House Resolution to Impeach Cheney

Matt Perry

Wed Apr 25 13:02:23 -0700 2007

manage

And so it begins.  I hope it can move forward and that they don't let him resign to get out of trouble like the last time something like this happened.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

rubycodez

Wed Apr 25 13:11:14 -0700 2007

manage

The version I read had 3 points - manipulation of intelligence for justifying Iraq war (fine), ditto for false Iraq-Al Q alliance (ok), and then warmongering against Iran.  Sorry, that last is not impeachment material, maybe a non-hardline stance and more negotiation with Iran would get us better results, but it's 100% within the purview of the executive department to do either that or the opposite of that or any part of that. 

Instead, could have had three more points about abuse of power with regard to citizens rights, torture, exclusive contractors for the war machine (oops, some democrats involved with that too) and some other juicy stuff of which  both Cheney and Bush are guilty.

Sad commentary on most Democrats that this is the best we've seen (even sadder commentary on Republicans that they support all B&C's evils and are more concerned with party line than what's right.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Andrew Diseker

Wed Apr 25 14:11:08 -0700 2007

manage

Saddest of all is the notion of elevating policy disputes to the level of impeachable offenses.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Bruce Perens

Wed Apr 25 14:40:53 -0700 2007

manage

Falsifying intelligence is not a policy dispute. The country and congress were misled.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Andrew Diseker

Wed Apr 25 15:10:00 -0700 2007

manage

Along with all the other intelligence agencies around the world, apparently.  Seems that no other country on earth was conducting intelligence gathering in Iraq except the US.  Just like there were no convoys of vehicles leaving Iraq for Syria, except for the ones *not* carrying WMDs.  Which didn't exist.  And the massive underground shelters under the Tigris and Euphrates which were found empty once they were investigated never contained anything.  Just like the American who was first shown them when they weren't empty, wasn't exposed to large amounts of radiation, because there was never anything there to expose him.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Cassius Rosenthal

Wed Apr 25 16:02:51 -0700 2007

manage

With evidence like that, you're going to go far, Andrew Diseker.  It's much more believable that there is a world-wide conspiracy to hide the justification for invading Iraq, than that there was an administration-wide conspiracy to fudge the evidence, right?

I mean, with an administration that has been so spot-on with their execution of the war plan, how could anyone accuse them of making a mistake?

Oh, right! -- I forgot that the evidence shows that it wasn't a mistake.  It's very clearly documented that Cheney lied.  It's pure speculation that he did so to make himself richer, being in the war-contractor business.  I guess it could be a coincidence that oil men would wage war in an oil-rich land, right?

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Andrew Diseker

Wed Apr 25 16:22:04 -0700 2007

manage

If Cheney "lied" why didn't the Russian, the French, and the Chinese governments reveal that there were no WMDs?  After all, they were the ones who were against continuing the sanctions, they were the ones prepping sweetheart oil deals for when the sanctions were lifted, and they had every reason to prevent the US and allies from upsetting their potential gravy train.  They could have provided all manner of counter-evidence at the UN, after Powell presented the US interpretation and data.  Why didn't they, if the evidence was so clear and so damning?

The "no blood for oil" argument is so stupid and ad hominem that it doesn't bear acknowledging, other than to say that if oil was the motive, why not invade Saudi Arabia?  Or Canada?  Or Mexico?  And how are they making money off of all this "oil" that they're getting?  How much money is it?  Damn, so many questions, but "no blood for oil" is so much easier to say...

So, what do you intend to do with my real name, BTW?  Report me to my ISP, perhaps?

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Cassius Rosenthal

Wed Apr 25 17:48:23 -0700 2007

manage

Andrew Diseker says: "If Cheney 'lied' why didn't the Russian, the French, and the Chinese governments reveal that there were no WMDs?"

They did, genius.  So did U.S. media outlets like DemocracyNow.  Even the NYT ran Wilson's refutation of Powell's assertions of Nigerian yellow cake.  That was the heart of the arguments by Russia, France, and China against the invasion: that there was no evidence of WMD.  What rock were you hiding under?

Andrew Diseker says: "The 'no blood for oil' argument is so stupid and ad hominem that it doesn't bear acknowledging..."

That's not an ad-hominem fallacy.  The current administration is marinating in oil.  Bush, Cheney, Rice -- all oil tycoons.  That's a fact. 

Andrew Diseker says: "...if oil was the motive, why not invade Saudi Arabia?  Or Canada?  Or Mexico?"

We already have military bases in Saudi Arabia.  That was BinLaden's proclaimed reason for attack the U.S.  And the Saudi princes are very close with Bush and U.S. corporate oil interests.  Canada is also cooperative.  Mexico is also cooperative.  Iraq was not cooperative, nationalizing their oil and moving it to the Euro.  If Mexico was uncooperative, we would invade.  We're threatening to invade Venezuela for just that.

Andrew Diseker says: "And how are they making money off of all this 'oil' that they're getting?"

By removing the uncooperative government, installing a puppet government, mandating that the oil is privatized, opening it up to transnational ownership, and selling it on the international market.  This is so obvious, how can you seriously ask?

Andrew Diseker says: "How much money is it?"

Billions and billions.  Enough to kill for, apparently.

Andrew Diseker says: "So, what do you intend to do with my real name, BTW?  Report me to my ISP, perhaps?"

Um.  I suppose that's how a fan of the administration would think -- disagree with somebody, use force to silence them.  I hope your paranoia isn't contagious.  I think I hear Bill O'Reily knocking at your door.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Andrew Diseker

Wed Apr 25 18:04:06 -0700 2007

manage

They did, genius.  So did U.S. media outlets like DemocracyNow.  Even the NYT ran Wilson's refutation of Powell's assertions of Nigerian yellow cake.  That was the heart of the arguments by Russia, France, and China against the invasion: that there was no evidence of WMD.  What rock were you hiding under?

"Nigerian Yellow Cake" is not the entirety of your argument, is it?  And please cite an article where Putin or the others showed their counter-intelligence which disproved the US?

We already have military bases in Saudi Arabia.  That was BinLaden's proclaimed reason for attack the U.S.  And the Saudi princes are very close with Bush and U.S. corporate oil interests.  Canada is also cooperative.  Mexico is also cooperative.  Iraq was not cooperative, nationalizing their oil and moving it to the Euro.  If Mexico was uncooperative, we would invade.  We're threatening to invade Venezuela for just that.

Iraq's oil was already "nationalized" a long time ago, and it was Saudi Arabia that was talking about moving to the Euro, and Saudi Arabia funded the 9/11 terrorists, which made them a better "oil target" than Iraq.  And Venezuela has clean hands in Central and South America?  They're not getting in bed with Iran for any reason?  Oh, wait, I forgot, Iran isn't a threat to anyone, and Chavez is just a misunderstood democrat who doesn't want any influence outside his own  borders.

Again I ask, "How much money?"
Billions and billions.  Enough to kill for, apparently.

Where is it?  Don't say "it's obvious", I want facts and figures, how many barrels, how many dollars, exactly who is getting exactly what cut?  Unless "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" is hiding all that info, which is proof that it exists, which is all an allegation needs.  And if the BushCheneyHitlerBurton conspiracy is in charge, why did the Iraqi "puppet" government vote to start distributing money from the sale of oil to the people?  Why would they be allowed to do so?


Um.  I suppose that's how a fan of the administration would think -- disagree with somebody, use force to silence them.  I hope your paranoia isn't contagious.  I think I hear Bill O'Reily knocking at your door.

So, why did you point out my name, unless you wanted to make some kind of point about me, specifically?   The fact that I don't use a pseudonym here?  And who here are the ones shouting "Bush is a fascist!  The Bush government is sending critics to Guantanamo!  Anyone who disagrees with Bush gets labelled a terrorist and tortured in secret CIA prisons!" 

Sounds like someone has a bad case of projection...

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Josh

Wed Apr 25 19:05:21 -0700 2007

manage

Where is it?


There is roughly 7.5 trillion dollars of oil available in Iraq. This considers their 115 billion barrel reserve at current market price. The value of this resource will continue to rapidly increase. and its value will approach priceless in the event of emergency or conflict. I think it is also reasonable to expect that severe increases in energy prices will increase global strife.

I would feel misrepresented by my government if they were not considering the value of this resource in their planning, negotiations, war mongering, etc. I generally consider there to be a very valid (however narrowly utilitarian) argument for the foreign affairs decisions of the current administration.  It is clear however (by numerous example) that citizens of a democratic republic can not stomach the ultimate reality of the command decisions of a nation state. Nor is it even reasonable to presume any more than a few even have the faculties (training,experience) to do so. There is an apparent conflict here.

In my eyes the administration's major crime has been the amplification of this inherent problem by incompetence, secrecy, unchecked executive persuasion, and stubbornness. I'm not sure these are impeachable offenses but I am mostly sure that they will be pursued as and ends for other people who will ultimately succumb (however more or less dramatically) to the same fate.

PS I am still amused when I learn new google speak, google:iraq oil reserves

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Cassius Rosenthal

Wed Apr 25 19:36:06 -0700 2007

manage

Andrew Diseker says: "And please cite an article where Putin or the others showed their counter-intelligence which disproved the US?"

You want me to cite an article where Putin proves that Powell's imaginary WMDs are indeed imaginary.  Isn't it enough to say that I can't see your imaginary friend?  I have to do what -- shoot him with imaginary bullets and proved that he only imagined dying?

Andrew Diseker says: "Iraq's oil was already "nationalized" a long time ago, and it was Saudi Arabia that was talking about moving to the Euro, and Saudi Arabia funded the 9/11 terrorists, which made them a better "oil target" than Iraq."

Iraq switched to the Euro in 2000, bub.  Bush is practically Saudi himself -- the Saudi family is incredibly cooperative with this administration.  You did not know that?

Andrew Diseker says: "Where is it?  Don't say "it's obvious", I want facts and figures, how many barrels, how many dollars, exactly who is getting exactly what cut?"

112 to 212 billion barrels according to the EIA, which is $Trillions.  Get your own facts and figures -- I'm not your research team on loan.  Halliburton has made $Billions, and all big four oil companys -- including Condi's Chevron -- stand to win big with the Iraq hydrocarbon law, which caps national ownership and opens up all but 17 of 80 known oil fields, and all as-yet-undiscovered oil fields to transnational ownership.  Under the previous government, 0 out of all oil fields were available to transnational ownership.  Now 63 out of 80, plus all unknown oil fields = BIG $$. 

Andrew Diseker says: "why did the Iraqi "puppet" government vote to start distributing money from the sale of oil to the people?  Why would they be allowed to do so?"

A government spending a little money on it's citizens?  As opposed to all of the money previously going to the government?  Gee, I don't know why Bush et all would let them get away with keeping less money.  That's a tough one.

Andrew Diseker says: "So, why did you point out my name, unless you wanted to make some kind of point about me, specifically?"

How am I suppose to know that's your real name?  Use a pseudonym if you don't want your name showing.  Would you prefer that I refer to you as Mr. Paranoid?

Andrew Diseker says: "And who here are the ones shouting 'Bush is a fascist!  The Bush government is sending critics to Guantanamo!  Anyone who disagrees with Bush gets labelled a terrorist and tortured in secret CIA prisons!'"

Umm, I don't know -- who are "the ones?"  It wasn't me, Mr. Paranoid.  Nice strawman.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

htc

Thu Apr 26 20:09:01 -0700 2007

manage

What counter evidence? How to you prove that something doesn't exist? The US was saying they had the evidence, but it was classified and they couldn't show it. They also showed a lot of `evidence' that turned out to be nothing more than fanciful `artists impressions'. A lot of other countries were in fact saying they could not verify that intelligence. 'We cannot verify' is the most you could ever say about that kind of stuff.

Can you prove that you don't have any kind of weapon hidden away in some cache somewhere? Even if you point at your house and say, "search it as much as you like, no weapons there!", I can say "it isn't in your house, it is buried somewhere else, but I can't reveal the location." How do you respond?

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Charles E Hill

Wed Apr 25 16:37:35 -0700 2007

manage

There is another possibility, that I believe has more credibility.

1. Iraq had WMDs.  We know that because WE SOLD THEM!  We have the receipts, so to speak.  Iraq did use chemical weapons in putting down a Kurdish uprising.

2. Because of a difference in cultures, when Iraq was told after GW 1 to get rid of the WMDs, they did.  The problem is, the U.S. and U.N. wanted a phenomenal level of documentation and proof.  The Iraqis probably just destroyed the stuff, or buried a bunch.  Some probably disappeared on the black market.  They didn't go through all those nit-picky little procedures that the West thought was second-nature.  So when asked "where is it", they said "it's gone".  We then said "prove it" and they got this puzzled look like "WTF do you mean?  It's gone!"  (If you've ever dealt with Arabs, Persians and peoples from the Middle East and N. Africa, this process would not be a surprise.)

3. We, because of cultural differences, didn't believe a word they said without proof.  I don't blame us, but there it is.  They didn't have proof.  Catch 22.

4. Cheney and boys cherry-picked the intelligence because they knew, just knew, once they got in there they would find WMDs.  The thought that Iraq actually got rid of them never entered their minds.  So, what the hell, they're never going to get caught.  It was a sure bet, don't you know.

Why would Iraq actually get rid of the stuff?  Because it was decades old, and chemical and biological weapons degrade with time.  They don't keep forever.  Just like the U.S. agreed to remove Jupiter missiles from Turkey to appease Kruschev after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Saddam got rid of the WMDs because it was old junk and just wasting space anyway.

Thus, when no WMDs were found, panic set it.  It probably took them a couple years for it to sink in that they were NEVER going to find any.  Still, the thought of Iraq actually complying was too much.  It meant the entire invasion, the entire 10 year pre-GW 2 occupation and their entire purpose for being was built on a lie.  Thus, the line about "moving them to Syria or Iran" was born.

Move what?  20 year old chemical weapons?  Who the hell would want them?  Certainly not Syria or Iran!  Hell, Iran would have jumped up and down right away and said "they tried to hide the stuff here!".  Iran HATES Iraq with a passion.  That love is returned ten-fold by the Iraqis.

No, Cheney and Bush made a big gamble with falsifying evidence and now they really should pay the piper.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

duhavid

Wed Apr 25 16:58:56 -0700 2007

manage

That is an interesting perspective on things.  Sounds plausible to me....

One other reason for them to just get rid of the stuff would be maintainance
issues with whatever delivery systems they might have had for the weapons.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Thomas Lord

Wed Apr 25 18:01:11 -0700 2007

manage

It's not a bad perspective but it overlooks a few fine points.

First:  On the one hand Charles is telling us that Saddam had every incentive to prove he had no WMDs.  Indeed, that's true -- it would have lead to a lifting of sanctions and a huge amount of money.   On the other hand, the experience of UN inspectors was of a cat and mouse game, not eager cooperation.   No appeal to culture explains the contradiction between those two, especially under a totalitarian regime.

Second: Italian document forgery notwithstanding, there is excellent reason to believe that Saddam was, in fact, shopping for Uranium in Niger.   The most unlikely of ambassadors was sent -- the nations leading expert official on nuclear tech.   He offers no consistent and plausible explanation of why he was there.   Everyone -- the entire intel community of the world with the apparent exception of Plame and Wilson -- believed that's what they were doing.   Now, what to make of an Italian forgery?  It's quite simple:  a document that can be made public without compromising contacts and methods has a high grey market value.   If you're going into the forgery business like a pro, what do you do?   You make the lost manuscript that fits the true story, not the manuscript that overturns all legit accounts of history.

Third: isn't it remarkable that large number of conventional and small number of WMD weapons passed, in the opening days of the war, into the hands of the eventual insurgents?   Isn't the permeability of the borders of Iraq relevant here?

Put these together and, frankly, the WMD theory is not at all refuted -- and counter theories have quite a few hard problems with no good answers.

Why, then, you might ask, did the Baathist regime fold like a cheap card table?   Why not put up more of a fight?   Why were certain divisions essentially ordered, with guns at their backs, to slaughter?   We can only speculate but here's some:  even if the Baathists could have thrown a much stronger first punch, they still had no chance against the US.   A stronger initial resistance would have justified greater escalation by the US, making defeat absolutely certain.   Conversely, a falling back means that we wound up where we have -- with a hugely extended (to the point of stress) military.   Rather more vulnerable.   "100,000 hostages" as certain Iranians put it at one point.  Perhaps what happened here is that Saddam was sold a bill of goods by his Arab bretheren:  let us hold your weapons;  you and yours go hide out for a bit;  let the Americans move in and then the tiger will come out of the forrest and you can triumphantly return to power.   About the only part of the plan that isn't still in play is the part where Saddam himself is in any way essential, once he hands over the keys.

-t

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

duhavid

Wed Apr 25 18:19:56 -0700 2007

manage

"On the other hand, the experience of UN inspectors was of a cat and mouse game, not eager cooperation.   No appeal to culture explains the contradiction between those two, especially under a totalitarian regime."

I think there is one appeal that explains:  Saddam and Iraq were trying to look
strong and uncompliant to their folk inside the country, and outside.  It he/they
had allowed the inspections, that would probably have been sufficient "proof"
that he was not the strong Arab minded leader he had claimed to be.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

President4242

Thu Apr 26 09:49:53 -0700 2007

manage

There's also another explaination:

The scientists and military people were trying to look strong and uncompliant to SADDAM HIMSELF.  In other words, at least some portion of our false intelligence about this was scientists lying to Saddam about their progress with nuclear weapons research to keep his goons off the backs of their families.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Uncle Entity

Wed Apr 25 18:48:11 -0700 2007

manage

Why, then, you might ask, did the Baathist regime fold like a cheap card table?   Why not put up more of a fight?

Part of the reason is because they expected a long buildup with massive bombing campaign like the Gulf War. What kind of crazy person would launch a blitzkreig on Baghdad with one division? Another part is because they gave their loyal troops mortars and other weapons and told them to go harrass the supply lines and get ready to start an insurgency. Some divisions fought and some just stayed on their bases and waited for the US to show up and surrendered.

isn't it remarkable that large number of conventional and small number of WMD weapons passed, in the opening days of the war, into the hands of the eventual insurgents? 

There was no law and order once the US kicked the Iraqi army out of an area. A lot of old grudges were taken care of in the early days of the war by the people against the police and government officals. No one stopped mass looting of government property so common folk got ahold of some serious firepower and eventually it ended up in the hands of the insurgency. People used to come ask the US military if they could please remove this T-72 tank from their front yard.

Wish I could remember that quote about conspiracy and incompentance...

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Charles E Hill

Wed Apr 25 21:02:14 -0700 2007

manage

Never blame on malice what can be explained by stupidity.  - R. Feynman

I think that is the one you were looking for.  :-)  Feel free to replace "stupidity" with "incompetence".

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Charles E Hill

Wed Apr 25 18:52:50 -0700 2007

manage

1. Actually, there is a big cultural explanation.

Take a look at the Arab news, especially in the Middle East.  You'll see news of some sort of negotiations with Israel or the U.S. -- not some big deal -- but it makes the press.  The Arabs leaders will hop up and down screaming refutations to the public, but still continue the deal in private.  There is a VERY big cultural emphasis on making the other side look bad, and making your side look good.  They are as much, if not more, interested in humiliating their opponent as getting a concession or deal.

There are also "local consumption" speeches and news.  A friend of mine is Palestinian.  He is a secular Muslim, owning houses in Amman, Jerusalem and a Chicago 'burb.  He is married to an American wife, and studied in the U.S.  He also speaks fluent Arabic, Turkish and English.

He said if I wanted to learn what really goes on, I should learn Arabic.  Then, watch Arabic news channels and I can see the truth.  The truth is the leaders of the countries will say one thing in English, knowing that is for the Western world.  Then, say something totally opposite in Arabic, knowing the Western populace will never see it.  In BOTH cases, they are saying what each audience wants to hear.  They are ALL politicians first, Muslims and Arabs later.

Saddam wanted to prove he had no WMDs, but he couldn't look like a total pussy while doing it.  He HAD to assert his sovereignty and play cat and mouse with the inspectors, because if he rolled over for the West, he would have been dead in a matter of weeks.

2. Seeking yellow cake what, 5 - 10 years prior?  That was the best they could do?  And as the Iranians are demonstrating, it is a long, long, expensive way from raw U-238 to anything usable.  So what if he was seeking Uranium?  Keep in mind, some of the world's best Uranium deposits are located IN IRAN.  Iraq and Iran are mortal enemies.  Remember Saddam's last words?  "Damn the Americans and damn the Persians."

3. Nope.  See my "black market" comment.  We destroyed tons of their infrastructure in days.  It was total chaos.  Who is the best organized?  The military.  The same guys who will be the best insurgents.  This makes perfect sense.

We know the Iranians kept his entire air force when he tried to hide them over there during GW 1.  I find it hard to believe that he thought any one of those other countries would so much as lift a finger to assist him.  GW 1 showed them how hard the U.S. could hit, so while they might have paid lip service to Saddam, he was no fool and would have known any "help" from them would have been sheer desperation on his part.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Thomas Lord

Thu Apr 26 09:36:31 -0700 2007

manage

I think your cultural factors analysis boarders on racism.   It's a kind of "Orientalism," you've got going there.   You do understand, don't you, that two-faced propoganda is neither unique to that region nor, anywhere, much more than a particularly blunt knife anywhere, in this cynical age?

My point is pretty simple:  if Saddam had nothing to hide, then he had the option of proving that loudly and angrily.   All that he would give up there is the threat of gassing the Kurds -- not much of a loss if accompanied by a large boost to the treasury for conventional weapons and a new found leverage against no-fly-zone restrictions.   Propoganda is pretty flexible and, in the Arab press, he'd have no problem portraying a flinging open of the doors as a diplomatic humiliation of the west.  He had every positive incentive to humiliate the Bush administration at that level -- if only he could.

If he had something to hide, then how much?   Enough to deter a US invasion?   Not a chance of that.   So, why not then make the gambit of passing out the toys and sending the troops of most tenuous loyalty to slaughter while hunkering down for either a triumphant return or a quiet retirement?   There would be wide-spread regional acceptance of such a plan because it's all upside for people who will help implement phase 1 (moving weapons, setting up Iraq to fall), phase 2 (a significantly extended US ground troup presence), and -- phase 3, Saddam no longer has any leverage in the region and any good the falls to him is entirely at the graces of the neighbors.   As bad as that that possibility was -- that Saddam's gambit would fail -- it was his best option.   In such dire straights, it isn't hard to imagine him imagining hope that he would emerge, in the end, as the brilliant military strategist that turned the US invasion into the greatest fall-back trap in history.   And, in the view of the enemies, that's still the plan: only, no need for Saddam to be there for it.  "Damn the Persians," indeed.

You can practically see the triangulation after the fact.   Saddam hastilly negotiates the fall-back plan, mainly with Syria, getting some assurances from Iran.   Phase 1 goes into place and phase 2 looks promising but timing is everything -- the enemy wants to draw phase 2 out as long as possible.   Iran obviously has no love for the existance of a Iraq, per se, nevermind Saddam -- so how can they persuade Syria to bide their time and sacrifice Saddam and many Iraqi Baathists?  Hey, how about by shipping weapons to Syria and Hezbollah?   Saddam initiated the emerging alliances and plan -- Iran and Syria took it over, dancing with Al Q. (and fighting over who leads in that dance) just enough to draw out combat in Iraq as much as possible.

As for "yellow cake" and building bombs -- you should be a lot more worried.  Do remember, if you will, the level of technology that was used to build the only two bombs yet used in open war.   And the size of the region in question.   And what's been available on the global black market for all of those years.    I think it's a safe operational assumption that there are at least several small nukes in enemy hands, today, already.   This stands to make any "mad scramble" withdrawl pretty interesting.

Sigh.... and in all of this, please don't misunderstand the dems.   Their plan is being sold as some kind of peace initiative -- it's nothing of the sort.   They mean to surrender the territory to-be-formerly known as Iraq in exchange for a redeployment -- to prepare for a much larger conflict that will be fought by the US with less target discrimination, mostly from the air.   I suspect that their leadership thinks the threat of such conflict will act as a deterrant and that Iraq will, in such circumstance, "get its act together" and hold its own.   Not bloody likely.   They underestimate the enemy.   Instead, there will be scattered and disorganized ethnic cleansing, de facto territory grabs from the east and west, and just when that looks about to be hot enough to grab USian attention, new fronts opening up in Israel, Europe, and the US.   Good times!   The only choice left will be far less discriminating counter-attacks.

-t

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Charles E Hill

Thu Apr 26 16:12:15 -0700 2007

manage

It isn't racism, as it doesn't apply to a race.  It is cultural differences, and it applies pretty much from Western Sahara all the way over to Afghanistan.  Elements of it can be seen, though not as vivid, in the other Mediterranean cultures of Greece, Spain and Turkey.  It is most evident in the Arab, Persian and Jewish cultures throughout the region.

Culture is what defines groups of people, and there are significant differences between them.  I'm not saying one is better, just pointing out that we need to understand the differences and not judge other cultures by our norms.

Of course I'm aware politicians everywhere do that and it isn't unique to the area.  The difference is in degree.  The West is not used to the rhetoric that is common in the N. African and Middle Eastern areas.  "Upon the soul of my mother, I will never agree!" to me means "No, don't ever bring it up again."  However, in the ME it can mean anything from "Never!" to "Let me think about it, get back to me on Thursday."  There is no such thing as subtle over there.  Still, it is the same game but just with a different flavor.

* * *

Saddam was backed into a corner.  We mishandled the aftermath of GW 1 horribly and now everyone is paying the price.

I was never worried about Iraq with a nuclear weapon because they were never a threat to the U.S.  Saddam had his aim firmly on Iran, and then possibly rebuilding the "glory of Babylon" -- just with lots of pictures of Saddam.

Yes, I'm fairly certain there is a weapon or three in "enemy" hands right now.  The lack of accountability of the old Soviet nukes is a much, much bigger threat than any piddling regime making their own.  If that were the case, we should be quaking in our boots about Pakistan.  Musharraf isn't going to last forever.  Hell, he'd be lucky to last out the year!

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Thomas Lord

Fri Apr 27 08:59:13 -0700 2007

manage

Culture, and the communication difficulties it creates are certainly real.   I think you get into trouble applying the idea in two ways: 

First, your belief that, even if Saddam had nothing to hide, he had to pretend otherwise because of cultural values.   That view regards the cultures in question as exceptionally simple-minded, unsophisticated, unable to recognize a diplomatic victory that would have humiliated the US as sign of suitable strength of leadership.  A more plausible claim would be that Saddam needed the uncertainty as a military deterent but, as I mentioned, I don't think even that view holds up.

Second, your belief that Saddam had nothing to hide and therefore just behaved very, very stupidly in the run-up to the war.   Here, you are again assuming that "the other" is absurdly simple-minded it's just that in this case you reduce it to the individual as a representative of the population instead of invoking the population as a whole.

Now, there are in the world state leaders (and other leaders) who are, genuinely, simple-minded thugs with simple-minded core supporters.  No doubt.   But Saddam, though thug, wasn't simple-minded -- and neither is the population of the region.

If you agree that Saddam was "backed into a corner," you have to identify what the walls forming that corner were.   You say he was pinned on one side by having nothing to hide and pinned on the other side by some kind of cultural stupidity that led to a gross miscalculation.   That doesn't work.   We don't see that purported cultural stupidity manifest elsewhere (creating similar blunders).    You need to rethink one if not both of your "walls" in this "backed into a corner" explanation.

-t

Saddam's Corner

Charles E Hill

Fri Apr 27 09:36:57 -0700 2007

manage

I agree that Saddam was not simple-minded at all.  He was very shrewd.

The corner he was backed in to was:

1. Impossible to satisfy coalition.

Having to comply with U.N. inspection, and U.S. interpretation of what "prove it" means.  The reality was, the U.S. didn't believe him no matter what he said or what proof he could have given.  They were going to search every last inch of the country.  If nothing significant was found, they were going to claim it was moved or something else.  There is absolutely no possibilty the coalition was going to accept "no WMDs", period.

2. Dignity

The inspections were the equivalent of multiple snap-on-the-latex, public strip and cavity searches.  Bend over, grab your ankles and relax.

Saddam could not just roll over and accept any and every indignity the inspectors (aka the U.S.) wanted to commit.  There is a difference between beaten and broken.  Had Saddam rolled over to the extent the coalition wanted, his own people would have had his head in short order.

This is the same reason Palestinians fire homemade rockets into Israel on an irregular basis.  Those rockets are totally guidless, luckey to hit the ground much less a target.  They're an annoyance to the Israelis, with maybe 2-3 deaths per year from them.  They are totally ineffective.

But, they show that the Palestinians are not broken.  They can and will fight back, even if in futility.  The perception of not giving up is very, very important.  Being beaten by a superior force isn't a humiliation but giving up without a fight is an unforgivable sin in many cultures.

Even today this discussion is going on in the U.K. about the "cry and tell" behavior of the recent Iranian hostages, as opposed to the old "stiff upper lip" behavior of the past.

* * *

Yes, you're right that Saddam needed the uncertainty as a military deterrant. 

Even totally leaving out Israel has total a total NBC arsenal, is neighbors are continually sharpening their knives and it is widely believed that the two other regional power -- Syria and Iran -- have access to chemical and biological weapons.  Iran has actively and publically been buying and testing Soviet missile and torpedo technology.

 

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Uncle Entity

Wed Apr 25 17:40:36 -0700 2007

manage

They actually did find some WMDs over there or more specifically the insurgents did, they found a few chemical shells during the Great Looting of '03. It is thought they didn't know what they had when they turned them into a IED so instead of a big boom taking out an EOD team they got a little boom and a puff of chemical smoke pissing off said team or so I was told during a pre-convoy intel briefing. Don't remember what the chemical was but they said it was too old to really be effective so just be aware.

Just thought I'd point that out before the crackpots do.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Richard Young

Wed Apr 25 18:00:17 -0700 2007

manage

For us non military types, am i right in thinking that EOD is an acronym for 'Explosive Ordnance Disposal'?

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Uncle Entity

Wed Apr 25 18:07:16 -0700 2007

manage

Yeah, sorry. And IED - improvised explosive device but I think everyone knows that one.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Uncle Entity

Wed Apr 25 16:03:39 -0700 2007

manage

I'm a little confused here. You're saying they didn't falsify the evidence because they took all the WMDs to Syria, but have nothing to back this up with. As things are *now* being investigated by Congress, maybe they have access to enough information to see past the lies of the Bush regime. It seems every other intelligence agency was saying the information presented by the backers of the war didn't match what they were seeing themselves.

I only hope they leave a crippled Bush in office as a warning to others who wish to use the Constitution as a set of optional guidelines in the pursuit of a private agenda.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Andrew Diseker

Wed Apr 25 16:30:39 -0700 2007

manage

Wait, which intelligence agencies said the US lied?  When and where was that reported?  What about this article?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/29092/i-found-saddams-wmd-bunkers.thtml

You should like it, it talks about the Bush administration's incompetence in allowing the bunkers to be cleaned out.  Oh, but wait, they couldn't have existed, because "everyone knows(tm)" that Cheney and Bush and all of them lied about them.

 

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Uncle Entity

Wed Apr 25 16:58:30 -0700 2007

manage

...bunkers buried 20 to 30 feet beneath the Euphrates. They had been constructed through building dams which were removed after the huge subterranean vaults had been excavated so that these were concealed beneath the river bed.

So the Iraqis managed to do all this under the watchful eyes of the UN weapon inspectors? And instead of shouting "look, look, we were right," the administration 'lost' the reports on this find? Aside for the fact this was in the British zone of Iraq, it would've been British troops opening up the bunkers and 'locals' aren't very reliable sources of information you know, you got me there.

So now the other 'terrorist states' have WMDs and this artice is proof. Well we had better get the war machine rolling at full steam to take care of this problem

Didn't we have a nice discussion the other day about this stuff showing up in the British media?

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Andrew Diseker

Wed Apr 25 17:48:46 -0700 2007

manage

"Watchful eyes of the UN weapon inspectors" that were only allowed to go where Saddam let them?  Yeah, that helped.

No, no, we need to go back to sleep, shut down the entire "Imperialist Military Industrial Complex" so that everyone will be our bestest buddies again, like they always were.  After all, there's no need to fear "terrorists" unless they're in the Republican Party, and if anyone does attack, it'll be justified because "Bush Lied".

Oh, just as a thought experiment, what would President Coward do, once BushHitlerCheneyBurton leave/are impeached/are hung as traitors?  I'm sure we all want The Answer to the current Long National Nightmare(tm)...

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Uncle Entity

Wed Apr 25 18:01:40 -0700 2007

manage

Dude, the Euphrades is huge. Oh, and they have these things in orbit around the earth called satelites. They also had US warplanes flying over Iraq 24/7. If you seriously think they could do this without anyone knowing then, well I can't even imagine.

President Coward, I like the sound of that...

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Thomas Lord

Thu Apr 26 08:46:10 -0700 2007

manage

Building underground facilities in a closed society and in such a way that it evades detection by examination of satelite images is a well developed science.  It's not rocket science, either.

-t

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

President4242

Thu Apr 26 09:14:51 -0700 2007

manage

Switching your paragraphs around, you've got the real answer to the question:

Oh, just as a thought experiment, what would President Coward do, once BushHitlerCheneyBurton leave/are impeached/are hung as traitors?  I'm sure we all want The Answer to the current Long National Nightmare(tm)...

And the answer:

No, no, we need to go back to sleep, shut down the entire "Imperialist Military Industrial Complex" so that everyone will be our bestest buddies again, like they always were.  After all, there's no need to fear "terrorists" unless they're in the Republican Party, and if anyone does attack, it'll be justified because "Bush Lied".

Close.  But instead of the entire "Imperialist Military Industrial Complex", think entire "international trade economy".  Make it illegal to export fiat dollars completely- suck our currency back into the United States.  Shut down imports and immigration.  Close the borders to the point where a jackrabbit can't cross without tripping a land mine, a dolphin can't enter a harbor without getting caught in an electrified net, a seagull can't cross the international airspace border without being targeted by a surface-to-air missile.  That's what a true "President Coward" would do- and it'd end up making us far more SAFE than anything the Republican Party's fakery has done yet.

It's also end up destroying our economy and forcing the terrorists to see their real problem is not in North America, but actually in the Middle East.  And I doubt Israel would last more than a week without our help.

In other words- we don't have to fear a Democratic President- the rest of the world does.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Alan

Thu Apr 26 03:13:34 -0700 2007

manage

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/29092/i-found-saddams-wmd-bunkers.thtml

"The article that you have requested is part of our archive. The archive is available to subscribers only and cannot be accessed from this page. Please click here to view the page or here to subscribe to the site."

Oh, but wait, they couldn't have existed, because "everyone knows(tm)" that Cheney and Bush and all of them lied about them.

There's more evidence for Roswell Aliens that Bush's WMDs. And believers in both claim the lack of any actual physical evidence just proves the conspiracy. And it looks like they've gotten to your article. Obviously it was moved from public sight as soon as you mentioned it.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

President4242

Thu Apr 26 08:42:26 -0700 2007

manage

Along with all the other intelligence agencies around the world, apparently

More like just the British.  The UN didn't find anything at all.

Seems that no other country on earth was conducting intelligence gathering in Iraq except the US.

There seems to have been three main groups- Americans, British, and UN.

Just like there were no convoys of vehicles leaving Iraq for Syria, except for the ones *not* carrying WMDs.  Which didn't exist. 

That was only American CIA agents who saw them it seems- NOBODY else is reporting it, and I've never seen any actuall evidence of any convoys of vehicles at all.

 And the massive underground shelters under the Tigris and Euphrates which were found empty once they were investigated never contained anything.

Either that, or they once contained the WMDs that Rumsfeld sold to Saddam back in the 1980s that he used on the Kurds and the Shia.

Just like the American who was first shown them when they weren't empty, wasn't exposed to large amounts of radiation, because there was never anything there to expose him.

That one even I haven't heard.  And I'm a bit of a policy wonk.

But what it comes down to for me was that the only WMD I've ever seen evidence of existing in Iraq post 1998 was a case of Sarin Gas.  With an expiration date of 1986.  In Cyrilic, which means it was probably of Russian or East German Origin.

I never considered Saddam Hussien a threat to the United States even with the FIRST Gulf War, which seemed to me to be a military exercise to save a Royal Family from a history of being Royal Asses.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

htc

Thu Apr 26 20:00:28 -0700 2007

manage

Not at all - some countries (such as Germany) refused to participate, and for good reason too. I can't be bothered looking up the links, but try a google search for `Curveball' - the main `intelligence source' the US used for the argument that the Iraqis had mobile bioweapons facilities. He was being held in Germany awaiting refugee status, and it was obvious to the German intelligence (and surely, everyone else who had interviewed him) that he was a low level jerk, a truck driver who could not nave known anything anyway, but was prepared to say anything anyone wanted him to say to get money and citizenship. The only organization that have him any credibility at all was the CIA, which lapped up the story, hook line and sinker. There are other countries that took the word of the USA at face value, and were subsequently quite embarrassed to discover the weakness of the evidence. Colin Powell, for one, will surely never trust the CIA again.

It is also clear that this has been going on for quite some time. All of the talk in the 70's and 80's about the 'missile gap' turned out to be a complete fabrication, for example. And the CIA, at least on some level, knew that - but the word wasn't getting through to the top levels because they were blinded by ideology that said that the USSR was the evil empire and hence the aim of ending the soviet empire justified any means necessary, including lying to the American (and world) population. There are two lessons from this that I think are a very serious indictment on the USA style of democracy:

1. The US has gone through several elections where major components of publicly announced policy was based on fabrications. What exactly are you voting for, if the advertized policy of the candidates has no relationship to reality?

2. If ideology has priority over truth in intelligence gathering, then you still need to take care to make sure that the intelligence you gather from the ground is still reliable. That is, even if it is legitimate for the `vanguard' to promote an ideology based on a falsified view, it is vitally important that they DO NOT start to believe it themselves, because then the entire intelligence apparatus becomes useless - if you only employ intelligence agents that tell you what you want to hear, there is going to be a lot of important stuff that you NEED to hear but never will. Sooner or later, this must lead to catastrophe.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Wed Apr 25 15:03:34 -0700 2007

manage

Minimum wage is a policy dispute. Compromising Congress's exclusive right to declare war, by landing special forces in Iran and by hiding the truth about Iraq, is not. Claiming the right to imprison citizens indefinitely (Padilla) without charge or trial is a violation of the constitution and of everything my country stands for.

The level of an impeachable offense, by the way, is somewhere in between a policy dispute and a crime. The English history used grounds like "perfidy" and "incapacity". The Constitutional Convention actually considered "maladministration" as the threshold. When they realized that could include policy disputes, they switched to the English term of art "high crimes and misdemeanors".

An impeachable offense does not have to be a statutory crime, such as a felony violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This goes with the fact that an conviction on an impeachment motion is explicitly forbidden to deprive the officeholder of life, liberty or property. Madison called it a political remedy for political offenses. The founders put the presidential veto in place to ward off unconstitutional actions by Congress, and impeachment in place to halt usurpations by the Executive branch.

If the actions of the current Administration don't rise to the level of an impeachable offense, what on earth could? The current authoritarianism is far worse than perjury on an irrelevant question in a civil lawsuit.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Andrew Diseker

Wed Apr 25 15:14:25 -0700 2007

manage

Yeah, the "authoritarianism" that has silenced so many critics, such as yourself, completely controls all media outlets, and has prevented the Democrats from regaining control of Congress.  Oh, wait, I guess that was the *other* authoritarianism...

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

duhavid

Wed Apr 25 17:21:35 -0700 2007

manage

By that logic, I can rob as many banks as I want, and never
be guilty, as long as my success is partial.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Andrew Diseker

Wed Apr 25 18:07:21 -0700 2007

manage

And cleverly avoid confronting the issue of the continuing lack of arrests of critics, the continuation of Democrat rule, the continuation of... oh never mind, paranoid delusions are impossible to shake, once they've become articles of faith...

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

duhavid

Wed Apr 25 21:42:37 -0700 2007

manage

You are very good on the counter attack.

It scores points with the faithfull, I am sure, but you have not
layed out a reasoned argument on why you are correct.

A lot of what I read, the actions I see being taken, the bills
introduced lead me to believe that Bush has a fairly
authoritarian bent.  I cant imagine how you can keep up
with the news and not come to something like that conclusion,
but that is for you to decide. 

No, as far as I know, no critics have been arrested.  Does that
make for good policy?  Does that mean that there cannot be
any authoritarianism present

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Cassius Rosenthal

Thu Apr 26 07:09:40 -0700 2007

manage

It should be common knowledge by now that Wilson, a Bush critic, had his undercover wife outed from the CIA as retribution for disproving the administration's yellow cake WMD claims.

Bush didn't arrest this critic -- he went after the guy's family, put his wife's life in danger, put CIA missions in danger, and aided enemy counter-intelligence agencies.

I'd speculate that Wilson would have preferred imprisonment, thank you very much.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Thomas Lord

Thu Apr 26 09:45:53 -0700 2007

manage

How do you reconcile this fantasy with the other leftish-nutcase claim that Bush Inc. is in this for money and power, with US military and intel hegemony as their de facto privatized tools?   Predictably, the Plame affair pissed off a lot of folks in CIA -- why would Bush Inc. make that sacrifice?    For example, as humble an old sot as C. Hitchens makes a very strong case against the Plame/Wilson account (see his series of articles, mostly on Slate).    The sinister, Machiavellian administration would have gone that route, first -- just refuting Wilson on the face of his arguments.

-t

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

WebMaven

Thu Apr 26 14:29:56 -0700 2007

manage

Simple: They are both evil and stupid. Buncha Machiavelli wannabes.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Thomas Lord

Thu Apr 26 14:41:00 -0700 2007

manage

What does that say about you and those who share your position, then?

-t

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

WebMaven

Thu Apr 26 17:25:17 -0700 2007

manage

That we're neither evil nor stupid, but can recognize both?

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Cassius Rosenthal

Thu Apr 26 16:28:11 -0700 2007

manage

Fantasy???  It's on the public record that Rove said to reporters that Wilson's wife is "fair game."  Are you suggesting that he leaked her identity so that reporters could put her on their Christmas card list?  Rove & company leaked Plame's identity to intimidate Wilson.  That isn't a fantasy, it's a fact.

A federal prosecutor was assigned to investigate whether the leak was just violently nasty, or violated federal laws.  Since Rove was acting on behalf of the administration (Bush), it was defacto declassified information when he told reporters.  Therefore, this scare tactic was legal.  But no one is claiming that it didn't happen.  That is, I hadn't heard anyone deny it until you piped up.

And as for the CIA -- Cheney has a grudge against the CIA spanning decades.  That isn't a secret either.  In particular, he likes to rely instead on privatized, unregulated intelligence organizations.  Bush & friends jump at every chance they get to discomfit the CIA.  They even made the CIA the scapegoat for the Iraq war.  George Tenet, former CIA director, says as much every chance he gets.  He's on CNN as I type, blabbing about how the white house gave him a bad rap.

And Rove has openly embraced the characterization 'Machiavellian.'

Not that I am disagreeing with you; I'm just pointing out that you are wrong in every presumption that you make in the prior post.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Thomas Lord

Fri Apr 27 09:32:42 -0700 2007

manage

Let's ask what "fair game" means in this context.

Wilson filed a report that missed critical facts in Iraq's calling on Niger.  When, at the top of the administration, a contrary view was accepted, Wilson went running to the New York Times, citing himself as the authority on the matter.   In the ensuing public debate, there are really three legitimate replies the administration can make:  (1) to attack his skill as an analyst,  (2) to question the legitimacy of his authority, (3) to cite contradictory sources, yet without compromising contacts or methods.    

None of those replies has anything to do with "intimidating" Wilson -- rather, they are all simply responding in a public political fight that Wilson himself had picked.

The administration did blunder in two ways:   (a) They cited the Italian documents which, before identified as a forgery, must have seemed a windfall of confirming evidence that could be released without compromising contacts and methods.  The  forgery was of sufficiently poor quality that it's rapid public detection was certain -- it should have been detected before release.   (b) Though not even the CIA has yet made the claim that the law was broken, Machiavellian calculations within the administration missed that questioning Wilson's authority by suggesting he'd gotten his job via nepotism would ultimately be portrayed by political opponents as a breach of national security.

At the end of the day, there's nothing but unsubstantiated allegations from political opponents of the administration.   CIA requested an investigation, making no specific allegations.   CIA has yet to argue Plame had any legal status that made the so-called leak an actual leak.   You (nevertheless) have democratic congresspeople and pundits repeating, again and again, never in court, that an illegal leak took place.   You have Plame and Wilson adopting a posture of indignation (a particularly troubling one if Plame was in fact an operative).  If a lie is repeated often enough, some people will start to believe it.   I think that's all we see here.

As for CIA: not quite.  Close, but not quite.  Tenet (who's book is hitting the streets) is, indeed, claiming to have been made to look the fool.   CIA intel, he points out, substantially agreed with intel from many other sources -- they gave best-practical estimations.  Why, then, should CIA-under-Tenet be cited as a failure point?   The white house response, this morning -- that Tenet is a good patriot though perhaps underestimates the deliberative process that led to war in 2003 -- is ample reply.  I hope the book sells well.

Meanwhile, it is fairly widely reported that CIA ca. 2000 or so had a lot of unchecked, unchallenged structural problems.  It had the legacy of an agency fighting the Cold War.   It was frustrating in-the-field military commanders, leading to an accelerated build-out of Pentagon-based intel agencies.  Perhaps still recoiling from the gross abuses and illegalities of the 60s and early 70s, CIA was institutionally biased against even legitimate cooperation with law enforcement, such as FBI.   That is why there has been a great deal of restructuring going on at the higest levels of US intel.   That is why you see turf battles leading to personal enmities that break out into the public political arena.

-t

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Cassius Rosenthal

Sat Apr 28 16:23:47 -0700 2007

manage

Thomas Lord says: "CIA has yet to argue Plame had any legal status that made the so-called leak an actual leak.   You (nevertheless) have democratic congresspeople and pundits repeating, again and again, never in court, that an illegal leak took place."

You obviously aren't reading the posts that you reply to, but I'll try pointing this out one more time:

1)  No one says that the leak was illegal.  I haven't heard that accusation raised by anyone except you.  Once the executive branch disseminates classified information to the public, it is, de facto, declassified.  Vicious, stupid, Machiavellian: yes.  Illegal: no.

2)  The CIA has indeed acknowledged that Plame was undercover, and her cover was blown by this declassification.

What Bush's administration orchestrated, via Rove, was immoral.  Had anyone without executive permission done it, it would have been illegal.  I believe anyone else convicted of outing an undercover agent would have faced life in prison.  However, it is also arguably impeachable, because it damaged national security by disrupting CIA operations.  I'm no fan of the CIA, but you are mistaken on many points.  Your defense of the administration's actions might hold up better if your presumptions were correct.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

rubycodez

Wed Apr 25 21:10:18 -0700 2007

manage

Read/learn about congressional impeachment and reasons:  "violation of public trust" is a biggie.  Not unrelated offenses are corruption and bribery, and so is lining pockets by violating public trust.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

President4242

Thu Apr 26 13:48:33 -0700 2007

manage

 I'm actually surprised they didn't try to add Treason to the list- surely war profiteering and insider trading on the war falls into that category.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Cassius Rosenthal

Wed Apr 25 16:07:11 -0700 2007

manage

"...warmongering against Iran."

First of all, it is a violation of international law for a nuclear power to threaten a non-nuclear power with nuclear war, which Cheney has threatened against Iran.  Breaking international law is a high crime.  Second, by 'warmongering against Iran,' he is putting the country in danger.  Putting the country in danger is clearly impeachable.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

Charles E Hill

Wed Apr 25 16:41:16 -0700 2007

manage

International law doesn't count as a high crime.  Sorry, only U.S. laws count on this front.  That charge will never stand.

wimpy resolution, I'm disappointed / other admin spankings in the works

rubycodez

Wed Apr 25 21:00:06 -0700 2007

manage

not relevant to impeachment under reasons given in U.S. constitution.  Why there is even legal basis under certain conditions for the president to use the armed forces to attack, including nuclear attack, another nation without any authorization from congress (and AFTER the fact is when it will be determined if legal emergency justifying such action existed) 

House Resolution to Impeach Cheney

peacefinder

Wed Apr 25 15:41:35 -0700 2007

manage

Smarter to start with Cheney than with Bush, but I don't think it has a chance in hell of succeeding even so. They were sufficiently careful in the way they misled the public and Congress that it's hard to point out a verifiable lie, and after the Clinton fiasco impeachment is, politically, almost completely broken.

However, where they really could start is with Gonzales. From Aricle 2, Section 4:

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The Constitution appears to allow it, and he appears to have demonstrated a sufficient level of dishonesty to make conviction in the Senate possible.

House Resolution to Impeach Cheney

stephen

Wed Apr 25 16:57:38 -0700 2007

manage

Smarter to start with Cheney because convicting Bush and then failing to convict Cheney would be worse than doing nothing.

House Resolution to Impeach Cheney

Lucifer

Wed Apr 25 22:02:59 -0700 2007

manage

Yep. It's just like hunting ducks...

House Resolution to Impeach Cheney

President4242

Thu Apr 26 10:42:35 -0700 2007

manage

And only slightly better than hunting quail- something you apparently don't want to do with Cheney around.

 

Whatever

bill_mcgonigle

Wed Apr 25 18:00:38 -0700 2007

manage

An impeachable offense is whatever 2/3 of the Senate thinks it is. Are they going to get 16 Republican Senators to vote to impeach Cheney? No, it's a non-starter.

Vote for a different party next time if you want to see real impeachments. 50/50-ish is never going to convict.

House Resolution to Impeach Cheney

Unloaded

Thu Apr 26 08:39:21 -0700 2007

manage

Back in the 80's there was a House member from Texas who introduced a resolution to impeach Reagan about once a month.  I can't remember his name at the moment and don't have the time to look it up.

The point is that this is just a resolution.  Without 2/3rd's of the Senate behind it Average Joe perceives it as posturing, regardless of what is or isn't true.

House Resolution to Impeach Cheney

Thomas Lord

Thu Apr 26 09:47:55 -0700 2007

manage

You know the old saying:  "Where there's smoke, there's a member of the House."

-t