text:
Is impeachment a probability?
If something newsworthy happens and no real investigative reporters are around to report on it, did it really happen?
Probably not.
A few months ago, the "I" word was uttered again but this time it had nothing to do with fellatio and marriage vows, it had to do with lies and misleading the American public to war. Zogby conducted a poll in June that first posed the question:
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him through impeachment."
Wow. Impeaching a President for sending our county to war. You'd think that would be newsworthy, but no... notta. The press took a pass.
During the Zogby poll, 50% opposed impeachment and 42% supported impeachment. WOW… again. Now, no one REALLY wants to remove a sitting President, so I can understand the 50%, but a whopping 42% said, yes; impeach. Now, THAT'S news.
But still, the press took a pass. I guess because it was June and all of their 'investigative reporters' were covering the Shiavo fiasco.
Now, jump ahead to October.
Ipsos, another polling organization, revisited the question .
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."
50% agreed with the statement:
44% disagreed
6% didn't know or declined to answer.
WOW!! with more exclamation points.
Did I just read that correctly? More people in the country believe the President should be impeached if it was found out that Bush was untruthful about waging war with Iraq?
Yes. Now, more people believe that what the President, may have done, is impeachable. You know, high crimes and misdemeanors, and all that.
During the Clinton Impeachment, the numbers were much lower. In 1998, 36% supported impeachment proceedings and 26% supported impeachment and removal. So a majority of Americans didn't support the Clinton impeachment, yet the Republican Congress impeached Clinton. With Bush, were it's become fairly obvious that (and recent polls suggest that people believe that Bush lied about the reasons for war) Bush fixed the facts for the policy of invading Iraq, this Congress isn't even entertaining impeachment thoughts.
Why the double standard?
Why won't the Congress do what the American public wants? The American Public want to know the truth about why the US invaded Iraq and they want to know if the Bush administration fixed facts around the policy. In other words, did the Bush administration manipulate the facts to force their own agenda? If so, the American public now says: impeach him.Posted by john trevisani at October 14, 2005 11:46 AM
Even though there is some evidence that Bush was talking about invading Iraq two years before 9-11, and as much as the American people might want it, impeachment won't happen because the Republicans have majorities of both Houses of Congress. End of story.Posted by: ElliottBay at October 14, 2005 12:40 PM
"Why won't the Congress do what the American public wants?"
When have they ever done what the American public wants? Today's Congress is all about gaining, usurping, and protecting individual and/or party line power (not to mention big business) at the expense of policies that actually benefit this country's citizens.Posted by: Mister Magoo at October 14, 2005 12:52 PM
I like the way liberals always seem to forget that everyone - including Clinton - thought Iraq had WMD's. Everyone. Even the liberals. Should EVERYONE who voted for war based on the intellegence we had be held accountable? Let's be fair now! EVERYONE. Oh, the press would have had a field day IF it hadn't been just as sure as everyone else that the reports were probably true.
So your article is about a non-story. Just put up a candidate that people can believe ( not a Gore - "I invented everything" - kinda guy ) and let him run a clean race. I still don't think you guys can do it, but it would be fun to watch you try.Posted by: Ilsa at October 14, 2005 12:56 PM
I like the way liberals always seem to forget that everyone - including Clinton - thought Iraq had WMD's.
Exactly what did Everyone base their thoughts on? Did everyone do their own research or did Everyone rely on the drumbeat of information from our government? I'm trying to understand this line of defense.Posted by: Schwamp at October 14, 2005 1:19 PM
The reality of the question is what makes it a non-news story. Or rather, the NON-reality of it. Its simply a hypothetical.
There is plenty of conjecture about Bush's motives, what he knew/when he knew it, did he lie, did he mislead, did he "fix" information etc. Conjecture does not count into impeachment.
Facts count. With Clinton, there was plenty of conjecture and circumstantial evidence, but there simply werent cohesive facts until the infamous blue dress was found. At that point, there was factual evidence of what he had done. So far there is a lot of information, but little in the way of objective facts. One side says one thing, the other side portrays it differently etc.
Impeachment requires solid evidence, not one side thinking something. Even if you have facts that get you part of the way home, there is no case for impeachment until you have enough facts to get you all the way home.
I believe that's why its a non-news story….simply because its all hypothetical. Im here to tell you there will never ever ever be an impeachment hearing regarding Bush and Iraq. I guarantee it. If there is, I will be the first to eat my words.Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 14, 2005 1:24 PM
There were WMD in Iraq. Saddam used them and had them. At some point after 1998 he stopped having them. Nobody knows when. Nobody knows what happened to them. Saddam continued to let others believe he had WMD. Maybe he did this to intimidate his enemies (and the U.S.) Maybe he actually thought he had them and maybe he did.
Between 1998 and 2003 the WMD disapeared. Where and when we don't know. It is very easy to criticize yesterday with today's information. Let's ask a today question today. Where did the WMD go and when? All the smart guys who claim to HAVE BEEN sure there was no WMD can surely answer that very precisely.
This impeachment thing is just pure hogwash. I hope you don't actually believe it is probable. It is possible in the sense of the Chicago Cubs being unbeaten for an entire season. Yes, it is POSSIBLE, but if you base you personal decisions on such criteria you are poor, sick and lonely.Posted by: Jack at October 14, 2005 1:27 PM
Let's stop beating around the Bush. The facts are as John presents them. The so called "liberal media" pounced on Clinton and are quiet about Bush.
All this talk about what anyone knew, etc. is all besides the point. The MAJORITY of the people believe that Bush should be impeached if he misled us into war. Why don't we have impeachment proceedings to find out?Posted by: Paul Siegel at October 14, 2005 1:45 PM
Your logic is lacking here…
The word to look at in the question asked is "If" (Kinda like "is"). If Bush really did lie to the american people then the results would be legit. The question has no relevance because it is an "if" situation. That is why no one is paying attention. The results are also skewed politically as well. I'm surprised it's not 50/50.
It's like asking this question:
If you intentionally hit someone with your vehicle, should you go to jail?Posted by: Discerner at October 14, 2005 2:01 PM
You keep going around and around.
Buzzards Circle.
Eagles Soar.
Just a few thoughts for comment.
We do know that Bush Lied/or mislead America on the issue of Iraq trying to purchase "Yellow Cake" form S. Africa. We know that didn't happen as Bush said it did. (Joe Wilson) Bush chose to leave his finding out of any information he made public.
We know Bush said he would fire anyone in his administration who released the name of a CIA operative to the press. We no now for a fact Libby and Rove released the name. No if's and's or butt's.
As for Clinton and the rest of the folks who thought Saddam has WMD's. The comparison stops there. Clinton did believe Saddam had WMD, but he didn't commit our country to war as they were not a threat to us (also don't forget Saddam got is WMD from the Reagan Admin in the 1980's). Not one American soilder lost his life until Bush invaded. It doesn't matter what anyone else thought, it only matters who did what about it. Bush chose to go to war, and he will have to live with it and take responsibility for his actions. You can't throw it back on Clinton or anyone else to voted to support Bush's decision. Like you and I, everyone in congress and the Senate got their informantion about WMD's from the Bush white house.
These are only a few things that Bush has done that would qualify for impeachment as far a lying and such. After all, which is worse- Lying about a sexual affair? Or lying about a lead up to war and the loss of human life? I choose the latter.
Posted by: Rusty at October 14, 2005 2:08 PM
: Ilsa
I like the way liberals always seem to forget that everyone - including Clinton - thought Iraq had WMD's. Everyone. Even the liberals.
The big difference and i do mean big difference is: actions. Bush fixed his policy around estimates. The NIE report were a group of analysts that published what-if estimates. Bush cited those what-if estimates as fact. Do you remember that? It goes something like this: If Saddam didn't destroy the chemical and biological weapons he used in the 80s and continued producing those weapons (in secret, mobile labs) then how much could he produce? Lots… was the NIE answer. Now the rational approach to answer these questions are to send in the UN inspectors again. Which they did. And… what did Blix report? Did he find the massive cache of weapons? No. But Bush pulled him out anyway saying the threat was imminent. If that isn't misleading; i'm not sure what is.
Between 1998 and 2003 the WMD disappeared. Where and when we don't know. It is very easy to criticize yesterday with today's information. Let's ask a today question today. Where did the WMD go and when? All the smart guys who claim to HAVE BEEN sure there was no WMD can surely answer that very precisely.
You do realize that you're factually incorrect, don't you? The fact was containment worked. The WMDs existed, yes. And they were documented as destroyed also. The disconnect was the documentation associated with the WMDs that Iraq didn't account for. Which is where the NIE estimates come in. In fact, in 2000 the Arab Nations invited Iraq BACK to the Arab summit. It was the first time since the 1991 Kuwait invasion that the Arab nations invited Iraq and Saddam to the summit. They obviously didn't think he was a threat.Posted by: john trevisani at October 14, 2005 2:21 PM
: joebagodonuts
There is plenty of conjecture about Bush's motives, what he knew/when he knew it, did he lie, did he mislead, did he "fix" information etc. Conjecture does not count into impeachment.
Yes; you're right. And with a free press there may be a way to cut through the conjecture.
For whatever reason, the press are not going after this as a story. When the President stonewalls, commission after commission (911, Plame, etc..) that, IMO can be grounds for obstruction.
I believe that's why its a non-news story….simply because its all hypothetical. Im here to tell you there will never ever ever be an impeachment hearing regarding Bush and Iraq. I guarantee it.You're probably right; they probably won't vote to impeach. However, after 2006, the atmosphere may change a bit. The Republican party is doing very poorly lately. In fact, by that time, you may have the Delay AND Frist on trial. i think the Congress and Senate will look differently in 2007 and with it may come actual investigation into this matter. Posted by: john trevisani at October 14, 2005 2:42 PM
"Impeachment requires solid evidence,"
What about job performance?Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 14, 2005 3:12 PM
Does anyone watch "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart?" Hans Blix and Scott Ritter both appeared on the 3-time Emmy award winning program prior to the war to explain how they knew both the fact that Iraq had no WMD's, and that there was no way to either build them or to import them into the country. I listened to Scott Ritter and Hans Blix. That's how I knew Iraq had no WMD's.Posted by: Mike at October 14, 2005 3:17 PM
The trick of impeaching Bush, if it comes to that, is finding some place where the insulation of plausible deniability is thin enough or nonexistent enough to tie Bush into illegal or fundamentally deceptive behavior.
John Dean has his own theory on that. In Worse Than Watergate, the former Nixon White House Council suggests that the president would be vulnerable on the basis of the Executive Determination he submitted to congress. He was required by the Iraq Force Authorization to submit an executive determination to justify the war. Amongst the text of this required report, Bush took a number of paragraphs from the explanatory "whereas" paragraphs of the Authorization itself, plagiarized them, then presented them as a Congressional Finding; in essence, evidence from a congressional proceeding.
In other words, he took words from the non-binding, politically-authored intro to the bill asking him to write a report justifying the war from his administration's intelligence, and stole them to pad that very same report. He then took us to war on that basis. That Bush's report has gotten so many people killed is what makes it "worse than watergate", according to Dean. Since Bush signed it, he's got nobody to hide behind.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 14, 2005 3:57 PM
Congress invested over $100,000,000.00 dollars investigating Clinton. I'm sure with such a passion for being through, it won't be long before the Republicans launch an equivalent investigation of this president. </end sarcasm>
Karl Rove just completed 4 1/2 hours of testimony in front of the grand jury - in case anyone found that interesting. Unlikely that the special prosecutor would have brought him in just for some facts to round things out.
I know it's tangential to the topic, but the irony is too great not to mention it.Posted by: CPAdams at October 14, 2005 4:27 PM
If the House won't conduct impeachment hearings of the President, perhaps the American people will impeach the house on election day in 2006. I for one will vote all incumbents out. And that is where real power over government resides, not in the corrupt political parties whose first and primary purpose for existence is acquiring power, and second purpose is protecting it at all costs.Posted by: David R. Remer at October 14, 2005 4:37 PM
I understand the sarcasm of your commenting about Bush's "job performance". But in all seriousness, allow me to point out that even an abysmally poor job performance is not a legal precursor to impeachment. And while you may not like Bush's job performance, I'll point out that many Americans DO like his job performance, including me. There are of course things that I'd change (I'd love it if he had vetoed the transportation bill, for example), but on the whole, I think he's done well. And no, lets not devolve into talking about his job performance. I know where you stand—you know where I stand.
Just as the popular vote in 2000 was interesting but NOT an issue in the election (due to a funny little document called the Constitution), job performance is not an issue regarding impeachment.
You need to have a better understanding of what Scott Ritter and Hans Blix said. Here is a question/answer from 2002 from Ritter:
MASSIMO CALABRESI: In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?
Scott Ritter: I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact…
MASSIMO CALABRESI: Iraq's borders are porous. Why couldn't Saddam have obtained the capacity to produce WMD since 1998 when the weapons inspectors left?
Scott Ritter: I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and I'm sure its true today. Of course Iraq can do this. The question is, has someone found that what Iraq has done goes beyond simple sanctions violations?…
Note that Ritter explicitly does NOT say that Iraq did not have WMD's, nor did he say they do. That's a far different statement than what you portrayed him saying. By the way, Blix is in the same boat as Ritter, having said that same things in the same way.
We can assume what we want from these statements—-that we should have waited, that more inspections were warranted, that Saddam violated sanctions, that he should have been punished for his indiscretions etc. But we CANNOT assume that Ritter or Blix said that Saddam did not have WMD's—they simply are not on record as having done so before the war. At best, they said they did not have the information to make such a statement.Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 14, 2005 4:41 PM
I wrote a long post and erased it. Facts and logic do not matter.Posted by: Cliff at October 14, 2005 4:48 PM
"I like the way liberals always seem to forget that everyone - including Clinton - thought Iraq had WMD's. Everyone. Even the liberals. Should EVERYONE who voted for war based on the intelligence we had be held accountable? Let's be fair now! EVERYONE. Oh, the press would have had a field day IF it hadn't been just as sure as everyone else that the reports were probably true.
I like the way liberals always seem to forget that everyone - including Clinton - thought Iraq had WMD⦣x20AC;™.s
You and others here have stated on several occasions that we, the citizens had the same information about Iraq as the President. That Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction.
I can assure you that I do not have access to what ever knowledge President Bush may or may not have had. I do however wish I did. BUSH told me there were WMD in Iraq. So did someone I truly respected, Colon Powell. If the government did not give out the correct information to the public, how much of the correct info can one suppose info went to Congress.
I am still trying to understand the logic in INVADING a foreign country on what appears to be a whim.
It not as if any of the terrorists came from Iraq.
I can not help but believe that the probably of Bush's lying to us makes impeachment more and more sense. And if he did, as I suspect, then I am in total favor of impeachment. However I believe that His PARTY and friends will protect him from impeachment. At least until
"classified information" is no longer
What a bunch of two-faced sobs these rightwinged cultfucks are, if we currently had a Democratic president in office finding himself up to his ass in circumstances just as W finds himself in, aided by a media that is as corrupt as the Republicans are, the Democrat would have already been removed from office and lined up a shot for treason.Posted by: dtom21 at October 14, 2005 6:29 PM
When were they destroyed and where is this documented? That is the question I asked. Do you know.
0.46% - That is the amount of Saddam's arsenal attributable to the U.S. http://web.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atirq_data.html.
Chemical weapons in WMD do not require much in they way of technology. People did it with 1915 technologies. The U.S. did not supply Saddam with these things. It is often repeated, but not true.Posted by: Jack at October 14, 2005 6:32 PM
"If the House won't conduct impeachment hearings of the President, perhaps the American people will impeach the house on election day in 2006. I for one will vote all incumbents out"
Spoken with true Democrat understanding of the law and the Constitution.
You get to vote for ONE representative, unless you are exercising your democrat party prerogative of voting more than once.Posted by: John at October 14, 2005 8:16 PM
John, no, spoken like one who understands the intent of the founding fathers in the creation of this representative form of government determined ultimately by the vote of the people.Posted by: David R. Remer at October 14, 2005 8:47 PM
not a Gore - "I invented everything" - kinda guy
Gore never said he invented the internet or anything else for that matter… BTW your party is showing.Posted by: Pat at October 14, 2005 8:54 PM
One side says "IMPEACH" because Bush lied. The other side (Republican) says "There isn't any real proof". Excuse me, but isn't that why there are impeachment proceedings? To ascertain the truth! To bring the light into the darkness! If there really isn't any solid proof, which I certainly don't believe, then Bush will not be impeached. But, come on now, let's at least investigate and begin proceedings. Clinton was brought up on charges for much less and with less backing of the American people.
If we really want truth and justice in this country let us not put our 'Elected Officials' above the law. Our President has shown nothing but disdain for the average american. Saddled us with a war which can not be won. Removed protection of bankruptcy for those that desperately need it. Given HUGE tax breaks to the rich and corporations. Fouled the air and water. Attempting to strip us of retirement protections. Prevented us from purchasing low cost prescriptions so that the pharmaceutical companies could keep their obscene profits. Now he wants to strip us of being able to deduct interest from our income tax for home loans to bring cash back into the federal coffers without every touching the upper 1% of his rich friends.
Do we need to impeach this man? You bet we do. A stain on us for bringing this about would hurt us a lot less than having to live with his stupid, evil, dangerous, one-sided form of governing. The man is the worst thing that has ever happened to America and most Republicans are so hung up on being right that they refuse to see the reality. Guys, open your eyes and do something that Bush has consistently refused to do. Apologize and work to change things for the better.Posted by: tatoo49 at October 14, 2005 9:02 PM
BTW - on the other side I posted the article by Factcheck.org that concluded that Bush did not lie. All those who previously loved factcheck.org jumped on it, but didn't succeed in discrediting it.
The problem with politics today is that both sides try to criminalize political differences and judge mistakes as evil intent.
Bush will not be impeached. Of that I am certain, or at least as certain as anything in this world can be. As long as you guys play these silly games you will not be a serious threat to Republican prospects for the future.Posted by: Jack at October 14, 2005 10:49 PM
One side says "IMPEACH" because Bush lied. The other side (Republican) says "There isn't any real proof". Excuse me, but isn't that why there are impeachment proceedings? To ascertain the truth!
No, this is NOT the reason for impeachment proceedings. In the same way that you don't file charges against a suspect without first having enough factual evidence against them, you also don't file impeachment charges.
And frankly, IFFF there were enough evidence, don't you think one of the more left leaning Democrats would have begun the proceedings already? Why do you think it has not happened….the reason is there is not enough evidence. End of story.Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 14, 2005 10:55 PM
You Libs need to get over the fact that your war hero kerry lost. Bush won. Get a life. Truth to you libs is like garlic to a vampire.Posted by: Thomas at October 14, 2005 11:00 PM
I love this:
"So your article is about a non-story. Just put up a candidate that people can believe ( not a Gore - "I invented everything" - kinda guy"
What a wonderful example of how the myth of a "liberal" media is just that - a myth.
For the record - Al Gore never said what the "right wing media," through Limbaugh and Hannity and Gingrich and Savage et. al. told you he said. They lied to you, and here you are repeating the it 6 years later.Posted by: TC at October 14, 2005 11:31 PM
Facts and logic do matter. If they didn't, we would be the ones giving up, not you.
Tell me how verbatim language from the introduction of the bill to authorize force ended up as "evidence" in Bush's Executive determination to take us to war.
Tell me how most of the case for war turns out to be utterly bogus. Do such things just happen, or do they indicate a pattern of behavior? And how is it that despite two years of your "successful" war in Iraq, the violence and disorder contintues, and they can't even keep the power on because of the insurgency?
Y'all folks always have an explanation for why its okay to reveal the identity of CIA agents (information marked secret at the source), or why its more important that Rumsfeld get softballs from his audience, rather than get confronted on a real issue about the armor our soldiers go out in.
You're the folks who magically take centrists and Republicans like Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, and Paul O'Neil, and turn them into insanely leftist liberals. Then you take people who have actually served this country, like Colin Powell, John Kerry, Paul Hackett, Max Cleland and the people who contradicted the SwiftVets, and transmogrified them into cowards and liars, all to defend people who never served their country in combat.
You would rather have some rich boy who sat out the war taking you heedlessly into battle than a man with a soldier's experience keeping you out of it. That's your idea of truth: whatever's convenient, politically speaking.
The problem with just kicking out the incumbents Is that it does nothing to help the average voter to break out of their political preconceptions. Everything goes back to normal. Only armed with knowledge and the ability to discern those who deserve further tenure in office from those who don't will Americans truly take control of their government. Sooner or later, we will face the awful truth: we delegate authority to these people for a reason. Namely, we have our own lives. At election time, we have the option of going back and seeing how things turned out, and acting accordingly. That's the most that can be reasonably asked of us.
BTW - on the other side I posted the article by Factcheck.org that concluded that Bush did not lie. All those who previously loved factcheck.org jumped on it, but didn't succeed in discrediting it.
I did.
But we CANNOT assume that Ritter or Blix said that Saddam did not have WMD's
And yet you belive it's perfectly fine that President Bush said "without a doubt" Saddam had WMD — and then (mis)led this country to war over it… :/Posted by: American Pundit at October 15, 2005 1:26 AM
Ilsa,I guess your right wing selective memory has kicked in. Not everyone believed their were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The inspectors whose job it was to find them said there was no evidence of any. You and the rest of your whacko war mongers choose not to listen. Unlike the rest of the world I might add. SpudmanPosted by: Spudman at October 15, 2005 7:14 AM
Why do you constantly misstate my comments? The more important question is whether you do it on purpose because it makes your arguments easier or simply as a result of not having read my posts. You take a statement of mine, add your context and conclusion leaps, and then try to make the statement mine. For example:
But we CANNOT assume that Ritter or Blix said that Saddam did not have WMD's And yet you belive it's perfectly fine that President Bush said "without a doubt" Saddam had WMD — and then (mis)led this country to war over it… :/
I said the first part (because its undeniably true), but I never ever have said the underlined part. I've consistently said that I believe Bush overplayed his comments about WMD's. I think he took the worst case situations regarding WMD and made them appear the most probable. I've also said that I didn't think he needed to, in my opinion, and that he was wrong to do so.
But the question remains—-why would you attribute your
conclusion of what I think as if it were my belief, especially when its so very incorrect? I suppose its easier to "win" an argument if you simply provide both sides of the discussion. But if you want to be taken seriously, then I'd advise you to accurately portray my thoughts. If you don't know my thoughts on a subject, don't simply make up what you THINK I think.
More than two years ago, American troops and a small coalition of allies stormed into Iraq. Quickly they fought through the desert, and easily they toppled dictator Saddam Hussein's oppressive government. The United States, with its population always expecting instant gratification, sought to fulfill that expectation by rejoicing in a fast victory. The hard part seemed over. President George W. Bush himself confirmed this when he donned a fighter pilot's uniform, landed on an aircraft carrier, and told us with words, and with a huge banner hanging over his head, we had met our goals in Iraq. "Mission accomplished," read the banner.
How ironic this heralded not success and peace, but failure and bloodshed. Such a pronouncement will rankle some conservatives, but it's true nonetheless.
In the buildup to war, throughout 2002 and early 2003, Bush assured the world Saddam Hussein maintained viable research and manufacture programs that could soon churn out weapons of mass destruction. These WMD's Saddam would use to butcher his enemies, namely Americans and their friends, and sell to terrorists, such as al Qaeda, to which Bush alleged Saddam had ties. Bush never produced solid evidence for his claims, but he said he knew Saddam had WMD capabilities and terrorist links. These assertions did make sense; Iraq's dictator wasn't cooperating with United Nations weapons inspectors, and he was a ruthless tyrant who had conquered and killed before. Making WMD's for usage and sale definitely wasn't beyond Saddam Hussein. By the time Gulf War II started, even though the rest of the world remained skeptical, most Americans firmly believed Saddam could shortly threaten them with WMD's. Still under terror's grip after 9/11, Americans went along with Bush's drive to depose Saddam by force.
Years have passed since coalition forces began occupying Iraq, and to this day, no one has found any weapons of mass destruction or means to develop them. We have discovered no preexisting al Qaeda shelters or ties. This is despite Bush's many proclamations, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation at the UN, to convince the world Saddam had WMD's. This is after many Americans wagged their fingers at doubters and ridiculed them for not joining Bush's "coalition of the willing" against Iraq. Bush and his supporters were utterly and shamefully wrong about the primary reasons we waged war. The United States stands humiliated. No way exists to categorize the situation other than "failure."
Bungling extends to the very occupation of Iraq as well. When Bush sent our soldiers to fight and die in the Iraqi desert, he had no plan for what should happen after their success. Within a complex nation of rival ethnic and religious groups having different sensitivities, coalition military commanders and civilian administrators had to make everything up as they went along. Naturally, a cyclone of disaster arose from this chaotic miasma. Insurgents and terrorists lobbed bombs and shot mortars from where we had expected happy Iraqis with cheers and balloons. The terrorists' atrocities are no fault of the Americans. Our lack of foresight is our responsibility, though. Caught by surprise we were, and considering the cultural factors in Iraq, we should not have been.
Related to the lack of planning is the lack of training of American soldiers before deploying into the field. Prior to setting foot in an Islamic country, one would think learning about Muslims and their culture would be a good idea. Apparently, the Bush administration doesn't think so, for the troops of Iraq demonstrate ignorance of the people and religion there, which leads them to disrespect Islam on multiple occasions. That's not a good idea in a volatile Muslim country.
Graver is the dearth of composure and discipline amongst the American forces. In far too many instances, we have heard of American weaponry striking down journalists, civilians, and American soldiers themselves. Also, the horrors of Abu Ghraib continue to overshadow everything we do or say in Iraq. Abu Ghraib was no Nazi concentration camp, but it was still a haven of prisoner torture and humiliation that should have been unthinkable to American service people. Our soldiers should have had the need for detachment and self-control impressed upon them more during training.
Now, a few ardent conservatives are probably growling, "How dare you insult our troops? You soldier-hating scum!" To them, I say, relax. I proudly declare my admiration for most of our boys and gals in Iraq. They are comporting themselves bravely and honorably, doing their best with the knowledge and equipment they have. No disparagement whatsoever do I give to the men and women of our military. That will not and should not stop me or anyone else, though, from addressing problems with the training and utilization of our troops in Iraq.
Exacerbating everything is the snail's pace of redevelopment in Iraq. Bush swears to the American people that we are building schools, producing electricity, etc., and that's what should be happening. Americans need to do much more, though, more quickly. Many average Iraqis can't say life is any better under Americans than under Saddam. Some say it's worse. Before the Americans invaded, the booms and reverberations of bombs and guns, with their companions heartache and fear, weren't daily artifacts of Iraqi life. Sewage did not flow down Baghdad's streets. Electricity wasn't only available a few hours a day in 120° F summertime heat. A lot of the responsibility for this lies with the terrorists and insurgents who have destroyed vital infrastructure and assassinated important officials. Much of the blame also goes, however, to the absence of post-invasion planning and allocation of
The American people themselves have no reason to feel shame for the failures in Iraq. They backed a war thinking it would protect their country. In the process, they believed they could bring freedom and prosperity to the Iraqis as well. They acted with strength, but also with compassion. No one can impugn the honor of Americans on those accounts. Rather, the President of the United States is the man who warrants harsh scrutiny.
President Bush led the American people to war on false pretenses, and he didn't prepare us or himself adequately for the consequences of that war. In keeping with Bush's Republican Party's advocacy of personal responsibility, Bush and his political allies should suffer the results of their impetuousness in the forthcoming national elections. Certainly, Americans can't reward Republicans for their actions if they wish to avoid hoaxes in the future.People in numbers can change things. Vote these republican Bastards out on their Asses! Impeach Bush/Cheney Now!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Vinnie at October 15, 2005 8:41 AM
Stephen, incumbents will not change their ways as long as they are reelected doing what they do.
Voters amassing in an anti-incumbency movement will know when their votes have been effective when enough incumbents have been thrown out such that their replacements suddenly take bi-partisanship up as a religion, and solving the top priority issues of the majority of Americans while suspending efforts on minority issues, until the big ones are solved.
When the voters see that is happening, they can discontinue their anti-incumbency voting. In no other way, are politicians going to become the responsible and effective and much more efficient government decision makers Americans want and ever more desperately need.
If this does not happen, our children will live in an America of far less prosperity for the majority than their parents and grandparents, far less security, and far less individual freedom from crime, corruption, and the government itself.Posted by: David R. Remer at October 15, 2005 8:51 AM
Why is that an open forum such as voting, is not trusted and debated, with many hollering for a recount…..YET…a POLL says something and it's the gospel???? I was not a part of that poll….so there is another "do not impeach" vote…..I also have plenty of friends that were not involved in this poll that can guarantee a few more of those votes.
Polls are guides…not the truth…and many things factor into their results.
And frankly, IFFF there were enough evidence, don't you think one of the more left leaning Democrats would have begun the proceedings already? Why do you think it has not happened….the reason is there is not enough evidence. End of story.
Unfortunately Congress must bring up impeachment charges and the Republicans control Congress. Do you think for one second that if Congress were controlled by Democrats that Bush would not have been impeached already.
And I too was not part of the poll and I and everyone I know says impeach… I think they were only polling Republicans anyway.
Posted by: Pat at October 15, 2005 10:08 AM
I truly believe that even in a Democratic controlled Congress, there would be no impeachment. There might be more talk about pressing such charges, but I believe it would amount to no more than just talk. If Democrats felt there were strong enough evidence to warrant impeachment, someone amongst them would bring it up in some form. It would most likely be voted down, but they wouldnt be stopped from bringing it up. Yet they havent.
Now, of course, its all hypothetical since we will never know. And we can never know. So in that vein, its probably time to stop hypothesizing about something that isn't real.Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 15, 2005 11:25 AM
Just curious…
What exactly would he be impeached for?
What law did he break?
Even if the wildest accusations are accepted as fact, he did what, pick intelligence presented to him by the FBI and CIA over the State Department?
I understand the desire by many on the left to 'get even' for Clinton, but Clinton did actually break a law, one *he* signed. Bush has done no such thing that I can see or has been presented.
So I'm unsure about the impeachment talk…Posted by: Rhinehold at October 15, 2005 6:24 PM
That's precisely my point. If there were legitimate evidence with which to impeach Bush, they'd try to do it. But they havent, which leads me to conclude they don't think they have the evidence.Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 15, 2005 8:09 PM
As far as impeachment goes - well I've found that with increased frequency the old adage of "where there's smoke, there's fire" to be worth paying attention to.
Besides it seems to me that many of the Republicans are stuck with the same defense, as
Thomas at October 14, 2005 11:00 PM:
"You Libs need to get over the fact that your war hero kerry lost. Bush won. Get a life. Truth to you libs is like garlic to a vampire."
I am really tired of that as a defense for how Bush is doing NOW. If it makes the Republicans here happy I'll say it. "You're right Kerry lost, now you get over it." Now would YOU please try to come up with something a little more original?
Frankly I believe most of the Republicans are actually trying to convince THEMSELVES, instead of the 'Liberals here'? that Bush is right, rather than allowing the idea that maybe being human, the man they thought would save us from "who\what -knows-what" turned into a disappointment.
I have been voting for the "Lesser of the two evils" (be they Republican or Democrat, or others) all my life, and that's been a lot of votes… I would dearly love to vote FOR someone I truly believed in. Then maybe I could feel as proud of my American Government as I have been of our American Citizens response to the disasters that have occurred.
The problem with impeaching, convicting and removing Shrub is that Satan (Cheney) would then run the show. Must get rid of Cheney FIRST…Posted by: Lord Dragon at October 15, 2005 9:59 PM
Bush, not Hussein, kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq.
I want to know what the imminent threat was.
Did Iraq have a-bombs sitting just off our coast?
Were Iraqi operatives planting nuclear devices in our subways?
Did Saddam conjure up a fleet of transport ships to invade our shores?
What was it?
It's more likely that Saddam had created an army of flying monkey mariachis to invade through our open mexican border.
Well, more likely than any of the excuses we've heard so far.
The Case for Invading Iraq.
And, before the expected response, yes, I understand that Bush screwed up selling this to the American people, I already detailed that in the first part of the article, so actually reading it is required before critiquing.
Not that I have any fear of you actually doing it… ;)Posted by: Rhinehold at October 16, 2005 12:30 AM
As far as impeachment goes - well I've found that with increased frequency the old adage of "where there's smoke, there's fire" to be worth paying attention to.
No, not in this case I'm afriad. And it's the democrats fault, completely.
You see, there are many on the left that were calling for Bush's impeachment before he was even sworn in. Democrats.com was one such site, made up at the time of mainly former Clinton staffers who wanted to get revenge for his impeachment.
You can read this blog's archives and see that it is brought up with almost uncanny regularity, each time many of those on the right and some of us in the middle ask 'for what? under what legal precident?' and never get a good answer.
But the REAL problem is that the constant and untiring scream of Bush's impeachment means he will probably never be impeached even if he was found smuggling declassified documents out of the national archives. So bored and sick and tired are most of the people from hearing the screeching left for 8 years drone on and on and on that it just doesn't register anymore.
The best thing to do is wait until there is some sort of evidence of something, instead of inventing it or taking something that proves nothing and trying to shine it up for forced consumption, and THEN bring up the subject. But its way to far beyond that, I'm not sure what Bush would have to do to be impeached at this point.Posted by: Rhinehold at October 16, 2005 12:35 AM
Btw, what is even worse is that people are saying the reason he won't be impeached because the republicans control the congress and senate.
Not 'well, he didn't commit an impeachable offense'. Leaving the impression that he did.
So those claiming that Bush is creating a false impression of Iraq being involved in 9/11 by the way he doesn't deny it every other week are they themselves attempting to create the false impression that an impeachable offense occured.
Amazing, isn't it?Posted by: Rhinehold at October 16, 2005 12:39 AM
I have a case of the exactly's today.
four house terms your out. two senate terms your out. done deal no more lifetime politicians period.
It reAlly doesn't matter what side you look at the Elitist mentality consumes congress. Everytime they see trouble it's another Blue Ribbon panel to absolve themselves from themselves. Protect there elitist status on both sides of the isle. END OF STORYPosted by: CAD at October 16, 2005 2:21 AM
Why not investigate the inconsistencies? Remember that 2 part report that Congress was going to do. One half detailed the intelligence failures, which they were sure to release before the election.
The promised second part of the report (to come out after the election), was suppose to look at how the Bush Administration used that intelligence (or misused).
Not only did the Reps not release it, they never started the second half. Their reasoning was that it was not needed AFTER the election was over. I wonder why they even promised it to begin with.
These same Republicans can spend over $100 million chasing ghosts, and can only come up with catching Clinton in a very uncomfortable position.
I only wish they would INVESTIGATE the current President with the same tenacity.
Many U.S. Democrats are very judgmental about the actions of President Bush because they fail to take a close look at the lies and deceitful actions of those in their own Party. For example:
In the Presidential debate of Oct. 22, 1976 between President Ford and Jimmy Carter, Carter stated that he did not favor a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, and he would only work within the confines of the Supreme Court ruling to minimize the NEED for abortions. That is like saying, "I'm against slavery, but I will not work to change an unjust law, lets just work to reduce the NUMBER of slaves." Republicans support a Human Life Amendment to our Constitution - Democrats do not. Abortion would already be outlawed in the USA if it were not for the Democratic Party.
From a speech by President Johnson, Oct. 21, 1964, at Akron University, Ohio: "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." In 1968, Johnson's last full year as President, there were over 500,000 American soldiers in Vietnam. During Johnson's Presidency, over 30,000 American soldiers died in the Vietnam War. In addition, by the end of 1968, millions of South Vietnamese civilians were left homeless, and over 180,000 North Vietnamese civilians had been killed.
January 26, 1998: In the presence of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Vice President Al Gore in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, President Clinton stated: "But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time — never. These allegations are false." We know that Clinton not only lied with this statement, but a number of times before he admitted his guilt. The evidence of Clinton's lack of wisdom is also shown in his pro-abortion beliefs, and his approval of homosexual lifestyles.
In addition, for 1992's Hurricane Andrew, a Category 5 storm, federal help for Florida did not arrive until the 4th day after the hurricane. Clinton never assumed responsibility for this late action by his administration.
Posted by: Vincent Bemowski at October 16, 2005 2:43 AM
IF, "Abortion would already be outlawed in the USA if it were not for the Democratic Party", that in and of itself is enough to justify, to GLORIFY, the existence of the Democratic Party.
Democrats don't deny or hide lies told by former democratic presidents… who do you think that was standing out in front of the White House in 1968 chanting "HEY HEY LBJ, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?"… the young republicans????
And exactly WHY should Bill Clinton take responsibility for any late action taken in a disaster that occurred 2 months before he was even elected???
But to get back on topic. As much as I despise what bush has turned our nation into, he has done so with a mandate of the majority and I don't know if he's committed any 'high crimes and/or misdemeanors" the constitution demands for impeachment.
But I do believe there should be an investigation to see if there are any such crimes that have not come to public light. Perhaps a loophole could be found in the fact that congress never specifically declared war on Iraq prior to the president taking our country to war.
Why is that nobody sees the connection between Bill Clinton instructing the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq in 1998, his bombing the bejeezuz out of suspected weapons manufacturing sites, and the end of the Iraqi WMD program? neo con loves to quote the democrats who announced their belief that Saddam had WMDs, but fail to point out that the vast majority of those quotes were made prior to Bill Clinton's raids.
So, to answer neo con's questions;
1)Where did all them WMDs go?
2)What good did Bill Clinton ever do?
the answer to question one is the answer to question 2
Hey Cons…What about the gorilla standing in the living room? 42% (that's a lot of people) want Bush impeached doesn't that merit some kind of congressional focus?Posted by: Gary Hankin at October 16, 2005 11:44 AM
I've consistently said that I believe Bush overplayed his comments about WMD's. I think he took the worst case situations regarding WMD and made them appear the most probable. I've also said that I didn't think he needed to, in my opinion, and that he was wrong to do so.
My apologies, JBOD. I don't recall you ever saying that. I will remember in the future.
Thank you. While I am a Bush supporter, I don't support him in everything nor do I do so blindly. While I don't expect agreement with my opinions in all cases, I do hope that my rationale is understood.
Allow me to make one change in my earlier statement. Its very possible that Bush needed to make WMD's a priority in order to get the political process for holding Saddam accountable under way. My personal view is that Saddam's repeated violations of the cease fire resolution gave the US the right to act, though I recognize that in doing so without UN Security Council approval, we were working outside their perview.
AP, I also owe you an apology for my statement "Why do you constantly misstate my comments?". While in this case you did misstate my comments, you certainly don't do it constantly, and I overstated the case. I held you accountable for the others who have done it.
With that group hug love fest over, let us resume our opposing stances and have at it some more, shall we?Posted by: jeobagodonuts at October 16, 2005 12:46 PM
ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION JOHN KERRY CANNOT LEGALLY HOLD A OFFICE IN THE USA. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED HE AND JANE ARE NOTHING BUT COMMUNIST HIDING IN THE DEMOCRATE PARTY.Posted by: Walter Flatt at October 16, 2005 1:51 PM
Please give your resources for this statement.
Actually I would greatly appreciate all your resources, including some of "the thousands of reasons" WE should have INVADED Iraq, instead of oh, Saudi Arabia where the terrorists came from. IF we needed to invade anyone.
(Assuming I understood what you are trying to say) please tell me how is it that you lump Kennedy, (I'm assuming you mean Ted, not John, (who helped to increase our presence in Vietnam)), and Jane Fonda and Kerry together on the radical side of the issue.
By the way, I don't like being called a "nut". My understanding of this blog is that we all hope to learn from the opinions of others, change our own ideas if we wish, or maybe even brainstorm and come up with something better.
I don't think you are a nut simply because you have many different ideas from me.
David R. Remer-
Precisely my point. Incumbents will not change their way if you re-elect them. That's why you re-elect the ones doing their job for the most part. That encourages people to do their job. I have not problems with kicking the bums out. Let them eat curb!
But keept he people doing their jobs. Anti-incumbency is just a broad solution to a specific problem. The better solution is that we simply tolerate corruption less in a candidate.
Our whole problem is that we act like corruption in politics is alright 90% of the time, not caring or enquiring, and only bring it up when some grand jury indicts, or election day draws near. We need to be offended quicker and slower to grant mercy for their actions without full apology and evident change of conduct. We're never going to get perfect enough politicians to be able to punish everybody, but we can sure put the ones we have on notice and give them good cause to believe we mean it.
The real concern for me is that you greatly exaggerate the left's hatred for Bush, and disregard the piles of speeches and whatnot where Bush provokes liberal anger against himself by his prejudicial comments. I remember quite well Bush's vitriolic treatment of Democrats as he took his valuable time and spent the summer of 2002 blasting every liberal in sight on the campaign trail.
I didn't like Bush at the start. I thought he was too lightweight, too simplistic for the job, and I really hadn't though much of him as governor of my state. He wasn't going to get a free ride from me.
I wasn't disappointed to see him take charge after 9/11. I was hoping that the disaster would serve to both make a more serious and a more moderate leader out of him, one who represented America as a whole, while sticking to his own ideals. I could have been fine with that. Unfortunately, Bush not only failed to finish off our enemies, who later went on to cause more havoc and regroup themselves, but he also sent us on wild WMD hunt that just happened to have Saddam Hussein as a target. But there again, when he had Colin Powell, a reasonable man in my estimation, present a reasonable case, free from the simplistic, alarmist rhetoric that marked much of the politicking going on in the White House, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt, even after he had so vilely slandered us during the 2002 election.
I can honestly say I did not mind seeing Saddam go, nor his statues fall. Those were very bright moments, and though the circumstance that got us there weren't ideal, I didn't mind. My brother even told me that some of the evidence was turning out to be questionable, but I was sure that no responsible president would so neglect his duties as to take us to war without a very good case behind him. I would expect them to be wrong on some things, this being the real world.
It's total failure that pisses me off. It's how that reflects on my country's reputation. I don't want us perceived as liars and incompetents, especially not in a day and age where we face a terrorist threat of great magnitude. We can't afford to look this bad, much less perform this poorly.
The real problem is that the Right won't admit to anything. They have been taught a very adversarial style of political engagement where the whole point is to avoid the blame.
As for legal precedent for impeaching Bush, I have alread recounted in these comments here John Dean's case from his book Worse than Watergate, which essentially boils down to one thing: Bush lied to congress to get this war. Lying to congress is definitely impeachable.
And yes, Bush created false impressions. How the heck do you mention the war on terror in one moment and Iraq in the next, and present a case that actively tries to put al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda related figures in cahoots with Saddam, and not try to be convincing people of all those things?
You underestimate our tolerance for errors, even Bush's errors.
Walter Flatt-
Hi again. Iraq, the largest supporters of terrorists? No. Even their neighbors qualify better than that. You can even choose a larger font, but that doesn't change the fact that Iraq has never successfully perpetrated one major terrorist attack. Iran and Syria are not so incompetent. It was foolish to go after Iraq, not because we couldn't kick the Republican Guard's ass, not because it wasn't ballsy, but simply because we had a more lethal and more immediate threat present, and we needed to take care it once and for all, before chasing after another war, much less an elective one.
The Radicals don't need our help. They need yours. They need villains who don't care about the niceties of Muslim civilization coming in to play the bad guys.
From 1993 to 2001, not one foreign terrorist attack succeeded on our shores. Eight years, they plotted, waited, and bided their time. Just like the East Africa Bombings, the Cole Bombing and other attacks of theirs let us know they were still in the game, despite their lack of attacks on our shores, the same can be said of their attacks overseas now.
You talk about the flypaper strategy. It doesn't work. These are not mindless radicals here. These are people who fitted their explosives on the inside of a boat, out of sight, with the Cole Bombing. These are people who can coordinate the hijackings of multiple planes within minutes of each other, and can learn specialized skills such as bombmaking and piloting the world's most advanced planes. These are people who detonated multiple bombs apart from one another in London and Madrid. These people, even if they do have serious deathwishes, have shown that they can quite easily send a few people over our way to do some damage. Don't take false comfort in time unattacked and insurgent body counts. It only took 19 of them to kill thousands of us. That should not be cause for panic, but it should be cause to reconsidered whether a prolonged, strategically costly war like this one can ever achieve the desired objective.
As for your snipes at Kerry, it seems funny to me that you take the time out to sling mud at a defeated candidate for president. Are you feeling inadequate about your current president?Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 16, 2005 6:21 PM
Vote anti-incumbant in 2006? I plan on doing precisely that, with a handfull of exceptions for those with the courage to openly challenge King George the II. The problem with dumping the present gang of entrenched politicians is that there is no guarantee that the new crop will be any different. In fact, judging by past performance, it does not matter who WE THE PEOPLE elect into office, because they also will be bought and sold by corporate America in the blink of an eye. Since WE THE PEOPLE are apparently unable to eliminate the corrupting influence of corporate money in our political arena, perhaps we should have an ironclad written agreement with those we place in office, and if they deviate from the agreement, then they forfeit the jobs based on breach of contract. Everyone knows you cannot trust a politician, so lets bind them in writing to their campain "promises" and hold them immediately accountable if they stray from their core promises. A third party is another solution considering the track records of both Republicans and Democrats, who seem to marching to the same song from the drummer boy sitting in the oval office. A far more attractive solution would be to impose draconian punishments on politicians for lying. Unfortunately that would result in a total meltdown in Washington D.C., as the entire of pack of lying, manipulating, greedy, etc. etc. politicians would be afraid to open their mouths from a lifetime of experience in dodging the truth. And while the politicians sit idle out of fear of being fired, WE THE PEOPLE can direct our attention to corporate media and clean out that nest of snakes who no longer serve the public interest in providing balanced and accurate reporting of events, but instead parrot the party line without question and, in effect, act as a propaganda device for a select few whispering in George Bush's eager, clueless ears. One thing I am certain of is that unless we start controlling our public servants in Washington and at all levels of government, America is lost forever. One thing I cannot understand is why Americans are sitting idle while our federal government is busy destroying America though bankrupty, permitting our industrial base to disappear, our jobs to vanish overseas and at the same time pissing off most the world by our military interventions overseas, our blantant double standards and meanwhile leaving our borders wide open to the many enemies G. Bush is busy creating on a daily basis, all to the detriment of America. If someone were to devise a plan for destroying America, they would be hard pressed to compete with our own federal government in achieving that end result.Posted by: Terry at October 16, 2005 8:11 PM
Paul Siegel,
Let's stop beating around the Bush. The facts are as John presents them. The so called "liberal media" pounced on Clinton and are quiet about Bush.
No suprise here. For medias, "President lies" is sadly nothing new while "President had oral sex in the Oval Office" was such stunning World news!
Plus, medias are not about journalism anymore.Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 17, 2005 6:42 AM
"Plus, medias are not about journalism anymore."
You are sadly correct in this assertion. I believe the media decides upon the story, or the angle of the story, and then searches for facts to support that angle. While in science, it is normal to develop a hypothesis and then test against it, media should not work that way. And it cannot do its stated job (to inform, not manipulate) if it does.
The media has not been silent at all about 'Presidential lies'. If you think so, then I'd suggest you simply have not been reading or listening. That these so called 'lies' have not risen to impeachment status is no fault of the media, but rather of the evidence, which does not support impeachment. You've read above why it doesn't, and you've seen the inaction by Bush opponents.
Consider this comparitive example of how the media operates:
A) Prisoners are treated in an abusive manner at an Iraqi prison by American soldiers (Abu Ghraib). The media reports this, shows pictures, speculates on how far up the chain of command the orders go, goes to court to gain access to further similar pictures to be published months later, writes headline story after story after story.
B) Terrorists on September 25th, 2005 storm into a functioning school in Iraq. Rather than taking hostages, they grab 5 teachers from in front of the students, take them outside, and shoot them execution style. The media reports on this for TWO days (Sept 26 and 27th) as part of their regular reporting, it does not make bold headlines, the terrorists are called 'insurgents' or 'gunmen' (even though their actions were that of terrorists or murderers), and then the media dropped it.
Abu Ghraib of course deserved media focus at a high level. There is no question on that. To conclude from Abu Ghraib that Americans engage in torture everywhere would be wrong, but that is what the media did.
The real question, Philippe, is this: If the tables were turned in the second story, and US forces had dragged 5 suspected terrorists from their homes and executed them in the street, would the media have dropped the story after 2 days?
I think we all know the answer.Posted by: jeobagodonuts at October 17, 2005 8:13 AM
i read your reasons for Invading Iraq. So, according to your rule; i may critique it then.
(Actually i wont; it was a nice piece. There were many inaccuracies included, but i'm sure it was just flawed intelligence gathering. Salman Pak…)
In our modern world, to combat chaos we use process. Which is why it's extremely important for process to take precedent over hysteria, when it comes to invading another nation.
The facts are clear that this administration, the Bush administration, fixed facts around the policy of Invading Iraq. They chose to use fear tactics in an attempt to get public and Congressional support for this invasion. This administration didn't go before congress to say Saddam was a horrid man that uses inhumane tactics on his citizens. No, this administration said that Saddam was a threat to the safety of the United States and Iraq's neighbors. Since, in 2000, the Arab nations invited Iraq back to the summit, they obviously didn't feel threatened. So that was a lie. So that leaves a threat to the US.
At first the argument was all about the direct threat. How could Iraq hit us directly? They first planted stories about unmanned planes that could deliver nerve gas. They forgot to mention that the unmanned planes had a range of 300 s. miles. So that's not right. Then they talked about the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Now granted, i'm not sure exactly how much a 'stockpile' actually is, but it's got to be a whole lot more than they found buried in the back of a scientist's backyard. Oh yeah, another thing about the 'stockpiles' that they conveniently forgot to mention; the shelflife of those chemical and biological weapons. It's a common fact that they chem and bio weapons presented by this administration as a threat, were dead 10 years ago.
Also, you claimed that you weren't going to connect Iraq with 911; well that's okay for you. But the fact is this administration did connect Iraq with 911 and the American people bought it. In fact, poll suggested late last year (about the time of your post) that people still believed that Iraq had something to do with 911.
It's clear that the evidence presented to the American public and Congress by this administration was false with the intent to gain support for the Iraq invasion.
So when the modern world considers invading a country (for whatever reason, brutal dictatorships, WMDs, etc…) the process in place should be respected. The inspectors, ripped out in January of 2003, were working hard to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's to make certain that we didn't just invade a country, kill its citizens and install a democratic friendly government just because we can. When the Bush administration threw away process for brute force is when the US became the foe, instead of the friend.Posted by: john trevisani at October 17, 2005 8:23 AM
I think as time goes on, and Bush's control of the documents of this administration slips, there will be a serious revision of the consensus about this administration's practices and procedures, and it will not be for the better. This has been one of the most secretive presidencies on record, and it should be obvious with all the contradiction of previous statements just how much they've hidden from us.
The Terrorists are expected to act viciously. America and it's troops are not. Or at least weren't before this administration stepped in. You quibble about what we call these people committing acts of violence in Iraq, yet your fine-toothed analysis of the world does not reach into the realm of our own behavior. If it is true what happened there in Abu Ghraib, is it not in our interest to find out who was responsible for making us look like a bunch of perverted savages? What happens if this behavior persists? Do you want that fall-out? Do you want this shameful behavior to become the expectation of our country?
The media reported more on Abu Ghraib, quite frankly, because better things are expected of us. Is it wrong for us to be better than these people, whether we call them insurgents, or terrorists, or people with violence issues? I thought the point of all this was to defeat the terrorists, not become them!Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 17, 2005 9:55 AM
Excellent attempt at rationalization, but it just doesn't fly.
The media is supposed to engage in information, not in making the story what they want it to be. The media instead engages in the process of equivalencies, where an American soldier holding a dog collar around the neck of a prisoner equates to an insurgent/gunman/terrorist beheading an innocent civilian. By making a big splashy deal of the first, while minimizing the second, the media portrays the American as the bad guy.
As far as finding out about Abu Ghraib, our system has done just that, without the help of the media. People have been found guilty of misconduct and have been punished for it. Have we gotten everyone involved—-probably not, nor do we in ANY such event. But America has investigated and punished such poor behavior, rather than cheering it on, as the terrorists have done with regard to beheadings, burning corpses etc.
Even after the prosecutions, the media has pursued further pictures of Abu Ghraib abuse, so they can revisit the events. The question is why? Why not a similar effort in uncovering the Food for Oil scandals at the UN, or a similar effort in publicizing how UN forces have raped the very citizens they are there to protect? These are events just as Abu Ghraib was an event, and the UN is expected to behave as well as Americans, are they not. There is no expectation of UN forces engaging in sexual misconduct, yet there also is barely any mention of it from the MSM. The reason is easy to find—-the people involved were not American.Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 17, 2005 10:20 AM
President Bush lied about WMB, he is running this country into the ground and those that are making money and are "uneffected" don't give a s@#t. Bush should be IMPEACHED-he lied, people are dying in this stupid war and BUSH should be held accountable.Posted by: Rene at October 17, 2005 10:53 AM
The media has not been silent at all about 'Presidential lies'.
I know US medias talk a lot about these lies. Maybe because they're searching a way to do their mea culpa for being the ones to swallow them in the first place?
Don't forget that in instant news erea, no medias have time anymore to check the stories before publishing them. Hence the same news on every live medias everywhere at the same time or short, locked in news flash loop.
The news producers, Reuter, AFP, AP (not our, the newswire's one!) etc don't have more time to check their sources but less because they're suppliers.
Good journalism take time, something we don't want to give anymore, thanks to TV monopole in our houses.
The real question, Philippe, is this: If the tables were turned in the second story, and US forces had dragged 5 suspected terrorists from their homes and executed them in the street, would the media have dropped the story after 2 days?
Nope, of course. But neither if the teachers was Americans contractors. The keywords here being "americans involved".
Honestly, I think everyone care less about world news when its unconnected to its own interest, no? People are more interested in stories involving their compatriots first, that's no secret.
Which means more audience for medias. And more profit.
Don't forget that in instant news erea, no medias have time anymore to check the stories before publishing them.Journalism is defined as the "discipline of collecting, verifying, reporting and analyzing information gathered regarding current events, including trends, issues and people. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism
By your comment, the media is simply tossing out idle stories with little or no idea of whether the stories are factual or not. I'd tend to agree with you on this, and with the notion that it happens as a result of the desire to scoop the competition. But if you are correct, then there really is no such thing as journalism anymore, at least as it is define above.
Philippe, I disagree with your comments about "American contractors". You see, American contractors HAVE been killed, they have had their bodies mutilated, and they have been beheaded. Yet none of these events have had the lifecycle that Abu Ghraib had. And again, the reason is that Americans did not commit these crimes. Had the actions been the same, but the victims Iraqi and the perpetrators American, these events would have resonated loudly with the media.Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 17, 2005 1:49 PM
The Media's purpose is not merely to present us with information, but meaningful information. The Terrorists killing five people is not that big of a story when there is daily violence and the terrorists aren't in any conflicted position about inflicting such atrocities. Furthermore, it's not controversial that what they are doing is wrong. Call them what you like, most Americans do not like the insurgents or their acts that much, and in fact blame Bush for failing to bring these people low. You think we want more soldiers in Iraq to give these people targets? Quite the opposite. We want there to be no place where these people aren't the targets themselves.
The problem with Abu Ghraib is that it's us. The Problem with Abu Ghraib is that it just happens to coincide with the administration trying to find legal excuses to justify torture and keep our detainees from having the protection of international law speaking to the matter. I'm sure it's also not too difficult to find plenty of Republican pundits rationalizing and even advocating torture of prisoners.
That it involves Americans makes it local in a way that it being UN soldiers or officials doesn't. Although I find it very disappointing that these things happened at the UN, It's not a matter than most people without a huge interest in politics would pay attention to.
Abu Ghraib stood at the convergence of different news stories. First, it was about how true we were remaining to the administration's revised emphasis on bringing freedom to the Iraqis as being our primary mission. Second, it presented a major problem to our efforts in Iraq and in the war on terror in general. Third, it is objectionable behavior to Americans, and as such rightly controversial. Fourth, the incidents were covered up by the Bush administration. Fifth, the Right kept it controversial by making it a test of their political rival's stomach to fight a dirty war, in the face of political correctness.
In essence, it would have been much less controversial, if the Bush administration had not gone out of its way to present it's efforts in Iraq as altruistic, yet open the way to much less pure behavior. If the Republicans had not tried to whitewash the whole matter, it would have been a done deal. Instead, the GOP aggravates it by trying to rationalize and justify behavior that sickens ourselves, our allies (especially the Iraqis), and validates the most slanderous propaganda of our enemies.
In short, the Bush administration blew the chance to express America's values in its action, both before and after this debacle broke. That's the news story, and that is why it hasn't gone away. Wait another day, and more will die because of the terrorists. It's not everyday that our administration fails our nation so profoundly.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 17, 2005 3:45 PM
Wow, you will go to virtually any lengths to discredit the Bush administration, won't you. Amazing.
It has seemed to me that there has been no whitewash of Abu Ghraib, but rather a public and well commented upon prosecution of those involved. Now, I'm not so naive as to think that some higher-ups might not have known about it, but there just isn't evidence of that. In any scandal, be it Watergate, Abu Ghraib or any of the Clinton era scandals, the higher ups most likely know about things but insulate themselves from it. But to call it a whitewash when people have been publicly prosecuted is simply an inaccurate characterization. But certainly one consistent with your viewpoint.
Your 5 rationales could just as easily be applied to the UN scandals. Simply substitute "UN" for "America" and there you go. If you do not see how the UN Oil for Food scandal impacts Americans, then you miss the larger picture. This scandal is directly involved in the war, and directly impacted the actions of the UN and other anti-war countries. If that doesn[t make it "local", then what the hell would make it local? And you are "disappointed" by their actions…..how nice of you to feel that way. You get enraged by the poor actions of Americans at Abu Ghraib, and are "disappointed" by UN actions that directly impacted the world's policy in regard to Iraq.
Painfully obvious to see how you view things.Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 17, 2005 4:30 PM
A brief bit of searching turned this editorial up.
And I quote:
The latest evidence has emerged from hearings at Fort Meade about two of those low-level Abu Ghraib guards who are charged with using dogs to terrorize Iraqi detainees. On Wednesday, the former warden of Abu Ghraib, Maj. David DiNenna, testified that the use of dogs for interrogation was recommended by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the former commander of the Guantanamo Bay prison who was dispatched by the Pentagon to Abu Ghraib in August 2003 to review the handling and interrogation of prisoners. On Tuesday, a military interrogator testified that he had been trained in using dogs by a team sent to Iraq by Gen. Miller.
In statements to investigators and in sworn testimony to Congress last year, Gen. Miller denied that he recommended the use of dogs for interrogation, or that they had been used at Guantanamo. "No methods contrary to the Geneva Convention were presented at any time by the assistance team that I took to [Iraq]," he said under oath on May 19, 2004. Yet Army investigators reported to Congress this month that, under Gen. Miller's supervision at Guantanamo, an al Qaeda suspect named Mohamed Qahtani was threatened with snarling dogs, forced to wear women's underwear on his head and led by a leash attached to his chains — the very abuse documented in the Abu Ghraib photographs.
The court evidence strongly suggests that Gen. Miller lied about his actions, and it merits further investigation by prosecutors and Congress. But the Guantanamo commander was not acting on his own: The interrogation of Mr. Qahtani, investigators found, was carried out under rules approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Dec. 2, 2002. After strong protests from military lawyers, the Rumsfeld standards — which explicitly allowed nudity, the use of dogs and shackling — were revised in April 2003. Yet the same practices were later adopted at Abu Ghraib, at least in part at the direct instigation of Gen. Miller. "We understood," Maj. DiNenna testified, "that [Gen. Miller] was sent over by the secretary of defense."
It's a whitewash to throw a few grunts to the dogs while the brass that oversaw training and interrogation. The measures taken by cowardly politicians to isolate themselves from legal culpability do not alleviate them of moral culpability.
As for your UN comparison? I think it's more reflexive rhetoric, more justification that runs along thelines of two wrongs make a right. Sorry. The Oil For Food Scam was wrong, and the misdeeds at Abu Ghraib were wrong, just as the actions of the terrorists and/or the insurgents are wrong. My rationales were pretty specific to our problems in Iraq, and cannot simply be turned around like some flipped photograph and invalidated because of my lack of enthusiasm for bashing the UN. At least the UN acknowledged the wrong of it, and now somebody high up going to brought up on charges, not merely some grunt.
What's painfully obvious here is that you will deny American problems as long as there are any other targets out there that you can draw rhetorical comparison to. What's obvious to people like me is that the end result is it just gets worse. We should not wait for the rest of the world to get its act together to start acting like civilized adults.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 17, 2005 11:51 PM
This whole section is a quote:
The latest evidence has emerged from hearings at Fort Meade about two of those low-level Abu Ghraib guards who are charged with using dogs to terrorize Iraqi detainees. On Wednesday, the former warden of Abu Ghraib, Maj. David DiNenna, testified that the use of dogs for interrogation was recommended by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the former commander of the Guantanamo Bay prison who was dispatched by the Pentagon to Abu Ghraib in August 2003 to review the handling and interrogation of prisoners. On Tuesday, a military interrogator testified that he had been trained in using dogs by a team sent to Iraq by Gen. Miller.
In statements to investigators and in sworn testimony to Congress last year, Gen. Miller denied that he recommended the use of dogs for interrogation, or that they had been used at Guantanamo. "No methods contrary to the Geneva Convention were presented at any time by the assistance team that I took to [Iraq]," he said under oath on May 19, 2004. Yet Army investigators reported to Congress this month that, under Gen. Miller's supervision at Guantanamo, an al Qaeda suspect named Mohamed Qahtani was threatened with snarling dogs, forced to wear women's underwear on his head and led by a leash attached to his chains — the very abuse documented in the Abu Ghraib photographs.
The court evidence strongly suggests that Gen. Miller lied about his actions, and it merits further investigation by prosecutors and Congress. But the Guantanamo commander was not acting on his own: The interrogation of Mr. Qahtani, investigators found, was carried out under rules approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Dec. 2, 2002. After strong protests from military lawyers, the Rumsfeld standards — which explicitly allowed nudity, the use of dogs and shackling — were revised in April 2003. Yet the same practices were later adopted at Abu Ghraib, at least in part at the direct instigation of Gen. Miller. "We understood," Maj. DiNenna testified, "that [Gen. Miller] was sent over by the secretary of defense."Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 17, 2005 11:53 PM
You claim that I "will deny American problems as long as there are any other targets out there that I can draw rhetorical comparison to."
The problem with your logic is that I have not denied ANY problems. I've used Abu Ghraib as an example, and I've said clearly that what happened there was wrong. I've said clearly that those involved should be punished. I've said clearly that higher ups might have known but have probably insulated themselves to the point where there is not enough proof to hold them accountable.
How then do you conclude that I am denying a problem? What I have done is accepted that a problem existed. I have simply shown that the media spends its time focusing on problems that exist with America, while at the same time minimizing problems that exist with anyone else. And that is what you are denying.
You've concluded from an editorial that the administration, including Rumsfeld, is whitewashing the incident. As I said earlier, I'm worldly enough to recognize this as a possibility. But the bottom line is that if the "evidence" that your editorial discusses actually existed, then Rumsfeld would be prosecuted. That he hasn't been shows that the evidence was not substantial enough to prosecute, and in our system, we are innocent until proven guilty. Isn't that how you want the system to work, or is it only for those you believe to be innocent?
Thirdly, please detail for me the "higher ups" at the UN who are being brought up on charges in the Oil for Food scandal as well as the sex abuse scandal. I haven't seen any higher ups being prosecuted.Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 18, 2005 9:23 AM
Just an out of the blue comment. Dosen't anyone remember that our "war" with Iraq isn't really a war at all. In order for the United States to go to war Bush has to have congresses approval, which he never got in the first place. So in my conclusion, it is neither the Dems or the Reps problem that we are at "war" but it is Bush's.Posted by: einghf at October 19, 2005 4:57 AM
Re: Impeachment
a) Not WMD. Corruption and Incompetence. All the no-bid contracts and influence sales. The Republicans put together a case against Bill Clinton out of absolutely nothing. Bush, by comparison, is a gold mine for charges. Are Democrats too lazy and chicken to go after him?
b) Iraq was all about stealing an oil field for Exxon using public money and lives. It was never about WMD or Democracy or settling a score for Daddy. In OIL is a great case for impeachment.
شات بنات
دردشة بنات مصر
شات مصرى
دردشة بنات
بنات مصر
شات بنات مصر
شات بنات مصر
دردشة بنات مصر
شات بنات مصر
شات بنات مصر
شات بنات
دردشة بنات مصر
شات مصرى
دردشة بنات
بنات مصر
Posted by: chat at September 25, 2013 8:08 AM
شات بنات السعوديه
شات بنات السعودية
شات بنت السعودية
شات السعوديه
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to email@example.com.


text:
FANBYN bar table$169.00 Unit price
NORRÅKER bar table$149.00 Unit price
EKEDALEN bar table$199.00 Unit price
JOKKMOKK bar table and 4 bar stools$199.00 Unit price
EKEDALEN bar table$199.00 Unit price
EKEDALEN bar table$199.00 Unit price
FANBYN bar table and 4 bar stools$525.00 Unit price
NORDVIKEN bar table$249.00 Unit price
NORDVIKEN bar table$249.00 Unit price
NORRÅKER bar table$149.00 Unit price
NORRÅKER / NORRARYD bar table and 2 bar stools$347.00 Unit price
NORRÅKER / NORRÅKER bar table and 2 bar stools$347.00 Unit price
STENSELE bar table$139.00 Unit price
TOMMARYD table$179.00 Unit price
TOMMARYD table$179.00 Unit price
Bar tables, stools and more for your home
Sleek, chic and minimalist, our bar tables will make fabulous additions to the modern home. Perfect for breakfast time, these bar tables are a welcome sight for tired eyes and your first cup in the morning. They also work very nicely for drinks and nibbles at a party. Choose from a range of sizes, heights and finishes: wood, stainless steel and clear lacquer. Solid, well-built and hard-wearing, these are understated, practical and easy to wipe clean. Whatever your style of décor, you can find a bar table to fit comfortably into your kitchen or dining room for a very affordable price.
Bar tables for stylish homes
When you set out to buy bar tables for your home, you'll probably want some stools to go with it. Make your way to your nearest IKEA store; we've got a range of bar stools to complement your table in matching or contrasting colors, some with special non-scratch finishes. Feel free to mix and match different bar tables and stools with your existing furniture for some stylish and unique combinations. Look out for our dining textiles like place mats and table cloths, and have a browse of our crockery, cutlery and glassware: the perfect finish for any table. Bar tables from IKEA are high class at low prices.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Tim Christensen
Sgrafitto Porcelain Lidded Bird Vessel
$ 225.00
Tim creates his sgrafitto (also known as "scrafitto") pottery with layers of contrasting black and white porcelain. As he carves into the top layer, he reveals the layer beneath.
This decorative (can only be used dry) bird vase is 5" high by 5" wide, with a removable lid.


text:
Hello everyone,
Really happy to show you our latest freebie: Social Media Profile UI Page. You can check out the large preview image for more details of what the page contains and download it from here.
Happy downloads!
Earn 100% and
more on all sales
Upload your products and put them up
for sale at whatever price you want.


text:
America's Cup
Broadcast Titles
The boys in Bermuda made the whole of New Zealand proud in bringing the America's Cup back to our shores.
Augusto demonstrated its prowess working with clients on the other side of the world by curating a world-class visual treatment that captured the spirit of the 35th America's Cup. Used by 35 broadcasters and seen in 176 countries, It was important to us to give viewers a sense of the science, innovation and physical power behind each race. We wanted to provide an engaging experience that made viewers feel as though they were onboard and in the midst of the action.


text:
Peer pressure has been with us for as long as time has existed. The pressure to fit in is
tremendous, but it seems to be more extensive today than it has ever been before. It
influences a teen's life, especially in whom they choose as their friends. In fact, 62%
of teens say that their friends are important to them. Proverbs 13:20 talks about how
wise it is to make wise friends. Teens want to belong to some group, whether it is
sports, music, dressing a certain way, or belonging in a gang. Who will train up
your children in the way they should go?
Warning signs that your teen may be in trouble:
Your teen isolates himself from the rest of the family.
You, as a parent, should be aware if your once more social child is spending more and more time alone in his room.
2.Your teen has unusual extreme shifts in mood.
Is your teen talkative and friendly one moment that angry and introverted the next? Don't just contribute it to growing pains.
Find out who your teen is hanging out with, and if he is experiencing hormonal, neurological, or social changes. Continue to
find ways to connect with your teen even if he rebels and tries to prevent you from being in his life.
3.Your teen starts abusing drugs or alcohol.
Check your teen's room for either of these, notice any unusual behavior he may be exhibiting, and be aware of who his friends are.
4.Your teen is taking wrong and unnecessary risks.
If your teen is skipping school, vandalizing, or being involved in petty thefts, do not contribute it to simply "a teen just being a
teen." Your teen seemingly throwing caution to the wind and not caring about the consequences may be indicative of many
things, including that he may not have the ability to connect his choices with their consequences.
- Declining grades
- Using street or drug language
- A diminished interest in hobbies
- A lack of appreciation for family values
Don't live in denial about what is happening to teenagers today. Don't let yourself be deceived into thinking that these things only happen to other people's children. Know what is going on in your teen's life. Ensure that they understand the consequences of their actions. Don't
make the excuse that your teen is acting the way he is because of things you went through in your life. Doing this doesn't help your child at all. Always being honest with your teen and yourself will have the most benefit. Make sure that your teen is living his life consistently with the values that you consider so important. It's important that you clarify to your teen what your values are. If they are not clear to him, society will play a crucial role in establishing their values in your teen's life.
Warning Signs to Watch for When Your Child Goes Through the Conflict of the Parents' Divorce:
- Teens can become angry and hostile.
- Depression is often common when the family splits.
- Drug abuse can occur.
- Pregnancy rate are high at this time.
- Teens often become insecure.
- Teens can develop relationship problems.
- Develop an understanding of what your teen is facing with the divorce.
- Try to understand and look for the typical emotional and behavioral reactions that your teen demonstrates because of the divorce.
- Find ways to help them go through the trauma of the divorce.
- Get teens involved in support groups or youth groups in your church.
There are many changes that adolescents will go through: physical (puberty), emotional (social), and cognitive (academic). The key is to help your child navigate through the journey of life.
- Problem solving
- Cognitive flexibility
- Language processing skills
- Emotional regulation
- Social skills
Loneliness is an issue of the heart for most teens. In fact, it is a sickness of the soul. It can lead to depression, drug abuse, sexual immorality, and perversion; it also leads to alcoholism and other desperate behaviors. Of course, this type of behavior in our youth does not solve the problem of loneliness but over a period of time makes it worse. Parents need to be part of the solution by being available for teens and teaching them how to open their hearts. Parents should transition from being parents to being friends as the teens grow older and, by doing so, will help the teens develop trusting relationships.
Signs That Your Teen May Be at Risk Online:
- Your child spends large amounts of time online, especially at night.
- You have found pornography on your child's computer.
- Your child is quick to turn off the computer monitor when you enter the room.
- Your child is using an online account that belongs to someone else.
- Your child receives phone calls from people you don't know.
- Your child is becoming withdrawn from the family.
Please visit our Resource page for materials on teens with ADHD.


text:
Preparing for 2018
Its that time of year again, friends. When the cold sets in and we all start gearing up for the new year. I'm not a big fan of the snow, but I do love a fresh start! The past 2 years I created a downloadable and printable calendar to use in my office and shared it with all of you. It was a big hit, so I wanted to create one for 2018 too. I've got mine hanging on a clipboard and switch it out each month. Super fun!
Click HERE to download and print your copy today. And I'd love to see how you use it in your own space. Share on Instagram with the hashtag: #yourampersandstudio.


text:
Quiz: What's Your Fashion Style?
Do you follow trends or are you more laid-back when it comes to your style? Find out right now!
You woke up late and class begins in just 30 minutes. Grab your must-have fashion item NOW!
Which male celebrity do you check up on constantly on Instagram?
What's your go-to snack on a lazy Sunday?
You're invited to your friend's Winter Wonderland Quince, which outfit do you wear?
Which one of these will be the perfect XMAS present for you?
Which one of these songs is most likely to be your ringtone?
Which is your typical Starbucks order?
If you had to choose a hairstyle makeover what would it most likely be?
When it comes to makeup, which one of your features do you highlight the most?
Which one of these is your favorite Disney Movie?
Quiz: What's Your Fashion Style?
You got: Trendy GirlYou're the trendsetter among your friends! Whatever Kylie Jenner wears you will for sure sport the next day at school. Is not that you're a follower but you're a leader fashionista! Your favorite stores to shop at are H&M, Nasty Gal & BEBE
You got: Bohemian Chic QuinceaneraGnarly outfit, chica! You're such a laidback Quinceanera you actually don't even think of a style when putting together your outfits. You never dress like your friends and definitely put an effort into finding unique pieces that will make an impact. Your favorite stores to shop at are Urban Outfitters, Rue 21 and American Apparel
You got: Classy Ladylike ChicaAudrey Hepburn in Breakfast in Tiffany's is your go-to look for any and every occasion! Not only are you proper and super feminine but you dress the part too! Your favorite stores to shop at are Express, Lulu's and Francesca's


text:
The Ultimate Guide to Buy Youngevity Products
First off, you need to note that youngevity supplements prevent and cure some disorders like cancer and hypertensive diseases. For that reason, you should ensure that you obtain the best youngevity products to be in a better situation to relish the advantages that they offer.To learn more about youngevity, click dr wallach minerals. However, like any other purchase, it can be daunting to buy youngevity products, mainly when you are new to the market. But with consideration of some guidelines, you will be in a better situation to order the best youngevity products. Continue reading the article below to have the understanding of what you should consider while looking for the best youngevity products.
First, where to buy youngevity products is one of the questions that you should ask yourself before you make the final determination. With the broad range of markets in this fast-paced world, it is hard to determine the one that will best suit your desires. It is upon you to do your due diligence to buy youngevity products from the best marketplace. For instance, you can browse various websites to be in a better situation to compare what the different online stores will have. Also, you can visit local stores in your suburb before you make the final determination. After making the comparison, you should buy youngevity products from the market that will best suit your needs.
Subsequently, considering the quality of the youngevity products is the next instruction that you should follow before you make the final determination. Ensure that you narrow your search to make a remarkable selection. You should read the package before you pull your wallet to pay. For that reason, you should obtain the youngevity products that will contain essential supplements.
Additionally, the total cost of buying youngevity products is the last thing that you should contemplate before you make the final determination. Before you enter a specific market, you should ensure that you have a limit on the finances that you are willing to allocate.To learn more about youngevity, visit life is 90. Subsequently, you should look for a supplier that will offer youngevity products at a rate that will be within your means. Nevertheless, you should not pay attention to the lowest bidders since they may provide poor quality youngevity products.
In summary, no one said it is simple to buy youngevity products. That is why you should take your time to consider the above guiding principles the next time you are purchasing youngevity products.Learn more from https://www.encyclopedia.com/caregiving/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/nutritional-supplements.
Almost done…
We just sent you an email. Please click the link in the email to confirm your subscription!
OKSubscriptions powered by Strikingly


text:
I have been based in Weymouth over the last week doing a good chunk of sailing in a range of conditions. The training was started by attending one of the formally RYA run camps. This was great as it gives us as sailors time to catch up with all the specialist and get any answers we need from them. Along side this we also spent much of the day on the water. The friday was great lucy and I were able so sail in some lighter conditions, which seems to be a bit of a commodity for us! Over the weekend lucy was busy so during the saturday i was a guest coach on the rib, and sunday i filled in for nikki and sailed with rupert (one of the other teams).
Lucy reappeared on monday and the breeze was back on! After some pretty gnarly bear-aways and pitchpoles unfortunately the seal at the top of the mast broke which meant we really couldn't afford another capsize and on that basis we decided to head for the beach and ready our selves for the following day. Tuesday was perfect, a nice breeze, the sun was out and we seemed pretty on pace. As if tuesdays conditions couldn't get any better, we wednesday was! A great day on the water in some awesome conditions. We spent alot of time focusing on improving our tacking routine which now seems pretty slick. We also spent some time working on speed against the other teams on the water. Generally our speed seemed pretty good :-)
A few days off now, but after getting my breath back. i head back to weymouth for another week long camp. Check back soon!