|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 04/27/2006 : 18:50:15 [Permalink]
|
| Sounds about right to me. Of course we've yet to hear the whole story on Bush so the two situations may not really be comparable. Good read. |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2006 : 22:45:58 [Permalink]
|
| Doesn't matter if today's mess is comparable. What matters is the same thing that's in the Declaration of Independence. When the circumstances call for it, don't not speak up or act. Democracy and free society require it. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 13:36:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Doesn't matter if today's mess is comparable. What matters is the same thing that's in the Declaration of Independence. When the circumstances call for it, don't not speak up or act. Democracy and free society require it.
I think we're talking past each other here. I'm talking about whether Bush's actions are comparable to Nixon's, not whether the mess in Iraq is comparable to the Watergate break ins. I don't think we know the whole story yet. I do agree that it looks pretty bad but we need more information. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 02:57:22 [Permalink]
|
dv, if you don't know the story by now, where have you been? Just what more information do you think you need? Richard Clark's book, confirmed by other sources, described a plan to invade Iraq before these jerks even took office. The Downing Street memo was direct evidence they wanted to invade and were looking to goad Saddam into giving them the excuse. Saddam didn't bite yet they invaded anyway. Bush is on record lying over and over about everything. They have been totally busted over the uranium Niger lie. And Rove will be indicted any day now over the Valerie Plame leak.
Bush has absolutely zero credibility. The latest is his claiming the National Anthem shouldn't be sung in Spanish, while recordings of him singing it in Spanish on the 2000 campaign trail exist. Tonight they played campaign speeches from 2000 and 2004 with Bush claiming he wouldn't change the strategic oil reserves to affect gas prices. No one believes this man anymore. Why should you believe his past claims?
Just what more evidence do you need to convince you of the purposeful deceit used to get the public to allow the Iraq invasion? Or to convince you spying on Grannies Against the War is indeed similar to Nixon's spying on his political enemies? |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 12:39:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
dv, if you don't know the story by now, where have you been? Just what more information do you think you need? Richard Clark's book, confirmed by other sources, described a plan to invade Iraq before these jerks even took office.
I haven't read the book but having a plan to invade doesn't nessessarily imply intent. The US has at times had plans for the invasion of many countries including Canada but with no actual intent to invade was involved just an abundance of caution.quote:
The Downing Street memo was direct evidence they wanted to invade and were looking to goad Saddam into giving them the excuse. Saddam didn't bite yet they invaded anyway.
From what I understand this memo is pretty damming.
quote:
Bush is on record lying over and over about everything. They have been totally busted over the uranium Niger lie.
Yes and that particular lie is very troubling as are any misrepresentations made before congress or while under oath.
quote:
Bush has absolutely zero credibility. The latest is his claiming the National Anthem shouldn't be sung in Spanish, while recordings of him singing it in Spanish on the 2000 campaign trail exist. Tonight they played campaign speeches from 2000 and 2004 with Bush claiming he wouldn't change the strategic oil reserves to affect gas prices. No one believes this man anymore. Why should you believe his past claims?
I certainly don't believe him. The things you mention here don't stand out as particularily grevious to me. Certainly they are hypocritical, but not moreso than many other politicians.
quote:
Just what more evidence do you need to convince you of the purposeful deceit used to get the public to allow the Iraq invasion? Or to convince you spying on Grannies Against the War is indeed similar to Nixon's spying on his political enemies?
I must have missed the Grannies Against the War thing. But to answer your question I'd like to see impeachment proceedings against the president. This would force him to answer specific questions under oath. I think that this would help clarify things and hopefully allow a fair determination to be made. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2006 : 01:39:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
...I haven't read the book but having a plan to invade doesn't nessessarily imply intent. The US has at times had plans for the invasion of many countries including Canada but with no actual intent to invade was involved just an abundance of caution.
That is not what these plans were. Before Bush took office in 2000, so sometime around Dec., 1999 Bush and his cronies, I imagine everyone but Powell but I don't know, drew up specific plans to invade Iraq. I believe Woodward also has documented this in one of his two books. (Woodward of course is a Republican and somewhat sympathetic to Bush in those books BTW.) Anyway, these plans were not contingency plans, they were wishful thinking plans. The group noted the American public would not go along with such plans unless something very major occurred. According to more than one source, this group of cronies believed Bush Senior made a mistake in not going forward after Saddam in the first Gulf War. They wanted access to the oil there and new military bases since they are concerned our current bases will not always be available in Saudi Arabia. You know the rest of the story.
I have read both of Woodward's books, Clark's book, one of Molly Ivan's books and keep a fairly close eye on the BBC news, Democracy Now news and the stuff included on Air America. I also watch a fair amount of mainstream news and have heard various interviews like O'Neill and Wilson. (O'Neill is a Bush cabinet defector.)
My point is the facts are indeed out there. There is no question the Bush team lied, knowingly, to get us in a war they believed would be quick, easy and beneficial to them of course. I've seen more than enough evidence that this true.
The information about illegal lobbying and bribes by Jack Abramoff has been available for years. The stuff about Tom Delay's involvement with Abramoff was discussed in detail in Al Frankin's book on Lies and the Lying Liars that Tell them. The book was not just about FOX news or Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.
So I don't expect you to take my word for it. But if you are interested, the evidence is out there by volumes. The idea we won't know what really happened until there is a subpoena and testimony is just not true. What's true is the mainstream news media have been for the most part totally ignoring these stories.
There was a 60 minutes program on Abramoff and corruption a few years ago yet no one paid much attention and there certainly wasn't the news scandal follow up one might expect for such obvious corruption. The Texas State Democrats who hid in another state were on the news but how many people really understood what was going on was DeLay gerrymandering the Federal Congressional Districts to give Republicans more Senate and Congressional seats, not Texas State seats.
Ambassador Wilson's story still isn't really widely known. Everyone believes the "leak" that Wilson only got the job to investigate the Niger yellowcake because of his wife. In reality he had extensive experience in African political circles and he was more than a qualified choice for that job. Now everyone is beginning to realize the story was false and the Bush team knew that but obscured the facts. Anyone paying attention knew it just after the State of the Union speech around the time the Iraq invasion started.
There is so much evidence against Bush it is mind boggling. And as to comparable to Nixon, the title of Dean's book is "Worse than Watergate." That might tell you something. Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, by John W. Dean
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 05/05/2006 01:46:22 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2006 : 14:18:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Anyway, these plans were not contingency plans, they were wishful thinking plans. The group noted the American public would not go along with such plans unless something very major occurred.
Isn't this splitting hairs a bit? I know that you are merely trying to establish motive but "wishful thinking" isn't a crime in itself.
quote:
My point is the facts are indeed out there. There is no question the Bush team lied, knowingly, to get us in a war they believed would be quick, easy and beneficial to them of course. I've seen more than enough evidence that this true.
No doubt, in addition to the lies the misjudgements of the Bush administration were also extremely harmful. I think there is some ambiguity in discerning which is which in some cases.
quote:
So I don't expect you to take my word for it. But if you are interested, the evidence is out there by volumes. The idea we won't know what really happened until there is a subpoena and testimony is just not true. What's true is the mainstream news media have been for the most part totally ignoring these stories.
I am interested but I have limited time available to research it. I think we are just coming at it from different perspectives. As a non-American I can afford a less immediate perspective than you.
quote:
The Texas State Democrats who hid in another state were on the news but how many people really understood what was going on was DeLay gerrymandering the Federal Congressional Districts to give Republicans more Senate and Congressional seats, not Texas State seats.
I remember seeing that. It was a pretty blatant abuse of power by Delay. I may be remembering wrong but wasn't Delay reprimanded for it?
quote:
There is so much evidence against Bush it is mind boggling.
Yes, however some of it may merely be evidence of stupidity or hypocrisy or spin and not nessessarily criminal behaviour. I think those holding the administration to account have to be very careful about this lest they weaken the case against the Bush administration by losing credibility.quote:
And as to comparable to Nixon, the title of Dean's book is "Worse than Watergate." That might tell you something. Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, by John W. Dean
Well I can certainly see how Bush's failure as a president could be considered worse than Watergate, in fact I'd be inclined to say that it is. Also I will admit that there are certain similarities between the two, both lied for example. Overall though the two strike me as quite different. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2006 : 01:04:36 [Permalink]
|
Dv, you aren't getting the picture on the war plans. It was planned and executed. They openly talked about what kind of events would get them their wish. They didn't have other wishes or equivalent plans. The Downing Street memo confirmed what had been reported by Clarke and Woodward. There is no hair splitting here over some vague pipe dream. It was more like a plot, "how can we get this done?"
As to the incompetence vs lies. They lied to carry out their incompetent plans.
It isn't perspective as much as I think it is that I have taken the time to read and listen to volumes of the stuff available. I think your position should be that you don't know, but to say, "no one knows or will know until more investigation" is just not correct.
Delay was not reprimanded for the gerrymandering. Are you kidding? He was rewarded. Of course now he is under indictment for illegal campaign fund shenanigans. That isn't for the gerrymandering. And he will be indicted in the Abramoff scandal. As will several more Republicans. They managed to get that investigation as well as an indictment of Cheney postponed until after the Nov elections.
Again it is both lying and lawbreaking Bush has done as well as he's a hypocrite and incompetent. Tell me, as a Canadian, how do you feel about the USA locking up foreigners we claim are guilty, have no trial, publicly say we can torture them because Bush says so, keep them for years some in solitary confinement, no contact with lawyers or family, spy on anyone's phone calls and spy on anyone's Internet activity? If it weren't illegal here, and much of it is, it's certainly illegal by world court standards.
Democrats don't need to be careful as much as they need greater numbers. They can do very little as a minority party.
I was politically active and involved then and now though I was much younger (not 18) when Nixon was in power. I also kept up on all the atrocities Reagan committed against countries in Central America. Again all of this is public information. Check on The School of the Americas if you want a quick look at Reagan's Contra Freedom Fighters. I was in Nicaragua when Somoza was still in power and it wasn't pretty. But of all of these Presidencies, Nixon was politically corrupt, Reagan was a religious and idealist zealot, and Bush is both. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2006 : 16:07:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Dv, you aren't getting the picture on the war plans. It was planned and executed.
If it were executed but not planned it would be all kosher then? Sorry, but I guess I'm not seeing your point.
quote:
They openly talked about what kind of events would get them their wish. They didn't have other wishes or equivalent plans. The Downing Street memo confirmed what had been reported by Clarke and Woodward. There is no hair splitting here over some vague pipe dream. It was more like a plot, "how can we get this done?"
I do agree that they used 9/11 as a pretext to go to war with Iraq, but I'm getting the impression that you're implying more than just that.
quote:
As to the incompetence vs lies. They lied to carry out their incompetent plans.
That is true.
quote:
It isn't perspective as much as I think it is that I have taken the time to read and listen to volumes of the stuff available.
You do have an advantage in that you know more about the situation than I do. I think you dismiss perspective too quickly though. We all have a tendency to become biased when we get close to a situation. It can help to take a step back once in a while.
quote:
I think your position should be that you don't know, but to say, "no one knows or will know until more investigation" is just not correct.
Perhaps you are right, maybe you do in fact know enough to say that Nixon's and Bush's actions were essentially very similar. I, however, have not seen convincing evidence of this.
quote:
Delay was not reprimanded for the gerrymandering. Are you kidding? He was rewarded. Of course now he is under indictment for illegal campaign fund shenanigans. That isn't for the gerrymandering. And he will be indicted in the Abramoff scandal. As will several more Republicans. They managed to get that investigation as well as an indictment of Cheney postponed until after the Nov elections.
Not for gerrymandering. When the democrats left the state to prevent a quorum Delay sicced the FBI on them. I thought he got reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee for doing that.
quote:
Again it is both lying and lawbreaking Bush has done as well as he's a hypocrite and incompetent. Tell me, as a Canadian, how do you feel about the USA locking up foreigners we claim are guilty, have no trial, publicly say we can torture them because Bush says so, keep them for years some in solitary confinement, no contact with lawyers or family, spy on anyone's phone calls and spy on anyone's Internet activity? If it weren't illegal here, and much of it is, it's certainly illegal by world court standards.
I agree certainly. You're preaching to the choir here.
quote:
Democrats don't need to be careful as much as they need greater numbers. They can do very little as a minority party.
Well yeah, that is how democracy works. My point was that making hay over every little act of hypocrisy or stupidity or spin when arguing the case that Bush is a criminal is counterproductive. It doesn't help the argument.
quote:
I was politically active and involved then and now though I was much younger (not 18) when Nixon was in power. I also kept up on all the atrocities Reagan committed against countries in Central America. Again all of this is public information. Check on The School of the Americas if you want a quick look at Reagan's Contra Freedom Fighters. I was in Nicaragua when Somoza was still in power and it wasn't pretty. But of all of these Presidencies, Nixon was politically corrupt, Reagan was a religious and idealist zealot, and Bush is both.
If all you mean by similar is that the Bush and Nixon administrations were both corrupt then I agree they are similar in that regard.
I think you may be taking what I'm saying as some sort of awkward defence of Bush. Consider if I were to say that Stalin and Hitler were not comparable but were more notable in their differences than in their similarities. Certainly they do have certain things in common but I think you'd understand my meaning. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2006 : 15:55:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
...If it were executed but not planned it would be all kosher then? Sorry, but I guess I'm not seeing your point.
I do agree that they used 9/11 as a pretext to go to war with Iraq, but I'm getting the impression that you're implying more than just that.
... I think you dismiss perspective too quickly though. We all have a tendency to become biased when we get close to a situation. It can help to take a step back once in a while.
...When the democrats left the state to prevent a quorum Delay sicced the FBI on them. I thought he got reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee for doing that.
Well yeah, that is how democracy works. My point was that making hay over every little act of hypocrisy or stupidity or spin when arguing the case that Bush is a criminal is counterproductive. It doesn't help the argument.
If all you mean by similar is that the Bush and Nixon administrations were both corrupt then I agree they are similar in that regard.
You are again, not listening to me. You can disagree, preferably with something to back it up, but you keep misinterpreting what I said about the plans to invade Iraq prior to 9/11.
These were not plans "if needed". These were not anything "routine." Bush and company planned to invade Iraq. Period. It wasn't in response to terrorism. It wasn't a plan in case it would be needed. It was something they wanted to do since Daddy Bush didn't go into Baghdad which they had totally disagreed with. These guys had every intention of invading Iraq as soon as they found an excuse. That was even part of the discussion.
This is not my interpretation. It was the interpretation of both Richard Clark and Bob Woodward in their books. Again, I remind you Woodward is a Bush supporter or at least he was when he wrote the book.
I am not implying they let 9/11 go forward nor that they had anything specific to do with it. Whether they purposefully ignored, "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US", knowing it would give them an excuse if he did, or ignored it out of incompetence, I do not know.
DeLay may have been scolded for calling the FBI but my guess is Rove was delighted with DeLay's performance and rewarded him with funds and whatever it is they reward themselves with.
I'm not sure which irrelevant thing you think I'm making hay over? If it was the pre-planing of the Iraq invasion, that's hardly irrelevant.
I repeat, Nixon was politically corrupt, Reagan was a religious and idealist zealot, and Bush is both. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 05/13/2006 15:56:41 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2006 : 13:03:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
You are again, not listening to me.
Please don't tell me I'm not listening. I'm paying very close attention.
quote:
You can disagree, preferably with something to back it up, but you keep misinterpreting what I said about the plans to invade Iraq prior to 9/11.
I cannot agree or disagree until I am clear on your meaning. You seem to be implying, but not stating explicitly, that the plan or the intent to invade Iraq was itself a crime of some sort. If I'm misunderstanding you then please clarify your point for me.
quote:
These were not plans "if needed". These were not anything "routine." Bush and company planned to invade Iraq. Period. It wasn't in response to terrorism. It wasn't a plan in case it would be needed. It was something they wanted to do since Daddy Bush didn't go into Baghdad which they had totally disagreed with. These guys had every intention of invading Iraq as soon as they found an excuse. That was even part of the discussion.
And... ? Exactly what crimes are you describing here? This sounds political not criminal to me.
Leading the country to war under false pretenses, and lying to congress in order to do so, these are the actual crimes are they not? Their plans and intentions are relevant in that they shed light on their motivations but I'm not yet convinced that they were also crimes in themselves.
quote:
This is not my interpretation. It was the interpretation of both Richard Clark and Bob Woodward in their books. Again, I remind you Woodward is a Bush supporter or at least he was when he wrote the book.
I realize that.
quote:
I am not implying they let 9/11 go forward nor that they had anything specific to do with it. Whether they purposefully ignored, "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US", knowing it would give them an excuse if he did, or ignored it out of incompetence, I do not know.
Okay, I'll rule that out then.
quote:
DeLay may have been scolded for calling the FBI but my guess is Rove was delighted with DeLay's performance and rewarded him with funds and whatever it is they reward themselves with.
Well... if we're just guessing now.  Seriously though, I agree it looks bad. I'm not sure you can draw a straight line from Bush to DeLay though.
quote:
I'm not sure which irrelevant thing you think I'm making hay over?
Just so you know that comment wasn't directed at you specifically. I was clarifying an earlier statement I made. I will say that bringing up Bush's credibility or lack of it seems pretty irrelevant.
Also could you direct me to where I could find out more on Bush's spying on Grannies Against the War? I haven't been able to come up with much on that. This very thread is the first hit on a google search for "Grannies Against the War"+spying.
quote:
If it was the pre-planing of the Iraq invasion, that's hardly irrelevant.
I agree that the pre-planning is relevant.
quote:
I repeat, Nixon was politically corrupt, Reagan was a religious and idealist zealot, and Bush is both.
Did you miss my previous response to this? Why do you feel this bears repeating? |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 05:46:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
These were not plans "if needed". These were not anything "routine." Bush and company planned to invade Iraq. Period. It wasn't in response to terrorism. It wasn't a plan in case it would be needed. It was something they wanted to do since Daddy Bush didn't go into Baghdad which they had totally disagreed with. These guys had every intention of invading Iraq as soon as they found an excuse. That was even part of the discussion.
And... ? Exactly what crimes are you describing here? This sounds political not criminal to me.
Leading the country to war under false pretenses, and lying to congress in order to do so, these are the actual crimes are they not? Their plans and intentions are relevant in that they shed light on their motivations but I'm not yet convinced that they were also crimes in themselves.
OK, what she is describing is the report that Bush and Co had pre-determined that they would invade Iraq. 9/11 gave them a convienient excuse. The plans for invasion of Iraq were being drawn up shortly after Bush took office. This was much more than a standard contingency plan. This showed intent to violate the sovreignty of a foreign nation on invalid premises. As such, it is a violation of his oath to uphold the constitution.
As such, it is an overt beligerent act. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 20:23:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
OK, what she is describing is the report that Bush and Co had pre-determined that they would invade Iraq.
Alright, I'm with you so far.
quote:
9/11 gave them a convienient excuse.
Yep, we're on the same page here.
quote:
The plans for invasion of Iraq were being drawn up shortly after Bush took office.
Understood.
quote:
This was much more than a standard contingency plan.
Still with you.
quote:
This showed intent to violate the sovreignty of a foreign nation on invalid premises.
I'd say that this shows they intended to invade Iraq period. Of course they actually did go to war under false premises in the end so I guess it's a moot point.
quote:
As such, it is a violation of his oath to uphold the constitution.
I'm in general agreement here. I don't think Bush and Co. particularly cared whether they invaded Iraq under false pretenses or not as long as their invasion plans were executed.
But consider, if they could have come up with a legitimate, persuasive reason to invade Iraq (suppose hypothetically that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11 for example) would the pre-planning of the Iraq invasion still be criminal in that case?
quote:
As such, it is an overt beligerent act.
I don't entirely agree that the pre-planning of the Iraq invasion was an overt beligerent act, but I am willing to be persuaded. In any case I suppose it's a minor difference. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 02:59:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't entirely agree that the pre-planning of the Iraq invasion was an overt beligerent act, but I am willing to be persuaded. In any case I suppose it's a minor difference.
Because it diverted them from any other possible course of action?
It may be hair splitting, but the invasion of Iraq wasn't a national defense contingency, it was a political objective.
There is a significant difference between planning for a contingency, and planning the deliberate invasion of a country and planning to create a premise for that invasion.
Even if they had never carried out the plan to invade Iraq, they still would have been wrong for planning it in the manner they did.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 04:52:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Even if they had never carried out the plan to invade Iraq, they still would have been wrong for planning it in the manner they did.
But god told George that invading Iraq would be a good idea. I wonder what would happen if the god voice in George's head disagreed with George. I'm sure that the ensuing confusion would lead to cranial chaos and quite possibly brain implosion.  |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
