Is it time to impeach?

[Clarence]

The Cheney impeachment is getting no coverage.none. ask your paper why not.

[dilligras]

Quote by: The Decider Quote by: dilligras Bush, nor any other coalition entity, caused the Iraqi military to disband......they did it of their own accord, by removing their uniforms and blending into the general population. So the Iraqi military disbanded themselves? Paul Bremer disagrees: Bremer defends disbanding Iraqi army as the 'most important decision I made' BY HANNAH HICKEY Printable VersionL.A. Cicero L. Paul Bremer, the former presidential envoy to Iraq, spoke with reporters last week on campus. In an interview last week, L. Paul Bremer, who headed the American-led occupation authority in Iraq, defended his widely criticized decision to abolish the Iraqi army. "I think it was probably the most important decision I made, and it had the effect of avoiding a civil war in Iraq," Bremer said. "The old army had been used to crush Kurds for 50 years." Rebuilding the force reassured the Kurdish minority that there would be real changes, he said, and encouraged support for the January elections. "Just look what's happened in the last two months," Bremer said. "They had the first free elections in Iraq's history. Nine million people—almost nine million people went out and voted. Sixty percent, more than we get in our presidential elections, and they went at a time when the terrorists were saying, 'We'll kill you if you vote." Bremer defends disbanding Iraqi army as the 'most important decision I made'

The article you posted is from 2005, two years after the invasion, when Saddam's Army was often noted to be leaving their uniforms behind and going home. It may be true that Bremer could have recalled some of them, but the Kurds probably would have rebelled.......that does not equate to him having, "disbanded" them, however.

All this was noted by Fred Barnes, more than three years ago:

MYTHS OF IRAQ
Not everything you know about Iraq is true.
by Fred Barnes
05/14/2004 12:00:00 AM

"Another myth has been lingering for several months: that Bremer was wrong to disband the Iraqi army. The fact is the army disintegrated on its own in the face of the American invasion. Sure, Bremer could have quickly summoned parts of Saddam's military back to service. But, again, the Kurds and Shia wouldn't have stood for their oppressors being in position to oppress them once more. There was a price to pay. Some ex-soldiers took up arms against the U.S. occupying force because they weren't being paid. But not many did. So it was a price worth paying.

Critics of disbanding the army point to Falluja. If the army had been kept around, it could have dealt with the Baathist revolt there. But would it have? I doubt it. The real problem was that U.S. forces won so swiftly that they never took the war to the Sunni Triangle and Falluja in the first place. They should have. Now former Saddam soldiers are being used to pacify Falluja, but only because the alternative--scores of civilians and U.S. Marines killed--may be worse."

That's not to say that Bremer never declared the Army as well as other agencies to be disbanded, it's just that it was already a fait accompli by the time he got around to it.

As for complaints that some of Saddam's Army could have been put to good use during the reconstruction, just such a thing was attempted in Falujah, and the unit had to be disbanded as well, because their "good use" turned out to be merely good and useless.



As you were.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Clarence As much as this helps my case against you, I'm going to have to ask for moderation on this one. Your conduct is not conducive to debate. You're simply a flamer. Talk to decider and meet the logical criteria you supposedly embrace or get out of this thread.

As a matter of fact, mon ami, I was constructing my reply to The Decider when you squatted to produce your latest scatalogical specimen.......and I don't know what case against me you think you have, but I daresay that I have contributed more substantive argument to the thread than you, who seem able only to parse another's posts until they are offensive enough for you to whine about.

So, instead of asking me to leave, why don't you find somewhere else to play your adolescent games, pilgrim, while we adults attend to the more serious issues du jour?


As you were.

[Clarence]

What's this thread about?

[Clarence]

brien

impeachment is obviously not what the neo-cons want. No news about it. nothing. you tell me. Lets get behind Kucinich on this issue. I've been thinking about this for a couple of years and I fully understand your perspective.

Our congress needs to discuss a limited amount of issues until they've regained the confidence of the people. If the people can convince them to work on these matters, we'll be buying time. 20 months is a long time.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Clarence What's this thread about?

Near as I can tell, It's about whether or not the more irrational elements of the Democrat Party have accumulated enough trumped-up evidence of malfeasance to allow a legal coup, n'est-il pas?

The short answer is no.

We don't like short answers around here, so we're discussing the why's and why not's.......comprenez-vous?

During the discussion someone (rmnunez, I think) made the statement that if we had not disbanded Saddam's army that we could have used them effectively during the reconstruction.

A statement that I challenged, whereupon The Decider refuted my challenge with evidence that seemingly supported the original contention. My last post to The Decider was my counter-argument, to which I eagerly await a response..........well, actually, I'm lying about that last part, because, as my username implies, I don't really give a rat's furry buttocks.

"Savez ce que je signifient, Vern?"[/Jim Varney]


As you were.

[Clarence]

what a flake

[brien]

Quote by: Clarence brien impeachment is obviously not what the neo-cons want. No news about it. nothing. you tell me. Lets get behind Kucinich on this issue. I've been thinking about this for a couple of years and I fully understand your perspective. Our congress needs to discuss a limited amount of issues until they've regained the confidence of the people. If the people can convince them to work on these matters, we'll be buying time. 20 months is a long time.

Clarence: Impeachment is obviously not what the Congress wants either unless they could produce the super majority to over ride his vetos. Most Congressional members are realistic and know they don't have the majority for impeachment. Thus it is a waste of valuable time.

[dilligras]

Quote by: brien Clarence: Impeachment is obviously not what the Congress wants either unless they could produce the super majority to over ride his vetos. Most Congressional members are realistic and know they don't have the majority for impeachment. Thus it is a waste of valuable time.

I disagree for two reasons.

First, it would force these lies about imagined lies to be exposed on the record, instead of just ignored by the MSM while people like Msrs. Sheehan and O'Donnel try their damndest to mainstream the lies unto historical record, via that very same media.

Second, every minute spent on such dead-end efforts is a minute where the Congresscritters are not able to yet further screw America and her citizens out of an even higher percentage of their lifestyle; and the recent "immigration" shenanigans are more proof than I could ever hope to invent, were I as inclined to Judas kiss the reader as the modern "journalist" employed by such as the NYT, LAT, and WaPo.


Carry on.

[PatrickHenry]

Here's what Scott Ritter has to say about a possible impeachment: Repudiation, Not Impeachment - CommonDreams.org - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

The impeachment of President Bush would not in and of itself terminate executive unilateralism. It would only limit its implementation on the most visible periphery, driving its destructive designs back into the shadows of government, away from the public eye, and as such, public accountability. Impeach President Bush, yes, if in fact he can be charged with the commission of acts which meet the constitutional standard for impeachment (and I believe he could, if Congress only had the will to do its job). But to truly heal America, we must repudiate everything President Bush stands for, in terms of not only public and foreign policy, but also in terms of his style of governance, since the former is derived from the latter. Repudiation is a strong term, defined as “rejecting as having no authority or binding force,” to “cast off or disown,” or to “reject with disapproval or condemnation.” In my opinion, the complete repudiation of the presidency of George W. Bush is the only recourse we have collectively as a people to not only seek redress for the wrongs committed by the Bush administration, but also to purge society of this cancer that threatens to consume and destroy us as a whole, and which would continue to manifest itself in our system of governance even after any impeachment proceedings. Like any cancerous growth, the Bush administration has attached its malignancy to the American nation in a cruel fashion, its poisonous tentacles stretching deep into our national fabric in a manner that makes difficult the task of culling out the healthy from the diseased. But we cannot truly repudiate something without its complete and utter elimination from our midst. As such, there must be a litmus test to help us differentiate the good from the bad, that which must be restored from that which must be eliminated. For me, there is only one true test: that of constitutionality. There will be those who argue, and have argued, that the time is well past for an oppressed people (and one would be a fool not to comprehend that under the Bush administration, the American people have in fact been oppressed) to rely on the niceties of legal argument, especially when the system of law we seek to use in our defense has been so thoroughly corrupted by those who seek to impose tyranny.

Ritter is one of the weapons inspectors who cautioned before the war that Iraq no longer had WMD...

[Clarence]

First, it would force these lies about imagined lies to be exposed on the record, instead of just ignored by the MSM while people like Msrs. Sheehan and O'Donnel try their damndest to mainstream the lies unto historical record, via that very same media.

Kind of. Except you're assuming there's a crime to be known.


Did I do something to you Dilli? Wait...

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: brien Clarence & Zee; An impeachment hearing would clog the Congressional calendar and paralyze the agenda of the Congress. And for what? A terrible President who is leaving office by the time they could impeach him anyway? Makes no sense to sacrifice almost 2 years of otherwise valuable Congressional time and agendas for what will happen anyway. What is there to gain?

I agree. Like I said in one of the other threads, when you consider the cost/benefit ratio of impeachment, it doesn't make sense this late in his term.

Quote by: brien This is not quite accurate. Some Senators come up for re election on a rotating basis every two years. For example Senator Kerry may be up for relection in 2008 but Lieberman not until 2012. Even though Senators have 6 year terms, their anniversary can fall in off year elections. For example, when Lieberman was elected in 2006, (an off year election meaning it didn't coincide with a Presidential election) his re election opportunity falls in the regular year election of 2012 along with the Presidential election. Kerry was last elected to the Senate in 2002 and is up for re-election in 08.

Actually, what I said was "The next chance to dump any of the new senators is almost 6 years away". What I meant was, we elected a new batch of representatives this last election. If they fail to follow the will of the people, it will still be 6 years before we can vote any of these new senators out.

[dilligras]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Here's what Scott Ritter has to say about a possible impeachment: Repudiation, Not Impeachment - CommonDreams.org - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community Ritter is one of the weapons inspectors who cautioned before the war that Iraq no longer had WMD...

Is Scott Ritter really a credible source?


As you were.

[Clarence]

What is the cost of finding out? some paper? some electricity at the capitol for the light?

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: dilligras As a matter of fact, mon ami, I was constructing my reply to The Decider when you squatted to produce your latest scatalogical specimen.......and I don't know what case against me you think you have, but I daresay that I have contributed more substantive argument to the thread than you, who seem able only to parse another's posts until they are offensive enough for you to whine about. So, instead of asking me to leave, why don't you find somewhere else to play your adolescent games, pilgrim, while we adults attend to the more serious issues du jour? As you were.

Boy, for a Neocon, you sure like to speak French.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: dilligras Is Scott Ritter really a credible source?

Maybe you find fault with his character, but I'll bet you didn't read the link I posted, dilligras.

I hope you like the coming Democratic dictatorship emanating from the White House...

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: dilligras Is Scott Ritter really a credible source? As you were.

More than someone who talks like he's some kind of drill sergent, or slips French phrases intop his speech to make himself sound cultured.

[Klio]

Quote by: dilligras When we turned over Iraqi oil matters to the Iraqis in August of '03, only a few months after we ousted Saddam and his murdering thugs, the lefties reflexively and loudly complained that Iraq would never be made to pay any part of the cost of their regime change or reconstruction and that Americans were being unfairly used in a region that shouldn't matter to them. Now that the Iraqis are showing their gratitude by showing preferrence to Coalition companies, the left is quick to lift its muzzle to the barely-shadowed moon, while it squeals a plaintive, high-pitched cry to rival that of Chris Matthews-- a high-pitched wailing that pierces the soul as it drifts forth over the misty moors of Democrat discontent. "No blood for oil!" is the earnest bleating du jour, pulled blithely from the talking point pdf file of code pink's media darling traitors. As you were.

The "Iraqis showing their gratitude"???? ROTFLMBO Surely you jest!!

Taking control of Iraq (and by definition, their oil) was planned by the PNAC way back in the 90s. They were to have 4 permanent army bases in Iraq and the largest embassy in the world. Doesn't sound to me like we're planning on leaving any time soon. And if we're not leaving, we're sure not gonna keep our sticky paws off their resources. I can see Exxon drooling now.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Mozart1220 More than someone who talks like he's some kind of drill sergent, or slips French phrases intop his speech to make himself sound cultured.

French is not a sign of culture......it is a sign of exposure to a language, as are all sytems of communication.

It is amusing, however, to occasionally throw it in the face of elitist dumbasses who think it signifies something other than a mediocre ability to mimic.

And, as surprising as it may seem to the partisan, pusillanimous poltroons and timorous troglodytes who languish safely in campus student union swamps, we didn't have anyone named "sarge" in the Navy........but we did have a few traitors like Sen. Kerry and Rep. Murtha to endure.

Now that we have dispensed with your off-topic, ad hominem crapola, how about addressing the issue at hand? Surely you have more compelling evidence of malfeasance than has been given to date?

Shirley?


As you were.

[dilligras]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Maybe you find fault with his character, but I'll bet you didn't read the link I posted, dilligras.

That would probably be a fool's bet, since I could read it or not, and you'd likely never know it.........BTW, I snagged a new sig line for you from the link.


"The nefarious nature of the Bush cancer is that, in its infection of the American system, it seeks to draw legitimacy for its tyrannical actions by citing the very same Constitution it seeks to destroy." -- Scott Ritter

Go ahead and use it, we all know you want to.


As you were.