But we do know exactly of which he speaks. If you take elucidator’s word for it, EVERYTHING the man does is bad, so the specifics don’t really matter, do they?
But intelligent conversation requires people to be rational. As we have seen, this is a great big Bush bash. Intelligence never really entered the equation.
I as yet haven’t given my thoughts on the matter. So, here they are:
Much as I’d like to send Bush back to Midland right now, he as yet hasn’t committed an impeachable offense. That’s not to say he won’t, it just hasn’t happened yet.
If it does, elucidator, I will beat the drum just as loud as you will. I’ll spam the board with anti-Bush threads just like you do. But until then, give me a break with this stuff. All of your alleged evidence is a stretch at best.
Well, ootchy kootchy koo yourself, Counselor. If you hope to accomplish by snottiness what you cannot achieve by reason, you will be disappointed.
I haven’t the slightest doubt that the majority of SDMBers’, while not psychicly gifted, are literate and read newspapers, watch CNN, that sort of thing. If I have set the bar too high, I apologize, it was never my intent to exclude you.
Be that as it may, your request has been complied with. We await your insight and probity with breathless expectation.
Is it, AD? In what regard? Your flat statement falls a bit short in terms of explication. The cites are all lies? All illusions conjured up by the libruhl media? Its all true but Bush is innocent by reason of ignorance? If it wouldn’t be tiresome of me to ask a cite of you as quickly as you demand it of me, can you back up this rather bald statement?
But you aren’t in the least disturbed by the Resident pissing all over the rest of the world and turning us into an aggressor nation.
The conservative mind never ceases to amaze.
And ** Boris, ** darlink, why do you waste the pixels? Even if we did impeach him successfully, all we would be doing is ripping the mask off the real deal.
Rest, bubelah. Let’s light up a spliff and meditate. It is out of our hands. War shall be made in our names, people will die in our names. The reputation of our great country shall be stained with blood. And we cannot question it. Remember the words of Our Leader himself: “That’s the interesting thing about being President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to * me * why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”
Indeed, the fact that most SDMBers, including me, are literate and stay abreast of the news is the reason you need to provide links in your OP, or at least specify what you’re talking about. There’s a lot of news out there. Much of it involves President Bush in some way. How are we to know which story you are referring to unless you tell us? **
I think, to use one of your examples, that the administration should be embarrassed over the Nigerian forgeries. I think that’s an indicia of incompetence – not in the White House, but in the CIA and the intelligence community. I think some heads should probably roll over it.
But it’s silly to suggest that the US passing on those documents amounts to a “lie” – there is no evidence that those passing on the information knew it was false. And it’s equally silly to suggest that the error amounts to incompetence in the executive – all executives depend on their subordinates for information; no executive the time to personally second-guess the validity of the information recieved from subordinates; if the subordinate fucks up, even the best executives will falter. A smart executive will then take corrective action to ensure the fuckup doesn’t happen again.
If relying on bad information is an impeachable offense, there’d be a lot more impeachments – Kennedy over the Bay of Pigs, Clinton’s bombing of a Sudanese aspirin factory, the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, etc, etc.
The simple fact is, fuckups happen. An administration will rightfully be embarrassed and called to account when they happen. Good administrations will make efforts to prevent them from happening again. But it ain’t impeachable, not by a longshot.
I know how much you love this one and I know how much you hate facts, so I offer the following with my apologies.
Let’s look at what really happened. You can find the complete text of the Bush/Blair press conference here. We find the following quotes:
So…………where are the lies? Your cite states “The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was “six months away” from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist.” But Bush never made that statement. He clearly states that the IAEA has issued a report indicating that Iraq was six months away from developing a weapon at some point in the past, though he is admittedly somewhat fuzzy on exactly when.
But is that true? Well, here is a link to an IAEA report dated October 8, 1997 where we can find the following:
Hmmmm………….that’s an IAEA report, and August 1990 to 1991 is actually only five months, but hell, I’m inclined to give Bush that much leeway before I start tossing out accusations of “liar.”
But what about Blair, I might as well defend him too. This rather anti-Bush report makes it clear that Blair was speaking of “a newly released satellite photo of Iraq identifying new construction at several sites linked in the past to Baghdad’s development of nuclear weapons.”
Now it’s certainly true that “Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman for the….(IAEA)……disputed Bush’s and Blair’s assessment of the satellite photograph.” But in doing so, he is, in effect, admitting that such a photo exists and does show new construction at the sort of sites referenced by Blair. “Gwozdecky said the new construction indicated in the photograph was no surprise…….” So the dispute here seems to be one of interpretation rather than lies. I will leave it to another debate whether we should or should not be concerned that Iraq, having thrown inspectors out of the country, is now engaging in “new construction” at sites which were previously used in the development of nuclear weapons.
With cites? Nope. Only the most ignorant person would disagree that those statements cited are lies. Perhaps he knew they were, perhaps he didn’t. Let’s go on the assumption that he did know, because he most likely did.
It can be argued that they were justifiable on the basis that he is doing what is in the best interests of the security of the United States. That argument stinks.
It can also be argued that he said them in order to push Saddam into giving something up as a result, drawing Saddam into saying or doing something to confirm his suspicions. It’s not impossible, just improbable.
It may also be argued that saying it was entirely in his own self interest and he didn’t think he would be caught. I find this to be the most likely scenario.
So, he’s a putz. So what? He hasn’t committed a crime yet, so how can he be impeached? He didn’t lie under oath, he didn’t commit any Nixonian crimes, and he hasn’t obstructed justice. So what’s the charge, since this is what the thread is all about?
Incidentally (and you just KNEW this was coming…), your insistence that Bush be entirely honest and forthcoming in everything he does is laughable when reflecting on your passionate defenses of our previous President. Show some consistency, at least, or if your opinions are fairly variable as mine are, give a reasonable explanation as to why it’s changed.
Elucidator: I’m simply saying that I find the evidence to be lacking at this point. I think that pushing an impeachment based on what you, and Ramsey have presented would be foolish, as it was when the republicans did it.
For you, and perhaps Stoid, the issue seems to fall into the category of an inset distrust for the president, which probably has remained firmly in place since he ‘stole’ the White House from the rightful heir. Your dislike for the president, what he stands for, his policies, and his beliefs may well be coloring your search for impeachment evidence. Your search, however, is certainly valid, and I would like to say that I appreciate having people on both sides of an issue that scrutinize the folks in power, and actively search for their wrongdoing.
I just don’t think you’ve found it yet. Our nation was built on the death of thousands who never had to die and has thrived for two hundred years on wars and bloodshed. We have placed our hand into the worst grudge matches in human history and sought, always, to impress our values and our way of life on every nation on Earth, with or without the consent of the United Nations. We have bombed Iraq three times that I count in the past ten years and never asked permission. We have actively sought the removal from power of many heads of state around the world without permission, and have succeeded at least twice by my recollection. We have attempted to assassinate world leaders under the past four administrations, and dropped special forces into at least three countries to train resistance groups to overtake a government. We have, over the past fifty years, jailed and executed for espionage and treason without public evidence. We are, and always have been, a nation stained with blood and driven by righteousness under every administration. The only difference is your political stand.
Stoid, on what basis do you make the assertion that an attack on Iraq is criminal?
Bush could lie all day, but there’s ample evidence that Saddam broke the cease-fire ending the Gulf War and this is a continuation of that action rather than a new situation altogether.
How does his dishonesty as shown in elucidator’s cites affect that? It doesn’t. To me, it’s that simple.
Yes, I did know it was coming. Point of fact, our opinions on this matter are only in minor variance. Do I insist that he must be entirely honest and forthcoming? No, as I stated above, a certain degree of mendacity goes with the territory. The best example of that would be his arithmetically hilarious statement that the average American would benefit about a thousand dollars from his tax cut. Of course, if Bill Gates walks into a homeless shelter, the average resident is a multi-millionaire. That sort of thing is par for the course. As I said, no virgin is ever elected Queen of the Harlots.
But this rises to a dire level. These are lies and/or blunders in pursuit of a policy of war. Quite literally, thousands of lives hang in the balance, as no one is more likely to be aware than yourself.
Have your heard anything in the way of a mea culpa? Seen any heads roll? Has the term “accountability” dropped lightly from GeeDubya’s vocabulary? This last Nigerian debacle doesn’t even rise to a Tom Clancy level, it is pure Keystone Kops. And nobody caught on? Nobody?
An impeachment proceeding might, at least, answer the question that troubles us both the most: what did the President know, and when did he know it?
PS: you wildly overestimate my “passionate” regard for the Big Dog, Wild Bill. When he flew back to Arkansas to sign off on the execution of a brain damaged convict in order to protect his anti-crime credentials, he was just another whore as far as I was concerned. But a man whom Newt Gangrene despises simply must have some good points.
When I occupy the Oval Office, thing will be quite different, of course. (By the by, have you enough time in grade for Chmn, Joint Chiefs? Seem a bright enough lad, and Stoid has declined.)
I walked into the room expecting intelligent conversation, but the moment I stepped in I found the floor was so slanted to the left that I tumbled into the water cooler!
Now I’m too dizzy to respond to all of this, and it’s not because of the tumble I took.
Our form of changing governments was a first attempt with hardly any history to use as guidance. As such it is magnificent. However, we lack a method of changing governments when lack of skill in governing within a frame that involves other countries is the problem. A parliamentary system is a step in that direction and is more responsive to public desires. Look at the alterations of approach that Blair has undertaken since it became obvious that he had leaped before he looked.
However, we stand about as much chance of a GW impeachment as we do of getting a parliamentary form.
I still say that the realization that a mistake has been made doesn’t need to result in a constitutional crisis.
By the way, Ramsey Clark tried to have the first President Bush impeached over the Gulf War. It had as much success as this one will, because it made about as much sense.
Alas, no. I’m just an E-4. I’m afraid the officers would storm the Pentagon, abduct me, and hang both of us from the nearest flagpole if you tried that.
Goodness, have you read your own cite? To begin with, did you notice that it’s accompanied by a photo of aluminum tubes which were “parts to an Iraqi centrifuge, used to enrich uranium” and destroyed by weapons inspectors pre-1998? Here’s some more:
Now let’s look at what the same source, the Washington Post is saying a couple of weeks later:
And here is some more information from Khidhir Hamza, written as far back as 1998, on Iraq’s history of fooling the IAEA with respect to its program of nuclear development:
And so on…………
Now I’ll happily admit that Bush has failed to prove beyond any doubt that the aluminum tubes were destined for nuclear development, but I’ll argue that he has made a reasonable case for that belief and that the opinion of the IAEA is hardly decisive.
So it appears to me that your entire basis for calling Bush a liar over this point is that instead of saying “……Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon……” he should have said “………Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes which might be used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon………”
Hey what kept you? I been looking for an AdHom drive by from you for a couple pages now! Kinda weak, though, its not even marginally insulting, unless you think disliking GeeDubya somehow repesents a weakness in character. Besides, its kinda pointless, Conan the Canadian’s got it pretty much covered.
