Something Noone I Suspect Will Agree To

[Bill Thompson]

Here is something that I think is true and I think that very few people will agree is true especially in the current political climate.

Democrats were once insisting that something serious had to be done about Saddam and that mere containment was not the answer. Clinton and Kerry were the most outspoken members of this group.

After 911 the fear and intensity had only increased.

Although the Dems now spin it that the war-loving neo cons are to blame for everything, I think an unbelievable but valid truth is that if Bush had NOT gotten together a bunch of willing nations and set out to take out Saddam after all the UN violations, the Democrats would have gone as far as to impeach Bush for not invading.

[drkitten]

Here is something that I think is true and I think that very few people will agree is true especially in the current political climate.

Democrats were once insisting that something serious had to be done about Saddam and that mere containment was not the answer. Clinton and Kerry were the most outspoken members of this group.

After 911 the fear and intensity had only increased.

Although the Dems now spin it that the war-loving neo cons are to blame for everything, I think an unbelievable but valid truth is that if Bush had NOT gotten together a bunch of willing nations and set out to take out Saddam after all the UN violations, the Democrats would have gone as far as to impeach Bush for not invading.


This is -- ahem -- unbelievable.

"Not invading" isn't by any stretch of the imagination an impeachable offense. Nor could the Democrats put together anything close to the number of votes required for an impeachment.

I might be willing to buy that the Democrats would criticize Bush. But your "truth" is in fact, totally unbelievable.

[DanishDynamite]

Here is something that I think is true and I think that very few people will agree is true especially in the current political climate.

Democrats were once insisting that something serious had to be done about Saddam and that mere containment was not the answer. Clinton and Kerry were the most outspoken members of this group.

After 911 the fear and intensity had only increased.

Although the Dems now spin it that the war-loving neo cons are to blame for everything, I think an unbelievable but valid truth is that if Bush had NOT gotten together a bunch of willing nations and set out to take out Saddam after all the UN violations, the Democrats would have gone as far as to impeach Bush for not invading.
As long as we are into random personal speculations: Extremists, left or right, will never be amenable to change their woos, sorry views, based just only on logic and evidence.

[Ladewig]

Although the Dems now spin it that the war-loving neo cons are to blame for everything, I think an unbelievable but valid truth is that if Bush had NOT gotten together a bunch of willing nations and set out to take out Saddam after all the UN violations, the Democrats would have gone as far as to impeach Bush for not invading.

You're right!

Specifically, you're right about no one agreeing with you. The other thing is a pretty wacky idea.

[Huntster]

Here is something that I think is true and I think that very few people will agree is true especially in the current political climate.

Democrats were once insisting that something serious had to be done about Saddam and that mere containment was not the answer. Clinton and Kerry were the most outspoken members of this group.

Most definately Kerrey (http://www.thevillager.com/villager_24/newschools.html), not Kerry.

It's revealing to see how the media dances with respect to election seasons. Note this (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/04/iraq.html) from the left leaning Mother Jones:

Most of the United States' attention is now focused on the NATO bombing of Kosovo. But just because a new war has started doesn't mean the old one is over. On Friday, the U.S. bombed an Iraqi communications control facility and an Iraqi radio relay station -- one more incident to add to the eighty-plus that have occured over the past three months. However, the media seemingly lost interest in this tired conflict months ago, after the dramatic headlines and night-glow images of Operation Desert Fox had subsided.

Newspapers have generally relegated their coverage of the more recent U.S./British bombing "incidents" to a few paragraphs in the international section. And Time and Newsweek have largely ignored the ongoing campaign, which has inflicted more damage than December's intensive four-day bombing blitz.

Neither magazine, amazingly, bothered to report the January 25 missile attacks on civilian areas that wounded nearly 100 people and killed ten children. Newsweek didn't even mention the current conflict with Iraq in its March 8 issue devoted entirely to "Americans at War." (The magazine did have the audacity to claim, though, that "America has not started a war in this century." Perhaps Vietnam was just a decade-long police action.)

The media's relative silence is disturbing, but hardly surprising: the U.S. government's attempt to defeat Iraq through a slow-moving war of attrition just doesn't make for good copy. Combine that fact with the Clinton administration's bumblingly inconsistent spin, and the result is an American public that has remained mostly in the dark about its government's past, present, and future actions in Iraq.

[Cleon]

Although the Dems now spin it that the war-loving neo cons are to blame for everything, I think an unbelievable but valid truth is that if Bush had NOT gotten together a bunch of willing nations and set out to take out Saddam after all the UN violations, the Democrats would have gone as far as to impeach Bush for not invading.

And how, pray tell, would the Democrats have accomplished this without even a simple majority in the Senate or the House?

[Crossbow]

Here is something that I think is true and I think that very few people will agree is true especially in the current political climate.

Democrats were once insisting that something serious had to be done about Saddam and that mere containment was not the answer. Clinton and Kerry were the most outspoken members of this group.

After 911 the fear and intensity had only increased.

Although the Dems now spin it that the war-loving neo cons are to blame for everything, I think an unbelievable but valid truth is that if Bush had NOT gotten together a bunch of willing nations and set out to take out Saddam after all the UN violations, the Democrats would have gone as far as to impeach Bush for not invading.

Well, there are several things wrong with this post, but the one I had not seen mentioned yet is that Bush did fail to get a bunch of willing nations to help take out Saddam.

Anyone else remember how France and Germany refused to participate?
How Turkey would not allow US troops to transit through?
How Saudia Arabia refused to get involved?
How Bush did not even try to get an actual UN Resolution of Force since he knew it would not pass?

And so on.

[Wheezebucket]

How in the world could they impeach him for not invading?

[Lurker]

Was that Sean Hannity in the original post? Sure sounded like his brand of logic.

Lurker

[drkitten]

How in the world could they impeach him for not invading?

The same way they could impeach him with a minority of votes, of course.

[Zep]

How in the world could they impeach him for not invading?Even I, a non-USAian, would ask that same question.

It leads to further speculation as to what else that he hasn't done that they might impeach him for...

[Huntster]

Even I, a non-USAian, would ask that same question.

It leads to further speculation as to what else that he hasn't done that they might impeach him for...

Any crime of omission committed by the president is impeachable.

It is possible to not do something, and by so doing, you have committed a crime.

[Dr Adequate]

Yes, but not invading Iraq is not a crime.

[casebro]

I think the gist of the OP is that the Dems wanted to go to war in Iraq too. The senate vote was what 99 to 1? 48 democrat senators voted for war. EVERYBODY thought Saddam had WMDs. It wasn't until later that the dems decided to try to make political hay by taking the opposition side. Probably when they noticed that a long war would make it look like the Republicans had a lock on "protecting the homefront". A short war like Iraq I would have got the boys home quickly, and been forgotten in time for the dems to have a chance in the next election. Too bad they miscalculated.

[Katana]

Bill?

Oh, Biiiilll!

:con2:

Where hath he gone?

[drkitten]

I think the gist of the OP is that the Dems wanted to go to war in Iraq too. The senate vote was what 99 to 1? 48 democrat senators voted for war.

77-23. Suggesting that the Democrats were split approximately down the middle. I think saying that "the Dems wanted to go to war in Iraq too" is a bit of an overstatement.

[Luke T.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXwCrpMHkYc

Yes, it is an anti-Kerry video, but there are some interesting clips of Kerry saying some interesting things that support the invasion of Iraq.

[gnome]

This has been the topic of much confusion indeed (especially during the 2004 election) but the Democrats (and the rest of Congress) if I recall correctly didn't vote to specifically invade Iraq. They voted to give the President the authority to decide if and when to invade Iraq. It is not, then, duplicitous to subsequently disagree with the President's choice.

I suspect that the majority of Democrats (and possibly some of the Republicans) that voted for that bill intended for W to form a stronger coalition and stronger international support before invading, and are perfectly consistent to criticize him for failing to do so.

Of course, try and explain that in a sound bite without sounding like a flip-flopper.

[Zep]

Any crime of omission committed by the president is impeachable.

It is possible to not do something, and by so doing, you have committed a crime.NOT hastening world peace?

NOT relieving third-world debt?

NOT ridding the world of nuclear...sorry, nucular threats?

NOT ensuring that New Orleans is dealt with promptly?

NOT finding Osama bin Laden and putting his arse in pokey forever?

You could be right. Lots of stuff he didn't do that he could be impeached for.

Is there a form I can download to start this process?

[Snide]

Peter Noone would agree that he is Ennery the Eighth, he is. And he may also say that no one else is...

[fishbob]

I disagree with your spelling of no one.

As well as the other stuff you posted.

[Esperdome]

Impeachment = silly season in Washington DC.

Nixon resigned before his impeachment because what he did was way worse than what we knew at the time.

Clinton didn't resign because what he did was less than what we were led to believe.

Impeach Bush, you get another resignation.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Any crime of omission committed by the president is impeachable.

It is possible to not do something, and by so doing, you have committed a crime.
NOT hastening world peace?

NOT relieving third-world debt?

NOT ridding the world of nuclear...sorry, nucular threats?

NOT ensuring that New Orleans is dealt with promptly?

NOT finding Osama bin Laden and putting his arse in pokey forever?

You could be right. Lots of stuff he didn't do that he could be impeached for.

Is there a form I can download to start this process?

Perhaps a simple letter to the AG, Senate President, or Speaker might do.

But it appears that you want more than a president. God doesn't even do all that stuff.

[PogoPedant]

Yes, but not invading Iraq is not a crime.

Of course it is. Imagine the following scenario:

9/11 comes and goes, the US awakens NATO and everybody goes to Afghanistan to fight. Afghanistan is subdued and and with the focused efforts of all of the western world, it is gradually becoming a modern, free country. Bush rattles the sabre and eyes Iraq, but Colin Powell manages to convince the administration that an invasion would be ill adviced. The world rests for now.

But somewhere deep within the cavernous palaces of Saddam Hussein, something old and evil stirs.

Saddam knows that it is only a matter of time before the US elects a leader with even less sense than Bush, and then Iraq will surely be invaded. Rather than sit back and wait for the inevitable, Saddam takes matters into his own hands. In a public decree he offers riches beyond dreams to anyone who will help him destroy the Great Satan, and one lonely Scientist steps up to the plate. He brings the Dictator a vial of inert Botulin, an innocous cylinder from some sort of centrifuge, and a map to the very center of the earth.

The Scientist and the Dictator are filled with mortal doubt, but they know what must be done. Together they travel through the ancient tunnels that lead to the realms of dreams and horrors, and on the altar of W'ga M'Drach they offer the Botulin, the cylinder, and their very souls.

Time passes.

America sleeps.

Then one day, a cold and crisp autumn day, the waters outside Manhatten shivers in a queer and unnatural way. And from the murky depths rises a terror so alien, so blasphemous, so grotesque that anyone who stares at it too long looses their minds and throws themselves into the boiling water to drown rather than share a world with the abomination.

Saddam and the Scientist tear through New York, shooting deadly laser from their four eyes, their twin mouths devouring first the Empire State Building, then the Chrystler building. Another, and then another building is consumed by the fiendish creature from the Middle East that crossed the Atlantic to preemptively invade the USA.

The Democratic party impeaches president Bush for failing to stop the Saddam monster.

They fail.

America is eaten.

[Kerberos]

Any crime of omission committed by the president is impeachable.

It is possible to not do something, and by so doing, you have committed a crime.

True, but Not invading Iraq would hardly qualify. It could form the basis for a vote of no confidence, but a vote of no confidence has no legal weight in the US.

[Oroborus]

But it appears that you want more than a president. God doesn't even do all that stuff.


Then lets impeach him too :P

[Kerberos]

Then lets impeach him too :P

They tried to, but he pledged innocent by reasons of non-existence.

[Lurker]

I think the gist of the OP is that the Dems wanted to go to war in Iraq too. The senate vote was what 99 to 1? 48 democrat senators voted for war. EVERYBODY thought Saddam had WMDs. It wasn't until later that the dems decided to try to make political hay by taking the opposition side. Probably when they noticed that a long war would make it look like the Republicans had a lock on "protecting the homefront". A short war like Iraq I would have got the boys home quickly, and been forgotten in time for the dems to have a chance in the next election. Too bad they miscalculated.

Unfortunately, the problem is that the Democrats were relying on the Inelligence that the White House provided them in their case for war/WMDs.

Not only was that intelligence flawed but there were signs that it was flawed that the administration purposefully overlooked. For example, the aluminum tubes fiasco. In the intel report, had Condi Rice bothered to read the full report, she would have known that many in hte intelligence community did not think the aluminum tubes were capable of being used in a a WMD weapons program. This fact was conveniently overlooked as they rushed to strike fear in our hearts about aluminum tubes and WMD programs.

The White House DOES get different Intel than Congress so they were not looking yat the same documents.

Lurker

[Tricky]

...but valid truth is that if Bush had NOT gotten together a bunch of willing nations and set out to take out Saddam after all the UN violations, the Democrats would have gone as far as to impeach Bush for not invading.
Well Bill, at least you realized even as you were writing it how silly your scenario is. There may be hope for you yet.

[Beerina]

Well, there are several things wrong with this post, but the one I had not seen mentioned yet is that Bush did fail to get a bunch of willing nations to help take out Saddam.

Anyone else remember how France and Germany refused to participate?
How Turkey would not allow US troops to transit through?
How Saudia Arabia refused to get involved?
How Bush did not even try to get an actual UN Resolution of Force since he knew it would not pass?

And so on.

Poland. You forgot about Poland.

Actually, it kind of saddens me he'd burn that political capital of nations indebted to us for adding them to NATO as protection against a resurgent Soviet Union.

[Darth Rotor]

Although the Dems now spin it that the war-loving neo cons are to blame for everything, I think an unbelievable but valid truth is that if Bush had NOT gotten together a bunch of willing nations and set out to take out Saddam after all the UN violations, the Democrats would have gone as far as to impeach Bush for not invading.
I disagree with you. The Democrats were big talk, little action, in the Mid East, and were content not to go to war, but to chip away at the margins, or hope things went away insofar as Saddam was concerned, for the 1990's.

I don't see them impeaching Bush for NOT starting a war in Iraq. One, that is an extremely hard sell, as it could not be shown negligent due to other efforts (sanctions, various work with local allies, work with the UN) were alternatives that might/could bear fruit. Trying to make and sell that case to an evenly balanced, or Republican majority Congress was not going to work, unless a significant, material linkage to Al Qaeda operations could be shown Congress.

Without the latter, not a political fight worth trying to start, a building with a foundation of straw.

DR

[Upchurch]

I don't see them impeaching Bush for NOT starting a war in Iraq.
Especially since Congress is the the branch that has the power to declare war. Had they done so and Bush refused to follow through, then they might have a case for impeaching him for not starting a war in Iraq.

[Darth Rotor]

Especially since Congress is the the branch that has the power to declare war. Had they done so and Bush refused to follow through, then they might have a case for impeaching him for not starting a war in Iraq.
Good point.

DR

[drkitten]

Especially since Congress is the the branch that has the power to declare war. Had they done so and Bush refused to follow through, then they might have a case for impeaching him for not starting a war in Iraq.

Even then, I doubt it. In his capacity of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he has the authority to commit -- and withhold -- military force based on the tactical situation.

Do you remember -- meaning, of course, have you read about -- the Sitzkrieg in WWII? Just because one is "at war" doesn't mean that one is shooting. And sometimes not shooting is the best military move you can make.....

[Oroborus]

Even then, I doubt it. In his capacity of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he has the authority to commit -- and withhold -- military force based on the tactical situation.

Do you remember -- meaning, of course, have you read about -- the Sitzkrieg in WWII? Just because one is "at war" doesn't mean that one is shooting. And sometimes not shooting is the best military move you can make.....

Good point kitten I was just about to bring that up, although probably less articulate.

[Kerberos]

Even then, I doubt it. In his capacity of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he has the authority to commit -- and withhold -- military force based on the tactical situation.

Do you remember -- meaning, of course, have you read about -- the Sitzkrieg in WWII? Just because one is "at war" doesn't mean that one is shooting. And sometimes not shooting is the best military move you can make.....

I was going to ask if that was an American equivalent similar to the Phoney War, until I checked the term on Wikipedia and got redirected to guess what article. On a slightly more relevant note taking time to rearm and getting forces in place would most likely not be impeachable, but essentially ignoring the declaration of war, or deliberately, and provably, dragging out the process probably would.

[Bill Thompson]

How in the world could they impeach him for not invading?

I do not think it would happen immediately. But the situation was getting tense and it would continue to worsen. As I said before, Kerry and Clinton and a lot of Dems who now say that they are against the war ("wrong war at the wrong time") were insisting that something must be done at one time (brainterminal.com has a lot of quotes they had made that might suprise you).

People have short-term memories about these things and they believe whatever they hear on the news now but forget what was on the news before. We technically were still at war with Iraq at the end of the first gulf war since Saddam was not playing along with any agreement to end the war and start a peace.

We thought that Iraq was contained. 911 showed us that containment in dealing with our enemies is just a dream.

Impeachment might not happen immediately and maybe it would not happen at all, but I think it is not unreasonable to assume that a choirs of anger and discontent would rise.

All the posts above that think my idea is silly ignore the notion that 911 gave us a sense of insecurity that we never had before.

[Katana]

All the posts above that think my idea is silly ignore the notion that 911 gave us a sense of insecurity that we never had before.

What does going to war in Iraq have to do with 9/11?

[Ladewig]

[COLOR=black]Impeachment might not happen immediately and maybe it would not happen at all, but I think it is not unreasonable to assume that a choirs of anger and discontent would rise.

All the posts above that think my idea is silly ignore the notion that 911 gave us a sense of insecurity that we never had before.


Committing a crime = grounds for impeachment.
Rising choirs of anger and discontent ≠ grounds for impeachment.
That's why your position is unsound.

[Ladewig]

I think the gist of the OP is that the Dems wanted to go to war in Iraq too. The senate vote was what 99 to 1? 48 democrat senators voted for war. EVERYBODY thought Saddam had WMDs. It wasn't until later that the dems decided to try to make political hay by taking the opposition side. Probably when they noticed that a long war would make it look like the Republicans had a lock on "protecting the homefront". A short war like Iraq I would have got the boys home quickly, and been forgotten in time for the dems to have a chance in the next election. Too bad they miscalculated.

The current administration
- went in with too few troops to secure large areas,
- engaged in the worst kind of croneyism by appointing unqualified, inexperienced, young Republicans to important positions in Iraq,
- gave contracts to Halliburton which ran up hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable charges,
- underestimated the cost by orders of magnitude
- underestimated the time frame by severalfold


And your position is that it is "too bad [the Democrats] miscalulated."

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster

But it appears that you want more than a president. God doesn't even do all that stuff.
Then lets impeach him too :P

That ain't in the constitution.

Sorry. No perfection here on Earth. That's a guarantee.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Oroborus
Then lets impeach him too :P
They tried to, but he pledged innocent by reasons of non-existence.

Still trying to impeach Him, too.

If He doesn't exist, why are they trying to impeach Him?

[Oroborus]

They tried to, but he pledged innocent by reasons of non-existence.


Damn I bet he had OJ's lawyer. :p

[Moochie]

I will never, ever agree to "no one" being written as one word. It isn't one word. It's two words. And it's not hyphenated, either.

M.

[Kerberos]

I will never, ever agree to "no one" being written as one word. It isn't one word. It's two words. And it's not hyphenated, either.

M.

N-oone cares what you agree with.

[Luke T.]

I think perhaps the biggest mistake made after the invasion of Iraq was the disbanding of the Iraqi army.

[Darth Rotor]

I think perhaps the biggest mistake made after the invasion of Iraq was the disbanding of the Iraqi army.
One of a number of strategic errors. Another was blatantly picking sides with the Shia, with the express intent of installing Chalabi, a Shia expat, as the Bao Dai of Iraq.

DR

[Almo]

Although the Dems now spin it that the war-loving neo cons are to blame for everything, I think an unbelievable but valid truth is that if Bush had NOT gotten together a bunch of willing nations and set out to take out Saddam after all the UN violations, the Democrats would have gone as far as to impeach Bush for not invading.

No way. Maybe they would have hounded him about it, but no impeachment. I don't believe that for one second.

[Tricky]

I will never, ever agree to "no one" being written as one word. It isn't one word. It's two words. And it's not hyphenated, either.

Every one agrees that your argument isn't going to convince any one.

[Darth Rotor]

Every one agrees that your argument isn't going to convince any one.
Wait, was he objecting to the lowe noone or the highe noone? What's with all this Samuel Johnson era spelling, anyway?

"You'll not forsake me, oh my moochie . . . " :D

DR

[gnome]

We thought that Iraq was contained. 911 showed us that containment in dealing with our enemies is just a dream.

Explain how 911 showed us that the Iraqis were not contained?

[geni]

One of a number of strategic errors. Another was blatantly picking sides with the Shia, with the express intent of installing Chalabi, a Shia expat, as the Bao Dai of Iraq.

DR

That would have been a legit tactic (well other than the choice of expat) if the US had ben prepared to do what was required to go through with it.

[Elizabeth I]

Something Noone I Suspect Will Agree To
Whom do you suspect?


(By the way, here's another view of the world's greatest photo, this time with TWO pancakes)

http://macidiot.dyndns.org/~iken/oolong.jpg


http://macidiot.dyndns.org/~iken/oolong.jpg

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Luke T.
I think perhaps the biggest mistake made after the invasion of Iraq was the disbanding of the Iraqi army.
One of a number of strategic errors. Another was blatantly picking sides with the Shia, with the express intent of installing Chalabi, a Shia expat, as the Bao Dai of Iraq.

Do you claim that the election was a fraud?

[Darth Rotor]

Do you claim that the election was a fraud?
What are you talking about? Chalabi isn't in charge, is he?

Maliki won his partiy's nod to be PM.

DR

[Huntster]

What are you talking about? Chalabi isn't in charge, is he?

Maliki won his partiy's nod to be PM.

DR

Correct. Maliki won the election, he is Shia, and Chalabi is currently under investigation by the U.S. government for his role in possibly providing false intelligence information.

The U.S. respects the Iraqi election process, and it was valid.

[Ziggurat]

Although the Dems now spin it that the war-loving neo cons are to blame for everything, I think an unbelievable but valid truth is that if Bush had NOT gotten together a bunch of willing nations and set out to take out Saddam after all the UN violations, the Democrats would have gone as far as to impeach Bush for not invading.

I'm all in favor of pointing out the Democrat's inconsistency and hypocricy regarding Iraq, and I'm QUITE certain that they'd be willing to use any failure of Bush's to act against Saddam as a bludgeon to try to beat Republicans in elections. But I have to agree with the other posters here: there wouldn't be any impeachment of Bush for not invading. And even from the most cynical perspective, why would they? No need for an impeachment in order to get political mileage out of it.

[wastepanel]

I do not think it would happen immediately. But the situation was getting tense and it would continue to worsen. As I said before, Kerry and Clinton and a lot of Dems who now say that they are against the war ("wrong war at the wrong time") were insisting that something must be done at one time (brainterminal.com has a lot of quotes they had made that might suprise you).

People have short-term memories about these things and they believe whatever they hear on the news now but forget what was on the news before. We technically were still at war with Iraq at the end of the first gulf war since Saddam was not playing along with any agreement to end the war and start a peace.

We thought that Iraq was contained. 911 showed us that containment in dealing with our enemies is just a dream.

Impeachment might not happen immediately and maybe it would not happen at all, but I think it is not unreasonable to assume that a choirs of anger and discontent would rise.

All the posts above that think my idea is silly ignore the notion that 911 gave us a sense of insecurity that we never had before.

I am really starting to enjoy your posts Mr. Thompson.

So you are admitting now that Bush wouldn't have been impeached? I'm confused.

Technically, we were not at war with Iraq. You see, in order for us to be at war, the Congress has to vote our status into the war. The Congress did not do this. It is officially a "conflict".

You seem to like political rhetoric and seem to be very fascinated by Clintons (in)actions.