"Impeach Bush if he attacks Syria" Lawrence Eagleburger (recants under pressure...)

[Napalm]

Context: BBC Interview 04/13/03

The British government is on record as being against the idea of military action being taken against them (Iran and Syria ), but many of the so-called hawks in Washington have made it pretty clear that unless they change their ways, Tehran and Damascus should be next in line for compulsory regime change.

The British will take heart from the more cautious voices coming out of Washington. Lawrence Eagleburger was Secretary of State for Bush's father, the first President Bush, and he and other leading veterans of the first Bush administration warned last summer about the dangers of attacking Iraq. In fact they were thought to be acting as proxies for their old boss, who was said to be privately unconvinced of his son's policies. Now that the military campaign seems to be drawing to a close, we ask Mr Eagleburger if it is true that winning the peace will be much harder.

In an impassioned interview, Mr Eagleburger also tells us that if George W. Bush were to take military action against Iran and Syria, he should be impeached.

N

 

[SuperTool]

Do we need to wait till then?

 

[Trezza]

although i was for the Iraq war i don't think that attacking Syria or Iran, or any other country is a good idea. I would like to hear a good reason behind attacking them aside from they are not "co-operating".

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Trezza
although i was for the Iraq war i don't think that attacking Syria or Iran, or any other country is a good idea. I would like to hear a good reason behind attacking them aside from they are not "co-operating".

They've got chemical weapons, like Iraq does...or...

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Napalm
Context: BBC Interview 04/13/03 The British government is on record as being against the idea of military action being taken against them (Iran and Syria ), but many of the so-called hawks in Washington have made it pretty clear that unless they change their ways, Tehran and Damascus should be next in line for compulsory regime change. The British will take heart from the more cautious voices coming out of Washington. Lawrence Eagleburger was Secretary of State for Bush's father, the first President Bush, and he and other leading veterans of the first Bush administration warned last summer about the dangers of attacking Iraq. In fact they were thought to be acting as proxies for their old boss, who was said to be privately unconvinced of his son's policies. Now that the military campaign seems to be drawing to a close, we ask Mr Eagleburger if it is true that winning the peace will be much harder. In an impassioned interview, Mr Eagleburger also tells us that if George W. Bush were to take military action against Iran and Syria, he should be impeached. N

First of all - Eagleburger was Secretary of State for about 15 minutes. He was appointed late in his term, August 1992.

Secondly - the "other leading veterans" were proven wrong by the success of the campaign. This is not the first time they were wrong though. The old guard is who decided to leave Saddam in power during the first gulf war.

What would possibly be the basis for impeachment? This is wonderful rhetoric, and the word "impeachment" sounds impressive and all, but really - what would be the basis?

The only thing that might come out of something like this might be a challenge to the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, but that is about it.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Trezza
although i was for the Iraq war i don't think that attacking Syria or Iran, or any other country is a good idea. I would like to hear a good reason behind attacking them aside from they are not "co-operating".

Well, for one, Bush's domestic policy is a disaster. He is getting us into huge debdts with nothing to show for it.
So if there is no war, what's he going to run on? The only excuse he can come up for this economy and these huge deficits is that we are at war.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Trezza
although i was for the Iraq war i don't think that attacking Syria or Iran, or any other country is a good idea. I would like to hear a good reason behind attacking them aside from they are not "co-operating".

They've got chemical weapons, like Iraq does...or...

They sponsor terrorism... and harbor terrorists.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Trezza although i was for the Iraq war i don't think that attacking Syria or Iran, or any other country is a good idea. I would like to hear a good reason behind attacking them aside from they are not "co-operating".

Well, for one, Bush's domestic policy is a disaster. He is getting us into huge debdts with nothing to show for it. So if there is no war, what's he going to run on? The only excuse he can come up for this economy and these huge deficits is that we are at war.

And that is a pretty good excuse. We have had to revamp national security, rework the INS, rebuild the military, lauch a new Cabinet level department - all in less than 2 years.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Trezza
although i was for the Iraq war i don't think that attacking Syria or Iran, or any other country is a good idea. I would like to hear a good reason behind attacking them aside from they are not "co-operating".

Syria - Years and years and years and years and years of supporting terrorism. They bankrolled terrorist groups, they gave refuge to terrorist groups, hosted training camps for terrorist groups, also are reported to be major players in the illegal arms trade and spending huge amounts on developing chem/Nuke/Bio weapons. Now, I'm not saying we should take the out immediately, but if they continue to play games they should know what the cost is. The very least they could do is stop the flow of Islamic nutjobs going across their border and into Iraq to fight.

From here is a brief Q&A about Syria:

Does Syria sponsor terrorism?
Yes. Syria, a secular dictatorship with one of the world?s worst human rights records, has been on the State Department list of countries sponsoring terrorism since the list?s inception in 1979. However, Syria has not been directly involved in terrorist operations since 1986, according to the State Department, and it bars Syria-based groups from launching attacks from Syria or targeting Westerners. But Syria has been involved in numerous past terrorist acts and still supports several terrorist groups.

What terrorist groups has Syria supported?
Syria?along with Iran?gives the Lebanese militia Hezbollah ?substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid,? according to the State Department. Iranian arms bound for Hezbollah regularly pass through Syria, experts say. Syria, which has effectively occupied and controlled neighboring Lebanon since 1990, has also let Hezbollah operate in Lebanon and attack Israel, often ratcheting up regional tensions.

Syria has also provided training, weapons, safe haven, and logistical support to both leftist and Islamist Palestinian hard-liners. The far-left Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command and the fundamentalist Palestinian Islamic Jihad have their headquarters in Damascus, and other terrorist groups, including the Islamist group Hamas and the leftist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, maintain offices there.

From 1980 until 1998, the Kurdistan Workers? Party, which sought an independent Kurdish state, used Syria as a headquarters and base of operations against neighboring Turkey.

Does Syria have weapons of mass destruction?
Yes?and the ballistic missiles to deliver them, according to U.S. defense and intelligence reports. Syria has an active chemical weapons program, including significant reserves of the deadly nerve agent sarin. Its research programs are trying to develop even more toxic nerve agents. It also has a biological weapons program, but experts say Syria is incapable of producing and ?weaponizing? large quantities of dangerous germs without substantial foreign help. Syria is not currently trying to build or buy nuclear weapons, experts say.

There's more on that site but I really don't feel like cutting and pasting all of it. Go give it a read then Google around for some additional info about Syria and terrorism.


Iran - They are a huge supporter of terroism, but that's beginning to wane a bit. I think more than any other country they understood that President Bush meant it when he said that in the war on terrorism you are either with us or against us. I don't think military force is necessary. A majority of the younger population is well educated and wanting reform in the govt. there. I fully expect within the next 5 years or so that there will be an uprising there that will throw the Ayatollah's out of power.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Trezza
although i was for the Iraq war i don't think that attacking Syria or Iran, or any other country is a good idea. I would like to hear a good reason behind attacking them aside from they are not "co-operating".

Well, for one, Bush's domestic policy is a disaster. He is getting us into huge debdts with nothing to show for it.
So if there is no war, what's he going to run on? The only excuse he can come up for this economy and these huge deficits is that we are at war.

Ahhh.....another I don't really understand economics but I'm going to blame everything bad in my life on President Bush post.

 

[SuperTool]

Republicans always have an excuse for running deficits. The real reason we are running huge deficits under GOP presidents, is that their policies are not sustainable, and don't break even.

 

[dahunan]

I definitely feel that we need to stabilize Iraq first and see if other Arab Govts begin to change their ways in the months after Iraq.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Trezza
although i was for the Iraq war i don't think that attacking Syria or Iran, or any other country is a good idea. I would like to hear a good reason behind attacking them aside from they are not "co-operating".

Well, for one, Bush's domestic policy is a disaster. He is getting us into huge debdts with nothing to show for it.
So if there is no war, what's he going to run on? The only excuse he can come up for this economy and these huge deficits is that we are at war.

Ahhh.....another I don't really understand economics but I'm going to blame everything bad in my life on President Bush post.

Ahhh.....another our president is blameless unless he is a Democrat post.

 

[Trezza]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I definitely feel that we need to stabilize Iraq first and see if other Arab Govts begin to change their ways in the months after Iraq.

if we attack syria, we will have US troops in three active fronts. Syria, Iraq and afganistan. From a political standpoint the US needs to have serious proof of a violation of International Law, Human Rights or Government Sponsered Terrorism.

I don't know Syria's status but CNN just stated that they have NOT signed any treaties (which are optional) that state the country will not have Chem/Bio/nukes. Unless Syria is in the wrong somehow I don't see how the US can internationally or domestically have as much backing as the Iraqi war, which was rare.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I'm still waiting on someone to explain how Bush could be impeached. I don't understand.

 

[konichiwa]

All this nonsense is just in lieu of able diplomats in the Bush administration. Look at past Preisdential administrations and the amazing diplomacy that has come out of them during and after their term (Carter comes to mind). This Rambo-esque attitude of the Bushites will be looked upon as the modern version of the Vikings and the Huns. Is that how we want to see our society? I certainly don't, I personally am very very tired of all this warmongering. There ARE OTHER SOLUTIONS.

War does not eliminate terrorism.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Trezza
although i was for the Iraq war i don't think that attacking Syria or Iran, or any other country is a good idea. I would like to hear a good reason behind attacking them aside from they are not "co-operating".

Well, for one, Bush's domestic policy is a disaster. He is getting us into huge debdts with nothing to show for it.
So if there is no war, what's he going to run on? The only excuse he can come up for this economy and these huge deficits is that we are at war.

Ahhh.....another I don't really understand economics but I'm going to blame everything bad in my life on President Bush post.

Ahhh.....another our president is blameless unless he is a Democrat post.

Never said that. I just get tired of seeing you, and others, blame President Bush for the current economy. The President, any President, has very little to do with the economy. In fact I would say that the President has about as much effect of the economy as Big Bird does astrophysics. The current state of the economy can be blamed mostly on the tech crash than began in mid 2000. You also have to realize that the so called boom of the mid to late 90's was fueled in large part by debt and not any real money. It was a feat that Michael Milken would be proud of. Most of the up and coming companies were nothing more than paper tigers who had no real staying power. Their stock would have been worth more in the long run if it had been printed on toilet paper.

 

[SuperTool]

He could not be impeached because:
A. Running the economy into the ground is not a crime
B. GOP Congress would never impeach Bush.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
All this nonsense is just in lieu of able diplomats in the Bush administration. Look at past Preisdential administrations and the amazing diplomacy that has come out of them during and after their term (Carter comes to mind). This Rambo-esque attitude of the Bushites will be looked upon as the modern version of the Vikings and the Huns. Is that how we want to see our society? I certainly don't, I personally am very very tired of all this warmongering. There ARE OTHER SOLUTIONS.

War does not eliminate terrorism.

Yeah like the great Clinton diplomatic team that created the current situation in North Korea.

 

[Napalm]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Trezza
although i was for the Iraq war i don't think that attacking Syria or Iran, or any other country is a good idea. I would like to hear a good reason behind attacking them aside from they are not "co-operating".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Syria - Years and years and years and years and years of supporting terrorism. They bankrolled terrorist groups, they gave refuge to terrorist groups, hosted training camps for terrorist groups, also are reported to be major players in the illegal arms trade and spending huge amounts on developing chem/Nuke/Bio weapons. Now, I'm not saying we should take the out immediately, but if they continue to play games they should know what the cost is. The very least they could do is stop the flow of Islamic nutjobs going across their border and into Iraq to fight.

From here is a brief Q&A about Syria:

Does Syria sponsor terrorism?
Yes. Syria, a secular dictatorship with one of the world?s worst human rights records, has been on the State Department list of countries sponsoring terrorism since the list?s inception in 1979. However, Syria has not been directly involved in terrorist operations since 1986, according to the State Department, and it bars Syria-based groups from launching attacks from Syria or targeting Westerners. But Syria has been involved in numerous past terrorist acts and still supports several terrorist groups.

What terrorist groups has Syria supported?
Syria?along with Iran?gives the Lebanese militia Hezbollah ?substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid,? according to the State Department. Iranian arms bound for Hezbollah regularly pass through Syria, experts say. Syria, which has effectively occupied and controlled neighboring Lebanon since 1990, has also let Hezbollah operate in Lebanon and attack Israel, often ratcheting up regional tensions.

Syria has also provided training, weapons, safe haven, and logistical support to both leftist and Islamist Palestinian hard-liners. The far-left Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command and the fundamentalist Palestinian Islamic Jihad have their headquarters in Damascus, and other terrorist groups, including the Islamist group Hamas and the leftist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, maintain offices there.

From 1980 until 1998, the Kurdistan Workers? Party, which sought an independent Kurdish state, used Syria as a headquarters and base of operations against neighboring Turkey.

Does Syria have weapons of mass destruction?
Yes?and the ballistic missiles to deliver them, according to U.S. defense and intelligence reports. Syria has an active chemical weapons program, including significant reserves of the deadly nerve agent sarin. Its research programs are trying to develop even more toxic nerve agents. It also has a biological weapons program, but experts say Syria is incapable of producing and ?weaponizing? large quantities of dangerous germs without substantial foreign help. Syria is not currently trying to build or buy nuclear weapons, experts say.

There's more on that site but I really don't feel like cutting and pasting all of it. Go give it a read then Google around for some additional info about Syria and terrorism.


Iran - They are a huge supporter of terroism, but that's beginning to wane a bit. I think more than any other country they understood that President Bush meant it when he said that in the war on terrorism you are either with us or against us. I don't think military force is necessary. A majority of the younger population is well educated and wanting reform in the govt. there. I fully expect within the next 5 years or so that there will be an uprising there that will throw the Ayatollah's out of power.

Does the nation of Syria pose a direct and imminent threat to the U.S.?? No - but then again, neither did Iraq and that did not stop Bush...

N

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
He could not be impeached because:
A. Running the economy into the ground is not a crime
B. GOP Congress would never impeach Bush.

You forgot his Supreme Court buddies.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Napalm

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Trezza
although i was for the Iraq war i don't think that attacking Syria or Iran, or any other country is a good idea. I would like to hear a good reason behind attacking them aside from they are not "co-operating".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Syria - Years and years and years and years and years of supporting terrorism. They bankrolled terrorist groups, they gave refuge to terrorist groups, hosted training camps for terrorist groups, also are reported to be major players in the illegal arms trade and spending huge amounts on developing chem/Nuke/Bio weapons. Now, I'm not saying we should take the out immediately, but if they continue to play games they should know what the cost is. The very least they could do is stop the flow of Islamic nutjobs going across their border and into Iraq to fight.

From here is a brief Q&A about Syria:

Does Syria sponsor terrorism?
Yes. Syria, a secular dictatorship with one of the world?s worst human rights records, has been on the State Department list of countries sponsoring terrorism since the list?s inception in 1979. However, Syria has not been directly involved in terrorist operations since 1986, according to the State Department, and it bars Syria-based groups from launching attacks from Syria or targeting Westerners. But Syria has been involved in numerous past terrorist acts and still supports several terrorist groups.

What terrorist groups has Syria supported?
Syria?along with Iran?gives the Lebanese militia Hezbollah ?substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid,? according to the State Department. Iranian arms bound for Hezbollah regularly pass through Syria, experts say. Syria, which has effectively occupied and controlled neighboring Lebanon since 1990, has also let Hezbollah operate in Lebanon and attack Israel, often ratcheting up regional tensions.

Syria has also provided training, weapons, safe haven, and logistical support to both leftist and Islamist Palestinian hard-liners. The far-left Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command and the fundamentalist Palestinian Islamic Jihad have their headquarters in Damascus, and other terrorist groups, including the Islamist group Hamas and the leftist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, maintain offices there.

From 1980 until 1998, the Kurdistan Workers? Party, which sought an independent Kurdish state, used Syria as a headquarters and base of operations against neighboring Turkey.

Does Syria have weapons of mass destruction?
Yes?and the ballistic missiles to deliver them, according to U.S. defense and intelligence reports. Syria has an active chemical weapons program, including significant reserves of the deadly nerve agent sarin. Its research programs are trying to develop even more toxic nerve agents. It also has a biological weapons program, but experts say Syria is incapable of producing and ?weaponizing? large quantities of dangerous germs without substantial foreign help. Syria is not currently trying to build or buy nuclear weapons, experts say.

There's more on that site but I really don't feel like cutting and pasting all of it. Go give it a read then Google around for some additional info about Syria and terrorism.


Iran - They are a huge supporter of terroism, but that's beginning to wane a bit. I think more than any other country they understood that President Bush meant it when he said that in the war on terrorism you are either with us or against us. I don't think military force is necessary. A majority of the younger population is well educated and wanting reform in the govt. there. I fully expect within the next 5 years or so that there will be an uprising there that will throw the Ayatollah's out of power.

Does the nation of Syria pose a direct and imminent threat to the U.S.?? No - but then again, neither did Iraq and that did not stop Bush...

N

Is their support of terrorism a threat? You bet it is. Their past and continued actions have shown that they are a country that has no problems with supporting terrorism. There are some Marines resting in piece that would love to have a shot at Syria for what their state supported terrorism buddies in Hezbollah did to them in Beirut.

 

[dahunan]

Dees State Sponsored Terrorism pose a direct threat to the US or any it's citizenry (at home or abroad)?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
All this nonsense is just in lieu of able diplomats in the Bush administration. Look at past Preisdential administrations and the amazing diplomacy that has come out of them during and after their term (Carter comes to mind). This Rambo-esque attitude of the Bushites will be looked upon as the modern version of the Vikings and the Huns. Is that how we want to see our society? I certainly don't, I personally am very very tired of all this warmongering. There ARE OTHER SOLUTIONS. War does not eliminate terrorism.

When you speak glowingly of Carter's amazing diplomacy record, does that include the Rambo-esque failed attack on Tehran?

I'm sorry, but nothing screams Rambo quite like a few helicopters infiltrating Iran in the middle of the night to fly in and bring hostages home.

Why did Carter opt not to use diplomacy then? Could it be because Iran could not be reasoned with? Why did he not go through the UN, if that is so damned important.

Are you saying that it is fine for Carter to go off half-cocked and unilaterally attack a nation, but it is not ok for Bush to build the third largest international coalition ever, spend months lobbying the UN to garner more support, and ultimately achieve the task contemplated - with the support of quite a few civilized nations?

But I forget, Carter was a great president

 

[dahunan]

Is Hamas a State Sponsored Terrorist Organization?