How far down will Bush go; how far should he go?

[Ivan Seeking]

Some of you may already know that I have a particular dislike for the Bush's. I won't get into that here but I believe that my opinion is well founded. When the claims of WMD's was made, due to my opinion about the President I was very, very, skeptical. I realized that my opinion may be inappropriate in this case, and what to do anyway? Beyond protests and letter writing there is not much that could be done.

Now we hear testimony from the CIA that uses very different language than that used by Bush before the invasion.

If the President lied in order to justify this war, what should be done? Keep in mind that he threw away the greatest good will shown this country in my lifetime - due to 911 - and he may be responsible for, what, a thousand dead American soldiers, and half a million dead Iraqi's who were probably forced to fight. Also, when a soldier is sworn in he swears to defend the constitution. This is his or her primary job. Lying to congress is unconstitutional.

If he lied I think he should be tried for war crimes; and for crimes against the people of the United States.

One footnote: I think the Democrats smell blood.

 

[Zero]

I think he should be forced to work a job for the first time in his life, for the wages that he seems to think can sustain a family.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
and he may be responsible for, what, a thousand dead American soldiers, and half a million dead Iraqi's who were probably forced to fight.

A little less hyperbole please. I can't stand Bush either, but I don't believe in the noble lie. More reasonable numbers would be around 500 Americans and 10,000 Iraqis. Those may be underestimates, but they're high enough as it is.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
I think he should be forced to work a job for the first time in his life, for the wages that he seems to think can sustain a family.

5.15 can sustain a family. I know plenty doing it.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Some of you may already know that I have a particular dislike for the Bush's. I won't get into that here but I believe that my opinion is well founded. When the claims of WMD's was made, due to my opinion about the President I was very, very, skeptical. I realized that my opinion may be inappropriate in this case, and what to do anyway? Beyond protests and letter writing there is not much that could be done.

Now we hear testimony from the CIA that uses very different language than that used by Bush before the invasion.

If the President lied in order to justify this war, what should be done? Keep in mind that he threw away the greatest good will shown this country in my lifetime - due to 911 - and he may be responsible for, what, a thousand dead American soldiers, and half a million dead Iraqi's who were probably forced to fight. Also, when a soldier is sworn in he swears to defend the constitution. This is his or her primary job. Lying to congress is unconstitutional.

If he lied I think he should be tried for war crimes; and for crimes against the people of the United States.

One footnote: I think the Democrats smell blood.

On what ground will you charge him with war crimes??

The war is legal, even if it's simply based on the fact that it can be considered a continuation of the first gulf war (due to the lack of criteria met for a continuance of the cease fire).

Just over 500 Americans, and about 10-15,000 Iraqis.

I still support the war, but if false evidence was use, I fully support reprecussions to the link in the chain that caused it. However I'm not sitting here just looking for an excuse to blame Bush :)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
5.15 can sustain a family. I know plenty doing it.

With credit cards? You are lying or wrong, I think. Anyone making 5.15 an hour is eaither working 3 jobs or is getting some sort of government assistance, if they have a family.

 

[Mattius_]

A little less hyperbole please. I can't stand Bush either, but I don't believe in the noble lie. More reasonable numbers would be around 500 Americans and 10,000 Iraqis. Those may be underestimates, but they're high enough as it is.

10,000 iraqis? lol, the US was responsible for just over 100,000 Iraqis before they even took Bagdhad! I would say a half million is a good guess...

The cost of this war is a little higher then you thought?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Mattius_
10,000 iraqis? lol, the US was responsible for just over 100,000 Iraqis before they even took Bagdhad! I would say a half million is a good guess...

The cost of this war is a little higher then you thought?

Proof of 100,000?
A good guess? hahaha! I won't elaborate on that.

Or it's a little lower than YOU GUESSED?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
With credit cards? You are lying or wrong, I think. Anyone making 5.15 an hour is eaither working 3 jobs or is getting some sort of government assistance, if they have a family.

What do you mean with credit cards? As in they are using credit cards to pay for stuff, or credit cards as an added expense?

I am doign neither.
My mom raised my youngest brother and myself (3 of us) for several years on minimum wage. She made right about 1000 each month. That paid for our house, food, and clothes from the goodwill.

It's interesting that you mention government assistance, because I do believe that is still going on under Bush (since my mom is now raising my youngest brother on said assistance. )

Two adults and one child can live and be raised on minimum wage. A man who is willing to put in a hard days work can make double that anywhere in the United States by working unskilled construction. If it's just a woman and a child, well, my mom managed with two of us on that situation.

The only occurence that this isn't possible is too many kids for the income (a problem for anyone, at any income level).

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Mattius_
10,000 iraqis? lol, the US was responsible for just over 100,000 Iraqis before they even took Bagdhad! I would say a half million is a good guess...

The cost of this war is a little higher then you thought?

http://brianhull.net/writing/000028.html [Broken]
I even found a link, in which the Author purports that Saddam wasn't so bad and had stopped hurting his own people. This should prove the link isn't some "vast right wing conspiracy" ;)

Iraqi military deaths = 13,500-45,000
Iraqi civilians killed during the war (20 March – May 1, 2003) = 5,708-7,356
Iraqi civilians killed post-conflict (May 2 – October 20, 2003) = 2,049- 2,209
US and UK combatants killed during the war (20 March – May 1, 2003) = 172
US and UK combatants killed post-conflict (May 2 – October 20, 2003) = 222



Even on the highest side, we're no where near your numbers :)

 

[NateTG]

I don't think that Bush will suffer any more than following in his father's footsteps -- loosing the presidential election.

If he does win but the Dems carry the senate, then there may be impeachment hearings.

Hopefully whomever the Democrats select as a candidate will be smart enough to push the issues that are traditionally republican where Bush is also weak - specificially, fiscal responsibility.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by NateTG
I don't think that Bush will suffer any more than following in his father's footsteps -- loosing the presidential election.

If he does win but the Dems carry the senate, then there may be impeachment hearings.

Hopefully whomever the Democrats select as a candidate will be smart enough to push the issues that are traditionally republican where Bush is also weak - specificially, fiscal responsibility.

What makes you believe that the dems will carry the senate? Or was that just an option?

 

[kawikdx225]

Maybe we should try Clinton and Bush at the same time to save the tax payers some money.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kawikdx225
Maybe we should try Clinton and Bush at the same time to save the tax payers some money.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

So long as we get BOTH, I don't mind a bit.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
So long as we get BOTH, I don't mind a bit.

HAHAHA, Oddly, I find myself agreeing with this.
We can let Clinton go kiss ass and make things like the war in Iraq okay, while Bush inacts foreign policy that isn't popular, but is needed ;)

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by phatmonky
What makes you believe that the dems will carry the senate? Or was that just an option?

Note that "If [Bush] wins and the Dems carry the senate" does not indicate that I think either of them is likely.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by NateTG
Note that "If [Bush] wins and the Dems carry the senate" does not indicate that I think either of them is likely.

"That was just an option" would have sufficed.

 

[Njorl]

The democrats may win the presidency and senate, they may win just the presidency, but it is virtually certain that they will not lose the presidency AND win the senate. To win the senate, they'll need big coattails in quite a few states.

I don't think anything more serious than losing an election will happen to Bush, if that. I don't think he's done anything illegal. Stupid, dishonest, divisive, cruel, greedy - yes, he has been all of those, but those are not crimes.

Njorl

 

[Mattius_]

Iraqi military deaths = 13,500-45,000

Source, OneWorld.net

100,000 before entering bagdhad

Source, The Pentagon

I remember a year ago while watching 'The Factor' they had a retired military colonel by the name of Cowell on. He was an official spokesman from the Pentagon. O'Reilly has just finished interviewing him about what was going to take place next in the invasion and just before they went to commercial Bill asked the Colonel what the death count was in Iraq was for Iraqis. The Colonel responded, I have been given the clearance to say that the death count has risen over 100,000. O'Reilly looked surprised, and a little ashamed, and then he proceeded to go along with the commercial break.

I remember that molment vividly because I knew at that molment I had heard something I shouldn't have. You never hear of the numbers, and when something does leak, it is erased. I tried my hardest to find the transcript of that show but couldnt.

I would take this leaked number far more seriously than some oneworld.net article anyday.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Source, OneWorld.net

100,000 before entering bagdhad

Source, The Pentagon

I remember a year ago while watching 'The Factor' they had a retired military colonel by the name of Cowell on. He was an official spokesman from the Pentagon. O'Reilly has just finished interviewing him about what was going to take place next in the invasion and just before they went to commercial Bill asked the Colonel what the death count was in Iraq was for Iraqis. The Colonel responded, I have been given the clearance to say that the death count has risen over 100,000. O'Reilly looked surprised, and a little ashamed, and then he proceeded to go along with the commercial break.

I remember that molment vividly because I knew at that molment I had heard something I shouldn't have. You never hear of the numbers, and when something does leak, it is erased. I tried my hardest to find the transcript of that show but couldnt.

I would take this leaked number far more seriously than some oneworld.net article anyday.

What is oneworld.net?? I'm quoting http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1111-10.htm [Broken]

-- Between 21,000 and 55,000 people have died as a result of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, according to a new report that also warned of rapidly deteriorating health conditions for those who survived.

London-based Medact, the British affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), concluded that the war's continuing impact--particularly the failure of occupation authorities to ensure security-- has resulted in a further deterioration of the Iraqi population's health status. IPPNW's U.S. affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility, joined in the report's release Tuesday. The report's funding was provided by Oxfam and the Polden-Puckham Charitable Foundation.

This isn't exactly a group trying to cover anything. On the contrary it would behoove them to inflate the numbers.

 

[Mattius_]

You obviously didnt do your homework when you got that source... Common dreams then got it from OneWorld.net. You actually took some no-name site as a reputable source? I surely hope you haven't corrupted other people with other bits of misinformation from illegitamate websites.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Mattius_
You obviously didnt do your homework when you got that source... Common dreams then got it from OneWorld.net. You actually took some no-name site as a reputable source? I surely hope you haven't corrupted other people with other bits of misinformation from illegitamate websites.

Read the agency!
In the meantime, you keeep telling me about soundbites you 'swear' you heard one time on the Oreilly factor.

Another link http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/12/1068329608373.html

It's an AP article.

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by phatmonky
"That was just an option" would have sufficed.

Yes, maybe. But HE said what HE meant - not what he thought YOU might want to hear.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Yes, maybe. But HE said what HE meant - not what he thought YOU might want to hear.

What is that all about? Are we really going to turn this thread into this??

A statement like his could easily have been one considered to be a popular possibility that I wasn't aware of. I was making sure I wasn't missing something. I'll be sure not to clarify in the future, since that hurts your feelings too much.
Go play in the street.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by master_coda
A little less hyperbole please. I can't stand Bush either, but I don't believe in the noble lie. More reasonable numbers would be around 500 Americans and 10,000 Iraqis. Those may be underestimates, but they're high enough as it is.

I was guessing at the latest head count for American casualties; obviously this is easy enough to determine. My statement about the Iraqi's was based on the daily Pentagon briefings during the war. At the war's end, it was stated that six or eight divisions of 60,000 to 80,000 men could not be accounted for on the Iraqi side. I am not aware of any door to door head count that changes that number.

Noble lie? I take great insult at that remark. Perhaps I am just better informed than you.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by phatmonky
On what ground will you charge him with war crimes??

Invading a sovereign nation without provocation.

The war is legal, even if it's simply based on the fact that it can be considered a continuation of the first gulf war (due to the lack of criteria met for a continuance of the cease fire).

I think not. This is the point of the WMD claims controversy. This was our legal reason to attack.

Just over 500 Americans, and about 10-15,000 Iraqis.

Where did they find the other 450,000 Iraqis - again, based on the Pentagons own numbers at the wars end? How much do you think was found at sites where bunker busters were used? Could the numbers be played down now for political reasons…as is done in every war? Case in point about war lies; remember the oh so successful patriot missiles from Gulf I that really didn't work?

It was shock and awe alright! They were sure proud of their big bombs weren't they?

I still support the war, but if false evidence was use, I fully support reprecussions to the link in the chain that caused it. However I'm not sitting here just looking for an excuse to blame Bush :)

He is the commander and chief. He apparently misrepresented the evidence in order to foster support for the war; this based on the latest testimony from the CIA to congress. He forced this war on the entire world and now he wants to place the blame elsewhere. I didn't trust the reasons for the war because it was Bush. Now it seems that my instincts and opinions were correct. Unfortunately I also agree with Njorl; what I would like to see and what will happen are two very different things. Still, we have seen at least one president go down for less.

 

[NateTG]

I think not. This is the point of the WMD claims controversy. This was our legal reason to attack.

Not that I care for Bush, but, illegal or legal, who cares, it's war. It's a much bigger problem that there were pushovers in the Senate that let him get away with it.

A big part of the problem is that the government is failing in the sense that the safeguards that were installed 200 years ago are being bypassed.

I don't agree with Bush's policies, most specifically the blurring of separation of church and state, but the war, and the so called Patriot act are both the result of corroboration between the Senate and the White House, and placing the blame for them entirely on Bush is incorrect.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by NateTG
Not that I care for Bush, but, illegal or legal, who cares, it's war. It's a much bigger problem that there were pushovers in the Senate that let him get away with it.

Well, darn! I don't want to believe that our system has failed so miserably. I can only hope that they were genuinely misled.

A big part of the problem is that the government is failing in the sense that the safeguards that were installed 200 years ago are being bypassed.

Now don't get me started...I can only handle one or two rants per day! But since you mention it, why don't we "declare" wars any more? Hmmm.

I don't agree with Bush's policies, most specifically the blurring of separation of church and state, but the war, and the so called Patriot act are both the result of corroboration between the Senate and the White House, and placing the blame for them entirely on Bush is incorrect.

Now you're really getting me mad! I know. Still, Bush led the charge and I see him as the one to be held accountable; as commander and chief. In the end only Bush had the authority to start or avoid this action. Still, if I was to express my deepest concerns on this issue I would be up all night. My hope is that the weasely politicians have conceded to fear and popular opinion, and not that we have a complete failure of constitutional law on our hands.

So many people seem to completely lack an appreciation for the essence of us - the U.S. Constitution. I am appalled at how many people seem to think that this is only a superficial concern. My cousin’s comments I think typify the popular opinion - it [the war] may have been wrong…technically…but that’s okay as long as the cause was just. IMO this attitude IS the greatest threat to our country. This is why I'm so angry...like fools we’re giving it all away to those in power. This is why I oppose the Bush's so vehemently: I have no doubt that the Bush's will do whatever they think is best; regardless of constitutional law. There is no greater threat... Again, soldiers are sworn to defend the Constitution; not to support the current president or his policies. How much more simple can it be?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
1>Invading a sovereign nation without provocation.



2>I think not. This is the point of the WMD claims controversy. This was our legal reason to attack.



3>Where did they find the other 450,000 Iraqis - again, based on the Pentagons own numbers at the wars end? How much do you think was found at sites where bunker busters were used? Could the numbers be played down now for political reasons…as is done in every war? Case in point about war lies; remember the oh so successful patriot missiles from Gulf I that really didn't work?

It was shock and awe alright! They were sure proud of their big bombs weren't they?



4>He is the commander and chief. He apparently misrepresented the evidence in order to foster support for the war; this based on the latest testimony from the CIA to congress. He forced this war on the entire world and now he wants to place the blame elsewhere. I didn't trust the reasons for the war because it was Bush. Now it seems that my instincts and opinions were correct. Unfortunately I also agree with Njorl; what I would like to see and what will happen are two very different things. Still, we have seen at least one president go down for less.

1>Without provacation? I would say that the signed ceasefire by Saddam would stand up in an international court. NO ONE, not even you, can argue that Saddam kept to his end of the bargain.
2>That was the reason for deciding to attack now. We could have legally gone in 6 months after the end of the first conflict based on the original armistice.
3>link? I posted my numbers FROM AN ANTIWAR SITE just to make sure you guys weren't able to pin this on political spin.
4>Well, at this point neither you nor myself know enough to make the decision on where the blame lies - unless simply by being the commander and chief, you automatically hold him personally responsible.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky

4>Well, at this point neither you nor myself know enough to make the decision on where the blame lies - unless simply by being the commander and chief, you automatically hold him personally responsible.

Well, isn't that what being president means?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Invading a sovereign nation without provocation.

Both Iraq's sovereignty and the provacation are easy enough to argue either way. Its unrealistic to think Bush could actually be convicted of anything for attacking Iraq.

I think not. This is the point of the WMD claims controversy. This was our legal reason to attack.

Legal reason or political exercise? International affairs is nowhere near as cut and dried as suing someone in court. Yeah, it would be nice if the UN worked that way, but it doesn't. And even if UN resolutions had teeth, we have a sufficiently vague UN resolution to condone our action.