Democratic politicians don’t want to impeach Bush for lying and dragging the country into an illegal war. They are looking forward to doing the same thing themselves when they get control.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1894026/posts

Just posted at Free Republic.

To: GladesGuru

He’s Gone!

“Account Suspended!”

56 posted on 09/10/2007 9:22:11 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (No to nitwit jesters with a predisposition of self importance and unqualified political opinions!)

LOL That didn’t take too long. Of course this is no way representative of what passes for dialogue with “conservatives.”

:)

I agree that Bush should be impeached and he and several members of his administration should be prosecuted for war crimes.

However, Mr Foy, I’m afraid you take an unhealthy interest in “investigation” and especially in “conspiracy.” Such obsessions are inevitably the seedbeds of political terror.

“Let’s get to the bottom of this conspiracy, one way or the other.” No, let’s not; because in this instance, the conspiracy HAS NO BOTTOM (no bottom, because of the impersonal and bureaucratised nature of America’s government) and obsession with getting to its “bottom” will in the end become nothing but fodder for political hack opportunists of the Joe McCarthy subspecies.

Dear John Ball,

By implication, what you are saying is that all this happened by accident and no one is responsible for making it happen. It’s the system which is to blame. I don’t think so. Rien n’arrive par hasard. The word “conspiracy” is used everyday in the justice system. It is when two or more individuals get together to do something wrong. When wrongdoing is discovered, you need to investigate. There is nothing complicated, unhealthy or opportunistic about it. In this instance, we know who the front-men are. The question is, what was going on behind the scenes to motivate the front-men? In short, what really happened, and why did it happen? It is an issue of history and reality.

Patrick Foy

Good post, Mr. Foy. I suggest that the lack of comments on your piece merely reflects that a large majority of readers agree with you on this issue, but are resigned to non-action on the part of the congress.

The reasons for Congress’s inaction are manifold, but in the end what it really evinces is the utter corruption that lies at the heart of our federal government. We are ruled by a monstrosity whose only end is power, power and more power. There is only one path to take to check a government when it has reached the depths of depravity ours has. I’ll leave that path unnamed, but will say that it’s not by the voting booth, nor by voicing your concerns to your local congressman.

If you have a suggestion as to how we can force the members of congress to fulfill their oath of office, I’m all ears. Otherwise, I’ll continue to wait for that fine day when the “third way” is really an option.

The Dems will not impeach for the same reason they have not ended the war.  They believe they can win the next election if they run against Bush and his war.  This is cynical and depraved, but what else is new?

Mr Foy, thanks for your courteous response.
To clarify, I agree with you on investigating and prosecuting the people responsible for this illegal war.  What I disagree with is the aspiration to get to the “bottom” of it all, and even more alarmingly your reference to “motivations”, because in the English legal tradtion which America has inherited, “motivations” are irrelevant in all criminal prosecutions.

Furthermore, an obsession with “motivations” was typical of Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China - the belief that we should (and the even more irrational belief that we are ABLE to) “discover” the “hidden motivations” of criminals or of enemies of the state.

Intentions (which are not the same thing as motivations) must be deduced from acts, but personal motives are known only by God, and are irrelevant in any prosecution in our legal system.

And you wrote:  “In this instance, we know who the front-men are”

...yes we do, and under American law, that’s all we need to know.  If there were any people “behind” them, then, willy nilly, those people are not responsible under the law.  They might be evil bastards, but under the law they’re not responsible for this war.

“The question is, what was going on behind the scenes to motivate the front-men?”

No, under the law that is NOT the question!  And I reiterate, an obsession with “motivations”, “behind the scenes” is more typical of Stalin or of Robespierre than of George Washington’s republic.

That said, Mr Foy, I do admire you for your good work in continuing to keep this scandal in the public eye and to call for impeachment and prosecution.  But my reservation concerns the fact that investigations of political “conspiracy” lend themselves all too easily to the opportunistic ambitions of witch-hunters of the McCarthy/Stalin/Robespierre types.

Mr.Foy,
I am just getting to this article and am in
agreement. Unfortunately our Congress has
already acted in complete obeisance to the
Executive and is itself guilty of complicity.
I think this will rule out any legal proceedings
conducted in the Congress which of course includes
an impeachment process.
The conspirators in this case includes all 3
branches of our failed government. The Executive
exceeded its granted powers, the Congress abdicated
its granted powers and the Judiciary failed to throw
the brakes. The worst part is that the conspiracy
continues and is now public policy.
The American People spoke loud and clear in the
last election cycle but the entirety of the Federal
govt. has turned a deaf ear to our demands and the
crimes continue unabated. Our only hope will be to
elect a President that will FIGHT for us. The only
candidate I have seen yet with any will to do this
is Dr.Ron Paul. Let’s give him all the support we
possibly can.

Also, I appreciated your response to JBALL’s
typically sophomoric post on your article.
Motive DOES matter in establishing guilt and this
is and always has been admissable in our courts.
Like you, I also want to get the absoute BOTTOM
of this debacle. I don’t care how deep the hole
goes. Let’s start digging.

Mr “good grief” wrote:

“Motive DOES matter in establishing guilt and this
is and always has been admissable in our courts.”

100 percent incorrect.  (By the way, you misspelled “admissible") Call me “sophomoric” if you want to for other reasons, but I’m an American lawyer and have demonstrated at least some basic expertise in law.  “Motive” is never, NEVER an element of any criminal offense.
Intention, yes.  Purpose, yes.  But “motive”, no.

“Motives” can be considered by investigators, but evidence of “motive” is inadmissible in any criminal trial, because it’s immaterial to the elements of any crime.

Many legal deeds are done for bad motives, and some crimes are committed for morally good motives.  The law doesn’t care.  Intention and motive are not the same thing.  All the law cares about is what you did, and/or what you INTENDED to do, but the law does not consider “motive” to be an element of any crime.

You gotta turn off the TV - that’s where you got the idea that “motive” means something in criminal trials.  I repeat,
investigators can consider “motives”, but prosecutors and triers-of-fact cannot.

Furthermore, the above commenter wrote,

“The conspirators in this case includes all 3
branches of our failed government.”

Well if that’s the case, then almost 100 percent of all citizens of the USA are co-conspirators, insofar as they knowingly and willfully have continued to cooperate with a government which - according to you - is just one vast conspiracy.

Ah, but I suppose you could argue that a precious few Americans (of whom I am one)
publicly dissented from the war before it began, and they should not be identified as co-conspirators.  Fair enough in the abstract, but practically speaking, the vast majority of Americans can be called “co-conspirators” insofar as most of them
supported the war when they knew or should have known that it was illegal.

Ah, but then, MOST Americans who publicly opposed the war before it began, continued in one way or another to cooperate with the three branches of government whom you accuse of being conspirators.  That means, that even many ANTI-war Americans could arguably be called co-conspirators.  As all three branches of the government have continued to aid and abet this ongoing war, then any and all Americans who support this ongoing conspiracy could be called co-conspirators.  Oh yes, this really is how it works, according to the American legal definition of “conspiracy.”

Or at least, such an argument could be made - very logically - according to your premise that all three branches of the government are conspirators.

That would mean that the vast majority of Americans would be fair game for an all too vaguely defined (dare I say, “sophomoric?") witch-hunt to get to the “bottom” of this debacle.  The “bottom” of this debacle is the majority of the people of the United States.

While these new revelations are surely interesting, they pretty much fit the narrative we’ve all come to know: the Bush Administration wanted war with Iraq; WMD was just the excuse. A careful reading of the Robb Silberman Report implicitly says much the same thing. The conclusion that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapon was based on two bits of intelligence: uranium forgeries and aluminum tubes. The conclusion that Iraq had an active bio weapons program came from the defector Curveball. Finally, the conclusion that Iraq had active facilities producing chemical weapons was based on suspicious truck activity, and a few other incidental details.

Why is this important? Because all this “intelligence” had already been debunked before the war was underway. The IAEA released its report on March 7th, 2003 stating that the aluminum tubes were not for uranium enrichment and that the uranium documents were forgeries. Curveball’s testimony was known to be a fantasy. And finally, Hans Blix inspected all the sites mentioned by Colin Powell that were alleged involved in producing chemical weapons, and he turned up nothing.

So all the intelligence—every last bit of it—had already been debunked before we went to war. Of course Congress’s hands were tied because they had already (foolishly) given Bush authority to wage war in Iraq. But Bush took the United States to war just as the case for war had been refuted. This is criminal. This is just like Mr Nifong, except Bush didn’t railroad a few frat boys, but the entire country. Impeachment is too easy. Bush needs to face criminal charges.

Thanks for pointing out the importance of Blumenthal’s article. Years ago, Russ Baker wrote “War on My Mind,” documenting this quote from GWB’s one time ghost-writer: “He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

@Mr.Ball,
Ok, I stand corrected. Motive, you say is not
proof of guilt (and I get your point) but is still
cause for justified suspicion and grounds for
investigation.
To say that doing so would only provide a seedbed
of political
terror is to say that holding bureaucrats accountable
through due process is counter productive.
I say let the terrorism begin.
Where is a Joe McCarthy when you need one?

Mr “ok I concede”,

Spoken like a gentleman.  And I agree with holding all those responsible accountable through due process.  But we don’t need Joe McCarthy, because his witch-hunts had nothing to do with due process.

nyuzux6omb9ztum free crazy frog mp3 download free crazy frog mp3 download

free hotties sex videos.jushige.cn/library/information.html’>touch screen information</a> information on touch screen [link=http://terresabanuelos.jushige.cn/library/information.html]information on touch screen[/link]