Re: Former Powell aide says Bush, Cheney guilty of 'high crimes'

On May 13, 6:04 pm, Florida <demeter547op...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 13, 2:02 pm, "WOTH" <dontbot...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



"George Z. Bush" <georgezb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:fDn1i.19$Z03.6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jean Smith wrote:
In article <4645f726$0$3264$4c368...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If every president who "duped us into war" was impeached, we would have
ahd
a whole lot of impeachments.

"Florida" <demeter547op...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1178985548.018448.124430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Former Powell aide says Bush, Cheney guilty of 'high crimes'

by Nick Juliano
May 10, 2007

A former top State Department aide to Colin Powell said today that
President Bush and Vice President Cheney are more deserving of
impeachment than was Bill Clinton.

Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State
Colin Powell, said on the public radio program On Point Thursday that
"Bill Clinton's peccadilloes ... pale in significance" when compared
to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" of Bush and Cheney.

Wilkerson did not directly call on Congress to begin impeachment
hearings, and he brought up impeachment in response to a caller's
question. Early in the show, however, he observed, "This
administration doesn't know how to effect accountability, in my
opinion."

Wilkerson's comments were first reported by pro-impeachment Web site
AfterDowningStreet.org.

"The language in [the Constitution] about impeachment is nice and
precise -- it's high crimes and misdemeanors," he said. "You compare
Bill Clinton's peccadilloes for which he was impeached to George
Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors or *** Cheney's high crimes and
misdemeanors, and I think they pale in significance."

Taking a historical view of impeachment, Wilkerson said he believed
the Founding Fathers would be surprised that more presidents had not
been impeached.

"I do believe that they would have thought had they been asked by you
or whomever at the time of the Constitutional Convention in
Philadelphia 'Do you think this will be exercised?' they would have
said 'Of course it will, every generation they'll have to throw some
*** out.'"Wilkerson said. "That's a form of accountability too.
It's ultimate accountability."

Asked about the high crimes of the current administration, Wilkerson
said the American public was duped into supporting a war in Iraq.

"I think we went into this war for specious reasons," he said. "I
think we went into this war not too much unlike the way we went into
the Spanish American War with the Hearst press essentially goading the
American people and the leadership into war. That was a different time
in a different culture, in a different America. We're in a very
different place today and I think we essentially got goaded into the
war through some of the same means."
-------------------------

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Former_Powell_aide_says_Bush_Cheney_051...

This may be the first war that we conclude before we understand why we
went. We still seem to be working on the reasons.

I'm not so sure that we don't already know the reasons. They may not be
clear cut, nor simple, nor palatable, but at least some Americans have
been aware pretty much all along of the reasons unstated in the midst of
the public relations rhetoric that were dished out before the start of
this unpleasantness as to what the major reasons may have been.

This was a war that our leaders assured us would be paid for out of Iraqi
oil revenues and here we are five years later awash in red ink and nobody
has yet to account for all of the Iraqi oil that came out of the ground,
was sold and shipped off at a profit in all of those years. Not even an
interim report.....nothing.

Somebody has been profiting obscenely from that oil and nobody in the
administration has so much as even mentioned it since they started the
war. It may not be fashionable to be suspicious of skullduggery, but
there sure as hell seems to be plenty of good reason for suspicion.

There may have been other reasons, such as a personal desire for glory in
the history books, but OIL will do for me until something better comes
along, if it ever does.
George Z.

I think it was pure revenge for Sadaam trying "to kill my Daddy".

:^) Maybe with dedicated soap opera viewers like Dumbya. Back in
the real world of multinational corporations and world-wide
competition for fossil fuels, George Z. is right, the crucial word is
OIL.

The clue is the complete disappearance after the invasion of any
further public discussion about how and when 'Saddam's' oil was going
to pay for the invasion, then the subsequent lack of any discussion of
Iraq's oil in the U.S. media, plus the complete lack of public
accounting and public accountability for Iraq's oil production over
the past four years. All this tells us that we shouldn't count on
this administration to actually share the Iraqi peoples' oil wealth
with the American people, or the Iraqi people, altho both of those
were among their many pretexts for invasion.
No, the B.sh. admin's position is pretty clear, 'we arranged an
invasion to steal it fair and square, so it's none of the American
taxpayer's business'.

--
Way Over The Hill

Preemptively invading a sovereign country and then requiring them to
pay for the invasion is just plain stealing in my opinion.

My theory is that the Bush administration really didn't understand
that their idea was immoral. I bet most Americans didn't either. My
guess is that they went silent on the subject after someone gave them
a quick ethics lesson.




.