Tone Deft wrote:subterFUSE wrote:smutek wrote:Just call for petes sake!
No thanks. Posting in this forum is an even more valuable waste of my work time than that.
Besides, I would ask them not to support impeachment if I did call. Kucinich is a nut. An entertaining nut, granted.... but still a nut.
...and Cheney is a what?
A murderer, a war criminal and a traitor for starters.
Regarding the idea of impeachment serving as a diversion to a potential attack against Iran, below is an excerpt from one article written by a group of former intelligence officers called VIPS - Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity - and Dr. Justin Frank MD.
I found the article to be an interesting read, it's title is "Dangers of a Cornered George Bush". It is an "at a distance leader personality assessment", or a psychoanalysis, of George Bush that tries to predict how he may respond to various scenarios conducted jointly by members of VIPS and Dr. Frank.
Don't take it as fact, obviously, because it is an analysis but it is an interesting read. The excerpt regarding impeachment as a deterrent is below and the link to the article in its entirety follows:
______________________________________________________________________________________-
Dangers of a Cornered George Bush
By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity & Dr. Justin Frank 7/27/07
(excerpt)
Impeachment hearings, though, could encourage senior officers like Admiral Fallon to pause long enough to remember that their oath is to defend the Constitution, and that they are not required to follow orders to start another war in order to stave off political and personal disaster for the president and vice president.
But What if Impeachment Begins?
Is there nothing to rein in Bush and Cheney? It seems likely that only if impeachment proceedings were under way would senior officers like CENTCOM commander, Admiral William Fallon, be likely to parry an unlawful order to start yet another war without the approval of Congress and the UN.
With impeachment under way, such senior officers might be reminded that all officers and national security officials swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States—NOT to protect and defend the president.
It was a highly revealing moment when on July 11, former White House political director Sara Taylor solemnly reminded the Senate Judiciary Committee, that as a commissioned officer, “I took an oath and I take that oath to the president very seriously.”
Committee chair Patrick Leahy had to remind Taylor: “We understand your personal loyalty to President Bush. I appreciate you correcting that your oath was not to the president, but to the Constitution.”
The most senior officers, military included, can get their loyalties mixed up. And this is of transcendent importance in a context described by Seymour Hersh: “These guys are scary as hell...you can’t use the word ‘delusional,’ for it’s actually a medical term. Wacky. That’s a fair word.”
One does not need psychoanalytic training to see that Bush and Cheney do not care about facts, treaties (or the lack thereof), or other legal niceties, unless it suits their purpose. This gives an even more ominous ring to what Hersh is hearing from his sources.
If Israel attacks Iran, President Bush is likely to spring to Israel’s defense, regardless of whether he was inside or outside the loop before the attack; and the world will see a dangerously widened war in the Middle East.
Psychologically, Bush would almost certainly need to join the attack, mainly to sustain his illusion of safety and masculinity. And Cheney, knowing that, would be pushing him hard on U.S. energy and other perceived strategic interests.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e18081.htm
