PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler has to be getting uncomfortable for calling out unbalanced liberal programs on the taxpayer-funded network. After he agreed with critics last week that a pro-Kerry editorial was wildly out of place on the show "History Detectives," now he has noticed the incredibly one-sided Bill Moyers Journal hour on impeaching Bush and Cheney and mildly noted it could have used a smidgen of balance. Despite Nancy Pelosi’s promise to avoid impeachment hearings, he wrote, "I would argue that it is still a newsworthy topic. So, as a viewer, I'm grateful that it is being addressed....On the other hand, there was almost a complete absence of balance, as I watched it, in the way this program presented the case for impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney."
Getler praised Moyers and his guests for some educational television (and most of the letters he reproduces are rave reviews). He concluded: "This was an hour-long program and it was, in many ways, an education, listening to this view of the impeachment process being laid out, whether or not you agree with it. But the program, in my view, would have been not only less vulnerable to charges of political bias, but also even more educational to more people in terms of illuminating the public about impeachment, if it had contained at the very least a succinct summary of the likely legal challenges to each of the main charges raised by the pro-impeachment process guests."
It would have been a lot easier to do that by having more of a debate. But Getler failed to address several issues, such as the outrageous historical comparisons guest Bruce Fein used, comparing Bush to the Nazis and the Soviets, and he failed to consider that PBS had no such "educational" hour when the House considered impeaching President Clinton, displaying a bias when comparing past to present.
CPB Ombudsman Ken Bode did not comment on the Moyers impeachment show on his official blog, although he did strangely condemn the Moyers program that started his latest incarnation of the Journal show -- for not including any critique of PBS and its failure to prevent war in Iraq. However, Bode did write a sharp-elbowed piece in the Indianapolis Star about the Moyers show and impeachment. He listed "Bush administration crimes," and insisted Bush had a "monumental" amount of "monarchical arrogance." But he still thought the timing wasn't right for Pelosi to pounce:
Charges: Guantanamo. Abu Ghraib. Rendition. Indefinite detention. Starting a war of aggression in Iraq without cause. Hiding and torturing captives without due process. Illegal wiretapping. Some would add obstructing honest elections and gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans after Katrina.
The list of Bush administration crimes is very real, but I have not paid much attention to the blogs, petitions and other efforts to promote impeachment, on the theory that they are diversionary to the more important efforts to end the war in Iraq. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "Impeachment is not on the table," which I thought was good politics. Then a friend urged me to look at last Friday's PBS broadcast of "Bill Moyers Journal," a program devoted to putting the case for impeachment in a more serious context....
Only through impeachment hearings is it possible to concentrate the mind of the public on the monarchical arrogance and sneering attitude of George W. Bush. "I am king," Fein says of Bush's view of executive powers....
The crimes are real and probably impeachable, and the monarchial arrogance of the Bush-Cheney administration is monumental. But the timing is wrong.
Once again, CPB only really wanted a partisan liberal ombudsman, or else they would have replaced conservative co-ombudsman William Schulz, which they never have. The PBS system is turning into Bush Hater Headquarters without even timid Republican majorities to discourage the natural leftist tendencies of public broadcasting.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Comments Policy
PBS and NPR are the only
July 21, 2007 - 19:23 ET by Andrew H.PBS and NPR are the only two media outlets the Fariness Doctrine should ever be applied. It is our tax money after all that pays for this junk. Nice thought, our money being used to lie back to our faces.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
I could not agree with
July 21, 2007 - 19:46 ET by bigtimerI could not agree with anything more Andrew.
I remember when Gingrich backed away from pursuing that I think he did, seems like I was very angry.
I have been angry at the gutlessness of the repub's to not get rid of tax-payers being forced to pay for these leftists lying filled bins of trash for years, especially when the have had the House and Senate and could of done it easily IMO.
Ah, bt, you forget that
July 21, 2007 - 21:49 ET by motherbeltAh, bt, you forget that Republicans think that if they suck up to the Democrats, they will be nice in return.
Republicans never, never learn....
What a joke.
July 22, 2007 - 00:05 ET by Scout FinchSeriously. What a joke. Republicans wishing Democrats would be fair. HA.
Unfortunately, Mr. Getler's
July 21, 2007 - 19:25 ET by GalvanicUnfortunately, Mr. Getler's findings will have absolutely no impact on PBS programming, particularly Moyer's show.
So, PBS fends off charges of liberal bias by reminding us that they have an ombudsman to look out for abuse, but when he finds it, they ignore him. Getler's findings are just a placebo.
Starting a war of
July 21, 2007 - 19:29 ET by SMGalbraithStarting a war of aggression in Iraq without cause.
Saddam Hussein was the aggrieved party?
This is so risible one has to just stop and say, Mr. Bode, you have no credibility to comment further on this topic.
Sign up for Professor Bluto's History Course
July 21, 2007 - 19:46 ET by KC MulvilleI'm sorry, but I keep gagging at the idea that Abu Ghraib was a "Bush crime." How can you possibly indict Bush for that crime? This is Bluto history ("when the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor!?").
Abu Ghraib is not the only thing
July 22, 2007 - 21:12 ET by pbthinkerIf you look at the garbage, they throw out there for impeachment, the only thing you can assume is that it's an impeachable offense to do anything Liberals don't agree with.
There are 2 things, the Liberals constantly bring up, that annoy me to no end, one is Abu Ghraib and the second one is Hurricane Katrina. Abu Ghraib was dealt with and the perpetrators were punished and Katrina was a disaster, made worse by, some of the worst reporting the media has ever put out. If Louisiana had any leadership, at the time, we would have been praising the effort taken to move people out of danger, once the dikes broke. Instead, the Liberals have covered up the real blame and laid it on the President. The only shame is the media has allowed them to get away with it for 2 years, with no let up in sight.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
To the really scary part is...
July 21, 2007 - 20:21 ET by c5thenRight now they are railing and flaling at a Republican Administration with Democrats having a small majority in the House and the Senate virtually split 50/50. The really scary part is what would happen if in a short time we would have a Democratic Administration and a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate?
Between the liberal politicians and the liberal media, they will be able to virtually do almost anything that they want. It is only the current make up of the Supreme Court that there is any hope at all in that scenario.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Cheney & Ginsberg
July 21, 2007 - 20:34 ET by PawpawNAny truth to the rumor that Pres for today, Dick Cheney, was seen near Ruth Bader Ginsberg's home in a bright orange outfit today?
I reject the frame that
July 21, 2007 - 20:23 ET by takingmyconstitutionalI reject the frame that impeachment of Bush and Cheney should even be considered a liberal versus conservative issue. Certainly some conservatives already understand that these men have been lawbreakers in a variety of contexts, and that their behavior threatens our 200-year-old system of constiitutional governance. I certainly hope more conservatives will recognize that on this issue, all Americans--right, left, and in-between---should rise up and say "enough."
And those LAWBREAKING things are?
July 21, 2007 - 20:28 ET by PawpawNAnd those lawbreaking things are? Please recite specifics and when done, when charged, etc. I keep hearing this mantra but never see any answers!
I guess it falls to me to
July 21, 2007 - 21:46 ET by motherbeltI guess it falls to me to remind the above accuser that implementing policies opposed by some Senators and Cngressmen is not a criminal act.
Constitutionality.
July 22, 2007 - 00:10 ET by Scout FinchPeriod.
Prove it.
Oh come on, I can name
July 22, 2007 - 21:46 ET by JerryOh come on, I can name numerous laws that were broken.
Gosh, there are just so many.... but wait... those happened over 7 years ago. Here's something a little more recent...
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Ouch !
August 20, 2007 - 01:21 ET by SportPoliticsSlapdown and silence.
lol
that these men have been
July 21, 2007 - 20:34 ET by SMGalbraiththat these men have been lawbreakers in a variety of contexts,
Please, the floor is yours. List the "variety of contexts".
Let's go.
Wow. It's taking him a
July 21, 2007 - 20:40 ET by saw the lightWow. It's taking him a while. There must be a bunch of links and examples he is compiling in his attempt to convince us that our elected President and Vice-President are criminals.
Of course, the last criminal to occupy the Oval Office was disbarred for perjury, right?
We're all waiting!
July 21, 2007 - 20:42 ET by PawpawNGuess we're pulling an ALLNIGHTNER waiting for answers and he's gone to take a nap!
takin something but not a
July 21, 2007 - 20:54 ET by botgtakin something but not a nap! (then he'll try to dump it here)
Well, if he comes from the
July 21, 2007 - 21:03 ET by SMGalbraithWell, if he comes from the libertarian wing - those that think the IRS is unconstitutional - perhaps our request should have been set aside.
There's certainly some real legitimate scepticism or concern about some of the actions these past years. The open ended nature of some of the acts causes me problems. In previous wars, when presidents acted in their commander-in-chief roles, roles which permitted them more powers, there was always an "end date" to those activities. Once the war was over - the Germans or Japanese defeated - the expansive powers of the Executive would diminish.
The brilliant Jonathan Rauch has pointed out that, compared to the actions of other war time presidents, Bush's actions are much less expansive. However, the fact that this war seemingly has no end date - a forever war - makes what actions he has taken more troubling.
now you have some
July 21, 2007 - 21:12 ET by botgnow you have some legitimate concerns and rational thesis' i doubt 'takinmydump' was even in your ballpark, but you may have provided some brief cover for him. Isn't Bush out of office in 18 months? Did he continue the endless presidential decrees used by his predecessor?
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Isn't Bush out of office in
July 21, 2007 - 21:18 ET by SMGalbraithIsn't Bush out of office in 18 months? Did he continue the endless presidential decrees used by his predecessor?
Yes, but do these powers go with him? I'm not as concerned with Bush misusing these powers but with future presidents using these for less-than-noble purposes.
We've all seen how government has expanded over the decades during crises, economic and otherwise. And how this racheting up continues unabated. Once government gains power, it's reluctant to give those powers back. Heck, many of the same programs that FDR enacted to deal with the war and depression have outlived him.
The power we give today for Bush to use can be used tomorrow by another president for nefarious purposes.
i agree we need be careful,
July 21, 2007 - 21:24 ET by botgi agree we need be careful, the best we can vote for is a POTUS who will appoint strict constructionists to the SCOTUS. The present slim Dem controlled Congress also is trying to over-step it's constitutional powers. This whole balance of powers thing seems to be working. The other important vote for us is to keep the 2nd ammendment intact as that is the final enforcer of the "consent" of the governed.
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Oh, I get it...
July 21, 2007 - 21:19 ET by c5thenYou reject reality and substitute your own.
Makes perfect sense...
Just to help the troll out a bit (kind of a handicap)... You do realize that impeachment has to be for "High crimes and misdemeanors"? That means that articles of impeachment are basically an indictment of what particular US laws were broken by whom and when.
President Bush was authorized to use the US military in Iraq by congress in 2003. So doing so, for whatever reason, can not by definition be a crime.
Now...feel free to list any other crimes that you feel have been commited.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Poll
July 21, 2007 - 21:29 ET by rob6677"In our latest poll here at Propaganda Associated (PAss) we have found that there is a high percentage of low people that continue to refrain from making any sense. Our polls are based on (but may not include) the rapid stupidity of the few Americans that ruin a good conversation by leaving the kiddie table to say something stupid with their finger up their nose. If you would like an explanation of our polling process please talk to your nearest liberal (use the proper safety equipment). Our next segment is about how these people continue to function in society of "conspiracy and deceit" while they are conspiring to deceive anyone with a brain."
"We hope this has been as informative as information should be while informing you of the informal nature of "informed" liberals."
This message brought to you by Propaganda Associated (PAss)
We funnel the news you need through the PAss hole of ambiguity!
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana!" Groucho
I'd like to see the variety of contexts detailed too please
July 21, 2007 - 22:13 ET by Brett PaatschYou would not be writing for an entirely unsympathetic set of readers.
I
am Australian, neither a Democrat, nor a Republican. I think George W
Bush should be impeached, in the interests of the United States citizen
and in the interests of upholding the rule of law both nationally and
internationally, and this is a conclusion that I have reached
independently.
I happen to agree with Kofi Annan, then Secretary
General of the United Nations, that the invasion of Iraq, in the manner
in which it was done, was a breach of UN Charter.
The UN Charter
was ratified by a vote of 89 to 2 by the US Senate in 1945 - before
George W Bush was born. [Google will enable the facts I assert here to
be checked by any reader].
The US Constitution makes clear at
article 6 that "all treaties made under the authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme law of the land". Therefore a breach of
the UN Charter (a treaty) is a breach of the "supreme law of the land".
Before becoming President, in accordance with article 2 of
the Constitution, George W Bush took an oath to "preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States". Article 2. Section 3
makes clear that the President shall "take care that the laws be
faithfully executed".
By his Presidential Oath, by the
Constitution, by the "supreme law" George W Bush was NOT entitled to
break the UN Charter or to break a Security Council resolution. To
break the UN Charter or to break a Security Council resolution is a
crime under US law.
When did Bush break the UN Charter?
He
broke it when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 after the
United States had agreed along with all the other Security Council
members to UN Resolution 1441 in November 2002. The dates are
important as 1441 was made in November and Congress gave the President
the Authorisation to Use Military Force in October 2002.
1441
states, amongst other things, that Iraq was to be afforded a "final
opportunity" and that the Security Council was "seized of the matter".
Article
27 of the UN Charter states that "Decisions of the Security Council on
procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine
members" and on "ALL other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote
of nine members including the concurring votes fof the permanent
members".
i.e. It was not the Presidents perogative to conclude
that Iraq's "final opportunity" had ended unilaterally. That perogative
was the Security Councils.
Bush knew the law here. Acting with
Spain and the UK, the Bush administration sought another Security
Council resolution the text of which is available on the net, that
declared only that Iraq's "final opportunity" had ended. He could not
get agreement on that resolution. Bush then decided to invade Iraq
anyway.
As a consequence of the illegal invasion of Iraq, over
3500 American servicemen and women, bound by their own oaths both to
follow the orders of the President and their commanders, have died. No
weapons of mass destruction were found. Al Quaida that was not formerly
in Iraq, now is.
The invasion of Iraq was a crime under US law.
Congress's Authorisation to Use Military Force
[ http://www.whitehous... ] authorised the President "to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by
Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Nowhere, is the President authorised to break UN Security Council Resolutions. The President usurped that authority himself.
The invasion of Iraq, against the terms of 1441 was a crime against
the United States and against all the member nations of the United
Nations. The scale of the consequences contribute to making this crime
a "high crime".
The Constitution says at Article 2, Section 4 that
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United
States, SHALL BE removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction
of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors'.
By the way.
The United Nations, is a body that was put together largely by the
efforts of two American wartime Presidents, FDR and Truman, in order to
"save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" and to "maintain
international peace and security".
Its article 2 states, "The Organisation is based on the principle of
the sovereign equality of all its Members" and "All members, in order
to ensure to all of them the rights, and benefits resulting from
membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them
in accordance with the present Charter".
So thats my reason (one of them) for wanting Bush impeached. What are yours?
Excuse me. You're citing
July 21, 2007 - 22:24 ET by dahliatraversExcuse me. You're citing Kofi Annan to make a point?
Thanks, I need to read no further. Your comments are bereft of credibility.
makes a great argument for
July 21, 2007 - 22:34 ET by botgmakes a great argument for turning the present UN building into a daycare and sending the UN to Bejing without a US rep
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I only mentioned Kofi Annan
July 21, 2007 - 22:41 ET by Brett Paatschin passing because some folks won't check the facts for themselves.
None of the facts I state require anyone to trust Kofi Annan.
In fairness I did not read the UN Charter or the US Constitution myself until after 9-11.
If you can fault the facts I put down then you'd be doing me a service. I am open to changing my mind if I am in error.
Hate to burst your bubble
July 22, 2007 - 13:09 ET by BDHate to burst your bubble my Austrailian compadre, but Saddam's continued engagement of US aircraft, plaing bounties on the headof US pilots, and supportof terrorist organizations was by ITSELF an act of war which legally required NO FURTHER Justification legally for the US response.
Everything beyond that point is simply tortured defense lawyeristic gobble-de-gook.
Sincerely, Michael Ware.
July 21, 2007 - 22:29 ET by fitzfongSincerely, Michael Ware.
G'Day, Mate! I've been a
July 21, 2007 - 22:43 ET by Del DolemonteG'Day, Mate! I've been a daily listener of Radio Australia on shortwave since the 1960s. Their overnight transmission to the Pacific for some strange reason follows a compass pattern that takes them right over my head at 6 AM
Now, let's examine your points
1. I hate to tell you this, but Kofi was a stooge, and his son was in bed with Saddam Hussein in the "Oil for Food" scam
2. Please legally dissect Bill Clinton's War of Choice in Kosovo. I don't recall him going to the UN before he started carpet bombing over there...
G'day.
July 21, 2007 - 23:00 ET by Brett PaatschFeel free to disregard Kofi Annan's view if you wish. My argument comes from the UN Charter and the US Constitution.
Am
I saying the UN isn't corrupt? No, sometimes it is. The
Australian Wheat Board was undermining UN sanctions and arguably
helping to hold the Saddam Hussein regime up. They should in my view be
punished appropriately. The UN isn't perfect - but that is irrelevant.
Brett,I do not care what
July 21, 2007 - 23:08 ET by bigtimerBrett,
I do not care what any other person or country thinks about the UN...
I for one am sick and tired of supporting a thieving filthy corrupt organization...filled with nothing but dictators and criminals that all should be imprisoned.
We need to exit as of yesterday.
Where is Jesse Helms or John Bolton when you need them?
You worry about your own country and keep your nose out of ours when it comes to this.
JMO of course.
Btw....Did you vote for John Howard?
bt... I'm definately with
July 21, 2007 - 23:14 ET by Clear thinkerbt...
I'm definately with you on this one.
The UN should be outlawed, period.
Why we still support this anti-American Org is beyond comprehension.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Actually, I think the US should revoke the UN Charter
July 22, 2007 - 00:04 ET by Brett Paatschthere is potentially honor in that IF it is done for the right
reasons. But the revoking should be wholesale not peicemeal.
By
staying in the UN, and breaking the Charter, the US sends a message of
dishonor and lawlessness. It undermines confidence in the rule of law
by doing that. Better to have no law (and so have the possibility of
making a law or an international treaty that works) than to be the
obvious breaker of the law.
There is nothing in
conservative politics that favours breaking one's word, breaking
existing promises or undermining the rule of law is there? So I'd argue
don't do it. If the UN isn't working and can't be made to work then
withdrawing is the honorable thing to do.
If I were running for
President on the Republican side withdrawal from the UN Charter would
be something I'd be looking at seriously. But I'm not.
You think the USA is the first?
July 22, 2007 - 00:11 ET by dagdaYou think the USA is the first to break a charter (assuming for the sake of argument that we did)? How many times do you think the USSR broke it, or China, or Vietnam or ????? How many times do you think the Secretary General broke it? Or his subordinates?
The UN is a big joke. I vote that we close the UN building in NY. Sell the property for real estate development and have them move to Africa.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
So far as I am aware the US is the first
July 22, 2007 - 01:14 ET by Brett Paatschto break the Charter. It has certainly never been broken in such
in-your-face controversial circumstances as was the case with the
invasion of Iraq when the whole world was watching and the whole world
knew that the reason the US (with the UK and Australia in support) was
offering was the threat of WMDs coupled with a rogue regime like
Saddams.
There have been a lot of wars fought since the
Charter was signed. Usually the involvement of one of the permanent
security council members in a war means that their power to veto a
resolution against them (or sometimes as is the case of the US to veto
a resolution against Israel) means that no resolution gets to exist to
be broken as 1441 was.
The USA is currently a world
leader. It can be a world leader for good or bad. What the US does
matters more than what smaller less important countries do. In the same
way the breaking of a Presidential Oath is more serious than the
breaking of a promise from some more junior politician. It sets an
example.
I think George H W Bush, in repelling the Iraqis from
Kuwait, and then NOT pursuing the Saddam regime into Iraq and tossing
it out (because to do so would have been illegal), actually gave the US
and the world its first demonstration of how the UN could work with the
US using it legitimately as a tool. I think George H W behaved as
statesman in Gulf War 1, but he is treated as some sort of wimp in some
circles for holding to the rule of law.
Working with committees
July 22, 2007 - 01:19 ET by dagdaThe biggest problem with the Gulf War was the Saddam needed to be kicked out then and there. He needed to be replaced. But we made a deal with our Arab allies that we would not go after Saddam. So, he destablized the region for the next 10 years or so. He funded terrorists, trained them, and destablized the UN with the Food for Oil program.
That is always the problem with working with committees. We probably would have won WWII a year earlier if we could have fired Montgomery. Read a book titled Eisenhower's Generals. You will wonder how we ever won the war.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Montgomery and Patton
July 22, 2007 - 01:23 ET by Carl KolchakMontgomery and Patton were great friends weren't they? What did the book say about Montgomery? His victory at El-Alamein was a big turning point in the war in my opinion
"I'm a man of means by no means, King of the Road" 'King of the Road
No kind words
July 22, 2007 - 01:28 ET by dagdaThe book is not really kind to anyone. Montgomery comes off as a stiff prig. An egomanic who was frustrated that an American was his superior officer. He and Patton hated the very air the other breathed. Montgomery and he were in this great competition for supplies and gasoline. Patton, of course, was a prima donna, but went way back with Eisenhower. They had served together in Texas before the war. Bradley does not come off very well either. He was probably responsible for the set up for the Battle of the Bulge.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Yeah Patton really saved
July 22, 2007 - 01:33 ET by Carl KolchakYeah Patton really saved Bradley at the Battle of the Bulge. Bradley seemed to have no idea what was going on, and you know Patton crossing the Rhine before Montgomery did, really had to drive Montgomery nuts. I thought Montgomery performed very admirably in Africa. You really have to admire Eisenhower and how he handled all the egos and generals.
"I'm a man of means by no means, King of the Road" 'King of the Road'
Montgomery failures
July 22, 2007 - 01:48 ET by dagdaMontgomery got himself bogged down on Siciliy, in the hedgerows coming out of the Normandy landings and seriously screwed up with Operation Marketgarden. His Africa exploits were helped by the complete destruction of Rommel's fuel supply by breaking the German codes and outnumbering the Germans 2 1/2 to 1.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Now we're talking.
July 22, 2007 - 01:57 ET by Carl KolchakNow we're talking. Operation Market Garden was a huge failure. I also think Rommel had left prior to Montgomery's victory at El-Alamein, but I think he did do a very good job in North Africa though. I think you have to look at Anzio as a complete screwup as well as Marketgarden. Can you imagine how the left wing MSM would react nowadays to something like Anzio or Market Garden? They already think they are military experts, so I'm sure they would have wanted the Allies to sue for peace. It's been awhile since I've seen "A Bridge too Far", but that is a good movie about Marketgarden.
"I'm a man of means by no means, King of the Road" 'King of the Road'
A wimp in some
July 22, 2007 - 01:22 ET by bigtimerA wimp in some circles...
That is really rich Brett.
I thank your John Howard and Tony Blair.
No matter what when or where, whenever there is trouble whether it is natural causes or another country in trouble ect...who does everyone scream for help from Brett?
Hmmmmm...
You are nothing but another leftists who thinks he is just so smart by half.
Another maddening spoiled ungrateful leftist you are indeed.
Troll on.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote
July 22, 2007 - 02:51 ET by Brett PaatschIt is not me that would call George HERBERT W Bush a wimp. On Gulf
War 1, I called his restraint, his respect for the law under difficult
circumstances, statemanlike.
It is the supporters of George W
Bush who characterise the failure to remove Saddam from Iraq (which
would have involved GHWB breaking his word and the law) after removing
his forces from Kuwait that describe George H W as wanting not me.
It
is those who DISREGARD the rule of law that misrepresent George Herbert W
Bush as being a wimp for not removing Saddam. It is not a good
trade for a policeman to become a crook to arrest a crook. Or for a President to become a tyrant to stop a tyrant. The world is
just up one crook with the powers of a policeman or a tyrant with the powers of a President. We should already
have been evolved past that.
What it comes down to for me
is this. There is no obligation to make promises, but when they are
made they ought be kept. The UN Charter is an international promise not to launch aggressive wars.
Any country that breaks it breaks it in my opinion with all
countries.
The rule of law must apply to all or in the
default we fall back on the rule of the jungle. There is nothing new or
novel about the rule of the jungle, all humans of all races are the
decendants of people who have lived in those circumstances before.
I
will not accept an American jackboot over the rule of law any more than
I would accept a German or a Japanese one. If Americans claim a
right to break their word on peace treaties then of course there will be war. That is
what we humans of all tribes do when there is no law. Its rule of law or rule of war.
Brett, again with the charges!
July 22, 2007 - 02:58 ET by Pragmatic-ManBrett, what's with the repeated charges? The US did not break any treaties or UN charters. Get over it. Your assertions have been discredited.
no Prag-man its your
July 26, 2007 - 01:13 ET by Brett Paatschspurious 'rebuttals' that are discreditted (by me elsewhere in this thread). My assertions have not been refutted they stand.
The
UN Charter is a treaty and is part of US supreme law. (Your
Constitution say that at article 6, and although 'contrary' raised some
interesting points they don't change the fact that a literal reading of
your Constitution supporting my contention is in fact supported by
other documents and so far refutted by none).
Bush did break UN
Resolution 1441 (by unilaterally declaring Iraq's "final opportunity"
against the terms of the Charter - at article 27) and thereby broke
Article 25 of the Charter which states "The Members of the UN agree to
accept and carry out the decisions of the SC in accordance with the
present Charter".
Your mistaken effort to try an apply
Article 51 has been addressed. Article 51 can't be invoked when the SC
is "seized of the matter" and the link I provided you shows that the
Bush administration was aware that the SC would not accept firing on US
planes in the no-fly zone as sufficient cause to invade.
I
repeat myself here, because you in your enthusiasm jumped all over
the thread repeating yourself in multiple places and I don't want
readers to think your points were not addressed.
repost: Brett, you ignore your errors
July 22, 2007 - 01:32 ET by Pragmatic-ManBrett, I already informed you that firing at US warplanes over the
no-fly zone gave the USA the latitude to use force against Iraq, in
accord with the UN charter verbage you have posted.
But you ignore this and restate your point that the US violated the
UN, and did so in an "in-your-face" manner. Ignoring your errors will
not make them go away.
Firing at planes over the fly zones
July 22, 2007 - 04:22 ET by Brett Paatschcould only be relevant if it happened AFTER the SC agreed to 1441 in November 2002, indeed, if then, which I doubt.
Being
given a "final opportunity" has to mean something. There is no
argument that Iraq had been given previous opportunities. But as
at November it was in fact given another one. Being given a "final
opportunity" would
make no sense, if it could be claimed shots fired at aircraft before
could still be a justification for an invasion after November 2002.
Reactivating the hostilities for breach of an earlier
1991 cease fire likewise makes the words "final opportunity" make no
sense. The US, and President Bush, can't legitimately stretch the words
"final opportunity" so far as to make them senseless.
no-fly-zones after UN 1441
July 22, 2007 - 13:41 ET by Pragmatic-ManSaturday, November 16, 2002 Posted: 1:49 PM EST (1849 GMT)
MACDILL AFB, Florida (CNN) --Coalition
aircraft patrolling the southern "no-fly" zone in Iraq struck an air
defense communications facility Friday after the planes came under
heavy fire, an action the United States said violates the latest U.N.
resolution.
Lt. Cmdr. Nick Balice, a U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM) spokesman, said the coalition strike "came as a result of
Iraqi forces firing anti-aircraft (artillery) and surface-to-air
missiles."
The Pentagon said the hostile action by Baghdad was a
breach of U.N. resolution 1441, Section 8, which says "Iraq shall not
take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or
personnel of the United Nations or ... any member state taking action
to uphold any Council resolution."
Okay, this is after 8 November
July 22, 2007 - 16:28 ET by Brett PaatschIf the UN Security council had agreed that it constituted a material
breach, after the US made a case to that effect if it wanted to - if
the US thought it serious enough, then I'd go along with the UN
Security Council.
My bottom line on this sort of stuff is that
it falls into the sort of thing that I'd expect to happen with fly
zones over Iraqi space and the US wanting to have a trigger to end the
US Resolution 1441 so they could clean Saddams clock (I put no blame on
them wanting that). With the Security Council seized of the matter of
Iraq it was their call as to what sort of "material breaches" could
terminate the "final opportunity". They obviously didn't think this one
was substantive enough. It isn't for me to overrule them anymore
(actually less I get no vote) than it was for the US to overrule them.
Its a Security Council decision as to how to respond when the Security
Council is "seized of the matter". That said I am sure that the
USAF would have had rules of engagement etc that certainly would have
permitted them responding in a measured way as part of their self
defence to being fired upon.
where is the UN resolution against Bush?
July 22, 2007 - 16:48 ET by Pragmatic-ManThursday, September 16, 2004, Kofi declares, weakly, that the coalition forces had invaded Iraq illegally (with regards to UN resolutions).
BUT, somehow, the UN never passed a resolution to decry the invasion, or to order the withdrawal of forces.
So it seems that Brett has borrowed from Kofi's playbook, and relied solely on the seriousness of the charge to make his points.
Brett never will understand
July 22, 2007 - 16:58 ET by PawpawNPrag, seems Brett will never understand. He still has offered no proof. Just mindless wanderings and things written but never proven. If GWB & Dick Cheney had done something illegal the whole Lib Nation, led by George Sor(ry)os, would have filed lawsuit after lawsuit, just the same as the Right would have if they had anything concrete on Sor(ry)os!
The US is a permanent security council member
July 22, 2007 - 18:09 ET by Brett Paatschand just like each of the other 4 it has the power of veto which
means it can prevent a permanent security council resolution being
passed against it on ANY matter unless it is somehow incompetent enough
to vote against itself.
Brett: seriousness of the charge paramount
July 22, 2007 - 01:52 ET by Pragmatic-ManFacts schmacts, right Brett? It's all about the seriousness of the charge.
Your arguments have been deconstructed and discredited, and errors have been detailed in rebuttal, but you still do not answer.
Just a drive-by accuser, relying on the seriousness of the charge to carry him through.
Try again. Your credibility is waning.
Yada yada yada, blah blah
July 22, 2007 - 05:40 ET by Jack BauerYada yada yada, blah blah blah. Don't you extreme leftist retreds ever get tired of spewing out the same old platitudes, cliches, adolescent ramblings, and craptrap.
Because I sure do get bored reading the collected tripe of quasi-Marxists and assorted totalitarians.
Here's a newsflash, the "UN Charter" does NOT supercede the U.S. constitution, no matter how whinebags like your bad self whine, and natter, and bray, and bluster.
Your so-called analysis of the historical record, such as Saddam Hussein's repeated breaking of the UK/US enforced "No-Fly Zone" over thirteen years, is as bogus as most things your commit to post.
Nobody here is buying your shite. We dissent against you and your ilk.
Why waste your time, go somewhere more congenial like the Daily Nutjob, or Dhummies.
Most "In your face"
July 22, 2007 - 13:13 ET by BDMost "In your face" breaking of the charter? Huh?
How about the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia? Afghanistan?
Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1970's?
Saddams invasion of Kuwait?
Argie invasion of Falkland Islands?
Greeks Vs Turks?
Paki's Vs Indians?
Please study some history FOR GODS Sake!!!
I stand willing to be corrected but
July 22, 2007 - 14:01 ET by Brett Paatschthe distiction I would make between Iraq and all of the above cases
is whilst all aggressive invasions are prohibited by the UN Charter, it
is more in-your-face to take an argument to the Security Council itself
for consideration (thus bringing it to the worlds attention), getting a
resolution as occurred with 1441, and then despite getting that
unanimous resolution, going ahead and breaking it anyway because you
couldn't get the other security council members to go along with your
interpretation over the interpretation of three other permanent
security council members (all of whom valued their own prestige).
It
is often the case in law and in contract that there are breaches.
Sometimes those breaches are not prosecuted because the other parties
don't care enough to prosecute or because frankly they may be bribed or
compromised. I am not saying that the UN was beyond corruption as it
clearly was not. I AM saying though that Iraq constitutes a high point
of in-your-face we-the-US-hear-you-but-you-the-world-can-go-to-hell we
are doing it our way.
For the rule of law to work it has
to be respected. The US under Bush disrespected the UN more blatantly
than had been done before, and tellingly, the WMDs did not turn up. A
lot of the sublety of the way the UN works is lost on most people but
that the WMDs didn't turn up wasn't. That I think has turned a lot of
world opinion against the US.
Pakis vs Indian - not UN
Security Council members. Likewise Greeks vs Turks. Breaches by SC
permanent members rankle more because they have priviledges, like
judges that are corrupt rankle more.
Argentina not a SC
member though the UK was. I guess the UK just decided to kick them out
without using the UN, perhaps they used article 51 I don't
recall. I'm sure the UK didn't go to the UN for approval then
invade after failing to get it though.
Saddams invasion of
Kuwait was clearly illegal, and somewhat to Saddams surprise I think
the UN actually got rolling and worked against him as it was supposed
to. I think Saddam thought the US might give him some cover by
using their veto, or that perhaps Russia would.
Please
understand I am not saying the UN worked as good as it should. It
didn't but I am saying it worked better than nothing for much of the
time. It kept the major powers off each other. It provided a forum in
which Adele Stephenson could turn then world opinion on Russia during
the Cuban missile crissis.
Brett -- corrected
July 22, 2007 - 14:08 ET by Pragmatic-ManAGAIN, let me reiterate for about the fourth time, the USA did not breach UN 1441. It was adhered to. It is not a treaty, it is a resolution. The latitude in Article 51 gives the USA plenty of reason to strike back at Iraq, but note that it was not until UN 1441 was breached by Saddam that coalition forces invaded Iraq.
It seems that you are completely sluffing off the facts, and ignoring your errors.
Hang on let me see if I have your postion clear here.
July 22, 2007 - 17:36 ET by Brett PaatschAre you saying that even though UN Res. 1441 was in place that the
firing at US planes in the no-fly zone (after 8 November) gave the US
the right to invade the whole country of Iraq under Article 51?
Are
you saying that the US was permitted to determine that a breach had
occurred on its own? That a breach is a breach on the facts and not on
the determination of the Security Council?
I'm going to have to stop to get some sleep. I'll check back later.
It is immateral WHAT UN Res
July 22, 2007 - 21:17 ET by BDIt is immateral WHAT UN Res 1441 gave us. THe US was fired upon, and therefore a military response was legitimate.
The UN does not hold the keys tothe car that is our country, and no treaty can be allowed to do so.
To think so is tortured legalistic thinking........
Your Constitution says
July 25, 2007 - 17:46 ET by Brett Paatschthat treaties made under it are the supreme law of the land. See article 6.
The
UN Charter was a treaty made in accordance with the treaty making
provisions of the Constitution in 1945 before George W Bush was born.
Amongst the terms of the treaty that is the UN Charter are
terms that describe how Security Council resolutions like 1441 are
made. The US agreed with 1441, they did not veto it, there is no
argument that it is not valid.
Article 25 of the Charter states
that "the members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out
the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present
Charter". 1441 was a decision. The decision was to allow Iraq a "final
opportunity".
Bush unilaterally terminated that "final
opportunity" against the terms of the Charter which make clear how
decisions of the SC are to be reached at Article 27 "by an affirmative
vote of nine members" "including the concurring votes of the permanent
members". France, China and Russia did not agree that the "final
opportunity" was ended and Bush invaded anyway. Thus Bush broke the UN
Charter, and US law.
You are so wrong
July 22, 2007 - 14:08 ET by dagdaBrett, you act as though the US is in this by themselves. There are many allies giving support. We may have the majority of troops, but we also are doing the heavy lifting in the area. We are the ONLY superpower.
We did not go into Iraq on our own. Other members of the UN came in with us. We did not have the same number as during the Gulf War but we had a significant number. Still do. Sure, a couple have wienned out, but that is on them. If there is wrong-doing, they are just as culpable.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
kudos to John Howard
July 22, 2007 - 14:15 ET by Pragmatic-ManAnd kudos to John Howard for supporting the USA during the invasion and afterward. The support of the Aussies has been great. Now, if they could only curb this insidious islam problem they have.