Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Kucinich speaks for himself in the link below. I totally missed the most important reason of all...Iran.
Link |
I went to Kucinich's websit and read on of the documents used to support his case. Here is what Chaney said about Al Qeada.
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1A.pdf
Quote:
|
Well, I sense that some people want to believe that there is only one issue that I ‘m concerned about. And/or that somehow, I am out here to organize a military adventure with respect to Iraq; that’s not true. The fact is, we are concerned about Iraq, that’s one of many issues we’re concerned about. But in all of the stops that I’ve made so far, we’ve talked not only about the war on terror, which is, in many respects, more imminent, ongoing current activity. We talked about the importance of our continued efforts in Afghanistan as well as making certain that the Al Qaeda doesn’t relocate to any other country in the region
|
There is a clear seperation between Al Qeada and Iraq, I am not sure how the above supports the impeachment, I need some help with it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace:
first off it is beyond ironic that you claim that you would not rely on cherry-picked information in the purchase of a car, but you seem to have relied on it when you decided to support the bush administration and its lurid little colonial adventure in iraq. but wait--you are inclined to trust the administration and so you assume their information is in general truthful--but you are not inclined to trust the car dealer because, well, "car dealer" is just a name in a sentence which does not and cannot refer to anyone in particular.
the answer seems to me obvious--in the run-up to the iraq debacle,congress--republican controlled congress--was presented with manufactured evidence, tendentiously constructed evidence, false evidence from an administration which the then-majority supported politically and which the then-majority was inclined to trust. in 2003 conservatives, like their proxies in the then-majority in congress, were inclined to trust the administration.
there are no objective rules that can obviate the fundamental role played in even the most tightly regulated administrative apparatus by trust, by personal relationships and the expectations built across them.
you seem to want the iraq mess to devolve into mush now because it suits your political purposes to dissolve it into mush.
but you know full well that congress reviewed "evidence" presented them by the administration. you know full well that while a thorough review was possible, it did not happen, and that a good explanation for why it did not happen is the trust the then-majority had in the good faith of the administration--it is just like, say, academic articles--it is always possible that one's footnotes could be wrong or made up--but generally, no-one checks. why? the name of the author is functionally a guarantee against such problems.
why? because of the assumptions about the nature and integrity of review processes in refereed journals--but the broader social context of academic work in general informs this assumption. here too, one;s relation to evidence is fundamentally rooted in one's assumptions about the writer or speaker.
and when it turns out that the rules have been violated, the fault lay with the writer or speaker. the writer is the person responsible for the selection and ordering of information--if the information is fucked up, it is the writer's fault--BEFORE it is the fault of the readers who believed the article was true.
but this is self-evident, ace.
i really do not see what your arguments are geared toward accomplishing.
was congress remiss in accepting the administration's case? yes. whose fault is that? the administration's first and foremost, because they put forward the false evidence and then relied on (an abuse of) trust/credibility.
is congress responsible for the iraq debacle? in part yes--but congress is not responsible for being lied to by the administration.
but you already know all this, ace.
i think you are being disengenous.
|
Many factors went into my support of the war, including our failure to take Sadaam out of powere during the first Gulf War against Iraq.
At this point - if I were sincerely against the war, my efforts would be focused on ending it, not retreading what got us into the war. If my concern was with Iran and statements coming from the White House on Iran, I would focus my efforts on setting the record straight. To focus on impeachment is either an error in judgement or purely political. But that is just me, Kuncinich is different and clearly smarter than me, I am sure he has a grand plan that I can not see at the moment. A plan that will be more meaningful than just a stunt to get publicity.