What's the chances of Bush being outed before '08?

Sorry Freeduck, I totally missed it.
It wasn't lame, I'm just a tad thick at times.

0 Replies

1. What are the chances of an early dismissal?
Zero

2. What is the actual process involved in such a dismissal?
The process is spelled out in the Constitution of the United States. It is a short, but most important documents active in the world today. I strongly suggest that everyone read it.

The President is elected by Electors apportioned by the various states. The Electors are chosen by popular election. Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) are elected seperately, and the judiciary are nominated by the Executive and confirmed by the Senate. This mechanism is designed to make each of the several branches of the Federal govenment independant of the others. Each branch has its own function, and part of the their function is to prevent the other branches of goverment from gaining so much power that individual rights and liberty are threatened. On the other hand, the power of each branch and ability to interfere in the functions of the other branches is strictly limited.

The President can only be removed from office by impeachment after a Bill of Impeachment is brought in the House of Representatives and a trial in the Senate where the vote is to accept the Bill of Impeachment as proved. In our Constitutional history only two Presidents has been tried by the Senate, and both were acquited.

Historians now generally accept that the trial of Andrew Johnson was a partisan affair fueled by the President's unpopular standing with the Congress. President Nixon resigned when it was evident that he would be tried in the Senate and that the evidence of his wrong-doing was sufficient for his conviction. President Clinton was impeached and exhonerated for committing perjury for which he lost his license to practice law. Clinton admittedly lied under oath (a felony), but was acquited on a strict partisan vote, and many believe that the impeachment itself was partisan and about Clinton's sex life, not the fact that he committed a Federal crime while serving as President.

Currently the Republican Party holds a majority of the Congress, and most of those who wish for President Bushes removal are liberal Democrats. It is true some conservatives and Republicans have lately become alarmed at some of this Administatation's policies, but not nearly enough to begin impeachment proceedings. The President's popularity is not and should not be an issue. He is charged with providing security for the United States while conducting war against our enemies, and he is doing that. Has he over stepped his bounds? That remains a matter of opinion, and many in this country believe that he has not. Historically, Presidents have imposed greater restrictions on civil rights than has Bush (Adams, Lincoln, and Wilson are all good examples). We are at war and the Constitution provides great leeway for Presidential management during such times, even the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

The War on Terrorism is a different sort of war, and is a challenge to orthodox means of waging war. The enemy is not uniformed, he does not operate in conventional military formations, nor is he the recognized instrument of a national state. The enemy operates secretly and uses modern communications and propaganda by committing acts of murder and terror mostly against innocent civilian targets. This enemy does not recognize and conform to the accepted rules that have governed soldiers and war since the Congress of Vienna. Security against such an enemy is difficult, and does in some cases infringe upon the civil rights of a few that would in peace time be inviolate. On the whole some may disagree with how President Bush has conducted this difficult war, but no one has shown that he has been grossly incompetent, or acted clearly outside the bounds set by the Constitution.

3. What would be the grounds for such a dismissal?
Conscious and willful behavior to overthrow, or undermine, the Constitution, or; failure to protect and defend the Constitution when the nation is threatened by enemies, foreign or domestic.

0 Replies

Your point number three, Ash, is not pertinent. Candidone was asking what the grounds would be, and as a President can only be "dismissed" by the impeachment procedure, whether or not he had "fail[ed] to protect and defend the Constitution when the nation is threatened by enemies, foreign or domestic" simply isn't on the books as grounds for impeachment. At a stretch, one might cobble together "concious and willful behavior to overthrow, or undermine, the Constitution."

However, the Constitution itself has specific language, to none of which you referred. Article II, Section 4 reads, in its entirety:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Absent further clarification, the House of Representatives has the right to determine what constitutes "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" by its own lights (given that no one seems to suggest that the Shrub is guilty of treason or bribery).

I further note that you acknowledge the partisan attack on Johnson, but only dredge up the evil spector of partisanship in the case of Clinton when noting his acquittal. Your prejudices are showing.

In the case of the Shrub, the ranting against him has always been sufficiently vague, until the revelation about domestic wire taps. Those who now howl for the Shrub's hide do so on the basis that an illegal course of wire taps in willful violation of the authorizing legislation would constitute the "high crimes [and/or] misdemeanors" for which the House might impeach him.

I've always pointed out that with a Republican-controlled House, it is unlikely to happen. The GOP has sufficiently soiled their own skirts that it is within the realm of possibility that they'd lose their majority at the next mid-term election, although highly unlikely. Were that the case, and were the Shrub impeached by the House, i can't imagine the Senate producing a conviction, especially as only one third of senators are to be elected this year, and even were all of those elected to be Democrats, that party would still be at last one vote short of the two thirds majority needed to convict. (The penultimate paragraph of Article I, Section 3 reads, in its entirety: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.)

I wonder, though--were the House to impeach the Shrub, and were he tried and acquitted in the Senate, would you ascribe such an outcome to partisanship?

0 Replies

Set,

Absolutely concur. I would have been better advised to cleave strictly to the words of the Constitution than substituting what I think might pass the test in modern times. The question seems always to be what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors". Nothing in A. Johnson's record would today be regarded as meeting the Constitutional test, but he was much less popular in Congress and in the public eye than modern Presidents. Clinton, on the other hand, was guilty of a felony committed while President and the vote acquiting him was strictly along partisan political lines. That seems to set a precedent that felony guilt alone is not sufficient to an impeachment conviction ... at least not if you have the political clout in the Senate. Would the President be successfully impeached if he were caught wearing a mask and holding up the local "stop and rob", or must the felony be more directly associated with the conduct of government? Even at the time, I felt that while Clinton was technically guilty that it was a political mistake to impeach him. Impeachment is a very serious thing, and should only be attempted when the evidence is clear and compelling that the President has far overstepped his Constitutional mandate, or failed utterly to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the office.

I don't believe that there currently are sufficient grounds to impeach the President, but recognize that other reasonable minds come to a different conclusion. If a Bill of Impeachment were to be passed, and I doubt that it would, it would almost certainly fail in the Senate as you've already suggested. The votes in both Houses would againp probably be along partisan lines. To mount a successful impeachment the evidence would have to be very strong; strong enough to shatter the President's partisan base. That is a very high test to meet. So my answer to your last question is no. Conviction in the Senate would only be possible if the evidence persuaded the President's natural allies of his guilt. In the present instance, acquital would probably be along partisan lines, but conviction would almost certainly have to be non-partisan.

If the President had little or no natural partisan support in the Congress conviction on vague charges might occur as it so nearly did in the case of Andrew Johnson. Unpopularity with the public and Congress is not, and should not be the basis for impeachment proceedings. Some of our "best" Presidents were not popular in their own time. Popularity has little to do with how well a President performs his duty to the nation and the Constitution.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

the Constitution of the United States...is a short, but most important documents active in the world today. I strongly suggest that everyone read it.

Asherman wrote:

This mechanism is designed to make each of the several branches of the Federal govenment independant of the others. Each branch has its own function, and part of the their function is to prevent the other branches of goverment from gaining so much power that individual rights and liberty are threatened.

Asherman wrote:

We are at war and the Constitution provides great leeway for Presidential management during such times, even the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

I find this troubling becasue being perpetually "at war" (and incidentally, immersed within the exact same "war on terrorism" that was waged by the Reagan administration, likely by some of the very same players) conveniently grants the executive essentially and effectively, unchecked absolute power, as actualized by the illegal wiretaps.

Fighting a "war on terrorism" is in effect, as you mention, the waging of a war on an unconventional and indeterminate enemy. If the war was against Afghanistan, or Iraq, then there could be some criteria by which we could determine victory or defeat. However, this dubious name game allows the administration to be in a constant state of war so long as it falls under the auspices of the great war on terror.

As the "war" is waged against terror overseas, the terror war is played out by the fearmongering neocons back home, and the fruits of their labor is the kind of unchecked power granted by the Constitution to the administration in times of war.

0 Replies

If we had our druthers, this would be a war fought in a conventional manner against a conventional foe under the conventional rules of war. The enemy has chose otherwise because that is the only way they have even a remote chance of ultimate victory. The enemy is weak, but must appear strong. He has no arms to match even the weakest of Western nations, so he relies instead on sneak terror attacks to get media attention. He has no disciplined army, so he enlists children and fanatics to blow themselves up in public places. He intends to destroy Western Civilization by turning its institutions and humanist values against it. He thrives of fear and blackmail. That is the path chosen by the radical Islamic movement to defeat the infidel.

We have become conditioned to think of war along different lines than the strategy adopted by the current enemy of our Civilization. We want to believe that wars will be fought according to rules, and between armies that are responsible agents of national governments. That isn't the case, but we are never-the-less at war. This war did not begin on 9/11, nor is it just between the United States and a dedicated band of "patriots" fighting for regional autonomy. This is a struggle by a radical political faction in Southwestern Asia to replace secular governments with a religious dictaorships along 8th century lines. They hate, at least publically, Western materialism, pluralism and freedom of religion. They have been conducting terror operations against the West since at least the fall of the Soviet Union. They have been behind attacks and efforts to destabilize Israel, Spain, France, Denmark, Britain and other European nations as well as the United States.

The enemy is today engaged in a desperate attempt to prevent the formation of a secular government in Iraq, near the heart of their "natural" constituency. There is undoubtedly great support among Muslims for the radical Islamic movement in Southwestern Asia, and beyond. Who are the soldiers? Where do they intended to attack next, and when? How will their attacks be carried out? These questions are vital to our security at home, and to prosecute the war against the enemy.

0 Replies

The enemy? Secular government? And here I thought I had the best marijuana.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

If we had our druthers, this would be a war fought in a conventional manner against a conventional foe under the conventional rules of war.

Were the "conventional rules of war" followed when the US dismissed practical conventions and proceeded to unilaterally invade a sovereign country, who, at the time, was not "the enemy" proper?
It's convenient to label "the enemy" an unconventional one, but the presuppostion that I can not grant is the insurgents in Iraq were in fact "the enemy" vis a vis 9/11.

Asherman wrote:

The enemy has chose otherwise because that is the only way they have even a remote chance of ultimate victory. The enemy is weak, but must appear strong. He has no arms to match even the weakest of Western nations, so he relies instead on sneak terror attacks to get media attention. He has no disciplined army, so he enlists children and fanatics to blow themselves up in public places. He intends to destroy Western Civilization by turning its institutions and humanist values against it. He thrives of fear and blackmail. That is the path chosen by the radical Islamic movement to defeat the infidel.

"....intends to destroy western civilization by turning its institutions and humanist values against it??"
Puhleeze.
Surely you don't subscribe to the so-called "clash of civilizations" because that is simply a farce.

Asherman wrote:

We have become conditioned to think of war along different lines than the strategy adopted by the current enemy of our Civilization.

Enemy of our civilization?
Was that Iraq?...or was it the al Qaeda organization that the US built up, armed, trained and supported ideologically?
You are conveniently confusing "the enemy" as seen in Iraq with "the enemy" who attacked the US.
They are not the synonymous.

Asherman wrote:

We want to believe that wars will be fought according to rules, and between armies that are responsible agents of national governments. That isn't the case, but we are never-the-less at war. This war did not begin on 9/11, nor is it just between the United States and a dedicated band of "patriots" fighting for regional autonomy. This is a struggle by a radical political faction in Southwestern Asia to replace secular governments with a religious dictaorships along 8th century lines. They hate, at least publically, Western materialism, pluralism and freedom of religion. They have been conducting terror operations against the West since at least the fall of the Soviet Union.

You again ignore how fashionable the radical islamic movement was while the US supported the mujahideen both militarily and ideologically.
Following 9/11 the shrub naively asked "why do they hate us when we're so good..." whilst ignoring the perception of America through the eyes of those routinely used as American pawns in their strategic power plays.

Asherman wrote:

The enemy is today engaged in a desperate attempt to prevent the formation of a secular government in Iraq, near the heart of their "natural" constituency.

Again, you mesh "the enemy" in Iraq with "the enemy" of 9/11. They are not synonymous.
What is abbhored by America is their rejection of western style democracy, implemented or imposed by the US. "Democracy" is only virtuous if it is friendly to US interests.
Hamas is a prefect example.

Asherman wrote:

There is undoubtedly great support among Muslims for the radical Islamic movement in Southwestern Asia, and beyond. Who are the soldiers? Where do they intended to attack next, and when? How will their attacks be carried out? These questions are vital to our security at home, and to prosecute the war against the enemy.

Glad you mentioned "prosecute", because the shrub's idea of "bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice" is to bomb the livin' bajeebers out of a completely unrelated, realtively benign (as far as US interests were concerned), sovereign state.

IMO, and I'd be interested to hear your opinion on this, is that the world has become a far more dangerous place to live in, not since 9/11, but since the US has so blatently and transparently sought to further the neoconservative endeavors of the PNAC via the endless war campaign against faceless and homeless ideological enemy.

0 Replies

Actually, the world has not been a "safe" place to live in since long before I was born. Is it more dangerous today than it was on 9/11? No it is not. Our interests were under attack for a decade before 9/11, but we just couldn't bring ourselves to believe how great the threat was. We closed our eyes to how the government of Afghanistan could possibly be a threat to the United States. We believed that forcing Saddam out of Kuwait was sufficient, when it was not. Iraq continued to threaten the peace of the region, and openly defied the conditions of the cease-fire. Only when it was clear that Iraq was thumbing its nose at the West, did the Gulf War resume.

Haven't you listened to the rhetoric of the terrorists? Have you completely missed the religious fanatcism evident in Southwest Asia? What do you think motivates sucide bombers, and terrorism calculated to grab television newstime at the expense of innocent lives? Do you think these people aren't serious in their desire to destroy the United States?

The radical Islamic terrorist organizations have their base of operations in Southwest Asia, where their message of hate is eagerly swallowed by the multitudes. They aren't representative of Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan or Palistine. Rather the sentiments they mouth are common amongst the populace of those countries. Some of those governments are not hostile to the West, or the United States, but others are representative of the terrorist strategy. Who? The governments Iran, Syria, and Palistine remain silent supporters of the radical movement, though none of them had anything to do with 9/11 either. That does not make them any less the enemy. It is the radical Islamic terrorists who have declared this a war between civilizations. It is not, it is a war against a relatively small band of zealots who mobilize the ignorant to self destruction.

America has been the friend and ally of those who live in the region, though of course the West also depends upon the oil beneath their sands. We aided the Afghani in their struggle against the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, both for their benefit and our own. Why indeed should the terrorists hate us so much? What did we ever do to harm them before 9/11? Support Israel, a country of refugees set up by the United Nations? Drive a brutal dictator out of a tiny neighbor that he had invaded? Buy their oil? Send them soft drinks and action movies? Blue jeans and the idea that every human being has value regardless of their sex or religion? Did we so deeply offend by harboring the notions that people should be politically free and entitled to common justice? They have been attacking the West for almost two decades now, and only provoked a strong response in return after 9/11. That was their mistake, waking the giant up.

Ah, if you think the United States and the values of Western Civilization are so bad and oppressive, you obviously have led a sheltered life. If you believe that surrender to the radical islamic movement would bring about world peace and harmony, you are naive. If you believe that you will be safe in your bed, if only the United States would abandon its prosecution of the war against our common enemy, you're letting your fears blind you.

War is always serious, and this one is no exception. War is always expensive in blood and treasure, and this one will be no exception. War is cruel and innocent lives are destroyed, that is also is a fact of life. War is not a game, or something that is entered into lightly. It is the fundamental responsibility of government when attacked to take the war to the enemy, wherever he is. If the enemy hides behind the innocent, the innocent will be at greater risk than if the enemy puts on a uniform and steps forth as MEN, as SOLDIERs, instead of cowards. This enemy Choose to murder indiscriminately even those they claim to represent. They are liars and murders, and deserve no more mercy than anyother pirates.

0 Replies

I notice that you do not wish to acknowledge the fashionability of the Taliban, the mujhideen, and even the previous collegiality between the US and Iraq. It is important to discuss this issue, as I'm sure it has contributed, at least on the periphery, to some of the hatred toward the US and it's allies.
I do recall reading about condemnation of 9/11 from Nicaragua, Panama, and the Turkish Kurds--but they did it with rememberance for the horrors inflicted upon their people by the US...
You needn't look far, or even outside the borders of the US to find extreme hatred for American policies.
__________________________

It's awfully mypoic to posit that they threaten "our" way of life, becasue, in the bubble, "our" way of life makes sense and their's does not.
Americans should look at the Islamic world as though they are looking at their reflection in the mirror. You speak of gleaning precious television time, yet fail to recall the 24 hour coverage of the "Shock and Awe" campaign, the Bush administrations "Most Wanted" trading cards, and the hollywood-ization of the entire post 9/11 ramp-up to the war with Iraq.
Talk about media whores--look no further than the Bush administration.

The rhetoric of the terrorists mimics the rhetoric of the United States, from the terrorist-like non-negotiable and unsubstantiated demands placed on Afghanistan immediately following 9/11 to release certain individuals to Bushie-catch-phrases like "we don't negotiate with terrorists, we destroy them."

You claim that the terrorists are out to destory America, but again, fail to recognize 1. the possible legitimacy of their claims and 2. the perception they have that America is out to destroy "them".

Asherman wrote:

It is not, it is a war against a relatively small band of zealots who mobilize the ignorant to self destruction

Or the inverse; that the US wages a war on the command of a relatively small band of zealots who are ignorant to any kind of destruction.

Asherman wrote:

Why indeed should the terrorists hate us so much? What did we ever do to harm them before 9/11? Support Israel, a country of refugees set up by the United Nations?

This is the typical tripe peddled about Israel. They are clearly not the innocent "refugees set up by the UN". They are a military powerhouse in the region solely as a result of being an American client state.
Refugees, my ass. Maybe in 1947, but they are hardly the picture you paint.

Asherman wrote:

Buy their oil?

You act as though this is an altruistic endeavor performed by the US.

Asherman wrote:

Send them soft drinks and action movies?

Sadly, this is what America wants to believe the world thanks them for.

Asherman wrote:

They have been attacking the West for almost two decades now, and only provoked a strong response in return after 9/11. That was their mistake, waking the giant up.

The giant ain't so giant when they go in expecting a few hours or days of battle and get bogged down into years of death and destruction. This is a sad and egotistical self-image America has.

0 Replies

Canidone, let me put a simple question to you:

Given a choice between living in the United States (or any of the Western nations, if you must), or living in Iran, Syria, Palestine, or any of those countries where radical Islam is the idea, which would you choose?

Would you rather live in a land where women are property, and justice is whatever a Mullah says it is, or would you rather live where Anglo-American Law is practiced and no one is officially discriminated against by reason of their sex or religion?

Which system holds and practices humanistic values, and which preaches the submission of all persons to a particular religious doctrine?

Would you rather support the terrorist strategy of specifically targeting innocent people for murder and mayhem, or the military constraint that typifies British and United States military doctrine?

If you became aware of a terrorist plot to plant a bomb in your national legislature, would you cheer them? Or would you report the threat to your government, even if you disagree personally with its policies? If you believe that your government is in the wrong trying to eliminate those who are plotting YOUR destruction, are you willing to lay down YOUR life to frustrate YOUR government and way of life? Do you believe in cutting off your nose to spite your face? Do you really hate your way of life so much that you would give comfort and aid to your country's enemies?

0 Replies

Quote; '...no one is officially discriminated against by reason of their sex or religion?" Careful there Ash; this administration rounded up Arab Americans based on their race while they gave lip service to Arabs/Muslims being our "friends/allies."

0 Replies

Cicero,

Such "round-ups" were not indiscriminate, but directed at those individuals who appeared to be supporters of the terrorist organizations. Were some innocents arrested and temporarily deprived of some of their rights? Probably, but the actions taken against a few suspicious individuals was not done with malice toward Muslims or people from Southwest Asia ... but as a necessary precaution. Its pretty hard to clearly identify which Middle-easterner or Muslims are actively working to harm the United States, and which are as offended by the radicals tactics as anyone else in the country. Since all of the terrorist operations to date have been carried out by radical Muslims with ties to the Middle-East, its pretty hard not to be suspicious of people in that cohort, even though the great majority are as devoted to America and our way of life as any other citizen. Food poisoning by a bad dish of fish and destroy one's appetite for sea food for a long time.

BTW, our youngest son and his wife are expecting a baby boy sometime in July. We expect to visit San Francisco around that time to see the baby and take care of some business. Among the things we'd like to do (again) is have dinner with you and some of the other Bay Area A2K tribe ... I'd especially like to visit with Georgeob1. Once we have plans that are more precise, we'll let you know.

0 Replies

Ash wrote:
Were some innocents arrested and temporarily deprived of some of their rights? Probably, but the actions taken against a few suspicious individuals was not done with malice toward Muslims or people from Southwest Asia ... but as a necessary precaution.

Yeah, like the time the US put us Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WWII - as a precaution. Give me a break! Their Constitutinoal Rights were abridged. There is no excuse for it in the name of "security."

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Given a choice between living in the United States (or any of the Western nations, if you must), or living in Iran, Syria, Palestine, or any of those countries where radical Islam is the idea, which would you choose?

That's not the issue. I'm happy living in Canada.
There are other ways of running a country, and being forced to choose either the US or an Islamic State of your specification sidesteps the issues we have here been discussing.

Asherman wrote:

Which system holds and practices humanistic values, and which preaches the submission of all persons to a particular religious doctrine?

To be honest, at least there is a certain level of transparecy that I admire about the states that you are indirectly criticizing. In the US, there is a false sense of democracy, of equality, "humanistic" values, and tolerance. The right so frequently champion the Iraq war, and the liberation of Iraqis, yet they are generally the staunchest critics of multiculturalism back home. Ironically, they cherish the freedom of overseas Arabs in a way that they would never do so at home. They preach democracy in Iraq, yet defend the 2000 Supreme Court partisan decision to halt vote counting in Florida, or the disenfranchisement of minorities. They support an American written constitution in Iraq, yet don't mind seeing theirs trampled by a power hungry warmongering PNAC imperialist. They preach, as you do, humanistic values and equality, but don't bat an eye to the ghettoized slums of their own nation, and the root causes of such poverty, or the blatent and very deliberate maintenence of inequality of women and blacks, or other visible minorities, or the relative impunity by which the WASP male goes about his ways.
Yeah, you may think that the obvious choice is America. But at least I know what I'm getting in your designated Arab states.
As John Dewey said, in the US, the government is the shadow cast by business over society. The United States is a kleptocratic, business run society with about as much real concern for the individiual American as it does for the average Afghan, Iraqi, Panamanian, Nicaraguan, Kurd, or Vietnamese that they indiscriminantly blow up as "collateral damage". So insignificant are the deaths by the US, that rarely are death tolls calculated.

Asherman wrote:

Would you rather support the terrorist strategy of specifically targeting innocent people for murder and mayhem, or the military constraint that typifies British and United States military doctrine?

Military constraint?
What, in the United States glorious history leads you to think that there is any level or degree of constraint?
Would that be Hiroshima?
Would that be Nagasaki?
Would that be Abu Ghraib?
Would that be Camp X-Ray?
Would that be Vietnam?
Would that be White Phosphrous?
Would that be Operation Just Cause?
Would that be Operation Northwoods, or it's much weaker version as played out the Bay of Pigs....
Or would it be the unconditional support for Israel's terrorist activities....
...I mean, this is an incomplete, but very distinguished list of examples of constraint.
Surely you're not serious.

Asherman wrote:

If you became aware of a terrorist plot to plant a bomb in your national legislature, would you cheer them? Or would you report the threat to your government, even if you disagree personally with its policies? If you believe that your government is in the wrong trying to eliminate those who are plotting YOUR destruction, are you willing to lay down YOUR life to frustrate YOUR government and way of life? Do you believe in cutting off your nose to spite your face? Do you really hate your way of life so much that you would give comfort and aid to your country's enemies?

Well, I guess the issue is whether or not I see escalating the level of violence as the only resolve. Clearly, the American way is to respond as they are the Giant who has been rudely waken, and continue down the path that is familiar.
If you continue to try to make people like you, agree with you, appreciate your way of life, like each other more, get along etc. then , IMO, you don't starve them through sanctions, criticize their religion and "their way of life", then bomb the f*ck out of them, kill innocent families and tell them they should be grateful for Soda pop, movie stars and Levis....
But I expect nothing more from the American right at this point. I have been told by many of the Coulterean Republicans that I'm lucky the US has allowed Canada to exist.
Somehow, when Iran says it about Isreal, it's threatening and dangerous, but when the frothing at the mouth neocons say it about Canada, it has validity.
I sincerely wonder how and why why Americans can honestly ask why they are hated so much....

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Ash wrote:
Were some innocents arrested and temporarily deprived of some of their rights? Probably, but the actions taken against a few suspicious individuals was not done with malice toward Muslims or people from Southwest Asia ... but as a necessary precaution.

Yeah, like the time the US put us Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WWII - as a precaution. Give me a break! Their Constitutinoal Rights were abridged. There is no excuse for it in the name of "security."

Agreed.
How many were indiscriminantly rounded up on "suspicions" and later released without any charges being laid?
How many were rounded up and never told what the charges were?
How many are being held up indefinately with no rights guaranteed to them by both national and international conventions?
This is WWII and Vietnam all over again, but with a different name, played out by different actors.

0 Replies

candidone, Not all Americans think like right wing neocons. Some of us are still slightly sane.

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

At this point, Bush would have to sh*t on a nun while molesting a child and doing lines of coke on camera for anything to happen to him.

Justan, You are thinking along the same line as me. I've always said that the way the so-called media fawns over bu$h, he would have to walk out into the middle of Penn Av, take a gun and start shooting people randomly before any of the right would admit he did anything wrong.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Military constraint?
What, in the United States glorious history leads you to think that there is any level or degree of constraint?
Would that be Hiroshima?
Would that be Nagasaki?
Would that be Abu Ghraib?
Would that be Camp X-Ray?
Would that be Vietnam?
Would that be White Phosphrous?
Would that be Operation Just Cause?
Would that be Operation Northwoods, or it's much weaker version as played out the Bay of Pigs....
Or would it be the unconditional support for Israel's terrorist activities....
...I mean, this is an incomplete, but very distinguished list of examples of constraint.
Surely you're not serious.

This is the kind of garbage that makes people scroll past the Anti-Bush Screeders. Notice neither the bombing campaigns in Afghanistan nor Iraq are mentioned, even while you're whining about same. Take a close look at the first two examples you listed, and ask yourself if the U.S. couldn't have done the same. Idea

There can be no doubt that the United States has the Military ability to wipe their new enemies "from the map", with Nukes or conventional weaponry, but chooses not to do so in an attempt to limit civilian casualties. Every American Soldier that falls in Iraq or Afghanistan is further testament to this simple truth.

Go on shouting at the rain from under the blanket of security provided by your neighbor if you must; but have the decency to address the facts honestly. Your anti-Israeli bias, while defending our enemies, shows only too clearly that you have no idea how to tell friend from foe. You really can't see constraint? Surely it is you who isn't serious (or coherent, take your pick.)

Thanks once again Asherman; for having the patience to respond to such drivel.

0 Replies

Quote:

There can be no doubt that the United States has the Military ability to wipe their new enemies "from the map", with Nukes or conventional weaponry, but chooses not to do so in an attempt to limit civilian casualties. Every American Soldier that falls in Iraq or Afghanistan is further testament to this simple truth.

Simple truth? Try simple minded. This has got to be one of the most absurd assertions ever placed here.

0 Replies

What's the chances of Bush being outed before '08?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know