POLL: Bush and impeachment

Yeah, what he said.

Well done BTA

 

Oh, those WMD. Those were the ones that WE sold to him back in the 80s.

How can anyone forget the "Mushroom clouds" that appeared over Dick Cheney's head in 2002?

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050318/the_intelligence_made_them_do_it.php

[ October 15, 2005, 04:48: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I am sorry, but this is not what I remember. In fact, people believed that Saddam had some nuke program even after the war, when no evidence had been found.

From an opinon piece by M Kinsley in Slate, written in June 2003:

(full article here )
In my opinion, saying that fear of Saddams being on the verge of aquiring nukes was not the motivating factor Bush used to sell his war, is blatant history rewiting.

 

In an attempt to be "fair and balanced":

For those who support Bush's War in Iraq:

1) Do really think every diplomatic option had been exhausted? Given what we now know of Bush administration appointees, is it at all conceivable that opportunities might have been missed to assemble a stronger international coalition due to diplomatic incompetance, and not just the malfeasance of "French surrender-monkeys"?

2) Many people now argue that it was worth it just to oust Saddam's tyranical regime. Why wasn't the war sold for this reason? Can you sympathize with those who might have felt manipulated by the way the administration orchestrated its drumbeat to war around the theme of WMDs?

3) Is it justified for a government to exaggerate facts in the run up to a war to mobilize popular sentiment, or is it irresponsible and deceitful? Would you admit that the Bush administration wasn't always even-handed in its use of intelligence, making soundbites out of questionable data that strengthened its position and suppressing data that weakened it? If it's found, say, that the forged Nigerian uranium documents could be traced to the administration, would you be outraged, or would you say such means were justified by the greater ends of deposing Saddam?

4) Looking back at WMDs, "Shock and Awe", "Stuff Happens", "Mission Accomplished", the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" (which I'll admit works real well against armies if not in occupation), Paul Bremer, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc, would you be willing to admit that there have been occasions that the war wasn't waged as competently as it could have been? Armchair quarterbacking aside, isn't it the case that the administration ignored a great deal of informed opinion (Gen Shinseki, etc etc etc) at each and every stage of the war? Could the administration's apparent habit of appointing "Brownies" (or perhaps "Mierses"?) into sensitive positions have been detrimental to the success of the war effort? (My favorite: the guy put in charge of the Iraqi university system had no knowledge of Arabic language and history, and had previously been working to administer a new, unaccredited Christian "great books" university in New Mexico...)

5) Given the importance of oil to the world economy, the status of the US as the primary consumer of oil, Cheney's prior move from US gov't directly to the position of CEO of Haliburton and back again, Bush's ties to the oil industry, and the fact that Saddam hoped to assassinate Bush I, can you at least see where some people around the world might be a little sceptical or cynical about the administrations motives here?

6) Isn't it possible that some of the resources used against Iraq could have been better spent in Afghanistan and other more obvious targets in the "Global War On Terror"?

For those against Bush's War in Iraq:

1) The UN supported sanctions against Iraq lead to widely reported misery in the Iraqi population, and possibly to a breath-taking amount of graft. In addition, the UN also supported the US/UK enforced "no-fly zones", which were of course violations of Iraqi sovereignty. Was this situation sustainable? Would you really argue that "the sanctions were working", despite the reported civilian toll? Or would you argue for ending the sanctions and the no-fly zones, thus both opening up the very real possibility that Saddam actually would get his WMDs, and consigning the Kurds of the north and Shia of the south to their fates?

2) Nationalism was the scourge of the 20th century, and will perhaps be the scourge of the 21st as well. How much weight does the argument of "respecting the national sovereignty" of a despotic regime really hold? How much of a weight does the "if they had wanted to get rid of Saddam, they would have" argument hold in a country without civil liberties, where it was obvious to everyone that a minority was maintaining its hold over the country by force of arms?

3) Is there such a thing as "universal human rights", or is this only a Western, culturally-relative idea?

4) Given that the UN has recognized and backed the current government of Iraq as legitimate since 2003, and given the wide turnout of voters in the last Iraqi election (and one would hope, in today's referendum), would you actually describe the current Iraqi government as a "puppet government"? Given that this government supports the current presence of US and multinational troops on its soil, and that by nearly all accounts the US and multinational troops will (mostly) leave Iraq as soon as they possibly can (that is, as soon as the security gets better), does it really make sense to describe the situation as an occupation (like the Germans in France in WW2) or worse, a colonial enterprise (like the British in India)?

5) Would you really blame all of the (disputed) 100,000 Iraqi deaths on the US and multinational forces? Are the insurgents fighting for their freedom, or, as the former ruling class, for their "rightful place" at the top. Is despotism preferable to war? What price in terms of freedom can be paid for such a peace?

 

How dare you try to carefully way both sides of the issue, Bion? You...you...flip-flopper!

Whoah, sorry...I had a '12-months-ago' moment...

 

BTA, the problem is, while this being plausible reasons, going to war under the premise of manufactured reasons really killed off any change to do something about the more plausible reasons. Marshall and Truman were never afraid to talk about their plans. Probably because they had one and it looked remotely convincing. But just invading a country with some vage concepts about what should be done withoug outlying the single steps to achieve it before invading usually does not tend to be succesful. And with the fake-war-arguments, any chance for improvement seems to be excluded.

Because:

1. Someone in the administration should start talking tacheles. Like: We have this plan to re-shape the ME. It costs 2 trillion dollars the next 5 years and requires 1.5 million soldiers stationed there. This way, we will have the meanst to democratise the country...

2. And people have to say: Yes. Well no one told me it would cost that much and that I had to have get used to new taxes and that some family members have to be sent there. But I think it's a good idea. I thought we just go over, clear things up, get rid of a clear and present danger, install a democracy in two-months and be home at christmas. Gosh, you never know how things turn out to be! Life's funny. Of course, give me the democracy in the ME extra-tax!

If the reason for the war was a lie, then what was the war about?!?!?
Of course, there can be made some arguments that it would serve this and that purpose. But the lie makes acting purposefully an impossibility. Because someone has to start to find an agreement on the purpose of the war and the purpose of the occupation. The purpose would need consent of the people. Without a purpose, a agreed to plan, how can be something meaningful be done.

That's just another riddle I can't solve.

 

@BTA:

No one questions the fact Saddam was an ugly dictator. However, if no one believed in the nukes theory, possibly including Dubya, why give it as an official reason for invasion? If the reasons you mention later were so obvious and sufficient, why weren't they used consistently from the very beginning?

 

Well, DR, I voted for the war before I voted against it. In addition, I was secretly in league with the Viet Cong, I had a love child with Jane Fonda, and I used Sith mind tricks to get my war medals.

 

It doesn't matter that Saddam was a cruel tyrant but that Bush LIED about main reason for war, WoMD.

 

I'd just like to throw in my opinion here, and not necessarily get into (for the umpteenth time) whether or not the war was justified, or Iraq had nukes, or what. I will say that I think we can ALL agree that the case for the immenant threat posed by Iraq was greatly exaggerated by the Bush administration, regardless of Saddam's violations of UN resolutions or past use of WMD.

As to the topic of this thread - the impeachment of Bush - IMO, it'll never happen. As has been pointed out, since the Republicans control all three branches of government, the articles of impeachment will never be brought forward for Bush. Whether Bush deserves to be impeached - or even held accountable for the mistakes (and downright inaccuracies) made under his watch - is unfortunately irrelevant to the issue of impeachment in the current situation (Republicans controlling everything, that is).

But let's put that aside, too - and focus on the charge itself. As for whether or not Bush lied - I personally don't think he did. There's a certain degree of intellect required to be a good liar, and I think Bush's country-bumpkin persona is much closer to the mark than his supporters may like to admit. I think he honestly believed what he was told, because he doesn't possess the intellectual curiosity necessary to demand the highest standards of accuracy from the handlers he relies on for...well, everything. It simply didn't occur to him to question anything he was told. His "good people" were the "experts," after all.

Republican partisans are fond of the term RINO (Republicans in Name Only). They use it to attack members of their own party who don't take on quite the hardline stance that they themselves do. John McCain is often called this, because he has the audacity to actually work with Senators from across the isle. I know, foreign concept.

Well I have a little acronym of my own. To me, George W. Bush is a PINO (President in Name Only). He truly believes he's making the tough decisions, but he's doing it based on the carefully filtered information given to him directly from the mouths of his handlers. Bush himself admits, he never goes near a newspaper - Condi (or whomever) fills him in on "what he needs to know." I believe any man relying on others for all information he receives - the foundation of which all his decisions are made, without doing any research of his own - should not be in a position to be making decisions on ANYONE'S behalf, let alone an entire nation. A leader in this situation is not truly making his own decisions. He is at the mercy of the misinformation he's being fed. Hence, it's his handlers who possess the power in this administration, not George W. Bush. If Bush makes a carefully-measured decision - all on his own - about whether or not to launch a pre-emptive strike against the Stay-Puft Marshmallow man (after a highly detailed breifing from Cheney about the immenant threat, of course), that doesn't mean it's the BEST decision, and it certainly doesn't make him a good decision maker. The threat could have been exaggerated or flat out fabricated, but he wouldn't know it - because the information came from a trusted source, so how could it be.

In short - Impeachment suggests willful wrongdoing on the part of the President. I don't think that's the case here. What we have here is good old-fashioned incompetance of the highest order, for which I wish he would in some way be held accountable (but I'm not holding my breath). Incompetance, however, is unfortunately not an impeachable offense.

[ October 15, 2005, 18:49: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

The problem is that they didn't rely on circumstancial evidence, they fabricated the evidence. Just remember that Phd thesis that Powell presented as an intelligence report, which was supposed to prove the existance of iraqi WMDs.

 

No, BTA, you will not escape so easily .

This icnident has nothing to do with intelligence services, which found evidence that was not solid. They took a ten years old thesis and presented it as a recent intelligence report. In my book this is translates as "since we can't find proofs to support our case, we have to create them".

 

And such logic was used in Soviet Russia "show me a man and I'll find a paragraf against him"

 

That's quite an interesting comment. And before you bow out consider this: Yes, many of us feel that we were lied to about the hard evidence concerning the WMD. You say that "we were naive." Yet, we were powerless to stop the lying despite our best efforts to discover the truth of the matter. Which brings us to this: The real naive ones, are the ones who voted and supported Bush, not those who tried to stop this nonsense from going as far as it has. Unless of course, you are saying that we are naive because we believe that government has a obligation to be honest and straight forward with the American people. If that's the case, then I suppose we are naive. But we are the better for it.

 

@ BTA,

Maybe I was naive for hoping that my government is acting in the interests of Australians and had some commitment to international law or principles. I would like to trust the people who hold legal authority over me, for obvious reasons. I sure as hell won't be making that mistake again.

Of course intelligence is not a science; the whole problem with intel is that you can never determine what is or isn't right without trying to collect as much as possible to create a bigger picture. That doesn't excuse the leaders of the "Coalition of the Willing" from their actions, which were at best woefully negligent and at worst utterly deceitful.

Still, we're flogging a dead horse re: impeachment; it isn't going to happen anywhere, particularly while the opposition parties in all three nations (US, UK, Australia) are weak and present no real alternative. I would hope that history holds up the architects of this war as having achieved commendable ends (ultimately, I hope we end up with a democratic Middle East), but through duplicitous and undesirable means.

 

It seems that a short stay in the big house has made Judith Miller a little more agreeable to the real nature of her stories supporting the War in Iraq. But we all know this is just more of the "liberal media" at work:

Gee, imagine that.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051017/miller_the_fourth_estate_and_the_warfare_state.php

 

That's fact that a tyrant can get off scot free. It has been that way and it will remain that way for long, long time. Tyrants fare well if the govern well enough and they fall when the results of their decisions are catastrophic. In case of Saddam, he really messed it up 1980. As long a tyrant is able to put bread on the table of the majority of his subjects he has nothing to fear. Well, maybe the personal guard. Anyway, most tyrants died old and rich and those still alive have a high probability to do so too.

And the tyrants that found an untimely death were mostly just replaced by better versions of themselves, obviously more able than their predecessors.

But it's a probably sheer luck for all of us that the international community is so selective and picky with the tyrants that have to fall. God forbid someone would put a boykot on Nigeria or China. And I like those shirts from Burma.

[ October 18, 2005, 19:45: Message edited by: Iago ]