[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Time to quit defending this administrations actions. WE DID NOT GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ BASED ON SADDAM"S “INTENTIONS”. We went to WAR based on “PROOF POSITIVE” he had WMD’s.
THEY LIED, deal with it!
[/quote]
You know, it’s funny how quickly we lose sight of the big picture when we get caught up in debating over who had a pen in their pocket, how many times a piece of paper was folded, exactly what the word “nuisance” means, etc…
The bottem line is that all the reasons we were given to justify the Iraqi war have since been proven to be false. The major problem is most Bush supporters’ willingness to adapt to the party line in explaining away Bush’s actions. We’ve gone so far away from the truth and have become so enveloped in fear and trust vs. mistrust and --actually-- pure politics, that we can’t even see straight.
Bush needs to go. The list of shit that’s gone on by him and his cronies is too long to ignore. If he’s not gone in 04, we’re in for a long and terribly damaging 05, 06, 07, and 08.
I have no problem with your stance, assuming, of course, that you also demanded that President Clinton be impeached for first bombing civilians and then occupying Bosnia and Kosovo. After all, President first by-passed any attempt to get UN approval because he declared he would never get it. He also justified the attacks by stating that there had been over 100,000 victims of “ethnic cleansing”, a number he immediately reduced to 10,000 after the US invaded and a number that has yet to be verified after years of trying Milosevic.
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Time to quit defending this administrations actions. WE DID NOT GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ BASED ON SADDAM"S “INTENTIONS”. We went to WAR based on “PROOF POSITIVE” he had WMD’s.
THEY LIED, deal with it!
You know, it’s funny how quickly we lose sight of the big picture when we get caught up in debating over who had a pen in their pocket, how many times a piece of paper was folded, exactly what the word “nuisance” means, etc…
The bottem line is that all the reasons we were given to justify the Iraqi war have since been proven to be false. The major problem is most Bush supporters’ willingness to adapt to the party line in explaining away Bush’s actions. We’ve gone so far away from the truth and have become so enveloped in fear and trust vs. mistrust and --actually-- pure politics, that we can’t even see straight.
Bush needs to go. The list of shit that’s gone on by him and his cronies is too long to ignore. If he’s not gone in 04, we’re in for a long and terribly damaging 05, 06, 07, and 08.[/quote]
Not true. The only one of the four main reasons to have been demonstrated false was that Saddam had large caches of WMD.
And, of course, as a side note, the only reason we know this conclusively, given Saddam’s posturing that he had WMD to both the external world and his internal government, is that we removed him and got access to the real information.
The bottem line is that all the reasons we were given to justify the Iraqi war have since been proven to be false. The major problem is most Bush supporters’ willingness to adapt to the party line in explaining away Bush’s actions. We’ve gone so far away from the truth and have become so enveloped in fear and trust vs. mistrust and --actually-- pure politics, that we can’t even see straight.
Bush needs to go. The list of shit that’s gone on by him and his cronies is too long to ignore. If he’s not gone in 04, we’re in for a long and terribly damaging 05, 06, 07, and 08.[/quote]
And this shouldn’t even be an issue of Repub vs Dem anymore. I almost feel sorry for Bush though, he has to keep going out defending all these bad decisions that he probably didn’t have much to do with in the first place. - Hey you know that stuff about Saddam getting uranium from Niger that we put in your State of the Union speech…we just made that up. Pretty funny, huh?
[quote]Publius231 wrote:
JTF:
I have no problem with your stance, assuming, of course, that you also demanded that President Clinton be impeached for first bombing civilians and then occupying Bosnia and Kosovo. After all, President first by-passed any attempt to get UN approval because he declared he would never get it. He also justified the attacks by stating that there had been over 100,000 victims of “ethnic cleansing”, a number he immediately reduced to 10,000 after the US invaded and a number that has yet to be verified after years of trying Milosevic.[/quote]
Absolutely. I think the difference this time around is that more people have access to the internet so the lies and propaganda don’t work as well.
It’s funny you mention Clinton though, because the same Neo-Con Hawks that pushed for THIS war in Iraq and got it, also were influential in getting Clinton into Kosovo. They also tried desperately to get Clinton to invade Iraq around the same time too.
People question why we’re in Iraq, all you have to do is look through these letters and realize the same group that drafted these are now directly controlling our military and foreign policy. It’s not too hard to follow the trail.
I don’t think our liberal friends are giving enough credence to 9-11. That day really changed how this President, and all future leaders will look at a potential threat to the US.
I also think that this is a point almost lost on John Kerry. His comment on Tuseday proved that to me. Something in the order of “wanting to get terrorism back to the nuisance it once was.” What can one say?..Oh my
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t think our liberal friends are giving enough credence to 9-11. That day really changed how this President, and all future leaders will look at a potential threat to the US.
I also think that this is a point almost lost on John Kerry. His comment on Tuseday proved that to me. Something in the order of “wanting to get terrorism back to the nuisance it once was.” What can one say?..Oh my
[/quote]
Kinda the point though. It’s hard to believe going into Iraq was about terrorism when there was CLEARLY an established agenda for Iraq LONG before 9/11. They even “manufactured” evidence to justify the invasion…sorry, liberation.
I guess they should have named the war Operation Iraqi Liberation…but that would have been a little too obvious.
I know my post is called IMPEACH BUSH but the real issue goes way deeper than him. Bush may be the least scary individual in this whole administration.
I think Kerry’s stance is quite clear. Now that we’re in Iraq, we need to make it work and rebuild relations. If this were all about terrorism, certainly plenty of other countries were higher on the list than Iraq…namely Iran and North Korea.
Everyone gets all bent out of shape when you mention oil as a reason for the war but when you look at the secret Energy Task Force, I mean, what can you say? Funny how the tragedy of 9/11 turned out to be a “gift from heaven” for these guys.
When you see the effort, finances and human sacrifice being put into securing oil reserves, certainly it makes more sense to funnel all that into coming up with better, more efficient energy solutions. The avoidance is positively obvious, after all gasoline, when you get right down to it, is just a combustible liquid for cryin’ out loud.
Crude dudes
[i]`U.S. oil companies just happened to have billions of dollars they wanted to invest in undeveloped oil reserves’
LINDA MCQUAIG
Sep 20, 2004[/i]
Selling the modern world’s most indispensable commodity has never been a bad business to be in - particularly for the small group of companies that straddle the top of this privileged world. But never more so than now.
“Profit-wise, things could not have been better,” says Gheit, “In the last three years, they died and went to heaven … They are all sitting on the largest piles of cash in their history.”
Not only does Iraq have vast quantities of easily accessible oil, but its oil is almost untouched. “Think of Iraq as virgin territory … This is bigger than anything Exxon is involved in currently … It is the superstar of the future,” says Gheit, “That’s why Iraq becomes the most sought-after real estate on the face of the earth.”
Gheit just smiles at the notion that oil wasn’t a factor in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He compares Iraq to Russia, which also has large undeveloped oil reserves. But Russia has nuclear weapons. “We can’t just go over and … occupy (Russian) oil fields,” says Gheit. “It’s a different ballgame.” Iraq, however, was defenceless, utterly lacking, ironically, in weapons of mass destruction. And its location, nestled in between Saudi Arabia and Iran, made it an ideal place for an ongoing military presence, from which the U.S. would be able to control the entire Gulf region. Gheit smiles again: “Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath … You can’t ask for better than that.”
There’s something almost obscene about a map that was studied by senior Bush administration officials and a select group of oil company executives meeting in secret in the spring of 2001. It doesn’t show the kind of detail normally shown on maps - cities, towns, regions. Rather its detail is all about Iraq’s oil.
The southwest is neatly divided, for instance, into nine “Exploration Blocks.” Stripped of political trappings, this map shows a naked Iraq, with only its ample natural assets in view. It’s like a supermarket meat chart, which identifies the various parts of a slab of beef so customers can see the most desirable cuts … Block 1 might be the striploin, Block 2 and Block 3 are perhaps some juicy tenderloin, but Block 8 - ahh, that could be the filet mignon.
The map might seem crass, but it was never meant for public consumption. It was one of the documents studied by the ultra-secretive task force on energy, headed by U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney, and it was only released under court order after a long legal battle waged by the public interest group Judicial Watch.
Another interesting task force document, also released under court order over the opposition of the Bush administration, was a two-page chart titled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfields.” It identifies 63 oil companies from 30 countries and specifies which Iraqi oil fields each company is interested in and the status of the company’s negotiations with Saddam Hussein’s regime. Among the companies are Royal Dutch/Shell of the Netherlands, Russia’s Lukoil and France’s Total Elf Aquitaine, which was identified as being interested in the fabulous, 25-billion-barrrel Majnoon oil field. Baghdad had “agreed in principle” to the French company’s plans to develop this succulent slab of Iraq. There goes the filet mignon into the mouths of the French!
The documents have attracted surprisingly little attention, despite their possible relevance to the question of Washington’s motives for its invasion of Iraq - in many ways the defining event of the post-9/11 world but one whose purpose remains shrouded in mystery. Even after the supposed motives for the invasion - weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda - have been thoroughly discredited, talk of oil as a motive is still greeted with derision. Certainly any suggestion that private oil interests were in any way involved is hooted down with charges of conspiracy theory.
Yet the documents suggest that those who took part in the Cheney task force - including senior oil company executives - were very interested in Iraq’s oil and specifically in the danger of it falling into the hands of eager foreign oil companies, rather than into the rightful hands of eager U.S. oil companies…
But we’re supposed to believe that, as the Bush administration assessed its options just before invading Iraq in the spring of 2003, the advantages of securing vast, untapped oil fields - in order to guarantee U.S. energy security in a world of dwindling reserves and to enable U.S. oil companies to reap untold riches - were far from mind. What really mattered to those in the White House, we’re told, was liberating the people of Iraq.
I’m not disputing these facts. I’m operating on the Left’s current definition of what pre-emption is and why they think it is wrong. Applying their definitions, the decision to wage war in Europe against a Nazi Germany was a pre-emptive war, in that we wanted to strike them before they struck us.
In FDR’s own words, “When You See a Rattlesnake Poised to Strike, You Do Not Wait Until He Has Struck Before You Crush Him”.
Btw, there was dissent in America back in 1941 over this very issue of whether we should attack Germany.
“I mean, how in the world is this anything like a quasi-uni-lateral war against a 3rd-rate middle eastern country who had not declared war against us?”
We were at war with Iraq and had been for the better part of a decade. As for the comparisons, some facts have parallels, others don’t - what I am suggesting is the principle is the same, using the Left’s own definition.
“The second world war was not about america peremptively attacking Nazi terrorists with nukes.”
No, not the entire WWII.
But you mean to tell me that FDR, under grave concern that Nazi Germany might acquire atomic capabilities, didn’t consider that a priority to topple Hitler as fast as he could?
That defies common sense. And military strategy.
I never suggested it was the only reason. But FDR most certainly did want to get to Hitler before he get develop an atomic bomb. To suggest otherwise is naive.
Interesting update on the Valerie Plame investigation mentioned in an earlier post. I have mixed feelings about this, on one hand I would like to see an indictment of the source of the leak, on the other hand I support the reporter’s right to protect her source.
Your professional opinion is welcome BB.
US endangering free expression
[/i]AFP - WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2004[/i]
BRUSSELS: A leading international journalists’ group today accused US authorities of threatening freedom of expression after an American journalist faced jail for refusing to reveal her sources.
New York Times reporter Judith Miller was held in contempt by a Washington judge last Thursday over her refusal to reveal the source of a story about a White house leak revealing the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.
The US authorities were “endangering the country’s cardinal democratic principle of free expression by attempting to force reporters to disclose confidential sources of information,” the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) said in a statement from its Brussels headquarters.
“The First Amendment (of the US constitution) is a beacon for free expression,” said IFJ General Secretary Aidan White. “But that principle is threatened when journalists are bullied by judges and face jail for talking to government employees about serious public issues.”
The IFJ said it was backing Miller, who refused to reveal the source of a story about a leak from the White House for which she gathered material. The story was never published.
The leak investigation began after Plame’s identity was leaked to journalists last year.
The IFJ recalled that articles had appeared quoting two “administration officials” as sources.
That said, there is no journalistic privilege when it comes to protecting sources – from the First Amendment or otherwise. They have no legal standing to refuse to reveal sources, although they can choose to do so, and be held in contempt of court.
In specific, this case would seem to fall under an exception to First Amendment protections generally, which applies to speech that is actually a crime. In this case, the contention is that revealing Plame’s identity was criminal (this is debatable, given the facts of the case, but that is one of the items to be determined at trial) – the government can punish this speech, just as it could punish someone revealing nuclear secrets or punish assault (where the words themselves are the crime). There is a similar, although less well defined, exception for crime-facilitating speech.
I love when BB and JTF go at it. Allthough it takes hours to read through thier posts. It is nice to see that there are intelligent, educated, and rational people who have completely differing viewpoints on major issues.
Truly the greatest test for humankind will be our ability to achieve common goals with different perspectives on how those goals should be achieved. When we master the ability to do this, I fear many of the problems we face today will simply go away. What would we have to debate and argue over then?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m a big proponent of the First Amendment.
That said, there is no journalistic privilege when it comes to protecting sources – from the First Amendment or otherwise. They have no legal standing to refuse to reveal sources, although they can choose to do so, and be held in contempt of court.[/quote]
Thanks for your input. If that is true, that the journalist has no legal standing, then the ‘source’ would have to have a TREMENDOUS amount of confidence that she wouldn’t talk, assuming he knew the possible consequences. BTW, of everything I’ve read so far on this case, the source is not mentioned as being anonymous.
So being held in contempt, is that a pre-determined amount of time? Also, would that in it of itself eventually come to trial?
My personal opinion is that the FBI knows that she knows the true identity of the source. Otherwise I would assume a journalist would just say their source was anonymous, but would that alleviate them from contempt?
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I love when BB and JTF go at it. Allthough it takes hours to read through thier posts. It is nice to see that there are intelligent, educated, and rational people who have completely differing viewpoints on major issues.
Truly the greatest test for humankind will be our ability to achieve common goals with different perspectives on how those goals should be achieved. When we master the ability to do this, I fear many of the problems we face today will simply go away. What would we have to debate and argue over then?
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins[/quote]
Well said. Certainly as different as our opinions are, we do share a common goal…even if those opinions do take “hours to read” : )
Personally, most of my criticism on this board has been more towards the ‘neocons’ than Bush himself. I really think he had the misfortune of being railroaded into this war.
Letter to Bush from “Project for the New American Century”
September 20, 2001
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President,
We write to endorse your admirable commitment to “lead the world to victory” in the war against terrorism. We fully support your call for “a broad and sustained campaign” against the “terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them.” We agree with Secretary of State Powell that the United States must find and punish the perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11, and we must, as he said, “go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world” and “get it by its branch and root.” We agree with the Secretary of State that U.S. policy must aim not only at finding the people responsible for this incident, but must also target those “other groups out there that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.”
In order to carry out this “first war of the 21st century” successfully, and in order, as you have said, to do future “generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism,” we believe the following steps are necessary parts of a comprehensive strategy.
Osama bin Laden
We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.
Iraq
We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth.” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.
Hezbollah
Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the category cited by Secretary Powell of groups “that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.” Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.
Israel and the Palestinian Authority
Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks against Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the United States should provide it no further assistance.
U.S. Defense Budget
A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.
There is, of course, much more that will have to be done. Diplomatic efforts will be required to enlist other nations’ aid in this war on terrorism. Economic and financial tools at our disposal will have to be used. There are other actions of a military nature that may well be needed. However, in our judgement the steps outlined above constitute the minimum necessary if this war is to be fought effectively and brought to a successful conclusion. Our purpose in writing is to assure you of our support as you do what must be done to lead the nation to victory in this fight.
The following is an abridged version of a very excellent article by Pat Buchanan. (Follow the link for the whole version)
Of all the stuff written about the Neocon agenda and the price we’re paying, this is by far the best single article I’ve personally read on the subject.
Whose War?
[i]A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.
The American Conservative
March 24, 2003
by Patrick J. Buchanan[/i]
The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers … that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”
Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.
On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers’ support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, “will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”
Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.
President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us. All, however, were enemies of Israel. “Bibi” Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous on American television, calling for us to crush the “Empire of Terror.” The “Empire,” it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and “the Palestinian enclave.”
Yet, if Bush cannot deliver Sharon there can be no peace. And if there is no peace in the Mideast there is no security for us, ever - for there will be no end to terror. As most every diplomat and journalist who travels to the region will relate, America’s failure to be even-handed, our failure to rein in Sharon, our failure to condemn Israel’s excesses, and our moral complicity in Israel’s looting of Palestinian lands and denial of their right to self-determination sustains the anti-Americanism in the Islamic world in which terrorists and terrorism breed.
Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this president has done, he will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives’ agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect.
Concerning the Times reporter who has found herself held in contempt, I found this article, which was written by University of Tennessee constitutional law professor Glenn Reynolds concerning another case in which a journalist was found in contempt for not turning over notes.
This excerpt is highly relevant:
"Contrary to frequent assertions from professional journalists, there is no special First Amendment protection for members of the press. Such protections, to the extent they exist at all, exist only as a matter of statutory or regulatory grace. Under the First Amendment, everyone enjoys the same protection as "professional journalists." Ms. Leggett probably had First Amendment grounds for refusing to turn over all of her notes, but not for refusing to testify to a grand jury, and not for refusing to make her notes available for copying (rather than seizure). Her refusal to testify may make her a heroine to journalists, but it does not make her a First Amendment heroine.
The Justice Department's behavior was thus doubly odd. The first oddity was requesting her material in such a way as to block work on her book. The second oddity was making an argument based on her status as a nonjournalist. As a matter of internal policy, the Justice Department often avoids asking journalists to identify their sources, but that has nothing to do with the First Amendment."
As for the period of time one can be held in contempt: until you comply with the order of the court, although in reality its very rare that it would last a long time.
I remember that woman who refused to answer questions concerning what she told President Clinton in one of the many trials of Clinton’s Arkansas friends who was held in contempt for years – people tried to argue she was a “political prisoner”, but really she was just someone refusing to answer a question as directed by the court, and a person who had no Constitutional or other privilege to refuse to answer the question.