Originally posted by Nash
Sorry Toad, I'm not ignoring you or your question...
My answer to my "point two" would be that I think you've missed the point of my post.
[/b]
Actually, I'm beginning to think you didn't HAVE a point when you posted. Remember this?
Originally posted by Nash
Oh geeze, Toad.
A mere six years ago any single ONE of those points would be worthy of eighteen hundred threads and several thousand pages of discussion here. You were here back then, right? Nowadays, you can put a dozen of them in one place on any given week and can hear a pin drop.
What happened to everyone?
So you DIDN'T want threads and pages of discussion? Which is it?
but the fact of their existence is not up for debate. In other words, they are irrefutable happenings in a period of seven days, devoid of any opinion and speculation by me or anyone else.
They happened. They just are.
[/b]
They happened. Somehow though, you seem to think everyone shares your interpretation of the meaning of those events. That, of course, is not necessarily so.
Powell for example. To me, Powell's quote is significant more for his self-indictment. You castigate me for eventually deciding to support the invasion based on what my old CO in the intel biz told me and with the caveat that WMD had to be found sooner or later to justify the war.
What do you think of Powell then? An American with high military and political stature who KNEW something wasn't right and didn't speak out. Au Contraire; he continued to make a case for the Administration while he KNEW part of it was incorrect.
You ought to be flaming him far more severely.
The Generals? You'll always find retired Generals that don't like whoever was their last SecDef. You'll note a bunch of Generals just came out in support of Rumsfeld in the past few days? So what's that mean? What do you make of that fact that just exists?
Rumsfeld suprised me; I didn't think his warplan was going to be worth dung. However, we rolled up the Iraqis in very short order with really light casualties. I was wrong.
His post war plans sucked. No doubt about it. That suprised me too. I figured they'd be poor but not this incredibly poor.
During his tenure, he did canx some weapons systems and force changes in policy that were bound to P.O. some generals. Couple that with his post-war failures and I'm not suprised that he has opposition.
How good was he? Without his post-war screwup, he'd be rated a decent SecDef. Unfortunately for him, one "awshirt" wipes out one thousand attaboys.
All this being just another example of the FACT that while some retired generals openly oppose him that FACT has different meanings and implication for different people. Your opinion is the only one that counts for you but that doesn't necessarily make it the only one that counts for others.
What happened?
[/b]
I'll tell ya what happened. In the last TWO Presidential elections we had piss-poor choices from both major parties. As a result we ended up with a piss-poor choice in the office of President.
Now, what to do, what to do.
We can take to the streets and force him from office. Yah, right. Ain't gonna happen in the USA. This isn't a banana republic.
As I mentioned in my letter that you saw, I think impeachment is the right action. He led us into a war that cannot be justified under Just War Theory.
Two problems with impeachment. One, you'd end up with Cheney in office unless he gets impeached as well. I doubt even you would swap Bush for Cheney.
The other is that the people with the power to start impeachment... are sitting on their hands. The United States House of Representatives has taken no formal actions toward the impeachment of Bush, nor are they scheduled to do so. Conyers and Boxer have been raising the issue for a couple of years almost and... zip, nada, nothing.
I have to assume that these people with far more political power, more "intelligence info" on the possible charges and far more money to stir up a storm are unable to bring it off. So where does that leave me? I have to believe impeachment just isn't going to happen unless some further "smoking gun" appears.
So, no banana republic, no impeachment. Looks like we're stuck with him for the duration to me.
All one can do is try to find a decent man to vote for in the '06 Senate and House races. And party isn't an issue on that... it's who will do what needs to be done?
We've got hard choices coming up on Iraq; the American people won't stand for the loss of blood and treasure forever without some hope of the Iraqis getting their act together. Then there's the budget/deficit, alternative energy and lots of other stuff.
This administration is an abomination. Plain and simple. It's an insulting affront to everything that is America; everything that it was founded upon. Its every ideal, its every good intention.
[/b]
Nah. It's just bad. It's not the antichrist. It's more the gang that couldn't shoot straight, except the things they screw up aren't funny.
now completely shattered by the arrogant idea of a unitary executive. It's outrageous. Offensive.
[/b]
Overblown hyperbole; the SC still rules this country. Remember "the mills of God grind slowly but they grind exceedingly fine"? There may well be Executive branch excesses; they will, however, be reined in eventually.
Patriots.... true patriots, must hold everyone who is accountable for this, accountable. And everyone in support, complicit. History will judge, and judge soberly. While ignorance may serve as the feeble excuse, it will certainly not mean exoneration.
[/b]
Like Powell?
As I said, there's going to have to be more evidence or Conyers and Boxer still have a non-starter. And the people aren't going to take to the streets in revolution... trust me on that one.
Look to history. And pay more than lip service to the idea called Democracy. It doesn't exist without you, and it fails when you fail.
Indeed, look to history. Rome for example; bread and circuses. Look at Rolex's summation upthread about maturing societies.
I am not confidant and I'm glad I'm kinda old, on the backside of the hill.
