House Narrowly Avoids Having to Debate Impeachment of Cheney 1033
An anonymous reader writes "Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) yesterday successfully moved articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney to the House Judiciary committee. 'Today's resolution from Kucinich (D-Ohio) was essentially the same as the legislation he introduced earlier this year, which included three articles of impeachment against Cheney based largely on allegations that he manipulated intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. The last article accuses Cheney of threatening "aggression" against Iran "absent any real threat."'"
Umm, going to committee is NOT Success (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This thing didn't stand a chance in the House either. It was sent to committee to keep it from being debated on the House floor. Most Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the likes of Code Pink, ANSWER, MoveOn.org, Karl Marx and people who see UFO's and try to communicate with trees. [cleveland.com]
This would not only been counter productive in that regard,
Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success (Score:4, Insightful)
This is one of the few worthwhile things happening in the US federal legislature. My friend, please, for God's sake please stop watching American television.
Ya (Score:5, Funny)
Said they would not give the war anymore money without a pull out date. Decided to "investigate" steriods in baseball(May of been last year, don't remeber). Burned a couple of hours trying to get approval to TALK about *maybe* impeaching the Vice President.
And what were the results?
The war is still going on, there is no pull out date.
A few key players got free publicity for there books. Helped me waste 3 minutes writing a response on slashdot that will be modded to -35, for retard.
God bless America.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ya (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem seems to be that even the Democrats don't really believe all of the things which they've accused the Bush administration of. Either that or they really ARE "spineless".
Please get something done (Score:3, Insightful)
If they aren't passing because bush is vetoing, that means they aren't working hard enough to work together.
It was bullshit when the impeached clinton, it's bullshit now.
Spindot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Spindot (Score:4, Informative)
Congress has yet to successfully pass [loc.gov] an appropriations bill this year, and it's already November. The continuing resolution that was passed at the end of September to prevent the government from shutting down expires at the end of next week. Nevertheless, Congress has focused on waging battles on political hotbutton topics like SCHIP instead of fulfilling their annual responsibilities. Miring the Senate down in impeachment proceedings is the last thing the Democrats need, and they know it - otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about the supposed "success" of burying the impeachment resolution in committee, because Cheney would be sitting in front of a bunch of Senators right now.
The Republicans decided that their best strategy would be to call the Democrats' bluff, by forcing the issue into debate and recorded votes. Personally, I disagree with this strategy - the vote to table the resolution was good enough affirmation to me that Cheney doesn't actually merit impeachment, the slightly-more-marginalized MoveOn.org's cries of anguish notwithstanding. But it did move Kucinich's circus into a more prominent position in the national media, and what with the media's feeding frenzy over his UFO comments, the timing was uncanny.
narrow? (Score:4, Informative)
sounds weird and not all that narrow. its split down the middle (more or less), just like the parties (more or less). is anyone suprised??
and how many abstained from voting or just didnt show up?
3-4 is narrow, 24 (four less than the difference in parties) is not.
Summary of the accusations (Score:5, Informative)
Whether the result of lies, a lack of willingness to believe contrary viewpoints, or maybe even idiocy (I think he's too smart for that, evil or not), the accusations carry no mention of where he made statements under oath. Statements included are from two press interactions, five interviews, and a speech. While in some cases very public, there are no cases there where he was speaking under oath.
Article II: Cheney lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda
Again, there was no oath taken for the occasions mentioned. Four speeches and five interviews are mentioned, but again, at no time during these was he under oath.
Article III: Cheney has threatened use of force against Iran
Three cases where he said that no options are off the table and one where he explained the placement of an extra carrier in the Persian Gulf are used as evidence here. Every president for the last few decades has used carriers to send messages to other countries, and saying that no options are off the table is application of diplomatic pressure. He never said that if Iran doesn't stop, the US will flatten it.
Impeachment is for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." He has not committed treason as defined in the Constitution ("levying War against [the Untied States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"); he is not accused of taking bribes; and it's unlikely that misdirection of the sort listed would come under a "high Crime" or "Misdemeanor," or else every person subject to impeachment could probably be pulled from office for making a political statement that someone on the opposing party doesn't like.
I wasn't especially fond of the idea of Clinton's impeachment, and I don't think Cheney warrants it here. This is a waste of time given that a) it's unlikely to garner enough House votes to continue even if it does get past committee, and b) it's essentially impossible for it to get a conviction in the Senate.
Re:Summary of the accusations (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, I guess he already did...
In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
They LIED about EVERY threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed, and not only once and in government reports, but MULTIPLE times while addressing the public. The fact that they weren't under oath is actually more evidence that they knew they weren't just being vague or coy, but completely dishonest. Anyone who claims otherwise is as full of shit as they were/are.
Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Pelosi, Hoyer: GROW A PAIR! Stand up for what's right! Do your job and uphold the Constitution!
Here's the video of it... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJYbgouqlMw [youtube.com]
Frontline special about Dick Cheney on PBS (Score:5, Informative)
PBS recently had a one hour episode of Frontline about Dick Cheney on October 16, 2007. It well researched and went into great detail about Dick Cheney and David Addington's quest to expand presidential power in ways that were both legally and constitutionally questionable. Expanding presidential power was a major part of their efforts to perform domestic spying and to be allowed to use torture on suspected terrorists.
If I remember correctly, that episode of Frontline did not say very much, about the alleged manipulating of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. Most of its criticisms of Dick Cheney were for different reasons than what were mentioned in the Washington Post article.
Land of the brave? (Score:3, Interesting)
And then the REPUBLICANS, see a chance to embarrass the DEMOCRATS, and decide to vote for it.
Because the DEMS would be shamed to express their views that the VP is a liar and a cheat.
And then the DEMS, not wanting to admit their shame, bury this in committee.
So the REPUB VP, a liar and a cheat, gets to keep lying and cheating.
And even though there's a valid proposal to look into it, no-one is willing to.
Wow. Land of the free, home of the brave, right?
Re:Land of the brave? (Score:4, Interesting)
1. In 1913, the dictator Victoriano Huerta was president of Mexico. He gave the congress an ultimatum: dissolve themselves, or he would dissolve them. The communication was read to a quorum of the body; they referred the matter to a committee and passed a motion to adjourn. Shortly thereafter most of the congressmen were arrested, but the congress was technically not dissolved because they had not acted on the motion.
2. Just a couple weeks ago, my city council [cityoflansingmi.com] voted unanimously to deny an application to erect a cell-phone tower in a certain residential neighborhood. After the vote, the chair of the committee stated that the committee had thought it might be a good idea to develop a master plan identifying areas that actually would be good locations for cell-phone towers within the city boundaries. The council president moved to "receive the report", which means exactly nothing.
Most governmental bodies (both legsilative and judicial) have a lot of different ways to not do something. Sometimes that's a good thing; both sides in a dispute can be angry at the government until they both grow up, or move to another city, or something.
Why exactly is impeachment "off the table"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I really, really dislike Bush, Cheney & Co. But I am truthfully starting to dislike the Democrats even more, if that's even possible - because it's somehow even worse to be stabbed in the back by a supposed friend than it is to be kicked in the face by your enemy (which you kind of expect). I feel like this country is now being betrayed just as much by the inaction of the Democrats as by the actions of the Republicans.
Re: (Score:3)
Liberal Whining? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a moderate. I respect candidates from across the spectrum. George Bush and his administration have been a goddamn nightmare.
I don't care what your religious, political, or social affiliation is. If you don't recognize this administration as crap, you are in deep ignorance or denial.
I love this country. And I could cry over what these people have done to us.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not 100% sure where you're going with your argument. Bush has run his administration in a manner that has been completely contrary to both of his campaigns. Is it really the voter's fault that we didn't get what was advertised? Don't forget our original point that Bush and Cheney have been spewing lies from the start, and that those lies
Bad Choice of Words (Score:4, Insightful)
He wasn't successful at all. Heck, the Republicans were voting in favor of the debate. It is more accurate to say: the articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney have been buried in the House Judiciary committee, and will not be seen again.
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not think that word means what you think it means. You have to impeach and convict to get kicked out. Clinton was impeached. Unless Bush really screws up, I'm sure it won't happen because there's 1 year left before elections and I don't think they push for it.
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:5, Funny)
I attempted to quote you above, but something keeps happening to the bold text. Let me try again:
Okay, one more try:
I give up.
Debate the Republicans want (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Debate the Republicans want (Score:5, Informative)
Where by "significantly in the minority" [americanre...hgroup.com], you mean 54 percent.
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:4, Insightful)
Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:5, Insightful)
-- Democracy in America July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001 R I P
Tar and feathers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tar and feathers (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that the Democrats have been spineless and could be doing a LOT more, but a simple majority would not be sufficient. First of all, the Republicans in the Senate have been threatening filibusters on virtually every bill (they've actually been breaking records in that regard), so a supermajority is needed, which the Democrats do not have in any sense. Secondly, the Democratic majority is pretty tenuous to begin with -- there are technically only 49 Democrats in the US Senate, and it's the two independents that caucus with them that gives them the "majority." And one of those independents is Joe Lieberman, who is more hawkish and conservative than most Republicans. And of course, there are plenty of so-called "blue-dog" Democrats that don't have much of a Democratic agenda to begin with.
That's not to excuse the Democrats, though. Reid, Pelosi, and the others have demonstrated an astounding lack of leadership and a unbelievable capacity to bend over and do whatever the Bush administration wants, either to "appease" some people they think of as moderates or for political reasons or whatever. It's a disgrace. They've passed a few decent bills, but fall all over themselves doing what the administration wants every chance they get.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pelosi et. al are stupid enough to have forgotten how the game is played. If you can't get a vote to the floor, make them filibuster. Make them look like a bunch of obstructionist, whining babies who are standing in the way of good legislation because they are afraid of losing an actual vote. Argue publicly the merits of your legislation. And even if you can't put enough pressure on them to succee
Re:Tar and feathers (Score:5, Insightful)
If you recall the last major protests in Washington in September, only about 10,000 turned out for the ANSWER rally, and they were met by 1,000 Freepers. That's a piss-poor performance for a supposedly angry public.
They may hate the war, but they hate the Democrats too.
Re:Are you enlisted? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's a small world (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are you enlisted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a small world (Score:5, Insightful)
We didn't enter WWII for humanitarian reasons. We entered the war because Japan drew us in with a massive attack on our naval base at Pearl Harbor.
Up until that day in December 1941, there was a strong sense that the US should stay out of the war, because we remembered what happened in WWI. We were sending supplies to Britain, and providing other resources to our allies, but there was no support for declaring war on anyone.
When Japan made it clear that they intended to work with the other Axis powers to rule all of the world, there was no question that we needed to fight back, and so we did. The difference between WWII and all other conflicts since is huge. The Axis powers were clearly an existential threat to the continental US (Hawaii first, lower 48 next); unlike the theoretical threats embodied in "domino theory" and "global war on terror".
Sure, Al Qaeda did attack us, and we attacked back -- in Afghanistan. We were making some good progress there, too... Until the majority of our resources and attention were refocused on the Iraq boondoggle. Now look what's happening in Afghanistan: the Taliban is coming back, poppy/cannabis harvests are booming, and Afghanistan's neighbor Pakistan is having major problems due in no small part to the increasing influence of radical islamists who operate from the safety of the afghanistan/pakistan border.
The only entities that are benefitting from this Iraq shitstorm are Al Qaeda (it's a fucking recruiting wet dream) and the guys like Halliburton, Blackwater, and all the other Military-Industrial Complex hangers-on.
Feh.
Re:Are you enlisted? (Score:4, Informative)
Also, I have one other point of contention. We did not "give Land we didn't own to the Jews." The British owned Palestine in every way that mattered after the downfall of the Ottoman Empire (vide: The Sykes-Picot Agreement, The Treaty of Sevres, The League of Nations Mandate For Palestine), and it was the British who went about creating the Israeli state under the auspices of the United Nations Partition Plan, which owed its ideological roots to a British internal policy memo from 30 years before known as The Balfour Declaration. When the Partition Plan fell apart due to squabbling between Arabs and Jews, the Brits pulled out. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq declared war on the Israelis and proceeded to invade them. The Israelis fought like hell using surplus World War II weaponry, and took their country for themselves. The United States didn't give them anything, although individual sympathizers within the country contributed money.
Hope this clears up a few points of, er, factual weakness.
Responsibility? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's OUR mess. We made it our mess when we invaded. While Saddam was no paragon of moral superiority, the number of innocents who died under his charge were less than under ours. It's like Valdiz incident. While it would have surely been profitable for Exxon to retreat and say "Not our problem", you cause a mess, you clean it. There wasn't Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, or any other suicide bombing group in Iraq before the invasion.
I'm all in favor of a pull-out, but for God's sake, we've got a moral responsibility to clean up our own mess before we do as best we can.
Re:You had an argument?! (Score:5, Insightful)
As to your contention that Arabs (Shia and Sunni) cannot be civilized, I will point to Europe as a counter-example. Europe was in more or less continuous warfare for thousands of years. When they weren't fighting in Europe, they were fighting through proxies. Western Europe has not had a significant conflict since World War II. Certainly the Middle East can get 50 years of peace, no?
I would also contend that giving up after a few years would be short-sighted, though I agree that the administration severely underestimated the consequences of getting involved (or at least did so publicly).
I certainly agree that we wouldn't even be over there if it weren't for oil, and we can debate the merits of that if you like. But that, too, has little to do with what the best course of action is right now. I am arguing that to leave the country in the midst of a civil war of our creation is irresponsible, and the end results are probably not in the best interest of the US or the bulk of the Iraqi people.
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Pelosi did our republic a great disservice when she said that "Impeachment is off the table." Impeachment isn't a matter of convenience or political expediency, it is a matter of congressional Duty. Now, I realize that the 2/3 Senate vote to remove either Bush or Cheney from office will never be reached. But by not trying - by not at least bringing articles of impeachment out of the People's House, congress is effectively saying to us and future generations of Americans that the Executive Branch is free to operate above the Law. This is simply unacceptable. We need our Children to open their history books and see Bush and Cheney's name next to Clinton and Nixon. They need to see that the Laws that govern them govern ALL Americans.
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Best I can tell, the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to lose the next election. Luckily for them, the Republicans seem to be doing exactly the same thing.
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:4, Insightful)
I still can't believe that in the Internet age, when all information anybody could possibly want to find out is at the reach of the fingertips, when perspectives from all over the world, of all events, can be accessed from the office or bedroom, we still suffer from massive ignorance and one-dimensional, pre-digested opinions on issues that directly impact everyones' lives.
To radically change the political system in any country, in a meaningful way, this willful ignorance must be eradicated, and the only way to achieve that is through education. Then look at the education system, cranking out generation after generation of perpetually bored masses, never having learned to think, only to memorize (and soon forget) sterile facts - the ideal mold for the creation of the malleable consumer citizen, good little citizen.
You overhaul the educational system - knowledge is power. You replace one figurehead with another - the cycle keeps on spinning.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, the thought had not even occurred to me and is quite a revelation. If what you say is true, I can think of three scenarios:
1. The Pipe Dream: All that power may be used by the Democrat 2008 victor to undo a great deal of the damage done in the previous eight years. Think of an imperial presidency using this power to declare global warming a national emergency, restore civil rights,
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:5, Informative)
You may have Nixon confused with Andrew Johnson the 17th president who was impeached. In fact impeachment proceedings failed to make it out of committee in 1867 and then impeachment was successful in 1868. Johnson was acquitted by one vote in the Senate by
Edmund G. Ross of Kansas.
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you're having trouble with definitions.
A witch hunt is when one creates a fictional enemy and then goes looking for real people to foot the bill. See McCarthyism.
Clinton was actually the victim of a prolonged "fishing expedition" Which is "Legal grasping at straws; the use of pre-trial investigation (discovery) or witness questioning in an unfocused attempt to uncover damaging evidence you can use against your adversary." Basically, they asked him enough questions about enough stuff that they eventually were able to paint him into an embarrassing corner that no president in U.S. history had every been painted into -- i.e., publicly explain your mistresses or lie on the stand. We all know now what his error was.
Cheney is not a witch hunt, nor is it a fishing expedition. There is real and substantial evidence that that man is just a little less scrupulous than Satan. He doesn't make Faustian deals; he insists on waterboarding suspected rag heads until they confess to wearing their mother's underpants. And, perhaps, the problem is that Cheney has made a Faustian deal on behalf of the country, trading our liberty for security that doesn't actually make us more secure.
But Nixon was a pussycat compared to Cheney. So he broke into the Democratic headquarters and spied on them; so he made the White House Secret Service detail wear uniforms reminiscent of the Beefeaters; so he was a bit of an asshole who walked all over our civil liberties -- he did not start any wars and he did not funnel any contracts to any companies that he was a major stockholder of. I'm not a fan of the guy, but I'd never go so far as to compare him to Cheney. It's like comparing a drunk driver to a serial killer. Neither are good, but one is wantonly, ridiculously worse than the other.
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:5, Insightful)
His blowjob wasn't "morally reprehensible". Lying to cover up a blowjob isn't "morally reprehensible". It's a little immoral.
But compared with lying us into war, it's not very immoral at all.
If you think Clinton's lie was so reprehensible it merited impeachment, don't you think that Bush's lie makes impeachment an obvious necessity?
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:4, Informative)
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While the 12th Amendment says "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States", the 22nd prohibits only the ELECTION to office, not serving therein. Nothing I see in the Constitution talks about eligibility to serve as President (other than natural born citizen and the age limit.) It is reasonable to assume that when the word "elected" is use
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't think for one moment that after Bush leaves office, they're going to stop trying to implement their "Project for the New American Century". They've been trying ever since the Nixon administration (where do you think Cheney and Rumsfeld come from?), if they can wait 30 years, they aren't going to just give up just because it's the end of an inning.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. Probably because they're the most useless Congress we've had in over a decade. They haven't done anything useful, they pulled a bait-and-switch on their arguments for why they should be elected last year. i.e. "Elect us and we'll get out of Iraq... oh, sorry, you voted for us but now you also need to give us the presidency. We couldn't do anything before and we still can't do anything."
No, the reason why Congress's approval ratings are so low is because they've shown the public what they have to offer, and they don't have anything. The Democrats should've tried to lose 2006 so they'd have a chance in 2008. In 2008, the Republicans have Bush dragging them down but Democrats have the Congress dragging them down even more. It's entirely possible the Democrats peaked in 2006 and won't be able to get the job done in 2008. By the time the election comes, they'll have had 2 years in Congress and nothing to show for it. Not a good way to go into a presidential election.
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:5, Informative)
Damn, I love tired old horseshit day on Slashdot...every day.
You do understand that everything in that paragraph you wrote is true, up until 50 years ago, right? Most of the "democrats" you describe were southerners and switched to the GOP in the 60s.
Granted, I don't understand why somebody like Byrd is even drawing breath, but the R and D parties you describe don't exist anymore and have almost zero relevance on today's politics.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yep, it's almost as if the grandparent had never heard of Dixiecrats. Southern Democrats. They all turned republican after the Civil rights movement happened, and blacks got to share water fountains with whites. LBJ said after signing the act "Well, we've lost the south for a generation". He was right.
GP can GTFO.
a bit off on your timeframe (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, public opinion shouldn't matter. We are electing these people to apply their expertise to problems that we don't always understand, and the best decisions are often unpopular. Of course, the fact is that their 11% approval is entirely deserved because our Congress is corrupt, incompetent and wholly pathetic.
Every election these days is about voting for the lesser evil, and 2008 will be no different. Frankly, I'm tired of voting for evil, lesser or not. It's a waste of time. Whether we get Boy Hillary (Giuliani) or Girl Hillary (I mean Senator Clinton, of course, although an argument could be made that "Girl Hillary" is in fact John Edwards) in 2008, we're screwed and ain't nothin' gonna get better except maybe we'll stop invading countries.
It won't get better until the Big Duopoly of the Republicrats is broken.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly the only response I seem to get is "Realize it's fucked and move on." The root of the problem isn't the politicians. It's the people. We've been pandered too and now people are realizing how shitty it is and are clueless about what to do, so we ignore it.
It's not average Joe Wal*Mart shopper either. It's the poor, the middle
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Impeaching Cheney would have done nothing but improve the approval rating of Congressional Democrats. He is widely despised throughout the nation for having suckered the nation in to Iraq, and for promoting the use of torture which has turned America in to an outlaw nation.
Impeaching him for Iraq and Iran is off the mark. He should be impeached for:
A. single handedly pushing authorization for torture which was done entirely by his office and his aides
B. single handedly pushing authorization of illegal spying on American citizens without a warrant also lead out of his office
Those are both slam dunk grounds for impeachment because they are both clearly illegal, unpopular, unnecessary and were just plain stupid.
Bush is not a conservative (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush is not a conservative. Conservatism is generally against foreign adventures, against foreign borrowing, against big government, and against government interference in private matters. Bush has engaged in multiple military adventures, has borrowed like no president before him, has increased government spending to unprecedented levels, and has been pushing government interference in religious and private matters.
Bush actually presents himself as a populist nationalist. But like many populist nationalists, he really hides corporatism and borderline corruption under that veneer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The war in Iraq had gone bad the day it started, it only took people a while to figure that out.
Also, if you look at the approval numbers, until shortly before the election, Bush was in the dumps. He recovered only within weeks of the election and then fell off quickly again. This wasn't Bush support, it was some last minute PR wizardry.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bush just this week set a new record in Presidential approval ratings: his approval rating is the lowest Presidential approval rating in Gallup's history [editorandpublisher.com], lower even than Nixon's during the Watergate scandal. 50% "strongly disapprove" of President Bush. Only 31% approve.
In two separate articles, I've seen Cheney's approval rating mentioned as 9% and 11%. I could not find a good recent article citing it, surprisingly.
Congress has an approval rating of 23%. It is important to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:a little tweak (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:a little tweak (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:a little tweak (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe wait until there is actual proof these nations wish to launch rockets at the US/NATO.
If you are suggesting that the US strikes before there is an actual threat then what is to stop other countries doing the same?
North Korea will have to launch because the US is a threat, same for everyone else.
There IS an alternative to shoot first & invent evidence later.
Re:a little tweak (Score:5, Funny)
Who's the only country to have ever used nukes? (Score:5, Insightful)
You guys stared down the USSR for the entirety of the cold war, facing an enemy with superior numbers and brutal methods who you were very much aware had nukes, and you got by just fine.
OK, they might get nukes, but so what? Lots of countries have nukes. If you wanna take bets on who's going to be the first country to actually _use_ them, my money's on Israel.
Look, the deal with the non-proliferation treaty goes like this. The countries that don't have nukes agree not to produce them, and those that do agree to gradually phase out their stockpiles.
If the US doesn't feel the need to rid themselves of nukes, why should Iran or anybody else feel the need to obey the Anti-Proliferation Treaty?
The country that has the dubious honor of being the only country to ever use nuclear weapons on humans doesn't get to take the moral high ground and lecture Iran about their nuclear ambitions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Russians weren't insane !! (evil maybe but insane no)
Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Russians weren't insane !! (evil maybe but insane no)
1. He's *not* the top guy in Iran.
2. Iran was on *our* side after 9-11. It wasn't until the Iraq war, and the abysmally idiotic "Axis of Evil" statement, that the Iranian people swerved hard to the right and elected him. (what would *we* do if the most powerful nation on the planet called us out like that?) Calling Iran our enemy is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes? (Score:5, Insightful)
OMFG! You are the epitome of moon bat. You are so blinded by your hatred for America that you completely ignore the fact that N. Korea's population is starving in the dark while their army eats well. They have no food and no power because the bulk of their economy goes towards their military. And you sit there and defend their leadership... wait, why again? Because he's not America. Because he's afraid we are going to attack? The Korean cease fire has been in effect for about 50 years! Korea could be united tomorrow and the population could eat and heat their homes. It's not because Kim Jong Il likes the power... and you defend him... wait, why again?
Please tell me why dictator that starves the population good. America bad. I really want to know the thought process behind that one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please tell me why dictator that starves the population good. America bad. I really want to know the thought process behind that one.
I don't think you responded at all to what I said. In fact, you provide another example of I was talking about: Don't have an excuse to bully someone? Call them evil. It's a really good one, cause if remind people that we have no right to bully them, you "support" the evil.
...BUT! Please note, as I'm sure you won't, that I said nothing about whic
And by the way, I love this land, where I've lived all my life. Let's get that straight. What I despise is the government, in particular its role internationally.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you've ever read the rantings of Iran's president or that of Kim Jung-il of North Korea, you can certainly see how people would have doubts about their rationality and stabilty. For all of the flap in the US over the last 7 years, we're still a nation of laws, the highest enshrined in the Constitution. Yes, it's under attack, but until it's burned and s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably not, but it is possible. They are a threat to many of our allies, however. Of course, I'm sure you'd like to see America abandon it's allies world wide. You probably wouldn't feel that way if Canada were located somewhere between Israel and Iran though. But then again, why should you worry about any place
Re:a little tweak (Score:5, Interesting)
The US has rockets that can reach anywhere in the world. Europe, Israel, India, Japan, and so on. May I suggest you read up on your own country. Does the rest of the world wait until the US has nuclear tipped rockets that can reach elsewhere? Oh wait... they already do! Do they do nothing until the US uses a nuke to destroy a city? Oh wait... they already did. (granted it was world war 2, but since the dawn of nuclear technology the only country that has ever attacked with a nuclear warheads is the US.)
"Yeah but the President of Iran is a crazy religious idiot." you might say. Fair comment, but then the same can be said about George Bush. And what about your next president, the republican front runner is currently "Mayor 9/11". That doesn't exactly bode well.
As much as I despise the guy for his wacko ideas the President of the US is just as out of touch with reality, and unlike the Iranians, Bush is actively prosecuting multiple wars without much regard for the fact that its costing countless innocent civilians their lives. The thousands of innocent civilians killed by American's in these wars far outweighs any moral right they might have appealed to. 2000 deaths 6 years ago is a tragedgy. "Incidently" Killing thousands of innocent civilians per year for the next 6 years while seeking revenge on the perpetrators is utter madness.
Besides, certain terror groups didn't have rockets that could reach the USA from Afghanistan either and look how that turned out.
That's easy. Some terrorists hijacked a few planes and rammed them into buildings. So what are you suggesting? The US should bomb any foreign country with pilots? Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:a little tweak (Score:5, Insightful)
"Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?"
Damn, I thought it was sweeps month, and here I am getting reruns:
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." - G.W. Bush, 7 Oct 2002
Sorry, but I've been down this road before, and I didn't really buy it the first time. Iran could hypothetically have anti-matter planet busters, but the only way I'll believe it coming from this administration is if they take me personally on a tour of Iran and show them to me. That's the funny thing about credibility. Once it's shot, it's REALLY hard to get it back.
Ironically, I always believed Iran to be a more credible threat to US interests than Iraq anyway. I was never in favor of the Iraq war, but the right argument with solid evidence might have got me behind hitting Iran. But that ship has sailed, and I won't be getting on the next one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see. You know, one way to help keep US troops out of reach of Iranian rockets is to pull back US troops so that they're within the US or its territories. That might have the added affect of lessening the amount of anti-American sentiment seen worldover, when perfectly indiginous countries occasionally wonder why there are US military bases on their soi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares [archive.org]
"This film explores the origins in the 1940s and 50s of Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East, and Neoconservatism in America, parallels between these movements, and their effect on the world today. From the introduction to Part 1:
"Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see where you're coming from, but then how do you propose that we prevent our government from simply permanently disappearing people? If you're not a prisoner in a criminal case with rights
Re:Some painful truth.... (Score:5, Interesting)
> If you're not a prisoner in a criminal case with rights afforded by the criminal
> justice system, and you're not a prisoner of war, then what are you, exactly?
Well we can look to the Geneva Conventions themselves for some of the answer. Combatants out of uniform, hiding behind civilian populations, etc. are mentioned. And what it has to say about an 'unlawful combatant' ain't pretty. Basically we could just line em up and shoot em on sight and be 100% in compliance. Read some history of the French Resistance for an example as they are a fairly close case except that they were careful to target military/political targets. The Germans shot em and nobody uttered a peep about the Geneva Conventions because it was kosher. For all their other sins the German Army considered itself to be professional and 'civilized', certain notorious units obviously excepted, thus they generally adhered to the Geneva Conventions[1]. We should be doing likewise in Iraq and Afganistan. In this case I doubt prompt public executions would discourage them very much but it certainly couldn't hurt.
In a nutshell the original Geneva Conventions were designed to define the conduct of war between Great Powers using ranked formations of conscript soldiers. Later additions (some of which the US didn't sign onto) are mostly Cold War relics where the Soviets were making it easier for their proxy states and revolutionaries to win by conning Western Civilization into fighting with one hand tied behind it's back.
None of which is applicable to the current GWOT being fought with no massed armies and one side without even a proxy nation state to sign the GC even if they believed all that 'touchy feelly crap that just illustrates how weak and spinless the West is' was something they wanted to be a part of. But notice that Taliban soldiers in uniform did get GC protection. We didn't get bogged down with rule book lawyer questions as to whether the Taliban were the lawful descendent of the previous soviet puppet state that had signed, they were recognizable soldiers so we extended them the protection of the GC.
Terrorists hiding in civilian populations and as often as not attacking those same civilians deserve no protection. Catch em, give some minimal justice where needed to try to make sure the Mohammad you caught really is the same Mohammad that blew up a marketplace last week and then shoot the bastard.
For all that most of the action is taking place away from the TV cameras this IS a total war because they won't stop until we kill em or they cut our heads off. Longer term we have to change the conditions that breed this brand of nutter but GWB's drain the swamp and plant democracy theory certainly hasn't been working out all that well.
So we try, try again until we find a way that works since failure isn't an option. I'm an agnostic so I'll get my head cut off right behind the queers and athiests.... assuming I don't go out shooting earlier.
> Yes, it can be debated that there's a legal distinction between me as a US
> citizen sitting at my desk and a farmer in Afghanistan with respect to the
> provision of rights under US law.
No it can't be debated because it is obvious to any sane persion that there is a night and day difference. The expectations a Free People have regarding their relationship with their own government can and indeed must be vastly different from that governments's obligation to enemies taken on the field of combat. Even if taken inside the camp of an enemy a known US citizen (John Walker Lindh for example) has the expectation of certain rights. Inalienable Rights.
Just like there is a world of difference between law enforcement and intelligence. Rules that apply in the context of criminal investigations of citizens have almost to resemblence to how the law of the
Re:Some painful truth.... (Score:5, Insightful)
My major problem is the question you didn't answer: What's the appropriate burden of proof for executing an unarmed person in the field or disappearing him to a prison site for the rest of his natural life? I'll accept for the sake of argument that these things are effective ways of dealing with the problem, but I'd like to see some serious rules applied before I give the nod to classifying somebody as a person with no rights, locking him up, and throwing away the key. So far, I haven't seen a lot of evidence that we're doing a good job of figuring out who we should be disappearing, and I've seen enough evidence that we aren't [shu.edu] to be hesitant to give the government an "arbitrarily disappear, torture, and execute whoever you want as long as it's not me" card. When you combine death / permanent imprisonment with accusations and evidence that look like a scene out of The Crucible, I get nervous.
Hmmm... I think that we look at the world in a fundamentally different way, then. I tend to think that in all but the most extreme circumstances, it is universally wrong to deprive somebody of life or liberty without a way of meaningfully defending himself. To me, that principle isn't just a convenient legal fiction that happens to work out well for me. It's a fundamental concern about the unfairness of being kidnapped in the middle of the night and shipped off to be held incognito in the middle of nowhere until you die. Add to that the fact that it's bad PR at a time when we're losing a PR war to the types of people who blow up hospitals, and I think that you have the makings for a policy we'll be embarrassed about in the hindsight of history.
Re:Some painful truth.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This secret extradition and torture treatment is also in direct violation of the US code of military justice, a set of US laws, which describes court procedures for military procedures and has no magic clause for this newly invented "military non-combatants". I'm afraid you've not glanced at the set of laws being violated: please spend a bit of time checking out the news articles on these tortures and on
We signed the Geneva Convention. We also wrote the US constitution, and numerous court decisions since then provide a minimum of human rights for even enemies in combat, much more for prisoners. The Geneva Convetion is an agreement *by* nation stat4es, and includes their handling of non-signatories. And like parents without children paying taxes for schools, many nations sign it to help prevent trouble worldwide. Better yet, it also includes standards for how nations treat their own citizens, forbidding genocide and yes, torture. So it's not just aimed at protecting one's citizens oversees, it sets a legal minimum standard of behavior worldwide. So let's not pretend that there's only one reason for signing it. That kind of rationalized thinking leads to people only obeying traffic laws when it feels important to them, and it's not safe.
Please examine the history of the US code of military justice, if not of the Geneva Convention, to see how many ways we're violating it. I'm not saying that it justifies beheading of innocent victims, but one does not justify the other: both are illegal and violations of international treaty, and need to stop for either practicioners to be treated as just.
Re:a little tweak (Score:5, Insightful)
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have lots more missiles at their disposal than Iran's government, so.........
After having watched their performance for the last 7 years, I think their sanity is certainly an open question. George W. was also an alcoholic and drug abuser for most of his adult life which also calls in to question his stability. When you have two people who have done nothing positive for their entire reign, and almost single handedly turned America in to a globally hated and despised country you generally have to wonder....what were they thinking. Just observe the fact the U.S. dollar is plunging relative to most other currencies. Markets are ruthlessly efficient at finding truth and the plunging dollar indicates America has been officially run in to the ground by our fearless leaders.
Kucinich is kind of a space cadet sometimes but he was right on trying to get Cheney impeached first. You have to get him impeached before you can impeach Bush otherwise he would take over and President Cheney would be a nightmare come true.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stuff that matters (Score:4, Informative)
From the FAQ:
Slashdot is many things to many people. Some people think it's a Linux site. To others, it's a geek hangout. I've always worked very hard to make sure that Slashdot matches up with my interests and the interests of my authors. We think we're pretty typical Slashdot readers... but that does mean that occasionally one of us might post something that you think is inappropriate. You might be interested in my Omelette rant. [slashdot.org]
Personally, I have a pet peeve when people post comments saying things like "That's not News For Nerds!" and "That's not Stuff that Matters!" Slashdot has been running for almost 5 years, and over that time, I have always been the final decision maker on what ends up on the homepage. It turns out that a lot of people agree with me: Linux, Legos, Penguins, Sci (both real and fiction). If you've been reading Slashdot, you know what the subjects commonly are, but we might deviate occasionally. It's just more fun that way. Variety Is The Spice Of Life and all that, right? We've been running Slashdot for a long time, and if we occasionally want to post something that someone doesn't think is right for Slashdot, well, we're the ones who get to make the call. It's the mix of stories that makes Slashdot the fun place that it is.
Re:WHAT! (Score:4, Interesting)
i repeat.
Ahmedinajad did not say that he wanted to wipe israel off the map.
He didn't say it. yes, he said something *similar*, i.e. that the zionist regime would vanish from the pages of history. but he did not ever ever say he wanted to wipe israel off the map.
Now... what IS interesting is that YOU think he said he wanted to wipe israel off the map. why do you think that? because you have been MADE to think that by people who want to wipe HIM off the map. This, just like the iraqi "ripping babies out of incubators" story is being fed to you by people who really really want you to support what they're about to do to iran.
think about it.
you are being lied to.
why are you being lied to?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WHAT! (Score:5, Insightful)
No exactly. You go into a bar talking about Iran as if they did all the bad shit and the US was just an inocent player who now has a greivence. Do that with the usual blind adherance to US propaganda and unwillingness to accept that the US might be anything other than squeeky clean, you're likely to shit some people.
Keep up that attitude and people who you annoyed will injure you. Verbally or physically, body or pride doesn't matter.
The world is not jealous of US freedom, the world is pissed off with US self righteousness.
Re:Why is this on /.? (Score:5, Informative)
How did anyone get this idea that Slashdot is not supposed to post political or non-technology stories? For one, the slogan of the site is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." Second, there is a Politics main section on Slashdot, and the slogan for it (look at the very top of this page) is "Politics for Nerds. Your vote matters." Third, this story came from the Firehose, so it was likely voted up by Slashdot readers themselves.
To me, all this indicates that Slashdot posts and promotes stories that intelligent people might be interested in reading and discussing.
Besides all that, Slashdot gives you the ability to filter out from the front page stories from any section that you don't like, right here: Customize Slashdot's Display [slashdot.org]
Hey, at least it isn't like Digg.