[QUOTE=Bricker]
Or those older, who remember FDR.
[/QUOTE]
FDR lied to the citizens of the US to get them involved in a war with Germany or Japan? 
He bent the neutrality laws and got Lend Lease passed, but perhaps your thinking of sumthin else? The “Neutrality Patrols”?
[QUOTE=mlees]
FDR lied to the citizens of the US to get them involved in a war with Germany or Japan?
[/QUOTE]
No idea what Bricker was getting at but:
The US Navy was already fighting a covert war against the Germans prior to the war (which most American’s weren’t aware of). Roosevelt was moving the US toward war via his own form of propaganda, despite the fact that most US citizens were opposed to getting us involved (prior to Pearl Harbor).
Also, what Roosevelt did to US citizens of Japanese ancestry was definitely unconstitutional as well as being pretty damn bad.
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
No idea what Bricker was getting at but:
The US Navy was already fighting a covert war against the Germans prior to the war (which most American’s weren’t aware of).
[/quote]
That is what I meant by the “Neutrality patrols”. I don’t know if that was illegal, though. Does a sovereign nation have the right to defend it’s civilian merchant ships in international waters?
(I agree that the move was to provoke acts of agression by the German Uboats, but not illegal.)
Which propaganda was completely false, as opposed to hyperbole?
What makes it illegal?
Agreed. But that came after the DOW’s. And Roosevelt didn’t lie about why he ordered it.
[QUOTE=mlees]
That is what I meant by the “Neutrality patrols”. I don’t know if that was illegal, though. Does a sovereign nation have the right to defend it’s civilian merchant ships in international waters?
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure it wasn’t illegal…but it was covert. Considering the thread we are in it’s applicable. The Gulf of Tomkin incident was on par…it wasn’t ‘illegal’ either. The point is that Roosevelt (like Johnson) was deliberately preparing the ground to move the US to war…despite the fact that at that time the majority of citizens didn’t want war (though this was changing…but much of that change had to do with Roosevelt and propaganda).
[QUOTE=mlees]
(I agree that the move was to provoke acts of agression by the German Uboats, but not illegal.)
[/QUOTE]
I agree to.
[QUOTE=mlees]
Which propaganda was completely false, as opposed to hyperbole?
[/QUOTE]
Well…that’s all a matter of perspective, isn’t it? 
Don’t get me wrong…while I would have been furious at the time that Roosevelt was deliberately spinning things to move public sentiment toward war (and livid about using the US Navy in a covert action against the Germans), in retrospect he was probably doing the right thing…especially since it turned out Japan was a bigger threat than we realized. And also don’t get me wrong…the war in Iraq was and is a mistake to.
But what is propaganda and what is simply hyperbole is a matter of where you are looking at it from…and in neither case was it illegal for the president to do what he did (though Roosevelt certainly DID do some illegal or at least unconstitutional things).
[QUOTE=mlees]
Agreed. But that came after the DOW’s. And Roosevelt didn’t lie about why he ordered it.
[/QUOTE]
No, he didn’t lie about it (but he also probably didn’t shout it from the rafters…though at the time people probably wouldn’t have cared anyway). But it was still a shitty thing to do to US citizens…and still illegal and unconstitutional, even in war.
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Also, what Roosevelt did to US citizens of Japanese ancestry was definitely unconstitutional as well as being pretty damn bad.
[/QUOTE]
Didn’t the Court uphold these actions as constitutional? I do not believe the the decisions have overturned.
[QUOTE=mlees]
FDR lied to the citizens of the US to get them involved in a war with Germany or Japan?
[/quote]
Yes, he did.
The secret American-British military staff talks in Washington in early 1941 - remember them? The ones happening at the same time that FDR was assuring people he would keep us neutral and out of the European war?
Prior to enactment of Lend-Lease, American neutrality was a matter of law – it was illegal for the President to take any steps to aid one side or the other in war. That’s why Roosevelt didn’t share with the public his deal to trade destroyers for base presence in Newfoundland.
Congresswoman Clare Boothe Luce was to Roosevelt as Kucinich is to Bush. Luce compiled a long list of Roosevelt’s lies, deceptions, and illegal acts that were all predicate to convincing the country to get into a war mood with Germany.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
I’m sure it wasn’t illegal…but it was covert. Considering the thread we are in it’s applicable. The Gulf of Tomkin incident was on par…it wasn’t ‘illegal’ either. The point is that Roosevelt (like Johnson) was deliberately preparing the ground to move the US to war…despite the fact that at that time the majority of citizens didn’t want war (though this was changing…but much of that change had to do with Roosevelt and propaganda).
[/quote]
Hmmm. Interesting take, but I don’t think he hid (“covert” implies hiding, in my near-sighted eyes) the fact that the Navy was in harm’s way. I think he spun it as standing up for our free commerce rights.
(There were, after all, treaties banning submarine-commerce warfare, I think signed in 1925, that all warring parties abandoned when the stuff hit the fan for their particular nation.)
There probably were dissenters to this policy, unfortunately they don’t get much press in the books I read. As you say, events later proved FDR to be more fore sighted than some.
In regards to how this applies to Bush, I think he feels that he was justified for the war in Iraq. His perspective, I believe, was that Saddam was a loose cannon (or a loose end) that needed to be settled.
Again, while technically Congress can impeach for a bad hairdoo if it wanted, on a practical level I don’t think it will impeach unless there is provable guilt of violation of some current statute or regulation.
Bush overstating that he felt Saddam was a threat is not illegal, as far as I know.
Are you sure? I would like to thinks so, but Martial Law seems to give broad latitude to the President… Did FDR do what he did to “protect” the USA from being over thrown?
The current President seems to feel that protecting the property and infrastructure of the US and it’s citizens from harm takes priority over certain other rights in the Constitution.
For example, warrantless wiretapping. I guess he could feel that it’s better to be alive and demanding recompense than dead with privacy intact.
While he hasn’t declared Martial Law per se, he did get the Patriot Act that gives him broader latitude (which might be viewed as a “mandate”) to protect folks from terrorism.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Yes, he did.
The secret American-British military staff talks in Washington in early 1941 - remember them? The ones happening at the same time that FDR was assuring people he would keep us neutral and out of the European war?
[/quote]
You make it seem as if the staff talks were designed or intended to get America involved.
I thought that they were more of a “just in case, whadya wanna do together?” kind of coordination of war goals, strategy, and sharing the of combat experience (from the British to the Americans) and codes.
You see it differently?
Lend Lease (March of '41) repealed the Neutrality Act of 1939, correct.
The destroyer deal occured in 1940. The Neutrality act of 1939 contained a “cash and carry” provision in selling war material to belligerents. The destroyer deal involved transferring the ownership of the 50 destroyers while the destroyers were still in US ports. (Recommisioned into the Royal Navy, and manned by RN crews. Many of these ships were sailed to England to be refit to their standards and needs.)
There was nothing illegal or particularly hidden about the actions in this deal. (It’s hard to hide pulling 50 destroyers out of mothballs, getting them refits and made ready for sea, and having all those Tommy’s on shore leave in the various ports. 
)
Link? I would be interested in browsing them, if you don’t mind. Wiki doesn’t mention this specifically.
I don’t know why I called the British seamen “Tommy’s”. I am in the middle of a mental brain fart.
“Jack Tar’s”?
I dunno what the popular term for RN sailors was in America in 1940, other than " 'dem funny sounding blokes". Heh.
McClatchy’s Tom Lasseter reports:
Move along. Nothing impeachable to see here.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Move along. Nothing impeachable to see here.
[/QUOTE]
Well, this part is correct at least.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=mlees]
Link? I would be interested in browsing them, if you don’t mind. Wiki doesn’t mention this specifically.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Bricker]
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/chamberl.html
[/QUOTE]
Wow. IMO, she’s wrong on most of the numbered points (of which there are 20), correct on numbers 8, 9, 11 (partially).
Interesting stuff, thanks for the link.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Who ever voted to impeach anyone for “lying to the American people?”
Lying under oath, a criminal offense, was at issue. Which is why I’ve been mentioning things like crimes and criminal offenses in this thread. While an impeachable offense is anything Congress says it is, the political reality is that an impeachment that fails to allege a crime isn’t going anywhere.
So some vague comment about lying to the American people doesn’t cut it. A lie under oath is a crime. A lie on TV is not a crime.
[/QUOTE]
Bricker, I know you don’t like hearing this, but it’s the truth so I’m going to repeat it:
It was about the blowjob.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Bricker, I know you don’t like hearing this, but it’s the truth so I’m going to repeat it:
It was about the blowjob.
[/QUOTE]
Here is a quick and dirty cite for the Articles of Impeachment for Bill Clinton. Please show me the part that says he was impeached because he got a blow job.
-XT
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Bricker, I know you don’t like hearing this, but it’s the truth so I’m going to repeat it:
It was about the blowjob.
[/QUOTE]
Ditto to xtisme’s post. Where, precisely, is the Article that purports to impeach for the blowjob?
Look, I don’t deny that it was the catalyst. But it wasn’t the end-all.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Ditto to xtisme’s post. Where, precisely, is the Article that purports to impeach for the blowjob?
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t purport to. Nevertheless it does, and you fucking know it.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
It doesn’t purport to. Nevertheless it does, and you fucking know it.
[/QUOTE]
Of course they know it, but what can they do? I knew from Day One that Republicans and conservatives would endlessly lie about this point and try to make it seem like a simple legal proceeding when it was ALWAYS about the blowjob. As has been noted, an impeachment is a political thing, politicians make careful assessments of whether or not it will advance their political aims, and proceed accordingly. The thing that made the Pubbies of the time think they could proceed and win politically was … wait for it … wait for it …
THE BLOWJOB!!!
And I think it’s important for the rest of us to not allow pubbies and conservatives to rewrite history in this respect, and remind them every last time they try to make it seem to be about lying, that it was indeed about the blowjob.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Well, this part is correct at least.
[/QUOTE]
War crimes: good.
Blow jobs: evil.
That’s today’s GOP in a nutshell.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
That’s today’s GOP in a nutshell.
[/QUOTE]
And here I thought it was…
Partisan witch hunt for obvious political reasons:
EVIL when it’s those nasty Republican’s
Where do I sign up! When the shoe is on the other foot.
-XT