NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/the_i_word?mode=PF

Found it on Fark.com written by Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese.

Needless to say it raises the question "Why hasn't this subject come up in political circles yet?"

Needless to say it raises the question "Why hasn't this subject come up in political circles yet?"
It has. Just not in the public political circles...

<insert conspiratorial music and looks here>

Any president can be impeached.

It has come up on this site many times when the war first started. In fact a former nation of mine brought it up many times. Lying to Congress is not only an impeachable offence, it's a federal one! He lied to Congress, that is not a secret anymore. Impeach the bastard I say!

As to why it's not more mainstream? Because the Neo-Cons will defend Bush no matter what he does or for that matter doesn't do, or haven't you noticed?

This president will not be impeached. Impeachment is a political tool. The politicians in power will not impeach Bush.

Was there ever any doubt? Impeachment is not something based off legal merit, its based off of political will. This congress is no more likely to impeach than it is to voluntarily disband.

Needless to say it raises the question "Why hasn't this subject come up in political circles yet?"

It has! (Among the three Democrats left in the Congress) Hahaha... ;)

The politicians in power will not impeach Bush.

Yup, you're correct. He won't be impeached because even though he is guilty of a federal offence (lying to Congress) the Republicans control both houses, so it's never going to happen. On the upside, 2008 isn't too far away in the grand shceme of things.

reading that article made me feel very happy inside. now all i'd like to see is somebody with something that resembles power doing something about it.

There is no chance of it. Too many of us like the President. Its the minority that doesnt like him thats doing all the shrieking. He'll finish his second term.

I'm sure someone in congress could make a motion for Impeachment but it wouldn't pass since the congress is controled by the Republican party. If you can beleive it there actually is a much more valid reason to impeach him, it is difficult to prove that he didn't beleive those things he said about Iraq. Anyway, he isn't doing his job, which is to uphold the law. The Southern boarder of the United States is flooded with millions of illegal immigrants every year but Bush does nothing about it. Don't worry liberals you will have your impeachment after the next terrorist attack is commited by people who sneak into the US through the Mexican border.

george bush could be caught giving osama bin laden a blow job and the republican controlled congress would give it a pass.

it cant be done politically and it shouldnt be done because of the chaos it would cause the country.

It has come up on this site many times when the war first started. In fact a former nation of mine brought it up many times. Lying to Congress is not only an impeachable offence, it's a federal one! He lied to Congress, that is not a secret anymore. Impeach the bastard I say!

Now, now you know this site has no real political sway. :D

I was obviously indicating active and devoted impeachment proceedings being discussed in Washington D.C.


As to why it's not more mainstream? Because the Neo-Cons will defend Bush no matter what he does or for that matter doesn't do, or haven't you noticed?

The Dems are only hunting DeLay and aren't even focusing on Bush as they should. The Repubs will bitch and be in the usual huff about this but the Dems have to stand their ground since the only way they are going to survive this administration healthy is if they grow a backbone. Sorta the reason why I didn't want a deal to be made over the judges because I wanted the neocons outed as the anti-democratic jerks they are by subverting the filibuster with their so-called 'nuclear option'.

I'm counting on you Dean!

You damyankees wouldn't let us separate, you wanted to "preserve the union," and now all you can do is whine when we get into power! What did you expect, the political process would always be so one-sided? You can't have your cake and eat it too!

I find all this Bush-bashing amusing. As ye sow...

Too many of us like the President.

Apparently you don't follow the polls! His popularity rating is at an all time low since he took office. It's lower now then ever after he was appointed to the office in 2000. It's never been lower!

I consider myself a conservative, but the only good thing I can say about the Mr. Bush's presidency is that it's more than half over.
Chants of 'Lame Duck' should begin to reverberate any time now... :D

Apparently you don't follow the polls! His popularity rating is at an all time low since he took office. It's lower now then ever after he was appointed to the office in 2000. It's never been lower!
The only poll that really mattered was in 2004. It was high enough.

Like some other poster stated, any president can be impeached. So what?

For all the intellegence and brilliance on these forums, i sure see alot of brainwashed "Hate bush not the other guy" syndrome crap here.


But look on the bright side, Hillary Clinton will officially be running the US in 2008, instead of running it from the shadows in 1992-2000

Yup, you're correct. He won't be impeached because even though he is guilty of a federal offence (lying to Congress) the Republicans control both houses, so it's never going to happen. On the upside, 2008 isn't too far away in the grand shceme of things.

Which is why I want it to be brought up, and very noisily so by the Dems. I want the public to see just how much their government has been subverted.

Like some other poster stated, any president can be impeached. So what?

Uh, because he did some things that were really bad and more than worthy of impeachment?

george bush could be caught giving osama bin laden a blow job and the republican controlled congress would give it a pass.

it cant be done politically and it shouldnt be done because of the chaos it would cause the country.

He probably wouldn't be impeached, but lynched? Maybe.

Now, if he strangled a baby or two...

For all the intellegence and brilliance on these forums, i sure see alot of brainwashed "Hate bush not the other guy" syndrome crap here.


But look on the bright side, Hillary Clinton will officially be running the US in 2008, instead of running it from the shadows in 1992-2000

Bullshit. America will never elect her as president. She might run, but she'd get her ass handed to her, especially if a moderate republican ran against her.

There's no chance of Bush being impeached, too much of America likes him, and besides, the republicans control the senate and house.

Uh, because he did some things that were really bad and more than worthy of impeachment?
I think y'all got a long way to go to even indict him. Ralph Nader isn't the man that he used to be. I think he's fallen in love with the media and as long as he says stuff that they like, the love affair can continue.

Bullshit. America will never elect her as president. She might run, but she'd get her ass handed to her, especially if a moderate republican ran against her.

There's no chance of Bush being impeached, too much of America likes him, and besides, the republicans control the senate and house.
But the Democratic primary is going to be quite a show. Imagine Dean and Clinton trying to out-liberal each other to get nominated.

Think about it. We republicans control the house, senate, and the court. Do you really think the dems could win?

In the United States impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. At the federal level it can apply only to those who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". The removal of such officers takes place automatically upon conviction.

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it comprises only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and thus is only the first step towards possible removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment


yes any president or politician for that matter can be impeached.
it just requireds said president to commit high crimes or misdemenors because an elected official is not above the law. which is why clinton was impeached when he lied under oath in a court of law which is a felony crime with a possible sentence of up to 5 years in prison.


Xanaz
Lying to Congress is not only an impeachable offence, it's a federal one! He lied to Congress, that is not a secret anymore. Impeach the bastard I say!
and what did he lie to congress about specifically that has you all fired up?

flawed pre-war intelligence he based his statements and speeches on?

i'd like to see you prove it(nobody has yet), as i can and have easily disproven it repeatedly (here and in other forums) with the simple un-altered, un-biased facts and documents, well before the senate panel looking into pre-war intelligence failures issued it's final report(after nearly a year of work).

as for the article listed by the original poster.....it is incredibly biased (especially given the source writers like nader and Kevin Zeese who happens to work for http://democracyrising.us/content/view/52/83/) and bases most of it's claims on statements taken out of context or speculation, again easily disproven.

on the matter of "fixing" evidence not only do we have the bi-patisan panel that looked into these allegations and publically stated (on national live television no less) that there was no evidence that intelligence had been altered to support the case for war but rather a failure of the entire intelligence network (it should be noted the lead democrat on the panel concured with this finding) and ways to fix it. sencondly bob woodwards book-plan of attack actually recorded conversations that mr. woodward sat in on when bush was recieving his intelligence briefings prior to the war. woodward has bush telling CIA chief george tenet clearly and repeatedly not to massage the evidence that saddam has WMDs. the direct quote is: make sure no one stretches to make our case.

there is of course alot more but i don't feel like spending hours digging up more documentation today(i did that yesterday :P )

Think about it. We republicans control the house, senate, and the court. Do you really think the dems could win?

Yes. If Bush's approval ratings stay in the toilet (i.e. if he continues to try and increase government meddling in people's affairs, see: The Schivo Case which tanked his ratings in the first place) it could be percieved as a failure of Republican leadership.

"You had your chance, you messed it up, give the other guys a chance."

There is ample historical precedent.

Yup, you're correct. He won't be impeached because even though he is guilty of a federal offence (lying to Congress) the Republicans control both houses, so it's never going to happen. On the upside, 2008 isn't too far away in the grand shceme of things.
Bull****!!! It was the ****ing CIA's falt! In all the reports on the bad intel they said the Bush and Blare were not to blaim, it was the CIA and British Intelligence who screwed up big time. Bush made the right decition with the information he had.

I think we should send you back in time to live in pre-war iraq. Then you would know what the ****** Saddam was doing to his people. Not only that, we gave him 6 ****ing months to get his weapons out of the country. And congress gave Bush premission to go to war, including the Dems.

If you seriously think that hillary will not run in 2008 you are very very foolish. Why do you think the democratic party pushed mr flip flop in 2004?? They wanted to have the option to be able to use a campaign slogan like "Look what you have had for your second 4 years" and hillary will ride the anti bush, pro other guy ticket to the oval office.

It really is atrocrious that my generation, the college students, have absolutely no concept of electing an official. There was only cursory investigation into the actual issues of the election, instead were swayed by media and entertainment world (most disturbing of all, why should the political opinion of eminem mean more to me than the facts laid out from a non-profit information agency?) to not vote for Kerry, but instead vote for the guy who was not george bush


I cannot remmeber who said it, but they hit it on the head by saying "If as a newly registered voter, you are registered as a democrat or a republican, you should get your head checked"

There is no chance of it. Too many of us like the President. Its the minority that doesnt like him thats doing all the shrieking. He'll finish his second term.

A low 40's% approval rating indicates otherwise. Contrary to what you may believe, the President's approval has been dropping rather steadily over the past few years. THe only reason he won the election was because Kerry was a very weak candidate, who the American people could not relate with at all. Also, have you noticed that he's starting to lose some support with Congressmen? THere's a reason for this: He's losing support with the people. Congressmen have to worry about their careers; when Bush is done, he doesn't anymore. He's set for life. Also remember that the majority of Americans are neither Republican nor Democrat, but actually Moderate. And trust me, people don't like ongoing war. They may be tricked by flashy slogans at first, but they eventually wise up.

However, he won't be impeached. The only way he would would be if he did something remarkably stupid, and the Republican party had to rapidly dissassociate themselves. This probably won't happen. Unless he goes on a genocidal rampage, and decides to use the "Football"(Props to anyone who knows what this is).

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/the_i_word?mode=PF

Found it on Fark.com written by Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese.

Needless to say it raises the question "Why hasn't this subject come up in political circles yet?"

I'm sure if he could really be impeached the liberals would have tried it by now.

Apparently you don't follow the polls! His popularity rating is at an all time low since he took office. It's lower now then ever after he was appointed to the office in 2000. It's never been lower!
This would be because he's being a jackass and not pushing for either his judicial nominees or socsec privatization. This means that the people who voted for him for those reasons are getting pissed.

But look on the bright side, Hillary Clinton will officially be running the US in 2008, instead of running it from the shadows in 1992-2000

Umm.... That's scary... Not a "bright side" thought.

Bull****!!! It was the ****ing CIA's falt! In all the reports on the bad intel they said the Bush and Blare were not to blaim, it was the CIA and British Intelligence who screwed up big time. Bush made the right decition with the information he had.

I think we should send you back in time to live in pre-war iraq. Then you would know what the ****** Saddam was doing to his people. Not only that, we gave him 6 ****ing months to get his weapons out of the country. And congress gave Bush premission to go to war, including the Dems.

Point 1) This is true. The CIA did give bad intel. It happens. Nobody is perfect. However, there does appear that there may have been tampering with the evidence somewhere along the line. Also, there are many cases which indicate staff members of the Executive Branch(Not necessarily the President) did ignore later CIA findings that indicated that Iraq did not have the "vast stockpiles", and thus relaying false information to the President. Now, I can feasibly see Bush going on this information-it's what he had. What amazes me, however, is how quickly he was able to change waht this war was about. First, WMD's. Then Terrorist. Finally "Freedom"(little more than a puppet government installed right now). I highly suspect that a certain commodity which Iraq has high quantities of played a good role in behind-the-scenes reasons for the war.

Point 2) Go back to pre-war Iraq. Saddam's mistreatment of his people had very little to do with why we went to war with Iraq. It was moreso "WMD'S EVERYWHERE! America is in immediate danger!". We now find out that Saddam had no weapons to get rid of anyway, and America was in virtually no danger. Saddam was having enough trouble keeping things under control in his country to worry about America.

Oh, and Kerry is an idiot. Just wanted to say that to point out I'm not a stupid liberal(CENTERIST ALL THE WAY!).

I'm sure if he could really be impeached the liberals would have tried it by now.

There probably has been some stirring. Most "Liberals" however wouldn't support it, as it would be rather suicidal with a Republican agenda on hand(Remember that there are more ways to harm a politician than through official actions). Also, there is no way he would get impeached, even if it were brought officially to the floor. It would get quelled easily by a Republican majority, and by Democrats not wanting to commit political suicide.

This would be because he's being a jackass and not pushing for either his judicial nominees or socsec privatization. This means that the people who voted for him for those reasons are getting pissed.

Actually, the people who voted for him weren't Republican. Most were moderate, and probably disliked Kerry more than they Disliked Bush. Same goes for the otherside, as well. Remember: Most votes belong to the Passionate Center. More than likely, the vast majority of Americans don't support Bush: He was just the lesser of two evils.

There probably has been some stirring. Most "Liberals" however wouldn't support it, as it would be rather suicidal with a Republican agenda on hand(Remember that there are more ways to harm a politician than through official actions). Also, there is no way he would get impeached, even if it were brought officially to the floor. It would get quelled easily by a Republican majority, and by Democrats not wanting to commit political suicide.

Shame on me for not spending the time to read the article, but what exactly is he supposed to be able to be impeached for? Is it that same "he lied about the war" bullshit?

Shame on me for not spending the time to read the article, but what exactly is he supposed to be able to be impeached for? Is it that same "he lied about the war" bullshit?

Basically that's it. He may very well have lied, but there is no evidence which really seems to indicate it. More than likely he was misinformed, both by the CIA and more than likely Executive officials. Like I said, there is evidence of tampering and ignoring of reports. There really should be an invenstigation on the matter. Either way it would turn out(Could very well be that it was all innocent), it would be better for the administration as a whole. Hell, it could very well be that an investigation has been done for all we know actually. Oh well, here's looking to the actual JFK report in 11 years.

A low 40's% approval rating indicates otherwise. Contrary to what you may believe, the President's approval has been dropping rather steadily over the past few years. THe only reason he won the election was because Kerry was a very weak candidate, who the American people could not relate with at all. Also, have you noticed that he's starting to lose some support with Congressmen? THere's a reason for this: He's losing support with the people. Congressmen have to worry about their careers; when Bush is done, he doesn't anymore. He's set for life. Also remember that the majority of Americans are neither Republican nor Democrat, but actually Moderate. And trust me, people don't like ongoing war. They may be tricked by flashy slogans at first, but they eventually wise up.

However, he won't be impeached. The only way he would would be if he did something remarkably stupid, and the Republican party had to rapidly dissassociate themselves. This probably won't happen. Unless he goes on a genocidal rampage, and decides to use the "Football"(Props to anyone who knows what this is).

The football is the briefcase they keep near the President, which has all the nuclear codewords that the top officials have to parrot before a nuclear attack can be launched.

Basically that's it. He may very well have lied, but there is no evidence which really seems to indicate it. More than likely he was misinformed, both by the CIA and more than likely Executive officials. Like I said, there is evidence of tampering and ignoring of reports. There really should be an invenstigation on the matter. Either way it would turn out(Could very well be that it was all innocent), it would be better for the administration as a whole. Hell, it could very well be that an investigation has been done for all we know actually. Oh well, here's looking to the actual JFK report in 11 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4503061.stm

Bush and Blair made the plan to invade Iraq in 2002 and had to fix intelligence to make it legal.

The football is the briefcase they keep near the President, which has all the nuclear codewords that the top officials have to parrot before a nuclear attack can be launched.

... Damn. I have to be a bit more conservative with my props. I'm running out. Good job.

Actually, the people who voted for him weren't Republican. Most were moderate, and probably disliked Kerry more than they Disliked Bush. Same goes for the otherside, as well. Remember: Most votes belong to the Passionate Center. More than likely, the vast majority of Americans don't support Bush: He was just the lesser of two evils.

Also, a lot of Americans most likely voted for Bush because the war was still going on, and changing administrations during a war is not a wise move at all. It's basically like a baseball team getting to the world series and telling their manager "you know, we don't like the way you're doin' things around here". It doesn't work that way. Just another thought.

A low 40's% approval rating indicates otherwise. Contrary to what you may believe, the President's approval has been dropping rather steadily over the past few years. THe only reason he won the election was because Kerry was a very weak candidate, who the American people could not relate with at all. Also, have you noticed that he's starting to lose some support with Congressmen? THere's a reason for this: He's losing support with the people. Congressmen have to worry about their careers; when Bush is done, he doesn't anymore. He's set for life. Also remember that the majority of Americans are neither Republican nor Democrat, but actually Moderate. And trust me, people don't like ongoing war. They may be tricked by flashy slogans at first, but they eventually wise up.

However, he won't be impeached. The only way he would would be if he did something remarkably stupid, and the Republican party had to rapidly dissassociate themselves. This probably won't happen. Unless he goes on a genocidal rampage, and decides to use the "Football"(Props to anyone who knows what this is).

Approval rating polls serve the prupsoes of those that take them. I could go out tommorrow and poll and get whatever percentage I sought. Dont waste your time counting on them. People are now saying Kerry was a weak candidate-in hindsight, of course. He was so wonderful with all his smugness at the time. Certain types have a hard time with reality-that most of us went out and voted for President Bush. And most of us still support him.
President Bush was "set for life" before he ran for President the first time.

Of course he wont be impeached. And I dont even think the football would ever be close to coming into play, unless China decided to do something stupid. And I doubt they would consider anything as long as President Bush is in office.
As soon as Hillary takes office, the red chinese will be sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4503061.stm

Bush and Blair made the plan to invade Iraq in 2002 and had to fix intelligence to make it legal.

The problem with that article is that it doesn't say a motive for a Bush/ Blair invasion. Were they planning it a while before the invasion? Of course. But it doesn't say their motive.

In the United States impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. At the federal level it can apply only to those who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". The removal of such officers takes place automatically upon conviction.

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it comprises only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and thus is only the first step towards possible removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment


yes any president or politician for that matter can be impeached.
it just requireds said president to commit high crimes or misdemenors because an elected official is not above the law. which is why clinton was impeached when he lied under oath in a court of law which is a felony crime with a possible sentence of up to 5 years in prison.


Xanaz

and what did he lie to congress about specifically that has you all fired up?

flawed pre-war intelligence he based his statements and speeches on?

i'd like to see you prove it(nobody has yet), as i can and have easily disproven it repeatedly (here and in other forums) with the simple un-altered, un-biased facts and documents, well before the senate panel looking into pre-war intelligence failures issued it's final report(after nearly a year of work).

as for the article listed by the original poster.....it is incredibly biased (especially given the source writers like nader and Kevin Zeese who happens to work for http://democracyrising.us/content/view/52/83/) and bases most of it's claims on statements taken out of context or speculation, again easily disproven.

on the matter of "fixing" evidence not only do we have the bi-patisan panel that looked into these allegations and publically stated (on national live television no less) that there was no evidence that intelligence had been altered to support the case for war but rather a failure of the entire intelligence network (it should be noted the lead democrat on the panel concured with this finding) and ways to fix it. sencondly bob woodwards book-plan of attack actually recorded conversations that mr. woodward sat in on when bush was recieving his intelligence briefings prior to the war. woodward has bush telling CIA chief george tenet clearly and repeatedly not to massage the evidence that saddam has WMDs. the direct quote is:

there is of course alot more but i don't feel like spending hours digging up more documentation today(i did that yesterday :P )
The secret Downing Street memo


SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING From: Matthew RycroftDate: 23 July 2002S 195 /02cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair CampbellIRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULYCopy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq. This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents. John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August. The two broad US options were:(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.


The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.


(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT

Enjoy your new found burden, trade it for your ignorance. And stay out of politics, you're only making things worse.

Shame on me for not spending the time to read the article, but what exactly is he supposed to be able to be impeached for? Is it that same "he lied about the war" bullshit?
Read my post and start paying attention, methinks.

Oh, for fun ....

US al-Qaeda warning revealed
From correspondents in Washington
11feb05

EIGHT months before the September 11 attacks the White House's then counterterrorism adviser urged then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to hold a high-level meeting on the al-Qaeda network, according to a memo made public today.

"We urgently need such a principals-level review on the al-Qaeda network," then White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke wrote in the January 25, 2001 memo.

Mr Clarke, who left the White House in 2003, made headlines in the heat of the US presidential campaign last year when he accused the Bush White House of having ignored al-Qaeda's threats before September 11.

Mr Clarke testified before inquiry panels and in a book that Rice, his boss at the time, had been warned of the threat. Rice is now US Secretary of State.

However, Ms Rice wrote in a March 22, 2004 column in The Washington Post that "No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration".


Mr Clarke told a commission looking into intelligence shortcomings prior to the attacks, "There's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options - but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were all done, but they were done after September 11."

The document was released by the National Security Archive, an independent US group that solicits government documents for public review.

Another document released by the archive said that from April to September 2001, the US Federal Aviation Administration received 52 intelligence reports on al-Qaeda, including five that mentioned hijackings and two that mentioned suicide operations, according to today's New York Times.

The Times quoted a previously undisclosed report by a commission set up to investigate the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

The report criticises the FAA for failing to strengthen security measures in light of the reports and describes as "striking" the false sense of security that appeared to predominate in the civil aviation system before the attacks, the paper said.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/co...255E401,00.html

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ek/memo59ma.jpg

The problem with that article is that it doesn't say a motive for a Bush/ Blair invasion. Were they planning it a while before the invasion? Of course. But it doesn't say their motive.

I think the lie is more important than the reasons behind the lie.

The result of that lie is a situation that made things much worse than they could have been and no one knows how it can be fixed. It made the world a more dangerous place and only made the US and other nations more vulnerable to terrorism.

EDIT

Of course this is may not count if the lie is a harmless or 'white' lie. I don't think that applies.

New Details on F.B.I. Aid for Saudis after 9/11
By Eric Lichtblau
The New York Times
Sunday 27 March 2005
Washington - The episode has been retold so many times in the last three and a half years that it has become the stuff of political legend: in the frenzied days after Sept. 11, 2001, when some flights were still grounded, dozens of well-connected Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, managed to leave the United States on specially chartered flights.
Now, newly released government records show previously undisclosed flights from Las Vegas and elsewhere and point to a more active role by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in aiding some of the Saudis in their departure.
The F.B.I. gave personal airport escorts to two prominent Saudi families who fled the United States, and several other Saudis were allowed to leave the country without first being interviewed, the documents show.
The Saudi families, in Los Angeles and Orlando, requested the F.B.I. escorts because they said they were concerned for their safety in the wake of the attacks, and the F.B.I. - which was then beginning the biggest criminal investigation in its history - arranged to have agents escort them to their local airports, the documents show.
But F.B.I. officials reacted angrily, both internally and publicly, to the suggestion that any Saudis had received preferential treatment in leaving the country.
"I say baloney to any inference we red-carpeted any of this entourage," an F.B.I. official said in a 2003 internal note. Another F.B.I. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said this week regarding the airport escorts that "we'd do that for anybody if they felt they were threatened - we wouldn't characterize that as special treatment."
The documents were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice Department by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, which provided copies to The New York Times.
The material sheds new light on the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and it provides details about the F.B.I.'s interaction with at least 160 Saudis who were living in or visiting the United States and were allowed to leave the country. Some of the departing Saudis were related to Osama bin Laden.
The Saudis' chartered flights, arranged in the days after the attacks when many flights in the United States were still grounded, have proved frequent fodder for critics of the Bush administration who accuse it of coddling the Saudis. The debate was heightened by the filmmaker Michael Moore, who scrutinized the issue in "Fahrenheit 9/11," but White House officials have adamantly denied any special treatment for the Saudis, calling such charges irresponsible and politically motivated.
The Sept. 11 commission examined the Saudi flights in its final report last year, and it found that no Saudis had been allowed to leave before national airspace was reopened on Sept. 13, 2001; that there was no evidence of "political intervention" by the White House; and that the F.B.I. had done a "satisfactory screening" of the departing Saudis to ensure they did not have information relevant to the attacks.
The documents obtained by Judicial Watch, with major passages heavily deleted, do not appear to contradict directly any of those central findings, but they raise some new questions about the episode.
The F.B.I. records show, for instance, that prominent Saudi citizens left the United States on several flights that had not been previously disclosed in public accounts, including a chartered flight from Providence, R.I., on Sept. 14, 2001, that included at least one member of the Saudi royal family, and three flights from Las Vegas between Sept. 19 and Sept. 24, also carrying members of the Saudi royal family. The government began reopening airspace on Sept. 13, but many flights remained grounded for days afterward.
The three Las Vegas flights, with a total of more than 100 passengers, ferried members of the Saudi royal family and staff members who had been staying at Caesar's Palace and the Four Seasons hotels. The group had tried unsuccessfully to charter flights back to Saudi Arabia between Sept. 13 and Sept. 17 because they said they feared for their safety as a result of the Sept. 11 attacks, the F.B.I. documents say.
Once the group managed to arrange chartered flights out of the country, an unidentified prince in the Las Vegas group "thanked the F.B.I. for their assistance," according to one internal report. The F.B.I. had interviewed many members of the group and searched their planes before allowing them to leave, but it nonetheless went back to the Las Vegas hotels with subpoenas five days after the initial flight had departed to collect further information on the Saudi royal guests, the documents show.
In several other cases, Saudi travelers were not interviewed before departing the country, and F.B.I. officials sought to determine how what seemed to be lapses had occurred, the documents show.
The F.B.I. documents left open the possibility that some departing Saudis had information relevant to the Sept. 11 investigation.
"Although the F.B.I. took all possible steps to prevent any individuals who were involved in or had knowledge of the 9/11/2001 attacks from leaving the U.S. before they could be interviewed," a 2003 memo said, "it is not possible to state conclusively that no such individuals left the U.S. without F.B.I. knowledge."
The documents also show that F.B.I. officials were clearly riled by public speculation stirred by news media accounts of the Saudi flights. They were particularly bothered by a lengthy article in the October 2003 issue of Vanity Fair, which included charges that the bureau considered unfair and led to an internal F.B.I. investigation that the agency named "Vanitybom." Internal F.B.I. correspondence during the review was addressed to "fellow Vanitybom victims."
Critics said the newly released documents left them with more questions than answers.
"From these documents, these look like they were courtesy chats, without the time that would have been needed for thorough debriefings," said Christopher J. Farrell, who is director of investigations for Judicial Watch and a former counterintelligence interrogator for the Army. "It seems as if the F.B.I. was more interested in achieving diplomatic success than investigative success."
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, called for further investigation.
"This lends credence to the theory that the administration was not coming fully clean about their involvement with the Saudis," he said, "and we still haven't gotten to the bottom of this whole affair."

Also, a lot of Americans most likely voted for Bush because the war was still going on, and changing administrations during a war is not a wise move at all. It's basically like a baseball team getting to the world series and telling their manager "you know, we don't like the way you're doin' things around here". It doesn't work that way. Just another thought.

Scary. If this is true then all a pres has to do to stay in power is start a major neverending war. Wonder if the 'War on Terror' counts. :confused:

*ueber snip*



Go back and make those posts into pretty paragraphs or no cookies for you.

*takes some Advil*

Approval rating polls serve the prupsoes of those that take them. I could go out tommorrow and poll and get whatever percentage I sought. Dont waste your time counting on them. People are now saying Kerry was a weak candidate-in hindsight, of course. He was so wonderful with all his smugness at the time. Certain types have a hard time with reality-that most of us went out and voted for President Bush. And most of us still support him.
President Bush was "set for life" before he ran for President the first time.

Of course he wont be impeached. And I dont even think the football would ever be close to coming into play, unless China decided to do something stupid. And I doubt they would consider anything as long as President Bush is in office.
As soon as Hillary takes office, the red chinese will be sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House again.

Alot of the people whom I have talked to dont' support Bush, alot haven't, and a great deal just don't give a damn. I highly doubt most of America supports Bush. Remember that most people are moderate. Saying that most people support Bush is like saying that more people supported Clinton. Frankly, the only reason why a certain President gets elected over another these days is that the other one is just plain bad . You don't need to support a President to vote for them, you just need to like the other candidate less. The fact, most people probably disliked Kerry more than they disliked Bush. Bush was the easier candidate to relate to, and more importantly, he was the incumbant(which plays a large role in any election. You need to be a complete idiot to lose when you are the incumbant).

Also, I wasn't saying Bush WOULD put the 'Ball into play. I was giving a possible reason for impeachment(Wantonly nuking random nations would be a good reason). I never meant to indicate that Bush would do it. And why the China hate? Relations with China are pretty damn good these days, and hopefully will only get better. They are hardly our enemies, like we thought in the past. I doubt they would do something stupid like push the little red button.

North Korea, on the other hand, is a different story. If things get worse(I.E. if Kim gets to be more of an idiot than he is now, which is highly impossible), it may become such a shithole, for lack of better words, that hell, it can't get much worse, and Kim may decide to nuke something. Of course, this probably wouldn't happen until either A)NK is put into rebellion, thus Kim has nothing left to lose, or B)Kim is dying and has nothing else to lose, or C)Kim goes bloody loopy, and feels it's "time".

You do realize that by the second sentence of this "article" it is wrong. Former President Clinton was never impeached as the article claims. There was an impeachment trial, but he was not impeached. Furthermore, though President Bush did bring evidence that was later proven to be false you can't really consider that to be lying. He thoguht the information he had was truth. Had he willfully presented evidence that he knew to be false, then by all means impeach him. I am not a fan of Pres. Bush's actions, but please do some research. And though I would never impose on freedom of the press, idiots should not be allowed to write.

As much as I dislike Bush, my biggest concern about impeaching him & removing him from office can be summed up in two words: Dick Cheney. (A most appropriate first name if I ever saw one.) :headbang:

What I want to know is why Europeans think they have a right to question our presidents motives. They aren't American, and it's not like we have a plan to go to war with your the EU, so they should keep their big fat noses our of American buisness.

Alot of the people whom I have talked to dont' support Bush, alot haven't, and a great deal just don't give a damn. I highly doubt most of America supports Bush. Remember that most people are moderate. Saying that most people support Bush is like saying that more people supported Clinton. Frankly, the only reason why a certain President gets elected over another these days is that the other one is just plain bad . You don't need to support a President to vote for them, you just need to like the other candidate less. The fact, most people probably disliked Kerry more than they disliked Bush. Bush was the easier candidate to relate to, and more importantly, he was the incumbant(which plays a large role in any election. You need to be a complete idiot to lose when you are the incumbant).

Also, I wasn't saying Bush WOULD put the 'Ball into play. I was giving a possible reason for impeachment(Wantonly nuking random nations would be a good reason). I never meant to indicate that Bush would do it. And why the China hate? Relations with China are pretty damn good these days, and hopefully will only get better. They are hardly our enemies, like we thought in the past. I doubt they would do something stupid like push the little red button.

North Korea, on the other hand, is a different story. If things get worse(I.E. if Kim gets to be more of an idiot than he is now, which is highly impossible), it may become such a shithole, for lack of better words, that hell, it can't get much worse, and Kim may decide to nuke something. Of course, this probably wouldn't happen until either A)NK is put into rebellion, thus Kim has nothing left to lose, or B)Kim is dying and has nothing else to lose, or C)Kim goes bloody loopy, and feels it's "time".


Theres no China hate at all. They are likely the only ones with nukes we we fight with nukes. I pray the day never comes, of course.
Even if North korea used its nukes, I dont think we would retaliate in kind. They dont have an arsenal capable of assuring our destruction. China does though. We mutually assure each other's destruction.

I hope that our trade with China is more a deterrent, however.

You do realize that by the second sentence of this "article" it is wrong. Former President Clinton was never impeached as the article claims. There was an impeachment trial, but he was not impeached.

No it isn't. He was impeached. If an impeachment trial is held for any elected official, he/she is "impeached". Doesn't matter on the verdict, or even if the trial lasts.

I think the lie is more important than the reasons behind the lie.

The result of that lie is a situation that made things much worse than they could have been and no one knows how it can be fixed. It made the world a more dangerous place and only made the US and other nations more vulnerable to terrorism.

EDIT

Of course this is may not count if the lie is a harmless or 'white' lie. I don't think that applies.

I don't think so. THere haven't been any terrorist attacks on the U.S. since September 11th. The middle east is changing, for the better. Is it more dangerous? Right now it might be. But when it settles down, I believe most countries in the middle east will be some form of a democracy. Look at Iraq. Saudi Arabia is holding elections. Lebanon is pushing for a democracy free of Syria. Egypt is holding elections. Is it worth a few thousand deaths in the process? Probably, because it will save quite a few more deaths than that. Bush didn't lie. Was he looking for a reason for the war, to bring Saddam down? Probably. The CIA gave him bad intel. They get most of the blame. The only thing I blame Bush for is having enough balls to want to change the way things are done in the middle east.

This president will not be impeached. Impeachment is a political tool. The politicians in power will not impeach Bush.

Was there ever any doubt? Impeachment is not something based off legal merit, its based off of political will. This congress is no more likely to impeach than it is to voluntarily disband.
I see, a President can be impeached for a "blowjob", but not a "snowjob"?

This boggles the mind. :eek:

Think about it. We republicans control the house, senate, and the court. Do you really think the dems could win?
The good old "checks and balances" of a truly democratic country? Sheesh!!

Clinton was not impeached, there was the trial and everything. Alot worse things would have happened if he was impeached.

Clinton was censured, which is pretty much a slap on the wrist for a second term president...

Bull****!!! It was the ****ing CIA's falt! In all the reports on the bad intel they said the Bush and Blare were not to blaim, it was the CIA and British Intelligence who screwed up big time. Bush made the right decition with the information he had.

I think we should send you back in time to live in pre-war iraq. Then you would know what the ****** Saddam was doing to his people. Not only that, we gave him 6 ****ing months to get his weapons out of the country. And congress gave Bush premission to go to war, including the Dems.
Ummmm but the UN inspectors were NOT finding ANY WMD while they were there. Why didn't Bush give the inspectors more time to find NOTHING?

Do you know why Bush wouldn't give the inspectors more time? Because Bush knew that the inspectors were going to find NOTHING, and that would ruin his plan to invade Iraq.

[url]
Needless to say it raises the question "Why hasn't this subject come up in political circles yet?"
it would have if there were any evidence

Making a statement based off of misinformation is not legally a lie, if the statement was made in good faith. No way he's gonna get impeached anyway.

We know saddam had WMDs cause we sold it to him in the early-mid 80's.


Sad thing about our common citizen is they only see iraq from circa 2000 instead of iraq 1980. If you look at everything that has happened in that country from 1980 instead of 2000 you would see things drastically different

I thought the issue of WMDs and Iraq was dealt with already?

I'm really getting a bit bored of the "Bush was lying there" cryers. I mean, hello... he had to rely on what the CIA told him. Period. So the CIA made another cluster fuck. What else is new. People should be used to that already.

'Sides, he's a politician, they all lie.

Scary. If this is true then all a pres has to do to stay in power is start a major neverending war. Wonder if the 'War on Terror' counts. :confused:
I wonder if the "War on the Seperatists" counts.
*shudder*

I thought the issue of WMDs and Iraq was dealt with already?

I'm really getting a bit bored of the "Bush was lying there" cryers. I mean, hello... he had to rely on what the CIA told him. Period. So the CIA made another cluster fuck. What else is new. People should be used to that already.

'Sides, he's a politician, they all lie.
Get bored. It's a sign of an idle intellect. Try reading a little further on this thread. Or if you like, punch a few others up. It would appear you put your period in the wrong place.

I don't think so. THere haven't been any terrorist attacks on the U.S. since September 11th. The middle east is changing, for the better. Is it more dangerous? Right now it might be. But when it settles down, I believe most countries in the middle east will be some form of a democracy. Look at Iraq. Saudi Arabia is holding elections. Lebanon is pushing for a democracy free of Syria. Egypt is holding elections. Is it worth a few thousand deaths in the process? Probably, because it will save quite a few more deaths than that. Bush didn't lie. Was he looking for a reason for the war, to bring Saddam down? Probably. The CIA gave him bad intel. They get most of the blame. The only thing I blame Bush for is having enough balls to want to change the way things are done in the middle east.

You do realize that the US's action in Iraq had no influence on the changes in the other countries. They were all the result of either years of campaigning by reformers, outrage over an assassination and Arafat's natural death. Bush contributed nothing.

Anyway, the massive amount of training the terrorists are getting in Iraq does not bode well for us or the Middle East.

Go back and make those posts into pretty paragraphs or no cookies for you.

*takes some Advil*
YOU actually want me to DUMB it down?
I don't think i'm the right guy for that kind of procedure. At least, not at the moment.

I don't think so. THere haven't been any terrorist attacks on the U.S. since September 11th. The middle east is changing, for the better. Is it more dangerous? Right now it might be. But when it settles down, I believe most countries in the middle east will be some form of a democracy. Look at Iraq. Saudi Arabia is holding elections. Lebanon is pushing for a democracy free of Syria. Egypt is holding elections. Is it worth a few thousand deaths in the process? Probably, because it will save quite a few more deaths than that. Bush didn't lie. Was he looking for a reason for the war, to bring Saddam down? Probably. The CIA gave him bad intel. They get most of the blame. The only thing I blame Bush for is having enough balls to want to change the way things are done in the middle east.
Anthrax in the mail
<IS>
or
<IS NOT>
a domestic terror attack?
*poke*

I stopped reading because the second sentence is a conspiracy theory.

taking the nation into a justified war is not an impeachable offense.

Proving once again why the Democrats are so desperate to court the 18-year-old vote. Only 18-year-olds are stupid enough to buy into this and the rest of the media's Bush-bashing tripe.
How utterly hilarious that folks howl for Bush' blood at the merest hint he lied to Congress (he is not required, and indeed is often not allowed, to give Congress in open sessionall the facts in matters of national security). But when Clinton LIED UNDER OATH TO A GRAND JURY, oh well, hey, that was okay because "they were just out to get him".
I laugh, read history and laugh some more.
Goesingthall

Just becuase i want everyone to have the same scary thought that i have everytime i hear about a death in the military. Enlistment is down in all branchs, troops are dieing by the hundreds every month. Now most of you are thinking so what its war thats what happens, well guess what draft happens to. If this war doesn't end or turn around and enlistment in the armed forces goes up the U.S. will be forced to enact another draft like it or not. Now i'm not sure about the rest of the 18-25?(not sure on the top end cut out) Men in this county but i know Canada will be my new home if it is enacted. Also Bush should not be impeached, I'm a Liberal saying this, there is no point right now were in up to our necks and i would perfer the U.S. find out how much it screwed up by electing Bush even once. But if you all want to really know why Bush is pushing his agenda and judges, his goal right now is to discreidit the Dems and make it look like they can get nothing done.

taking the nation into a justified war is not an impeachable offense.

:confused: I thought you were anti-Bush/ anti-war?

YOU actually want me to DUMB it down?
I don't think i'm the right guy for that kind of procedure. At least, not at the moment.

No sir. I just wanted it formatted. Reading it hurt my eyes. hence the Advil :)

taking the nation into a justified war is not an impeachable offense.

Where was the justified part in Iraq?

Where was the justified part in Iraq?

You'd rather give Iraq back to Saddam? Let him murder thousands upon thousands of civilians for simply being opposed to his views? K. We'll see how far that one goes.

:confused: I thought you were anti-Bush/ anti-war?
???????

I oppose unjust wars.
Vietnam and Serbia both were unjust wars.
The current one, to be honest, I am not comfortable giving my real opinion due to appearance of conflict of interest.
That and that I might end up going over there this year. So I have no comment on the current war except to say that I support Bush.

???????

I oppose unjust wars.
Vietnam and Serbia both were unjust wars.
The current one, to be honest, I am not comfortable giving my real opinion due to appearance of conflict of interest.
That and that I might end up going over there this year. So I have no comment on the current war except to say that I support Bush.

Touche. You've gained my instant respect. A wise, wise decision. :p

You'd rather give Iraq back to Saddam? Let him murder thousands upon thousands of civilians for simply being opposed to his views? K. We'll see how far that one goes.
So, how many thousands of Iraqis civilians have died because Bush was opposed to Saddam's views?

Proving once again why the Democrats are so desperate to court the 18-year-old vote. Only 18-year-olds are stupid enough to buy into this and the rest of the media's Bush-bashing tripe.
How utterly hilarious that folks howl for Bush' blood at the merest hint he lied to Congress (he is not required, and indeed is often not allowed, to give Congress in open sessionall the facts in matters of national security). But when Clinton LIED UNDER OATH TO A GRAND JURY, oh well, hey, that was okay because "they were just out to get him".
I laugh, read history and laugh some more.
Goesingthall
OMG!! "Clinton LIED UNDER OATH TO A GRAND JURY" didn't cost anyone their lives, but Bush's lies have resulted in how many US soldiers deaths, and how many innocent Iraqi citizens deaths?

So you find history amusing huh? :(

So, how many thousands of Iraqis civilians have died because Bush was opposed to Saddam's views?

Much less than Saddam killed. So you, too, wish to give power back to him?


What about the basic rights that Iraq now has because Saddam is out? What about their freedom to vote? What about their rights? Is that not worth it? Would you rather have Saddam back in power, killing left and right, stripping away their rights?

Much less than Saddam killed. So you, too, wish to give power back to him?
It is a bit late to give Iraq back to Saddam. BTW, don't forget that the US backed Saddam from 1983 to 1991.

What about the basic rights that Iraq now has because Saddam is out?
What basic rights? The US still occupy the country and plan to stay there for quite some time.

What about their freedom to vote?
The freedom to vote in elections while the country is in utter turmoil.....brilliant.

What about their rights?
Again, what rights?

Is that not worth it?
No it was not and the majority of the world doesn't think so either.

Would you rather have Saddam back in power, killing left and right, stripping away their rights?
Saddam hasn't been killing left and right since the Gulf War ended. again, I remind you of US assistance to keep Saddam in power in the 80's.

It is a bit late to give Iraq back to Saddam. BTW, don't forget that the US backed Saddam from 1983 to 1991.


What basic rights? The US still occupy the country and plan to stay there for quite some time.


The freedom to vote in elections while the country is in utter turmoil.....brilliant.


Again, what rights?


No it was not and the majority of the world doesn't think so either.


Saddam hasn't been killing left and right since the Gulf War ended. again, I remind you of US assistance to keep Saddam in power in the 80's.

1. So you are saying Saddam should have been left in power. Do you hate Bush that much that you would sentence millions of people to continue suffering under a brutal tyrant?

2. Try the right to vote, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. oh wait, you are basically saying that since the Iraqi nation is in "turmoil" the Iraqi people don't have rights.

3. Just because a nation is under occupation does not mean its people have no rights and it certainly does not mean that their votes are illigitimate. 90% of the Iraqi people turned out in January and voted. You seem to be saying that because they grateful to Bush for freeing them and are not really opposed to the US occupation they have no rights and their votes are illigitimate.

4. What matters is what the people of Iraq think. It's their country not ours.
It don't matter what the world or even Americans think.

5. Saddam has continued his mass killings since Gulf War 1. You just haven't been paying attention.

6. What happened under former Presidents in the 80's has no bearing on the current President's policies. Bush is not Reagan. Bush never supported Saddam.

1. So you are saying Saddam should have been left in power. Do you hate Bush that much that you would sentence millions of people to continue suffering under a brutal tyrant?
No I say that the US should have allowed the UN inspectors to finish their job, then the US could have asked for the UN sanctions against Iraq to be lifted.

2. Try the right to vote, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. oh wait, you are basically saying that since the Iraqi nation is in "turmoil" the Iraqi people don't have rights.
Ummm, as I recall, the US clamped down on most news outlets in Iraq.

The Iraqis voted in an election that was based on a US timetable.

The voters basically had little or no knowledge of who they were electing (many candidates did not declare themselves for risk of being murdered).

The US is building 14 "enduring bases" in Iraq, and have hijacked the Iraqi economy through Bremer's Orders.

3. Just because a nation is under occupation does not mean its people have no rights and it certainly does not mean that their votes are illigitimate.
There was some concerns regarding some voters being bribed....afraid that if they didn't vote, they wouldn't get their food rations.

US soldiers stationed at polling booths, which is highly condusive to "free" elections.

Approximately 20% of the populace (Sunnis) didn't vote because they could see the elections as fraudulent.

90% of the Iraqi people turned out in January and voted.
That is absolutely not true. I do believe that the number was around 60%.

You seem to be saying that because they grateful to Bush for freeing them and are not really opposed to the US occupation they have no rights and their votes are illigitimate.
Who says they are grateful to Bush for "freeing" them?

The Iraqis ARE really opposed to the US occupation.

4. What matters is what the people of Iraq think. It's their country not ours.
Yes and that is why the US should not have invaded in the first place.

It don't matter what the world or even Americans think.
It matters what the world thinks, especially the other Arabs who have even more reasons to hate the US and Bush

5. Saddam has continued his mass killings since Gulf War 1. You just haven't been paying attention.
Could you reference this proof please?

6. What happened under former Presidents in the 80's has no bearing on the current President's policies. Bush is not Reagan. Bush never supported Saddam.
Ding...Ding!! No relation...come on now. Bush's father supported Saddam as Reagan's Vice President. Reagan and senior Bush helped Saddam immensely. Saddam almost took out George's dad with a missle. No relation??????

What basic rights? The US still occupy the country and plan to stay there for quite some time.


The freedom to vote in elections while the country is in utter turmoil.....brilliant.



No it was not and the majority of the world doesn't think so either.
To wit, what's Ahmed Chalabi up to at this moment? Deputy Prime Minister.

Also, not only the majority of the world, but in this past 2 weeks, the majority of polled U.S. citizens. Finally.
*bows to CanuchHeaven*

No I say that the US should have allowed the UN inspectors to finish their job, then the US could have asked for the UN sanctions against Iraq to be lifted.
I seem to bring up Charles Duelfer a few times, maybe i shouldn't ... many inspectors have publicly refuted the Bush Admin's charges and pointed out they couldn't even finish their jobs.



The voters basically had little or no knowledge of who they were electing (many candidates did not declare themselves for risk of being murdered).

The US is building 14 "enduring bases" in Iraq, and have hijacked the Iraqi economy through Bremer's Orders.
And the rub here is Bremer and some of his staff personally shuttled only the candidate(s) they were interested in success for said "elections" - everyone else was either at risk of homicide or public anonymity.

all this stuff about "let the inspectors do their jobs" you guys keep bringing up as if it was Bush who refused to let them do their job.

You forget that it was Saddam who kicked the inspectors out, refused to let them back in and the whole time they were there, refused to let them do their job.
Bush told Saddam to let the inspectors back in. That was part of the reason Gulf War II. Saddam refused even when faced with censor by the United Nations Security Council

You focus only on WMD's and unreliable and biased information that Bush had at the time. You ignore the fact that Saddam was giving everyone the middle finger when it came to inspectors.
The reason the inspectors could not confirm WMD's was because Saddam blocked them from inspecting the sites they said they needed to look at.
And since Saddam kicked the inspectors out, US intell was outdated. What we had was based on what we knew in 1991. Our intell was only updated by what we were able to get from the head of the inspectors. But since Saddam blocked virtually all inspections and eventually kicked them all out, its not a surprise that Bush used faulty intell and that UN inspectors are saying they could not confirm the presence of WMD's.

The fact Saddam was refusing to let the inspectors back in was the original reason for Bush's confrontation with Saddam. That was the real reason for the war. But Saddam tried to stonewall the UN and the world.
Even the French and Russia told Saddam that he had to agree to let inspectors back in or they would not be able to block a US invasion.
And they were right. There was no resolution condemning or banning Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Everytime there appeared there would be a break through, Saddam Hussien over and over stonewalled the international community.
Bush, through his great wisdom, knew that Saddam would continue to stonewall and block inspectors as long as he remained in power. That is why on the eve of the war he went before the world, and giving his reasons, said that Saddam Hussien and both his sons had 24 hours to leave Iraq or face an invasion by US led coalition forces.
Saddam didn't believe, rather gave the middle finger and the rest we know is history. Saddam now sits in a prison facing trial for crimes against humanity.

So no, you are wrong. It was not Bush who blocked inspectors. It was not Bush who refused to give inspectors a chance. It was Saddam Hussien, the brutal genocidal maniac you Bush haters are saying we should have left in power.

all this stuff about "let the inspectors do their jobs" you guys keep bringing up as if it was Bush who refused to let them do their job.
For one, i'll mention it again since you aren't paying attention, OBVIOUSLY, some of the INSPECTORS THEMSELVES have made PUBLIC STATEMENTS about how the ADMINISTRATION, NOT SADDAM were the culprits in disallowing them to finish their job. Why don't you educate yourself on that subject somewhat?

You focus only on WMD's and unreliable and biased information that Bush had at the time. You ignore the fact that Saddam was giving everyone the middle finger when it came to inspectors.
You obviously haven't made the huge jump of connecting the dots between why there was even an Oil-for-Food scandal in the first place. Do you know what a sanction is?
The reason the inspectors could not confirm WMD's was because Saddam blocked them from inspecting the sites they said they needed to look at.
And since Saddam kicked the inspectors out, US intell was outdated. What we had was based on what we knew in 1991. Our intell was only updated by what we were able to get from the head of the inspectors. But since Saddam blocked virtually all inspections and eventually kicked them all out, its not a surprise that Bush used faulty intell and that UN inspectors are saying they could not confirm the presence of WMD's. Ah yes, see above reply to similar misconception. Okay, so after we fought them we just left them alone? Hmmm? I don't think you know what your'e talking about.

The fact Saddam was refusing to let the inspectors back in was the original reason for Bush's confrontation with Saddam. That was the real reason for the war. But Saddam tried to stonewall the UN and the world.
Again, i say read my last response, and this one, carefully:

The secret Downing Street memo



SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY



DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.



The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.




(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT




Bush, through his great wisdom
An interesting attempt at making me puke. His great wisdom and strategery.
*retch*
And so you aren't missing the point of that earlier post of Rycroft -

The newly disclosed memo, which was first reported by the Sunday Times of London, hasn't been disavowed by the British government. The British Embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment.

A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on leaked British documents.

In July 2002, and well afterward, top Bush administration foreign policy advisers were insisting that "there are no plans to attack Iraq on the president's desk." But the memo quotes British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, a close colleague of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, as saying that "Bush had made up his mind to take military action." Straw is quoted as having his doubts about the Iraqi threat.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran," the memo reported he said.

Straw reportedly proposed that Hussein be given an ultimatum to re-admit United Nations weapons inspectors, which could help justify the eventual use of force.

Powell in August 2002 persuaded Bush to make the case against Hussein at the United Nations and to push for renewed weapons inspections.

But there were deep divisions within the White House over that course of action. The British document says that the National Security Council, then led by Condoleezza Rice, "had no patience with the UN route."

To further elucidate:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.



I've probably said enough on this.

all this stuff about "let the inspectors do their jobs" you guys keep bringing up as if it was Bush who refused to let them do their job.

You forget that it was Saddam who kicked the inspectors out, refused to let them back in and the whole time they were there, refused to let them do their job.
Bush told Saddam to let the inspectors back in. That was part of the reason Gulf War II. Saddam refused even when faced with censor by the United Nations Security Council

You focus only on WMD's and unreliable and biased information that Bush had at the time. You ignore the fact that Saddam was giving everyone the middle finger when it came to inspectors.
The reason the inspectors could not confirm WMD's was because Saddam blocked them from inspecting the sites they said they needed to look at.
And since Saddam kicked the inspectors out, US intell was outdated. What we had was based on what we knew in 1991. Our intell was only updated by what we were able to get from the head of the inspectors. But since Saddam blocked virtually all inspections and eventually kicked them all out, its not a surprise that Bush used faulty intell and that UN inspectors are saying they could not confirm the presence of WMD's.

The fact Saddam was refusing to let the inspectors back in was the original reason for Bush's confrontation with Saddam. That was the real reason for the war. But Saddam tried to stonewall the UN and the world.
Even the French and Russia told Saddam that he had to agree to let inspectors back in or they would not be able to block a US invasion.
And they were right. There was no resolution condemning or banning Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Everytime there appeared there would be a break through, Saddam Hussien over and over stonewalled the international community.
Bush, through his great wisdom, knew that Saddam would continue to stonewall and block inspectors as long as he remained in power. That is why on the eve of the war he went before the world, and giving his reasons, said that Saddam Hussien and both his sons had 24 hours to leave Iraq or face an invasion by US led coalition forces.
Saddam didn't believe, rather gave the middle finger and the rest we know is history. Saddam now sits in a prison facing trial for crimes against humanity.

So no, you are wrong. It was not Bush who blocked inspectors. It was not Bush who refused to give inspectors a chance. It was Saddam Hussien, the brutal genocidal maniac you Bush haters are saying we should have left in power.You knw, Whittier--you're wrong a lot around here, but you're usually not as batshit crazy insane wrong as you are in this gloriously bad post. This is truly a work of art, it's so wrong. You're treating fact like Ann Coulter does, and that's not a complement. Ahh where to begin.

Hussein did indeed kick inspectors out--in 1998--at which point Clinton, despite opposition from both his own party and the opposition, launched Desert Fox, which we know now took out whatever WMD facilities Hussein had managed to get restarted in a very minor way.

But Hussein let inspectors back into Iraq in 2002, in order to forestall military action, and Bush--not Hussein--Bush told them to get out of the country because he was gonna start bombing. The inspectors at the time had misgivings about the scope of Hussein's WMD program, and their misgivings turned out to be accurate. Bush's certainty turned out to be dead wrong. And thanks to the British government's Downing Street minutes, we now know that Bush was determined to go to war in June of 2002, and that the intelligence was being fixed around the evidence to provide justification. We also know now, thanks to the Times of London, that the US increased their bombings of Iraq prior to any new declaration of hostility in order to try to provoke the Iraqis into attacking and providing the US with justification.

As far as the job the inspectors were doing prior to this little debacle, well, they said that they were getting pretty much what they wanted from Hussein--there was some resistance, but nothing like what there had been in 1998, and now, post-war, we know that they could have searched for ten years and they'd have found nothing, because there was nothing to find. I suspect Bush and his administration knew that as well, which is why they pushed the inspectors out--after all, they'd fixed the intelligence--and they also knew that they could change the focus of the war from a war on WMD to a war on terror to spreading democracy to whatever next week's rationale will be.

And by the way, what wonderful shape Iraq is in now that Hussein is out of power, huh? There's only death and destruction everywhere, but at least Hussein's in jail. [/snark]

what you present as facts are in fact fabrications to support your anti bush/anti american propoganda.

You knw, Whittier--you're wrong a lot around here, but you're usually not as batshit crazy insane wrong as you are in this gloriously bad post. This is truly a work of art, it's so wrong. You're treating fact like Ann Coulter does, and that's not a complement. Ahh where to begin.

Hussein did indeed kick inspectors out--in 1998--at which point Clinton, despite opposition from both his own party and the opposition, launched Desert Fox, which we know now took out whatever WMD facilities Hussein had managed to get restarted in a very minor way.

But Hussein let inspectors back into Iraq in 2002, in order to forestall military action, and Bush--not Hussein--Bush told them to get out of the country because he was gonna start bombing. The inspectors at the time had misgivings about the scope of Hussein's WMD program, and their misgivings turned out to be accurate. Bush's certainty turned out to be dead wrong. And thanks to the British government's Downing Street minutes, we now know that Bush was determined to go to war in June of 2002, and that the intelligence was being fixed around the evidence to provide justification. We also know now, thanks to the Times of London, that the US increased their bombings of Iraq prior to any new declaration of hostility in order to try to provoke the Iraqis into attacking and providing the US with justification.

As far as the job the inspectors were doing prior to this little debacle, well, they said that they were getting pretty much what they wanted from Hussein--there was some resistance, but nothing like what there had been in 1998, and now, post-war, we know that they could have searched for ten years and they'd have found nothing, because there was nothing to find. I suspect Bush and his administration knew that as well, which is why they pushed the inspectors out--after all, they'd fixed the intelligence--and they also knew that they could change the focus of the war from a war on WMD to a war on terror to spreading democracy to whatever next week's rationale will be.

And by the way, what wonderful shape Iraq is in now that Hussein is out of power, huh? There's only death and destruction everywhere, but at least Hussein's in jail. [/snark]
Excellent post, sir. *bows*

I punched something up on a topic today, thought it was peculiar .....

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

This web site was frozen on September 20, 2004 at 12:00 AM, EDT. It is now a Federal record managed by the National Archives and Records Administration. External links were active as of that date an ...
www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing10.htm - 15k - 1%

-
Might be saving space. It's kinda new to get froze out - other than the April Fool's NS post. ;)

what you present as facts are in fact fabrications to support your anti bush/anti american propoganda.
That's your entire rebuttal? You're going to wuss out just like that? Oh come on, Whittier. You can't go out like that. :D

The Times of London, I remind is owned by a certain who militantly anti american, and I might add, is opposed to his own nation's government. Its not a reliable source when you take that into account.

We don't know that Desert Fox took out the WMD's.

And your statement that inspectors could have searched for ten years and still not find WMD's cause Saddam never had any is very contradictory to the facts that he was building them right up to the beginning of Desert Storm 1. The whole world knows this. The WMD's did not dissappear into thin air.

They were not allowed access to the sites they need to look at. The ones they were able to look at,they were only able to get into after we dropped a few bombs on Iraq each time.

The fact is that out of over 3,000 suspected WMD sites, the inspectors were able to look at only around 2 to 300 the entire 10 years they were in Iraq.

what you present as facts are in fact fabrications to support your anti bush/anti american propoganda.
Is that a .... fact?
As i said, educate yourself. It seems a sorry display, almost of a faith possessed, the worst kind - self-delusional in the extreme and without any living merit or integrity.
Quite pompous to assume that anyone that questions anything of this sensitive nature is anti-american. Quite a daring and delusional bit of self-gratification. You know, if you were that way or anything ... who am i to judge, hmmm? I'm certainly not Joe McCarthy.
So if it's a ... "fact"
*note - hopefully your term "fact" is congruent with the ACTUAL DEFINITION of "fact", just so we aren't mutually wasting time here*
then go ahead and post everywhere/ANYWHERE that actually PROVES
*note - hopefully your understanding of the term "PROVE" is congruent with the ACTUAL DEFINITION of "PROVE", as stated earlier*
your point. You're welcome to, it's a great age here & all, the "information age".

I UNASHAMEDLY am willing to bother LOOKING things up, and i have PLENTY to back me up. Whachoo got? Sound-bites? Rhetoric? Now's your chance.

The fact is that out of over 3,000 suspected WMD sites, the inspectors were able to look at only around 2 to 300 the entire 10 years they were in Iraq.
*SUSPECTED*
Again i invite you to pay attention to the public statements of the inspectors themselves.

I'm sure someone in congress could make a motion for Impeachment but it wouldn't pass since the congress is controled by the Republican party. If you can beleive it there actually is a much more valid reason to impeach him, it is difficult to prove that he didn't beleive those things he said about Iraq. Anyway, he isn't doing his job, which is to uphold the law. The Southern boarder of the United States is flooded with millions of illegal immigrants every year but Bush does nothing about it. Don't worry liberals you will have your impeachment after the next terrorist attack is commited by people who sneak into the US through the Mexican border.He made actual material representations. He said we have document X and it says Z, when document X didn't actually say Z at all. It's very easy to prove. If he didn't understand what he was doing, he certainly shouldn't be the president.

You damyankees wouldn't let us separate, you wanted to "preserve the union," and now all you can do is whine when we get into power! What did you expect, the political process would always be so one-sided? You can't have your cake and eat it too!

I find all this Bush-bashing amusing. As ye sow...George W. Bush is from Conneticuit.

The Times of London, I remind is owned by a certain who militantly anti american, and I might add, is opposed to his own nation's government. Its not a reliable source when you take that into account.

We don't know that Desert Fox took out the WMD's.

And your statement that inspectors could have searched for ten years and still not find WMD's cause Saddam never had any is very contradictory to the facts that he was building them right up to the beginning of Desert Storm 1. The whole world knows this. The WMD's did not dissappear into thin air.

They were not allowed access to the sites they need to look at. The ones they were able to look at,they were only able to get into after we dropped a few bombs on Iraq each time.Oh, are you going to be embarassed if this turns out to be accurate--according to the Columbia Journalism Review, the Times of London and the Sunday Times have been owned, since 1981, by Rupert Murdoch. (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/newscorp-timeline.asp) And if you do a simple google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=london+times&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) you find this little line beneath the link for the London Times:British daily newspaper owned by News Corporation. That's Rupert Murdoch all right. He's hardly what you would call militantly anti-American, and seeing as he's now a US citizen, he certainly is not opposed to his own government.

You know, talking out of your ass when you haven't even done a basic google search really isn't the wisest thing to do, Whittier.

on the matter of "fixing" evidence not only do we have the bi-patisan panel that looked into these allegations and publically stated (on national live television no less) ...It was on TV? Well that changes everything! :eek:

"If you see it on TV, it has to be true!"

The Times of London, I remind is owned by a certain who militantly anti american, and I might add, is opposed to his own nation's government. Its not a reliable source when you take that into account.
Weak.

And your statement that inspectors could have searched for ten years and still not find WMD's cause Saddam never had any is very contradictory to the facts that he was building them right up to the beginning of Desert Storm 1. The whole world knows this. The WMD's did not dissappear into thin air. Yes, of course, that's why we've gotten so many of them! That's right. The *whole world* knows about the outting of Valerie Plame because her husband Joe COULD NOT confirm assessments regarding yellowcake trade, the *whole world* knows that aluminum siding is a far cry from missile tubes, the *whole world* knows that any said missile tech they were even close to producing could only result in an effective launch/hit radius of 111 MILES, and the *whole world* knows about the Downing Street Memo. You of course, present yourself as somewhat outside that circle (Steven Wright has a postcard for you! ;) )
I again invite you to post said "knowledge" of your statements. You might qualify somewhat that the U.S. was brokering deals with Iraq and selling them arms to help destabilize the integrity of it's neighbor Iran, who at the time was relatively dangerous in mindset, and that source of arms was a reasonable assumption. You should also point out the recent news, within the past two weeks, that shows who started war aggressions over that debacle AND WHO HAS PUBLICLY ADMITTED as much.
They were not allowed access to the sites they need to look at. The ones they were able to look at,they were only able to get into after we dropped a few bombs on Iraq each time.And of course, there were the WMD's AND THEIR RESIDUE, right? Weak again.

Clinton was not impeached, there was the trial and everything. Alot worse things would have happened if he was impeached.

Clinton was censured, which is pretty much a slap on the wrist for a second term president...


Clinton had been impeached, and he was disbarred as a lawyer for perjury. The congress just didnt go through with the actual impeachment of removing him from office. There is no guilt or innocent of impeachment, it is a process, not a charge. As far as the blowjob comment above by canuck heaven, he was being investigated for sexual harrasment, the whole monica thing came out much later. It was never about the blow job, it was about the complaints, and his perjury.

Oh, are you going to be embarassed if this turns out to be accurate--according to the Columbia Journalism Review, the Times of London and the Sunday Times have been owned, since 1981, by Rupert Murdoch. (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/newscorp-timeline.asp) And if you do a simple google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=london+times&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) you find this little line beneath the link for the London Times: That's Rupert Murdoch all right. He's hardly what you would call militantly anti-American, and seeing as he's now a US citizen, he certainly is not opposed to his own government.

You know, talking out of your ass when you haven't even done a basic google search really isn't the wisest thing to do, Whittier.
The Parapsychologically Horizontal Citizenry of Straughn commences full ceremonial appreciation of this post from The Nazz.
*citizens bow*
You ROCK!

Rupert Murdoch all right. He's hardly what you would call militantly anti-American, and seeing as he's now a US citizen, he certainly is not opposed to his own government.
Murdoch is in the buisness of tabloid journalism. He's profit-oriented. Fox News was supposed to be the conservative answer to the liberal bias of CNN. Not because he had a problem with that liberal bias, but because there was a gap in the market to be filled. It's not just fake news, it's fake bias.

He made actual material representations. He said we have document X and it says Z, when document X didn't actually say Z at all. It's very easy to prove. If he didn't understand what he was doing, he certainly shouldn't be the president.
AMEN to THAT!!! *bows to Battery Charger*
And some other folk went on about Carter being inept .... sheesh. :rolleyes:

Well, IRL has me by the goodies so i'm off for flights of fancy and dodging bullsh*t rhetoric that questions my patriotism .... i'm sure this thread will go well. TG me if necessary or if suddenly much of the known universe inverts and certain posters end up being accurate instead of how they've been so far.

Basically that's it. He may very well have lied, but there is no evidence which really seems to indicate it. More than likely he was misinformed, both by the CIA and more than likely Executive officials. Like I said, there is evidence of tampering and ignoring of reports. There really should be an invenstigation on the matter. Either way it would turn out(Could very well be that it was all innocent), it would be better for the administration as a whole. Hell, it could very well be that an investigation has been done for all we know actually. Oh well, here's looking to the actual JFK report in 11 years.
Here's a lie for you:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
-- State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

How many of you have read the Iraq Liberation Act signed into public law by Clinton in 1998? I don't have the address on hand, just google it. As far as wmd are concerned, they have found lots from pre-desert storm. They still pose a threat, but the administration wants the focus to be on post 1991 weapons development, as that is what all the intel pointed to. We all spend too much time believing what the media tells us, the media has not reported much about schools being built, or girls going to school for the first time. The only thing they ever report is death, good news doesnt sell. Try talking to soldiers in Iraq when they get home, and find out the real story.

Impeachment???? Nah, I'd just settle for exorcism. When that little pea-brain passed out from the pretzel, Satan jumped into his body and started running the show.

The fact is that out of over 3,000 suspected WMD sites, the inspectors were able to look at only around 2 to 300 the entire 10 years they were in Iraq.
You should try updating your history regarding UN inspections (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm)?

In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to “freeze” large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.

Setting up a field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area, where we have already inspected a number of sites.

That is only in a two month period from the end of 2002 to early 2003.

How many of you have read the Iraq Liberation Act signed into public law by Clinton in 1998? I don't have the address on hand, just google it. As far as wmd are concerned, they have found lots from pre-desert storm. They still pose a threat, but the administration wants the focus to be on post 1991 weapons development, as that is what all the intel pointed to. We all spend too much time believing what the media tells us, the media has not reported much about schools being built, or girls going to school for the first time. The only thing they ever report is death, good news doesnt sell. Try talking to soldiers in Iraq when they get home, and find out the real story.

My largest gripe with the war isn't that the President lied. It is that he used "liberation" as a justification for war. I have many things against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but hte main one is the "liberation".

It may be all well and good to "liberate" people in opressed countries, but that IS NOT YOUR JOB. YOU do not get to decide who is oppressed or not. If a Government is so unpopular, it is the responsability of the people of that country to overthrow that government. If the people in Ethiopia are starving, it is the Ethiopian Peoples' responsability to grow food and sell it themselves. It is NOT the responsability of 1st world nations to supply food ad drastically reduced prices, removing almost all stimulus from an economy based on agriculture.

I'm sick and fucking tired of you pussy fucking Bono pieces of shit that think you have the right to "liberate" or "aid" people. It is THEIR fault they are in the positions they are in. If they are in a bad situation, YOU changing it will not help THEM.

My largest gripe with the war isn't that the President lied. It is that he used "liberation" as a justification for war. I have many things against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but hte main one is the "liberation".

It may be all well and good to "liberate" people in opressed countries, but that IS NOT YOUR JOB. YOU do not get to decide who is oppressed or not. If a Government is so unpopular, it is the responsability of the people of that country to overthrow that government. If the people in Ethiopia are starving, it is the Ethiopian Peoples' responsability to grow food and sell it themselves. It is NOT the responsability of 1st world nations to supply food ad drastically reduced prices, removing almost all stimulus from an economy based on agriculture.

I'm sick and fucking tired of you pussy fucking Bono pieces of shit that think you have the right to "liberate" or "aid" people. It is THEIR fault they are in the positions they are in. If they are in a bad situation, YOU changing it will not help THEM.
And I suppose you've earned every fucking thing you've ever gotten? I suppose it's just your superior intellect and ability that managed to get you born in the US as opposed to say, the Sudan or Ethiopia? How'd you manage that trick?

What's pathetic is people like you acting like you've fucking accomplished something in your miserable little life, when all that's happened was you got lucky, luckier than 99% of the other saps born on this earth, and you've got the stones to act like you've done something. Give me the biggest fucking break.

George Bush... first of all cannot be impeached b/c there isnt a 2/3 majority anywhere to impeach him... and republicans wont do it. Second, he didnt blatantly lie to Congress knowingly, its called faulty intelligence.

ite really funny how you people think he's the worlds biggest retard one minute, and then think he somehow constructed this whole plot to invade Iraq (which takes a bit more than a retard to do).

Heres the deal, we went to Iraq b/c for more than 10 years Saddam was dicking around with the UN and the US.. not letting UN inspectors in, and also showing them the facilities he chose -which is a sad excuse for correct weapons inspections. Apart from that, saddam was known to have chemical weapons, and is known to have sought, aggerssively, for nuclear weapons. Saddam also was known to have financial ties with terrorist networks. Now, for more than 10 years, the UN was searching TO VERIFY that saddam had destroyed the weapons we KNOW he had. Since then, there have been few, instances where there is proof to justify that they were destroyed. He could not prove that all the weapons were destroyed. what does this mean? this mean that he is hiding the weapons, or he sent them somewhere else, weapons dont just disappear.

then the intelligence report that they had nuclear capabilities came up...Now look @ it from Bush's standpoint: you know he had weapons that he didnt destroy, and he shows ill will towards the united states. So bush went to the UN and gets a resolution passed because EVERYONE AGREES that saddam needs to VERIFY the destruction of the weapons. Saddam was still defiant, and wasnt working with the resolution.... so bush made an ultimatum, and still saddam did not comply. I would be afraid if a president chose not to go to war with all that evidence staring him in the face!
The fault is with the intelligence reports that said the weapons were still inside iraq.. which they obviously are not still inside... so not bush's fault, intelligence's fault.

So far, in this war there have been near 2000 casualties... a price to pay for democracy and freeing iraquis from tyranny and oppression.. at least its not like the tens of thousands lost in vietnam.

Remeber, this started off as a war on TERROR not a war on Afghanistan... Bush did not lie, and the war is noble and just.

My largest gripe with the war isn't that the President lied. It is that he used "liberation" as a justification for war. I have many things against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but hte main one is the "liberation".

It may be all well and good to "liberate" people in opressed countries, but that IS NOT YOUR JOB. YOU do not get to decide who is oppressed or not. If a Government is so unpopular, it is the responsability of the people of that country to overthrow that government. If the people in Ethiopia are starving, it is the Ethiopian Peoples' responsability to grow food and sell it themselves. It is NOT the responsability of 1st world nations to supply food ad drastically reduced prices, removing almost all stimulus from an economy based on agriculture.

I'm sick and fucking tired of you pussy fucking Bono pieces of shit that think you have the right to "liberate" or "aid" people. It is THEIR fault they are in the positions they are in. If they are in a bad situation, YOU changing it will not help THEM.

this is the biggesty load of shit i ever heard. People cant just revolt and get what they want when they have no power to organize and form plots to overthrow. And even if they did that doesnt mean that they can. Remember, without the aid of the french (though i hate to admit it b/c i hate the french) Americans would have most likely lost the American Revolution. African AMericans could just revolt against whites in the 1800's.. sure there was harpers ferry and other attempts.. but they all failed.. they needed the aid of the North who wanted to liberate them. You must realize.. when you are poor, and uneducated, oppressed and tortured, to accomplish anything, you need help from those who can do so, you cant do everything on your own, you will fail and you will die. and you know what... it is our job to fucking liberate people because no other pussy european nation will do it by themselves, and no deeply oppressed peasant farmer will be able to topple a ravenous dictatorship either.


and what the hell do you mean thats its their fault for the positiion they are in, and us helping them wont do anything!!?!?!?!? Boy, you can be labeled as legally retarded for that statement. It is no ones fault for being born into the life they are born into.. its called chance and luck. And helping them will do a world of good if they are oppressed b/c they cant help themselves and no one else will help them and they are in a depserate situation.

And your statement that inspectors could have searched for ten years and still not find WMD's cause Saddam never had any is very contradictory to the facts that he was building them right up to the beginning of Desert Storm 1. The whole world knows this. The WMD's did not dissappear into thin air. Nope, they were destroyed by UN weapons inspectors.

Yup, you're correct. He won't be impeached because even though he is guilty of a federal offence (lying to Congress) the Republicans control both houses, so it's never going to happen. On the upside, 2008 isn't too far away in the grand shceme of things.

I love this. Prove he lied to Congress.

Nope, they were destroyed by UN weapons inspectors.

Prove it please. Oh wait you can't! Never mind

How many of you have read the Iraq Liberation Act signed into public law by Clinton in 1998? I don't have the address on hand, just google it. As far as wmd are concerned, they have found lots from pre-desert storm. They still pose a threat, but the administration wants the focus to be on post 1991 weapons development, as that is what all the intel pointed to. We all spend too much time believing what the media tells us, the media has not reported much about schools being built, or girls going to school for the first time. The only thing they ever report is death, good news doesnt sell. Try talking to soldiers in Iraq when they get home, and find out the real story.

I applaud this comment. My father has told me the good side of our efforts to rebuild the country. Believe me, they FAR OUTWEIGH the bad that ALL media outlets have been showing.

this is the biggesty load of shit i ever heard. People cant just revolt and get what they want when they have no power to organize and form plots to overthrow. And even if they did that doesnt mean that they can. Remember, without the aid of the french (though i hate to admit it b/c i hate the french) Americans would have most likely lost the American Revolution. African AMericans could just revolt against whites in the 1800's.. sure there was harpers ferry and other attempts.. but they all failed.. they needed the aid of the North who wanted to liberate them. You must realize.. when you are poor, and uneducated, oppressed and tortured, to accomplish anything, you need help from those who can do so, you cant do everything on your own, you will fail and you will die. and you know what... it is our job to fucking liberate people because no other pussy european nation will do it by themselves, and no deeply oppressed peasant farmer will be able to topple a ravenous dictatorship either.


and what the hell do you mean thats its their fault for the positiion they are in, and us helping them wont do anything!!?!?!?!? Boy, you can be labeled as legally retarded for that statement. It is no ones fault for being born into the life they are born into.. its called chance and luck. And helping them will do a world of good if they are oppressed b/c they cant help themselves and no one else will help them and they are in a depserate situation.

The people of Iraq were terrified of sadaam and his sons and their henchmen. People were routinely rounded up in "purges" and executed or tortured and executed or maimed and released. Some got to watch their wives get raped and their kids killed. Many of these victims simply dissapeared, only to re-appear when we started uncovering mass graves.
People were kept in line through fear and nothing else. They couldnt rise up against sadaam to over throw him. They needed outside help. They deserved outside help. Help that many of the nations of the world were capable of giving, but in the end, very few joined the US. Blathering on with stupid reasons, sitting around talking about it and talking about it. the same ones who will claim embargos were responsible for the starvation deaths of Iraqi babies. They were quite happy with sadaam sitting in dozens of golden palaces while he made quiet deals with them.
Please-the US is doing the right thing. I'm tired of this waste of time BS arguement. If you arent with us-you ARE against us and you can go straight to hell. I dont care.

I second that emotion. Even if you don't like our President, at least don't harp about the war. It's done, we're there, and a lot of good could still come out of it.

I second that emotion. Even if you don't like our President, at least don't harp about the war. It's done, we're there, and a lot of good could still come out of it.
And a lot of shit can come out of it as well, and based on this administration's track record thus far, I'd say the odds are rather better on shit coming out than good. And I will continue to harp on about the war, for two important reasons. the first is that we went to war for bullshit reasons, and it's important to me that no one ever forget that, so I'll continue to harp as long as people like Whittier and Corneliu keep making up bullshit about the reason we're there. And second--and more importantly--if people like me continue to harp on it (in more high profile places than this, to be sure), then maybe, just maybe, the administration will start taking some of the necessary steps to getting it right, or at the very least, they'll pull the troops out and no more soldiers will die for the vanity of George W. Bush.

Yes, I'm sure you'd rather countless more people die under the reign of a tyrannical despot than died in the war to liberate them. The pre-war intelligence may have been faulty, but at least good came out of it.

Just wondering, what is the process for impeachment in the US anyway? Who starts it and what does it involve?

Yes, I'm sure you'd rather countless more people die under the reign of a tyrannical despot than died in the war to liberate them. The pre-war intelligence may have been faulty, but at least good came out of it.

Sudan? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Israel/Palestine? China? Somalia?

How come we aren't liberating these people? Heck, some of those countries are huge trade partners and/or allies!

Yes, I'm sure you'd rather countless more people die under the reign of a tyrannical despot than died in the war to liberate them. The pre-war intelligence may have been faulty, but at least good came out of it.What good? There's more death and destruction in Iraq now than there was three years ago, five years ago, even ten years ago, and the way it's looking, it's only going to get worse. You're looking at a full-blown civil war there in the next five years at least, sooner if we pull our troops out after "declaring victory." Then the bloodbath will really ensue and we'll be responsible for it.

And let me ask you something--are you in the armed forces? If not, why not? If you're not old enough, then I suggest you get ready to join up when you do come of age, because it'll still be raging (unless you're like five, and it still might be even then). Otherwise, if you're of age and fit to serve and you're not in the armed forces and you support this war, then you're a damn coward. Period, end of sentence--you're a damn coward. Don't send others to fight a war you won't fight yourself.

Just wondering, what is the process for impeachment in the US anyway? Who starts it and what does it involve?
It starts in the House of Representatives, in a committee. They deliver articles of impeachment to the entire House, which votes on whether or not to send them to the Senate--majority vote carries the day.

If they select impeachment, the Senate sets a trial--they set all the rules for the trial, so it doesn't necessarily follow the rules of a standard court trial--and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. Once the trial is complete, the Senate votes, and it requires a 2/3 vote to remove the impeachee from office. You can impeach more than just Presidents, by the way--pretty much any government official is subject to impeachment.

I applaud this comment. My father has told me the good side of our efforts to rebuild the country. Believe me, they FAR OUTWEIGH the bad that ALL media outlets have been showing.
Yes rebuilding one Iraqi city at time. First you have to flatten it one day, then rebuild it....someday....

http://images.crisispictures.org/2004916.jpg

A young boy views the devastated homes around him in Fallujah.

Yes rebuilding one Iraqi city at time. First you have to flatten it one day, then rebuild it....someday....

http://images.crisispictures.org/2004916.jpg

A young boy views the devastated homes around him in Fallujah.

Perhaps next time put that photo into contex. Sure the kid lost his home, but his dad should have known better then to let some friends of his in and take some pot-shots at American soldiers.

Perhaps next time put that photo into contex. Sure the kid lost his home, but his dad should have known better then to let some friends of his in and take some pot-shots at American soldiers.
How would you know what is the proper context of this picture. besides the devestation that was inflicted upon Fallujah?

Besides, what are American soldiers doing in HIS country in the first place?

Perhaps next time put that photo into contex. Sure the kid lost his home, but his dad should have known better then to let some friends of his in and take some pot-shots at American soldiers.

Do you know anything about that boy? What authority do you have to say his father shot at American soldiers, and even if the father DID, what justification do you have for claiming that the boy deserved what happened to him?

Or the THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqi deaths and multiple thousands of wounded. What about them? Collateral damage?

Impeachment???? Nah, I'd just settle for exorcism. When that little pea-brain passed out from the pretzel, Satan jumped into his body and started running the show.
You know that would explain the difference in the types of ineptitude he's displayed. Something to ponder, indeed. *furrows his brow*

You know that would explain the difference in the types of ineptitude he's displayed. Something to ponder, indeed. *furrows his brow*
Nah--Satan's far more clever than this clown. Whatever demon has infested this guy is like Satan's retarded nephew, the one who can't hold down a job but whose daddy did Satan a favor once and won't ever let him live it down, so Satan has to keep finding stuff for the kid to do just to keep him out of his hair.

George Bush... first of all cannot be impeached b/c there isnt a 2/3 majority anywhere to impeach him... and republicans wont do it. Second, he didnt blatantly lie to Congress knowingly, its called faulty intelligence.

ite really funny how you people think he's the worlds biggest retard one minute, and then think he somehow constructed this whole plot to invade Iraq (which takes a bit more than a retard to do).

Heres the deal, we went to Iraq b/c for more than 10 years Saddam was dicking around with the UN and the US.. not letting UN inspectors in, and also showing them the facilities he chose -which is a sad excuse for correct weapons inspections. Apart from that, saddam was known to have chemical weapons, and is known to have sought, aggerssively, for nuclear weapons. Saddam also was known to have financial ties with terrorist networks. Now, for more than 10 years, the UN was searching TO VERIFY that saddam had destroyed the weapons we KNOW he had. Since then, there have been few, instances where there is proof to justify that they were destroyed. He could not prove that all the weapons were destroyed. what does this mean? this mean that he is hiding the weapons, or he sent them somewhere else, weapons dont just disappear.

then the intelligence report that they had nuclear capabilities came up...Now look @ it from Bush's standpoint: you know he had weapons that he didnt destroy, and he shows ill will towards the united states. So bush went to the UN and gets a resolution passed because EVERYONE AGREES that saddam needs to VERIFY the destruction of the weapons. Saddam was still defiant, and wasnt working with the resolution.... so bush made an ultimatum, and still saddam did not comply. I would be afraid if a president chose not to go to war with all that evidence staring him in the face!
The fault is with the intelligence reports that said the weapons were still inside iraq.. which they obviously are not still inside... so not bush's fault, intelligence's fault.

So far, in this war there have been near 2000 casualties... a price to pay for democracy and freeing iraquis from tyranny and oppression.. at least its not like the tens of thousands lost in vietnam.

Remeber, this started off as a war on TERROR not a war on Afghanistan... Bush did not lie, and the war is noble and just.
You just aren't paying attention. Read the whole thread and deal w/what's been presented ... or it's off to remedials with you.
*shakes head*
"Not bush's fault, intelligence's fault." - ...*insert derogatory name/noun here*

appointed? that's the real reason, still upset for LOSING in 2000 ....get over it. :p Apparently you don't follow the polls! His popularity rating is at an all time low since he took office. It's lower now then ever after he was appointed to the office in 2000. It's never been lower!

I agree...besides if the President was so decietful wouldn't he have "planted" WMDs. :p You just aren't paying attention. Read the whole thread and deal w/what's been presented ... or it's off to remedials with you.
*shakes head*
"Not bush's fault, intelligence's fault." - ...*insert derogatory name/noun here*

What good? There's more death and destruction in Iraq now than there was three years ago, five years ago, even ten years ago, and the way it's looking, it's only going to get worse. You're looking at a full-blown civil war there in the next five years at least, sooner if we pull our troops out after "declaring victory." Then the bloodbath will really ensue and we'll be responsible for it.


You are wrong. Saddam has killed FAR more than this war. If forced to choose, I'd rather live in the current Iraq than the one under Saddam.

I agree...besides if the President was so decietful wouldn't he have "planted" WMDs. :p
Actually Reagan and Senior Bush aided in implanting WMD in Iraq back in the 80's, to help in the fight against those nasty Iranians, who held Americans hostage back in 1979. :eek:

And let me ask you something--are you in the armed forces? If not, why not? If you're not old enough, then I suggest you get ready to join up when you do come of age, because it'll still be raging (unless you're like five, and it still might be even then). Otherwise, if you're of age and fit to serve and you're not in the armed forces and you support this war, then you're a damn coward. Period, end of sentence--you're a damn coward. Don't send others to fight a war you won't fight yourself


I'm female, they wouldn't put me on the frontline anyway. Nice try :p

I'm female, they wouldn't put me on the frontline anyway. Nice try :p
Doesn't mean you wouldn't see combat, you little chicken, or have you forgotten about Jessica Lynch, one of many female soldiers wounded or killed in combat in Iraq thus far? So--are you of age? If you are, then it's time to put up or shut up. I don't care what sex you are--the Army needs bodies, thanks to people like you who supported this stupid and useless war, so it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Join up, if you're old enough. Otherwise be branded a coward.

I agree...besides if the President was so decietful wouldn't he have "planted" WMDs. :p
The ebullient ;) nature of your smilies and general effervescence :p on the thread kind of obfuscates the :fluffle: nature of your post.
:confused:

Nah--Satan's far more clever than this clown. Whatever demon has infested this guy is like Satan's retarded nephew, the one who can't hold down a job but whose daddy did Satan a favor once and won't ever let him live it down, so Satan has to keep finding stuff for the kid to do just to keep him out of his hair.
FLORT!
I had actually posted lightheartedly, as evidenced by my incidentals ... ;)
You rock. Power to ya
*bows*

Sudan? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Israel/Palestine? China? Somalia?

How come we aren't liberating these people? Heck, some of those countries are huge trade partners and/or allies!
Good point!

Doesn't mean you wouldn't see combat, you little chicken, or have you forgotten about Jessica Lynch, one of many female soldiers wounded or killed in combat in Iraq thus far? So--are you of age? If you are, then it's time to put up or shut up. I don't care what sex you are--the Army needs bodies, thanks to people like you who supported this stupid and useless war, so it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Join up, if you're old enough. Otherwise be branded a coward.


As amazing as your misguided zeal is, I hate to inform you that I'm not one accustomed to fighting. Let those who are best qualified for the job do it I say. I also could not participate as a Christian and conscientious objector. Thankfully, there are those who have no religious restraints and no qualms about volunteering who can do it. Personally, someone like me would be more of a liability to the military so the best I can do is stay home and write letters of encouragement to soldiers. Far more than I suspect you'll ever do.

FLORT!
I had actually posted lightheartedly, as evidenced by my incidentals ... ;)
You rock. Power to ya
*bows*
Thanky. I've got to be light-hearted occasionally to make up for all the righteous indignation I spread around.

As amazing as your misguided zeal is, I hate to inform you that I'm not one accustomed to fighting. Let those who are best qualified for the job do it I say. I also could not participate as a Christian and conscientious objector. Thankfully, there are those who have no religious restraints and no qualms about volunteering who can do it. Personally, someone like me would be more of a liability to the military so the best I can do is stay home and write letters of encouragement to soldiers. Far more than I suspect you'll ever do.
Oh, so you're a hypocrite, a conscientious objector who supports the war. Thanks for clearing that up, and for making it a double whammy--coward and hypocrite. At least we know where you stand.

I say it again, and this goes for everyone--if you're not willing to fight in a war you support, then you're the lowest of the low, a coward who's willing to send others to do your dirty work. You're the moral equivalent of ninety percent of the people in the Bush administration.