Talk:Wisconsin Democratic Party calls for Impeachment of Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfeld
Living in Wisconsin and i've heard nothing of this. In fact the message from this has been "wisconsin democrats need to reach out to 'average joes' ". You would think that if this was some official stance it would show up somewhere on http://www.wisdems.org/ So what you have is an article on the front page, that despite a complete lack of details manages to get its message across: "wisconsin dems hate bush(itler)" where as the message from the local media has been benign. This article has no scope but still gets air time, just cause the authour wants to stick it to bush. Whats sad, is that if true, this would be a terrible mistake for local dems politically. --wikiblog
- It may well be that this story is indeed being buried by the Democrat Party hierarchy themselves; which raises more alarms about the actual level of democracy within the 2 main parties. Ironically, Wikiblog has the same opinion;"if true, this would be a terrible mistake for local dems politically"as the professor who was quoted in the main source"that it makes (Democratic)party look a little ridiculous".If this resolution was passed by the grassroots Democrats at the convention; then it deserves to be treated as a legitimate news item; regardless of which party it hurts. Apparantly the Nevada State Democrats have passed a similar resolution; also which has received no media attention. I am wondering if we are in a situation where the only political news that gets published is that which helps or hurts 1 of the 2 parties???This story may hurt both and is therefore going under the radar,perhaps. We will soon know if its true or not; and if it is, what will that say about who our mainstream "news" media are really working for??(hint; not the public...but the parties) Paulrevere2005 22:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The Green Party of Canada has started using a wiki (wiki research link) for developing its platform (the plan published before an election, which, in principle, all voters read in deciding which party to vote for, modulo their trust that the party will really do what's in the platform) http://www.online-deliberation.net/conf2005/viewabstract.php?id=34
- IMHO, now that we know that wikis exist and that thousands of people talking dozens of languages can more or less come to reasonable consensus on them and produce meaningful texts which are more or less accurately related to past reality (wikipedia) and the near-past reality (wikinews), it's time to think of wikis for planning future reality. Or in practical terms, we should simply set an ultimatum to all political parties: either wikify or you get voted out of office because we consider you to be closed, secretive authoritarian organisations. Of course, if ordinary democrat-party members tried copying the Canadian Green Party, then after the initial new technology fear is overcome, the hierarchy would quickly lose power... Boud 23:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I believe the first line of this text is a direct copy of dailykos.com 18.104.22.168 00:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) And that's me... Lyellin 00:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) thx; fixed now Paulrevere2005 03:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep it up!
As a republican, things like this are wonderful. Keep it up! Howard Dean as head of the party?! HA! That too is great. Having Michael Moore stand close to Kerry as he was running for president, oh, thats wonderful. Keep digging a bigger hole for yourselves, you fools. Saddam violated the 1991 cease fire agreement, and attempted to assasinate president Bush Sr, and all Clinton did was lob some cruise missiles at him, what a joke. North Korea was caught developing weapons of mass destruction, and all Clinton did was get them to promise to stop, and look what happened. Because of Clinton and the recent actions of the Democratic party, I will NEVER vote for another Democrat, and I live in liberal California, of all places.
- While I won't label myself, I'm split on this issue. I don't believe the offenses committed are impeachable, but I do feel rather irritated about them. The Downing Street memo completes the picture of what was going through the minds of the American and British leadership in the leadup to the war on Iraq. If we were told we were going to war with Iraq BECAUSE of the violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement and BECAUSE Saddam allegedly attempted to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush (you could also add to that list Iraq's use of chemical warfare against Saddam's own people),
then we could have had an honest discussion about whether these justifications were enough cause to invade their country again. Based on the outcome of that discussion and public reaction to the idea, we as a representative republic could have come to some reasonable conclusion as to the proper course of action. But we were told that we were in grave danger of attack by weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations has had a three-item checklist for when it is proper to depose a leader and invade a country; this is detailed in the memo and none of the items really applied to the situation at hand - except if we said that they had weapons of mass destruction. The sentence "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy [of invasion]" is what many are rightly calling the smoking gun that tends to remove doubt that we (the British and American leadership) just had bad intelligence. That excuse can no longer be used in the wake of this memo. And that is why this is a major concern and deserves to be discussed on the national level. I don't believe impeachment is the proper outcome of this discussion, that's just my opinion, but I do think those in power cannot escape some degree of blame for their actions. - Mark McCartney (talk) 16:24, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
By focusing on WMD's as the primary cause, Bush succeeded in intimidating the other countries that we will likely attack next. So far, this policy paid off big time in the case of Libya. Not a single bullet was fired, and Libya gave up their WMD program. If you think life is bad now, wait until America gets nuked. And yes, this will happen regardless of what we do. We can become the kindest liberal pussies in the world, and it will not stop the attack that is coming. I predict it will be a pakistani nuke that is sold to terrorists, after Musharrif is out of power. I predict that we will nuke Iran in response, because of their lack of cooperation, and our inability to figure out who did it. If you think life is bad now, wait about 10-20 years. The future is very bleak. Nuclear weapons and human nature can not coexist. As for saddam, he admitted he wanted the Iranians to think he had WMDs. Saddam was a thug who did not know how to play the game of geopolitics, or else he would not of acted the way he did all thru clintons term. He never considered the next president looking back on what's transpired, and deciding to take him down, what a FOOL. Doing troop movements up to Kuwait on the same day that Clinton is to be impeached, forcing Clinton to do either nothing (bad) or bomb Saddam (bad). What type of crap is this from an unelected dictator who lost a war to us then broke the cease fire that ended the war? We must uphold our hard earned reputation if we are to have peace, my grandfather and uncle did not die in previous wars so we can become wimps who weak dictators can successfully challenge. Dont forget, when asked if they thought Saddam had WMDs, Germany, France, Britain, America, and most of the others said yes. When you factor in saddam as a person, and his recent actions, the decision was made by Bush to take him down. Dont think Bush chose WMD as a way to sell it to the public, because he doesnt need public approval to take military action. Think about that for a second, there is no vote, it's an executive decision. The only question is how to deal with Iran and North Korea and Libya, and probably a few others. They answer is to get as much political leverage as possible as a byproduct of taking down saddam. If we find WMDs, great. If not, who cares, it's saddams fault, not ours, and now the other problem countries know we are serious about WMD. Now Libya surrenders BEFORE the fight occurs, and lives are saved. Ignoring the fact that his missiles' range were also a violation of the cease fire agreement, and even if we KNEW he didn’t have WMDs, taking down saddam WAS justified, morally and legally. Break a cease fire agreement, and the war is back on. This was a continuation of the first Gulf war, not a new war. This is what happens when an unelected thug becomes a player on the world stage, and doesn’t know how to play the game: he loses. The memo you mention is probably real, welcome to politics. Politics is as dirty as a game as warfare and law and medical and others. The Iraqis are feeling the pain of having a tumor cut out of their body. Good tissue got cut out with some bad, some blood was lost, an infection (jihadis) is being fought. They are healing and will be healthy in the future. If it was up to France, they would be on pain killers while the tumor grew. (unsigned by 22.214.171.124)
- Wikinews:How to edit a page says that the talk page is "...where Wikinews users make more detailed comments about the article."
- Article talk pages are for discussion of the article itself, rather than the issue that the article is about. If you think the article is biased, or contains factual errors, or has relavent information missing, then please discuss it here. Other conversations should be had elsewhere. - Borofkin 07:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)