works in progress”.

$8 trillion of debt certainly means something but I do not hold this administration completely responsible for it’s accrual.( If Cheney said that he felt it was nothing, while I disagree, I would expect no less of someone in his position to support his boss).

Posted by: steve smith at June 13, 2005 11:44 AM

Can Bush be impeached?

Only if Dems gain a majority in ‘06. Republican’s aren’t interested in holding him accountable for anything.

Should he be impeached?

Hell, Yeah! Faster than you can say Valerie Plame (treason), or Downing Street Memo (high crimes).

Will he be impeached?

I honestly can’t say. A huge number of American’s were so disgusted by the ridiculousness of the Clinton Impeachment that even saying the word brings an immediate rolling of eyes and shaking of heads. If the Dems win a majority in ‘06 they might not think it’s worth the risk before the ‘08 election.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2005 11:51 AM

Adrienne,

Impeachment of Bush by a Democratic majority in 06 will be seen as an “eye for an eye” political agenda. Especially since you guys are talking about it this early on.

That said, it is certainly a good strategy to promote it now because anyone favoring your position (impeachment)will vote accordingly.

Conversely it could backfire because all those who see this as the witch hunt it is will vote the opposite party candidate.

Posted by: steve smith at June 13, 2005 12:15 PM

By the way, there is now a Downing Street Memo #2

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2005 12:21 PM

Bill Frist should put in a special order to “Jolly Rancher” candy co.( paid by private donations) for bags containing nothing but “sour grape”, and send a sack to every Dem. in congress and the DNC leadership.

Politically this is getting quite silly, It didn’t work in 2004, it won’t work in 06 or 08.

In fact, being a capitalist, if I owned Jolly Rancher candy co., I would start doing that on my own, call it “political blend”.
Shoot..put in a lil of the other flavors for sales purposes(not much), and call it “political blend…mostly sour grape”.
Hell, It wouldn’t bash any certain party, Dem.’s could send it just as well as Rep.’s could, no bias. no boycot, and its DAMN good candy!

Just a thought..copyright…Beagle..June 2005.

Posted by: Beagle at June 13, 2005 12:22 PM

I totally agree that congress needs to be considering impeachement hearings against Bush. Clinton told several lies about sexual contact with a woman. No one was killed. A few people were emotionally hurt - mostly Clinton family members, but that was it. Consider Bush’s lie, and the evidence is clear to many of us that it was a lie, about the justification of the war in Iraq. Thousands have been killed or physically injured, the country is in debt more than we ever have been, the credibility of the entire nation is in the crapper, and our armed forces are experiencing a all-time low in recruitment and retention (go figure!). If this doesn’t justify at least an investigation, I don’t know what does!

Posted by: Kate Kelley at June 13, 2005 12:43 PM

Traci:

“Once again I find us in agreement!

Of course you’re going to hear all of AP’s insights of what Kerry was going to do. But I think we all know that all politicians “talk” about what they are going to do during election time. That dosn’t necessarily mean they would have and there’s no way to know.”

Thanks, Traci. Great minds think alike.

I welcome APs comments as I respect his views—don’t always agree, but it is nice to see people who can express themselves intelligently (when he’s not pissed off) without the trash talk.

There really is no way to know whether or not you can take someone at their word or not—except past experience. Since Reagan, I have not felt trusting of many in high office. I know we can debate for a year on Reagan too, but at least we could feel good about the office at that time, and feel we were making progress on many fronts.

Now, stalemate is the rule rather than the exception, and it takes a “maverick” group to hammer out compromise to get anything off dead center. I sound pessimistic, but I feel hopeful that the rest of the US will begin to see, based on the last three elections and the one to come, that trash talk doesn’t solve anything, posturing doesn’t feed the poor, and bashing does nothing for the economy.

Posted by: Chi Chi at June 13, 2005 12:46 PM

In fact, being a capitalist, if I owned Jolly Rancher candy co., I would start doing that on my own, call it “political blend”.
Shoot..put in a lil of the other flavors for sales purposes(not much), and call it “political blend…mostly sour grape”.

No thanks… Politicians already leave a bad taste in my mouth!

All,
I don’t agree with your reasoning, but feel free to impeach Bush anyway… I’ve always wanted to see Cheney as President! I’m sure you’ll all support him 100% once you put him in office!

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 13, 2005 12:46 PM

PS:

I still say a race can be run and won with a positive message, ignoring your opponents, and putting forth an agenda for change where it is needed, and caretaking where it is not. I’ve been involved in many successful campaigns just like this. People respond to a positive message.

Posted by: Chi Chi at June 13, 2005 12:50 PM

Adrienne-
Yeah, that one’s the kicker. The other one puts things in the ball park, but the decisions concerning the bases and the problems relating to that indicates they knew there would be problems in justifying this on the facts.

If they knew this, then this war was a setup from word one, and nearly 1700 soldiers have died for a Neocon fantasy of geopolitical realignment. At best they may have honestly thought this might improve the terror situations, but regardless, they managed to take a place barren of real al-Qaeda activity and grow a nice crop of terrorists there. This may be old news, but this is damning old news.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2005 01:01 PM

Chi Chi,
Unfortunately, I think the lesson from the last 2 presidential elections has been: The bigger the lie, the louder the lie, the more often the lie is repeated, the more likely the liar will win. Big/Loud/Often beats Truth, welcome to the 00’s (pronounced Oh-Oh’s), wish it weren’t so.

Posted by: Dave at June 13, 2005 01:02 PM

The DSM raises certain questions that only an inquiry may solve. What did the President know and when did he know it?

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that this President was committed to a war with Iraq before or certainly soon after his victory in 2000. The DSM clarifies that. The memo also strongly suggests that facts were “fixed” to suit policy. Is this true and if so what does it mean?

Well, it is clear that before the Iraq War II the President had lied. If one were to go back and read his statements, and those of other administration officials, they all clearly and unambiguously stated that Iraq had WMD. It is also clear that there were many, many instances when these official White House statements were contradicted or at the least seriously challenged. (Think of the Niger uranium and aluminun tubes)

The lie was to repeatedly tell the American public that there were, without any doubt, WMD in Iraq. Stretching the truth, “fixing” the facts, selective facts—all are examples of mendacity. They lied.

Presidents have been known to lie from time to time. Maybe sometimes they should. But let it always be up to the American public, once the lie is uncovered, to determine how serious it was and what is to be done about it.

Bill Clinton is gone. Let’s not forget that he lied, but what does that have to do with the current situation? The question should be, this administration lied to get us into a war. What should be done about that? If such behavior rises to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” then impeachment is the proper path to follow. At the very least there should be a thorough Congressional inquiry into the lies to determine what step next to take.

All Americans, liberal or conservative, Democrat, Republican, Green, or independent have the duty and the right to press for clarification of this issue of the DSM and its implications for our democracy.

Posted by: Charles M at June 13, 2005 01:06 PM

zeek
sorry had to sleep and run to the store

ok you quoted me a few times and rebuted

“if i had nothing to hide and i had signed a agreement to allow all such inspections, then i would allow the inspections! is this so hard to understand?
So let me get this straight, by your logic, if we were to demand an inspection of China, and they refused, that would be fair justification for invading them? Give me a break… Just because someone doesn’t cooperate as much as we would like isn’t a valid reason for invading them.

Also, you asked if sadam didn’t have weapons why would he block us? Well, there could be numerous reasons. But the way you are phrasing it, it sounds as though Saddam DID have WMDs, which he did not.
‘

at the end of desert storm sadam DID SIGN a agreement giving UNFETERED ACCESS to find his WMD.

if you believe he gave this im sorry for you, but i have a cardboard/transmogifier ill sell you for 1000 bucks!

did china sign such a agreement at the end of desert storm?.. so what the point of that?

“But the way you are phrasing it, it sounds as though Saddam DID have WMDs, which he did not.”

how hard is it to bury 3000 or so 500 lb bombs in the middle of nowhere in the dessert? until every square foot of the country can be surched we can not say 100% they arent there. or for that matter in syria.
im sure syria would be more than happy to recieve “free” WMD.

iran was more than happy to recieve the fighter jet sadam “gave” them durn desert storm. as far as ive heard iran didnt give them back!

so if sadam was willing to give iraq his air force, is it that hard to believe he gave syria his WMDs?

after all france germany and russia were giving him more than enough kick backs to rebuild WHATEVER he wanted.

as for all your quotes form anti bush people… did you really expect them to give him glowing reviews when they clearly hate him?

why not start quoting from www.aljazeera.com/ as they are a fair sorce of news in your view.

take some time to read the stories there. is it any wonder they hate america? these people believe you are below dogs on the planet. so why do you hold them i such high reguard? and all your anti-bush bashing is fuel to the fire for them!!!

open your mind to more than your political hopes to impeach bush and see the big picture! the people you are saying are such inocent victims of our “lust for war” will kill you the second they see you!

and as far as bush wanting sadams head… i dont blame him! if someone tried to kill MY father (as sadam did w’s father), i wouldnt hold him in as high reguard as you seam to!

Posted by: www.vipers-pit.net at June 13, 2005 01:14 PM

wait a second

arent you that said the indemendent investagation ie ken starr was a “political witchhunt of the worst kind”?
so im sure you could NEVER want another “huge waste of taxpayer money”!

as for the the “iraq war is a waste of taxpayer money” line….save it

i served in desert storm and wish we had finished it then. but Bush sr did the right thing so we didnt look like “war mongers” then!

WAR is a messy deal. the rate of us casulties in this war is the LOWEST of ANY war we have EVER fought! so that is a good thing!

I have had close family give their lives in the name of justice in WWI-WWII-KOREA-and NAM. so dont tel me war isnt hell!

but using the number of dead as a means of political gain is just sick and disgusting!!!

when the number of dead hits the net mark you are salavating to see, are you gonna hold ANOTHER parade to celibrate it?

do you think main stream america, the very people you need to win elections want to see you celibrate the dead solders?

Posted by: www.vipers-pit.net at June 13, 2005 01:25 PM

as far as winning elections—
try picking a belief and STICKING with it

love or hate W he believes in his ideals and never wavers from them!

kerry and clinton (MR and MISS) are willing to say they believe whatever the people standing in front of them that minute want them to believe in!

so what do the really stand for? in my mind — nothing so it must be power!

Posted by: www.vipers-pit.net at June 13, 2005 01:30 PM

viper,

did china sign such a agreement at the end of desert storm?.. so what the point of that?

I was merely illustrating the point that your logic was faulty and chose to apply it to a hypothetical situation to prove that point.

how hard is it to bury 3000 or so 500 lb bombs in the middle of nowhere in the dessert?

This is completely ridiculous. By your logic, we could occupy any country we want on grounds that we don’t know 100% that they don’t have WMDs. Plus, the sands of the desert are constantly shifting. The desert would probably be the worst place to try to bury anything.

so if sadam was willing to give iraq his air force, is it that hard to believe he gave syria his WMDs?

Well then I guess by your reasoning we should invade Syria… Listen, you need more than just the half-assed argument of “we need to be sure” if you want to do something as drastic as invade a country. If this is truly the way you feel, we should probably invade every country on earth until we are completely sure none of them has anything to hide.

after all france germany and russia were giving him more than enough kick backs to rebuild WHATEVER he wanted.

Source? I want to verify this statement.

as for all your quotes form anti bush people… did you really expect them to give him glowing reviews when they clearly hate him?

Just to set the record straight, the only person I’ve been quoting is you, and you are hardly a Bush hater. I think you have confused me with someone else.

why not start quoting from www.aljazeera.com/ as they are a fair sorce of news in your view.

No, they are not. I’m not sure why you are attacking me like this, but it is unfounded.

open your mind to more than your political hopes to impeach bush and see the big picture!

Now I know you’re confusing me with someone else. I never said I wanted to impeach Bush. Quite to the contrary, I was saying that it is impractical to expect anyone to impeach Bush.

the people you are saying are such inocent victims of our “lust for war” will kill you the second they see you!

So this is how you choose to justify “collateral damage?” Listen, women and children who are minding their own business hardly deserve to be bombed, and despite what you say, they aren’t all out for American blood, or, at least they weren’t until we started dropping bombs all over the place.

if someone tried to kill MY father (as sadam did w’s father), i wouldnt hold him in as high reguard as you seam to!

Ok, I draw the line right there. I don’t know where you are pulling this shit from but it certainly isn’t from my posts because I’ve never held Saddam in any positive regard. However, you should know that Saddam being evil isn’t a green-light for Bush to fuck-up Iraq. Our standards should be perfection, not the alternatives.

arent you that said the indemendent investagation ie ken starr was a “political witchhunt of the worst kind”?

No.

the rate of us casulties in this war is the LOWEST of ANY war we have EVER fought! so that is a good thing!

This war is far from over. Tally up the dead bodies AFTER we pull out.

I have had close family give their lives in the name of justice in WWI-WWII-KOREA-and NAM. so dont tel me war isnt hell!

War is hell, but that doesn’t make Bush’s screw-ups any better, and it also doesn’t mean it was a good idea to not have a plan.

when the number of dead hits the net mark you are salavating to see, are you gonna hold ANOTHER parade to celibrate it?

Just because it would prove I’m right doesn’t mean I shall rejoice. Actually, I would prefer to be wrong. I would prefer our soldiers to live. However, I simply don’t think that is a realistic expectation with this administration in power.

kerry and clinton (MR and MISS) are willing to say they believe whatever the people standing in front of them that minute want them to believe in!

Again, you are setting your standards at the alternatives. Also, I think it’s interesting that you bring up politicians who make decisions based on polls. Isn’t that what democracy is all about? Doing what is popular for the majority? Isn’t doing what the people want exactly what the president is supposed to do in a democracy? Hm, perhaps democracies aren’t all they’re cracked up to be?

Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 02:09 PM

zeek

sorry not all the comments wer to you directly

didnt mean to throw you off there

but i do have a problem with you saying this “Our standards should be perfection”

do you know that persian rug weavers pupusly weave imperfections into EVERY rug they make? i know.. why you ask.
because perfection is only for the “gods”

mankind can never achive perfection

try to get close ok. if anyone truely thinks bush purposfully decieved the world to get into this war and had/s no plan to win the war, then send me a email and ill set you up with a good shrink because anyone who believes that nedds the help… im 100% serious about this!

Posted by: www.vipers-pit.net at June 13, 2005 02:42 PM

nothing i say is in anyway a attack on anyone!!

i enjoy a spirted convo with a open minded inteligent person or people.

but when i asked members of the “left wing” to back up statements with facts i was told i was twisting the convo. so if you need me to have some link to everything line i say..sorry.

i have a very good memory and have said nothing that i have not read in a factual setting. but to say some of the over the top and down right criminal things being posted here is silly and sad.—- see my abouve post for more on that

Posted by: www.vipers-pit.net at June 13, 2005 02:52 PM

Viper,

I’d have to say the reverse of your next-to-last post:

if anyone truely thinks bush purposfully decieved the world to get into this war and had/s no plan to win the war, then send me a email and ill set you up with a good shrink

Except, that of course BushCo went in to win the war, they just had no plans of what to do after the Baath party was out of power. You did read the Downing Street Memos, right?

Posted by: Dave at June 13, 2005 02:54 PM

viper,

mankind can never achive perfection

I didn’t say we could, only that we should try. When you set your goals as low as “better than Saddam,” you set yourself up for selling yourself short. No one can realize their full potential if they continue to make the standards they work on as low as possible.

if anyone truely thinks bush purposfully decieved the world to get into this war and had/s no plan to win the war, then send me a email and ill set you up with a good shrink because anyone who believes that nedds the help…

Ye gads, Carl Rove is GOOD. For starters, you don’t have to say “purposefully decieved,” because “deceive” by definition implies that it was purposeful. And I believe that Bush, to at least some extent, decieved America. It’s all in his speeches really. The way he always talked about Saddam directly after talking about 9/11, subliminaly linking the two, is a sophisticated yet effective method of deception. Also, saying that “we can’t wait for the mushroom clouds to be in our back-yards,” was another infamous deception. In obviously implies that Saddam FOR SURE has WMDs and is able to use them against the U.S. without explicitly saying so. If that isn’t a deception, I don’t know what is.

Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 02:57 PM

zeek and dave

dave- who is bushco?
yes i read the minutes not memo

zeek
even russia said sadam had the WMD from their INDEPENDENT inteligence. and they had a million ressions to say other.

“implies that Saddam FOR SURE has WMDs and is able to use them against the U.S.”— i truly believe BushCo 100% believed this to be FACT.

how hard is it to ship a load of WMD to say central america. then load it on say a chita banana cargo box and ship it into the us? then use it by driving a few ryder trucks into the middle of a few major towns and blowing them up?

Posted by: www.vipers-pit.net at June 13, 2005 03:08 PM

viper-
First, when we demanded new inspections through the UN, Saddam cooperated better than we anticipated he would.

You talk about hiding munitions in the desert, or hiding them in Syria. These are major operations, the kind that get noticed. If it were so easy as that, we would have found the weapons by now, because there would be paper trails and personnel trails leading back to them.

As for Syria having them, there’s obviously no hard data supporting that assertion, because we haven’t kicked down their door yet, despite great provocation on their part.

Truth is, much of this supposed stockpile was a guess based on documented stockpiles pre-Gulf War. We knew a certain number of bombs and shells were documented as destroyed. Bush’s numbers were based on the notion that what was not documented as destroyed was still there.

What if they were destroyed without documentation? Then there are no WMDs, whether or not Saddam can prove it.

As for Bush-bashing, there is no direct relationship between a person’s honesty and their affection for Bush. The question is: who do the facts support?

Bush took us into a pre-emptive war, a war where we basically act to defend ourselves against a nation that has its gun to our head. Because of that, it was very important whether Saddam was armed or not. YOu would be hearing very little complaint from us had the stockpiles materialized, but of the thousands of gallons of supposed chemical agent, after more than a year of intense inspections, we’ve found maybe two shells, one of which had gone bad, the other of which was a binary shell (the chemicals mix in flight to create the agent).

Two shells. It was so damn shocking I actually wrote an article about it! I expected us to find more. A year later, that’s all we’ve found.

We went to war to face a threat, one that threatened to make 9/11 look like a housefire. Now it turns out the threat was conjured up in order to justify a war which the political radicals in the government want.

Almost 1700 soldiers are dead, 12,000 wounded, and the war is at least two years away from its end, if not more. These are not numbers I celebrate, these are numbers that tell me that this president must be stopped, because his dishonesty has killed more of our men in uniform than any war since Vietnam, and weakened our country’s defense against the truly deadly enemies we have abroad.

After all this, after all the browbeating, the excuses, the failures of this administration to even plan the damned occupation right, what right does this president have to be liked, much less loved? What right do you have to tell me that I can’t have strongly negative feelings for the president that got us in this mess?

The president has made things worse for himeself and everybody else by being so stiffnecked. He has paralyzed us in the face of our enemies, and we will see some unfortunate consequences for his stubborn, irresponsible behavior.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2005 03:20 PM

Viper: BushCo = Bush and Company, since it’s a Murder Inc. , one can’t refer to him in the singular. And, yes, it is minutes. It’s minutes that include the director of MI6 summarized as saying “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”

Posted by: Dave at June 13, 2005 03:25 PM

Viper~
It’s like beating a dead horse here! These people just hate Bush and that’s all there is to it! As sad as this may sound sometimes I almost wish we would have another huge terrorist act on our soil because 9/11 is now just a memory. (Of course if we ever were invaded some people here would probably give them food and shelter and tell them we deserved it!) I have tried and now I wipe my hands of it…If Bush were to create a miracle they would investigate God!

Posted by: Traci at June 13, 2005 03:35 PM

viper,

even russia said sadam had the WMD from their INDEPENDENT inteligence. and they had a million ressions to say other.

Again, you are not giving a source. I know last time you said it was because there was no need, but this time I must INSIST that you provide a source or I will assume that you are wrong.

i truly believe BushCo 100% believed this to be FACT.

If Bush believed it to be a “fact” then it merely underscores his incompetence because there WERE NO WMDS.

how hard is it to ship a load of WMD to say central america. then load it on say a chita banana cargo box and ship it into the us? then use it by driving a few ryder trucks into the middle of a few major towns and blowing them up?

Apparently, pretty hard since it hasn’t happened yet.

Stepehen,

Bush took us into a pre-emptive war

Actually, Stephen, if you really want to get technical, he took us into a preventative war. Pre-emptive means that there were obvious signs of an impending attack. The only reason we call Operation Iraqi Freedom “pre-emptive” is because preventative is illegal according to international law.

Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 03:37 PM

Traci and Chi Chi have said it all. I lean left and find it difficult to say this, but >>, I whole-heartedly agree with what Traci said when she backed up Chi Chi.

I’m still awaiting a moderate revolt.

Posted by: Tom L at June 13, 2005 03:42 PM

viper,

even russia said sadam had the WMD from their INDEPENDENT inteligence. and they had a million ressions to say other.

Ok, this time, I must INSIST that you provide a source. No more BS excuses, I need to verify this, and if you can’t provide a source to support this claim, I’m going to assume it’s a lie.

i truly believe BushCo 100% believed this to be FACT.

And yet, there weren’t WMDs in Iraq. So that must make Bush even more incompetent since he “believed” it to be a fact.

how hard is it to ship a load of WMD to say central america. then load it on say a chita banana cargo box and ship it into the us? then use it by driving a few ryder trucks into the middle of a few major towns and blowing them up?

Apparently, pretty damned hard; seeing as it hasn’t happened yet…

Stephen,

Bush took us into a pre-emptive war

Let’s get our terminolog right here, Stephen. Bush took us into a preventative war. “Pre-emptive” means there was a clear and impending threat of attack. We only call Operation Iraqi Freedom “pre-emptive” because it isn’t illegal by international law and preventative attacks are.

Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 03:43 PM

viper,

even russia said sadam had the WMD from their INDEPENDENT inteligence. and they had a million ressions to say other.

Ok, this time I must INSIST that you provide a source. No more BS excuses, I need to verify this, and if you can’t provide a source to support this claim, I’m going to assume it’s a lie.

i truly believe BushCo 100% believed this to be FACT.

And yet, there weren’t WMDs in Iraq. So that must make Bush even more incompetent since he “believed” it to be a fact.

how hard is it to ship a load of WMD to say central america. then load it on say a chita banana cargo box and ship it into the us? then use it by driving a few ryder trucks into the middle of a few major towns and blowing them up?

Apparently, pretty damned hard; seeing as it hasn’t happened yet…

Stephen,

Bush took us into a pre-emptive war

Let’s get our terminology right here, Stephen. Bush took us into a preventative war. “Pre-emptive” means there was a clear and impending threat of attack. We only call Operation Iraqi Freedom “pre-emptive” because it isn’t illegal by international law and preventative attacks are.

Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 03:44 PM

Traci / Tom L / Viper:
As sad as it is, even if Satan himself rose from hell to thank Bush43 for his help in bringing more lies and misery and death to earth, you would still think W is a ‘great man’. Sorry, but you are wrong, and history will prove you so.

BTW: It’s hard to surprise me here but Traci finally did: “sometimes I almost wish we would have another huge terrorist act on our soil because 9/11 is now just a memory” Wow, what does that mean!?!

Posted by: Dave at June 13, 2005 03:50 PM

Dave~

I’m so very glad you can see the future!Maybe you should get one of those quirky 900 #’s!

It means just what it says: 9/11 is now a memory. I’m quite sure if you get bit by a mosquito you smack it and kill it!…….MURDERER!

Posted by: Traci at June 13, 2005 04:02 PM

Some base their entire hatred of Bush on the fact that he alledgedly lied about the WMD. Others base their support for the war on the fact that he told the truth.

I believe the only one who really knows is on trial as we speak. What if it comes out that he had the WMD and they are still hidden in Iraq or, if he had used his brain moved them to a secret location in an adjacent country or, still worse he gave them to Osama to hold for him.

Those who believe that the WMD exist will rejoice. I am seriously curious as to what you guys who insist that the WMD never existed will say and/or do.

Other than switching gears to find other ways to attack Bush and write the WMD issue off as a minor error on your part what will be your response.

Posted by: steve smith at June 13, 2005 04:05 PM

I may be the dumbest/youngest one here posting..but…(that can’t hold me back)

If there were as many screw ups that took place after 9/11 (by the admin) in any of the following cases, things would have been handled different.
1- In a “typical: workplace. Such actions would not go ignored, usually the “management” gets Fired and blamed!
2- With a democratic administation. (Come on, lets admit, that some one would have gotten in Big trouble.)

I have accepted that Bush is here and will stay, and there won’t be any impeachment unless, he comes out of the CLoset, which even that, the Republicans will excuse.

You know, for a group that beleives in Capital Punishment, they sure are easy on themselves when they screw up.
-Jeannie, the first year law student.

Posted by: Jeannie at June 13, 2005 04:23 PM

Traci,

Of course if we ever were invaded some people here would probably give them food and shelter and tell them we deserved it

In conjunction with

As sad as this may sound sometimes I almost wish we would have another huge terrorist act on our soil because 9/11 is now just a memory.

So, you accuse the left of being treasonous and anti-american, while at the same time thinking another terrorist attck would be a good thing because it would enhance people’s support for Bush? That sentiment is sick, never mind the hypocrisy.

Posted by: brian poole at June 13, 2005 04:26 PM

Regime change in Iraq was a U.S. policy since the Clinton Administration (1998). No surprise Bush would consult his top allies about the contingency, especially in the atmosphere after 9/11.

RE language usage. The British don’t habitually use the work “fix” exactly as Americans do. For us fix means repair or often in the pejorative alter something dishonestly. The Brits use it more often in the sense of attach. Americans do this more rarely and usually only when writing technical manuals. You can fix a picture to a wall, for example, “The same fittings are also made to be fixed either to the picture frame or to the wall behind”. I know we will be talking about forever, but when the memo says “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” it would probably be translated into American as hung or mounted around. This interpretation retains the idea that U.S. was looking to use intelligence in a proactive way to further policies (not a bad think,in my opinion but people could argue that this was a bad thing) but it takes out the idea that the content of the intelligence was being manipulated.

RE impeachment – According to the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach a president and the Senate decides the issue. Even if all the possible races went the Dems way, it is unlikely they will regain a majority in either house. Impeachment is hard to do even when you control both houses of congress. You got no chance on this one.

Posted by: jack at June 13, 2005 04:33 PM

Traci;

1 - I’m talking of my view of the present. I believe, very strongly, that Bush43 is the worst president we’ve ever had. I further believe that you don’t. Additionally, I believe that history will bear me out. Finally, I think, actually I hope, that one day you will wake up and realize how badly you’ve been screwed by that $#%$#. Maybe then we could work together to make things better. Yeah yeah, you think maybe someday I’ll wake up. But I would venture that I’m already there.
2 - Are you implying that you still believe Saddam was involved in 9/11?
3 - “Of course if we ever were invaded some people here would probably give them food and shelter and tell them we deserved it ” Have you heard of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas? Talk to them. They must be real liberals.

Steve;
I don’t remember anyone here saying Saddam never had WMD, only that his program was a failure and he no longer had any of importance. My post was from the so-called Downing Street Memo: “his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran” Whom are/were far more active supporters of terrorism than Iraq.

Jeannie;
To the rightists, your problem isn’t anything other than you’re educated and don’t agree with them. Keep it up:-)

Posted by: Dave at June 13, 2005 04:38 PM

Traci,

You are right when you say “Of course if we ever were invaded some people here would probably give them food and shelter and tell them we deserved it”.

If you have been following recent posts you would have added to your quote “and got them to help petition the government for PBS funding”

Posted by: steve smith at June 13, 2005 04:38 PM

Jeannie,

I may be the dumbest/youngest one here posting

Dumbest, definitely not, I think certain people who shall go unnamed are far dumber. As for youngest, I probably win that award, but that’s besides the point.

I have accepted that Bush is here and will stay, and there won’t be any impeachment unless, he comes out of the CLoset, which even that, the Republicans will excuse.

We can’t impeach him for being gay… at least, I’m pretty sure we can’t.

Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 04:42 PM

Jack,

You forgot a definition for “fix”.

If you are a Southerner you would say “I’m fixing” (you would not sound the G) to go to the store”.

Posted by: steve smith at June 13, 2005 04:42 PM

Dave,

If you did not say that he NEVER had WMD I apologize for characterizing you as such. I am not going to go back through all the posts of the last month, you are just going to have to trust me, almost without exception most people that post on Watchblog that are (for want of a better description) advocates of the “Bush Lied” or the UN inspectors “never found any”, etc. theory have said NEVER repeatedly.

Posted by: steve smith at June 13, 2005 04:55 PM

Steve Smith~

HAHAHAHAHEEHEE…..Damn, I wish I would have come up w/ that one on my own!! I’m obviously asleep at the wheel here! Thanx

Posted by: Traci at June 13, 2005 05:18 PM

Steve, I think that that is a classic case of hearing what you want to hear. I’ve never seen anyone against the war ever post that Saddam never had weapons of mass destruction. If you think we’ve been saying that, I can see why you think we’re idiots, but you’re wrong. If you can find even a single time where anyone argued that Saddam never had weapons of mass destruction, I would advise you to show it, because otherwise you’re just mischaracterizing other people’s arguments. It may do you good to go back and read those posts, only this time, try to actually understand what they’re saying.

Posted by: brian poole at June 13, 2005 05:18 PM

How is that even important? We can’t say that America never endorsed slavery, but that doesn’t mean we support slavery right NOW. If Saddam had WMDs at some point in time, so what? Did he use them? Does he have them right now? No, no he does not.

Also, to set my record straight, I do not hate Bush, but I do dislike him. Not because he lied about WMDs either, but because he isn’t helping America right now. All I have to do to confirm this belief is look at Iraq and our national deficit.

Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 05:26 PM

Jack

Nice try. Almost Rovian in its impunity.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 13, 2005 05:30 PM

I voted Republican, not necessarily for Bush, but for the troops. You see our soldiers voted primarily Republican, and since it is their lives at stake I think they know what they need most.
All this talk about a pre-emptive war is stupid-all war is w/out the troops consent if you really think about it. Whether a president sends them, or an attack (which is what would have occured if we did nothing) and I would rather have our men and women have the upper hand rather than wait for another Pearl Harbor!
All this crying about the would have, could haves……..do you try to stop your child from hanging out w/ drug dealers and gang bangers or just say “honey they may be great people, just wait until they try to make you kill someone to get in, then we’ll talk about it.”

Posted by: Traci at June 13, 2005 05:41 PM

Traci~
If Bush would create a miracle, I would blow everyone’s mind here and call him a great leader. Lacking that miracle, I’d have to agree with the general concensus that he instead sucks.

Posted by: Ray at June 13, 2005 05:58 PM

Traci,

Interesting statement. Let me try to sum it up…

You were against Japan’s pre-emptive attack on the US (me too). And you feel the best way to avoid this type of attack is for the US to use pre-emptive attack.

Posted by: Patrick at June 13, 2005 06:35 PM

Patrick~
Actually 9/11 was our Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: Traci at June 13, 2005 06:52 PM

“Actually 9/11 was our Pearl Harbor.”

No, Traci, Oaklahoma City was our Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: Rocky at June 13, 2005 07:07 PM

Brian Poole,

I never said that you or anyone who shares your point of view was an idiot.

Going back through the archives to validate what I know I have seen is not something I am going to undertake.

You say that you have never seen anyone who is against the war post that he never had WMD. What should I do, counter challenge you to review the archives and produce all the instances where the subject has been debated to disprove what I said.

You make a good point in that I am suggesting that everyone who argues against the war has said he never had WMD and that is not true. I apologize to all who were offended by that general characterization.

Those who say that Bush lied and took us to war because he said Sadaam had WMD really meant what? That at one time he had those weapons but at the time leading up to the war, he got rid of them.?

Posted by: steve smith at June 13, 2005 07:11 PM

“you say tomato, I say tomahto, potato, potahto,tomato, tomahto, let’s call the whole thing off”

Posted by: Traci at June 13, 2005 07:12 PM

Jack:
“The British don�t habitually use the work �fix� exactly as Americans do. For us fix means repair or often in the pejorative alter something dishonestly.”

:^) Jack I hate to disappoint you when you’re grasping so desperately at straws, but the fact is, people in the UK use the word “fix” in exactly the same ways that we do.
One odd thing they will sometimes say though, is they’ll refer to a cultural or sporting event as a “fixture”. As in: Jack’s social club is hosting a fixture we’ll be attending next week.

Mental:
“Jack
Nice try. Almost Rovian in its impunity.”

Almost? That’s flat-out Word Roving if ever I saw it.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2005 07:26 PM

Dave,

For the record, I deplore this administration. I deplore the way they changed the reason for invading from WMD, to freedom, to democracy (when in fact if we let these folks have what they truly wanted it would probably be a religious state….and may still be). I also deplore the way this administration has completely ignored fiscal responsibility (a conservative staple of the past)and allowed huge budget surpluses to turn into enormous budget deficits. I deplore the free access across both our northern and southern boarders in the wake of 9/11. I deplore the way this administration “sold” prescription drug coverage to seniors at one cost and less than a year later came out with the “real” numbers. I deplore the way they pay for the Iraq war outside of the federal budget with supplemental spending. I could go on and on.

However, the statement I agreed with is:

“If the dems want to really undo Bush, all they need to do is let him continue on his course, point out where they would have done different (and what), and present a candidate who is not smarmy, who stays away from Carville and his ilk, and intelligently presents alternatives that would actually work. “I have a plan…” could work if the messenger is respectable.”

I don’t know what pretext this statement was made, but it is true. I’m tired of hearing partisan arguments. Yes, let’s allow this administration to continue their current course. Interest rates will indeed rise as our debt load rises. Countries will require a greater interest rate due to our greater debt load…it ain’t rocket science. We’ve been growing the last decade based on foreign investment. This was all fine when we didn’t have a large debt load. THINGS WILL CHANGE. The day of reckoning will occur.

Unlike Traci, I hope this doesn’t involve a new terrorist attack…although it very well may. The Iraq war has done little to stop one. Our boarders are wide open and our most vunerable factories and other targets lay in wait. I blame the leadership first….this means the Bush administration. However, congress also appropriates money. Blame should be shared. It should begin at the top….unlike the military.

Impeach the man….no. We’ve seen enough political games. Let him make his own bed. The GOP will lay in it shortly. However, unless we get a leader that can work across the partisanship….we could be in dire straights.

Posted by: Tom L at June 13, 2005 08:51 PM

Viper~ It’s like beating a dead horse here! These people just hate Bush and that’s all there is to it! As sad as this may sound sometimes I almost wish we would have another huge terrorist act on our soil because 9/11 is now just a memory. (Of course if we ever were invaded some people here would probably give them food and shelter and tell them we deserved it!) I have tried and now I wipe my hands of it…If Bush were to create a miracle they would investigate God!

Your post angers me very much, because it callously denies that people like me value the memory of 9/11. The strength of whatever feelings we have towards Bush draw from 9/11, not our oblivion towards it. We felt it, damn it, but we also felt that we had to be smart about how we went about this war, because so often it’s easy to let bastards like Osama Bin Laden slip through our grasp.

It is your administration’s choice of us as enemies that has stirred such passionate hatred and anger among Democrats. We’re screaming at you that we are not your enemies, yet you seem intent on defeating, and wiping away us, as your party is supposed to be doing to our enemies out there.

Bush is the one who turned this country against himeself. He forgot his place as an employee of the people of this Republic, and decided to go off on his own and start an unnecessay battle in the midst of an all too necessary war. You might make your vague assertions of how this war was supposed to make things better, but regardless of your intentions, the results are plain to see.

You’ve got to take the blinders off. Supporting Bush is supporting a president. It’s not supporting the soldiers. If you want to support the soldiers, campaign for armor, campaign for reinforcements, campaign for those who would have America become the model for humane treatment of prisoners. Campaign for those not afraid to put things right because it would admit a mistake that would cost them politically.

Stop asking us where our loyalties lie, and start determining that for yourself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2005 09:07 PM

Traci, most of the statements that viper made as “fact” were indeed twisted versions of the truth (at best). He has yet to come up with appropriate responses to the errors I have pointed out and he instead prefers to spin the subject and put words in my mouth. I suppose it would be easy to dismiss all that by saying I am just a “dead horse” and logic is the “beating,” and that Bush-haters cannot be reasoned with and I’m obviously a Bush hater because I don’t agree with him. Still, that doesn’t make it the truth.

To sum up most of my points:

|I do not think impeaching Bush is a viable option.

|I believe that the way Bush’s speeches were worded are too misleading and suggestive to have been accidental.

|I believe that Operation Iraqi Freedom has proven unsuccessful thus far and should have been handled differently.

|I believe that despite the fact that Saddam is a scum bag, we do not have the right to bomb innocent civilians.

If anyone disagrees with any of my points, it will be a simple matter now to debate them.

Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 10:31 PM

Wow there is alot of aggression and passion in these posts.
It would be nice to have a President to have some of those qualities when he speaks. Perhaps he should go to speech therapy, because his LONG gaps between words and his stuttering, makes me laugh. My immigrant father can speak more eloquent and has better negotiation skills than him. But, I do respect the fact that he is President.
You know what the divide looks like to me, the Republican party take care of their own people…
The Democrats seem to only take care of their own self.
Which is better? Who knows….
Which one is the Jedi and the Republic??
Sorry I had to throw that in…
I would wish that people wouln’t be so divided, and would focus on ISSUES!!
let go of impeachmenrt or where the WMD’s are, there are bigger problems in the world.
Like Haliburton, Ozone Layer or that Michael Jackson is still free.
Talk about something to laugh at!~!

Posted by: jeannie at June 13, 2005 10:32 PM

Wow there is alot of aggression and passion in these posts.

That’s how I like my— debates. What? What did you think I was gonna say? O_o?

Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 10:46 PM

Tom L:
My appologies for lumping you all together.

Posted by: Dave at June 13, 2005 10:47 PM

Steve Smith,

You say that you have never seen anyone who is against the war post that he never had WMD. What should I do, counter challenge you to review the archives and produce all the instances where the subject has been debated to disprove what I said.

You made the assertions, so if you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to back it up. The burden of proof is on you.

Those who say that Bush lied and took us to war because he said Sadaam had WMD really meant what? That at one time he had those weapons but at the time leading up to the war, he got rid of them.?

Yes. Not necessarily right before the war, but definitely before Bush started making his claims. Probably as a result of the inspections, sanctions, and other avenues that are held to be so worthless by the warmongers.

Posted by: brian poole at June 13, 2005 11:05 PM

Brian Poole,

Come on Brian you are really splitting hairs over the time frame in this WMD issue. You know as well as I do that they existed, very likely are still somewhere accessible by terrorists and/or insurgents.

First you guys implied he never had the WMD, then he had them before the war, then they don’t exist, talk about world class flip-flopping.

Oh yes, I forgot, another of your very popular claims were that the WMD were insignificant, couldn’t go any meaningful distance, weren’t very powerful, etc.

Posted by: steve smith at June 13, 2005 11:37 PM

Steve, tell me, where are the WMDs? Hm? Tell me where? If you are demanding concrete proof from the anti-war group, why don’t you reciprocate and show some concrete proof yourself? Why don’t you prove that Saddam had the means to attack us with WMDs or that he even had them?

We’re waiting…

Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 11:49 PM

If Saddam had WMD’s why didn’t he use them against US when he knew we were going to attack, and/or when we attacked.

Why threaten without having the goods? I always wondered.. Why would he get rid of them? To make us look bad, when none were found? No, he could have made us look bad just with Afghanistan.

He must of sold, or hidden somewhere else, ready and waiting until are resources are depeleted to use on us…Hmm..Hm…
Saddam is not a stupid man, I think that their is more to the story and I hope that our intelligence has some insight on it.
So, basically George and the UN didn’t act quick enough!!
Any thoughts on this?? really, we know that he was developing WMD’s at some point…With a goal in mind…

Posted by: Jeannie at June 13, 2005 11:59 PM

Steve Smith-
Bush and Co. were making very frightful claims about the presence of WMDs and terrorists in one place, that ignoring the situation would shortly result in another first strike on our soil.

Now? He says that was never the center of it. Bull. It was his drumbeat, day and night, for months.

The question becomes this: did Bush have the factual knowledge of WMDs, the reliable intelligence to make this claim?

No. He did not. His case was an artificial construction, aided by cabinet members and staff who weren’t above looking for justificationa of war where a more reasoned analysis suggested there was no such thing.

As a country we cannot afford to go to war on mere rumors. Theoretically such an approach could save lives, but realistically, folks are just too good at screwing things up when they use minimal evidence to make strong assertions on policy.

Bush played fast and lose with the evidence and Americans will pay the price.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2005 12:08 AM

Ah… poor naive Jeannie… who is older than I… 8/

If Bush does a thorough investigation and proves once and for all that Saddam had no WMDs that would just make him look really, really bad. No, as long as Bush is in power, we will not see a true investigation.

In any event, I grow weary of debating whether Saddam had WMDs/could have used them… It is all rather trivial now; what we really should be discussing is our plan for Operation Iraqi Freedom… Do we still not have an exit strategy?

Sighs…

Posted by: Zeek at June 14, 2005 12:12 AM

Steve Smith,

Come on Brian you are really splitting hairs over the time frame in this WMD issue. You know as well as I do that they existed, very likely are still somewhere accessible by terrorists and/or insurgents.

The Duelfer report concluded that the WMD stockpiles and nuclear program were destroyed in 1991. (source). Having WMDs in 1990 is hardly a clear and present danger to the US.

By the way, the weapons didn’t go to Syria either. (source)

The real weapons that are now accessible to terrorists are the massive quantities of high explosives that the Bush non-planning allowed to be looted, that previously were under lock and key by the UN.

There is no flip-flopping here, except by the president. If there were no WMDs in the country before we invaded, there was no reason to invade. Oh, wait, we actually invaded because of the link between Iraq and al qaida. No, wait, it was to spread Democracy. Really, give the flip-flop stuff a break, it makes you guys look bad.

Zeek, Stephen, good points.

Posted by: brian poole at June 14, 2005 12:38 AM

I think we are doomed to hear arguements on WMD for the rest of our lives.

The truth from here is:

The whole world including Clinton and the Democratic party, and the Russians, the Germans etc etc thought Sadaam had WMD. The whole world was wrong. Bush (and the democrats in Congress)were wrong because the intelligence was wrong.

It would seem to me that there should be some bipartison concern about intelligence. Hmmmm, they missed the fall of the Soviet Union. (minor detail), and WMD in Iraq. What the blankety blank good are they? These were only the two most important issues of our time.

While the left wants to impeach Bush for believing the world’s intelligence, and the Right is busy defending Bush, I have a question.

Since our intelligence messed up and missed the fall of the Soviet Union, and WMD in Iraq, isn’t the reverse also true? By that I mean, that if the bad guys are about to really get us, (small nuke?) what in the world would be our basis for feeling safe with our intelligence capabilities?

And since there is obviously such a wide whole in our intelligence agencies, wouldn’t we all feel smart if we were fighting among ourselves over Bush, and then got blindsided again by the bad guys over all this partisonship when there must be unity in fixing whatever the problem is with our intelligence?

Is there anyone on the left or the right that would argue that our country needs accurate intelligence? Or that we currently could blindly be in great peril without even knowing it?

Don’t we look a bit silly being at each others throats when we live in a country with such glaring errors in our defense? Maybe we are too wrapped up in winning back congress, keeping congress or whatever to save ourselves. All we have to do to save ourselves is agree that on this one we are on the same side, and demand accountabilty of our leaders.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 14, 2005 01:07 AM

The whole world including Clinton and the Democratic party, and the Russians, the Germans etc etc thought Sadaam had WMD.

Nope. That’s just wrong, Craig. By March 2003, after UN inspectors had been crawling all over Iraq for months, nobody seriously believed Iraq had WMD.

The Bush administration’s goal was regime change. Cheney even warned Bush not to go to the UN because inspectors might find out that Iraq had no WMD, “And then what are you going to do?”

We all now know that the intelligence Bush used was from before the first Gulf War, UNMOVIC was pretty sure Iraq had destroyed its WMD in 1993 - and was a few weeks away from officially concluding so, and Congress was shown a version of the intelligence that didn’t have the qualifiers and dissenting opinions that Bush saw.

It was a scam. I agree that Saddam needed to go, but my faith tells me that you can take the right action and still lose your soul. Oh, and it’s illegal to deliberately mislead Congress, too.

Is there anyone on the left or the right that would argue that our country needs accurate intelligence? Or that we currently could blindly be in great peril without even knowing it?

Which makes one wonder why Bush was against an intelligence review, against implementing the its recommendations until public pressure finally forced him to address it, and why he’s been dragging his feet nominating people to fill key intelligence jobs.

Posted by: American Pundit at June 14, 2005 02:42 AM

Craig,

I agree with you on this one point

All we have to do to save ourselves is agree that on this one we are on the same side, and demand accountabilty of our leaders.

But, why are you leaving Bush out of the accountability pool and just blame the intelligence? The evidence is clear that Bush manipulated the intelligence to force his agenda. No one else with real knowledge really thought Saddaam still had WMD! Blair knew this and he went to war too, so it’s not unique to Bush43.
We didn’t vote for Blair, yet, whatever happened to “The Buck Stops Here”?

Posted by: Dave at June 14, 2005 08:51 AM

Craig-

The whole world including Clinton and the Democratic party, and the Russians, the Germans etc etc thought Sadaam had WMD. The whole world was wrong. Bush (and the democrats in Congress)were wrong because the intelligence was wrong.

The Certainty of the presence of weapons is a convenient fiction. The truth is, there was plenty of debate on the subject. Bush exerted political pressure to make sure such doubts did not become public. Later, we would find that many of the star items concerning WMDs were in fact false, and not only that, but disputed by elements of our intelligence community.

The Uranium. The Aluminum tubes. The mobile biological labs. Of all the things that we accused Saddam of doing, only one major item was true: the missiles. And when we came around with our inspection teams, he willingly destroyed those.

The failures of intelligence on the fall of the Soviet Union and that of WMDs in Iraq are not equivalent. Some events develop in unexpected ways, and the coup attempt was one of them. But the Bush administration knew what cards it had on the table and chose to bluff us into a war.

But the rest of what you say strikes me just fine as a plan of action. We do need to improve our intelligence gathering and analysis on all levels. Part of that must be, though, the fostering of an atmosphere where assumptions are challenged. You would be right in saying that the assumption that Saddam had WMDs went a long way towards blinding us as to whether he did have them. We must avoid such blindness whenever we can.

My problem is that the Bush administration continues to fail to admit that it played a very large role in aggravating this intelligence failure for its own purposes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2005 09:05 AM

Dave, just how “clear” that is would be depending on your point of view.

Posted by: Zeek at June 14, 2005 09:35 AM

Zeek,

I think even the Michael Jackson and OJ juries would convict Bush on this one. :>

Posted by: Dave at June 14, 2005 09:50 AM