House Narrowly Avoids Having to Debate Impeachment of Cheney 1033
An anonymous reader writes "Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) yesterday successfully moved articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney to the House Judiciary committee. 'Today's resolution from Kucinich (D-Ohio) was essentially the same as the legislation he introduced earlier this year, which included three articles of impeachment against Cheney based largely on allegations that he manipulated intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. The last article accuses Cheney of threatening "aggression" against Iran "absent any real threat."'"
Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:2, Insightful)
At this rate I think Gallup will have a historical first - negative numbers for job approval ratings.
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:4, Insightful)
Please get something done (Score:3, Insightful)
If they aren't passing because bush is vetoing, that means they aren't working hard enough to work together.
It was bullshit when the impeached clinton, it's bullshit now.
Spindot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:a little tweak (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:a little tweak (Score:5, Insightful)
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have lots more missiles at their disposal than Iran's government, so.........
After having watched their performance for the last 7 years, I think their sanity is certainly an open question. George W. was also an alcoholic and drug abuser for most of his adult life which also calls in to question his stability. When you have two people who have done nothing positive for their entire reign, and almost single handedly turned America in to a globally hated and despised country you generally have to wonder....what were they thinking. Just observe the fact the U.S. dollar is plunging relative to most other currencies. Markets are ruthlessly efficient at finding truth and the plunging dollar indicates America has been officially run in to the ground by our fearless leaders.
Kucinich is kind of a space cadet sometimes but he was right on trying to get Cheney impeached first. You have to get him impeached before you can impeach Bush otherwise he would take over and President Cheney would be a nightmare come true.
Re:a little tweak (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success (Score:3, Insightful)
This thing didn't stand a chance in the House either. It was sent to committee to keep it from being debated on the House floor. Most Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the likes of Code Pink, ANSWER, MoveOn.org, Karl Marx and people who see UFO's and try to communicate with trees. [cleveland.com]
This would not only been counter productive in that regard, but it would have also been seen as a complete waste of time.
Re:Honestly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. Probably because they're the most useless Congress we've had in over a decade. They haven't done anything useful, they pulled a bait-and-switch on their arguments for why they should be elected last year. i.e. "Elect us and we'll get out of Iraq... oh, sorry, you voted for us but now you also need to give us the presidency. We couldn't do anything before and we still can't do anything."
No, the reason why Congress's approval ratings are so low is because they've shown the public what they have to offer, and they don't have anything. The Democrats should've tried to lose 2006 so they'd have a chance in 2008. In 2008, the Republicans have Bush dragging them down but Democrats have the Congress dragging them down even more. It's entirely possible the Democrats peaked in 2006 and won't be able to get the job done in 2008. By the time the election comes, they'll have had 2 years in Congress and nothing to show for it. Not a good way to go into a presidential election.
Posturing, blah... blah... (Score:2, Insightful)
Is Kucinich running for President? Yes
Is he frontrunner for the Dem's? No
Does he need to improve his profile? Yes
By submitting these articles, is he taking 'initiatives' the public would want taken given the certain ambiguities that remain, with regard to why we are now in this mid-east Debacle (impeaching those who lied to the American People)? Yes
Was there any chance for these articles to come to fruition? NO CHANCE IN HELL!!!
Its political posturing people....
Move along, nothing to see here.
On a sideone, he's at least smart enough to score a trophy wife, right?
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Impeaching Cheney would have done nothing but improve the approval rating of Congressional Democrats. He is widely despised throughout the nation for having suckered the nation in to Iraq, and for promoting the use of torture which has turned America in to an outlaw nation.
Impeaching him for Iraq and Iran is off the mark. He should be impeached for:
A. single handedly pushing authorization for torture which was done entirely by his office and his aides
B. single handedly pushing authorization of illegal spying on American citizens without a warrant also lead out of his office
Those are both slam dunk grounds for impeachment because they are both clearly illegal, unpopular, unnecessary and were just plain stupid.
Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Pelosi, Hoyer: GROW A PAIR! Stand up for what's right! Do your job and uphold the Constitution!
Re:Summary of the accusations (Score:1, Insightful)
Article I: Cheney lied about intelligence regarding banned weapon programs
Whether the result of lies, a lack of willingness to believe contrary viewpoints, or maybe even idiocy (I think he's too smart for that, evil or not), the accusations carry no mention of where he made statements under oath. Statements included are from two press interactions, five interviews, and a speech. While in some cases very public, there are no cases there where he was speaking under oath.
Article II: Cheney lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda
Again, there was no oath taken for the occasions mentioned. Four speeches and five interviews are mentioned, but again, at no time during these was he under oath
[/quote]
It is quite interesting that you are defending his actions based on him "not being under oath".
I don't know about you but I certainly feel that our elected leaders should not be given
impunity to LIE to us whether under oath or not. He is the Vice President of the US for Gods sake.
How can anyone say it is OK for the VP to lie to the American people and simply dismiss it as nothing
for the lack of an oath.
Re:a little tweak (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe wait until there is actual proof these nations wish to launch rockets at the US/NATO.
If you are suggesting that the US strikes before there is an actual threat then what is to stop other countries doing the same?
North Korea will have to launch because the US is a threat, same for everyone else.
There IS an alternative to shoot first & invent evidence later.
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not think that word means what you think it means. You have to impeach and convict to get kicked out. Clinton was impeached. Unless Bush really screws up, I'm sure it won't happen because there's 1 year left before elections and I don't think they push for it.
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:1, Insightful)
In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
They LIED about EVERY threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed, and not only once and in government reports, but MULTIPLE times while addressing the public. The fact that they weren't under oath is actually more evidence that they knew they weren't just being vague or coy, but completely dishonest. Anyone who claims otherwise is as full of shit as they were/are.
Re:a little tweak (Score:2, Insightful)
well, treating sovereign nations with a bit of respect rather than attempting to play off regional conflicts in order to control their natural resources ( yes, its all about the oil ), is probably as close to 'doing nothing' as you need in order to ward off the spectre of an arms race ( implied just yesterday by hans blix: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/sydney-peace-prize-for-blunt-blix/2007/05/20/1179601243747.html [smh.com.au] ).
see the problem is, the americans dont want peace, they want peace on their terms, which is to ensure america(ns) are rich and powerful, with scraps thrown out for whoever bends over for them.
its really not that difficult to stop the world going to shit, but how would the rich get richer ( which brings us back OT: please impeach chaney )
Re:WHAT! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:a little tweak (Score:5, Insightful)
"Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?"
Damn, I thought it was sweeps month, and here I am getting reruns:
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." - G.W. Bush, 7 Oct 2002
Sorry, but I've been down this road before, and I didn't really buy it the first time. Iran could hypothetically have anti-matter planet busters, but the only way I'll believe it coming from this administration is if they take me personally on a tour of Iran and show them to me. That's the funny thing about credibility. Once it's shot, it's REALLY hard to get it back.
Ironically, I always believed Iran to be a more credible threat to US interests than Iraq anyway. I was never in favor of the Iraq war, but the right argument with solid evidence might have got me behind hitting Iran. But that ship has sailed, and I won't be getting on the next one.
Why is this on /.? (Score:1, Insightful)
I know that Slashdot doesn't have a neutral editorial staff (as evidenced from the various Linux vs. Windows debates that pop up every few hours around here) but, up until now, all political content had some sort of tech issue embedded within. I'm not sure how I'm going to like a
I guess what I'm trying to say is it really cheapens the Slashdot brand in a way that stands a high-risk of alienating the core visitors (the bread and butter).
Normally I would just sit here and stew about it quietly but this disturbs me greatly and, frankly, I have some karma to burn.
Re:a little tweak (Score:2, Insightful)
We're lame. We've been an intruding, imperialist nation in a world for a long time now, and other countries are finally getting sick of it. We need to change our policies, curb our corporate growth, and clean up our act. I hope we don't get nuked by a small country we pissed off, because the rest of the world will just say, "They deserved it."
I'm pro-America. But I feel like we're being led (and have been led for a long time) towards an anti-American goal.
Re:a little tweak (Score:3, Insightful)
I see. You know, one way to help keep US troops out of reach of Iranian rockets is to pull back US troops so that they're within the US or its territories. That might have the added affect of lessening the amount of anti-American sentiment seen worldover, when perfectly indiginous countries occasionally wonder why there are US military bases on their soil..
Incidentally, the man who's pledged to bring our troops back not only from Iraq but from everywhere is Ron Paul.
Let me make a comparison:
bitorrent client: possession of a bittorrent client is not sufficient grounds to accuse someone of piracy and throw them in jail
nuke: possibility of posession of a nuclear weapon is sufficient grounds to pre-emptively attack them.
Once upon a time, this country tried really hard to avoid war. Not because we're a bunch of sissy pacifists (generally), but because war isn't a hobby one should make, either individually or collectively.
I think it's fair to wait until you've been attacked before you go attacking someone else. History has shown that we typically win defensive wars and there's not much arguing about if we were in the right or not. History has shown that we lose offensive wars and that it deeply divisive towards the soliders, citizens, and rest of the world.
I'm hoping that nobody ever nukes Manhattan. But bombing Iran isn't going to lower the chances of that happening.
Why exactly is impeachment "off the table"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I really, really dislike Bush, Cheney & Co. But I am truthfully starting to dislike the Democrats even more, if that's even possible - because it's somehow even worse to be stabbed in the back by a supposed friend than it is to be kicked in the face by your enemy (which you kind of expect). I feel like this country is now being betrayed just as much by the inaction of the Democrats as by the actions of the Republicans.
Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:5, Insightful)
-- Democracy in America July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001 R I P
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tar and feathers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:a little tweak (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:a little tweak (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember when pople used to give their life for our freedom? Why are we now giving our freedom for our life?
Re:a little tweak (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:a little tweak (Score:2, Insightful)
The comparison has a sound basis.
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Pelosi did our republic a great disservice when she said that "Impeachment is off the table." Impeachment isn't a matter of convenience or political expediency, it is a matter of congressional Duty. Now, I realize that the 2/3 Senate vote to remove either Bush or Cheney from office will never be reached. But by not trying - by not at least bringing articles of impeachment out of the People's House, congress is effectively saying to us and future generations of Americans that the Executive Branch is free to operate above the Law. This is simply unacceptable. We need our Children to open their history books and see Bush and Cheney's name next to Clinton and Nixon. They need to see that the Laws that govern them govern ALL Americans.
Re:Tar and feathers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberal Whining? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a moderate. I respect candidates from across the spectrum. George Bush and his administration have been a goddamn nightmare.
I don't care what your religious, political, or social affiliation is. If you don't recognize this administration as crap, you are in deep ignorance or denial.
I love this country. And I could cry over what these people have done to us.
Re:a little tweak (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tar and feathers (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that the Democrats have been spineless and could be doing a LOT more, but a simple majority would not be sufficient. First of all, the Republicans in the Senate have been threatening filibusters on virtually every bill (they've actually been breaking records in that regard), so a supermajority is needed, which the Democrats do not have in any sense. Secondly, the Democratic majority is pretty tenuous to begin with -- there are technically only 49 Democrats in the US Senate, and it's the two independents that caucus with them that gives them the "majority." And one of those independents is Joe Lieberman, who is more hawkish and conservative than most Republicans. And of course, there are plenty of so-called "blue-dog" Democrats that don't have much of a Democratic agenda to begin with.
That's not to excuse the Democrats, though. Reid, Pelosi, and the others have demonstrated an astounding lack of leadership and a unbelievable capacity to bend over and do whatever the Bush administration wants, either to "appease" some people they think of as moderates or for political reasons or whatever. It's a disgrace. They've passed a few decent bills, but fall all over themselves doing what the administration wants every chance they get.
Who's the only country to have ever used nukes? (Score:5, Insightful)
You guys stared down the USSR for the entirety of the cold war, facing an enemy with superior numbers and brutal methods who you were very much aware had nukes, and you got by just fine.
OK, they might get nukes, but so what? Lots of countries have nukes. If you wanna take bets on who's going to be the first country to actually _use_ them, my money's on Israel.
Look, the deal with the non-proliferation treaty goes like this. The countries that don't have nukes agree not to produce them, and those that do agree to gradually phase out their stockpiles.
If the US doesn't feel the need to rid themselves of nukes, why should Iran or anybody else feel the need to obey the Anti-Proliferation Treaty?
The country that has the dubious honor of being the only country to ever use nuclear weapons on humans doesn't get to take the moral high ground and lecture Iran about their nuclear ambitions.
Re:a little tweak (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush is not a conservative (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush is not a conservative. Conservatism is generally against foreign adventures, against foreign borrowing, against big government, and against government interference in private matters. Bush has engaged in multiple military adventures, has borrowed like no president before him, has increased government spending to unprecedented levels, and has been pushing government interference in religious and private matters.
Bush actually presents himself as a populist nationalist. But like many populist nationalists, he really hides corporatism and borderline corruption under that veneer.
Bad Choice of Words (Score:4, Insightful)
He wasn't successful at all. Heck, the Republicans were voting in favor of the debate. It is more accurate to say: the articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney have been buried in the House Judiciary committee, and will not be seen again.
Re:Are you enlisted? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Russians weren't insane !! (evil maybe but insane no)
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, public opinion shouldn't matter. We are electing these people to apply their expertise to problems that we don't always understand, and the best decisions are often unpopular. Of course, the fact is that their 11% approval is entirely deserved because our Congress is corrupt, incompetent and wholly pathetic.
Every election these days is about voting for the lesser evil, and 2008 will be no different. Frankly, I'm tired of voting for evil, lesser or not. It's a waste of time. Whether we get Boy Hillary (Giuliani) or Girl Hillary (I mean Senator Clinton, of course, although an argument could be made that "Girl Hillary" is in fact John Edwards) in 2008, we're screwed and ain't nothin' gonna get better except maybe we'll stop invading countries.
It won't get better until the Big Duopoly of the Republicrats is broken.
Re:WHAT! (Score:5, Insightful)
No exactly. You go into a bar talking about Iran as if they did all the bad shit and the US was just an inocent player who now has a greivence. Do that with the usual blind adherance to US propaganda and unwillingness to accept that the US might be anything other than squeeky clean, you're likely to shit some people.
Keep up that attitude and people who you annoyed will injure you. Verbally or physically, body or pride doesn't matter.
The world is not jealous of US freedom, the world is pissed off with US self righteousness.
Re:Are you enlisted? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Best I can tell, the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to lose the next election. Luckily for them, the Republicans seem to be doing exactly the same thing.
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't think for one moment that after Bush leaves office, they're going to stop trying to implement their "Project for the New American Century". They've been trying ever since the Nixon administration (where do you think Cheney and Rumsfeld come from?), if they can wait 30 years, they aren't going to just give up just because it's the end of an inning.
Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you've ever read the rantings of Iran's president or that of Kim Jung-il of North Korea, you can certainly see how people would have doubts about their rationality and stabilty. For all of the flap in the US over the last 7 years, we're still a nation of laws, the highest enshrined in the Constitution. Yes, it's under attack, but until it's burned and shredded, I won't give up hope.
Plus, the problem with letting Iran or North Korea have nuclear weapons, is that it's very unlikely that they won't share them with other nations, or, worse yet, non-governmental bodies. Hamas and Al-Queda spring to mind. China can, and has, leaned on North Korea, so they are less likely to do something too foolish.
I'd much rather prefer that nuclear weapons not be involved at all. But if I have to declare a choice between the two, I'd much rather rain nuclear fire upon Iran than vice versa.
Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Russians weren't insane !! (evil maybe but insane no)
1. He's *not* the top guy in Iran.
2. Iran was on *our* side after 9-11. It wasn't until the Iraq war, and the abysmally idiotic "Axis of Evil" statement, that the Iranian people swerved hard to the right and elected him. (what would *we* do if the most powerful nation on the planet called us out like that?) Calling Iran our enemy is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success (Score:4, Insightful)
This is one of the few worthwhile things happening in the US federal legislature. My friend, please, for God's sake please stop watching American television.
Re:Some painful truth.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it can be debated that there's a legal distinction between me as a US citizen sitting at my desk and a farmer in Afghanistan with respect to the provision of rights under US law. What I don't understand is that most people also seem to think that there's a valid moral distinction as well. Frankly, that creeps me out. "They're not people like the rest of us," is a very scary philosophy for people who are debating basic human rights to hold, but it seems to be the prevailing one. Why do I deserve a fair trial when foreigners do not?
Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes? (Score:5, Insightful)
OMFG! You are the epitome of moon bat. You are so blinded by your hatred for America that you completely ignore the fact that N. Korea's population is starving in the dark while their army eats well. They have no food and no power because the bulk of their economy goes towards their military. And you sit there and defend their leadership... wait, why again? Because he's not America. Because he's afraid we are going to attack? The Korean cease fire has been in effect for about 50 years! Korea could be united tomorrow and the population could eat and heat their homes. It's not because Kim Jong Il likes the power... and you defend him... wait, why again?
Please tell me why dictator that starves the population good. America bad. I really want to know the thought process behind that one.
Re:Tar and feathers (Score:3, Insightful)
Pelosi et. al are stupid enough to have forgotten how the game is played. If you can't get a vote to the floor, make them filibuster. Make them look like a bunch of obstructionist, whining babies who are standing in the way of good legislation because they are afraid of losing an actual vote. Argue publicly the merits of your legislation. And even if you can't put enough pressure on them to succeed in getting a vote to the floor, make a big stink and target the offenders by name.
The Republicans are more effective at this kind of Congressional Politics 101 - from a minority - than the Democrats are with many more votes.
Re:Tar and feathers (Score:5, Insightful)
If you recall the last major protests in Washington in September, only about 10,000 turned out for the ANSWER rally, and they were met by 1,000 Freepers. That's a piss-poor performance for a supposedly angry public.
They may hate the war, but they hate the Democrats too.
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:5, Insightful)
His blowjob wasn't "morally reprehensible". Lying to cover up a blowjob isn't "morally reprehensible". It's a little immoral.
But compared with lying us into war, it's not very immoral at all.
If you think Clinton's lie was so reprehensible it merited impeachment, don't you think that Bush's lie makes impeachment an obvious necessity?
Re:Spindot (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting how Bush and Cheney's massive lawbreaking is the Democrats fault.
Congress has yet to successfully pass an appropriations bill this year, and it's already November.
Because Bush vetoes or threatens to veto legislation, and the "upordownvote" Republicans keep pushing hypocrisy to new heights by shattering all records on blocking legislation through cloture votes.
Miring the Senate down in impeachment proceedings is the last thing the Democrats need
No. The country needs this, or the rule of law is a bad, sad, joke.
Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably not, but it is possible. They are a threat to many of our allies, however. Of course, I'm sure you'd like to see America abandon it's allies world wide. You probably wouldn't feel that way if Canada were located somewhere between Israel and Iran though. But then again, why should you worry about any place you need to take a boat to get to. Those people are brown and don't matter, right?
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly the only response I seem to get is "Realize it's fucked and move on." The root of the problem isn't the politicians. It's the people. We've been pandered too and now people are realizing how shitty it is and are clueless about what to do, so we ignore it.
It's not average Joe Wal*Mart shopper either. It's the poor, the middle class and above. It's everywhere. From the college grads down to the guy pumping gas. When it comes down to it, we're putting our immediate desires for whatever level of comfort we feel we've earned ahead of our long term social success. We let our kids be sold short on their education, we let our local police act like stormtroopers, we've replaced true social responsibility with feel good Political Correctness. As long as someone isn't called a bad name, then we're aces! The expectation to conform is stronger now than it ever was.
It's the people that are letting this happen. It's sad not enough realize (even if enough do, they do little about it (myself included)) that history has shown ignoring this shit only makes it worse.
Re:It's a small world (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are you enlisted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some painful truth.... (Score:5, Insightful)
My major problem is the question you didn't answer: What's the appropriate burden of proof for executing an unarmed person in the field or disappearing him to a prison site for the rest of his natural life? I'll accept for the sake of argument that these things are effective ways of dealing with the problem, but I'd like to see some serious rules applied before I give the nod to classifying somebody as a person with no rights, locking him up, and throwing away the key. So far, I haven't seen a lot of evidence that we're doing a good job of figuring out who we should be disappearing, and I've seen enough evidence that we aren't [shu.edu] to be hesitant to give the government an "arbitrarily disappear, torture, and execute whoever you want as long as it's not me" card. When you combine death / permanent imprisonment with accusations and evidence that look like a scene out of The Crucible, I get nervous.
Hmmm... I think that we look at the world in a fundamentally different way, then. I tend to think that in all but the most extreme circumstances, it is universally wrong to deprive somebody of life or liberty without a way of meaningfully defending himself. To me, that principle isn't just a convenient legal fiction that happens to work out well for me. It's a fundamental concern about the unfairness of being kidnapped in the middle of the night and shipped off to be held incognito in the middle of nowhere until you die. Add to that the fact that it's bad PR at a time when we're losing a PR war to the types of people who blow up hospitals, and I think that you have the makings for a policy we'll be embarrassed about in the hindsight of history.
Re:Some painful truth.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This secret extradition and torture treatment is also in direct violation of the US code of military justice, a set of US laws, which describes court procedures for military procedures and has no magic clause for this newly invented "military non-combatants". I'm afraid you've not glanced at the set of laws being violated: please spend a bit of time checking out the news articles on these tortures and on
We signed the Geneva Convention. We also wrote the US constitution, and numerous court decisions since then provide a minimum of human rights for even enemies in combat, much more for prisoners. The Geneva Convetion is an agreement *by* nation stat4es, and includes their handling of non-signatories. And like parents without children paying taxes for schools, many nations sign it to help prevent trouble worldwide. Better yet, it also includes standards for how nations treat their own citizens, forbidding genocide and yes, torture. So it's not just aimed at protecting one's citizens oversees, it sets a legal minimum standard of behavior worldwide. So let's not pretend that there's only one reason for signing it. That kind of rationalized thinking leads to people only obeying traffic laws when it feels important to them, and it's not safe.
Please examine the history of the US code of military justice, if not of the Geneva Convention, to see how many ways we're violating it. I'm not saying that it justifies beheading of innocent victims, but one does not justify the other: both are illegal and violations of international treaty, and need to stop for either practicioners to be treated as just.
Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes? (Score:3, Insightful)
And by the way, I love this land, where I've lived all my life. Let's get that straight. What I despise is the government, in particular its role internationally.
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, the thought had not even occurred to me and is quite a revelation. If what you say is true, I can think of three scenarios:
1. The Pipe Dream: All that power may be used by the Democrat 2008 victor to undo a great deal of the damage done in the previous eight years. Think of an imperial presidency using this power to declare global warming a national emergency, restore civil rights, maybe even impose severe restrictions on Clear Channel and Fox propaganda, go after Haliburton, etc, then restore the Constitution to its' rightful state.
2. The Nightmare: You know the proverb, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". After a year we could witness a Bush in all but name, with a donkey lapel pin.
3. Politics As Usual, Democrat Version: Most of the boat will not be rocked. While Iraq remains a black void of attention and resources with no end in sight, corporate-sponsored neoliberalism will continue to pillage with no checks and balances, this time with a Democrat rubber stamp of approval. However, issues like stem cell research and global warming will be officially recognized, some measures will be taken. Ops like extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, etc, will most likely be dismantled. Talks with Iran, North Korea and Hammas will be established.
If past experience repeats itself, when the Democrat candidate takes over the Oval Office in 2009, Politics As Usual, Democrat Version will prevail.
A ray of hope: Considering the successes of Keith Olbermann, The Daily Show and the like, it seems that the MSM is realizing that far-right stances are not as viable anymore. Tucker Carlson may be canceled soon, a step in the right direction! Maybe we will live to see the day when the lunatic fringe, war-mongering chicken-hawk, jingoistic far right pundits will fade from most TV news shows, off to the wasteland wrought by Ruppert Murdoch. Maybe then the MSM can take a step or two to become, you know, mainstream (read: saner).
That said, anything's better than the last seven years, but I don't want the Democrats to even get close to the effing ring of Sauron that Cheney, Rove and Bush have forged. Temptation of this sort usually never leads to anything good.
Re:Tar and feathers (Score:2, Insightful)
Every last democrat who is not actively supporting the impeachment and trial for treason of the entire bush administration deserves a place beside them at the gallows. Especially these assholes [blogspot.com] who decided that spending time tossing each other off over one of the crappiest works of fiction ever put to print was more important than doing the people's work.
The United States of America should be the greatest nation on the face of the earth and it's about fucking time we had some "leaders" who understand that and act accordingly.
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:4, Insightful)
I still can't believe that in the Internet age, when all information anybody could possibly want to find out is at the reach of the fingertips, when perspectives from all over the world, of all events, can be accessed from the office or bedroom, we still suffer from massive ignorance and one-dimensional, pre-digested opinions on issues that directly impact everyones' lives.
To radically change the political system in any country, in a meaningful way, this willful ignorance must be eradicated, and the only way to achieve that is through education. Then look at the education system, cranking out generation after generation of perpetually bored masses, never having learned to think, only to memorize (and soon forget) sterile facts - the ideal mold for the creation of the malleable consumer citizen, good little citizen.
You overhaul the educational system - knowledge is power. You replace one figurehead with another - the cycle keeps on spinning.
Re:You had an argument?! (Score:5, Insightful)
As to your contention that Arabs (Shia and Sunni) cannot be civilized, I will point to Europe as a counter-example. Europe was in more or less continuous warfare for thousands of years. When they weren't fighting in Europe, they were fighting through proxies. Western Europe has not had a significant conflict since World War II. Certainly the Middle East can get 50 years of peace, no?
I would also contend that giving up after a few years would be short-sighted, though I agree that the administration severely underestimated the consequences of getting involved (or at least did so publicly).
I certainly agree that we wouldn't even be over there if it weren't for oil, and we can debate the merits of that if you like. But that, too, has little to do with what the best course of action is right now. I am arguing that to leave the country in the midst of a civil war of our creation is irresponsible, and the end results are probably not in the best interest of the US or the bulk of the Iraqi people.
Re:It's a small world (Score:5, Insightful)
We didn't enter WWII for humanitarian reasons. We entered the war because Japan drew us in with a massive attack on our naval base at Pearl Harbor.
Up until that day in December 1941, there was a strong sense that the US should stay out of the war, because we remembered what happened in WWI. We were sending supplies to Britain, and providing other resources to our allies, but there was no support for declaring war on anyone.
When Japan made it clear that they intended to work with the other Axis powers to rule all of the world, there was no question that we needed to fight back, and so we did. The difference between WWII and all other conflicts since is huge. The Axis powers were clearly an existential threat to the continental US (Hawaii first, lower 48 next); unlike the theoretical threats embodied in "domino theory" and "global war on terror".
Sure, Al Qaeda did attack us, and we attacked back -- in Afghanistan. We were making some good progress there, too... Until the majority of our resources and attention were refocused on the Iraq boondoggle. Now look what's happening in Afghanistan: the Taliban is coming back, poppy/cannabis harvests are booming, and Afghanistan's neighbor Pakistan is having major problems due in no small part to the increasing influence of radical islamists who operate from the safety of the afghanistan/pakistan border.
The only entities that are benefitting from this Iraq shitstorm are Al Qaeda (it's a fucking recruiting wet dream) and the guys like Halliburton, Blackwater, and all the other Military-Industrial Complex hangers-on.
Feh.
Re:Are you enlisted? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not very likely for a number of reasons. The least of which is the American public was completely opposed to the idea of getting involved and if FDR had tried he probably would have been impeached.
Beyond that, with the exception of the Navy, our armed forces in the 30s were a joke. They only started to expand them in 1941, several months before Pearl Harbor. Why do you think it took until 1944 before the Allies were ready for the cross-channel invasion of Europe? There is little to nothing that the United States could do early in the war that would have changed anything.
FDR did the best he could with the resources and public opinion that he had to contend with. He started to quietly build up our forces, work on public opinion and do everything in his power (lend-lease) to keep the UK and Russia in the war. I don't see what he could have done differently.
Mexican Standoff (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe more Americans do seem to care than I think, but I think they are more concerned on what is going to happen on American idol than the Nation. People just don't care, and I don't think the Democrats are going to push something so controversial if it's not publicly charged.
That's a sad thing because in the end if the Democrats pushed for it, it would become publicly charged. So I don't think it will happen. The people won't act before the Democrats and the Democrats won't act before they know it is a safe topic. It's a bloody Mexican standoff.
----------
I know my grammer are bad.
And this makes sense how? (Score:3, Insightful)
Clinton lied to cover up the fact that he got a hummer from an intern. Bush/Cheney lied to start an unprovoked war of convenience.
Clinton was subjected to a political show trial that was (to borrow a phrase) full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Bush/Cheney continue to operate as if the laws of the land do not apply to them.
The human cost of Clinton's lies are utterly insignificant. The same cannot cannot be said to be even remotely true for Bush/Cheney.
Yet Clinton was the president who was impeached...
Honestly - what's wrong with you people?
Re:Tar and feathers (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is you elected a bunch of corporatist democrats who played the electorate like a fiddle. Did you really think the dems were going to end the war at the first hint of resistance? Heck half the dem pickups were conservatives from southern states (blue-dogs).
All it would have taken would have been a simple majority against the funding bill
Ahh but then how would the dems have motivated you all to come out and vote for the super majority so they can really do some good in 2008..
We need a new government here in the US
2008 is coming fast start looking into third parties today..
Responsibility? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's OUR mess. We made it our mess when we invaded. While Saddam was no paragon of moral superiority, the number of innocents who died under his charge were less than under ours. It's like Valdiz incident. While it would have surely been profitable for Exxon to retreat and say "Not our problem", you cause a mess, you clean it. There wasn't Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, or any other suicide bombing group in Iraq before the invasion.
I'm all in favor of a pull-out, but for God's sake, we've got a moral responsibility to clean up our own mess before we do as best we can.
Re:You had an argument?! (Score:2, Insightful)
All wars are fueled by governments trying to make land grabs. If the two governments happen to have different religions, then that will be used as a convenient propaganda device to build support for the war. If a formerly allied region falls under the control of a competing religious faction, then it's all about liberating the noble people of Fooland from the infidel. But really it's about getting Fooland. This was true in the Muslim conquests of the 8th and 9th Centuries, the Crusades of the 11th-14th Centuries, the Reconquista of Spain, the Thirty Years War, the wars against the Ottomans from the 15th through 20th Centuries, the Arab-Israeli Wars, and the Gulf Wars. All of which could be (and were) spun to be about religion. You can bet the people financing those wars knew better, though.
Re:Are you enlisted? (Score:2, Insightful)
we would not have invaded
The intelligence was fabricated. Google "Hans Blix" for more info about Saddam's weapons program and degree of compliance with UN inspectors.
He was given ample opportunity to prove to us he didn't have them
You can't prove a negative.
Who do you think is causing all this shit in Iraq?
Put the shoe on the other foot. If a foreign army was rolling up and down your block in their urban assault vehicles, going door to door shaking down you and your neighbors, what would you do? Sit there and take it? I'd cause as much trouble for that occupying force as humanly posible. So would you. So would any of us. We are creating "nutjobs" with our presence, not "dealing" with them.
it was an exercise in pre-emptive defense to invade Iraq
No, it wasn't. It was the greatest robbery in history. Stealing public money and giving it to well-connected corporate insiders. It was securing cheap oil to be sold to the American public at premium prices.
its to the benefit and safety of the people of the US to remain there
I'll say it again. We are creating "nutjobs" with our presence in Iraq. How can you not understand this? We won't stay there forever (I hope). And when we leave, there WILL be a revolt, or a civil war to tear down the puppet government we've tried to establish.
In my opinion, the only way to "win" in Iraq is to be overthrown by insurgent "nutjobs". Only then will they have the national pride to install a govenment of their own making. In other words, we are going to lose. We just need to decide how many lives will be lost before it's over.
Re:It's a small world (Score:3, Insightful)
The US did not "stay out of the war".
We fired the first "shot" at Japan, when we took sides, and embargoed their oil supply.
They were busy building an empire, and having no domestic oil supply of their own, got kind of pissed when we cut them off. Do you blame them for attacking us?
If Saudi Arabia said to us tomorrow; "Hey, America, we don't like what you're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, so we're cutting you off until you get out - " how long do you think it would take for the order to go from the White House to a Submarine in the Persian Gulf to fire a barrage of SLCM's at Ryadh? All of 5 minutes?
Yes.
WW II was also, about oil.
Growing, industrial superpowers, Japan and Germany, as soon as they ran out of domestic energy supplies, and as soon as they got sick of being extorted by their neighbors for energy, they took matters into their own hands. And when their neighbors got nervous, and cut them off, Japan and Germany went ballistic. Literally.
Does any of this sound familliar?
Maybe history does not repeat itself.
But as Mark Twain said; "it does rhyme."