quote:I believe that the US would seek out a resolution to the War on Terror with even more ferocity and finality.
I'm afraid that's probably right. Just as the Israelis/Palestineans learn little from further death, so it will be with us. Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the kind of thing that Americans will not learn the lesson from until it sneaks up behind them and bites them hard. That's how the majority of Americans are today, they live in a bubble, and when terrorists finally pop that bubble, there will be hell to pay.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoah . . . talk about deja vu . . . was there not a thread rather recently that discussed mindkilling fear . . . Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And a bullet just plain kills you. There's really no point in arguing whether or not death of the body or what is in your opinion death of the mind is worse because the election is over and I seriously doubt anyone is changing their mind. Democrats need to stop working toward getting George Bush out of office because you're now three months late and none of your whining or righteous indignation is going to change that.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm intrigued, NFL. Do you believe the only issue here is whether or not Bush remains in office, and thus "his team" "wins?"
Or do you agree that there are important legal and moral principles here that, regardless of who's at bat, need to be properly negotiated, and that it is the duty of all Americans -- regardless of their party affiliation -- to shepherd these principles and encourage their promotion?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only issue that has really been raised is whether or not Bush should be in or remain in office.
quote: We need to start the impeachment process.
Since a majority of voters wanted George Bush to be president, what makes you think even a majority (which is not good enough for impeachment) of Congressmen would want to impeach the President? You lost, get over it, and move on to fighting the battles of policy, not personality. Keep in mind that "Removing George Bush from office" does not constitute policy, and that you've got the short end of the stick as far as negotiating leverage is concerned. In other words, don't bother arguing that we should pull out of Iraq, because its not going to happen no matter how "immoral" our presence there is. Instead argue over who Bush should appoint to the AG's office or how can Bush cut the deficit while funding his programs.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, so you're saying if Bush did something clearly impeachable (lets assume something really egregious for the sake of argument -- he shoots a cop while trying to hand over military secrets to a foreign government) we shouldn't try to impeach him because he got the majority in the election?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what I mean, rather than actually deal with reality, you'd prefer to conjure up scenarios that are garuanteed never to pass. My comment about impeachment was made do to the suggestion that we should start impeachment proceedings now.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sheesh, nfl, don't you know humor when you see it?
While it's not a bad idea, I was joking at the time. I'm starting to rethink the joking part, though. After all, wasn't impeachment the Republicans first choice when trying to get Clinton out of office?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know its a joke, but the joke sounded as if you thought you could bring impeachment proceedings against Bush if you wanted to, but out of the mercy in your heart you restrain yourself.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously, I spent too long trying to word that correctly, since you managed to post again while I was typing.
You don't think Bush has done anything wrong? Adultery wasn't the issue, it was lying to the grand jury. That must be why Bush refuses to be sworn in anywhere to testify. It's not the crime that will get you impeached, it's the lying about the crime.
You Republicans are smart.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I think we should impeach him for treason. He's sold this country out, lied to us and made too many people believe his lies/propaganda. He's gotten over a 1,000 Americans killed over his lies, over 100,000 wounded and who knows how many "enemies" are dead, wounded, or locked up for life in a secret hiding place. I'm outraged and indignant, wounded and saddened that my fellow citizens could be so easily swayed by such a zealot.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I refuse to argue about current issues like Guantanamo, what makes you think I or any other Republican want to deal with impeachment proceedings from an administration ago. That's just as over and done with as this past election. Maybe its something about Democrats. They "win" the impeachment trial, but they still whine about it. For example, the College Democrats at FSU have t-shirts that say, "Screwing with your country is worse than screwing your intern." Democrats lose the election and they still whine about that. For example again, the College Democrats were begging people to petition Sen. Nelson to object to the EC vote and a senator did object. So win or lose, Democrats can't stop talking and whining about things that are over and done with.
Ok, this doesn't go for all Dems, just the outspoken ones who seem to be the only ones commenting.
This is also a major reason why I decided to become a Republican as opposed to a Democrat, as the latter group really, really annoys me.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Okay, first of all, all crimes are in the past, so why bother prosecute?
Secondly, let's just start with the recent stuff. How about propaganda with taxpayer's money? How about the comment that he (Bush) doesn't need to hold anyone accountable for mistakes leading up to the war in Iraq because "we had an accountability moment and that's called the 2004 elections?"
You know, you remind a lot of Bush. Defend the policies and ignore the actual evidence. And if you can't ignore it, delete it.
quote: Under the present administration, facts are routinely varnished like fine wood. That is, when they are not ignored outright. Consider the record. Where official reports have clashed with politics, they have been edited. Where science has offended political supporters, it has been quashed. Where the administration's own experts have contradicted its worldview, they have been ignored.
quote:Which brings us back to journalistic integrity or the lack thereof. Between this, CBS News, Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley, who can blame a journalist for feeling that maybe it's time to find a more reputable profession? Like used car sales.
Ohhhh - that was good.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, NFL, you refuse to discuss anything current that Bush might be doing wrong, but if anyone brings up anything from the past it is either:
A) OK, because Bush won, and therefore has a complete mandate that supersedes the Constitution
or
B) A bunch of whiners talking about the past which doesn't matter, even if it is the same thing that the Republicans did to Clinton.
How convenient for you.
The Republicans KNEW they didn't have enough votes to win an impeachment against Clinton..it was all over the news before the impeachment ever happened....but they went ahead and initiated the procedure for political gain and free anti-Democratic publicity.
So is that only an appropriate response when the Republicans do it?
I don;t think Bush should be impeached, but I don't think he is a good President...not by a long shot.
He isn't consistent, except in his arrogance, unfounded as it is.
Everyone, Democratic or Republican, should be concerned with what is happening to our basic rights as human beings. When even the Constitution isn't enough to protect basic human rights then we are all in trouble.
posted
It does matter. If they are eroding people's rights, blowing up babies in Iraq, shredding the constitution and condoning the torture of Iraqi and Afghani prisioners, it matters. They need to be held accountable. I read some bumper sticker on a woman's car that said, "Do not question the president." What is he, a king, and emporer? A demi-god? I think not. If someone is doing the wrong thing whether they are a democrat, republican or independent it is our DUTY as citizens to call them on it.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tried to get through, I failed, I give up. A thread asking how people can support Bush and operating on the assumption that Bush is immoral is one that I have no business lingering in. The threads asking why people voted for Bush after the election were one thing, but this is just ridiculous.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not an assumption. I seldom make assumptions when it comes to something important. I have tried to do research, to be objective but the more I hear each day leads me to believe that Bush is doing the wrong thing. The main problem is, what can be done about it? Nothing. Nothing at all. The people who supported him because of abortion, homosexuality, the war on terror will not change their minds any time soon. I have no idea what can be done. I have no power, no ability to change minds. But, it drives me mad because I do not want these people dragging the name of my country through the mud. Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bringing this over from a different thread since it seems to be applicable...
I think Mr. Bush has a dream. I think he has a goal in mind for the United States, one in which we are powerful and safe and everyone takes responsibility for their actions and where the economy rewards those willing to work hard. A goal where marriage is sacred and children are educated and everyone works towards building a strong society. I believe he honestly works towards this and is proud of what he's already accomplished.
Unfortunately, I also believe that he's going about it in a short-sighted, ends-justify-the-means manner based on what those around him have told him will work, and he is dismantling any checks or balances that might interfere with accomplishing what he already has in mind.
I think that his plans towards improving the economy by strengthening the power and lessening the culpabilities for corporations and businesses are fine in theory, but fall apart when he fails to take into account the criminal actions of many corporate heads. Which is easy to do, since the regulatory boards for such crimes have been weakened.
I think his plans for strengthening the country's stand on terrorists ignores the human rights of those accused as well as the likely response from people who take American soldiers and civilians as prisoners and have been shown that the Geneva Convention is no longer relevant.
This is, of course, not something to lay solely at his feet. I think the people surrounding him, and some of the people holding power in both parties, are encouraging the same behavior.
I think that the practice of redistricting is allowing politicians to run unopposed and hold power forever, giving corrupt leaders a way to stay in office regardless of the actual will of the people they purport to represent.
I think that people in charge of setting the legislative agenda are bending it to their own needs -- hardly a new thing -- and that the current system of lobbyist-written bills and unrelated riders is crippling any attempt at legislation that benefits anyone other than those writing the checks.
I believe Mr. Bush's mind runs like this: "I am building a better, stronger America. People who are condemning me must not want that to happen, but I think the country wants what I want." This sincere belief is what allows him to look politely puzzled when he is questioned about his policies. Don't we all want a better country? Then why don't we just sit back and let him handle it?
I think Mr. Bush is on his way into becoming a well-meaning dictator, and I sincerely hope that he doesn't manage to do anything irretrievable.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As usual Chris has, I think, a pretty accurate viewpoint.
Here are my views on the matter-
Re: Bush nominations for various offices-
Any Democratic nominees would likely be painted just as nefariously. Let's face it, the press is going to dig into your past and find some things to hold against you. In some cases I have no doubt that the "dirt" they dig up is 90% invention and 10% real while no doubt in other cases it is probably 100% accurate.
I highly doubt that Bush is nominating people that he knows are scumbags.
As far as other Bush policies- Bush sees himself as an outsider with a mandate to reform Washington and I think that is exactly what he is trying to do. The state of the economy in many european countries is a clear indication that one must be very careful with the promised benefits of social programs. Bush therefore pushes to reform SS (and no doubt medicare is next). Bush sees how ridiculous the tax code is and he seeks to reform it to better encourage savings and investment (which Americans are worse at than any other advanced nation). Again, for those who think Bush is selling us down the river to the corporations- Europe can again be our warning where economic growth is much more difficult due to the huge tax burdens, strength of the unions etc. Clearly there is a balance which needs to be maintained and I hope that Bush et al. find a good one for us.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A thread asking how people can support Bush and operating on the assumption that Bush is immoral is one that I have no business lingering in.
This is why my intitial inclination was to avoid the thread, and why I eventually did so.
It's one step above "Do you still beat your wife?"
It's not that I don't want to discuss issues such as this or that I don't care about the government. It's that it's pointless to do so here, under this thesis.
Maybe if a single issue were being discussed, it might be worth it. But probably not even then.
posted
"Maybe if a single issue were being discussed, it might be worth it."
Well, Dag, you basically said you were a single-issue voter, anyway. So unless we're talking about abortion, it simply doesn't matter, does it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think Bush should be impeached, tried and convicted of treason, and executed under the death penalty that was so often used in TX when he was governor there.
Why?
Do we get to hold all presidents subject to the reasoning you're going to outline?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare -- when the examples of scumbaggity come from that persons own collection of papers, its much easier to believe they're not creations of the press .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh and Dag, if you happen to pop in, one thing to consider.
Since as noted Bush has done/is doing essentially nada re: abortion (other than cutting some funding that wasn't being spent on abortion anyways, but on birth control and such), but your hopes are that when it comes time to appoint SCJ (as it almost certainly will), he will appoint ones with similar sensibilities in that area, have you considered that Bush is likely to nominate the same sorts of people for SCJ as he's been nominating for positions such as Attorny General (Ashcroft and Gonzales)?
(There're good examples in the judges he nominates as well, though they're at least a more opinion-diverse group. I'm particularly a fan of the ones who have thought that a defense attorney sleeping during witness testimony and other key parts of the trial did not mean the attorney was sufficiently incompetent for there to have been a mistrial (or whatever the appropriate legal terminology is)).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me." - Bush
I'm worried about this statement because it implies that the sole issue of the election was, in Bush's mind, hinging on the state of the Iraq war.
Today, I read this. I accept it is a "maybe", but put this statement with this potential issue and you've got what amounts to a constant state of war and fear of retribution.
(This is the original article, but it's longer.)
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He willingly and with malice lied to the American people and the world about his reasoning for military invasion. This has directly resulted in the unnecessary deaths of 1000 American soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians.
Okay, 'willingly' I understand. 'With malice' though. . . please provide evidence.
You suppose that Bush HIMSELF knew there were no weapons of mass destruction BEFORE invasion-- very well. Prove it with credible, authentic sources.
If you can do this, MAN! I'd keep it under my hat and sell the information to the richest author.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush's immorality is in leading the country, Clinton's was in his personal life. There's a rather large difference. We've chosen immoral policies as our own, whereas with clinton, we forgave his personal moral failings.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Personally, I was rather surprised at the time. Both by Pitts' column and by Card's tacit approval of it. It was a little right for Pitts and a little left for Card, in my opinion.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly didn't like Clinton's personal moral failings, but they had rather less to do with people being killed by the state for murders they didn't commit, information important for public safety being made hard to access in the name of security, et cetera.
Everyone has moral failings, and some of them egregious. If someone's moral failings do not seem to translate into immoral government, I'm willing to consider them for a governmental position.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, while they both claim to be Democrats, I actually believe Pitts is one. At least, I agree with almost everything he says, and there is very little I agree with OSC about. And since OSC considers himself a democrat but votes Republican, I'm assuming I must be as left-leaning as Michael Moore.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given that America's security is largely based on our credibility, this attack on our credibility consitutes malice and therefore treason.
Alas, no it does not.
You'd have to show that Bush intentionally lied (still haven't done that yet) with the express purpose of discrediting American credibility in order to have a chance at 'malice.'
It is worth pointing out (again) that everyone in the world knew that at some point in the past, Iraq had biological and chemical weapons, and that they were trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush's failure was jumping the gun-- our reports WERE sketchy, and Saddaam was being antagonistic. We didn't know what Iraq had done with their WMD program, but there were hints that it was still ongoing. We relied on faulty evidence to make a case for invasion-- but only found out it was faulty after the war ended. If you can show, somehow that Bush knew it was faulty beforehand, you have a case.
Please keep in mind that by international standards, the UN should have invaded LONG before 2002, as Iraq constantly defied treaty standards.
But the UN as a ridiculous political tool (not the useful kind) is another thread.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's worth pointing out that YOU were a single issue voter this go-round too, Tom.
That issue being 'Bush.'
Nope. While I will freely admit to being an "Anyone But Bush" voter this time around, it would be a serious distortion of the truth to suggest that I disliked Bush for, say, just one single reason. I have multiple reasons for loathing the guy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seem to recall we got most of the world to agree our war making in those instances was for the good.
If it had anything to do with the dress, it was a secret closely held at the top of the administration; it pretty much would have to be in one man's head, Clinton's. In that case, we just won't know for sure. However, what war making we did was certainly in character for the administration, suggesting against that.
Furthermore, it doesn't seem to fit with Clinton, who knew the various special prosecutors kept finding nothing impeachable and giving up, at which point the republicans would just get a new special prosecutor appointed (many would argue that for which he was impeached was not impeachable; it is certainly at the low end at best). While the dress was extremely personally embarassing, Clinton is a man who's been personally embarassed before; you have to be used to it a certain amount to be a politician. Saying that he would start a war over it seems the worst sort of rumor mongering, particularly absent any evidence whatsoever.
That's roughly equivalent to me saying Bush started the war in Iraq because he's a closet religious extremist who wants to kill all the Muslims.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris-- fugu was talking about the conflicts initiated under Clinton's watch, not the Iraqi war.
Why do you think that the world was more cooperative in those conflicts, fugu, and LESS interested in the genocides that took place in Rwanda or say. . . Iraq?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he ordered bombings solely to draw attention to himself.
I do think that evidence supporting those bombings wasn't examined as closely as it would have been if he hadn't been open to the idea of something else grabbing the top spot of the news.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
