Bush asked to explain UK war memo

[riverc0il]

first off, i'll agree with what trailboss said. BUT suggesting that bush should be impeached for taking the nation to war is just spreading flame bait rhetoric for bush supporters to wave around and use to bring down opposition points of view through attacking a not well thought of point of view rather than the critical and central arguements and issues really at hand. bush did nothing impeachable, though i believe his administrations actions and decisions took the country down a very horrible and dangerous path that has done more wrong than good. while i think a president should be honest and truthful, a blow job in the office is a drop in the pan compared to discrediting a nation's good name, making people throughout the world hate the country, creating more terrorists than were originally plotting against us, and violating a central point of united states and united nations view points, that you should not attack a country unless attacked first or have an imminent attack. changing the reasoning for going to war after the fact has reduced our country's credibility and the ongoing mess over there has reduced our accountability to the world. these are the issues at hand, and amazingly, none of them are impeachable offences to the best of my knowledge, through it's been a long time in the nation's history since any public official has been more deserving of the dishonor.

 

[hammer]

LOL you guys sound like the right wing nut jobs of the CLinton years.

Of course, the only difference is that Clinton commited an impeachable offense, and was impeached.

Too bad he wasn't tried for his perjury.

-Stephen

So what Bush has done is not?

Oh, that's right...AFAIK Congress has not made Bush testify on the justification for the Iraq war so I guess we can't accuse him of perjury...yet...

 

[Stephen]

Um... Congress authorized it based on the SAME intelligence that Bush based it on.

So, we'll need to impeach John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and a whole lot of Democrats along with Bush because apparently they ALL lied to us.

So, you start with Bush, I'll start with Kerry and maybe sometime in our lifetimes we'll see some action on these "LIARS".

-Stephen

 

[dmc]

Um... Congress authorized it based on the SAME intelligence that Bush based it on.

So, we'll need to impeach John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and a whole lot of Democrats along with Bush because apparently they ALL lied to us.

So, you start with Bush, I'll start with Kerry and maybe sometime in our lifetimes we'll see some action on these "LIARS".

-Stephen

uhh.... Good one.. But - Bush lied.. If the memo is true... And why should I care about Kerry - He's not the president...???

It's so typical of conservatives to push current issues to an issue from the past..
I'm not talking about Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy or even Truman...

Serously if the only reason we went to war was regigm change - I'm going to be even more mad...

 

[hammer]

Um... Congress authorized it based on the SAME intelligence that Bush based it on.

So, we'll need to impeach John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and a whole lot of Democrats along with Bush because apparently they ALL lied to us.

So, you start with Bush, I'll start with Kerry and maybe sometime in our lifetimes we'll see some action on these "LIARS".

-Stephen

That's a good point -- and most likely the reason why Bush will never be held accountable...plenty of blame to go around...

This is depressing.

 

[thetrailboss]

first off, i'll agree with what trailboss said.

Cheers! :beer:

BUT suggesting that bush should be impeached for taking the nation to war is just spreading flame bait rhetoric for bush supporters to wave around and use to bring down opposition points of view through attacking a not well thought of point of view rather than the critical and central arguements and issues really at hand.

I don't think I said that...my point with the 'Watergate of our generation' is that the effect of the incident will do so much damage for trust in our officials and the national institutions.

bush did nothing impeachable, though i believe his administrations actions and decisions took the country down a very horrible and dangerous path that has done more wrong than good. while i think a president should be honest and truthful, a blow job in the office is a drop in the pan compared to discrediting a nation's good name, making people throughout the world hate the country, creating more terrorists than were originally plotting against us, and violating a central point of united states and united nations view points, that you should not attack a country unless attacked first or have an imminent attack. changing the reasoning for going to war after the fact has reduced our country's credibility and the ongoing mess over there has reduced our accountability to the world. these are the issues at hand, and amazingly, none of them are impeachable offences to the best of my knowledge, through it's been a long time in the nation's history since any public official has been more deserving of the dishonor.

Exactly. Well articulated.

 

[ctenidae]

I'd be careful saying Bush did nothing impeachable. If it's shown that he willfully influenced intelligence analysis in order to provide justification for war, then I do believe that's an impeachable offense. If it's not, the Senate better make it. Of course, there's no way that's going to happen, is there? It's just never a good thing to have the Executive and Legislative branches firmly under the same party.

 

[dmc]

It's just never a good thing to have the Executive and Legislative branches firmly under the same party.

Is the "religious right" a party?

 

[Stephen]

It's just never a good thing to have the Executive and Legislative branches firmly under the same party.

Did you feel the same way pre-1996?

Is the "religious right" a party?

Nope. Just a majority. Majority rules in our government. Period. Get used to it.

Correction: Regligous right is not the majority. I'm thinking sanity is coming back into majority power.

-Stephen

 

[dmc]

Is the "religious right" a party?

Nope. Just a majority. Majority rules in our government. Period. Get used to it.

Correction: Regligous right is not the majority. I'm thinking sanity is coming back into majority power.

-Stephen

The "religious right" is not a majority - just very organized... They even got the Texas Gov to sign some bills in a church the other day...

Scarey stuff...

PS: If I had a dollar for every conservative that said "Get used to it" after the last election - I'd be a rich! It really annoys me... Like my opinion doesnt count..

 

[ctenidae]

Stephen- Yes I did. I have always felt that way, and will always feel that way.

dmc- The only thing you can do is tell conservatives to "Get over it" when they bring up Clinton. He beat Bush I. Get over it. He got a hummer. Get over it. He did NOT get impeached. Get over it. He presided over one of the best economic times we've seen. Get over it. The world kind of liked us then. Get over it.

 

[dmc]

Stephen- Yes I did. I have always felt that way, and will always feel that way.

dmc- The only thing you can do is tell conservatives to "Get over it" when they bring up Clinton. He beat Bush I. Get over it. He got a hummer. Get over it. He did NOT get impeached. Get over it. He presided over one of the best economic times we've seen. Get over it. The world kind of liked us then. Get over it.

I tend to try and think of the present and the future rather then the past...
What concerns me is WHATS GOING ON NOW! And how we can change the situation to make it better..

 

[riverc0il]

I don't think I said that...

you didn't trailboss, my comment following my argreement with you was in regards to another poster.

 

[hammer]

Nope. Just a majority. Majority rules in our government. Period. Get used to it.

Sorry to say this but...

If majority truly ruled, Gore would have been President in 2001 and we may not have been having this discussion.

 

[ctenidae]

Careful there, hammer- the Electoral College was put in place by the Founding Fathers, in part because they believed the general public wasn't bright or well-informed enough to directly elect their leader (I'm beginning to understand how smart those guys were). Bringing up any point that questions 1) the patriotism of the Founding Fathers, or 2) the legitimacy of Bush II's reign is unpatriotic and possibly dangerous. Remember- the terrorists hate our freedom, which God and the Founding Fathers gave to us, as is embodied by the man Bush. To say that Gore actually won means you think Jefferson et al were wrong, and that Bush is illegitimate, which means you must be a freedom-hating terrorist.

Why do you hate America so much?

 

[dmc]

Remember- the terrorists hate our freedom, which God and the Founding Fathers gave to us, as is embodied by the man Bush. To say that Gore actually won means you think Jefferson et al were wrong, and that Bush is illegitimate, which means you must be a freedom-hating terrorist.

Why do you hate America so much?

BAW HAW HAW!!!

I needed that post... Thanks...

 

[Stephen]

He only hates the part of America that disagrees with him... like a good liberal should. :beer:

Remember: tolerance means accepthing only that which agrees with everybody else you like.

-Stephen

 

[hammer]

He only hates the part of America that disagrees with him... like a good liberal should. :beer:

Remember: tolerance means accepthing only that which agrees with everybody else you like.

-Stephen

Whoa...I hope that this isn't becoming a :flame: skirmish.

I just couldn't resist the comment about majority rule. Hopefully everybody knows that, Republican or Democrat, in the world of politics it's all about getting your own way...majority rule has nothing to do with it...

 

[riverc0il]

just to add a little fuel to the fire i would like to present the actual memo that sparked the thread for primary document reference for folks following this topic. i looked back and noticed the only two links were to news sources that did not link to the document (unless i missed the link?). here is the memo as appeared in the UK TimesOnline on May 1, 2005. the downing street memo is dated july 23, 2002.

interesting verbage that i noticed included the following quotes:

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.

specifically of note is that the intelligence and facts were being "fixed" around the policy. vague but given the circumstances that statement is telling. additionally, "Military action was now seen as inevitable" long before all the avenues of peaceful resolution were supposedly exaughsted. bear in mind, the president at this time was still publically fronting that he desired a peaceful solution.

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

again, it seems as if a decision had been made before all possible non-violent methods of achieving the end goal had been followed through. and i think the WMD reasoning is now in hind sight seen as not a good reason. it certainly is not a reason used by the president any more.

is lying to the american people an impeachable offense? i do not believe it is, correct me if i am wrong. especially in regards to national security as i respect the government's ability to decieve it's people to protect the nation in the effort of national security (NOTE: given the government comes clean and fully discloses the situation and legitiment reasons for the disception after the fact and after the security issue has passed). a public deception could have been used in this case to mask the administrations motives and or plans. essentially, our boys through on the poker face and played a hand. was that a violation of law and an illegal action? i guess you have to be underoath and decieve for it to actually be "wrong" in the eyes of the judicial system and the constitution. but the vague and fine line between right and wrong is not always best judged by our systems, though we must follow them to a T else all we have strove for in this countries complex histories is wasted.

*sigh*

i am not making an argument for the current administration or the president. the memo is damning as far as i am concerned, putting in print what i long suspected. but i see no recourse for the american people except to educate people on the issue, show them the primary source, and let them make their own decisions. the trend is growing in the direction of people feeling like they have been had.

 

[hammer]

is lying to the american people an impeachable offense? i do not believe it is, correct me if i am wrong. especially in regards to national security as i respect the government's ability to decieve it's people to protect the nation in the effort of national security (NOTE: given the government comes clean and fully discloses the situation and legitiment reasons for the disception after the fact and after the security issue has passed). a public deception could have been used in this case to mask the administrations motives and or plans. essentially, our boys through on the poker face and played a hand. was that a violation of law and an illegal action? i guess you have to be underoath and decieve for it to actually be "wrong" in the eyes of the judicial system and the constitution. but the vague and fine line between right and wrong is not always best judged by our systems, though we must follow them to a T else all we have strove for in this countries complex histories is wasted.

*sigh*

i am not making an argument for the current administration or the president. the memo is damning as far as i am concerned, putting in print what i long suspected. but i see no recourse for the american people except to educate people on the issue, show them the primary source, and let them make their own decisions. the trend is growing in the direction of people feeling like they have been had.

IMO, you have a valid point about "lying for security reasons", but if that were truly the case in Iraq then the administration would have stood by its original story that we attacked Saddam because US security was threatened.

I've actually found it difficult to understand the real reason why the administration pushed us into this war...