Comments on: Brzezinski: Air Strike on Iran Could ‘Merit the Impeachment of the President’

By: communisation trackback url

communisation trackback url — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:03:05 +0000

[...] url will expire after 23:59:59 today. 30. 9???. Q1 What is nifty future? …http://www.xngbbs.com/Think Progress ” Blog Archive ” Brzezinski: Air Strike on Iran Could Merit the Impeachment of the Pr…Brzezinski: Air Strike on Iran Could Merit the Impeachment of the President’ … Your address: [...]

By: Fioricet

Fioricet — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:22:55 +0000

Fioricet

great site, nice design.

By: ALESSE

ALESSE — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:16:22 +0000

ALESSE…

informative post, keep it up.nice choice of colors. …

By: HOODIA

HOODIA — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:50:10 +0000

HOODIA…

nice choice of colors.adding to my bookmark …

By: Todd Tokarz

Todd Tokarz — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:41:58 +0000

I have to admit, if 68 million Iranian were to immediately die a horrible nuclear death… 300 million Americans as well as countless hundreds of millions of others around the would would not shed a single tear for the filthy swine. I’m just saying…

By: Jodin

Jodin — Mon, 29 May 2006 17:19:25 +0000

Impeach Bush yourself! This is much more than just a petition.

There’s a little known and rarely used clause of the in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.

That’s where we come in. In addition to the State-byState method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

You can initiate the impeachment process yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in.

http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

More information on the precedent for submitting an impeachment
memorial, and the House Rules on this procedure, can also be found at
the above address.

If you have any doubts that Bush has committed crimes warranting
impeachment, read this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org/evidence/

If you’re concerned that impeachment might not be the best strategy
at this point, read the
bottom of this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org/

It just takes a minute to save our democracy.

By: Tom Walsh

Tom Walsh — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 10:37:21 +0000

I’m afraid if there is any type of “terrorist activity itwill be used to justify a retalitory attack on IRAN NO MATTER WHO REALLY DOES THE ATTACKING

By: kierkegaard

kierkegaard — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 04:47:04 +0000

To get back to basics, invading Iraq was done to control the flow of oil for the oil cartels. Invading Iran is the same reasoning. They make more money by restricting the flow of oil. It is shameful and quite evil what they are doing.These pre-emptive strikes are war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The oil cartels are as responsible as anyone for the carnage.

BTW, it is about time for the use of global renewable energy for all of mankind, and let’s leave the oil cartels in the dust where they came from.

The Bush administration is culpable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. They shall be held accountable, as well as the oil cartels.

By: FreeDem

FreeDem — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:58:38 +0000

At what point do you stop saying to an out of control maniac “if you do one more crazed supid thing we’re going to ‘get you’ for it” After all the Constitution is “just another piece of paper” and we know how much respect he has for paper.

We passed Impeachable before he even took office, He managed to pass “crimes against humanity” before the second election theft. The only threat left is the men in white coats, and there is not a big enough army of them to clean up all who need attention.

By: E. Smith

E. Smith — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:52:06 +0000

Read THIS

By: Briseadh na Faire

Briseadh na Faire — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 04:53:34 +0000

Aston, I’m on your side. Did you read my above posts where I make the case for the illegality of Bush’s War?

I think you missed a critical point in my argument. “I posited that had we, and the world, gone into Iraq to take out Saddam for those reasons, it would have made all the difference.”

Eventually the world community needs to stand up and collectively say to petty despots everywhere that we are no longer going to sit and allow you to commit genocide and atrocities on your own people.

I know the gassing of the Kurds occured when Bush I was on the throne. And, to think, he was able to gather perhaps the greatest multinational force in history. I know of no other conflict where so many nations were gathered together under one banner. That would have been the time for the whole world to say, “It’s time for you to step down, Saddam.” But that didn’t happen.

Bush II is not on any moral high ground as far as I am concerned. And, unfortunately, neither is the United States, thanks to His leadership.

By: R. Aston

R. Aston — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 04:17:16 +0000

I want to point out to Briseadh na Faire, who said Bush invading Iraq was “the right thing for the wrong reason” that it was the wrong thing for no reason. No TRUE reason, anyway.
Saying it was justified because, “there was abundant evidence that Saddam gassed, tortured, authorized rape and murder of his own citizens” makes no sense at all. Then we could also go to war against most of the 50 countries in Africa, as well as China. The majority of African countries have a policy of either authorizing, or allowing others to, rape and murder their citizens.
And you neglected to say that the gassing of Iraqis, including Iraqi Kurds, occurred in the 1980s when Bush’s father was president and that the Reagan-Bush government allowed equipment to be sold with which Iraq could make the gas. So did France, the Soviet Union and Germany. Plus, when Hussein’s Iraq invaded Iran, and started a war which ended up killing 900,000 people on bothe sides the Reagan-Bush administration WAS ON SADDAM HUSSEIN’S SIDE. In fact, the Reagan-Bush regime gave satellite photos and other military assistance to Saddam Hussein. So how is Bush the son on moral high ground to change Iraq’s government and imprison the man his dad (Bush’s dad) helped commit these crimes?

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 03:03:50 +0000

Bush will do just what he wants before the changing of the guards, (House and Senate), in November.
I concur with what you say that, “the United States is allocating funds for the destabilization of the Iranian regime and is reportedly injecting Special Forces teams into Iran to stir up non-Iranian ethnic minorities in order to fragment the Iranian state (in the name of democratization!).”
It has been reported that the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), are already in Iran doing our dirty work along with Special Forces.
Remember, when Bush and his Administration said that there were terrorist in Iraq, well guess what? There were, and they were and are the MEK, who Bush now has in Iran. So America, it turns out we knew (MEK), was in Iraq and that they had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. Even though our President and his Administration forgot to tell us this.
This shows just how for this President will go to confuse America with all sorts of lies.
So yes, this former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski is right, and this President should have already been impeached and should be impeached if Air strikes on Iran is conducted.
God only knows what type of trouble this would cause for Israel by the other Countries there. I think that this would be a reason to start World War III.
Did someone just say Antichrist!

By: R. Aston

R. Aston — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:22:23 +0000

Zbigniew Brzezinski was the ONLY person of prominence in the 1980s who predicted the de-communisation and breakup of the Soviet Union, which occurred in the early 1990s. Bush should listen to him.
But he won’t. I can assure you that the ONLY 5 questions the Bush gang agonizes about when planning the attack on Iran are [1] what facade or pretext can we come up with to justify it?; [2] will the press lay back again and parrot our pretext for war naively, or will they actually tell the truth and sink us?; [3] is our credibility so shot (Mr. 32%) that the public will instinctively KNOW we’re lying?; [4] will the Congress develop a backbone and try to cut off funding for the attack?; [5] will it help or hurt us in November?
Notice that the substantive questions are not on their list. Such as: Why should we attack when Iran won’t have atomic bombs until NEXT DECADE? Why don’t we negotiate with Iran? How would attacking help when it would just make the Iranians hate us, and then be more determined than ever to attain nuclear club status? How would further destabilization of the Middle East caused by bombing Iran help ANYBODY but China, who just sits back and laughs and watches the United States destroy itself while they build up their factories and their military? And, finally, oil is $75 a barrel. How would driving it to $150 a barrel, and gasoline to $5.50 a gallon, help us when we (the Bush administration ) have already accumulated $1.35 trillion in debt in the last 30 months alone? How can we keep up payments on that debt if our economy collapses due to truckers gas costs exploding?
I don’t understand how a third rate burglary or an affair with an intern are considered worthy of impeachment, but having an absolute band of lunatics running the country is considered OK.

By: Briseadh na Faire

Briseadh na Faire — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:08:29 +0000

#165 -

“I cant stand it when people question the morality of the Iraq War! Does anyone remember the US encouraging the uprising of the Shiites and the Kurds in the north and south of iraq that were subsequently massacred by Saddam?

195 – I support the bringing of democracy to Iraq,I support helping the iraqis build a nation. However I do not support the manner in which it has been carried out by this administration.Daniel K.

Daniel, we have some common ground vis a vis your post #195. War is so horrible I question the morality of all war. Granted, with the current social development of man-unkind, war is sometimes necessary and justified. But the threshold for justifying war must be extremely high; the cost in human life demands it.

I traveled throughout Europe the summer after the U.S. invaded Iraq. As an American, I was continually asked my opinion about the war. I responded that we may have done the right thing, for the wrong reasons. Even in the summer of 2003 the case was weak. The IAEA issued its report a week after Bush invaded saying that all nuclear materials were accounted for, that there was no active program to reconstitute Iraq’s nuclear program. The proffered reason for going to war was to prevent an imminent attack by Iraq; Weapons of Mass Destruction. We are learning more and more that the information used to support that allegation was, at best, weak; at worst, a knowing lie.

Yet there was abundant evidence that Saddam gassed, tortured, authorized rape and murder of his own citizens. I posited that had we, and the world, gone into Iraq to take out Saddam for those reasons, it would have made all the difference.

Indeed, the best window of opportunity for the world to have acted, and been consistent with Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter would have been when the Shi’ites and Kurds rose up in ‘91. It is permissible, consistent with international law, for outside countries aid in an uprising to throw out a despot. Yet we did not, and unknown thousands died.

Can we pull out at any time? Yes. We can do a Vietnam, declare victory, pull out the troops and leave the country to determine its future for itself.

Or we could go to the U.N. and tell that body that we are going to pull out on such-and-such a date and they are welcome to send in peacekeepers if they wish.

Neither option is good, but either is better than a protracted civil war where we are the target of all sides.

By: Daniel K.

Daniel K. — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:43:00 +0000

201-
you arent alone. Jimmy Carter was a great president, contrary to popular belief. Also contrary to popular belief, he was a very very smart man (he had a degree in engineering from The US Naval Academy) and made some very important decisions and pursued the right path even if it was against popular desire like the Iranian situation (also the Panama Canal treaties were very unpopular but were the right thing to do after out history with that area)

By: Elaine Mueller

Elaine Mueller — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:15:58 +0000

I sometimes think I am the only person who continues to believe that Carter was a great President. Does no one remember that he nudged Congress into great energy-saving plans. During his regime–at the suggestion of many Republicans–he allowed the Shah to enter the United States. As a result, members of the American diplomatic post were held hostage for a long time. A longer time than necessary, owing to the Reaganites “October Surprise”, later quietly paid for with American arms since Iran was at the time at war with Iraq. The point is, even rather mild-mannered Americans were angry and saying things like, “Why don’t we drop an Atom bomb on Teheran?” etc. But we didn’t. Peace prevailed. The hostages were returned. Thus Carter, an all-time GREAT PRESIDENT, saved us from war. I had sons of draft age at the time and I honor any man who saves us from war. And whose energy ideas, so ruthlessly savaged by Reagan, would have us in a good spot if they’d been followed.

By: Tom Murphy

Tom Murphy — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:28:22 +0000

Upholding the Constitution is paramount. Attacking Iran violates the United Nations Charter, which is a treaty and part of the supreme law of the United States under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. signed the UN Charter and we are obligated to uphold the law according to our own Constitution. A treaty that we sign becomes the “law of the land” according to our Constitution.

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” No nation has a right under the UN Charter to take pre-emptive action.

I notice Brzezinski isn’t mentioning this fact.

By: misinformation

misinformation — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:21:11 +0000

I wonder how many agents of the system contribute to these forums. How many of them say incindiary things just to distort debate. This reply chain is a mess. Maybe it’s not a conspiracy that people are idiots.

By: Daniel K.

Daniel K. — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:01:23 +0000

192- Youre right I probably should clarify. I support the bringing of democracy to Iraq,I support helping the iraqis build a nation. However I do not support the manner in which it has been carried out by this administration. I am deeply saddened that they have ruined out big chance to create a democracy in Iraq, and that our situation there is likely to only worsen. To put it frankly, I am frustrated. I am frustrated that this Administration cheated Iraq, and the Iraqis. This could have been done correctly, we could have won, the Iraqis could have won their true freedom from oppression and terror. however I do not believe it it prudent to pull out. We need to revamp out approach to this war, starting with firing Rumsfeld, and make a full commitment to winning this war. But there is no public support. We have seen out window of opportunity close, and I am frustrated and lost, with nowhere to turn.