Here is a quote from Sunday's associated Press regarding Bush's reckless, arrogant, and out-of-touch attitude.
GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.
"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.
See any similarities between Bush's approval ratings as compared to Iran's president? See any similarity in attitude between the two? Both are losing support in poles in their countries, and both continue to hold arrogant, indifferent, and unpopular attitudes in the face of blatant public discontent. It is interesting that the two see each other as complete opposites when they are similar in so many ways. The article went on to say:
On Sunday, Hagel said he was bothered by Bush's apparent disregard of congressional sentiment on Iraq, such as his decision to send additional troops. He said lawmakers now stood ready to stand up to the president when necessary.
In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who doesn't believe he's accountable to anyone. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes," Hagel told the magazine.
"We have clearly a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort," Hagel said. "It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as to our involvement."
"This is not a monarchy," he added, referring to the possibility that some lawmakers may seek impeachment. "There are ways to deal with it. And I would hope the president understands that."
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 24
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=38e_1174691271&p=1
They could always try supporting the effort so that we win?
A republican with some sense , there is still hope after all........................
Impeachment start with gonzo and work up.
What really bothers me is that the neocons garner much of their support from the religous right! What a hypcrisy of Biblical porportions! All of the lying, back door deals with tyrants..etc..down through the years, and for power and oil...etc..not for humanitarians reasons at all. Is it any wonder that much of the world hates the US? They all see exactly what I am stating. It's time for a kinder gentler America, and huge policing of our own country to root out all illegal inhabitants, and close our borders.
Another amazing thing is that our leaders don't seem to think sending most of our manufacturing jobs overseas to communist, or slave labor supporting nations is any problem for our precious National Security! And letting illegal immigrants in by the millions is not a threat either!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070325/wl_afp/uruguayusjusticerightscondor;_ylt=Au_3tTsqoMMiZ.Fzd0JY2s_MWM0F
What is interesting to note though, Dave, is that Carter tried a more liberal, moral approach to politics and he wasn't re-elected. This is partly because he didn't have enough time to show America that his policies, in the long-run, would create peace and cooperation in the world, but mostly he is a casualty neo-con spin. They turned just behavior into bad policy by promoting their greedy, world dominate agenda. They portrayed Carter as weak and unable to defend America, which is an unfounded accusation. What the neo-cons really meant was that he was weak on promoting American world domination through force and unjust economic policies that would ensure America's cooperate dominance. The neo-cons are masters at spin, and the American public more often than not buys into it.
Lets hope America has finally woken up to the real neo-con agenda - GREED.
"Justicejoe, Bush had 5 years of support from congress and it didn't work. Time for a new strategy.
Well there are two great statements. Can you elaborate on why we will "never" win? Then there is the oil clarion. It's so easy to throw that out there and be done. Maybe oil does play a part of all this, with good reason. The world turns on the availability of oil, someone should take steps to ensure it is available to the world on the free market. Any thought to what would happen if the wells were suddenly turned off?
I didn't realize that running away from the mess we made was a strategy? We created this mess, it is our duty and obligation to ensure it comes out in the best possible results. Our leaving will not end this war; it will not end the "civil war" either. It will merely mean less American deaths today, most likely more American deaths tomorrow.
If you know anything about the Arab world then you will understand that they are not like us, and therefore our values and ideas of justice cannot simply be imposed upon them. They hate democracy because it is Western, not because they believe it is bad. These people have blood feuds that go back thousands of years. If they were not fighting us they would be fighting each other. It is pointless for us to stay and fight a civil war that we can only aggravate by being there. I do believe that we should continue to support the Iraqi government through funding and other means of support, but our troops on the ground are only making things worse. The Russian's fought a 10 year war with them, and they didn't win. They decided that the costs were to high and the fight unjustifiable, considering the nature of the Arab people.
Look what happened in Vietnam. Like in Iraq, we also had to win the hearts and minds in Vietnam of a people that we didn't know, nor care to know. But how can you win the hearts and minds of a people that have different hearts and minds than you do? Their reasoning, logic, and morals are different than ours. So if you've grown up knowing that yellow is really green, no one will be able to convince you otherwise, they will simply sound ridiculous. Whether we successfully bring democracy to Iraq or not, the Iraqis will always despise us as long as we are on their soil, democracy has nothing to do with it.
There is an excellent article in this month's "Foreign Affairs" magazine about this called "U.S. can't win Iraq's Civil War." If scholars are saying it can't be won, as well as historians and policy makers, why should we believe Bush that it can? And what is the point of staying anyway? Leaving Iraq does not mean we are cowards, it simply means we are rational human beings, and that we do seek peace, not world dominance. Pride has no place in a war; it only leads to more death and destruction.
And what would happen if the oil supply were suddenly turned off? Well, we would turn to other forms of energy, which we should have done a long time ago, but Bush and other elites in America are big oil, and they have too much interest in keeping the status quo the way it is. As does the arms industry and nation building companies.
There is going to be a civil war in Iraq whether we are there or not, it has been brewing for decades. In Lawrence of Arabia's book "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" he talks about how he constantly had to keep different Arab tribes separated and bribe them with money in order not to kill each other and band together to fight for their freedom. And once they took Damascus and gain their freedom from the Turks, within hours they were at each other's throats again. This is the reality of the situation, no matter how much you want to believe that we can and should be in the Middle East.
I agree, Bush started this thing and now he has a responsibility to end it, but the American people do not have a responsibility to fight and die for a country that doesn't want us there, and for a president who recklessly puts American citizens in harms way in order to line the pockets of his cronies.
And unless you don't have any other response than the typical "I drive a Chevy and believe everything our president tells us, and anyone who doesn't is an American hater" then don't bother responding. This is meant to be an intellectual debate, not a redneck bar pissing contest. You have provided no evidence to back up your claim. You simply speak loud without reason. Look to the facts for the truth, not your pride.
even his own party is deserting him over his complete incompetence.
666 days and it over for SURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Loyalty doesn't equal patriotism, justjoe, if the leader you are loyal to is unjust. You want to know what is patriotic justjoe, peace is patriotic, and so is listening to and adhering to public opinion (you know, the people you represent as a leader).
Neo-cons are like sheep to the slaughter. It's amazing how blindly one will follow the leader, and how much one will hold intellect and reason in contempt when arguing for peace and prosperity. No wonder our once great country is going down the toilet, Don S. I smell lamb chops.
While I do know something of the Arab world I profess to be no expert. I do not think they are incompatible with Democracy or hate it because it is "western" Granted they are tribal and that is the biggest problem along with great illiteracy of the larger world.
I feel the surge is working and to pull out before it is completed is the wrong thing to do. After the surge efforts are complete then perhaps will be the time to pull down the troop numbers but not before. General Patreaus will be the judge on that not some congressman or woman trying to coddle support for reelection.
"Look what happened in Vietnam." Indeed let's look. You saying Asians are so unlike us that they cannot grip the thought of Democracy? How do you explain South Korea, Japan or any of the other Asian nations that practice Democracy? Vietnam like Iraq was more politics than war, which is the only similarity that I see between the two. Whenever politics take precedence over actual execution of the war trouble is not far behind.
As for the oil being turned off, would the transition to new forms of energy happen overnight, seamlessly? No it would not. Great economic chaos would follow, world wide, followed shortly by global war. Think about it before you give the next "parrot" answer yourself.
America started and created this mess and it's America's responsibility to ensure it concludes with the best possible results for the benefit of all, world wide. You can try to separate yourself from it all by saying it's not my President or some other foolish statement but that is how I feel, disagree if you want.
As far as any other response I may have there is this? I don't drive a Chevy, I don't really like them. I drive a Ford, a Mazda and a Saab. I don't believe everything anybody tells me as I like to think for myself. If you feel this is to be an intellectual debate then you may want to think about loosing the cheap insults and rise above your desire to pepper your "debate" with cheap run of the mill insults and actually enter debate with others on the face of the argument.
Have a nice day.
Now since you think Arab's are not incompatible with democracy then tell me why, just don't disagree without a reason. This is how intelligent, rational people debate. And if you want to be taken seriously then you should do so also.
Also tell me why you think the surge is working. Give an example. And why would it be wrong to pull out now based on my reasoning for pulling out now? Addressed the issues proposed to you, don't just dodge them and create red herrings. Simply saying that it would not be right to leave before the job is complete is not a rebuttal to my reply that it would do more good than bad to withdraw and simply support Iraq from abroad in other ways other than having troops on the ground, which simply aggravates things and gives the enemy another excuse to continue to fight.
As far as the General being the judge about when to pull troops out, are you really that naive? Who does the General work for? Who does he have to answer to? And whom is he going to agree with if he wants to continue being the General in Iraq? You got it, Bush. So it is the Administration running the war, do not fool yourself into believing the Generals do. Bush simply assigns Generals that will do what he wants, as he does in all areas, and when they don't do what he wants he fires them like he did with the U.S. attorneys. It is this way in all wars justjoe.
And why shouldn't a congressman use the war and the fact that our sons and daughters are being killed to line the pockets of Bush cronies as a tool for inviting the ushering out of unjust congressmen and Bush officials? Bush lied to the American people, he manipulated us, and we are supposed to praise him for that and just look the other way? It's called checks and balances Justjoe, and it is the foundation of the democratic system. We went to war on false pretenses, this is a fact. That should just be overlooked and forgiven?
Now in regards to the Vietnam question which you took out of context. Did I say anything about the Asian race and democracy? No, I used Vietnam as an example of America not learning its lesson about just dropping into a country and assuming that they want us there and will welcome us with open arms. By the way, have you lived in Vietnam? I have for 2 years. I think I know a little bit about the people and their culture and attitude, so unless you have been there don't pretend that your analysis or assumptions about what the West can do there has substantial clout over mine. You are however, correct about the two wars being more politics than war, but War is political, so it is impossible for one to believe that they can be separated. For all those that believe wars of the past like WWII were not political then you need to do some reading.
As far as the oil question goes justjoe, do you have any proof to back up your "parrot" neo-con claim of the world ending if we began using alternative forms of energy? And you have once again taken my statement out of context (like all neo-con sheep do). We should have been investing in other forms of energy long ago, but Bush and the republican right have made sure to it that we will rely on oil and only oil for a long time, because most of them are big oil! Don't fool yourself into thinking when Bush says he endorses hydrogen-fueled cars that he is promoting alternative forms of energy. If you do your research on this as well you will find that hydrogen fuel is a pipe dream that is too expensive, too long in the making, and ultimately too dangerous. It's a nice ploy though.
And let me be clear about your statement that "America started this mess and it is our responsibility to clean it up." At least you agree that it is a mess. But America did not start it; Bush took America to war on false pretenses and lies, I, nor many other Americans had any hand in that. This is why Colin Powel resigned, because Bush used him to promote his selfish and unjust agenda. And as far as us cleaning up the mess, you are right, it is our duty now to do so, but we can do it best from the sidelines, not on the ground wasting lives and creating more hate and resentment in the Arab world by being there in the first place.
And you go right ahead and continue to think for yourself justjoe, but do yourself a favor, and the USA a favor and do your research - and use reason when you spout your agenda that involves the lives of others. And as far as your advice about insults, you need to heed it yourself. And if you can't take the heat then you better get out of the kitchen because I have yet to here a reasonable argument from you. You simply speak loud and carry a big stick, but then again, so does Bush.
Now I have given reasons and facts to back up my debate, but you on the other hand have simply relied on gut instinct, so until you have addressed all of my statements like I have yours, and backed them up with knowledge and reason, do not pretend to believe it is me and not you who is the one who is out of his league in this debate. And by the way, your words dictate who you are, not your own self-belief. If you don't want to be addressed as a neo-con then don't mindlessly spout unsubstantiated rhetoric and bully others like Don S. with cheap condescending responses. Your turn. Can you address all the issues on the table adequately? Hmmmm...
You have a nice day too justjoe.