Are you saying that the former Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Veneman, resigned because of the Iraq fiasco?
The question remains: if 60% of people don't mind being lied to about the reasons their children are being sent off to maim, kill, be maimed and be killed, what, exactly, would they mind? Hobbes' Leviathan indeed; it's clear that Franklin, looking at this lot would in fact declare that they "deserve neither liberty nor safety" from their commitments as indicated by such polls. If this poll is accurate, 60% of American adults don't deserve a working democracy. And that is pathetic. What's ironic is, they're getting what they deserve, everyday. They certainly have a Hobbesian militaristic republic that ostensibly keeps them safe (Question: how much, collectively, did the USA spend on defense from, oh let's say 1980 on? And how did that all that spending work on during the Bush administration on September 11th, 2001? Oh...), one that's increasingly plurocratic, steadily pigmentocratic and certainly oligarchic in terms of a political/corporate class. But a working democracy reflective OF the extensions of the COnstitutional franchise for which people have died or gone to jail? It's still in the process of possibility, but only in the minds of about 40% of us, apparently.
The best is, understand what the KKKs and the McCrackens and the ITN here aruge FOR: Incredibly, they argue for NOT knowing, for a lack of transparency, a facile media, corporate power, the status-quo, and for utter accpetance of leadership prouncements. There's no denying this from their posted slobberings. They are part of that 60%, but an active, aware part of that 60% who, knowing the alternative (i.e. actually pursuing democracy), argue against that, and actually argue FOR the above. That's even more pathetic.
Uhh, I'll let you know what I argue FOR, I don't need to filter it thru Melspeak. Did it ever occur to the "outraged" that 60% of the people oppose this question on impeachment because they have already concluded it's a false premise. They know their President did not lie, and thus would not be roped into answering negatively on this leading question. If a president TRULY LIED about going to war, the poll results would show 90% in favor of impeachment.
Sorry; kinda think it's important to establish it at home before foisting a bastardized version of some right-wing masturbation on others. Hate me.
Tenet's out- the entire intelligence infrastructure is restructured with the DCI now not at the top- pretty major changes IMO.
That itself is a lie; we're ********ING IN THE MIDDLE OF DOCUMENT ASSESSMENT THAT INDICATES STRONGLY THAT THIS PRESIDENT WAS SAYING ONE THING TO THE PUBLIC AND HAD DECIDED ANOTHER THING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WITH THE UK. That assessment needs to be pursued by agents of the pursuit of truth who will as a result produce some investigative journalism, not the "news" from which Ian and people like Ian draw their conclusion about what this President did or did not do. Funny thing is, most 'mericans feel that if an issue gets 10 minutes on 60 Minutes, then it's been both thoroughly investigated and effectively dealt with, lol...
You must move to impaech all of them then if you want Bush's head. John Kerry (MA), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Dick Gephardt (MO), and Hillary Clinton (NY) Schumer (NY) (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. This is so old. Look up the definition of 'lie'. If that doesn't do it then look at all those in congress (both sides) that agreed with and helped push the issue. Besides that. It was the right thing to do.
I don't mean to be arguing that a hypothetical President who deliberately lied to lead the country into an otherwise unneccesary war shouldn't be removed from office, I'm just speculating on technicalities. Technically I don't think that would be impeachable in and of itself, since impeachment is supposed to be for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Although if a President deliberately lied I suppose you could bring manslaughter charges against him on behalf of the soldiers killed in the war, and use that as the impeachment offense--I don't think the actual lying would qualify. Um...the spin on here was mostly "Yeah, he has WMDs, but that's not reason enough to go to war". The Moonbat Militia didn't jump on the "SEE HE DIDNT HAVE WMDs AFTER ALL" bandwagon until a few months after the invasion had gone by and nothing had turned up. FWIW, it seems that even Saddam himself probably honestly thought he had WMDs (the people under him being too afraid to tell him that the WMD programs had dead-ended), so it's hardly fair to fault Bush for honestly believing the same.
Ha, ha, ha. Mel, you're hysterical...and I don't mean funny. Those "documents" (speculation and opinions, mostly) are a joke...and possibly a fraud.
No; just like those conversations I used to have a decade ago with folks who claimed to have "pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps" in some perfect isolation, then, come to find out, there was some key moment or a set of key moments in their lives when some uncle, or some benefactor, private or public, but certainly outside themselves aided that bootstrap process, I'd just like more substantive acknowledgement that "wealth" of the type we've been talking about is not one person sitting around with great ideas and great drive forging some glorious reality at which the rest of us marvel, sit in awe, and then engage solely according to market forces, which themselves are deemed to be outside morality and ethics, and, like the universe, just are, and are timeless. No, wealth creation, not unlike bootstrap processes, involves all kinds of constituents, all kinds of processes outside that person to make it happen, and I'd like to see substnative consideration of all the stakholders in wealth creation...call me a nightmare for free-market fundamentalism, for market-as-fetishism...
While I sorta agree, the reality is that taking the country to war under false pretenses is within the political (and frankly Constitutional) power of the Presidency. See Johnson, LB. Or a stealth war. See Nixon, R. See Reagan, R. What Bush has done is, sadly, not that uncommon.
I know Fox doesn't report actual findings when they happen, but only when they can be spun, but, uh, no. ...Downing Street has previously refused to comment on the memo's authenticity, but challenged for the first time on the floor of the House of Commons the Prime Minister has finally confirmed its authenticity. Speaking after Prime Minister's Questions, Adam Price MP said: "The confirmation that the memo is authentic will cause ripples throughout the United States where 122 Members of the US Congress have written to the President asking if Sir Richard Dearlove's statement in the memo, that 'the intelligence and the facts are being fixed around the policy' is correct. "I challenged the Prime Minister on whether Sir Richard Dearlove was a reliable intelligence source, and if so, could he confirm whether his statement was an accurate assessment of the Bush administration's intentions and actions. In his answer, the Prime Minister refuses to distance himself from the assessment made by the former head of MI6 and simply goes on to say resolution 1441 changed the position. I fail to see how this is relevant to my question. "Today is a significant step forward in establishing the truth about the US and UK's policy to invade Iraq. However difficult it proves to extract information about the war from the government, the Prime Minister must be held to account by Parliament, and the President must be held to account by Congress..." IOW, if the facile media you are committed to continues this push that the DSM and its concomitants are "a fraud," then Tony Blair is a ********ing liar. In any case, let's stay focused, primarily on the document Congress demanded from the President upon the launching of the war, and the apparent truths offered in the DSM group of documents, and the investigation that MUST lead from that. Now I know that Ian and KKK and ITN and that type of person at the forefront of the 60% that don't want to know and don't give a ******** as long as housewives remain desparate enjoy Faux News, but that's just operating within a country, mainly as a consumer. I'm hoping for folks from all sides to remain engaged toward the ned of continuing to BUILD a nation, mainly as citizens. That requires truth, especially from our elected leadership, especially regarding matters of war. It really is simple. Maybe too simple for simpletons, but it's simple nonetheless.
Mel, you work in academia, not the real world. I work in the free market. I’ve had the privilege to work for a two visionaries who made themselves incredibly rich and substantially bettered the lives of all that worked for them in the process. You’re not "nightmare for free-market fundamentalism", you’re simply an insulated, tenured academic.
Do you have ANY idea at all of my work history before the fall of 2003? You're speaking in perfect ignorance here.