interesting how you assume anybody who is against bush must be a democrat...
Um...where exactly did I state that those against Bush had to be democrats? The question was whether or not Bush could be impeached for Iraq. The quotes I posted, which do in fact happen to be from Democrats, all point at Iraq possessing the capabilites to make WMDs. Look, I'm a Republican, but I'm not the biggest Bush supporter by any means. All I'm saying is that intelligence pointed at Iraq having or being able to have WMDs for over a decade. It wasn't just a Bush II thing. I'm sure a good portion of this board hates the President, but the fact he is hated is not enough to impeach him.
Hitler ordered the murder of millions of civilian jews. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq based on intelligence reports of Iraq possessing the capability to produce WMDs. Not really sure where you want to pull comparisons from, but to each their own.
US was warned of Iraq chaos, says ex-diplomat
By Andy McSmith
A former diplomat has revealed that the British mission to the United Nations opposed the policy of regime change in Iraq but was ordered by London to change its position in the lead-up to war.
The disclosure was made to MPs yesterday by Carne Ross, a member of the mission who resigned in protest at the Iraq war. He told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the US government was repeatedly warned by British diplomats that Iraq would fall apart if Saddam Hussein was toppled. But from mid-2002 instructions were received to change that view to fall in with the Bush administration.
Speaking in public for the first time since he left the diplomatic service two years ago, Mr Ross also confirmed suspicions that the Prime Minister made up his mind months before the Iraq invasion in March 2003 that the war was going to happen and British troops would take part. Mr Ross said when he was serving in the embassy in Afghanistan, as early as April 2002, British officials there knew troops were being held back in readiness for the Iraq invasion.
He claimed that when official documents from the Foreign Office are made public, they will prove that the view of British officials, repeatedly conveyed to the Americans, was that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would cause chaos.
He told MPs: "I took part in the bilateral discussion between the State Department and the Foreign Office for four years. One of the items repeatedly on the agenda was regime change. Whenever that item came up, the leader of our delegation would say, with emphasis: 'We do not believe regime change is a good idea in Iraq. The reason we do not believe that is because we believe Iraq will break up and there will be chaos if you do that'. That view will have been recorded in the telegrams that have remained secret, and will do for years. That was emphatically the unified view of the Foreign Office.
"That view changed in mid-2002. There was no basis for changing the view from what was going on inside Iraq. What changed was our view of what the future policy would be."
Mr Ross was in charge of imposing sanctions on Iraq when he handled Middle East policy at the British mission in the UN from 1998 to 2002. He was a friend and colleague of David Kelly, the government scientist who killed himself after being named as the source of leaks about the Iraq dossier. His evidence to Lord Butler of Brockwell's inquiry into the Iraq war has been kept secret. Mr Ross told MPs that his union's lawyer had warned him that he could be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act if it was published. But he said it had "been on his conscience" for two years that his evidence had been withheld from the public and he was prepared to hand it over to the committee. He also gave a description of how foreign policy is set by groups of four of five officials, looking over their shoulders at all times to work out what the Prime Minister wants. Because the impact of foreign policy is felt far away, there was a "pact of irresponsibility" that allowed officials to get on with it without political supervision.
During the years when he was imposing sanctions on Iraq, he never felt that he was under scrutiny by Parliament or the public. He added: "There wasn't a component of moral accountability, for instance. I felt, looking back, that what I did on sanctions for Iraq was fundamentally wrong. Sanctions were ill-engineered, misdirected, targeted at the wrong group of people and caused, as a result, immense suffering in Iraq, and did not achieve the ends that they were designed to do."
The quotes I posted, which do in fact happen to be from Democrats, all point at Iraq possessing the capabilites to make WMDs... All I'm saying is that intelligence pointed at Iraq having or being able to have WMDs for over a decade.
You confused the claims of 'Politicians' with 'intelligence'. Are they the same thing?
You confused the claims of 'Politicians' with 'intelligence'. Are they the same thing?
You make a good point!
I wish I knew when the political parties in this country fell apart. I suppose it is something that has been gradually happening since long before I was born, but it used to be that Republicans stood for less government, thus why I am a Republican. If we could find someway to get by with a government that would provide the basics: protection, education, etc., and then have a flat tax or user tax for everything else, well, that would be the ideal government for me. As is, both parties of our government are currently crap.
All this political discussion makes me want a beer. Is 9:52 AM too early to crack one open? I am on vacation from work for a few days, so...then again, my wife would come home for lunch and kill me.
Yes, he probably should be impeached, but he's not going to be. Dean and Pelosi have both said it's not on the agenda. And honestly, with two years left in his term and the democrats running congress, I don't think it needs to be a priority. Of course, if investigations turn up anything even worse than what we already know or suspect, that could change.
As for the Hague, I'd very much like to see Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, etc. held to account, but I'm not holding my breath.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Yes, he probably should be impeached, but he's not going to be. Dean and Pelosi have both said it's not on the agenda. And honestly, with two years left in his term and the democrats running congress, I don't think it needs to be a priority. Of course, if investigations turn up anything even worse than what we already know or suspect, that could change.
As for the Hague, I'd very much like to see Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, etc. held to account, but I'm not holding my breath.
Look, I don't like Bush. But there is no evidence to impleach him, or more importantly to take him before the Hague.
Just becuase the Democrats won the majority in Congress, doesn't mean Bush is guilty of anything other than losing the confidence of the electorate. It doesn't mean he's a bad or evil person, it just means people disagree with him.
Look, I don't like Bush. But there is no evidence to impleach him, or more importantly to take him before the Hague.
Just becuase the Democrats won the majority in Congress, doesn't mean Bush is guilty of anything other than losing the confidence of the electorate. It doesn't mean he's a bad or evil person, it just means people disagree with him.
I disagree. Although I will say that I'm fully aware Bush is just a giddy puppet and it's the shifty bastards behind him in the shadows pulling the strings who should be held to account. I doubt Bush is even aware of half of his parties policies or decisions.
I don't think there is any evidence of a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" that would justify the high cost of impeachment. When people talk about how they waste billions on the war to "line Halliburton's pockets," they somehow don't seem to mind the billions that would line the lawyers' pockets.
Um...where exactly did I state that those against Bush had to be democrats? The question was whether or not Bush could be impeached for Iraq. The quotes I posted, which do in fact happen to be from Democrats, all point at Iraq possessing the capabilites to make WMDs. Look, I'm a Republican, but I'm not the biggest Bush supporter by any means. All I'm saying is that intelligence pointed at Iraq having or being able to have WMDs for over a decade. It wasn't just a Bush II thing. I'm sure a good portion of this board hates the President, but the fact he is hated is not enough to impeach him.
where were you.....Bush, Cheney and cronies couldn't say how Iraq was an imminent threat enough..and how evil they were and how they were tied to Al Quaida etc...they used fear to get support for the war..intelligence or not..they're the ones that said anything to get us into war.
And as what the intelligence said...many of us even if we took the evidence at face value still wouldn't have invaded Iraq. It was a bone head move no matter how you looked at it.
I don't think there is any evidence of a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" that would justify the high cost of impeachment. When people talk about how they waste billions on the war to "line Halliburton's pockets," they somehow don't seem to mind the billions that would line the lawyers' pockets.
the crimes YET! I'm just hoping they will...and your reasoning for not investigating and prosecuting make no sence..... ah ah ah..."Lets not impeach Bush cause it will cost too much".
I'm not for impeaching as I don't see any good coming out of it...but again I hope it is investigated so Bush supporters realize they were punked. It will happen by the way..may be 10 years..but the time will come. Bush will go down as the worst president in American history..and people will compare his supporters to Hitlers supporters. No I'm not comparing Hitler to Bush or their actions.
the crimes YET! I'm just hoping they will...and your reasoning for not investigating and prosecuting make no sence..... ah ah ah..."Lets not impeach Bush cause it will cost too much".
I'm not for impeaching as I don't see any good coming out of it...but again I hope it is investigated so Bush supporters realize they were punked. It will happen by the way..may be 10 years..but the time will come. Bush will go down as the worst president in American history..and people will compare his supporters to Hitlers supporters. No I'm not comparing Hitler to Bush or their actions.
Yet you complain about all of the other costs? A witch hunt was not good for the country during Clinton's times and would not be a good use of tax dollars today.
the crimes YET! I'm just hoping they will...and your reasoning for not investigating and prosecuting make no sence..... ah ah ah..."Lets not impeach Bush cause it will cost too much".
I'm not for impeaching as I don't see any good coming out of it...but again I hope it is investigated so Bush supporters realize they were punked. It will happen by the way..may be 10 years..but the time will come. Bush will go down as the worst president in American history..and people will compare his supporters to Hitlers supporters. No I'm not comparing Hitler to Bush or their actions.
Houston Texas!! I don't think I've met a Houstonite on here before. The home of Bill Hicks - that fact alone makes me fond of the place. And the fact that I had a great time at Waterworld there when I was a kid.
this is not really an issue is it? the guy has clearly lost. he's beaten and his agenda and presidency is dead in the water. let him ride those last 2 years into infamy and then get fresh leadership. impeachment would backfire big time and destroy the democrats. plus, we'd have dick cheney in office. the american people think bush is ineffective and incompetent, but they do not think he is a criminal and it is important that the dems acknowledge that. let this victory be abotu restoring america to americans, not wresting america from a bunch of insane republicans and handing it over to a bunch of insane democrats.
Yet you complain about all of the other costs? A witch hunt was not good for the country during Clinton's times and would not be a good use of tax dollars today.
Clinton's indiscretions in no way compare with Bush and croanies getting us in an unwinnable war spending billions of dollars, causing thousands and thousands of human lives.
Lets compare at least apples to oranges..not apples to planets.
Houston Texas!! I don't think I've met a Houstonite on here before. The home of Bill Hicks - that fact alone makes me fond of the place. And the fact that I had a great time at Waterworld there when I was a kid.
and its a real bitch having my views in this town...but hey, watcha gonna do. Glad you enjoyed our fair city and water park and of course Mr Hicks. And if you ever come back..first pints on me.
Clinton's indiscretions in no way compare with Bush and croanies getting us in an unwinnable war spending billions of dollars, causing thousands and thousands of human lives.
Lets compare at least apples to oranges..not apples to planets.
I was against the Clinton impeachment as well. That was a horrible waste of tax dollars.
and its a real bitch having my views in this town...but hey, watcha gonna do. Glad you enjoyed our fair city and water park and of course Mr Hicks. And if you ever come back..first pints on me.
Cool! There's three places I wanna visit in America that I've not been to before. Austin (Butthole Surfers, Richard Linklater, Daniel Johnston, Janis Joplin, Roky Erickson), Seattle, and Alaska. If I pass by Houston I'll give you a shout.
It is probably a little bit premature to call for impeachment.
If something really bad comes out with the oversight and investigations that will be done, the option will still be there. Who knows, maybe they will catch him in a lie under oath or something
Look, I don't like Bush. But there is no evidence to impleach him, or more importantly to take him before the Hague.
Just becuase the Democrats won the majority in Congress, doesn't mean Bush is guilty of anything other than losing the confidence of the electorate. It doesn't mean he's a bad or evil person, it just means people disagree with him.
Of course there's no evidence! There's been no investigations! Evidence doesn't normally just drop out of the sky. That is why I said "probably." My suspicion is that such evidence does exist. If it doesn't, then obviously he shouldn't be impeached.
It's all academic though, because it's not going to happen.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
No Bush should not be impeached, it's a waste of time and money. And, if we're going to send him to the Hague on war crimes, we might as well bring with him all the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who voted for the war.
I really think if the Democrats try to impeach Bush, they are shooting themselves in the foot come the 08 elections. The people gave them Congress so that they can get some things done, and provide some new ideas on Iraq, which seems impossible, but we'll see.
Maybe we can keep knockin' 'em off until we get to . . .
President Obama:D
Byrd would make sure to amend the constitution before he dies making sure that Obama could never be president. He will use some line like "it's called the White House for a reason."
Clinton's indiscretions in no way compare with Bush and croanies getting us in an unwinnable war spending billions of dollars, causing thousands and thousands of human lives.
Lets compare at least apples to oranges..not apples to planets.
There are a lot of people who feel that Bush was doing what was best for this country. You can play the games and deny that, but you can't possibly be serious about impeaching a president who acted to prevent a threat from materializing - The other guy, while I wasn't for impeaching him, was doing what was best for his purple headed warrior - seriously, don't waste your energy on thoughts of impeaching Bush - I don't think the elections were won because the American people wanted a legal mess that got Bush dismissed that way - they wanted change and check & balances - so I'd start hoping your Dems can provide such things
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
There are a lot of people who feel that Bush was doing what was best for this country. You can play the games and deny that, but you can't possibly be serious about impeaching a president who acted to prevent a threat from materializing - The other guy, while I wasn't for impeaching him, was doing what was best for his purple headed warrior - seriously, don't waste your energy on thoughts of impeaching Bush - I don't think the elections were won because the American people wanted a legal mess that got Bush dismissed that way - they wanted change and check & balances - so I'd start hoping your Dems can provide such things
on the impeachment thing....don't think Bush needs to be impeached..will ultimately hurt the Democrats.....and I also agree there were alot of people that in their hearts thought he was doing the right thing...but many of us..knew his logic was flawed also knew it was wrong to go into Iraq. I do also think there were lots of soft lies the administration told the American people...and for that they need to be called out so we don't have to go through this BS again.
Comments
Um...where exactly did I state that those against Bush had to be democrats? The question was whether or not Bush could be impeached for Iraq. The quotes I posted, which do in fact happen to be from Democrats, all point at Iraq possessing the capabilites to make WMDs. Look, I'm a Republican, but I'm not the biggest Bush supporter by any means. All I'm saying is that intelligence pointed at Iraq having or being able to have WMDs for over a decade. It wasn't just a Bush II thing. I'm sure a good portion of this board hates the President, but the fact he is hated is not enough to impeach him.
Hitler ordered the murder of millions of civilian jews. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq based on intelligence reports of Iraq possessing the capability to produce WMDs. Not really sure where you want to pull comparisons from, but to each their own.
9 November 2006 15:23
US was warned of Iraq chaos, says ex-diplomat
By Andy McSmith
A former diplomat has revealed that the British mission to the United Nations opposed the policy of regime change in Iraq but was ordered by London to change its position in the lead-up to war.
The disclosure was made to MPs yesterday by Carne Ross, a member of the mission who resigned in protest at the Iraq war. He told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the US government was repeatedly warned by British diplomats that Iraq would fall apart if Saddam Hussein was toppled. But from mid-2002 instructions were received to change that view to fall in with the Bush administration.
Speaking in public for the first time since he left the diplomatic service two years ago, Mr Ross also confirmed suspicions that the Prime Minister made up his mind months before the Iraq invasion in March 2003 that the war was going to happen and British troops would take part. Mr Ross said when he was serving in the embassy in Afghanistan, as early as April 2002, British officials there knew troops were being held back in readiness for the Iraq invasion.
He claimed that when official documents from the Foreign Office are made public, they will prove that the view of British officials, repeatedly conveyed to the Americans, was that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would cause chaos.
He told MPs: "I took part in the bilateral discussion between the State Department and the Foreign Office for four years. One of the items repeatedly on the agenda was regime change. Whenever that item came up, the leader of our delegation would say, with emphasis: 'We do not believe regime change is a good idea in Iraq. The reason we do not believe that is because we believe Iraq will break up and there will be chaos if you do that'. That view will have been recorded in the telegrams that have remained secret, and will do for years. That was emphatically the unified view of the Foreign Office.
"That view changed in mid-2002. There was no basis for changing the view from what was going on inside Iraq. What changed was our view of what the future policy would be."
Mr Ross was in charge of imposing sanctions on Iraq when he handled Middle East policy at the British mission in the UN from 1998 to 2002. He was a friend and colleague of David Kelly, the government scientist who killed himself after being named as the source of leaks about the Iraq dossier. His evidence to Lord Butler of Brockwell's inquiry into the Iraq war has been kept secret. Mr Ross told MPs that his union's lawyer had warned him that he could be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act if it was published. But he said it had "been on his conscience" for two years that his evidence had been withheld from the public and he was prepared to hand it over to the committee. He also gave a description of how foreign policy is set by groups of four of five officials, looking over their shoulders at all times to work out what the Prime Minister wants. Because the impact of foreign policy is felt far away, there was a "pact of irresponsibility" that allowed officials to get on with it without political supervision.
During the years when he was imposing sanctions on Iraq, he never felt that he was under scrutiny by Parliament or the public. He added: "There wasn't a component of moral accountability, for instance. I felt, looking back, that what I did on sanctions for Iraq was fundamentally wrong. Sanctions were ill-engineered, misdirected, targeted at the wrong group of people and caused, as a result, immense suffering in Iraq, and did not achieve the ends that they were designed to do."
You confused the claims of 'Politicians' with 'intelligence'. Are they the same thing?
You make a good point!
I wish I knew when the political parties in this country fell apart. I suppose it is something that has been gradually happening since long before I was born, but it used to be that Republicans stood for less government, thus why I am a Republican. If we could find someway to get by with a government that would provide the basics: protection, education, etc., and then have a flat tax or user tax for everything else, well, that would be the ideal government for me. As is, both parties of our government are currently crap.
All this political discussion makes me want a beer. Is 9:52 AM too early to crack one open? I am on vacation from work for a few days, so...then again, my wife would come home for lunch and kill me.
Do it man! It would be rude not to! If your wife gives you a hard time just tell her you've cleaned the windows and done the hoovering.
As for the Hague, I'd very much like to see Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, etc. held to account, but I'm not holding my breath.
Look, I don't like Bush. But there is no evidence to impleach him, or more importantly to take him before the Hague.
Just becuase the Democrats won the majority in Congress, doesn't mean Bush is guilty of anything other than losing the confidence of the electorate. It doesn't mean he's a bad or evil person, it just means people disagree with him.
I disagree. Although I will say that I'm fully aware Bush is just a giddy puppet and it's the shifty bastards behind him in the shadows pulling the strings who should be held to account. I doubt Bush is even aware of half of his parties policies or decisions.
where were you.....Bush, Cheney and cronies couldn't say how Iraq was an imminent threat enough..and how evil they were and how they were tied to Al Quaida etc...they used fear to get support for the war..intelligence or not..they're the ones that said anything to get us into war.
And as what the intelligence said...many of us even if we took the evidence at face value still wouldn't have invaded Iraq. It was a bone head move no matter how you looked at it.
the crimes YET! I'm just hoping they will...and your reasoning for not investigating and prosecuting make no sence..... ah ah ah..."Lets not impeach Bush cause it will cost too much".
I'm not for impeaching as I don't see any good coming out of it...but again I hope it is investigated so Bush supporters realize they were punked. It will happen by the way..may be 10 years..but the time will come. Bush will go down as the worst president in American history..and people will compare his supporters to Hitlers supporters. No I'm not comparing Hitler to Bush or their actions.
Yet you complain about all of the other costs? A witch hunt was not good for the country during Clinton's times and would not be a good use of tax dollars today.
Houston Texas!! I don't think I've met a Houstonite on here before. The home of Bill Hicks - that fact alone makes me fond of the place. And the fact that I had a great time at Waterworld there when I was a kid.
Clinton's indiscretions in no way compare with Bush and croanies getting us in an unwinnable war spending billions of dollars, causing thousands and thousands of human lives.
Lets compare at least apples to oranges..not apples to planets.
and its a real bitch having my views in this town...but hey, watcha gonna do. Glad you enjoyed our fair city and water park and of course Mr Hicks. And if you ever come back..first pints on me.
I was against the Clinton impeachment as well. That was a horrible waste of tax dollars.
Cool! There's three places I wanna visit in America that I've not been to before. Austin (Butthole Surfers, Richard Linklater, Daniel Johnston, Janis Joplin, Roky Erickson), Seattle, and Alaska. If I pass by Houston I'll give you a shout.
you obvioulsy have no idea what you are talking about buddy
If something really bad comes out with the oversight and investigations that will be done, the option will still be there. Who knows, maybe they will catch him in a lie under oath or something
It's all academic though, because it's not going to happen.
President Pelosi
And once she resigns in disgrace, Democrats can have what they've always wanted...The leader of the KKK himself.
I really think if the Democrats try to impeach Bush, they are shooting themselves in the foot come the 08 elections. The people gave them Congress so that they can get some things done, and provide some new ideas on Iraq, which seems impossible, but we'll see.
President Kennedy!
President Obama:D
Byrd would make sure to amend the constitution before he dies making sure that Obama could never be president. He will use some line like "it's called the White House for a reason."
There are a lot of people who feel that Bush was doing what was best for this country. You can play the games and deny that, but you can't possibly be serious about impeaching a president who acted to prevent a threat from materializing - The other guy, while I wasn't for impeaching him, was doing what was best for his purple headed warrior - seriously, don't waste your energy on thoughts of impeaching Bush - I don't think the elections were won because the American people wanted a legal mess that got Bush dismissed that way - they wanted change and check & balances - so I'd start hoping your Dems can provide such things
Untill their will grows tired