T Nation

IMPEACH BUSH

Time to quit defending this administrations actions. WE DID NOT GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ BASED ON SADDAM"S “INTENTIONS”. We went to WAR based on “PROOF POSITIVE” he had WMD’s.

THEY LIED, deal with it!

Ex-Nixon Aide John Dean Tells Bill Moyers that Bush Should Be Impeached

Tonight on NOW with Bill Moyers , former counsel to President Nixon John Dean tells Bill Moyers that he believes the Bush Administration’s secrecy and deception over the war with Iraq should result in impeachment.

“Clearly, it is an impeachable offense,” he says. “I think the case is overwhelming that these people presented false information to the Congress and to the American people.”

It is Dean’s first television interview about his new book Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush. In the interview, taped Friday in New York, Dean compares the Bush and Nixon White Houses.

“There are many things worse than Watergate,” he says. “Taking the nation to war in a time when they might not have had to gone to war, and people dying.”

After becoming counsel to Nixon at the age of 31, Dean emerged as a central figure in the Watergate scandal and is considered the chief whistleblower that brought down Nixon’s presidency. Dean has written many articles and essays on law, government, politics, and has recounted his days in the Nixon White House and Watergate in three previous books.

Partial Transcript

BILL MOYERS:
You write that the administration has tried to block, frustrate or control any investigation into 9/11 using, quote, “well-proven tactics not unlike those used by the Nixon White House during Watergate.” What tactics?

JOHN DEAN:
Stall. Stall.

We knew that at the Nixon White House. Some of these are time-tested tactics. When the Congress put together a joint inquiry itself was self-defeating because it’s much more difficult for a joint inquiry with its size – the lack of attention its staff can give to a group that large. It gets diffuse. And Cheney -

BILL MOYERS:
So when you testified in Congress - in the 70’s there was a Senate Investigating Committee and a House Judiciary Committee, right?

JOHN DEAN:
Right. Separate committees. Exactly. And they can get much more focused. So it was very effective. And Cheney and Bush were very involved. They didn’t want any of the standing committees to do it. They put them together. And that was one of the first signs I saw that they’re just playing it by - I think they found an old playbook down in the basement that belonged to Richard Nixon. And they said, “Well, this stuff looks like it works.”

BILL MOYERS:
Be specific with me. What is worse than Watergate?

JOHN DEAN:
If there’s anything that really is the bottom line, it’s taking the nation to war in a time - when they might not have had to go to war and people dying. That is worse than Watergate. No one died for Nixon’s so-called Watergate abuses.

BILL MOYERS:
Let me go right to page 155 of your book. You write, quote, “The evidence is overwhelming that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense.”

JOHN DEAN:
Absolutely is. The founders in the debates in the states - I cite one. I cite one that I found - I tracked down after reading the Nixon impeachment proceedings when - Congressman Castenmeyer had gone back to look to see what the founders said about misrepresentations and lying to the Congress. Clearly, it is an impeachable offense. And I think the case is overwhelming that these people presented false information to the Congress and to the American people.

BILL MOYERS:
John, I was, as you know, in the Johnson White House at the time of the Gulf of - Tonkin when LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam on the basis of misleading information. He said there was an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. It subsequent turns out there wasn’t an attack.

Many people said then and have said that LBJ deceived the country and concealed the escalation of the war. You even say in the book that he hoodwinked Congress. Are you saying that that was not an impeachable offense but what is happening now is?

JOHN DEAN:
No. I’m saying that was an impeachable offense. In fact, it comes up in the Nixon debates over whether the secret bombing would be an impeachable offense. That became a high crime or offense because Nixon had, in fact, told privately some members of the Congress. Johnson didn’t tell anybody the game he was playing to my knowledge.

And these are probably the most serious offenses that you can make - when you take a country to war, blood and treasure, no higher decision can a President of the United States make as the Commander-in-Chief. To do it on bogus information, to use this kind of secrecy to do it is intolerable.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0402-16.htm

Remember, the following article is over a year old. In light of the new/old news, not only should Bush not be re-elected, it’s time for his impeachment!

Why A Special Prosecutor’s Investigation Is Needed To Sort Out the Niger Uranium And Related WMDs Mess
By JOHN W. DEAN
Friday, Jul. 18, 2003

The heart of President Bush’s January 28 State of the Union address was his case for going to war against Saddam Hussein. In making his case, the President laid out fact after fact about Saddam’s alleged unconventional weapons. Indeed, the claim that these WMDs posed an imminent threat was his primary argument in favor of war.

Now, as more and more time passes with WMDs still not found, it seems that some of those facts may not have been true. In particular, recent controversy has focused on the President’s citations to British intelligence purportedly showing that Saddam was seeking “significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

In this column, I will examine the publicly available evidence relating to this and other statements in the State of the Union concerning Saddam’s WMDs. Obviously, I do not have access to the classified information the President doubtless relied upon. But much of the relevant information he drew from appears to have been declassified, and made available for inquiring minds.

What I found, in critically examining Bush’s evidence, is not pretty. The African uranium matter is merely indicative of larger problems, and troubling questions of potential and widespread criminality when taking the nation to war. It appears that not only the Niger uranium hoax, but most everything else that Bush said about Saddam Hussein’s weapons was false, fabricated, exaggerated, or phony.

Bush repeatedly, in his State of the Union, presented beliefs, estimates, and educated guesses as established fact. Genuine facts are truths that can be known or are observable, and the distance between fact and belief is uncertainty, which can be infinite. Authentic facts are not based on hopes or wishes or even probabilities. Now it is little wonder that none of these purported WMDs has been discovered in Iraq.

So egregious and serious are Bush’s misrepresentations that they appear to be a deliberate effort to mislead Congress and the public. So arrogant and secretive is the Bush White House that only a special prosecutor can effectively answer and address these troubling matters. Since the Independent Counsel statute has expired, the burden is on President Bush to appoint a special prosecutor - and if he fails to do so, he should be held accountable by Congress and the public.

In making this observation, I realize that some Republicans will pound the patriotism drum, claiming that anyone who questions Bush’s call to arms is politicizing the Iraqi war. But I have no interest in partisan politics, only good government - which is in serious trouble when we stop debating these issues, or absurdly accuse those who do of treason…

It Is A Crime To Make False Statements To Congress

Could Bush, and his aides, be stonewalling because it is a crime to give false information to Congress? It wasn’t a crime in President Polk’s day. Today, it is a felony under the false statements statute.

This 1934 provision makes it a serious offense to give a false information to Congress. It is little used, but has been actively available since 1955. That year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Bramblet that the statute could be used to prosecute a Congressman who made a false statement to the Clerk of the Disbursing Office of the House of Representatives, for Congress comes under the term “department” as used in the statutes.

Two members of the Bush administration, Admiral John Poindexter and Elliot Abrams, learned about this false statements law the hard way, during the Iran Contra investigation. Abrams pled guilty to two misdemeanors for false statements to Congress, as did Robert McFarlane. (Both were subsequently pardoned by President George H.W. Bush.) Poindexter and Oliver North fought the charges, and won on an unrelated legal technicality.

Later, one of McFarlane’s lawyers, Peter W. Morgan, wrote a law journal article about using the false statements statute to prosecute executive officials appearing before Congress. Morgan was troubled by the breadth of the law. It does not require a specific intent to deceive the Congress. It does not require that statements be written, or that they be sworn. Congress is aware of the law’s breadth and has chosen not to change it.

Maybe presciently, Morgan noted that the false statements statute even reaches “misrepresentations in a president’s state of the union address.” To which I would add, a criminal conspiracy to mislead Congress, which involved others at the Bush White House, could also be prosecuted under a separate statute, which makes it a felony to conspire to defraud the government.

Need for A Special Prosecutor To Investigate the WMD Claims

There is an unsavory stench about Bush’s claims to the Congress, and nation, about Saddam Hussein’s WMD threat. The deceptions are too apparent. There are simply too many unanswered questions, which have been growing daily. If the Independent Counsel law were still in existence, this situation would justify the appointment of an Independent Counsel.

Because that law has expired, if President Bush truly has nothing to hide, he should appoint a special prosecutor. After all, Presidents Nixon and Clinton, when not subject to the Independent Counsel law, appointed special prosecutors to investigate matters much less serious. If President Bush is truly the square shooter he portrays himself to be, he should appoint a special prosecutor to undertake an investigation.

Ideally, the investigation ought to be concluded - and the issue cleared up - well before the 2004 election, so voters know the character of the men (and women) they may or may not be re-electing.

Family, loved ones, and friends of those who have died, and continue to die, in Iraq deserve no less.


http://www.house.gov/waxman/text/admin_iraq_march_17_let.htm

Good idea, impeach Bush.

That puts Dick Cheney in charge, by way of succession.

Sounds like a great plan for the Left.

Scott Ritter: If you had seen what I have seen

The inspection process was rigged to create uncertainty over WMD to bolster the US and UK’s case for war
10 October 2004

It appears that the last vestiges of perceived legitimacy regarding the decision of President George Bush and Tony Blair to invade Iraq have been eliminated with the release this week of the Iraq Survey Group’s final report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The report’s author, Charles Duelfer, underscored the finality of what the world had come to accept in the 18 months since the invasion of Iraq - that there were no stockpiles of WMD, or programmes to produce WMD. Despite public statements made before the war by Bush, Blair and officials and pundits on both sides of the Atlantic to the contrary, the ISG report concludes that all of Iraq’s WMD stockpiles had been destroyed in 1991, and WMD programmes and facilities dismantled by 1996…

The ultimate condemnation of the failure and futility of the US-UK effort in Iraq is that if Saddam were released from his prison cell and participated in the elections scheduled for next January, there is a good chance he would emerge as the popular choice. But while democratic freedom of expression was a desired outcome of the decision to remove Saddam from power, the crux of the pre-war arguments and the ones being reconfigured by those in favour of the invasion centre on the need to improve international peace and security. Has Saddam’s removal accomplished this?

To answer this question, you have to postulate a world today that includes an Iraq led by Saddam. How this world would deal with him would be determined by decisions made by the US, Britain and the international community in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. One of the key historical questions being asked is what if Hans Blix (who gives his own view, right) had been given the three additional months he had requested in order to complete his programme of inspection? Two issues arise from this scenario: would Blix have been able to assemble enough data to ascertain conclusively, in as definitive a fashion as the Duelfer ISG report, a finding that Saddam’s Iraq was free of WMD, and thus posed no immediate threat; and would the main supporters of military engagement with Iraq, the US and Britain, have been willing to accept such a finding?

Saddam is gone, and the world is far worse for it - not because his regime posed no threat, perceived or otherwise, but because the threat to international peace and security resulting from the decisions made by Bush and Blair to invade Iraq in violation of international law make any threat emanating from an Iraq ruled by Saddam pale in comparison.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=570477

Amen, brother. I for one am tired of hearing Bush and Cheney change their stories based on whatever new info comes out of Iraq, while taking quotes from Kerry out of context and using them to attack him. It’s all a big ploy to take people’s minds off of what he doesn’t want them to be thinking about…his dismal record on job creation, his foreign policy that has pissed the rest of the world off and made the Middle East MUCH less stable than it had been before, and his blatant disregard for the environment as well as the middle class (remember Cheney’s secret energy policy meetings and Bush’s overtime bill, anyone???) And Bush is supposed to be the straight shooter. Give me a break. It’s one thing to have an opinion; it’s another thing to blindly follow someone just because of the party he represents. C’mon guys, take an honest look at the facts about what has happened over the last four years; are you better off now than you were four years ago?

Powell and Rice 2001 - No WMD’s

During the run-up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, we were repeatedly told by US leaders that Iraq absolutely, positively had weapons of mass destruction. The country was an immediate threat not only to its neighbors but to the entire world. It had the capability of launching WMDs within 45 minutes:

In August 2002, Cheney insisted: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

In a March 2003 address to the nation, Bush said: “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

In April 2003, Fleischer claimed: “But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.”

In February 2003, Powell said: “We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.”

But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell’s visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions - the fact that the sanctions exist - not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

Not only is Waxman a nutbar, he is also wrong.

The US waged pre-emptive war in WWII.

Germany never attacked the US. Japan did. FDR recognized the danger of a nuclear-tipped Nazi Germany, and proceeded with the European front.

Currently this is an going investigation, most of the details of which are not being made public.

The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian Tactic:
The Deadly Serious Crime Of Naming CIA Operatives
By JOHN W. DEAN
Friday, Aug. 15, 2003

On July 14, in his syndicated column, Chicago Sun-Times journalist Robert Novak reported that Valerie Plame Wilson - the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, and mother of three-year-old twins - was a covert CIA agent. (She had been known to her friends as an “energy analyst at a private firm.”)

Why was Novak able to learn this highly secret information? It turns out that he didn’t have to dig for it. Rather, he has said, the “two senior Administration officials” he had cited as sources sought him out, eager to let him know. And in journalism, that phrase is a term of art reserved for a vice president, cabinet officers, and top White House officials.

On July 17, Time magazine published the same story, attributing it to “government officials.” And on July 22, Newsday’s Washington Bureau confirmed “that Valerie Plame … works at the agency [CIA] on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity.” More specifically, according to a “senior intelligence official,” Newsday reported, she worked in the “Directorate of Operations [as an] undercover officer.”

In other words, Wilson is/was a spy involved in the clandestine collection of foreign intelligence, covert operations and espionage. She is/was part of a elite corps, the best and brightest, and among those willing to take great risk for their country. Now she has herself been placed at great - and needless - risk.

Why is the Administration so avidly leaking this information? The answer is clear. Former ambassador Wilson is famous, lately, for telling the truth about the Bush Administration’s bogus claim that Niger uranium had gone to Saddam Hussein. And the Bush Administration is punishing Wilson by targeting his wife. It is also sending a message to others who might dare to defy it, and reveal the truth.

No doubt the CIA, and Mrs. Wilson, have many years, and much effort, invested in her career and skills. Her future, if not her safety, are now in jeopardy.

After reading Novak’s column, The Nation’s Washington Editor, David Corn, asked, “Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security–and break the law–in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?”

The answer is plainly yes. Now the question is, will they get away with it?

Bits and pieces of information have emerged, but the story is far from complete. Nonetheless, what has surfaced is repulsive. If I thought I had seen dirty political tricks as nasty and vile as they could get at the Nixon White House, I was wrong. The American Prospect’s observation that “we are very much into Nixon territory here” with this story is an understatement.

Indeed, this is arguably worse. Nixon never set up a hit on one of his enemies’ wives.

The White House’s Unusual Stonewalling About an Obvious Leak

In the past, Bush and Cheney have gone ballistic when national security information leaked. But this leak - though it came from “two senior administration officials” - has been different. And that, in itself, speaks volumes.

On July 22, White House press secretary Scott McClellan was asked about the Novak column. Offering only a murky, non-answer, he claimed that neither “this President or this White House operates” in such a fashion. He added, “there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step.”

So was McClellan saying that Novak was lying - and his sources were not, in fact, “two senior administration officials”? McClellan dodged, kept repeating his mantra, and refused to respond.

Later, McClellan was asked, “Would the President support an investigation into the blowing of the cover on an undercover CIA operative?” Again, he refused to acknowledge “that there might be some truth to the matter you’re bringing up.” When pressed further, he said he would have to look into “whether or not that characterization is accurate when you’re talking about someone’s cover.”

McClellan’s statement that he would have to look into the matter was disingenuous at best. This ten-day old column by Novak had not escaped the attention of the White House. Indeed, when the question was first raised, McClellan immediately responded, “Thank you for bringing that up.”

As David Corn has pointed out, what McClellan did not say, is even more telling than what he said. He did not say he was trying to get to the bottom of the story and determine if it had any basis in fact. He did not say the president would not tolerate such activities, and was demanding to know what had happened.

Indeed, as Corn points out, McClellan’s remarks “hardly covered a message from Bush to his underlings: don’t you dare pull crap like this.” Indeed, they could even be seen as sending a message that such crimes will be overlooked.

Frankly, I am astounded that the President of the United States - whose father was once Director of the CIA - did not see fit to have his Press Secretary address this story with hard facts. Nor has he apparently called for an investigation - or even given Ambassador and Mrs. Wilson a Secret Service detail, to let the world know they will be protected.

This is the most vicious leak I have seen in over 40 years of government-watching. Failure to act to address it will reek of a cover-up or, at minimum, approval of the leak’s occurrence - and an invitation to similar revenge upon Administration critics.[/u]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Not only is Waxman a nutbar, he is also wrong.

The US waged pre-emptive war in WWII.

Germany never attacked the US. Japan did. FDR recognized the danger of a nuclear-tipped Nazi Germany, and proceeded with the European front.
[/quote]

Mr Thunderbolt:

Where in the world do you get your information on the Second World War?

Um…
Germany DECLARED WAR ON THE US just after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. They were under no treaty obligation to do so, Hitler just wanted to. General concensus is that either (1) Hitler was being stupid or (2) He correctly foresaw the inevitable, and thus went ahead and declared war himself.

Besides that rather important fact, the concept of atomic weaponry was unheard of in 1941. UNHEARD OF, and basically UNIMAGINED. US involvement in the European Theatre has nothing to do with the still non-existant German atomic program.

Now, um… even if your version was correct, there is a bit of a difference between Hitler-led Nazi Germany, and Saddam-led Iraq. Just a teensy-itsy-bitsy-difference.

Just pointin out some smidgens,
Jon

PS maybe your post was a joke I didn’t get, if so, disregard the above.

Janders,

“Um…Germany DECLARED WAR ON THE US just after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. They were under no treaty obligation to do so, Hitler just wanted to.”

Go catch up on FDR’s ‘Europe First’ strategy, one that wasn’t even mentioned in his ‘Day of Infamy’ speech.

Nazi Germany had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor, but FDR committed the bulk of the resources to Europe and the North Africa rim. Pre-emption - Germany hadn’t attacked us.

“Besides that rather important fact, the concept of atomic weaponry was unheard of in 1941. UNHEARD OF, and basically UNIMAGINED. US involvement in the European Theatre has nothing to do with the still non-existant German atomic program.”

Ever heard of the Manhattan Project, Janders?

“Nuclear scientists Le? Szil?rd, Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner (all Hungarian Jewish refugees from Hitler’s Europe) believed that the energy released in nuclear fission might be used in bombs by the Germans. They persuaded Albert Einstein, America’s most famous physicist, to warn President Franklin Roosevelt of this danger in an August 2, 1939, letter…”

All I see is blah, blah, blah, blah… Seriously, if you say Bush lied, then you’re saying everyone on the senate intelligence agency lied. Everyone on the 9/11 commission lied. Everyone in British Intelligence lied. The Russian President lied. Get my drift? Our CIA and British intelligence said he had them. The russian president said he had them. In fact, if you’re were coherent in Dec 1998, Bill Clinton said he had him. Bill bombed Iraq for 4 days in Dec 1998. Why?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Listen, you can believe all you want about Bush lying, but it’s simply not true. It’s our BI-PARTISAN investigations against a few idealogs.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Not only is Waxman a nutbar, he is also wrong.

The US waged pre-emptive war in WWII.

Germany never attacked the US. Japan did. FDR recognized the danger of a nuclear-tipped Nazi Germany, and proceeded with the European front.
[/quote]

Even if Germany WAS antagonized, as you present in your later post (a position I think is tenable, even if it’s one I don’t particularly agree with) that STILL doesn’t make WWII a preemptice war. Germany declared war first. End of story.

Thunder,

You must be kidding. WWII was not a preemptive war. The cat was already out of the bag (to the tune of several years, many attrocities and fallen countries).

I am pretty sure most people will concede that the US itself was not attacked by Germany, but the US finally got off it’s ass and decided to stand with its allies after getting a rude awakening from Japan.

Germany wasn’t a potential danger to US interests, it was an actual danger, due to having troops in active combat in various places.

Saddam on the other hand was hemmed up in his own country and not actively engaging anyone at the time the US attacked (most recently).

Anyway, if you want to make up history and play word games, you go right ahead. I’m sure millions of republicans will be happy to follow along with your deceit.

My friends!!!

What would you call Vietnam?

EVEN IF, you believe that our destroyer was fired upon, there can be a good case made that LBJ sent them in there to provoke a shooting war.

Ah, pre-emption.

Oh wait, Democrats can’t be wrong.

Just in case you Dems missed it, I think Kerry is wonderful!!! What a strong record on defense systems!!! He has had ONE consistent stance on Iraq!!!

Come on over to the challenge and get on board for a John Kerry win!!!

JeffR

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Go catch up on FDR’s ‘Europe First’ strategy, one that wasn’t even mentioned in his ‘Day of Infamy’ speech.
[/quote]
thunderbolt,
Trust me, I am well versed in the history of the second world war. Lets take this really nice and easy:

Germany and Japan were in an alliance, eh? Both had declared war on us (Japan a little late). In a correct grand-strategic analysis, we decided with our allies the Brits and the Russians that the situation in Europe was much more tenuous, and it was a wise move to attempt to finish that phase of the war first. Yes, Germany had not attacked US soil, while Japan had. But Germany had declared war, had overrun most of Europe, and our allies were on the brink of disaster. In a Grand Alliance we moved more men at them than we moved at the Japanese. Not to say fighting in the Pacific Theatre was exactly back-burner, in that we had decisively defeated them long before the Russians had defeated the Germans.

I mean, how in the world is this anything like a quasi-uni-lateral war against a 3rd-rate middle eastern country who had not declared war against us? A country who’s WMD program was neutered and shackled in a basement somewhere?

It boggles the mind.

Yes Roosevelt was told of “atmoic weapons” in late 1939, and this prompted the initial atomic research projects. But this work was extremely hypothetical, and really man, it was not the reason we went after Germany first!

I mean, shit, lets live in fantasy land for a second, shall we?

1939 FDR warned of nukes in germany
1940 nothing
11.25 months of 1941 nothing
12/7/1941 Japan attacks!
12/8/1941 Germany declares war on the USA
12/9/1941 FDR moves to detroy German nuclear program

That isn’t a pre-emptive war.

And its not how WWII went.

The second world war was not about america peremptively attacking Nazi terrorists with nukes.

Europe first was a realistic understanding of the constraints of resorces, technology and coallition warfare, not a response to weapons of mass destruction.

Seriously man, you read like a whacko-conspiracy theory.

the end,
jon

[quote]JeffR wrote:
My friends!!!

What would you call Vietnam?

EVEN IF, you believe that our destroyer was fired upon, there can be a good case made that LBJ sent them in there to provoke a shooting war.

Ah, pre-emption.

Oh wait, Democrats can’t be wrong.
JeffR[/quote]

Hey jeff-rrrrrrrrrrr the thread-pirate,

How's it going?  I see you've brought up Vietnam.  Guess what?  Vietnam was an atrocity-filled pre-emptive war waged on the incorrect belief that a domino-effect in SE Asia would seriously undermine Americo-capitalism's situation vis-a-vis the Soviet Bloc.  It was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.  At you are right, A democrat had something to do with it.  LBJ messed that crap up.  Big time.

Do I care? No.  Should LBJ's actions matter any more than Nixon's or JFK's or Lincolns on this election? No.  Do Democrats deserve equal scrutiny as Republicans?  OF FUCKING COURSE!

Ok, thread hijack over, lets go back to what we were talking about.
-jon

This has got to be one of the dumbest posts I have seen.

A grandstanding letter from the minority leader, Waxman, the comments of a discredited child molester and the comments made by a criminal to one of the most leftist political commentators in the country hardly constitute any kind of serious threat to impeach the President.

If you seriously think that even a majority of Democrats, especially Democrats from the South are going to vote to impeach Bush at the risk of losing their own base then all that can be said for you is that you lack any serious understanding of the way politics are played or in the way the House and Senate actually work.

Pre-emption is a well established right under international law, to the extent there actually is a body of law that constitutes “international law.”

To quote John O’Sullivan, former head of the UPI, in a recent article for the New Criterion:

“This right of preemption has recently been discussed as if it were a novelty just invented by some Doctor Strangelove in the Pentagon. In fact it has been recognized in international law since the 1837 when, ironically enough, the British in Canada launched a preemptive strike against an American privateer that they rightly suspected was about to supply arms to Canadian rebels. Terrorists armed with WMDs or states with terrorist links acquiring WMDs are much more terrible threats and thus far stronger justification for preemptive action. The United States asserted its right to take preemptive action to avert them.”

BTW, if you’re interested in foreign policy, the article itself is quite interesting:

Rather than impeach him, let’s just not reelect him, thereby putting this whole mess behind us.

Ahhhhhhh, here goes…
Ok. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Saddam had no WMD’s, but he was trying to get them. WHY THE FUCK DO WE HAVE TO SIT ON OUR ASSES AND WAIT TO GET HIT BY A NUCLEAR WEAPON BEFORE WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! How about we get in there and neutralize the POSSIBLE threat before it becomes imminent?? Let’s face it, if he did have some WMD’s he probably wouldn’t have the slightest knick on his conscience to use them on someone…namely us. Either way, he tortured untold thousands without mercy. Most of the shit he had done to people you probably couldn’t imagine in your worst, most horrible nightmares. I’ve heard the stories first-hand, and have seen the aftermath of his ruthless torture. I’ve seen people without arms, legs, fingers, and most devastatingly, loved ones because he thought it would be a good time. I know this is going on in many parts of the rest of the world, and that leads me to one of the only dings that I can find on Bush. The reason why we did something in Iraq and not anywhere else is because that area of the world is very, very important to us. Bottom line, I was GLAD to be a part of it, I was GLAD to kill those motherfuckers, and most importantly, I was GLAD to strike the same fear into those assholes that they put into poor, innocent, and defenseless people. He needed to go, and now he’s gone. End of story. RLTW

rangertab75