Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (103960)	7/3/2003 9:07:32 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Worse Than Watergate? _______________________ by John Dean tompaine.com A former White House counsel thinks President Bush has a very serious problem. <<...Worse Than Watergate? A Potential Huge Scandal If WMD Are Still Missing Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed. This administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable. To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose." It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power. Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a president to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case...>>

To: Neocon who wrote (103960)	7/3/2003 6:40:02 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Neocon, fibbing about fiddling with a secretary isn't as bad as lying to a nation about Weapons of Mass Destruction and sending young guys off to war and their death. Not to mention the innocent Iraqis killed in the process. I happen to agree that invasion of Iraq and deposing of Saddam was a good thing. I didn't buy the weapons of mass destruction business and think King George II was showing Saddam what happens to somebody who tries to kill his wife and father, not to mention what happens to somebody who pays terrorists to blow themselves up, killing Americans, not to mention the other things which Saddam did. Saddam also thought the World Trade Center destruction a good thing; one in the eye for the Americans - though he pointed out he didn't have anything to do with it. But there is due process and soldiers shouldn't be sent to kill and be killed by deceit. The main thing which needed doing, which is still not the slightest under way, was to get the UN into a form that can do what is needed with beyond the pale countries such as Saddam's Iraq. The USA has a responsibility to lead that change if they want to go stamping around the world usurping the likes of Omar, Saddam, Taylor and Mugabe. Simply blowing up a bunch of stuff and people and getting rid of a regime isn't good enough. Dealing with the aftermath is the key to success. The Clinton decade was a great decade. The Bush years are nowhere near as much fun. I say ditch the silly Roosevelt 3 term amendment [which prevents the will of the people selecting the candidate they prefer] and bring back Clinton. An election of Bill vs George would be fun. Mqurice