It seems some independent monitors are challenging the notion Russia even made the first offensive move:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNCG13VVLC.DTL




It seems some independent monitors are challenging the notion Russia even made the first offensive move:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNCG13VVLC.DTL

OK, I see. You are just purely speculating and looking for any opportunity to bash- WITHOUT any facts or patience to see how and what he actually does. I enjoy intelligent discourse, this is a waste of time.this is indisputably true. GWB is no Ronald Reagan. And Obama may turn out to be far different than Jimmy Carter
BTW, wasn't it Ronald Reagan who was in office when they blew up the marine barracks in Lebanon and killed 300 or so marines?.



Exactly HOW LONG after Reagan's election did the Iran hostage crisis end? I believe the answer can be measured in hours....
That is what I was going to say. No I dont think 9-11 was a direct result of Bush being elected seeing as he had been in office for several months. We are not tlaking about things that happen during someones administration. We are talking about stuff that happens as a direct result of a candidate being eleceted such as the hostage situation after Regan was elected. NOBODY questions that was a direct result of him being elected.
Things that happen almost IMMEDIATLY after we have an election are a direct result, USALLY, of our election. Leaders sit and wait because they dont want to pick a fight with a prez that will give them serious consequences. Other candidates, some leaders see them as leaders that WONT retaliate with serious consequences so they do it to test their boundaries with that prez.
For instance, the letter that the Iran prez just sent to Obama. It was very condecending. He was testing his limits to see how Obama will respond. If he just wanted to send a ltter ... lol ... he sould have sent it to Bush. but .. nope, didnt do that.




I think you're over-estimating the importance of an American election to the rest of the world. All our eyes are not trained on you for cues as to what we should do next. Sorry to break it to you.
Also,9-11 would have taken several months of planning in any case, making the timing just right if these things happened as a result of who just took office.
Wrong. You might not follow our presidential elections with bated breath, but a large portion of the world does. I'm not one of those people that claim that the U.S.A. is the center of the universe, however a lot does ride on our president's policies that affect the entire world. Economics being one of the major reasons. Our financial policies have far reaching consequences in every major money market.
Then when you consider the military choices our president makes and his willingness to use said military, many of the world leaders (especially those that are considering any conflict in which we may become involved) wait to see who is elected so they can better weigh their options. Hence the reason Iran and Syria both attempted to contact Obama immediately after the election (mail and the latter by telegraph).
Obama is being judged, weighed, and measured by many world leaders. If you doubt that, then I don't know how to explain it to you ...
9-11 was different and the reason is simple: those terrorists were not soldiers from a 'nation'. Terrorists are not usually worried about being 'at war' as they are a collective of people with extremist ideals and not a nation. Bin Laden probably wasn't overly worried about which political party or even which individual would be leading the U.S.A. As long as he can propagate his zealot extremism, he is good. It isn't like they needed to worry about an invasion ...
Narcissus




I'm interested in the results of US elections, along with most of the world. However, that they have immediate and earth-shattering effects on the rest of us is, I think, debatable. Letters and telegraphs are a different thing than immediate invasions.
Your financial policies do not directly affect every economy. Some economies, for instance, are dependant on countries like China, and the effect of an American recession is indirect. China is the main player in the Australian economy, for instance, and we have not as yet been hit by recession, despite the deep troubles in the US economy.
Attacks on foreign countries, I believe, are not necessarily conducted with one eye on the result of an American election, particularly when the President-elect hasn't even taken office. As I've said elsewhere, such attacks take months of planning and organisation. The very immediacy of the timing is the biggest flaw in the argument that Obama's election has equalled a green light. If Obama was the sole deciding factor, the invasions would have occurred some months after his taking office. Certainly not on the eve of an election while Bush remained in power.
In addition, since, as is agreed, the terrorists were not representatives of a nation, why were the 9-11 attacks followed by wars on two nations? It's an interesting question.
The letter and telegraph was just a direct representation that our election was directly watched by other nations ... nothing deeper was meant by the comment. However, consider several nations: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Russia (or the U.S.S.R. ... lol), N. Korea, S. Korea, U.K., Afghanistan, Ukraine, Georgia, etc ... That is just a super short, easy list of countries that I gaurantee were watching the election extremely closely ... I'm sure there are many more.
Ok, I'll grant you that our policies may not have an immediate and direct effect on every economy. However, that isn't what I said. I said it has far reaching consequences in every major money market, which it does. Your economy not being in recession due to ours doing so ... well, that is not an example of an inconsistency in what I said, so I can't help but wonder why you said it. Did I miss something?
I agree in that not every attack on foreign countries is necessarily conducted with one eye on our elections. 100%, I agree. However, again that isn't what I said. I said that countries considering being involved in a military conflict in which we might get involved watch our elections ... they do so to try and determine the likelihood of our response: be that a military political, or economic response. That goes both ways ... Iraq and Israel's government watch to try and discern the support they will recieve and if we will offer protection if needed, etc. Others (Iran, N. Korea) watch and try and determine if we would be willing to start sanctions, military intervention, etc ...
Simple ... because of bad intel and because our people needed/wanted something to strike out against. Then, after the truth became known ... we were already commited. I do not agree with going to war the way that we did. After being intimately intwined with Iraq's ability to govern and police itself ...I won't defend the Iraq war in any way ... hope you weren't wanting me to do so. =P
Narcissus




I'm not denying that your election was watched around the world- that's undebatable.
What I said was an example of the US economy not affecting another economy in the developed world, at least not on a direct and grand scale. However, I'll concede the point that most developed economies are reliant on the US to reasonably significant degrees.
I'm sorry, I misinterpreted you with respect to the issue of attacks on foreign countries. Melonie, Lady and other posters have contended that invasions on the eve of Obama's election were a direct result of it, and I wrongly assumed you were jumping on that bandwagon. However, it is not denied that the United States is closely watched from outside.
And, nope, I'm glad you have the sense not to try and defend the indefensible.

Are you kidding?. Ever hear of the Iran-Contra Affair?, it turns out Ronny's people had negotiated with the Iranians to hold the hostages until he was in charge in exchange for weapons and cash. Hey, whatever works.Originally Posted by 3-Legged Man
Exactly HOW LONG after Reagan's election did the Iran hostage crisis end? I believe the answer can be measured in hours....

He didn't do it because Bush is an ignorant prick being led around by neo-conservative warmongers and pretty much every leader in the whole world holds him in contempt.Originally Posted by 3-Legged Man
If he just wanted to send a ltter ... lol ... he sould have sent it to Bush. but .. nope, didnt do that
You're mixing up the facts. Carter had a hostage release agreement in place BEFORE Reagan was sworn in. Part of the deal was that the actual release would start AFTER Carter left office.
The Iranians hated Carter seeing him as a buddy of the Shah and saw the failed hostage-rescue mission as some sort of betrayal.
Iran- Contra was precipitated by kidnappings in LEBANON by Hezbollah in 1982-1984. It was weapons to Iran ( we originally supported Iraq ) in exchange for payments to the Contras in Nicaragua.

My facts are just fine,the deal was known as "October Surprise", but it was the 1st installment of Iran-Contra
"While in Paris, the Republican team gave $40 million to the Iranian government as a gesture of good faith that the Reagan team was serious in dealing with the terrorist Khomeini government -- and that the 52 American hostages should remain captive until after the November election."
"a deal between the Reagan campaign and Iran over the hostages have circulated since the day of President Reagan's inaugural, when Iran agreed to release the 52 American hostages exactly five minutes after Mr. Reagan took the oath of office. Later, as it became known that arms started to flow to Iran via Israel only a few days after the inauguration, suspicions deepened that a secret arms-for-hostages deal had been concluded."
Come out of the "fever swamp". That foul canard has been around for decades and has NEVER been supported by any facts, let alone proven.
Your second link PROVES my point. That C A R T E R negotiated the hostage release which was in exchange for our unfreezing billions in Iranian cash held in American and Allied banks which Carter froze after our hostages were seized.
Israeli arms shipment to Iran had NOTHING to do with us. Israel had a longstanding relationship with Iran when it was ruled by the Shah. After Khomeni took over; Iran and Israel broke off diplomatic relations BUT after Iraq invaded Iran, they were all too happy to accept Israeli arms shipments. Israel had a longstanding fear of Saddam Hussein and were willing to support one of his enemies. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Iran - Contra was aired out in Congressional hearings; Walsh's investigation and at least two criminal trials. Not to mention extensive press attention, coverage and investigation. Nothing; not a thing ever came to light to support the "whackadoodle" theory that Reagan's campaign paid off the Iranians to keep the hostages until after the 1980 Election.
Last edited by Eric Stoner; 11-10-2008 at 03:45 PM.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with negotiating with frozen bank accounts, negotiating with secret arms deals and payoffs is a whole different story. Anyway, far, far too much smoke in that not be a fire of some sort. More than enough proof for me, names, dates and amounts from people involved with nothing to gain. Bottom line, if they did it in '86, why not '80.
?????. We're talking about Israel shipping US weapons to Iran in '80 and '86, after the Shah, before the Iran invasion by Iraq, while Khomeni was in power.Israeli arms shipment to Iran had NOTHING to do with us. Israel had a longstanding relationship with Iran when it was ruled by the Shah. After Khomeni took over; Iran and Israel broke off diplomatic relations BUT after Iraq invaded Iran, they were all too happy to accept Israeli arms shipments.
Yes because Oliver North got scapegoated and Reagan got amnesia to keep the damage to the Republicans to a minimum and not make Watergate look like a boy scout party.Iran - Contra was aired out in Congressional hearings; Walsh's investigation and at least two criminal trials. Not to mention extensive press attention, coveragte and investigation. Nothing; not a thing ever came to light to support the "whackadoodle" theory that Reagan's campaign paid off the Iranians to keep the hostages until after the 1980 Election.
Who negotiated WHAT in 1980 ? What leverage would Reagan's guys have had if he hadn't even been elected YET ? And most importantly, if they were so slick in 1980as to A. pull it off and B. not get caught; then WHY were they so comedically inept in 1985 and 1986 ? Giving the Iranians a Bible ? To MUSLIM extremists ?? Giving them a cake ? A well known arms merchant later recounted for " 60 Minutes" what he was told by the Iranians about the whole fiasco. They had no idea what to do with the cake not knowing whether or not it was poisoned !!!
Pierre Salinger, then with ABC aired a full report on how the hostages were released. If Reagan operatives had been involved he would have gleefully reported it. To date there is NO evidence. None, zero, zip, nada to support this wacko rumor.
Israel shipped arms to Iran AFTER they were invaded by Iraq in 1980. We were none too pleased that they did so without our knowledge and consent.
North was no scapegoat. The ONLY thing that kept his silly, stupid ass out of prison was the even more stupid and silly Congress and Walsh. Congress had to give him immunity to get him to testify. Walsh was barred from any use, direct or INDIRECT of his Congressional testimony but did it anyway which is how North got his conviction reversed.
Facts, facts, FACTS. Try sticking to them.

1. "While in Paris, the Republican team gave $40 million to the Iranian government as a gesture of good faith."
2. George Bush I was involved and was a former Director of the CIA with easy access to secret cash, weapons and a network to put the deal together.
Here, in response to you request for "Facts, Facts, Facts". These are all facts from from the trial that have been documented.:
Several other witnesses corroborated the story that Bush was present in Paris. Ari Ben-Menashea, a member of Israel's Mossad and involved in the transfer of arms to Iran, stated that Bush was at the meeting. Also, Iranian Prime Minister Bani-sadr produced documents indicating that Bush was present. On the other hand, CIA agent Donald Gregg, who was on the flight to Paris, failed a polygraph test when asked about Bush's presence.
The Secret Service unequivocally denied the fact that Bush was in Paris. Yet, the agency refused to allow any of its agents who were assigned to Bush at that time, to testify.
Justice Department prosecutors called two Secret Service agents who swore that Bush was in Washington, D.C. on that weekend. The Secret Service claimed that Bush was in Pennsylvania on Saturday, October 18; however, the agency did not produce any evidence to indicate Bush's activities on the following day.
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made a token gesture and superficially did look into allegations of improprieties. The investigation was virtually blocked, since the committee prevented investigators from traveling to Europe to interview witnesses; denied subpoena power to investigators; limited the time frame of the investigation; and limited the funds to investigate alleged illegalities.
The House committee followed the pattern of its counterpart in the Senate and refused to hear testimony from anyone who had evidence that Bush was in Paris on the weekend of October 19, 1980
Five months after the October Surprise and two months into his first term, Reagan gave CIA chief Casey the green light to begin clandestine activities to attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan Sandinista government.
There is a ton more, as stated previously dozens and dozens of unrelated witnesses from many countries on every side of the alleged scandal , documented obstruction on the part of the alleged perpetrators and a repeat with the exact same M.O. years later. Sorry, way too much smoke for me.
And in 28 years this whole thing was kept under wraps ?
By Washington politicos ?
I remember reading this and some other rumors back in the early '80's. Nobody ever was able to make this charge against Bush stick.
Pssst. it was 28 years ago. Reagan ended up being a good President and Jimmy
Carter was and is a hump. Get over it.

Dude, we recently invaded a soviergn country for reasons that "Washington politicos" made up and then lied to us about, we've lost around 4,500 soldiers, are responsible for 100,000 (prob. much more) Iraqi deaths, all told with long term health treatment etc. the Iraq war is going to cost 3 trillion dollars. Yet, no one is getting charged, no one going to jail. The US government can and usually does what it wants without having to answer to anyone. It lies, steals and kills without remorse and it all kind of gets swept under the covers. Here are three examples, there are dozens more, take off your blinders.And in 28 years this whole thing was kept under wraps ?
By Washington politicos ?
1. Gulf of Tonkin-
2. Overthrow of Iranian President 1952 -
3. Assasination of a Chilean President 1973-
Yes, because the people that were behind it were also in charge. There were many levels of obstruction. Just like we'll never have a trial for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield while Bush is in office. We might never as to do it risks tearing the country apart.I remember reading this and some other rumors back in the early '80's. Nobody ever was able to make this charge against Bush stick.
I'm long over it, you're the one who called me on it and requested facts. Also, Carter was weak, but Reagan wasn't perfect- several big scandals, recession and helped start our problems with the Islamo-terrorists. I did like Reagan and consider him a pretty good Pres. His big claim to fame however ending the cold-war was not done solely by him as many seem to infer.Pssst. it was 28 years ago. Reagan ended up being a good President and Jimmy
Carter was and is a hump. Get over it.
Last edited by arctic717; 11-11-2008 at 07:31 PM.
Bush is going down as one of our worst Presidents ever for inter alia, invading Iraq on shaky and inaccurate intel. I don't know that there were "crimes" committed per se. There certainly was plenty of negligence and "tailored" information.
Our governments have not had squeaky clean hands over the years. Who said they did ?
The Clintonistas were in power for 12 years. The Dems had the House throughout and the Senate from 1987 to 1994. Except for Iran-Contra they never bothered with even a superficial examination. Bush I WAS investigated by Walsh and at least one other Special Prosecutor and was cleared. I could take the same "standard" sic. that you are using and apply it to Clinton pronouncing him and Hillary guilty of a host of things including several suspicious deaths.
Reagan inherited the 1980-1982 recession from C A R T E R !

Those Dem's were wussies as Dem's usually are, they are afraid to shake things up fearing it might damage the country, whereas the Rep. often times seem to have absolutely no problem shaking things up regardless of the damage it will do to the country. If ever there was a case for impeachment or trying someone for crimes when they are out of office it is Bush a large number in the Bush admin. who warrant it. But with Dem's in power we won't see it as all they want to do is play nice.
Sean Hannity for one and alot like him that are convinced that we never have and can do no wrong.Our governments have not had squeaky clean hands over the years. Who said they did ?
That's not even close. All that with the Clintons is purely circumstantial, not even a whiff of proof of any kind. With the October Surprise deal, there were dozen's of witnesses under oath and also recorded instances of obstruction by the government. Besided, the Rep. were so hot to get Clinton they spent $40 million to get him on lieing about a blow-job, if there was more to those mysterious deaths don't you think they would have been all over them?.I could take the same "standard" sic. that you are using and apply it to Clinton pronouncing him and Hillary guilty of a host of things including several suspicious deaths.
First of all, the Dems NEVER had the votes to even start an Impeachment of Bush.
Secondly, the standard is "high crimes and misdemeanors" and nothing Bush did fits neatly into that definition. Awful as his errors and omissions were, I think it's overreaching to claim that they constitute grounds for impeachment. Secondly, there is at least one Supreme Court decision limiting presidential liability to Impeachment.
You are 100% correct about Hannity. It's one of many reasons why I can't stand him.
You're forgetting WHO was Attorney General under Clinton. Janet Reno fulfilled her primary function which was to keep Bill and Hillary out of jail. Have you read Hillary's Grand Jury Testimony in Whitewater ? in Filegate ? To this day I can't believe she never got nailed for perjury.
The mysterious deaths I referred to occurred mostly in Arkansas while Clinton was Governor. Look what happened to Juanita Broderick; Kathleen Wiley and other FEMALE victims of Bill. it never ceases to amaze me that the radical feminists weren't calling for his castration as they did with Packwood who NEVER raped anyone.

My friend, I think we can go back and forth forever with the stuff and I'm worn out. This will be my last post about this. That said, in regards to the above there is PLENTY to warrant an impeachment of Bush. Below are 4 well researched and footnoted subjects that individually have sufficient grounds for impeachment.
- Lies on Iraq
- Condoned Torture
- Illegal Wiretaps
- Ignored Subpoenas
And since I won't be posting anymore on this, here is the response to your inevitable rebuttal from the same site as above:
When they say "Bush has commited no crimes."
When they say "Bush himself was misled by faulty intelligence on Iraq."
- A President does not have to commit an ordinary criminal offense in order to be impeached. Governing in a way that undermines the Constitution or harming America is sufficient. But...
- Bush has actually violated several US laws including:
- Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805, the FISA law regulating .
- Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the
- Title 18 United States Code, Section 371,
- According to the US Constitution, are part of the Supreme Law of the Land. Bush has violated:
- the ,
- the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners and holding them without access to counsel.
- Here is an analysis of .
When they say "Bush was authorized by Congress to invade Iraq so they are equally guilty."
- Bush asked the intelligence community for anything they could possibly provide that supported war with Iraq. Intelligence operatives reported that they knew any information that did not support Bush's agenda would be igniored.
- The July 2002 that detailed a meeting with Tony Blair, describes how Bush was intent on war with Iraq "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD " but "the case was thin" so " intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
- In March of 2002, Joseph Wilson reported that there was no evidence Niger sold to Iraq. Bush was warned repeatedly by the CIA and foreign intelligence that the documents of sale were probably forged and unreliable. But Bush used the story in his January 2003 State of the Union speech to scare the public.
- In October of 2002, the DOE concluded that the infamous were unsuitable for use in uranium gas centrifuges and were probably intended for use in conventional rockets. But in his January 2003 State of the Union speech Bush said "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
- Immediately after 9/11, Bush and Cheney started linking Iraq and 9/11 in so many speeches that a majority of Americans actually believed there was a connection despite a complete lack of evidence. Sadly this is the reason they are there. Bush but continues to link them in his speeches.
- Bush setup a team in the Pentagon called the whose purpose was to distort intelligence to support justification for war.
- Bush set up to mold public opinion on Iraq and to justify war.
- Senator John Rockefeller describes a
- More details at
When they say "Iraq did have WMD. Several hundred shells were found."
- They are probably referring to . The only reason Congress signed it is because they had been fooled by Bush into thinking Iraq was an imminent threat and was harboring Al Qaeda. This is called " So the authorization was invalid.
- HJR114 specifically stated that it did not "supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution." The War Powers Resolution requires that existing international treaties be observed but Bush violated the UN Charter by invading Iraq. So Bush overstepped his authority.
- Bush was required by HJR114 to show that the threat could not be resolved by diplomacy. But diplomacy and the UN inspections were keeping Iraq safely under control. Bush misled Congress about the threat and, therefore, did not fulfill his commitments under HJR114, invalidating his authority.
When they say "Bush was justified in using illegal wiretaps to fight terrorism"
- They are probably referring to the 500 shells that were touted by Senator Rick Santorum as evidence of WMD. These were old degraded shells leftover from the war with Iran. Sarin and most other chemical weapons are highly reactive and, therefore, have a short shelf life. They were essentially useless as weapons. []
When they say that Bush is opposed to torture and that Abu Ghraib was just some out of control soldiers, you can say:
- Bush can immediately place a wiretap on anyone that he has a "reasonable suspicion" is connected with terrorism. He then has 72 hours to seek approval from the FISA court. For example, airplane bomber Dandeny Munoz-Mosquera was captured in 1991 by using an emergency wiretap that was legal under the 72 hour rule.
- The FISA court routinely approves warrants for suspected terrorists or al Qaeda members. They would have approved any legitimate for monitoring a suspected terrorist?
- Bush tries to justify their legality using very old court decisions. But the 1978 FISA law supersedes those decisions and make warrantless wiretaps illegal. There are no laws or resolutions that have overturned the FISA law.
- Bush claims that , the resolution to defend against Iraq, places him above the law. But there is nothing in HJRes114 to suggest that.
When they say the kidnapping and torture of prisoners is justified to fight evil enemies, you can say:
- Bush worked with Alberto Gonzales to develop policies that allowed torture.
- Bush and Cheney fought hard against John McCain's attempts to pass anti-torture laws. When Bush signed the law he also issued a signing statement that gave him permission to torture.
- The soldiers at Abu Ghraib said they were instructed by military intelligence and officers to torture prisoners.
- The CIA has a system for transporting prisoners to foreign countries where they can be tortured. This could not be done without the highest level of authorization.
- We are only good guys if we act like good guys. If we kidnap and torture people then we become the kind of bad guys that we are supposedly fighting against.
- Torture is considered ineffective by professional interrogators. People will make up lies to stop being tortured.
- Torture is usually used for revenge or to intimidate and terrorize populations.
- If we kidnap and torture then more people will hate the USA, making us less secure.
- Kidnapping and torture are illegal under US and International Law.
- Many innocent people have been kidnapped and tortured since 9/11. , for example, simply worked with someone whose brother supported al Qaeda in 1997, long before 9/11. For that he spent a year in a small dark cell and was repeatedly beaten and tortured.
- Torture was not limited to the dramatic "ticking bomb" situation. Many thousands of prisoners were tortured. Remember the He was arrested for carjacking, not terrorism.
Hmmmm. You know, you may have something on the torture issue. It's pretty clear he authorized it.
FISA violation is a lot shakier and it would have to be PROVEN that Bush KNEW Iraq did not have WMD's for any count based thereon to hold up.
Complicating most of the other proposed charges are minor details like Executive Privilege - it kept Harry Truman from having to testify before Congress AFTER he'd left office in 1953- and Bush's role as C in C which grants him broad latitude.
But, as I understand it, Bush's White House was discussing invading Iraq from the time he took office i.e. BEFORE 9/11. I'd like to see that explored in greater depth and detail.
If Congress was fooled by Bush then they were also fooled by Clinton. Read Kerry's speeches from the Senate floor from 1998 !
Btw, if this is such a compelling case, why couldn't Dennis Kucinich get a single floor vote to even refer the matter to the House Judiciiary Committee ? ; the first step in any impeachment.
Bookmarks