In November 2004, Erik wrote:

Were you all not paying attention on election day and the day after?
Bush won..hands down...

The majority of America wants him in office, not impeached.

Phil wrote:

It was pretty close actually, 51% to 48%. It would be better I think if Bush acted like he was President of all Americans, not just half of Americans.

> The majority of America wants him in office, not impeached.

Impeachment is not about popularity, it's about law and order. A popular athlete that commits a felony must still face justice, even if most people would rather see him play ball. The same holds true for Presidents. It is particularly important that Presidents obey the law because they have so much power.

Erik wrote:

Was your organization in favor of impeaching President Bill Clinton for lying to the American people and making the oval office a "brothel"?
 
  Also,  Bill Clinton allowed tainted blood supplies infected with HIV and Hepatitis and the like, to be shipped from Arkansas to Canada, and he even knew about it. If anyone was to be impeached, it was President Clinton, not President Bush.
 
What Law did President Bush break, and why do you think he deserves to be impeached?
Happy Thanksgiving!
Erik

Phil wrote :

Sadly yes. He broke several laws.

- Bush swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

- The US Constitution (Article VI) says we must obey international treaties
like the UN Charter. Otherwise treaties would be meaningless and we would
have chaos between nations (more than we do now).

- The UN Charter says we cannot simply attack other nations unless they are attacking us. Iraq was not attacking or threatening us. Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 but Iraq did not.

- Bush invaded Iraq based on false claims that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction. His "evidence" consisted of forged documents regarding uranium purchaes from Nigeria, plagiarized grad student papers, and some aluminum tubes that experts said could be used for many purposes, not just uranium enrichment. Bush knew there was no case so he setup a team in the Pentagon to alter intelligence document and construct false evidence. All of this has been documented in major newspapers, NY Times, CNN, congressional documents, etc.

More here: http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/treaties.html

So Bush flagrantly violated the US Constitution and the UN Charter. Those are probably the highest laws on this planet.

His illegal and imprudent actions have led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Clinton was impeached for lying about having sex with
an intern. Bush's crimes are far worse and worthy of an investigation. An
impeachment is just an investigation and a trial. He may be found not guilty like Clinton was. The important thing is to follow the legal process.

I am eager to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Have a great Thanksgiving!

A fellow American,
Phil

Erik wrote:

Lying about the rationale of war?  Before the election, Tom Daschle believed iraq had wmd's and was a threat.  Bill Clinton believed iraq had wmd's.  Vladamir Putin believed iraq had wmd's.  John Kerry had the same intelligence reports that Bush had, and voted for the resolution of war, as well as Hillary Clinton. Then, at the height of the upcoming election they all became against the war in iraq.

 Saddam Hussein would pay terrorist families 25,000 dollars who's members blew themselves up around Jews in Jerusalem. 

The bottom line is Saddam was playing cat and mouse with the UN and the weapons inspectors. He violated numerous UN resolutions on weapons inspections.  Finally he kicked inspectors out of iraq, then they weren't in there for about 14 months(which would be plenty of time to hide something or ship something out).  He was acting like he had something to hide. As any reasonable person would assume like Bill Clinton, Putin, and Kerry did. If he didn't have any wmd's, and had nothing to hide, why did he act so funny and fickle with the UN? Why did he kick the inspectors out? Why did he violate so many UN resolutions?

It was pretty much a damned if you did, damned if you didn't, situation for Bush. Because if he didn't go to war, guys like you would have given him hate for not going to war. Saddam killed thousands of his own people. You would have given him a hard time either way.

Are you gonna wait until you see a mushroom cloud over New York  to execute necessary actions?

and check out what was recently found in Fallujah:)

Phil wrote:

> Before the election, Tom Daschle believed iraq had wmd's and was a threat.

I also made the mistake of believing Bush when he said Iraq had WMD. I was
puzzled by the fact that Bush presented no real evidence. I just figured it
was "confidential".

But it turns out that Bush was cooking the intelligence using his team at
the Pentagon. Bush constructed a case out of thin air and unfortunately lots
of people believed him including Kerry.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/072503Leopold/072503leopold.html


>  Saddam Hussein would pay terrorist families 25,000 dollars who's members
blew themselves up around Jews in Jerusalem.

I don't like Bush but Saddam was even worse. Saddam was an incredible
#@^$@*$%@&^. But I object to vigilante justice where people go after bad
guys in an illegal way. That is like a mother shooting a child molester in
court. Your emotions feel it was justified but your brain wishes the legal
process had been followed. Saddam had been neutralized by the UN sanctions
and inspections. The invasion was unnecessary.

> Finally he kicked inspectors out of iraq,

Actually they left because Saddam was not cooperating. But Saddam did not
kick them out. It is interesting to compare how the news changed their tune
regarding this:

  http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html
  http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book60k.htm

> Why did he violate so many UN resolutions?

Bush kept using this as an excuse for war. Bush said the worse violation was
that Saddam was lying when he said he had no WMDs. In actual fact Saddam in
2002 was generally complying with the UN requests and it was Bush who was
lying about the WMDs. When Saddam said the WMD had been destroyed he was
apparently telling the truth. So Bush says violating UN resolutions is an
excuse for removing someone from power. But then Bush violates the UN
Charter by invading Iraq to remove someone from power who was actually
complying with UN resolutions. Ironic, eh?

Peace,
Phil

Erik wrote:

I hope i'm not bombarding you with my emails, i just like to debate.

The fact that Bush violated UN rules are meaningless. The UN were not enforcing and were violating their own rules with Saddam.  There is also an anti american bias in the UN, so theres no way the US should do anything with them again(why are we still funding them?). The US tried working with the UN for a long time on saddam, and they wouldn't do anything. So we had to go on our own.
Unlike John Kerry.  I feel the security of the US is much more important than satisfying a global test for intervention.
Any treaties we had with iraq were broken by saddam before the war when he was trying to shoot at our fighter planes as they flew by the no fly zones. Also, even though we did not find any wmd's, we found evidence that he was trying to make them, which is a violation. When people say there were no wmd's, I think in my head Saddam was an WMD. Didn't he kill thousands of his own people?haha.
Using what you have said, then FDR should have been impeached for declaring war on Germany, because we were never attacked by Germany, Japan attacked us.
 
 What do you think about us invading Afghanistan? Do you think we were justified there?
 
Take care, going to see "The Incredibles",
Erik

Phil wrote:

Hello Erik,

> I hope i'm not bombarding you with my emails, i just like to debate.

I am enjoying our discussion. It is nice to get challenging questions
instead of insults. You have forced me to study my history.

> The fact that Bush violated UN rules are meaningless.

 Not according to Article VI  of the US Constitution, which states that:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

> There is also an anti american bias in the UN,

I think the international community is just shocked and awed by Bush. In
general the UN leans towards the US people and western views. The UN favors
democracy over tyrrany and capitolism over communism. They're on our side.

> theres no way the US should do anything with them [the UN] again

I really think it is important to have law enforcement extend to the
international level. Should we have city police but no state police or
federal police? No, it is important to have law and order at every level of
society, all the way to the top.

> Any treaties we had with iraq were broken by saddam before the war when he
was trying to shoot at our fighter planes

That was a cat and mouse game. We flew over Iraqi territory. They turned on
their puny radars. We blasted the radars and killed whoever was manning
them. This went on for years and did not pose a threat to the USA.

> Also, even though we did not find any wmd's, we found evidence that he was
trying to make them, which is a violation.

What evidence is that? Hans Blix, the UN inspector, said: "I'm certainly
more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed
almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991,"

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0918spin.htm

> Didn't he kill thousands of his own people?haha.

Yes. Many thousands. But when Saddam was "gassing his own people", Reagan
and Bush Sr. thought he was a great guy.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0830-07.htm

> Using what you have said, then FDR should have been
> impeached for declaring war on Germany, because we
> were never attacked by Germany, Japan attacked us.

Time for a history lesson:
On December 7th Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
On Dec 8th, FDR justifiably declared war on Japan.
On Dec 11th, Germany declared war on the USA.
In response to that declaration, not because of Pearl Harbor, FDR declared
war on Germany.
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html


>  What do you think about us invading Afghanistan? Do you think we were
justified there?

Absolutely. The Taliban and al-Qaeda attacked us. We responded. Rightly so.
I just wish Bush had kept up the pressure on al-Qaeda. He dropped the ball
when he diverted the US military to invading Iraq. We need to be protecting
the USA from terrorism, not creating more trouble by invading countries
illegally and spreading hatred of the USA.

You and I both love America and want to protect her from terrorist threats.
I think Bush's actions in Iraq make us more vulnerable to terrorism by
wearing down our military. We need more friends and fewer enemies but Bush
is alienating our allies and creating more terrorists by killing so many
Iraqis. That is why I oppose Bush.

How was the "Incredibles"? Would it be good for a 4 year old?

Peace,
Phil

Erik wrote:

Hey Phil,

Actually we ended up seeing National Treasure.  It is a very intense movie. For a 4 yr old? That would be your call.  I don't recall seeing any sex scenes or anything. I"m sure the movie is at least a pg to pg13. But I recommend seeing it.
 
  About Bush letting down in Afghanistan.  Actually what is happening is, Al caida, and other terrorists are going to Iraq because of the war. Going in groups (anti US insurgency). They are coming out of the caves in AF, and grouping in iraq making it easier for us to get them.There have been numerous terrorist killings and findings in the last months. Whether Bush thought ahead on this, I don't know, probably not, but It raises questions.
 
The US gets one vote at the UN and so does Chile. That is not democratic or representative of global influence.

http://www.conservativelife.com/forums/sutra969.html&highlight=europe+loves#969

The UN is a vehicle for insignificant countries to move forward their agenda. It has been shown recently to be corrupt (knowingly violating its own resolutions in its dealings with Saddam) and impotent when it comes to dealing with ANY arab government involved in a crisis (i.e. Sudan).
 
Saddam violated the cease fire agreement from the previous gulf war. They violated over 12 UN resolutions. It doesn't matter if they didn't pose a threat to us. That alone gives us the right.
 
Hillary Clinton, Paul Martin, Ted Kennedy, etc. etc. are all on record as saying that he had them. Bill Clinton said he thought they had them and he had access to the same intelligence that Bush had. The Prime Minister of Canada, a liberal, said only a few months ago that Saddam probably managed to sneak them out of the country. And he opposed the war. When it comes to WMDs you don't gamble. It doesn't matter that he didn't have them. It matters that he MIGHT have had them.
 
  About Reagan thinking Saddam was a nice guy while he was killing.  I don't know, I'm sure that was the case, but the fact remains that he was commiting genocide.
 
On September 11th Islamic fundamentalists attacked the world trade center killing more people than died at pearl harbour. George Bush declared the war on terror which included ALL countries who were suspected of supporting it. This IS where things get fuzzy because Bush doesn't have the easy job of picking one or two countries. His job is much harder. But he still has a job to do.
 
Afganistan didn't have WMDs - though their links to Osama Bin Laden and terrorism were stronger - there is significant evidence that ties Saddam to Al-Zaquiri and suggests that he had cohorted with Osama directly. Besides, in the wake of September 11th nobody wanted to GAMBLE about WMDs. Even democrats were onboard.

Phil wrote:

You raise some good points in your letter. It is nice to have such a
rational discourse. You really force me to think and examine my opinions.
That is what discussion is for. I wish Bush was open to debate but he seems
to surround himself with like minded folks and won't listen to opposing
views. I think that is what infuriates liberals the most.

I got another letter today from someone calling me a "mother f***in
liberal". Thank you for taking the high road and representing the
conservative point of view with intelligence and courtesy.

> About Bush letting down in Afghanistan. Actually what is happening is,
> Al caida, and other terrorists are going to Iraq because of the war.

Ah, yes. Good plan George. Some terrorists probably did leave Afghanistan
for Iraq. But I believe most of the "insurgents" are just Iraqis who are
just pissed off at being invaded. They were not shooting Americans before
but they are now. I'm a peace-nik but if some other country invaded America,
even to topple Bush whom I dislike, I would probably become an "insurgent"
to defend America. I don't know why Bush thought it would be different. It's
not like invading France in WWII where we were already friends of France and
drove Nazi Germans out. We invaded Iraq to remove an Iraqi from power.
Saddam was a thug but he did have some support. Of course they are fighting
back.

> The US gets one vote at the UN and so does Chile.
> That is not democratic or representative of global influence.

True. A bit like our Senate. Rhode Island has two senators just like California. And they call this a democracy!

> The UN is a vehicle for insignificant countries to move forward their agenda.

They need it. How else are we going to know what Burundi needs? Where is
Burundi anyway? The US is pretty good at expressing its needs without the UN.

I see the UN as a forum for discussion, and a place to form treaties and avert war. But Bush sees it as an annoyance that gets in the way of him starting wars.

> Bill Clinton said he thought they had them and he had access to the same
intelligence that Bush had.

When Clinton took office Saddam probably did have WMDs left over. But the UN
inspectors destroyed them. If Bush had simply made a mistake it would be
different. But Bush had no evidence and used forged Nigerian documents,
plagiarized student papers and aluminim tubes to make a case for WMDs. He
even had to create a department in the Pentagon to cook the intelligence. So
Bush knew there were no WMDs but he lied about it and misled us into war. I
think that was bad.

> George Bush declared the war on terror which included ALL
> countries who were suspected of supporting it.

We both want to fight terrorism. I was in favor of going after Osama Bin
Laden. I just think invading Iraq will create more hatred and create more
terrorists than before. We need to build relations with friendly Arab
nations if there are any left. We need to make a real effort to settle the
Isreali-Palestinian conflict fairly. We give huge $$$ support to Israel and
piss on the Palestinians. Saddam was funding bombers but we fund Apache
helicopters and missles which kill even more people. I think killing
innocent people is wrong whether you use a bomb-belt or a helicopter. It's
all terrorism to the people being shot at. Let's stop this madness and work
on peace. The UN is one place this can happen.

By the way, do you mind if I post some excerpts of our conversation on the
website?

Peace,
Phil

Erik wrote:

Hey Phil,
I don't mind at all if you post excerpts.
Erik