Re: Mr.Narvey still has no point - His Bias is the Tune that won't Change!
[ Follow-Ups ]
[ Post Followup ]
[ Canadian Coalition for Democracies Public Message Forum ]
Posted by PK on 11:22:03 2008/11/15
In Reply to:
Re: Mr.Narvey still has no point - His Bias is the Tune that won't Change! posted by Dave L
Dave L. seems fixated on this Aricles of Impeachment document, which appears to act as as a surrogate bible for his conservaphobia dogma(I say that because he uses the word "neocon" as a pejorative and likes to attacks/insult conservatives generally and not just Bush's "crimes" specifically).
This impeachment thing is all theatre. Many of the accusations therein are primarily based on speculation and interpretation and almost certainly could not withstand legal scrutiny in a court of law. Perhaps there might be substance to some issues, but so much of it is based on "facts" that anyone outside the Bush Admin's cabinet and circle of advisors could not possibly know for certain (like the "facts" 9-11 Truthers - oh, I, love that word! - have to prove US sabotage in 9-11).
Article I has me curious about plausibility. Apart from the odd contradiction of charges of "secret propaganda campaigns" (how can you know for certain what is secret?), I am trying to reconcile the elaborate Bush Admin plot to invade Iraq with the very chancy likelihood and risky gamble that Saddam predictably would act in support of this plot (unless he was in on it). If memory serves, the US and other coaltion governments acted in response to Saddam's middle finger salute to the UN imperative that Saddam permit foreign, UN-managed atomic energy inspectors in to confirm or refute the evidence of WMD development - and to the UN's failure to enforce its imperative. The whole bloody thing could have been avoided if Saddam simply said, "Okay, c'mon in and look around". It was Saddam who worked so hard to create the appearance that he was powerful, armed, and anxious to build nuclear weapons. It was Saddam who foiled and impeded UN inspectors already there. Why? Might he be hiding something?
Had Saddam really been developing nuclear arms, would Dave L. still be so outraged? If, like many others, he would have accepted the strategic necessity of removing such a threat, then we are down to whether or not it was all a Bush lie and conspiracy. No matter how many "neocons" were itching to invade Iraq (for the oil, was it?), the whole thing would have been thwarted by a more compliant Saddam Hussein, who'd still be around today kicking the shit out of Shiites.
I'm as curious as anyone to know what was real, what was perceived to be real, and what was fabricated in the lead-up to Iraq. But Dave L. and Kucinich are going nowhere with this impeachment stuff. It's bogus.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
[ Follow Ups ]
[ Post Followup ]
[ Canadian Coalition for Democracies Public Message Forum ]