|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Congress Will Impeach W. Bush before Jan. 2009 |
| Inevitable |
|
7% |
[ 2 ] |
| Very Likely |
|
7% |
[ 2 ] |
| Unknown |
|
10% |
[ 3 ] |
| Not Very Likely |
|
46% |
[ 13 ] |
| Absolutely Not |
|
28% |
[ 8 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 28 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Gang ah jee: again, I find your position extremely naive.
You assume, without justification, that this represents pure, cynical lying, as if the administration fabricated the entire story out of whole cloth -- which is false; but your ideological disposition limits your perception on this. But let us set that aside for a moment.
Do you truly accept such documents as the one you cite above at face value? Do you truly place official Washington in the dark, as far as knowing what the President and/or the other party are up to? Do you truly believe that they do not recognize a sales pitch when one presents itself?
Same thing goes for poor, innocent, easily-distracted and -misled Australia, Canada, and the others...
And still they authorized and/or supported the war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| You assume, without justification, that this represents pure, cynical lying, as if the administration fabricated the entire story out of whole cloth -- which is false |
Regardless of whether this is intended to be a strawman or is simply an honest comprehension error, it is incorrect. For your benefit I will restate my position again. It seems that the conditions for military action as stipulated in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 were not fulfilled as of March 19, 2003, pace Bush's letter to Congress and reports issued on that day. Furthermore, it appears that there is evidence to suggest that the Bush Administration knew this to be the case. I think that this is worthy of further investigation. I do not think that the 'administration fabricated the entire story out of the whole cloth'. That position exists only in your imagination.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Do you truly accept such documents as the one you cite above at face value? |
Well, if it wasn't intended to be accepted at face value, would that not consititute a felony under the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996? Hmm?
| Gopher wrote: |
| Do you truly place official Washington in the dark, as far as knowing what the President and/or the other party are up to? Do you truly believe that they do not recognize a sales pitch when one presents itself? |
Yes, it's certainly possible that at least some members of Congress and Senate were aware that there was no justification for a war on the grounds that the President presented to Congress. As for others, who can say? Are you suggesting that majorities in both Congress and Senate were in on any possible deception, and that this therefore makes it legal?
| Gopher wrote: |
| And still they authorized and/or supported the war. |
I'll point this out to you again, Gopher. Congress voted on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 five months before Bush presented the report and letter to Congress claiming that the stipulated conditions had been met. To my knowledge, there was no authorisation vote in March 2003. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gang ah jee:
Although I'm not sure whether I agree with you, I must say your response to gopher in your most recent post is articulate and well-conceived and therefore worthy of serious consideration (no sarcasm or patronizing intended).
Too bad most of the others who distrust the current administration can't or won't do the same. They might get more of a response from the rest of us.
Cheers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| I do not think that the 'administration fabricated the entire story out of the whole cloth'... |
Great. Thanks for clarifying. Looks like we agree, then.
We both agree that W. Bush's war against Saddam was not "a just war"; that it was indeed an aggressive war. That is, we both disagree with the war. You of course phrase your disagreement self-righteously ("the people of the world are judging your country!" you exclaimed, if I recall) while I prefer dispassionate moderation. But lo que sea, Gang ah jee.
Moving on; we agree elsewhere as well. Neither of us shed any tears whatsoever about Saddam's demise, on the other hand. His regime lacked any credibility and behaved as a rogue after its aggressive invasion and seizure of Kuwait -- for purely and unconcealed imperialistic reaons, I might add -- its attempted assassination of H.W. Bush, its use of chemical weapons against its own people, and its open defiance of the United Nations for more than a decade.
Not to mention Saddam's assuming a very high profile in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, having made a run to develop nuclear weapons, having once launched multiple SCUD missiles against civilian targets in Tel Aviv, his, if memory serves, offering the equivalent of life-insurance money to suicide bombers' families, thus encouraging this particular form of terrorism, and, finally, in his antagonistic "letters to the American people" in 9/11's aftermath where, in so many words, he told us we deserved it.
And, lastly, we both agree that as the W. Bush Administration did not in fact invent its story and justification for war out of whole cloth, or invent Saddam as a possible threat to America once 9/11 seemed to establish new rules in conflict, but rather misinterpreted the situation, exaggerated the threat, oversold its case to willing audiences in Washington and throughout America, and finally losing patience, simply forced the current war to end the tension and settle matters once and for all.
Where do you get "blatant lies" and "misleading" -- and therefore a clear-cut, self-evident, easily-understood-by-all-parties impeachable offense -- out of all of this confusion, however? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Gang ah jee: again, I find your position extremely naive.
You assume, without justification, that this represents pure, cynical lying, as if the administration fabricated the entire story out of whole cloth -- which is false; but your ideological disposition limits your perception on this. But let us set that aside for a moment. |
No, let's not. There is ample evidence that the administration, i.e. the Cadre, lied when they linked Al Queda and Iraq; that they lied about WMDs ("We know where they are."); that they purposely filtered the intel (office of Special Ops, Pentagon); that they decided to invade Iraq long before 9/11 ever happened (Downing Street); and that they did so for oil above all else (Cheney meeting with oil execs in war planning and US oil companies getting all oil concessions in Iraq.)
| Quote: |
| the W. Bush Administration did not in fact invent its story and justification for war out of whole cloth, or invent Saddam as a possible threat to America once 9/11 seemed to establish new rules in conflict, but rather misinterpreted the situation, exaggerated the threat, oversold its case to willing audiences in Washington and throughout America, and finally losing patience, simply forced the current war to end the tension and settle matters once and for all. |
I'm sorry, but did you just state the above is FACT? How dispassionate of you! How objective! I wsn't aware any investigation had occurred! Now, what evidence - not your dumbass opinion - do you have that they DID believe what they said? Or that even a SHRED of what you post above is accurate?
Prediction: this query will be met with
and
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
McGarrett: I say that I pm you something that everyone will immediately recognize as something I would write, but you post it, and you do the same with me, and let us see how seriously we can actually provoke and set BLT off on these "sock" allegations he keeps bringing up...
BLT: buy a vowel and get a clue, you drunken half-wit!
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:20 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
McGarrett: I say that I pm you something that everyone will immediately recognize as something I would write, but you post it, and you do the same with me, and let us see how seriously we can actually provoke and set BLT off on these "sock" allegations he keeps bringing up...
BLT: buy a vowel and get a clue! |
Case closed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I imagine it is easier for you to believe in such sensational conspiracy theories than the more mundane alternative: we are two different posters whose views often converge -- but not always, BLT. For one thing, I would estimate that McGarrett's views are much more conservative than mine.
For the record: I employ no "socks" here; I have always found the practice puzzling and childishly absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| We both agree that W. Bush's war against Saddam was not "a just war"; that it was indeed an aggressive war. That is, we both disagree with the war. You of course phrase your disagreement self-righteously ("the people of the world are judging your country!" you exclaimed, if I recall) while I prefer dispassionate moderation. But lo que sea, Gang ah jee. |
Fine. And I think that I've conceded in the past that the above quote was very poorly phrased. If not, then I will do so now.
| Gopher wrote: |
Moving on; we agree elsewhere as well. Neither of us shed any tears whatsoever about Saddam's demise, on the other hand. His regime lacked any credibility and behaved as a rogue after its aggressive invasion and seizure of Kuwait -- for purely and unconcealed imperialistic reaons, I might add -- its attempted assassination of H.W. Bush, its use of chemical weapons against its own people, and its open defiance of the United Nations for more than a decade.
Not to mention Saddam's assuming a very high profile in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, having made a run to develop nuclear weapons, having once launched multiple SCUD missiles against civilian targets in Tel Aviv, his, if memory serves, offering the equivalent of life-insurance money to suicide bombers' families, thus encouraging this particular form of terrorism, and, finally, in his antagonistic "letters to the American people" in 9/11's aftermath where, in so many words, he told us we deserved it. |
Hooray! I enjoy agreeing with people.
| Gopher wrote: |
| And, lastly, we both agree that as the W. Bush Administration did not in fact invent its story and justification for war out of whole cloth, or invent Saddam as a possible threat to America once 9/11 seemed to establish new rules in conflict, but rather misinterpreted the situation, exaggerated the threat, oversold its case to willing audiences in Washington and throughout America, and finally losing patience, simply forced the current war to end the tension and settle matters once and for all. |
This is where we diverge, however. Unfortunately I can't share your confidence that the whole business was just a massive clusterf--k. It looks to me - and to a lot of other people, presumably not all as na�ve as I - that the final decision to invade Iraq may have been made long before March 2003, and that the available intelligence may have been manipulated and presented in ways that would support this decision. As I say, this looks to me like serious business!
And what's up with 'willing audiences in Washington and throughout America'? A lot of people supported the war because they sincerely believed that Iraq had a hand in the 9/11 attacks and was posing an immediate threat to US national security. They believed that because those were the claims made by the administration and uncritically repeated at length by the mainstream media. Your implication here seems to be that America was asking to be given inaccurate information.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Where do you get "blatant lies" and "misleading" -- and therefore a clear-cut, self-evident, easily-understood-by-all-parties impeachable offense -- out of all of this confusion, however? |
Where do you get 'blatant lies'? I don't recall having used that phrase, and it doesn't show up under my name in any searches. Otherwise, we agree that people have been misled. The question is whether or not this was deliberate. On this basis is impeachment justifiable? I think so, and I think I've outlined my reasons for this position. Would conviction result? I don't know. While your reading of the situation may indeed be the correct one here, given the gravity of the situation, if I were an American citizen I would like to see that established with respect to some measure of reasonable doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| ...the final decision to invade Iraq may have been made long before March 2003, and that the available intelligence may have been manipulated and presented in ways that would support this decision. As I say, this looks to me like serious business! |
No agreement is perfect, Gang ah jee.
It is serious business and people ought to ask questions -- including investigative hearings. Just not for the express purpose of yet another partisan witch-hunt cloaked as an impeachment...
And of course the administration had decided prior to March 2003 to invade. Of course they manipulated and presented the information to justify their policies. They exaggerated and oversold their case, especially regards Saddam's alleged connection with bin Ladden and 9/11.
But did they truly know everything and cynically lie about these things...?
That is the million-dollar question, Gang ah jee. I do not see them operating that way -- I do not believe you do either, especially where others take these allegations just a little bit further in angrily claiming that W. Bush perpetrated 9/11 just to set this whole thing up...
| Gang ah jee wrote: |
| And what's up with 'willing audiences in Washington and throughout America'? A lot of people supported the war because they sincerely believed that Iraq had a hand in the 9/11 attacks and was posing an immediate threat to US national security. They believed that because those were the claims made by the administration and uncritically repeated at length by the mainstream media. Your implication here seems to be that America was asking to be given inaccurate information. |
Saddam was not a hard enemy to sell, Gang ah jee. In fact, he did most of the "selling" himself -- he and SouthPark, anyway...
| Gang ah jee wrote: |
| ...people have been misled. |
I use "exaggerated" and "oversold." I even agree with your "manipulated intelligence information" (everyone, after all, selects, manipulates, and presents data as they wish, the question is "For what ends...?"). But I do not accept "misled," which conveys overly-cynical shades of meaning that go beyond what I believe to be true, Gang ah jee.
And that is as close as we can probably get on this issue.
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:03 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Yes, I imagine it is easier for you to believe in such sensational conspiracy theories than the more mundane alternative: we are two different posters whose views often converge -- but not always, BLT. For one thing, I would estimate that McGarrett's views are much more conservative than mine.
For the record: I employ no "socks" here; I have always found the practice puzzling and childishly absurd. |
You witless cretin: See my post above about the quality of response that would be forthcoming from your stupid, sorry, lying ass.
I'm sure comprehension classes are available at your local ESL center.
| Quote: |
Quote:
the W. Bush Administration did not in fact invent its story and justification for war out of whole cloth, or invent Saddam as a possible threat to America once 9/11 seemed to establish new rules in conflict, but rather misinterpreted the situation, exaggerated the threat, oversold its case to willing audiences in Washington and throughout America, and finally losing patience, simply forced the current war to end the tension and settle matters once and for all.
I'm sorry, but did you just state the above is FACT? How dispassionate of you! How objective! I wsn't aware any investigation had occurred! Now, what evidence - not your dumbass opinion - do you have that they DID believe what they said? Or that even a SHRED of what you post above is accurate? |
Again, any evidence?
Prediction: Answer will be "*."
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| It is serious business and people ought to ask questions -- including investigative hearings. Just not for the express purpose of yet another partisan witch-hunt cloaked as an impeachment... |
Exactly. Actually, Kuros made an excellent post today in another thread suggesting (if I read him correctly) that not impeaching is the partisan move, in that Democrat leadership may be concerned that an impeachment would damage the prospects for full Democrat control of both the legislative and executive branches.
| Gopher wrote: |
But did they truly know everything and cynically lie about these things...?
That is the million-dollar question, Gang ah jee. I do not see them operating that way -- I do not believe you do either, especially where others take these allegations just a little bit further in angrily claiming that W. Bush perpetrated 9/11 just to set this whole thing up... |
I do have to say that, given the evidence I've seen, the idea that the war went ahead as some kind of accident or blunder requires a greater leap of faith than does the idea that the administration opportunistically used a national tragedy as a pretext to further neoconservative political and strategic goals in the middle east. I'm sure they believed it would be good for America in the long run, and that a good outcome would prevent closer scrutiny of the events leading up to the invasion. (oh, IR theory question here - would you place neoconservative foreign policy more in the idealist or realist camps? To me it looks like it shares features of both.)
Also, I think it's worth noting that there's a whole world of difference between this kind of opportunism and the absolute, near omnipotent evil required by 9/11ist conspiracy theorists.
| Gopher wrote: |
| I use "exaggerated" and "oversold." I even agree with your "manipulated intelligence information" (everyone, after all, selects, manipulates, and presents data as they wish, the question is "For what ends...?"). But I do not accept "misled," which conveys overly-cynical shades of meaning that go beyond what I believe to be true, Gang ah jee. |
Well, I did make sure to use passive voice with 'misled', Gopher. We agree that people were misled even if we disagree on the agency.
Oh, I understand that Rice might get subpoened tomorrow regarding this very issue. It should be interesting to see where that leads. Here's hoping her memory holds out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
C'mon, gaj, grow some balls. Ask the question. they don't dare answer me for they know they will end up with their bull all over their own faces in the end. I do not accept that pretending to reasoned discourse is, in fact, reasoned discourse. When people lie ad mislead it is reprehensible. Ask the question:
Where's your PROOF, goodumbya? Where's your EVIDENCE? You claim above certain facts. You claim certain claims have no justification. In none of the cases so far have you provided a single link, a single shred of evidence. We are to take your word that these things are true?
Arrogant liar.
And you, dispassionate? You who attacks the character and intelligence of those who disagree with you?
Back up your statements. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oh-Ran-Ji
Joined: 25 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Gopher wrote:
BLT: buy a vowel and get a clue, you drunken half-wit!
EFLtrainer wrote:
You witless cretin: See my post above about the quality of response that would be forthcoming from your stupid, sorry, lying ass.
|
Dear Less-than-gentlemen:
How can I put this delicately?...Oh, I know! Eschew any attempt at diplomacy and tact since you two don't seem to have a firm grasp of the concept:
Knock off the crap.
I don't want to hear any whining about who started it and when. I've witnessed the devolution of this forum and both of you have played your part.
And no, I don't need a PM saying it's the other guy's fault.
Stop now.
Oh-Ran-Ji
Mod Team |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I do believe you'll need to be more specific, and I am not being facetious. The *couched* insult is a specialty of my opponent. He, and others, seem to believe if they don't use an epithet, they haven't insulted. Personally, I like the efficiency of the epithet, so I don't have any problem: drop the epithets, instant clean posting. Gopher, on the other hand, may have an adjustment period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
