Well, there weren’t enough votes in the Senate then, either.
Another argument is that there is a tendency in these partisan times for people on both sides to criminalize policy differences, and this is very dangerous to a democracy. For one thing, it results in secretiveness, and for another you need to retain the ability of a president to make difficult decisions on behalf of the country.
The bar for bringing actual criminal charges against a president should be extremely high. They make decisions that cost lives on a routine basis.
Don’t forget, there were Republicans calling for Clinton to be brought up on charges for Kosovo, for bombing the Sudan and for other calls he made as President. And if Bush were hauled up on charges for Iraq, you can bet the Republicans would be looking for payback against a President Obama, should he be elected. Politics can turn on a dime - do you want an Obama to face a Republican Congress if the previous Democrat controlled congress tried to send Bush to jail?
There’s already a remedy against a bad president - you can vote him out of office, or wait for his two terms to expire. Bush will be gone shortly. From a strategic standpoint, you’re much better off to let him slink away quietly, because you’re going to have to govern after he’s gone, and you’d rather do it from a starting position where you showed a little restraint.
If you impeach a president for war crimes or breaking minor procedural rules about spying on your own citizens or whatever the latest flavor of the day is then it’s more difficult to do it yourself in the future.
Would that be the same house who authorized the war, voted for everything President Bush proposed and continued voting the financial support for it? Is it the same house that wailed over FISA and then voted it in (including immunity for the telecom companies). Because as far as I can tell it all has the congressional seal of approval.
If you want to drink the Kool-Aid that’s fine, it’s free. Everybody does it. But if you want to cast opinion then it should be based on the products of Pelosi Incorporated and not the info-mercials.
He should be impeached for going to war with false evidence and for a systemic program of torture.
ANyway, if he did nothing wrong then he should welcome the chance to clear his name.
Just as advertised, the keyboard and monitor are unaffected by sprayed coffee. Excellent.
:rolleyes: False evidence for what? that Saddam was sitting on enough nuclear material to refine into 100 nuclear weapons, that he deliberately concealed mobile refining equipment, or that he slaughtered his own people. Bush had a UN mandate to shut Saddam down if he didn’t cooperate as well as Congressional approval. Saddam is gone, the nuclear material he was sitting on is gone, and Iraq has a democratically elected government.
“Mobile refining equipment”? Is that like a series of super-high-speed gas centrifuges loaded onto a double-wide with really great shock absorbers?
Calutrons. Inspectors caught them sneaking out the back of a facility that they were to inspect.
So I went googling on calutrons and Iraq and couldn’t find much to support your, ah, thesis. Must be that liberal media again, huh? Did find this, however, from 1991…
Defector exposes Saddam’s nuclear secrets
Gasp! But still, 1991…A little less than timely. But this other little nugget caught my eye…
So, they’re tippy-toeing out the back door with one of these hidden under thier lab coat? Or loading it onto the Mother of All Pickup Trucks?
Your sarcasm aside for the moment I’d like to summarize your position. You’re confident that A: Saddam’s calutrons are a myth, B: could not be transported on a truck because “several tens of tons” requires the mother of all pickup trucks" (or as I like to call them, Semi’s). and C: Saddam would not use a WMD to remain in power.
While you’re researching this (again) I’d like to know if you’re willing to discuss this honestly without the political baggage. Because the realities of the world aren’t going to change based on whether you like or dislike a President. Eventually a Democrat will be elected and dealing with the Saddam’s of the world will fall to him or her. It would be nice if Europe would step up to the plate but the the Churchhills of the world are in short supply. We cannot afford a nuclear WWIII.
Not the way it works. I say “Cite”, you bring. You got?
I know for a fact that he built them. You willing to discuss it? It’s not like I’m asking for an apology or acknowledgement that you’re wrong. And yes, that’s the way it works. You don’t dictate my participation. If you want a discussion that’s fine otherwise you can return on the horse you came in on.
I know for a fact he didn’t.
That was easy.
I know for a fact that they were turned into merry-go-rounds for Iraqi children.
Oh, did you mean these calutrons? (picture taken in 1991)
I forgot to comment on this.
You realize, of course, that Saddam did not use WMD to stay in power in 2003. Oh, the irony.
Congratulations on successfully using Google. See Elucidator for your prize.
Yes, that would be the calutron discovered by inspectors who saw it from a water tower as it was being driven out the back gate of the facility they were trying to inspect. Saddam had an entire program dedicated to hiding his WMD program just as his Son in-law described.
So, we are talking about the same ones. The ones from 1991. That were destroyed by the UN. That were no longer in existence.
Are you sure there aren’t some other ones you’re talking about? Because if I was making a big deal about the threatening size of the German military, most people would assume I wouldn’t be talking about the one that was destroyed many years ago. Because I’m finding it hard to get worried about a piece of equipment that was destroyed 12 years before we invaded.
According to the CIA, there was no nuclear weapons program to speak of after 1991. So yes, the thing that didn’t exist was indeed not visible (or, in other words, hidden).
Huh, I never realized that. Who would of thought it prudent to stop a known user of WMD’s from developing a nuclear weapon. Someone who lied to inspectors and was caught with a mobile system designed to produce nuclear material. Someone with 1.2 million lbs of yellowcake who kicked out the inspectors for 4 years.
If Saddam had no use for the yellowcake why didn’t he just cash it in for the millions it brought in the open market? Why did he stop the inspectors if he had nothing to hide.
What part of hidden WMD program, 1.2 million lbs of stored nuclear materal and 4 years of no inspections do you not understand?