Well there appears to be some indications that the Surge is working

[GarfieldJL]

Okay let's begin debunking things from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Rationales_for_impeachment

 

NSA Wiretapping: Contrary what the mainstream media and the Democrats have tried to lead people to believe, the wiretapping without a warrent did not occur with phone conversations where both parties were within the United States. The wiretapping occurred when it was a phone call from a country like say Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan into the US and vice-versa often when the party outside the United States was a known terrorist. Are you saying the NSA should have just hung up and stopped listening because the phone call was to someone in the United States? How many terrorist plots that were foiled, would have succeeded if the NSA had just hung up?

Also, this is something covered in the Constitution in the advent of a war, like the suspension of habeus corpus.

 

Also Congress knew about it beforehand:

It should be noted that President Bush did notify Congressional leaders of his decision to authorize warrantless wiretapping at the time of the decision.

 

2003 Invasion of Iraq:

Contrary to the Wikipedia article, Congress authorized the invasion into Iraq, the attempt to rewrite history is just plain sad. So there is another reason for impeachment debunked. Only way congress can unauthorize it is to cut off funding for the troops something that it wouldn't suprise me that the Democrats would attempt, cutting off support of the troops in harms way.

 

Justification for Invasion:

 

Okay despite what many people are now trying to claim, the information Bush had at the time did seem to indicate Saddam was developing Nukes. As far as WMDs are concerned none have been currently found. However, if there wasn't any WMDs there, why was Saddam so adamently opposed to the weapons inspectors or giving them a run-around. Fact is there was a lot of traffic along the Syrian-Iraqi border. Who is to say the WMDs weren't smuggled out while we were busy trying to get UN support.

 

UN Charter:

 

Okay you say about invading Iraq is illegal, how about the bribery, corruption, etc. extending to the highest levels of the United Nations. Indications that the Secretary General was in the pocket of Saddam.

 

Saddam was paying off France, Russia, and China to keep the UN from taking any serious action concerning Saddam.

 

Furthermore, the last resolution that was passed before we finally went into Iraq, did authorize the use of Military Force, just the UN wasn't going to back it up due to Saddam paying off key members of the security council. Top that off Saddam was routinely having people fire at US and British aircraft enforcing the No Fly Zone set up by the UN, which is an act of war anyways.

 

Unlawful Combatants:

 

Excuse me but we captured them in Afghanistan, in many cases we asked their countries of origin to take them back and their own home country refused to take them back. What is being proposed is just letting them go, where they'll end up attacking us again. Back in World War 2, unlawful combatants would probably have been shot or imprisoned.

 

Accusations of Torture:

Let me just first say, I'm against torture that being said the President is a catch 22 situation here. The captured terrorists often have information of plots to attack our troops or here in the US. Many of the torture cases have been proven to be just the CIA gone overboard or a group of soldiers that ended up being courtmartialed.

 

CIA Leak Case:

 

That was proven in the very beginning to have come from a man under Collin Powell, however the Prosecutor went on a witch hunt trying to get a scalp on his wall. Libby ended up being a casualty, it is entirely possible that Libby's appeal will be successful, if his conviction is thrown out, will people still call for impeachment because Bush commuted his sentence? Btw, the commuting of Libby's sentence is a Presidential Power and Bush didn't take money when he commuted the sentence.

 

Politicization of the United States attorney offices:

 

The President has the power to fire them at any time even if he doesn't like their hair color. It should be noted, that some of the people that gave the biggest outcry were the same people that called for the particular attorney's removal in the first place...

 

Hurricane Katrina:

I've proven before that it was the fault of the Governor and not the President, Federal Law kept Bush from sending in the Guard.

 

Columnist Byron York of The National Review has suggested that proponents of impeachment are almost entirely left-wing bloggers, that Conyers had "already decided the conclusions he will reach" before the Judiciary Committee's investigation had even started, and that "interpretive structure of the [Conyers] report" indicates that it "is not the product of a real investigation."[201]

 

While noting that the latest poll "numbers show true trouble" for Bush-Cheney, columnist Matt Towery, in reporting the results of the May 2007 InsiderAdvantage poll, stated "Those few in the Democrat-controlled House who are advocating impeachment are on the fringe of political thought -- at least for now." He further opined that their rationale for impeachment "looks specious", and went on to say "It's not beyond consideration that what now seems silly political grandstanding could get much more serious, especially if the Iraq war continues to go badly, current scandals surrounding the attorney general or White House political adviser Karl Rove get worse, or new White House scandals emerge."[202]

[Totenkopf]

And the SDK?

 

SDK?

 

Also, I know that a number of you like to throw the godwin law thingy around, but it seems to have as much relevance as Beavis or Butthead going "oh, he said ^$*@#, hehhehhehheh". I wonder if someone's come up w/a similiarly inane "law" that attempts to belittle others for citing other periods in history (say, to Rome or the Middle Ages)...

 

Lastly, the only really valid argument IMNSHO for impeaching Bush, at this point, is the way in which he's mishandled the ILLEGAL immigration problem in this country.

[mimartin]

Top that off, telephone surveys are horribly inaccurate polls, and relatively easy to those types of polls to say whatever you want.

 

Were the surveys just as inaccurate when he was setting at 77% approval? Or are these numbers just inaccurate because they are unfavorable to the President?

 

You are right in so far as you say that survey or poll numbers are inaccurate. That is why they have a built in margin for error. The poll itself deals with the errors by tell you up front that it could be plus or minus a number above or below the reported number.

 

One poll could be skewed based on the wording of the question asked, but all of the surveys show his disapproval (including Fox) in the 60% range are not errors, it is a fact.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

 

Oh btw, your polling place also says 56% of Democrats don't care if violence spills over into other countries when we pull out of Iraq.

 

You quote a survey, and then write surveys are “horribly inaccurate polls.”

 

 

It makes me sick that people blame the President and blame the United States for everything.

 

I don’t. I blame the President because as you’ve pointed out over and over he is the Commander and Chief. I also blame congress and not just the current members I also blame the prior Republican Congress that rubber stamped everything this President wanted. I blame the Democrats for believing all the evidence given to them about Iraq and not doing their jobs by questioning it. I blame the Republican members for the same thing.

 

Mr. Bush is the President and deserves the lion share of blame, but there is enough blame to go around.

 

Btw, there is absolutely no grounds to impeach Bush

 

Agreed and even if there were, there is not enough time. Impeachment should not be political and the only reason to impeach President Bush is political (Just like Clinton).

 

You can try to spin it however you wish, but the fact remains the media is supporting the terrorists for ratings.

 

Do you have one shred of proof other than the so called Time's article?

 

This emboldens them leading them to attempt more and more attacks, the more spectacular and bloody the better to dishearten the American people even more.

 

Do you really believe that if suddenly there was a total black out of all casualty reports out of Iraq that the insurgence would suddenly lose confidence? Have you actually heard of Al Jazeera? When you can stop the insurgence from recording the attacks and then showing them on Al Jazeera or their web sites then the terrorist might not be so embolden.

 

There is also one major difference between today and 62 years ago and it is technology. There were no cell phones, satellite phones, satellites, computers, internet or many other communication devices during WW2. Even if you could shut down news reports you could not stop the information from getting to the American people.

 

I've proven before that it was the fault of the Governor and not the President, Federal Law kept Bush from sending in the Guard.

I wouldn’t say you've proven it. I still say Bush could of pick up the phone instead of his fishing pole and called the Governor.

 

Let's turn this around: How, pray tell, does President Bush care about his precious troops?

fixed out of respect for the office, not the man

 

Well the only answer I have is he will not allow their coffins be photographed when they return home.

 

Since when was this thread about Scooter:confused:?

 

I brought him up saying ABC News should be prosecuted just like Mr. Libby. I wonder if the President will pardon them too. Most Americans convicted have to serve their time while awaiting appeal by the way. Bush had every right to do it, but saying the reason of him having to serve time while awaiting his appeal does not wash. If it unfair for Mr. Libby to do it why is it fair for other Americans to do it?

[GarfieldJL]

For the record mimartin President Bush did call the Governor of Louisanna whom initially refused to authorize the National Guard entry to the state. So Bush's hands were tied.

[mimartin]

I guess it was Governor Blanco’s fault that Homeland Security preformed so inadequately too? I guess she was foolish enough to make FEMA a part of a huge bureaucracy known as Homeland Security? I guess it was really her disguised as George Bush that mistakenly praised Michael Brown and the job FEMA had done in response to Katrina? I also did not know that the Governor had to give approval for FEMA to go into the state (They Don’t!).

 

For the record, the state, local and federal governments all were responsible for the aftermath of Katrina. As Bush is head of the Federal government he is responsible to a certain extent. That does not mean that Blanco and Nagin are forgiven as they too are responsible.

[Nancy Allen``]

Were Governers Ventura and Schwarzenegger in on the plot to bring misery to the people of New Orleans as well? Just where does accountability end?

[GarfieldJL]

Fact is President Bush couldn't send in the guard due to Federal Law. The Governor didn't authorize the National Guard being sent in.

 

FEMA not responding well could be argued was due to the lawlessness in New Orleans. For example at least one Rescue Copter had to abort a rescue mission because someone was taking pot shots at it.

[mimartin]

Were Governers Ventura and Schwarzenegger in on the plot to bring misery to the people of New Orleans as well? Just where does accountability end?

 

Just like the War in Iraq the accountability for what went wrong rest with those responsible for the planning and implication of our strategy. When our elected officials take on that burden they should take responsibility when their decisions are wrong. The buck stops with the man or women in charge. If they deserve the credit and praise when things go right then they deserve the blame and the criticism when things go wrong.

 

In the case of Iraq, President Bush is the Commander and Chief. He and his appointees are making the decisions that affect our war effort. If his plans were going well then I'm sure he would gladly accept the acclaim and glory. Then as the war goes badly why is it everyone but his fault?

 

Same goes for Katrina. Three governments were involved in the rescue response and all three obviously fail. As C. Ray Nagin is the mayor in charge of the New Orleans City Government, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco is Governor of Louisiana in charge of the State Government and George Bush is President and in charge of the Federal Government including appointing Michael Brown as head of FEMA, I’d say it is fair to put the blame on them as they were the decision makers.

 

I’m also not saying it was a plot to bring misery to the people of New Orleans, Louisiana or Mississippi. I do not believe any of those responsible did so with malice in their hearts. I just think all three made deadly mistakes that cost people their lives. Their mistakes also do not forgive those that could have made other arrangement to evacuate the area. After all your health and safety is first and foremost your own responsibility. I know some did not have the means; I’m speaking of those that did.

 

So to answer your question the accountability ends with those in charge be it the President, Mayor or Governor.

[GarfieldJL]

Okay if the media isn't supporting terrorists why isn't the good news being reported

 

Another Op ed:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287244,00.html

[mimartin]

If you don't mind vague responses to vague question I will say because there isn't much good news to report.

 

I love how FoxNews’ Oliver North lamb blast Congress for taking the forth of July break, but does not write anything about the President's annual month long vacation to Crawford.

 

I wish the media would show more positive from Iraq, but I’m weird in I’d like to hear the good and the bad news and not just the propaganda from either side.

[Totenkopf]

Only problem, Mimartin, is that Congress seems to take more breaks than a teacher. If the US Congress actually worked as long as a school teacher (or at least the perception thereof), there'd be a lot less to complain about (ok, hell, maybe a lot more as well ), but you'd feel like they were at least EARNING the 6 figure salaries (don't even think about the perks they might be getting) they receive.

 

Problem here in western countries is the whole immediate gratification impulse. We want to see results yesterday, especially re things there's ambivalence about in the first place. If the news were more balanced (on more things than Iraq even), we'd probably have a different reaction to many of the things we see going on around us. But, in all fairness, it's as much a function of people being too lazy or apathetic with regard to getting info about events that make any "propoganda" effective in the first place.

[Corinthian]

Besides, Mimartin, the President gets bashed enough as is. When it's not uncommon to hear suggestions that Bush be imprisoned or executed, you don't really need to get after him for taking vacations.

[mimartin]

I’m not against all of Congress taking a long vacation. After all every minute they’re out of Washington is one minute they can’t screw something up. The breaks were originally designed to keep member in touch with their local constituents, but now it gives most a chance to be wined and dined by “big business” and/or “special interest”.

[Corinthian]

Yeah, that's how lobbying works. Well, part of it, anyway.

[Prime]

Prime, it's the wording of the article that can make it sound better or worse than it is while still telling the truth.

And both sides are equally "guilty" of that. You seem to be mad when any media organization implies that what is going on in Iraq is anything less than moving along smoothly.

 

Okay then let me say it in a different way:

 

The Iraqi Government has made some progress towards fulfilling goals for political, military and economic reform, the Bush administration said Thursday...

 

 

See the difference, it's basically the same thing but with a word being removed and some grammar difference, but it now sounds different doesn't it.

But why do you get so upset when one side does it but not the other? One could easily claim that your statement above does the same thing.

 

Also Retired Colonel Oliver North sums up the situation in his op-ed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289142,00.html

This is editorial commentary. What does it have to do with the discussion here?

[Totenkopf]

Problem with slanting the news in either direction is that the formerly so-called "hard news" has now really become editorial in nature. Afterall, what is an op-ed piece but the assembling of facts and information to buttress a particular pov in the 1st place.

[Prime]

Is that a mostly American phenomenon?

[GarfieldJL]

Is that a mostly American phenomenon?

 

 

In all honesty, there are indications that many non-US media outlets are even more biased than US outlets.

 

CBC and the BBC both have a very bad reputation for biased journalism.

 

Btw, Prime the editorial has merit for the discussion since it's concerning the discussion we're having.

[mimartin]

Is that a mostly American phenomenon?

 

For the most part it is an American phenomenon, we’ve gotten to the point that both side of the political spectrum believe they have to tell us what to think. Then if anyone reports something that makes the their side look bad or incompetent they scream to high heaven about media bias. Even reporting the facts is considered media bias these days. Walter Cronkite would be rolling over in his grave (that is if he were dead).

 

And yes, they all do it.

 

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072

[GarfieldJL]

I'm aware about the American Media mimartin, and some media outlets are worse than others, however the American media tends to be a lot better than many foreign outlets.

 

The CBC for instance makes CBS look conservative for instance.

[Totenkopf]

Is that a mostly American phenomenon?

 

Do you mean slanting the news or that there's a fight over who is doing it?

[John Galt]

Everyone has an ax to grind, remember that. Of course, it seems as if some time in the last few years journalists have forgotten how to put the ax-grinding on hold for a bit, and are more than content to tell us what they think we ought to think, instead of objectively reporting facts. Just look at who the "experts" are that the network news agencies call in to "analyze" emerging news.

 

The way news is reported nowadays: report in a manner favorable to a point of view, "analyze" the facts until they agree with your viewpoints, boil them down to memorable slogans and catchphrases, then repeat.

[Prime]

CBC and the BBC both have a very bad reputation for biased journalism.

Bad reputation with who?

 

Btw, Prime the editorial has merit for the discussion since it's concerning the discussion we're having.

You made a comment about using different wording to convey a slanted view. Then you put up someone's opinion piece, and I was not sure what the point was you were trying to make.

 

Do you mean slanting the news or that there's a fight over who is doing it?

I mean attempting to make news more ratings friendly by making it more entertainment oriented.

[GarfieldJL]

Okay for starters the BBC is considered to be the English version of Al-Jazeerez to the Israelis.

 

The CBC has been complained about constantly by conservatives in Canada, and the CBC gets funding from the Canadian Government.

 

 

Prime, I brought up the opinion piece because it was related to the subject and was by someone whom knows what they are talking about, because he has been embedded with the troops in Iraq and is a retired Colonel in the US military. When I was referring to people using wording to slant things in the news, I was referring to people changing wording to slant things while reporting it as news. An op ed, is an opinion column and clearly labeled to be an opinion column. In other words they're being honest that it is their opinion and not claiming to be an unbiased report of the facts.

[Prime]

Okay for starters the BBC is considered to be the English version of Al-Jazeerez to the Israelis.

Again, considered by who?

 

The CBC has been complained about constantly by conservatives in Canada, and the CBC gets funding from the Canadian Government.

So what if it gets funding by the government? Funding can't be turned on and off by the government over things it doesn't like. To my knowledge there have never been any claims that the government tampers or sensors what the CBC has to say, and it certainly has been critical of the government on countless occasions.

 

I agree that you would probably find them leftist, but then again you would probably find Canada quite leftist overall (although we have a "conservative" government currently). But there are definitely segments and opinions from what we would call the right on the CBC.

 

As for conservatives complaining, or any side for that matter, they tend to do so not that an organization will be unbiased, but so they will promote their point of view.

 

An op ed, is an opinion column and clearly labeled to be an opinion column. In other words they're being honest that it is their opinion and not claiming to be an unbiased report of the facts.

Fair enough. I wasn't clear what your point was by posting that think.