Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

PDid, I never make conclusions from one opinion piece on any subject, especially political ones. My opinion about the piece? I don't even know who Tom Paine is. c.i.

Well, then, I'll look forward to your opinion after you've done your research. :wink:

A little digression here but:

You're probably right, however, prior to the economic downturn, getting to zero federal debt looked like a given. In that context, the fed chairman backed Bush's tax cuts, stating in part that this would slow our glidepath towards zero debt, which he saw as a good thing (the slowing) because of the implications for the government inherent in the question of what to do with a theoretical government surplus. Greenspan feared (as do I, though I agree it's not a looming fear at this time) that the government might be tempted to acquire private property, industries, or even invest in the market; all of which would be extremely problematic to our economic system.

I just saw that link as taking Tom Paine's name - in vain. He's probably rolling in his grave. People should use their own names for contemporary issues. Whoever wrote that article is but one person. It has little or no influence. c.i.

Tw
No one was looking for zero debt what was being pushed was paying down the debt. I read somewhere that the interest payments on the debt will soon exceed the amount required to fund our military. It will choke us. If in the unlikely event that we achieve zero debt we could start repairing the infrastructure. Bridges for one thing are in serious disrepair all over the US. In addition they could always give some of it back to the taxpayer. However, in my opinion the givebacks should be targeted.

Yes I DO have an idea C.I. - that is, if you are all
still on the remotely same topic???
I think we should plan a revolution to get rid of him,
BECAUSE - he did not get into the White House via
OUR VOTES!! Therefore, is it an intelligent idea that
we can remove him from office by our votes?
We may have to "off with his head" before we
are rid of this nasty little arrogant pissant.
*Speaking from Florida, I can ASSURE you, so
many of our votes were not counted that it seems
quite a few laws were broken simply by his declaring
victory - then walking into the White House, and then,
of all the NERVE - he ruined our economy, then
neatly destroyed every working person's IRA account,
and is even probably responsible for the 9/11
"terrorist attack" on the US, since this was the ONLY
way he could ever get the American public to agree
to go to war. He can not seem to find anyone at all
who is actually GUILTY of it. It is reminiscent of why
no one knows who killed President Kennedy or why,
or how all those planes on 9/11 were never noticed
when they all deviated from their normal flight patterns
& should have neatly passed from one areas flight
tracking to the next - how did ALL those air traffic
controllers not notice the discrepancy between the
intended air traffic planned route - to a new and
improved route of travel? How did SO many minicams
just happen to be around to catch the crumbling of
the twin towers, all of it has had my distrust of politics
and politicians growing by leaps and bounds.
How was it that Pearl Harbor got bombed, in spite of the
fact that our govt was aware that serious negative things
were brewing in Japan, yet chose to ignore it.
To a politician - you and I are naught but ants in an
anthill. How much thought do YOU give to wiping out
an anthill on YOUR turf?

babs, I wouldn't go that far: that he's responsible for 9-11 and "ruined our economy." It's pretty darn difficult for any one person to ruin a ten trillion dollar economy in less than two years. He surely didn't help it, but he did exacerbate the problems. Nobody is going to work on getting GWBush out of office during his first term. It's incumbent upon those of us interested in replacing him to vote for anybody but, but not so spread out as to lessen the other contenders votes. As for 9-11, I'll go along with the idea that Al Queda had something to do with that human massacre. c.i.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where Al Qaeda affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with explosives and poisons.

But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?

Lawmakers who have attended classified briefings on the camp say that they have been stymied for months in their efforts to get an explanation for why the United States has not launched a military strike on the compound near the village of Khurmal. Powell cited its ongoing operation as one of the key reasons for suspecting ties between Baghdad and the Al Qaeda terror network.

The lawmakers put new pressure on the Bush administration to explain its decision to leave the facility, which it has known about for months, unharmed.

"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "Why have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"

Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.

"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in there and come out of there," Powell said.

Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested that the administration has refrained from striking the compound in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.

"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified. "If you take it out, you can't use it as justification for war."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the intelligence committee, said she and other members have been frustrated in their attempts to get an explanation from administration officials in closed-door briefings.

The administration's handling of the issue has emerged as one of the more curious recent elements of the war on terrorism. Failing to intervene appears to be at odds with President Bush's stated policy of preempting terrorist threats, and the facility is in an area where the United States already has a considerable presence.

U.S. intelligence agents are said to be operating among the Kurdish population nearby, and U.S. and British warplanes patrol much of northern Iraq as part of their enforcement of a "no-fly" zone.

Ongoing Iraqi Camp Questioned

OK, that's the news; here's the comment.

Consider:

1) The administration has known about an Al Qaeda camp for months (at least that is what they claim).
2) It knows that it is producing deadly toxins (at least that is what they claim).
3) Yet it has done nothing about it (but won't explain why they haven't done anything about it).
4) But, having now talked about it in public at the UN, the camp (if it ever actually existed!) has probably been torn down and its occupants scattered to the four winds.

In other words, in order to win people over to its side on the pending Iraq invasion, the Bush administration may have deliberately endangered the lives of Americans by allowing this camp to exist for so long. And they may have further endangered American lives by blowing the cover on this camp's existence in order to win public support for a war on Iraq.

I would say that a President who, by his actions, knowingly endangers the lives of Americans for political gain, has violated his oath of office and ought to be duly impeached and removed from office.

What say you?

PDiddie
The only thing that I see that is being impeached is America's values, honesty and reputation around the world. Mr. Bush and his band of ----- should be tried and convicted for treason.

Surely, if allegedly lying under oath about whether you had sex with an intern is grounds for impeachment, then allowing a terrorist training camp to operate for months, even after one of its members allegedly killed a U.S. diplomat last year, qualifies for a "high crime" or a "misdemeanor" of office.

Many people have suggested that President Bush's Ahab-like obsession with Saddam Hussein has interfered with and compromised our efforts against Al Qaeda.

This episode is concrete evidence of that point.

Just for the sake of argument:

What about the clips I've seen from the Clinton era, with Clinton talking in language precisely parallel to GWB's about the need to get rid of Sadaam?

I've seen at least two different Press conferences with Clinton saying action must be taken against Sadaam, for the same reasons Bush is using now. And there WERE four years without any weapons inspectors in the interim. So, how can we be so suspicious of GWB's motives, if we were behind Clinton?

Inconsistencies, particularly when revealed through videotape, are so inconvenient, aren't they? Far more emotion and ideologic opposition are evidenced than reasoned, logical objection (not to say such reasoned, logical objection does not exist, just that it is not trotted out for consideration).




timber

snood, Another argument to discredit GWBush is that we've already waited 12 years, and Saddam has not attacked any of his neighbors. Also, how is Saddam going to be a threat to the US? Is his threat any different from other threats? What ever happened to our "war against terrorism?" That should be GWBush's main challenge. Other than that, he needs to work towards helping our economy - not destory it with a war with Iraq. His march to war is hurting our economy and our stock market, or haven't you noticed? c.i.

You mean like this videotape?

http://www.warblogging.com/illustrations/rummysaddam.jpg

Yeah, you right.

PDid, Picture speak a thousand words. N'uf said? c.i.

Trying to equate the fight against terrorism in the Clinton years and now is not possible. Clinton did not have a catalyst. Bush on the other hand had 9/11. Do you think for one minute that Bush's actions would have been condoned without it. Different time, different situation. Remember, Bush took no action before he hit the trifecta of 9/11

That was the old "But-Clinton-lied-about-a-blowjob" obfuscation that doesn't address snood's devil's advocate question, so let me get back on topic by saying that, yes, Clinton did lob a few cruise missles into Iraq when Saddam kicked out the inspectors but basically let the situation fester for his successor. (How's that for a run-on sentence?)

His successor also chose to ignore the warning signs prior to 9/11, as you may recall.

PD - Okay, how about this then:

Which I guess brings to the forefront the important distinction that historical context brings to such mentions or photos. A photo taken with Hitler prior to his efforts to take over the world is no indication of complicity in or accountability for those actions. Nor does the fact that Clinton met with an Iraqi embassador during the same timeframe this Rumsfeld meeting occurred tell us anything sinister about Clinton or suggest any culpability on Clinton's part in today's Iraqi troubles.