No. My point is, that while you feel morally superior, running around blaming liberals and Clinton, he was actually just as capable a homicidal maniac as Bush. I hoped you would appreciate his capacity for lying, murder, and destruction.\ This guy should be in your pantheon of heroes. Bush has barely been able to top him. Because there is no right/left or republican/democrat paradigm. There is empire, and sanity. And since you seem to enjoy empire so much (judged from your posts), you definitely owe Clinton some props. Negative effect. 500 thousand people die, many of them under the age of 5, and you call it a negative effect. If China put sanctions on the US, and 500 thousands Americans died, you can be damn sure we would be fighting the war to end all wars, and no one will be saying that Americans were "negatively effected". Madeleine Albright. Please do some research. Of course not. You have shown an ignorance on the subject matter throughout this thread. Get up to speed, and then return to the topic.
Coming from someone who keeps posting against his president when bush himself said no wmds and no al quiada found lol. Why do u think they are trying to stabilize the country??? Because they care for the iraqi people??(they meaning the neocons). Why do u think our elite took out mossadegh??? Why? Because they secured great oil deals to get oil for pennies on the dollar from the great puppet the shah of iran. What happened to iran now? Is it a more democratic friendly country towards us because of these covert operations? Gtech, face it most people here on dp, even the people that were for this war as much as you have opened their eyes and finally seeing things with clarity. Its not long before you join the "bandwagon" and do the popular thing and cheer for pulling our troops out. The thing is people should go for the right thing no matter if its popular at the time or not. Why do you think we admire Ron Paul so much and not these hand picked candidate puppets that are left for us to vote for.
Frankly, Guerilla I care immensely more about the US deaths and injuries than those of Iraqi's. Its that simple. What I don't do, like yourself, is accuse the US of every death in Iraq. That isn't caring about the welfare of Iraqi's. Its an example of using comments about care to push your political perspective. If you cared about people dying and being injured, you might comment about deaths in Nepal, throughout Africa, in China, Russia, etc. If you really cared about deaths...you might have made mention of the deaths of Americans in the midwest from the recent flooding....but you only comment about these deaths and injustice when it supports your political agenda. But you don't comment about these deaths or injustice. You take the politics that you don't like then blame every aspect of these events on the US. Don't give us your false commentary on death and injustice. You have a political agenda and you use it to rip any action by the US that doesn't agree with your agenda. Again, and I'll state it clearly. I care a lot more about the death and injuries of US soldiers. I do care about the deaths of Iraqi's....just not as much. The emphasis on politics is and has been a sort of "party talk". At any time there are people in power and out of power who see things differently and articulate that. Within administrations there are often people who argue a case. Clearly in this Bush administration, debate has been minimized to an amazing extent. Just as there have been hawks there have been those that have debated the need to go to war in Iraq. Paul argued against Iraq from the beginning as a republican. Hagel argued against Iraq from the beginning. Many Democrats agued against it. Many fell in lockstep with Bush. In govt., in politics these things happen. Wars that are started don't stop immediately. It took about 6 years from the Gulf of Tonkin build up in Vietnam to a point where the Nixon administration started to reduce numbers of troops. During that period many people changed their minds. What had seemed reasonable to some initially as an aspect of fighting the spread of communism became seen as a tremendous unneccessary burdon. You think that all politicians are dirt dogs and part of a conspiracy. Get involved a bit and you'll see how few conspiracies there are...but how many alliances and shifting perspectives as people grapple with ideas and real life conditions. People think of impeachment too much IMHO. Its become a quick fix it ....and a tool to attack the "other party". Cripes it was used once in the US in the 1800's and wasn't a big deal again in the US till Nixon. Then it became the political flavor of the month to go after Clinton, now some have wanted to use it against Bush, and it was referenced and threatened in NY state for Spitzer. As I said before, at least IMHO, amongst other reasons not to pursue impeachment were that the hard facts that might buttress a case are hidden and not available. Virtually everything that goes on within the Bush administration has been unavailable to the Congress or Public. If there are shreds of evidence, for such an action, one which I think should be of a last resort, they come from publications of the book referenced in the OP. One doesn't need to go off and take every single thread on every topic and turn it into a personal commentary on Ron Paul. (that is probably one of the many reasons 95% of the Republicans who voted in primaries and caucases didn't vote for RP and why 98% of all voters in primaries and caucases didn't vote for RP.) The book referenced in the OP makes a point by point effort at trying to address how the Bush administration moved into war in Iraq and how much of it was fallacious. It will probably be an interesting read.
Of course not. Their lives aren't worth as much. Do you know the difference between an American soldier and an Iraqi civilian? One of them volunteered to be in a war in Iraq. One of them can go home. Nonesense. I just know the good guys are few and far between. The ones who follow the Constitution, even more so. Nonsense. The word impeachment numerous times in the Constitution for a reason. It is a legitimate tool to check the power of politicians between election cycles. The bottom line is, if a President has broken the law, they are impeachable, plain and simple. This not subjective. It's not dependent upon the weather, or the charisma of the person being impeached. It's not susceptible to public opinion. When we start enforcing the law only when it is not partisan, or only when it is convenient, or popular, or easy then the law has begun to lose all meaning. In fact, the argument that impeachment is too extreme, because it is so partisan, is just as bad IMO as the argument that impeachment should be used for political purposes. This is the downfall of being a centrist. Standing for everything means one stands for nothing. Here is a great conversation on Bill Moyers regarding impeachment with Bruce Fein and John Nichols. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript2.html Excerpt And, you know, the founders anticipated just such a moment. If you look at the discussions in the Federalist Papers but also at the Constitutional Convention, when they spoke about impeachment, one of the things that Madison and George Mason spoke about was the notion that you needed the power to impeach particularly as regards to pardons and commutations because a president might try to take the burden of the law off members of his administration to prevent them from cooperating with Congress in order to expose wrongdoings by the president himself. And so Madison said that is why we must have the power to impeach. Because otherwise a president might be able to use his authority and pardons and such to prevent an investigation from getting to him. Bruce Fein had an excellent article in Slate last year. http://www.slate.com/id/2169292/ Paul was against the war. He was correct. 90%+ voted against him. Paul was against the Patriot Act. He was correct. 90%+ voted against him. Paul has been for balanced budgets. He is correct. Many vote against him. Paul was right about the recession and credit crunch. Others vote to enable this sort of fiscal disaster. That people didn't vote for Paul is no great mystery. Many of those people are like you. Willing to continue putting our soldiers in harms way for a lie, rather than display enough courage to stand up for someone other than themselves. Same thing I told Mia and lorien. You can laugh at Paul for voting alone, until you realize that he's voting not only in your best interest (and failing) but he's voting consistently with a Constitutional, American ideology (and failing). What does that say about how the government works? Dirt dogs indeed.