Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Crazyhorse1;314828]An impreachment is a trial, not a conviction.[/quote]

Actually it's more like an indictment. I think I explained it pretty well on pg 1. When I read through the following posts the next day I felt like Mr. Hand from Fast Times.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=firstdown;313869]I agree a lot of money was spent on the investigation but how many people ended up in jail? This is the same goverment that some want to run our health care.[/quote]


So, you'd rather insurance companies run health care. On the other hand, maybe you want the free market to run health care, so you could die without treatment if you couldn't afford the payment.

Be careful what you wish for.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=firstdown;313953]Bush never said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and even the 9/11 report said that there were links between Iraq and Bin Laden. There were some that said Iraq had no nuclear weapons but UN, Other major countries, most all in congress and senate, Bill Clinton, and many, many more said he did have them. Most of the debate at the time was not rather he had WMD's but was it worth going to war for. Many a politicians want you to think that they were tricked into the war but its just them trying to gt out of what they did.[/quote]

I don't usually see posts in which everything is absolutely misunderstood or flat out wrong because of disinformation, but here's a case in point.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

So Crazyhorse, you're what like 65 years old or something right? You lived through our involvement in Korea, the spread of communism, Vietnam, the Soviet-Afghanistan war, Kosovo, etc. How are things different now-with our involvement in other country's affairs-than they were 10, 20, 50 years ago?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;313965]This past weekend, I spoke to a former captain who was responsible for the prison system in Baghdad after the Abu Gharaib fiasco. He said that, after AG, the Americans basically cleaned up their act and that his main job was protecting Iraqi prisoners from their Iraqi keepers. The Iraqi had hidden jails, (essentially unventilated, unsanitary warehouses - nothing like what we would consider a prison) in which Iraqis tortured and killed their detainees. The biggest problem he had with his men was that they consistently intervened between the Iraqi "lawful authority" and the detainees in order to save the detainees lives.

My point is that the Iraqi's and us have [I]completely[/I] different ideas on what constitutes the rule of law. Human rights apply only to those of your sect b/c only they are human.

While on its face the statement seems hypocritical, in fact, it is not given the vast differences between Iraqi "justice" and American justice.[/quote]

Bush is still torturing people in Gitmo and in so called secret prisons. He also ships people to Cairo and other places where they can be tortured and/or killed. It's call "rendition."

He also bombed and killed over 50 thousand children with bombs, including cluster bombs, which are banned internationally because they are particularly dangerous to children, sometimes for long after they are dropped.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=Crazyhorse1;314836]Bush is still torturing people in Gitmo and in so called secret prisons. He also ships people to Cairo and other places where they can be tortured and/or killed. It's call "rendition."

He also bombed and killed over 50 thousand children with bombs, including cluster bombs, which are banned internationally because they are particularly dangerous to children, sometimes for long after they are dropped.[/QUOTE]

War ain't pretty. He's not the first Commander-in-Chief to order bombing attacks, many of which leave behind innocent victims.

By the way, I "love" how you keep saying Bush is torturing, as if he personally is the one going down there.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=firstdown;314001]You mean the US Attorneys that the President can fire anytime that he wants to and other presidents have done the same thing. The problem is that Bush should have just come out and said I decided to fire them so that what I did. End of story. The Washington post has done so many stories on Abu Ghraib you would have thought that we were breaking their arms, cutting off fingers, shocking them and all of that bad stuff. Ok, we had a few people do some dumb stuff but that should be the end of the story. What torture techniques that we are using that are so bad Depriving them of sleep, dripping water in their face?[/quote]

The torture technique we use was first developed by Brazile and then adopted for use by the U.S. at Gitmor and Abu Graib. It is regarded as the most viscious permanently impairing system of torture, both physically and psychologically, in the world. It was demonstrated for Rumsfeld at Gitmo, where Rumsfeld participated in the torture of a prisoner. The Red Cross once reported that two eighty year old men who were both mentally ill at Gitmo we kept in a small cell 24 hours at day lying in their own excretement.

To date, it has produced much destruction and death, but almost no useful information or convictions.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;314190]You definately make some interesting points. I definately agree that law enforcement actions against individuals caught in the U.S. should be conducted in the same manner as other criminal trials. I don't know, however, whether the war on terrorism against individuals overseas is a law enforcement action. The "war on terrorism" is both a law enforcement action and a war.

Also, the military tribunals are nothing new as FDR did them back in WWII - a much more conventional war. Moreover, they are okay with the Supreme Court (the details may need to be worked out in a new case, but they're generally okay with the High Court).[/quote]

Trials of any kind of prisoners of war by the arresting country are prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, including miliary tribunials of the arresting county. Such trials have to be conducted by neutral countries.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Sammy Baugh Fan;314215]And if we are taking a poll...
I support this President and I support the war. I think them crazy bastards are harder to figure out when it comes down to killing each other so our tacktics may needs some tweaking but I would rather kill them poor bastards over there then fight them over here.

peace[/quote]

You think Iraq is going to attack us over here. How? Do they have a Navy? Maybe Saddam put all the WMD's on ships and the ships are currently hanging out at the South Pole just waiting to get us when we stop fighting Iraqis "over there." Seems to me they should attack us here when our troops are in Iraq.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=70Chip;314830]Actually it's more like an indictment. I think I explained it pretty well on pg 1. When I read through the following posts the next day I felt like Mr. Hand from Fast Times.[/quote]

Granted. You are correct.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=Crazyhorse1;314840]Trials of any kind of prisoners of war by the arresting country are prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, including miliary tribunials of the arresting county. Such trials have to be conducted by neutral countries.[/QUOTE]

"Prisoner of war" is a term of art. POW status is not afforded to unlawful enemy combatants. Once a person is deemed an unlawful enemy combatant, they are denied POW privileges (e.g., the right to a trial by a neutral country). Under U.S. law (which, by the way, governs U.S. court proceedings), the President is delegated the broad authority to determine whether someone captured in Afghanistan or Iraq is an unlawful enemy combatant. Whether you disagree with U.S. law or not, it is what it is and the detention and trial of unlawful enemy combatants captured in Iraq or Afghanistan is not illegal. Air America radio might say otherwise, but they're simply wrong.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=Crazyhorse1;314838]The torture technique we use was first developed by Brazile and then adopted for use by the U.S. at Gitmor and Abu Graib. It is regarded as the most viscious permanently impairing system of torture, both physically and psychologically, in the world. It was demonstrated for Rumsfeld at Gitmo, where Rumsfeld participated in the torture of a prisoner. The Red Cross once reported that two eighty year old men who were both mentally ill at Gitmo we kept in a small cell 24 hours at day lying in their own excretement.[/QUOTE]

First, to say that the "torture" techniques employed at Gitmo are the "most vicious permanently impairing system ... in the world" is a major overstatement. Hyperbole works great with some people, but not with me.

Second, to say that Rumself personally participated in the torture on a prisoner is also a little strange. Please see my first point. Speaking the truth and making sound arguments goes a lot further than making things up or exaggerating.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=SmootSmack;314834]So Crazyhorse, you're what like 65 years old or something right? You lived through our involvement in Korea, the spread of communism, Vietnam, the Soviet-Afghanistan war, Kosovo, etc. How are things different now-with our involvement in other country's affairs-than they were 10, 20, 50 years ago?[/quote]

I think the current war is very much like Nam-- a bogus threat, hidden agendas, scurilous behaviour by the CIA, suppressed documents, fear mongering, charges of anti-Americanism, wide-spread lying by the U.S. Government, nationwide calls for impeachment, victimization of and unfair treatment of U.S. soldiers by our government, violations of the Geneva Conventions, and massive numbers of citizens trying to justify war crimes because of their own irrational fears (an indication of cowardice.)

I was a little young to know much about Korea but chiefly remember the worship of McArthur, which I now recognize to have been almost sad in relation to a people's need of a charasmatic leader. Otherwise, the war seems to me now to have been forced upon us, to have been necessary, moral, relatively free of political deception and military misbehavior. I consider the U.S. to have acquitted itself very well in relation to the Korea War.
I was an infant during most of World War II, and don't see how we could have done much better. Our sacrifice was great and for a great cause. War is vile, of course, and produces vile behavior and general insanity, but I still think we did well, considering. In relation to the Soviet-Afghan war, I think our policy was sound , our behavior commendable and the after-effects (the end of the cold war) were extremely desirable. I applaud Clinton for Kosovo and the first President Bush for Desert Storm and restraint. If I had been Clinton, we would have interceded in Rwanda and I'm ashamed we didn't as I am ashamed now that we haven't interceded in Darfur.
That's essentially my take:
Bad to atrocious: Nam, the current war in Iraq, Rwanda, Darfur
Good to Great: Soviet-Afghan, Desert Storm, Korea, Kosovo, World War II.

Thanks for asking.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=SmootSmack;314837]War ain't pretty. He's not the first Commander-in-Chief to order bombing attacks, many of which leave behind innocent victims.

By the way, I "love" how you keep saying Bush is torturing, as if he personally is the one going down there.[/quote]

Our torture policy is Bush's torture policy. Cluster bombs are internationally banned because of their special danger to children. It is a war crime to use them. Bush has used cluster bombs in Iraq knowing this and also knowing that Iraq is no threat to us. Truman wiped out people with nuclear bombs, but Japan was a danger to us and it can be argued that the bombs saved lives by ending the war quickly. Also, at the time Truman hit Japan we had not yet created the Geneva Conventions and signed them. Bush's continued bombing of civilian populations after the capture of Saddam was not only heartless and illegal but helped turn the Iraqis and the world against us.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Crazyhorse1;314857]Our torture policy is Bush's torture policy. Cluster bombs are internationally banned because of their special danger to children. It is a war crime to use them. Bush has used cluster bombs in Iraq knowing this and also knowing that Iraq is no threat to us. Truman wiped out people with nuclear bombs, but Japan was a danger to us and it can be argued that the bombs saved lives by ending the war quickly. Also, at the time Truman hit Japan we had not yet created the Geneva Conventions and signed them. Bush's continued bombing of civilian populations after the capture of Saddam was not only heartless and illegal but helped turn the Iraqis and the world against us.[/quote]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions]Geneva Conventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;314847]"Prisoner of war" is a term of art. POW status is not afforded to unlawful enemy combatants. Once a person is deemed an unlawful enemy combatant, they are denied POW privileges (e.g., the right to a trial by a neutral country). Under U.S. law (which, by the way, governs U.S. court proceedings), the President is delegated the broad authority to determine whether someone captured in Afghanistan or Iraq is an unlawful enemy combatant. Whether you disagree with U.S. law or not, it is what it is and the detention and trial of unlawful enemy combatants captured in Iraq or Afghanistan is not illegal. Air America radio might say otherwise, but they're simply wrong.[/quote]

Prisoner of war is not a term of art, but it is a loose term. POW is not so much a status as a classification and matters in a practical sense very little to the Geneva Conventions accept as a general term. Bush's PR has many believing otherwise but the Conventions protect any prisoner of any opposing force of any kind, including all alledged terrorists and insurgents or any people no matter how they are dressed (with the exception of spies, who represent themselves as non-combatants, and can be tried and punished). No government can torture or mistreat any combatants, lawful or so-called unlawful, and that includes using kangaroo courts to sentence prisoners for crimes. To classify a person as a terrorist requires a fair trial, which has stopped Bush thus far from trying Gitmo prisoners (since there is no evidence). The Conventions were meant to stop all torture and mistreatment of prisoners of international war. They do not allow the mistreatment of torture of anyone at all, including terrorists and suspected terrorists.
In relation to international law and agreements, it doesn't matter what laws are created by our government. The U.S. signed the Geneva Conventions and the Geneva Conventions make world leaders,including our leaders, who are sworn by oath of office to uphold international agreements, guilty of war crimes if they allow or institute practices that violate the Conventions. Further, the U.S. has signed other international agreements outlawing torture and mistreatment of prisoners.
Further yet, international agreements, including the Geneva Conventions, do not give the U.S. the right to classify prisoners as it sees fit at any given time. Each agreement does its own classifying. It would be absolutely pointless and absurd for any international agreement to let the various counties that sign the agreements change the definition of torture when they wanted to and at any time classify prisoners as they wished. A minute's thought would tell you that any such absurdity would defeat the whole purpose of the agreements.
Bush and his minions live in an Alice in Wonderland world in which any rediculous argument can be thought of as true by masses of people if it is only repeated enough times on Fox news. Bushies are constantly trying to remake reality.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

Here's a good debate related to this topic:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI]YouTube - Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley Debate : Part 1 of 2[/url]

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Crazyhorse1;314845]You think Iraq is going to attack us over here. How? Do they have a Navy? Maybe Saddam put all the WMD's on ships and the ships are currently hanging out at the South Pole just waiting to get us when we stop fighting Iraqis "over there." Seems to me they should attack us here when our troops are in Iraq.[/quote]

Actually his WMD's were only capable of going as far as the Mediterranian when launched from H4 in western Iraq. I know that this supports your argument. He never had the capability of launching a missile to hit a country further than Israel without it hitting the Water. Not all of the troops are in Iraq. Only about 1/4 if that. You have to remember that we have Guard and Reserve in 4 branches as well. Not to mention the fact that if they were to invade, they would never make it through the Ghetto's or the South alive. There are to many Americans that bear arms.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

Did I mention that Bush took an oath of office to uphold international agreements signed by the United States. Violation of that oath is an impeachable offense.

As to whether or not Bush can be sentenced by a foreign court for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, the answer is yes. Even is the United States had not signed the Geneva Conventions, he could still be found guilty of war crimes and sentenced.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=Crazyhorse1;314857]Our torture policy is Bush's torture policy. Cluster bombs are internationally banned because of their special danger to children. It is a war crime to use them. Bush has used cluster bombs in Iraq knowing this and also knowing that Iraq is no threat to us. Truman wiped out people with nuclear bombs, but Japan was a danger to us and it can be argued that the bombs saved lives by ending the war quickly. Also, at the time Truman hit Japan we had not yet created the Geneva Conventions and signed them. Bush's continued bombing of civilian populations after the capture of Saddam was not only heartless and illegal but helped turn the Iraqis and the world against us.[/QUOTE]

So I guess Clinton is a war criminal since he ordered the armed forces to attack Kosovo with cluster bombs and DU-shells?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

Crazyhorse,
Acccording to the U.S. Supreme Court (which, by the way, consists of people a lot smarter than either of us and who just might know a lot about the law), military tribunals that try unlawful enemy combatants are perfectly legal and not barred by ANY treaty signed by the U.S. Those military tribunals, which you call kangaroo courts, are "competent tribunals" under the GCs who CAN legally determine whether someone is an enemy combatant and can be denied POW status. Moreover, FDR used such military tribunals to try and execute Nazis who ended up on our shores to conduct sabotage operations. So, the use of tribunals is nothing new. Finally, when researching this stuff, please refer to U.S. case-law (including that which interprets international law).

PS - I'm still wondering where you found out that Rumsfeld [I]personally [/I]tortured a detainee.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Crazyhorse1;314833]I don't usually see posts in which everything is absolutely misunderstood or flat out wrong because of disinformation, but here's a case in point.[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B]firstdown[/B] [URL="http://www.redskinswarpath.com/redskins-warpath-parking-lot/18404-lets-impeach-the-president-post313953.html#post313953"][IMG]http://www.redskinswarpath.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/IMG][/URL]
[I]Bush never said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and even the 9/11 report said that there were links between Iraq and Bin Laden. There were some that said Iraq had no nuclear weapons but UN, Other major countries, most all in congress and senate, Bill Clinton, and many, many more said he did have them. Most of the debate at the time was not rather he had WMD's but was it worth going to war for. Many a politicians want you to think that they were tricked into the war but its just them trying to gt out of what they did.[/I]

So could you please tell me what in this post is flate out wrong.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

It always astounds me how strong are the two sides of this debate are in their convictions.

1- I would hate to see where this country would be and where our taxes would be if Kerry won the election. No matter how you look at it, we as a country still chose the lesser of two evils.

2- I would still LOVE for some Democrat to step up and tell me their full blown plans to correct things. Anyone can say "I can fix it", but the proof is in the pudding...can you actually fix it? For as much as we would like to complain about Bush and his policies etc, I don't think a single democrat could have done it better. I would actually have wagered we would have had a massive terrorist attack had a Republican / Bush not been in office.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote]I don't think a single democrat could have done it better. [/quote]
Not sending us to Iraq in the first place would have been a good start.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=Daseal;315197]Not sending us to Iraq in the first place would have been a good start.[/QUOTE]

See that's what he is talking about. All these Dems basically jusy say that. They have no answers other than "not what we are currently doing." That is why so many people look at the Dems as the party of no ideas. Of course just as many people look at the Reps as the party of bad ideas. Which is worse? I don't know. But years of doing nothing about Muslim extremists didn't do the job. It is time the Dems started saying what we should be doing to combat terrorism in general.

When people like John Edwards deny that there is even a war against terrorism it just shows have naive they are.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;315194]No matter how you look at it, we as a country still [B]chose the lesser of two evils[/B].[/QUOTE]

Every time I hear that I snicker inside and then realize what constitutes evil is a matter of prospective.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Daseal;315197]Not sending us to Iraq in the first place would have been a good start.[/quote]


dems. & rep. both voted in support of bush to go to war in iraq.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=wolfeskins;315205]dems. & rep. both voted in support of bush to go to war in iraq.[/quote]


and that settles that

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=FRPLG;315199]See that's what he is talking about. All these Dems basically jusy say that. They have no answers other than "not what we are currently doing." That is why so many people look at the Dems as the party of no ideas. Of course just as many people look at the Reps as the party of bad ideas. Which is worse? I don't know. But years of doing nothing about Muslim extremists didn't do the job. It is time the Dems started saying what we should be doing to combat terrorism in general.

When people like John Edwards deny that [B]there is even a war against[/B] [B]terrorism[/B] it just shows have naive they are.[/quote]
count me as one of those naive people. how the hell can you fight a war, when you really have no idea WHO the enemy is? time for us to pack our bags, and see how bad Iraq really wants a democracy. let them work for it, not have us there babysitting. and i always get a kick out of people that say democrats have no plan. can one person please tell what Geo. Bush's plan consists of? removing Hussein, and then what?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

Dmek,

I agree that Bush lacked a realistic post-Saddam Iraq plan, but I definately agree that the Dems have no plan either. And, I don't think that you can justify the Dems' lack of a plan by referencing Bush's lack of a plan. I've got to admit, as much as I disdain Bush's politics, I disdain the Dems as much. I think FRPLG is right in that the Dems keep criticizing Bush (which is easy and scores a lot of points with the public), but none of them, when pressed, can articulate what they would do differently. Sometimes they speak in platitudes to avoid being held to those statements, but none of them offer anything of substance. IMHO, if you can't offer an alternative, you should probably be quiet. I strongly disagree with those who are calling for an immediate withdrawal, but I can at least respect them for presenting Plan B.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;315246]Dmek,

I agree that Bush lacked a realistic post-Saddam Iraq plan, but I definately agree that the Dems have no plan either. And, I don't think that you can justify the Dems' lack of a plan by referencing Bush's lack of a plan. I've got to admit, as much as I disdain Bush's politics, I disdain the Dems as much. I think FRPLG is right in that the Dems keep criticizing Bush (which is easy and scores a lot of points with the public), but none of them, when pressed, can articulate what they would do differently. Sometimes they speak in platitudes to avoid being held to those statements, but none of them offer anything of substance. IMHO, if you can't offer an alternative, you should probably be quiet. I strongly disagree with those who are calling for an immediate withdrawal, but I can at least respect them for presenting Plan B.[/quote]

Well, it's not like the Dems are the only ones critizing Bush. His own party has had harsh critism of both invading and exiting Iraq.The fact of the matter is each day that goes on makes an exit strategy much more complicated. There are bad options and worse options at this point.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;315226]count me as one of those naive people. how the hell can you fight a war, when you really have no idea WHO the enemy is? time for us to pack our bags, and see how bad Iraq really wants a democracy. let them work for it, not have us there babysitting. and i always get a kick out of people that say democrats have no plan. can one person please tell what Geo. Bush's plan consists of? removing Hussein, and then what?[/QUOTE]

Well, before this war started, Bush warned us it would take a LONG time to complete. He was right. We will leave when we are at an acceptable level of terrorism. We can not irradicate terrorism 100%, it's impossible, but when there are still many attacks, clearly the job is not yet done and therefore we should not pull out. Otherwise the lives we lost would be in vain, and a disgrace to each family. No point in starting something you can't finish, but we (especially Dems) are a group of quitters. It's the American way.

Why do we as Americans think we know everything? I have no freakin clue what is REALLY going on with this war, and neither do you because the powers that be have no intentions of telling us what is truely going on. Why would they? 1 person is intelligent, but put 300 million people together, and we are collectively dumb sheep. Dumb sheep panic. We give great advice sitting in our nice AC houses and comfy sofas and only knowing half of the story at best...it another story in what is ACTUALLY going on.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;315264]Well, before this war started, Bush warned us it would take a LONG time to complete. He was right. We will leave when we are at an acceptable level of terrorism. We can not irradicate terrorism 100%, it's impossible, but when there are still many attacks, clearly the job is not yet done and therefore we should not pull out. Otherwise the lives we lost would be in vain, and a disgrace to each family. No point in starting something you can't finish, but we (especially Dems) are a group of quitters. It's the American way.

Why do we as Americans think we know everything? I have no freakin clue what is REALLY going on with this war, and neither do you because the powers that be have no intentions of telling us what is truely going on. Why would they? 1 person is intelligent, but put 300 million people together, and we are collectively dumb sheep. Dumb sheep panic. We give great advice sitting in our nice AC houses and comfy sofas and only knowing half of the story at best...it another story in what is ACTUALLY going on.[/QUOTE]


Let me get this, the public is too stupid to get the big picture so it might be best for the government to pretend it doesn't exist? Hmm, perhaps the government should educate the public? Naaah, an educated public is dangerous because it won't fall for bullshit easily. Keep the people fat, dumb, and lazy I say.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=saden1;315296]Let me get this, the public is too stupid to get the big picture so it might be best for the government to pretend it doesn't exist? Hmm, perhaps the government should educate the public? Naaah, an educated public is dangerous because it won't fall for bullshit easily. Keep the people fat, dumb, and lazy I say.[/QUOTE]

Wow, you have a lot of confidence in the general public. Again, 1 person is smart, 300 million are collectively stupid.

ps- the government has ALWAYS kept information from the general public...you expect them to start all of sudden telling you stuff now? We are on a need to know basis at best. That's not going to change.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;315199]See that's what he is talking about. All these Dems basically jusy say that. They have no answers other than "not what we are currently doing." That is why so many people look at the Dems as the party of no ideas. Of course just as many people look at the Reps as the party of bad ideas. Which is worse? I don't know. But years of doing nothing about Muslim extremists didn't do the job. It is time the Dems started saying what we should be doing to combat terrorism in general.

When people like John Edwards deny that there is even a war against terrorism it just shows have naive they are.[/QUOTE]

They really are not naive, they know that thier ideas are not in the best interest of the country but they figure the end justifies the means once they get in, you see if they attack someone it's for the good of the people, but if another party does the same thing it's us making the world angry at us. Thier platform as a whole is based on opposition of the repub's, that is why they are the party of no ideas, they just take an opposite stance to the opposing party and make that thier platform, and usually have no solution or regard for the consquences of that opposition, or a better direction once they get thier wish.

Case and point, they want to make the opposition to the war on terror thier battle cry, in so doing hoping to gain support from people tired of the war, yet what will they do if they do take over to secure the safety of this nation? Just sit back and do nothing? Just say we wont bother you so you shouldn't bother us? They will sit around in ignorance until the next attack, 8 years of dems [Clinton] and we were attacked how many times? They attacked the WTC in I believe 94' and failed to drop it, the USS cole and almost sunk it, and 2 embassies in Kenya, and Tanzania [not to mention a billion dollars a year to N. Korea while 10's of thousands of people starved to death so N. Korea could develope a nucluer program] and what was done? Impossed santions? That did nothing but allow Bin Laden breathing room to cultivate the 9-11 attack which I might add should be credited to Clintons legacy, he laid the ground work with his failure to go after Bin Laden and his ilk to begin with, now we should stop chaseing this vermin because someone want's to be president? I may be wrong about this but I don't believe we have been attacked on our soil since 9-11. Keeping the enemy on the run is the best defense we have right now. Something the Dems want no part of! And for all those that think pulling out of Iraq and leaving Al Qaeda alone will settle the hostility and bring peace? Good luck and God bless, because we are a target and alway's will be!

If someone wants to make the case that we shouldn't be setting up a new gov't in Iraq? OK, but to say that we are not safer now for having gone in thier and having wiped out thier gov't structure is foolish.

I say leave them to themselves, set a major military base in Iraq to keep a strong hold in that region to keep an eye on the entire middle east which would allow us to strike at a moments notice if they try any funny buisness over here, or anywhere else for that matter, and confiscate the oil fields it's about time the people responsible for this so called Jihad against us start fitting the bill!

Boy did I ever turn this subject around, and I wasen't remotly planning on it.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

That's politics.

This type of reasoning seems to assume the Democrats all had a big meeting somewhere and decided they would espouse opposing views despite their negavtive effects. I am sorry but I don't believe that. I think there are politicians in Washington DC, both Dem and Rep, who are there just for power and will do anything to keep it. But I don't any entire party of people is made up of these people. Dems, I feel, honestly believe their views are right. Just like Republicans. My guess as to why the Dems "seem" to have no ideas is that the Reps ideas are often so black and white and built on logic(faulty or not) and the Dems views are built largely on emotions. Sometimes it hard to argue on emotion. Even if it is sometimes right. That isn't probably stated very well but I don't feel like spending 20 minutes writing a more complete response. Essentially I think you are wrong. Dems aren't the evil opposite decrying the conservative ways for no benefit other than their own. They simply disgaree and seem to have no solid ideas. At least on terrorism.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

And, might I add, it is this kind of attitude that creates an "us versus them" mentality that stiffles discussion and leads us no where.

At the end of the day people need to realize that, guess what, on some issues Dems are more right than Reps and vice versa. That is why compromise is so important. That is why discussion is so important. Without true debate and hasing out of issues all we get is one sided simple solutions to complex problems. Maybe if polticiams got back on the same page that would end. The same page is that of doing what is right for EVERYONE. Not just the poor people, and not just the rich.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

Agreed. The democratic strategy currently is to look at George Bush's poor approval rating and claim that the plan is to do the opposite of what he's doing.

There are no fresh ideas. NONE.

- How do you propose we get out of Iraq without seeing the Iraqi government, military, and police force fold to the well-funded (by Iran and Syria) insurgency?

- How do you propose we maintain the historically very low levels of unemployment and inflation AND balance the budget at the same time?

- How do you propose we free ourselves from the dependency on foreign oil? I hear you say "we have to reduce our dependency on foreign oil", but I don't hear any "HOW".

- How do you propose we stop the ascending costs of healthcare and college education?

If you're going to just crap on George Bush and expect to make it into office, well, it just might work because so few like George Bush. But you won't get my vote, because crapping on Bush doesn't make you a leader, it just makes you a critic.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

I mean, who has solid ideas on terrorism? Certainly not the Republicans. Washington as a whole has been in a reactionary mode post 9/11; On both sides of the aisle, I might add.

This notion that the Dems don't have any solid ideas, in my opinion, just isn't true. Especially on terrorism. Yes, the Dems have had some issues, but I don't think they lack "ideas". I think they have, at least up until now, lacked solid leadership that can brand the party together and move them in one direction. This is why this election is so important. The nominee, and hopefully the new President, whether that be Hillary or Obama, has to be a visionary and set the course for the party for the next 8 years, if not more.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=12thMan;315434]I mean, who has solid ideas on terrorism? Certainly not the Republicans. Washington as a whole has been in a reactionary mode post 9/11; On both sides of the aisle, I might add.

This notion that the Dems don't have any solid ideas, in my opinion, just isn't true. Especially on terrorism. Yes, the Dems have had some issues, but I don't think they lack "ideas". I think they have, at least up until now, lacked solid leadership that can brand the party together and move them in one direction. This is why this election is so important. The nominee, and hopefully the new President, whether that be Hillary or Obama, has to be a visionary and set the course for the party for the next 8 years, if not more.[/quote]
So your saying the terrorist plotts that we have broken up over the past couple of years and just this past weekend have been reationary. I say everything that the president has tried to do to fight terrorism the dems. have attacked him for one reason or another. Could you please give us a few of the dems. ideas to fight terrorism sense you say they have these ideas.