Ilove Bush!! Fuck U Damn Liberals! Mu-haha
Why isn't bush recieving an impeachment?
- Thread starter reap
- Start date
First off, the sources did not give cited sources of where they got some of the quotes. It is possible that the citations are out of context.
But, it is a working theory, so I will assume that it is correct for now. So, if the sources are correct (and the evidence they present is compelling), then it definitely shows the incompetency of the Administration, but it does not prove malicious intent. At best it shows that the Administration was of the mentality of, "If it smells like a rat, then it's a rat." They wanted Saddam enough that they could have turned a blind eye to the authenticity of the intelligence given them.
Still, the President was working with intelligence that he thought were true because he was told they were. This reminds me of the Space Shuttle Challenger. Crucial information did not make it up to the top and everyone in mission control wanted to go. This is what is called Group Think.
What a terrible mess. It is a good thing that the result was not so catastrophic, but instead rather ethical.
Still, changes need to happen in the our intelligence system, and that, Bush understands and from what I hear, is executing a plan to do more information sharing. However, I have not heard what he is doing with his Cabinet. I am very concerned that next time, a more seriously wron decision will be made.
Still, this does not constitute impeachment. According to the souces you have given, President Bush did the best with the information given to him. Did someone lie in the Administration? The odds are that someone might have been blood-thirsty and lied, but I fail to see the impeachable offense. There is no malicious intent proved on behalf of our President.
But, it is a working theory, so I will assume that it is correct for now. So, if the sources are correct (and the evidence they present is compelling), then it definitely shows the incompetency of the Administration, but it does not prove malicious intent. At best it shows that the Administration was of the mentality of, "If it smells like a rat, then it's a rat." They wanted Saddam enough that they could have turned a blind eye to the authenticity of the intelligence given them.
Still, the President was working with intelligence that he thought were true because he was told they were. This reminds me of the Space Shuttle Challenger. Crucial information did not make it up to the top and everyone in mission control wanted to go. This is what is called Group Think.
What a terrible mess. It is a good thing that the result was not so catastrophic, but instead rather ethical.
Still, changes need to happen in the our intelligence system, and that, Bush understands and from what I hear, is executing a plan to do more information sharing. However, I have not heard what he is doing with his Cabinet. I am very concerned that next time, a more seriously wron decision will be made.
Still, this does not constitute impeachment. According to the souces you have given, President Bush did the best with the information given to him. Did someone lie in the Administration? The odds are that someone might have been blood-thirsty and lied, but I fail to see the impeachable offense. There is no malicious intent proved on behalf of our President.
That is an incorrect characterization, Bush wanted only the intel, however weak or unsubstantiated, that supported invading Iraq. Your statement is a Republican talking point that has been proven false.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/
This is just one of many sources that say basically the same thing, that the decision was already made to finish his daddy's war, wag the dog, and make Bush a "commander in chief" in the eyes of the public, and any intel that opposed this policy was rejected.
moss:
The people of Chindia see US foreign policy as a regular Punch and Judy show, with the US in the role of Punch (natch) and whoever the ass-kicked flavour of the month is in the role of Judy. Which is to say that they see it as both comedy and threat. Maybe. I don't live there.
The people of Chindia see US foreign policy as a regular Punch and Judy show, with the US in the role of Punch (natch) and whoever the ass-kicked flavour of the month is in the role of Judy. Which is to say that they see it as both comedy and threat. Maybe. I don't live there.
I am a Republican, but I am trying to objective here. I was given sources that did not prove that the President lied.spidergoat said:
You are spitting presumptions and opinionated, conspired, extremist Liberal propoganda. Let's skip the "I thinks" and get to the facts if you want to prove Bush lied. I do not deny that the situation is fishy and that it is possible that what you say is true, but in no way is any opinion fact unless it is supported by solid evidence.spidergoat said:
As far as your source, I agree with her opinion, but if you think that she was saying the things you said, you need to read it again. I accept her argument, but not your empty haphazard statements. I would think some Administration members should have lost their jobs. Let's give the President the benefit of the doubt and wait for his conclusions, then let's take action. Don't let your personal opinion cloud your judgement and begin spitting extremist propoganda.
If you all go back to the Clinton years and review the quotes from Bill himself and his cohorts in the Senate and House, you will find many examples of citing the same intelligence used by President Bush. Was it correct when they were using it or Did the Democrats knowing use false intelligence then? How soon we forget, or is it selective memory at work here? My bet it is the latter!
It's not liberal propaganda. There are many sources that point to the fact that the intelligence was fixed around the policy. The latest one, if you haven't been paying attention, is the downing street memo. Says David Corn, the Washington editor of the Nation:
Many other Bush lies are documented in other places, such as when he said Saddam didn't let weapons inspectors in, that Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons, that Saddam imported aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment, that Saddam had mobile biological weapons laboratories and unmanned R/C airplanes with biological capability, etc....and here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/7/181942/1314
I don't have the patience to lay out a comprehensive case for you, the information is all over the place. I believe there should at least be a congressional inquiry into the subject.
Many other Bush lies are documented in other places, such as when he said Saddam didn't let weapons inspectors in, that Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons, that Saddam imported aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment, that Saddam had mobile biological weapons laboratories and unmanned R/C airplanes with biological capability, etc....and here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/7/181942/1314
I don't have the patience to lay out a comprehensive case for you, the information is all over the place. I believe there should at least be a congressional inquiry into the subject.
glaucon said:
I think that we need to look at "bringing freedom to the world". It is a well expressed position that the more free, democratic countries there are in the world, the safer the world is. So it's not really about spreading an ideal but trying to provide more security of us. President Bush was very clear about who our enemies are. He has the support of the majority of Americans. First on the list was Iraq. Helping them to get to the point where they can govern themselves and provide for their own security to preserve their new won freedom is definetely in the best long term interests of the U.S. and the world.
That's the difference between ideology and reality. Ideally, democratic countries are better for US security, while in reality, the kind of actions Bush is using to create democracies only make the US less secure, since we are seen as aggressors and empire builders. Bush is obviously an idealogue, and divorced from reality.
economic or military security? Clearly the Bush agenda has usurped a growing global economic surge, managed to erode the sense of community that tragic events bring about, isolated most allies, shut out all opinions but his own and spent so much money on a farce war that its ability to control any 'empire' has been undermined. Yet are the amerogants any safer from random attacks on their own soil, I doubt it. The occasional incident (even of epic proportions) probably does less damage then the mismanagement of its own domestic policy (that is, assuming Bush has one)
Giskard said:
Only Allawi voters could be considered pro American Voters. Sistani forced the election to happen. It seems that Bush wanted to wait and have elections only after he could be sure that the results of the elections would not interfere with his plans for Iraq. The Kurds were voting for Kurdish Autonomy. Jaafari voters want a democratic Iraq that would set a future course that will not please Bush.
Jaafari's voters will probably be more intinctively resistant to an American dominated middle east than Saddam was. Saddam did not care how much influence America had in the middle east as long as America did not interefere with his dreams increasing his own power.
BHS said:
If America is not seen as the puppet master then America will not be the target of those who want to topple the alleged puppets.
Islamic extremists may see Hollywood culture as disgusting and perverted, but that is not why they attacked America. At this time the Osama Bin Laden types have no desire to convert Americans into Muslims. The Osama Bin Laden types have targeted America because they percieve the American empire's neo-colonial infrastructure and network of allied kings and dictators and other pawns as being the glue that holds together the current order in the Islamic World. The Islamic extremists want to overthrow the current rulers of the Islamic world and replace them with rulers who will "reform"/ (force Islamic / traditionalist puritanism apon) the world's Islamic people.
I think Osama overestimated America's role in propping up the Saudi Kingdom and the other dictators but America was attacked to, 1: convince the American people to end our governments interference in the Islamic world, 2: Use the media to show the Islamic people that they could become heroic Jihadis who could stand up to America and therefore could stand up to anybody and any two bit king or dictator, 3:was attacked to get America to overreact and thereby force the Islamic people to choose sides between the America's allies and Americas enemies who if the plan went well would be led by Islamic extremists.
Right now it's Arabs attcking us but arround the world many of the allies of those that have been creating American foreign policy have been evil. It is almost surprising that those who felt oppressed by our other allies had not taken the fight to America decades ago. I think that Arabs are an unusually proud people (like the Americans and French) and this is why they rather than say Mayans of Guatemala have been the first to take their fight against our allies to America. If we try to run the world the Arab Islamic extremists will not be the only group to ever succeed at taking their wars to the American homeland.
Who did they vote for?Giskard said:
...there is no census, no register of voters, and the 7,700 candidates are all numbered, not named, no Sunnis voted, and the ballots were "counted" in secret. The full list of candidates was not even printed in the newspapers. Oh people of Iraq, welcome to Democracy.
It's another example of the Republicans being blinded by symbolism over reality.