NationStates Jolt Archive

The whole argument that I'm seeing here is just questioning each others sources' credibility. Nothing will change, Air America, moveon.org, etc., will keep on "debunking" the American media reports, and the American media reports will keep on "debunking" them. It is a vicious cycle reducing us to nothing but nitpickety old ladies searching for the others mistakes so voraciously. If we all talk instead of argue and discuss what we agree with instead of what we disagree with, we will be able to better understand each others arguments.

And as for the CIA, do you really trust anything they say? The CIA is just like the Freemasons. Scary, secretive, and unpredictable. Facts are a rare commodity in these troubled times, which is sad to say. Almost all media reports are untrustworthy and leave need for further investigations. But I don't agree that waiting to judge Bush is a good idea; election's too soon!I dont want to argue but the right keeps disagreeing-I would like a new way of talken too but someone needs to show me how

Whether or not he should be impeached, the worrying thing is that the American public voted (well, kind of) for such an individual to represent them in the first place.
It's ironic that America claims it wishes to spread democracy to parts of the world which don't have it, when in order to be the American president one has to practically buy the position - with the level of spending in an electoral campaign completely disenfranchising many from standing in effect.
Would George Bush Junior ever have become President if a) he was not the son of George Bush Senior and b) he was not very very rich?

::sigh:: Richard Clarke was discredited by the SSIC and the 9/11 commission. But again, since he can be used against Bush, you believe him in the face of "well known fact"s.
Who's spinning now MKULTRA?When? You need to provide some proof of that, because to my knowledge, there's been no debunking of Clarke's testimony. I've scanned the 9/11 commission report, and there's certainly nothing in there debunking Clarke's testimony. It's available online in pdf format--if you can find the proof, then bring it here, chapter and verse. Otherwise you better be ready to retract it.

Simply saying someone has been debunked isn't enough. You're in with the big dogs now.

When? You need to provide some proof of that, because to my knowledge, there's been no debunking of Clarke's testimony. I've scanned the 9/11 commission report, and there's certainly nothing in there debunking Clarke's testimony. It's available online in pdf format--if you can find the proof, then bring it here, chapter and verse. Otherwise you better be ready to retract it.

Simply saying someone has been debunked isn't enough. You're in with the big dogs now.


I have the full report sitting on my deak, I ordered it from Amazon.com the day it came out, if he'd like to quote a page? Cause from what I understand, Clarke was never debunked on any thing either.

I assume by 'He' you mean Bush. Bush didnt throw the inspectors out.

Yes. The inspectors were on the ground, Iraq was cooperating, of course the process was slower than it might have been because the USA government refused to give the inspectors the information necessary to determine the validity of 'evidence' for going to war. The inspectors were forced to leave, because Bush wanted his war. So the inspectors are there, in order to prove whether or not it is necessary for Americans to be sent far from home to die, all the Bush admin had to do was give the inspectors the 'rock solid proof'. It is a fact that this would have determined the truth quicker than a war (ie within hours), if Saddum had had WMD they could have been disposed of and found before a war could be won, much less a post war WMD search undertaken.

So everything was in place to determine if Saddum had WMD in the quickest way possible, and thus disarm him in the quickest way possible (if such were required), and without needless bloodshed and American lives thrown away.

Bush says he has to disarm Iraq
Inspectors are there and this is quickest way to achieve this
Bush starts a war preventing the inspectors from doing the job
no weapons found
evidence claimed to be rock solid turns out to be merely 'best guesses'
of the CIA.

Prior to the war, many people suggested the intel was mistaken. Are those people who now claim Bush was mistaken rather than lying, the same people who believed before the war that there was no way Bush or the CIA were mistaken, that there was no way they would present a case for war in this manner if there were any possibility that the case was unfounded? Are they the same people who laughed and called those who doubted the intel 'lefty loonies'? I suspect so.........

Hell--you don't even need to order it. You can download it here (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf) and use all of Adobe Acrobat Reader's little search functions to find pretty much whatever you need to find.

So for anyone who wants to answer the challenge about Richard Clarke's testimony or anything else--like the ludicrous charge that Iraq offered Bin Laden asylum after the 9/11 attacks--here's your tools. Put up or shut up.

Hell--you don't even need to order it.

Yeah I know, but I bought it more as a historical document. Some thing to pass down to my children I suppose. I kept all the papers and Time magazine and a bunch of stuff from 9/11. It was a pretty powerful happening in my life time. It's some thing that is part of history now and I felt it was worth buying.. I can tell my grandchildren I watched it happen live on CNN. (the second plane any way)

No, but it did violate the Constitution, because there was no congressional declaration of war. Likewise, Truman, LBJ/Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton should have all been impeached for the same thing. At least, that's my opinion, anyway.

Last time congress declared war was WWII I believe.

Last time congress declared war was WWII I believe.

You are correct.

Ok, time to break out my copy of the US Constitution:

__________________________________
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. "

__________________________________

I doubt the violation of international law falls in there (however, if any Constitutional Scholars wish to correct me, I'm willing to listen), so the case for impeachment based on the violation of International Law is not valid.



Article VI Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

As the UN Charter was ratified by the Senate, signed by a duly elected and recognized President of the United States and as of yet has not been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court it does indeed carry the force of United States Federal Law.

I have the full report sitting on my deak, I ordered it from Amazon.com the day it came out, if he'd like to quote a page? Cause from what I understand, Clarke was never debunked on any thing either.

Page 329:
First Paragraph stated that they found no evidence that any flight of the Saudi Nationals took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001!

Second paragraph stated that they found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. The issue came up in one of the many video teleconnferences of the interagency group Clarke chaired, and Clarke said he approved of how the FBI was dealing with the matter when it came up for interagency discussion at his level. Clarke todl us, "I asked the FBI, dale Watson...to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me." Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."

In the fourth paragraph the found that "the FBI conducted satisfactory screening of saudi nationals who left the United Sates on charter Flights."

straight out of the report on page 329!

Article VI Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

As the UN Charter was ratified by the Senate, signed by a duly elected and recognized President of the United States and as of yet has not been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court it does indeed carry the force of United States Federal Law.

Nice find, I've been looking for that so I could silence the people that have no respect for international law it seems.

Page 329:
First Paragraph stated that they found no evidence that any flight of the Saudi Nationals took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001!

Second paragraph stated that they found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. The issue came up in one of the many video teleconnferences of the interagency group Clarke chaired, and Clarke said he approved of how the FBI was dealing with the matter when it came up for interagency discussion at his level. Clarke todl us, "I asked the FBI, dale Watson...to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me." Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."

In the fourth paragraph the found that "the FBI conducted satisfactory screening of saudi nationals who left the United Sates on charter Flights."

straight out of the report on page 329!

Ok, as I stated, nothing Clarke has said has been debunked.

Ok, as I stated, nothing Clarke has said has been debunked.

Well I actually posted it more for MKULTRA's benefit as well as others that question that Bush gave the order for the Saudis to leave! But you are right, he was not debunked!

But admit it Steph, I researched this one out! LOL! :p

YES DUBLEYA NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED! god i hate him so much!

Well I actually posted it more for MKULTRA's benefit as well as others that question that Bush gave the order for the Saudis to leave! But you are right, he was not debunked!

But admit it Steph, I researched this one out! LOL! :p

Okay..lol sure.. ;)

Okay..lol sure.. ;)

;)

Seriously though, I had to jump ahead! I'm only on Chapter 3 in the report.

every presidentin post ww2 has had some sort of war, if bush should be impeached for attacking saddam who did pose at least a minor threat to our country, shouldnt we have impeached clinton for somalia, balkins... or carter for the suppyling of arms in afganistan.

personally i think the us should leave the un, because once it does, most of its funding dissapears, and it will collapse. The UN has done nothing to help the world.

Anyway, Clinton did more to undermine the US than Bush could ever do by not responding to AL Quedi for 8 years

every presidentin post ww2 has had some sort of war, if bush should be impeached for attacking saddam who did pose at least a minor threat to our country, shouldnt we have impeached clinton for somalia, balkins... or carter for the suppyling of arms in afganistan.

personally i think the us should leave the un, because once it does, most of its funding dissapears, and it will collapse. The UN has done nothing to help the world.

Anyway, Clinton did more to undermine the US than Bush could ever do by not responding to AL Quedi for 8 years

LBJ for Nam if your going to do that! And really the government lied about that whole affair too, including the President!

YES DUBLEYA NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED! god i hate him so much!

Just cause you "hate" him doesnt mean he should be impeached. Try to be more specific with your reasoning and you may gain credibility.

AFAIK, there is no evidence that shows grounds for impeachment. Sure, there is plenty of speculation but thats always the case, lets stick to facts.

damn, neck and neck.

damn, neck and neck.

Yes, it has become a battle of who can create and vote with more puppets. :rolleyes:

http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/OHDEARGODYES.gif

It's refreshing to see things like this that illustrate that the world will never run out of morons.

And I guess Clinton's perjury was just about sex, so it didn't count. Get a clue, if Clinton, Gore, and the other liberals were doing their job instead of getting their doorknobs polished, 9-11 wouldn't have happened. :rolleyes: :sniper:

It's refreshing to see things like this that illustrate that the world will never run out of morons.

New around here I see, you just flamed a NS Mod there buddy.. not too smart. It's actually against the rules to flame any one on Nation States, consider yourself warned, don't do it again!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Just cause you "hate" him doesnt mean he should be impeached. Try to be more specific with your reasoning and you may gain credibility.

AFAIK, there is no evidence that shows grounds for impeachment. Sure, there is plenty of speculation but thats always the case, lets stick to facts.
well if CLinton can be impeached for having a concencual blowjob then saving his wifes honor by lying about it then Bush can be impeached for sending 1000 US soldiers to die in Iraq (alongside Iraqi civilians) for his own personal and corrupted reasons

If there's anyone out there who disagrees with this President it's me, but let's not get carried away with impeaching everyone we don't like. I think that rather than spend time chasing an impeachment we should get out there and try to promote the Kerry/Edwards message.

New around here I see, you just flamed a NS Mod there buddy.. not too smart. It's actually against the rules to flame any one on Nation States, consider yourself warned, don't do it again!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

And busy here too! Alwell I guess when Bush gets re-elected, you'll be warning the whiners when they start flaming the conservatives and Bush supporters.

It's refreshing to see things like this that illustrate that the world will never run out of morons.

And I guess Clinton's perjury was just about sex, so it didn't count. Get a clue, if Clinton, Gore, and the other liberals were doing their job instead of getting their doorknobs polished, 9-11 wouldn't have happened. :rolleyes: :sniper:

:headbang:

Hrmn yeah and if Bush had spent more time actually giving security briefings the time that they needed instead of goin' fishin' with paw 9-11 wouldn't have happened either.

It's refreshing to see things like this that illustrate that the world will never run out of morons.

And I guess Clinton's perjury was just about sex, so it didn't count. Get a clue, if Clinton, Gore, and the other liberals were doing their job instead of getting their doorknobs polished, 9-11 wouldn't have happened. :rolleyes: :sniper:
last time I checked it was Bush who was ignoring all the warnings leading up to 911 going on a historic 6 month vacation for the entire first part of that year--as if he was fooling anyone but the most rabidly blind republicans

If there's anyone out there who disagrees with this President it's me, but let's not get carried away with impeaching everyone we don't like. I think that rather than spend time chasing an impeachment we should get out there and try to promote the Kerry/Edwards message.

Tru-dat.

And busy here too! Alwell I guess when Bush gets re-elected, you'll be warning the whiners when they start flaming the conservatives and Bush supporters.

Please don't say when :mp5: , use if, lets try to be optimistic :D

last time I checked it was Bush who was ignoring all the warnings leading up to 911 going on a historic 6 month vacation for the entire first part of that year--as if he was fooling anyone but the most rabidly blind republicans

Did Michael Moore say that? Do you know that Presidents actually still work when they are on Vacation? I don't remember the president taking a 6 month vacation! Your hatred for Bush and Republicans in general is noted.

Tru-dat.



Please don't say when :mp5: , use if, lets try to be optimistic :D

HAHA! Ok If but as long as the Kerry supporters say IF too otherwise, I'll go back to when. :D

Besides, me personally, I think the debates will decide this election.

Did Michael Moore say that? Do you know that Presidents actually still work when they are on Vacation? I don't remember the president taking a 6 month vacation! Your hatred for Bush and Republicans in general is noted.
I only hate when people are willfully blind because their egos wont let them admit they were wrong

Did Michael Moore say that? Do you know that Presidents actually still work when they are on Vacation? I don't remember the president taking a 6 month vacation! Your hatred for Bush and Republicans in general is noted.

You're right, he did work, but when on vacation it is a question of working hard or hardly working ;) . and you are also right, it wasn't 6 months... more like 4 and not solid, but he did spend more than 40% of his time in texas on his ranch that fact is undenyable.

I only hate when people are willfully blind because their egos wont let them admit they were wrong

I do admit when I'm wrong. In this case, I'm not! Unfortunately for you, you have yet to admit defeat about Clarke! And besides Clarke served in the White House from 1997-2001! So he was a Clinton lacky more than a Bush one! LOL!

Did Michael Moore say that? Do you know that Presidents actually still work when they are on Vacation? I don't remember the president taking a 6 month vacation! Your hatred for Bush and Republicans in general is noted.

Well, in fairness it was on Bush's watch, can hardly blame Clinton.. not that I think Bush is to blame either for 9/11, it's Al Qaeda's fault.. but you are sort of responsible for what happens on your watch, it wasn't like Bush didn't go through weeks of briefings before he took over from Clinton, he knew what Clinton knew and did nothing for 8 months.. and in fact, Bush has for fact taken more vacations then any president in recorded history.. so, that is true.

HAHA! Ok If but as long as the Kerry supporters say IF too otherwise, I'll go back to when. :D

Besides, me personally, I think the debates will decide this election.

I for one only try to use if, and yeah I agree, the debates are really going to set the bar. It'll give they both a good chance to really set the pace of the race.

Well, in fairness it was on Bush's watch, can hardly blame Clinton.. not that I think Bush is to blame either for 9/11, it's Al Qaeda's fault.. but you are sort of responsible for what happens on your watch, it wasn't like Bush didn't go through weeks of briefings before he took over from Clinton, he knew what Clinton knew and did nothing for 8 months.. and in fact, Bush has for fact taken more vacations then any president in recorded history.. so, that is true.

Ok on this I will agree with you Stephistan! Neither Bush nor Clinton should get the full blame but they do share some responsiblity together. Al Qaeda is the one at fault as is the FBI and CIA and other services that didn't share info to eachother.

I won't deny the vacation part but I don't believe the 6 month vacation bit from MKULTRA!

I for one only try to use if, and yeah I agree, the debates are really going to set the bar. It'll give they both a good chance to really set the pace of the race.

Agreed. However, being biased here, Bush will beat Kerry! Not being biased, it'll be an interesting debate and very informative. Both sides will have equal time and that is what counts. Both sides should do well during the debates.

It would be so much easier if the FBI, the NSA, and the CIA were all just consolidated into one big friggin agency. That would also pretty much negate the need for the lame ass "department of homeland security" (sounds an aweful lot like the department of "defense" to me).

i wonder if bush won't try to dodge the debates. he isnt all that good at extemporaneous speaking.

i wonder if bush won't try to dodge the debates. he isnt all that good at extemporaneous speaking.

He didn't dodge Gore in 2000! And before you say he did, I watched and he did better than Gore and his supporters thought he would do! Not to mention, Gore looked like an idiot in that first debate! Interrupting Bush while he was speaking!

It would be so much easier if the FBI, the NSA, and the CIA were all just consolidated into one big friggin agency. That would also pretty much negate the need for the lame ass "department of homeland security" (sounds an aweful lot like the department of "defense" to me).

i was listening to one of those left wing talk shows on NPR on my way home from the movies today and it reminded me of just why we had to hamstring the CIA.

back in the 70s nixon had the cia watching jack anderson, a big time muckraking newspaper columnist. and at one point they had a plan to assassinate anderson, using the CIAs help. im not convinced about how serious it was but it was about the same time as the watergate break-in so the plan got cancelled when the guys who were gonna do it got arrested (supposedly they had ended up planning to have g gordon liddy kill him on the street and have it look like a mugging gone bad)

the point being that you cant trust people in power to not subvert the true mission of these agencies and use them for their own cheap political ends

Comparing a US President to those people....what possible facts could you have to support such stupid supposition?
Take a damn history class!

Okay, the reason that Bush is similar to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, etc, is simple.

Each of those in the above list single-handedly authorized the invasion of a sovereign nation that had not threatened their own. (Hitler, France; Stalin, Poland; Mao, Tibet; Saddam, Kuwait; Bush, Iraq.) In each of these cases, this resulted in both the useless deaths of military, and the deaths of innocent civilians in the invaded country.

Whether or not any of those were INTENDED to result in the death of innocent civilians is not important. The fact is that they DID. (Remember, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.)

Frankly, Bush should be impeached, and tried for war crimes, but I'm fine with throwing him THE HELL OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE in November.

(What war crimes you ask? How about the AUTHORIZED torture of Iraqui prisoners of war? In a decree signed by Bush, he understood and agreed that the Geneva convention didn't apply to him. (Whether he's actually literate or not is still up for discussion....) Either way, he has authorized something rather similar to the Germans (rather, Hitler) in WWII. I don't care what your effing position in the world government is, the GENEVA CONVENTION APPLIES TO YOU! THAT'S THE REASON THE WHOLE EFFING WORLD AUTHORISED THE EFFING THING IN THE FIRST PLACE!)

Damn! Bush makes me so angry, as do the actions of our administration. (Take a look at a newspaper some time. The only way to describe our current administration is "EVIL".)

NOTE: I am a patriot. Not a "neo-patriot", but a TRUE patriot. The person who agrees with Thomas Jefferson that "the highest form of patriotism is dissent". I love my country, but I hate my country's administration, because of what they are doing to the U.S. So don't give me any crap about being a traitor. Because the only traitor is the person who doesn't question the administration.

He didn't dodge Gore in 2000! And before you say he did, I watched and he did better than Gore and his supporters thought he would do! Not to mention, Gore looked like an idiot in that first debate! Interrupting Bush while he was speaking!
They were both weak in the debates, Gore was weak, intrusive and incoherent and Bush didn't give real answers to questions, he just said a lot without really saying anything.

He didn't dodge Gore in 2000! And before you say he did, I watched and he did better than Gore and his supporters thought he would do! Not to mention, Gore looked like an idiot in that first debate! Interrupting Bush while he was speaking!
yes but the man in power is the one with the most to lose in debates. thats why incumbents try their hardest to keep them to a minimum.

NOTE: I am a patriot. Not a "neo-patriot", but a TRUE patriot. The person who agrees with Thomas Jefferson that "the highest form of patriotism is dissent". I love my country, but I hate my country's administration, because of what they are doing to the U.S. So don't give me any crap about being a traitor. Because the only traitor is the person who doesn't question the administration.
TRU-DAT.

yes but the man in power is the one with the most to lose in debates. thats why incumbents try their hardest to keep them to a minimum.

I'll take your word for it for now.

ok, having to look up specific examples took me a while, but here are 2 examples of the 9/11 commission report contradicting Clarkes claims.

Claim: Neither Bush, and his administration did almost nothing do deal with growing reports of an impending attack by al-qaida.

9/11 report pg 204: "Rice asked about 'taking the offensive' and whether any approach could be made to influence Bin Laden or the Taliban. Clarke and Black (CTC chief Cofer Black) replied that the CIA's ongoing disruptions were "taking the offensive" and Bin Laden could not be deterred.

Here Clarke himself is saying that they were in fact attempting to do something to deal with growing reports of an impending attack.


Claim: Bush's main response was to attack Iraq

9/11 report pg 335: President Bush told Bob Woodward that the decision not to invade Iraq had been made at the morning session on September 15. Iraq was not even on the table during the September 15 afternoon session, which dealt solely with Afganistan.

Bush had already dismissed Iraq as being responsible for 9/11 but wanted plans to deal with Iraq "should the country take some action, or the administration eventually determine that it had been involved in the 9/11 attacks:

if bush should be impeached for attacking saddam who did pose at least a minor threat to our country,
Regarding the premise 'Bush should be impeached for attacking Saddam'; do you mean 'impeached for attacking Saddam', or do you mean 'impeached as a result of his actions and conduct with regards to the attack on Iraq', because I dont think Bush should be 'impeached for attacking Saddam', I think he should be impeached as a result of his actions and conduct with regards to the attack on Iraq.

Regarding the premise 'Saddam did pose at least a minor threat to our country'; in what capacity? Ok he did threaten to hold a debate with Bush, but that hardly sounds dangerous beyond the obvious threat to Bush's ego....you know Bush might even have stood a narrow chance, if only he wouldnt insist that 'foot-in-mouth' is a life-style choice, rather than a disease.

there is no evidence that shows grounds for impeachment. Sure, there is plenty of speculation but thats always the case, lets stick to facts.

There is evidence that shows grounds for impeachment, as well as speculation. Can you clarify your definition of 'sticking to facts', for instance would claiming that something you know is only a possibility, is an absolutely proven and incontestable fact, be sticking to the facts, making a mistake, lying, or the Bush Administration's idea of good leadership?

on what grounds would one impeach Bush?

on what grounds would one impeach Bush?

Read the thread. :rolleyes:

on what grounds would one impeach Bush?"On the grounds that tying up Bush's judicial nominations and hampering an already crappy court situation isn't bad enough, now we need to waste more of the taxpayers time and money by being partisans asses." - Anonymous Democrat

How about 11,000 deaths in a war started on false pretences?

Bush is an idiot an he is war hungry. :sniper: there was no reason or evidence to go into iraq. But since he made that choice and brought soldiers over there, he needs to finish what he started. He should not be impeached because the economy already sucks and that would only make thinkgs worse. I do not like Bush and I think that Kerry should be president, but Bush should finish his term

There are absolutly no grounds to impeach Bush. None! When Clinton was impeached, it was because he broke the law. Not because he slept with Monica, but because he committed perjury! He lied under oath! Bush on the other hand, has done no such thing. He has merely stood for morality and the best interests of America. While the rest of the world has bowed to evil, he has stood his ground even in the face of losing allies. He has united a nation after its most perilous times, picked up the broken pieces and retaliated against the scum that attacked the WTC (Clinton had 8 terrorist attacks occur during his tenure and he did nothing, all the while he swore to "hunt down and punish" those responsible). As for Iraq, I would like to point out that Sadaam did have connections to Al Queda. A) Where do you think the Anthrax came from? There are only three nations in the world with military grain Anthrax. One is us, and we clearly did not supply it. The other is Russia, and lets face it they cannot afford postage. Then there is Iraq who hates us. . . hmmmm. There are proven Chemical weapons, satelite images of them leaving in mobile chemical labs as the Weapons Inspectors were coming (Those labs were found burried). The terrifying question of the hour is not IF there are WOMD, but WHERE those WOMD are. He has brought civil liberties to two nations, freed the women of Afghanistan from the sinsiter rule of the Taliban and it was HIS policies that have helped revitalize the nation. BUT, go right ahead impeach him. Oh wait a second, what did he do again?

I hope you realise that Bush is sitting in front of his computer saying, "Shit, I can't even spell that..."

How about 11,000 deaths in a war started on false pretences?

Not all of it was false! His ties to terror AND to al Qaeda have been proven as true!

Saddam even offered Bin Ladin Sanctuary! That is in the 9/11 Report! How about the torture champers, rape rooms, and mass graves that we've found? That was also mentioned I might add in one of his speeches leading up to war. We've found those too.

Despite most people here, and I'll admit that they are old, WMD has been found. Yea people say things about self-life however, they can still be dangerous.

Here's a question!

Where did that won IED that was filled with gas (Forgot what type it was) come from? Where did those cyclosarin artillery pieces come from? Where did those shells that was filled with Sarin and mustard gas come from?

They came from Saddam Hussein's arsonal! That's where. These pieces that we have found were UNACCOUNTED FOR in Saddam's report to the UNSC.

Face it FD, after 21 pages of arguments on both sides, no one will accept 'facts' or the 'truth' anymore. People like MKULTRA and Chess squares will hate Bush no matter what anyone else says.

And I for one, cant bring myself to believe the 'facts' that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen in order to justify going to war.

People shouting at each other here forget that everything said here in the NS forums (including my own posts) are only opinions. We all form our opinions based on information we have gathered from a variety of sources, unless of course we happen to be fortunate to be witness to the actual incidents. Those variety of sources are all ideologically bent to some degree or another and therefor our information is skewed in one direction or another.

In order for constructive dialogue to happen, someone would have to admit they were, or could have been mistaken. And that just aint gonna happen.

Despite most people here, and I'll admit that they are old, WMD has been found. Yea people say things about self-life however, they can still be dangerous.

Here's a question!

Where did that won IED that was filled with gas (Forgot what type it was) come from? Where did those cyclosarin artillery pieces come from? Where did those shells that was filled with Sarin and mustard gas come from?

They came from Saddam Hussein's arsonal! That's where. These pieces that we have found were UNACCOUNTED FOR in Saddam's report to the UNSC.
the ready to use stockpiles of WMDS have not been found, i dont know where the SINGLE CAN of mustard gas was but i do know how and wher ethe SINGLE CAN of sarin was found, it was scavenged and used as a roadside bomb, we dont know where it came from or how it was gotten, but itwas obviously not intended to be used as a WMD from how it was set up

Face it FD, after 21 pages of arguments on both sides, no one will accept 'facts' or the 'truth' anymore. People like MKULTRA and Chess squares will hate Bush no matter what anyone else says..
i see the threat he represents, do you? of course not because his extrem right wing policies only benefit you, and thats all you care about, yourself

Face it FD, after 21 pages of arguments on both sides, no one will accept 'facts' or the 'truth' anymore. People like MKULTRA and Chess squares will hate Bush no matter what anyone else says.

And I for one, cant bring myself to believe the 'facts' that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen in order to justify going to war.

People shouting at each other here forget that everything said here in the NS forums (including my own posts) are only opinions. We all form our opinions based on information we have gathered from a variety of sources, unless of course we happen to be fortunate to be witness to the actual incidents. Those variety of sources are all ideologically bent to some degree or another and therefor our information is skewed in one direction or another.

In order for constructive dialogue to happen, someone would have to admit they were, or could have been mistaken. And that just aint gonna happen.

I agree with you Politigrad. Some people here just flatly hate Bush and the Republican party in general. Anyone who supports Bush and/or the Republican party is immediately branded as stupid and non-factual. I've presented facts and they deny it.

Your right Politigrad, no matter what, they'll want Bush to be impeached even though he hasn't broken any law.

And before people start screaming he mislead the country, last time I checked, lying isn't a crime. Lying to a grand jury, under oath is a crime.

Okay, the reason that Bush is similar to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, etc, is simple.

Each of those in the above list single-handedly authorized the invasion of a sovereign nation that had not threatened their own. (Hitler, France; Stalin, Poland; Mao, Tibet; Saddam, Kuwait; Bush, Iraq.) In each of these cases, this resulted in both the useless deaths of military, and the deaths of innocent civilians in the invaded country.

Whether or not any of those were INTENDED to result in the death of innocent civilians is not important. The fact is that they DID. (Remember, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.)

Frankly, Bush should be impeached, and tried for war crimes, but I'm fine with throwing him THE HELL OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE in November.

(What war crimes you ask? How about the AUTHORIZED torture of Iraqui prisoners of war? In a decree signed by Bush, he understood and agreed that the Geneva convention didn't apply to him. (Whether he's actually literate or not is still up for discussion....) Either way, he has authorized something rather similar to the Germans (rather, Hitler) in WWII. I don't care what your effing position in the world government is, the GENEVA CONVENTION APPLIES TO YOU! THAT'S THE REASON THE WHOLE EFFING WORLD AUTHORISED THE EFFING THING IN THE FIRST PLACE!)

Damn! Bush makes me so angry, as do the actions of our administration. (Take a look at a newspaper some time. The only way to describe our current administration is "EVIL".)

NOTE: I am a patriot. Not a "neo-patriot", but a TRUE patriot. The person who agrees with Thomas Jefferson that "the highest form of patriotism is dissent". I love my country, but I hate my country's administration, because of what they are doing to the U.S. So don't give me any crap about being a traitor. Because the only traitor is the person who doesn't question the administration.

all who want to invoke goodwins law here vote aye

oh and everything above "all who want to invoke goodwins law say aye" is Irinistan

i see the threat he represents, do you? of course not because his extrem right wing policies only benefit you, and thats all you care about, yourself

No, I care about my country. That's why I spent 20 years defending it, because I believe it's something worth defending. I care about you and your children. I care that they have a better world than the one we live in.

I've been in or around places like the Peoples Republic of Berkely, or the Moscow on the Willamete (Portland, OR) for far too long to believe that the liberal agenda has any hope of making the world better or safer. Not because I think their ideas are worse than mine, but because they are simply naive.

I believe in personal responsibility. When I make mistakes, I try to first aknowledge them and then learn from them. I believe it's one's own choices, not McDonalds or Burger Kings fault when one turns up obese. I believe that smoking is harmful, but it's ones own choice to smoke, not the tobacco industries fault (as was argued in one case where a 68 year old man who had been smoking approx 2 packs a day for 40 years, had developed no signs of cancer or any other lung disease yet, but sued and was awarded $5000 per cigarette, something like $3Billion.)

I believe in the right to defend my and my families life, our property. As is your right to defend you and yours.

I believe that it's the governments only purpose to protect me. From outside invaders/terrorists who wish to kill or inslave me. From inside threats that want to kill me or take what I have earned. From people or corperations who wish to cheat me out of what I have earned for myself.

I believe that what I earn is mine. It isnt the governments place to take from me, to give to someone else who doesnt want to earn their own place. If they want to earn it, let them.

I believe in laws. If you don like them, change them. But follow them until you do.

(What war crimes you ask? How about the AUTHORIZED torture of Iraqui prisoners of war? In a decree signed by Bush, he understood and agreed that the Geneva convention didn't apply to him. (Whether he's actually literate or not is still up for discussion....) Either way, he has authorized something rather similar to the Germans (rather, Hitler) in WWII.

This is an example of how bigotry and hatred blinds a person.

Similar to the Germans of WWII. That's a good one.

Let's see... The germans conducted medical experiments on Jews and POWs. They practiced racial slavery, rounding up Jews to work in internment camps. They burned people alive. They made lamp shades out of human flesh.

What happened in Abu-Ghraib was degrading, humiliating, and wrong. But on a level far below what Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam did. It wasnt torture.

do i think Bush should be impeached....no.
I don't like the man its just think of the alternative. Would you really want Cheney as a president? That man is fucking nuts.

poli that was not me but me copying form Irinistan. I just said anyone who thinks we should just invoke goodwins law and end it say aye

I believe in personal responsibility. When I make mistakes, I try to first aknowledge them and then learn from them. I believe it's one's own choices, not McDonalds or Burger Kings fault when one turns up obese. I believe that smoking is harmful, but it's ones own choice to smoke, not the tobacco industries fault (as was argued in one case where a 68 year old man who had been smoking approx 2 packs a day for 40 years, had developed no signs of cancer or any other lung disease yet, but sued and was awarded $5000 per cigarette, something like $3Billion.)
which i agree, but that has what to do with the liberal agenda? its the federal government keeping people form being responsible allowing watch dog groups to go around calling foul, and yes, there ARE frivolous lawsuits, but not all lawsuits are frivoulous, which is how the republican propaganda machine is trying to paint the law industry: full of lawyers suing for frivolous reasons then becoming "activist judges' that is NOT the case despite what you think

I believe in the right to defend my and my families life, our property. As is your right to defend you and yours.
i'll assume you are talking about weapon bans, i dont think you need a kalishnikov or any other assault weapon or automatic handgun as a personal weapon, and ithink all guns should be sold through government approved facilities to approved people (anyone not convicted of a violent crime) and registered to that person so we can keep track of it in case need be

I believe that it's the governments only purpose to protect me. From outside invaders/terrorists who wish to kill or inslave me. From inside threats that want to kill me or take what I have earned. From people or corperations who wish to cheat me out of what I have earned for myself.
the government can protect its people by protecting them, not attacking other countries and using scare tactics to convince the people they are doing whats right. you think we are any safer? try again, we are doing a nice job of setting up the iraqis, for now, but we are not maknig our boreders safer, wow we are watching the air, do they need to come by air? no, just come through the borders, legally or illegally, they can get through, and if they are arrested they will be released becauseb ush wants to make friends with all the ilelgal immgirants by letting them be legal and vote for him, you want to protect me and this country, do so by focusing defense and control efforts on our borders and incoming foreign flights

I believe that what I earn is mine. It isnt the governments place to take from me, to give to someone else who doesnt want to earn their own place. If they want to earn it, let them.
go support communism, you dont contribute you dont get shit. i believe we need a national health care and business regulation, wre need that to quell the evils of capitalism: uninhibitted greed and oppression. poor people need to be given oppurtunities, not have people sit around saying: hah your poor, your a lazy bum, you dont deserve to live, get a job. guess what there are plenty of poor people with full time jobs, some times 2, they still barely make enough to get by

I believe in laws. If you don like them, change them. But follow them until you do.
me too, lets try following the constitution, then work our way down from there

This is an example of how bigotry and hatred blinds a person.

Similar to the Germans of WWII. That's a good one.

Let's see... The germans conducted medical experiments on Jews and POWs. They practiced racial slavery, rounding up Jews to work in internment camps. They burned people alive. They made lamp shades out of human flesh.

What happened in Abu-Ghraib was degrading, humiliating, and wrong. But on a level far below what Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam did. It wasnt torture.
oh thats clever

so because it wasnt on some grand really bad scale it wasnt torture, matter of fact it wasnt even bad?

WOO WOO, HERE COMES THE CLUE TRAIN


just because it wasnt on some huge ass scale doesnt make it all right: they were raping, killing, abusing, sexually humiliating, psychologically and physyically attacking the prisoners, and thats the NON GHOST ones we KNOW about

Not all of it was false! His ties to terror AND to al Qaeda have been proven as true!

Saddam even offered Bin Ladin Sanctuary! That is in the 9/11 Report! How about the torture champers, rape rooms, and mass graves that we've found? That was also mentioned I might add in one of his speeches leading up to war. We've found those too.

whose ties to al Qaeda? bush's? i was surprised at how much money he has received from the bin Ladens and other Saudis over the years, weren't you?

how about the torture chambers and rape rooms? you lose the right to hold those up as reasons, when you use them yourselves for the same purposes. how about the mass graves? i can't recall any cause of mass death in Iraq which wasn't either started by the USA or supported by them.

and i don't have an axe to grind against republicans, any more than democrats.

do i think Bush should be impeached....no.
I don't like the man its just think of the alternative. Would you really want Cheney as a president? That man is fucking nuts.

Heh, yeah, but who's to say he isn't really the one running things anyway.

The intellectual capacity of this thread has been breached!

Restart your computer!


http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks.gif

Should he be impeached, he should be publicly flogged. For reasons we all know. November will be the only time in my life when I'll wish I was American, just so I can go and vote him out. (That is, if he doesn't get one of his lackeys to discount my vote, 'lose' it behind the sofa, etc..) As it stands, I'll just have to cross my fingers and hope.

He cheated to get in last time, and he'll cheat like hell this time around, 'cos he knows his head's on the block. Be vigilant, cousins, take none of his shit.

Should he be impeached, he should be publicly flogged. For reasons we all know. November will be the only time in my life when I'll wish I was American, just so I can go and vote him out. (That is, if he doesn't get one of his lackeys to discount my vote, 'lose' it behind the sofa, etc..) As it stands, I'll just have to cross my fingers and hope.

He cheated to get in last time, and he'll cheat like hell this time around, 'cos he knows his head's on the block. Be vigilant, cousins, take none of his shit.

This is why Bush will win! Florida 2000 needs to be dropped! The more you bring it up the more voters your going to lose. The people are tired of hearing. If you continue to bring it up, the American Voters WILL vote for Bush just for Spite! Its not polite to tick off the voters, they have a habit of doing what people Least expect.

The Democratic party thinks that if they continue to bring up Florida 2000, that they will win the election, they are sadly mistaken. Its time to move on. What is done is done and continueing to bring it up will just piss off the voters and they will take it out on the Democratic Party by Voting Bush!

This is why Bush will win! Florida 2000 needs to be dropped! The more you bring it up the more voters your going to lose. The people are tired of hearing. If you continue to bring it up, the American Voters WILL vote for Bush just for Spite! Its not polite to tick off the voters, they have a habit of doing what people Least expect.

The Democratic party thinks that if they continue to bring up Florida 2000, that they will win the election, they are sadly mistaken. Its time to move on. What is done is done and continueing to bring it up will just piss off the voters and they will take it out on the Democratic Party by Voting Bush!
bush continues to bring up 9/11, that will turn off the intelligent voters just as much as showing how th ec is bullshit

not to mention childish campaigning like playing the flipper theme during a commcercial about john kerry. his ads started with lies and got worse from there

bush continues to bring up 9/11, that will turn off the intelligent voters just as much as showing how th ec is bullshit

not to mention childish campaigning like playing the flipper theme during a commcercial about john kerry. his ads started with lies and got worse from there

FDR brought up Pearl Harbor during his campaign so what is the difference? Not much!

FDR brought up Pearl Harbor during his campaign so what is the difference? Not much!
then whats so bad about using the fiasco in florida as an encouragement for going to the polls and voting?

i cant wait to see some more bush ads i bet he results to cartoons next

then whats so bad about using the fiasco in florida as an encouragement for going to the polls and voting?

i cant wait to see some more bush ads i bet he results to cartoons next

Because Florida was not an attack on our nation

Pearl and 9/11 was. Thus a president can bring it up, tastefully in the 9/11 case.

Florida was an election disaster and not an attack on the USA. People are tired of hearing about Florida. I haven't heard Bush bringing it up. I did hear Kerry Mention 9/11 tastefully. Only Kerry and the Left of the Democratic party are bringing up florida. Most Conservative and moderate democrats are not. They accepted what happened and moved on.

The Bush Record: Top 10 Bush Lies
Bush on Iraq
1. "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." [Bush Remarks, Cincinnati OH, 10/7/02]
Fact:Saddam Did not Have Chief Requirements for Nuclear Weapons

The Washington Post reported, "What Hussein did not have was the principal requirement for a nuclear weapon, a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. And the U.S. government, authoritative intelligence officials said, had only circumstantial evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain those materials." Inspectors in postwar Iraq have "found the former nuclear weapons program, described as a 'grave and gathering danger' by President Bush and a 'mortal threat' by Vice President Cheney, in much the same shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s." [Washington Post, 8/10/03, 1/7/04]

2. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." [Bush, State of the Union, 1/28/03]
Fact: Bush Administration Knew Claim Was False

In March 2002, both the CIA and State Department learned that evidence linking Iraq to Niger was unfounded. In October, CIA Director Tenet personally intervened with Condoleezza Rice's deputy National Security Advisor to have the charge removed from Bush's speech to the nation. Rice herself was sent a memo debunking the claim. In January, just days before Bush uttered the false charge CIA officials tried again to remove the language, but the White House insisted it remain -- with added the caveat that they had received the information from British sources. [Bush State of the Union, 1/28/03; Time, 7/21/03 Issue; Hadley/Bartlett Gaggle, 7/22/03; New York Times, 7/13/03; Washington Post, 7/20/03; NPR, 6/19/03]

3. "In an interview with Polish television on May 30, Mr. Bush cited the trailers [found in postwar Iraq] as evidence that the United States had 'found the weapons of mass destruction' it was looking for." [New York Times, 6/26/03]
Fact: State Department Said Bush Rushed to Judgment

The New York Times reported, "The State Department's intelligence division is disputing the Central Intelligence Agency's conclusion that mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making biological weapons, United States government officials said today. In a classified June 2 [2003] memorandum, the officials said, the department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research said it was premature to conclude that the trailers were evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program, as President Bush has done...Administration officials said the State Department agency was given no warning that the C.I.A. report was being produced, or made public." [New York Times, 6/26/03]

4. "The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln saying that their mission was accomplished." [Bush, News Conference, 10/28/03]
Fact: Sign Was Produced by White House

"White House press secretary Scott McClellan later acknowledged that the sign was produced by the White House," though he claimed that the Lincoln's crew had requested some sort of banner. According to reports, "The man responsible for the banner, Scott Sforza, a former ABC producer now with the White House communications office...is known for the production of the sophisticated backdrops that appear behind Mr. Bush with the White House message of the day, like 'Helping Small Business,' repeated over and over." [Washington Post, 10/29/03; New York Times, 10/29/03]

Bush on the Economy
5. "Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term." [Bush, State of the Union, 2002]
Fact: Deficit Will Be Largest in History and Will Exceed $400 Billion Every Year for Next Ten Years

The deficit will exceed $400 billion every year through 2014. By 2014, the deficit will reach $708 billion. In 2004, the deficit is projected to reach a record high of $477 billion, dwarfing the previous record of $290 billion posted by Bush's father in 1992. [Congressional Budget Office, 1/26/04, 2/27/04; Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, 1/21/04, 2/1/04]

6. "Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage economic growth, and we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens," Bush promised. [Bush Remarks at Western Michigan University, 3/27/01]
Fact: Bush Deficits Due Largely to Tax Cuts

In 2002, due largely to Bush's tax cuts, the federal government posted a deficit of $158 billion and returned to deficit for the first time since 1997. In 2004, Bush's three tax cuts over as many years reduced revenues by $270 billion. Over 35 percent of the $9.9 trillion deterioration from 2002-2011 is due to Bush's tax cuts. By 2014, tax cuts will account for 40 percent of the deterioration. Despite Bush's claims to the contrary, only 6 percent of the $477 billion deficit in 2004 is due to the lackluster economy. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 10/21/03; Congressional Budget Office, 3/04; CBO, Historical Budget Data, Table 1 http://www.cbo.gov; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 10/27/03]

Bush on His Own Policies
7. "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson September the 11th." [Bush 11/27/02]
Fact: Bush Initially Opposed Independent 9-11 Commission

Bush opposed an independent inquiry into 9/11, arguing it would duplicate a probe conducted by Congress. In July 2002, his administration issued a "statement of policy" that read "...the Administration would oppose an amendment that would create a new commission to conduct a similar review [to Congress's investigation]." [Statement of Administration Policy, Executive Office of the President, 7/24/02; Los Angeles Times, 11/28/02]

8. "Bush had pushed hard for the Medicare drug benefit, but said he would not sign anything that exceeded $400 billion." [Boston Globe, 1/30/04]
Fact: Bush Administration Intentionally Hid Cost of Plan To Win Votes in Congress

In late January 2004, the Administration announced they had underestimated the total cost of the package by $135 billion. Bush relied on a $400 billion figure for the first decade of the prescription drug benefit in persuading fiscal conservatives to support the plan last November. But less than two months after signing the legislation, and two years before the benefit becomes available to seniors, the Department of Health and Human Services revised the number up to $535 billion. According to the Washington Post, "Among a small group of lawmakers who negotiated the bill's final version, 'it was an open secret' that administration officials believed 'there is no way this is $400 billion.'" [New York Times, 1/30/04; Washington Times, 12/8/03; Washington Post, 1/31/04; Boston Globe, 1/30/04; New York Times, 2/2/04]

9. "We will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of...carbon dioxide." [Bush speech, "A Comprehensive National Energy Policy," 9/29/00, Saginaw, MI]
Fact: Bush Overruled Whitman, Broke Campaign Promise to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Emissions

In March 2001, in a letter to Republican Senators, Bush overruled then-E.P.A. Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and backed off a campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, after encountering strong resistance from the coal and oil industries, as well as Republicans. "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act," Bush wrote in his letter. Many conservationists view curbing carbon dioxide emissions, like "greenhouse gases," as a key to reducing global warming. [AP, 3/13/01; Washington Post, 3/14/01; Bush letter to Senator Chuck Hagel, 3/13/01]

Bush on Bush
10. "I'm a uniter, not a divider." [Bush, Austin American-Statesman, 7/30/00]
Fact: No, He's a Divider

The Washington Post reported, "As Bush begins the final year of his term with Tuesday night's State of the Union address, partisans on both sides say the tone of political discourse is as bad as ever -- if not worse." One senior administration official said, Bush could have built "trust and goodwill" by pursuing more broadly appealing initiatives. One former Bush aide said the White House "relished the 'us versus them' thing." [Washington Post, 1/18/04]

After former Ambassador Joseph Wilson publicly challenged Bush's claim that Iraq sought uranium in Africa, his wife--a covert CIA operative--was exposed by columnist Robert Novak. Novak said her identity was given to him by senior administration officials. "A senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife... 'Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,' the senior official said of the alleged leak. Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson's credibility." [Washington Post, 9/28/03]

Bush called on senior White House advisers and the Republican Party leadership to wage attacks against Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. According to the Washington Times, "The White House is escalating its attacks against Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle... [W]ith polls showing the Republican Party is losing some support in its handling of the economy, President Bush last week ordered senior advisers to take the gloves off and sharpen their rhetoric." [Washington Times, 12/7/01]
1. Bush Flip-Flops on Independent 9/11 Commission
Bush Flip: Initially Opposed to Independent 9/11 Commission
Bush opposed an independent inquiry into 9/11, arguing it would duplicate a probe conducted by Congress. In July 2002, his administration issued a "statement of policy" that read "...the Administration would oppose an amendment that would create a new commission to conduct a similar review [to Congress's investigation]." [Statement of Administration Policy, Executive Office of the President, 7/24/02; LA Times, 11/28/02]

Bush Flop: Bush Relented and Appointed Independent Commission
President Bush finally agreed to support an independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks after "the congressional committees unearthed more and more examples of intelligence lapses, the administration reversed its stance." [Los Angeles Times, 11/28/02]

2. Bush Flip-Flops on Independent WMD Commission
Bush Flip: Refuses to Call for Independent Bipartisan Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction
"President Bush said on January 30, 2004, 'I want to know the facts' about any intelligence failures concerning Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of forbidden weapons but he declined to endorse calls for an independent investigation." [AP, 1/30/04]

Bush Flop: Bush Appoints WMD Investigation Commission
President Bush named a nine-member bipartisan commission to investigate U.S. intelligence-gathering capabilities in February 2004. The AP noted, "Bush had initially opposed a commission, but agreed to do so as calls grew from Republican lawmakers as well as Democrats." The Los Angeles Times reported, "The White House opposed that panel initially, then backed down under pressure, and some say administration officials now regret doing so because the administration has become locked in a series of embarrassing battles with the Sept. 11 commission." The New York Times noted Bush "gave the panel until March 2005, well after the November elections, to submit its conclusions." [NY Times, 2/7/04; LA Times, 2/1/04; AP, 2/6/04]

3. Bush Flip-Flops on Time He'll Spend With 9/11 Commission
Bush Flip: Would Meet For Only One Hour With 9/11 Commission
McClellan: Obviously, as part of this, the President will be meeting with the chairman and vice chairman at some point in the near future. We are still working on the exact time of that meeting. We have discussed with the commission what we believe is a reasonable period of time to provide the chairman and vice chairman with answers to all of their questions.
Q: Is that the one-hour time frame?
McClellan: That's what I'm referring to. [WH Press Briefing, 3/9/04]

Bush Flop: White House Says No Time Limit on President's Testimony
"President George W. Bush will privately answer all questions raised by the federal commission investigating the September 11 attacks, the White House said, suggesting that Bush might allow the interview to extend beyond the one-hour limit originally offered to the panel by the White House. 'He's going to answer all the questions they want to raise,' said the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, whose remarks suggested that the White House was softening its negotiating stance toward the bipartisan commission. 'Nobody's watching the clock.'" [WH Press Briefing, 3/9/04; International Herald Tribune, 3/11/04]

4. Bush Flip-Flops On Calling For A U.N. Vote On Iraq War
Bush Flip: U.S. Will Seek U.N. Vote For War With Iraq
Bush: ...yes, we'll call for a vote.
Question: No matter what?
Bush: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam. [Bush News Conference, 3/6/03, emphasis added]

Bush Flop: Bush Attacked Iraq Without U.N. Vote
Bush "failed to win explicit [security] council approval for the use of force" in Iraq. Two days before bombs began to fall in Iraq, the Bush administration withdrew its resolution from the UN Security Council that would have authorized military force. Bush abandoned his call for a vote after it became clear that the US could muster only four votes in support of force. [Washington Post, 3/21/03; Los Angeles Times, 3/18/03]

5. Bush Flip-Flops on Department Of Homeland Security
Bush Flip: Bush Thought Homeland Security Cabinet Position Was "Just Not Necessary"
In October 2001, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush opposed creating Office of Homeland Security position for Ridge. "[T]he president has suggested to members of Congress that they do not need to make this a statutory post, that he [Ridge] does not need Cabinet rank, for example, there does not need to be a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security is because there is such overlap among the various agencies, because every agency of the government has security concerns," Fleischer said. [White House Press Briefing, 10/24/01]

Bush Flop: Bush Decides to Support Homeland Security
The New York Times reported, "Bush initially resisted Democratic proposals for a Cabinet-level agency. But once he endorsed it, the president pushed Congress for fast action as it debated such issues as whistle-blower protections, concerns over civil liberties and collective bargaining for department employees."

In remarks to Homeland Security Department employees, Bush claimed credit for supporting the Department: "In just 12 months, under the leadership of your President...you faced the challenges standing up this new Department and you get a -- and a gold star for a job well done." [New York Times, 2/28/03; Bush Remarks at One-Year Anniversary of DHS, 3/2/04]

6. Bush Flip-Flops on Gay Marriage
Bush Flip: It's Up to the States to Decide
In a 2000 presidential primary debate, candidate George W. Bush said gay marriage was a state's issue, saying, "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Presidential Primary Debate, 2/15/00]

Bush Flop: Bush Supports Constitutional Amendment That Restricts States' Rights
Bush: "If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country." [Bush, 2/24/04]

7. Bush Flip-Flops on Using Military For Nation Building
Bush Flip: Bush Promised Not to Use Military for Nation Building
In a campaign rally in Tennessee, then-Presidential candidate Bush criticized the Clinton administration for using the military in nation-building missions. Bush said, "I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place." [Governor George W. Bush, 11/6/00]

Bush Flop: President Used Military for Nation Building in Afghanistan and Iraq
After the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush met with soldiers stationed in Afghanistan at the White House and thanked them for their nation building efforts. A senior administration official said, "The administration, with its international partners, is doing something akin to nation-building." The plans for a post war Iraq also included nation building measures and, according to the Baltimore Sun, "Secretary of State Colin L. Powell confirmed...that Bush was considering, among other options, installing a U.S.-led occupation government if Hussein's regime is removed." [Baltimore Sun, 10/19/02]

8. Bush Flip-Flops on Hybrid Automobiles
Bush Flip: Bush Mocked Gore's Tax Credit for Hybrid Cars
"'How many of you own hybrid electric gasoline engine vehicles? If you look under there, you'll see that's one of the criteria necessary to receive tax relief. So when he talks about targeted tax relief that's pretty darn targeted,' Bush told the Arlington Heights rally, drawing laughs." [Chicago Sun-Times, 10/29/00]

Bush Flop: Bush Supported Investing in Hybrid Cars
In his State of the Union speech, Bush said, "Tonight I am proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. ... Join me in this important innovation, to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy." [White House, "President Delivers 'State of the Union,'" 1/28/03]

9. Bush Flip-Flops on Assault Weapons Ban
Bush Flip: Bush Supports Extending Assault Weapons Ban
Ashcroft: "It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapons ban, and I will be pleased to move forward with that position." [Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/17/01]

Bush Flop: Bush Opposes Extension of Assault Weapons Ban
"The White House is opposing addition of gun show and assault weapons restrictions to a bill shielding firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits, prompting angry complaints from Democrats that President Bush is reneging on earlier support for the two proposals...In a statement [on February 24, 2004], the White House urged passage of the lawsuits measure without amendments that might delay its enactment. 'Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable,' the statement said. Democrats interpreted this as an effort to undermine support for the gun-control measures. 'For the president to say he is for the assault weapons ban but then act against it is a flip-flop if there ever was one,' said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of several sponsors of the assault weapons proposal in the Senate." [Washington Post, 2/26/04]

10. Bush Flip-Flops on Steel Tariffs
Bush Flip: Bush Imposes Steel Tariffs
"President Bush on [March 5, 2002] slapped punishing tariffs of 8% to 30% on several types of imported steel in an effort to help the ailing U.S. industry, drawing criticism from American allies and mixed reviews at home. 'An integral part of our commitment to free trade is our commitment to enforcing trade laws to make sure that America's industries and workers compete on a level playing field,' Bush said in a statement issued by the White House." [USA Today, 3/5/02]

Bush Flop: Bush Rescinds Steel Tariffs
"Facing a potential global trade war, President Bush on [December 4, 2003] lifted tariffs he imposed on foreign steel 21 months ago, declaring the U.S. steel industry healthy and ready to compete despite the industry's claim that it needs more time to recover." [Chicago Tribune, 12/5/03]

W00t

Very well stated.

Although I don't buy into attacks against politicians for "flip flopping" in a lot of cases. Bills and votes are never as simple as portrayed in politico ads. There are many reasons for changing ones mind, and I would rather have a man in office that is ready to switch positions and admit they were wrong about an issue than someone who sticks to their guns at all costs.

Problem with King George is he NEVER admits he was wrong, even when it is OBVIOUS. He switches position while stating he is NOT switching positions. His reign has been very oppressive and authoritarian, where dissenting opinions are not only ignored, but either forcibly changed, or replaced. We haven't seen this type of gov since Nixon.

I can't wait till the bum is out of office, and yes, it WILL happen. Americans aren't all blind to the damage that has been done in the name of corporate profits (anyone else notice that ALL the big corporations are now republican? While the dems are more of a mainstream movement?). In fact, if the pres vote were to happen today it looke like the dems would take all the states that Gore picked up plus four or five more, resulting in 230 delegate votes to Bush's 130 odd votes. That is a tough thing to overcome with the vote coming in a few months.

Problem for Bush is, not only has he motivated the dems, he has alienated much of his own party by placating his base, the radical right. In fact, the repubs are so scared of losing the radical right (like they would go anywhere) that they are losing the middle. This is a mirror to a similar problem the dems faced not too long ago.

That being said, I am scared of trusting anyone who states that God "talks" to him. It is time for reason of man to reign over the idea that God acts through your leader (so you better damn well vote for him). There was another King George who ruled by "divign right." We kicked his butt out too. Time to kick out this King George who rules by "divine RIGHT."

Because Florida was not an attack on our nation

Pearl and 9/11 was. Thus a president can bring it up, tastefully in the 9/11 case.

Florida was an election disaster and not an attack on the USA. People are tired of hearing about Florida. I haven't heard Bush bringing it up. I did hear Kerry Mention 9/11 tastefully. Only Kerry and the Left of the Democratic party are bringing up florida. Most Conservative and moderate democrats are not. They accepted what happened and moved on.
1) you i say are ignorant or blind, probably the latter. no it wasnt an attack on our nation, but it is a completely relevant topic to bring up with encouraging voter participation

2) i have NOT seen bush bring it up tastefully, the very fact he is using it to further his campaign is not tasteful, i dobut bush can do anything tasteful as his attack campaigns get more and more childish

1) you i say are ignorant or blind, probably the latter. no it wasnt an attack on our nation, but it is a completely relevant topic to bring up with encouraging voter participation

Ok I won't argue here BUT the PEOPLE are tired of hearing about Florida 2000! As stated, the more you bring it up the more the people will revolt against the PARTY that brings it up, in this case-The Democratic Party. There are better ways to get out the Vote.

2) i have NOT seen bush bring it up tastefully, the very fact he is using it to further his campaign is not tasteful, i dobut bush can do anything tasteful as his attack campaigns get more and more childish

I have seen Bush bring it up tastefully. The fact that FDR did the same for Pearl Harbor wasn't tasteful either in your arguement. The fact is that both attacks, taking place 59 years, 9 Months, 4 Days, 0 Hours, 51 minutes Apart, can be used. With 9/11 though, its a touchy subject! There is a tasteful way in bringing it up and Bush and Kerry have BOTH done it!

I have seen Bush bring it up tastefully. The fact that FDR did the same for Pearl Harbor wasn't tasteful either in your arguement. The fact is that both attacks, taking place 59 years, 9 Months, 4 Days, 0 Hours, 51 minutes Apart, can be used. With 9/11 though, its a touchy subject! There is a tasteful way in bringing it up and Bush and Kerry have BOTH done it!
1) i didnt say fdr did it tastefully, and in what way did fdr use it

2) no, i have not seen bush use it tastefully, i have seenn him put it in ads and continuously play on the fear of that to get himself reelected and convince the masses he is right

i like how everyone is going "the terrorist threat is real..but your safe... be afraid!...but not too afraid we are protecting you.!"

I for one believe that we should NEVER FORGET the lessons of Florida 2000. It was a travesty on the American system, no matter WHO would have won. That our presidency was ultimately decided in the court is a disgrace. We should ALL take an active role in making sure this NEVER occurs again.

I encourage you ALL to get involve. Demand paper trails in the new voting machines, and write your representatives insisting on it! I am active in a campaign accross the nation in getting this done, and we have had some success in the matter. Without a paper trail we leave ourselves in dire straights.

Florida continues to have problems. No paper trails have called elections into doubt. Lists banning voters (overwhelmingly minority voters) continue to be SRASTICALLY inaccurate. We MUST insist on voting reform nationwide, and we must do it SOON.

I for one believe that we should NEVER FORGET the lessons of Florida 2000. It was a travesty on the American system, no matter WHO would have won. That our presidency was ultimately decided in the court is a disgrace. We should ALL take an active role in making sure this NEVER occurs again.

I encourage you ALL to get involve. Demand paper trails in the new voting machines, and write your representatives insisting on it! I am active in a campaign accross the nation in getting this done, and we have had some success in the matter. Without a paper trail we leave ourselves in dire straights.

Florida continues to have problems. No paper trails have called elections into doubt. Lists banning voters (overwhelmingly minority voters) continue to be SRASTICALLY inaccurate. We MUST insist on voting reform nationwide, and we must do it SOON.

Because certain minorities (blacks, Hispanics) constitute a large number of ex-cons, resulting in them being banned from voting.

However, it was pathetically stupid how the company in charge ended up banning innocent voters.

Bush should be gotten rid of for many reasons, but I doubt that impeachment is the best way of doing this.

there are no grounds for impeachment.

thats all

Bush should be gotten rid of for many reasons, but I doubt that impeachment is the best way of doing this.
Personally, I'd prefer an interference by GOD who smites him with a lightning bolt or something during one of his dumb speeches, firstly proving that he exists and secondly, ridding the world of Bush the chimp.

George Bush jr. is the perfect example of a bumbling fool being given the power to be a dangerous idiot. The USA will have budget problems for 10 years because bush cant do maths, he possibly cheated in the elections and he basically rules the uk. He has invaded two nations on tenuous grounds (DODGY DOSSIER) and he has made america a laughing stock. Before him america was made fun of because it was the most powerfull nation now it is a source of entertainment because it is led by an idiot
and to anyone who is interested the he is one of 2 people the sacred bunny of doom has deemed unworthy and will be sent to the apocolyptic weasel of unholy retrebution when he dies

Anyone who supports Bush and/or the Republican party is immediately branded as stupid and non-factual. I've presented facts and they deny it.
It was not the pro-war Republicans who were being branded as stupid and non-factual when the validity and reliability of the pre-war intel was being questioned. In fact the 'doubters' were labelled as hippy off the planet left wing fringe loonies. Not to put too finer point on it, but doubters were considered idiots for considering that the intell might be mistaken, now the people who called the doubters idiots for considering the intell might be mistaken are insisting that there is no way the intell was not mistaken......

And before people start screaming he mislead the country, last time I checked, lying isn't a crime. Lying to a grand jury, under oath is a crime.
So lying is not a crime, but lying is a crime? Maybe what you really mean is lying in some circumstances is not a crime, even though it is in others......I certainly hope that is what you meant, because if not, it's past time you checked again.

I believe that it's the governments only purpose to protect me. From outside invaders/terrorists who wish to kill or inslave me. From inside threats that want to kill me or take what I have earned. From people or corperations who wish to cheat me out of what I have earned for myself. I believe that what I earn is mine. It isnt the governments place to take from me, to give to someone else who doesnt want to earn their own place. If they want to earn it, let them.
And what of those who cannot ('earn their place') even if they want to? And what does protecting you mean, does it mean arresting people after the fact, or ensuring a society in which there are very few people who even want to harm you? You say you want a better country, but I see no mention of education, is this by accident, or do you really think that those children whose parents cannot or will not pay for their education should just remain illiterate? If so, may I ask how exactly such children are to 'earn their own place' as adults? As for being responsible for oneself, does that mean if you make a bad decision and people die because of it you are accountable for that, or does it mean you blame others for giving you poor advice? Let me guess, if you are a Democrate named Kerry you are to blame for acting erroneously when given false information, if you are a Republican named Bush (and supplied the wrong info to Kerry) you are not accountable, even though of the two Bush is the one who knew how very marginal the 'evidence' was. Some people have a different name for your notion of individual responsibility, namely hypocrisy.

I believe in laws. If you don like them, change them. But follow them until you do.
I doubt that you do actually believe this. Correct me if I am wrong, and I admit I am being presumptious, but I find it hard to believe you would do anything if the law required it. Example Nazi Germany; would you really have reported the Jewish family hiding in the upstairs attic just because the law required you to?

What happened in Abu-Ghraib was degrading, humiliating, and wrong. But on a level far below what Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam did. It wasnt torture.
Of course it was torture. Jack the ripper is still a murderer even though what he did was on a level far below what Hitler, Stalin or Saddam did. Torture describes a category of acts, not a relative category of acts.

If you continue to bring it up, the American Voters WILL vote for Bush just for Spite!
I never thought I would say this, but if this is true, then clearly democracy is wasted on some people. To think that so many people in the world right now would lay down their lives so their children would have the chance to make a reasoned decision and vote for their leaders accordingly, and yet Americans who have such a rarified luxery vote on the basis of whether or not issues they are bored with get raised by this or that candidate, or the candidate's supporters. I cant believe that people neglect their duty to themselves, thier community, their country, the children of the nation, and the future generations just to 'spite' this or that candidate. I am certain many people living without democracy will be more than happy to swap places with any American who finds being a grown up too hard.

not to mention childish campaigning like playing the flipper theme
So the facts are an electoral candidate who highlights flaws in the democratic process is 'turning off' voters, while someone who 'name calls' the other candidate via a kid's tv theme is 'the right guy to protect us from the terrorists'......that being the case, just vote Bush back in and get it over with, clearly as a nation you just dont know what to do with democracy, so sooner gone, sooner you can figure out a system that doesnt require the participants to act like adults and make reasoned decisions based on the facts rather than some kid's show theme tune. It is damming that Bush and co ever conceived that US citizens would be so banal and stupid as to ever vote for anyone who had ever engaged in such pathetic conduct, but not half as damming as the fact that a lot of you none the less think this guy is a viable option. That someone who would vote for this sideshow calls others naive is just astounding.....

So lying is not a crime, but lying is a crime? Maybe what you really mean is lying in some circumstances is not a crime, even though it is in others......I certainly hope that is what you meant, because if not, it's past time you checked again.

Purjury is lying under oath and is a crime and an impeachable offense. Unless there is hard evidence that he lied Intensionally, then he can't be impeached. I don't think he intentionally lied personally but until part 2 of the SSIC comes out, we won't know.

I never thought I would say this, but if this is true, then clearly democracy is wasted on some people. To think that so many people in the world right now would lay down their lives so their children would have the chance to make a reasoned decision and vote for their leaders accordingly, and yet Americans who have such a rarified luxery vote on the basis of whether or not issues they are bored with get raised by this or that candidate, or the candidate's supporters. I cant believe that people neglect their duty to themselves, thier community, their country, the children of the nation, and the future generations just to 'spite' this or that candidate. I am certain many people living without democracy will be more than happy to swap places with any American who finds being a grown up too hard.

Florida has been beaten to death. Here's a NEWS FLASH! They ran on Florida 2000 and they lost. It didn't get them the US House nor did they win the Senate. They actually lost the Senate. Now its 2 years after that and they are bringing it up again. Well some but not all. People are tired of hearing it. One of two things is going to happen. One, the people wont vote or two, they will vote but because someone is hammering away about Florida 2000, they will vote for someone else. That is how American voters behave. People are the move on crowd here. The only ones baying about Florida 2000: Kerry, Edwards, Sharpton and Gore. If they don't stop it, the people will revolt against them.

If you want examples from both sides undermining the constitution start with the first one to attack it: Abraham Lincoln. The man that did the single most damage to the US constitution itself would be Franklin Delano Rosevelt by implementing all the socialist programs that did nothing but make the depression WORSE--look at the unemployment numbers in the early 30s and compare them to those in 1940 (they're worse in 1940).

Republicans and Democrats alike have been picking away at the constitution for well over a century. Bush certainly didn't start it. He had great examples of how to go about it, though.

Just because Fox news doesn't talk about it anymore means that it has been beaten to death?

So when a crime has been committed and no one ends up finding the crimminal, yet people are still demanding justice, they should just shut up and let it go?

There is ample evidence that there were MAJOR flaws in Florida's election. More to the point, those flaws STILL EXIST. But since you are tired of hearing about it, I just suppose we should shut up and accept the fact that the system is terribly flawed, racist and biased. Oh well, it's just the foundation of our COUNTRY! GET OVER IT!

I am truly saddened by how our country is placated by a series of soundbites. GET INVOLVED. DO YOUR RESEARCH! PROTECT AMERICA!

Oh, news flash folks: Tom Ridge has asked Ashcroft for legal means to STOP the election if he considers the terrorist threat high enough, and Ashcroft has agreed to find the means. If that doesn't scare you, tell me what does.
(I hereby would like to say that in no way am I tryiing to undermine or criticize King George, and there is no reason to pick me up in an unmarked van and hold me prisoner with no rights, including right to representation, as he has done before).

Purjury is lying under oath and is a crime and an impeachable offense. Unless there is hard evidence that he lied Intensionally, then he can't be impeached. I don't think he intentionally lied personally but until part 2 of the SSIC comes out, we won't know.


Evidently, if he doesn't even give deposition under oath (9-11 commission) how can you find impeachable material?

Evidently, if he doesn't even give deposition under oath (9-11 commission) how can you find impeachable material?

Waiting on Phase 2 of the SSIC though I don't think they'll find anything! The 9/11 commission was over something totally different!