THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

dròm_et_rêve wrote:

I agree, Au. Why spend billions of dollars to make more enemies, eh?

So, in what way were Iraq a threat to American national interests? They didn't want war with America; they have no involvement with the Saudi-based Al Q'aeda whatsoever; and, lo and behold, they didn't have the nuclear weapons for which America apparently went to war. But anyway, Larry, wouldn't you call a repeat of 9/11 by Saudi Al Q'aedaëm a threat to American interests? -- Or had you rather bomb Iraq a bit more instead?

But of course. And I hadn't "rather bomb Iraq" or anyone else that our President and elected representatives do not deem it prudent to do. But having elected them to represent me in such weighty matters, I am content to let them represent me. If I do not approve of how they do that, I will vote to remove them from office PROVIDED that ,in my opinion, there is a better alternative.

Hate to bring this up but the majority of the population elected Al Gore. It is a mistatement of fact to suggest that the present administration is enforcing the people's will.
America, like Irag, is under occupation ....

Larry434 wrote:

Hate to bring this up but the majority of the population elected Al Gore. It is a mistatement of fact to suggest that the present administration is enforcing the people's will.
America, like Irag, is under occupation ....

That would be a significant statement IF the popular vote determined the Presidency. But it does NOT! The electoral vote does. And at this point in time that is not looking promising for Kerry.

http://www.geocities.com/wubwub/bushkerrystate2004.html

Blair impeachment campaign starts
A campaign to use age-old powers to impeach Tony Blair for misleading the public over the Iraq war is being launched by a group of MPs on Thursday.
The power, last used in 1806, could in theory see Mr Blair charged with improper conduct in office but in practice has little chance of success.
US President Bill Clinton famously was impeached over the Monica Lewinsky scandal but was acquitted.

Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price is behind the Blair impeachment call.

Lords trial

Thursday's report has been produced by Dr Glen Rangwala, of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Dan Plesch, honorary fellow of Birkbeck College, University of London.

It has reportedly been backed by 11 MPs - nine of them Welsh and Scottish nationalists and two Conservatives, frontbencher Boris Johnson and ex-shadow minister Nigel Evans.


The MPs are set to table a Commons motion calling for Mr Blair to go before Parliament to defend his record on Iraq.
The idea would be to get MPs to vote to set up a criminal trial of the prime minister, with the Lords acting as judges.

One of the last impeachment cases was of Warren Hastings, the final governor-general of India, who was acquitted by his trial.

The power can theoretically be used for "high crimes and misdemeanours beyond the reach of the law or which no other authority of the state will prosecute".

Mr Price is charging Mr Blair with:


- Misleading Parliament and the country over Iraq

- Negligence and incompetence over weapons of mass destruction

- Undermining the constitution

- Entering into a secret agreement with the US president.

'No joke'

Anti-war MP Mr Price told BBC 2's Newsnight his impeachment call was not just a stunt.

"It deserves to be taken seriously," he said. "What has happened over the last 18 months is there is strong, compelling evidence we were misled over the war."

On BBC Wales, he added: "If nothing else comes out of this, people will realise impeachment is still an active part of parliamentary law and a minister who misleads and refuses to resign, can be removed by Parliament through impeachment."

The prime minister has acknowledged there were intelligence errors in the run-up to the Iraq war but denies misleading people.

He stresses the Butler and Hutton inquiries cleared him of deception or improper dealings.

'Silly'


Labour MP and former minister Keith Vaz told Newsnight: "This is a silly story for the end of the silly season."

Mr Vaz said the evidence in the academics report was thin and questions over the Iraq war had been raised numerous times in Parliament, as well as in a string of inquiries.

"This matter has been put before the nation day after day over the last few years," said Mr Vaz. "All these reports have exonerated the government and it's time to move on."

Donald Anderson, chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee, called the impeachment call a "political stunt" and a "no-hoper in legal terms".

"Any judge would smell the politics of this and throw it out at the first opportunity," he told BBC Wales."

Obsolete?


Impeachment has mostly been used in Britain during the 1640s Civil War.

A special parliamentary committee in 1999 said "the circumstances in which impeachment has taken place are now so remote from the present that the procedure may be considered obsolete".

Lord Norton of Louth, professor of government at Hull University, told BBC News Online: "It is still on the books so it's open technically for the Commons to vote for impeachment."

But in reality, it was more a way of raising an issue, with MPs unlikely to vote for the measure, he said.

Booth's chambers will help impeach Blair over Iraq war

David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
Friday August 27, 2004
The Guardian

Cherie Booth's chambers, Matrix, are to draw up the document to impeach her husband, Tony Blair, for "high crimes and misdemeanours" in the run up to the war against Iraq, it was disclosed yesterday.

The 12 MPs planning to revive the ancient parliamentary procedure - last used 156 years ago against Lord Palmerston - have engaged his wife's chambers to frame the motion because of their record in taking up human rights issues.

Two of Ms Booth's colleagues will be working on the motion. One, Rabinder Singh, is of equal status to the PM's wife, being a QC and a deputy high court judge.

He recently brought a case arguing that the Iraq war breached international law.

The other is Conor Gearty, professor of human rights at the London School of Economics and a founder partner of Matrix. He recently took a case against the Ministry of Defence over a personal injury claim.

He is also an expert on terrorism, having written and contributed to books on the subject.

Yesterday Elfyn Llwyd, leader of Plaid Cymru, a lawyer and one of the MPs bringing the impeachment, said: "Matrix will not be doing this work on a pro bono basis, they will receive a full fee. Cherie Booth will of course will be ruled out as it would be a conflict of interest."

Matrix Chambers said it was not making any comment about its work on the impeachment of one its member's spouses referring all calls to a public interest rights solicitor in Birmingham.

The framing of the motion will be crucial to bringing the case. The aim is to put the motion on the parliamentary order paper and leave one MP to raise the matter with the Speaker.

Adam Price, the Plaid Cymru MP who initiated the process, said: "The precedent is absolutely clear that if one MP has expressed a desire to speak on an impeachment motion there has to be a debate. It would be unprecedented for there not to be a debate on an impeachment motion."

It was disclosed that the House of Commons authorities have ruled that MPs can use public money - their researchers' allowances - to fund the impeachment process as it is a legitimate parliamentary procedure.

... Iraq did not threaten the US. There was plenty of hot air, but there was no credible threat. So, we must return to the original analogy.

If there are any readers left on this thread, that is, for you, Ican, have all but smothered it with your inane, tedious and tendentious ramblings.

Sorry but when the supreme court said 'stop the count' the electoral colledge sorta fell by the wayside with no winner .... only the popular vote to go by.

... And yet, war is waged on Iraq, which has nothing to do with it at all. Iraq and Saudi Arabia hate each other more than Franco hated the Catalan Nationalists.

It is also a fact that the majority Justices voting for the stoppage had been previously longstanding and outspoken opponents of Federal interference in States affairs, but for some reason (none expressed in the opinion) they felt impelled to intervene in the Florida case. Odd. And btw never repeated by any of them since.

4th Request

WHAT DO YOU WANT?

IF ELECTED:

What do you want Kerry to do? What do you think Kerry wants to do? What do you think Kerry will try to do? What do you think Kerry will do?

What do you want Bush to do? What do you think Bush wants to do? What do you think Bush will try to do? What do you think Bush will do?

This thread is entitled "The US, the UN and the Iraqis themselves" and in my view is not improved by wrangling about US domestic politics.