This has to be impeachable!! "Washington 'snubbed Iran offer'"

"Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme.

Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.

But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm


THIS IS A FUCKING OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

:grr: :grr: :grr:

Which law does this violate?

I guess the impending war with Iran means nothing to you????

:shrug:

Now prove your case.

YOU WIN!

:hi:

You just like to cry "WOLF!"

The list is just so much shorter, you know?

...before trying the last resort option of peaceful diplomacy.

They say government does not work. They then get elected and prove it. george bush, the fake cowboy, the fake christian, the fake statesmen, hero to the trash which is ruining our military and our economy. The death toll continues to mount and "conservatives" are just dying for someone else to bail them out. Yes my friend, this is legitimate outrage.

This admin. doesn't know what it is doing so expects countries that they believe are inferior to the U.S. to be lying and not worthy of consideration or meeting with officials that they feel are inferior.

Gates states, "Now is not the time to negotiate with Iran because the U.S. lacks leverage but that talks probably would make sense at some point."

America lacks leverage? What kind of bs is this? It's called diplomacy and America still has leverage as far as I can tell, or, do the bushies know something I don't.

The bushies have tunnel vision, they refuse to use diplomacy, negotiations, etc. to stop nukes from being produced, reducing the Arab countries backing of groups such as Hamas (sp?).

..from history where lasting peace was achieved with a tyrannical, dictatorial regime following "diplomacy". Would just like to know there is a historical precedent before we embark on a diplomatic solution.

I thought we were talking about Iran. Which is a democracy.

..where they stone women who have been raped on charges of adultery..or hang young boys from cranes in public on alleged charges of homosexuality. An exemplary democracy indeed.

Let's hope we don't stop using negotiations and diplomacy with Indian.

Here are some links that explain how Iran's government works better than I can explain.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2006&country=6982

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html


Keep in mind that some of Iran's institutions are democratically elected. However, the ruling Cleric establishment is not and has veto override of just about anything in the government making them the final say so in everything. Iran is essentially a theocracy ran by a group of religious Clerics and in my opinion this makes is a Dictatorship Oligarchy type thing for lack of a better word. One thing I do know for sure, all countries that do not have democratically elected governments by the people are illegitimate in my book, and I would never believe anything they say or offer. You might think Bush is bad, but living under the rule of religion nutcases is far worse. Unfortunately because of this what we saw happen in the 90's with Iran, the moderate president , the protests by students, all the things we thought would bring Iran into the 21st century went all up in smoke when the ruling Cleric establishment quelled the protests and installed a hard-line president that reflects the will of the Clerics. So much for change huh? Its surely puts things into perspective.

Of a Bush war going right....

It's inconsequential whether a certain symbolic figure has been captured or killed. He and his organization in Afghanistan have been incapacitated. Barring isolated incidents, the country is generally free, women are free, there are functioning schools for both sexes, there are hospitals, AND has a thriving economy by Afghanistan's standards. Is it completely free of Al Qaeda ? Probably not. But it's no longer a command and control center for international terrorism as it was before. AND, people are free to listen to music(!) and are not required to congregate in soccer stadiums to witness executions.

Give credit where credit is due.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/

Where is that Osama dude.....

According to news reports worldwide, the Taliban is slowly recovering control over vast areas of the country outside of Kabul. The only viable enterprise driving the Afghan economy is opium cultivation. Religious squads are enforcing Sharia law by beating and raping women who refuse to wear the burka along with any indivudal not seen as living to Sharia standards.

So while there may be some freedom in the capital, I would not characterize Afghanistan as a Bush success. In fact it has the potential to become a total failure just of Bush's misadventure in Iraq. If we had stayed the course in Afghanistan, retained troop levels, assisted with the reconstruction of critical infrastructure, etc. we might see greater secularization in Afghanistan.

My fear is that when the international community tires of Afghanistan and there is every indication that the NATO members with troops there are growing weary, Afghanistan will once again return to its tribal past with the harsh re-impoisition of Sharia law. Things will have come full circle.

:cry:

Nevertheless, there has been so much malfeasance and perfidy in the Bush regime that there's no telling what's behind it.

This is the type of thing that goes WAY beyond "politics." It is part and parcel of the approach that the neoconservatives, who have infected our government like a deadly virus, have been able to derail efforts to do what is in our best interests. Instead, they are invested in a violent and reckless course in the Middle East, which has targeted countries including Iraq and Iran. It is tied to scandals including the Plame/CIA leak, the Niger yellow cake forgeries, and the neocon/AIPAC espionage case. Indeed, we should demand that VP Dick Cheney be impeached.

I've known about this since it happened. I'd been in the habit of paying close attention for 3 years by that point. I'm sure there were posts made about it here when it happened -- because most likely it was a post on DU that alerted to me to this bit of news in the first place.

But even on DU, try to get attention for something like this through all the rest of the daily chatter -- it's damn hard.

Now think about what the vast majority of our fellow citizens know...

sw

'...But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said....'

the imperial vice presidency?

Lack of political will to do it is.

So when we declare war on Iran and * and/or one of his minions says before the American people that they wanted war to be "a last resort," we will have this as proof positive that they are F*CKING LYING!!!

What a f*cking outrage!!! :mad:

Seriously, it makes us look silly.

Second of all, is this old news? I recall several offers from Iran towards this end that the Administration has rejected due to a policy of Iran first needing to abandon their nuclear ambitions unconditionally, prior to any other negotiations. I'm somewhat perplexed as to why some are reacting as if this is new and even more perplexed by a declaration of it having to be impeachable. Am I missing something here?

out to the U.S.

It's not "new", but it is (unfortunately) "NEWS" to alot of people because back when it actually happened, the U.S. corporate media made sure no one heard about it.

No, of course it's not an impeachable offense in itself -- it merely adds to the evidence of on an ongoing pattern of bad faith and willful perfidy.

sw

One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan - but was over-ruled.

"We thought it was a very propitious moment to do that," Lawrence Wilkerson told Newsnight.

It is pretty simply illustrates how much of a trainwreck disaster this administration is.

What makes you think if Iran promises to do somethig they are going to live by it ? Do you actually trust the Iranians ? Hell, even NK promised they would cease nuclear weapons research after Mdm Albright wined and danced with that dog eating tin pot dictator back in the 90s. We can all see how well they lived upto their promise.

Iran is a nation that promises to wipe Israel off the face of the earth every other week, and you are giving credence to the word of a tyranical regime ? Unbelievable.

.. the knowledge that Iran is supplying Shiite insurgents with weaponry and logistics in their fight against the US military and the Sunnis ? Or do you not believe that ?

The Bush admin supports the Shiite Prime Minister Maliki....

And then theres this little factoid...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3100864&mesg_id=3100864

..the Mahadi Army and the thugs of Muqtada Al Sadr ?

The whole thing is a clusterfuck. But starting a fight with Iran is not the answer.

Let me ask you, WHO in the Bush admin has directly asked Iran about its alledged arms being found in Iraq?????

It is SCIRI and DAWA who have the heavy connections to Iran. They would love to see to Muqtada al Sadr out of the way -- one less competitor for Shia influence and power in post-Saddam Iraq.

Btw, Ahmedinajad is on his way out. The Iranian people and their politicians -- reformists as well as conservatives -- are getting fed up with his big mouth and his broken campaign promises of domestic economic improvements.

Instead of spouting off about "thugs" and such, how about educating yourself?

sw

"The Mahdi Army is an indigenous Iraqi nationalist movement".

Yeah, blowing up cars and trucks and killing 10s of thousands of fellow citizens, including police and other local law enforcement comprise a nationalist movement. I understand you cannot bring yourself to say they are *terrorists*..because well, its a copyrighted word, right ? And I also understand to you the Hezbollah and Hamas are nationalist movements too fighting Jewish tyranny, just like the Mahdi Army and other shiite and sunni THUGS are fighting US occupation by blowing up their own people.

And btw, I didn't say Al Sadr had Iranian connections. I merely cited Al Sadr as an example of a Shiite insurgency, and said the Shiites were recieving support from Iran.

:wtf:

Why dont you READ

1. The ISG Report is only 96 pages.

2. Bob Woodward State of Denial

3. Thomas Ricks Fiasco

4. George Packard Assasins Gate

Or try watching something besides FOXNEWS like CSPAN or BBC news.

:eyes:

Maliki, the putative head of the Iraq "government" would NOT be in power today if he hadn't gotten the support of the Sadrists in the vaunted "purple finger" Iraq elections.

When a particular group is an integral part of a governing alliance, they are NOT "insurgents". Insurgents are those who are OUT of power -- like, say, the Sunnis -- supported by Saudi Arabia, and augmented by Wahabis and jihadists.

You are spewing ignorant nonsense.

sw

..no problem. Call the Shiites what you will. The point is Iran is actively aiding and fomenting violence in Iraq, and this war is not going anywhere without dealing with them first. And they will be dealt with in due course.

Here, I'll do you a favor. You can save time and effort by framing your argument thus: "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."

It's a statement that perfectly encapsulates your position.

sw

..because there is an old adage - you don't argue with a fool. Because when you do, the audience cannot tell the difference.

The shiite are technically not called an insurgency because they ARE in power. The Sunni's ARE an insurgency..because they are NOT in power and resisting those that are. Is that the whole point of your argument, O learned one ?

As far as the US is concernced, in addition to carrying out sectarian violence against each other,they are both(Sunnis and the Iran backed Shiites) carrying out insurgent attacks against the "occupying" **US Forces** -- the side you are praying to see go down in humiliating defeat. (Well, you don't pray, so never mind)

:rofl:



Classic! :rofl:

Its not the libs fault that the mission and justifications and reasons for war KEEP CHANGING.

Im am dead serious, you need to read Thomas Ricks Fiasco.

You need to stop listening to lying assholes who are telling you FICTION and DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

We are dealing with sectarian violence right there in River City, oops, Iraq. You are blaming Iran for the whole mess in Iraq?

B-b-but they want Israel wiped off the map!!!! Iran has been saying this sh1t for 30 some-odd years and they've done nothing vis-a-vis Israel. All of it has amounted to rhetoric. Do you even realize whats going on inside Iran? Their president is getting b!tchslapped by his own people because the economy has stalled and they want him to talk less about Israel and more about creating jobs, reducing unemployment. Which leads to another important point. The Iranians want economic relations with the world and the only way they can do that is if the US removes sanctions. And that is why they tried to make the deal that Cheney/Bush rejected in 2003. We have something they want and they're willing to bargain for that. That is called diplomacy.

Stop drinking the neocon koolaid and you'll feel better.

Iran helped set up Hezbollah in Lebanon in the 80s and has been a major source of funding for Hamas as well. If some foreign government were funding groups that were attacking your cities and citizens, you'd have a different perspective.

The U.S. sanctions against Iran, just like Iraq, have been a joke. Our oil companies have long end-runded Teheran and bought the oil on the spot market...with the extra costs passed on to us. Cheney either wants to control the oil flow and the price by dominating the countries or making sure they're not putting out. While an invasion of Iran is foolhardy and tactically impossible, I wouldn't be surprised if Crashcart has the southern Iranian oil wells targeted to be wiped out that would send oil prices soaring and take Iranian oil off the market for years.

While Armejenejad is losing support for his failure to deliver on domestic reforms, the booosh regime has handed him a great distraction that has emboldened the conservatives there and suppressed the reformists and moderates.

because the offer was based on dropping sanctions against Iran and in return they promised to cut off funding to Hezbollah and to cooperate with the US in Iraq. Not a bad deal at all.

Had we negotiated with the reformists in Iran in 2003 their position would have been strengthened at home (because dropping sanctions would have jump started their economy), but Bush Co. chose not to and they indirectly helped an idiot like Ahmadinejad come to power.

a full-pg ad cost? Let's do it.

but unfortunately, I don't think simply being an absolute asshole is an impeachable offense.

But I DO think coupled with everything else these bozos have done (and an approval rating of what, 35%?), if this could get out to the MSM (I'm sending it to Keith...if a lot of us do, you know he'll talk about it) it might just increase the scrutiny that is going on right now. Let's not forget, when this offer was iniatially made, Bush was riding high, most of the country was ready to hand him dictatorial powers (he'll keep us safe!) and the MSM had it's tail tucked so far between it's legs, I'm surprised it didn't fall off. Even if it had come across their radar screen, the story would have been spiked. I don't remember hearing about this when it first came out, and like the rest of you, I try to stay on top of this stuff. But since we all work for a living, and undoubtedly have essential duties in our lives, we know how hard it is to keep up with everything...and we're TRYING to. The average American, until recently, just didn't seem to care, or be aware of the bullshit these guys were pulling. Just imagine the response of someone who lost a loved one in Iraq since this offer was made in 2003. Just think of that young widow (or widower) with children to raise. The parent who supported Junior, but lost their child to this folly. You think Cindy Sheehan kicked up some dust? Let's not just sit around and debate each other as to whether or not THIS is the offense we can use to get these incredably dangerous people out of office. They've already committed enough offenses against our Constitution to have the whole damn administration from Junior down to Barney impeached. Let's just get to work on it.

Yes, definitely. I'd let Barney off, however. I'm pretty sure he'd testify for the prosecution.



You're correct that the "average American" hasn't seemed to care until recently. One way to get them to care MORE is to make sure they know as much as possible about the myriad outrages committed by this gang of criminals.

If impeachment is to happen, I think it must come as an overwhelming demand from the People themselves. Otherwise Congress will continue to avoid the issue.

sw

Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process.

Even if this criminal administration weren't abusing power to break our laws (e.g., War Crimes and FISA for starters) and nullify our most treasured principles, we could impeach for intolerable neglience and incompetence.

I've often heard people claim "You can't impeach for stupidity." That is flat wrong. If we concluded that a President's stupidity constituted an intolerable threat to the future of the nation, we could impeach for stupidity.

All that is required is the political will.

We have so many offenses against the letter of the law, the intent of the law, the principle of consent (the sole moral principle on which our constitution is founded), and on and on, the failure of Congress to impeach is mind-boggling. Absolutely mind-boggling.

Also looks like everytime that Bush makes a threat towards Iran, Iran is going to be able to produce some form of incriminating document to make his administration or that of Reagan or his father look life war criminals.

Bush/Cheney are way out of their depths.

i don't know what the specifics were but for cheney to reject out of hand any offer without open discussion is deplorable. we might have been out of this mess. cheney is an evil asshole.