Sinergy
Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine
One thing that is confusing - Congress passed the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Congress gets their own intelligence reports from the CIA, DIA, NSC, etc. in which to make their decisions.
Why is this confusing? Both houses of Congress were controlled by the Republican Party and these houses are on record as working the least number of days, passing the fewest number of laws, overseeing the smallest number of overseeable things, etc.
Bush' lackeys manage the organizations which provide reports by which Congress makes it's decisions. Provide Congress faulty reports, Congress makes faulty decisions. You have heard the term "Garbage In, Garbage Out," right?
quote:
If they impeach Bush, wouldn't a whole bunch of the members of Congress (in both parties) have to be impeached as well?
You would have to prove they intended to violate the law.
Unfortunately, there is all sorts of evidence which suggest that Bush et al deliberately doctored evidence and used it to promote his war. That goes to
intent.
quote:
Before you say, "Bush gave them faulty intelligence" - isn't it their responsibility to review and verify it before making decisions?
True, and since the Republicans controlled congress and could do what they wanted to, then I agree they might be equally culpable for the war crimes.
But, as a Congressman being given a classified report about BLAH from the CIA, one does not have the staff, mission, or connections to go back and verify it. That is the job of the CIA, to investigate. The job of Congress is to take the information presented by the investigators and make decisions accordingly.
quote:
You can vilify Bush all you want - some of you just really hate him, but he couldn't invade Iraq all by his lonesome. On the otherhand, if you do think Bush was able to hoodwink all of Congress, then how can he be as dumb as alot of people are saying he is?
Have you bothered to read anything about the events leading up to the run up to war in Iraq?
quote:
I haven't seen any proof that he actually broke any laws in regards to Iraq (and Internet Blogs don't count) - besides, even Bush is innocent until proven guilty (you can't complain about keeping civil rights without extending them to Bush as well)
This is true. I suspect since a large amount of it was classified, you probably will not ever see conclusive proof where he broke laws in regards to Iraq.
I would suggest a worthwhile starting point would be to go to Rolling Stone's web site and search for articles about Iraq. While you may consider it a liberal rag, one of the guiding principles behind that magazine was an editorial decision when it started to not change anything written and submitted to be published.
I imagine that on doing a search on the internet you will find thousands of sites (some even reputable) which talk about items such as "yellow cake," "Niger," "Aluminum Tubing," "refining nuclear weapons," "Weapons of Mass Destruction," "Gassing the kurds," "Lie detector AND Iraqi source," etc. Additionally, some of the sites you find will cross-reference other sites and provide you with more information.
Additionally, I would suggest you go back and review the reasons Bush gave for the run up to war, our continued presence for the war over the years, etc., and notice how these change over time as each one is proven false.
Enjoy your path to knowledge.
Sinergy
_____________________________
"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"
"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle
|
RE: 86% say Bush should be Impeached - 
Profile
Level!
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread