We praise democracy most of the time, but we practice it as if we had accepted every argument against it, as if we believed it must depress the level of culture and of public life
Quote of the day
 Avaaz/Mugabe Petition Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
NavigationThe World
|
 |
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
With the disclosure of the Downing Street Memo (http://downingstreetmemo.com/), and its progeny, there is now substantial documentary evidence that the Bush administration participated in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government by knowingly misrepresenting intelligence to induce the U.S. Congress to approve and fund the war in Iraq.
Over half a million Americans are petitioning the White House to answer to the charges. One hundred members of the House have also demanded that the WHite House answer the key allegation contained in the Memo: Was the intelligence "fixed"?
On a balance of probabilties, the answer is an undoubted yes. If it is true beyond a reasonable doubt, Bush et al. should be impeached and then indicted for war crime.
To wit:
RESOLVED, That George W. Bush, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.
ARTICLE 1
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Geroge W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the act of fraud with respect to the conception, implementation, and execution of a policy of illegal war against the sovereign state of Iraq, culminating in Operation Iraqi Freedom, in that:
On and before October 1, 2002, George W. Bush, in concert with the Vice President, Secretaries of State and Defense, and others, did knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal, or cover up a material fact; and further made materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations; and furthermore, made and used false writings and documents knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; knowingly and with intent to defraud the United States, and agencies thereof, for the purpose of securing a resolution passed by the United States Senate on that date authorizing the use of force against the sovereign state of Iraq. Subsequent thereto, George W. Bush, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal actviity; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:
1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
4. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Congressional Committees;
5. approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful activities;
6. endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
7. disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
8. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to the military threat posed by the sovereign state of Iraq; and
9. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
In all of this, George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
Submitted on Fri, 2005-06-17 03:04
Re: IT IS TIME TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRES
Neospinninglikeatop,
You've got a real wild hair tonight.
Re: IT IS TIME TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRES
Beat it, tttryosborn. You turtled on the Memorial Day Prayer thread when the going got hot. You got nothing to offer.
Re: IT IS TIME TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRES
Neoyourhurtingmyfeelings,
You're right. I have nothing to offer--to one-sided debates.
Re: IT IS TIME TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRES
Neospittingfire,
As part of the debate over the so-called Downing Street Memos, this article will interest you:
The Times OnLine has posted the text of a Cabinet Office Paper dated July 21, 2002 (two days before the supposed Downing Street Memo) that details the British government's conditions for military action against Iraq. This is an authentic document. It is not a "memo" in which the writer is conjecturing about American "options" in Iraq. It was not released a few days prior to British elections in an attempt to influence the outcome.
Item 6 of the Cabinet Paper:
"Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq."
A Cabinet Paper is an official record. It says "no political decisions have been taken." Before you fly off the handle about the "options" of the US, remember the record says "drafted options". That means the US had a CONTINGENCY PLAN in place. In case you don't know what that means, all governments make contingency plans for ALL POSSIBLE SITUATIONS (disaster relief, national defense, as well as possible military action around the world). Contingency planning has been around for hundred of years. History buffs on this website will recall the Schleiffen Plan. That was Imperial Germany's plan to invade and defeat France prior to World War 1. Saddam had his own contingency plan against an invasion of Iraq. Whether it included bluffing the world into thinking he had WMD is something we may find out at his trial.
Item 5. of the Cabinet Paper:
"Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbors or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD." The US, Britain, Europe and Saddam's own generals thought Iraq possessed them at this time.
Articles by Times OnLine and Editor&Publisher about the so-called memo are only conjectures about the memo-writer's conjecture of US "options"-- hardly scientific journalism.
Bush-haters who think this so-called memo is a smoking gun just have another wet dream-- on their hands.
Re: IT IS TIME TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRES
To Ttrryosborn
A "political decision" is an official pronouncement of policy. You are being intentionally or otherwise deaf, dumb and blind to the crux of the issue: was there an unofficial pronouncement of policy of pursuing an unlawful war against Iraq predating the public declarations of Bush and his officials that no decision had been made, and further to this unofficial declaration of war, did Bush et al. manipulate the intelligence to mislead Congress and the American people into supporting an illegal war for which there was no necessity or justification.
The evidence of ex-administration officals repeats and confirms the allegation that since Day One of the Bush administration, war on Iraq was the priority. The incredible intelligence "failures" now appear contrived. The awareness that the war on Iraq was illegal seems manifest.
Since this is the document you rely upon to "prove" that no decision had been made, then let's read it together.
Par. 3 confirms that on the date of this document, July 21, 2002, it was still "necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action." If no conditions existed for legal support for action existed in 2002, what changed between then and the launch of the invasion: nothing. This problem is repeated in Par. 10, whereby "we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base." The obvious prooccupation is not with military action, it is with finding a legal excuse.
The "problem" of no legal justification is so great that we find an admission that Hussein must be induced to create one whereby "an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003."
Regarding the Downing Street Memo of July 23, 2002, it is not a "memo in which the writer is conjecturing about American 'options' in Iraq". It is the official minutes of a Cabinet meeting. It recounts the details of "recent talks in Washington." Its states that as of July, 2002, "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."
It is authentic, it is accurate, and it is damning: this war was unnecessary, unjustified, and illegal.
Re: IT IS TIME TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRES
Neoflippingout,
That wild hair of yours keeps creeping higher and higher.
Your friends at The Times OnLine are the ones who printed the Cabinet Paper which refutes the wild conjectures of Bush bashers and blogaholics regarding the Downing Street Memo. Your precious memo contains no direct correspondence from anyone in the US government. The author (if one exists) doesn't even say is his conjectures are first-hand, or second. The website you recommend regarding the memo clearly states at the conclusion that the British government disavows it. I noticed that you have avoided any comment on the timing of the memo's release-- 4 days before the general elections, in Britain. Can you honestly say that,true or untrue, it wasn't published in an effort to influence the outcome. The paper sets out in black and white the British government's position and has been acknowledged by the British government as being authentic.
Paragraph 3 and 10 of the Cabinet Paper confirm the requirements necessary for an invasion of Iraq. What is obvious is your state of mind to try and spin their meaning to your ulterior motives-- not even a good try.
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, whom your website places in the controversy has stated in Parliament that his opinion of war with Iraq was legal. He has labelled any charges to the contrary as "these conspiracy fantasies which are simply untrue."Hear hear.
Go look under another rock.
Re: IT IS TIME TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRES
To: Ttrryosborn
Your precious memo contains no direct correspondence from anyone in the US government.
What document are you referring to? Are you referring to Cabinet Office Paper dated July 21, 2002 (the Memo you relied upon), or are you referring to the infamous Downing Street Memo (the Memo I am relying on)? If you are referring to the Downing Street Memo, then you obviously do not understand the document, or you have not read it. I suspect it is both. It is the compiled minutes of a British Cabinet meeting.
The author (if one exists) doesn't even say is his conjectures are first-hand, or second.
An authour obviously exists. It does not contain "conjectures", it reports the minutes of a British Cabinet meeting, unless you are referring to your Memo, on which you rely upon to assert in your post that "no political decisions have been taken." So surely you are not challenging the merit of a document on which you just previously have relied.
The website you recommend regarding the memo clearly states at the conclusion that the British government disavows it.
What Memo are you referring to, and where at http://downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html is there anything even remotely suggesting the documents are faked? Please note: "British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/
I noticed that you have avoided any comment on the timing of the memo's release-- 4 days before the general elections, in Britain. Can you honestly say that,true or untrue, it wasn't published in an effort to influence the outcome. The paper sets out in black and white the British government's position and has been acknowledged by the British government as being authentic.
The domestic politics prevailing at the time of the release of both memoes is irrelevant to their contents.
Paragraph 3 and 10 of the Cabinet Paper confirm the requirements necessary for an invasion of Iraq.
Exactly, a "legal basis", in which it is stated none existed at that time.
What is obvious is your state of mind to try and spin their meaning to your ulterior motives-- not even a good try.
I simply rely upon the meaning of the words. And the "try", as you note, appears good enough for 122 members of the House to sign a letter to the President demanding answers. The "try" is good enough to spur over 500,000 Americans to sign a petition demanding answers.
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, whom your website places in the controversy has stated in Parliament that his opinion of war with Iraq was legal. He has labelled any charges to the contrary as "these conspiracy fantasies which are simply untrue."Hear hear.
What I heard was that Att. Gen. Lord Goldsmith maintained the position that there was no sufficient legal basis (as per a 20-page memo signed by him addressed to the PM) for the invasion until three days before its launch when pressed by the British Chief of Staff. He had demanded a written opinion confirming the legality of the adventure, requested in fear that all of them may end up in the dock of the ICJ, of which the UK is a member. Goldsmith coughed up a 1-page "opinion" to satisfy the General.
Go look under another rock.
Conyers et al. are in the process of unearthing many a rock. Stay tuned.
Re: IT IS TIME TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRES
Neoputonyourglassessheesh,
What part of Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's refutal in Parliament did you fail to read? He is a member of the government. Sorry if the comments of a living person didn't make it into your blogs. I know, you're still reading the anti-american section of the newspaper and not the rest of it. Shame, shame. Try to read my post again. Look for the word "fantasies".
Sorry to read that you can't, or won't, comment on the timing of this "memo" and the general elections. You're the great believer in conspiracies. Doesn't this one raise even a tiny weeny wild hair? If this memo is an official record, why was it not called a "Cabinet Office Paper" by those who published it? What were they hedging?
The memo is still the conjectures of what other people are thinking. Why hasn't its author stepped forward? Why doesn't he (or she) divulge his sources?
In US politics, partisan grandstanding by one party to embarass a President from the other party is hardly new. The Republicans got their whacks against Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. They got as far as impeachment (I did not agree with it). The Democrats will not get that far. Keep looking under those rocks.
Re: IT IS TIME TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRES
Ttrryosborn:
What Memo are u talking about?
Sorry to read that you can't, or won't, comment on the timing of this "memo" and the general elections.
Sorry to read that you cannot read, for I did: its irrelevant.
Re: IT IS TIME TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRES
Neosidestepper,
Did I say that you can't, or won't comment on the timing of you precious Downing Street memo and the general elections.
A thousand pardons.
You ran away from the timing of the memo with the general elections.
You know as well as me that this memo was timed to influence the outcome of the elections. You don't have the guts to comment because Blair won anyway.
That's what makes this memo irrelevant. Get used to it.
Re: IT IS TIME TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRES
The 23 July 2002 memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, who works in the Foreign Office. The one that states (amongst other things) that:
C 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.
There's another memo by Jack Straw from 2002, discussing the invasion. Also stuff by the Chief Foreign Policy Adviser, British Ambassador etc. All this is on the website Neocynic linked to.
The original memo (the Rycroft one) was released before the election, the others were released after.
By-the-way, the Sunday Times clearly states that the Cabinet Paper is a transcript, not the original document. Unlike the the Rycroft memo. I'm not suggesting that it's forgered, it's just good to get our facts straight.
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, whom your website places in the controversy has stated in Parliament that his opinion of war with Iraq was legal. He has labelled any charges to the contrary as "these conspiracy fantasies which are simply untrue
You've mentioned this before, and ignored me when I corrected you. It is claims that he was lent on by Number 10. that Goldsmith labelled as "conspiracy theories", nothing to do with the "Downing Street memo".
For once you may want to review the evidence before forming an opinion...
Message was edited by: Matt Murrell
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
My question is this: Practically speaking, how is the President supposed to be impeached if the votes to bring these charges against him do not exist? It cannot happen. Speaking in principle, I agree with the articles here; they are indeed high crimes committed by the Executive against the American people, and to that end our "leaders" must be held accountable. Again, impeachment is at the moment impossible.
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
RWAC,
Bush and Blair had justification to invade Iraq.The degree of justification makes for a good debate, but an academic debate all the same. They had a coalition of nations to back them up in a combined effort to unseat Saddam. No one can deny that without insulting those nations involved. They and the coalition had the guts to do it. Get over it because it's a done deal. Neither man will give in to terrorism despite catcalls from hand-wringing hacks. They will not wet their pants at the computer when minor issues are blown out of proportion. They are going to help the Iraqi people build a nation without Saddam, his Baathist thugs, or outside agitators. You can like it, or lump it. Both men put their jobs on the line to get the job done and both men won. All you've done is gripe. Any petty issues brought up about the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom were negated by the re-election of these men as well as in Australia. The Downing Street Memo was published just four days before the general elections in an obvious attempt to influence the outcome and it made no difference. It makes no difference now. You're just pissing in the wind.
What amazes me about contributors to OD is the amount of useless moaning about events which are done and nothing about those events which are upcoming. Are US haters on OD so buried in rage that they have forgotten that a country of 25 million is on the road to building a country. Any opinions about the future out there?
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Relatives of some troops killed in Iraq seek hearings on Downing Street memo
By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Friday, June 17, 2005
"...shows that Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq and ignored evidence that showed the country had no weapons of mass destruction."
“Military action was now seen as inevitable,” the memo reads. “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 group also petitioned lawmakers to set a specific date for the full withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., and other Republicans who last month supported an unsuccessful measure to mandate an exit date were presented with a certificate of thanks from the group.
Jones, who plans to introduce similar legislation on Thursday, said he was “heartsick” at the families’ loss and pledged to help them in their efforts."
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=28991&archive=true
Troops must love reading this just before heading out for patrol
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Neocretin makes a good point -- unwittingly, of course.
Interesting, isn't it, that this article should appear in Stars & Stripes, the official military newspaper of the U.S. armed forces? Kinda gives the lie to all the conspiracy talk about how troops are kept in the dark, how the government operates in secrecy?
The fact is, troops in Iraq and Afghanistan know exactly what's at stake, as do their families back home. And their families have every right to question the manner in which their sons and daughters are sent to war, and to hold their leaders accountable.
But defeatists and appeasers such as Neofraud don't get it. The body counts don't tell the whole story, nor do the newspaper articles. The troops heading out on patrol might read this article, but then they'll forget about it because they have a job to do, and they realize, as Neohypocrite can't and never will, that only the people there, on the ground, in danger every day, understand what is really going on. The troops coming home don't talk about the car bombs and the terrorists and the friends they've seen hurt and killed. They talk about the Iraqis they've helped, the schools and roads and power stations and water purification facilities they've repaired or built, and how it's clear to them that Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone, and appreciate the help.
So keep on posting all the negatives you can lay your hands on, Neoarse (the spelling was for you). And don't worry about the troops' morale: They know more about just about everything than you ever will, they understand what's important and what is not, and they know to ignore nattering nabobs of negativity, both the real Americans who just don't know any better, and the non-Americans such as yourself who only wish to see the U.S. fail, whatever the cost.
Henry Hart
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
henry hart 1,
Regarding neomommiedearest.
BRING'EM ON; she's a mom
BRING'EM ON; she's got two kids
BRING'EM ON; she's got a computer
BRING'EM ON; she's got time on her hands
BRING'EM ON; she's doesn't need a coathanger to scare the kids. She could just make them read her posts.
BRING'EM ON she's parroting the website "Today in Iraq" a pro-terrorist website which refers to George Bush as "a piece of shit". We know how objective that makes her.
BRING'EM ON; she doesn't know, or care about that Saddam's thugs, for-hire criminals and outside agitators are desperately trying to create a civil war prior to new elections.
BRING'EM ON; how would she feel about these thugs if they came to her house while the kids were at school, cut her open like a fish, pulled out her guts, planted explosives in her dead corpse,sewed her up and blew her and the kids up by remote when they came home?In Iraq, They kidnapped an unarmed Iraqi, booby-trapped his body, dumped him on the street and called his father to get him. That's just one of the tricks used by the for-hire thugs she admires-- disgusting. Click to MEMRITV. It is Arab television with english subtitles. It includes confessions of terrorists captured in Iraq. Are they fighting for the people of Iraq? Hell no. They look at Iraqis as catches. they get paid $200 for each one they "slaughter" If they kill ten, they can move up the terrorist corporate ladder and become "emirs" with an executive's pay of $1500 per month and their own crew of butchers. And these internuts on OD have a problem with the US?
BRING'EM ON; neomommiedearest ignore's the complete news of Iraq. Elimination of rebels and rebel hideouts, sunni negotiations for an armistice, progress towards a constitution and now European and UN support for the Iraqi government mean absolutely nothing to "Today in Iraq", I mean neomommiedearest.
BRING'EM ON; No one who touches the war on terror can do so and still have clean hands. The internuts, who look under every rock for something to criticize, have hands just as dirty as those who stick the knife, pull the trigger, or push the remote to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis. That includes neomom.
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Ttrryosborn,
You said to RWAC:
"The Downing Street Memo was published just four days before the general elections in an obvious attempt to influence the outcome and it made no difference. It makes no difference now. You're just pissing in the wind.
What amazes me about contributors to OD is the amount of useless moaning about events which are done and nothing about those events which are upcoming. [...] Any opinions about the future out there?"
As you are fond to use Hollywood movies on posts, I might recommend Walt Disney's Lion King, in the scene where the ape hits the lion on the head and says it doesn't matter because it was on the past.
I am incapable of exact prediction of the future, however in general terms I can say it will look like a lot of the past with a new facade.
Having an instance where an administration manipulated its country and several other countries to invade another is not an "academic debate", as you said. It would not be so academic if the same kind of manipulation went into your domestic affairs, namely for political control. Therefore, a mobilization of concerned citizens makes sense; apparently Neocynic is on one side and you are on another.
The violence you propose would change Neocynic's mind could be possible. You just have to imagine that you where both Iraqis living in present day Iraq (it is ridiculous, I know, but you suggested it). But if you go back to Iraq's past, I believe Neocynic would oppose the Iraqi President on humanitarian reasons (and you...?)and if the majority of Iraqis could think alike maybe the present situation would never exist.
Now that really shows how Neocynic is wrong!
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Eduardo, Eduardo, Eduardo
Did I just read you are trying to compare real life to a cartoon? How sad.
You refuse to give an opinion on what needs to be done now in Iraq for the benefit of her people? You would rather waste time re-writing history than talk about the future? You also want to assign my place and the place of others in your version of the past? That is really the indication of an obsessive mind-- a common trait of many on OD. Again very sad.
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Eduardo_Ferreira and others,
(Eduardo, nice to see you back on OD).
I wonder if you would consider a proposal to improve the quality of the debate on OD. The incresingly vicious name calling which has infected this thread of OD over the last few months or more, is bringing the whole thing into a disreputable state. I have been guilty of some of this behaviour but am trying to stop it.However it is being perpetrated at ever more nasty levels by Ttrryosborn and to a lesser but still obvious extent by henry_hart and fdbjr. These are political adversaries of mine but so are some others who do not engage in this form of invective such as Iron Mike and Rickgibsonlaw.
My proposal is that the Ttrryosborn, henry_hart and fdbjr are ignored by not responding to their posts until they learn to curb their nasty tongues and stop the name calling. If this does not happen the whole thread will descend into a complete slanging match and one will have to join in this daft game and treat the thread as a gameboard and give up on normal discourse or leave this thread and go elsewhere. It may be that if the whole scene degenerates into a game of verbal fisticuffs, the moderator will attempt to lay down some reasonable standards and restore 'law and order'.
You can certainly expect Ttrryosborn and henry_hart to react to this proposal with their usual insults and
arrogance and to accuse me of hypocrisy and this is a charge that I will not deny. I believe they indulge in their contemptable behaviour deliberately to provoke a similar response, so that they can then descend into the mode of 'debate' that suits their warped minds.
It is interesting to note that the vituperation
that is now common on this thread is almost entirely the work of those on the neocon side of the controversies. If you look at neocynic, Matt Murrell, ronr327, joanne nee, erinleonard2,SR Heywood and others you will not find the degree of abusive expression that those I have listed indulge in. I would hasten, once again, to exclude Iron Mike and Rickgibsonlaw from this tendency, as I would Republican X, who used to post and has not done so lately.
Message was edited by: brolly3
Message was edited by: brolly3
Message was edited by: brolly3
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Ttrryosborn,
You say:
"Did I just read you are trying to compare real life to a cartoon? How sad."
Do you confuse the carrier with the message? That is even more sad.
"You refuse to give an opinion on what needs to be done now in Iraq for the benefit of her people?"
No. I do not, you did not ask.
In my opinion, if you wish peace and prosperity in Iraq, the US should take out its troops and replace them by troops from Arab countries, while maintaining the support for the reconstruction using Iraqi and Middle East companies instead of American companies. That would remove the insurgency its excuse to operate and recruit people, while it could provide development for that country and region.
Of course, then you would ask why would the US do that? Because of its kind hearth?
"You would rather waste time re-writing history than talk about the future?"
Understanding is not re-writing, and many times you have to see things beyond their appearances. You should be the one to understand it, since you frequently say (and correctly) that some sources are unreliable. Does that mean you are re-writing it?
But if you do not work to understand the past, clearly you will repeat its mistakes in the future.
"You also want to assign my place and the place of others in your version of the past?"
I suppose you are talking to my exercise of imagination (image that you are Iraqis...)
That is very partial of you! You give yourself permission to imagine things happening to Neocynic and yet I have no such permission involving you and Neocynic.
Please notice that (in opposition to your exercise of imagination), I did not wish you or Neocynic in harms way, and did not assign a place for you: I ask what place you would take.
Indeed you where the one who refused to share with us what would you do if you where an Iraqi under Saddam Hussein.
"That is really the indication of an obsessive mind-- a common trait of many on OD."
You are right, we all have our obsessions. It is a human trait. What is yours?
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Brolly,
Thank you for your welcome and for your kind words. It is clearly a non-violent tactic that you are using to confront written violence.
However I am adept of the Aikido Philosophy, and it states that while it is wrong to harm others you have the duty to defend yourself, and others in need. And the ideal defense is to deflect attacks using their own intention.
I wish no harm to their personal integrity, but their opinion is worth an answer, even when they use an exasperating logic. I hope my patience will survive that trial.
It is to expect that light comes to the discussion. Eventually...
I have no problem in recognizing that I may learn something myself, for it is the difficulties that provide learning experiences.
I will however try to avoid going much off subject.
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Eduardo_Ferreira,
Thanks for your response. I understand the reasons you advance for not adopting my proposal.
I suppose that I hardly expected you or the others to accept my recommendation. My chief aim was to bring a focus on the deterioration that has taken place since correspondents like Ttrryosborn, henry_hart and fdbjr have decided that they can misuse this thread to throw expletives at every one that disagrees with them. Ttrryosborn's very stupid mocking of neocynic and joanne nee, deserves a riposte from all on OD and it is a pity that the moderator doesn't intervene.
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Brolly,
While appreciate you singling me out not to be ignored, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Open Democracy is dependant upon free speech--including speech you might find offensive. I for one appreciate your submissions as much as those you identify as unworthy of response.
I've borne the slings and arrows of ad hominem attack from liberal opponents, including a particularly humorous one from our favorite Welsh lawyer questioning my sexuality! I guess I really touched a nerve that time! LOL :)
I think folks here should be able to maintain a sense of humor and not take posts personally. Frankly I've always thought taking offense simply leaves you more vulnerable to attack. In any event, when you get beyond the rhetoric and hyperbole, there are almost always nuggets of gold in every post which should not be overlooked. Of course, sometimes it's liberal "fools gold," but I believe in the words of Joseph Henry, the first director of the Smithsonian Institution who said,
"All knowledge is profitable; profitable in its ennobling effect on the character, in the pleasure it imparts in its acquisition, as well as in the power it gives over the operations of mind and of matter. All knowledge is useful; every part of this complex system of nature is connected with every other. Nothing is isolated. The discovery of to-day, which appears unconnected with any useful process, may, in the course of a few years, become the fruitful source of a thousand inventions. "
Smithsonian Annual Report for 1851, p. 10.
While Joseph Henry was talking specifically about scientific knowledge, I believe the same applies to ideas shared in the arena of political debate.
Cheers,
IM
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Why am I not shocked and surprised that Brolly is advocating censorship of someone he disagrees with?;)
Henry "Blackballed" Hart
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
henry_hart,
Yes, I am suggesting you are 'blackballed'.
If you mend your ways and become less of a 'hothead', I would recommend that you be allowed back. Now isn't that magnanimous of me. I am only taking a leaf out of the neocon's book, which involved suppressing any genuine 'intelligence' that might have upset their ideologically flawed and unrealistic Likudnik aims.
Three cheers for Pat Buchanon. He saw right through them.
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
>>The incresingly vicious name calling which has infected this thread of OD over the last few months or more, is bringing the whole thing into a disreputable state. I have been guilty of some of this behaviour but am trying to stop it. Now isn't that magnanimous of me. I am only taking a leaf out of the neocon's book, which involved suppressing any genuine 'intelligence' that might have upset their ideologically flawed and unrealistic Likudnik aims.
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Poor Ttrry,
I didn't realize you underwent such a baptism of fire when you first chanced to post to OD.I am left to wonder what you could have said that so aggrevated those nasty specimens that lurk in the deep of this thread.
I want to take full responsibilty for any of the mean things that were perpetrated upon you by myself and in response to your list of them, I would plead as follows:
["Apologize for whoever called me an SOB"] Not guilty and I reserve my defence.
["Apologize for whoever called me a troll"]
Not guilty as I don't even know what the word means.
["Apologize for those who told me to quit this site".]
Guilty as charged but no apology. I still think that you would be doing everyone, including yourself, a favour by going, but quietly, if you please.
["Apologize for those who wanted to censor me".]
Not guilty but in your case it would be a good idea.
["Apologize for those who smear the US, George Bush and Tony Blair (You can still disagree with them).
That should level the playing field."]
If speaking the truth about these SOB's is called a smear, then guilty but not a fraction as guilty as this
lot are of heinous crimes and deceit.
Now as for level playing fields, please let me know where I can find one as I would go a long way to see it. Like people who live in the Sahara and have never seen snow, I have never seen a level playing field. Or perhaps I wouldn't recognize it even if it was in front of me.
Message was edited by: brolly3
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Iron Mike,
["Oops. That didn't last long! You didn't even make it to the next page".]
You sound surprised!
["Personally, I think your portrayal of "neocons" is worthy of your same critique of my portrayal of "liberals."]
You would say that, wouldn't you.
Message was edited by: brolly3
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Ttrry,
You have now mastered the art of insults and name-calling. I think it is time for you to move on to more challenging things.
I have noticed that when you give the subjects at hand time, I often find your comments enriching and contributing. But it is clear that you often tend to relay on childish word games with your ambition to answer every thread on OD. This is not the place for such language, these issues are not the issues you can mindlessly cover with the first disprovable comment that jump up in your head.
The only thing to your defense is that with time insults loose their presumable sting and that it then is only natural to push the limits further. It is then easy to loose the sense of where the line goes for what is acceptable. Trust me when I tell you that on this thread you have gone way beyond that line. I will not even exemplify when I find even that offensive.
HH,
It was surprising to see that a clever man like you would dive into such a sewer and then not be adult about it to and prove you had made a poor exception.
Neocynic,
You took a great initiative bringing up the points concerning the impeachment, it is just sad that we have not been able to fully give it the right kind of attention here on OD. I would very much like you to continue the issue that RWAC set forth:
“My question is this: Practically speaking, how is the President supposed to be impeached if the votes to bring these charges against him do not exist? It cannot happen. Speaking in principle, I agree with the articles here; they are indeed high crimes committed by the Executive against the American people, and to that end our ‘leaders’ must be held accountable. Again, impeachment is at the moment impossible. “
To all,
Let us help each other to show respect for ours and others thoughts by staying clear of mockery and slander. Don’t make OD into a poor American sitcom.
//CL
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Christian:
"HH,
It was surprising to see that a clever man like you would dive into such a sewer and then not be adult about it to and prove you had made a poor exception."
Not sure what sewer I dove into -- could you enlighten me?
As to this:
"Let us help each other to show respect for ours and others thoughts by staying clear of mockery and slander. Don’t make OD into a poor American sitcom."
Granted, a higher tone would be nice. Perhaps a good start might have been not inserting an insult about American culture into your request not to insult each other. Just a thought.
HH
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
HH,
I said: Don’t make OD into a poor American sitcom.
You said: Granted, a higher tone would be nice. Perhaps a good start might have been not inserting an insult about American culture into your request not to insult each other. Just a thought.
...
I say: Hold that thought and ponder on the possibility that there were poor and brilliant American sitcoms. Then you can ask yourself what you know about sitcoms elsewhere and if there would be a reason why I used "American" as a reference. But since you are still puzzled about what "sewer" you where last swimming in, it might just a distraction from more important things.
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Dear Christian,
Excuse me for butting in your conversation with Henry, but on your comment on the use of American sitcoms could have been overlooked a)because other countries sitcoms are not translated into english and broadcasted here-with the exception of some of the childrens show ie-the wiggles, the koala brothers or b)since the title of the discusion is "American power &the world" and the tone of the threads are generally related to America and what it does.
At least that is how I would look at it.
Again excuse the intrusion, I know that Henry is quite intelligent, but it was such a polite post that I couldnt help it. My apologies Henry.
Truly,
Joeanna
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Ttrryosborn,
Be careful now. You have opended yourself up. If every thing you say in future is not a cast iron fact, you will be guilty of SPECULATION. Given that you do this most of the time, it was unwise of you to accuse everyone yu disagree with of doing it. As you sow, so shall you reap.
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
brolly3,
I have no agenda, no obsessions to inflict on those on OD. I have pointed out to you, and others, that ALL your wild hairs are just SPECULATION. Can you live with that?
It will be fun to see.
Sweet wet dreams.
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.
Among those living in the Western states, a 52% majority favors Congress using the impeachment mechanism while just 41% are opposed; in Eastern states, 49% are in favor and 45% opposed. In the South, meanwhile, impeachment is opposed by three-in-five voters (60%) and supported by just one-in-three (34%); in the Central/Great Lakes region, 52% are opposed and 38% in favor.
Impeachment is overwhelmingly rejected in the Red States—just 36% say they agree Congress should use it if the President is found to have lied on Iraq, while 55% reject this view; in the “Blue States” that voted for Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry in 2004, meanwhile, a plurality of 48% favors such proceedings while 45% are opposed.
A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush’s fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not. Independents are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49% opposed.
http://www.zogby.com/news
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Dear Ttrryosborn,
What is up with your obsession with wet dreams? If anyone disagrees with you view you label them as internuts, UShaters afflicted with rabies or a sexual dysfunction of having ejaculated during REM sleep.
I am an American, I dont hate my country, I am not an Internut (whatever that is; or if provided with a defenition of one I reserve the right to revoke my statement if I fit the bill) and find no sexual pleasure in a debate about a war.
As with any political discussion, unless you are in the oval office at that very time, isnt everything speculative? Bush, SPECULATED on the intel he received to be viable and due to the reports that 12 years ago or so Saddam used Sarin gas on his people, he speculated that it must be true. He has also SPECULATED that we will win the war on terrorism, up in Maine we have a saying "Hard tellin, not knowin"--translates into I cannot make a valid statement without all the information at hand. We are pretty direct up here.
Once again, I say, we live in a Global Community. The statements President Bush has made about going into other countries to eradicate evil, is ambiguous at best. What if, another country sees us a threat to their country, after all their are two sides to a coin. We might be perceived as evil. I think in the immortal words of Teddy "walk softly, but carry a big stick".
I could really do without equating political views with getting goo on ones sheets, thanks.
Joeanna
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Joeanna Nee,
Catching up with your post of July2. You are complaining about labels?
I would point out to you that the US haters on OD are the ones who introduced labels -- "imperialism", "neocons", "right-wingers"-- you get my point. They insisted on continuing which these vague labels even though I asked them to refrain. I was called vulgar names and told to get off OD as a result. As a fair-minded person, I am sure you will join me in condemning such tactics. Their use of these labels is a blatant attempt at juicing up their arguments
by means of baiting.
If you are accusing me of the same thing-- guilty. Turnabout is fair play. I just don't like to fall back on tired old phrases.
As for Bush, he had the authority of the US Congree,NATO allies AND "SPECULATION" at his disposal when he lead the coalition into Iraq. That horse left the barn two years ago. If you are a direct person, what part of overthrowing Saddam don't you understand?
"The Global Community" is a vague term open to interpretation. What is your "direct" point.
"We might be percieved as evil"? To those who hate democracy, yes. There are some millions who hate democracy, and us. But there are hundreds of millions who love democracy and us.
Which way do the scales tip for you? Global politics, terrorism, counter terrorism, beheadings, kidnappings, ambushes, religious radicalism
beheadings, kidnappings, car-bombings, ambushes and obsessions with the US are very messy subjects. You can't do it with white gloves and clean shoes. Something is going to stick.
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
The one thing that Ttrryosborn can be relied upon is to ignore the evidence that has been produced to support the point of this string. He cites everything under the sun to avoid having to deal with the main argument - that Bush and his cohorts were lying to the world and the American people in particular.
When someone is charged with a crime, the only relevant fact is whether they guilty or not. If they plead guilty, then one can take into account mitigating circumstances, if they apply. In this case there is no doubt about the crime.Ttrryosborn merely relates possible mitigating circumstances. This is not in itself a defence against the charge. But putting the cart before the horse is typical of Ttrry.
Message was edited by: brolly3
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Dear Ttrry,
I just reread my post to try to understand what the hell it is that your trying to say to me. I suggest you reread it again, becuase you are way off the mark-ie "turnabout is fair play" when I wrote that two wrongs dont make one right.
We did not have alot of support going into Iraq, what part of that dont YOU understand?
The term Global community is not vague, how could that be vague? Look beyond the now, and really take a look at what is down the road. Heres a mind twist for you, whos to say that someone elses form of government is wrong and ours is right? Let me guess, you were not a big fan of philosophy, were you?
This is what I SEE ... an escalation from the kidnappings in Iran in the eigthies, communism crumbled due to its own lack of economic strength and we "helped" them and now they cant account for alot their nukes, the Russian mob runs most of the country-and makes our mafia look like a knitting circle-alot of their doctors dont get paid for months, but HEY they are a DEMOCRACY and we were just so helpful. Did I praise George Bush for bombing the shit out of Afghanistan YOU BETCHA'! Do I think the patriot act flies in the face of whats left of the constitution and the bill of rights YOU BETCHA'! Do I think we should get our troops home YOU BETCHA'!
Ive got news for you Ttrry, we have kidnappings, car jackings, murders, religious radicals, racists, ambushes (gang warfare)right here at home, and I would have to say that living in California, you would find that sticky within itself. I sure as hell do, we have it here in Maine. Keeping ones own house clean speaks volumes.
My DIRECT point is that we should be finding a better way that opens up dialog with Global leaders, like China. Just as one point, they are dealing with the Russians for oil because they want NOTHING to do with the "US influenced" middle east. MSNBC-Rueters news on my homepage. Lets look at North Korea, we just had a scary one there and it still hasnt been settled. Oh, how about Cuba? We still have a half-ass embargo on them and how old is Fidel Castro now? Bush is basically telling The Global Community that if you harbor terrorist we will come after you. Now, you are lets say you are Pakistan, and they do have nukes, and they openly hate us and are just tolerating us; wouldnt you start thinking?
Ive delightfully lived through the Vietnam experience everytime my father had a friggin flashback, so I wouldnt say my shoes are clean. I know things that most women shouldnt know at the age of six. I can disembowel a man in two different ways, I know how to use my body to kill a man in six different ways, I also know how to rip a man testes out with my hands. So, tell me SIR, what about my post is it that YOU do NOT understand??
Joeanna
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
The Indictments Begin to Pile Up Like Bodybags:
Panel indicts US, UK over Iraq
By Jonathan Gorvett in Istanbul
Tuesday 28 June 2005, 3:04 Makka Time, 0:04 GMT
The World Tribunal on Iraq delivered its verdict in Istanbul
An independent anti-war tribunal has found the United States and United Kingdom guilty of a variety of crimes in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The World Tribunal on Iraq, which has roots in the anti-war movement in the West and is intended to collect testimony for legal cases connected with the war, met over three days in Istanbul, Turkey.
The independent panel of academics, writers and activists in its concluding verdict on Monday found the US and UK governments guilty of "planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles".
It also found the US-led forces had been "intentionally directing attacks upon civilians and hospitals, medical centres, residential neighbourhoods, electricity stations, and water purification facilities" in violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B5CAF6D0-7F6F-4585-B002-1B6631FEC3B1.htm
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
The World Tribunal on Iraq?
Are you serious??
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
henry_hart,
["The World Tribunal on Iraq?
Are you serious??"]
You sound like John McEnroe did at Wimbledon in the 1980's, when he would not accept the Umpire's calls. He was, of course, behaving like a spoilt brat who couldn't get his own way. You are the same!
Of course neocynic is serious. Why is it so hard for you to believe? Is it because you think that the US is beyond being judged for its conduct because it is too powerful? If so, you are obviously wrong.
You imply that no one has the right to judge US actions.
No nation just like no individual stands above the law indefinitely.
Message was edited by: brolly3
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED
Dear Joeanna,
I read with interest your post, and if I may, I would like to make some comments.
My father had also a war experience in Africa, and one of the worst places of that war: Guinea. With a lot less publicity that the Vietnam war - and with lower scale in many other aspects - it still remained a dirty war that left many soldiers traumatized. I am not quite sure about my father, but he never liked to discuss that war. We did get some stories out of him, with great reluctance.
What amazes me is that your father had passed you the details of the "trade", especially when you where a 6 years old child.
I said I was amazed but not surprise. I came to the conclusion that the US people take things rather seriously, and when they do something they devote themselves fully to that thing.
That is a great quality and a huge flaw. It depends on the application. In the case of police, justice and military matters, it may create problems.
Probably the opposite of this "devotion" is my own people that tend to leave the deeper involvement to others, but are capable of amazing performances when forced to. That is also a good quality and a huge flaw. But the range of applications where it is a flaw in enormous, therefore my country is a mess.
This is a philosophic matter with many implications that should be discussed elsewhere, but I will try to keep it relevant to the context of this forum.
It appears to me that neither choice is a good one, but the goal would be a balance of the two, mingled with reason and spirituality.
Certainly you should commit yourself to the work you do, and excel on it. But not at the cost of your soul, your humanity, or your family. Therefore I pity those poor creatures that inflict torture on others convinced that they are doing their "job" and it will be a "job" well done. They are the ones that lose, as well as the nation that is responsible for it.
It is also correct that you should follow the rules you are bond to. But not to the extent that those rules become a blind tool of inhumanity. There are many paths to reach the same destiny, and if we see only one then we are as much as blind.
Therefore I am unsure that it is the US Administration to hold the sole responsibility of what is happening in Iraq and the War on Terror. People that give the orders depend on others to fulfill them, and they are in power because they where put there.
It is clear to me that the small reflect onto the big. What we are as individuals reflect on our nation. Others are less kind and say that "nations deserve the leaders they have" (look at the Gulag Archipelago, where Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said that the Russians deserved the Stalin dictatorship).
Without even addressing the global issues that will result on our destiny as a species, I think people should learn and improve themselves. If we look only onto others we may overlook the "beam in our own eye".
I do not assign myself a moral high ground either. I often ask if I would not do the same as others if I where on their shoes. Anybody is tempted to imagine itself as a guard in Abu Grahib prision?
Re: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAV |
Posts: 98
Joined: 2005-05-13