SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: steve harris who wrote (36086)7/11/2005 9:40:10 PM
From: American Spirit  Respond to of 93284
 
Did Clinton say invade Iraq without a plan and without any moderate Arab allies and peacekeepers ready to take over?
I think not.

Also, Clinton's saber rattling against Saddam was followed by a massive bombing campaign which obliterated much of Saddam's remaining military infrastructure.



To: steve harris who wrote (36086)7/12/2005 12:11:20 AM
From: paret  Respond to of 93284
 
What the democrats want you to forget
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

clinton3.nara.gov

#1 Speech by National Security Advisor Samuel Berger at Stanford ...

As long as Saddam remains in power and in confrontation with the world, the positive evolution we and so many would like to see in the Middle East is less likely to occur. His Iraq remains a source of potential conflict in the region, a source of inspiration for those who equate violence with power and compromise with surrender, a source of uncertainty for those who would like to see a stable region in which to invest.

Change inside Iraq is necessary not least because it would help free the Middle East from its preoccupation with security and struggle and survival, and make it easier for its people to focus their energies on commerce and cooperation.

For the last eight years, American policy toward Iraq has been based on the tangible threat Saddam poses to our security. That threat is clear. Saddam’s history of aggression, and his recent record of deception and defiance, leave no doubt that he would resume his drive for regional domination if he had the chance. Year after year, in conflict after conflict, Saddam has proven that he seeks weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, in order to use them.

The longer this standoff continues, the harder it will be to maintain the international support we have built for our policy. Even this toughest of all sanctions regimes in history becomes harder to sustain over time. In the meantime, the Iraqi people will live in a murderous and corrupt police state, with no prospect for a normal life, as long as their country is Saddam’s preserve.

Perhaps most fundamentally, Saddam’s continued misrule of Iraq is harmful to the Middle East as a whole. It is partly responsible for the pervasive sense of insecurity that prevents the region from evolving in a positive way. It creates the false perception of a conflict between Muslims and the United States – a perception that the President has done much to erase over the last few years, but which inevitably persists among some people in the Muslim world. It means the continuation of oppressive policies against all the peoples of Iraq that threaten that country’s integrity, and thus the stability of the region.

The sooner the situation in Iraq is normalized, the sooner the people of the Middle East can get on with the business of building a more stable region, and the more likely we are to realize our goal of seeing the region integrated, with consent of its people, into the international system.

We will continue to contain the threat Iraq poses to its region and the world. But for all the reasons I have mentioned, President Clinton has said that over the long-term, the best way to address the challenge Iraq poses is “through a government in Baghdad -- a new government -- that is committed to represent and respect its people, not repress them; that is committed to peace in the region.” Our policy toward Iraq today is to contain Saddam, but also to oppose him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

defenselink.mil

#2 Clinton States U.S. Objectives, Goals in Iraq

By Jim Garamone

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON -- U.S. forces will act unless Iraq's Saddam Hussein allows U.N. inspectors free and unfettered access to suspected weapons sites, President Clinton said during a Pentagon speech Feb. 17.

Clinton also said any U.S. attack can be blamed on Saddam Hussein. "Saddam Hussein could end this tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission," he said.

Clinton said he still prefers a diplomatic solution. "But to be a genuine solution, ... a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard: Iraq must agree -- and soon -- to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country," he said.

U.S. objectives are to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and to reduce Hussein's capacity to threaten his neighbors. "I am quite confident,... that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital security interests," Clinton said.

He said U.S. forces are ready and that he has complete confidence in service members who would be called upon to make any attack. Clinton called U.S. service members the best-led, best-equipped, best- prepared armed force in the world.

"Should it prove necessary for me to exercise the option of force, your commanders will do everything they can to protect the safety of all the men and women under their commands," Clinton said. "No military action, however, is risk free. I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well."

Clinton detailed Hussein's lies and evasions since the end of the Gulf War. Under the agreement ending the war, Hussein had 15 days to report about his nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal. "Iraq has repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War," Clinton said.

U.N. inspectors have found proof time and again that Iraq lied about its nuclear program, Clinton said. The Iraqis simply amended their declaration to incorporate the discoveries.

"[Iraq] has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by [the U.N. Special Commission]," he said.

Clinton said Hussein has the means and the will to use these weapons and proved it many times in Iraq's decade-long war with Iran. "He used chemical weapons against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary and even against his own people," Clinton said.

The Iraqi dictator also has the means to deliver these weapons in Scud missiles, which he previously launched against Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan in 1995 and, Clinton said, revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build more. After the defection, Iraq admitted to having an offensive biological warfare capability, including 5,000 gallons of botulinum, 2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 Scud warheads filled with biological agents and 157 aerial bombs.

"I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production," the president said.

Clinton praised the inspectors for their work in the face of Iraqi lies, deceptions and actions. "[The inspectors], the eyes and ears of the civilized world, have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War," he said.

Clinton said the biggest failure would be to do nothing. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow.

"But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist, that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

clinton4.nara.gov

THE PRESIDENT: I believe that the speech I gave at the Pentagon was quite clear about that. We want to significantly reduce his capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons, and his capacity to deliver them and to visit them on his people, his neighbors and people throughout the world. I believe the more the American people learn about the dangers of chemical and biological warfare and the kinds of problems they can do -- to us now and in the future, the stiffer their resolve will be.

And so I feel that time is on our side. And I believe that 10 years from now, and not in the heat of this moment, 15 years from now, when people look back at this time, they will want to look back at a period when those of us in positions of responsibility fulfilled our responsibility by trying to rid the world of this danger.

Thank you.



To: steve harris who wrote (36086)7/12/2005 12:16:45 AM
From: paret  Respond to of 93284
 
Democrat Congressmen gave Code Pink protesters VIP seats michellemalkin.com ^ | January 21, 2005 | Michelle Malkin

The most effective -- and disruptive -- protest may have come from the anti-war group Code Pink, which obtained 16 tickets to the inauguration from their members of Congress. Eight female activists, including Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin of San Francisco, obtained seats in the VIP section. They took their cue during Bush's speech -- when he spoke about the rights of people living under dictatorships to "free dissent" -- and unfurled banners reading "No War" and "Bush Mandate: Bring the Troops Home." Police confiscated the banners but did not remove the women.

A few moments later, the women stood up again, but this time they shouted, "Champagne is flying while soldiers are dying" and "Out of Iraq now." The pro- Bush crowd began chanting, and Bush momentarily paused. Police pulled the women off their chairs and escorted them out of area.

Two of the women were still being held late Thursday -- Benjamin and Diane Wilson of Texas -- but the others were released after the speech was over.

Wonder which members of Congress supplied the tickets? Jim Angle of FOX News reports that it was congressional Democrats from New York and California. Shame on them. If they wanted to disrupt the president's speech, the Democrats should have had the guts to do the dirty work themselves instead of hiding behind Code Pink's skirts.



To: steve harris who wrote (36086)7/12/2005 12:19:11 AM
From: paret  Respond to of 93284
 
Look at this tripe from Washington Post Watergate sleaze writer Carl Bernstein

Contains EVERY leftwing Democrat talking point:

Like all lefties, the cockroach Bernstein is fixated on Nixon--------

but he nerver heard of the pants Down president---Bill Clinton.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


USA TODAY May 24, 2004

History lesson: GOP must stop Bush

By Carl Bernstein

Thirty years ago, a Republican president, facing impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, was forced to resign because of unprecedented crimes he and his aides committed against the Constitution and people of the United States. Ultimately, Richard Nixon left office voluntarily because courageous leaders of the Republican Party put principle above party and acted with heroism in defense of the Constitution and rule of law.
"What did the president know and when did he know it?" a Republican senator — Howard Baker of Tennessee — famously asked of Nixon 30 springtimes ago.

Today, confronted by the graphic horrors of Abu Ghraib prison, by ginned-up intelligence to justify war, by 652 American deaths since presidential operatives declared "Mission Accomplished," Republican leaders have yet to suggest that George W. Bush be held responsible for the disaster in Iraq and that perhaps he, not just Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is ill-suited for his job.

Having read the report of Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, I expect Baker's question will resound again in another congressional investigation. The equally relevant question is whether Republicans will, Pavlov-like, continue to defend their president with ideological and partisan reflex, or remember the example of principled predecessors who pursued truth at another dark moment.

Today, the issue may not be high crimes and misdemeanors, but rather Bush's failure, or inability, to lead competently and honestly.

"You are courageously leading our nation in the war against terror," Bush told Rumsfeld in a Wizard-of-Oz moment May 10, as Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and senior generals looked on. "You are a strong secretary of Defense, and our nation owes you a debt of gratitude." The scene recalled another Oz moment: Nixon praising his enablers, Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, as "two of the finest public servants I've ever known."

Sidestepping the Constitution

Like Nixon, this president decided the Constitution could be bent on his watch. Terrorism justified it, and Rumsfeld's Pentagon promoted policies making inevitable what happened at Abu Ghraib — and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The legal justification for ignoring the Geneva Conventions regarding humane treatment of prisoners was enunciated in a memo to Bush, dated Jan. 25, 2002, from the White House counsel.

"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Alberto Gonzales wrote Bush. "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." Quaint.

Since January, Bush and Rumsfeld have been aware of credible complaints of systematic torture. In March, Taguba's report reached Rumsfeld. Yet neither Bush nor his Defense secretary expressed concern publicly or leveled with Congress until photographic evidence of an American Gulag, possessed for months by the administration, was broadcast to the world.

Rumsfeld then explained, "You read it, as I say, it's one thing. You see these photographs and it's just unbelievable. ... It wasn't three-dimensional. It wasn't video. It wasn't color. It was quite a different thing." But the report also described atrocities never photographed or taped that were, often, even worse than the pictures — just as Nixon's actions were frequently far worse than his tapes recorded.

It was Barry Goldwater, the revered conservative, who convinced Nixon that he must resign or face certain conviction by the Senate — and perhaps jail. Goldwater delivered his message in person, at the White House, accompanied by Republican congressional leaders.

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee likewise put principle above party to cast votes for articles of impeachment. On the eve of his mission, Goldwater told his wife that it might cost him his Senate seat on Election Day. Instead, the courage of Republicans willing to dissociate their party from Nixon helped Ronald Reagan win the presidency six years later, unencumbered by Watergate.

Another precedent is apt: In 1968, a few Democratic senators — J. William Fulbright, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern and Robert F. Kennedy — challenged their party's torpor and insisted that President Lyndon Johnson be held accountable for his disastrous and disingenuous conduct of the Vietnam War, adding weight to public pressure, which, eventually, forced Johnson not to seek re-election.

Today, the United States is confronted by another ill-considered war, conceived in ideological zeal and pursued with contempt for truth, disregard of history and an arrogant assertion of American power that has stunned and alienated much of the world, including traditional allies. At a juncture in history when the United States needed a president to intelligently and forcefully lead a real international campaign against terrorism and its causes, Bush decided instead to unilaterally declare war on a totalitarian state that never represented a terrorist threat; to claim exemption from international law regarding the treatment of prisoners; to suspend constitutional guarantees even to non-combatants at home and abroad; and to ignore sound military advice from the only member of his Cabinet — Powell — with the most requisite experience. Instead of using America's moral authority to lead a great global cause, Bush squandered it.

In Republican cloakrooms, as in the Oval Office, response to catastrophe these days is more concerned with politics and PR than principle. Said Tom DeLay, House majority leader: "A full-fledged congressional investigation — that's like saying we need an investigation every time there's police brutality on the street."

When politics topples principles

To curtail any hint of dissension in the ranks, Bush scheduled a "pep rally" with congressional Republicans — speaking 35 minutes, after which, characteristically, he took no questions and lawmakers dutifully circled the wagons.

What did George W. Bush know and when did he know it? Another wartime president, Harry Truman, observed that the buck stops at the president's desk, not the Pentagon.

But among Republicans today, there seems to be scant interest in asking tough questions — or honoring the example of courageous leaders of Congress who, not long ago, stepped forward, setting principle before party, to hold accountable presidents who put their country in peril.

Carl Bernstein's most recent book is a biography of John Paul II, His Holiness. He is co-author, with Bob Woodward, of All the President's Men and The Final Days.