Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Congress Will Impeach W. Bush before Jan. 2009

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Congress Will Impeach W. Bush before Jan. 2009
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Congress Will Impeach W. Bush before Jan. 2009

Inevitable

[ 2 ]

Very Likely

[ 2 ]

Unknown

10%

[ 3 ]

Not Very Likely

46%

[ 13 ]

Absolutely Not

28%

[ 8 ]

Total Votes : 28

Author

Message

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:51 am Post subject:

gopher: Let's hope so, otherwise EFLTrainer will implode and his hagwon director will have to look for another Mr. P. W. Herman on crack to entertain the kiddies.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:17 am Post subject:

Milwaukiedave wrote:

The chances of it happening are less then 1%. There is no way that many Republicans would turn against him. It just won't happen.

The bigger question is who will back down first in terms of the stand off between Bush and the Congress. If Congress backs down, then it just pretty much proves impeachment is not even an option.

I haven't even watched or checked the news since Friday. Too much coverage of the VT shootings.

The congress has a moral and ethical obligation to act in the best interests of their constituents. If they are serving no purpose in Iraq... and they aren't... they should be brought home. It truly is exceedingly simple: don't fund the war any longer, or fund it only under their terms. There is absolutely nothing the president can do about it.

If they do not stand their ground on that, then they are fully complicit in the war and it will be time for a true sea change: a truly viable 3rd party. A populist party based in fair elections and the will of the people.

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:48 am Post subject:

EFLTrainer: Jackpot! I agree with you. We need a viable third party in this country... as long as it's not unhinged like you.

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

gang ah jee wrote:

I think the war was illegal under the UN charter...

And how many illegal wars has the UN mediated or stopped since 1945? Who defines whether a war is "just?"

I don't know how many illegal wars the UN has mediated or stopped, Gopher, but I know that it didn't stop the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq; I also don't see the relevance of your question here.

And is it the case that you think any given country should have the sole right to determine whether a war is "just" or not?

Gopher wrote:

As I have said elsehwere, Gang ah jee, each belligerent will claim that its cause is just, that the other side is the aggressor, that the other side behaved wrongly, etc.

Exactly. Which is why external mediation is so valuable.

Gopher wrote:

Ever had a bitter break-up with a girlfriend, by the way?

I've never had a girlfriend, actually. Have you? How many?

Gopher wrote:

gang ah jee wrote:

I don't know about you, but if I even had the faintest suspicion that my government may have lied in order to get New Zealand into an unnecessary war with and occupation of another country...

You seem to have an awful lot of confidence that your government is all above-board with you and everyone else. But the comparison is even worse than the Canadian ones, Gang ah jee: New Zealand is not a great power and not engaged in world affairs as the United States is. Life is far easier for the New Zealand govt than the American one.

In any case, the "lied-about-the-war" hyperbolic allegatin overstates the problem. The problem involves politicized intelligence, "cherry-picking," and worse-case scenario estimates over the objection of many professionals in the foreign-policy establishment and not pure lies fabricated from whole cloth. Saddam himself enabled the problem by playing cat-and-mouse, and stubbornly refusing to cooperate with the United Nations for more than a decade.

Simply charging "they lied!" is far too simplistic and emotional. There are serious procedural problems to address. And this wild-eyed allegation distracts us from them.

Firstly, I was talking about the possibility that the administration conspired to mislead the public. To me, it looks like this possibility needs more investigation. Of course, if it's the case that it turns out to be true, then different people will have different reactions, based on their expections of a government. It looks to me like, deliberate or not, you don't have a problem with the idea that your government might mislead in order to build support for a war of choice. Other Americans would disagree with you.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject:

Gang ah jee: got any direct evidence to support those allegations? Anything besides what Chomsky tells you must be true and you uncritically accept...?

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Gang ah jee: got any direct evidence to support those allegations? Anything besides what Chomsky tells you must be true and you uncritically accept...?

Ah, I see you're back to the 'Chomsky' move. Well played!

Anyway, my own feeling is that the following constitutes sufficient basis for further investigation into the matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

Quote:

C [MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

It's also worth noting the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996:

Quote:

Section 2 of the FSAA revises section 1001 of title 18, United States Code. The new 18 U.S.C. � 1001, effective October 11, 1996, reads as follows:

1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully --

1. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
2. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
3. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00902.htm

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Great. Substance. Even cite the United States Code. Very serious.

Politicized intelligence is not new, Gang ah jee. Senate and House have independent intelligence connections, committees, and oversight liaison. They knew what the Administration was doing. Do not kid yourself -- this is far from a clear-cut issue. And no one in Washington is that naive.

In any case, Congress still voted for the war. Saddam had opposed the United States and the United Nations for over a decade, Gang ah jee.

I also remind you that the British govt still joined the campaign as well. You want to impeach Blair, too?

What else have you got?

Also, had no idea you were so deeply interested participating in American politics. Why not immigrate? Then your voice might actually matter in these affairs.

Finally, this nonsense again...

Gang ah jee wrote:

external mediation

Who can we trust to be fair and impartial in mediating international disputes, Gang ah jee...? You and Chomsky? Wink

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject:

gang ah jee: You mean like the external mediation offered when Libya heads the Human Rights Committee or when France, Russia, and China form a veto bloc less out of genuine efforts to avert war than to further their business interests? If everyone in the U.N. is the same four-legged state, how come the permanent Security Council members remain permanent placed? Think about it.

igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject:

HOPEFULLY? no ... vote ...

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:31 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Politicized intelligence is not new, Gang ah jee. Senate and House have independent intelligence connectioenns, committees, and oversight liaison. They knew what the Administration was doing. Do not kid yourself -- this is far from a clear-cut issue. And no one in Washington is that naive.

In any case, Congress still voted for the war.

Politicized intelligence? No. False intelligence. Politicized intelligence might be cherry picking, for example, where the validity truly is in question. False evidence is what is described above and is what has been shown to have been used. Again, Downing Street; the Office of Special Operations, or whatever its name was; Niger, etc.

Let us not forget Bush stating upon gaining office: how do we get into Iraq? Let us not forget the myriad persons who have stated the administration was not interested in anything NOT supporting an invastion. That would be beyond "politiciaztion." It is falsification when nothing is accepted that does not agree with a pre-set agenda. It is falsification to state as fact that which is not. "We know where they are." - D. Cheney.

False pretenses is a serious legal issue. False pretenses are obvious and provable.

Further, those committees were run by whom? And claimed to be classified - thus muzzling any and all present - by whom?

This is like Global Warming: you can no longer legitimately claim it ain't happening and humans have had/will have little or no effect and expect to be considered anything other than a wing nut.

Stop cheerleading and try acting as an American.

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:34 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Quote:

Firstly, would you like to clarify exactly what you mean by 'politicised intelligence'?

Secondly, so what if Saddam Hussein had opposed the United Nations? You don't care what the UN thinks, do you?

Thirdly, are you saying that you oppose further investigation of this matter?

Fourthly, yes, Tony Blair's actions should be investigated, definitely.

Gopher wrote:

What else have you got?

About impeachment in general, or just relating directly to the Iraq invasion? Actually, here's a question for you: what kind of evidence would you need to see?

Gopher wrote:

Also, had no idea you were so deeply interested participating in American politics. Why not immigrate? Then your voice might actually matter in these affairs.

Thanks for the invitation, Gopher, I might take you up on it. (Oh - can I crash at your house when I first arrive?)

Gopher wrote:

Finally, this nonsense again...

Gang ah jee wrote:

external mediation

Who can we trust to be fair and impartial in mediating international disputes, Gang ah jee...? You and Chomsky? Wink

That's right, Gopher - me and Chomsky. That's exactly my position, and I have repeated this again and again through numerous threads. I must say how nice it is to enjoy discussions with someone so careful not to misrepresent my position and who works so hard to uphold the principle of charity. Thanks, Gopher.

stevemcgarrett wrote:

You mean like the external mediation offered when Libya heads the Human Rights Committee or when France, Russia, and China form a veto bloc less out of genuine efforts to avert war than to further their business interests?

If everyone in the U.N. is the same four-legged state, how come the permanent Security Council members remain permanent placed?

I agree that the UN has a lot of systemic problems. But you know, baby, bathwater.

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:08 am Post subject:

gang ah jee pointed out:

Quote:

I agree that the UN has a lot of systemic problems. But you know, baby, bathwater.

That's true. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: the only thing worse than the U.N. is none at all.

typo: permanently placed

The_Conservative

Joined: 15 Mar 2007

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject:

gang ah jee wrote:

[
Fourthly, yes, Tony Blair's actions should be investigated, definitely.

[

Then by that logic we should investigate EVERY government that sent forces including Australia and Canada (we have 30+ troops serving in Iraq as part of an officer exchange program)

Gets a bit unwieldy doesn't it?

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject:

stevemcgarrett wrote:

That's true. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: the only thing worse than the U.N. is none at all.

Heh - I had that quote in mind when I wrote the post.

The_Conservative wrote:

Well, no. Firstly, it would not be unwieldy for Australia and Canada to conduct investigations of their own decision-making processes. Secondly, both of these countries were relying on intelligence provided by the US and UK governments, limiting the possibility that these countries were manipulating intelligence to build public and international support for a war of aggression.

One thing that some posters in this thread seem to be missing is that Congress authorised military action in Iraq in October 2002 in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." In March 2003 Bush presented Congress with a letter and 100-page report plus eight-page executive summary outlining the reasons for his decision to publically commence the invasion of Iraq. The letter said that:

George W. Bush wrote:

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

As I understand it, Congress did not vote on this. They instead accepted that conditions stipulated in the 2002 bill had been met. But had they? If there are any falsehoods, fictitious statements, or other deliberate attempts to mislead in the above letter, that may constitute a felony under the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 amongst others. Serious business, no?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:30 pm Post subject:

Saddam Hussein was not in compliance w/ UN resolutions. Remember if he had given up his war there would have been no war.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe