• Welcome to the new SAOCA website. Already a member? Simply click Log In/Sign Up up and to the right and use your same username and password from the old site. If you've forgotten your password, please send an email to membership@sunbeamalpine.org for assistance.

    If you're new here, click Log In/Sign Up and enter your information. We'll approve your account as quickly as possible, typically in about 24 hours. If it takes longer, you were probably caught in our spam/scam filter.

    Enjoy.

935

Bill Blue

Platinum Level Sponsor
Is the actual count of the number of times the Bush administration lied to the American people, while building the case to invade Iraq. Is it possible that after leaving office, Bush, Cheny and a few others, could be tried for treason? If so, who would have to bring charges?

Bill
 

Series3Scott

Co-Founder/Past President
Platinum Level Sponsor
Now wait a minute, in the interest of fairness, the forum gets all over Nick O'Dell for posting statements like this, so since this obviously involves politics, and your opinion on the subject at hand, how is this any different than what Nick has done in the past?
 

Bill Blue

Platinum Level Sponsor
Now wait a minute, in the interest of fairness, the forum gets all over Nick O'Dell for posing statements like this, so since this obviously involves politics, and your opinion on the subject at hand, how is this any different than what Nick has done in the past?

Scott, where do you see an opinion?

935 is a number that was on Public TV last night (Bill Moyer's Journal, and he used the "L" word). It was generated by a couple of public interest groups I do not recall. I think most anyone has has been able to fog a mirror the past few years has to admit Bush lied to us, this is simply a quantification. I'm using a published number as the lead in for two questions.

Is that way to terrible?
Bill
 

saltykracker

Donation Time
My problem is that I keep current with this and a few other forums. I do this by using the "new post" headline. I'm here for Sunbeam info, light side, dark side or tiger, or maybe a laugh or two. Isn't there enough political forums right of left, so we can keep this site as a pleasant experience.
 

Bill Blue

Platinum Level Sponsor
My problem is that I keep current with this and a few other forums. I do this by using the "new post" headline. I'm here for Sunbeam info, light side, dark side or tiger, or maybe a laugh or two. Isn't there enough political forums right of left, so we can keep this site as a pleasant experience.

The problem is, when you go to a political site, you get blind politics, not a discussion. Okay, so let's take politics out it. Forget what Bush may or may not have done.

Is it possible for an ex-president to be tried for treason for deeds done while in office? Is that too "political"?

Bill
 

SIVAllan

Gold Level Sponsor
I don't plan to enter the political foray, at least not here, althought I enjoy reading the dialogue.

ONly comment is that the number cited came from a free, online, public, seachable database. Had the URL, now lost it. It is not political opinion; it's empirical, an actual count that can be replicated.

Allan
 

Series3Scott

Co-Founder/Past President
Platinum Level Sponsor
You caught on quick Bill because the one thing about Nick O'Dell's opinions are that he always cites the source, which you did not originally, but then you did eventually. As long as someone cites the source of this information I have no problem, and everyone is playing fair. Still, I'll never understand why anyone posts this kind of stuff on a classic car focused forum, but it does make for interesting reading when I'm in the mood.

As for your treason question, you asked "is it possible for an ex-President to be tried for treason for deeds done while in office?" Well, it wasn't possible to impeach a president for deeds done while in the oral office, so what makes you think this one could be tried for treason? :p

As for using NPR as the source, I happen to think NPR is a left-wing funded propaganda machine, but then again I'm a right-wing Christian Republican who gets my news from FOX. I guess we each choose our brand of brain washing eh? ;)
 

Series3Scott

Co-Founder/Past President
Platinum Level Sponsor
Let me also add that conversations of such volatile topics can be fun if all parties can handle it. Most I've seen quickly degrade into flaming parties on both sides and people go away angry.

For example, Jim Ellis and I tried this ONCE, face to face, and within 5 minutes we each were looking at each other like we'd suddenly grown two heads. We both just laughed about it and decided to NEVER talk politics again, just stick to cars. We get along just fine. In fact, he's doing work on the head for my Sebring project right now.

So, think what you will of my statement, but it's who I am. If you're a polar opposite, that's who you are. I only care if you like Sunbeams. :)
 

V6 JOSE

Donation Time
Is the actual count of the number of times the Bush administration lied to the American people, while building the case to invade Iraq. Is it possible that after leaving office, Bush, Cheny and a few others, could be tried for treason? If so, who would have to bring charges?

Bill
I'm sorry to hear that you really believe this dribble. This is the lie that the left in this country has told for so long, that many folke have begun to believe it. The program you refer to, happens to be so far left, that they can't be objective. When you quote a site that is so obviously biased, you loose credibility.

I hate seeing this kind of discussion going on a board that is supposed to be for Sunbeams of all kinds, and not for religious or political discussions. I can agree with everyone on this board, but only on my partiality to the Alpine car. We all share that love. Political discussions should be left to those sites that specialize in that communication.

Lets just quit talking about both, religion and politics, so we can enjoy each other and our common love.

Jose :)
 

husky drvr

Platinum Level Sponsor
Bill,

I think you need a different crime to discuss.



http://www.m-w.com/dictionary



Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: \ˈtrē-zən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Anglo-French traisun, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray — more at traitor
Date: 13th century


1 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery


2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family



U.S. Constitution ( on line )

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu5qK6...ouse.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html


Article II
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III
Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.



I vote to lock this thread.
 

Nickodell

Donation Time
Bill, Bill, Bill. As always, you issue a statement without actual evidence (I don't count NPR KoolAid drinkers as evidence). Then you claim that it wasn't political as you didn't give an opinion. If so, then the word has lost its meaning.

I'll help you. Here are some quotes used to justify the invasion of Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing further, or using (again), his WMDs. I'll leave it to you to decide which one was Bush, which Cheyney, which Condi Rice and which other leading Republicans [mind you, this is not an opinion, or political:)]:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

“Earlier today I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq … Their mission is to attack Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. … Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”

“Iraq is a long way from (here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

“Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

“I...the authority to use force— if necessary— to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

“[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...“

‘We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

‘We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

‘We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members…. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
 

jmthehermit

Donation Time
I'd sooner watch paint dry than read or listen to political bantering. Because a least when the paint has dried you call it quits and you get a fantastic sense of accomplishment because you achieved your goal.:D:D. Maybe there should be a two week time out on forum posting for breaking the rules under General Chit Chat. I had all intentions of reading about a Porsche!!!! Disappointed again:mad:
 

gordonra

Donation Time
I'm not a strongly political opinionated person, however I don't mind reading the occaisional comment. In fact it actually helps me form opinions.

I think that trying to ban the political comments altogether is like trying to keep a guy from thinking about sex. Perhaps a special segment of the forum could be reserved for such comments if some find the "debate" offensive.

I like to hear/read a good debate if it's an issue of which I have interest. It can make a guy think.
 

V6 JOSE

Donation Time
I'll tell you what this kind of conversation will do, is screw up all Invasions. Folks will not go to an Invasion, because they don't want to be anywhere near another guy that might be there, because of these dumb political discussions. It doesn't promote people getting together to enjoy our cars, because of hard feelings, because of something that someone else said. This kind of thing, will deminish people's interest in getting together. It will hurt the club. What we are striving to achieve, is more, not less participation. I think we have enough difference of opinion in this club, with how someone does this or that, that we don't really need to add something, that doesn't have anything to do with what this club is about. If we really care about this club, and want there to be a feeling of fraternity, I recommend making either religious or polital discussions out of bounds. It doesn't serve any real purpose, other than to alienate people. I can see from the few posts that I have read about these subjects, ( rarely read any of this kind of junk), we are getting more and more polarized, especially about things that don't add a flaming thing to what this board is all about. lets just do away with this menace. I know that some may like these kinds of discussions, but the majority of us don't.

I plead with you all, lets save this forum, before it is too late. I rely on it too much to see it deteriorate.

Jose :(
 

Bill Blue

Platinum Level Sponsor
Well, this went exactly where I did not want it to go, into partisan politics and I'm not going there.

Don, you made an interesting point with the definitions, but I doubt if it closes the door. If Bush knowingly lied about circumstances in order to get support for the war, is that not a betrayal of a trust, as found in the first definition?

Scott, I'm sorry for the omission of the source. I'd also heard this on MSNBC and figured all news networks had carried it and was common information.

I had never seen or heard of any language in the Constitution that allowed for prosecution of ex-presidents for Constitutional "crimes" committed while in office, wondered if it was possible under other aspects of law.

Sorry that I did not state my case better and that people got so riled up. Thought maybe we could have a discussion without going into partisan politics. I was wrong, will not do it again. I will now assume the role of an adult and stick to cars and weather (but not climate).

Bill
 

Series3Scott

Co-Founder/Past President
Platinum Level Sponsor
Discussions like this are ok if everyone can keep it light hearted, but that's very difficult if one party feels really passionate about a particular subject.

I like to poke fun at the Dark Siders, but that doesn't mean I won't attend an Invasion because they'll be there (we've tried to keep them away, and they keep coming anyway!)

I think V6Joe said it right - topics like this on our board really don't make sense, since we've all come together over one common thing - the love for the Sunbeam Alpine. If we stick to that we'll all do just fine, have great Invasions, and continue to promote the Sunbeam marque. :)
 

Rsgwynn1

Silver Level Sponsor
What Jose said. I champion free speech, but there are lots of other places to bander this guff about. We're here for the pleasure of the cars, not the other stuff. Besides, you can use PM for the complaints.

Sam, Lifelong Southern Democrat and Proud of It (though somewhat dubious about South Carolina)
 

Nickodell

Donation Time
I'm all in favor of keeping things light hearted. However, when faced with hypocrisy or the "Bush derangement syndrome," it's tough. However, since nobody stepped up to the plate, here are the sources of the quotes. Match them with the speakers, and spot how many want to impeach Bush & Cheyney. Guess they are depending, probably safely, on the public either having a short memory, or having never even seen these warlike statements in view of the overwhelmingly liberal press and broadcast media:


President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Clinton, Feb 17, 1998

Clinton, Dec 19, 1998

Muddling Halfbright – sorry, Madelein Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998

Albright, Nov. 10,1999

Sandy (the classified document burglar) Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18,1998

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Dem Senators: Carl Levin, Tom (the now booted-out ex-Minority Leader and Chief Obstructionists) Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9,1998

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5,2001

Sen. John (Lurch) F Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Kerry, Jan. 23. 2003. Of course, this was the “hawk” Kerry, before he flip-flopped 180 degrees because Howard (YEAHHH!!) Dean’s anti-war pitch was getting more traction. Voted for it before he voted against it?

Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

Out of work ex-VP Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Sen. Ted (“the swimmer”) Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 (this was, of course, before he accused President Bush of being a liar because he drew the same conclusion from the faulty intelligence reports he had received)

Sen. Robert (“KKK”) Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct 10, 2002 (another of the impeachment hawks)

Sen. Hillary (“serial liar”) Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

And now, the best of all:

“If you don’t think that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction pose an immediate threat to this country, you shouldn’t vote for me.”

Kerry: Jan 2004. Thanks, Lurch, most of us didn’t.

Maybe we should impeach the whole of Congress. Now that's an idea! :D
 
Top