Impeach Cheney

[Christopher7]

Do you think the Judiciary Committee should hold hearings on Resolution to impeach?

[T.A.M.]

No

TAM:)

[Bell]

First tell us on what charges he should be impeached.

[jhunter1163]

First tell us on what charges he should be impeached.

THEN we'll say "no".

[Christopher7]

First tell us on what charges he should be impeached.
Lying about reasons for going to war.

[T.A.M.]

prove he was knowingly providing misinformation about the reasons for going to war.

Thanks in advance (oh, and I am not a Cheney fan)

TAM:)

[Bell]

Lying about reasons for going to war.

Which war?

[jhunter1163]

Lying about reasons for going to war.

No.

See how easy that was?

[pomeroo]

Lying about reasons for going to war.


Nobody actually thinks he lied. Plenty of people say that he lied, but when you ask them why he and Bush didn't really believe that Iraq retained WMD, they change the subject.

[OldTigerCub]

No.
Wow...my shortest post yet. That was easy!

[CptColumbo]

Lying about reasons for going to war.First You have to have a specific crime. Did he personally lie to the US Congress? Did he lie under oath in a court of law?

Then you have to prove that it is an impeachable crime to the House.

Next the burden of proof is on the prosecution. You would have to prove, using evidence, that an impeachable crime was commited to the Senate. Simply pointing out what a scumbag he is, is not enough.

While that's going on you have a public wondering why we're wasting time impeaching a man who constitutionally has little power and will only be in office another year, and could be pardoned if actually convicted of a crime after the impeachment.

[Brainster]

This is a political thread then and does not belong in the conspiracy theory section.

[OldTigerCub]

Lying about reasons for going to war.

There is a big difference between making statements based on your best information available, and that information being found to be inaccurate later, and lying.

[CptColumbo]

This is a political thread then and does not belong in the conspiracy theory section.
Agreed.

[Christopher7]

Agreed.You are right.
If admin wants to move this thread, OK.

I just wanted to see how people here on the Conspiricy Theories forum felt about hearings on the impeachment resolutions.

The reasons for impeachment were laid out in the resolution.

Don't ask me to make the case.

Based on what you know,

Do you think the Judiciary Committee should hold hearings on Resolution to impeach?

[CptColumbo]

Don't ask me to make the case.

Based on what you know,

Do you think the Judiciary Committee should hold hearings on Resolution to impeach?You haven't said what the actual crime is yet.

First you have to have a specific crime. Did he personally lie to the US Congress? Did he lie under oath in a court of law?

What is the specific crime?

[Good Lt]

This belongs in politics.

But the answer is clearly no, because he and Bush (following the outdated intel at the time in 2002-2003) were simply wrong.

There's a difference between being wrong and lying. Nobody, save the folks screaming for impeachment based on specific lies and "high crimes and misdemeanors" they can't seem to articulate, are lying. Either that, or they're wrong. I'll leave it to those peeps to decide what the events between 2002-2003 leading up to the invasion of Iraq qualified as.

But they certainly weren't lies. No more lies than the Clinton Administration committed when they use the same intel (at that time up to date) to launch missile strikes on Iraqi targets in 1998. They weren't lies then, and they aren't lies now.

Here' - look for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ

The difference between lying and being wrong has been discussed in the CT forum as well (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98182&highlight=lying+wrong).

[CptColumbo]

I guess for me it comes down to:

Should he be impeached?
vs.
Can he be impeached?

Since the answer to the second is no, at the moment, I see no point in answering the first.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

prove he was knowingly providing misinformation about the reasons for going to war.

Thanks in advance (oh, and I am not a Cheney fan)

TAM:)


Actually, he had publicly stated before the Iraq invasion that "we" knew where the WMDs were...

ETA:
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Dick Cheney, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, March 30, 2003 (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2185)


And if I remember correctly, the intelligence this stuff was based was deemed not credible, or not confirmed, or somesuch. I would vote 'Yes' for impeachment proceedings, but this thread really belongs in the Politics section...

[Bell]

Christopher7, what war?

[Zep]

Broader question: Why bother? The runt's reputation is dirt.

[Upchurch]

What is the specific crime?
That is actually a misconception. There doesn't need to have been a crime committed. The US Constitution left it ambiguous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#House_of_Represen tatives) enough that only a simple majority of the House of Representatives need agree that whatever the executive branch official is doing is bad enough to warrant removal.

[Christopher7]

That is actually a misconception. There doesn't need to have been a crime committed. The US Constitution left it ambiguous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#House_of_Represen tatives) enough that only a simple majority of the House of Representatives need agree that whatever the executive branch official is doing is bad enough to warrant removal.
True

In this case the specific charges and evidence are in the resolution.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/199.html

[shemp]

Simply pointing out what a scumbag he is, is not enough.


Not true, according to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution:

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, or for being a scumbag.

[Hamradioguy]

Well, when Valerie Plame Wilson spoke here a few weeks ago she specifically said that those who blew her cover as a CIA agent committed treason. Fingers are still being pointed in various directions on this one. I'd love the finger pointing to go directly toward Cheney,but I fear it will take more than just finger pointing for an impeachment resolution to begin.

[ravdin]

I'd love the finger pointing to go directly toward Cheney

Me too. But you'll have to prove it- wishful thinking isn't enough.

[Brainster]

Well, when Valerie Plame Wilson spoke here a few weeks ago she specifically said that those who blew her cover as a CIA agent committed treason.

Well, Valerie's not exactly known for lack of hyperbole. Reading from the Constitution:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Actually one of the findings that Fitzgerald made fairly early in the investigation of the leaks was that the leak itself was not a crime. Hence Richard Armitage, who turned out to be the original source for the Novak column, was not charged with anything.

[Lex Luthor]

Impeaching Cheney would be pointless. All it would do is give the Republicans something to rally behind for the next election. It would remove the emphasis from eight years of Bush administration bungling and instead cause the focus to be on political gamesmanship.

If you're serious about electing a Democrat to the White House, you need to do two things:

1. Forget about impeaching anybody.
2. Make sure Hillary is not the nominee.

[Dr Adequate]

Yes.

It's not my country, and it would be a laugh.

Also the little ****** deserves it, but apparently that isn't the point.

[Rob Lister]

Impeaching Cheney would be pointless. All it would do is give the Republicans something to rally behind for the next election. It would remove the emphasis from eight years of Bush administration bungling and instead cause the focus to be on political gamesmanship.

If you're serious about electing a Democrat to the White House, you need to do two things:

1. Forget about impeaching anybody.
2. Make sure Hillary is not the nominee.

1) agree
2) the RCP average currently puts hillary ahead by 19+ points. If obama or edwards are going to catch up, they damn well better hurry. I think shell get the nod. I give her 2 chances in 5 of winning the election, regardless of which republican wins the nod.

[Dr Adequate]

1) agree
2) the RCP average currently puts hillary ahead by 19+ points. If obama or edwards are going to catch up, they damn well better hurry. I think shell get the nod. I give her 2 chances in 5 of winning the election, regardless of which republican wins the nod. "Regardless of which republican wins the nod"?

I think not.

[Lex Luthor]

1) agree
2) the RCP average currently puts hillary ahead by 19+ points. If obama or edwards are going to catch up, they damn well better hurry. I think shell get the nod. I give her 2 chances in 5 of winning the election, regardless of which republican wins the nod.
I don't think it's a done deal, considering that there haven't been any primaries or caucuses yet. Four years ago everybody thought Howard Dean was the favorite, and he wound up imploding very quickly.

[Rob Lister]

I don't think it's a done deal, considering that there haven't been any primaries or caucuses yet. Four years ago everybody thought Howard Dean was the favorite, and he wound up imploding very quickly.

Yea, well, maybe. I don't think Hillary is going to implode like Dean (but stranger things have happened) Heck, IMO Dean didn't implode so much as he just happened to make a very poor sound bite and the precise wrong time. The Media was on it like stink on ****.

If Obama wins, I put him at a slight favorite, but only slight, against any of the republican nominees.

[Lex Luthor]

Some Republicans are much more palatable than others, at least to people who don't subscribe to all of the right-wing hyperbole. In my mind, Romney and Giuliani are preferable to an arch-conservative such as Huckabee. In a general election of Hillary vs. Huckabee, I don't know which would be the lesser of two evils.

[Rob Lister]

Some Republicans are much more palatable than others, at least to people who don't subscribe to all of the right-wing hyperbole. In my mind, Romney and Giuliani are preferable to an arch-conservative such as Huckabee. In a general election of Hillary vs. Huckabee, I don't know which would be the lesser of two evils.

It's the right/left-wing hyperbole that wins in the primary (left and right).

It will almost certainly be Hillary v. Giuliani, unless ligntning strikes with Thompson (Thompson just happens to be the ONLY candidate on either side that I would even consider voting for without holding my nose)

[Lex Luthor]

It's the right/left-wing hyperbole that wins in the primary (left and right).
Sad but true.


It will almost certainly be Hillary v. Giuliani,
I hope you're wrong, but I fear you might be right.


unless ligntning strikes with Thompson (Thompson just happens to be the ONLY candidate on either side that I would even consider voting for without holding my nose)
I know Thompson gets a lot of support, but I'm not sure I understand why. He says a lot of the right things, but I question how badly he really wants this job and whether or not he would have the energy level to be effective.

[Wowbagger]

Suppose we found evidence that Bush and/or Cheney were informed, ahead of time, that some of the evidence they were using to justify the war was a forgery, but went ahead and submitted them as evidence to the public, anyway, that could conceivably warrant further criminal investigation, right?

I recall Al Gore writing about such things in his book, The Assault on Reason. Specifically, in Chapter 4 (page 105 in the fist ed. hardcover). He writes that Bush told the American people that he had documented proof that Hussein was seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger, even though the UN determined the document was forged.

[Rob Lister]

Suppose we found evidence that Bush and/or Cheney were informed, ahead of time, that some of the evidence they were using to justify the war was a forgery, but went ahead and submitted them as evidence to the public, anyway, that could conceivably warrant further criminal investigation, right?

Suppose we found evidence that pigs had wings? They'd fly then, right? Not meaning to be sarcastic but even in your scenario it would not be enough to show that they were informed, but rather that they received clear and convincing counter evidence. Good luck with that.

As to the yellowcake issue, I'll let others inform you.

[Pardalis]

If recklessness, carelessness and stupidity are impeachable, then yes.

[corplinx]

I recall Al Gore writing about such things in his book, The Assault on Reason. Specifically, in Chapter 4 (page 105 in the fist ed. hardcover). He writes that Bush told the American people that he had documented proof that Hussein was seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger, even though the UN determined the document was forged.

We had the Wilson report and the UK intel report, but yeah, the forged receipt was a fake. Why is Al Gore assaulting reason?

[Wowbagger]

Suppose we found evidence that pigs had wings? They'd fly then, right? Not meaning to be sarcastic but even in your scenario it would not be enough to show that they were informed, but rather that they received clear and convincing counter evidence. Good luck with that. I'm not saying it would be enough to empeach them. But, if we kept finding piles of examples like that, it should certainly ring enough alarm bells to open up a full investigation.

But, I guess such an investigation probably won't happen for years, certainly after they left office, if at all. *Sigh.*

[Lex Luthor]

I'm not saying it would be enough to empeach them. But, if we kept finding piles of examples like that, it should certainly ring enough alarm bells to open up a full investigation.

But, I guess such an investigation probably won't happen for years, certainly after they left office, if at all. *Sigh.*
Exactly. It would be pointless.

[Rob Lister]

I'm not saying it would be enough to empeach them. But, if we kept finding piles of examples like that, it should certainly ring enough alarm bells to open up a full investigation.

But, I guess such an investigation probably won't happen for years, certainly after they left office, if at all. *Sigh.*

After they leave office congress will be too busy investigating the new president.

Might as well just let it go. It will do nothing but irritate you.

[fuelair]

Nobody actually thinks he lied. Plenty of people say that he lied, but when you ask them why he and Bush didn't really believe that Iraq retained WMD, they change the subject.
Yes, I think he lied - about multiple things. Can I prove it? Of course not - I do not have either the contacts or the clout. Am I absolutely certain that a truly impartial, interference free investigation would demonstrate that not only he, but Rove and the other Bushco cronies lied to the rest of the government and committed acts to cover those lies - YES. Would I love to see such an investigation undertaken - HELL, YES!!!

They change the subject (if true) for the reason I noted - we do not have the proof. Yet.

[The Painter]

Yes, I think he lied - about multiple things. Can I prove it? Of course not

OMG a politician lied????? I'm in shock.

Show me a politician who hasn't lied, and then I'll really be in shock.

[Brainster]

Suppose we found evidence that Bush and/or Cheney were informed, ahead of time, that some of the evidence they were using to justify the war was a forgery, but went ahead and submitted them as evidence to the public, anyway, that could conceivably warrant further criminal investigation, right?

I recall Al Gore writing about such things in his book, The Assault on Reason. Specifically, in Chapter 4 (page 105 in the fist ed. hardcover). He writes that Bush told the American people that he had documented proof that Hussein was seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger, even though the UN determined the document was forged.

Well, if Gore actually said that, he's wrong. (http://brainster.blogspot.com/2005_08_21_archive.html#112510467180145763)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If recklessness, carelessness and stupidity are impeachable, then yes.


I think those are very good reasons to be impeached. We're talking about the administration of the POTUS here, who should be supported by numerous advisers. I find it hard to believe that everyone in the Bush Administration, especially the generals, thought invading Iraq was Good Idea™, both morally and logistically.

When you continue down a path in spite of evidence and advice indicating that it the wrong or least efficient path, well... we call those people crazy in the Conspiracy Theory subforum.

OMG a politician lied????? I'm in shock.

Show me a politician who hasn't lied, and then I'll really be in shock.


You don't think this is just a little different?

[rikzilla]

Yes, I think he lied - about multiple things. Can I prove it? Of course not - I do not have either the contacts or the clout. Am I absolutely certain that a truly impartial, interference free investigation would demonstrate that not only he, but Rove and the other Bushco cronies lied to the rest of the government and committed acts to cover those lies - YES. Would I love to see such an investigation undertaken - HELL, YES!!!

They change the subject (if true) for the reason I noted - we do not have the proof. Yet.

Let's throw $50,000,000 at it! Maybe something sticky will stick??

BTW: If you want to play witch-hunt you can't cry when it gets done back to you. I'm a supporter of Republican politics about 75% of the time, but I always thought the Ken Starr investigation was a witch-hunt and never supported such a mean and counter-productive tactic that hangs a mill-stone about our president's neck. All Americans end up paying the price both in $$ and in having a POTUS weakened and distracted. It only makes a dangerous world moreso.

-z

[Ziggurat]

I think those are very good reasons to be impeached.

And how do you distinguish those things from ordinary policy differences? If you allow for recklessness, carelessness, and stupidity to be impeachable, then you're allowing impeachment for policy differences, because it's quite easy to ascribe a failure to agree with your policies to those causes. Do you really want a congress which impeaches a president whenever they disagree strongly? Because that's what you're risking if you allow for things other than actual crimes to be impeachable. There are other remedies for those qualities in a president, starting with elections.

[The Painter]

You don't think this is just a little different?

A little different than what? A lie?? No.

[Wowbagger]

Well, if Gore actually said that, he's wrong. (http://brainster.blogspot.com/2005_08_21_archive.html#112510467180145763) Well, not necessarily.

There is a LOT more about this Yellowcake stuff, than is even communicated in that link.

I don't know enough about the issue to draw a conclusion of my own, as to the nature of the documents, yet, but it seems there is more evidence on either side, than either side is letting on.

Googling for "yellow cake forgery" brings up a host of information, from all sides.


ETA: Assuming it is not a forgery, afterall, the authenticity of the document, at the time, was still questionable, at least. And, it is not such a good idea to go to war over evidence that is still questionable. 'Tis better to have harder evidence on your side, before committing to battle.

[Ziggurat]

ETA: Assuming it is not a forgery, afterall, the authenticity of the document, at the time, was still questionable, at least.

That's actually irrelevant. The Brits didn't base their assesment on the documents you're refering to, and Bush referenced the British assesment, not those documents, as the source of his claim.

[hgc]

First You have to have a specific crime. Did he personally lie to the US Congress? Did he lie under oath in a court of law?

Then you have to prove that it is an impeachable crime to the House.


No, all that is not necessary. A simple majority vote by the House on an article of impeachment means that's that. You don't have to have a "crime" as defined in the legal sense. You don't have to "prove" anything. There is no avenue of appeal, no higher authority on the matter. It's simply on to the Senate for a "trial."

Next the burden of proof is on the prosecution. You would have to prove, using evidence, that an impeachable crime was commited to the Senate. Simply pointing out what a scumbag he is, is not enough.

Again - a 2/3 majority vote by the Senate settles the question of guilt. There is no higher authority on the quesiton or avenue of appeal. No standard by which to judge if the "crime" has been "prove[n]" using "evidence."

While that's going on you have a public wondering why we're wasting time impeaching a man who constitutionally has little power and will only be in office another year, and could be pardoned if actually convicted of a crime after the impeachment.


I, for one, dispute the notion that Cheney has "little power." Polls show that the potential impeachment of Cheney is more popular than the impeachment of Clinton was. I think the public at large might know the difference in gravity between a blowjob and a war.

[rikzilla]

I, for one, dispute the notion that Cheney has "little power." Polls show that the potential impeachment of Cheney is more popular than the impeachment of Clinton was. I think the public at large might know the difference in gravity between a blowjob and a war.

So he loses a popularity contest? That's why we impeach him?? Are you serious? While I'm sure the great unwashed do know the difference between a war and a blowjob, they similarly are going to know the difference between a crime and no-crime.

Clinton wasn't impeached for the blowjob, he was impeached for perjury under oath. Here's a question for you; when did Mr. Cheney lie under oath? Subject matter as in war or blowjob is completely irrelevant...and you likely know it well.

-z

[hgc]

So he loses a popularity contest? That's why we impeach him?? Are you serious? While I'm sure the great unwashed do know the difference between a war and a blowjob, they similarly are going to know the difference between a crime and no-crime.

Clinton wasn't impeached for the blowjob, he was impeached for perjury under oath. Here's a question for you; when did Mr. Cheney lie under oath? Subject matter as in war or blowjob is completely irrelevant...and you likely know it well.

-z


Hey, goofball, I was answering the musing that the public wouldn't be interested in seeing Cheney impeached with information to the contrary that the public may indeed be interested in that. I was not, in that particular statement, giving justification for that impeachment. Perhaps you should crawl back under that rock where you've been hiding lately until you learn to follow the thread of a conversation.

Of what crimes where Clinton impeached leading to his impeachment (or since, for that matter)? Don't bother answering; it's a rhetorical question. As I've had to explain here over and over again - impeachment as defined in the constitution is a political process conducted by political bodies, not a legal adjudication. The targets have no recourse to having "crimes" "proven" against them with "evidence." There may have been crimes, and there may even be proof. But the House impeachment and the Senate impeachment trial do not establish that. They merely serve to remove the target from office.

[Ziggurat]

Look, this is silly. Yes, Congress has the literal ability to impeach on a whim. But why would anyone think it's anything other than a grave abuse of power to do so? Who actually thinks it would be an improvement in American politics if impeachments started to be used as a political tool?

[BPSCG]

Oy vey. Substitute the word "indicted" for impeached. Because that's what impeaching an official amounts to - charging him with something that warrants removal from office.

Now, if tomorrow's paper says "Bill Gates was indicted today..." you'll want ask, "For what?" If it reads "Bill Belichek was indicted today..." you'll want to ask, "For what?" If it reads "Bill Murray was indicted today..." you'll want to ask, "For what?"

And they won't be indicted unless whoever is charging them believes he has enough evidence to convict. What's the point of indicting if you get laughed out of court?

Should Dick Cheney be impeached?

For what? Please specify the charge.

Then when you have done that, ask yourself if anyone has remotely near sufficient evidence to convict him and remove him from office. If not, then what is your point? To make the impeachers look ridiculous when the sum and substance of their evidence at the trial consists of, "Well, he's a scumbag"?

[Lex Luthor]

The impeachment of Clinton was a bad thing for this country. It was politically motivated and we all know it. I'm not saying that Clinton was an angel, but he had political enemies who were delighted that he gave them an excuse to attempt to hang him.

An impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney would be an equally bad thing. That's why we have term limits, so that we can vote out the scoundrels we don't like (and replace them with scoundrels that we do like). All of this talk of impeachment is unproductive and it diverts attention away from what we can do moving forward.

[Upchurch]

Should Dick Cheney be impeached?

For what? Please specify the charge.
I'll hazard one:

Dick Cheney, and not just Dick Cheney, should be impeached for manipulating the US into an ideologically motivated war of aggression against a non-threat, effectively over-extending the US military, during a time of genuine crisis. The end result is that US defenses have been tied up and worn down at a time when we need it at its peak.


Then when you have done that, ask yourself if anyone has remotely near sufficient evidence to convict him and remove him from office.
I did and the literal response to your question was "you betcha." Practically, though, not enough Republican senators would break ranks to get the 2/3rds majority required. I believe that would be for purely ideological reasons and not objective evaluation of the evidence.

At this late date, term limits will be faster, cheaper, and more effective by taking the garbage out all at once rather than piecemeal.

[Lex Luthor]

I'll hazard one:

Dick Cheney, and not just Dick Cheney, should be impeached for manipulating the US into an ideologically motivated war of aggression against a non-threat, effectively over-extending the US military, during a time of genuine crisis. The end result is that US defenses have been tied up and worn down at a time when we need it at its peak.
You've explained why Cheney is a disaster as VP. However, that's not necessarily grounds for impeachment.



I did and the literal response to your question was "you betcha." Practically, though, not enough Republican senators would break ranks to get the 2/3rds majority required. I believe that would be for purely ideological reasons and not objective evaluation of the evidence.

At this late date, term limits will be faster, cheaper, and more effective by taking the garbage out all at once rather than piecemeal.
Agreed.

[rikzilla]

Hey, goofball, I was answering the musing that the public wouldn't be interested in seeing Cheney impeached with information to the contrary that the public may indeed be interested in that. I was not, in that particular statement, giving justification for that impeachment. Perhaps you should crawl back under that rock where you've been hiding lately until you learn to follow the thread of a conversation.



Thanks man, it's great to see you too....

[Christopher7]

No, all that is not necessary. A simple majority vote by the House on an article of impeachment means that's that. You don't have to have a "crime" as defined in the legal sense. You don't have to "prove" anything. There is no avenue of appeal, no higher authority on the matter. It's simply on to the Senate for a "trial."

Again - a 2/3 majority vote by the Senate settles the question of guilt. There is no higher authority on the quesiton or avenue of appeal. No standard by which to judge if the "crime" has been "prove[n]" using "evidence."

I, for one, dispute the notion that Cheney has "little power." Polls show that the potential impeachment of Cheney is more popular than the impeachment of Clinton was. I think the public at large might know the difference in gravity between a blowjob and a war.Can i take that as a yes?

For the rest of you, please listen to the charges and the evidence before denying the obvious.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/199.html

[hgc]

Can i take that as a yes?

For the rest of you, please listen to the charges and the evidence before denying the obvious.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/199.html


Yes, you can take that as a yes. I would add to Upchurch's charge my own of a) treasonous betrayal of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame b) interference in the operations of the Justice Department in the matter of firing of US Attorneys and in matters of politically targeted criminal prosecution.

[Lex Luthor]

Yes, you can take that as a yes. I would add to Upchurch's charge my own of a) treasonous betrayal of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame b) interference in the operations of the Justice Department in the matter of firing of US Attorneys and in matters of politically targeted criminal prosecution.
For THAT I would agree that somebody's ass ought to be impeached. Outing a CIA agent is inexcusable, and it sure sounded like Rove and Cheney were in that up to their ears.

[rikzilla]

Can i take that as a yes?

For the rest of you, please listen to the charges and the evidence before denying the obvious.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/199.html

Actually the only substantiated claim that can be made based on the youtube vid you linked to is that Kucinich made a false statement to the House. @ -21:00 in the vid he says that the Senate "carefully considered" the NIE on Iraq. The truth is only 6 senators or their staff bothered reading beyond the White House's summary. Why? Because the idea that Saddam was a threat to produce and deploy WMD was not controversial at all! I can produce clips of Harry Reid, Hillary and Bill, Kennedy, and even Nancy Pelosi agreeing that Saddam was said threat. Put as kindly as humanly possible, Rep. Kucinich holds ideas not shared by the mainstream....in much the same way as Dylan Avery does not hold mainstream ideas.

-z

[rikzilla]

Yes, you can take that as a yes. I would add to Upchurch's charge my own of a) treasonous betrayal of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame b) interference in the operations of the Justice Department in the matter of firing of US Attorneys and in matters of politically targeted criminal prosecution.
Then impeach Richard Armitage.
-z

....and Gonzo...we could bring him back to office, then git 'im!

[Wowbagger]

That's actually irrelevant. The Brits didn't base their assesment on the documents you're refering to, and Bush referenced the British assesment, not those documents, as the source of his claim. My point is that if a piece of evidence is questionable, you don't parade that particular piece of evidence to the public as conclusive proof, like George W. Bush did.
Doesn't matter if that evidence was used in the actual decision to go to war or not. His actions in selling the war were irresponsible. I don't think we would have gone to war against Iraq, so soon*, if everyone knew how so much of the evidence of WMD was as thin as George Bush and Co. knew it was.


(*Although, I will add that we probably would have gone to war against Hussein and Iraq, eventually. Perhaps with a better plan in place. Perhaps even with another president. But, it would have turned out better, in that case.)

[Christopher7]

Then impeach Richard Armitage.
-z
....and Gonzo...we could bring him back to office, then git 'im!A lot of people here have INDICATED the don't think hearings on impeachment should he held.

Would you all please state, yea or nay?

So far:

Yea 4

Nay 5

Non answer or not quite answer 52

[real american]

I see no reason to impech Cheney at this moment in time. His will soon be gone soon enough.

[Christopher7]

I see no reason to impech Cheney at this moment in time. His will soon be gone soon enough.I'll take that as a Nay.
It's amazing how few people can bring themselves to say Yea or Nay.

[Christopher7]

Please read before responding: yes or no
Do you think the Judiciary Committee should hold hearings on Resolution to impeach?

RESOLUTION
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.Article I
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:


(A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.


(B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.


(C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.


(D) `We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.


(E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.


(F) `Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.


(G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.


(H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.


(A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts.


(B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.

(3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.


(A) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it's nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.'.


(B) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.'.


(C) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.'.
The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

[Pope130]

Nay.

[fishbob]

Actually one of the findings that Fitzgerald made fairly early in the investigation of the leaks was that the leak itself was not a crime. Hence Richard Armitage, who turned out to be the original source for the Novak column, was not charged with anything.

Cowabunga dude!!!
Ride that Cheney wave.

[Upchurch]

You've explained why Cheney is a disaster as VP. However, that's not necessarily grounds for impeachment.
Undermining the US's capacity to protect itself during a time of war is not necessarily grounds for impeachment? Why on Ed's Green Earth not?

The only reason this isn't outright treason is that they aren't aligned with a foreign power. If they had been, I can only imagine that they would have been more subtle about it.

(Please note, that I think this is all equally applicable to Bush as it is to Cheney.)

[The Painter]

Undermining the US's capacity to protect itself during a time of war is not necessarily grounds for impeachment? Why on Ed's Green Earth not?

Can we impeach all the Senators and Congressmen who vote against the military and the patriot act? Your premise would certainly apply to them.

[Darth Rotor]

Sure, why not impeach him?

The Democratic Party might want to roll the bones. Impeach Cheney, make a bit of a spectacle out of it, and really get the anti GOP emotion rolling.

It either works, and the Dems win a massive landslide in2008, or it backfires, and the GOP retakes the Senate, and maybe the House.

White House? I don't see the GOP taking it. Too many people in the center are mad at the GOP.

What do you end up with? A GOP Congress and a Democratic White House, which is the same condition Bill Clinton faced after 2004. For all of those enamored of Clintonopia, why not a replay? Ah, please recall, this time no tech bubble. Is Hillary really nativist, and protectionist enough, to handle that? Ya know, the unemployment rate reaching out toward double digits? Maybe she is. Don't know.

The above is a possible outcome of a Cheney impeachment, regardless of Senate convicting him, or no.

DR

[Ziggurat]

My point is that if a piece of evidence is questionable, you don't parade that particular piece of evidence to the public as conclusive proof, like George W. Bush did.

The Brits stand by their assesment. See the Butler report, where they explicitly state Bush's SOTU statement was justified based upon their intelligence.

(*Although, I will add that we probably would have gone to war against Hussein and Iraq, eventually. Perhaps with a better plan in place. Perhaps even with another president. But, it would have turned out better, in that case.)

Would it have turned out better? I don't think that's a given by any means. We've never fought a significant war where we didn't make major errors.

[Upchurch]

Can we impeach all the Senators and Congressmen who vote against the military and the patriot act? Your premise would certainly apply to them.
:D In order for reductio ad absurdum to work, it must follow as a possible consequence of the preposition. Members of Congress are not impeached with one possible exception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blount) and that remains Constitutionally unresolved. They can be expelled or recalled by their state.

Secondly, the PATRIOT Act is not nearly as black and white as you make it out. It contains trade offs of security vs. changes to balance of powers and civil liberties. The invasion of Iraq has no tangible benefits aside from attempting to fulfill an ill-conceived political agenda and, indeed, has weakened us.

Lastly, who has voted "against the military" and in what way?

[hgc]

:D In order for reductio ad absurdum to work, it must follow as a possible consequence of the preposition. Members of Congress are not impeached with one possible exception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blount) and that remains Constitutionally unresolved. They can be expelled or recalled by their state.
...


Expelled, yes. Recalled, I think not.

[Upchurch]

Expelled, yes. Recalled, I think not.

As I can find plenty about expulsion and nothing about recall, I stand corrected.

[Lex Luthor]

Undermining the US's capacity to protect itself during a time of war is not necessarily grounds for impeachment? Why on Ed's Green Earth not?

The only reason this isn't outright treason is that they aren't aligned with a foreign power. If they had been, I can only imagine that they would have been more subtle about it.

(Please note, that I think this is all equally applicable to Bush as it is to Cheney.)
Why not impeach him, you ask? Because you don't impeach Presidents and Vice-Presidents for being incompetent. You have no proof that Cheney lied. All you have are the disastrous results of a bad decision to re-elect the Bush administration.

I'm all for opposing bad policy. But to impeach somebody for incompetence is gross misuse of a very powerful tool.

[fishbob]

What do you end up with? A GOP Congress and a Democratic White House, which is the same condition Bill Clinton faced after 2004. For all of those enamored of Clintonopia, why not a replay? Ah, please recall, this time no tech bubble. Is Hillary really nativist, and protectionist enough, to handle that? Ya know, the unemployment rate reaching out toward double digits? Maybe she is. Don't know.

Too calculating.
Just do it and let the chips fall.

[Upchurch]

You have no proof that Cheney lied.
Well, Cheney's lying is relevant to other issues. If it came down to it, I think that could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law as well.


I'm all for opposing bad policy. But to impeach somebody for incompetence is gross misuse of a very powerful tool.
That's a fair opinion that I don't disagree with, but I think Bush and Cheney have gone beyond merely bad policy and incompetence. They've upset the balance of powers and pretty much ignored checks and balances. To be charitable, they have had monstrously huge lapses in judgment that have led to the worst possible outcome, short of the actual destruction of the nation.

[Lex Luthor]

I think Bush and Cheney have gone beyond merely bad policy and incompetence. They've upset the balance of powers and pretty much ignored checks and balances. To be charitable, they have had monstrously huge lapses in judgment that have led to the worst possible outcome, short of the actual destruction of the nation.
Just for the record, I agree with that.

[Upchurch]

So what would warrant the use of such a powerful tool as impeachment?

[Darth Rotor]

So what would warrant the use of such a powerful tool as impeachment?
I'd guess a bunch drunken street performers and a sadistic Dutchman with the given name of Christopher.

Ya know, high mimes and Chris de Meeners. :D

DR

[Upchurch]

:D You've been waiting three pages for that set up, haven't you?

[ruckenheim]

We had the Wilson report and the UK intel report, but yeah, the forged receipt was a fake. Why is Al Gore assaulting reason?

Huh?

[rikzilla]

That's a fair opinion that I don't disagree with, but I think Bush and Cheney have gone beyond merely bad policy and incompetence. They've upset the balance of powers and pretty much ignored checks and balances. To be charitable, they have had monstrously huge lapses in judgment that have led to the worst possible outcome, short of the actual destruction of the nation.

Their actions have reduced AQ to a virtually harmless shadow of itself, freed over 7,000,000 people from a brutal dictator, brought democracy to two nations, and somehow despite their legendary incompetence and "monstrously" poor judgement they managed to insure that the attacks of 9/11 have not been repeated.

This is the worst possible outcome?? Gee guys, I DO respect you and all, but I'm growing ever more certain that your politics are downright dangerous! Luckily the only Dem candidate with a real chance is Hillary, and she's pragmatic enough to do the right thing when it comes to national security. She'd likely make a fine president, she is fluent from both sides of her mouth.

-z

[fishbob]

Their actions have reduced AQ to a virtually harmless shadow of itself, freed over 7,000,000 people from a brutal dictator, brought democracy to two nations, and somehow despite their legendary incompetence and "monstrously" poor judgement they managed to insure that the attacks of 9/11 have not been repeated.


- Virtually harmless AQ is busy rebuilding in countries other than Afghanistan - not so good.
- Under false pretenses, freed 7 million people (what about the other 18 million Iraqis?) from a brutal dictator while getting hundreds of thousands of them killed - maybe could have been done better.
- Brought and propped up democracy in a never-ending occupation in two nations - overlooked a few problems here.
- Insured that the attacks of 9/11 have not been repeated, while at the same time preventing elephants, Martian, and Tralafamadoran attacks - mighty eeeeficient use of your tax dollars.

Partisanship is OK as long as accuracy is not sacrificed.

[Darth Rotor]

:D You've been waiting three pages for that set up, haven't you?

I'd like to say yes, but I was away from the play for a few days.

Thanksgiving, family, and making Darth's special Turkey Soup from leftovers.

Weather was nasty, so the soup was just the right thing for keeping warm whilst watching massive amounts of football.

Cheney? Wasn't he the punt returner for Mizzou? :p

DR

[Darth Rotor]

- Insured that the attacks of 9/11 have not been repeated, while at the same time preventing elephants, Martian, and Tralafamadoran attacks - mighty eeeeficient use of your tax dollars.

When elephants attack, the memory of war lingers.

I'd not pooh pooh the Tralfamadoran threat: they are unstuck in time, and when they phase in here, we might be in deep kimche.

In other news, my meds ran out this morning.

(Ya saw that one coming, I suppose. :p )

DR

[Lex Luthor]

So what would warrant the use of such a powerful tool as impeachment?
I think a good litmus test would be a situation where both parties are likely to agree that a crime was committed. I realize that's not a definitive answer, but if one party is likely to line up in favor of impeachment and the other is likely to oppose it, that suggests that the impeachment is politically motivated rather than being motivated by a desire to see a criminal punished.

For example, if proof were discovered that Vice-President did in fact order the outing of Valerie Plame as retribution against Joseph Wilson, in my mind that would be an impeachable offense. Republicans of good conscience would not condone that action. Nobody has been impeached because there is a disagreement regarding whether or not Valerie Plame was truly a covert agent and whether the outing was deliberate or unintentional.

[Upchurch]

Their actions have reduced AQ to a virtually harmless shadow of itself,
Given the decentralized and ever-changing nature of the group, I'd love to know how you determined that.


freed over 7,000,000 people from a brutal dictator,
True, but freed them into chaos and civil war. That's like freeing people from a burning airplane by throwing them out the door.


brought democracy to two nations,
uh ...right. Which two nations are you talking about?


and somehow despite their legendary incompetence and "monstrously" poor judgement they managed to insure that the attacks of 9/11 have not been repeated.
Well, even if you don't count the multiple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings) attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings) in Europe, you should understand by now that this is a logical fallacy with a devilishly difficult Latin name to remember (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc).


This is the worst possible outcome??
No, you forgot to add the near-exhaustion and over-extension of our military and the loss of our international allies and respect. Not to mention the over-reaching tip in the balance of powers domestically or the abandonment of our national principles.

Add all that stuff in and, yes, that is almost the worst possible outcome, short of actually destroying the nation.

[Upchurch]

I think a good litmus test would be a situation where both parties are likely to agree that a crime was committed.

{snip}

For example, if proof were discovered that Vice-President did in fact order the outing of Valerie Plame as retribution against Joseph Wilson, in my mind that would be an impeachable offense. Republicans of good conscience would not condone that action.
What are the odds of Republicans actually doing that in this political climate?


Nobody has been impeached because there is a disagreement regarding whether or not Valerie Plame was truly a covert agent and whether the outing was deliberate or unintentional.
Not to rehash the whole thing (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83439) again, but the CIA has said (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf) that Plame was truly a covert agent. The question is whether or not it was unintentional. (How 3-4 White House officials could all unintentionally out a covert CIA agent when it just happened to be politically convenient is beyond me, but I suppose it is possible.)

[rikzilla]

Given the decentralized and ever-changing nature of the group, I'd love to know how you determined that.

AQ and the Taliban lost Afghanistan before ground zero even stopped smoking. Or it could be that working your way up the AQ ladder to #3 is a one way ticket to...well...virgins and rivers of wine I guess. (maybe this is why magical thinkers have always outnumbered critical thinkers? We're kind of a pill when it comes to writing happy endings ya know?)



True, but freed them into chaos and civil war. That's like freeing people from a burning airplane by throwing them out the door.

Burn, or make like a bird??? Gee ups, isn't that just the very choice those poor bastards from Cantor Fitzgerald had? Hell of an analogy.

Aside from that...chaos and wars eventually end....the Hussein bloodline would have gone on forever.



uh ...right. Which two nations are you talking about?
Guess...



Well, even if you don't count the multiple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings) attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings) in Europe, you should understand by now that this is a logical fallacy with a devilishly difficult Latin name to remember (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc).

Post hoc? Really? So it's just a piece of good luck that AQ hasn't hit us again? Maybe they've had a change of heart? Wow, get Rodney King on the phone! Maybe they all just wanna get along now?



No, you forgot to add the near-exhaustion and over-extension of our military and the loss of our international allies and respect. Not to mention the over-reaching tip in the balance of powers domestically or the abandonment of our national principles.

Sorry, the police-state you are imagining does not exist outside your head. As for the military, just what are they for anway? Parades? Look war sucks, and often leftists are fond of saying that it has lasted longer than WWII, but that's where the comparison ends. The battle of Okinawa alone caused over 70,000 US casualties. WWII was a great deal more deadly than the WOT could ever be...unless we were to walk away and allow militant Islam to grow to WWIII proportions. Losing any of our guys in this war is a tragedy, but that they have died in vain?? An even bigger tragedy that is well within our power as American citizens to prevent. We don't even all have to "support the troops" we could simply stop actively trying to derail their mission.

Add all that stuff in and, yes, that is almost the worst possible outcome, short of actually destroying the nation.


Gee ups...I guess that makes you a "glass half full" kinda guy huh? I'm pretty glad Gen. Washington wasn't inclined to think like you, Lincoln either for that matter. If Dr. King had been this pessimistic his dream would have consisted of him going home, putting on The Ed Sullivan Show and forgetting about the whole thing.

-z

[Lex Luthor]

What are the odds of Republicans actually doing that in this political climate?
Just about zero.


Not to rehash the whole thing (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83439) again, but the CIA has said (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf) that Plame was truly a covert agent. The question is whether or not it was unintentional. (How 3-4 White House officials could all unintentionally out a covert CIA agent when it just happened to be politically convenient is beyond me, but I suppose it is possible.)
I can't disagree with you. I've seen all of the documents, and I agree that she obviously was covert.

I don't have a very good rebuttal because I agree that the outing of Valerie Plame is borderline treason. I guess I just wish we hard hard evidence that could be used to convict the perpetrator. The fact that no charges were ever filed against anyone other than Richard Armitage is pretty discouraging, and that's probably why I feel that impeaching anyone over this would be a waste of time because there is no chance of getting a conviction.

Believe me, I understand and agree with the frustration that many people have about this topic. I guess I just think our energy would be better spent getting the scoundrels out of office at the next election. I'd hate to go through an impeachment and have that somehow cause a lot of undecided voters to have sympathy for the Republicans. However, I will concede that that didn't seem to happen when Clinton was impeached.

[Upchurch]

AQ and the Taliban lost Afghanistan before ground zero even stopped smoking.
Are you sure the Taliban (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071127/OPINION/711270324/-1/LOCAL17) has (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687988,00.html) lost (http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.1861845.0.hundreds_mourn_scots_soldier _killed_by_taliban.php) Afghanistan (http://www.localnewswatch.com/jordanfalls/stories2/index.php?action=fullnews&id=300)? It looks to me like we got distracted and left the job unfinished.


Burn, or make like a bird??? Gee ups, isn't that just the very choice those poor bastards from Cantor Fitzgerald had? Hell of an analogy.
Nice appeal to emotion ya got there.

No, my point is that, yes, we saved the Iraqis from a brutal dictator, but doing so plunged them into sectarian civil war. Can you honestly say the Iraqis are better off today?


Aside from that...chaos and wars eventually end....the Hussein bloodline would have gone on forever.
You're right. The middle east is known for its ability to relax and let bygones be bygones.... :rolleyes:


Guess...
Must be Japan and Afghanistan because it sure isn't Iraq. They are tearing themselves apart.


Post hoc? Really? So it's just a piece of good luck that AQ hasn't hit us again?
Did you miss the part where they've successfully made attacks on our allies in Europe? Or does the word "we" have two different meanings in the phrase "we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here"?


Sorry, the police-state you are imagining does not exist outside your head.
Who said anything about a police state? Maybe if you tried paying attention instead of constructing straw men, you might have a better idea of what people are actually talking about.


As for the military, just what are they for anway? Parades? Look war sucks, and often leftists are fond of saying that it has lasted longer than WWII, but that's where the comparison ends. The battle of Okinawa alone caused over 70,000 US casualties. WWII was a great deal more deadly than the WOT could ever be...unless we were to walk away and allow militant Islam to grow to WWIII proportions. Losing any of our guys in this war is a tragedy, but that they have died in vain?? An even bigger tragedy that is well within our power as American citizens to prevent. We don't even all have to "support the troops" we could simply stop actively trying to derail their mission.
Iraq, Afghan wars reportedly strain U.S. fighting ability (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/03/myers.report/index.html)
The U.S. Military: Under Strain and at Risk (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2006/us-military_nsag-report_01252006.htm) (Executive summary of the report)
The U.S. Military: Under Strain And at Risk (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/may/TheU.S.MilitaryUnder.htm) (Opinion piece by one of the authors of the above report)
Wars Strain U.S. Military Capability, Pentagon Reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/02/AR2005050201504_pf.html)

Their mission in Iraq was BS from the start. Saddam did not have WMDs or ties to Al Queda. Iraq was not an eminent threat to the US. There is no tangible benefit to the invasion of Iraq.


Gee ups...I guess that makes you a "glass half full" kinda guy huh? I'm pretty glad Gen. Washington wasn't inclined to think like you, Lincoln either for that matter. If Dr. King had been this pessimistic his dream would have consisted of him going home, putting on The Ed Sullivan Show and forgetting about the whole thing.
rik, there is a critical difference between those three great men and Bush. (Two, really, if you count the "being great" part.) Washington, Lincoln, and King were all working selflessly for a purpose greater than themselves. Bush was in the right place at the right time but choose rather to further his personal political agenda, ultimately at the expense of the country, by invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Bush not only dropped the ball, he started playing an entirely different and irrelevant game.

[Dr Adequate]

Let's throw $50,000,000 at it! To put that into perspective, that's what the government spends every 64 minutes, so you could save the necessary money just by giving everyone an extra-long coffee-break.

[Upchurch]

I guess I just think our energy would be better spent getting the scoundrels out of office at the next election.
If we weren't less than a year away from the next election, I'd say it would be worth it to go ahead. As it is, Congress would be more effective if they just focused on minimizing any further damage the Administration could cause.

You know, if they actually had the cojones to stand up to the President. :(

That's one of the most baffling parts of all this. The 2006 election should have sent a message to Congressional Democrats that the country supports reigning the President in. They either didn't get the message or ignored it. I have no idea why.

[tek]

Ethically, yes. Politically no.


That's one of the most baffling parts of all this. The 2006 election should have sent a message to Congressional Democrats that the country supports reigning the President in. They either didn't get the message or ignored it.

That's precisely it. It would have been a great move a year or so ago, now it feels like a moot point that could backfire politically. Why did it take so long for the democrats to find their courage?

[Upchurch]

Why did it take so long for the democrats to find their courage?
After the 2004 Election, I would say "incompetence". And the Democrats, in general, still don't have their courage. Kucinich, crazy though he may be, is the only one in there with any strength of conviction.

[Brainster]

My point is that if a piece of evidence is questionable, you don't parade that particular piece of evidence to the public as conclusive proof, like George W. Bush did.

Quoting from the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq Prewar Intelligence:

"At the time the President delivered the State of the Union address, no one in the IC [Intelligence Community] had asked anyone in the White House to remove the sentence from the speech. CIA Iraq nuclear analysists and the Director of WINPAC told Committee staff that at the time of the State of the Union, they still believed that Iraq was probably seeking uranium from Africa, and they continued to hold that belief until the IAEA reported that the documents were forgeries."

[hgc]

Ethically, yes. Politically no.

That's precisely it. It would have been a great move a year or so ago, now it feels like a moot point that could backfire politically. Why did it take so long for the democrats to find their courage?


Example: Subpoenas issued and disregarded. Where are the Contempt of Congress charges? Get with it already.

The Legislative branch really should exert its power - test the boundries. Bush/Cheney has pushed the notion of the Unitary Executive (another consideration for impeachment proceedings), and Congress has been far to giving. I believe that balance of power is compromised if the branches don't strive in competition for their prerogatives.

[Rob Lister]

I believe that balance of power is compromised if the branches don't strive in competition for their prerogatives.

Should not the executive branch strive as well? Seem to me they are doing exactly what you advise.

[Lex Luthor]

Bush, Rice Blame CIA for Iraq Error (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45901-2003Jul11?language=printer)

So much for "the buck stops here".

[hgc]

Should not the executive branch strive as well? Seem to me they are doing exactly what you advise.


Yes, and they're getting away with too much -- mainly because Congress is standing down from the fight. This is not a new problem. For instance, that Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War and Iraq War all happened without a declaration of war by Congress is pretty bad in terms of who has the power to make war. I don't know what the proper threshold is, but those are all huge conflicts (recognizing that Gulf War was fast, it was still a huge commitment).

There are some bright spots, including the post-Nixon reaction to presidential power and the failure of the line-item veto.

But the Bush presidency has been a downright bummer in terms of Congressional power. Sure, the first 6 years, the majorities in Congress were deferential in party loyalty to Bush, but that even goes beyond previous occassions of the same party holding Congress and the WH. What's most depressing is that since the Dems have taken over, they have not snapped out of it very fast. They are overly deferential in matters where the national security/foreign invader cudgel can be used to keep them in line.

It's inexplicable in light of Bush's historic low popularity - for himself and for his cornerstone policy (Iraq). Remember, if you look at the low approval ratings that Congress gets, they get worse scores from Dems than from Republicans - and that's for the very thing I'm complaining about.

[rikzilla]

Are you sure the Taliban (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071127/OPINION/711270324/-1/LOCAL17) has (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687988,00.html) lost (http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.1861845.0.hundreds_mourn_scots_soldier _killed_by_taliban.php) Afghanistan (http://www.localnewswatch.com/jordanfalls/stories2/index.php?action=fullnews&id=300)? It looks to me like we got distracted and left the job unfinished.

I thought leaving war-fighting unfinished was the first priority of the leadership of 110th Congress?



Nice appeal to emotion ya got there.

I do the best I can....but I prefer to call it; "never forgetting".

No, my point is that, yes, we saved the Iraqis from a brutal dictator, but doing so plunged them into sectarian civil war. Can you honestly say the Iraqis are better off today?

Of course I can, but then again I'd rather be a soldier than a slave. But that's just me.



You're right. The middle east is known for its ability to relax and let bygones be bygones.... :rolleyes:

Yeah you're right...I guess we can take "they like us now" off the table as a reason we haven't been attacked here. Therefore they must be incapable of attacking for some other very good reasons....could our offense (WOT) and our defense (DHS, etc) possibly be hampering their efforts?? Even a little? My guess is yes, what's yours?





Must be Japan and Afghanistan because it sure isn't Iraq. They are tearing themselves apart.

The USA once tore itself apart too. It must have seemed like the end of the world to my various great-great grandfathers (who fought on both sides of the conflict) but in the long view of history the US civil war resolved issues that you must admit needed resolving.



Did you miss the part where they've successfully made attacks on our allies in Europe? Or does the word "we" have two different meanings in the phrase "we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here"?

They? Those attacks were done by home grown Islamic radicals who were merely inspired by AQ. In police circles they call that "copy-cat" crime.



Who said anything about a police state? Maybe if you tried paying attention instead of constructing straw men, you might have a better idea of what people are actually talking about.

Sorry...usually when you lot go on about erosion of civil liberties and subversions of checks and balances, the claim that the police state is upon us naturally follows. I've just had too many of these conversations and they usually follow the same insane DAILY KOS talking points. Please forgive.



Iraq, Afghan wars reportedly strain U.S. fighting ability (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/03/myers.report/index.html)
The U.S. Military: Under Strain and at Risk (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2006/us-military_nsag-report_01252006.htm) (Executive summary of the report)
The U.S. Military: Under Strain And at Risk (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/may/TheU.S.MilitaryUnder.htm) (Opinion piece by one of the authors of the above report)
Wars Strain U.S. Military Capability, Pentagon Reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/02/AR2005050201504_pf.html)

Uppie,...check your calendar man...it's nearly December of 2007. Your links show you cherry-picking between 2005-06....old news friend. Times have changed in Iraq...or hadn't you heard the good news? (http://www.newsweek.com/id/70990) That's NEWSWEEK btw...an MSM rag witha liberal "street cred" that even you cannot deny.



Their mission in Iraq was BS from the start. Saddam did not have WMDs or ties to Al Queda. Iraq was not an eminent threat to the US. There is no tangible benefit to the invasion of Iraq.

You must have forgotten the thousands of gassed Kurds, the "no fly" zones, the brutal daily oppression of political opponents, the 100% elections, the OSIRAQ nuclear reactor, the 17 UNSCR resolutions ignored, the oil for food scam, the payments from Saddam to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, the rape of Kuwait, the USS Stark, the institutionalized torture...even of the soccer team when it lost! Really? NO tangible benefit to removing a murderous monster and his masochistic sons?? Perhaps you'd like to rethink that?



rik, there is a critical difference between those three great men and Bush. (Two, really, if you count the "being great" part.) Washington, Lincoln, and King were all working selflessly for a purpose greater than themselves. Bush was in the right place at the right time but choose rather to further his personal political agenda, ultimately at the expense of the country, by invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Bush not only dropped the ball, he started playing an entirely different and irrelevant game.

You're wrong of course. Bush led, and chose a hard road. He made a lot of mistakes, but all in all he saw a clear course of action that was clearly not popular nor easy...but he considered it to be right and he stuck to it with tenacity borne of conviction. Tenacity borne of conviction...that bears repeating as it is the trait Mr. Bush shares with those "greats" from our past. Can you honestly ever see anyone named Clinton doing such a morally courageous thing?

HAVE you ever?

Nope...didn't think so.

-z

[rikzilla]

Oh...one more thing Ups...your friend and mine Chris Hitchens (http://www.slate.com/id/2178286/nav/navoa/)has mumbled the following in his own inimitable way:

As I began by saying, I am not at all certain that any of this apparently good news is really genuine or will be really lasting. However, I am quite sure both that it could be true and that it would be wonderful if it were to be true. What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism, which is pardonable, but the dank and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased. The latter mentality isn't pardonable and ought not to be pardoned, either.

That's almost precisely the way I feel....thanks Mr. Hitchens....you said it with just the right pinch of indignation!

-z

[hgc]

Oh...one more thing Ups...your friend and mine Chris Hitchens (http://www.slate.com/id/2178286/nav/navoa/)has mumbled the following in his own inimitable way:

That's almost precisely the way I feel....thanks Mr. Hitchens....you said it with just the right pinch of indignation!

-z


I'm afraid that you and Hitch are off the mark. I don't feel that way, nor do I know anyone that does. Nor can I imagine how you and Hitch could know such a thing. Nor, if it were even true, could I understand how it would matter to all the people who are the direct victims of all that gives rise to bad tidings. The people responsible for this disaster, publicly influential cheerleaders like Hitch for instance, really have something to answer for. It sickens me that he has to nerve to go around accusing people who were right about this thing all along, who predicted bad tidings before they came to pass in an attempt to stop it, of being dank and sinister.

[Upchurch]

I thought leaving war-fighting unfinished was the first priority of the leadership of 110th Congress?
Maybe, but the "leaving war-fighting unfinished" I'm talking about happened back in 2003 before the 110th Congress.


I do the best I can....but I prefer to call it; "never forgetting".
More like "never forgetting to use a tragedy for political purposes"


Of course I can, but then again I'd rather be a soldier than a slave. But that's just me.
Hyperbole much? How much of the Iraqi populous is now a soldier or was a slave?


Yeah you're right...I guess we can take "they like us now" off the table as a reason we haven't been attacked here.
Non sequitor. We were talking about the chaos in Iraq, not why "we" haven't been attacked. (even though "we" have")


Therefore they must be incapable of attacking for some other very good reasons....could our offense (WOT) and our defense (DHS, etc) possibly be hampering their efforts?? Even a little? My guess is yes, what's yours?My guess is that the Al Queda we're fighting in Iraq is not the Al Queda who attacked us.


The USA once tore itself apart too. It must have seemed like the end of the world to my various great-great grandfathers (who fought on both sides of the conflict) but in the long view of history the US civil war resolved issues that you must admit needed resolving.
The British Empire once tore itself apart too. It didn't recover.

The situation in Iraq, with multiple ethnic and "national" identities, has more in common with the British Empire than Civil War era US, and not by much. If you think either is a reliable precedent for what is going on in Iraq, you have no idea what is going on there.


They? Those attacks were done by home grown Islamic radicals who were merely inspired by AQ. In police circles they call that "copy-cat" crime.
So, is the War On Terror effective or not?


Uppie,...check your calendar man...it's nearly December of 2007. Your links show you cherry-picking between 2005-06....old news friend. Times have changed in Iraq...or hadn't you heard the good news? (http://www.newsweek.com/id/70990) That's NEWSWEEK btw...an MSM rag witha liberal "street cred" that even you cannot deny.Does that article say anything about the strain on the US military lessoning? Or that more troops will be coming home soon?


You must have forgotten the thousands of gassed Kurds, the "no fly" zones, the brutal daily oppression of political opponents, the 100% elections, the OSIRAQ nuclear reactor, the 17 UNSCR resolutions ignored, the oil for food scam, the payments from Saddam to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, the rape of Kuwait, the USS Stark, the institutionalized torture...even of the soccer team when it lost! Really? NO tangible benefit to removing a murderous monster and his masochistic sons?? Perhaps you'd like to rethink that?
Gassing Kurds nearly 15 years before we invaded. Invading Kuiwait 13 years before we invaded. (The USS Stark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark)?) And you accuse me of cherry-picking history?

I'm not saying Hussain was a great guy, but Iraq was not an eminent threat to the US. Period.


You're wrong of course. Bush led, and chose a hard road. He made a lot of mistakes, but all in all he saw a clear course of action that was clearly not popular nor easy...but he considered it to be right and he stuck to it with tenacity borne of conviction. Tenacity borne of conviction...that bears repeating as it is the trait Mr. Bush shares with those "greats" from our past.
So.... what flavor does the Kool Aid come in?

"clear course of action"? The man's plan was based on a fairy tale, from the rationalization, to our reception as liberators, to how Iraq would pay for their own reconstruction. The man was freakin' clueless. Worse, he has been consistently unwilling to take responsibility for his massive screw ups, blaming others instead.

Great? :rolleyes:

[hgc]

"clear course of action"? The man's plan was based on a fairy tale, from the rationalization, to our reception as liberators, to how Iraq would pay for their own reconstruction. The man was freakin' clueless. Worse, he has been consistently unwilling to take responsibility for his massive screw ups, blaming others instead.


Don't you get it? Manly conviction is everything. Making the right decision, executing competently, telling the truth about what happened after the fact -- meh, not so much.

[Upchurch]

Oh...one more thing Ups...your friend and mine Chris Hitchens (http://www.slate.com/id/2178286/nav/navoa/)has mumbled the following in his own inimitable way:
Would you say the violence in Iraq is in its last throes?


(I'd add an ironic smiliey if it weren't just so damn tragic.)

[Schneibster]

I'd like to say yes, but I was away from the play for a few days.

Thanksgiving, family, and making Darth's special Turkey Soup from leftovers. I like tetrazzini, once the dressing is gone.

Weather was nasty, so the soup was just the right thing for keeping warm whilst watching massive amounts of football.

Cheney? Wasn't he the punt returner for Mizzou? :pClose; receiver for the Sooners, and it's Chaney, not Cheney. :cool:

[rikzilla]

Maybe, but the "leaving war-fighting unfinished" I'm talking about happened back in 2003 before the 110th Congress.

Eh?? So the 110th Congress was elected to do what exactly?? Oh don't bother answering since "anything" or "nothing" will suffice. They do tend to show up at work fairly regularly but even you must agree that they're "all sound and fury signifying nothing" (apologies to Bill S.)



More like "never forgetting to use a tragedy for political purposes"

Gee man, you were never this bitter 6 months ago when I took my leave of absence from this place! What's happened to you?

I was once stationed at the Pentagon Army Technical Control Center and I still work with them every day since I work for a gov't contractor now. On 9/11 I looked out my office window and watched the place burn. I take remembering 9/11 pretty seriously (I had friends and neighbors there) so I'm just not going to respond further on that subject.


(snip)



"clear course of action"? The man's plan was based on a fairy tale, from the rationalization, to our reception as liberators, to how Iraq would pay for their own reconstruction. The man was freakin' clueless. Worse, he has been consistently unwilling to take responsibility for his massive screw ups, blaming others instead.

Great? :rolleyes:

Yes great... see greatness does not come about by taking a poll and then "leading" the lemmings over the most popular cliff. Greatness comes from a selfless determination to take action for the greater good even if that action is difficult, dangerous, or unpopular. Now you and I obviously have different ideas about what the "greater good" consists of...but I think we can both agree that taking polls and then acting in accord with the current popular will is not even leadership at all.

-z

PS: If you can put your obvious hatred of Mr. Bush aside for just a moment I'd like to suggest you read Natan Sharansky's book. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natan_Sharansky)

President Bush:"If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy read Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy... For government, particularly — for opinion makers, I would put it on your recommended reading list. It's short and it's good. This guy is a heroic figure, as you know. It's a great book."

...he's right...it is a great book...if only Bush would adhere more closely to it perhaps he'd actually make it to "great".

[fishbob]

Yes great... see greatness does not come about by taking a poll and then "leading" the lemmings over the most popular cliff. Greatness comes from a selfless determination to take action for the greater good even if that action is difficult, dangerous, or unpopular.

Selfless determination for the greater good?
I'm sorry Rik to have to tell you - your credibility is now in the negative numbers.

[rikzilla]

Selfless determination for the greater good?
I'm sorry Rik to have to tell you - your credibility is now in the negative numbers.

C'mon Bob...stay with me for a second....

If you were sure a particular war was in the national interest to fight, but also knew that it would be unpopular, damage your presidency, etc...wouldn't it be easier to just not do it...national interest be damned??

Well?

Fact is Bush didn't back down from the challenge. Afghanistan was harboring OBL, Iraq had been festering under Saddam since Dad did the so called "smart" thing and left him in power. Well, the smart thing wasn't really so smart after all....it was merely a job left undone due to political considerations. This is just one of the reasons why I will always regard Bush jr as a better POTUS than Bush sr.

These were two problems that needed a military solution. I can think of more though....that nut in Iran for one....

-z

-z

[Upchurch]

Yes great... see greatness does not come about by taking a poll and then "leading" the lemmings over the most popular cliff.
Nor does greatness come from by forcing the lemmings over just any ol' cliff.


Greatness comes from a selfless determination to take action for the greater good even if that action is difficult, dangerous, or unpopular. Now you and I obviously have different ideas about what the "greater good" consists of...but I think we can both agree that taking polls and then acting in accord with the current popular will is not even leadership at all.
Whose greater good do you see Bush acting in?

[Upchurch]

Afghanistan was harboring OBL, Iraq had been festering under Saddam since Dad did the so called "smart" thing and left him in power. Well, the smart thing wasn't really so smart after all....it was merely a job left undone due to political considerations.
That is the most ridiculous, out-of-touch thing I think I've seen you write, and that is no small task.

[rikzilla]

That is the most ridiculous, out-of-touch thing I think I've seen you write, and that is no small task.

You are clearly entitled to hold and express any opinion about my writings that you like, it would be nice however if you were a little more specific and explained WHY you hold this opinion.

See, if you EXPLAINED why you feel this way your post wouldn't look quite so much like a psuedo-adhominum attack from a JREF mod...which could be just a tad unseemly.

-z

[latent aaaack]

You're wrong of course. Bush led, and chose a hard road. He made a lot of mistakes, but all in all he saw a clear course of action that was clearly not popular nor easy...but he considered it to be right and he stuck to it with tenacity borne of conviction. Tenacity borne of conviction...that bears repeating as it is the trait Mr. Bush shares with those "greats" from our past. Can you honestly ever see anyone named Clinton doing such a morally courageous thing?

HAVE you ever?

Nope...didn't think so.

-z

What would you say if Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama were elected into office, pursued their convictions as tenaciously as GWB has, and made decisions that were difficult and unpopular, specifically both with you and disproportionate amounts of right-wingers? Would you still consider them a 'great' president?

If not, why all the talk of 'conviction' being such a strong indicator of a great president? By the way, you'll get your wish for a democratic president with 'conviction' if Obama gets elected if his talk of a vote for him being a vote for 'helping to bring God's Kingdom to earth' is a clue (possibly in reference to socialized health care).

[rikzilla]

What would you say if Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama were elected into office, pursued their convictions as tenaciously as GWB has, and made decisions that were difficult and unpopular, specifically both with you and disproportionate amounts of right-wingers? Would you still consider them a 'great' president?

If not, why all the talk of 'conviction' being such a strong indicator of a great president? By the way, you'll get your wish for a democratic president with 'conviction' if Obama gets elected if his talk of a vote for him being a vote for 'helping to bring God's Kingdom to earth' is a clue (possibly in reference to socialized health care).

They would have earned my respect if not my love or admiration for their policies. As for great? Well that's pretty much a result of the judgement of history...but sans "convictions" to lead by there's not much chance of history being so kind.

-z

[fishbob]

If you were sure a particular war was in the national interest to fight, but also knew that it would be unpopular, damage your presidency, etc...wouldn't it be easier to just not do it...national interest be damned??

Well?

-z

You keep equating what Bush has done with our national interests and I keep not buying it.
I think his (Bush) bravado and certainty might appeal to some, but bravado and certainty mixed with self-serving incompetence and partisan power-grubbing are not virtues.

[rikzilla]

You keep equating what Bush has done with our national interests and I keep not buying it.
I think his (Bush) bravado and certainty might appeal to some, but bravado and certainty mixed with self-serving incompetence and partisan power-grubbing are not virtues.

Bob, clearly what I wrote was a hypothetical. I placed YOU in the White House to contemplate a difficult but necessary evil...or an easy yet irresponsible out. Yes it's a bit of a false-dichtomy to set it up like that so if you don't wish to answer it you clearly have grounds not to....but your above reason for not answering isn't really as good as the one I've provided you.

-z

[fishbob]

OK - your false dichotomy stinks.
Happy?

[rikzilla]

OK - your false dichotomy stinks.
Happy?

...as a clam.

But you do know that as "leader of the free world" you'd be considered a weenie for hiding your indecision behind a lame claim of fallacy. Sadly Bob....greatness has eluded you. :(

-z

[fishbob]

Since you made me president, your negative credibility numbers just puckered up and dived.

PS: Too bad your hero's "convictions" to lead are just going to lead to convictions.

[rikzilla]

Don't worry Bob....there'll be a table full of blank signed pardons by the White House door, like after dinner mints at a Red Robin...just like last time. ;)

-z

[Upchurch]

See, if you EXPLAINED why you feel this way your post wouldn't look quite so much like a psuedo-adhominum attack from a JREF mod...which could be just a tad unseemly.


M'kay. Let's take another look at what you said:
Fact is Bush didn't back down from the challenge. Afghanistan was harboring OBL, Iraq had been festering under Saddam since Dad did the so called "smart" thing and left him in power. Well, the smart thing wasn't really so smart after all....it was merely a job left undone due to political considerations. This is just one of the reasons why I will always regard Bush jr as a better POTUS than Bush sr.

I don't know what definition of "smart" you are using here. I'm hazarding a guess that, to you, it means "that which depicts the US as the star of a John Wayne movie", but I digress. I would define "smart", in this context, as being able to accurately assess and analyze a situation and act accordingly.

The Bush Sr. Administration's reasons for not invading Iraq after the first Gulf War was presented fairly succinctly in 1994 by former Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney.
YENbElb5-xY
Former Secretary of Defense Cheney's predictions for an invasion of Iraq was this:

We would be all alone, it would have been a US occupation of Iraq.
Once Saddam's centralized government was removed, Iraq would fragment into different factions.
Occupying Iraq would be a quagmire.
Removing Saddam Hussain from power was not worth the American lives that would be lost to do it.



The Bush Jr. Administration's predictions for an invasion of Iraq was this:

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003
"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about weapons of mass destruction in an ABC News interview, March 30, 2003
"It's a slam-dunk case!" –CIA Director George Tenet, discussing WMD and the case for war during a meeting in the Oval Office, Dec. 21, 2002
"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties




Former Secretary of Defense Cheney and the Bush Sr. Administration correctly analyzed the situation and acted accordingly. The Bush Jr. Administration was way off base. What's worse, they most certainly knew why the Bush Sr. Administration did what they did and they ignored it.

Again, I don't know what definition of "smart" you are using, but it seems to include not understanding the situation and blundering in anyway. This is why I said that your above statement was ridiculous and out of touch.

[Darth Rotor]

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003

Which is odd, from a Deputy Sec Def, when the Chief of Staff of the Army, after a bit of due diligence, produced a professional staff estimate that not only conceived, but spelled out the duties and missions of, said forces.

That *&^%@! Wolfowitz is overdue for his lights being punched out.

DR

[latent aaaack]

They would have earned my respect if not my love or admiration for their policies. As for great? Well that's pretty much a result of the judgement of history...but sans "convictions" to lead by there's not much chance of history being so kind.

-z

So most democratic leaders have this flaw of using polling to make decisions rather than making decisions based on their convictions and this flaw makes it impossible to be a good president and most republicans don't?

I've often heard this criticism of democrats from republicans but never got where it comes from.

From what initial events or examples did you first learn of this difference?

What events continue to show you even today that this polling method of leadership is prevalent with democrats or democratic candidates for president?

[Upchurch]

Which is odd, from a Deputy Sec Def, when the Chief of Staff of the Army, after a bit of due diligence, produced a professional staff estimate that not only conceived, but spelled out the duties and missions of, said forces.
Why, it is almost as if the White House lied their fool [behinds] off in order to get popular support for a unnecessary, voluntary war!

Can you imagine?