Let the presidential pardons begin

[Dex]

OK, besides Scooter who is going to be pardoned before Bush leaves?

[Rockie]

Cheney and Rumsfeld

For all yet to be discovered crimes. Blanket immunity for the rest of their lives.

[iflyforpie]

Cheney and Rumsfeld

For all yet to be discovered crimes. Blanket immunity for the rest of their lives.

Wonder if Dubya can do that for himself?

[Nark]

And which crime did he commit?

[iflyforpie]

I'm sure he's got a few skeletons in the closet. He did steal an election or two and duped the American public into halfheartedly supporting a war against Iraq for...WMD? Nope. State sponsored terrorism? No, before it was a secular dictatorship, now it's a haven for radical fundementalists.

[ottawa,kan]

He can't pardon himself, but no one is going to go after him regardless. Nasty nasty precedent. Remember Nixon? Ford pardoned him after taking office, becasue Nixon couldn't pardon himself. If Bush thought he was in danger, he'd resign and appoint someone who agreed to pardon him. But I do think Bush will blanket pardon Cheney. Not Rumsfeld though. Scooter yes.

[Driving Rain]

And which crime did he commit?

Take your pick

[Nark]

Man some of you are naive.

If he is guilty of going to war, then so are all the Senators for voting for it as well.

If you think he stole the 2000 and perhaps the 2004 election, you should learn how the voting process works in the US. Since we just had an election, I would think it would be fresh in your head.

[BoostedNihilist]

If he is guilty of going to war, then so are all the Senators for voting for it as well.

*ALL* the senators?

[Big Pratt]

Man some of you are naive.

Pot.
Kettle.
Black.

[Nark]

Boosted:

all the Senators for voting for it as well.

A president cannot go to war all be his lonesome. He needs the approval of the Senate. Therefore, if Pres. Bush is guilty then so are all the Senators of voted in favor of going to Iraq.


When it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan, military affairs I know more than you. An arrogant statement? Perhaps but consider the source.

[Rockie]

Congress didn't vote to go to war. They gave Bush complete discretion to deal with Iraq (based on the false intelligence he fed them) how he saw fit, including military force. They are guilty of abrogating their duty and handing the keys over to the last person they should have given them to.

[BoostedNihilist]

A president cannot go to war all be his lonesome. He needs the approval of the Senate. Therefore, if Pres. Bush is guilty then so are all the Senators of voted in favor of going to Iraq.

I understand, but does that support have to be unanimous? I must have been confused by this statement you made..

If he is guilty of going to war, then so are all the Senators for voting for it as well.

and yes, by the way all of the senators who voted for it would be guilty of it as well. I don't reserve my blame for republicans.

When it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan, military affairs I know more than you. An arrogant statement? Perhaps but consider the source.

I believe that when it comes to the actual boots on the ground it is a case of the left hand having no idea what the dominant right is doing. Operationally speaking I am sure you have a far better grasp on the military perspective, however politically speaking your opinion carries little water due to the fact that you have been psychologically indoctrinated... hardly an unbiased perspective in the least as you have already stated that you would follow the orders of the president even when you fully do not agree with them. That is not to deminish your service in the least but at least lets understand that you are paid to 'tow the party line' and I don't have that hang up.

I literally just got back from the middle east, two days ago, so I do have some current perspective. I did manage to talk to some people while I was over there and perhaps because I was not holding a gun I got a different answer than you might have come across when I asked those questions...

Ever look on a map and notice that Iraq and Afghanistan surround Iran?

[Siddley Hawker]

Elliot Spitzer .

[bmc]

When it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan, military affairs I know more than you. An arrogant statement? Perhaps but consider the source.

Some dude on the internet named "Nark.

I'll tell my daughter in 3rd year poli sci at UBC to start quoting this tow plane pilot on Avcanada called "Nark" on matters regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.

I can see why you speak highly of Sarah Palin.

[BibleMonkey]

Pffft....

You call this an internet arguement? Ha!

I could kick all of your asses. At the same Time!

Well, ...ok...if it was pitchdark. And I had a 16 inch pipewrench. And a flashlight. And you were all , like, passed out drunk......

[BibleMonkey]

....okay okay.........



=======================


I think that the Presidential pardons that are still the most relevant today ( relevant-not disappointing/unjust: " oh man, lookit that crook what got pardoned") -are the pardons handed out by Bush '41, ten days before he left office-the pardon of the Iran Contra players; and then incoming President Clintons' back-room deal to stop the then still-current investigation in return for Republican support of some of his legislation.

Six of the Iran Contra players were appointed to high office in dubya Bushs' first admin; two of them were involved in the '02 Venezuela coupe from their desks in the Pentagon and the State Department ; another-who told Iran Contra special prosecutor Walsh that he "forgot" he had the documents in his safe -was a key player in the more recent Plame affair; and two of them still make the news at least once a week.

So I'd say that we're unlikely to see any similarly 'relevant' pardons forthcoming......

[Nark]

Some dude on the internet named "Nark.

I'll tell my daughter in 3rd year poli sci at UBC to start quoting this tow plane pilot on Avcanada called "Nark" on matters regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.

I can see why you speak highly of Sarah Palin.

You're right. If that's all I am, then I'd be pretty boring to your daughter.

Shift your eyes left. That shiny thing under my username means something.

[Howitzer]

I'd have to agree with Nark on this one.

For everyone in the US who bitched about Bush winning the first election, why was he voted in for a second? Only the citizens of that country can claim responsibility for what was, and was not done.

Clinton was facing impeachment, on lying about screwing an aid, yet i never once heard that word mumbled about Bush, yet many claim he did much worse!

The US system is full of checks and balances. Like it or not, these were not really utilized to their full extent to kick Bush out of the Presidency, as many would believe that the "majority" of US citizens no longer wanted him as a President. Simply put, bad news stories get twice the play in the media as good ones. I'm not claiming Bush was good or bad either way, but the Citizens of that country re-elected the man, and like it or hate, they chose their leader, which was their right, as citizens of their country.

[ottawa,kan]

I'd take the opinion of a marine over the Pap they feed poly sci (not science for sure) students at some liberal college in BC for god's sake. 3rd year just means more time for one sided indoctrination. However Boosted had some excellent points too. We are ALL a product of our "indoctrination" and for some of us, it's much different than others. That said, some opinions count for more than others too. Boosted may have a totally perfect handle on the world situation in the Middle East. But Nark has a better platform to express his opinion. And the pointy heads at UBC don't have a platform at all, just a soap box.

[hazatude]

OJ

FREE THE JUICE SO THAT HE MAY RUN AGAIN!!! (for the Ti-Cats)?

[Rockie]

I'd take the opinion of a marine over the Pap they feed poly sci (not science for sure) students at some liberal college in BC for god's sake. 3rd year just means more time for one sided indoctrination. However Boosted had some excellent points too. We are ALL a product of our "indoctrination" and for some of us, it's much different than others. That said, some opinions count for more than others too. Boosted may have a totally perfect handle on the world situation in the Middle East. But Nark has a better platform to express his opinion. And the pointy heads at UBC don't have a platform at all, just a soap box.

I've been thinking of a tactful way to address this comment without seeming to criticize Nark or be disrespectful in any way. Although I disagree with his opinion on the Iraq war I have nothing but respect for the service he willingly gives to his country.

Military organizations train people (indoctrinate if you like that word) to perform their duties as a team and follow orders, not question them. It is the foundation of military discipline because of the horribly violent nature of their profession, and often times mission success and their very survival depends on doing what they are told without knowing why...right f***in now.

The military does not want their soldiers to weigh the geopolitical consequences of what they are doing. They discourage soldiers questioning the moral and ethical implications of carrying out the orders of their government. They are subordinate to the government in every way which is why you never hear a serving General publicly criticize the government. General Hillier did on one or two occasions publicly disagree with the Canadian government's assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, but he was treading on very thin ice when he did so. The military carries out the order of the government, period.

The view of the Iraq war that Nark has is heavily filtered by the Marine Corp and his own personal experience. The Marine Corp as I said does not hold focus groups on geopolitics and the worldwide implications of what they are going to do that day. Nark is given a task and a set of Rules of Engagement that he must follow in accomplishing that task, and that's it. The big picture is the domain of a dozen or so levels of command above him.

His personal experience derives from his immersion in a place where every single non-American face he sees is a potential threat. He is surrounded by people who want to kill him, and he can't tell the difference between the guy who wants to slit his throat and the guy who wants to shake his hand. Consequently Nark's point of view is over the barrel of a gun, and as Boosted pointed out that is a pretty narrow view.

It is the responsiblity of the citizenship to question the reasons for engaging in war. It is our responsibility to ensure the military is not used for purposes that we do not agree with. It is absolutely the 3rd year polysci student's platform to question and if necessary criticize a war, in fact it's their duty. It's the duty of every single one of us to think long and hard about it and say "NO" if we disagree with it. Because the military can't.

[bmc]

I'd take the opinion of a marine over the Pap they feed poly sci (not science for sure) students at some liberal college in BC for god's sake.

Stinson, you're too smart to write something like this and mean it. You are.

I'm not going to doubt Nark's opinion. But I am not going to take his word over what you can learn at a university. Making a statement like you did tells me that either you have no idea what you can learn at a university or that you are willing to discount a university education in favour of some unknown internet person who says the sky is green. Get real. For all we know, Nark could be some guy living in his mothers basement. We all know that's not true and I do not question his military experience. But just because he was there does not make him more of an expert on the subject. I've been to the war museum in London. Does that make me an expert historian? Does that make my opinion more valid that what Cambridge Universitry can teach you on military history?

But, we all are entitled to our opinion and if that's what you really believe, you'll be pleased to know Sarah Palin plans to run in 2012.

[Nark]

Please don't confuse my statement of I know IRAQ, with Middle east. And vice versa.

While, yes this did hold true in many cases:



I'm smart enough to know that everyone I met/ saw isn't a threat.

Reminds me of one convoy; rolling through a town, a kid about 10 years old was yelling something, picked up a rock and threw it at our vic. Pretty sure I had no plans of shooting him.

There is a lot of information that seems to get lost on the way to the news desk.

Which reminds me, during my first few months of my deployment I stated here on Avcanada that violence is down considerably. It wasn't until months later the media really reported anything about it. If it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead.

bmc,

I'm sure your daughter is a bright, intelligent person, however your argument that someone in school (to include professors, to a degree) has enough insight to be on equal footing as those who have been 'out and about' is ridiculous. If that were the case, then I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem letting a freshly minted CPL getting behind the controls of a Twin Otter and cutting them loose.

[Arthur Q]

Conrad Moffat Black, Baron Black of Crossharbour