Ok, let me get this straight - some are comparing bush to saddam

[The Straight Story]

Saying he is no better, maybe even worse.

And then we have people not calling for impeachment.

And we have dem leaders saying the same thing. Off the table, etc.

IF you believe bush is as bad or worse then Saddam, and the incoming dems don't impeach bush right away - are they as bad as bush for allowing him to stay in power?

And IF so, are you ready to call for them to be ousted?

Will you vote for Obama, Edwards, etc if they don't immediately call bush out on his crimes and say he is worse than saddam?

If nothing is done, are we going to abandon our party and see them as nothing more then enablers to a regime we feel is worse than Saddam's?

The next few months should be rather interesting. If the dems don't call for impeachment right off the bat then maybe, in the view of some, they are enabling a dictator some see as far worse than saddam.

Then what shall we do? Keep making excuses for them? Vote for them in the primaries? Say it is all politics and move on?

If you see bush as equally evil, then how can you ever support a dem candidate that does make his impeachment first and foremost in the new year?

[LittleClarkie]

1. Those who are calling Bush no different from Saddam

and those who don't want impeachment on the table are not necessarily the same people.

[Junkdrawer]

2. Check this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x11268

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eyesroll]

4. And you are on *Democratic* Underground because...?

:shrug:

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Because He's A Democrat?

An actual Democrat, who's tired of the current crop of "Democrats" that do little but shill for the Predator Class while triangulating for cover?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

18. So don't waste our time.

Go away.

[zonmoy]

19. why should I

I know this website isn't owned by the democratic party. since it is not then I consider it open to any and all progressive people including greens and other small party members and independent progressives.

[LoZoccolo]

20. No, it isn't.

Yet it's for Democrats, who you've said are as bad as Republicans. Now give us a good reason why we should want you around after saying that.

It doesn't matter what you "consider" it open to.

[zonmoy]

21. I only find the leadership of the democratic party as corrupt as the repukes

also I have heard of the enemy of my enemy being my friend and sure hope that the leadership either gets some backbone to impeach bush and prove wrong my view that the same cabal of the military industrial complex controls them or at least do something to stand up to him. also I do find some views of the democratic people better such as the minimum wage and views on fixing health care so that the poor and disabled such as myself don't have to worry about not being able to find dental and medical care in their cities. basically I find the democratic party only slightly better in minor areas of social issues than the republicans. by the way if you can prove that the same corporate money and forces don't control the democratic party the same as the republican party that would really improve my opinion of them.

[Skidmore]

42. Preach it, brother.

[Nite Owl]

16. Amen to that!

It's all done 'for our good' or in the name of 'bipartisanship' but what it is is selling us out, giving up on true democracy. It's all about the Constitution, they need to uphold it or get out.

[shance]

6. You won't see me disagreeing with you Straight.

You pose great points.

Touche.

:toast:

[The Straight Story]

7. I am just trying to wrap my mind around it all

Either bush is worse than Saddam or he isn't.

If he is - then we MUST hold our elected officials accountable if they let him continue. No excuses for them.

Or maybe he is not, and it is all hyperbole.

[shance]

23. Me too. I think many of us are trying to make some sense of

what is non sensical.

People, especially those in power, are afraid to truly be honest.

Not that I particularly blame them, being what happens to those willing to lead and say what needs to be said.

However, its not going to do anything but make things worse until we all get honest with what has happened in our history and how we change it.

I think that's going to take some years frankly. That's understandable because its taken us years to get here.

I agree with you. I don't think justice and truth can be conditional and/or one sided. Many are trying to play it both ways. Many in the Democratic party, which is not received well when it is addressed here at DU. However I believe it is the truth.

We have to quit changing the goal posts which those in power keep conveniently changing. It hurts us all in the long run.

The balance of justice and just about everything is so upside down these days.

Hopefully a tide will turn when people have had enough with the lies and insincerity.

That will take I believe, taking the monetary incentive out of the political picture (hahaha) and those individuals who are willing to take the torch and lead, and we need to support those and protect those who are willing to be responsible leaders, no matter WHO or what party or what color or religion they are.

That is when I believe real and positive change will occur.

Just my late night thoughts....

[Toots]

40. Even Saddam got a trial, even if it was a kangaroo court

Get the evidence, the witnesses and it will become overwhelmingly obvious what needs to be done..

[Skip Intro]

8. I want investigations first.

I want the crimes offically documented, with justice to follow.

Everyone deserves a fair trial. The crimes of this administration, some of the crimes, are blatant. There is little doubt that investigations would reveal impeachable actions. But let's pledge to investigate before we pledge to impeach.

I'm ok with Dems following the process, and (publicly) unwilling to commit to impeachment, for the time being. I do have a problem with the "off the table," pledge though. But an easy out from that would be the depths of the crimes of the regime, discovered through the investigations.

btw, I don't doubt that * is as bad as saddam, both have plenty of blood on thier hands.

[helderheid]

38. agreed

[Imagevision]

9. Just remember, 60 votes are neeeded for impeachment, we currently have 51 if

Lieberman doesn't vote against it. capeesh??

[The Straight Story]

11. That should not stop the process or the attempt (nt)

[951-Riverside]

10. I'll all for ousting any democratic senanor who supports that asswipe

I don't care who they are related to or how "charming" they might be. Blindly supporting politicians is what got us in trouble to begin with.

[Psephos]

13. Are you crazy? Just what gives you the right to apply logic and reason?

Sheesh. Don't you know a little logic is a dangerous thing?

Peace.

[illinoisprogressive]

14. But, Cheney is more evil

The reason the dems do support going slowly and make sure thier t's are crossed is because you really have to get Cheney first. There is no way in hell that they are going to let the people go thru a rule of Cheney for one moment.
They must be careful
Yes, I would support obama because he is very thoughtful and would not call for impeachment willy nilly just to make noise. He makes a public stand when he has all facts and has a strong urge to make it public. And I know he really dislikes shrub alot but, would not call for impeachment until the problem of Cheney is addressed.

[man4allcats]

15. Yes, I think Bush is as bad or maybe even worse than Saddam,

but no I will not abandon the Democratic Party if the new Congress doesn't immediately do what it should do and begin garnering support for impeachment, although I will be doing what I can to hold their feet to the coals if need be. Personally I do support the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, but I also realize that politics is a business, and just like any business it has a bottom line and all the moral if pragmatic failings of any other business. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. To get power, you must play the game. It's the corporate ethic. If you can't handle the corporate culture, you should either teach, become an artist or a scientist or as Ricky Nelson once wrote, "If memories were all I had, I'd rather drive a truck." (NOTE: Use of this quote intends no offense to people who drive for a living. I have a commercial license myself.) Saddam has met justice. Where Bush and Cheney are concerned, I wish there were justice in this country as well.

[Buck Rabbit]

17. Impeachment will happen when and if the government goes into gridlock.

Impeachment is a political tool. Justice and the rule of law pertain to judicial trials. Impeachment is about truthiness. See Clenis.

If, more likely when, Congress and Bush get into a Veto gridlock and no further legislative agenda can be pursued, congress will turn to impeachment to while away the days until 2008.

Do they need investigations first? Nope. With or without further investigations Bush could be impeached simply by the House leadership deciding to do so. As far as conviction, with or without investigations, you only get a conviction if the Republicans think it is in their best interest for 2008 to do so. They will negotiate, for things such as a new Republican VP before conviction. But if they think it helps the Republican cause (specifically their individual futures) to throw Bush under a bus they would do so in a heart beat. If they don't think it is in their best interest they won't vote to convict. Evidence and rule of law will have nothing to do with the voting for conviction.

So should they investigate? Sure it is fun and successful dirt digging might influence public opinion to the point the Republicans push for impeachment themselves. But it won't be investigations that lead to impeachment, it will be a legislative pissing match over vetoes that will be the last straw. A government in gridlock.

[Bluebear]

22. "Some people are saying"

:hi:

[Balbus]

24. Anyone who would compare Bush to Saddam is an idiot.

The fact that they could write such a thing on a public message board and still be alive proves that.

[man4allcats]

25. Wouldn't you like to recommend this topic for the Greatest Page?

It only needs one more vote, and then your view would get substantially greater exposure. :-)

edited for spelling

[leftyladyfrommo]

28. If this war has actually cost 650,000 Iraqis their lives - then Bush

may have been even worse for Iraq than Sadaam was (and he was pretty bad).

I think his intentions were better - maybe. But the end result has a total disaster for the Iraqi people. Under Sadaam they could at least walk the streets. They can't even do that now.

[RetroLounge]

36. Anyone who can't see that they are the same

is worse.

an idiot in denial...

RL

K&R

[lostnotforgotten]

26. Help Me Understand

Saddam Hussein executed for gassing some hundreds of Kurds.

Bush kills 3,000 US troops (maimed some 20,000 or so) and probably some 600,000 Iraqis.

Is there a disconnect here?

The implications are obvious to me.

[brentspeak]

29. Didn't you just cut-and-paste one of your own posts?

[lostnotforgotten]

30. Yes - There are Many Saddam Threads This Morning

eom

[brentspeak]

31. And there's many of your spammed posts this morning, too

[lostnotforgotten]

32. There Is No Law Against Being Focused And Repetitious

That's the way the right wingers do it.

Seems to work!

[lumpy]

47. Oooooooooh cut and pasting..naughty naughty.

Oooooooooo....how sinfull..brentspeak will get you.... Oooooooooo

[rman]

34. Saddam NOT executed for gassing the Kurds

"on trial in the killing of 148 Shia villagers in 1982"
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/02/01/saddam-trial-wednesday.html

Saddam one time ran into an ambush in that village.


Saddam was not in trial for gassing the Kurds in Halabja in 1988, a couple of thousand of them - apparently it was not easy to prove that.
It is questionable that he actually did gas the Kurds. It was during the Iraq-Iran war in which the US supported both sides. Iranian military was active near Halabja and they to don't like the Kurds very much. Certainly investigations would have revealed that the US supplied Iraq with the gas and that the US and the rest of the west looked the other way when it happened.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1779.htm

[lostnotforgotten]

37. In The Media's Eyes, This Is Why He Was Hanged

Because it is all the American people were fed for months as one of the reasons for Bush's invasion.

[many a good man]

44. Let me help you understand

Saddam was NOT convicted of gassing "hundreds" of Kurds. He was convicted of killing 148 people in a village where one of the townsmen tried to assassinate him. It was the first case of many he could have been tried for. It carried the DP so they didn't bother trying any more.

Bush did not kill 3000 American troops. He sent them to war. By the same logic, Saddam killed one million Iraqis and one million Iranians because he led the war against Iran in the '80s.

Saddam was a brutal dictator and war criminal. Bush has eroded civil liberties and democratic values. Like Saddam, he is guilty of a crime against humanity -- launching an illegal, unjustified war of aggression against a nation that posed no imminent danger. It is the supreme war crime.

Yet the US is not a party to any international convention that could try such a crime. Lacking such jurisdiction, only a Kangaroo court would try him. Do you want to sit on that jury?

[lostnotforgotten]

46. "launching an illegal, unjustified war"

I rest my case - get the ......

[opihimoimoi]

27. Why pick on the Dems when them Pubs put him in there??

Its the PUBs who have to remove him ala Nixon

Its the Pubs who supported and installed the dude...

Its the Pubs who have initiate the move....

The GOP PUBs are to blame for this whole Bush Mess.

[LeftishBrit]

33. I don't think Bush is AS bad as Saddam

But I think he's evil and dangerous and should be locked up!

Certainly he deserves to be impeached, and if I was American I would petition my representatives to do so (I have already signed a petition to impeach Blair which is even less likely to happen). But honestly it doesn't sound like it will happen; and it's not the fault of the Dems except that there aren't enough of them. I understand that you need 67 senators to convict a president on impeachment. There are 51 likely votes for impeachment (even assuming that Lieberman co-operates and that Johnson is well enough to vote) - where will you get the other 16?

[rman]

35. I think Bush is worse

As Bill Hicks said about W's father: a child of Satan here to destroy planet earth.

I'm not sure impeachment is actually viable; can we get the required majority vote in congress and senate? But there are other ways, such as legal investigations of the crimes of this administration.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. Actually, the two positions are perfectly consistent.

I think that calling Bush as bad as Saddam is ludicrous hyperbole that marks the person doing it out as completely lacking in perspective and/or honesty, but it's a perfectly consistent position to believe that Bush is as bad as Saddam Hussein, but that even so the Democratic party shouldn't initiate impeachment procedings against him.

There is no moral obligation to pray that Bush is struck by lightning. And initiating impeachment procedings against him is exactly equivalent.

OTOH, if you believe that Bush is as bad as Saddam was, or indeed if you believe that he's even a fraction as bad, you *do* have a moral duty to support impeachment procedings against him if there ever becomes a chance of them succeeding.

[MadHound]

45. Let's compare their records.

Max number of possible deaths that Saddam is responsible for, aprox 200,000. And while he did inflict torture and heinous human suffering, he did not destroy much at all in the way of infrastructure. Iraq under Saddam was a relatively prosperous, secular, educated and cultured country.

However Bush boy is responsible for at least 500,000 dead Iraqi innocents, 3000 dead American citizens, a completely leveled Iraqi infrastructure, the looting of Iraqi national and cultural treasures, billions missing from both the Iraqi and American treasury, the infliction of torture and heinous human suffering on Iraqis and other nationalities(including Americans), and the transformation of Iraq from a prosperous, secular society to a dirt poor, suffering country now dominated by fanatic religous factions, all for no good reason other than stealing their oil.

Yes, I would say that the comparison is apt. In fact frankly I think that in comparing these two monsters, Saddam actually comes out looking like the lesser of two evils when compared to Bush.

I realize that due to human nature, and the timidity of our so called leaders, impeachment isn't going to even be brought up. However I think that they most definitively need to follow the will of the people, and defund this illegal, immoral war, and bring our troops home ASAP. All that our presence is doing is bringing about more death and destruction. And yes, I will withhold my vote from those who refuse to bring this war to an end.

[3121guitarist]

41. No...

Hussein was a ninth rate dictator, while Bush is on the first string.

[ecstatic]

43. That is the issue I've been thinking long and hard about lately

As the full implications of a simple IWR vote come to light, I think people who signed on should pay for their piss poor judgment. Furthermore, to acknowledge all that Bush had done wrong yet say stuff like impeachment is "off the table," is inexcusable. If you are not part of the solution, you are certainly part of the problem.