Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-06-2007, 07:48 PM   #1 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
GOP honorably helps Kucinich

Quote:
GOP forces debate on Cheney impeachment

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer Tue Nov 6, 4:21 PM ET

WASHINGTON - House Republicans, changing course midway through a vote, tried to force Democrats into a debate on a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney on the grounds he purposely led the country into war against Iraq.

The GOP tactics reversed what had been expected to an overwhelming vote to table, or kill, the resolution by longshot Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.

Midway through the vote, with instructions from the GOP leadership, Republicans one by one changed their votes from yes — to kill the resolution — to no, trying to force the chamber into a debate and an up-or-down vote on the proposal.

At one point there were 290 votes to table. After the turnaround, the final vote was 251-162 against tabling, with 165 Republicans voting against it.

"We're going to help them out, to explain themselves," said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. "We're going to give them their day in court."

Kucinich, an anti-war Democrat from Ohio, has long pushed for a vote to impeach Cheney, but has failed to win the backing of the Democratic leadership. After Kucinich introduced the resolution, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., immediately moved to table it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "has said that impeachment is off the table and that the new direction Congress is focused on responsibly and honorably redeploying our troops out of Iraq, covering 10 million uninsured children and meeting our national priorities long neglected by the Bush Administration," said her spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

The resolution said that Cheney, "in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully executive the office of vice president," had "purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests."

The 11-page resolution also charged that Cheney purposely deceived the nation about an alleged relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaida and has "openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States."

House approval of an article of impeachment sends the issue to the Senate, which has the constitutional authority to try and, with a two-thirds vote, remove a person from office.
Well apparently the Democrats didn't want to impeach old Cheney, but the Republicans have voted to help them find their way and open up the impeachment of Dick Cheney. Obviously the democrats don't want to talk about this sort of thing and the republicans want to rub their noses in it, but thats not what I wanted to talk about.....

This is what I wanted to talk about.....

Quote:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "has said that impeachment is off the table and that the new direction Congress is focused on responsibly and honorably redeploying our troops out of Iraq, covering 10 million uninsured children and meeting our national priorities long neglected by the Bush Administration," said her spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

This is a very interesting quote, and not beacause of the laughable political sound byte they tried to create. The funny part is the phrase 'honorably redeploy' because I've heard it before.

I used to be something of a WWII Pacific war buff, blame my Grandfather who served there as a marine. One thing the Japanese were known for was never retreating, no matter what they faced. Now I don't know if this is myth or true, but I was taught they had no word for retreat. Reguardless, no Japanese commander would ever order his men to retreat, it just wasn't in their thinking.

Well in all wars, not all battles are winable in the eyes of their commanding officer, and you will have to forgive me as I forget the officer or the battle, its been at least 20 years since I read this, but one officer came up with an interesting solution to the problem of ordering a retreat. In the face of a superior American force, he issued the following order, "Turn around and advance!"

Well its been, as I said 20 years since I've read this, and at least several years since I would have thought of this at all, but as soon as I saw 'honorably redeploy' my first thought was to that Japanese commander saying 'Turn around and advance!'

Honorably redeploy.....

If Iraq is 'unwinnable' or at least not worth winning as its apparent the democrats think, why don't they want to use the words 'retreat?' 'We have been beaten we are pulling out.' 'There is no way we can win this conflict, goodluck Iraq!'

Instead we get 'honorably redeploy' where we are leaving, yet retaining our honor. Interesting.....

There are 24 entries at dictionary.com for 'honor'

I wonder which one applies here?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 11-06-2007, 07:57 PM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
I've seen polls that suggest that there are a lot of american people wouldn't mind seeing cheney's head on the proverbial pike. It's not like he's much of a charmer, and the fact that he publicly contradicts the things his president says, like continuing to insist on an iraq-9/11 connection, isn't exactly an endearing quality.

That little bit about honorably redeploying is funny, but only because it's a reminder of how hard the democrats in charge of the party are still trying to out-republican the republicans- and how bad they are at it.
filtherton is offline  
Old 11-06-2007, 08:03 PM   #3 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Pelosi's backing down is a big reason as to why I made the Dem thread. She was talking a big game, took office, and became a typical Dem rep: scared.

Kucinich may be 2' 4" and grant wishes if you catch him, but he has massive balls. He's not afraid of anyone or anything, which is one reason I respect him.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-07-2007, 05:50 AM   #4 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
House Republicans, changing course midway through a vote
Flip-floppers!

Seriously, though, there was an awful lot of unrelated snarkiness in that post, Ustwo. I think that's the first time I've ever seen a threadjack IN the OP.

Honorably Redeploy. Why not just admit defeat? Would it really collapse our economy and send people screaming in the streets to admit that America failed at something? America has failed at LOTS of things in its history. We can only move forward as a nation when we tell the truth to ourselves about our past.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 11-07-2007, 02:35 PM   #5 (permalink)
Insane
 
joshbaumgartner's Avatar
 
It is interesting that you choose the Japanese in WWII as an example of steadfast refusal to accept retreat as an option, even to the point of making just the thought of it treasonous in nature. You are of course absolutely correct: The Japanese were so ingrained with the idea that retreat or compromise was unthinkable, dishonorable, and of course utterly un-Japanese, that they suffered greatly at the hands of a more adaptable, flexible, and capable enemy. But even then it took not only the utter destruction of their navy, air forces, and most of their industry, but beign pulverized by nuclear weapons before they were willing to admit a change of course might be warranted.

I sure hope it doesn't take America that much destruction before people realize there is nothing dishonorable or traitorous about seeking to make the best move for the country, regardless of which direction it may be.
joshbaumgartner is offline  
Old 11-07-2007, 02:57 PM   #6 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Given that most Iraqi's would like the US occupation to end because they believe our presence is drawing outside interference, redeploying need not be viewed as a defeat. Redeploying "over the horizon" as Senator Murtha recommended long ago is a viable solution in my opinion, and would be more "honorable" than simply packing up and going home. But "honor" and "defeat" are being politicized in this debate and as such, have no real meaning.

I don't see Pelosi as frightened at all. She simply cannot be perceived as maneuvering herself closer to the presidency and the distraction that would cause.

::waves at Josh::
__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Last edited by Elphaba; 11-07-2007 at 02:59 PM..
Elphaba is offline  
Old 11-08-2007, 11:08 AM   #7 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: way out west
Here is a video...


Last edited by fastom; 11-08-2007 at 11:14 AM..
fastom is offline  
Old 11-09-2007, 07:09 AM   #8 (permalink)
Insane
 
joshbaumgartner's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Given that most Iraqi's would like the US occupation to end because they believe our presence is drawing outside interference, redeploying need not be viewed as a defeat. Redeploying "over the horizon" as Senator Murtha recommended long ago is a viable solution in my opinion, and would be more "honorable" than simply packing up and going home. But "honor" and "defeat" are being politicized in this debate and as such, have no real meaning.

I don't see Pelosi as frightened at all. She simply cannot be perceived as maneuvering herself closer to the presidency and the distraction that would cause.

::waves at Josh::
::waves back::

Indeed, those terms are I think so polluted in the political context that they hardly have real meaning within such a discussion. Inevitably, they are wielded for their conotations, not their relevance.
joshbaumgartner is offline  
Old 11-10-2007, 04:43 AM   #9 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
.....This is what I wanted to talk about.....




This is a very interesting quote, and not beacause of the laughable political sound byte they tried to create. ....

.....Honorably redeploy.....

If Iraq is 'unwinnable' or at least not worth winning as its apparent the democrats think, why don't they want to use the words 'retreat?' 'We have been beaten we are pulling out.' 'There is no way we can win this conflict, goodluck Iraq!'

Instead we get 'honorably redeploy' where we are leaving, yet retaining our honor. Interesting.....

There are 24 entries at dictionary.com for 'honor'

I wonder which one applies here?
...why do your comments, in reaction to Pelosi's reminder that she has long been on record as an advocate for redeploying troops to existing US bases in more rural areas of Iraq, as well as out of the country, sound so much like those of William Rusher, on the CNP/Salem Comm. website, townhall.com, 13 months ago?

Quote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/W...he_pelosi_plan
The Pelosi plan
By William Rusher
Tuesday, October 3, 2006

....Our would-be Madam Speaker has not uttered two consecutive words on any proposal for solving America's problems in Iraq. She has, instead, confined herself to calling upon the administration to "redeploy" our troops there.

Now, "redeploy" is defined in Webster's New World Dictionary as meaning "to move (troops) from one front to another, as from Europe to the Pacific." But as used by Pelosi, it is merely a fancy, rather military-sounding synonym for "bugout" -- or, if you prefer, <h3>"cut and run."</h3> She has never suggested any place to which the troops might be "redeployed" (Abu Dhabi? Dubai?), or explained what they might do once based there. If she imagines they might use their new location as a base from which to strike in some militarily more desirable direction, what direction does she have in mind, and how many casualties is she prepared to incur?

No, the Congresswoman <h3>from downtown San Francisco</h3> simply means pulling out of Iraq and bringing the troops home by Christmas (or some other date). It is hard to think of any comparably irresponsible proposal by an American political leader. It is the exact opposite of a "plan." It doesn't even ask, let alone answer, what is surely the most important question concerning a bugout: namely, what would its military and political consequences be?....
By the way...you don't suppose that Pelosi spokesman <a href="http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_7385887?nclick_check=1">Nadeam Elshami</a> is an Arab or a Persian?

Ustwo, you seem to at least be standing on the front porch of the dwelling that houses "the answer" that explains (excuses ?) a failed presidency, or you may already know what resides inside. Your questions are apparantly answered by author, journalist, and 2000 Maryland, US senate GOP primary candidate, Kenneth R. Timmerman:
Quote:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../10/018662.php
October 4, 2007
Shadow Warriors

For years, we have been writing about the CIA's campaign to undermine the Bush administration--the agency's most successful covert operation in many years. Scott came up with the felicitous phrase <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2006/05/013841.php">Three Years of the Condor</a> for the CIA's secret war. For a long time we felt like voices in the wilderness, but it turns out that some of those who do this for a living were hard at work.

Yesterday, I got in the mail a new book by <h3>Kenneth Timmerman, author of Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran</h3> and other books. Timmerman's new book is called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Warriors-Traitors-Saboteurs-Surrender/dp/0307352099/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-8494134-7452845?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191547627&sr=1-2">Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender</a>. I haven't had time to read it yet, obviously, but I can't resist quoting the book's beginning:

Some have called it the CIA's greatest covert operation of all time.

It involved deep penetration of a hostile regime by planting a network of agents at key crossroads of power, where they could steal secrets and steer policy by planting disinformation, cooking intelligence, provocation, and outright lies.

It involved sophisticated political sabotage operations, aimed at making regime leaders doubt their own judgment and question the support of their subordinates.

It involved the financing, training, and equipping of effective opposition forces, who could challenge the regime openly and through covert operations.

The scope was breathtaking, say insiders who had personal knowledge of the CIA effort. All the skills learned by the U.S. intelligence community during the fifty years of the Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union were in play, from active measures aimed at planting disinformation through cutouts and an eager media, to maskirovka--strategic deception.

It was war--but an intelligence war, played behind the scenes, aimed at confusing, misleading, and ultimately defeating the enemy. Its goal was nothing less than to topple the regime in power, by discrediting its rulers.

Many Americans believe this was the CIA's goal during the 1990s, when the Agency had "boots on the ground" in northern Iraq, working with Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein. Most patriotic Americans probably hope that the CIA today has such an operation to overthrow the mullahs in Tehran, or North Korean dictator Kim John Il.

<h3>But the target of this vast, sophisticated CIA operation was none of them.

It was America's 43rd President, George W. Bush.</h3>

I'm looking forward to reading the rest. Shadow Warriors is coming out on November 6, but can be pre-ordered on Amazon.
I'm sure that you can learn more at the forum linked in the preceding "article" (It leads to three pages of agreeable reactions) :
http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php...wthread/24422/

...and, guess what? Mr. Timmerman, in his new book, tells us who all "the traitors" are in the US government, besides the 250, or so, house democrats. The book's revelation is that Bush is an excellent president who is a victim of his own good nature, in failing to purge the government and the administration of all those who sabotaged his administraion, and the country, through treasonous acts.
Timmerman was nominated recently for the Nobel prize, along with John Bolton:
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=46

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articl...2167,2170,3307
Let the Nobel Go Nuclear

The Hon. Per Ahlmark
The Wall Street Journal
February 7, 2006
Page A26

Let us focus on the good guys. The fools of the Iranian nuclear tragedy we already know. The International Atomic Energy Agency was duped for 18 years.

Kenneth Timmerman has for 20 years exposed Iran’s nuclear intentions. In books, reports speeches, articles and private meetings he has told us of specific detail as well as the big picture - a full-fledged, official plan to game the system of international safeguards. His latest book, Countdown to Crisis: The coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran, lays this out in chilling detail; and it was his report for the Wiesenthal Center in 1992 that first detailed Iran’s ties to Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan.

John Bolton, former undersecretary of state, has with unusual energy tried to find ways to counter this threat. Friends and foes agree - he never gives up......

Editor's Note:

Kenneth R. Timmerman, a member of JINSA’s Board of Advisors, has been tracking Iranian government terrorism and Iranian weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs for the past twenty years. His latest book, Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran will be released in paperback on March 1, 2006.

His July 1998 profile of Osama bin Laden in Reader’s Digest appeared just three weeks before Bin Laden blew up two U.S. Embassies in Africa and became a household name.

In 1993, Timmerman authored a key Congressional report on Iranian WMD procurement. Since leaving the Hill, he has testified before Congress on many occasions on missile and nuclear developments in Iran, and been sought out for his expertise by a wide variety of U.S. government agencies, including the U.S. Army War College, the Department of Energy, and the Defense Intelligence Agency. In 1998, he testified on Iranian missile developments to the Commission To Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (the Rumsfeld Commission).

He is the author of two New York Times best-sellers: The French Betrayal of America (2004) and Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson (2002). Other books include Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America (2003), and The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq (1991). He is a contributing editor to Newsmax and writes a weekly column for FrontPage magazine.

John R. Bolton, a former member of JINSA’s Board of Advisors, was appointed by President George W. Bush as United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations on August 1, 2005. Prior to his appointment, Ambassador Bolton served as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security from May 2001 to May 2005.....
"Curt", over at http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/11/...n-on-traitors/ was kind enough to provide a link to Timmerman's Nov. 7th "interview", with Michael Medved on CNP/Salem Radio, edited by Curt to remove the commerical interruptions. I listened to it on the car radio, and Medved gushed about it being the best book he had ever read.
Startling revelations... Karen Kiatkowski is accused by Timmerman as being a LaRouche "mole", and Timmerman made some advance accusations:

Here is one of the comments in reaction to the Timmerman interview, at floppingaces, from the preceding link:
Quote:
....This is funny. I am watching the morning news and was just thinking (judged on the actions of democrats) that at least 250 members of the current congress will have an 'asterisk' after their history. *Also an American Traitor.....
Quote:
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/sul.../17/33221.html
Monday, September 17, 2007 10:05 AM

<h3>By: Kenneth R. Timmerman </h3>

The Central Intelligence Agency announced on Friday that it was calling back from retirement a controversial former operations officer to head the National Clandestine Service, three years after he left the Agency to protest reforms being put in place by then-CIA Director Porter Goss.

Michael J. Sulick was associate deputy director for operations at the time he resigned in November 2004 along with his boss, Stephen R. Kappes.

The Wall Street Journal called their bitter fight with Porter Goss and his aides over Agency reform “an insurgency,” although both Kappes and Sulick were praised by Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, who became a fierce critic of Goss and his reforms.

Sulick’s return was praised by John McLaughlin, who as acting CIA director in July 2004 was involved in his earlier appointment, prior to the clash with Goss.

“Mike Sulick’s return is a big plus for the agency,” McLaughlin told NewsMax. “He is open to new ideas, but espionage in the classic sense has been around since biblical times and — while novelty is always welcome — there's a lot to be said for the proven experience that Mike Sulick brings to the table. “

The National Clandestine Service, formerly known as the Directorate of Operations, is the Agency’s elite corps of spies.

When Goss took over the Agency in September 2004, he sought to revitalize the clandestine service and weed out “dead wood” operators who were the product of an “old boys network” that failed to recruit spies in difficult overseas environments.

But he ran into fierce opposition from Kappes, Sulick and other products of the CIA “old guard,” who objected to Goss’s efforts to reform the operations directorate and bring it under his control.

<h3>As I will reveal in my upcoming book, "Shadow Warriors: Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender,"</h3> Kappes had been implicated in a serious security breach at a CIA station overseas, but was never disciplined by the Agency.

Furthermore, both he and Sulick were engaged in activities to lobby members of Congress in their own districts that violated U.S. law. When Goss tried to discipline them, the two men resigned in protest.

Sulick’s message sends a “terrible message” to CIA officers who are trying to do their job and stay out of politics, and suggests that the CIA bench is so thin they have no other candidates for the critical job as head of the Clandestine Service, former agency officers said.

Goss was trying to change the “culture” of the DO, where Clandestine officers were promoted for the number of foreign sources they recruited, not the quality of their information.

Sulick and Kappes earned a reputation as political infighters, who fiercely opposed the policies of the Bush administration in the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

“Sulick’s appointment is an unbelievable slap at the president,” a congressional source told NewsMax over the weekend.

Gen. Michael V. Hayden replaced Goss as CIA director last year <h3>under circumstances never before made public that I reveal in my new book.</h3>

Gen. Hayden’s first move was to bring back Sulick’s old boss, Stephen Kappes, as deputy director of the Agency, a move that Goss supporters in Congress viewed as a “disaster.”...
So, Ustwo, I understand why you were asking what "honorably redeploying", actually means. If the tiny sliver of discredited, neocon influence (author Timmerman is a mouthpiece for <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2055232&postcount=1">JINSA</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Security_Policy">CSP</a> as well as co-founder of) :
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundat...ocracy_in_Iran
The Foundation for Democracy in Iran is a U.S. based Iranian dissident organization. FDI was founded in 1995 by Kenneth R. Timmerman, Peter W. Rodman, Joshua Muravchick and Iranian opposition expatriates advocating regime change in Iran....
..is still shaping your political views, you're probably in agreement with likud party in Israel, and the Council for National Policy (CNP) in the US, and what the CNP uses 1200 Salem Talk Radio and it's Salem Comm., website, townhall.com to convey:

<i>The people who disagree with Mr. Bush's foreign and military policy goals are democrats of the "extreme left", "looney liberals", "traitors", or all three.</i>

I have a question. Why do you suppose John Hindraker of powerlineblog, Michael Medved, and "Curt", so enthusiastically embrace Timmerman's book and the accusations contained in it? Do they really believe that Bush's only failing was being too soft on the "traitors on the inside"? Do you?

Last edited by host; 11-10-2007 at 04:56 AM..
host is offline  
 

Tags
gop, helps, honorably, kucinich

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:29 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360