Why should Bush be impeached?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotWorthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
NotWorthy:
Gnosis, I think you’re a little off on the Vietnam War. After the Tet Offensive, North Vietnam was ready to end the war. The Americans had routed the North Vietnamese Army on every front.

What made them keep fighting? The knowledge that the Americans had lost the will to fight. When Walter Cronkite and other media newsmen jumped on the anti-military bandwagon, the enemy renewed their confidence.

I feel our media is in danger of doing the same thing in Iraq.

Notworthy
Re: the Vietnam war. Here is something I heard Mark Levin read two days ago on radio. Someone dug it out and posted it to the Mark Levin fan club blog:

Los Angeles Times, August 6, 1995

August 6, 1995, Sunday, Home Edition

DAVID HOROWITZ: A PRIMER ON WHY WE LOST VIETNAM;
A VIETNAMESE GENERAL CONFIRMS THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT’S ROLE IN THE U.S. DEFEAT.

BYLINE: By DAVID HOROWITZ, David Horowitz is president of the Los Angeles-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture.

In an interview published in the Wall Street Journal that will hardly be noticed outside conservative circles, the North Vietnam general who received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975, has confirmed every argument made by the right about the war in Vietnam: It was a war to stop an aggression from the North, not to suppress a revolution in the South; it was a war that America could have won – by cutting off the Ho Chi Minh Trail through which North Vietnam was invading the South; it was a war that the left and its “anti-war” movement caused America to lose by sapping its will to fight.

The general who confirmed these conclusions recently to Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human rights activist who interviewed him in Hanoi, is Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam’s army and who, after the war, became the editor of the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of communist Vietnam. Young asked Bui what Hanoi’s strategy was to win the war. Bui quoted Ho Chi Minh: “We don’t need to win military victories; we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”

Young asked if the anti-war movement was important to Hanoi’s victory. General Bui answered: “It was essential to our strategy. Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Atty. Gen. Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.”

Bui further explained why the American anti-war movement was so strategic in creating a communist victory: “Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest, it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.”

Bui acknowledged that the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam was a creation of the communist government in the North, and that “there was only one party, only one army to liberate the South and unify the nation” under communist rule.

Young asked Bui how America might have won the war. The general answered: “Cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail inside Laos.” The Ho Chi Minh Trail was the invasion route along which the North Vietnamese Communists infiltrated the South with men and supplies. The military head of U.S. forces, Gen. William Westmoreland, asked for permission to cut off the trail early in the war. But President Johnson refused the request. “If Johnson had granted Westmoreland’s requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh Trail, Hanoi could not have won the war,” Bui said. The bombing of the trail, he added, was “ineffective” because even when real damage was caused “we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out at the bottom.”

In short, the liberal policies of the Johnson Administration – its refusal to “compromise” the “neutrality” of Laos by blocking the invasion route – denied America the possibility of victory. The anti-war agitation and collaboration of the American left undermined the war effort from within and gave victory to the communists.

In the first three years of the communist peace, more people were killed in Indochina than had been killed in the 13 years of the anti-communist war.

Gen. Bui Tin is a Vietnamese Robert McNamara without regrets. He is happy that the communists were able to conquer South Vietnam. But unlike Johnson’s defense secretary – and the veterans of the American left who have learned nothing and forgotten nothing all these years – he understands why the communists won.
 
Al Masetti,
Thank you. I was familiar with the general’s statement, but only in passing from one of the articles I’ve read in the past.

Thanks for providing it.

Notworthy
 
Al Masetti:
Basically, the Democratic Party has been hijacked by student radicals of the Communist stripe, in my humble opinion.

The student radicals are totally unrestrained in their political tactics. They have lost power as a result of their strident speech patterns, which are typical of student radicals.

Student radicals are always ENRAGED about something. Pure unadulterated RAGE. Once upon a time, they could blame air and water pollution for their rage. Or they could blame the draft.

Well, pollution is mostly under control - enormous strides have been made - and the draft went away decades ago. The Vietnam war was lost thanks to them and the Communists took over. But now that Vietnam is behind us, that issue no longer a factor. They won and Communism won and the people of Vietnam lost.

Cuban Communist dictator Fidel Castro is supported by the left. No interest in elections in Cuba with non-Communist candidates; instead the Cuban prisons are full of political dissenters.

So absent the screen of pollution or the draft, what remains is the undisguised hatred of democracy and capitalism and free market economics and religion.

But they are now naked. Their concealment has been stripped away. And they are seen for what they are. Militant Atheistic Communists.

Also somewhat superannuated.

Ted Kennedy in a thong.

And when people hear them, the people reject them. They try to masquerade as “middle-of-the-roaders”, but increasingly the voters are seeing through their attempts to hide their true nature.
A flawless assessment.
 
40.png
MikeWM:
For people who think Clinton should have been impeached, certainly. Bush has done infinitely more damage than Clinton.
Mike,
Now this is more like it. We are back to disagreeing. Clinton (ignoring the warnings of Congress and the Pentagon) used an EO to engineer the sale of guided missle technology to China in exchange for an illegal campaign contribution from that hostile foreign government. The direct result of this is that China can target the U.S. with nuclear missles NOW when they were by all estimates a minimum of 12 - 15 years away from being able to do so. In light of the situation with Taiwan I would say that Clinton has done more damage then any President in history with the possible exception of F.D.R.
But then I thought Clinton’s impeachment was ridiculous.
Clinton committed a felony that would land anyone else in prison for ay least a year.
As for Bush, he needs to explain why, in great detail, his intelligence was wrong. Going to war on the back of incorrect intelligence is an error great enough to require much humble pie and a detailed explanation.
It was not “his” intelligence. It came not only from the C.I.A. but also from Great Britian, Russia, Germany, and France. They all still stand behind the accuracy of those reports and we do not need to re-visit the fact that Iraq DID move tons of something to Syria.
And before someone tediously jumps in with the ‘congressional resolution authorising force against Iraq’, I’d remind anyone of the view of the Attorney-General to Mr Blair before the invasion. If the invasion wasn’t because of a breach of 1441, it was almost certainly illegal under the UN Charter (which is part of US domestic law). Taking the country to war illegally, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of human beings, is a rather greater crime than what Clinton did or didn’t do in his personal life in the Oval Office.
Nothing within the U.N. Charter supercedes U.S. law and U.S. law was followed to the letter. Proper Congressional authorization was sought and received. And just in case you did not know, the WMD speech (his State of the Union) did not occur until 3 months AFTER Congress approved military action.
 
40.png
walstan:
Has it not occured to you that the reason “youth” is full of rage is because they are the ones that have to pick up the pieces after the mess WE have left the world in!

Now there’s a novel thought, It ain’t their fault, it’s ours!!
I think it is more a result of the fact that they think they know everything when they actually know nothing.
 
40.png
2shelbys:
Mike,
Now this is more like it. We are back to disagreeing.
Normality resumed 🙂
Clinton (ignoring the warnings of Congress and the Pentagon) used an EO to engineer the sale of guided missle technology to China in exchange for an illegal campaign contribution from that hostile foreign government. The direct result of this is that China can target the U.S. with nuclear missles NOW when they were by all estimates a minimum of 12 - 15 years away from being able to do so. In light of the situation with Taiwan I would say that Clinton has done more damage then any President in history with the possible exception of F.D.R.
…though I agree that I found the Clinton admin’s attitude to China disappointing. He needed to treat China with a much more even hand than he did (‘most-favoured’? What was that for?)
Clinton committed a felony that would land anyone else in prison for ay least a year.
He shouldn’t have done it. He was wrong. The integrity of the legal system is very important. Nevertheless, his lying under oath didn’t do harm to me. Conversely, a reckless attitude to foreign relations is increasing everyone’s risk from terrorism.
It was not “his” intelligence. It came not only from the C.I.A. but also from Great Britian, Russia, Germany, and France.
I’m not sure that really matters. The intelligence of any country should stand alone. There shouldn’t be the friendly clubbing together we saw over Iraq. It’s not healthy.
They all still stand behind the accuracy of those reports and we do not need to re-visit the fact that Iraq DID move tons of something to Syria.
Which we’ve heard various plausible explanations for that don’t involve WMD.
Nothing within the U.N. Charter supercedes U.S. law and U.S. law was followed to the letter. Proper Congressional authorization was sought and received. And just in case you did not know, the WMD speech (his State of the Union) did not occur until 3 months AFTER Congress approved military action.
I do know and remember well (I was still living in the US at the time, after all). I think we are at the difficulty here of a ‘conflict of laws’, and in the USA treaties don’t supercede other laws (unlike in the UK, where we have a few things that trump everything else, like the Parliament Acts, the European Communities Act and the Human Rights Act). Nevertheless, I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting President Bush would be found guilty in a US court for the Iraq invasion. But domestic law isn’t the point. Most unpleasant things that have happened in the history of the world have been legal locally.

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
He shouldn’t have done it. He was wrong. The integrity of the legal system is very important. Nevertheless, his lying under oath didn’t do harm to me. Conversely, a reckless attitude to foreign relations is increasing everyone’s risk from terrorism.
I do not think we are in more danger now. Look how many attacks there were during Clinton’s administration when we did little or nothing about it.
I’m not sure that really matters. The intelligence of any country should stand alone. There shouldn’t be the friendly clubbing together we saw over Iraq. It’s not healthy.
Actually, independent confirmation is very important and valuable. The partnership of intelligence in the U.S. and the U.K. has a very good track record in spite of any possible mistakes of late.
I do know and remember well (I was still living in the US at the time, after all). I think we are at the difficulty here of a ‘conflict of laws’, and in the USA treaties don’t supercede other laws (unlike in the UK, where we have a few things that trump everything else, like the Parliament Acts, the European Communities Act and the Human Rights Act). Nevertheless, I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting President Bush would be found guilty in a US court for the Iraq invasion. But domestic law isn’t the point. Most unpleasant things that have happened in the history of the world have been legal locally.
Thanks to our Constitution, any treaty that is in violation of U.S. law is automatically nullified. At least that is how it is supposed to work. If Congress ratifies an illegal treaty someone would have to challenge it in court.
 
40.png
2shelbys:
I do not think we are in more danger now. Look how many attacks there were during Clinton’s administration when we did little or nothing about it.
I don’t recall suicide bombers in London when Clinton was President.
Actually, independent confirmation is very important and valuable. The partnership of intelligence in the U.S. and the U.K. has a very good track record in spite of any possible mistakes of late.
To an extent, it is valuable, but there is a risk that everyone plays off everyone else. We seem to have see that in Iraq.
Thanks to our Constitution, any treaty that is in violation of U.S. law is automatically nullified. At least that is how it is supposed to work. If Congress ratifies an illegal treaty someone would have to challenge it in court.
I wasn’t really implying it was illegal under US law. For example, the UN charter sets up institutions to govern certain things and how they are dealt with at a multinational level. That is ancilliary to US law, not conflicting.

Mike
 
Al Masetti:
Ted Kennedy in a thong.
I find this offensive. You many not like the man but this is a really tacky thing to say. If I called Bush a name like this I’m sure one of you Bush people would jump all over me. Quit operating on a double standard and show some respect for people who disagree with you - as we try to do with you.
 
It’s not a name, it’s a description…a disturbing description. However, I would agree with you that Bush in a thong is equally disturbing.
40.png
koda:
I find this offensive. You many not like the man but this is a really tacky thing to say. If I called Bush a name like this I’m sure one of you Bush people would jump all over me. Quit operating on a double standard and show some respect for people who disagree with you - as we try to do with you.
 
40.png
koda:
I find this offensive. You many not like the man but this is a really tacky thing to say. If I called Bush a name like this I’m sure one of you Bush people would jump all over me. Quit operating on a double standard and show some respect for people who disagree with you - as we try to do with you.
👍 Wholeheartedly agreed.

Mike
 
40.png
koda:
I find this offensive. You many not like the man but this is a really tacky thing to say. If I called Bush a name like this I’m sure one of you Bush people would jump all over me. Quit operating on a double standard and show some respect for people who disagree with you - as we try to do with you.
I do not find it nearly as offensive as the fact that he is still walking around a free man (and a Senator) when his drinking and driving cost a young woman her life and it was all covered up because of his name and because of the Democrat party’s plans for him.
 
40.png
2shelbys:
I do not find it nearly as offensive as the fact that he is still walking around a free man (and a Senator) when his drinking and driving cost a young woman her life and it was all covered up because of his name and because of the Democrat party’s plans for him.
He was tried by a grand jury. Perhaps the trial wasn’t fair, perhaps it was, but the whole thing has been dealt with.

He’s not exactly the only prominent politician to have driven when drunk.

Does that make what happened right? No.

Does that make it fair to single him out, because he has different political views to you, but others who have similar views don’t warrant a mention? No.

We should criticise policies, not personalities.

Mike
 
That deserves two!
40.png
MikeWM:
He was tried by a grand jury. Perhaps the trial wasn’t fair, perhaps it was, but the whole thing has been dealt with.

He’s not exactly the only prominent politician to have driven when drunk.

Does that make what happened right? No.

Does that make it fair to single him out, because he has different political views to you, but others who have similar views don’t warrant a mention? No.

**We should criticise policies, not personalities. 👍 👍 **

Mike
 
Traditional Ang:
During the past weeks, I’ve posted a series of posts on the Iraq issue with multiple dozens of links.
Those who hate Bush don’t seem influenced by links. They don’t seem even to want to offer any to support their tautologies.

However many lurk who do not post. At least by offering good logic and good links we can do our part in fighting the War on Terror.
 
Ani Ibi:
Those who hate Bush don’t seem influenced by links. They don’t seem even to want to offer any to support their tautologies.

However many lurk who do not post. At least by offering good logic and good links we can do our part in fighting the War on Terror.
Funny, I feel the same way about the Bush folks.
 
40.png
koda:
Funny, I feel the same way about the Bush folks.
Oh I have no doubt you do.

The point of discernment of course is to compare and contrast the logical strategies and the number of links offered by those who hate Bush and those who prosecute the issues separate from personalities.
 
Ani Ibi:
Oh I have no doubt you do.

The point of discernment of course is to compare and contrast the logical strategies and the number of links offered by those who hate Bush and those who prosecute the issues separate from personalities.
I’m betting you think you can do this and I can’t. The bottom line is that even if I had Bush himself admitting it you’d still find a reason not to believe it. Somehow it would all be someone else’s fault. The thing is, the Bush folks don’t seem to ever be able to admit he’s made a single mistake (he doesn’t seem to be able to either). Even the current spying on citizens is okay by you folks. When we on the “other” side bring up anything you lambast the sources and question our patriotism. We become communist/socialist/atheist/pro-abortion/pro-gay/pacifists/etc.

After 9/11 I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. But since then all I’ve seen is power hungry Republicans who have no trouble with lying to the people, who insist on legitimizing activities that put us on the moral low ground and who feel they are above the law. Again, the is my opinion. We’ve got torture, Plamegate, the lobbyist scandal, the spying scandal - yet it’s all just some big conspiracy to get good guy Bush. If you choose to believe that, it’s certainly your perogative. But I don’t believe it for a second and I truly think that the preponderance of the evidence is on my side (but you think that too, right?).
 
40.png
koda:
I’m betting you think you can do this and I can’t. The bottom line is that even if I had Bush himself admitting it you’d still find a reason not to believe it. Somehow it would all be someone else’s fault. The thing is, the Bush folks don’t seem to ever be able to admit he’s made a single mistake (he doesn’t seem to be able to either). Even the current spying on citizens is okay by you folks. When we on the “other” side bring up anything you lambast the sources and question our patriotism. We become communist/socialist/atheist/pro-abortion/pro-gay/pacifists/etc.

After 9/11 I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. But since then all I’ve seen is power hungry Republicans who have no trouble with lying to the people, who insist on legitimizing activities that put us on the moral low ground and who feel they are above the law. Again, the is my opinion. We’ve got torture, Plamegate, the lobbyist scandal, the spying scandal - yet it’s all just some big conspiracy to get good guy Bush. If you choose to believe that, it’s certainly your perogative. But I don’t believe it for a second and I truly think that the preponderance of the evidence is on my side (but you think that too, right?).
“The moon is made of cheese,” he declared to no one.
 
40.png
koda:
I’m betting you think you can do this and I can’t.
You can only bet with something on the table. How many links have you provided?
40.png
koda:
The bottom line is that even if I had Bush himself admitting it you’d still find a reason not to believe it.
That is an attempt at mindreading and prohibited under the forum guidelines. The facts are that I have frequently apologized when I have made an error. And I have frequently changed my position when persuaded by the facts.

Endlessly repeating unsupported points of view imho does not equate to persuading me on the basis of the facts.
40.png
koda:
Somehow it would all be someone else’s fault.
And fault is attributed on the basis of what?
40.png
koda:
The thing is, the Bush folks don’t seem to ever be able to admit he’s made a single mistake (he doesn’t seem to be able to either).
This is a wild generalization.
40.png
koda:
Even the current spying on citizens is okay by you folks.
Is this thread about spying?
40.png
koda:
When we on the “other” side bring up anything you lambast the sources and question our patriotism.
Have you learned to offer better sources and defend your country in a more transparent manner?
40.png
koda:
We become communist/socialist/atheist/pro-abortion/pro-gay/pacifists/etc.
Who said that? I certainly didn’t.
40.png
koda:
After 9/11 I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. But since then all I’ve seen is power hungry Republicans who have no trouble with lying to the people, who insist on legitimizing activities that put us on the moral low ground and who feel they are above the law.
Once again you could have helped your case against Republicans by offering examples, logical argumentation, and links. But once again you chose not to.

You could also have helped your case by refraining from namecalling; to wit “power hungry Republicans.”
40.png
koda:
Again, the is my opinion. We’ve got torture, Plamegate, the lobbyist scandal, the spying scandal - yet it’s all just some big conspiracy to get good guy Bush.
Conspiracy? The Republicans have become purveyors of conspiracy theory?
40.png
koda:
If you choose to believe that, it’s certainly your perogative.
Could you clarify the offer please? I am not sure what I am being asked to believe.
40.png
koda:
But I don’t believe it for a second and I truly think that the preponderance of the evidence is on my side (but you think that too, right?).
The proof of the pudding is in actually presenting the evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top