Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics General Stuff July Statistics Show Improvement in Iraq

Ardy, I speak only for myself, but I do not view Bush as intending evil and don't doubt he thought he was doing the right thing. Of course that makes no difference either to the issue of impeachment nor to the hundreds of thousand killed because of what he thought was right.

As for Rumsfeld, he was merely one of the inept. Far more central to every aspect of this Presidency was Dick Cheney, who was the architect of what has rightly been called the imperial presidency.

he was determined from the Nixon days to make the President supreme among the 3 branches. He was behind every step and every disaster. But many participated, albeit thinking they were right.

Every dictator in history has thought that. I won't even use the "H" name, just look to history and what we see is man after man, and a few women, who were convinced they knew best.

That is the tragedy. The Iraq invasion was wrong from the start. That has been Obama's message from the start. He has said the current situation is better, but rightfully argued that the surge is not what made the difference.

So I am not sure why you caution him. As you have observed, all that is being done now should have been done by a well planned program from the start.

I don't care about impeachment not because it is not warranted but because it would be an easy way out for those who refuse to stand up to the imperial presidency. The real test is whether either candidate will renounce the powers Cheney and gang have accreted to the Presidency.

Phil
I pretty much agree with what you have written.

Never the less I would point what I think is an important distinction. I think impeachment is not intended for situations of poor judgement. It is intended for the purpose of corruption, venality, or other outright illegal behavior. And it was for that reason that I raised the issue of intent in respect to the application of impeachment in this circumstance.

I understand Ardy, but the requisite intent for impeachment is not to do evil but to act illegally. In my opinion the acts of this administration that are illegal is very long indeed.

I suppose you are correct Phil. However, if we were to take your point to exquisitely detailed enforcement, probably more presidents would be impeached than not.... even Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus.


The Bush administration has certainly done many things I consider illegal... although of course they alway take the trouble to getting friendly legal opinion the confirms the legality of the actions they proposed.

But, setting aside from the many possible impeachable legal breaches of this administration... I was only referring to the narrow issues concerning the lead up to the war. And in that context I do not find their actions to be (from a legal perspective) distinctively different from Eisenhower's overthrow of Iranian democracy, Kennedy's spinning of the Bay of Pigs (or Vietnam), LBJ's Ton kin Gulf, Nixon's Cambodia, (I'll give Carter a pass), Reagan's Iran Contra, Panama, Granada etc, Bush senior's machinations in Iran Contra affair, Clinton actually was impeached.

In the above context we have Bush spinning the lead up the Iraq invasion in ways that are (to my mind)not hugely different from that way other presidents have operated in pursuit of what they felt to be national interests.

If I were convinced that Bush invaded Iraq simply to benefit himself and his campaign contributors... then I would think this affair to be impeachable.

Things like Bush's signing statements, Bush's circumventing of Fisa requirements, corrupting the justice department for political advantage... these are all tings I find arguably impeachable

see how the goalposts of victory have been moved?

an improvement? there are some of the pro-warriors hailing this as proof that the imperial misadvernture in Iraq was a good thing after all.

Its like a child who excretes on a carpet, attempts to clean up, and spreads the shite everywhere. Then Child points proudly at it.

It's a matter of opinion, my friend, as to whether the horrible situation that still exists qualifies as "far short" of the horrible bloody civil war that seemed inevitable about a year ago (although, in passing, I must nudge your memory a bit to point out that predictions of a horrible bloody civil war actually came two years ago, not one - it was the bombing of the temple in Samarra that touched it off).

It's a matter of opinion as to whether the recent pitched battles between the different Shi'ite factions in Iraq's two largest cities, or the government's labeling of iraq's second-largest political faction as a terrorist organization and consequent banishment from participating in upcoming national elections, constitute "civil war".

But the point of my post, far from meaning to imply that you had endorsed "the surge" was to take issue with the perception that a reduction of US casualties was tantamount to "improvement" in Iraq. I don't know how I could have made that clearer.

I am still waiting to learn from you who the "many of us" are, or were, who believed that Iraq was "a hopeless mess", and what that term meant to those of us who believed it, and in what sense those of us who believed it were wrong. So far the only criterion we have to go on is that US casualties are down. I can't help but point out that no US service members are dying in Darfur, and yet I neither think the situation there has "improved" nor that it is "a hopeless mess".

Perhaps being in the middle of one would provide you with more lasting memories.

That's interesting, Ron. Can you describe when that truce was negotiated, and what it "truced"?

there already has been a civil war, the shias won baghdad. it remains to be seen whether theres a round 2 or not.

Excellent news. When will all the troops be allowed to return home to their families?