NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been doing some research, and I came across an old story.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/13/sprj.irq.russia.spy/index.html

Apparently, documents in Iraq found that the Russians recorded private conversations between Bush and the Italian Prime Minister (Italy put out the bullshit intelligence about Niger's uranium), and also private conversations between Bush and Blair about the war in Iraq. The documents were dated March 3, 2002. (The same month as the Downing Street Memo)

The Russians also passed the intelligence along to Iraq. No one knows what's on these tapes, because Russian has officially denied it. Unofficially, however, I'm sure all of us can agree it's true (except for some Russians here, of course).

Well, Democrats have political cold feet about challenging the President, because they're worried that any investigation won't turn anything up (if all the documents are shredded or a partial judge is chosen, and so on). But if a Democrat was able to secretly meet with the Russian government and convince them to anonymously leak these tapes, they'd do it. Because it would guarantee that their biggest thorn, Bush, gets kicked out of office, and is replaced by a Democrat who is sympathetic to Russia IN THE NEXT ELECTION. It would also be a huge boost to amount of Democrats in Congress, also being less critical of Russia. And, of course, the tapes don't prove that Russia gave the info to Iraq, necessarily. But it still would clearly implicate Bush, in the same way that the Watergate tapes implicated Nixon.

Red text = Edit

And you don't find anything suspicious about the fact that the russians apparently at least gave the iraqis the info about the tapes if not copies of the tape itself?

Because it would guarantee that their biggest thorn, Bush, gets kicked out of office, and is replaced by a Democrat who is sympathetic to Russia.
You don't understand the US Constitution. When a President is impeached and convicted, he/she is replaced by the Vice-President. If the Vice-President cannot serve, then he/she is replaced by the Speaker of the House. If the Speaker can't serve, he/she is replaced by the Secretary of State.

No Democrat is in line for the Presidency, sadly - not that Bush will ever be impeached with this Congress.

As for the rest of the post, I'm treating it the same way all the other stuff you post about Bush lying - a healthy dose of skepticism, a read, a chuckle, and then a finger on the Ignore trigger.

If only all of the Bush-Bashers were this doltish.

Oh, wait...

You don't understand the US Constitution. When a President is impeached and convicted, he/she is replaced by the Vice-President. If the Vice-President cannot serve, then he/she is replaced by the Speaker of the House. If the Speaker can't serve, he/she is replaced by the Secretary of State.

No Democrat is in line for the Presidency, sadly - not that Bush will ever be impeached with this Congress.

As for the rest of the post, I'm treating it the same way all the other stuff you post about Bush lying - a healthy dose of skepticism, a read, a chuckle, and then a finger on the Ignore trigger.
This post was not meant for Conservatives, who wouldn't believe that Bush is a liar even if they heard such tapes. And furthermore, governments are somewhat dominated by the press. The media would be too busy crucifying the President to cover much of Russia. And as I said, it wouldn't necessarily implicate the Russian government. The Russians could always claim that they believed a spy inside their own offices gave the information to Iraq. And also, since the U.S. has already uncovered these documents, from almost a year ago, and still hasn't done anything, it's unlikely they'd do anything if the tapes were leaeked.

But really. I'm not a conspiracy-theorist. If I was a conspiracy-theorist, I'd try to link this, somehow, with Delmart Vreeland being in Russia. But I'm not. I think Vreeland's probably a scam-artist and anyone who believes that his "evidence" is unquestionable is silly.

Yes, I believe Bush lied about Iraq. No, I don't believe Bush planned for or allowed 9\11 to happen.

This post was not meant for Conservatives, who wouldn't believe that Bush is a liar even if they heard such tapes. And furthermore, governments are somewhat dominated by the press. The media would be too busy crucifying the President to cover much of Russia. And as I said, it wouldn't necessarily implicate the Russian government. The Russians could always claim that they believed a spy inside their own offices gave the information to Iraq. And also, since the U.S. has already uncovered these documents, from almost a year ago, and still hasn't done anything, it's unlikely they'd do anything if the tapes were leaeked.
First, you ignored the Constitutional error in your first post.

I didn't mention the political consequences for Russia - I don't know why you went off about this.

I'm also a pretty left liberal - read my sig, and the comments in the first post.

Finally, I don't see what in those tapes would be an impeachable offense. Quote a line from the article. You can't do it. Why? Because, as much as his policies offend me, Bush is an honest guy. He believes what he says, and does what he thinks is right. He just has a warped sense of morality.

Shrub, here's a couple sites in which you might be interested. They're right up your alley. :rolleyes:

http://www.infowars.com/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/

First, you ignored the Constitutional error in your first post.
It's not a fucking Constitutional error. I explained it. The main problem is Bush. The Russians would find Cheney, or absolutely anyone else in the U.S. as the President, to be better than Bush.

I explained that. If you, however, have some kind of blocked artery in your brain, causing significant pressure to be placed upon the sections of it dealing with rational thought and reason, then please, forgive me, sir, but that's your problem, buddy. Don't call a "Constitutional error", when it's not there.

I didn't mention the political consequences for Russia - I don't know why you went off about this.
The political consequences were what I was talking about. It's the whole basis for why they'd give up these tapes. And if you weren't talking about the political consequences for Russia, then what in the donkey fuck were you rambling about?!

I'm also a pretty left liberal - read my sig, and the comments in the first post.

Finally, I don't see what in those tapes would be an impeachable offense. Quote a line from the article. You can't do it. Why? Because, as much as his policies offend me, Bush is an honest guy. He believes what he says, and does what he thinks is right. He just has a warped sense of morality.
Because it's likely that the description of the documents that was released to the public was changed. The press never saw the documents, but just what was said of them. And the documents were just a description of the tapes.

The Downing Street memo alone is grounds for a Congressional investigation. And if you don't believe that, then you need to read the law, where it says it's a Federal crime to lie to Congress (punishable by up to five years prison), and also actually read the Downing Street memo, and rebuttals to Conservative arguments.

Lying to the public may be unethical and immoral, but it is not criminal and therefore not grounds for impeachment.

You don't understand the US Constitution. When a President is impeached and convicted, he/she is replaced by the Vice-President. If the Vice-President cannot serve, then he/she is replaced by the Speaker of the House. If the Speaker can't serve, he/she is replaced by the Secretary of State.

President Pro Tempe actually comes after Speaker of the House.

I read the article and I see that you got the article of CNN. Is there any othe websites and/or sources that can confirm this information?

It's not a fucking Constitutional error. I explained it. The main problem is Bush. The Russians would find Cheney, or absolutely anyone else in the U.S. as the President, to be better than Bush.

I explained that. If you, however, have some kind of blocked artery in your brain, causing significant pressure to be placed upon the sections of it dealing with rational thought and reason, then please, forgive me, sir, but that's your problem, buddy. Don't call a "Constitutional error", when it's not there.
Do you know what the Constitution is? Apparently not. You said a Democrat would become President. I said that would not happen. That was the extent of what I said. I had no opinion on what Russia's reaction would be.

I'm taking a stand on that now. Putin has a reasonably cordial relationship with Bush. They've called each other "friends" several times in public, and generally get along quite well. All that worries Putin is the business about "democracy promotion," which Cheney would be more likely to aggressively pursue than Bush in the context of Russia, given ideological positions and Bush's relationship with Putin.

Not only that, but Russia would never risk antagonizing the United States that much. The next President, a status quo Bush supporter given CONSTITUTIONAL procedures, would not be happy with Russia. An unhappy US means bad things for Russia. Not military action, but other Bad Things. Putin doesn't want anymore attention drawn to his empire building.
The political consequences were what I was talking about. It's the whole basis for why they'd give up these tapes. And if you weren't talking about the political consequences for Russia, then what in the donkey fuck were you rambling about?!
I pointed out a logical inconsistancy in your post. You said something that shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the American governement. You're also wrong about Russia, but I didn't feel the need to point that out until you annoyed me enough to do so.

Because it's likely that the description of the documents that was released to the public was changed. The press never saw the documents, but just what was said of them. And the documents were just a description of the tapes.
And you said you weren't a conspiracy theorist? Why do you have any possible rational reason besides blind Bush-hate to believe that there is anything besides "Saddam is a proliferator who must be taken out!" on those tapes?

The Downing Street memo alone is grounds for a Congressional investigation. And if you don't believe that, then you need to read the law, where it says it's a Federal crime to lie to Congress (punishable by up to five years prison), and also actually read the Downing Street memo, and rebuttals to Conservative arguments.
Eh. Read the Downing Street article you posted. An investigation, sure. Do I believe Bush lied from the memo? No. It just points to gross negligence on the part of intelligence agencies.

President Pro Tempe actually comes after Speaker of the House.
Are you sure? I don't think so. Because the President Pro-Tempore is appointed if the Vice can no longer serve as President of the Senate. It would seem silly to pull them out right after being appointed to the job. If there was a long period of time between deaths, there would be already be a vice - and thus no pro-tem.

It's not a fucking Constitutional error. I explained it. The main problem is Bush. The Russians would find Cheney, or absolutely anyone else in the U.S. as the President, to be better than Bush.

I explained that. If you, however, have some kind of blocked artery in your brain, causing significant pressure to be placed upon the sections of it dealing with rational thought and reason, then please, forgive me, sir, but that's your problem, buddy. Don't call a "Constitutional error", when it's not there.

One, watch the flaming, my friend. Two, I like quotes since you say you didn't err, let's check the tape -

But if a Democrat was able to secretly meet with the Russian government and convince them to anonymously leak these tapes, they'd do it. Because it would guarantee that their biggest thorn, Bush, gets kicked out of office, and is replaced by a Democrat who is sympathetic to Russia.

Now maybe you can explain how Cheney (who would replace Bush if he were "kicked out of office") is a democrat. If you can't well, then you made an error that is related to the constitution or ignorance of the text of it, thus a constitutional error.


The political consequences were what I was talking about. It's the whole basis for why they'd give up these tapes. And if you weren't talking about the political consequences for Russia, then what in the donkey fuck were you rambling about?!

Because it's likely that the description of the documents that was released to the public was changed. The press never saw the documents, but just what was said of them. And the documents were just a description of the tapes.

The Downing Street memo alone is grounds for a Congressional investigation. And if you don't believe that, then you need to read the law, where it says it's a Federal crime to lie to Congress (punishable by up to five years prison), and also actually read the Downing Street memo, and rebuttals to Conservative arguments.

You have not addressed the article says that Bush wanted Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions according to the tape. That suggests that he would have preferred to avoid the conflict by them going along with the resolutions. Hardly damning evidence.

If Bush were impeached today, this would be the order of succession: * The Vice President Richard Cheney
* Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
* President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens
* Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
* Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
* Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
* Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
* Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
* Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
* Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez
* Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao
* Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
* Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
* Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
* Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
* Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
* Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
* Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html

Corrected. My bad.

Lying to the public may be unethical and immoral, but it is not criminal and therefore not grounds for impeachment.
Lying to the American public, no. Lying to Congress and covering up intelligence, yes, it is legal. 5 years of prison.

18 USC Sec. 1001 "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-- (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Read the law:
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+563+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%2 0%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281001%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

I read the article and I see that you got the article of CNN. Is there any othe websites and/or sources that can confirm this information?
OH MY FUCKING GOD. YOU DON'T TRUST CNN?!?! GOOGLE FOR IT, YOURSELF.

Do you know what the Constitution is? Apparently not. You said a Democrat would become President.
IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

I'm taking a stand on that now. Putin has a reasonably cordial relationship with Bush.
HAHAHAHA.

I'll let the Conservatives answer that one.

Conservatives: What do you think of Vladimir Putin?

All that worries Putin is the business about "democracy promotion," which Cheney would be more likely to aggressively pursue than Bush in the context of Russia, given ideological positions and Bush's relationship with Putin.
Not after these tapes were released, he wouldn't. Cheney would have to be very careful to not step on anybody's toes if these tapes were leaked.


Not only that, but Russia would never risk antagonizing the United States that much.
Oh, sure. But according to U.S. intelligence, they were helping Iraq?

Once again, I'll let the Conservatives answer this one: Conservatives, do you think Vladimir Putin gave that intelligence to Iraq?


And you said you weren't a conspiracy theorist? Why do you have any possible rational reason besides blind Bush-hate to believe that there is anything besides "Saddam is a proliferator who must be taken out!" on those tapes?
No, because the Downing Street memo is very compelling evidence, and I've been researching it. Expect to see a great deal more, soon... I've got a list of all the members of the intelligence community that have resigned, since Iraq, and several that also claimed we made fraudulent or biased intelligence.

I think you're just simply blinded by what psychology calls "belief in a just world."

Are you sure?

Yes I'm sure.

I don't think so. Because the President Pro-Tempore is appointed if the Vice can no longer serve as President of the Senate.

The President Pro Temore resides over the Senate when the Vice President is absent. He is also the third inline for the Presidency.

Here's the order Presidential Succession (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html)

It would seem silly to pull them out right after being appointed to the job. If there was a long period of time between deaths, there would be already be a vice - and thus no pro-tem.

The Vice President is a very busy person. The Pro-Tempore is supposed to preside over the Senate in his absence.

president pro tempore - A constitutionally recognized officer of the Senate who presides over the chamber in the absence of the Vice President. The President Pro Tempore (or, "president for a time") is elected by the Senate and is, by custom, the Senator of the majority party with the longest record of continuous service. (http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/president_pro_tempore.htm

If Bush were impeached today, this would be the order of succession: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html

Damn. He beat me too it!

Here's the order Presidential Succession (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html)
IN THE NEXT ELECTION.
OK?

HAHAHAHA.

I'll let the Conservatives answer that one.

Conservatives: What do you think of Vladimir Putin?
I'm not a "conservative" but I'll answer.

Bush and Putin have a rather neutral relationship. Both are somewhat leery of each other and there have been some fireworks between the two, diplomatically. Russia isn't a friend to the US, nor is it an enemy, currently.

My take: Putin is a former KGB head that longs for the old Soviet Union. He's doing his best to subjugate nations that used to be part of the Soviet Union in order to (somehow) bring Russia back into the world as a global player.

Damn. He beat me too it!
:D Google is mah bitch. :p

OK?

It was for a different question President Shrub. I guess you didn't follow the stuff about the President Pro-Tempore. Not surprising really.

As for Vladimir Putin, he can take a long walk off a short pier. I don't trust him anymore. I originally thought he'll be good for Russia but he hasn't done anything different. Now I'm not even sure if you likes democracy.

Bush and Putin have a rather neutral relationship. Both are somewhat leery of each other and there have been some fireworks between the two, diplomatically. Russia isn't a friend to the US, nor is it an enemy, currently.

My take: Putin is a former KGB head that longs for the old Soviet Union. He's doing his best to subjugate nations that used to be part of the Soviet Union in order to (somehow) bring Russia back into the world as a global player.
That's a rather nice way of putting it.

Any other Conservatives want to give your opinion of Putin?

:D Google is mah bitch. :p

I googled it too but I was also answering another question too about the Pro-tempe and his senate role :p

First, Corneliu, you were right. I was done after Tex's link. You killed the dead horse. But I guess that's not really possible, or fair, because you probably didn't see his post. W/E. You were right.

IN THE NEXT ELECTION.
And you didn't say that earlier, why? Becaue no one else picked up on it in anything that you said. And the Russians aren't in the business of guessing about American politics. Like they'll bank their entire geopolitical strategy on something that will happen in 3 years. Not happening.


HAHAHAHA.

I'll let the Conservatives answer that one.

Conservatives: What do you think of Vladimir Putin?
You're actually quite wrong. Go do a Lexis search on Bush and Putin, if you understand methods of research more complex than googling "Bush" "intelligence" and "lied." Read the newspaper articles that come up. They have a quite good relationship.

Not after these tapes were released, he wouldn't. Cheney would have to be very careful to not step on anybody's toes if these tapes were leaked.
Nope. Because there's no reason to believe there's anthing incriminating on them. And because stepping on Russian toes wouldn't much matter, as he couldn't really get hurt from that. Especially if, as you say, all the conservatives think Vlad is evil incarnate.

Oh, sure. But according to U.S. intelligence, they were helping Iraq?

Once again, I'll let the Conservatives answer this one: Conservatives, do you think Vladimir Putin gave that intelligence to Iraq?
Saying the US wanted to invade. You know, that doesn't really help Saddam much. He could have watched the news at 7 and found that out. Symbolically, it was annoying, but Putin was trying to get Saddam out of power. For all we know, it was a US request.

No, because the Downing Street memo is very compelling evidence, and I've been researching it. Expect to see a great deal more, soon... I've got a list of all the members of the intelligence community that have resigned, since Iraq, and several that also claimed we made fraudulent or biased intelligence.

I think you're just simply blinded by what psychology calls "belief in a just world."
That's where you and I disagree. Downing Street is not evidence that calls for impeachment on its own. "Fraudulent" intelligence is not Bush's fault. He was given it, and told it was true. Presidents tend to believe their advisors.

Let's play the psychologist game. You still seem to be bitter about the last two elections. Work it out.

Lets all belive in what the KGB has to say...such a trustworthy source they are. Commies to the core. :rolleyes:

If the Republicans wanted to remove Clinton for his little white lie, then a proportionate amount of justice would be the removal of everyone who knew (at the time) that Bush and his advisers lied, and calling of new elections.

damn ruskies

Bush isn't going to be impeached, so shut up and go home.

IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

What does it have to do with the next election? People are suddenly going to stop voting Republican because the Russians said so? Three years is a long time. I sincerely doubt that anyone is going to try and guess the outcome of the next election based on a tape from four years ago, released three years before the election. It might slightly influence the election, but really "guarantee"? My guess is you're trying to change your meaning because you don't want to admit you're wrong. Either way, it definitely does nothing to 'guarantee" a democrat gets into the White House.

Everybody in this thread needs to just calm down ... A LOT. There are multiple instances of borderline flaming and trolling and God-knows-what in here, and I don't have the patience to wade through it right now. Knock it off!

Tone down the rhetoric, lose the assumption that "if you don't agree with me, you must be blind and/or and idiot", and stick to logic and civil discussion.

Also, "I read it on the internet, so it HAS to be true!" is a false statement. Just to make that clear.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

What does it have to do with the next election? People are suddenly going to stop voting Republican because the Russians said so?
No. Audio recordings of Bush, Blair, and the Italian Prime Minister (who has since resigned from office) which implicate them in creating fraudulent intelligence would:
#1. Take down the Bush dynasty.
#2. Massacre the Republicans' illusion of a "moral highground."
#3. Eliminate any possibility of the PATRIOT Act's renewal.

Three years is a long time. I sincerely doubt that anyone is going to try and guess the outcome of the next election based on a tape from four years ago, released three years before the election.
I don't believe that. Come on, an impeachment over something like THIS would be a big deal. People were talking about Nixon's impeachment for well over 30 years. And furthermore, the tapes were released THREE years ago, in 2002.

Guys...Does anyone know what exactly is on these tapes? I mean, it seems to me that we're all jumping to conclusions without even knowing what's on them.

No. Audio recordings of Bush, Blair, and the Italian Prime Minister (who has since resigned from office) which implicate them in creating fraudulent intelligence would:
#1. Take down the Bush dynasty.
#2. Massacre the Republicans' illusion of a "moral highground."
#3. Eliminate any possibility of the PATRIOT Act's renewal.


I don't believe that. Come on, an impeachment over something like THIS would be a big deal. People were talking about Nixon's impeachment for well over 30 years. And furthermore, the tapes were released THREE years ago, in 2002.

Really? And yet none of what you said has come to pass. Why not? Maybe because you are suggesting an overreaching effect of something that doesn't seem to be very damning. The article actually suggests that the tapes indicate Bush wanted the UN to be successful. That kind of shoots your whole conspiracy to invade Iraq theory right in the foot, no?

Guys...Does anyone know what exactly is on these tapes?
According to U.S. intelligence, private conversations between Bush and the Italian Prime Minister, and private conversations between Bush and Blair.

Really? And yet none of what you said has come to pass. Why not? Maybe because you are suggesting an overreaching effect of something that doesn't seem to be very damning. The article actually suggests that the tapes indicate Bush wanted the UN to be successful. That kind of shoots your whole conspiracy to invade Iraq theory right in the foot, no?
As said before, the tapes were never released, but only described by U.S. intelligence. What I said hasn't come to pass, because it's been only a month since the DSM was leaked.

Really? And yet none of what you said has come to pass. Why not? Maybe because you are suggesting an overreaching effect of something that doesn't seem to be very damning. The article actually suggests that the tapes indicate Bush wanted the UN to be successful. That kind of shoots your whole conspiracy to invade Iraq theory right in the foot, no?

Shrubbery won't believe that. He's already come to a conclusion about how Bush acted, and he wants to find evidence to support his conclusion.

Rather like Bush coming to the conclusion that he wanted to invade Iraq, and set about finding intel reports that would (without lying) support his conclusion.

Of course, in the absence of real, damning evidence, Shrubbery may have to invent something. Like Dan Rather did.

That's it - Shurbbery could get a copy of Microsoft Word and write a new, as yet unseen, damning memo...

Here's a Russian tape for you...

http://www.redstararms.com/missrsa.wmv

This post was not meant for Conservatives, who wouldn't believe that Bush is a liar even if they heard such tapes. And furthermore, governments are somewhat dominated by the press. The media would be too busy crucifying the President to cover much of Russia. And as I said, it wouldn't necessarily implicate the Russian government. The Russians could always claim that they believed a spy inside their own offices gave the information to Iraq. And also, since the U.S. has already uncovered these documents, from almost a year ago, and still hasn't done anything, it's unlikely they'd do anything if the tapes were leaeked.

Im a conservative and I know Bush is a liar.
He's a politician, and therefore, a liar by trade.

Of course, in the absence of real, damning evidence, Shrubbery may have to invent something. Like Dan Rather did.
What "real, damning evidence" do you have against Dan Rathers, other than that CBS has poor factchecking? Sure, he pushed it, but that's just poor journalism, like Fox News mentioning that Kerry called for Bush's impeachment.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:xixhE9lMEIMJ:www.foxnews.com/foxfriends/+%22downing+street%22+site:foxnews.com&hl=en

And furthermore, the tapes were released THREE years ago, in 2002.

As said before, the tapes were never released, but only described by U.S. intelligence. What I said hasn't come to pass, because it's been only a month since the DSM was leaked.

You say one thing then I react to it then you say the opposite and so on and so forth. Make up your mind.

You're talking about things you would like to come to pass, but, come on, no reasonable person actually thinks any of this will occur. You're just being inflamatory because you hate Bush.

What "real, damning evidence" do you have against Dan Rathers, other than that CBS has poor factchecking? Sure, he pushed it, but that's just poor journalism, like Fox News mentioning that Kerry called for Bush's impeachment.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:xixhE9lMEIMJ:www.foxnews.com/foxfriends/+%22downing+street%22+site:foxnews.com&hl=en

I think it's quite clear that Dan didn't want to check it. Two of his former colleagues are suing CBS and Dan because they told him to check it and he said not to.

Since it's in their emails, I think they're going to win their civil suit.

I think he knew it was a fake memo. And, as soon as the civil suit goes down, we'll know (unless CBS settles out of court first). And if they settle out, I'll take that as proof positive.

*hears a vessel in shrub's brain explode*

No. Audio recordings of Bush, Blair, and the Italian Prime Minister (who has since resigned from office)

The bit about the Italian PM resigning is only partly true. He's forming a new government but last I checked, is still PM of Italy. I suggest you get that right.

which implicate them in creating fraudulent intelligence would:
#1. Take down the Bush dynasty.
#2. Massacre the Republicans' illusion of a "moral highground."
#3. Eliminate any possibility of the PATRIOT Act's renewal.

1. There isn't a dynasty here, not in the true sense of the word anyway. Yes we had a father/son president here but I don't think anyone talked of an Adams Dynasty and they also had a father/son presidency too.
2. I doubt it highly.
3. That is pure speculation and one that has no bearing in reality. Will it get renewed? I'm sure most of it will.

I don't believe that. Come on, an impeachment over something like THIS would be a big deal. People were talking about Nixon's impeachment for well over 30 years. And furthermore, the tapes were released THREE years ago, in 2002.

And I guess no one picked up on it till now. Just like the Downing Street memo, if this had any basis whatsoever, it would've came out during the election and it didn't. So I guess there's nothing of substance in this either.

*hears a vessel in shrub's brain explode*

Did you watch the redstararms video I linked to?

Did you watch the redstararms video I linked to?

Yes, I did. It was enlightening.

Guys...Does anyone know what exactly is on these tapes? I mean, it seems to me that we're all jumping to conclusions without even knowing what's on them.

We know President Shrub is jumping to conclusions. As for me, I'm waiting till I know whats on those tapes but anyway....If it deals with the russians, its suspect right there. I don't trust Russians, especially Putin.

Yes, I did. It was enlightening.

It's odd. I didn't see any Bush in that video.

It's odd. I didn't see any Bush in that video.
And the trophy for lamest joke of the day goes to... *opens envelope* Whispering Legs!!!

WL: *jumping and screaming like a girl* Oh, my god, I can't believe I won. I'd like to thank President Shrub for inspiring me and my wife for...

I think it's quite clear that Dan didn't want to check it. Two of his former colleagues are suing CBS and Dan because they told him to check it and he said not to.

Since it's in their emails, I think they're going to win their civil suit.

I think he knew it was a fake memo. And, as soon as the civil suit goes down, we'll know (unless CBS settles out of court first). And if they settle out, I'll take that as proof positive.
O'Reilly, who supposedly sexually harassed his Associate Producer and even told her he owns a dildo, settled out of court.

Will you take that as proof positive?

It's odd. I didn't see any Bush in that video.

could you describe the video? I'm in a position i can't watch it right now, and when i get home, i'll probably forget.

And the trophy for lamest joke of the day goes to... *opens envelope* Whispering Legs!!!

WL: *jumping and screaming like a girl* Oh, my god, I can't believe I won. I'd like to thank President Shrub for inspiring me and my wife for...

Now this is funny! :D

Good job WL on winning and thank you Jocabia for hosting this award :D

O'Reilly, who supposedly sexually harassed his Associate Producer and even told her he owns a dildo, settled out of court.

Will you take that as proof positive?

Yes, I did.

We know President Shrub is jumping to conclusions. As for me, I'm waiting till I know whats on those tapes but anyway....If it deals with the russians, its suspect right there. I don't trust Russians, especially Putin.
What I'm wondering about is how the HELL they could get PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

Jesus, man. We should just totally dissolve the American intelligence agencies and let the Russians handle national security. Because if they can do that, I don't think there's anything they couldn't do with intelligence. They probably could've told us with 100% certainty whether or not Hussein had WMDs.

O'Reilly, who supposedly sexually harassed his Associate Producer and even told her he owns a dildo, settled out of court.

Will you take that as proof positive?

I take as it was cheaper for him to settle. The same thing I think Michael Jackson and numerous other situations. I suspect all of them share some fault for creating the situation, but settling only means paying is cheaper than fighting.

could you describe the video? I'm in a position i can't watch it right now, and when i get home, i'll probably forget.

Let's say it's not work safe...

O'Reilly, who supposedly sexually harassed his Associate Producer and even told her he owns a dildo, settled out of court.

Will you take that as proof positive?

Since this is the first I"ve heard of the settlement, I would like to see proof please.

Yes, I did.
OK. And actually, yeah, the e-mails thing sounds kind of suspicious. If he settles out-of-court, I'd totally agree with you that Rather is guilty. But just like with O'Reilly, I'm sure you didn't believe the allegations either, at first.

Let's say it's not work safe...

*he tells Jocabia after he opens it at work* All that just to get out that lameass joke.

What I'm wondering about is how the HELL they could get PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

Even I can answer that Shrub. Its called I-N-T-E-L-L-I-G-E-N-C-E!!!! I wouldn't be surprised if we are evsdropping on Putin's phone calls or any other world leader for that matter.

Jesus, man. We should just totally dissolve the American intelligence agencies and let the Russians handle national security. Because if they can do that, I don't think there's anything they couldn't do with intelligence. They probably could've told us with 100% certainty whether or not Hussein had WMDs.

I doubt the last part but that's a different thread. On this, the US does the samething to them I'm sure. Intelligence is a very interesting game.

I think Mr. Shrub has gone away.

Let's say it's not work safe...

cackle, glad i didn't click on it at school then.

OK. And actually, yeah, the e-mails thing sounds kind of suspicious. If he settles out-of-court, I'd totally agree with you that Rather is guilty. But just like with O'Reilly, I'm sure you didn't believe the allegations either, at first.

Regardless of someone's political leanings, when I hear an accusation that someone was engaged in a halfwit peccadillo, the more halfwit it sounds, the more likely I am to believe it.

I believed that O'Reilly made a stupid mistake the first time I heard the story. Same with Rush. Same with Clinton. And I do absolutely believe that Gary Condit killed his girlfriend. When I read about his red latex suit fetish, that sealed it for me.

The memo is nowhere near as halfwit - there isn't any sex or drugs. But as soon as it was demonstrated that the memo was done in Word, it sounded rather lame that they "didn't check the facts". And when he hung his underlings out to dry - some were fired, and some were "retained" so that they would have less incentive to sue (they were the ones who sued), then I knew that he knew from the beginning.

After all, he got to "retire".

cackle, glad i didn't click on it at school then.

You would have been suspended at least. Damn zero tolarance crap.

Since this is the first I"ve heard of the settlement, I would like to see proof please.
He counter-sued her, claiming it was politically and financially motivated. But then, she told the court that she had audio recordings of O'Reilly sexually harassing her, and they settled out of court, with a no-fault, undisclosed settlement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/20/entertainment/main650282.shtml

I suspect that she really was just doing it for the money, like she invited him to sexually harass her, then recorded it. But I don't doubt that there's some sick and hilarious shit that he said on those tapes. You should read the transcript of the court proceedings. O'Reilly said he had a dildo that a girl gave him, he said he had a sexual fantasy of showering with a girl on a hot day, he sexually harassed waitresses in some Asian country, and a bunch of shit. Google for it. It's funny stuff.

He counter-sued her, claiming it was politically and financially motivated. But then, she told the court that she had audio recordings of O'Reilly sexually harassing her, and they settled out of court, with a no-fault, undisclosed settlement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/20/entertainment/main650282.shtml

Thanks Shrub. It really was the first I've heard of it so thanks for providing me that it is over. *shrugs*

I suspect that she really was just doing it for the money, like she invited him to sexually harass her, then recorded it.

We'll never truly know now Pres Shrub.

Even I can answer that Shrub. Its called I-N-T-E-L-L-I-G-E-N-C-E!!!! I wouldn't be surprised if we are evsdropping on Putin's phone calls or any other world leader for that matter.
You have to admit, though, man. That's impressive. If Russia could spy on the President's private conversations, why couldn't WE or RUSSIA do the same with Hussein, a stupid little dictator, to REALLY know if he had WMDs or not!?!?

Even I can answer that Shrub. Its called I-N-T-E-L-L-I-G-E-N-C-E!!!! I wouldn't be surprised if we are evsdropping on Putin's phone calls or any other world leader for that matter.
Oh, and by the way... It's against international law for a U.N. member to spy on another U.N. member.

Oh, and by the way... It's against international law for a U.N. member to spy on another U.N. member.
Like that ever stops anyone.

You have to admit, though, man. That's impressive. If Russia could spy on the President's private conversations, why couldn't WE or RUSSIA do the same with Hussein, a stupid little dictator, to REALLY know if he had WMDs or not!?!?

Because Hussein thought he had WMD when infact he didn't. And I can tell you that Hussein wasn't Stupid. The way he played the UN and the fact that he managed to get what he wanted out of Oil for Food is proof of that.

Oh, and by the way... It's against international law for a U.N. member to spy on another U.N. member.

HAHAHA!!! Every nation spies on eachother P.S. Its the Humanity Past Time. That'll never change either. LOL!! This is actually funny.

Like that ever stops anyone.

Exactly. Oops...Then I guess the UN should fold W.L. since they are violating International Law themselves?

[QUOTE=President Shrub]It's not a fucking Constitutional error. I explained it.QUOTE]

Are you really that stupid? You didn't explain it. You are missing the point here. There is no evidence to impeach Bush. Whether or not you want to believe it, he will NEVER be impeached. He's a two term president. One of fifteen or sixteen if I'm correct...

SO SHUT THE FUCK UP!
:headbang:

[QUOTE=President Shrub]It's not a fucking Constitutional error. I explained it.QUOTE]

Are you really that stupid? You didn't explain it. You are missing the point here. There is no evidence to impeach Bush. Whether or not you want to believe it, he will NEVER be impeached. He's a two term president. One of fifteen or sixteen if I'm correct...

SO SHUT THE FUCK UP!
:headbang:

13 posts in and already looking for trouble. A mod has already visited this thread and asked the posters to calm down. Please heed this advice.

Here's a Russian tape for you...

http://www.redstararms.com/missrsa.wmv
Damn you, WL. You're just trying to get me to short out my keyboard, aren't ya? :p

[QUOTE=Kingladn]

A mod has already visited this thread and asked the posters to calm down. Please heed this advice.

That was calm.

And try telling that to the guy who originally posted this.

[QUOTE=Jocabia]

That was calm.

And try telling that to the guy who originally posted this.

The mod was talking to him too. I actually posted what you quoted in the mod forum and asked him to visit the thread. Try and be constructive.

The mods are here!? Scatter!!



...and the boards go silent...

The mods are here!? Scatter!!



...and the boards go silent...
D00d. You make it sound like the General forum is populated by roaches. :p

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8216602/

Hey President Shrub. Shall we start calling for Secretary-General to resign?

D00d. You make it sound like the General forum is populated by roaches. :p


I was thinking prarie dogs or gazelle that all stick their head up at once and look around nearvously. :D

The bit about the Italian PM resigning is only partly true. He's forming a new government but last I checked, is still PM of Italy. I suggest you get that right.
That doesn't mean shit. The Italian government is similar to Britain's government, in that the party's that get along are basically form their own government. So, his resignation, then claiming he's forming a new government is the equivalent of Blair resigning, and claiming he's going to start a new party. (Hahaha. New New Labour Party.)


1. There isn't a dynasty here, not in the true sense of the word anyway. Yes we had a father/son president here but I don't think anyone talked of an Adams Dynasty and they also had a father/son presidency too.
Adams didn't have a brother who was a politician, either, especially a politician that rigged votes. Yes, I could be wrong, but I don't believe there's ever been a family in politics which has had THREE members in the government, except the Kennedys, and I'd totally agree that there's a Kennedy dynasty.

Because Hussein thought he had WMD when infact he didn't.
What?

What the hell?!

You just said that Hussein thought he had WMD, but he didn't? Why the.. how the hell could Hussein himself not know what weapons he had?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8216602/

Hey President Shrub. Shall we start calling for Secretary-General to resign?
If he turns out to be guilty, you're damn right they should. But the point is, they found evidence, and they're investigating. I, and 89 Congressman, are asking for the same thing for Bush.

And at this point, I actually strongly suspect some wrongdoing of at least Kojo Annan. They should've been investigating him already.

The New England Patriots can't stop winning Super Bowls and people are still hesitant to start calling them a dynasty. I'll wait till GW the VIIth

That doesn't mean shit. The Italian government is similar to Britain's government, in that the party's that get along are basically form their own government. So, his resignation, then claiming he's forming a new government is the equivalent of Blair resigning, and claiming he's going to start a new party. (Hahaha. New New Labour Party.)

It actually means more than you think it does. You said he resigned. He did but he is still PM with a new government. So what you said was partly incorrect.

Adams didn't have a brother who was a politician, either, especially a politician that rigged votes.

You don't know that Adams had a brother who was a politician either so you really can't compare them. Besides that, no votes were rigged so I'm just going to drop that.

Yes, I could be wrong, but I don't believe there's ever been a family in politics which has had THREE members in the government, except the Kennedys, and I'd totally agree that there's a Kennedy dynasty.

That, without a doubt, I'll agree with you regarding a Kennedy Dynasty.

What?

What the hell?!

You just said that Hussein thought he had WMD, but he didn't? Why the.. how the hell could Hussein himself not know what weapons he had?

Simple fact that your trying to get bush on. He was lied to by his own people who feared death if he found out that they destroyed the WMD. Now the logic is starting to turn.

If he turns out to be guilty, you're damn right they should. But the point is, they found evidence, and they're investigating. I, and 89 Congressman, are asking for the same thing for Bush.

And there has been investigations into the intel and they found that it wasn't manipulated what so ever. The investigation revealed that the intel that Bush used was bad intelligence and nothing more.

And at this point, I actually strongly suspect some wrongdoing of at least Kojo Annan. They should've been investigating him already.

Kojo is guilty. There's no question on that. As for an investigation, he has already been implicated and the investigation proved his involvement. They thought they cleared Koffi but now, he's back under investigation. However, your calling for Bush's impeachment over tapes and a memo now your saying Annan should stay till proven guilty. I see an inconsistency here.

If only all of the Bush-Bashers were this doltish.

Oh, wait...
Nyuk, nyuk. :rolleyes:

It actually means more than you think it does. You said he resigned. He did but he is still PM with a new government. So what you said was partly incorrect.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but of what I've read of the Italian government, they're like the British government in that each "party" can form its own government, but must still be elected. So, this is the equivalent of Blair resigning and forming a New NEW Labour Party.

You don't know that Adams had a brother who was a politician either so you really can't compare them. Besides that, no votes were rigged so I'm just going to drop that.
Prove me wrong. Besides, if he did have a brother who was a politician (which I doubt), I'd agree they had a "dynasty" as well.

That, without a doubt, I'll agree with you regarding a Kennedy Dynasty.
And the Bush Dynasty?

Simple fact that your trying to get bush on. He was lied to by his own people who feared death if he found out that they destroyed the WMD. Now the logic is starting to turn.
LOL. But the fact is, he didn't know where it was!

You, yourself, said Saddam wasn't stupid. I don't think they'd be able to hide a WMD from Iraq for 3 years before Saddam found out. The specific individuals didn't tell anyone, so, so far as Saddam knew, it was missing. No one in Iraq still believed or told Hussein that they had WMD, after it had been dumped, three years ago. LOL. That's a ridiculous claim. First, you dispute that he's stupid (which I didn't really MEAN, I was being facetious), and now you imply that he's an absolute moron. No, Hussein was not an idiot.

And there has been investigations into the intel and they found that it wasn't manipulated what so ever. The investigation revealed that the intel that Bush used was bad intelligence and nothing more.
Not at all.

To quote the 9\11 Commission's Report:
"Executive branch agencies have searched records and produced a multitude of documents for us... ...This final report is only a summary of what we have done, citing only a fraction of the sources we have consulted. But in an event of this scale, touching so many issues and organizations, we are conscious of our limits. We have not interviewed every knowledgeable person or found every relevant piece of paper. New information inevitably will come to light." (9\11 Comission Report - PREFACE xvii) [Source] (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf)

And so it has. So, simply put, the 9\11 Commission was given hand-picked intelligence data by the very agencies accused of putting forth false intelligence. You can't expect agencies accused of putting forth "fixed" intelligence to just give you intelligence data to prove that! Furthermore, the 9\11 Commission's main goal was not to assess if there was fraudulent intelligence dealing with Iraq, but to determine how 9\11 happened and what could be done to prevent it. In addition, Bush required that he be able to appoint the head of the 9\11 Commission. His first choice was Henry Kissinger (Republican), but changed his mind and decided to choose Thomas Kean (also Republican). [Source] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terrorist_Attacks_Upon_the_United_States#Claims_of_lack_of_cooperation_from_t he_White_House) So, arguably, the 9\11 Commission wasn't truly 'independent' at all, nor conclusive. Its creation was in all probablity superficial, as Bush originally opposed the creation of the 9\11 Commission in April 2002. [Source] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml)

Furthermore, according to the 9\11 Comission's charter, they were not authorized to investigate policy-makers' honesty and effect on intelligence. Lastly, the Senate Intelligence Committee's decision to investigate that issue (a while ago) has since been dropped. [Source] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html)

Kojo is guilty. There's no question on that. As for an investigation, he has already been implicated and the investigation proved his involvement. They thought they cleared Koffi but now, he's back under investigation. However, your calling for Bush's impeachment over tapes and a memo now your saying Annan should stay till proven guilty. I see an inconsistency here.
Please show me a credible news report (not by Fox News) which claims that Kojo is guilty.

Can I get a zing-zing-ziiiiiiiiiiiiing?

Can ah gitta witnuz up in heah?!

Of course, in the absence of real, damning evidence, Shrubbery may have to invent something. Like Dan Rather did.

That's it - Shurbbery could get a copy of Microsoft Word and write a new, as yet unseen, damning memo...
I've already posted on this a few times so i'm not going to bother. I'll just tell you to punch up the Conservatinves vs Liberals thread and my name and Urantia II and you can read for yourself just how much of who made what up. It was remade on the Word. Yep, at LEAST you got that far. The rest of it WASN'T MADE UP. Post to the contrary, i invite. If you don't do it, i imagine it's more gravedigging for the more sincere in that line of thinking.

Can I get a zing-zing-ziiiiiiiiiiiiing?

Can ah gitta witnuz up in heah?!

I actually have the 9/11 Report sitting here right next to me.

Please show me a credible news report (not by Fox News) which claims that Kojo is guilty.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/29/oil.for.food.kojo.annan/

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/29/oil.for.food.kojo.annan/
It doesn't outright claim he's guilty.

But yeah, he totally fucking is. Kojo, I mean.

By the way, what about the rest of my statements? You know. Where I explained how they HAVEN'T investigated?

And the Italian government, and.. you know.. All of it. Don't dodge it. I want to hear you beg for forgiveness, for being an ignorant Conservative.

THE SUPREME OVERLORD DEMANDS PENANCE!

SUBMIT, OR BE SMITTEN!

:sniper:

How about gloating over being an intellectually superior conservative? Would that work?

It doesn't outright claim he's guilty.

But yeah, he totally fucking is. Kojo, I mean.

By the way, what about the rest of my statements? You know. Where I explained how they HAVEN'T investigated?

And the Italian government, and.. you know.. All of it. Don't dodge it. I want to hear you beg for forgiveness, for being an ignorant Conservative.

It isn't worth replying too because no matter what I say your going to denounce.

...

The Russians also passed the intelligence along to Iraq. No one knows what's on these tapes, because Russian has officially denied it. Unofficially, however, I'm sure all of us can agree it's true (except for some Russians here, of course).

...
Of course.


Lets all belive in what the KGB has to say...such a trustworthy source they are. Commies to the core. :rolleyes:
Wrong! Our secret service guys are free marketeers to the core now! :D

Wrong! Our secret service guys are free marketeers to the core now! :D

So are your arms manufacturers.
http://www.redstararms.com/arnewrsa4.JPG

So are your arms manufacturers.
http://www.redstararms.com/arnewrsa4.JPG

Cool picture :D

This is a bump