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

On May 14, 8:16 am, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
George Z. Bush wrote:
WOTH wrote:

"mg" <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1179117571.026011.159790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.

Well, I agree on that point to a certain extent but if you look at the
history of the oil fields over there you just might find that we discovered
and developed them and they took them away from us in the first place. Kinda
like Chavez is doing now.

It probably comes as a shocking discovery to some people but when one discovers
a natural resource within the sovereign territory of another nation, it does not
automatically become the lifelong property of the discoverer. It's ownership
was and remains whatever it was when the search for that resource was
undertaken, not to mention the terms of the agreement that first authorized the
seekers to seek. Finders keepers is a policy that may work in a schoolyard, but
it's hardly the basis for international relations.

I've followed this discussion but haven't intruded into it because I
have mixed feelings regarding the issue. On one hand, I don't totally
agree with either of you on the issue. True, a sovereign nation has a
moral and proprietary right to all land under its jurisdiction. But if
said nation permits private ownership of land and has not reserved any
other rights( such as mineral rights ) through Law, and permits
individuals to transfer said land to one another for profit, or
whatever, then said government should abide by the same cultural, moral
and legalities which are established. Taking the land, and the mineral
rights through a process such as eminent domain, one used in civilized
countries would be in order. But then, payment is based on the value of
the land, structures and mineral rights at the time of appropriation. I
do not believe such was the case with Venezuela.

Thus, the Nation has proprietary rights since the land is within its
boundaries, but needs to play by the same rules it has established for
land transfers among individuals who happen to live within its
boundaries. I agree that the land does not belong, on a proprietary
basis to the oil companies( finders, keepers ), and the nation has a
right to appropriate the land through a process of eminent domain. But
adequate payment, which includes the value of the land, its improved
structures and its underground mineral sources at the time of
appropriation should be considered and made. What Venezuela has done is
modified thievery. Advocates of Socialism might argue the point, but
that's for another discussion.

Without concrete examples, the discussion becomes highly abstract and
hypothetical, in the case of Iraq, for instance, my guess (and it's
just a guess) is that Iraq nationalized it's oil after the contracts
expired.

In doing a quick Google search, I don't see where Venezuela has
violated any contracts or international laws. They might have, of
course. It's just that the issue isn't discussed in the news reports
that pop up on a search. (Our news media really sucks sometimes).

Here's a quote from an expert on the current situation in Iraq:

"Khalidi doubts the draft law will pass parliament. "It is so
manifestly against the interests of Iraq," he says. If it does,
though, he doesn't expect the law to last. Presumably, an Iraq no
longer occupied would seek better terms for any deal reached under the
proposed law.

Al Hajji notes that contracts signed "under duress" are not legally
binding. After Iran nationalised its oil industry in the 1950s,
British lawyers for the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (now British
Petroleum) contested the action in the International Court in the
Hague and lost, despite Britain's superpower status then. In the
future, Iraqi lawyers could similarly argue that any oil deal signed
while Iraq was occupied was done under duress and thus was invalid.

After reading the draft law in Arabic last week, Al Hajji says, "It is
so broad and loose, it has no significance."

Often, he says, nationalism in oil-rich nations rises during and after
occupation by foreigners. That "will cause problems."

http://www.gasandoil.com/ogel/authors/author_detail.asp?key=13
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/03/06/10108956.html
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/DisplayNews.aspx?id=3352
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0305/p17s01-cogn.html

.