quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The problem with that is that because we have such a fantastic "fist" we see that fist as the solution to all of our problems. Even when it really isn't. And, as I have said before, we sometimes even make problems to justify having such a grossly oversized fist.
and these problems multiply further when we sell tons and tons of weapons to disreputable people. (Even when we sell weapons to reputable people, they begin to feel the effects kmb pointed out here) Our weapons industry is our biggest and most profitable manufacturing industry. When the arms solution is the best one you have, you tend to see it as a solution to lots of problems that really should be dealt with in other ways (that we would have better capability to enact if we didn't spend so much money making weapons)
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: I agree in part, but we also have to go on faith that our system of government works.
Why? Who says that the system we have right now is inherently the best and that it works? Do you not think that the mere fact that we have a president who is so unpopular that most of the country wants him impeached is evidence that our system is not working at 100%? Do you not think it's wrong to make every presidential election choice based on who you think is less horrible? We could do better than our current system. If you want to argue that our current system is the best and we should trust it, present some evidence to that end. We have ended up with a president who wants to start wars all over so the military-industrial-prison complex can make a ton of money, and his plan is working out great, except that we're going into incredible amounts of debt to pay for all those weapons, because there's no way Bush could get the American people to pay for all of the military expenditure through taxes. Despite a vote last November that almost everybody interpreted as a rebuke on Bush's warmongering policies, we have a Congress that just passed the biggest defense budget the world has ever seen.... You really think that we just need to trust "the system"?
quote:With that in mind the majority have elect people to represent them that agree with that philosophy. So it would be safe to assume that it woudl be the will of the people to build, maintain, and use that fist.
I see your point, except it does rely on the very shaky assumption that you have to have faith that the two-party system we have here can correctly identify the leaders the people want most, and it doesn't. I think that most of the people in this country realize that we're not going to stop terrorism until we stop invading other countries.
quote:Until AMERICA as a whole can shift that majority it will be business as usual for our country. Most people just need to be shown another way that works, but until then, they will stay with what they know works.
they will stay with a method that absolutely does not work. Our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and our constant military and monetary support of Israel have increased the spectre of terrorism. This DOES NOT WORK TO REDUCE THE PROBLEMS WE ARE FACING.
quote:Most people are firmly grounded in reality. Because of this they do not trust the dreams until they can see them, or touch them. It is human nature to follow the crowd, and stay with what you know.
What is the reality of a military-industrial complex run wild? I don't think many people at all have truly come to terms with what the manufacture of all these weapons is doing to the world. Most of the people who vote to support defense funding have never been in a war zone to see the reality that their chosen policy creates. I admit that I've only seen pictures and news of war zones myself, but they look bad enough to me. Most people are firmly grounded in whatever story of reality makes the most sense to them. There is no way for a human to actually be firmly grounded in reality, because culture and the brain itself creates layers of separation. This is a little epistemological, but I think it is true that the human brain loves to ground itself in a mythology that is coherent. Humans feel a need to know their origins, their "purpose", for example. This involves constructing a story (or assimilating one from culture) that makes sense to them. You can see this need in the fact that all cultures around the world have some sort of "creation myth". Even our own scientific community roots its practice in a set of stories of how things work. Nobody truly thinks we truly understand the workings of the tiny atom, we can just create stories about how they work that are workable enough that we can predict what happens when we split atoms. You've subscribed to a story of a dangerous world out there where you need a big fist to protect yourself from whatever's out there. I think the problem with that is that when a bunch of people subscribe to that story, they make a lot of fists, they see fists as the solution to their problems, and they consequently use fists to get what they want.
quote:Ever so often though you get people that break that mold. We can hope that some day, soon I hope, that some like that comes along and shows the majority a way they can understand and get behind. They will also need to have a voice loud enough to be heard.
Yes, we do need a new story, so we can move to a higher level of civilization. The problem is that people are still clinging to the story that we have to trust the current version of our system to sort everything out, and our system needs some serious repairs if it's actually going to do the job. If our system were perfect, I highly doubt that a very rich person, who represents the top 1% or fewer of Americans would ever become president, and yet, that's all we have currently. The current stories are flawed. People fool themselves into keeping with them because they are "true", they are "reality", but they are not.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We have ended up with a president who wants to start wars all over so the military-industrial-prison complex can make a ton of money
Now, now. It's true that Bush has started wars, and it's true that this makes a lot of money for military suppliers, but you don't know that this was his actual motivation for starting those wars. Unless, of course, you have 1337 midreading skillz that I don't know about.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM already took care of the first statement I wanted to respond to.
quote:Do you not think that the mere fact that we have a president who is so unpopular that most of the country wants him impeached is evidence that our system is not working at 100%?
Oh this is fact huh? I was not aware that the MAJORITY of the country wants Bush imeached. The US out of Iraq yes, impeach Bush no.
Pulling statistics out of thin air or your posterior undermines your credibility.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Now if you happen to remember the news from September 10th, 2001, you might recall that there were two huge stories that day. The military had misplaced 2.3 trillion dollars (With a T): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo
The other story was about Ken Lay's connections to Bush and how energry corp. exec's had met with Cheney to decide energy policy.
quote:(From the cronyism list above:) James Baker: Iraq Debt Envoy
BUSH appoints James Baker as Iraq debt envoy. Baker is senior counselor to the Carlyle Group, a global investment company that has done business with the Saudi royal family. He is also a partner in Baker Botts, a Houston law firm whose client list includes Halliburton and the Saudi Royal family. Mr. Baker's law firm will most likely represent the Saudi Royals in the suit against them filed by the 9-11 victims families Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report on ''energy security'' from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker. Baker who delivered the recommendations to Cheney, was advised by Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron. The other advisers to Baker were: Luis Giusti, a Shell non-executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of BP and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco.
If Bush's purpose weren't to help his friends get a lot of money and help decide the country's policy to their benefit, then he was very successful at it accidentally.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush does have a low approval rating, but that does not mean that the majority of the population wants him impeached. I do not like him, and I am a republican. I do not like a lot of things that have come out of his regime.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: KOM already took care of the first statement I wanted to respond to.
quote:Do you not think that the mere fact that we have a president who is so unpopular that most of the country wants him impeached is evidence that our system is not working at 100%?
Oh this is fact huh? I was not aware that the MAJORITY of the country wants Bush imeached. The US out of Iraq yes, impeach Bush no.
Pulling statistics out of thin air or your posterior undermines your credibility.
Jan. 5, 2006: MyDD launches effort inspired by ours to raise money for polls. Dec. 22, 2005: Newsweek acknowledges demand for impeachment polling. Dec. 20, 2005: The Washington Post's polling editor is furious that people want impeachment polling. Dec. 14, 2005: We've purchased our third poll! READ THE RESULTS.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: KOM already took care of the first statement I wanted to respond to.
quote:Do you not think that the mere fact that we have a president who is so unpopular that most of the country wants him impeached is evidence that our system is not working at 100%?
Oh this is fact huh? I was not aware that the MAJORITY of the country wants Bush imeached. The US out of Iraq yes, impeach Bush no.
Pulling statistics out of thin air or your posterior undermines your credibility.
posted
Honestly, dude, impeachment is about the acts Bush/Cheney committed, not about what polls say. The polls do indicate that an incredible number of people want to initiate impeachment proceedings. those proceedings should be started based on the desires of this large group of Americans, and those proceedings should focus not on the opinions of Americans, but on the actions of the Bush Administration at least on counts of lying to start the Iraq war and illegally wiretapping Americans.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Honestly, dude, impeachment is about the acts Bush/Cheney committed, not about what polls say. The polls do indicate that an incredible number of people want to initiate impeachment proceedings. those proceedings should be started based on the desires of this large group of Americans, and those proceedings should focus not on the opinions of Americans, but on the actions of the Bush Administration at least on counts of lying to start the Iraq war and illegally wiretapping Americans.
Fine, but your orginal statement was a brash sweeping statement that the majority of the country wants Bush impeached.
I bet if you polled the Senate there would be a MUCH lower percentage of senators who think Bush should be impeached. I expect a significantly higher percentage in the House but not anything that matches the national average.
edit: Should such proceedings commence, I would not expect them to find sufficient grounds to impeach Bush.
doubt edit: and it is NOT about what Bush/Cheney did. They are not a single entity, they are seperate individuals. If impeachment procedings occured both efforts would operate independantly of each other.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
All you are saying is that the Congress doesn't proportionally support the will of Americans. We knew this already. Nevertheless, they should begin impeachment proceedings, based on the wishes of this large group of Americans, and those proceedings should examine the acts of Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld in lying to start the war in Iraq.
Edit:
Here's one list of offenses, compiled by somebody who calls himself "Son of a Bush" I guess:
quote:Compiled by "Son of a Bush"
1) The now famous Downing Street Memo, along with the testimony of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil constitute direct evidence of a decision by Bush to invade a sovereign foreign nation on entirely specious grounds.
2) The decision to deploy chemical weapons in Fallujah came from Rumsfeld who no doubt covered his ass by receiving assent from Bush to use these banned weapons
3) The decision by Bush to dig up dirt on UN diplomats when the General Assembly was considering his ill-fated war resolution
4) Authorizing torture of POW's - a direct violation of the protocols of the Geneva Convention
5) Holding so called "non-combatant civilians" for an indefinite period of time ,depriving them of their day in court ,acess to counsel, and acess to family members who could plead their cause to the public.
6) Kidnapping so called "terror suspects" , placing them on Rendition Airways, and sending them to countries like Uzbekistan who boil these ,untried,unconvicted people alive.
7) foreknowledge of 9/11 by Bush, Rice, and the top Neocons at the Pentagon . The only ones warned were Fmr. SF. Mayor Willie Brown, Salman Rushdie (Via Scotland Yard) and Ariel Sharon, who cancelled his trip to NYC scheduled for the weekend prior to 9/11.
8) Engaging in a massive voter suppression campaign in the state of Ohio to secure a second term by fraudulent means. Such activities carry criminal sanctions as outlined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
9) Covering up the involvement of Mossad in 9/11. The fellow that secreted these spies and explosives experts out of country and back into Israel , Michael Chertoff, was promoted from Criminal Division of the Justice Dept to lead the Dept. of Homeland Security.!
10) The attempt to quash the testimony of Sibel Edmonds using the bogus shield of the States Secret Act.
11) Engaging in a sytematic campaign of depriving political dissidents of their 1st ammendment rights to condem Bush administration policy. Protesters are removed out of crowds and summarily placed in jail. The Secret Service, under orders of the President, conduct "Harassment and intimidation Interviews" of anti -Bush political activists.
12) Conspiring with Ken Lay to rip-off the the people of California by creating false energy shortages,thus creating the causus belli for charging energy consumers illegal, confiscatory rates. 13) Conspiring to rig the vote count in the state of Fl. by hacking optical scan machines and E-voting machines and covering up the latter by passing legislation in the state of Fl to prevent post-election examination of E-voting machines.
14) Illegally transferring $700 million from the budget for the war in Afghanistan for war preparations in Iraq in July 2002, without Congressional Approval. This is a Constitutional violation.
15) The "outing" of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
This info is what I can recover off the top of my head. Clearly an impeachment inquiry by the US House Judiciary Committeee is an action clearly overdue. Some of the allegations are violations of international law. They fall under the impeachment clause as well . An additional action of filing criminal referral to the UN War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague is also an absolute must if the United States wants to gain the esteem of the citizens of the entire world.
All of these should be investigated in impeachment proceedings, and if not enough merit is found in them to impeach BushCo, then we will have to wait till the elections.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:All you are saying is that the Congress doesn't proportionally support the will of Americans. We knew this already. Nevertheless, they should begin impeachment proceedings, based on the wishes of this large group of Americans, and those proceedings should examine the acts of Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld in lying to start the war in Iraq.
Ignoring your constant reference to Bush lying, if 45% of the country wants Bush impeached, have them get their congressmen to start proceedings. They will inevitably be defeated by the lack of a super majority in the senate, even if they some how get a simple majority in the house. If your purpose is to merely censure Bush you COULD possibly get your desires, but beyond that you would accomplish nothing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Ignoring your constant reference to Bush lying, if 45% of the country wants Bush impeached, have them get their congressmen to start proceedings. They will inevitably be defeated by the lack of a super majority in the senate, even if they some how get a simple majority in the house. If your purpose is to merely censure Bush you COULD possibly get your desires, but beyond that you would accomplish nothing.
Don't worry. We're working on it. Did you see the protests in Conyers' office recently? He still seems to think impeachment is off the table, but if only a few more people cosponsor the motion to impeach Cheney, we can get started on that one, most likely.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for your edit, that list is a laughably ridiculous attempt to paint as horrible a picture of Bush as possible. It's the sort of list a yellow journalist would use in the hopes that at least ONE of those points might stick, or that people would think, "Surely one of so many slanderous statements must be true!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I bet if you polled the Senate there would be a MUCH lower percentage of senators who think Bush should be impeached. I expect a significantly higher percentage in the House but not anything that matches the national average.
edit: Should such proceedings commence, I would not expect them to find sufficient grounds to impeach Bush.
This is what our Senators think the people want. This is how they want to protect your children instead of ending Bush's disastrous presidency. Thanks, Senators!
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I don't understand the desire to have Bush impeached at this point. He's only in for, what, 18 more months?
Do you really want a fresh new Incumbent republican in the next election?
Impeaching Bush now makes about as much sense as the Clinton impeachment.
When the Supreme Court decided to end the recount of the 2000 election before I was satisfied that the correct result was obtained, I wasn't too worried. I thought, "what's the worst that he could do?" Gore didn't seem that much better to me anyway, and I was too young to vote at the time in any case.
The reason we should impeach Bush is so that we don't have criminals running our government and representing us to the world any longer. Bush should not speak for America, creating further danger of war around the world, specifically with our carrier groups in the Persian gulf risking a crisis with Iran.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
OK, so your link says nothing about whether Bush actualy believed the documents to be forgeries. It does mention that Dick Cheney said one of the major sceptics of the documents was wrong. Nobody can argue that the US went to Iraq based on bad inteligence, but I do not believe the evidence suggests that Bush himself knew that his inteligence was bad and instead chose to lie in order to get troops into Iraq.
Trying to assign sinister motives where they do not exist is one of the most odious lies that can be concocted.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was no credible evidence of WMD in Iraq, yet Bush sold us his war based on that claim. If you don't think the yellowcake forgeries were known forgeries, you should do more research into it.
You claim that the president didn't believe the CIA when it reported the documents were inaccurate?
The classified documents appearing to depict an Iraqi attempt to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger had allegedly been suspected to be fraudulent by some individuals in U.S. intelligence, according to news reports. According to further news accounts of the situation, by early 2002 investigations by both the CIA and the State Department had found the documents to be inaccurate. Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the U.N. Security Council. A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation into the origin of these documents has been reopened.
I'll talk to you folks later.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: There was no credible evidence of WMD in Iraq, yet Bush sold us his war based on that claim. If you don't think the yellowcake forgeries were known forgeries, you should do more research into it.
You claim that the president didn't believe the CIA when it reported the documents were inaccurate?
The classified documents appearing to depict an Iraqi attempt to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger had allegedly been suspected to be fraudulent by some individuals in U.S. intelligence, according to news reports. According to further news accounts of the situation, by early 2002 investigations by both the CIA and the State Department had found the documents to be inaccurate. Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the U.N. Security Council. A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation into the origin of these documents has been reopened.
I'll talk to you folks later.
Some folks in the CIA being skeptical does not mean the president was privy to those doubts. Even if he was, that does not tell us how the information was presented to him personally.
edit: Perhaps an investigation will turn up evidence that President Bush knew full well there were likely no WMDs in Iraq. But as it stands that has never been shown and hence affirmative statements that he lied to sell the war to the American people is itself a lie.
posted
And we didn't land on the moon either. Conspiracies are conspiracies. I prefer to think in more simple terms, and do not dig to justify my existence. I can chalk it all up to people being greedy, not as smart as they should be, and their ambition overrides their sensibilities. They do the things they can get away with until they get caught.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: And we didn't land on the moon either. Conspiracies are conspiracies.
What do you mean by this?
quote: I prefer to think in more simple terms, and do not dig to justify my existence. I can chalk it all up to people being greedy, not as smart as they should be, and their ambition overrides their sensibilities. They do the things they can get away with until they get caught.
I assume this is in response to my statement that people generally try to assign events stories that describe or rationalize them. You may prefer to think in simpler terms, but saying "I can chalk it all up to people being greedy, not as smart as they should be..." is in fact the story you imagine as the reality of this situation.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Some folks in the CIA being skeptical does not mean the president was privy to those doubts. Even if he was, that does not tell us how the information was presented to him personally.
edit: Perhaps an investigation will turn up evidence that President Bush knew full well there were likely no WMDs in Iraq. But as it stands that has never been shown and hence affirmative statements that he lied to sell the war to the American people is itself a lie.
Reading further down on the Wikipedia page:
quote:US doubts
Previously, in February 2002, three different American officials had made efforts to verify the reports. The deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford, went to Niger and met with the country's president, Tandja Mamadou. He concluded that, given the controls on Niger's uranium supply, there was little chance any of it could have been diverted to Iraq. His report was sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers. The U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, was also present at the meeting and sent similar conclusions to the State Department [2]. CNN reported on 14 March 2003 (before invasion) that the International Atomic Energy Agency found the documents to be forged [3].
[edit] Wilson and Niger
In late February of 2002, the CIA sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate the claims himself. Wilson had been posted to Niger 14 years earlier, and throughout a diplomatic career in Africa he had built up a large network of contacts in Niger. Wilson interviewed former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, who reported that he knew of no attempted sales to Iraq. Mayaki did however recall that in June 1999 an Iraqi delegation had expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations", which he had interpreted to mean yellowcake sales.[4]
Ultimately, Wilson concluded that there was no way that production at the uranium mines could be ramped up or that the excess uranium could have been exported without it being immediately obvious to many people both in the private sector and in the government of Niger. He returned home and told the CIA that the reports were "unequivocally wrong."[5] The CIA retained this information in its Counter Proliferation Department and it was not passed up to the CIA Director, according to the unanimous findings of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's July 2004 report.
...
CIA doubts
In early October 2002, George Tenet called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to ask him to remove reference to the Niger uranium from a speech Bush was to give in Cincinnati on October 7. This was followed up by a memo asking Hadley to remove another, similar line. Another memo was sent to the White House expressing the CIA's view that the Niger claims were false; this memo was given to both Hadley and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.[citation needed]
IAEA analysis
Further, in March 2003, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released results of his analysis of the documents. Reportedly, it took IAEA officials only a matter of hours to determine that these documents were fake. Using little more than a Google search, IAEA experts discovered indications of a crude forgery, such as the use of incorrect names of Nigerian officials. As a result, the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council that the documents were "in fact not authentic."
posted
I am very glad to see a lot of text devoted to the subject but then I started thinking -- isn't this one of those 'locked' subjects? Anyone who doesn't yet believe that the administration lied, most likely won't ever.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My dad says things in very much the same way BlackBlade was, at least the last time I talked with him. We can't know exactly what Bush was thinking, we can only examine him from an external perspective without the benefit of all the information Rove will resist giving to Congress, despite the subpoena.
I don't know whether more people will come to believe Bush lied specifically to lead us into this war. I do think that many people have tried to shield themselves from the evidence. Most people certainly don't go seeking this information out.
I see the worst president in United States history going wild all over the globe, giving away taxpayer money wastefully in no-bid contracts to his friends and talking up the terrorist threat to justify it.
It is obvious that Bush didn't tell the truth about Iraqi WMD's, although BlackBlade is right that it is much harder to show intent to deceive.
The information from the yellowcake forgeries didn't come through the CIA, but from the Pentagon, from the Office of Special Plans. This was Cheney's pet independent intelligence agency headed by Wolfowitz and Feith. The OSP's only function was to funnel intelligence to the White House that indicated Iraq was a threat. Rumsfeld said its function was to "search for information on Iraq's hostile intentions or links to terrorists.” The OSP was not using information from the CIA. Their main source was a bank embezzler Ahmed Chalabi, who was known to be unreliable. He's the guy who said they "will welcome you with open arms."
quote:from The Nation According to the former official, also feeding information to the Office of Special Plans was a secret, rump unit established last year in the office of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel. This unit, which paralleled Shulsky's--and which has not previously been reported--prepared intelligence reports on Iraq in English (not Hebrew) and forwarded them to the Office of Special Plans. It was created in Sharon's office, not inside Israel's Mossad intelligence service, because the Mossad--which prides itself on extreme professionalism--had views closer to the CIA's, not the Pentagon's, on Iraq. This secretive unit, and not the Mossad, may well have been the source of the forged documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake uranium for weapons from Niger in West Africa, according to the former official.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0807-02.htm this page says that Israeli army officers, up to the rank of general were escorted in and out of the OSP without signing in (as post 9/11 security regulations required).
From this page: "Mr Feith's cell undermined the credibility of CIA judgments on Iraq's alleged al-Qa'eda links within the highest levels of the Bush administration. "
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone who doesn't yet believe that the administration lied, most likely won't ever.
Does this work both ways? I'm willing to believe Bush lied, but not until it is shown to be true.
I hate the fact that people take Bush's acting too hastily, brashly, carelessly, ineffectively, pointlessly, and the obviously specious and amateur workings of the inteligence community and the churlish actions of those people in the aftermath and try to combine it all together while adding, "He also lied to us from the beginning!"
Bush can be a terrible president, but I don't have to believe that his intent is also bad.
Bush can be ineffective even criminally so without being dishonest.
Apparently some people refuse to see the distinction. I don't mind being wrong on this, but I do mind people pretending to know something nobody besides Bush and his close aids know. Seeing as how none of them have answered this question it's ridiculous to pretend we have conclusive inside information .
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't mind being wrong on this, but I do mind people pretending to know something nobody besides Bush and his close aids know. Seeing as how none of them have answered this question it's ridiculous to pretend we have conclusive inside information .
So the only way you'll believe Bush lied is if Bush tells you he did?
How is anybody ever supposed to find out anything then?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't mind being wrong on this, but I do mind people pretending to know something nobody besides Bush and his close aids know. Seeing as how none of them have answered this question it's ridiculous to pretend we have conclusive inside information .
So the only way you'll believe Bush lied is if Bush tells you he did?
How is anybody ever supposed to find out anything then?
Oh give me a break. The documentation that Bush was privy to is available. The people who briefed him can all be called to testify. I bet recordings of those briefings exist as well as recordings of Bush referencing his own knowledge of WMDs in Iraq. Those very things were used in the Clinton investigation as well as Nixon's investigation.
But let me guess, Bush is using his illegal wire tap program to keep anybody from exposing the truth huh?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what do you think of Bush's recent position that anyone in his administration (or anyone who has worked in his administration previously) is immune to Congressional subpoena?
Do you think that Miers and Rove should have to testify?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: So what do you think of Bush's recent position that anyone in his administration (or anyone who has worked in his administration previously) is immune to Congressional subpoena?
Do you think that Miers and Rove should have to testify?
I don't know the details of this, and it sounds very complex. I certainly would not support a position where congress would be totally unable to subpoena folks in the executive branch. If such a stance was made I would hope the Supreme Court would stomp on it.
But again, I don't know much on this matter; until I do I can't give a very specific answer.
But even if what you said is true that is not even close to the nail in the coffin in regards to claims that Bush lied about WMDs.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:White House refuses to answer subpoenasWASHINGTON - President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.
Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. Congressional panels want the documents for their investigations of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' stewardship of the Justice Department, including complaints of undue political influence.
The Democratic chairmen of the two committees seeking the documents accused Bush of stonewalling and disdain for the law, and said they would press forward with enforcing the subpoenas.
quote:Cheney, others served with subpoenas by wiretapping investigators The Senate Judiciary Committee has served Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials in the White House and Justice Department with subpoenas over President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping programs.
"Over the past 18 months, this Committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about the authorization of and legal justification for this program," Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement released to RAW STORY. "All requests have been rebuffed. Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of Administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection."
I hope the Supreme Court stomps on this too, but who knows whether that will happen or not. If the Supreme Court does not exercise their responsibility to ensure that the Executive is accountable to the people's representatives, impeachment will be the only remedy left.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
It is obvious you hate the administration under Dubyah, the question still remains though. How do you feel about our military? Presidents come and go, but our military will always be there. Some of us served longer then most presidents were in office.
So regardless of who has the reigns how do you feel about the military?
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for allowing this topic to stray so far from the original post.
I agree with kmbboots about the amount of money we pump into the military raising the level of violence, terror, and danger in the world, and our tendency to use the military when other means would be preferable.
I think it's insane that the Democrats are giving the Pentagon the biggest budget they've ever gotten right after a vote in November that pretty much everybody interpreted as anti-war.
I don't have anything against individual members of the military in general. I abhor the fact that some Americans in uniform have and do commit acts of heinous torture, degradation, and wanton murder. I believe every service member must absolutely refuse to be involved in any illegal action or the coverup (passive or active) of any illegal action (Pat Tillman's death, for example. Have you been reading what's come out in the past few days?)
The macro-level practices of our military-industrial complex are abhorrent. The absolutely unaccountable waste that the military is engaged in with the no-bid contracts and the nonenforcement of those no-bid contracts (there are many cases of projects in the Iraqi reconstruction that were paid for and never completed--sometimes at the cost of millions to American taxpayers--and let's be honest: today's taxpayers are not the ones who are going to feel the biggest brunt of the insane amount of debt Bush is pushing us into, it'll be today's youth.)
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan allow the government to funnel money from the taxpayers and from loans to a small group of corporations that are the lucky ones to receive no-bid contracts for millions and millions of dollars, with guaranteed profit-margins at high rates.
Every soldier who signs up for this takes his pay from this ever-growing cesspool of debt, digging us a little deeper.
I am not saying we need to get rid of the active military, but the fact that we spend more on our military every year than the next twenty-five nations in the world put together is absolutely ridiculous. Our wars, by many groups' estimations, have made us more vulnerable to terror at an incredible cost to the taxpayers of today and tomorrow. This brutal hemorrhage of money must be slowed down. And seeing the budget the Democratic party is pushing through, it's not getting any smaller.
I admire the fact that many soldiers feel they are doing something to serve their country. I wish our leadership used the military responsibly and sustainably, but that isn't your fault.
I strongly feel that military people need to be aware of what is going on. You need to read the news from independent sources. And you need to be prepared to resist any action that is illegal to the extent that you can. Furthermore, anyone in the military covering up for a crime needs to stop that.
Hookt, What do you think about private security contractors like Blackwater?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not see a need for groups like Blackwater personally. I feel the military should be self sustaining and accountable for its budget.
I think that if there is training required on a subject that is not typically in the training manual then perhaps hire a contractor that has experience, but it should be a last resort.
I also feel the actions are mercenary and damn near vigilante. I have my own idea of how a military should be, and how it should be trained. I also have an idea of required military requirements but we are years and a huge cultural shift before they can be inacted.
Actually a lot of this I brought up in my novel (which will be hitting the shelfs by the end of the year). I have my own ideas on how it is supposed to work. I think we have to many pieces in a system that is geared to be simple.
I think four branches is way to much when we can get by with two, one if you consider the USN and USMC the same branch. States can still maintain a nation guard, but they would be state funded and trained.
The federal force woudl be under the control of the Federal Government, and a lot slimmer and meaner. The other requirements woudl be to remember the three rules of war, at least in my mind.
1) How will you deploy 2) Define what is considered a win 3) After the fighting is done, what is next
3 could also be looked at as a exit strategy, which I do not feel our current leadership had or has.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Winter of Humanity author Jesse Walter Shocking huh? If a guy like me can get published, there is hope for any one.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Touching the no-bid contracts: There is an old joke among soldiers that you should always remember that your equipment was delivered by the lowest bidder. Maybe Bush wanted to do away with that problem. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
The sums are simple. Reconstruction will cost considerably more than originally imagined. The American administration has committed most of its funds. The Iraqis have neither the money nor the expertise to run the projects that have been completed. There’s little transparency or accountability. To judge from the audits published so far, at least $12 billion spent by the Americans and by the Iraqi interim and transitional governments has not been properly accounted for. Almost three years after the fall of Saddam, the GAO reports, ‘it is unclear how US efforts are helping the Iraqi people obtain clean water, reliable electricity or competent healthcare.’ The Bush administration has decided to provide no more reconstruction funds.
.....
It appears that CPA officials handed stacks of $100 bills to local dignitaries and others whose support they wanted and whose intelligence they needed, to dispose of as they saw fit. The ‘reconstruction’ projects seem to have been part of a ‘hearts and minds’ campaign and it may never have been intended that the funds be properly accounted for. A woman from al-Hillah told me that $100,000 designated for a local women’s centre with which she was involved was handed over to a local dignitary who, she alleges, used it to finance his election campaign. The money came from the Development Fund for Iraq: it was, in other words, Iraqi money handed over to the Americans under UN Security Council Resolution 1483 to be spent ‘in a transparent manner to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people’.
.......
The minister didn’t sign every contract himself. His deputy secretary general, Ziyad al-Qataan, handled much of the paperwork for several contracts in which full payment, in cash, was made up front to Iraqi and other Arab businessmen acting as middle men for Polish, American and other military equipment firms. Hundreds of millions of dollars were transferred from the Iraqi government’s holdings into bank accounts in Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere. Some $201 million in cash was taken out of the country through Baghdad airport, in violation of currency control regulations. Many of the contracts had an 18-month delivery time, hopelessly long for equipment urgently needed by the new Iraqi armed forces to whom the Americans say they are going to hand over so that US troops can be withdrawn.
Much of the equipment – helicopters, uniforms, armoured cars, bullet-proof vests, ammunition, winter coats – has never turned up, or has turned out to be grossly substandard and overpriced. For example, the ministry paid an Emirates firm $113,000 apiece for 230 land cruisers that usually cost $35,000 each. The ministry paid more than $300,000 over the top for 2500 bullet-proof vests. There is also the matter of a $9-million contract for 300,000 ‘defective hand grenades’.
The Iraq reconstruction is a system for funneling money to selected people with no regard for the taxpayers who will have to shoulder the burden of these payouts.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
I love you man I really do, but this thread is not just for you to regurgitate news articles at us to justify your hatred for Bush. We get it man, we really do.
This is about the choice to join the military being moral or not. Hell with all the crap you have been throwing out, I respect the troops even more, for still doing their job and putting up with all this crap.
I am sure that joining the military can be moral. I felt my choice to join was the moral one. A solider can be moral even if his general is not. Hell anyone that sends a soldier to war must have a least a little subjective morality. The option woudl be a skewed moral compass, or a real serious need to compromise the morality of their soldiers to preserve something greater.
Regardless the decision to become a solider is a deep and moral choice. The reason for this, is that each bright eyed green fng that rolls out of boot has dreams of serving his or her country. Not necessarily the president, but the country for sure.
It is not just the country the way we see it here, but they way it should be seen. Its amazing when you talk to a booter, and it makes me think if I was that naive. As a Marine fresh out of training what he thinks America is, and what he hopes to get form his career.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a ton of great people in the military who serve our country justly. I'll stop derailing this thread.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nato, get on your soap box brother, but it might be more effectively served by starting another thread. Perhaps title it "Why I hate Bush, and the good ole boy network."
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
our how about "lets trim the Bush?" or maybe "a gun in your hand is better then two from Bush."
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a matter of hating anybody. I just can't stand the practices of the current government, and I can't see why some people would say we just have to "have faith in the system" when the system has produced exactly what we have now. This is not what everyone says Democracy is supposed to produce. We need to address that problem. Bush's rise to power is just a symptom of the deep problems our democracy has.
Bush is an infection, causing us pain and discomfort, so we have to treat it directly now, but we should also try to shore up the immune system against this kind of disease so our children can have a country to live in that they can actually be proud of.
[ July 27, 2007, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nato is a little naive, but as a fan of his(?) mind I have faith that eventually he'll grow up and see how individual choice has to be tempered with the reality of consequences.
Hookt seems to recognize that Nato isn't right, but I'm not sure he knows how or why....and while his incorrect word usage, habit of writing in lowercase letters, and use of the lol are endearing; they don't lead me to take what he says seriously.
Sorry for the bluntness up there, but I'm tired after a long night of safeguarding freedom (or something), and wading through half-thoughts while half-awake is irritating.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
