Political Choreography

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-14-2005, 03:29 PM
TallGuyLittleCar

Quote:

Originally Posted by indivision

i dont know about you guys, but i prefer that more of my money is locked up over the years in a federal account. we should go for a super, record high surplus. just in case. that way, when we need the money, we can rely on the government to gradually hand it back to us according to "need".

I"m enjoying the new sarcastic indivision.
10-14-2005, 03:29 PM
admedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by japangreg

Now if it turns out that Bush knowingly compelled Tenet to produce reports that were contrary to the consensus among the intel. community in order to support his invasion of Iraq (which has been a documented objective of many of his administration for years), is that alright with you?

Absolutely not. It just seems to me that all of the dots have not been connected well enought to support an impeachment at this point.
10-14-2005, 03:30 PM
indivision

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar

Many members of congress had access to all the intelligence bush had, not just the intelligence bush presented. That plus congresses dereliction of duty in regards to declaring war would make an impeachment over Iraq far messier than any congressmen hoping for reelection would want to touch.

TGLC. It's just the Democrat's Ladder. When one accusation doesn't stick, swing on down to the previous rung.
10-14-2005, 03:31 PM
indivision

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar

I"m enjoying the new sarcastic indivision.

lol

its more time efficient. i cant afford to get too into it at the moment.
10-14-2005, 03:32 PM
Ask The Geezer

Quote:

That plus congresses dereliction of duty in regards to declaring war would make an impeachment over Iraq far messier than any congressmen hoping for reelection would want to touch

You mean a republican congressman? Not to worry, chances are, he won't be elected next time anyway. ;)

Quote:

i dont know about you guys, but i prefer that more of my money is locked up over the years in a federal account.

Same here. The sad fact is, we were well on the way when Clinton left office. Now, it'll take decades to get it back anywhere near zero.
10-14-2005, 03:33 PM
indivision

Quote:

Originally Posted by iaskwhy

Same here. The sad fact is, we were well on the way when Clinton left office. Now, it'll take decades to get it back anywhere near zero.

Ok. Gig is up. Who is this person that has stolen IAW's identity?
10-14-2005, 03:37 PM
japangreg

Quote:

Originally Posted by admedia

Absolutely not. It just seems to me that all of the dots have not been connected well enought to support an impeachment at this point.

I'm a bit confused by your post, then. You seem to be saying whether the fudged the books or not, the intelligence was wrong so it's no harm, no foul. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The economic side of things is kind of a moot point: it can put the country in the mood for impeachment, but that in and of itself isn't a reason for it. Unless, of course, it can be proven that Bush persued economic policies with the express purpose of harming the ability of the US to maintain its self...
10-14-2005, 03:40 PM
TallGuyLittleCar

technically, congress can impeach for any reason it wants to.
10-14-2005, 03:43 PM
admedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by japangreg

I'm a bit confused by your post, then. You seem to be saying whether the fudged the books or not, the intelligence was wrong so it's no harm, no foul. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I am just saying it would be difficult to prove that Bush himself intentionally fudged the books. So the intelligence was wrong. That is not a good thing, that is harm / foul. But to get an impeachment with irrefutable evidence that Bush himself fudged the intelligence would seem difficult at this point to me.

So Bush really did alter the intelligence and go to war based on WMD, knowing full well there would be none when we got there? Why wouldn't he just go all the way then and plant some nukes there?
10-14-2005, 03:43 PM
japangreg

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar

technically, congress can impeach for any reason it wants to.

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

Being stupid with money doesn't quite qualify, I think... ;)
10-14-2005, 03:44 PM
admedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar

technically, congress can impeach for any reason it wants to.

technically yes it can... but again without irrefutable evidence it might look bad if the other side can rip holes in it.
10-14-2005, 03:49 PM
Ask The Geezer

Quote:

technically yes it can... but again without irrefutable evidence it might look bad if the other side can rip holes in it.

If congress played by shrub rules, then he would be guilty until proven innocent. I bet someone can come up with some charge that would force him to prove his innocence, [a joke].

Quote:

Ok. Gig is up. Who is this person that has stolen IAW's identity?

SOCK PUPPET
10-14-2005, 03:49 PM
TallGuyLittleCar

Quote:

Originally Posted by japangreg

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

Being stupid with money doesn't quite qualify, I think... ;)

congress is the only one that can decide what a "high crime" is.

Anyway, I don't think anything more clearly indicates the vast lack of even the slightest bit of intelligence than the people that hate bush constantly screaming about impeachment.
10-14-2005, 03:50 PM
japangreg

Quote:

Originally Posted by admedia

I am just saying it would be difficult to prove that Bush himself intentionally fudged the books. So the intelligence was wrong. That is not a good thing, that is harm / foul. But to get an impeachment with irrefutable evidence that Bush himself fudged the intelligence would seem difficult at this point to me.

Nixon didn't break into Watergate, but that didn't stop the proceedings.

There is evidence out there - I don't have a list of items or links anywhere that I can post, but there are more than one source for the accusation. One of the most damning documents is the so-called Downing Street Memo, which was actually the minutes kept from a high-level meeting the the UK govt. that explicitly says 'facts were being fixed around policy,' which (to my knowledge) has never been refuted.

Obviously, one document doesn't make the case, but in conjunction with other statements, testimony and documents I don't think it's a huge leap to bring a formal charge.

Quote:

So Bush really did alter the intelligence and go to war based on WMD, knowing full well there would be none when we got there? Why wouldn't he just go all the way then and plant some nukes there?

I don't know if he 'knew full well' that they wouldn't be there - he might have honestly beleived there would be some after we arrived. However that doesn't mean you can alter the intelligence to support your position, even if it pans out to be true.
10-14-2005, 03:51 PM
admedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by japangreg

Obviously, one document doesn't make the case, but in conjunction with other statements, testimony and documents I don't think it's a huge leap to bring a formal charge.

Exactly, I just haven't seen it get to that point yet. That's all I'm saying.
10-14-2005, 03:53 PM
TallGuyLittleCar

Quote:

Originally Posted by japangreg

There is evidence out there - I don't have a list of items or links anywhere that I can post, but there are more than one source for the accusation. One of the most damning documents is the so-called Downing Street Memo, which was actually the minutes kept from a high-level meeting the the UK govt. that explicitly says 'facts were being fixed around policy,' which (to my knowledge) has never been refuted.

The Downing Street Memo also states that the U.K. was fearful of saddam using Bio/Chem should we invade. I assume the U.K. had it's own intelligence that bush did not get a chance to "fix"... so why were they afriad of saddams WMDs?
10-14-2005, 03:57 PM
japangreg

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar

Anyway, I don't think anything more clearly indicates the vast lack of even the slightest bit of intelligence than the people that hate bush constantly screaming about impeachment.

Hm? How does saying Bush should be impeached for lying about war equal a lack of intelligence?

I'd also take issue with the 'constantly screaming' comment - the issue hadn't even really been broached in the public discourse until last June/July. The lastest polls also seem to show that a majority of the US population seem to think it might be a good idea, although I wouldn't try to argue that a majority of the US population has the 'slightest bit of intelligence.' :)
10-14-2005, 03:57 PM
indivision

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar

The Downing Street Memo also states that the U.K. was fearful of saddam using Bio/Chem should we invade. I assume the U.K. had it's own intelligence that bush did not get a chance to "fix"... so why were they afriad of saddams WMDs?

That's a pretty annoying fact, TGLC.
10-14-2005, 03:59 PM
TallGuyLittleCar

Quote:

Originally Posted by japangreg

Hm? How does saying Bush should be impeached for lying about war equal a lack of intelligence?

http://radar.smh.com.au/archives/cheney.jpg

Vive Le Difference!

Quote:

I'd also take issue with the 'constantly screaming' comment

oh i just wanted to set up my cheney picture with some flowery verbage
10-14-2005, 04:01 PM
japangreg

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar

The Downing Street Memo also states that the U.K. was fearful of saddam using Bio/Chem should we invade. I assume the U.K. had it's own intelligence that bush did not get a chance to "fix"... so why were they afriad of saddams WMDs?

I don't think anyone has claimed that Bush added to any intelligence reports, merely retracted certain words like 'possibly', 'might' and 'unsure if'. I don't think what was there originally was particularly soothing in terms of Iraq's capacity, so it wouldn't be a surprise to me that the British were worried about the possibility (I was too, at the time - even posted about it in the War thread).

Bush's aim wasn't to invent a WMD threat out of whole cloth, just to tweak what was on the books to make it look bigger than it did.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page