Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Bush's Speech

State of the Union 2007 Bush

  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#21 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 12:43 AM

Maybe I've watched too much star wars...but how bout a vote of "No confidence"? lol
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#22 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 12:46 AM

View PostCait, on Jan 11 2007, 12:02 AM, said:

Which, hopefully, will force us all to pay more attention to VP nominations in the furture.

Let's also hope that the people who elected those spineless Senators and Representatives don't take their dissatisfaction into the streets because their elected choices don't have the balls to represent the will of those who elected them.  

This more than a Constitutional showdown between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch, it could be a showdown between the people and politicians in general.  Both political parties could be signing their death warrants.  Two years is a long time in this kind of climate and while hard Party liners might be happy to wait for 08, Independents are fed UP.

The people have a right to be heard and represented.  We spoke when we voted.  Now Congress [both sides of the aisle] want to play it safe for 08.   :rolleyes:  Bush will hang on as a lame duck "decider" and dump it on the next President, and Congress will run blaming Bush.  Meanwhile *we* pay for it all.

That's not what *I* voted for.

I think sometimes we forget that we are still in charge once the ballots are counted.  We have a right to be heard.  They are *our* voice.  If none of them have the spine to do that, then they can all be replaced as far as I'm concerned, and we'll find people who can do it.

*sigh* OK, OK, [calmer now] let's hope they don't screw us to bad we don't' recover in my lifetime.

:(

Very well said. Oh, and as for calming down...Do what I did. Print out a picture of Bush, or any elected offical your unhappy with. Tape it to a boxing bag, or a pillow, and punch the hell out of it. It's great exercise. After that, it makes great toilet paper...just have to watch the paper cuts. ;)
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#23 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 12:50 AM

Fight Night Round 2 works good too. ;)
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#24 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 01:30 AM

View PostMark, on Jan 10 2007, 10:36 PM, said:

View PostLord of the Sword, on Jan 10 2007, 09:18 PM, said:

OK, just turned on the news....naturally they were covering what Bush said. I honestly am at a loss for words...Bush actually threatened Iran and Syria? Good Lord! How many fronts is the boy planning on fighting at once.

Mark: I didn't hear him specifically threaten Syria, and Iran, but stated that they were helping the Iraqi insurgency, and that their help to the Iraqi insurgents must be stopped.


Oh but it's good help and should not be stopped.

I think we need to call a spade a spade Iran is an enemy and needs to be stopped from building nuclear weapons. I think Syria needs to be beaten to the stone age for suppoorting terrorism and then have the reason for the beating explained to them as B-52's do a job of turning Demascus into Dresden II :The ruins.

These beating have been due since the period of Jimmy Carter but soft hearted people will cry they are not fair.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#25 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 01:41 AM

The United States did their best trying to help Iran come out of it's dark days of fading out of existance.  It all went to hell when Ayatollah Khomeini took control.

I don't like this site, but it was the best I could find on short notice:

http://en.wikipedia....History_of_Iran

Quote

Initially there were hopes that post-occupation Iran could become a constitutional monarchy. The new, young Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi initially took a very hands-off role in government, and allowed parliament to hold a lot of power. Some elections were held in the first shaky years, although they remained mired in corruption. Parliament became chronically unstable, and from the 1947 to 1951 period Iran saw the rise and fall of six different prime ministers.

In 1951, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, a nationalist, received the vote required from the parliament to nationalize the British-owned oil industry, in a situation known as the Abadan Crisis. Despite British pressure, including an economic blockade which caused real hardship, the nationalization continued. Mossadegh was briefly removed from power in 1952 but was quickly re-appointed by the shah, due to an overwhelming majority in parliament supporting him, and he, in turn, forced the Shah into a brief exile in August 1953. A military coup headed by his former minister of the Interior and retired army general Fazlollah Zahedi, with the support of the intelligence services of the British and US governments, finally forced Mossadegh from office on August 19. Mossadegh was arrested and tried for treason by a military tribunal, while Zahedi succeeded him as prime minister.

In return for the US support the Shah agreed, in 1954, to allow an international consortium of British (40%), American (40%), French (6%), and Dutch (14%) companies to run the Iranian oil facilities for the next 25 years, with profits shared equally. The international consortium agreed to a fifty-fifty split of profits with Iran but would not allow Iran to audit their accounts to confirm the consortium was reporting profits properly, nor would they allow Iran to have members on their board of directors. There was a return to stability in the late 1950s and the 1960s. In 1957 martial law was ended after 16 years and Iran became closer to the West, joining the Baghdad Pact and receiving military and economic aid from the US. The Iranian government began a broad program of reforms to modernize the country, notably changing the quasi-feudal land system.

However the reforms did not greatly improve economic conditions and the liberal pro-Western policies alienated certain Islamic religious and political groups. From the mid-1960s the political situation was becoming increasingly unstable, with organisations such as Mujaheddin-e-Khalq (MEK) emerging. In 1961, Iran initiated a series of economic, social, and administrative reforms that became known as the Shah's White Revolution. The core of this program was land reform. Modernization and economic growth proceeded at an unprecedented rate, fueled by Iran's vast petroleum reserves, the third-largest in the world.

The Premier Hassan Ali Mansur was assassinated in 1965 and the internal security service, SAVAK, became more violently active. It is estimated that 13,000-13,500 [citation needed]people were killed by the SAVAK during this period of time, and thousands more were arrested and tortured. The Islamic clergy, headed by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (who had been exiled in 1964), were becoming increasingly vociferous.

International relations with Iraq fell into a steep decline, mainly due to a dispute over the Arvand waterway which a 1937 agreement gave to Iraq. Following a number of clashes in April, 1969, Iran abrogated the 1937 accord and demanded a renegotiation. Iran greatly increased its defense budget and by the early 1970s was the region's strongest military power. In November, 1971 Iranian forces seized control of three islands at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, in response Iraq expelling thousands of Iranian nationals.

In mid-1973, the Shah returned the oil industry to national control. Following the Arab-Israeli War of October 1973, Iran did not join the Arab oil embargo against the West and Israel. Instead it used the situation to raise oil prices, using the money gained for modernization and to increase defense spending.

In the early 1970s, the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq organisation assassinated Tehran-based US military personnel and US civilians involved in military contracts, seeking to weaken the regime and remove foreign influence.

A border dispute between Iraq and Iran was resolved with the signing of the Algiers Accord on March 6, 1975.

However the economic improvements tended to only benefit a very small group and succeeded in disaffecting the vast majority of the population, culminating in widespread religious led protests throughout the late 1970s. There was widespread religious and political opposition to the Shah's rule and programs--especially SAVAK, the hated internal security and intelligence service. Martial law was declared in September 1978 (see Black Friday (1978)) for all major cities but the Shah recognized the erosion of his power-base and fled Iran on January 16, 1979.


[edit] Islamic Revolution
Main article: Iranian Revolution
After many months of popular protests against the rule of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was forced to flee the nation on January 16, 1979. After a period of internal competition over the future of Iran, the contest was eventually won by the alliance led by the Ayatollah Khomeini who supported making Iran a religious democratic country. On February 1, 1979, Khomeini returned from France (after 15 years in exile in France, Turkey, and Iraq) overthrowing the shah's government on February 11 and becoming Iran's Supreme Leader.

The new government acted revolutionary. It nationalized industry and started establishing Islamic traditions in culture and law. Western influences were banned and many of the pro-West migrated. There were also clashes between Marxist parties and Iranian armed forces after referendum of April 1, 1979 which continued for almost four years in various provinces.


[edit] The Islamic Republic

The eight-year Iran-Iraq war resulted in USD$350 billion in damage for Iran alone.Supported by the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq [citation needed], militant Iranian students seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, holding 52 embassy employees hostage for a 444 days (see Iran hostage crisis). The Carter administration severed diplomatic relations and imposed economic sanctions on April 7, 1980 and later that month attempted a rescue. A commando mission was aborted on April 25 after mechanical problems grounded rescue helicopters and eight American troops were killed in a mid-air collision. On May 24 the International Court of Justice called for the hostages' release. Finally the hostages were released Jan 20 1981, by Agreement of the Carter Administration, see Algiers Accords Jan 19,1981.

On September 22, 1980 Iraq invaded Iran. Official U.S. policy sought to isolate Iran, and the U.S. and its allies supplied Iraq with weapons and technology to maintain a balance in the war. Iraq obtained most of its weaponry from the Soviets, China, and France. Members of the Reagan Administration covertly sold anti-tank missles and spare parts to Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra affair. Iran finally agreed to United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 in 1988 to end the bloody war. Nonetheless, severe fighting continued into the 1990s and even to the present on a smaller scale [2]) as Kurdish (nationalist and communist) forces fought the Iranian government.

Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#26 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 02:40 AM

http://www.crooksand...ity/#more-13443

Obermann hits another one out of the park.... :cool:

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#27 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 02:50 AM

View PostCait, on Jan 11 2007, 02:40 AM, said:

http://www.crooksand...ity/#more-13443

Obermann hits another one out of the park.... :cool:


LMAO! Damn! Obermann is awesome. He was the ONLY news anchor with enough balls to call the President on the death of Habeus Corpus. Brian Williams, Charles Gibson, Katie Couric, and all the others were just too scared to do that. And now this from Obermann....Got to love it!
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#28 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 09:50 AM

Quote

Coming from Bush...that's a threat, and it means he's planning on attacking those countries very soon.
It's looking that way.

We just stormed an Iranian consulate.

And a guy who talked to a ranking Navy officer said that it looks like:

Quote

"much of the hardware being pushed into the Gulf has no possible use against Iraq.  He assumes the mission he is being sent on is aimed at Iran. "

Looks like a gear-up.

But, we shouldn't worry.  Bush has a 100,000 acre ranch in Paraguay he can move to, if he destroys our military and spends us into oblivion and causes us to be overtaken by enemy invaders.  So, at least he'll be safe and we can all be happy about that!  :)   (I dunno why Paraguay... maybe they refuse to extradite.)

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#29 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 10:50 AM

View PostLord of the Sword, on Jan 10 2007, 10:39 PM, said:

View PostMark, on Jan 10 2007, 10:36 PM, said:

Mark: I didn't hear him specifically threaten Syria, and Iran, but stated that they were helping the Iraqi insurgency, and that their help to the Iraqi insurgents must be stopped.

Coming from Bush...that's a threat, and it means he's planning on attacking those countries very soon.

I'm starting to agree with you on that.  Maybe not Syria, but it's clear from Naval deployments alone that he's itchin' to attack Iran.  If he does, I think we have no choice but to remove him from office.  And I don't favor impeachment if it can be avoided.  Going down that road twice in 10 years could be very, very bad for our system...  but if he starts another war, I don't see a better option.  At that point, it will become imperative to remove his finger from the trigger... because, whether he realizes or not, he's got the gun pointed right at our (collective) head.  

View PostCardie, on Jan 10 2007, 11:45 PM, said:

And it's no good to impeach Bush unless you impeach Cheney.

All righty, then.  A double impeachment, it is.  If they move on Iran or Syria.  

Either way, I'm convinced history will look back on this as one of the worst, most incompetent presidential administrations ever.  I'm glad to see that so many *Republicans* have come to the same conclusion.

Edited by ScottEVill, 11 January 2007 - 10:52 AM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#30 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 11:11 AM

I'm just disgusted. Either Bush is truly stupid or he's counting on the rest of us to be.

What he's proposing is to do more of the same, just on a grander scale. We're going to "clear and hold" Baghdad neighborhoods that are embroiled in Sunni-Shiite turf wars. And we're going to do it the same way we tried to do it last fall: we clear; the Iraqi military holds. That didn't work. It didn't work in part because only a portion of the promised Iraqi battalions materialized.

So now we're going to do the same thing, with more U.S. troops and an even larger commitment of Iraqi battalions from Maliki. If Maliki doesn't deliver the number of battalions he promised this time, someone really should draw a cartoon of Maliki as Lucy yanking the football away from Bush as Charlie Brown.

If Bush really does think this is going to turn things around in Iraq, he's seriously deluded. If he really does believe that al of our allies in the Mideast are rooting for us to kill all the bad guys, he's woefully misinformed.

http://news.yahoo.co...iraq_fact_check

Quote

He portrayed average citizens in the Middle East as supportive of U.S. goals.

In fact, opinion leaders in the Middle East used Saddam's execution in recent days to rail against Bush.

In the past, the president mentioned Saddam's "evil mind" in building his case for war.

In contrast to Bush's view about Middle East opinion:

_The religious establishment in Saudi Arabia, which is rooted in the hard-line Wahhabi stream of Sunni Islam, has stepped up its anti-Shiite rhetoric. Last month, about 30 clerics called on Sunnis around the Middle East to support their brethren in Iraq against Shiites and praised the insurgency.

_In Friday prayers in the Qatari capital, influential Sunni cleric Sheik Youssef Qaradawi accused Iraq's Shiite government of "a genocide" against Sunnis and appealed to the Sunni world to intervene.

It's looking more and more that we've gone beyond the tipping point in Iraq and in fact in the Mideast. All the dire predictions Bush made about what could possibly happen if Iraq descends further into chaos are probably realistic, but the emotions that lead to that sort of deep and widespread regional conflict have already been released from the bottle, and I honestly think there's nothing we can do at this point to put them back. Instead we should be smart, withdraw, rebuild and retool our military and cut our losses. Otherwise, it looks to me like we're marching into quicksand.

I do not trust this administration to wage war competently. They've gotten everything wrong for four years, with Bush finally admitting "mistakes" last night, and now propose to keep hitting our collective thumb with a larger hammer. The consequences are disastrous, for our military, for our standing in the world, and for the region. But I don't think these guys have a clue about how to turn it around, or if it's even possible to turn it around at this point.

I'm just sick about the whole damned thing.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#31 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 11:53 AM

View PostScottEVill, on Jan 11 2007, 10:50 AM, said:

I'm starting to agree with you on that.  Maybe not Syria, but it's clear from Naval deployments alone that he's itchin' to attack Iran.  If he does, I think we have no choice but to remove him from office.  And I don't favor impeachment if it can be avoided.  Going down that road twice in 10 years could be very, very bad for our system...  but if he starts another war, I don't see a better option.  At that point, it will become imperative to remove his finger from the trigger... because, whether he realizes or not, he's got the gun pointed right at our (collective) head.  

View PostCardie, on Jan 10 2007, 11:45 PM, said:

And it's no good to impeach Bush unless you impeach Cheney.

All righty, then.  A double impeachment, it is.  If they move on Iran or Syria.  

Either way, I'm convinced history will look back on this as one of the worst, most incompetent presidential administrations ever.  I'm glad to see that so many *Republicans* have come to the same conclusion.

The only problem with impeaching them, it would take to long. While charges are filed, proceedings held, he will be killing America by starting a war with Iran. If he goes to war with Iran, IMO the American people need to rise up and take back the government. Some would call it a rebellion, or revolution...but I disagree. This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people...Only we seem to have allowed a Dictator named Bush in the office, who thinks American lives are his to waste.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#32 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 12:06 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on Jan 11 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

View PostScottEVill, on Jan 11 2007, 10:50 AM, said:

I'm starting to agree with you on that.  Maybe not Syria, but it's clear from Naval deployments alone that he's itchin' to attack Iran.  If he does, I think we have no choice but to remove him from office.  And I don't favor impeachment if it can be avoided.  Going down that road twice in 10 years could be very, very bad for our system...  but if he starts another war, I don't see a better option.  At that point, it will become imperative to remove his finger from the trigger... because, whether he realizes or not, he's got the gun pointed right at our (collective) head.  

View PostCardie, on Jan 10 2007, 11:45 PM, said:

And it's no good to impeach Bush unless you impeach Cheney.

All righty, then.  A double impeachment, it is.  If they move on Iran or Syria.  

Either way, I'm convinced history will look back on this as one of the worst, most incompetent presidential administrations ever.  I'm glad to see that so many *Republicans* have come to the same conclusion.

The only problem with impeaching them, it would take to long. While charges are filed, proceedings held, he will be killing America by starting a war with Iran. If he goes to war with Iran, IMO the American people need to rise up and take back the government. Some would call it a rebellion, or revolution...but I disagree. This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people...Only we seem to have allowed a Dictator named Bush in the office, who thinks American lives are his to waste.


No what would happen is we would have Presdient Pelossi and I think more than half the country saying we did not elect her and that this is an attempt at a Democratic coup.  I think that any move to replace Bush had better have more facts than feeling.

You would have to show where they violated their oaths not that you feel that they did. If he shows where Iran has been suppling aid to the people attacking our troops. What then? It shows a national power behind the attacks. Is that support an act of war? Remember we only recently captured a Irain officer with a group of terrorists. What if he gave info about an border crossing of "volunteer" Iranian men who are in fact under orders to help attack Americans?
Why isn't Bush going public because the only to convince some folks will be with captured Iranian military personnel. Those extra troops might well be a invasion force or it might to seal the Iranian border while a hard crack is taken at the gurillias.


But hey it's Bush lets go with he wants to take over the middle east and be declared grand poohba. Why because Nancy got told by Cindy Sheehan that was what the plot was.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#33 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 12:23 PM

View PostG1223, on Jan 11 2007, 12:06 PM, said:

No what would happen is we would have Presdient Pelossi and I think more than half the country saying we did not elect her and that this is an attempt at a Democratic coup.  I think that any move to replace Bush had better have more facts than feeling.

FTR impeachment doesn't mean removal from office.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Impeachment

Quote

Impeachment occurs so rarely that the term is often misunderstood. A typical misconception is to confuse it with involuntary removal from office; in fact it is only the legal statement of charges, parallelling an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict.

Quote

The process should not be confused with recall election. A recall election is usually initiated by voters and can be based on "political charges", for example mismanagement, whereas impeachment is initiated by a constitutional body (usually a legislative body) and is usually based, but not always, on indictable offenses. The process of removing the official is also different.

:tired:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#34 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 02:14 PM

Houston Chronicle

Quote

Jan. 11, 2007, 12:35PM
U.S. detains 6 Iranians in Irbil raid


By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA Associated Press Writer
2007 The Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq U.S.-led multinational forces detained six Iranians Thursday at an Iranian government office in the northern city of Irbil, Iraqi officials said, as President Bush accused Iran and Syria of aiding militants and promised to "interrupt" the flow of support as part of his new war strategy.

The U.S. military said it had taken six people into custody in the Irbil region but made no mention of a raid on the Iranian government office.

The forces entered the building about 3 a.m., detaining the Iranians and confiscating computers and documents, two senior local Kurdish officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information. Irbil is a city in the Kurdish-controlled northern part of Iraq, 220 miles from Baghdad.

A resident living near the building said the troops used stun bombs and brought down an Iranian flag from the roof. As the operation went on, two helicopters flew overhead, the resident said on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#35 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 02:18 PM

I wonder how many of his word will be thrown up in his face when,
http://www.guardian....6338631,00.html
The '08 shindig , 'dem Dems in Denver' ;)
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#36 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 02:53 PM

I thought we all got a little (or big) lesson in how Presidential impeachment works back in the 90s.  Impeachment=indictment (as the Wiki entry posted by DWF says).  The House is like a Grand Jury.  A simple majority vote is required to impeach.

What follows is a trial in the Senate.  House members act as "Impeachment Managers" (aka, prosecutors), and the Senate itself is the jury.  IIRC, the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS acts as the judge.  A two-thirds majority is required to convict, and upon conviction, removal is automatic.  (They may also vote to bar the convicted official from holding office in the future.)  

Criminal prosecution will most likely follow (as it would have in Nixon's case, had he not accepted Ford's pardon).  

Unlike with Clinton, if impeachment proceedings are begun against Bush and Cheney, I think we can assume it would be because there's bipartisan support for it.  

As much as the Democrats hate Bush, they're not on a witch-hunt, as the Republican majority was back in the 90s.  They're not looking for a reason to plunge the country (and, in this case, the world) into the chaos of impeachment, if for no other reason than they understand that a partisan drive to remove Bush & Cheney will be seen for what it is: political payback against a hated opponent they could not remove through ordinary means (via the Election of 2004).  Which is exactly how the vast majority of Americans saw the failed proceedings against Clinton.    

If Bush starts another war--and especially if he starts two more--I'd be willing to bet that a sizable number of Republicans would openly call for his ouster.  And if it was clear that the impeachment process would result in his removal from office, it's quite possible that the result would be resignation (as with Nixon).    

Then again, we shouldn't underestimate how pig-headed Bush & Cheney are.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#37 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 03:04 PM

Bush's plan is running into some pretty strong Republican opposition. Does anyone have a list of Republicans who've spoken out against the escalation?  

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq

Quote

WASHINGTON -        President Bush's decision to send 21,500 more combat troops to Iraq drew heavy fire from both Democrats and some Republicans on Thursday despite a plea by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for a "national imperative not to fail."

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska told Rice the president's plan was "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."


Quote

Despite support for the president's plan from McConnell and other members of the Republican leadership, rank-and-file Republicans seemed weary of the war that has lasted almost four years and claimed more than 3,000 American lives.

...

On the other side of the Capitol, Rice was grilled sharply by members of the  Senate Foreign Relations Committee of both parties .

"You're going to have to do a much better job" explaining the rationale for the war, "and so is the president," Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, told her. He said Bush could no longer count on his support.

"I've gone along with the president on this and I've bought into his dream and at this stage of the game I just don't think its going to happen," Voinovich said.



...

Rice engaged in a tense exchange with Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and longtime critic of Bush's Iraq policy, disputing his characterization of Bush's buildup as an "escalation."

"Putting in 22,000 more troops is not an escalation?" Hagel asked.

"I think, senator, escalation is not just a matter of how many numbers you put in."

"Would you call it a decrease?" Hagel asked.

"I would call it, senator, an augmentation that allows the Iraqis to deal with this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad," she said.

Hagel told Rice, "Madame Secretary, Iraqis are killing Iraqis. We are in a civil war. This is sectarian violence out of control."

She disputed that Iraq was in the throes of a civil war. To that, Hagel said, "To sit there and say that, that's just not true."

...

In her testimony, Rice stressed Iraqi obligations for troops, money and the political will to allow the Bush plan to succeed. She promised oversight, without giving specifics.

"Iraqis are in the lead; we are supporting them," Rice said.

In speech in the House of Representatives, meanwhile, Rep. Ric Keller (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla. noted that he was breaking ranks with Bush after long supporting the president's war policy.

"At this late stage, interjecting more young American troops into the crossfire of an Iraqi civil war is simply not the right approach," solution," Keller said.


A new AP-Ipsos poll found approval for Bush's handling of Iraq hovering near a record low 29 percent of Americans approve and 68 percent disapprove.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#38 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 03:13 PM

Quote

Why isn't Bush going public because the only to convince some folks will be with captured Iranian military personnel. Those extra troops might well be a invasion force or it might to seal the Iranian border while a hard crack is taken at the gurillias.

20,000 couldn't do it. Invade or protect a border that big. We are in no position to get involved in a war with Iran.
Can't Touch This!!

#39 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 04:07 PM

The 2 carrier groups in The Gulf seem to indicate that the Administration feels differently about that, Kosh. . .

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#40 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 04:36 PM

I didn't think it was possible to actually watch someone talk out of both sides of her mouth, but I was wrong.  Secretary Rice has mastered it.

"It's not an escalation, it's an augmentation"  

And don't you forget it.   :rolleyes:

She actually said, that Sunni and Shia didn't hate each other all that much and as soon as the extremists were under control, they'd all live happily ever after.

Well, OK, I paraphrased, but I like my version better for the end of this "Fairy Tale".

You can all see excerpts of her appearance before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on MSNBC.  It is very interesting to hear her sell this.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: State of the Union, 2007, Bush

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users