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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (73589)	12/4/2006 3:47:19 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

<<...I think a 4 team playoff would definitively settle the issue and provide one heck of a TV audience...>> I tend to agree with you. -s2

To: RMF who wrote (73589)	12/9/2006 6:20:21 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

IF LYING ABOUT WAR'S REALITY IS IMPEACHABLE, START THE PROCEEDINGS By Steve Young* huffingtonpost.com 12.09.2006 I had always thought that George W. Bush was either a liar or he had the worst judgement in Presidential history. Now, it's pretty clear it wasn't the bad judgement. What blares loud and clear from the Iraq Study Group's report, even more than the complete and utter failure that is the Bush war presidency, is the evidence that the American public has been duped. One of the infamous debate tactics of the broadcast Right Wing Lords of Loud is loud righteous indignation. Indignation interrupting anyone depicting President Bush as a liar. "Name one lie," O'Reilly will counter. Well, now the ISG has named one. And it's so egregious a lie that its retroactive domino effect knocks over - hell it smashes to smithereens - every other domino of so-called truth on the table. Most deplorable, Bush's incredulous estimate of 30-50,000 civilian fatalities in Iraq. The ISG reports a systematic under-reporting of attacks. In fact, attacks involving no US personnel were completely ignored. "There is significant under-reporting of the violence in Iraq," said the report. In one summer day, of the 1100 "acts of violence," 93 were reported. "Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals," wrote the ISG. Incredible. Actual violence was ten times what the DOD reported. How far do we have to project that multiple to cripple any legitimacy in Bush's civilian death estimate? Seems the true death toll is closer to the 655,000 estimate that came from a Johns Hopkins University study than anything Bush's Defense Department has admitted. Now, how difficult is it to conclude they also lied in trumping up the pre-war intelligence? Sure, the Bush Administration (most likely) doesn't lie about everything, but you can't cherry-pick the truths to prove they are honest. Lie once, you're a liar. If this administration has been deceiving the American public over what has been taking place in the war, can we believe them when they say they do not torture? Can we believe them about anything? Impeachable? Sending the country into a war based on lies still must be investigated to nail down any culpability. Keeping this country in a deadly war based on lies? Friend of the family, Jim Baker, just confirmed it: this President is guilty. _____________________________ *Steve Young is a talk show host, non-fiction author and novelist, weekly oped-columnist, award-winning television writer and filmmaker. His inspiring book, "Great Failures of the Extremely Successful" (Tallfellow Press) has been published internationally and has become required reading in the Wharton School of Business Masters Program.

To: RMF who wrote (73589)	1/12/2007 12:35:14 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

The Arsenal of Tools Congressional Democrats Can Use To Force the Bush Administration To Cooperate with Their Efforts To Undertake Oversight: writ.news.findlaw.com <<...The Impeachment Power: Congress' Strongest Weapon Needless to say, this is heavy ammunition - though ammunition perhaps unlikely to be used by current Democrats, in light of the Clinton impeachment debacle. Fisher says, "Congress has especially strong leverage when it decides to initiate the impeachment process." President Washington, Fisher notes, was the first to concede this fact, but other presidents, from James Polk to Andrew Jackson have acknowledged the broad reach of an impeachment inquiry. Fisher also cites a more recent example. Ronald Reagan gave Congress everything it wanted, regarding the Iran-Contra affair. Fisher reports, "Through this cooperation he hoped to derail any movement toward impeachment. Attorney General Edwin Meese, III, thought the Iran-Contra affair had the potential for 'toppling' the president and triggering impeachment proceedings in the House." Cooperation, indeed, did help Reagan survive, but the understanding around Washington has long been that when Reagan agreed to make Senator Howard Baker (R TN) his White House chief of staff, the Congress backed off -- believing Howard Baker would bring experienced supervision to the Reagan White House. There can be no question that the threat of impeachment has convinced many presidents to provide Congress with information. What happens when a president refuses to cooperate, particularly when an actual impeachment inquiry is underway? The historical example, of course, is Richard Nixon. He stiffed the impeachment investigation, refusing to provide the inquiry with information requested in four subpoenas. The House prepared a bill of impeachment for Nixon's failure to produce the requested information, and Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. Not only was Nixon's gambit of not responding to the subpoenas ineffective, it actually inspired Congress to play hardball and enact a law that simply took Nixon's tapes and papers...>>

To: RMF who wrote (73589)	1/12/2007 5:05:46 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

What America Must Not Do Now globalresearch.ca <<...In a paper published in Swedish, Daniel Ellsberg warns against the ongoing preparations for a major air war against Iran. Writing in Stockholm where he had just been presented with the Right Livelihood Award (sometimes referred to as the alternative Nobel Prize) Ellsberg beseeches the potential whistleblowers of the US military and intelligence establishment to come forward and release top secret documents revealing Bush and Cheney’s plan to attack Iran. Ellsberg believes that the plan of attack will involve nuclear weapons that could be launched by either the US or Israel, both of whom have amassed firepower in the Persian Gulf. It is obvious that nuclear missiles could easily be launched at Iran from either US or Israeli submarines in the Gulf without violating the airspace of any other sovereign nation. Ellsberg calls for the members of NATO to abandon the US-dominated alliance in the immediate aftermath of any such attack. Ellsberg is clearly right to remain concerned for it is now abundantly evident that Bush and Cheney are still suffering from their imperialist delusions. Deeply embedded in their joint denials of reality, Bush and Cheney are now beneath depression. Defeated at the polls by the people they sought to defend, they are desensitized to rational discourse. With the repudiation of their presidency – and everything they stand for – by the likes of Jim Baker, Edwin Meese and Robert Gates, Bush and Cheney still wield considerable executive power. Even though more than 90% of the American people believe that we should change course in Iraq, and 90% of the Iraqi people want the US to leave and take their bases, their troops, their diplomats, their spies and their massive embassies with them, Bush and Cheney are determined to stamp their impact deeply and indelibly on the cradle of civilization. Isolated in their soundproof chambers in the West Wing, Bush and Cheney are poring over papers, documents and power-points outlining the most aggressive military assault in the history of the universe – the nuclear devastation of all of the technological targets in Iran...>>