Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Decker on November 12, 2008, 12:40:24 PM
-
Obama: Beware the Lessons of '93
By Robert Parry
November 11, 2008
Barack Obama seeks a new era of bipartisanship, but he should take heed of what happened to the last Democrat in the White House – Bill Clinton – in 1993 when he sought to appease Republicans by shelving pending investigations into Reagan-Bush-I-era wrongdoing and hoped for some reciprocity.
Instead the Republicans pocketed the Democratic concessions and pressed ahead with possibly the most partisan assault ever directed against a sitting President. The war on Clinton included attacks on his past life in Arkansas, on his wife Hillary, on personnel decisions at the White House, and on key members of his administration.
The Republicans also took the offensive against Clinton’s reformist agenda, denying him even one GOP vote for his first budget and then sabotaging Hillary Clinton’s plan for universal health insurance.
The desperately-seeking-bipartisanship Clinton allowed Republican loyalists to stay burrowed inside the government, and he bowed to the appointment of right-wing special prosecutors (appointed by a Republican-dominated judicial panel) to investigate him and his administration.
In the first two years of the Clinton presidency, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh emerged as a national phenomenon, regaling his huge audience with three hours a day of mocking attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton.
At one downtown Washington restaurant, Blackie’s House of Beef, a special area was set aside so Clinton haters could listen to Rush Limbaugh’s show while eating lunch. Limbaugh’s success inspired a new generation of radio talk show hosts who got rich dishing anti-Clinton dirt.
In February 1994, when I covered the annual Conservative Political Action Conference – a kind of trade show for the Right – I was stunned by the volume and variety of hate-Clinton paraphernalia. Never had I seen anything like this well-organized, well-funded determination to destroy a political figure.
In November 1994, a resurgent Republican Party – energized by its hatred of the Clintons – wrested control of Congress from the Democrats. But rather than sating the Right’s anti-Clinton obsession, the success only fed a desire for more.
Impeachment
Behind a relentless investigation by right-wing special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, the Republicans pressed ahead with what became a multi-year drive to impeach President Clinton, exploiting suspicions over Clinton’s old Whitewater real-estate investment as payback for Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal.
Finally, in 1998 after Starr (with the help of a Reagan-Bush stay-behind named Linda Tripp) disclosed Clinton’s sexual dalliance with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, the Republican-controlled House impeached Clinton, though he survived a Senate trial in 1999.
With President Clinton humiliated, the stage was set for a new Republican/media war on Vice President Al Gore, whose presidential candidacy in 1999-2000 became a whipping boy for Clinton’s enemies frustrated at their inability to drive Clinton from office.
Though Gore managed to claw his way to a narrow popular-vote victory in November 2000, the race was close enough for George W. Bush – with the help of five Republican partisans on the U.S. Supreme Court – to claim the White House.
Now, after eight years of Bush’s catastrophic presidency, another Democrat has been elected to the nation’s highest office and – like Clinton 16 years ago – Barack Obama is being advised by Washington insiders to reach out to the Republicans with an open hand of bipartisanship.
Most significantly, Obama is being urged to forget about holding Bush and other top officials accountable for torture, war crimes, violations of the Constitution and other serious offenses. Obama’s even getting advice that he should leave some senior Bush officials in place as a bipartisan gesture.
Ironically, some of this advice is coming from the same people who were part of Clinton’s decisions in early 1993 to set aside investigations into Reagan-Bush-I wrongdoing and thus to allow a false history of that era to become cemented as a faux reality.
For instance, Lee Hamilton, who in 1993 was an accommodating Democratic congressman, helped sink key investigations into covert Republican relationships with Iran and Iraq. Now, as a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama, Hamilton has spoken favorably of retaining Bush’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
I’ve heard other rumblings around Washington that influential Democrats, including some who are under consideration for top national security jobs, oppose pursuing war crimes and human rights abuses committed by the Bush administration on the grounds that the 2008 electoral repudiation should be punishment enough.
Obama also is sure to hear plenty of counsel about “looking to the future, not the past,” about the need to focus on the nation’s pressing problems, not expend energy and political capital “to settle scores” from the last eight years.
Lessons Unlearned
Some Washington Democrats should know better. John Podesta, a co-chair of Obama’s transition team (who accompanied Obama to his Monday meeting with President Bush), was a senior member of Clinton’s White House staff in the 1990s.
Early in the Clinton presidency, I met with Podesta at the White House to ask why historical questions about serious wrongdoing by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush weren’t being pursued. Podesta told me that those issues simply weren’t “on the radar.”
I learned later that President Clinton himself was an advocate for looking past the scandals of the 1980s and for following the advice of his Fleetwood Mac campaign song, “don’t stop thinking about tomorrow.”
As I wrote in the opening chapter of Secrecy & Privilege, two old acquaintances of mine – Stuart Sender and his wife, Julie Bergman Sender – encountered Clinton in May 1994 at a social event at the White House.
Clinton started talking like one might chat with neighbors about troubles at work. He complained about how rancorous Washington had become, how beleaguered he felt, how horribly the press was treating him.
“He was unburdening himself,” recalled Stuart Sender, a documentary filmmaker from Los Angeles.
Sixteen months into his Presidency, Clinton was getting clobbered by the Republicans – and by the news media – over his Whitewater real-estate deal. There had been a firestorm, too, over allegations from Arkansas state troopers about Clinton’s philandering as governor.
A woman named Paula Jones had emerged from that controversy with claims that Clinton had crudely propositioned her. He also was taking flak over the firing of employees in the White House Travel Office.
Then, there were bizarre suspicions circulating about the suicide of White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster, who had come with the Clintons from Arkansas. Foster shot himself in the head after growing despondent over the harsh press criticism he had received for his role in the Travel Office affair, but some conservatives were spreading rumors of a deeper mystery.
Clinton felt besieged not only by aggressive Republicans but by the national press corps. Since the last Democratic President, Jimmy Carter, left office in 1981, a powerful right-wing media had come into its own, built in part as a defense mechanism to shield Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush from criticism.
Besides Limbaugh and the bevy of other talk radio hosts, right-wing print outlets had grown in number and in influence, the likes of the American Spectator and The Washington Times, not to mention The Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages and conservative columnists in newspapers across the country.
Many of the commentators also appeared on TV political chat shows to reprise their opinions for millions of more Americans nationwide.
Mainstream journalists at outlets such as NBC News and The New York Times also joined in the Clinton bashing, seemingly eager to prove that they could be tougher on a Democrat than any Republican. They were determined to show they weren’t the “liberal media” that the conservatives long had railed against.
Indeed, it was The Washington Post, the newspaper credited with unraveling Richard Nixon’s Watergate mystery, which had led the charge on the Whitewater case with front-page stories that put Clinton in a public relations corner and forced him to acquiesce to a special prosecutor.
Seeking Sympathy
So, during a social event on May 28, 1994, in the ornate East Room of the White House, Clinton was making the rounds of his guests and looking for a sympathetic hearing. “All of a sudden we looked up and there was President Clinton,” Stuart Sender recalled.
The chitchat soon turned to Clinton’s complaints about his ill treatment at the hands of the news media.
“He started the conversation by saying how horrible the press is being to him,” said Julie Bergman Sender, a movie producer and the daughter of songwriters Alan and Marilyn Bergman. “I was looking around at the planters. I was thinking, ‘you’re not standing in your living room, really.’”
But Stuart Sender, who had worked as a journalist on the Reagan-Bush-I-era Iran-Contra and Iraqgate scandals, had a different reaction. He wondered why Clinton had never pursued those investigations of Republican wrongdoing after becoming President in January 1993.
After all, Sender thought, those were real scandals, involving secret dealings with unsavory regimes. Top Republicans allegedly had helped arm Iraq’s Saddam Hussein as well as the radical Islamic mullahs of Iran, violations of law, constitutional principles – and common sense.
Those actions had then been surrounded by stout defenses from Republicans and their media allies. The protection had taken on the look of systematic cover-ups, sometimes even obstruction of justice, to spare the top echelons of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations from accountability.
Indeed, as Clinton was heading into office at the start of 1993, four investigations were underway that implicated senior Republicans in potential criminal wrongdoing.
The Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages case was still alive, with special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh furious over new evidence that President George H.W. Bush may have obstructed justice by withholding his own notes from investigators and ducking an interview that Walsh had put off until after the 1992 elections.
Bush also had sabotaged the investigation by pardoning six Iran-Contra defendants on Christmas Eve 1992, possibly the first presidential pardon ever issued to protect the same President from criminal exposure.
In late 1992, Congress also was investigating Bush’s alleged role in secretly aiding Iraq’s Saddam Hussein during and after his eight-year-long war with Iran. Representative Henry Gonzalez, the aging chairman of the House Banking Committee, had led the charge in exposing intricate financial schemes that the Reagan-Bush-I administrations had employed to assist Hussein.
There also were allegations of indirect U.S. military aid through third countries, claims that Bush and other Republicans emphatically denied.
Lesser known investigations were examining two other sets of alleged wrongdoing: the so-called October Surprise issue (accusations that Bush and other Republicans had interfered with Jimmy Carter’s hostage negotiations with Iran during the 1980 campaign) and the Passportgate affair (evidence that Bush operatives had improperly searched Clinton’s passport file in 1992, looking for dirt that could be used to discredit his patriotism and secure reelection for Bush).
All told, the four sets of allegations, if true, would paint an unflattering portrait of the 12-year Republican rule: two illegal dirty tricks (October Surprise and Passportgate) book-ending ill-conceived national security schemes in the Middle East (Iran-Contra and Iraqgate).
Had the full stories been told the American people might have perceived the legacies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush quite differently than they do today.
But the Clinton administration and congressional Democrats dropped all four investigations beginning in early 1993, either through benign neglect – by failing to hold hearings and keeping the issues alive in the news media – or by actively closing the door on investigative leads. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]
Curious Decisions
Clinton’s disinterest in these scandals had mystified some activists in the Democratic base and some investigators who, like Stuart Sender, had watched as the rug was pulled from under these historic probes.
After the investigations died, some Democrats in Congress, who had participated in the aborted probes, came under nasty Republican attacks as did journalists who had pursued the stories.
Gonzalez had raised the ire of the first Bush administration by revealing that Bush and other senior Republicans had followed an ill-fated covert policy of coddling Saddam Hussein, disclosures that had rained on Bush’s parade after the U.S. military victory over Iraq in the first Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Now, Gonzalez was left looking like a foolish old man, a kind of modern-day Don Quixote tilting at windmills.
The same could be said of Lawrence Walsh, a lifelong Republican who crossed his own party by challenging the cover stories that had shielded top Republicans caught up in the Iran-Contra Affair.
In pressing investigations into alleged obstructions of justice, Walsh had found his reputation under ad hominem attacks from The Washington Times and other parts of the conservative news media for petty matters such as ordering room-service meals and flying first class.
Walsh was so stunned by the ferocity of the Republican defensive strategy that he entitled his memoirs Firewall in recognition of the impenetrable barrier that was built to keep the Iran-Contra scandal away from Reagan and Bush.
Walsh, too, was dismissed as a foolish old man, though the literary metaphor for him was Moby Dick’s Captain Ahab, obsessively pursuing the white whale.
But letting the outgoing Reagan-Bush-I team off the hook hadn’t earned the Democrats any measure of bipartisan protection. By spring 1994, Clinton had begun to sense the rising tide of political danger that the non-stop attacks against him represented. He was looking for allies and some sympathy.
So, as waiters poured coffee at the East Room reception and Clinton was voicing his frustrations to some of his guests, Stuart Sender saw his chance to ask Clinton why he hadn’t pursued leads about the Reagan-Bush-I secret initiatives in the Middle East.
“I had this moment to say to him, ‘What are you going to do about this? Why aren’t you going after them about Iran-Contra and Iraqgate?’” Sender said. “If the shoe were on the other foot, they’d sure be going after our side. … Why don’t you go back after them, their high crimes and misdemeanors?”
But Clinton brushed aside the suggestion.
“It was very clear that that wasn’t what he had in mind at all,” Sender said. “He said he felt that Judge Walsh had been too strident and had probably been a bit too extreme in how he had pursued Iran-Contra. He didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people.
“To me what was amazingly telling was his dig at Walsh, this patrician Republican jurist who had been put in charge of this but even the Democratic President had decided that this was somewhere that he couldn’t go. He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”
Clinton "really did have this idea that he’d be able to work with these guys,” Sender recalled with a touch of amazement in his voice. “It seemed even at the time terribly naïve that these same Republicans were going to work with him if he backed off on congressional hearings or possible independent prosecutor investigations.
“How ironic that he decides he’s not going to pursue this when later on they impeach him for the Monica Lewinsky scandal.”
False History
Sender, like others who had been in the trenches of the national security scandals of the 1980s, thought the retreat on the investigations by Clinton and the Democrats after they won the 1992 elections was wrong for a host of other reasons, too.
Most importantly, it allowed an incomplete, even false history to be written about the Reagan-Bush-I era, glossing over many of the worst mistakes. The bogus history denied the American people the knowledge needed to assess how relationships had evolved between the United States and Middle East leaders, including Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, the Saudi royal family and the Iranian mullahs.
Though the Middle East crises had receded by the time Clinton took office in 1993, the troubles had not gone away and were sure to worsen again. When that time came, the American people would have a sanitized version of how the country got where it was.
Even government officials responsible for Middle East policies would have only a partial history of how these entangling alliances crisscrossed through the deals and betrayals of the prior two decades.
The Democratic retreat from the investigative battles in 1993 would have another profound effect on the future of American politics.
By letting George H.W. Bush leave the White House with his reputation intact – and even helping him fend off accusations of serious wrongdoing – the Democrats unwittingly cleared the way for a restoration of the Bush political dynasty eight years later.
If investigators had dug out the full truth about alleged secret operations involving George H.W. Bush, the family’s reputation would have been badly tarnished, if not destroyed.
Since that reputation served as the foundation for George W. Bush’s political career, it’s unlikely that he ever would have gained the momentum to propel him to the Republican presidential nomination, let alone to the White House in Election 2000.
Now, eight years later – with Barack Obama’s victory and with solid Democratic majorities again in the House and Senate – the Democrats are back to a spot very similar to where they were at the start of Bill Clinton’s presidency.
They have all the power they need to initiate serious investigations into the widespread criminality of George W. Bush’s presidency, from torture and other war crimes to war profiteering and other lucrative influence peddling.
But President-elect Obama is receiving nearly the identical advice that greeted Bill Clinton after his election 16 years ago: In the name of bipartisanship, let bygones be bygones.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2008/111108.html
Sorry for the unedited post but Parry's recount of Clinton's mistakes needs the additional supporting explanations.
Moral: Obama, Impeach Bush and company as a first order of business. Cut this cancer out of the body politic so that it can't recur.
-
How do you impeach someone who isn't in government?
Obama can do this, but he won't like the ramifications when a democrat president loses.
Besides will impeach the liberals involved with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or the liberals that voted for the war?
How about the well educated liberals that work in the brokerage housing handing out the golden parachutes.
Be careful for what you wish for.
-
How do you impeach someone who isn't in government?
Obama can do this, but he won't like the ramifications when a democrat president loses.
Besides will impeach the liberals involved with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or the liberals that voted for the war?
How about the well educated liberals that work in the brokerage housing handing out the golden parachutes.
Be careful for what you wish for.
The president and all civil officers drawing benefits from the US government can still be impeached even after their term of office is over.
Bush will not be tried for the subprime meltdown b/c nobody in the Congress/Executive branch caused the malady.
Bush will be tried for the illegal invasion of Iraq principally.
The republican impeachment of Clinton was a joke on all levels.
This won't be. I don't find mass murder particularly funny.
-
The president and all civil officers drawing benefits from the US government can still be impeached even after their term of office is over.
Bush will not be tried for the subprime meltdown b/c nobody in the Congress/Executive branch caused the malady.
Bush will be tried for the illegal invasion of Iraq principally.
The republican impeachment of Clinton was a joke on all levels.
This won't be. I don't find mass murder particularly funny.
Absolutely NOTHING will happen to GW Bush.
To point the finger at him is to point the finger at themselves for authorizing military action.
The same goes for the UN Security Council.
-
The president and all civil officers drawing benefits from the US government can still be impeached even after their term of office is over.
Bush will not be tried for the subprime meltdown b/c nobody in the Congress/Executive branch caused the malady.
Bush will be tried for the illegal invasion of Iraq principally.
The republican impeachment of Clinton was a joke on all levels.
This won't be. I don't find mass murder particularly funny.
Everyone that voted for the war in Iraq is culpable as GWB and he is not a mass murderer.
Heck Clinton Bombed Kosovo for months without a UN resolution and you don't call him mass murderer.
Impeachment would not change anything, as he makes far more money then his benefits would cover.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm#4
The biggest thing an impeachment trial can do is remove someone from office. Making them a former president.
-
Everyone that voted for the war in Iraq is culpable as GWB and he is not a mass murderer.
Heck Clinton Bombed Kosovo for months without a UN resolution and you don't call him mass murderer.
Impeachment would not change anything, as he makes far more money then his benefits would cover.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm#4
The biggest thing an impeachment trial can do is remove someone from office. Making them a former president.
Clinton was a democrat and therefore incapable of any wrongdoings.
-
Absolutely NOTHING will happen to GW Bush.
To point the finger at him is to point the finger at themselves for authorizing military action.
The same goes for the UN Security Council.
Only the president, not the Congress, could have ordered the attack.
The UN Security Council never authorized the Bush invasion. That's why it is illegal.
-
Everyone that voted for the war in Iraq is culpable as GWB and he is not a mass murderer.
Heck Clinton Bombed Kosovo for months without a UN resolution and you don't call him mass murderer.
Impeachment would not change anything, as he makes far more money then his benefits would cover.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm#4
The biggest thing an impeachment trial can do is remove someone from office. Making them a former president.
Only the president, not the Congress, could have ordered the attack of Iraq.
The UN Security Council never authorized the Bush invasion. That's why it is illegal.
Kosovo was a NATO operation.
Impeachment would draw Bush into a trial that would end in his execution, jailing or acquittal.
I'm banking on jail.
-
Only the president, not the Congress, could have ordered the attack of Iraq.
The UN Security Council never authorized the Bush invasion. That's why it is illegal.
Kosovo was a NATO operation.
Impeachment would draw Bush into a trial that would end in his execution, jailing or acquittal.
I'm banking on jail.
Kosovo was never sanctioned by the UN.
NATO has nothing to do with the UN.
Impeachment would not necessary lead to any trial.
Clinton never was prosecuted for lying to congress.
-
Kosovo was never sanctioned by the UN.
NATO has nothing to do with the UN.
Impeachment would not necessary lead to any trial.
Clinton never was prosecuted for lying to congress.
Check your facts: On June 10, 1999, the UN Security Council passed UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which placed Kosovo under transitional UN administration (UNMIK) and authorised KFOR, a NATO-led peacekeeping force. Resolution 1244 provided that Kosovo would have autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and affirmed the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, which has been legally succeeded by the Republic of Serbia.[32]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#The_UN_administration_period
Impeachment does result in a trial.
-
Check your facts: On June 10, 1999, the UN Security Council passed UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which placed Kosovo under transitional UN administration (UNMIK) and authorised KFOR, a NATO-led peacekeeping force. Resolution 1244 provided that Kosovo would have autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and affirmed the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, which has been legally succeeded by the Republic of Serbia.[32]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#The_UN_administration_period
Impeachment does result in a trial.
Impeachment is a trial by congress.
Civil lawsuits can apply to a member impeached after trial.
I am talking about the bombing, which was not sanctioned by the UN
The present occupation by American forces in Iraq is under the UN as well.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9207.doc.htm
-
Impeachment is a trial by congress.
Civil lawsuits can apply to a member impeached after trial.
I am talking about the bombing, which was not sanctioned by the UN
The present occupation by American forces in Iraq is under the UN as well.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9207.doc.htm
The UN Security Council was sidestepped. But Clinton did not seek UN permission pursuant to a resolution requiring Security Council permission to use force. Bush did the opposite.
It's a marked distinction. That being said, I opposed the Kosovo bombings for other reasons.
Please show me where the UN Security Council authorized the invasion of Iraq.
-
The UN Security Council was sidestepped. But Clinton did not seek UN permission pursuant to a resolution requiring Security Council permission to use force. Bush did the opposite.
It's a marked distinction. That being said, I opposed the Kosovo bombings for other reasons.
Please show me where the UN Security Council authorized the invasion of Iraq.
The UN has endorsed the present occupation in Iraq. resolution 1546 (2004)
This in my opinion is the end is the same as what happened in Kosovo.
I guess the beef would be that Bush went to the UN first and was told no. Clinton didn't even go to the UN. the end is the same though.
I support both.
-
The UN has endorsed the present occupation in Iraq. resolution 1546 (2004)
This in my opinion is the end is the same as what happened in Kosovo.
I guess the beef would be that Bush went to the UN first and was told no. Clinton didn't even go to the UN. the end is the same though.
I support both.
The UN did not support the present occupation of Iraq with res. 1546. It recognized the new government. What else could it do?
The difference btn Bush and Clinton's use of force repsectively is that Bush systematically lied to the american people about the reasons Iraq had to be attacked. Bush ordered the invasion in direct violation of a resolution (1441) for disarmament that he claimed he was enforcing.
Bill Clinton didn't do anything of the sort with Kosovo. The Europeans came to him asking for stability in the region.
Iraq attacked no one. Iraq wasn't going to attack anyone. Iraq had no weapons.
So naturally, Bush ordered the invasion to disarm the country that was already disarmed. The latest intel was bearing that fact out.
Bush ordered the attack in spite of the counter-vailing evidence.
He's a mass murderer b/c of those differences
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the latest intel was showing that Iraq was about as much a threat to the US as Pango Pango.
The death and destruction was not required. Bush made it so.
-
Security Council resolution 1546 (2004)
Recognizing the request conveyed in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the Prime
Minister of the Interim Government of Iraq to the President of the Council, which is
annexed to this resolution, to retain the presence of the multinational force,
Recognizing also the importance of the consent of the sovereign Government
of Iraq for the presence of the multinational force and of close coordination between
the multinational force and that government,
Welcoming the willingness of the multinational force to continue efforts to
contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in support of the
political transition, especially for upcoming elections, and to provide security for the
United Nations presence in Iraq, as described in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the
United States Secretary of State to the President of the Council, which is annexed to
this resolution,
-
Only the president, not the Congress, could have ordered the attack.
The UN Security Council never authorized the Bush invasion. That's why it is illegal.
We've been through this before.
If what he did was illegal he would have been impeached years ago.... but he wasn't.
The Democrats are just as responsible for Iraq as Bush is and they know it.
-
Security Council resolution 1546 (2004)
Recognizing the request conveyed in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the Prime
Minister of the Interim Government of Iraq to the President of the Council, which is
annexed to this resolution, to retain the presence of the multinational force,
Recognizing also the importance of the consent of the sovereign Government
of Iraq for the presence of the multinational force and of close coordination between
the multinational force and that government,
Welcoming the willingness of the multinational force to continue efforts to
contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in support of the
political transition, especially for upcoming elections, and to provide security for the
United Nations presence in Iraq, as described in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the
United States Secretary of State to the President of the Council, which is annexed to
this resolution,
What a nice preamble. The dead are still dead.
-
We've been through this before.
If what he did was illegal he would have been impeached years ago.... but he wasn't.
The Democrats are just as responsible for Iraq as Bush is and they know it.
That's not true. Impeachment is a quai-political/judicial creature and there is no automatic penalty for what he did. "High crimes and misdemeanors" are defined as whatever the Congress defines them as.
No. The democrats are not just as responsible as Bush.
That's just moral relativism masking the true horror of what Bush and Bush alone did. Only the president could have ordered the invasion Iraq.
If I'm wrong, point out the error I made.
-
That's not true. Impeachment is a quai-political/judicial creature and there is no automatic penalty for what he did. "High crimes and misdemeanors" are defined as whatever the Congress defines them as.
No. The democrats are not just as responsible as Bush.
That's just moral relativism masking the true horror of what Bush and Bush alone did. Only the president could have ordered the invasion Iraq.
If I'm wrong, point out the error I made.
He can't order it, WITHOUT Congress. What part of that don't you get? H.Clinton and Joe Biden are among the Dems that gave "W" the nod.
Impeachment is but a pipe dream by Dems, still wanting revenge for what happened to President Clinton. By the time Congress gets the procedures (assuming they'd even have enough votes to do that going), Bush’s term will be up!
Bottom line: Bush ain’t getting impeached or tried for anything, no matter how much liberals scream and holler about it.
-
He can't order it, WITHOUT Congress. What part of that don't you get? H.Clinton and Joe Biden are among the Dems that gave "W" the nod.
Here's a gun MCWAY. Defend yourself from that guy across the street. You see him, the midget. You walk over to the midget and order him face down in the street.
Fine so far MCWAY right? Then you shoot him in the back of the head while he's prone.
Do you see why your argument for shared blame btn the Congress and the president is nonsensical?
Me (the congress) gave you (the president) a gun (the military) for self defense from the midget (Iraq). You had him prone yet you (the president) shot him anyways.
How did the congress bypass the constitution and use the presidential power to order a military attack?
Can you explain that one for me?
Does authorization = license?
Is Bush a mass murderer for ordering the invasion? I'll field this one. You betcha!
....
-
Here's a gun MCWAY. Defend yourself from that guy across the street. You see him, the midget. You walk over to the midget and order him face down in the street.
Fine so far MCWAY right? Then you shoot him in the back of the head while he's prone.
Do you see why your argument for shared blame btn the Congress and the president is nonsensical?
Me (the congress) gave you (the president) a gun (the military) for self defense from the midget (Iraq). You had him prone yet you (the president) shot him anyways.
How did the congress bypass the constitution and use the presidential power to order a military attack?
Can you explain that one for me?
Does authorization = license?
Is Bush a mass murderer for ordering the invasion? I'll field this one. You betcha!
That's incomplete. After providing the gun and ammo to McWay, you'd have to tell him to use deadly force in his discretion (as Congress did with Bush). After he exercises discretion and shoots the guy (invasion of Iraq), you'd have to then give him a letter telling him his shooting was justified (Congressional resolutions approving of the war). Then you'd have to repeatedly give him more ammo to shoot the guy's comrades (repeated Congressional funding of the war). Of course, all of this would have to be preceded by you telling McWay how dangerous the guy was and how he had to be taken out (numerous members of Congress and members of the Bush and Clinton Administrations calling Saddam a threat).
Then, you would have to serve as McWay's judge and jury if he was going to be prosecuted (Congress impeaching, and Senate removing Bush).
-
That's not true. Impeachment is a quai-political/judicial creature and there is no automatic penalty for what he did. "High crimes and misdemeanors" are defined as whatever the Congress defines them as.
No. The democrats are not just as responsible as Bush.
That's just moral relativism masking the true horror of what Bush and Bush alone did. Only the president could have ordered the invasion Iraq.
If I'm wrong, point out the error I made.
Congress approved military action as did the UN.
On top of all that they also control the purse strings. The crazy kook Kucinich was right afterall but Congress didn't have the stones to follow through.
-
That's incomplete. After providing the gun and ammo to McWay, you'd have to tell him to use deadly force in his discretion (as Congress did with Bush). After he exercises discretion and shoots the guy (invasion of Iraq), you'd have to then give him a letter telling him his shooting was justified (Congressional resolutions approving of the war). Then you'd have to repeatedly give him more ammo to shoot the guy's comrades (repeated Congressional funding of the war). Of course, all of this would have to be preceded by you telling McWay how dangerous the guy was and how he had to be taken out (numerous members of Congress and members of the Bush and Clinton Administrations calling Saddam a threat).
Then, you would have to serve as McWay's judge and jury if he was going to be prosecuted (Congress impeaching, and Senate removing Bush).
No dice Beach Bum.
Only the president could have ordered the attack.
Only the president.
-
Congress approved military action as did the UN.
On top of all that they also control the purse strings. The crazy kook Kucinich was right afterall but Congress didn't have the stones to follow through.
Only the president could have ordered the attack. The UN security council never gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq. That's why the invasion is illegal.
-
No dice Beach Bum.
Only the president could have ordered the attack.
Only the president.
He did not operate in a vacuum.
-
He did not operate in a vacuum.
I cut to the chase with my analysis. I avoid going over the scads and scads of Bush (& his administration's) lies and active fraud used to fool the American people and the Congress into buying into the nonsense that Iraq was armed with WMDs and looking to take down the US.
Don't you understand Beach Bum? Fraud kills consent.
Bush's lies killed the consent of the People and the Congress.
Beach Bum sits on the jury. The judge gives the jury their instructions in Bush's murder case. "If the facts support the conclusion that George Bush intentionally ordered the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses and with no legal justification you must find him guilty...."
Beach Bum, raises his hand and say, "what about the democrats?"
Judge, "They are not relevant to the determination of Bush's guilt or innocence."
Beach Bum, "But they egged on the president to attack Iraq'
Judge, "They are not relevant to the determination of Bush's guilt or innocence."
Beach Bum. "The democrats voted to fund the war after it started"
Judge, "They are not relevant to the determination of Bush's guilt or innocence."
Beach Bum, raises his hand again..."the democrats are just as responsible"
Judge "Bailiff, throw this jackass out of my court!"
I kid with the jackass comment but you get the idea.
Fraud kills consent (Bush cannot lie to get consent from others) and the democrats actions are not relevant to whether the commander in chief of the military misused his authority in ordering the attack.
-
The UN did not support the present occupation of Iraq with res. 1546. It recognized the new government. What else could it do?
The difference btn Bush and Clinton's use of force repsectively is that Bush systematically lied to the american people about the reasons Iraq had to be attacked. Bush ordered the invasion in direct violation of a resolution (1441) for disarmament that he claimed he was enforcing.
Bill Clinton didn't do anything of the sort with Kosovo. The Europeans came to him asking for stability in the region.
Iraq attacked no one. Iraq wasn't going to attack anyone. Iraq had no weapons.
So naturally, Bush ordered the invasion to disarm the country that was already disarmed. The latest intel was bearing that fact out.
Bush ordered the attack in spite of the counter-vailing evidence.
He's a mass murderer b/c of those differences
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the latest intel was showing that Iraq was about as much a threat to the US as Pango Pango.
The death and destruction was not required. Bush made it so.
I provedtat the UN did in fact endorse the current occupation.
You belittle it because it goes againstuor story.
Too bad the truth always comes out.
again as of 2004 the UN completely endorces the US and collision presence in the exact same way as Kosovo.
So in the same GWB and Clinton should be held to the same accountablity.
Security Council resolution 1546 (2004)
Recognizing the request conveyed in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the Prime
Minister of the Interim Government of Iraq to the President of the Council, which is
annexed to this resolution, to retain the presence of the multinational force,
Recognizing also the importance of the consent of the sovereign Government
of Iraq for the presence of the multinational force and of close coordination between
the multinational force and that government,
Welcoming the willingness of the multinational force to continue efforts to
contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in support of the
political transition, especially for upcoming elections, and to provide security for the
United Nations presence in Iraq, as described in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the
United States Secretary of State to the President of the Council, which is annexed to
this resolution,
-
I cut to the chase with my analysis. I avoid going over the scads and scads of Bush (& his administration's) lies and active fraud used to fool the American people and the Congress into buying into the nonsense that Iraq was armed with WMDs and looking to take down the US.
Don't you understand Beach Bum? Fraud kills consent.
Bush's lies killed the consent of the People and the Congress.
Beach Bum sits on the jury. The judge gives the jury their instructions in Bush's murder case. "If the facts support the conclusion that George Bush intentionally ordered the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses and with no legal justification you must find him guilty...."
Beach Bum, raises his hand and say, "what about the democrats?"
Judge, "They are not relevant to the determination of Bush's guilt or innocence."
Beach Bum, "But they egged on the president to attack Iraq'
Judge, "They are not relevant to the determination of Bush's guilt or innocence."
Beach Bum. "The democrats voted to fund the war after it started"
Judge, "They are not relevant to the determination of Bush's guilt or innocence."
Beach Bum, raises his hand again..."the democrats are just as responsible"
Judge "Bailiff, throw this jackass out of my court!"
I kid with the jackass comment but you get the idea.
Fraud kills consent (Bush cannot lie to get consent from others) and the democrats actions are not relevant to whether the commander in chief of the military misused his authority in ordering the attack.
Fatal flaw in your colloquy: the judge must also be the person who encouraged the use of force, authorized the use of force, validated the use of force, and provided the funding for the use of force.
-
I provedtat the UN did in fact endorse the current occupation.
You belittle it because it goes againstuor story.
Too bad the truth always comes out.
again as of 2004 the UN completely endorces the US and collision presence in the exact same way as Kosovo.
So in the same GWB and Clinton should be held to the same accountablity.
2004 is an afterthought and not relevant to the legality of the invasion.
Show me exactly where the UN Security Council authorized the US's invasion of Iraq prior to March 20th, 2003.
Only Bush could have ordered the attack on March 20, 2003.
And he did.
That was an illegal order for the simple reason that the UN Security Council did not authorize the use of force.
Also, we can look at it as illegal b/c Bush's attack of Iraq was not justified under any understanding of self defense.
-
Fatal flaw in your colloquy: the judge must also be the person who encouraged the use of force, authorized the use of force, validated the use of force, and provided the funding for the use of force.
?
-
No dice Beach Bum.
Only the president could have ordered the attack.
Only the president.
No one is arguing who ordered the attack. It’s about who authorized the President to make such an order.
Read this very slowly, Decker:
The……..President…..CANNOT………order……….the……..atttack…….WITHOUT………CONGRESSIONAL………APPROVAL.
Congress approved it; Bush ordered it. And, at the end of the day, all your bleatings about an impeachment is simply wishful thinking. Such a process takes SEVERAL MONTHS, just to get started. And by that time, (even under the grandiose assumption that you can make a legitimate case), Bush will be out of office.
-
No one is arguing who ordered the attack. It’s about who authorized the President to make such an order.
Read this very slowly, Decker:
The……..President…..CANNOT………order……….the……..atttack…….WITHOUT………CONGRESSIONAL………APPROVAL.
Congress approved it; Bush ordered it. And, at the end of the day, all your bleatings about an impeachment is simply wishful thinking. Such a process takes SEVERAL MONTHS, just to get started. And by that time, (even under the grandiose assumption that you can make a legitimate case), Bush will be out of office.
That is completely untrue... The President of the United States being the Commander-In-Chief of the US Armed Forces does not need congressional approval to authorize an attack.
The entire Vietnam War was not authorized by congress, yet was a police action committed by the US President.
The US President can authorize an attack on anything at any time without congressional approval if he so desires.
He simply can not continue to fund those attacks for a prolonged period without the money... which Congress pays out. He also can not declare a "war" without the congressional approval as well.
-
No one is arguing who ordered the attack. It’s about who authorized the President to make such an order.
Read this very slowly, Decker:
The……..President…..CANNOT………order……….the……..atttack…….WITHOUT………CONGRESSIONAL………APPROVAL.
Congress approved it; Bush ordered it. And, at the end of the day, all your bleatings about an impeachment is simply wishful thinking. Such a process takes SEVERAL MONTHS, just to get started. And by that time, (even under the grandiose assumption that you can make a legitimate case), Bush will be out of office.
First of all Tu_holmes is correct. The president does not need congressional authority to use the military.
The Congressiona resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Where's the compliance with the Security Council's resolution 1441 MCWAY?
The congressional authority requires it. Where is it?
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Tell me MCWAY who is given the discretion to use force if NECESSARY?
Who? ...the president.
Who misused that Congressional authority in ordering the attack MCWAY?
Who? ...the president.
Under your lopsided understanding, the president can do no wrong in exercising his discretionary authority as commander in chief.
I'm here to tell you that you're interpretation is dead wrong.
Source for quotes from Iraq Resolution: wikipedia
-
?
The House must impeach and the Senate must remove. Replace "judge" with "House and Senate" in your scenario.
-
You know what's true? Congress controls the money.
They could have cut off funding at any time... but they did not.
So any blood on Bush's hands is on their hands too.
-
First of all Tu_holmes is correct. The president does not need congressional authority to use the military.
Where's the compliance with the Security Council's resolution 1441 MCWAY?
The congressional authority requires it. Where is it?
Tell me MCWAY who is given the discretion to use force if NECESSARY?
Who? ...the president.
Who misused that Congressional authority in ordering the attack MCWAY?
Who? ...the president.
Under your lopsided understanding, the president can do no wrong in exercising his discretionary authority as commander in chief.
I'm here to tell you that you're interpretation is dead wrong.
Source for quotes from Iraq Resolution: wikipedia
I didn't say the President can do no wrong. What I said is that you got NO CASE against him, neither does the UN. You can speculate 'till the cows come home. Bottom line: He ain't getting impeached, period. If it hasn't happened in four years, it's not happening in two months.
-
2004 is an afterthought and not relevant to the legality of the invasion.
Show me exactly where the UN Security Council authorized the US's invasion of Iraq prior to March 20th, 2003.
Only Bush could have ordered the attack on March 20, 2003.
And he did.
That was an illegal order for the simple reason that the UN Security Council did not authorize the use of force.
Also, we can look at it as illegal b/c Bush's attack of Iraq was not justified under any understanding of self defense.
[/quote
This logic is the same that Clinton used.
By the way the congress must sign off on any use of the military and they control the money.
This is why Nixon had to pull out of Vietnam.
By the way congress did in fact authorize use of force, with the gulf of tolkin resolution.
The same as Clinton and Bush.
That is what Bush did was not illegal and it also followed pprevious protocol.
Congress not the president is ultimately responsible for all of this.
-
You know what's true? Congress controls the money.
They could have cut off funding at any time... but they did not.
So any blood on Bush's hands is on their hands too.
Now hold on a second... You mean to tell me that you think it would have been OK for Congress to say "no more money", and put the troops in harms way?
You really think that would have played out and brought them home?
Didn't work in Vietnam... Wouldn't work here... It would just make Congress look shitty and not "supporting the troops".
You know this.
Now, for what it's worth... Bush did it... It's done.
Was it "illegal"... Well, I'd say it's a pretty damn gray area there... but you know what... Stop crying over spilled milk.
I don't think any court of law could find Bush guilty of any real crime, because being stupid and getting your country involved in a southwest Asian cluster fuck isn't really a crime.
-
The House must impeach and the Senate must remove. Replace "judge" with "House and Senate" in your scenario.
I wasn't making that analogy. I was illustrating how frustrating it can be to debate you sometimes.
Have at it...thrust (what about the democrats)...parry (it's not relevant to the question of Bush's behavior)....riposte (what about the democrats)...parry (it's not relevant to the question of Bush's behavior) etc.
-
I didn't say the President can do no wrong. What I said is that you got NO CASE against him, neither does the UN. You can speculate 'till the cows come home. Bottom line: He ain't getting impeached, period. If it hasn't happened in four years, it's not happening in two months.
Speculation? Res. 1441 flat out stipulates that no use of force can be initiated by any member country without the UN Security Council's authorization and the Congressional grant of authority to use force echoes that same stipulation.
Where's the problem here?
If authority is discretionary the option of misuse arises. He had a choice. He made the criminal choice in ordering the slaughter.
-
This logic is the same that Clinton used.
By the way the congress must sign off on any use of the military and they control the money.
This is why Nixon had to pull out of Vietnam.
By the way congress did in fact authorize use of force, with the gulf of tolkin resolution.
The same as Clinton and Bush.
That is what Bush did was not illegal and it also followed pprevious protocol.
Congress not the president is ultimately responsible for all of this.
The logic is the same? Maybe. But the facts and attendant circumstances are not the same.
Congress must eventually sign off (fund) on any unilateral use of force initiated by the president. Under the war powers resolution, that does not have to happen for something like 60 days after the fact of the use of force.
Bush did not follow protocol. He violated the terms of the Congressional grant of authority to use force and he violated res.l 1441 by not getting Security Council authorization to attack Iraq. How on earth is that following protocol?
-
You know what's true? Congress controls the money.
They could have cut off funding at any time... but they did not.
So any blood on Bush's hands is on their hands too.
Well... their arms were twisted.
Bush got on TV and said soldier's blood would be on their hands if they didn't give himthe $144 B he wanted. You had idiots like Palin saying "Why did Obama vote against giving my son money to fight?"
Truth is, if congress had the balls to cut the $ 3-4 years ago, this war would be over today.
IRAQ has had their elections, they have a govt and population that wants us to GTFO. The troops want to come home. The only group that wants us there? The war machine profiting form our presence there, and their minions like dubya.
-
Well... their arms were twisted.
Bush got on TV and said soldier's blood would be on their hands if they didn't give himthe $144 B he wanted. You had idiots like Palin saying "Why did Obama vote against giving my son money to fight?"
Truth is, if congress had the balls to cut the $ 3-4 years ago, this war would be over today.
IRAQ has had their elections, they have a govt and population that wants us to GTFO. The troops want to come home. The only group that wants us there? The war machine profiting form our presence there, and their minions like dubya.
You're a smart guy.
-
I wasn't making that analogy. I was illustrating how frustrating it can be to debate you sometimes.
Have at it...thrust (what about the democrats)...parry (it's not relevant to the question of Bush's behavior)....riposte (what about the democrats)...parry (it's not relevant to the question of Bush's behavior) etc.
Don't blame me if your impeachment scenario doesn't make any sense. I'm trying to help you get over this Bush hatred. :)
-
Don't blame me if your impeachment scenario doesn't make any sense. I'm trying to help you get over this Bush hatred. :)
good god.
He creates 'evidence' of wmds and AQ ties. He violates congressional authority and resolution 1441 to attack Iraq . He has 100,000 people butchered. He destroys a country.
And Beach Bum is happy with that productivity.
Sheesh.
I can't make you hate evil. It's your comfort with it that bothers me.
-
good god.
He creates 'evidence' of wmds and AQ ties. He violates congressional authority and resolution 1441 to attack Iraq . He has 100,000 people butchered. He destroys a country.
And Beach Bum is happy with that productivity.
Sheesh.
I can't make you hate evil. It's your comfort with it that bothers me.
You mean you still haven't gotten over the 2000 election even after Democrats took complete control of D.C.? Sheesh. Some folks will never be satisfied.
I guess Congress could start impeachment proceedings because the CIC started a war that Congress encouraged before Bush took office, authorized, endorsed, and repeatedly funded, but that really wouldn't pass the common sense test.
-
You mean you still haven't gotten over the 2000 election even after Democrats took complete control of D.C.? Sheesh. Some folks will never be satisfied.
I guess Congress could start impeachment proceedings because the CIC started a war that Congress encouraged before Bush took office, authorized, endorsed, and repeatedly funded, but that really wouldn't pass the common sense test.
Did you know that the world looks rosey through rose-colored spectacles?
Of course you do. You're the voice of experience.
-
Now hold on a second... You mean to tell me that you think it would have been OK for Congress to say "no more money", and put the troops in harms way?
You really think that would have played out and brought them home?
Didn't work in Vietnam... Wouldn't work here... It would just make Congress look shitty and not "supporting the troops".
You know this.
Now, for what it's worth... Bush did it... It's done.
Was it "illegal"... Well, I'd say it's a pretty damn gray area there... but you know what... Stop crying over spilled milk.
I don't think any court of law could find Bush guilty of any real crime, because being stupid and getting your country involved in a southwest Asian cluster fuck isn't really a crime.
No, I don't think it would have been right to put the troops in harms way after the President and Congress put them in harm's way. All I'm saying is that if the Democratically controlled congress was truly serious about the "illegal" war they would have fought hard to pull the funding.
While I can understand Decker's anger on this issue I strongly disagree with him that all of this solely falls upon GWB. Congress is to blame as is the UN.
-
No, I don't think it would have been right to put the troops in harms way after the President and Congress put them in harm's way. All I'm saying is that if the Democratically controlled congress was truly serious about the "illegal" war they would have fought hard to pull the funding.
While I can understand Decker's anger on this issue I strongly disagree with him that all of this solely falls upon GWB. Congress is to blame as is the UN.
Thanks for your patience. Bush's lies/fraud had eviscerated/destroyed any consent given by the Congress or the people. That's boiler plate law.