NationStates Jolt Archive

From another forum I visit, someone posted:
So a memo has come out that provides some evidence that Bush lied to the American people and made plans with the UK to attack Iraq, even before seeking Congressional approval.

It also indicated that the White House was aware that Iraq had limited WMD capabilities, which it later lied about to the world.

Here's the memo (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html) and here's an article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html) .

The Bush administration has refused to even comment on it. Representative John Conyers will be delivering a petition (http://www.moveonpac.org/tellthetruth/) to the White House demanding that this issue be addressed.

So I guess there are two points to this post: sign the petition (http://www.moveonpac.org/tellthetruth/) if you agree that we deserve an answer from the White House, and comment on the issue.

Excerpts from the Washington Post article:
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

"The case was thin," summarized the notes taken by a British national security aide at the meeting. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
I strongly suggest that everyone here sign the petition, write the President a letter, and tell as many people as you know. After the petition reaches 500,000 people, Congressman John Conyers (D - MI) is going to deliver the petition to the President.

I believe it's sad that we even need a petition for this. A full-fledged investigation should've been launched immediately. It was only the cooperation of the media and the people that led to the investigation of Nixon. Hopefully, bias in the media and apathy won't permit this criminal to stay in office.

EDIT: For the benefit of clarification, I'd like to add a few things.

#1. The memo was a summary of discussions between the highest ranking British government officials.
#2. The Blair administration has confirmed its authenticity, calling it, "Nothing new." ([url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592904,00.html) The individuals involved in initially putting out the memo have not gotten in trouble for putting out lies, and no one disputes the memo's authenticity.

Individuals who put out the memo:
Foreign Policy Advisor, David Manning, who endorsed the memo
Matthew Rycroft, Manning's Aide who wrote the memo

Individuals who recieved the memo:
Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon
Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw
Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith
Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson
Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett (currently head of MI-6)
Ex-Director of GCHQ, Francis Richards
Chief of Defence Staff (identified as as "CDS"), Admiral Sir Michael Boyce
Head of MI-6 (identified as "C"), Sir Richard Dearlove (resigned in 2003)
Head of Defence Staff, Jonathan Powell
Director of Political & Government Relations, Sally Morgan
Head of Strategy, Alastair Campbell

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

I believe it's sad that we even need a petition for this. A full-fledged investigation should've been launched immediately.

I agree. And I signed.

Seventy-five percent... impressive.

Welcome back, Skapedroe! :D

(I've found nothing at snopes, either.)

Sadly, I don't think it is important to Americans whether the reasons for war were adequate, and whether or not attempts were made to mislead the public. This has been a long, bloody row in British politics, I simply do not see the same concern in the US.

Guys, you realize this is the opinion of some British intelligence analysts. Opinion. The majority of British and US intelligence did believe Saddam had WMD capacity, and Bush thought they were right. He was wrong, and the minority was right.

But that doesn't mean he lied!

Welcome back, Skapedroe! :D
This ain't Skap - he's now VectorBlaze

Ceaser lied, Jews died!

First off, it's Caesar (pronounced with a hard C sound, like "kite"; where the "ae" provideds an "aye" sound).

Secondly, the Jews were a bunch of rebellious peasants who got their asses handed to them several times and consequently their temple was torn down. They got what was coming to them; rebel against the Roman Empire and face the consequences.

Thirdly, I'm of course not meaning this all to be serious.

Fourthly, I didn't sign the petition.

It shows every* pre-war lie by both parties (America and England) and proves that Bush ans Blaire are criminals in the truest sense of the word deserving nothing better than the harshest punishment they can receive. I hope he gets the chair - figuratively speaking of course, capital punishment is wrong.

Unfortunately, I don't think anything will happen as mainstream media isn't picking this up and its left simply and to bloggers and left-wing fanatics. But please pass it on anyways if you have any sense of decency.

I'm sure this sort of situation has happened before with different presidencies, can anyone name some? I just want to compare them to this.

No, not Skapedroe. Or whoever that second name was.

Anyway, I've learned that there are two websites collected names for the petition:

A Liberal fund-raising group supporting John Conyer's: http://www.moveonpac.org/tellthetruth/

John Conyer's own website:
http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/

Even though they're different sites, they are both going towards the same petition.

Anyway, I signed earlier today, when there were roughly 375,000 names. Now there are over 425,000. That's 50,000 people signing, in a period of less than 12 hours.

Welcome back, Skapedroe! :D
well, if you count the Times as a paper that deals in conspiracies...

And theres the Washington Post, which you are ever so fond of.

Sadly, I don't think it is important to Americans whether the reasons for war were adequate, and whether or not attempts were made to mislead the public. This has been a long, bloody row in British politics, I simply do not see the same concern in the US.


for the millionth time (and counting... logic never fails to go unnoticed by some...):

SADDAM IS A BAD MAN WHO NEEDED REMOVAL FOR THE SAKE OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD WMD, WORDS WERE NOT GOING TO WORK WITH HIM. SO WE REMOVED HIM.

Whether or not he had WMD (and certainly he did... then had them hidden in Syria for later use.. and/or in some small corner of Iraq yet to be searched) does.. not.. matter. This was a brutal dictator who cannot be defended, who must be (and was) deposed. Anyone who appreciates freedom should be HAPPY that he's no longer in power there.

As to the slander/libel that President Bush lied, I'll say this for the twentieth time (at least):

Assuming that there are no WMD in Iraq (complete once they've actually searched every square inch of the California-sized country.. lol):

Making an incorrect prediction is not a form of lying. A lie requires that the person making the false statement has full knowledge before making said statement that said statement is false.

your all a bunch of pinko morons :headbang: . cant you see that whether or not he had them when we went in, he used to have them?? he gased the Kurds for crying out loud!!! and, polish troops DID find weapons, something which the media tried not to cover: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39243

and so what? if he did, or if he didnt, who really cares? he was a dictator. he filled mass graves all of iraq. he was a mass kiler. he deserved to go, and the world is better off without him.

i got a question for all of you, how many resolutions did the UN make against iraq? hmmmmm? what was it...17??!! so why is it that, when the UN (a corrupt organization which all you liberals love) makes resolution after resolution and saddamm basically gives the world the middle finger, the UN decides to back off, every time, but when the USA, one of the powers of the UN, and basically the only thing holding the UN together finally gets enough courage to do what the UN would not, we're the bad guys?!??!!? please explain the logic behind that, will you?

Can I sign even though I'm not American? Australia's part of the coalition of the willing, so I'd like to sign

your all a bunch of pinko morons :headbang: . cant you see that whether or not he had them when we went in, we used to have them?? he gased the Kurds for crying out loud!!! and, polish troops DID find weapons, something which the media tried not to cover: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39243

and so what? if he did, or if he didnt, who really cares? he was a dictator. he filled mass graves all of iraq. he was a er. he deserved to go, and the world is better off without him.

i got a question for all of you, how many resolutions did the UN make against iraq? hmmmmm? what was it...17??!! so why is it that, when the UN (a corrupt organization which all you liberals love) makes resolution after resolution and saddamm basically gives the world the middle finger, the UN decides to back off, every time, but when the USA, one of the powers of the UN, and basically the only thing holding the UN together finally gets enough courage to do what the UN would not, we're the bad guys?!??!!?
if youre using ignoring UN resolutions as a justification, why havent we invaded Israel?

If youre using him being an evil dicatator, why havent we invaded Zimbabwe? Or Saudi Arabia?

oh yea, the Saudis sell their oil, we dont need to invade them to get it

Democrats need to learn how to hate. Republicans howled for Clinton's blood when he got his dick sucked and then lied about it (I only think the bad part was him lying about it, face the music Mr. President). Well, Bush severely degraded the world view of America, cost us over 1,200 dead soldiers and who knows how many Iraqis, and no one seems to want to crucify him. I can't recall hearing anyone talk of impeachment. Oh, but thats because politicians are impartial.
And as far as it being an intelligence agency's 'opinion,' that just doesn't fly. Either for the agency or those listening to what they say. You don't do things based on opinion, you take action on hard facts. If you only have an 'opinion,' then you keep friggin looking.

if youre using ignoring UN resolutions as a justification, why havent we invaded Israel?

If youre using him being an evil dicatator, why havent we invaded Zimbabwe? Or Saudi Arabia?

oh yea, the Saudis sell their oil, we dont need to invade them to get it

(yet another invalid, unsupportable war-for-oil reference...)

a)Israel is not seen as a backward state by the developed world.

b)Zimbabwe might be next. We can only off the evil dictators one at a time. hehe.

if youre using ignoring UN resolutions as a justification, why havent we invaded Israel?

If youre using him being an evil dicatator, why havent we invaded Zimbabwe? Or Saudi Arabia?

oh yea, the Saudis sell their oil, we dont need to invade them to get it

yes, but i see that you IGNORED the fact that they found weapons, which proves that bush DIDNT lie. seriously, get your facts straight before you call for someone's head on a platter.

your all a bunch of pinko morons :headbang: . cant you see that whether or not he had them when we went in, he used to have them?? he gased the Kurds for crying out loud!!!
You didn't seem to give a shit at the time. Anyway, they were enemy compatants rebellling against their President.

yes, but i see that you IGNORED the fact that they found weapons, which proves that bush DIDNT lie. seriously, get your facts straight before you call for someone's head on a platter.

it wouldn't have been a lie even if there hadn't been weapons... since Bush is not a fortune teller.

Only if he knew that there were not weapons, and there actually were not weapons... would it be a lie.

yes, but i see that you IGNORED the fact that they found weapons, which proves that bush DIDNT lie. seriously, get your facts straight before you call for someone's head on a platter.
i dont care what Bush said, my main concern is what Blair said.

he said that Saddam had WMD that would be ready to use within 45 minutes, which was one of his main arguments for going to war.

MI6 withdrew the claim.

his other main argument was the link to Al Quaeda, which was sketchy at most.

so i would really love to know why Blair took us to war. seems well never find out.

and there are countries that pose a greater threat to both the US and the UK than Iraq.

so, there are countries that have more links to terrorism, there are countries that have ignored more UN resolutions, there are countries with 'worse' dictators, and there are countries that pose a greater threat to the US and the UK.

why did we invade Iraq?

Democrats need to learn how to . Republicans howled for Clinton's when he got sucked and then lied about it (I only think the bad part was him lying about it, face the music Mr. President). Well, Bush severely degraded the world view of America, cost us over 1,200 soldiers and who knows how many Iraqis, and no one seems to want to crucify him. I can't recall hearing anyone talk of impeachment. Oh, but thats because politicians are impartial.
And as far as it being an intelligence agency's 'opinion,' that just doesn't fly. Either for the agency or those listening to what they say. You don't do things based on opinion, you take action on hard facts. If you only have an 'opinion,' then you keep friggin looking.

impeachment? because he had wrong information? then i guess, you also want to impeach Blair, the former leader of Spain, the leader of Poland, the Phillapeans, Sharon, and a half a dozen other leaders who also "lied" too. or is it that you happen to like those leaders so you just blame the "evil" bush. i mean, what did bush ever do to us? the economy is at its best since 9/11, he has gotten rid of dictators, destroyed al queda...yea, i can definatly see why he should be impeached :rolleyes:

and as for the 1,200 casualties, i'll let you in on a little secret...PEOPLE DIE IN WAR! they signed up for the military knowing they were risking maybe dieing, and they are fine with that!

impeachment? because he had wrong information? then i guess, you also want to impeach Blair,
actually, someone did begin preceedings to impeach Blair over the war, but impeachment is an obsolete in British politics, and isnt used, because of the governments accountability to Parliament.

i dont care what Bush said, my main concern is what Blair said.

he said that Saddam had WMD that would be ready to use within 45 minutes, which was one of his main arguments for going to war.

MI6 withdrew the claim.

his other main argument was the link to Al Quaeda, which was sketchy at most.

so i would really love to know why Blair took us to war. seems well never find out.

and there are countries that pose a greater threat to both the US and the UK than Iraq.

so, there are countries that have more links to terrorism, there are countries that have ignored more UN resolutions, there are countries with 'worse' dictators, and there are countries that pose a greater threat to the US and the UK.

why did we invade Iraq?

We know that Al Qaeda was in Iraq... they had training grounds. Not much went on in Iraq that Saddam was not aware of/could not control. And Saddam was paying families of terrorists.

i dont care what Bush said, my main concern is what Blair said.

he said that Saddam had WMD that would be ready to use within 45 minutes, which was one of his main arguments for going to war.

MI6 withdrew the claim.

his other main argument was the link to Al Quaeda, which was sketchy at most.

so i would really love to know why Blair took us to war. seems well never find out.

and there are countries that pose a greater threat to both the US and the UK than Iraq.

so, there are countries that have more links to ism, there are countries that have ignored more UN resolutions, there are countries with 'worse' dictators, and there are countries that pose a greater threat to the US and the UK.

why did we invade Iraq?

blair took you to war because hes the us's ally. (now im not accustomed to defending blair, i absolutly detest that man, i would love to see him given a bullet to the head for his treatment of the irish catholics in northern ireland, but since we are discussing iraq, not ireland, i will defend him although it goes against my better judgement to do so).

blair was given the same information we were. he is human. humans make mistakes. deal with it.

and thats all im saying in defense of blair

Which WMD's did they find? News to me.
They found regular weapons caches, with RPGs, arty, rifles, MGs, etc. But as far as I know, no NBC.
And good points have been made. IF this war was about bumping evil dictators (which it has been conveniently turned to after no WMDs were found), there are a few more oppressive than Saddam that we should have gone after.
Look at Uzbek's president. He is a brutal asshole, yet we don't care, because he gives us a base from which to operate (in exchange for a hefty aid package). Look at Saudi, we are allied with the house of al-Saud, yet the Saudi oli barons that we buy from turn around and fund al-Quaeda.
This war was never about liberation, it was about making the world safe from terrorism and getting WMDs out of dictators hands. As it has not really accomplished either of those goals, a new one had to made up, and thuse the liberation of oppressed peoples was made.
During my two tours in Iraq, I do have to say that I am glad that we have done what we did, but I think the reasons for doing it were wrong. And, something like 98% of the Iraqis I met were glad that we ousted Saddam.

(yet another invalid, unsupportable war-for-oil reference...)

a)Israel is not seen as a backward state by the developed world.

b)Zimbabwe might be next. We can only off the evil dictators one at a time. hehe.

Don't forget North Korea

for the millionth time (and counting... logic never fails to go unnoticed by some...):

SADDAM IS A BAD MAN WHO NEEDED REMOVAL FOR THE SAKE OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD WMD, WORDS WERE NOT GOING TO WORK WITH HIM. SO WE REMOVED HIM.

Whether or not he had WMD (and certainly he did... then had them hidden in Syria for later use.. and/or in some small corner of Iraq yet to be searched) does.. not.. matter. This was a brutal dictator who cannot be defended, who must be (and was) deposed. Anyone who appreciates freedom should be HAPPY that he's no longer in power there.

As to the slander/libel that President Bush lied, I'll say this for the twentieth time (at least):

Assuming that there are no WMD in Iraq (complete once they've actually searched every square inch of the California-sized country.. lol):

Making an incorrect prediction is not a form of lying. A lie requires that the person making the false statement has full knowledge before making said statement that said statement is false.
The memo was sent in 2002, nearly a year before we invaded Iraq. In it, the head of MI-6, who later resigned, claimed that during his meetings with American officials, he learned that they had been planning to invade Iraq, that Iraq had no WMDs, and that the evidence put forth was purposely designed to support their policies.

Bush knew that intelligence on Iraq was flawed. It's what the head of MI-6 claimed, at that time.

Before making a comment, read the memo.

The memo was sent in 2002, nearly a year before we invaded Iraq. In it, the head of MI-6, who later resigned, claimed that during his meetings with American officials, he learned that they had been planning to invade Iraq, that Iraq had no WMDs, and that the evidence put forth was purposely designed to support their policies.

Bush knew that intelligence on Iraq was flawed. It's what the head of MI-6 claimed, at that time.


He claimed. He claimed. He claimed.

I can claim anything I like. Does that make it true?

He claimed. He claimed. He claimed.

I can claim anything I like. Does that make it true?
It's the fucking head of MI-6. What more do you fucking want?! GOD?!

NAS rebels-
Yeah, people do die in war. Having been in Iraq twice (Marines and National Guard) I am supremely aware of that fact. Unfortunately, the people who make the decision to go to war are not the ones that have to suffer through it.
Most soldiers do not have a problem putting thier life on the line for a worthwhile cause. Finding out that that 'worthwhile cause' was a fabrication means that my friends were wounded and died in vain.

He claimed. He claimed. He claimed.

I can claim anything I like. Does that make it true?

to be fair what has the head of MI-6 got to gain out of lying?

Only in America is the President's word equal with God's, and the Head of MI6's word is worth a layman's!

We know that Al Qaeda was in Iraq... they had training grounds. Not much went on in Iraq that Saddam was not aware of/could not control. And Saddam was paying families of terrorists.
even though the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks has said that there was no link

"the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation."
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html)


and then this as well:

" There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News."
link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm)

The memo was sent in 2002, nearly a year before we invaded Iraq. In it, the head of MI-6, who later resigned, claimed that during his meetings with American officials, he learned that they had been planning to invade Iraq, that Iraq had no WMDs, and that the evidence put forth was purposely designed to support their policies.

Bush knew that intelligence on Iraq was flawed. It's what the head of MI-6 claimed, at that time.

did anyone else notice that that quote is full of "CLAIMED". didnt one of you earlier say that "if opinion is all there was to go on, then you keep looking for fact" or something to that effect? the answer would be yes. so, Shrub, get some hard information from an unbiased source, as i did. i gave a link to a media source (which is actually somewhat liberal and still addmitted the find was made of weapons), yet all you can give us is the site of democrats and liberals who despise bush. give us an unbiased source for your information, and then maybe i'll consider thinking about your "information" about how bush "lied"

It's the fucking head of MI-6. What more do you fucking want?! GOD?!

I have a job that exposes me to a lot of sensitive information. It would be apparent to any reporter who verified my employment that I had access to such information.

So, he would think I'm credible. Many people would. If I then just "claimed" something, would you, reading the newspaper report, believe it?

now im not accustomed to defending blair, i absolutly detest that man, i would love to see him given a bullet to the head for his treatment of the irish catholics in northern ireland
your ignorance is hurting my brain.

blair was given the same information we were. he is human. humans make mistakes. deal with it.
thats the problem, he wasnt given the same information we were. did you read the Times article?

did anyone else notice that that quote is full of "CLAIMED". didnt one of you earlier say that "if opinion is all there was to go on, then you keep looking for fact" or something to that effect? the answer would be yes. so, Shrub, get some hard information from an unbiased source, as i did. i gave a link to a media source (which is actually somewhat liberal and still addmitted the find was made of weapons), yet all you can give us is the site of democrats and liberals who despise bush. give us an unbiased source for your information, and then maybe i'll consider thinking about your "information" about how bush "lied"
same question

to be fair what has the head of MI-6 got to gain out of lying?

same question

to be fair what has the head of MI-6 got to gain out of lying?

An excellent question which is unanswered.

Bet if he makes a book deal now, and makes more than JK Rowling, we'll know, won't we?
"How I Saw It All Go Down" by xxx

NAS rebels-
Yeah, people do die in war. Having been in Iraq twice (Marines and National Guard) I am supremely aware of that fact. Unfortunately, the people who make the decision to go to war are not the ones that have to suffer through it.
Most soldiers do not have a problem putting thier life on the line for a worthwhile cause. Finding out that that 'worthwhile cause' was a fabrication means that my friends were wounded and died in vain.

2 things.

1) first off i would like to salute you (as best a civilan can lol) for serving our country, wether you agree with the commander and chief or not.

2) i've yet to be shown how the "worthwile cause was a fabrication". and didnt you already say that you were glad we outsed a tyrant?

I have a job that exposes me to a lot of sensitive information. It would be apparent to any reporter who verified my employment that I had access to such information.

So, he would think I'm credible. Many people would. If I then just "claimed" something, would you, reading the newspaper report, believe it?
This memo was a government document, ordered by the British Foreign Secretary, written by the Foreign Secretary's Aide. If the aide put forth a memo full of lies, the government would've said that and he'd have been put on trial.

That hasn't happened. In fact, the Blair administration calls the memo "nothing new", admitting its authenticity.

An excellent question which is unanswered.

Bet if he makes a book deal now, and makes more than JK Rowling, we'll know, won't we?
"How I Saw It All Go Down" by xxx
The ex-Chief of MI-6, to my knowledge, has not even given any interviews on the subject. I checked Google, and both the Guardian, and BBC. If he was planning on writing a book, he'd have at least done interviews. But in my opinion, he was likely the person that leaked the memo. Doing a book would not only be tacky, but it would draw unnecessary attention to himself.

An excellent question which is unanswered.

Bet if he makes a book deal now, and makes more than JK Rowling, we'll know, won't we?
"How I Saw It All Go Down" by xxx

If he wanted fame he would have gone to the press first, then the press would have peddled his book in return.

Front Page - "The proof Bush lied"

Deepthroat all over again

There is a reason they've called it a "smoking gun" memo.

89 Congressmen have demanded that President Bush answer it.

It's obviously not of concern in the US right now.

Today's Washington Post web site http://www.washingtonpost.com
doesn't even mention it on the first page.

Not on the CNN web page today, either.

Most Americans don't care how it started - they only care how it ends. It's part of the American psyche since Vietnam that if we get involved in a war (no matter how), we're not going to repeat the scenes of retreat and desperation when Saigon fell. Doesn't matter how we got into it.

So go home and cry to yourself, because the claims of the former head of MI-6 must not be credible, newsworthy, or politically important here in the US.

If it was credible, newsworthy, and politically important, this would be as big as the Watergate news, and would be front page news on every rag in this country every day until the President resigned.

It's obviously not of concern in the US right now.

Today's Washington Post web site http://www.washingtonpost.com
doesn't even mention it on the first page.

Not on the CNN web page today, either.

Most Americans don't care how it started - they only care how it ends. It's part of the American psyche since Vietnam that if we get involved in a war (no matter how), we're not going to repeat the scenes of retreat and desperation when Saigon fell. Doesn't matter how we got into it.

So go home and cry to yourself, because the claims of the former head of MI-6 must not be credible, newsworthy, or politically important here in the US.

If it was credible, newsworthy, and politically important, this would be as big as the Watergate news, and would be front page news on every rag in this country every day until the President resigned.
It's not an issue over whether or not the war was justified. It was very good to topple Hussein. But it violated international law and President Bush should be impeached, because he's another Nixon, abusing intelligence agencies.

If it was credible, newsworthy, and politically important, this would be as big as the Watergate news, and would be front page news on every rag in this country every day until the President resigned.

89 Congressmen have demanded that President Bush answer it.

interesting.

Also, the reason that the mainstream media is not covering it is because allegations of "bias" in the media have caused them to be very touchy on subjects, such as this, or voter fraud. The memo was also released nearly a month ago, but political activism has given it new life. And it deserves it.

If it was credible, newsworthy, and politically important, this would be as big as the Watergate news, and would be front page news on every rag in this country every day until the President resigned.
The Times is pretty much the most credible newspaper source in the world.

It's not an issue over whether or not the war was justified. It was very good to topple Hussein. But it violated international law and President Bush should be impeached, because he's another Nixon, abusing intelligence agencies.

Well, you would have to impeach everyone who voted to authorize the use of military force, as well. Which is a big difference - Nixon didn't get any authorization from Congress to do Watergate.

And claims without documentation are just that - claims. Especially if there's only one person making the claim. It would be impossible to impeach anyone on that basis.

At least they had semen on a dress with Clinton. Solid evidence.

It's the fucking head of MI-6. What more do you fucking want?! GOD?!

The "fucking head of MI-6" has his opinion. I would imagine that his was just one of many that were entering the president's ears.

No, not Skapedroe. Or whoever that second name was.

Anyway, I've learned that there are two websites collected names for the petition:

A Liberal fund-raising group supporting John Conyer's: http://www.moveonpac.org/tellthetruth/

John Conyer's own website:
http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/

Even though they're different sites, they are both going towards the same petition.

Anyway, I signed earlier today, when there were roughly 375,000 names. Now there are over 425,000. That's 50,000 people signing, in a period of less than 12 hours.
Oooooooooooo! All that goes to illustrate is that there are at least 425,000 far left idiots in this country, which is not surprising, although a bit distressing. Quite frankly, if moveon.org said it was raining, I would go outside to check and even then might not believe them.

shrub, let's use a simple anecdote to put you in the president's place during those times:

let's say, arbitrarily, that you've got, oh, 20 main advisors to whom you listen. let's say that 19 of them hold one viewpoint and strongly encourage you to act according to it... and one dissenting viewpoint.

whom will you believe?

Oooooooooooo! All that goes to illustrate is that there are at least 425,000 far left idiots in this country, which is not surprising, although a bit distressing. Quite frankly, if moveon.org said it was raining, I would go outside to check and even then might not believe them.
or it could just be 425,000 people who believe your President shouldnt get away with taking your country to war on the basis of a lie

Oooooooooooo! All that goes to illustrate is that there are at least 425,000 far left idiots in this country, which is not surprising, although a bit distressing. Quite frankly, if moveon.org said it was raining, I would go outside to check and even then might not believe them.

I've noticed that I can sign it over and over again, with a bogus email addy and a bogus street addy.

Interesting.

BTW, it may interest some of you to know that the Secret Service is the recipient of all email to the White House, and all letters to the White House.

They analyze every letter and every email. So you may be getting a personal visit if you sound remotely threatening.

As a definition of "threatening", for starters, the software they use defines the "excessive use of exclamation points" as a trigger for calling a message threatening.

or it could just be 425,000 people who believe your President shouldnt get away with taking your country to war on the basis of a lie
Most far leftists have NO idea what does and does not constitute a "lie," since they do so many of them.

Which politician DOESN'T lie? Name one.

if anyones interested 433,000

I've noticed that I can sign it over and over again, with a bogus email addy and a bogus street addy.

Interesting.

BTW, it may interest some of you to know that the Secret Service is the recipient of all email to the White House, and all letters to the White House.

They analyze every letter and every email. So you may be getting a personal visit if you sound remotely threatening.

As a definition of "threatening", for starters, the software they use defines the "excessive use of exclamation points" as a trigger for calling a message threatening.
ROFLMAO! Boy! There's a really well-run petition for ya. :D

The reason for the scrutiny of exclamation points is that hand-writing analysis has shown that excessive use of exclamation points is indicative of an unstable personality. Interesting, yes? :)

if anyones interested 433,000

One of the wags in my office is writing a script to pound that page with signatures.

shrub, let's use a simple anecdote to put you in the president's place during those times:

let's say, arbitrarily, that you've got, oh, 20 main advisors to whom you listen. let's say that 19 of them hold one viewpoint and strongly encourage you to act according to it... and one dissenting viewpoint.

whom will you believe?
the one who is dissenting, he must have a reason not to be a sheep whos following the crowd

Which politician DOESN'T lie? Name one.

I could name several who don't lie about going to war. I think we need some clarity here. Not all lies carry the same weight. Now if this was Clinton people would be calling for his resignation right, right and center.

One of the wags in my office is writing a script to pound that page with signatures.

that would explain why its going up so quickly

Most far leftists have NO idea what does and does not constitute a "lie," since they do so many of them.
and you have checked that every one of those signatures belongs to a "far leftist"?

the one who is dissenting, he must have a reason not to be a sheep whos following the crowd

Not necessarily a rational, well-thought, well-considered, impersonal reason.

You're standing on thin ice with that sort of thinking.

Not necessarily a rational, well-thought, well-considered, impersonal reason.

You're standing on thin ice with that sort of thinking.
well, its certainly worth giving his idea more thought than "nah, the others cant all be wrong"

because, you know, the majority isnt always right

the one who is dissenting, he must have a reason not to be a sheep whos following the crowd

To be fair this one isn't part of Bush's advisors, he's just some Brit.

Actually the author of this this thread is correct. Back in early 2003, before March when the invasion happened. We had read the exact same thing coming from a person that attended the meeting, it was published in many UK papers. We posted it on this site at the time under the nation I had at the time and people said this man probably had a hidden agenda. Funny how now over 2 years later it pops back up as a memo. I guess we knew back in early 2003, but no one wanted to accept it.

Which politician DOESN'T lie?


Even if it was true (which is not), is it a justification for everyone to lie freely, even in a position of responsibility like the head of the more powerful nation of the world?

To be fair this one isn't part of Bush's advisors, he's just some Brit.
i was saying just in general. if you had 10 advisors, and 1 was completely outspoken, would you not want to know exactly why he feels that the other 9 are wrong and he is right?

Even if it was true (which is not)

And you know this how?

Not necessarily a rational, well-thought, well-considered, impersonal reason.

You're standing on thin ice with that sort of thinking.


Remember that in 1939 the majority of the german voters elected Hitler.
The majority is often right, but sometimes not

well, its certainly worth giving his idea more thought than "nah, the others cant all be wrong"

because, you know, the majority isnt always right

I'm not saying you don't consider their opinion.
I'm saying you don't automatically go with their opinion because they're disagreeing with everyone else.

To be fair this one isn't part of Bush's advisors, he's just some Brit.
Coming from an English(?) person I find this post rather confusing. As far as I know, your countrymen are in Iraq too.

And you know this how?


because I personally know two politicians of my country, who are not liars. And because for a simple statistic reason they cannot be all liars, EXPECIALLY in the US where the people are quite severe with liars

I'm not saying you don't consider their opinion.
I'm saying you don't automatically go with their opinion because they're disagreeing with everyone else.
yes, but you dont just turn round and go "theyre all saying whatever, 9 people cant possibly be wrong", i would put a hell of a lot of effort into investigating tat one persons reasons, he must have a very good reason to go against the others and to think that they are all wrong or that theyve missed something

shrub, let's use a simple anecdote to put you in the president's place during those times:

let's say, arbitrarily, that you've got, oh, 20 main advisors to whom you listen. let's say that 19 of them hold one viewpoint and strongly encourage you to act according to it... and one dissenting viewpoint.

whom will you believe?
The President chose the members of his cabinet, and he is their boss. Although I agree, a lot of Bush's decisions have been crafted by people other than him (such as his budget), I highly doubt that Bush would choose cabinet members, of which 19 out of 20, would lie to him.

Which politician DOESN'T lie? Name one.
Howard Dean, hahaha.

But anyway, a President being caught lying is grounds for impeachment. Clinton was impeached for lying about a fucking blowjob. But lying about the intelligence on Iraq is okay?!

The President chose the members of his cabinet, and he is their boss. Although I agree, a lot of Bush's decisions have been crafted by people other than him (such as his budget), I highly doubt that Bush would choose cabinet members, of which 19 out of 20, would lie to him.


Howard Dean, hahaha.

But anyway, a President being caught lying is grounds for impeachment. Clinton was impeached for lying about a fucking blowjob. But lying about the intelligence on Iraq is okay?!

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.

Coming from an English(?) person I find this post rather confusing. As far as I know, your countrymen are in Iraq too.

I'm saying that if bush was being advised he's going to take more notice of his advisors as we should ours. Of course exchange information but we should make our own decision

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.

but he lied about a very personal issue, his situation with his wife, and I still don't understand why this should be something to worry about for the electors
while lying about the reasons of a war which has brought great instability to the international community is something else

I'm glad that he lied to me. So what?! I'm even gladder we went over and kicked the crap out of Iraq and toppled Hussein.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.

Why was he even asked about it under oath?

but he lied about a very personal issue, his situation with his wife, and I still don't understand why this should be something to worry about for the electors
while lying about the reasons of a war which has brought great instability to the international community is something else

He was asked the questions under oath. If you aren't asked the question under oath, your answer can be a lie, and not be impeachable.

To be impeached, you have to commit an offense under law. You know, obstruction of justice, committing perjury - something illegal.

And if all the evidence you have of an "offense" is a claim by a single person, it looks like we'll have a roomful of other witnesses who will claim that nothing of the sort took place.

Prosecutors often look at this sort of thing in advance, to determine whether or not it's worth fishing for more evidence of wrongdoing. Here we have no offense under the law, and meager evidence of a conflict of opinion (which is no offense at all).

I'm glad that he lied to me. So what?! I'm even gladder we went over and kicked the crap out of Iraq and toppled Hussein.
so your happy that your president lies to the country to get what he wants?

so your happy that your president lies to the country to get what he wants?

We have precious little evidence that an overt lie took place.

We have the "claims" of one man, who has no other evidence to back him up.

I'm saying that if bush was being advised he's going to take more notice of his advisors as we should ours. Of course exchange information but we should make our own decision
ok. even agreed. not confused anymore :)

so your happy that your president lies to the country to get what he wants?

You have no proof of a lie. :rolleyes:

We know that Al Qaeda was in Iraq... they had training grounds. Not much went on in Iraq that Saddam was not aware of/could not control. And Saddam was paying families of terrorists.

We know that Al Qaeda was in the US... they were training at their flying schools. Not much went on in the US that the Bush administration was not aware of/took seriously (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html). And the US have historically funded (http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1) undemocratic, terrorist and despot powers to maintain their hegemony.

I took the liberty of calling\emailing the major newsmedias (at the request, of an auto-email, after filling out the petition), and I suggested that they cover the Downing Street memo.

When I called CBS News, someone answered. I told him that I'm a viewer and wanted to suggest a certain story. He said, "Downing Street Memo?", and I said, yes, then he said he was going to transfer me to their mailbox. They must've had a fair amount of calls on it, for him to ask me that. ;)

I also filled out some stuff on CNN's feedback form. For anyone else who has filled out the memo, TELL THE MEDIA TO COVER THE STORY!

ABC World News Tonight
Phone: 212-456-4040
netaudr@abc.com

CBS Evening News
Phone: 212-975-3691
evening@cbsnews.com

NBC Nightly News
Phone: 212-664-4971
nightly@nbc.com

PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
Phone: 703-739-5000
newshour@pbs.org

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form11b.html?1

From another forum I visit, someone posted:

I strongly suggest that everyone here sign the petition, write the President a letter, and tell as many people as you know. After the petition reaches 500,000 people, Congressman John Conyers (D - MI) is going to deliver the petition to the President.

I believe it's sad that we even need a petition for this. A full-fledged investigation should've been launched immediately. It was only the cooperation of the media and the people that led to the investigation of Nixon. Hopefully, bias in the media and apathy won't permit this criminal to stay in office.

Unfortunately, signing a petition gets you almost nowhere. It's much more effective to contact one's senators and representative. The Bush administration and Republicans have shown that they hate truth and will use Stalinist tactics of repeating a lie until it is accepted by the public as fact.

Rather than signing the petition, contact your senators and representative. Demand that they look into the matter. Demand that Bush be held responsible for lying to the congress and U.S. citizens. Let them know that if they are not willing do to what is right, you will vote for someone who is.

so your happy that your president lies to the country to get what he wants?

I believe that's what I wrote.

I took the liberty of calling\emailing the major newsmedias (at the request, of an auto-email, after filling out the petition), and I suggested that they cover the Downing Street memo.

When I called CBS News, someone answered. I told him that I'm a viewer and wanted to suggest a certain story. He said, "Downing Street Memo?", and I said, yes, then he said he was going to transfer me to their mailbox. They must've had a fair amount of calls on it, for him to ask me that. ;)

I also filled out some stuff on CNN's feedback form. For anyone else who has filled out the memo, TELL THE MEDIA TO COVER THE STORY!

ABC World News Tonight
Phone: 212-456-4040
netaudr@abc.com

CBS Evening News
Phone: 212-975-3691
evening@cbsnews.com

NBC Nightly News
Phone: 212-664-4971
nightly@nbc.com

PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
Phone: 703-739-5000
newshour@pbs.org

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form11b.html?1

You've just been transferred to the circular file.

If the story had real weight to it, they would be covering it already.

You've just been transferred to the circular file.

If the story had real weight to it, they would be covering it already.
Not entirely true. If newsmedias are bombarded with calls over a specific story, they'll cover it. They're partially about politics, but mostly about ratings. If people demand a certain story to be covered, they'll cover it.

And as said before, it's on The Times (www.timesonline.co.uk), frontpage.

Oh please, if only enough people call in, the media will be forced to cover the story!

Oh please, otherwise the vast right-wing conspiracy will take over and suppress the story!

Oh please, stop! You're making me laugh so hard I'm spraying my drink all over the keyboard! :D

I took the liberty of calling\emailing the major newsmedias (at the request, of an auto-email, after filling out the petition), and I suggested that they cover the Downing Street memo.

When I called CBS News, someone answered. I told him that I'm a viewer and wanted to suggest a certain story. He said, "Downing Street Memo?", and I said, yes, then he said he was going to transfer me to their mailbox. They must've had a fair amount of calls on it, for him to ask me that. ;)

I also filled out some stuff on CNN's feedback form. For anyone else who has filled out the memo, TELL THE MEDIA TO COVER THE STORY!

ABC World News Tonight
Phone: 212-456-4040
netaudr@abc.com

CBS Evening News
Phone: 212-975-3691
evening@cbsnews.com

NBC Nightly News
Phone: 212-664-4971
nightly@nbc.com

PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
Phone: 703-739-5000
newshour@pbs.org

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form11b.html?1

I'm sure that out of these four pinkos that at least one of them will go on the attack and bash the US again. Maybe they can send out some goons and start slapping old ladies, too. How about that?

Not entirely true. If newsmedias are bombarded with calls over a specific story, they'll cover it. They're partially about politics, but mostly about ratings. If people demand a certain story to be covered, they'll cover it.

Not true. Please cite a large scale example.

We have precious little evidence that an overt lie took place.

We have the "claims" of one man, who has no other evidence to back him up.

You have no proof of a lie. :rolleyes:

i think you will find what i was saying was in reference to this:


I'm glad that he lied to me. So what?! I'm even gladder we went over and kicked the crap out of Iraq and toppled Hussein.

and not to whether or not there was a lie

Now I'm taking a big HYPOTHETICAL ASSUMTION. That is if the former head of MI-6has sent this memo before the war started the our cabinet would have known of the head of MI-6's complaints and decided to go to war anyway. Mr Blair would be just as comprable. "Who is the bigger fool, the fool or the fool that follows?"

On a side note anyone wonder why he's the former head of MI-6

I'm trying to take neither side here

and not to whether or not there was a lie

It's traditional for politicians to lie.

I have a firm belief that EVERYONE will lie at one point in their life (at the very least).

What matters is not whether you lied, but to whom and why.

437,000

I believe that's what I wrote.
I find that pretty unbelievable

It's traditional for politicians to lie.

I have a firm belief that EVERYONE will lie at one point in their life (at the very least).

What matters is not whether you lied, but to whom and why.
you see, you havent read what i wrote properly

Dorksonia said he was glad the President lied to take America to war. his words.

I was just confirming what he said.

437,000

He's running the script to test it now.

I'm wondering if he'll be able to push the number over the total population of the United States...

kicked the crap out of Iraq and toppled Hussein.

The second statement is the right one

Not entirely true. If newsmedias are bombarded with calls over a specific story, they'll cover it. They're partially about politics, but mostly about ratings. If people demand a certain story to be covered, they'll cover it.

And as said before, it's on The Times (www.timesonline.co.uk), frontpage.
You really should make an effort to get a life, you know? :D

I'm wondering if he'll be able to push the number over the total population of the United States...

that would be funny

Unfortunately, signing a petition gets you almost nowhere. It's much more effective to contact one's senators and representative. The Bush administration and Republicans have shown that they hate truth and will use Stalinist tactics of repeating a lie until it is accepted by the public as fact.

Rather than signing the petition, contact your senators and representative. Demand that they look into the matter. Demand that Bush be held responsible for lying to the congress and U.S. citizens. Let them know that if they are not willing do to what is right, you will vote for someone who is.

...and some of you left-wing nutjobs seem to revel in libel and slander... assuming the worst.

one guy says he thought that the intel was not sufficient, and you jump on that bandwagon. lol. you've shown that you will shame yourselves to show how full of hate you are.

I find that pretty unbelievable

You're naive to think ALL politicians or people in power don't lie. They do all the time; no different than anybody else.

Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
Washington post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html
Chigago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0505170052may17,1,5984426.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/

NEWS OVER THERE, BUT NOT HERE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400705.html

...and some of you left-wing nutjobs seem to revel in libel and slander... assuming the worst.

one guy says he thought that the intel was not sufficient, and you jump on that bandwagon. lol. you've shown that you will shame yourselves to show how full of hate you are.

Blanket statements like that are good for what?
Does it help debate? No
Is it a feeble attempt to troll someone? more likely

You're naive to think ALL politicians or people in power don't lie. They do all the time; no different than anybody else.
no, im not surprised politicians lie, i know they do

what i am surprised at is that you would be so happy to accept your President lying to take your country to war.

you arent reading me properly

Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
Washington post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html
Chigago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0505170052may17,1,5984426.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/

NEWS OVER THERE, BUT NOT HERE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400705.html


You'll notice that the Washington Post article is from over two weeks ago.

It's news that is dead on arrival here.

...and some of you left-wing nutjobs seem to revel in libel and slander... assuming the worst.

one guy says he thought that the intel was not sufficient, and you jump on that bandwagon. lol. you've shown that you will shame yourselves to show how full of hate you are.
well the one guy was correct, wasn't he. Oh crap. I forgot. You don't care about the fact that nothing has been found.

well the one guy was correct, wasn't he. Oh crap. I forgot. You don't care about the fact that nothing has been found.
They did find out what happened to the 1800 gallons of anthrax that the UNSCOM and other sources had verified was produced.

Of course, since the only person who knew what happened to it would never tell Saddam, and never tell the UN inspectors, there was only one way to find out.

Interrogate her to get the information and verify it by digging it up where she dumped it.

See the final report of the WMD survey group to our Congress. And remember the name Taha.

As far as external intel before the war goes, EVERYONE in the world agreed there was 1800 gallons of anthrax. Even Saddam thought he had 1800 gallons of anthrax.

You'll notice that the Washington Post article is from over two weeks ago.

It's news that is dead on arrival here.
The Times article is from 1st of May. so? the memo was released years ago. We just wonder why it's not an issue in USA. And the last link gives one answer to that.

I'm appauled at the amount of Conservatives who are saying:

1) It's okay that Bush lied.
2) Because all politicians lie.

That's called a "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. It's okay for me to murder your wife, because you murdered mine?

Or a more realistic comparison: It's okay for me to mistreat your imprisoned soldiers, because you mistreated mine. It's okay to kill your country's civilians, because you killed mine.

Hypocrasy abounds.

I'm appauled at the amount of Conservatives who are saying:

1) It's okay that Bush lied.
2) Because all politicians lie.

That's called a "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. It's okay for me to murder your wife, because you murdered mine?

Or a more realistic comparison: It's okay for me to mistreat your imprisoned soldiers, because you mistreated mine. It's okay to kill your country's civilians, because you killed mine.

Hypocrasy abounds.
"its ok for me to murder, because lots of people murder" would be closer

its the classic "but everybody does it!" defence

I'm appauled at the amount of Conservatives who are saying:

1) It's okay that Bush lied.
2) Because all politicians lie.

That's called a "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. It's okay for me to murder your wife, because you murdered mine?

Or a more realistic comparison: It's okay for me to mistreat your imprisoned soldiers, because you mistreated mine. It's okay to kill your country's civilians, because you killed mine.

Hypocrasy abounds.

Shrubby, old boy, you really need to get out more often and sniff reality. Lying in office is real. Harsh, ugly perhaps, but true nonetheless.
I could care less why we went to war. If Mickey Mouse said he hated Hussein and we should kill him, that would have been good enough for me. I agree with that cause. Where's the hypocracy?

Now that we're there, we SHOULD be draining that middle-eastern dessert of every last drop of oil it has and hoarding it. Then, we should bulldoze the entire area and build a big Walmart superstore!

I'm appauled at the amount of Conservatives who are saying:

1) It's okay that Bush lied.
2) Because all politicians lie.

That's called a "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. It's okay for me to murder your wife, because you murdered mine?

Or a more realistic comparison: It's okay for me to mistreat your imprisoned soldiers, because you mistreated mine. It's okay to kill your country's civilians, because you killed mine.

Hypocrasy abounds.

You keep saying he lied.

There's no solid evidence for that that cannot be explained by a more simple explanation - we had bad intelligence about what was going on in Iraq, and everyone DID agree there was 1800 gallons of anthrax.

And we DID find out what happened to the anthrax.

Don't you think, in your world of vast right-wing conspiracies, that Bush and Blair would have been careful enough to manufacture a few mobile WMD labs, and a few rockets filled with nuclear warheads and anthrax, and then right at the moment that Iraq was defeated that spring, they would have trotted them out saying, "Look!" ?

The fact that they didn't do this makes it far more likely to me that they listened to bad or incomplete intel. And it was a known fact even to UNSCOM that there was a LOT of unaccounted-for anthrax. And it was impossible to determine where it was, or if it still existed - until we were able to interrogate Taha and verify her story.

You keep saying he lied.

There's no solid evidence for that that cannot be explained by a more simple explanation - we had bad intelligence about what was going on in Iraq, and everyone DID agree there was 1800 gallons of anthrax.

And we DID find out what happened to the anthrax.

Don't you think, in your world of vast right-wing conspiracies, that Bush and Blair would have been careful enough to manufacture a few mobile WMD labs, and a few rockets filled with nuclear warheads and anthrax, and then right at the moment that Iraq was defeated that spring, they would have trotted them out saying, "Look!" ?

The fact that they didn't do this makes it far more likely to me that they listened to bad or incomplete intel. And it was a known fact even to UNSCOM that there was a LOT of unaccounted-for anthrax. And it was impossible to determine where it was, or if it still existed - until we were able to interrogate Taha and verify her story.
and find out that the guy was right. :D (sorry, couldn't help it...)
anyway the war was launched without facts. Just speculation.

Don't you think, in your world of vast right-wing conspiracies, that Bush and Blair would have been careful enough to manufacture a few mobile WMD labs, and a few rockets filled with nuclear warheads and anthrax, and then right at the moment that Iraq was defeated that spring, they would have trotted them out saying, "Look!" ?


Why should they have done it? They already had what they wanted, with no consequences.
Even now that we know there were no WMD, has it done any difference?
Bush has learned that he can do what the hell he wants without justifying it, because he leads the most powerful nation of the world and nobody can oppose him --- all the other Presidents knew it, but they did have respect for the rest of the world

You keep saying he lied.

He probably keeps saying it because Bush DID lie!

and find out that the guy was right. :D (sorry, couldn't help it...)

The problem is, there was no way he could have known what Taha knew.

She, and a couple of co-workers, were the only people on the planet who knew.

Because she and they were terrified that if Saddam found out where she dumped it (next to one of his palaces) they would be tortured to death.

So they didn't tell UN inspectors, or anyone else. They also were the ones who kept the UN inspectors away from Saddam's palaces - just for that reason.

If the UN found out, Taha knew she would be dead.

So because of some stupid coverup in Iraq, EVERYONE got bad intel.

If the MI-6 man had that opinion, he was just guessing.

If we have a solid report from the UN in the form of an UNSCOM report that says the anthrax is missing, we need a solid report as to what happened to it - not some guess from an MI-6 man.

...


If we have a solid report from the UN in the form of an UNSCOM report that says the anthrax is missing, we need a solid report as to what happened to it - not some guess from an MI-6 man.
But the conclusion you made was wrong. It wasn't anything but a guess. I'd like if politicians make decicions based on facts, not on speculation.

Shrubby, old boy, you really need to get out more often and sniff reality. Lying in office is real. Harsh, ugly perhaps, but true nonetheless.
I could care less why we went to war. If Mickey Mouse said he hated Hussein and we should kill him, that would have been good enough for me. I agree with that cause. Where's the hypocracy?

Now that we're there, we SHOULD be draining that middle-eastern dessert of every last drop of oil it has and hoarding it. Then, we should bulldoze the entire area and build a big Walmart superstore!
Man, I wish you were a Republican Senator on TV right now.

Wait, you aren't a Republican Senator, are you?!

You keep saying he lied.

There's no solid evidence for that that cannot be explained by a more simple explanation - we had bad intelligence about what was going on in Iraq, and everyone DID agree there was 1800 gallons of anthrax.

And we DID find out what happened to the anthrax.
...And, as it turns out, the anthrax had been dumped 10 years ago (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050329-125828-2605r.htm).

The Niger Yellow-Cake story was a classic example of propaganda in action.


Don't you think, in your world of vast right-wing conspiracies, that Bush and Blair would have been careful enough to manufacture a few mobile WMD labs, and a few rockets filled with nuclear warheads and anthrax, and then right at the moment that Iraq was defeated that spring, they would have trotted them out saying, "Look!" ?
That would be an extremely difficult covert operation. I think it was too much of a risk, in case of soldiers, the media, or civilians observing it. Though I don't doubt that it could happen in the near future, as the Iraqi war dies down and they continue "scouring" Iraq for the supposed WMDs.


The fact that they didn't do this makes it far more likely to me that they listened to bad or incomplete intel. And it was a known fact even to UNSCOM that there was a LOT of unaccounted-for anthrax. And it was impossible to determine where it was, or if it still existed - until we were able to interrogate Taha and verify her story.
And yet Britain's own head of national intelligence stated that the government was fixing the intelligence for Iraq, almost a year before we invaded.

Sadly given the amound of evidence, from the memo, to your president's stated agenda, to PNAC's own press material, it's impossible for me to think the war wasn't about oil.
Perhaps I would have been able to understand your aggression if Iraq had posed some kind of threat, however minimal, against your nation. But that's a laughable notion.

What I see are a bunch of warmongering fascist psychopaths who declares international law (which they helped create) invalid. Then they, for purely economic reasons, go to war against the lamest duck they could find: A country everyone hates, that has no allies and cannot offer coherrent military resistance.
Considering that your rightwing politicians have a long history of doing exactly the same thing whenever their popularity starts to dwindle, just supports that idea.

I am not sorry if that offends any of you. By your own laws you are criminals and should be tried for crimes against humanity. That you think such conduct ok, no matter what arguement you can dream up, just displays how badly you need to be locked away.
I never felt less safe in my life, now that the only superpower of the world have set a new standard for unprovoked aggression, massmurder and complete disregard for the laws that binds our nations together.

Since you are in a state of war, I hope you somehow will see reason, courtmarshall every one of you and kill yourself off to the last bloody daft, inbred redneck. You would make the world a much, much safer place for the rest of us.

Or perhaps you could just scrap your star wars project and think of a way to remove USA from our world. Go live on Mars or something. Thank you.

You know, guys.

I really fail to see how:
U.S. Intelligence > British Intelligence

And:

President Bush > Chief of MI-6

Someone explain it to me.

You know, we share intelligence. That was the whole basis for MI-6 going there. What? You think he just went there for tea and fucking crumpets?!

I think the real problem in America today is this:

People with access to sensitive documents MUST NOT LEAK THEM, no matter their contents. Once that begins, the government can no longer operate efficiently. If the employee, or whomever leaks the information, does so because he/she does not approve, IT DOES NOT MATTER. THEY TOOK AN OATH to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and if they violate that oath, they should be tried, and executed, for treason if found guilty.

I don't speak only of the Bush administration, but of every administration. If our government workers had leaked the D-Day invasion plans (Operation Overlord), thousands more could have died. These people do not realize what can happen.

The Media also does not have a right to know, and report, on every piece of information they recieve. Nowhere in the Constitution does an ammendment state, "And the Media shall have unrestricted access to all government dealings, and it shall have absolute power over itself and all that upon which it reports," or any sentence like unto that. We have been guaranteed freedom of speech, but not the freedom of Undermining or causing Detrimental affects upon the Nation.

Shrubby, old boy, you really need to get out more often and sniff reality. Lying in office is real. Harsh, ugly perhaps, but true nonetheless.
I could care less why we went to war. If Mickey Mouse said he hated Hussein and we should kill him, that would have been good enough for me. I agree with that cause. Where's the hypocracy?

Now that we're there, we SHOULD be draining that middle-eastern dessert of every last drop of oil it has and hoarding it. Then, we should bulldoze the entire area and build a big Walmart superstore!

...and import labor from places like East Timor and Mexico -- at 10 cents per hour (US) -- to man the stores. hehe

People with access to sensitive documents MUST NOT LEAK THEM, no matter their contents. Once that begins, the government can no longer operate efficiently.
I believe that if it's for a moral cause, it's completely justified.

What if members of the Afghanistani government leaked sensitive documents, which showed Bin Laden was planning the 9\11 attacks? You see my point.

You know, guys.

I really fail to see how:
U.S. Intelligence > British Intelligence

And:

President Bush > Chief of MI-6

Someone explain it to me.

You know, we share intelligence. That was the whole basis for MI-6 going there. What? You think he just went there for tea and fucking crumpets?!

of course he went there for tea and crumpets, not to mention biscuits and sherry... Iraq is know for their premium tea, crumpets, biscuits and sherry.

Sadly given the amound of evidence, from the memo, to your president's stated agenda, to PNAC's own press material, it's impossible for me to think the war wasn't about oil.
Perhaps I would have been able to understand your aggression if Iraq had posed some kind of threat, however minimal, against your nation. But that's a laughable notion.

What I see are a bunch of warmongering fascist psychopaths who declares international law (which they helped create) invalid. Then they, for purely economic reasons, go to war against the lamest duck they could find: A country everyone hates, that has no allies and cannot offer coherrent military resistance.
Considering that your rightwing politicians have a long history of doing exactly the same thing whenever their popularity starts to dwindle, just supports that idea.

I am not sorry if that offends any of you. By your own laws you are criminals and should be tried for crimes against humanity. That you think such conduct ok, no matter what arguement you can dream up, just displays how badly you need to be locked away.
I never felt less safe in my life, now that the only superpower of the world have set a new standard for unprovoked aggression, massmurder and complete disregard for the laws that binds our nations together.

Since you are in a state of war, I hope you somehow will see reason, courtmarshall every one of you and kill yourself off to the last bloody daft, inbred redneck. You would make the world a much, much safer place for the rest of us.

Or perhaps you could just scrap your star wars project and think of a way to remove USA from our world. Go live on Mars or something. Thank you.

Hmm... I suppose this is why everyone hates America. Heaven forbid they offer any proof of their allegations.

We saved the world in WWII. The Russians and Brits couldn't have done it alone. It was our industry, our manpower, our might, our foodstuffs production, which kept the Allies in the fight against Nazi Germany. I guess everyone is too young to remember those days. They are also too young to remember the oppression and repression and massmurder of the Communist regimes, only to which America could stand against.

America has driven the world's economy, and invention, for over a hundred-fifty years. America invented the telephone, the internet, the airplane, the automobile, the television, and our gov't and civilian programs/corporations have produced the most advanced technologies used around the world today.

If you don't believe the economy part, then how come the ENTIRE WORLD dipped into recession after the September 11 attacks? How come no one has any sympathy for America after such a horrendous event?

And if this war was for oil, why the heck is my mother paying $2.60 for a gallon of gas? It is basic economics. The more of a commodity, the cheaper it is.

Anyway, all I guess I have to say, is,

Damn you, sir, and all the other ingrates in the world who have nothing to hate, and decide to hate the most generous nation in the world, the glue which holds this planet, and all its nations, in a coherent, civilized, state. Your precious (but useless) U.N. was initiated by the US, and the US continues to fund over 75% of its operations.

I can go on and on like this, because once you, in your IGNORANCE, start blaming America for things it HAS NOT DONE, and not giving credit to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the enormous good that it has done for this world, both Republicans and Democrats, you have lost any credibility in my eyes, and the eyes of many others.

What? You think he just went there for tea and fucking crumpets?!
No. I don't. I think you went there because the US is an important ally, and because your weapons industry is the main source of income for your neoliberal politicians.

WMD's my ass. Iraq wasn't even a threat to it's neighbours.

Fine that you lot removed a dictator. That does not make your actions justifiable, legal or anything but a crime against humanity.

If I go kill off everyone involved in the American 2 party regime, and justifies it by saying they have WMD's, does that make me anything but an insane criminal?

I know for a fact you have WMD's. I know you sell them (you exported them to Iraq, which is how Saddam was able to gass the Kurds). I know you're not afraid to use them (remember WWII?). I know you harbour terrorists (the CIA). I know you provide funding and training for terrorists (you bought, trained and armed Al Qaida).
You're an oppressive regime (you have the biggest procentage of your own population imprissoned the world have ever seen, and several are flat out political prisoners).Your elections aren't free (you do not choose your own candidates, voters are prevented from participating, 3rd parties have no fair chance).

The above are more - and incidentially also true - reasons, than you lot ever had for attacking Iraq. Yet I'd clearly be a criminal if I somehow managed to eradicate every last bit of American powerstructure. And since I'm sure you lot agree it would be criminal of me to do so, why do you not think you are?

Your hypocracy is neverending... I hope you blow yourself up someday. Sooner rather than later preferrably.

I believe that if it's for a moral cause, it's completely justified.

What if members of the Afghanistani government leaked sensitive documents, which showed Bin Laden was planning the 9\11 attacks? You see my point.

You wouldn't believe them. And you certainly wouldn't approve of their use as an excuse to invade Afghanistan.


Why don't you admit it? You just want the US to be defeated at any cost by anyone who is willing to do it as soon as possible by any means necessary?

And you don't care what you have to allege or say in order to make that happen.

No. I don't. I think you went there because the US is an important ally, and because your weapons industry is the main source of income for your neoliberal politicians.

WMD's my ass. Iraq wasn't even a threat to it's neighbours.

Fine that you lot removed a dictator. That does not make your actions justifiable, legal or anything but a crime against humanity.

If I go kill off everyone involved in the American 2 party regime, and justifies it by saying they have WMD's, does that make me anything but an insane criminal?

I know for a fact you have WMD's. I know you sell them (you exported them to Iraq, which is how Saddam was able to gass the Kurds). I know you're not afraid to use them (remember WWII?). I know you harbour terrorists (the CIA). I know you provide funding and training for terrorists (you bought, trained and armed Al Qaida).
You're an oppressive regime (you have the biggest procentage of your own population imprissoned the world have ever seen, and several are flat out political prisoners).Your elections aren't free (you do not choose your own candidates, voters are prevented from participating, 3rd parties have no fair chance).

The above are more - and incidentially also true - reasons, than you lot ever had for attacking Iraq. Yet I'd clearly be a criminal if I somehow managed to eradicate every last bit of American powerstructure. And since I'm sure you lot agree it would be criminal of me to do so, why do you not think you are?

Your hypocracy is neverending... I hope you blow yourself up someday. Sooner rather than later preferrably.

Damn you, sir. We equipped the Taliban so as to fight against the Russians. They did that damn well. (To any mods, please excuse my language. I am quite worked up.)

Bell rang. I'll finishe this later.

Hmm... I suppose this is why everyone hates America. Heaven forbid they offer any proof of their allegations.

We saved the world in WWII. The Russians and Brits couldn't have done it alone. It was our industry, our manpower, our might, our foodstuffs production, which kept the Allies in the fight against Nazi Germany. I guess everyone is too young to remember those days. They are also too young to remember the oppression and repression and massmurder of the Communist regimes, only to which America could stand against.

America has driven the world's economy, and invention, for over a hundred-fifty years. America invented the telephone, the internet, the airplane, the automobile, the television, and our gov't and civilian programs/corporations have produced the most advanced technologies used around the world today.

If you don't believe the economy part, then how come the ENTIRE WORLD dipped into recession after the September 11 attacks? How come no one has any sympathy for America after such a horrendous event?

And if this war was for oil, why the heck is my mother paying $2.60 for a gallon of gas? It is basic economics. The more of a commodity, the cheaper it is.

Anyway, all I guess I have to say, is,

Damn you, sir, and all the other ingrates in the world who have nothing to hate, and decide to hate the most generous nation in the world, the glue which holds this planet, and all its nations, in a coherent, civilized, state. Your precious (but useless) U.N. was initiated by the US, and the US continues to fund over 75% of its operations.

I can go on and on like this, because once you, in your IGNORANCE, start blaming America for things it HAS NOT DONE, and not giving credit to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the enormous good that it has done for this world, both Republicans and Democrats, you have lost any credibility in my eyes, and the eyes of many others.
How is any of this relevant to the memo?

You're going on, with appeals to emotion and patriotism, but it means nothing. Yes, it's a good country. But if the President lied, I don't care how great of a country this is, this isn't an attack on America. It's an attack on the President's honesty and moral character, with genuine evidence to back it up.

Hmm... I suppose this is why everyone hates America. Heaven forbid they offer any proof of their allegations.

We saved the world in WWII. The Russians and Brits couldn't have done it alone. It was our industry, our manpower, our might, our foodstuffs production, which kept the Allies in the fight against Nazi Germany. I guess everyone is too young to remember those days. They are also too young to remember the oppression and repression and massmurder of the Communist regimes, only to which America could stand against.

America has driven the world's economy, and invention, for over a hundred-fifty years. America invented the telephone, the internet, the airplane, the automobile, the television, and our gov't and civilian programs/corporations have produced the most advanced technologies used around the world today.

If you don't believe the economy part, then how come the ENTIRE WORLD dipped into recession after the September 11 attacks? How come no one has any sympathy for America after such a horrendous event?

And if this war was for oil, why the heck is my mother paying $2.60 for a gallon of gas? It is basic economics. The more of a commodity, the cheaper it is.

Anyway, all I guess I have to say, is,

Damn you, sir, and all the other ingrates in the world who have nothing to hate, and decide to hate the most generous nation in the world, the glue which holds this planet, and all its nations, in a coherent, civilized, state. Your precious (but useless) U.N. was initiated by the US, and the US continues to fund over 75% of its operations.

I can go on and on like this, because once you, in your IGNORANCE, start blaming America for things it HAS NOT DONE, and not giving credit to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the enormous good that it has done for this world, both Republicans and Democrats, you have lost any credibility in my eyes, and the eyes of many others.


no one wants to be ingrate
but the America of Roosevelt isn't the America of Bush
there is an enormous difference between them, and you can't deny it

No. I don't. I think you went there because the US is an important ally, and because your weapons industry is the main source of income for your neoliberal politicians.

WMD's my ass. Iraq wasn't even a threat to it's neighbours.

Fine that you lot removed a dictator. That does not make your actions justifiable, legal or anything but a crime against humanity.

If I go kill off everyone involved in the American 2 party regime, and justifies it by saying they have WMD's, does that make me anything but an insane criminal?

I know for a fact you have WMD's. I know you sell them (you exported them to Iraq, which is how Saddam was able to gass the Kurds). I know you're not afraid to use them (remember WWII?). I know you harbour ists (the CIA). I know you provide funding and training for ists (you bought, trained and armed Al Qaida).
You're an oppressive regime (you have the biggest procentage of your own population imprissoned the world have ever seen, and several are flat out political prisoners).Your elections aren't free (you do not choose your own candidates, voters are prevented from participating, 3rd parties have no fair chance).

The above are more - and incidentially also true - reasons, than you lot ever had for attacking Iraq. Yet I'd clearly be a criminal if I somehow managed to eradicate every last bit of American powerstructure. And since I'm sure you lot agree it would be criminal of me to do so, why do you not think you are?

Your hypocracy is neverending... I hope you blow yourself up someday. Sooner rather than later preferrably.

:headbang: and you wonder why i say screw the world lets become isolationist and let the world go screw itself? because of morons like him :mp5: :sniper:

You wouldn't believe them. And you certainly wouldn't approve of their use as an excuse to invade Afghanistan.


Why don't you admit it? You just want the US to be defeated at any cost by anyone who is willing to do it as soon as possible by any means necessary?

And you don't care what you have to allege or say in order to make that happen.
Hahaha. And now, you're going to totally ignore the memo, and instead claim, "I'm only saying it because I'm unamerican, and want to support terrorism!"

Nice ad-hominem. Your comment is irrelevant as well.

This discussion has gone off so I only have one thing to say

443,000

How is any of this relevant to the memo?

You're going on, with appeals to emotion and patriotism, but it means nothing. Yes, it's a good country. But if the President lied, I don't care how great of a country this is, this isn't an attack on America. It's an attack on the President's honesty and moral character, with genuine evidence to back it up.

but there is no geniune evidence to back up your claims. all you have are "memos" given by p.o.'d people who detest bush and america. and so what if he's appealing to emotion and patriotism? hes making revelvent statements which are completly correct which your pinko commie warped logic cant reconcile with your moronic ideas.

go back to france and screw yourselves you ungrateful idiots.

This discussion has gone off so I only have one thing to say

443,000

The number saddam had killed?

Hahaha. And now, you're going to totally ignore the memo, and instead claim, "I'm only saying it because I'm unamerican, and want to support terrorism!"

Nice ad-hominem. Your comment is irrelevant as well.

Everyone in the US appears to be ignoring the memo, including a lot of media sources that are far to the left of where I am.

I'm not saying you're unamerican. I'm saying that you wish to destroy the United States at any cost - even if you have to lie, distort, and wheedle to do it.

Even if you have to take a memo that has no other real substantiation - no solid evidence behind it - you want to bring down the government.

Hmm. Who does that sound like?

If Bush did as you think he did, then he took information with little or no substantiation and he ran with it, in order to bring down the government of Iraq at any cost.

So what do you do? You want to take information with little or no substantiation and run with it, in order to bring down the government of the United States at any cost.

Sound familiar?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

And I might add, Game, Set, and Match... you've been pwned.

Remember that if you save my life it doesn't mean that I have to follow you in your mistakes

Fair.org (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) has a section on Downing Street, and released news on it today, saying that they're scheduling two interviews on it:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=63

They also showed that there's been a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, devoted towards revealing the truth:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

I also expect there to be more stories on it, soon.

So what do you do? You want to take information with little or no substantiation and run with it, in order to bring down the government of the United States at any cost.

Sound familiar?



The difference is that we will verify the information before we start bringing down things

The difference is that we will verify the information before we start bringing down things
Ahahaha.

Fair.org (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) has a section on Downing Street, and released news on it today, saying that they're scheduling two interviews on it:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=63

They also showed that there's been a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, devoted towards revealing the truth:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

I also expect there to be more stories on it, soon.

This is rich! Very very rich. Not even believable.

The difference is that we will verify the information before we start bringing down things

No, Shrubbery here is saying that it's true and real, and that we should bring down the government now. "Take Action Now!"

He's doing EXACTLY what he's accusing someone else of doing. ;)

but there is no geniune evidence to back up your claims. all you have are "memos" given by p.o.'d people who detest bush and america.
The British government detests Bush and America?!

Wow!!

So someone should kill Bush right? And then CLAIM that he was going to invade another country kill 100,000's of innocent civilians and oh wait...no we have to make something up. Um ok how about we take Bush out of power and lie about our reasons saying he was going to nuke Mexcio. Republicans I don't wanna hear you whine now, this is your way of doing things!

The number saddam had killed?

number of signitures on the petition whenever the convorsation annoys me i put in a running total

No, Shrubbery here is saying that it's true and real, and that we should bring down the government now. "Take Action Now!"

He's doing EXACTLY what he's accusing someone else of doing. ;)
I'm saying:
1. Contact the media.
2. Write to your Congressmen.
3. Protest.

I'm hardly suggesting that we bomb schoolbuses, weddings, or small children in Bush's hometown, or even show up to the White House, bearing torches.

We saved the world in WWII.

Oh spare me the drama. I'm American too, but that's just bullshit. We did not win WWII alone nor could we have. It was an allied effort. We saved it together.

That's why people hate us, we take credit for what we do and what we don't do! Heaven forbid we might actually admit a mistake. Jeezubs.

number of signitures on the petition whenever the convorsation annoys me i put in a running total

It doesn't matter. Bush done nothing to deserve impeachment. The Congress knows this and so it'll get voted right out of the House Judiciary Committee. That is if it gets that far. Don't forget, the House still has to approve of a special Prosecutor and there's nothing here to investigate.

This is nothing.

No, Shrubbery here is saying that it's true and real, and that we should bring down the government now. "Take Action Now!"

He's doing EXACTLY what he's accusing someone else of doing. ;)


But Shrubbery isn't the Supreme Court, while Bush is the President of the US
if I had the means and the power to really have influence on things, maybe I would be a more cautious

I'm saying:
1. Contact the media.
2. Write to your Congressmen.
3. Protest.

I'm hardly suggesting that we bomb schoolbuses, weddings, or small children in Bush's hometown, or even show up to the White House, bearing torches.

You said we should impeach Bush. Did you forget?

And all on no real evidence!

But Shrubbery isn't the Supreme Court, while Bush is the President of the US
if I had the means and the power to really have influence on things, maybe I would be a more cautious

Read the US Constitution lately? What does the Supreme Court have to do with this?

Sadly, I don't think it is important to Americans whether the reasons for war were adequate, and whether or not attempts were made to mislead the public. This has been a long, bloody row in British politics, I simply do not see the same concern in the US.

Tactical Grace -

Please do not make assumptions about whether Americans find this important. Our media do not adequately represent us. Moreover, many of us already understood that Bush lied; this is just late confirmation.

But Shrubbery isn't the Supreme Court, while Bush is the President of the US

I was wondering if someone was going to mention this. I suggest you go back to the Supreme Court decision that did rule in his favor. Read up on the opinion. You'll see that Florida had no set recount standards and that everyone had a different set of circumstances regarding the chads and that the Florida Supreme Court was changing the rules in the middle of said recount.

Tactical Grace -

Please do not make assumptions about whether Americans find this important. Our media do not adequately represent us. Moreover, many of us already understood that Bush lied; this is just late confirmation.

Adelina, please don't make the assumption that the majority of Americans care if he lied.

If they did, they would have elected Kerry instead.

Tactical Grace -

Please do not make assumptions about whether Americans find this important. Our media do not adequately represent us. Moreover, many of us already understood that Bush lied; this is just late confirmation.

I'm waiting for proof of what he lied about. From my understanding, the intel was wrong. Intel that the US, Britain, France, Spain, Russia, France, Poland, etc believed to be accurate.

Read the US Constitution lately? What does the Supreme Court have to do with this?
hmm maybe I am wrong, but I'm not american and I thought it was the Supreme Court which judges on impeachments :D sorry

It doesn't matter. Bush done nothing to deserve impeachment. The Congress knows this and so it'll get voted right out of the House Judiciary Committee. That is if it gets that far. Don't forget, the House still has to approve of a special Prosecutor and there's nothing here to investigate.

This is nothing.
And they need a majority, to investigate, of course?

Wow. ISN'T IT WONDERFUL, BEING THE PRESIDENT?! YOU CAN COMMIT A CRIME, BUT EVEN WHEN IT'S OBVIOUS YOU DID IT, YOU NEED A GROUP OF PEOPLE, HALF OF THEM LOYAL SUPPORTERS, TO SUPPORT AN INVESTIGATION!!

And even when the Republican, Nixon, was found guilty, that bastard didn't do any jail-time. He was pardoned, by the Vice President that took over.

hmm maybe I am wrong, but I'm not american and I thought it was the Supreme Court which judges on impeachments :D sorry

Nope, it doesn't.

You said we should impeach Bush. Did you forget?

And all on no real evidence!

Well there is more evidence that Bush lied to Congress, which is not only an impeachable offence, but a federal one. Then there was to go to war with Iraq.

However, don't worry about the Shrub getting impeached. The Republicans control both houses and the White House and if we are not careful they'll control the judicial branch too.

Oh spare me the drama. I'm American too, but that's just bullshit. We did not win WWII alone nor could we have. It was an allied effort. We saved it together.

We basically won the Pacific alone.

It doesn't matter. Bush done nothing to deserve impeachment. The Congress knows this and so it'll get voted right out of the House Judiciary Committee. That is if it gets that far. Don't forget, the House still has to approve of a special Prosecutor and there's nothing here to investigate.

This is nothing.

I know but hey if a blowjob can get you impeached ;)

And they need a majority, to investigate, of course?

Wow. ISN'T IT WONDERFUL, BEING THE PRESIDENT?! YOU CAN COMMIT A CRIME, BUT EVEN WHEN IT'S OBVIOUS YOU DID IT, YOU NEED A GROUP OF PEOPLE, HALF OF THEM LOYAL SUPPORTERS, TO SUPPORT AN INVESTIGATION!!

Your a sad little man, aren't you? There's no evidence of a crime here Shrubby boy.

And even when the Republican, Nixon, was found guilty, that bastard didn't do any jail-time. He was pardoned, by the Vice President that took over.

Its the President's perogative to pardon someone.

The British government detests Bush and America?!

Wow!!

are you trying to be dumb or does it come naturally?

seriously, shut up if you dont have anything useful to say.

I know but hey if a blowjob can get you impeached ;)

He was impeached because he committed purjury, lying under oath.

And they need a majority, to investigate, of course?

Wow. ISN'T IT WONDERFUL, BEING THE PRESIDENT?! YOU CAN COMMIT A CRIME, BUT EVEN WHEN IT'S OBVIOUS YOU DID IT, YOU NEED A GROUP OF PEOPLE, HALF OF THEM LOYAL SUPPORTERS, TO SUPPORT AN INVESTIGATION!!

And even when the Republican, Nixon, was found guilty, that bastard didn't do any jail-time. He was pardoned, by the Vice President that took over.

What law was broken, that needs investigating? Pray tell.

Even if he did EXACTLY what you assert he did - cherry pick intel so that he could justify the war - the Congressmen who voted the authority for him to proceed with the war have access to the same intel (and more) under their Intelligence Committees.

So they, on the same information and more, voted him that authority.

Legally.

Did he perjure himself? No. He wasn't under oath.

Did he commit any felonies? No. Any violations of US domestic law? No.

So, what are you going to impeach him for?

Well there is more evidence that Bush lied to Congress, which is not only an impeachable offence, but a federal one. Then there was to go to war with Iraq.

I'm still waiting for the proof of the lie.

And if Bush is put under impeachment it doesn't mean he is automatically condemned
if the memo is false, he will be able to prove it

Adelina, please don't make the assumption that the majority of Americans care if he lied.
If they did, they would have elected Kerry instead.

Naw, just 48% of those who voted. Which is to say, a significant enough number to recognize that this country is divided on the subject of Mr. Bush, right wing politics, and the second Gulf War.

Your a sad little man, aren't you? There's no evidence of a crime here Shrubby boy..

Common tactic, as they say, if you have to insult the person, you've already lost the debate.

I believe lying to Congress is pretty good evidence. But he's safe, the Republicans control everything. So, while he is guilty, nothing will happen.

We basically won the Pacific alone.
you were also the only one to fight in the pacific

And if Bush is put under impeachment it doesn't mean he is automatically condemned
if the memo is false, he will be able to prove it

Considering that everyone's intel department thought he had them and reported that he had them, how is Bush lying?

...and import labor from places like East Timor and Mexico -- at 10 cents per hour (US) -- to man the stores. hehe

...now you're talkin', Frangland!

Ok my last post was just an anger thing, bust honestly you people just keep saying Bush did not lie, because it was just a claim. He was not sure about WMD then why does he just not say this? Since all we liberals are asking for is a comment why does he not just say something along those lines?

Well there is more evidence that Bush lied to Congress, which is not only an impeachable offence, but a federal one. Then there was to go to war with Iraq.

However, don't worry about the Shrub getting impeached. The Republicans control both houses and the White House and if we are not careful they'll control the judicial branch too.

Cherry picking your intel reports is not lying. And basing your decisions on such reports is not lying.

Care to try again?

I'm waiting for proof of what he lied about. From my understanding, the intel was wrong. Intel that the US, Britain, France, Spain, Russia, France, Poland, etc believed to be accurate.

Indeed, the intel was wrong. No proof will be forthcoming without an investigation.

you were also the only one to fight in the pacific

Notice BASICALLY WON Alone.

The Aussies and New Zealand helped us immensely at Guadalcanal. They were a big help in defeating the Japs there. As one Jap commander said, "Guadalcanal is the road to victory! For them or for us."

The allies won it and went on to win the war.

I have a job that exposes me to a lot of sensitive information. It would be apparent to any reporter who verified my employment that I had access to such information.

So, he would think I'm credible. Many people would. If I then just "claimed" something, would you, reading the newspaper report, believe it?

Time to put up or shut up, Whispering Legs. What is your name? How can we verify that you are that person and not just droping the name of someone known to have acess to sensitive information. Since you say claiming something doesn't make it true, you should be more than willing to provide evidence to support the claim you just made. Otherwise, stop pretending you're something your not.

Indeed, the intel was wrong. No proof will be forthcoming without an investigation.
Intel that the US, Britain, France, Spain, Russia, France, Poland, etc believed to be accurate.

So, Adelina, you're saying that Bush had the intelligence services of Britain, France, Spain, Russia, and Poland in his pocket, lying on his behalf? And that we'll discover that if we investigate?

Common tactic, as they say, if you have to insult the person, you've already lost the debate.

Considering, he's the only one lying, its rather pathetic.

I believe lying to Congress is pretty good evidence. But he's safe, the Republicans control everything. So, while he is guilty, nothing will happen.

I'm still waiting for proof of this.

And they need a majority, to investigate, of course?

Wow. ISN'T IT WONDERFUL, BEING THE PRESIDENT?! YOU CAN COMMIT A CRIME, BUT EVEN WHEN IT'S OBVIOUS YOU DID IT, YOU NEED A GROUP OF PEOPLE, HALF OF THEM LOYAL SUPPORTERS, TO SUPPORT AN INVESTIGATION!!

And even when the Republican, Nixon, was found guilty, that bastard didn't do any jail-time. He was pardoned, by the Vice President that took over.

Shrubby boy, you should be impeached!

Notice BASICALLY WON Alone.

The Aussies and New Zealand helped us immensely at Guadalcanal. They were a big help in defeating the Japs there. As one Jap commander said, "Guadalcanal is the road to victory! For them or for us."

The allies won it and went on to win the war.
Don't forget the UK... Also, the USSR fought against Japan for several weeks in 1945.

Time to put up or shut up, Whispering Legs. What is your name? How can we verify that you are that person and not just droping the name of someone known to have acess to sensitive information. Since you say claiming something doesn't make it true, you should be more than willing to provide evidence to support the claim you just made. Otherwise, stop pretending you're something your not.

And you got to know your place raven. We take who people are by their word

Considering that everyone's intel department thought he had them and reported that he had them, how is Bush lying?

well then, he is not lying
he is admitting freely to have started a war without any substancial and proven reason
even worse

So, Adelina, you're saying that Bush had the intelligence services of Britain, France, Spain, Russia, and Poland in his pocket, lying on his behalf? And that we'll discover that if we investigate?

Do your homework, Whispering Legs. If you'll recall, the intel of these other countries merely stated that the intelligence report from the United States made these claims. Considering most these other countries are not led by paranoid dictators like George Bush, many of them didn't have much information on Iraq and made the mistake that the United States would be at least half-way honest.

Don't forget the UK... Also, the USSR fought against Japan for several weeks in 1945.

Britain was in their own theater of operations. It wasn't the Pacific Theater. As for USSR.... that's a whole different game. They went to war right after Hiroshima. Then Japan ordered a cease-fire after Nagasaki. USSR wasn't happy when the cease-fire went into affect.

But this is off topic.

Do your homework, Whispering Legs. If you'll recall, the intel of these other countries merely stated that the intelligence report from the United States made these claims. Considering most these other countries are not led by paranoid dictators like George Bush, many of them didn't have much information on Iraq and made the mistake that the United States would be at least half-way honest.
George Bush is a paranoid dictator now?

well then, he is not lying
he is admitting freely to have started a war without any substancial and proven reason
even worse

When several Intel agencies report that Saddam had WMD, don't you think that its substantiated at that point in time? I do.

Do your homework, Whispering Legs. If you'll recall, the intel of these other countries merely stated that the intelligence report from the United States made these claims. Considering most these other countries are not led by paranoid dictators like George Bush, many of them didn't have much information on Iraq and made the mistake that the United States would be at least half-way honest.

UNSCOM, using information from its own inspectors, not the US, said that Saddam had 1800 gallons of anthrax.

And we found out it was true. And luckily for us, it had been dumped without Saddam's knowledge.

Do your homework, Ravennights. Not all of the intel came from the US.

Do your homework, Whispering Legs. If you'll recall, the intel of these other countries merely stated that the intelligence report from the United States made these claims. Considering most these other countries are not led by paranoid dictators like George Bush, many of them didn't have much information on Iraq and made the mistake that the United States would be at least half-way honest.

Try again Ravennights. We got our intel through theirs. :rolleyes:

Britain was in their own theater of operations. It wasn't the Pacific Theater. As for USSR.... that's a whole different game. They went to war right after Hiroshima. Then Japan ordered a cease-fire after Nagasaki. USSR wasn't happy when the cease-fire went into affect.

But this is off topic.
The Royal Navy ships took part in the Battle of Okinawa, IIRC.

And you got to know your place raven. We take who people are by their word

:headbang: I disagree. If someone makes a claim that they are a scientist or work in some high-level office, we should not take them at their word that they are who they claim to be. Someone claiming to be an authority should provide evidence of such authority. Suppose I claimed I worked for DHS and had accurate information of how detainees are being treated. Are you saying you would take me at my word for this?

If someone claims to be someone, they should have no qualms about providing evidence for this. Otherwise, there is no reason to consider that person as an authority or having any special information or training relavent to the topic.

Time to put up or shut up, Whispering Legs. What is your name? How can we verify that you are that person and not just droping the name of someone known to have acess to sensitive information. Since you say claiming something doesn't make it true, you should be more than willing to provide evidence to support the claim you just made. Otherwise, stop pretending you're something your not.

Give me a puff of that before you throw it out.

So, Adelina, you're saying that Bush had the intelligence services of Britain, France, Spain, Russia, and Poland in his pocket, lying on his behalf? And that we'll discover that if we investigate?

1. Who said anything about Bush having the intelligence services of multiple countries in his pocket?

2. I have no particular knowledge of French, Spanish, Russian or Polish intel. Nor am I aware of any of their intel having been an significant part in public debate about the war.

3. Much of Britain's justification for the war was lifted from a graduate student's work, not from intel: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.uk.dossier/index.html

4. Cherrypicking intelligence and manipulating evidence to justify a war may not be illegal, but it's arguably immoral.

5. I'm not saying we'll discover that Bush lied if we investigate. I'm saying that we *won't* discover any proof if we DON'T investigate.

Considering that everyone's intel department thought he had them and reported that he had them, how is Bush lying?

Perhaps this is true, that these other Intel departments suspected he might have these things.. There was no 100% proof he had them or had anything since 1991. Also it is important to note, none of these countries started a war with a country on "maybe they have them" all the while telling us "We know they have them" which turned out to be false. So, I think the fact that we started the war based on flimsy "Intel" and Intel coming from Ex-pat Iraqi's (which also turned out to be false) that speaks volumes. We are the ones who attacked Iraq. We bear the burden of our mistake. The buck stops with the President. That is why there is no getting around that he lied.

Time to put up or shut up, Whispering Legs. What is your name? How can we verify that you are that person and not just droping the name of someone known to have acess to sensitive information. Since you say claiming something doesn't make it true, you should be more than willing to provide evidence to support the claim you just made. Otherwise, stop pretending you're something your not.

Lots of people work for the US Government. And lots of them have security clearances - hundreds of thousands of people. And I happen to work on contracts for a defense contractor. And I also do work for the government through that contractor.

Not an unusual job here in the DC area. Many people, just like me. And we all have access to sensitive information. Hundreds of thousands of people. And information that you may not think is sensitive at all.

Think about it. If I was to suddenly make a claim to the newspapers about what goes on where I'm working, the reporter would ask where I work, and if I have a clearance. I could show him my pay stubs, my W-2 form, and show him the papers that indicate that I have a clearance.

Oh, and would that give me credibility? Me, as a single source?

Under normal journalism, you need more than one source. If I assert something about what goes on where I work, it's just that - an assertion.

You, for instance, can make assertions about what goes on in your family. But unless I have corroborating evidence from other family members, you're just telling me something - something that may or may not be true.

And if every one of your family members says it's not true - what should I conclude then? Should I stick to my personal beliefs about your family, and believe you, or should I consider the possibility that you have some motive to tell such a story?

We basically won the Pacific alone.
But it was only easy, because we incinerated thousands of innocent civilians.

Naw, just 48% of those who voted. Which is to say, a significant enough number to recognize that this country is divided on the subject of Mr. Bush, right wing politics, and the second Gulf War.
We're becoming less divided, though. Take a look at Bush's approval ratings, from '02 until now. His current approval rating is at:
43% approve
55% disapprove
1% mixed feelings
1% unsure

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

It's a career low for him, and also the lowest approval rating that any two-term President has had, since World War II.

Oh, and by the way...

SENATOR KERRY CALLS FOR BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240)

What law was broken, that needs investigating? Pray tell.

Even if he did EXACTLY what you assert he did - cherry pick intel so that he could justify the war - the Congressmen who voted the authority for him to proceed with the war have access to the same intel (and more) under their Intelligence Committees.

So they, on the same information and more, voted him that authority.

Legally.

Did he perjure himself? No. He wasn't under oath.

Did he commit any felonies? No. Any violations of US domestic law? No.

So, what are you going to impeach him for?
No, they don't have access to the same intelligence. The President is the "Executive" Branch, remember. "The Commander-In-Chief."

When there were several thousand detainees in New York and New Jersey, Congress had to file freedom of information acts to get just basic information on them. With the recent U.N. ambassador nominee, John Bolton, announced, Congress (well, the Democrats) are asking for intelligence documents on Bolton, because of past allegations of misconduct. They have to ask the President for them.

Anyway, a description of what a President can be impeached for can be found here:
http://www.neusysinc.com/columnarchive/colm0078.html

US section 1621 also states that lying to Congress is a crime subject to criminal prosecution and carries a punishment of five years imprisonment or a $2,000 fine, or both. The President himself, lying to Congress, to support war could be considered treason. But even so, lying to Congress, itself, is a "high crime", which carries enough weight for an impeachment. He put forth evidence that we now know was crafted around his policies and lied about the WMDs. Therefore, he should be impeached.

UNSCOM, using information from its own inspectors, not the US, said that Saddam had 1800 gallons of anthrax.

And we found out it was true. And luckily for us, it had been dumped without Saddam's knowledge.

Do your homework, Ravennights. Not all of the intel came from the US.


But the UN inspectors sent to Iraq exactly to verify if there were or not WMD, found nothing and reported that Iraq was no menace for anyone
But the USA government, completely ignoring them, has gone ahead; because the decision to attack Iraq was taken BEFORE the justification of the WMD

14. Cherrypicking intelligence and manipulating evidence to justify a war may not be illegal, but it's arguably immoral.

Can't investigate anything without probable cause that a crime has been committed.

Can't impeach anyone for immorality. There has to be an actual offense.

Give me a puff of that before you throw it out.

:p Right. How silly of me. I forgot that on the internet, you can claim anything and it will be true. Specifically, people live by Stalin's words: A lie repeated often enough is the truth.

Lots of people work for the US Government. And lots of them have security clearances - hundreds of thousands of people. And I happen to work on contracts for a defense contractor. And I also do work for the government through that contractor.

Not an unusual job here in the DC area. Many people, just like me. And we all have access to sensitive information. Hundreds of thousands of people. And information that you may not think is sensitive at all.

Think about it. If I was to suddenly make a claim to the newspapers about what goes on where I'm working, the reporter would ask where I work, and if I have a clearance. I could show him my pay stubs, my W-2 form, and show him the papers that indicate that I have a clearance.

Oh, and would that give me credibility? Me, as a single source?

Under normal journalism, you need more than one source. If I assert something about what goes on where I work, it's just that - an assertion.

You, for instance, can make assertions about what goes on in your family. But unless I have corroborating evidence from other family members, you're just telling me something - something that may or may not be true.

And if every one of your family members says it's not true - what should I conclude then? Should I stick to my personal beliefs about your family, and believe you, or should I consider the possibility that you have some motive to tell such a story?
Okay, I'll say this a second time.

Blair has confirmed the memo's authenticity, and no one has disputed that

But the UN inspectors sent to Iraq exactly to verify if there were or not WMD, found nothing and reported that Iraq was no menace for anyone
But the USA government, completely ignoring them, has gone ahead; because the decision to attack Iraq was taken BEFORE the justification of the WMD

Untrue. Maybe you should read the UNSCOM reports before you post.

They said that 1800 gallons of anthrax was missing.

Is 1800 gallons of anthrax not a menace to you? It's more than enough to kill everyone on the planet.

Okay, I'll say this a second time.

Blair has confirmed the memo's authenticity, and no one has disputed that

A memo may be an authentic memo. Does that mean that its contents are true, or that it's a government memo on government stationery?

Eh?

US section 1621 also states that lying to Congress is a crime subject to criminal prosecution and carries a punishment of five years imprisonment or a $2,000 fine, or both. The President himself, lying to Congress, to support war could be considered treason. But even so, lying to Congress, itself, is a "high crime", which carries enough weight for an impeachment. He put forth evidence that we now know was crafted around his policies and lied about the WMDs. Therefore, he should be impeached.

Exactly! And there is more than enough evidence to support Bush was being less than honest with us about why we were going to war, not just in the press, but to the Congress itself. If you can't see this. Then no matter what evidence bears fruit the Bush supporters are going to cry foul. They will never accept he lied. But anyone who looks close enough knows there is no way he didn't know he was lying. It's so obvious.

:p Right. How silly of me. I forgot that on the internet, you can claim anything and it will be true. Specifically, people live by Stalin's words: A lie repeated often enough is the truth.

Can I get an AMEN on that????

Oh, and by the way...

SENATOR KERRY CALLS FOR BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240)

You might wanna read this
Once again, the first law of the Non-Mainstream Media was being ignored. Be suspicious of everything you read on the internet, not just those things with which you most agree, or about which you live in the greatest fear.

The Senator's office told "Countdown" last night that he never said anything about impeachment and asked our reporter where he'd read that line. The answer was: the websites of NewsMax and Al-Jazeera.

The story originated — on Al-Jazeera.

The New Bedford newspaper story, exactly 746 words long, literally does not include the words impeach, or impeachment.

:headbang: I disagree. If someone makes a claim that they are a scientist or work in some high-level office, we should not take them at their word that they are who they claim to be. Someone claiming to be an authority should provide evidence of such authority. Suppose I claimed I worked for DHS and had accurate information of how detainees are being treated. Are you saying you would take me at my word for this?

If someone claims to be someone, they should have no qualms about providing evidence for this. Otherwise, there is no reason to consider that person as an authority or having any special information or training relavent to the topic.

I'm not saying I have access to information specific to the topic. Perhaps you need to learn how to read.

I'm saying that just because I DO have access to sensitive information does NOT mean that what I say about such topics is TRUE.

Get it? It means that even if I was the head of the CIA, it doesn't mean that my opinion on any subject, or my statement on any subject, is true.

I could be saying something just to push my own agenda - as everyone else in the world does.

Relying on a single source for your tirades against Bush is something that reporters won't run with. They've been burned by single sources many times.

And you can't base a legal case on a single source who has no other evidence.

But it was only easy, because we incinerated thousands of innocent civilians.

I wouldn't call it easy when the Japs wouldn't surrender when they outgunned, outmanned, and out manuevered. They didn't have any more resources left and they were still fighting. How did what you said make out victory easy?

We're becoming less divided, though. Take a look at Bush's approval ratings, from '02 until now. His current approval rating is at:
43% approve
55% disapprove
1% mixed feelings
1% unsure

And yet, he had enough support to win the presidency. Go figure :rolleyes:

Oh, and by the way...

SENATOR KERRY CALLS FOR BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240)


No, they don't have access to the same intelligence. The President is the "Executive" Branch, remember. "The Commander-In-Chief."

And your point is? The intelligence services of the allies, share intelligence among eachother. That way, no ally gets caught off guard by a sneak attack by another nation. As for Senator Kerry, he needs to know the difference between an outright lie (needs to look in the mirror for this) and bad intelligence.

When there were several thousand detainees in New York and New Jersey, Congress had to file freedom of information acts to get just basic information on them.

Proof that there are several thousand detainees in NY and NJ please?

ask[/i] the President for them.

Well duh they have to ask. I can't wait for him to get confirmed. Maybe the UN will finally straighten up and actually do their jobs that the US and the rest of the coalition is doing in Iraq.

Anyway, a description of what a President can be impeached for can be found here:
http://www.neusysinc.com/columnarchive/colm0078.html

US section 1621 also states that lying to Congress is a crime subject to criminal prosecution and carries a punishment of five years imprisonment or a $2,000 fine, or both. The President himself, lying to Congress, to support war could be considered treason. But even so, lying to Congress, itself, is a "high crime", which carries enough weight for an impeachment. He put forth evidence that we now know was crafted around his policies and lied about the WMDs. Therefore, he should be impeached.

Bush didn't lie to Congress. Care to show me where he lied? All I'm seeing is bad Intelligence.

Untrue. Maybe you should read the UNSCOM reports before you post.

They said that 1800 gallons of anthrax was missing.

Is 1800 gallons of anthrax not a menace to you? It's more than enough to kill everyone on the planet.
1800 gallons of impure anthrax, that would've been slightly weaker to begin with, and was well-known to have a viability of only a few years (because the anthrax Iraq made in the Gulf War, skipped a major purification process), meaning, that by 2002, the stuff was useless as a weapon, and there was zero chance that the 1800 gallons still existed.

But we weren't told that until after we went to war. ;)

Exactly! And there is more than enough evidence to support Bush was being less than honest with us about why we were going to war, not just in the press, but to the Congress itself. If you can't see this. Then no matter what evidence bears fruit the Bush supporters are going to cry foul. They will never accept he lied. But anyone who looks close enough knows there is no way he didn't know he was lying. It's so obvious.

How is Bush lying? All I'm seeing is bad intel. The Intel department lied not Bush. Get the facts right.

Can't investigate anything without probable cause that a crime has been committed.

Can't impeach anyone for immorality. There has to be an actual offense.

I think the probable cause is lying to congress. That's been addressed, above. It is at least as compelling as anything that fueled the Starr Report.

[piece deleted after reading earlier exchange properly; Adelina has had no coffee yet today]

A

But it was only easy, because we incinerated thousands of innocent civilians.


We're becoming less divided, though. Take a look at Bush's approval ratings, from '02 until now. His current approval rating is at:
43% approve
55% disapprove
1% mixed feelings
1% unsure

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

It's a career low for him, and also the lowest approval rating that any two-term President has had, since World War II.

Oh, and by the way...

SENATOR KERRY CALLS FOR BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240)


No, they don't have access to the same intelligence. The President is the "Executive" Branch, remember. "The Commander-In-Chief."

When there were several thousand detainees in New York and New Jersey, Congress had to file freedom of information acts to get just basic information on them. With the recent U.N. ambassador nominee, John Bolton, announced, Congress (well, the Democrats) are asking for intelligence documents on Bolton, because of past allegations of misconduct. They have to ask the President for them.

Anyway, a description of what a President can be impeached for can be found here:
http://www.neusysinc.com/columnarchive/colm0078.html

US section 1621 also states that lying to Congress is a crime subject to criminal prosecution and carries a punishment of five years imprisonment or a $2,000 fine, or both. The President himself, lying to Congress, to support war could be considered treason. But even so, lying to Congress, itself, is a "high crime", which carries enough weight for an impeachment. He put forth evidence that we now know was crafted around his policies and lied about the WMDs. Therefore, he should be impeached.

Shrubby, babe, explain to me then how President Clinton stayed out of jail after lying to a FEDERAL grand jury.
Treason - no, the word is purgery. A tad different. But reality has escaped you long ago, so this difference may be hard for you to grasp.

A memo may be an authentic memo. Does that mean that its contents are true, or that it's a government memo on government stationery?

Eh?

It means the latter, WL, but it's probable cause to investigate.

I think the probable cause is lying to congress. That's been addressed, above. It is at least as compelling as anything that fueled the Starr Report.

I'm still waiting on proof that Bush lied! No one has yet to provide any so I guess he didnt.

Also, FWIW, Whispering Legs, I don't think you need to tell us who you are at all, but maybe you shouldn't throw around knowing about sensitive information since you can't divulge it? (I'm from DC, too, and have immediate family who have been career intel).

A

My mother told me she knows highly confidential stuff. I know for a fact that my father does too. My dad is still in the military and my mother did too. Hell, my mother worked at NORAD!

1800 gallons of impure anthrax, that would've been slightly weaker to begin with, and was well-known to have a viability of only a few years (because the anthrax Iraq made in the Gulf War, skipped a major purification process), meaning, that by 2002, the stuff was useless as a weapon, and there was zero chance that the 1800 gallons still existed.

But we weren't told that until after we went to war. ;)

You're completely unread.

Taha dumped the anthrax, which was not impure, into a ditch near one of Saddam's palaces in April 1991.
http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Rihab_Rashid_Taha

Try again, making up facts. They even got to the point where they tested weaponized anthrax on prisoners.

It means the latter, WL, but it's probable cause to investigate.

Bad Intel is not probably cause to investigate the President.

It means the latter, WL, but it's probable cause to investigate.

Cherry picking your intel is not lying. That's all the memo covers.

It doesn't say, "Bush said he wanted to make up some lies."

You might wanna read this
Once again, the first law of the Non-Mainstream Media was being ignored. Be suspicious of everything you read on the internet, not just those things with which you most agree, or about which you live in the greatest fear.

The Senator's office told "Countdown" last night that he never said anything about impeachment and asked our reporter where he'd read that line. The answer was: the websites of NewsMax and Al-Jazeera.

The story originated — on Al-Jazeera.

The New Bedford newspaper story, exactly 746 words long, literally does not include the words impeach, or impeachment.


Oh, Shrubbery and others, you are SO pwned.

Oh, Shrubbery and others, you are SO pwned.

thought you might like that

It's a career low for him, and also the lowest approval rating that any two-term President has had, since World War II.

Johnson hit 35%, Reagan also 35%, and Clinton had 37% as their lowest approval ratings during their Presidency. Other two-termers have had more support at this time (a few months into their 2nd term) of their Presidency, but after Eisenhower every president dipped below 40% at some point in their administration.

http://gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=15463
(You have to be a subscriber to see the whole thing, including where I got the numbers from)

Well, I think I've had my fun. Apparently, someone else who posted on this thread has been reported for trolling, so I'm going to leave before I'm told to stop feeding the trolls.

Guess I'll go over to Democratic Underground and see what blithering nonsense they're believing over there...

How is Bush lying? All I'm seeing is bad intel. The Intel department lied not Bush. Get the facts right.
"WE KNOW" when you don't know, is misleading. (I wouldn't be absolutely sure about lying, but I would want more investigation about it)

I'm still waiting on proof that Bush lied! No one has yet to provide any so I guess he didnt.

*exasperated sigh*

Are you somehow impaired? The fact that no one has provided evidence sufficient for you has no bearing on whether anything happened, one way or another.

The point is that there is a strong possibility that the Bush Administration manipulated intel to justify the war. Whether he lied outright or committed crimes in doing so could only be determined after an independent investigation. One begins an investigation to FIND OUT what happened. Deciding what happened before a thorough investigation is absurd and counterproductive.

Firt off, there is no way you can get me to sign this "petition".

Secondly, its good to be open minded, but not so much that your BRAIN is falling out!( Before- :headbang: After- :p )

Have you really dug as deep as you could on this, or did you just come across one document that you're deciding is true and taking to the next level like that guy who was fired from NBC?

Here are some straight facts from Colin Powell in an interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=15572

Take THAT, liberals! :mp5:

"WE KNOW" when you don't know, is misleading. (I wouldn't be absolutely sure about lying, but I would want more investigation about it)

It was reporting of bad intel. I can see it clearly.

Cherry picking your intel is not lying. That's all the memo covers.

It doesn't say, "Bush said he wanted to make up some lies."

So you don't subscribe to lying by omission?

Did Bush tell any of us or the Congress that he was having meetings with Blair to invade Iraq in 2002? Long before 9-11 happened! You don't think by omitting this he knowingly lied? I sure do!

*exasperated sigh*

Are you somehow impaired? The fact that no one has provided evidence sufficient for you has no bearing on whether anything happened, one way or another.

Considering all he is guilty of is listening to bad intelligence that the US, Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Russia, Japan, etc had is by no means lying to the American People. We already know it was bad intel and now the Intel community is getting fixed because of this mess.

The point is that there is a strong possibility that the Bush Administration manipulated intel to justify the war. Whether he lied outright or committed crimes in doing so could only be determined after an independent investigation. One begins an investigation to FIND OUT what happened. Deciding what happened before a thorough investigation is absurd and counterproductive.

And the investigation into the intel already happened and absolved Bush of any wrong doing. That came out last year.

Tactical Grace -

Please do not make assumptions about whether Americans find this important. Our media do not adequately represent us. Moreover, many of us already understood that Bush lied; this is just late confirmation.

there's only one thing false about your post:

bush

didn't

lie

actually, wait, there's another thing wrong with it:

The American media report with bias that satisfies probably 90% of the American public... so if you don't think that your views are being shown on any media outlet, you must really be far to the left or right of the major american ideologies.

It was reporting of bad intel. I can see it clearly.

You and other intelligent people may see it clearly, Corneliu. Other intelligent people do not see it clearly. Disagreement about these things is the reason one investigates things.

there's only one thing false about your post:

bush

didn't

lie

Yes

He

Did!

Yes

He

Did!

Prove

The

Lie!!

Taha dumped the anthrax, which was not impure, into a ditch near one of Saddam's palaces in April 1991.
http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Rihab_Rashid_Taha


Exactly, in April 1991. After 12 years, it is impure, and no more useable

You and other intelligent people may see it clearly, Corneliu. Other intelligent people do not see it clearly. Disagreement about these things is the reason one investigates things.

Its already been investigated. They have already absolved Bush of lying and manipulation.

Exactly, in April 1991. After 12 years, it is impure, and no more useable

Exactly. It was no good. That's already come out in hearings by the Senate.

there's only one thing false about your post:

bush

didn't

lie

Sorry Frangland; I gave into speaking about how I feel rather than what I know.

Its already been investigated. They have already absolved Bush of lying and manipulation.

Source?

Exactly, in April 1991. After 12 years, it is impure, and no more useable

And who, pray tell, knew that? Other than Taha? Saddam didn't even know.

And who, pray tell, could inspect and discover her secret?

And are you familiar with Gruinard Island? Google it and see how long the UK put a quarrantine on anthrax dumped on the ground there - in much smaller quantities than 1800 gallons.

Anthrax forms spores. That's the point of the production process she used. Spores are deadly for decades.

Source?

Google was invented for a reason Xanaz. Beside that, it was really a brief mention. Probably because it did absolve Bush of everything. I'll find it for ya when I have time.

Exactly, in April 1991. After 12 years, it is impure, and no more useable
I tried to find dome info about this but failed. Got any links?

Prove

The

Lie!!

But they don't have to prove anything, Corneliu... slander (spoken) and libel (written) suffice!

Its already been investigated. They have already absolved Bush of lying and manipulation.

IMO memo = new cause for investigation.

However, I'm done here. This whole argument is a microcosm of what's happening all across the US, and, frankly, since none of us is ever going to agree, I'd rather think about what to cook for dinner. :rolleyes: