June 29, 2005
Bush and Cheney should resign
Even the people who supported this corrupt administration have to admit that this has gone too far. The Downing Street Memos and the shocking revelations that have come out during the Haliburton Reconstruction Hearings have gone beyond the smoking gun needed to overhaul a system that has no fail safes to protect the American peoples interests. Bush and Cheney are two of the most corrupt leaders of this or any other nation in our history.
The Downing Street Memos prove that the Bush administration lied to us about WMDs and the attempt to secure Uranium from Africa by Saddam Hussein. The ice cream truck that the Pentagon called a mobile weapons lab was just an ice cream truck. The tubing that could be used to make WMDs was just tubing. Those of you who supported the Bush administration don't seem to remember the lies that were told to get both parties to back this war. I know that now we're there to secure the Middle East, or is it still "Iraqi Freedom"? If the president of The United States says that we are going to war because another country is producing WMDs to use on us and have powerful terrorist ties then after we attack says we didn't find any proof to back statements He made to justify the attack,on the contrary,we discover proof that his administration lied(The Downing Street Memos)to get us into war, that's an impeachable offense.
The Haliburton Reconstruction hearings not only prove that the Bush administration was going to attack Iraq without cause but also show that Cheney and Bush had already set up KBR, a company that Cheney still has a salary contract with until 2007 and stock options until 2009(All a matter of public record) to attend closed door meetings over the objections of Mrs. Greenhouse who at the time was the Chief Contracting Officer of The Army Corps. of Engineers. In those meetings specific budget and logistics information that would clearly give Haliburton KBR an inside track to billions of dollars worth of contracts was illegally attended by managers of KBR and representatives working under Cheney. The fact that Haliburton KBR did the front end study for the Pentagon should have excluded them from obtaining any contracts because of obvious conflicts of interests.Mrs. Greenhouse states, "The contracts awarded to Haliburton KBR represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I've ever seen in the course of my professional career." Rory Mayberry a former KBR food production manager testify that KBR has overcharged the tax payers of this country billions of dollars. They have charged for meals not prepared,served spoiled , outdated meals and thrown away food so that the could pad the bill. Lloyd Owen International representatives testified that KBR charges the American people $1.30 per gallon of gas transported in Iraq from Kuwait. Llloyd Owen International which does the identical work in Iraq charges $.18 per gallon. They also testified that KBR has not delivered any fuel to rebuild Iraqs infrastucture or delivered any parts other than scrap to rebuild Iraqs oil refineries even though they were paid billions to do so. The U.S. fighting forces families had to buy them Kevlar vests and they had to scrounge in junK yards to shore up their humvees now we find out they were served spoiled food and food that had bullets and shrapnel removed from blown up trucks. They knew they would attack Iraq and they knew they would profit. When I watched the hearings on C SPAN it was sickening. Please see this administration for what it is.
No kidding Andre… Bush43 makes Nixon look like an Eagle Scout. But, with a GOP led congress and the press turned into lap dogs, we can forget justice for these assholes. Even if there are any indictments they’ll be pardoned just like Tricky Dicky.
Posted by: Dave at June 29, 2005 09:02 AMOK, so what about a “Special Prosecutor” to look into things like the above, and the bush family’s connections with the Saudi Royal Family (Saudi Arabia ain’t a “democracy” either!), the missing 9 billion dollars, Downing Street, etc etc ad-a-lot-of-nauseam…If some rich neo-con republican (I don’t use Capital letters when they are not deserved!)can throw money at Ken Starr to hamstring Bill Clinton, why can’t this mess be gone after in the same manner?!? The US Public is largely wallowing in ignorance, or bush would have no support at all…at least more light would be shed. nixon was impeached…Clinton was impeached, let’s throw this bum out if he won’t quit (and he won’t, of course.)
Howzit go? “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Posted by: capn mike at June 29, 2005 09:19 AMSo how far down on the list would make you happy (hint) you can’t have any Democrats (except maybe Mineta).
Presidential succession:
The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez2
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff
I have to agree with Dave, even with evidence of corruption that is overwhelming it is immediately attacked by the right and labeled un-american and un-patriotic. They’re kind of like O.J.’s defense team, Bush and Cheney can get away with murder.
Posted by: Shawn at June 29, 2005 09:41 AMJack, I am a bit confused. Is your post a list of all government officials who should resign?
Posted by: steve smith at June 29, 2005 09:45 AMThe corruption of this administration is so ingrained with their cronies and ignorance is prevailiant with their supporters….. I have not a clue as how it will ever be shown the light of day much less the guilty be prosecuted.
Austrailia is looking pretty good to me right now
Posted by: Dane at June 29, 2005 09:52 AMSteve Smith-
That was funny I think! :)
It is a list of those who would be president. If President Bush and the VP resign, you get Dennis Hastert. Get rid of him and you get Stevens. After that you are looking at President Condi Rice. Two more down is President Donald Rumsfeld.
Andre made his joke about the president without thinking through the consequences. You can’t get rid of the Bush team no matter what you do. Get over it. As they say “move on”
Posted by: jack at June 29, 2005 09:58 AMI wasn’t really intending to suggest that an impeachment would actually WORK, as the neo-cons obviously control enough of congress to prevent that..(Omigawd, can you IMAGINE a trained bitch like Rice in the Oval Office? The mind boggles!).but the Bringing About process, the public pursuit of the issues, would create enough publicity about the issues to show many many republican voters how badly they have been hoodwinked, and perhaps help insure that come next elections we could get rid of many of the republican dirtbags we are now saddled with. And if we DID get lucky enough to dump Bush and Cheney (who should be included as a co-conspirator) whoever we DID end up with would prob’ly just “hold the chair” until next elections. After all, could we get much worse than what we have now???
Anybody got any better ideas?
Excellent article. The entire administration needs to go and go ASAP. The lives of our service men and women remain at stake.
Peace……..
“but the Bringing About process, the public pursuit of the issues, would create enough publicity about the issues to show many many republican voters how badly they have been hoodwinked”
Yeah, it worked that way in the late 90’s didnt it? Even today most dems still make excuses for that ass.
Andre
“Even the people who supported this corrupt administration have to admit that this has gone too far”
It will only get worse. I hope you will still be as vigilante when its your party in control and won’t let party loyalty keep you from being the one who has to admit.
Posted by: kctim at June 29, 2005 10:47 AMthomas paine’s great line, ” it is times like these that try a man’s soul” is very appropriate now and so does an impeachment process of ALL the cowardly bastards
Posted by: sunchild at June 29, 2005 10:49 AM“Excellent article. The entire administration needs to go and go ASAP. The lives of our service men and women remain at stake.”
Man, if only we had some sort of “system” where the American people could have held the president and VP responsible and that this “administration needs to go”… perhaps it could have been done in a “campaign” over a year, where opponents of the Bush administration could convince the American people that he is as bad as you guys say. Perhaps at the end of this “campaign” we could have an “election” where the people vote to select either the administration or a from a group of other candidates… come on now!
Accusations of cooking the books and Haliburton scandals were in full tilt during the campaign season- and you guys spent MILLIONS of dollars to convince the American people that Bush was the wrong guy for the job.
This thread is really sad. I did not vote for Bush, but I can realize that he WON the support of the American people under the Constitution. Whats more, his party retained both houses of Congress by healthy margins. While the American people may not support this administration, the prospect of the alternative caused them to vote for Bush in 2004, despite all these same charges upon which you are saying they should resign now (and they ARE the same charges and this evidence is not different in kind from what was being talked about before the election).
Instead of making these angry, screed posts, you should try to work on your party’s message and leaders, which proved so pathetic that they could not even defeate an unpopular president in the middle of an unpopular war.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at June 29, 2005 11:05 AMMisha,
I agree 100%. As much as I can’t stand Bush, he did win reelection — primarily because his opponent’s biggest selling point was “I’m not Bush”!
If the Democrats would focus on getting a message to the people (besides “Don’t Vote Republican”), and on finding candidates the American people can relate with (hint — look outside the Northeast), they might be able to win my vote again. It worked in ‘92 and ‘96, and it can work again, if they’d just try it!
Until then, I’ll stick with third party candidates who actually stand FOR something. Sure, they’ll never get elected, but at least I’ll have the peace of mind of knowing that I didn’t throw my vote away.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 29, 2005 11:12 AMShawn,
Are you implying that the American Judicial System failed to work and that O.J.actually “got away” with murder. He was, unless I am mistaken found innocent by a jury of his peers. Therefore your comparison to O.J. and Bush Cheney is invalid.
George in SC,
A joke to be sure
capn mike said,
“trained bitch like Rice”
Don’t hold back capn, tell us how you really feel
wordslightfires writes,
“Excellent article. The entire administration needs to go and go ASAP. The lives of our service men and women remain at stake.
Peace……..”
Can this actually happen, can an entire administration be discarded. Is there Constitutional basis for doing this? How would it work.
This looks better capn mike.
(Omigawd, can you IMAGINE a trained bitch like Rice Hillary in the Oval Office? The mind boggles!)
Misha~
Very well stated post! Kudos!
jimmie~
It’s “clear” to some of us on the right that the detainees are “guilty” so I guess the left can stop yelling about trials!
Honestly I don’t even know why I’m responding to an obviously delusional post.
capn mike~
Funny…I thought the Rep. were suppose to be racially slanted in their views. Out of that whole list of people you chose Condi (a black woman) to slander w/ name calling……interesting.
Posted by: Traci at June 29, 2005 11:27 AMLast night I watched as Bush talked about how the war is worth the sacrifice. I began to wonder who was sacrificing. The wealthy have their tax cuts, war is good for business, the polititians are getting rich, the generals get to rattle their sabers and guaranteed thier futures with corporations that support the war. Those of us that don’t believe in the war are only embarassed over what is happening to our country. The only ones sacrificing are those who are in the military, and their families. Obviously, the volunteer army is not working. We have the best trained soliers anywhere, but there is not real incentive to stop an unjust, unneccesary war. I have two boys who would be effected by the draft and I would hate to see them go to war, but I am also saddened to see these brave men and women treated as “discards” by this administration who has even cut their guarenteed health care benefits by over a billion dollars.
Posted by: Craig at June 29, 2005 11:50 AMDowning Street memo:
“On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battle plan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban war fighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defense Secretary.”
This is indeed a smoking gun, it proves the USA thought Saddam had WMDs
How is Bush Tied to Halliburton?
Frank Lautenberg ? Isn’t that the illegitimate democrat who was illegally put on the ballet after the deadline.
Cheney and Bush had already set up KBR
KBR was a subsidiary of Dresser Industries . Halliburton and Dresser merged in 1998. How does this show that Bush “set up” KBR ??
Posted by: James at June 29, 2005 11:50 AM
I think the saddest/funniest thing about this thread is that I cannot distinguish between those who are seriously saying this stuff and those who are making fun of them by making over-the-top claims. not a good sign, folks.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at June 29, 2005 11:53 AMKBR was a subsidiary of Dresser Industries . Halliburton and Dresser merged in 1998. How does this show that Bush “set up” KBR ??
because we said it does and we unlike you dont need facts to prove what we say you!
Posted by: anti bush man at June 29, 2005 11:54 AMHow do you impeach an obviosly guilty president when everyone that is responsible for the due process of impeachment has their fingers in the pie?
Posted by: Dane at June 29, 2005 11:56 AMits simple manifest destiny
we the liberals have a birth right to rule the world country!
Traci
Captain Mike is an example of the true democrat racist.
When david Duke ran for Office it was the Republicanss who sent him packing.
But Sen. Robert Bird (D)who is a KKK member (once you’re in, you’re in for life) and he was a recruiter, which means he is an accessary to every crime committed by the people he recruited. he should be getting a 60 year sentence, just like old dude racist that was just convicted.
Clinton’s mentor (Fulbright) he was a racist pig segregationist too. That’s where Bill got all his political knowledge from. How else do you raise a lawyer who lies under oath ?
Posted by: James at June 29, 2005 12:00 PMill give you 12 inchesresons why the zionist bushco must be stoped
1 because
2 it
3 must
4 be
5 done
6 in
7 the
8 interest
9 of
10 public
11 safty
12 man
12
No WMD’s. Yes, or at least we haven’e found them yet. Lets say the President was wrong about these(even though all leaders democrats agreed with him at the time). There are none. Are you forgeting the other reasons we went in. This was one of three.
When studying Globalization there is an interesting theory that holds up to the standard of history. No two democracy’s have ever faught each other. This is our rather well defined plan to stabalize the middle east. To spread freedom and democracy. We have done this before and it has worked(Germany, Japan), the problem is it takes a commitment of time. Today with the anti-war movement of the 60’s running the democratic party this becomes difficult and only possible with a leader as strong as Bush.
Whether you like him or not, you must admit he does what he says and sticks with it. There is no politcal gain in staying in Iraq, and to say he would have our soldiers killed for money is terrible. I wouldn’t even say that of Clinton. He stands on Principle and I have yet to see proof of otherwise.
Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2005 12:04 PMbush was a major stock holder in enron
yet another reason he must be sent to prison.
why you ask? because if mike hunt could talk it would tell you its self! it does smoke a mean joint!
email me for a link to the video
While I’m no fan of starting a war without just cause, there are reasons Bush hasn’t been impeached. The biggest reason, I believe, is that America is convinced, and rightly so, that we ARE at war…not just with Iraq, but with a world of people who don’t care much for some American values.
In times of defense of one’s country, you’ll see that people don’t appreciate dissention in the ranks. Bush has given us a common enemy that people can relate to - he’s given it a face in bin Laden, and a way to defeat it in Iraqi Freedom. Even if he has his own agenda, even if it’s oil to boost his bank account, or revenge for his dad (I have a hard time with this one), or just to keep America on top however he can…people are ignoring that because in desperate times we need to stick together.
His speech last night…it must have taken his writers a year to prepare. It said all the right things in all the right ways. Very inspiring. And it applies very well to where we are. The unfortunate thing is that we didn’t need to be there - we chose to go to Iraq, to make mothers childless and sons fatherless. If ever you think that war is a good solution, picture your 4-year old daughter not coming home from school that day, then hearing in the news that the school was destroyed by an errant bomb. You didn’t do anything - you just wanted to live life, work, earn money, raise your kids to be smart and funny. Now that chance is gone because your government’s leader decided to make himself a target of the world’s most powerful country.
Life is full of unfortunate happenings. The leadership of Sadaam and Bush are two of them.
Posted by: Thomas_R at June 29, 2005 12:13 PMTony, the only problem is that Germany was a democracy before WWII. It voted itself into dictatorship. Creating a democracy doesn’t save you. Stable foreign economies and good relationships does.
Posted by: Julia Myrick at June 29, 2005 12:18 PMGuys on the right
We don’t have to trash the Democrats and their leaders unless they do something we need to respond to. Bill Clinton is history. He was not a bad president, in any case. Let the lefties have the fevered phrases. Let them win the war of rhetoric for now. That is what they are good at. We win elections. That is what is making them so mad. Which would you rather have, the presidency, both houses of congress, most of the governorships and the possibility to appoint probably two Supreme Court justices, or the impotent rage of being able to criticize everything your country’s leadership does?
This whole thread is one long cry of frustration. Like the wayward girl in the old song, liberals are more to be pitied than censured, more to be helped than despised. We were like them once and could be again. Let’s be magnanimous in victory.
Posted by: jack at June 29, 2005 12:19 PMSo those of you who think this war is justified because we are fighting terrrorism or because no two democracies have ever attacked each other, must be looking forward to the next war of liberation. Bin Laden has no loyalties to Iraq, if the fighting dies down, and we declare victory, he will move to another country. There are many countries that don’t like us, and we don’t like…I guess that is justification to go to war these days. If they are not like us, they are against us, kind of like a bully on a grade school playground.
Posted by: Craig at June 29, 2005 12:21 PMThis thread has really gone south rapidly.
Posted by: steve smith at June 29, 2005 12:30 PMGermany and Japan are not the only two cases although you didn’t mention Japan. But name two democracies that have fought each other. You can’t trust me.
Also every nation the U.S. has invaded or liberated( which ever you prefer), our plan has worked except for the nations we are currently in which the result is yet to be seen. The point is we are good at this. We are to hegemonic leader of this globalization system. History has yet to see us fail at this cause, so I have no reason to believe we will in Iraq.
Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2005 12:32 PMYou have to look at a sphere of influence. For instance, Japan. Japan has had and infuence on it neighbors including China. This holds true with all of these newly democratic nations including West Germany and the Soviets. Your looking at the near future, look have to look at this from a broad scope which is what the Bush admin is doing. The Iraqi influence over its neighbors will make it increasingly more diffult for terrorist organizations to set up base, making an attack for more difficult. Globalization is the future of the middle east as well as the rest of the world.
Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2005 12:39 PMAt the risk of being accused of messenger critique as opposed to message critique I don’t think there is anything in jimmie’s messages that can be critiqued since they make no measureable sense.
I am hoping that jimmie is not echoing the sentiments of the more rational posters in this board.
Posted by: steve smith at June 29, 2005 12:52 PMAt the risk of stating the obvious, I think jimmie is being extremely sarcastic—not serious.
Posted by: umm at June 29, 2005 01:03 PMVietnam was like Korea and the Gulf war in the sense that we were defending an allie not overthrowing a government. Huge difference and backed for a completely different purpose.
Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2005 01:04 PMCapt. Mike,
I’m not sure you realize it but;
Calling ANY black woman a bitch is the worst possible insult you could ever say to/about them.
It has a MUCH different meaning to black females than it does to those of any other ethinic group. If you have no black friends to ask why that is, you might ask some that do.
Just a tip.
Steve, your right about that comparison to O.J., invalid. Public opinion is not a jury. Bush and Cheney will not go on trial.
Posted by: Shawn at June 29, 2005 01:06 PMTony,
So far, they have found six saren gas artillery shells. That isn’t “a lot” but it isn’t “none” which is what you said.
Posted by: James at June 29, 2005 01:11 PMI didn’t know that, but it was just a point intended to say even if they haven’t found anything. But thanx
Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2005 01:15 PMTony,
As far as your question of warring democracies, please consider the following:
* Athens vs. Sparta (ancient Greece)
* Union vs. Confederacy (US Civil War)
* Lebanon vs. Israel
* Indian vs. Pakistan
* Kosovo vs. NATO
Here’s a web site with a wonderful analysis of this debate:
“>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm
Suffice it to say that there HAVE been wars between democracies, despite the claim of every US president since Ronald Reagan.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 29, 2005 01:29 PMWell civil wars are not two nations so I will write that off.
Sparta - not a democracy(Autocracy)
Lebenon - theocracy
India and Pakistan - at the time transition governments.
Kosovo- not a democracy(dictatorship)
try again
Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2005 01:41 PMSteve said:
This thread has really gone south rapidly.
You’re close…
This thread has really gone Northeast rapidly.
Posted by: Clifff at June 29, 2005 01:45 PMYour sites definition of a democracy is question. Hilter came to power through a democracy, yes. That doesn’t disput the fact that he ran a dictatorship. We could get into a debate that the parliamentary system of government faults at majority rule, but thats not the issue. The war of 1812 was against a limited monarchy, the Prime minister and parliament did not have complete control yet.
Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2005 01:48 PMHi All:
Just my 2 cents on this one.
Nice work Jack, I only have one question though about this the list, is this the List of succession for the Nation or Haliburton? Please clarify this issue for me. Thanks, Wayne
The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez2
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff
Posted by: Jack at June 29, 2005 09:34 AM
Tony; My post was in reply to your statement:
We are to hegemonic leader of this globalization system. History has yet to see us fail at this cause, so I have no reason to believe we will in Iraq.We lost in Viet Nam. As for your post:
Vietnam was like Korea and the Gulf war in the sense that we were defending an allie not overthrowing a government. Huge difference and backed for a completely different purpose.Viet Nam post-France, was fundamentally a civil war where the US led a SEATO force to protect a member state, South Viet Nam, during a cold war skirmish. We were doing fairly well until we overthrew a democratically elected president and replaced him with a dictitorial stooge. Having lost the moral high ground, we lost the populace, both there and at home. Eventually, we lost the war due to both internal dissent and the effects of being an occupying foreign power (i.e. no legitimacy for the SVN gov’t and an enemy who couldn’t go home until dead or migging some limbs).
This war was started for reasons that Bush43 has not yet honestly presented to the American people. These are the similarities I see: We overthrew a gov’t and didn’t have good plans for what to do after. We lost the moral high ground with Gitmo.
This is how we are repeating mistakes from the past. That is how I came convinced that BushCo and the rest of the neo-cons are fools. That is why I don’t have high hopes for this conflict.
Was the plan of exit he repeated last night not good enough for. Do you really think a timeline is apropriate.
Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2005 02:15 PMTony,
Civil wars — one nation or two? Depends on which side you ask. But, either way, it proves the point — if ONE democracy can go to war with ITSELF, why can’t two go to war with each other?
I’ll admit that Sparta was a bad example. But Athens fought for two years against Syracuse, which was as democratic as Athens was.
Kosovo was a democracy. Milosovic was democratically elected. He won re-election in 1997, only 2 years before the war, and left power after being voted out of office in 2000. Sounds like a democracy to me.
Likewise, Lebanon was a democracy. Sure, they voted in religious extremists, but a vote’s a vote.
India and Pakistan were unstable, but they were democracies.
Besides that, consider WWII. Finland, a democracy, fought on the side of Germany against the US, Britain, France, etc.
Also consider:
* Spanish-American War (1898)
* Croatia vs. Yugoslavia, 1992 (both had democratically elected leaders)
* Franco-Roman War (1849)
Need more?
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 29, 2005 02:16 PMMuch of history is opinion yes, but to present a country as a working democracy(when we know otherwise) only to refute a point is pathetic and dangerous.
Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2005 02:17 PMOk, Tony. Let’s set the playing field. When you make the statement that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other, how do YOU define “democracy”?
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 29, 2005 02:22 PMRob
Just to defend Finish honor - Finland fought against the Soviet Union, which had attacked them in 1940. The Soviets were part of the allied coalition, but the Finns had no grudge against any of the other allies.
Posted by: jack at June 29, 2005 02:22 PMTony,
He repeated the same strategy he’s talked about for a year. Yet, the number of trained Iraqis is going down, not up. The number of insurgents is going up, not down. More importantly, the number of American deaths is going up, not down. Nixon got us out of VN by signing a bogus peace treaty so we could depart with ‘honor’.
I’d be curious to here a rational counterpoint to my comparison between SE Asia 1970 and Mid East 2005. Do you disagree with my contentions?
Finally, arguing over whether Democracies go to war with each other is pointless, especially when debating about democratic societies with mores very different than ours (e.g. Yugoslovia and Lebanon). I think you were intially correct when you said we were creating US friendly gov’ts. Democracy in those states won’t be real for years to come, if ever.
Posted by: Dave at June 29, 2005 02:31 PMagain I’m talking about working democracy’s.
if you want to go this route
Any civil war- different topic, I’m telling you.
Kosovo = Nazi Germany - again the method of gaining power is not at question. Not a debate over the interior faults of a democracy(also works for civil war)
Lebanon - a democracy must have differing opinions to be a democracy. This did not exist in lebanon.
India and Pakistan - you said it yourself(unstable)
Finland - you have got to be kidding me
And I can’t even believe you mentioned the other three. Read more than one book.
I’m not going to say that a democracy will always be perfect, but it’s the best we have. At transition points there are internal problems, but that is a different discussion.
It still remains that no two fully functioning representative democracy’s have ever fought each other.
Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2005 02:35 PMTony and James:
I Hate to think that this would be possible but I am possitive that if you dig around at the Old Grounds of Fort McClellan, Alabama you might just find 6 shells of Sarin or other nerve agents also. No Matter how thoroughly you search, once you have made something that deadly you had better keep meticulous records of where, what, shelf life, you get my point. We weren’t able to do that with our own stockpiles, when we were destroying our own stockpiles wihin the last 15 years, we were surprised with each base, we cleaned.
Good Job
Posted by: Wayne at June 29, 2005 02:38 PMok I will define democracy
Of course I’m talking about a representaive democracy(throws Athens out).
Voting, checks and balances, political parties(meaning minorities have a say)
Voting must be open to a diverse population, yes some democracies have excluded including ours.
checks and balances to prevent a totalitarian majority as much as possible
Political parties or at least different groups which is why it’s important to not split Iraq into three.
A working system consist of these three.
(a constitution can be written or implied)
Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2005 02:44 PMNone of this is cut and dry. I see, the President sees, and history sees this as the best possible route for peace.
Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2005 02:47 PMWow, Tony. Now I understand. With a definition like that, it’s no wonder that the half-a-dozen or so “democracies” in the world haven’t gone to war with each other! But that hardly makes it the antidote for war.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 29, 2005 02:55 PMJack,
“Just to defend Finish honor - Finland fought against the Soviet Union, which had attacked them in 1940. The Soviets were part of the allied coalition, but the Finns had no grudge against any of the other allies.”
But the British bombed Finland, whether Finland had a grudge or not. And they were both democracies….
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 29, 2005 03:00 PM|Wow, Tony. Now I understand. With a definition |like that, it’s no wonder that the half-a-dozen |or so “democracies” in the world haven’t gone |to war with each other!
exactly, Iraq will be one of those
Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2005 03:33 PMTo the Bush supporters,
I have a few questions.
1)Do you really think it’s just a coincidence that a company Cheney is still a big part of is making billions and billions of dollars once we attacked Iraq and was awarded several contracts pushed through despite the protest of the people who approve the contracts and was given a waver so that it did not need to show documentation that led to overcharges costing billions of dollars without the help of Cheney,the Pentagon and without Bush?
2)Do you think that Bush really went to war with Iraq for the reasons he stated WMDs, Iraqi Freedom or Middle East Stability(Is there a new one?)?
3)Do you think the Downing Street Memos are fake or fail to prove Bush lied?
4) Do you think the detainees at Abu Graib prison had it coming to them?
5) Do you really think the Dems were concerned about Quran abuse not the torturing of prisoners at Guantanamo?
6)Do you feel that homosexuals are trying to take over the world?
7)Do you think “Stem Cell” research is scarey and causes abortions?
If you answered yes to any of these questions you are a Bush supporter and are right now watching wrestling and wondering why poultry tastes so much like chicken
I’m doing some research and I would appreciate if one of you could give me a link to all of the arguments against the Bush Administration. And I mean all of them. Thanks
Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2005 03:55 PMAndre,
Are you still spouting #1 even though it has been shown to you that Cheney is not financially tied to Halliburton?
Posted by: Mike at June 29, 2005 04:11 PMAndre~
“If you answered yes to any of these questions you are a Bush supporter and are right now watching wrestling and wondering why poultry tastes so much like chicken”
Wow- keep um’ comin’! It’s statements like these that lost this last election.(I liked the one when they were saying that all the in-breeders in the red states had cable spools for tables and patio funiture in their living rooms)!
Once again another primo example of a “uniter”!
“More importantly, the number of American deaths is going up, not down.”
The number of deaths can never go ‘down’.
Posted by: bugcrazy at June 29, 2005 04:15 PMAndre,
What if I answered yes to ALL of the questions.
Posted by: steve smith at June 29, 2005 04:26 PMAndre~
Question to ponder…
Are you really that myopic and paranoid?
Posted by: Cliff at June 29, 2005 04:26 PMDear Tony and Cliff
I’m not looking to unite the American people with those who support Bush. I am trying to unite the Republicans and Democrats. Liberals and Conservatives. The people who support this administration are sheep. They were not mentioned.
Cheney has a salary contract that runs until 2007 and stock options until 2009 with HALIBURTON!. Along with the fact that Haliburton KBR did the front end research for the Pentagon which should have excluded it from getting any contract. You can’t be the company that does the research as to what contracts and budgets are needed and bid on the contract. It’s called conflict of interests.That(If you folks would watch the news or read a news paper)is why the contracts were disputed in the first place. The Bush administration sited a lack of other companies (not true) and extreme circumstances preemptive strike against Iraq)as the reason to allow this little indiscretion. Those in government allowed this supposed one time irregularity to pass. What they didn’t know was thar KBR had representatives along with Cheney’s aides in the contract meeting which is illegal.My source is Mrs. Greenhouse The chief contracting officer for the Army Corps. of Engineers testimony before committee investigating Halliburtons reconstruction of Iraq shown on July 28,2005 on CSpan. A T.V network that I don’t think shows wrestling. I know the next argument already.The media is controlled by the liberal, homo-lovin, terrorist-sympathizing,abortionist,blue-staters.
We’ve heard it all before.
Go Superpatriots!!!!!!!
Andre,
Not that I expect facts to stop your ranting but the stock options that Cheney had are in an irreversible trust where any profits go to non profit organizations. Cheney has not control or influence over them.
Cheney does not have a salary contract with Halliburton. What he has is a deferred compensation that is getting paid to him over 5 years from the time he was owed it. He also has an insurance policy on that compensation so that if Halliburton goes under he is covered. Again, no financial interest or gain to Cheney.
I know that these facts have been disclosed to you before so why not just skip this arguement and try something factual?
Posted by: Mike at June 29, 2005 05:42 PMMike…
Thanks..Good post…
Andre,
Learn to discern…
Posted by: Cliff at June 29, 2005 05:49 PMAndre,
Just read your Site and Bio…
A New York Teacher…It all makes sense now…
Posted by: Cliff at June 29, 2005 05:59 PMAndre,
Are you still spouting #1 even though it has been shown to you that Cheney is not financially tied to Halliburton?
Posted by: Mike at June 29, 2005 04:11 PM
Mike:
And you believed that……Just goes to show you.
PT was correct……there really is one born every minute. I’ll stop there before the Watchdogs get me booted.
As Always,
Wayne
Wayne,
If you are going to try and correct someone shouldn’t you check on facts instead of your partisan bs?
Try educating yourself:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=261
as always,
Mike
Posted by: Mike at June 29, 2005 07:34 PMI saw something like this a while back, but it’s good to see Tony Blair repeat it.
(AP) British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday that the “Downing Street memos” paint a distorted picture and insisted that the Iraq war was not predetermined by the United States.
“People say the decision was already taken. The decision was not already taken,” he said in an interview with The Associated Press. Blair added that he was “a bit astonished” at the intensive coverage the leaked memos, which suggested British officials had doubts about the case for war, have received in the United States.
According to the leaked minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Blair and top government officials at his Downing Street office, Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of Britain’s intelligence service, said the White House viewed military action against Saddam Hussein as inevitable following the Sept. 11 attacks.
In the interview, Blair said raising such concerns was a natural part of any examination of the cause for war.
“The trouble with having a political discussion on the basis of things that are leaked is that they are always taken right out of context. Everything else is omitted from the discussion and you end up focusing on a specific document.”
In other words, boys and girls, the flap surrounding the “Blair Street Memos” is just that. Flap…and taken out of context. So the next time someone mentions them (the memos) as a “smoking gun”, just write it off to ignorance.
Mike:
Obviously we will not come to agreement on this issue. I have gone to this page, read it, and take it for what it is worth. The sum of the parts just doesn’t equal what we have on the table to be scrutinized by my Admittedly Untrained Eyes, to some up. I think someone here is Hoodwinking us. I can’t prove it, so I will refrain from making such comments in the future. Though I am sure that if I looked hard enough, I could find links between them. I have neither the time nor the desire to ruin the reputations of our esteemed leaders, they do a good enough job all by themselves. That I think we can all agree on, Don’t you?
BTW..Thanks for the link.
http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html
Posted by: Wayne at June 29, 2005 11:38 PMTony, Isn’t the kool-aid wonderful?!@#&! Are you comparing Nazi Germany and Japan to Iraq? Get a grip!! First of all, they knew that there were no WMD’s. Second, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, no matter how the president tries to tie them together. Third, why am I even bothering to respond, you obviously have been bushnitized!
Posted by: kp at June 30, 2005 07:30 AMbugcrazy:
Sorry for the confusion: The rate of American deaths is going up.
Posted by: Dave at June 30, 2005 07:54 AMWayne,
Fair enough. I am not a big Bush / Cheney supporter but at least let’s nail them for things that have been done instead of Andre’s misconceptions. I dislike partisan blinders from either side.
It was this comment of yours:
“Mike:
And you believed that……Just goes to show you.
PT was correct……there really is one born every minute”
when the facts do not justify your attack on me that irritated me. If you are going to challenge someone as being an idiot then you should make sure of the facts first.
Enough said about that, on to new and other battles.
Mike
Right on Andre! Well put. Josef Geobbels would love these guys. I hear that Bush-Cheney have a new book called The Art of Unsurping Freedom- A Field Guide To Building A Fascist Government.
Posted by: magi at June 30, 2005 12:38 PMIn the 60’s we took to the streets to enact change. Isn’t time to enact change again?
Posted by: magi at June 30, 2005 12:42 PMTaking to the streets is a good idea. I suggest you start in East LA, lower East side of Manhattan, Jackson, Mississippi or possibly Mongomery, Alabama.
However many of you are still able could then move on to Detroit, Michigan or Columbia, South Carolina.
For full affect why dont you bring a few American Flags to burn and signs showing that you have the Constitutional right to demonstrate.
Posted by: steve smith at June 30, 2005 12:59 PMsteve,
I’m old enough to be able to appreciate the 60’s and the new ideals brought forth. But I find many people forget how bad some things were like before the civil rights movement, etc… The freedoms we earned then, and are now losing daily, need to be defended. The lack of transparency and concurrent loss of trust is a return to Tricky Dicky. Maybe a little revolution now and again really is a good thing.
But, I definately agree we don’t want to burn the flag and draft cards, it has a different meaning now. Especially seeing how it’s done elsewhere. Perhaps just (y)our W stickers and GOP membership cards…
Dave
BTW, You’re dating yourself with those locations. The lower east side is a bit different now.
Posted by: Dave at June 30, 2005 01:30 PMYou’re right Steve, I do have the right to demonstrate. Perhaps I should use it before that is outlawed by anal conservatives. Why would I burn the flag? You must think that I’m automatically anti-american because i would dare challenge the way this country is run and express my opinion. I don’t support a government that surrounds itself in secrecy and has to make up crap to go to war. When Bush ran for president he said that he didn’t “trust the government, but trusted people” Wow! thanks to him and his administration I do not trust their government and can’t count the lies his administration has fed the public. When fundamental change is needed then it is up to the people to demand it. This might include demostrations and taking to the streets. I hope it happens soon.
Posted by: magi at June 30, 2005 04:10 PMPM Tony Blair of England just confirmed that the Downing Street Memo is authentic. That puts an end to the right wing’s claim that the memo was doctored or invented or planted.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 30, 2005 04:11 PMDave and magi,
I am 62 years old so I to am old enough to know what happened during that period. I also served my country during that period.
Magi, who would ever think you were anti-American for burning the Flag. You did say “Why would I burn the flag”?. Maybe some of your liberal buddies can bring you up to date but, you have the Constitutional right to burn the American Flag.
As I indicated before I support your right to demonstrate, I was just giving you some suggestions on where to do it.
BTW, leave out the lower East side of Manhattan because Dave says it is a different place than I remember.
Posted by: steve smith at June 30, 2005 04:33 PMTo the folks who still support the Bush administration who 1)Asked for a source. I gave you the source. Your replies,I noticed, did not.
2)You reply that Tony Blair spoke up about the Downing Street memos. If you read the memos it states very clearly that Bush was pushing for war and fixing intel to do so.Or are you going to choose to listen to Tony Blairs(Bushs top ally and coconspirator)interpritation of the memo?
3)I also have to laugh when you use the term “we”and “us” as though you are linked to this administration and the corporations that push the buttons. Like you matter to the wealthy elite who are running this country. They love the fact that you can be easily deceived but you are not part of their team. They’re screwing you too.You just don’t seem to care.How dumb is that? You’d rather question me than a group of people who have an effect on you life. I hope that the sheep can one day figure out that gathering their own information is more beneficial than getting it from sources that have an agenda.
Steve,
What was your take on the hippies burning of the flag in the 60’s ?
Posted by: Dave at July 1, 2005 10:44 AMMagi,
Don’t judge too fast. steve listens pretty well for an old guy :-)
Posted by: Dave at July 1, 2005 10:49 AMI am appalled that there are still folks who believe that Bush is the right man for the job and that is so moral. Bush did not win the presidency because he was the best person for the job, he won because the issues became distorted and made morality the predominant issue. Morality is not the issue - being a good leader is.
All of the information that has recently been doscivered/released may have changed the minds of the general public. If this information was known before the election the outcome may have been different. Now the American people feel lied to, abused, the military is being made a mockery of and now people want to voice their discontent. When will the people wake up and realize that they need to investigate further and look beyond the spin etc to make a wise decision?
Posted by: Kevin at July 1, 2005 02:25 PMKevin,
Just because you disagree with the way the majority voted does not mean that they were deceived or that they are asleep. Intelligent people can look at the issues and differ from you. I know that is difficult to belieive for most partisan posters but there are two sides.
I do not think the election was decided on morality issues but it (like 2000) came down to a lesser of two evils decision. You can argue of course whether Kerry would be better or worse but that is not something we will ever know. I suspect that the main issues was a feeling of security and Bush made people feel more secure than Kerry.
Mike
Posted by: Mike at July 1, 2005 03:34 PMYes give a big hell yes to the real American that has the right attitude for this sick dirty low life out of control American Government the worst people on the face of this planet the evil that is destroying young white thats right WHITE young men the dirty Jews George W.Bush and Dick Cheney the Jewish control of the united states and the world at hand. Get them out of office NOW.
Posted by: Albert Garibay at July 3, 2005 03:42 AM
