NationStates Jolt Archive

President George W. Bush should, by trial of Congress, be impeached, and by trial by Senate, be convicted of that impeachment.

Let me preface by reminding the reader of the terms of impeachment. While the Constitution makes it very clear that the President must be impeached "for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors (Article II, Section IV, US Constitution)," there exist other, de facto conditions for conviction of Impeachment, that are held as principles of general consensus by American lawmakers, if not by the law itself. For example, in the impeachment process of WJ Clinton, while he openly admitted to the Senate and the American public of his wrongdoing (tantamount to a guilty plea in a civil trial) he was not convicted for impeachment. This is because it is generally agreed that impeachment is inherently undemocratic; the office of the President is filled by the decision of the public, and removing him is a decision made by a select few, in this case, the Senate. Hence, the crimes of the President must not be simply letter-for-letter fulfillment of the terms of the Impeachment clause of the Constitution, but the actions of the President must directly threaten the democratic process in the United States.

That being said, let me continue with the President's impeachment.

I. FOR VIOLATION OF THE 1978 FISA ACT WITHOUT REMOTELY DECENT CAUSE

The 1978 FISA Act makes it explicity, inarguable, incontravertibly clear that, in 100% of all circumstances anywhere in the jurisdication of the United States, the Congress, acting through an arm called the FISA courts, is the ONLY body that may allow surveillance of foreign nationals or international bodies, or to grant surveillance warrants for American citizens.

However, earlier this year, it came out that orders, originating at the top echelons of the executive branch, had been given to the NSA to create a database of phone records, if not literal recordings, of certain foreign nationals living in the United States, and of all American citizens subscribing to those phone companies that cooperated with this program. No warrant was sought, but memos were secured from Alberto Gonzales assuring the President (falsely) that the program was legal, as in, the appropriate fall-men were set up to protect the President.

This program is a direct attempt by the chief of the Executive Branch to override the checks and balances gauranteed by the Constitution and, in so doing, violated federal law (the FISA Act), and, as is implicit in violation of checks and balances, damaged the democratic process in the United States. For this, he must be impeached.

II. FOR DELIBERATE DECEPTION OF CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, AND FOR ENCOURAGING SUBORDINATES TO DECIEVE CONGRESS IN REGARDS TO THE IRAQ INVASION OF 2003

Shortly after recieving orders from above to read a report to the United Nations Security Council stating that Iraq was already in possession of nuclear weapons, then-Defense Secretary Colin Powell reportedly threw the report up in the air and said, paraphrased, "I can't read this, this is bullshit" (expletive in original).

That being said, an infamous document today known as the "Downing Street Memo," available in complete text at www.afterdowningstreet.org, contains a written correspondance between President Bush and the UK's Prime Minister Tony Blair clearly stating that it was in the interest of both nations to distort or forge intelligence on Iraq's capability to develop or deploy weapons of mass destruction to increase popular support for a ground invasion. This document contains several statements that were later made to Congress non verbatum, such as the claims that solid and reliable intelligence had located portable bacteriological laboratory-trucks circling around Iraq, as well as silos and warehouses where weapons-grade fissile material and vials filled with bacteriological weapons were being stored. None of that was true.

Also, implied connections between Saddan Hussein and Al Qaeda were reported to be embellished, the truth being rather contrary to what underlings of the current Washington administration had released. In fact, it was well-known in intelligence circles that Hussen and bin Laden were at odds in that Hussein governed the only Middle Eastern nation other than Israel that did not comprehensively integrate the Koran into common law). However, statements by the President, the Vice President, and subordinates of both men are directly contrary to known intelligence.

These statements are tantamount to treason in that they lead directly to the needless deaths of American young in Iraq, which continue to this day, and in that they constitute deliberate, open deception of Congress, the crime for which WJ Clinton was impeached in 1998, and overstepped the bounds of the executive branch by trying to provide rationale for war, which only Congress may declare. For this, GW Bush must be impeached.

III. FOR DELIBERATE DECEPTION OF THE US SENATE REGARDING AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN LOBBYIST JACK ABRAMOFF

During an investigation relating to confessions made by toppled GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the President stated to official investigators, an arm of the US Congress, that he could not recall ever having had met Jack Abramoff.

Photos of the President and Mr. Abramoff are available online at these sites:
http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/bush_abramoff_together1.jpg
http://www.humorgazette.com/images?D=D
http://www.macalester.edu/macdems/uploaded_images/BushAbramoff-753525.jpg

A story posted by the USA Today paper, dated 6/26/06, states clearly that lobbyist Jack Abramoff, with associate Grover Norquist, traded enormous sums of money, much of which was funneled into Norquist's tax-exempt group, for face time with the President. It also outlines several very blunt, incontravertible email statements on the matter between Abramoff and Norquist, as well as the President's media expert, Karl Rove. The Senate concluded beyond a doubt that they had met at least once, starting in 2001. They also show the use of American aboriginal tribal donations used to solicit access to the President, on numerous occasions.

Abramoff's lawyers were not available for comment.

For this, flagrant deception of the Congress, and attempting to pass off deliberate deception as forgetfulness, thereby impeding the judicial process, in violation of the checks and balances of the Constitution in its stated purpose of preventing the Senate's judicial arm from executing the law, the President has threatened American democracy, and must be impeached.

IV. FOR VIOLATION OF FOREIGN TREATIES RATIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS, IN THE ETERNAL DETENTION OF HUMAN BEINGS AT THE GUANTANAMO BASE IN CUBA, AS WELL AS FOR SECRET PROGRAMS OF RENDITION

The orders for this well-known internment camp came directly from the top of the executive branch.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision at the end of June of this year, ruled that the President had overstepped his executive privilege in ordering the interned prisoners of Guantanamo Bay to be tried by military tribunal, rather than in civil court or through appropriate channels of extradition.

He has also ordered, taking the place of powers granted explicitly to the Judicial Branch, multiple foreign nationsl to be transferred from American custody in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to secret facilities, mainly in Eastern Europe, Egypt, and other American allies in northern Africa, where they were tortured, as well as for allowing conditions that qualify beyond a doubt as torture to proceed unimpeded at Guantanamo Bay. The Constitution makes it quite clear that treaties ratified by the Congress are the law of the land wherever the United States has jurisdiction, and this program not only oversteps the reach of the executive branch, it violates dozens of international laws regarding extradition and bans on torture. The deliberate manipulation of the intelligence committee through hand-picked underlings constitutes an incontravertible violation of executive privilege in its usurpation of the powers of Congress to enforce the law, or of the Judicial branch to evaluate the law.

For all these things, the President MUST BE IMPEACHED.

The evidence is inarguable and incontravertible.

Chris Ray
impromptu ambassador for
the American Civil Liberties Untion
and the Center for Constitutional Rights
Hey - good post! *bows*

It is possible to impeach Bush for violations of War Crimes Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html) for grave breaches of the 3rd and 4th Geneva conventions.



The US has illegally denied POW status to some detainees (those who were members of Taliban armed forces or militias), and they are illegally being denied their rights and protections as enumerated in detail in the Third Geneva Convention.

The remaining detainees have been, AFAIK, denied their rights and protections as enumerated in detail in the Third Geneva Convention because their status as POWs was denied without a proper tribunal. Furthermore, the "illegal combatants" are quite clearly protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention*, customary international law and, where applicable, Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. (Note: the United States is not a party to Protocol I, but accepts many of its provisions as part of customary international law.)


Further more, the Convention against Torture states: "No exceptional circumstance whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

*
Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.
Commentary: IV Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. International Commit-
tee of the Red Cross: Geneva 1958, p. 51.

Excellent. A default win, since no one's seen fit to argue against this. Shall I send this on to the Dems?

President George W. Bush should, by trial of Congress, be impeached, and by trial by Senate, be convicted of that impeachment.

Sorry no grounds here mr ACLU.


I. FOR VIOLATION OF THE 1978 FISA ACT WITHOUT REMOTELY DECENT CAUSE

You have a problem since Congress was kept informed of what was going on and they did nothing about it. No condemnation of it until it was leaked out. Then they said that they would have given him permission to do so anyway. Also, polls show that the majority of American support it and on top of that....it is only on phone calls coming INTO the states from overseas. I guess you forgot that little detail.


II. FOR DELIBERATE DECEPTION OF CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, AND FOR ENCOURAGING SUBORDINATES TO DECIEVE CONGRESS IN REGARDS TO THE IRAQ INVASION OF 2003

Umm yea... another problem. The intelligence used in Operation Iraqi Freedom was the same intel that President Bill Clinton used to launch Operation Desert Fox in 1998. Also, various intelligence agency from around the world, including the United Nations believed that Saddam had these weapons. Goes to show that Intelligence is never perfect. You cannot impeach the president who had bad intelligence. You being a lawyer should know that. Bush didn't intentially lie to us for if he did, then Bill Clinton did too when he got authoriztion for Operation Desert Fox.

III. FOR DELIBERATE DECEPTION OF THE US SENATE REGARDING AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN LOBBYIST JACK ABRAMOFF

I do not think you want to go here. If you do, then politicians on both sides will get dragged through the mud. This isn't a high crime nor a misdemeanor.

IV. FOR VIOLATION OF FOREIGN TREATIES RATIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS, IN THE ETERNAL DETENTION OF HUMAN BEINGS AT THE GUANTANAMO BASE IN CUBA, AS WELL AS FOR SECRET PROGRAMS OF RENDITION

1) Geneva Conventions DO NOT cover irregular forces. Legally, they don't have legal status. We can hold them as long as we want. Why? The Supreme Court said so :D

2) The UN Charter is not a treaty and if it was a treaty, it has been violated by more than one nation. More like most of them.

3) Prove that rendition is going on since so far, there is not outstanding proof that it is going on.

You need to take a military law class as well as study international law a bit better because it is apparent that you don't know neither.

Chris Ray
impromptu ambassador for
the American Civil Liberties Untion
and the Center for Constitutional Rights

I find a new profession.

Hey - good post! *bows*

Sorry straughn but his post had no evidence in it for impeachment. Any defense lawyer can punch holes in it.

Excellent. A default win, since no one's seen fit to argue against this. Shall I send this on to the Dems?

For what? Under it, they don't have legal standing since they are not part of a national army.

For what? Under it, they don't have legal standing since they are not part of a national army.

Buuuu! Wrong answer. Try again.

(BTW, I'll point out that even DK, one of the long standing anti T. posters here, acknowledges the Taliban forces should be afforded POW status.)

Buuuu! Wrong answer. Try again.

(BTW, I'll point out that even DK, one of the long standing anti T. posters here, acknowledges the Taliban forces should be afforded POW status.)

The taliban I can agree with. Al Qaeda though I don't. However, in light of the Supreme Court ruling, we can hold them indefintely anyway :D

Geneva Conventions DO NOT cover irregular forces. Legally, they don't have legal status. We can hold them as long as we want. Why? The Supreme Court said so :D

The Geneva conventions and the legal commentary on them make it quite explicit that there is no "non-legal" status. See my previous posts. As a treaty, the Geneva conventions have constitutional law status (article 6). SCOUS can't deny that.


The UN Charter is not a treaty and if it was a treaty, it has been violated by more than one nation. More like most of them.

Incorrect and correct. However, as I said above, the US constitution regards treaties to be constituitional law.

The taliban I can agree with. Al Qaeda though I don't. However, in light of the Supreme Court ruling, we can hold them indefintely anyway :D

So, seeing as Taliban POWs held at Guantanamo have been treated contray to the 3rd Geveva Convention, you'd have to accept impeachment on grounds of violating the War Crimes Act.

So, seeing as Taliban POWs held at Guantanamo have been treated contray to the 3rd Geveva Convention, you'd have to accept impeachment on grounds of violating the War Crimes Act.

How? Sorry but no. They are not :D

Excellent. A default win, since no one's seen fit to argue against this. Shall I send this on to the Dems?
What is to argue. Bush in his State of the Union address talked about spreading freedom and democracy and yet his administration is incapable of demonstrating such principles in regards to the treatment of "enemy combatants".

As an outsider looking in, it easy to see why BushCo would like to deny status to the detainees. By denying these "detainees" basic human rights, the Bush administration has been able to "kidnap" these people, detain them indefinitely, deny them contact with the outside world, torture them, and in certain cases has been able to make them "disappear".

Even though some of these "detainees" have commited crimes against humanity, others have not. Denying these "detainees" basic human rights is also a crime against humanity and as such, Bush should be impeached.

For what? Under it, they don't have legal standing since they are not part of a national army.
Denying these detainees basic human rights flies in the face of humanity and yet you defend this policy. Despite your affirmations that you are a Christian, it would appear that your true God is George Bush.

Denying these detainees basic human rights flies in the face of humanity and yet you defend this policy. Despite your affirmations that you are a Christian, it would appear that your true God is George Bush.

Dude....

they have been accorded basic human rights. They have food, shelter, and clothing. On top of that they have their Koran and an arrow pointing to where Mecca is. Also, they are being catered too with what muslims are allowed to eat.

The Geneva conventions and the legal commentary on them make it quite explicit that there is no "non-legal" status. See my previous posts. As a treaty, the Geneva conventions have constitutional law status (article 6). SCOUS can't deny that.
Absolutely.

Incorrect and correct. However, as I said above, the US constitution regards treaties to be constituitional law.
This is something our Corny friend has been unable to grasp despite the mountain of evidence against him.

Dude....

they have been accorded basic human rights. They have food, shelter, and clothing. On top of that they have their Koran and an arrow pointing to where Mecca is. Also, they are being catered too with what muslims are allowed to eat.
You mean to say that they have been accorded SOME basic human rights? Many of these detainees have been kidnapped and are being held against their will, and without contact with the outside world. Get a grip.

You mean to say that they have been accorded SOME basic human rights? Many of these detainees have been kidnapped and are being held against their will, and without contact with the outside world. Get a grip.

Your the one that needs to get a grip.

Dude....

they have been accorded basic human rights. They have food, shelter, and clothing. On top of that they have their Koran and an arrow pointing to where Mecca is. Also, they are being catered too with what muslims are allowed to eat.
And let's not forget they cost the US taxpayer 5K each to buy from those Pakistani warlords.

How? Sorry but no. They are not :D

Either
a) the Taliban POWs should be affordede the protections of the III Geneva convention, and their current treatment is in violation of the convention, meaning that GWB is in violation of the War Crimes Act.

b) they are not POWs in which case they are afforded lesser but still stringent protections under the IV convention, and their current treatment is in violation of the convention, meaning that GWB is in violation of the War Crimes Act.

There is no other possibility under the Geneva Conventions (persons of other status fall under the IV convention). The War Crimes Act specifically states that breaches of the conventions are illegal. Thus if the POWs or civilians held by the US are treated inhumanely, those responsible are war criminals under both international and US law.

Bush shouldn't be impeached. We all know he has done nothing impeachable.

Bush shouldn't be impeached. We all know he has done nothing impeachable.
...So I'm supposing you suffer from some condition that renders previous posts unreadable, there Corn. 'Cause it's more than a little amusing reading this shiny lil' capuchon of yours right after having read Daistallia's comparative gem.

Bush shouldn't be impeached. We all know he has done nothing impeachable.

Yes, violating the War Crimes Act is so minor compared to perjury that it shouldn;t be punished.... NOT!

Yes, violating the War Crimes Act is so minor compared to perjury that it shouldn;t be punished.... NOT!

Youd have a point if it was violated but since it wasn't....you don't.

Your the one that needs to get a grip.
You are the one supporting criminal activity not me. If you can feel comfortable about that, so be it.

Youd have a point if it was violated but since it wasn't....you don't.

Oh really? So all the Taliban held at Guantanamo have been afforded their POW rights and privlages? None has been illegally interrogated? None has been intimidated? No coercion has been undertaken against them? None has been punished in a brutal fashion (as defined by intenational law standards)? All have been paid?

These are provisions under the 3rd Geneva Convention, and AFAIK all have been violated. As such, those responsible are culpable under the provisions of the War Crimes Act.

As for the non-POW detainees, there are similar provisions , and these equally appear to have been violated.

Dude....

they have been accorded basic human rights. They have food, shelter, and clothing. On top of that they have their Koran and an arrow pointing to where Mecca is. Also, they are being catered too with what muslims are allowed to eat.

As stated in my post just above, these are not the only provisions of the 3rd and 4th Geneva conventions. If prisoners have been subjected to coercion, the provisions have been violated, and those responsible have violated the War Crimes Act. Since GWB appears to be ultimately responsible (having approved the violations), he should be impeached on these grounds.

You are the one supporting criminal activity not me. If you can feel comfortable about that, so be it.
I wonder what Baby Jesus'd have to say about willfully propping up the Presidency of an internationally-known war criminal.

Yes. He should also be impaled, impeded, imperiled, implicated, imploded, impounded, impoverished, imprecated, impugned and imprisoned.

I'm happy to see yet another proponent of due process and one who is so against cruel and unusual punishment.

Have you ever heard of the 8th Amendment? :headbang:

We need a no confidence recall amendment to The Constitution so that we can recall presidents if they end up being as stupid as Bush and if they keep appointing extremely incompetent people in important positions.

Turn the whole country in California?!? :eek:

That's be great! Nothing like a smoothly running country with elections every other month...

No thanks.

See? Both sides do it. :D Its nothing new.

That's probably the best post I've seen on the forums this week.

Excellent. A default win, since no one's seen fit to argue against this. Shall I send this on to the Dems?

Nice try, but no banana.

I checked out http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html

I think we can both agree that definition #4 is not in question here.

As for defintion #3, it is not in question, either:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

...none of which works. The Red Cross has certified that. Which is also why it is no longer in the press.

Can you point to anything specific to support definitions 1 or 2?

I wonder what Baby Jesus'd have to say about willfully propping up the Presidency of an internationally-known war criminal.
I only brought Corny's religious beliefs forward due to his siggy:

"We're the people of God and we're on a quest. Raisin' up the banner of righteousness."

I don't see Guantanamo as an example of "righteousness". I don't think that Jesus would either.

Having said that, it is not my intention to turn this into a religious debate. Corny can struggle with his own demons.

I only brought Corny's religious beliefs forward due to his siggy:

"We're the people of God and we're on a quest. Raisin' up the banner of righteousness."

I don't see Guantanamo as an example of "righteousness". I don't think that Jesus would either.

Having said that, it is not my intention to turn this into a religious debate. Corny can struggle with his own demons.
I understand why you brought it up. I have the sigs turned off, so I can't see 'em, but I knew enough about Corny's outlook to know that this runs counter to most of what Jesus ever talked about.

And I'll agree with you that Guantanamo is neither an example of "righteousness", nor would Jesus of Nazareth see it as such - and yes, Corneliu would be well-served by taking the time to think through the inconsistencies inherent in venerating Christ while defending Bush. Demons, indeed.

He is the spawn of Satan!

Nice try, but no banana.

I checked out http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html

I think we can both agree that definition #4 is not in question here.

As for defintion #3, it is not in question, either:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

...none of which works. The Red Cross has certified that. Which is also why it is no longer in the press.

Can you point to anything specific to support definitions 1 or 2?

The ICRC's finding of "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment of detainees at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba which "violate international rules against torture adopted by the United States and other countries."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21262-2004Nov30.html

I wonder what Baby Jesus'd have to say about willfully propping up the Presidency of an internationally-known war criminal.

Well, since the Republican's are the Christian Values people, I guess Baby Jesus thinks that torture is ok as long as all the paperwork has been filed properly. Or at least the people who didn't file the paperwork are aware of it and can produce it if called upon to do so.

And I'll agree with you that Guantanamo is neither an example of "righteousness", nor would Jesus of Nazareth see it as such - and yes, Corneliu would be well-served by taking the time to think through the inconsistencies inherent in venerating Christ while defending Bush. Demons, indeed.

Well served? A person with poor coping skills isn't going to be well served by realizing that everything he believes is a lie. He'd loose whatever it is that he uses in place of a mind.

First he needs therapy to help him deal with sources of anxiety in a realistic fashion, then he won't feel the need to resort to toxic psychological placebos like neo-conservatism.

Unacceptable trivia. This is an article from 1996, and does not provide the US with an excuse to invade Iraq in 2003.

Try again.

Edit: Please note that No-Fly Zones (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html)were not endorsed by the UN.


They fired on us on a near daily basis. So go spout your lies elsewhere.

Trivia my ass. The only reason 1996 is relevent at all is to show that we should have gone in much sooner.

How? Is the SC going to hear the case again?



But the Downing Street Minutes indicate that he was eager to create this war and lied to Congress to create it. The inaccuracy of many of his statements has long been proven, the minutes prove his intent. Congress may have approved force, but that doesn't mean that Bush wasn't involved in a conspiracy to bring the war about.


Can you find me the ORIGINAL Downing street minutes??? Not the one the "reporter" made up. The ACTUAL ones. They don't exist because they never did. This is as laughable as Rather-gate.



No, not in my opinion. Take a look at some of his signing statements. He's using them to indicate that he thinks he has the authority not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with. That is a lack of "faithfully executing the office of the president of the united states." His job is to enforce the law, and he's claiming that he doesn't have to if he doesn't feel like it.

So lets jail all of the town councils school teachers etc. that allow ILLEGAL aliens to stay here.



No bid contracts to companies that his friends and family own stock in is against the law. He's doing it to take tax payer money and put it in the coffers of his friends companies. Try googling "cost plus" and halliburton to get an idea of what I'm talking about.


Try looking up the truth instead of your smear happy criminal blogs. The SCUM that keep lying about this stuff should be sued for every penny they have. Jail time would be appropriate also.

http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

Alpenstock - it's people like you what deserve to live under fascist dictatorships.

hmmm......

i have not looked at the poll results yet and have not yet voted.

but guessing upon the majority anti Bush crowd here on NS, i am going to have to place my bets on Yes is winning in the polls.

The ICRC's finding of "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment of detainees at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba which "violate international rules against torture adopted by the United States and other countries."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21262-2004Nov30.html

Uh huh. So... if an employee hits a client, you fire the boss?
Man, I'm happy I don't work at your company!

Unless you can prove Bush actually told the general in charge "Rough them up" somehow, that holds zero water.

Alpenstock - it's people like you what deserve to live under fascist dictatorships.


Why? Because I resent the fact that so many of the "loyal opposition" has ignored the facts, made up false charges, and gone completely off the deep end???

People like you actually END UP living under fascist dictatorships, when people like me are not around.

(insert a mod's name here)

Yes, violating the War Crimes Act is so minor compared to perjury that it shouldn;t be punished.... NOT!


Show me the violation, the recent Scotus Decision does not indicate he violated it. As a matter of fact, they said He must follow the laws of congress, and in fact that is what he did. They also completely ignored all precedent on the issue. Previous decisions ruled that they had no jurisdiction. This decision was a joke to begin with, but did not say what so many of you hoped it did.

Bush lied about worse things than sex. as the saying goes, " Bush Lied Thousands Died". But all clinton lied about was a blow job, :eek:


The lie you are referring to turns out to be the truth, but of course the facts don't matter, do they. Don't let the truth get in the way of a good slogan!:rolleyes:

That's what neighbors always say about serial killers and pedophiles.


I hope you have to go through the hell that the left is putting members of this administration through.

I hope you get falsely accused of rape and have to spend the rest of your life trying to recover your good name.

People who make false accusations of crimes for political purposes are EXACTLY like the worst dictators of history. That is what the left is doing today.

I hope you have to go through the hell that the left is putting members of this administration through.

I hope you get falsely accused of rape and have to spend the rest of your life trying to recover your good name.

People who make false accusations of crimes for political purposes are EXACTLY like the worst dictators of history. That is what the left is doing today.

Wow, someone has a good imagination...may I have some of your little mushrooms?

Uh huh. So... if an employee hits a client, you fire the boss?
Man, I'm happy I don't work at your company!

Unless you can prove Bush actually told the general in charge "Rough them up" somehow, that holds zero water.

Seeing as he specifically ordered the contravention of the Taliban's POW rights, yes. (And note that even Gonzales was concerned about the War Crimes Act in 2002).

He lies to the people, he's incompetent at home affairs, his foreign affairs have hidden agendas. And to think they impeached Clinton because of a blowjob.

They fired on us on a near daily basis. So go spout your lies elsewhere.

Trivia my ass. The only reason 1996 is relevent at all is to show that we should have gone in much sooner.
I am not lying. I suggest that you take the time to read the article:

Why 'No-Fly' Zone Clashes Won't Trigger an Iraq War (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html)

BTW, according to worldwide opinion, March 2003 was TOO soon to invade Iraq.

Wow, someone has a good imagination...may I have some of your little mushrooms?
Perhaps a new puppet is running amuck? Whatever the case may be, running around calling people liars is not exactly a good start for this new? nation.

Blowjobs are more evil than warmongering, so my answer is "no".

well? what do you think?

and if you piked a "for some other reason" option plz tell what your reason is.

Nope he is a good president. But the media is against him, hell if sum1 really wanted to they could make half the country think Washington was a horrbile president. Just a large amount of ppl just read the headlines and don't actually do any research into the topic.

Nope he is a good president. But the media is against him, hell if sum1 really wanted to they could make half the country think Washington was a horrbile president. Just a large amount of ppl just read the headlines and don't actually do any research into the topic.

j00 r teh rite!!!1 Ya d00ds!!11! Do sum reesearch ppl!!11 :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :gundge:

Yes! Cuz if we impeach CHIMPY MCCHIMPERSON (LOLZZZzz!!1) than KERRY becomes prezident!! Yay!1111one

Oh and the next person who says that Clinton was impeached because of a blowjob gets a swift cockpunch.

Alpenstock - it's people like you what deserve to live under fascist dictatorships.
Why? Because I resent the fact that so many of the "loyal opposition" has ignored the facts, made up false charges, and gone completely off the deep end???
No, people like you deserve to live under fascist dictatorships because you've forfeited everything worthwhile for some supposed sense of security. That's why, Alpenstock.

I am not lying. I suggest that you take the time to read the article:

Why 'No-Fly' Zone Clashes Won't Trigger an Iraq War (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html)

BTW, according to worldwide opinion, March 2003 was TOO soon to invade Iraq.
Quit posting opinion pieces as "facts". That article said that the reason the attacks on aircraft patroling the no fly zones weren't taken to the security council was because Russia and China would back Iraq. (Which of course had nothing to do with Oil for Food now did it? :rolleyes: )

A divided Council, after all, is the principal reason Saddam has managed to get away with thumbing his nose at the UN until now

As to world wide opinion.... unfortunately "world wide opinion" includes yours... and you know what they say about opinions... they are just like assholes... everyone has one, and they usually stink.

No, people like you deserve to live under fascist dictatorships because you've forfeited everything worthwhile for some supposed sense of security. That's why, Alpenstock.
And it's people like you who already feel they are living under a fascist dictatorship.
People like you who are so paranoid that the slightest little nothing sets them off "omg, you're a fascist!!"

And it's people like you who already feel they are living under a fascist dictatorship.
People like you who are so paranoid that the slightest little nothing sets them off "omg, you're a fascist!!"

Not to mention those that decry Bush as being a "fascist" are the one's most likely to be zealous anti-smokers and gun-control nuts. Birds of the feather, they are.

Not to mention those that decry Bush as being a "fascist" are the one's most likely to be zealous anti-smokers and gun-control nuts. Birds of the feather, they are.
Prove that one and I'll mail you a carton of Gauloises.

*puffs*

Not to mention those that decry Bush as being a "fascist" are the one's most likely to be zealous anti-smokers and gun-control nuts. Birds of the feather, they are.

LoL - Recalling some of the threads in the past on the subject of the 2ns Amendment, can tell you I'm one of the more far out ones on this subject (You want to own a tank, pass an operators test, identical to the armies, and you get a "shall-issue"). Meanwhile I think Bush is at least an equal threat to rights as FDR, LBJ, and Lincoln.

Prove that one and I'll mail you a carton of Gauloises.

*puffs*

As long as there're the likes of me around, he'll be able to prove that one around the time the millionth monkey produces Hamlet.

Not even close. The war was authorized and was within the guidelines of the UN resolutions.



The war in Iraq was never authorised. The UN security council passed resolution 1441 in November 2002 ordering weapons inspections in Iraq to ensure Iraq were not violating resolution 687. Iraq followed resolution 1441, and the UN weapons inspectors found nothing; leaving France, among others, threatening to use their veto over any resolution supporting military action against Iraq.

As for the WMD's, Prime Minister Tony Blair's political career was almost left in tatters over this issue because NO WMD's were found. Someone said previously that the US had found WMD's. I doubt this entirely, it seems inconceivable to me that the US would find WMD's and not tell Tony Blair. Not once has Tony Blair told either the British House of Commons, or the British media that any WMD's were found.

But President Bush should not be impeached for two reasons:
1. American democracy is boasted as the best system of democracy in the world. Impeaching President Bush would send the wrong message out to all the countries that the US are encouraging to adopt democracy and spread freedom.
2. People in america need to accept that Bush IS President, through a legal election and all 'evidence' connecting Bush with violation of laws (both American and International) are completely disputable.

He is the spawn of Satan!

THat's the best you can come up with? *dies of laughter*

The ICRC's finding of "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment of detainees at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba which "violate international rules against torture adopted by the United States and other countries."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21262-2004Nov30.html

And yet they have access to the prisoners all the time. They are with the interrogators and all that in compliance with the very convention you are saying he violated.

Alpenstock - it's people like you what deserve to live under fascist dictatorships.

Presented with Factcheck and you have to come up with this remark? I guess you really do not like truth do you?

He lies to the people, he's incompetent at home affairs, his foreign affairs have hidden agendas. And to think they impeached Clinton because of a blowjob.

Oh brother. A nice little troll who has no facts at all.

Quit posting opinion pieces as "facts". That article said that the reason the attacks on aircraft patroling the no fly zones weren't taken to the security council was because Russia and China would back Iraq.
Someone stated that violation of the "ceasefire" was a valid reason for invading Iraq. That article suggests otherwise, and also states that the UN would not view the firing on coalition planes as a violation of any UN Resolution. The article actually quotes Kofi Annan on the matter (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html).

(Which of course had nothing to do with Oil for Food now did it? :rolleyes: )
Which is your "opinion". Please see your definition of "opinions" below. :p

As to world wide opinion.... unfortunately "world wide opinion" includes yours... and you know what they say about opinions... they are just like assholes... everyone has one, and they usually stink.
I have been going through quite a few of your posts here at NS and for a noob, it appears that most of your posts are just unsubtantiated "opinions", and they clearly fall within the parameters of your own definition about "opinions". :p

Someone stated that violation of the "ceasefire" was a valid reason for invading Iraq. That article suggests otherwise, and also states that the UN would not view the firing on coalition planes as a violation of any UN Resolution. The article actually quotes Kofi Annan on the matter (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html).


You realize that is his own opinion? Yea thought so. Stop posting opinions please.

And yet they have access to the prisoners all the time. They are with the interrogators and all that in compliance with the very convention you are saying he violated.
Who has access to the prisoners "all of the time"?

Can you prove that the US is in "compliance" with the Conventions?

You realize that is his own opinion? Yea thought so. Stop posting opinions please.
If people had to stop posting opinions, your post count would probably be less than 1,000. :p

Ah, evidently Corneliu has yet to take the time to think through the inconsistencies inherent in venerating Christ while defending Bush. Either that, or he's decided to pass on it entirely.

Not unexpectedly, to be sure.

I hope you have to go through the hell that the left is putting members of this administration through.
I would suggest that most of the "hell" that the Bush administration is going through, is self inflicted, since Republicans control Congress and the Presidency and have for the past 6 years.

I hope you get falsely accused of rape and have to spend the rest of your life trying to recover your good name.
It really isn't nice to wish misfortune on someone, just because you don't like their point of view.

People who make false accusations of crimes for political purposes are EXACTLY like the worst dictators of history. That is what the left is doing today.
Yet it was Bush who declared that Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the US and it was Bush who tried to implicate Iraq with 9/11, and it was Bush who ordered an invasion of Iraq (without UN approval) before the UN inspectors could finish their job.

It was the Bush administration that decided that "enemy combatants" were a special breed and outside the purview of any jurisdiction in the world.

What is it that the left is doing today?

Definitions of morality vary. What does the fact that Bill Clinton got head in the Oval Office have to do with his ability or inability to act upon his presidential duties? What about the way that Clinton ran the presidency involved poor judgement? Keep in mind that Monicagate had nothing to do with his abilities as president.
It has to do with the timing and location of his actions. If he wants to get head on his own time, I hope he enjoys himself. When he does it on the job that is inapproiate. I wouldn't want my lawyer to bill me for the time he spent getting head, because I don't think that he was furthering our case by his actions.

In reply to criticism of my original proof, several components of which you may find in the literature of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, none of which has been heretofore challenged on basis of legal reasoning by any lawyer or legal professional on any end of the legal spectrum, let me address Corneliu.

First, his original reply contained several factual errors which I will discuss. It is unfortunate that he is confused, and I will now try my best to correct him so that we may all agree on the most reasonable way to correct current faults in the state of the American government- impeachment.

He writes that "You [Apollynia; me] have a problem since Congress was kept informed of what was going on and they did nothing about it." The problem with this statement lies in that it is simply untrue- no intelligence briefing made to Congress at any point contained the true data of the NSA wiretapping program. The Boston Globe writes on June 26th, 2006, that "The program has sparked an outcry from Republicans and Democrats, who have criticized the administration for failing to fully consult Congress."

Later in this paragraph Corneliu writes that "it is only on phone calls coming INTO the states from overseas." This is also untrue; a memo to the Centers for American Progress written by the White House, defending itself legally, reminds the reader that the program was used to gather phone data on American citizens- recieving calls from overseas, recieving calls from inside the United States, and calling other United States citizens. The recordkeeping process was never stated to include only incoming calls, and I am uncertain as to how you arrived at this eroneous data.

"I guess you forgot that little detail."

No, I didn't.

"Umm yea... another problem. The intelligence used in Operation Iraqi Freedom was the same intel that President Bill Clinton used to launch Operation Desert Fox in 1998. Also, various intelligence agency from around the world, including the United Nations believed that Saddam had these weapons. Goes to show that Intelligence is never perfect. You cannot impeach the president who had bad intelligence. You being a lawyer should know that. Bush didn't intentially lie to us for if he did, then Bill Clinton did too when he got authoriztion for Operation Desert Fox."

This entire paragraph of Corneliu's is worth addressing in that it also contains several factualerrors. The intelligence used in Operation Iraqi Freedom was substantially different from that used in Desert Fox, and Desert Storm, in that the OIF intelligence data contained several references to weapons programs that Bush officials instructed underlings to provide credence to, where no such data existed in previous invasion dossiers. President WJ Clinton's attack made no attempts at ground invasion, striking by air only at sites believed to be used to provide guidance data for missile strikes into Jerusalem, of the type launched during the 1991 Gulf War. Also, where you state that several foreign intelligence agencies corroborated this data, that is simply untrue. The closest corrolaries I can think of are the Japanese foreign intelligence agency, the Italian, and the British, which all did provide estimates of Iraqi defensive capability, but such reports were erroneously summarized by the news media to contain references to weapons of mass destruction. No such references existed in those dossiers.

"I do not think you want to go here. If you do, then politicians on both sides will get dragged through the mud. This isn't a high crime nor a misdemeanor," writes Corneliu, in response to the President's obvious and unabashed association with Jack Abramoff.

I must clearly and firmly state that I do not know what he means by "sides." Either politicians committed crimes, or they didn't. If the entire Republican leadership, as well as 55% of their Congressional representatives, as well as 35% of the Democratic Congressional representatives and none of their leadership must be impeached and barred from public office, then that is what must happen. If members of the American political process committed a crime, then they committed a crime. The only differences lie in that President Bush, Karl Rove, and several other senior associates of the President's all testified to the contrary under oath at Congressional hearings. This doubly magnifies their crime in that they not only committed the crime, but have compounded it by obstructing the judicial arm of the United States Senate.

"1) Geneva Conventions DO NOT cover irregular forces."

None of the inmates at Guantanamo Bay has been declared a member of any force- irregular or otherwise. This is because they have all been denied civil trials, per the explicit orders of President Bush and Alberto Gonzales.

"2) The UN Charter is not a treaty"

This statement is based on the legal philosophy most clearly articulated by conservative law professor Herbert W. Titus who, in his analysis of the upcoming House Resolution 1146, claims that the UN charter is not a treaty, as treaties are signed between soveriegn nations, and not international bodies.

For refutations of both this points, I refer all concerned to the Department of State website, on which it is confirmed that the United States Senate did RATIFY the charter of the United Nations as a treaty on July 28th, 1945, stating blanketly that it qualified as a de facto agreement with all the other fifty original members of the United Nations. This is fact.

"3) Prove that rendition is going on since so far, there is not outstanding proof that it is going on."

Beginning in 2004, internal documents within the government clearly state that torture has occured and is occuring in Guantanamo Bay. A memo was written in July 2004 by Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Thomas Harrington, and was directed to Maj. Gen. Donald Ryder of the Army's Criminal Investigation Command. It contains a list of such crimes as verbal, physical, and sexual abuse, verbal and sexual humiliation, forced masturbation, forced vomiting, and desecration of inmates' religious materials. So, rendition is going on.

Later in 2004, in Iraq, extraordinary rendition was illustrated clearly in the highly-publicized Abu Ghraib prison, where captured insurgent combatants were being rendered after detention elsewhere in Iraq, some even being sent there after being sent to Israel for secure detention. In Abu Ghraib, the Department of Defense reveals a veritable bacchanale of sexual abuse taking place, as immemorialized by Lyndie England's smiling thumbs-up in front of human pyramids of naked, masked Iraqi men.

In Afghanistan, officers of the Taliban or Al Qaeda suspects, shipped from other parts of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and detention inside the United States, were rendered where internal documentation within the Department of Defense reveals cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of punishment (CIDTP). At least seven inmates in Afghanistan have been killed in US custody. In 2002, two such casualties had their death certificates changed. Coronors' reports clearly stated "blunt force injuries." However, Army officials, who had never seen the bodies under any circumstances, hastily had the documentation changed to state "heart failure."

Statements by pilots of United States aircraft, as well as internal documentation from the Untied States Air Force, as well as statements by ex-detainees, reveals that the United States, illegally telling the CIA that it has the authority to abduct Al Qaeda agents anywhere in the world [untrue; the CIA has no powers to enforce the law, to make arrests, or to interpret extradition treaties], has deported terror suspects from Germany, Sweden, Italy, and Macedonia, and shipped them to such countries as Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, all of which the State Department identifies as routinely practicing torture as a means of extracting information. Here are some such stories:

A German citizen of Lebanese descent, Khaled El-Masri, was abducted on December 31st, 2003, on a trip to Macedonia. He was assaulted by US agents who beat him, drugged him, and flew him to a secret prison in Afghanistan, where he was repeatedly beaten and kicked. He remained in Afghanistan for five months, before being flown to Albania and abandoned on a hilltop.

On June 17, 2003, CIA agents abducted acknowledged terror suspect Hassam Osama Mustafa Nar, in Milan, Italy, where he was flown to Egypt, where he was tortured and re-arrested, then shipped to Germany. The Italian courts, without hesitation, released 22 warrants for the arrest of the CIA agents involved in the abduction of an Italian citizen.

Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, was ambushed at New York's JFK airporrt. The CIA captured him and interrogated him for two weeks without counsel, then flew him to Jordan, where he was beaten for eight hours, then flown to Syria, where he was beaten and interrogated 18 hours a day for weeks. He was whipped on his back and hands with a 2-inch thick electric cable. After a year in Syria, he was released without any formal chares and is now at home in Canada with his family. The Canadian government has launched a formal inquiry into the incident, which President Bush has stated he will not cooperate with.

This is all verified by internal documentation of the Department of Defense. If, as you state, there is no proof, then the DoD has certainly done a very thorough job of confessing.

Stories in the New York Times show the existence of approxamitely 36 members of senior al Qaeda leadership in secret sites overseas, mostly in post-Soviet Eastern Europe.

"I find a new profession."

What?

That is all. Contact me on AIM- ChrisRay6000 -for further questions about where Corneliu has gone astray.

No, people like you deserve to live under fascist dictatorships because you've forfeited everything worthwhile for some supposed sense of security. That's why, Alpenstock.

I haven't given up ONE thing. The only rights I have had taken away from me have come under Democrats.

He lies to the people, he's incompetent at home affairs, his foreign affairs have hidden agendas. And to think they impeached Clinton because of a blowjob.


Not one true word in this post.

I would suggest that most of the "hell" that the Bush administration is going through, is self inflicted, since Republicans control Congress and the Presidency and have for the past 6 years.


It really isn't nice to wish misfortune on someone, just because you don't like their point of view.


Yet it was Bush who declared that Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the US and it was Bush who tried to implicate Iraq with 9/11, and it was Bush who ordered an invasion of Iraq (without UN approval) before the UN inspectors could finish their job.

It was the Bush administration that decided that "enemy combatants" were a special breed and outside the purview of any jurisdiction in the world.

What is it that the left is doing today?



Not quite, Bush argued in a world of WMD's, if youwait for an imminent threat, it is too late. Much better to head the problem off before it reaches such a critical state.

I haven't given up ONE thing. The only rights I have had taken away from me have come under Democrats.
What "rights" were taken away from you by Democrats?

Not quite, Bush argued in a world of WMD's, if youwait for an imminent threat, it is too late. Much better to head the problem off before it reaches such a critical state.
The fact is that Blix was not finding any WMD in Iraq, and Iraq certainly did not possess any long range missiles. How could Iraq possibly an "imminent threat" to the US?

In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970)

The hype, the propaganda, just boggles the imagination.

Not quite, Bush argued in a world of WMD's, if youwait for an imminent threat, it is too late. Much better to head the problem off before it reaches such a critical state.

There are differing methods of 'heading the problem off'. I believe that Bush has only added fuel to the fire of the Islamic extremists. No group has been destroyed through persecution to my knowledge, many have grown. Christianity for example grew under persecution from the Romans.

Look at the situation in N.Ireland, the IRA were in an open war with the British Army. Now the IRA has given up it's weapons because Britain learned to fight it passively, Britain didnt go out hunting IRA members, only tried to stopped them carrying out atrocities, the approach worked because the IRA was losing it's support base.

The support base for the Islamic extremists is growing because Bush is hunting their leaders (and quite significantly failing), handing key propaganda victories over to the Islamic extremists.

In reply to criticism~~~~~SNIP~~~~~That is all. Contact me on AIM- ChrisRay6000 -for further questions about where Corneliu has gone astray.
Sigged for future reference (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11282686&postcount=326). :)

Why stop with president? I think the entire senate and house of reps. need to be removed from office. The government has become TOO BIG and its main purpose now is to keep THE PEOPLE down.

What "rights" were taken away from you by Democrats?


My First and Second Amendment rights have been severly curtailed, the 4 and tenth amendments have been literally thrown away.

The rights to the fruits of my labor has been compromised and my property rights have been degraded.

The fact is that Blix was not finding any WMD in Iraq, and Iraq certainly did not possess any long range missiles. How could Iraq possibly an "imminent threat" to the US?

In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970)

The hype, the propaganda, just boggles the imagination.


All references to "immenant threat were POST invasion" when we now know that Bush was well aware that we DID find WMD's.


I keep referring you all to the FULL Duelfer report, but no one seems to give a damn that the document you all say proved there were no WMD's actually said quite the opposite. In fact, Duelfer said that Iraq was even more dangerous than we thought before the war.


READ the WHOLE thing. Not just the parts that the Democrats and the press have put forward to mislead you.

All references to "immenant threat were POST invasion" when we now know that Bush was well aware that we DID find WMD's.
If you read my linked article, you would note that your above statement is not true.

I keep referring you all to the FULL Duelfer report, but no one seems to give a damn that the document you all say proved there were no WMD's actually said quite the opposite. In fact, Duelfer said that Iraq was even more dangerous than we thought before the war.
Before the war, Bush and company had everyone believing that Iraq possessed nuclear capabilities and WMD that could be deployed within 45 minutes. None of that has been proven to be true. Iraq was certainly not "more dangerous than we thought before the war". Perhaps you have taken Duelfer out of context, or perhaps you could provide a link to his exact words?

If you read my linked article, you would note that your above statement is not true.


Before the war, Bush and company had everyone believing that Iraq possessed nuclear capabilities and WMD that could be deployed within 45 minutes. None of that has been proven to be true. Iraq was certainly not "more dangerous than we thought before the war". Perhaps you have taken Duelfer out of context, or perhaps you could provide a link to his exact words?


Perhaps, but it is inconsequential because they WERE a threat. We found WMD's. We know he had links to Terrorists - including Al-Qaida. We also have found records, and recordings outlining his desire to give WMD's to a third party to hit us, so that he would not get the blame. We have evidence that of the WMD's that we KNOW existed (he admitted them, used them on the Kurds and threatened us with them)


As for the link, I have posted it at least twice in this very thread.


Here is one from Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2004/n01292004_200401295.html

If you read my linked article, you would note that your above statement is not true.


Before the war, Bush and company had everyone believing that Iraq possessed nuclear capabilities and WMD that could be deployed within 45 minutes. None of that has been proven to be true. Iraq was certainly not "more dangerous than we thought before the war". Perhaps you have taken Duelfer out of context, or perhaps you could provide a link to his exact words?


This is what I was referring to on the "imminant threat" statement. Condi has been castigated for the "mushroom cloud" statement. The context of that statement was if we wait for a mushroom cloud it will be too late.

Apollynia:

1) Apparently you need to watch the news abit more and listen to what is being said. Even Pelosi admitted she was kept informed of what was going on. Not to mention the intel committees also were kept informed on what was going on. It is you that have made untrue statements.

2) Center for American Progress is a left leaning organization and I do not trust anything that comes from known right wing or left wing organizations in regards to matters of intelligence.

3) Yes you did forget that detail.

4) The paragraph where you said that I had factual errors is indeed completely factual. Everything I stated is factual but then again...I know whom I am dealing with so it does not come as a surprise to me that you do not know what the facts are.

5) They were labeled illegal combatents. Guess what? In light of the Supreme Court ruling, we can still hold them indefinitely.

6) Who the hell is this Titus person? I never heard of him so I do not know why you invoked his name for I never heard of him, never seen and never heard him speak.

7) Ahh I love how you twist everything in regards to rendition. You know that European authorities don't have any proof that this is going on? You also know that in regards to Abu Ghrab that those who were guilty have been punished or is being punished? Yep that's right.

8) Find a new profession. It is apparent that you know absolutely nothing in regards to law for if you did, you would know for a fact that no laws were broken by the President.

I say impeach Bush purely because the majority of NS General agrees on it.

WHY? PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN WORSE!Well, maybe THAT reason isn't applicable, but...

Well, maybe THAT reason isn't applicable, but...

Well, it's true. Honestly, for all of the whining about Bush things really aren't that bad when compared to times in the past 20 years. In fact, I'm better off now than I was in January of 2001...this is hardly the dystopia people want it to be.

I'll tell you one thing, I sure as hell prefer him to Clinton.

um... lol?


*shudders*


Anyhow... back to sanity... here


Impeach Bush? What for? To have Cheney as president?

How about... a cold day in hell?

Who has access to the prisoners "all of the time"?

Can you prove that the US is in "compliance" with the Conventions?





I find it very telling that you give the benefit of the doubt to the terrorists instead of our soldiers.

The fact is that Blix was not finding any WMD in Iraq, and Iraq certainly did not possess any long range missiles. How could Iraq possibly an "imminent threat" to the US?

In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970)

The hype, the propaganda, just boggles the imagination.


Blix is an incompetent idiot - or worse. Saddam would prohibit entry to facilities for HOURS on a regular basis. Funny, we have sattelite photos of trucks leaving those very facilities while the inspectors were out front being delayed in their entry.


What the hell difference does it make now anyway - WE FOUND THE WMD's! WE FOUND records of Saddam discussing using terrorist groups to attack us by proxy - in order to disguise the fact that he was behind the attacks.

He ordered the assasination of a former President.

He fired on our planes on a near daily basis.

He was talking to Al-Qaida.

He HAD 5 TONS of yellow-cake Uranium (from North Africa -just like Bush said) AND 1.77 TONS of enriched Uranium of which the only purpose (given he had no nuclear facilities) is a weapon.

He had 1500 GALLONS of Chemical Weapons, enough VIABLE sarin gas to make 911 look like a Sunday picnic.


Under Saddam, roughly 50,000 people were killed per MONTH - that is down to a couple of hundred.

So obviously he was a threat.

I find it very telling that you give the benefit of the doubt to the terrorists instead of our soldiers.
Its only natural to doubt first those who are in a position of power rather than those who are completely vulnerable and allready subdued.

Blix is an incompetent idiot - or worse. Saddam would prohibit entry to facilities for HOURS on a regular basis. Funny, we have sattelite photos of trucks leaving those very facilities while the inspectors were denied entry.


What the hell difference does it make now anyway - WE FOUND THE WMD's! WE FOUND records of Saddam discussing using terrorist groups to attack us by proxy - in order to disguise the fact that he was behind the attacks.

He ordered the assasination of a former President.

He fired on our planes on a near daily basis.

He was talking to Al-Qaida.

He HAD 5 TONS of yellow-cake Uranium (from North Africa -just like Bush said) AND 1.77 TONS of enriched Uranium of which the only purpose (given he had no nuclear facilities) is a weapon.

He had 1500 GALLONS of Chemical Weapons, enough VIABLE sarin gas to make 911 look like a Sunday picnic.


Under Saddam, roughly 50,000 people were killed per MONTH - that is down to a couple of hundred.

So obviously he was a threat.

Hmmm... sensationalist. Carefully fact-twisting, etc, etc.


If you don't allready work for FOXNews I'm sure you will be receiving a notice shortly.

Its only natural to doubt first those who are in a position of power rather than those who are completely vulnerable and allready subdued.


No it's not! It is natural to doubt the integrity of people who chop heads off from prisoners and brag about it, not those who punish their own when they do wrong.

Hmmm... sensationalist. Carefully fact-twisting, etc, etc.


If you don't allready work for FOXNews I'm sure you will be receiving a notice shortly.


Where is anything here inaccurate???

Every single bit of that is 100% true. Too bad YOUR news sources only tell one side. I seem to know BOTH sides, so which news source is biased???

No it's not! It is natural to doubt the integrity of people who chop heads off from prisoners and brag about it, not those who punish their own when they do wrong.
Indeed. But I believe what is ocurring is the questioning of not those who have punished those who have done wrong (lawyers and judges involved) but those who may have ordered the wrongdoing. Generals, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc, etc.

Indeed. But I believe what is ocurring is the questioning of not those who have punished those who have done wrong (lawyers and judges involved) but those who may have ordered the wrongdoing. Generals, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc, etc.

This is simply an unsubstantiated lie. Show me the orders.

We have documents of Rumsfeld EXPRESSLY forbidding such things as making prisoners stand still for extended periods of time - despite the fact his legal council advised him that they were legal.

Have you stopped beating your wife???

Where is anything here inaccurate???
I'm glad you asked.

Blix is not incompetent.
No WMD's were found.
The conversations of Saddam discussing a possible terrorist attack on the US revealed that Saddam had no clue as to who, how, or what would happen. Much less any involvement or participation in it. The DoD itself conceded this much.

He ordered the assasination of a former President.This is true allthough for morality's sake I can imagine something similar ocurring if Saddam decided to pay Fidel Castro a visit in nearby Cuba.

He fired on our planes on a near daily basis.No he did not. One big fat whopper lie.

He was talking to Al-Qaida.And Al-Qaeda did not like one bit what he had to say. There is plenty of well documented contention between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. The taliban critised Iraq for its 'liberal' values.

He HAD 5 TONS of yellow-cake Uranium (from North Africa -just like Bush said) AND 1.77 TONS of enriched Uranium of which the only purpose (given he had no nuclear facilities) is a weapon.Total bullshit.

He had 1500 GALLONS of Chemical Weapons, enough VIABLE sarin gas to make 911 look like a Sunday picnic.He had absolutely nothing of the sort much less the capability to deploy.

Under Saddam, roughly 50,000 people were killed per MONTH - that is down to a couple of hundred.

So obviously he was a threat.These people did not die month after month. Most of them died in concentrated attacks against his own people precisely after Bush the elder chose not to liberate Iraq.

Perhaps, but it is inconsequential because they WERE a threat. We found WMD's. We know he had links to Terrorists - including Al-Qaida. We also have found records, and recordings outlining his desire to give WMD's to a third party to hit us, so that he would not get the blame. We have evidence that of the WMD's that we KNOW existed (he admitted them, used them on the Kurds and threatened us with them)

As for the link, I have posted it at least twice in this very thread.

Here is one from Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2004/n01292004_200401295.html
As I would expect, a link that comes from the US Defense Dept. would be somewhat biased and seems to contradict what David Kay states in this article:

Nearly all WMD claims wrong: Kay (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/26/1075087961163.html)

The same from Charlie Duelfer:

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html)

After all that has happened up to this point, I think most people have difficulty in accepting anything that comes from the White House as being credible?

This is simply an unsubstantiated lie. Show me the orders. Unverified allegation. Not a lie.

Blix is an incompetent idiot - or worse. Saddam would prohibit entry to facilities for HOURS on a regular basis. Funny, we have sattelite photos of trucks leaving those very facilities while the inspectors were out front being delayed in their entry.


What the hell difference does it make now anyway - WE FOUND THE WMD's! WE FOUND records of Saddam discussing using terrorist groups to attack us by proxy - in order to disguise the fact that he was behind the attacks.

He ordered the assasination of a former President.

He fired on our planes on a near daily basis.

He was talking to Al-Qaida.

He HAD 5 TONS of yellow-cake Uranium (from North Africa -just like Bush said) AND 1.77 TONS of enriched Uranium of which the only purpose (given he had no nuclear facilities) is a weapon.

He had 1500 GALLONS of Chemical Weapons, enough VIABLE sarin gas to make 911 look like a Sunday picnic.


Under Saddam, roughly 50,000 people were killed per MONTH - that is down to a couple of hundred.

So obviously he was a threat.

woooHOO! More FOX bullshit

The comic relief is when they ask where the inaccuracies are.

No, because disliking him is no grounds for impeaching him.
Impeachment was meant for such things as getting rid of traitors ( eg: a manchurian candidate ).

If perjury is grounds for being a traitor, I'd have to wonder how exactly US courts work.

This is what I was referring to on the "imminant threat" statement. Condi has been castigated for the "mushroom cloud" statement. The context of that statement was if we wait for a mushroom cloud it will be too late.
It is not just Condi who has painted this picture of Iraq being an imminent threat. It started with Bush and runs through the whole lot. When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the vast majority of Americans believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Talk about propaganda.

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm)

Despite all the rhetoric and propaganda, the vast majority of Americans did not want the US to invade Iraq without UN approval:

Poll: U.S. Intent On War (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/26/opinion/polls/main542054.shtml)

For what????

He was right about WMD's, his economic policies have helped us weather some of the worst disasters in the nations history, 911 and the Enron Scandal (which btw the crimes occured BEFORE he was in office and HIS administration is the one that brought them to justice). He inheritated an economy in a rapid decline and at that vulnerable point, we were hit by the 911 attacks. We should have been in a depression, but the tax cuts and other policies kept us out of one.

There are some serious issues that this President is on the wrong side of, but none of them come close to reasons for impeachment.

As far as him being stupid, he is the FIRST President to hold an MBA degree, and that degree happens to be from one of the toughest universities in the WORLD - Harvard. His grades were better than the supposed genius John Kerry.

The left has lied often and outrageously about our President. There ought to be recourse for the lies. I would suggest that you actually look to the truth instead of spouting left wing talking points.


you are one of the most intellegent person i have ever met.

(i love you)
thank you for telling everyone what is really going on.:p :rolleyes: :D ;) :) :fluffle:

I find it very telling that you give the benefit of the doubt to the terrorists instead of our soldiers.
I find it very telling that you support a regime that holds innocent people against their will without them being formally charged. Some of these prisoners were turned over for bounty money. Basically, some of these people have been kidnapped. You support that?

I'm glad you asked.

Blix is not incompetent.
No WMD's were found.
The conversations of Saddam discussing a possible terrorist attack on the US revealed that Saddam had no clue as to who, how, or what would happen. Much less any involvement or participation in it. The DoD itself conceded this much.

This is true allthough for morality's sake I can imagine something similar ocurring if Saddam decided to pay Fidel Castro a visit in nearby Cuba.

No he did not. One big fat whopper lie.

And Al-Qaeda did not like one bit what he had to say. There is plenty of well documented contention between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. The taliban critised Iraq for its 'liberal' values.

Total bullshit.

He had absolutely nothing of the sort much less the capability to deploy.

These people did not die month after month. Most of them died in concentrated attacks against his own people precisely after Bush the elder chose not to liberate Iraq.
I see that you have clearly refuted Alpen.

I am trying to figure out if he is a puppet, a re-incarnation of a deated nation or is just a trolling noob stuck on old news and catch phrases?

um... lol?

*shudders*

Anyhow... back to sanity... here

Impeach Bush? What for? To have Cheney as president?

How about... a cold day in hell?
Well, the least they could do and perhaps the best bet would be to censure Bush, take away his war measures capability, and keep him away from the "hot box"?

If the objective was to grab my attention catching me in a totally pissed off mood after having a miserable hang-over and backlash from yesterday's celebrations... then he has succeeded.

I'm glad you asked.

Blix is not incompetent.
No WMD's were found.

Here, let me type slowly so you can understand.

[QUOTE]Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components.

The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist.


http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html

Declassified Documents show we have found large quantities of WMD.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060622




Now, Blix was unable to either 1) find them - which makes him incompetent, or 2) he was unwilling to admit that they found them, and mislead the public in order to undermine President Bush - which means he was worse than incompetent.

So, sir, YOU are LYING.


Points one and two status: NOT REFUTED - CONFIRMED case closed.

Apollynia:

1) Apparently you need to watch the news abit more and listen to what is being said. Even Pelosi admitted she was kept informed of what was going on. Not to mention the intel committees also were kept informed on what was going on. It is you that have made untrue statements.

2) Center for American Progress is a left leaning organization and I do not trust anything that comes from known right wing or left wing organizations in regards to matters of intelligence.

3) Yes you did forget that detail.

4) The paragraph where you said that I had factual errors is indeed completely factual. Everything I stated is factual but then again...I know whom I am dealing with so it does not come as a surprise to me that you do not know what the facts are.

5) They were labeled illegal combatents. Guess what? In light of the Supreme Court ruling, we can still hold them indefinitely.

6) Who the hell is this Titus person? I never heard of him so I do not know why you invoked his name for I never heard of him, never seen and never heard him speak.

7) Ahh I love how you twist everything in regards to rendition. You know that European authorities don't have any proof that this is going on? You also know that in regards to Abu Ghrab that those who were guilty have been punished or is being punished? Yep that's right.

8) Find a new profession. It is apparent that you know absolutely nothing in regards to law for if you did, you would know for a fact that no laws were broken by the President.
I think that if you were trying to address Apollynia's post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11282686&postcount=326), I think you failed miserably and completely ignored the points that were made.

Unverified allegation. Not a lie.

Given the motivations of those perpetrating this line of thinking, I will stick with lie - until proven otherwise.

I'm glad you asked.

Blix is not incompetent.
No WMD's were found.

Here, let me type slowly so you can understand.

Now, Blix was unable to either 1) find them - which makes him incompetent, or 2) he was unwilling to admit that they found them, and mislead the public in order to undermine President Bush - which means he was worse than incompetent.

So, sir, YOU are LYING.

Points one and two status: NOT REFUTED - CONFIRMED case closed.
You forget one very important aspect of this whole situation. The UN inspections were not completed and Blix was asking for more inspectors and more time. China, France and Russia all wanted to give the UN inspectors more time.

Calling Blix incompetent is clearly a falsehood on your part.

Calling Canada6 a liar is flaming.

I will also remind you, that this is no new discovery....it is very old news. There is an election coming up and some Republicans are grasping at straws.

Here, let me type slowly so you can understand.bla bla bla

Pathetic... 53 rounds of broken down unusable material is obviously what the US would go to war over, leaving future Generation's of americans paying for one of the most expensive wars of all time.

Furthermore the report is another one of those fat lies that the Rove's Gop likes to spin around.

Under UN Security Resolution 687, Iraq should have destroyed or rendered harmless all CW munitions, but we cannot determine without additional information whether the rounds we have recovered were declared or if their destruction was attempted.

They announce something leaving all the blanks open. Great way to inform the public. I'm sure they feel safer knowing that somewhere across the globe, the CIA has no ****ing clue what its up to.

Give it a rest. There were WMD's in Iraq and a Kennedy never lasted long enough to make a real change for justice in America. These are the facts we must live with.

Given the motivations of those perpetrating this line of thinking, I will stick with lie - until proven otherwise.
Yes. Rumsfeld. That iluminating pillar of morals and honesty. The very thought of doubting him must surely be unpatriotic and almost treason.

The conversations of Saddam discussing a possible terrorist attack on the US revealed that Saddam had no clue as to who, how, or what would happen. Much less any involvement or participation in it. The DoD itself conceded this much.

SURE THEY DID!!!:rolleyes: Here, take a gander.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/Released-20060317/IZSP-2003-00000859.pdf

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006710.php

Point Two status: Not refuted - it has been confirmed. Case closed.

Pathetic... 53 rounds of broken down unusable material is obviously what the US would go to war over, leaving future Generation's of americans paying for one of the most expensive wars of all time.

Furthermore the report is another one of those fat lies that the Rove's Gop likes to spin around.

Under UN Security Resolution 687, Iraq should have destroyed or rendered harmless all CW munitions, but we cannot determine without additional information whether the rounds we have recovered were declared or if their destruction was attempted.

They announce something leaving all the blanks open. Great way to inform the public. I'm sure they feel safer knowing that somewhere across the globe, the CIA has no ****ing clue what its up to.

Give it a rest. There were WMD's in Iraq and a Kennedy never lasted long enough to make a real change for justice in America. These are the facts we must live with.



Binary Sarin is VERY stable and if you READ the damn Duelfer report you would know that. You would also know that There was far more than that found. This was but one small section of the report.

We found enough Sarin to make 9-11 look like a walk in the park.

Man truly... get a clue.. the leavenworth document was ignored for what it was. It was a cofee conversation of Saddam and his yes-men praying for a change in the weather and destruction of America. It confirms precisely what I said before and was I repeat... ignored by all media sources including the whitehouse for what is was.

The conclusion of the Pentagon, the CIA and the President's Commission on WMD's was that there were no WMD's in Iraq. You lost.
According to all three, they were destroyed in 1991 and no programs to develop them were restarted since then. Read the documents.

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html

Bah, never.

Well, DO IT!

Then we get Dick Cheney, and he'll really put the hammer down on the islamo-fascists.

Bah, never.

Well, DO IT!

Then we get Dick Cheney, and he'll really put the hammer down on the islamo-fascists.
I doubt that he'd have much power to do anything if an entire impeachment process is begun.

Man truly... get a clue.. the leavenworth document was ignored for what it was. It was a cofee conversation of Saddam and his yes-men praying for a change in the weather and destruction of America. It confirms precisely what I said before and was I repeat... ignored by all media sources including the whitehouse for what is was.

The conclusion of the Pentagon, the CIA and the President's Commission on WMD's was that there were no WMD's in Iraq. You lost.
According to all three, they were destroyed in 1991 and no programs to develop them were restarted since then. Read the documents.

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html
I guess that slam dunks this whole charade involving WMD!!

Good find Canada 6. Perhaps the naysayers will call off their dogs? Naw!!

Stupidity isn't a basis for impeachment as much as some would like it to be.

I voted no because there's no proof about his apparent immorality like the huge cum stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress. :headbang:

Immorality is not grounds for impeachment. Grounds for impeachment would be, say, breaking the law. Which I personally, and even Republicans like Arlen Specter, believe Bush may have done. Clinton wasn't impeached for being a pig, it was for perjury. He wasn't removed because the Senate, I guess, didn't feel it was a strong enough case to warrent removal from office. Bush on the other hand, I think he does. Violating not only American law but international (those 'quaint' Geneva Conventions) as well. That is grounds for impeachment in my book. It is a shame the maintainance of a healthy democracy (aka a competant and honest President) is being played out as the rantings of the far left, when in fact it is a debate that should be had regardless of politics.

Apollynia:

1) Apparently you need to watch the news abit more and listen to what is being said. Even Pelosi admitted she was kept informed of what was going on. Not to mention the intel committees also were kept informed on what was going on. It is you that have made untrue statements.

2) Center for American Progress is a left leaning organization and I do not trust anything that comes from known right wing or left wing organizations in regards to matters of intelligence.

3) Yes you did forget that detail.

4) The paragraph where you said that I had factual errors is indeed completely factual. Everything I stated is factual but then again...I know whom I am dealing with so it does not come as a surprise to me that you do not know what the facts are.

5) They were labeled illegal combatents. Guess what? In light of the Supreme Court ruling, we can still hold them indefinitely.

6) Who the hell is this Titus person? I never heard of him so I do not know why you invoked his name for I never heard of him, never seen and never heard him speak.

7) Ahh I love how you twist everything in regards to rendition. You know that European authorities don't have any proof that this is going on? You also know that in regards to Abu Ghrab that those who were guilty have been punished or is being punished? Yep that's right.

8) Find a new profession. It is apparent that you know absolutely nothing in regards to law for if you did, you would know for a fact that no laws were broken by the President.

1). Again, the problem was that Congress was not fully informed. You may state that Congress was briefed, but the truth is, the majority of the data was withheld from them. Many Republicans, such as Arlen Specter and Maine's Olympia Snowe, expressed their concern over this, vocally.

2). The presence or absence of political bias is both impossible to quantify and irrelevant. Your attempt to dismiss all those sources that exist to posit arguments or to promote a point is just silly. You only don't want to believe that source because its findings are accurate and examined by nonpartisan, independant investigators annually to make sure that it isn't violating the conditions of its status as a non-profit educational agency.

3). No, I didn't, you misunderstood the facts.

4). If you had read my polite reply, you would see where you were in error, which facts you had misunderstood. Please do not talk to me like I am your enemy. I am trying to tell you the truth about your leaders.

5). The term was Enemy Combatants, and the Supreme Court's ruling was based upon the stipulation that the government be able to provide evidence within a certain time period that those interned did, in fact, qualify as enemies. One indication that the Supreme Court has found this presumably-classified data unsatisfactory is it's recent ruling stating that the President may NOT impose military tribunals as a substitute for civil trials. I expect the internment status of many detainees to change in the near future based partially on this ruling.

6). This seems inserted sort of unusually because you are not refuting my point, which is common legal sense, you are only telling me that you are unaware of the existence of people who agree with you. This is troubling.

7). In regards to the EU countries, it is plain as day that multiple nations are collaborating with a rendition program, per the testimony of former detainees, and your citing the failure of those countries or our own government to confess these programs as an attempt to disprove common sense is much akin to saying that everyone who doesn't plead guilty must not be guilty.

8). I am sorry that you talk to me as if I am your enemy, because I am not insulting you or trying to provoke you in any way. I am merely informing you of why your President needs to be impeached using sound, examined, tested legal theories that have, to this date, passed all of the scrutiny applied to them, often from people who are simply better-educated and more well-versed in the law than yourself.

I am sorry that you talk to me as if I am your enemy or as if I will somehow be angered by your name-calling. My intention is not to tell you that you or your beliefs are good or bad, only that they are wrong, and that you, as a human being endowed with reason and rationality, are entitled to the truth. When I provide you with facts, I would appreciate a little formality, especially in regards to your points 2), 3), 7), and 8), which, if expressed out loud in a formal legal setting, would probably land you either contempt or the loss of your career.

That is all. Email me if I never see you online.

My email address is: OneWhoIsConfused@yahoo.com
I also use ChrisRay6000@yahoo.com as a personal email address.
My screen name, again, is ChrisRay6000, if you still have questions regarding the misstatements of your defense of the President.

And yet they have access to the prisoners all the time. They are with the interrogators and all that in compliance with the very convention you are saying he violated.

So "Triple X" (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040621/21abughraib.htm) and all other "ghost detainees" had access?

To make all this perfectly clear:

The doctrine of “command responsibility” was established by the Hague Conventions IV (1907) and X (1907).
The decision to deprive POW status and to deprive the other detainees of their other basic rights was made at the highest levels:
Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html)

The desicion to do so was largely taken in part to avoid possible
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/

The desicion to hide POWs from the ICRC was made at the top: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/17/iraq/main624411.shtml

Degrading interrogation techniques contrary to the GWP and other treaties were approved at the highest levels
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/062204GTMOslide.pdf

I am sorry that you talk to me as if I am your enemy or as if I will somehow be angered by your name-calling. My intention is not to tell you that you or your beliefs are good or bad, only that they are wrong, and that you, as a human being endowed with reason and rationality, are entitled to the truth. When I provide you with facts, I would appreciate a little formality, especially in regards to your points 2), 3), 7), and 8), which, if expressed out loud in a formal legal setting, would probably land you either contempt or the loss of your career.

That is all. Email me if I never see you online.

My email address is: edited out
My screen name, again, is ChrisRay6000, if you still have questions regarding the misstatements of your defense of the President.

Welcome to NSG. If that upset you, wait around and read some of the really nast threads get going. Also, the poster in question is rather famous here for his poor debating skills.

I'm left wondering how many pages Corny'll feel he has to wait before posting in this same thread, without in any way acknowledging Appolynia's post. And I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a lot of inconsequential posts from puppets before morning...

Welcome to NSG. If that upset you, wait around and read some of the really nast threads get going. Also, the poster in question is rather famous here for his poor debating skills.
He even has a Maneuver named after him!

um... lol?


*shudders*


Anyhow... back to sanity... here


Impeach Bush? What for? To have Cheney as president?

How about... a cold day in hell?

Most. Sensible. Post. In. Thread. Ever.

Man truly... get a clue.. the leavenworth document was ignored for what it was. It was a cofee conversation of Saddam and his yes-men praying for a change in the weather and destruction of America. It confirms precisely what I said before and was I repeat... ignored by all media sources including the whitehouse for what is was.

The conclusion of the Pentagon, the CIA and the President's Commission on WMD's was that there were no WMD's in Iraq. You lost.
According to all three, they were destroyed in 1991 and no programs to develop them were restarted since then. Read the documents.

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html


So which was it???? Were all of the WMD's destroyed and those that we found manufactured AFTER 1991??? Or were these old munitions that Saddam refused to destroy as directed by the UN??? (this is the Bush position by the way - and mine)

Either way, it justifies our efforts in Iraq.

woooHOO! More FOX bullshit

Some of that info didn't even come from Fox. Some of that information came through other intel agencies who said that Hussain had WMDs.

*snip*

Do you quote nothing else but opinions?

Welcome to NSG. If that upset you, wait around and read some of the really nast threads get going. Also, the poster in question is rather famous here for his poor debating skills.

I actually have good debating skills. I just do not tolerate those who 1) talk down to me. 2) fail to see the other side of the issue and 3) use slander and name calling to make a point.

I debate well with those who actually listen to what the opposite side has to say. That is how you debate. You listen to both sides of what is going on instead of bashing one side of the issue because it does not comport to your ideology.

So which was it???? Were all of the WMD's destroyed and those that we found manufactured AFTER 1991??? Or were these old munitions that Saddam refused to destroy as directed by the UN??? (this is the Bush position by the way - and mine)Neither. Iraq was ordered to destroy or declare any wmd's they might have had. According to the CIA's own admission they had no clue as to whether those were declared or not. A carefull and selective omission of information.
The official and independent WMD commission officially declared that the whole thing was a total and utter failure of intelligence. Why do you insist on refuting even what your very own president has admitted?

Either way, it justifies our efforts in Iraq.
No it doesn't.

I actually have good debating skills. I just do not tolerate those who 1) talk down to me. 2) fail to see the other side of the issue and 3) use slander and name calling to make a point.

I debate well with those who actually listen to what the opposite side has to say. That is how you debate. You listen to both sides of what is going on instead of bashing one side of the issue because it does not comport to your ideology.

For the moment, I'll just leave you to "defend" yourself against Apollynia. I'm willing to bet you won't.

Do you quote nothing else but opinions?
Having snipped what you are referring to, I don't have a clue what post your talking about. I have talked to you about this before and how it weakens the point you are trying to make.

As far as opinions go, it appears that for the most part, that is all you offer to these debates, and rarely do you link to any articles to help promote your argument. Hence, I would have to agree with Daistallia 2104 about your debating skills. For a political science major, you should be doing much better than you are.

Some of that info didn't even come from Fox. Some of that information came through other intel agencies who said that Hussain had WMDs.


Actually, most of it came from the Duelfer report. Of course the mainstream media did not bother to report that part.

Having snipped what you are referring to, I don't have a clue what post your talking about. I have talked to you about this before and how it weakens the point you are trying to make.

As far as opinions go, it appears that for the most part, that is all you offer to these debates, and rarely do you link to any articles to help promote your argument. Hence, I would have to agree with Daistallia 2104 about your debating skills. For a political science major, you should be doing much better than you are.


You have offered ONE I repeat ONE link - to an outdated report in your attempt to refute the points I have made - AND that I have backed up with links to such sources as the Duelfer report itself, Charles Duelfer personally, David Kay personally, and various other mainstream media outlets (always and without exeption these were buried, but they do indeed exist.

Actually, most of it came from the Duelfer report. Of course the mainstream media did not bother to report that part.

Yes, the report that said Iraq had WMDs. WMDs that don't exist outside the imagination of Bush, Bliar and their "intelligence" agencies.

One of the main findings of the Duelfer report is again identical to the main findings of the WMD commission.

No weapons of mass destruction.

The rest of the report is redundant riff-raff about irelevent but "scary sounding things".

I guess that slam dunks this whole charade involving WMD!!

Good find Canada 6. Perhaps the naysayers will call off their dogs? Naw!!

It is outdated. Similar to doctors referring to thalidimide as a good drug in their medical journals.

It is outdated. Similar to doctors referring to thalidimide as a good drug in their medical journals.
Outdated? Are you out of your mind? The report was delivered in late March last year.

One of the main findings of the Duelfer report is again identical to the main findings of the WMD comission.

No weapons of mass destruction.



WRONG!!!!!


It stated that they found no large stockpiles of WMD's. It specifically listed several nerve agents, mustard gas etc. that it found. Did you not read the whole report yet?????

We have since declassified documents enumerating 500 WMD's including sarin, cyclosarin and other WMD agents. Perhaps you should read CURRENT events a little bit, instead of left wing lunacy.

Outdated? Are you out of your mind? The report was delivered in late March last year.


Unless it was updated in the last month, it is outdated. There have been revelations on WMD's since then. It also only says, no stockpiles. NOT no WMD's.

You need to read a bit more carefully.

WRONG!!!!!
It stated that they found no large stockpiles of WMD's. It specifically listed several nerve agents, mustard gas etc. that it found. Did you not read the whole report yet?????

We have since declassified documents enumerating 500 WMD's including sarin, cyclosarin and other WMD agents. Perhaps you should read CURRENT events a little bit, instead of left wing lunacy.

Sorry but you are mentaly retarded.

The WMD comission's report came almost one full year after the Duelfer report. It totally debunks everything that the gop would hope Americans believed about WMD's.

Any and all weapons that were found were small in numbers and amounts, useless, degraded, previously declared, or lost.

Whose to say he who will follow will be any better. Leave the status quo.

Unless it was updated in the last month, it is outdated. There have been revelations on WMD's since then. It also only says, no stockpiles. NOT no WMD's.

You need to read a bit more carefully.
Sorry but it is you who needs to read more carefully. The Duelfer report says no stockpiles. The WMD report wasn't updated in March 2005. It was released in March 2005 and says that there were no stockpiles or otherwise.

Get a clue.

Unless it was updated in the last month, it is outdated. There have been revelations on WMD's since then. It also only says, no stockpiles. NOT no WMD's.

You need to read a bit more carefully.

So, therefore by your logic, it was right to go to war because you might have found weapons during the occupation afterwards, which you had no idea whether they existed before.

I think a point he is totaly ignoring (and all those who have ever supported unjust wars always do) is the economic harm that this war does to the American budget and tax payer's money.

Several future generations will still be paying for this war.

You have offered ONE I repeat ONE link - to an outdated report in your attempt to refute the points I have made - AND that I have backed up with links to such sources as the Duelfer report itself, Charles Duelfer personally, David Kay personally, and various other mainstream media outlets (always and without exeption these were buried, but they do indeed exist.
Although your assessment of what has been offered to you is inaccurate, the fact remains that most if not all of your arguments have been debunked by either Canada 6, myself, or another poster. Because you refuse to accept certain facts is not my problem.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11284167&postcount=356

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11284253&postcount=364

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11284371&postcount=370

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11284501&postcount=378

And although you tried to make a point in the following post, whatever that point may be, you have not answered my rebuttal:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11284234&postcount=363

I would say, that on the whole, most of your debating points have been adequately refuted. If you go back through the thread, I think that you would see that.

I think a point he is totaly ignoring (and all those who have ever supported unjust wars always do) is the economic harm that this war does to the American budget and tax payer's money.

Several future generations will still be paying for this war.
Good point.

I think that he is a puppet nation, or a re-incarnated deat. He has come on forcefully, considering his first post as a noob? was a flame:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11164819&postcount=20

For the moment, I'll just leave you to "defend" yourself against Apollynia. I'm willing to bet you won't.I don't think he can "defend" himself against Apollynia. He tried earlier but totally missed the mark:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11284602&postcount=380

It should prove interesting.

I think a point he is totaly ignoring (and all those who have ever supported unjust wars always do) is the economic harm that this war does to the American budget and tax payer's money.

Several future generations will still be paying for this war.

We're still paying for World War II, Korea, and Nam.

Apollynia my AIM screen name is moonhyper if you would like to chat.

The ignorance and Hatred the left is demonstrating here is astounding.

Should have made this multiple choice.
And to those that say stupidity is not a reason for inpeachment, inability to reason should be consider him incapacitated, therefore to be removed from office. Not that I really want Cheney in charge.

Because you refuse to accept certain facts is not my problem.



The fact that YOU refuse to take the entire Duelfer report into account, and only pick and choose the parts you like IS a problem - especially when you use that to mislead people into a line of thinking that harms my country.

You have refuted ONE point - the one where I claimed you used only ONE link to back up your points. You used (I think) a grand total of three.

My bad.:rolleyes:
So Salvelinus fontinalis = USAlpenstock?

Good to know. Are you also Epsilon Squadron?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11282172#post11282172

The fact remains that the WMD angle has been clearly refuted by numerous posters.

Although your assessment of what has been offered to you is inaccurate, the fact remains that most if not all of your arguments have been debunked by either Canada 6, myself, or another poster. Because you refuse to accept certain facts is not my problem.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11284167&postcount=356

My assertion of no links was wrong. The VERY FEW links you cite here however, do not dispute what I have said. They stated no stockpiles I agree - at the time of the report no stockpiles were public knowledge. If you read the reports they refer to, however, you will note that although they at the time did not know about stockpiles, the did indeed know that we found WMD's that we claimed Saddam had, and that he claimed to have destroyed. Obviously they still exist and that in conjunction with the movement of weapons to Syria that Duelfer said there was "sufficiently credible" evidence of, indicates that your statements are the innaccurate ones.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11284253&postcount=364

How is this a citing of a source, it is simply your comrade claiming you refuting my points - the post he was referring to consisted of ZERO links, only your denials. Yeah you really got me there.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11284371&postcount=370

Again nothing to back up your claims (which of course you cannot because I am accurate in what I posted)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11284501&postcount=378

This is simply a reference to your earlier link. Again ZERO substance.

And although you tried to make a point in the following post, whatever that point may be, you have not answered my rebuttal:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11284234&postcount=363

Your rebuttle was yet another baseless (and linkless) accusation.

But to answer your "point" - I do not support holding American citizens without a trial. I do support holding enemy combatants until the combat is over.

I would say, that on the whole, most of your debating points have been adequately refuted. If you go back through the thread, I think that you would see that.







You have refuted ONE point - the one where I claimed you used only ONE link to back up your points. You used (I think) a grand total of three.

My bad.:rolleyes:

So Salvelinus fontinalis = USAlpenstock?

Good to know. Are you also Epsilon Squadron?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11282172#post11282172

The fact remains that the WMD angle has been clearly refuted by numerous posters.

Yes, I have a nation "Salvelinus Fontinalis" but I don't know who Epsilon Squadron is.

The fact remains that the WMD angle has been clearly refuted by numerous posters.


SURE it has!!!!:rolleyes:



Only those who selectively read things like the Duelfer report.


Why are you so afraid to admit that there were indeed WMD's in Iraq and that those were the weapons we have been talking about all along.

SURE it has!!!!:rolleyes:



Only those who selectively read things like the Duelfer report.


Why are you so afraid to admit that there were indeed WMD's in Iraq and that those were the weapons we have been talking about all along.

1) They hate bush and anything that makes Bush look bad they pounce on it.

2) They do not agree with the Iraq War at all.

3) They love the UN despite it being impotent on crisis management.

SURE it has!!!!:rolleyes:



Only those who selectively read things like the Duelfer report.


Why are you so afraid to admit that there were indeed WMD's in Iraq and that those were the weapons we have been talking about all along.
They are not the ones that have been talked about since '03 and they also posed no immediate threat to the US. Saddam didn't even pose any threat to the US. The CIA wrote a report detailing that they believed Saddam would only use WMDs if pushed into a corner. If he was going to use them and he actually had them, we did exactly what was necessary to force his hand.

The fact that YOU refuse to take the entire Duelfer report into account, and only pick and choose the parts you like IS a problem - especially when you use that to mislead people into a line of thinking that harms my country.
How could I possibly harm your country? If anything, I am trying to help.

On the other hand, Bush and his supporters have done a lot of damage to your country and it appears that he is not quite finished yet.

There have been lots of threads about George Bush and his policies and for the most part, they have condemned the actions of your boy wonder.

How could I possibly harm your country? If anything, I am trying to help.

On the other hand, Bush and his supporters have done a lot of damage to your country and it appears that he is not quite finished yet.

There have been lots of threads about George Bush and his policies and for the most part, they have condemned the actions of your boy wonder.

And we also know that most of the people on here are foreigners who do not like Bush so......

And we also know that most of the people on here are foreigners who do not like Bush so......
Most of the people in America don't like Bush, either.

Most of the people in America don't like Bush, either.

*shrugs*

Not my problem.

*shrugs*

Not my problem.
That is one thing I do know about you.

That is one thing I do know about you.

Fine by me for it really isn't my problem. I don't care who the President is provided he keeps this nation safe.

Fine by me for it really isn't my problem. I don't care who the President is provided he keeps this nation safe.
Now, I'm confused. You don't like Bush?

I think I missed this. Which WMDs were found, and when and where and by whom? We've been waiting so long for this, could you direct me to the source material?

TIA.

a hand full of guys with box cutters and and plain tickets constutusts WMD's now a days. people are some of the most powerful and scary wepions this world has ever known. --- also taking out sudom alown makes Iraqu a worth wile target, we have made an entier nation happy and free

Now, I'm confused. You don't like Bush?

Did I say that?

Most of the people in America don't like Bush, either.

I like him, ill admit he is not perfict, but he aint evil. Also I'm glad someone finaly has the guts to fight back agenst the terorists.

George W. Bush should be impeached.

Not because he is a bad president, mismanaged the economy and natural disasters, led us into wars, or is just plain dumb.

He should be impeached for ordering illegal wiretapping, which violates the 4th amendment. For allowing the Patriot Act, also a violation of the 4th, to pass. For denying due process to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Note that by impeached I don't mean removed from office. I mean that in the original sense of the word -- that he should be tried before Congress, which will investigate the charges, find out how true they are, and decide whether or not he should be removed from office as a consequence.

Did I say that?
You said you like presidents who make the country safe. Which would mean that you don't like Bush. I mean... unless you were lying?

George W. Bush should be impeached.

....

For denying due process to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.



foriners, espesily POWs should not be given any protetion under the constotution and (I persinioly fell) that POWs should not get any protetion form any document. POWs are good for three things 1) inteligence, 2) bargoning chips, and 3) wepions prartice (side arm, rifil fire, baonet, est) I supose they work as cheep labor and medical ginny pigs too.

foriners, espesily POWs should not be given any protetion under the constotution and (I persinioly fell) that POWs should not get any protetion form any document. POWs are good for three things 1) inteligence, 2) bargoning chips, and 3) wepions prartice (side arm, rifil fire, baonet, est) I supose they work as cheep labor and medical ginny pigs too.
I guess you like seeing US soldiers tortured to death by foreign militaries.

1) They hate bush and anything that makes Bush look bad they pounce on it.
I do not hate Bush, but on the other hand, you love him. Despite his policies that have caused death and destruction, despite his disregard for human rights, and democracy, you love the guy.

2) They do not agree with the Iraq War at all.
As do most people. Even the majority of Americans feel that Iraq was a "mistake".

56 Percent in Survey Say Iraq War Was a Mistake (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html)

More than 60% of Americans do not approve Bush's handling of the Iraq War:

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

3) They love the UN despite it being impotent on crisis management.
I believe that the UN would be far more effective if the US worked with the UN instead of against it. I think the US would run amuck without the UN.

foriners, espesily POWs should not be given any protetion under the constotution and (I persinioly fell) that POWs should not get any protetion form any document. POWs are good for three things 1) inteligence, 2) bargoning chips, and 3) wepions prartice (side arm, rifil fire, baonet, est) I supose they work as cheep labor and medical ginny pigs too.
Would it be too much of an effort to preview your posts in Microsoft Word with the advantage of its wonderful spell-checker before posting them here? As it is, my inner grammar nazi just committed suicide. :(

However, the prisoners in question are not POWs, as the vast majority were not captured on enemy battlefields. Unless you imply New York City (among other places) is an enemy battlefield. Or unless you're going to put forth the patently flawed argument that anyone who is taken into a prison during a time of war is a prisoner of war.

Google Toolbar also has a spellcheck function.

I believe that the UN would be far more effective if the US worked with the UN instead of against it. I think the US would run amuck without the UN.
No offence, but the UN is scarcely more useful than the League of Nations once was. Rhetoric and little else.

I guess you like seeing US soldiers tortured to death by foreign militaries.

NO. I do not enjoy it only exsept it as part of war. this consept of "POW protetion" has only exsited sence about WWI (Either right before or right after i forgert)

NO. I do not enjoy it only exsept it as part of war. this consept of "POW protetion" has only exsited sence about WWI (Either right before or right after i forgert)
So, you enjoy it in a war?

NO. I do not enjoy it only exsept it as part of war. this consept of "POW protetion" has only exsited sence about WWI (Either right before or right after i forgert)
So then why are you willing to allow the US to torture foreign troops, but don't want your troops tortured by foreign nations? Double standards have historically proven unworkable.

Would it be too much of an effort to preview your posts in Microsoft Word with the advantage of its wonderful spell-checker before posting them here? As it is, my inner grammar nazi just committed suicide. :(


My apologies, I shall.

last i check america had no freedom.... and actually it semms your freedom gets smaller and smaller by the days,months, years... well if you don't get rid of him he will drive the USA right in the ground... then again maybe it's time for someelse to become the world's most powerful nation... like i don't maybe England/UK, China, Japan, CANADA.

in other words get rid of him.. that's right bush is refered to as him

So then why are you willing to allow the US to torture foreign troops, but don't want your troops tortured by foreign nations? Double standards have historically proven unworkable.

I do not "wish" or "want" the US forces to be tortured, interrogated, est; but I do understand that it is part of war. I do not wish US troops to die either but in war it will happen; sad facts.

I do not hate Bush, but on the other hand, you love him. Despite his policies that have caused death and destruction, despite his disregard for human rights, and democracy, you love the guy.

I love him? First its I don't like him now it I love him? I don't hate him nor do I love him.

As for the UN....they can't even do Kosovo, Haiti, Cote d'Ivorie right. They screwed over the civilians of Iraq as well. Sorry but no. And we did go through the UN. Oil For Food Scandle prevented the right thing being done.

As for the Washington Post poll and the Polling report... you do realize I put no stock in polls right?

last i check america had no freedom.... and actually it semms your freedom gets smaller and smaller by the days,months, years... well if you don't get rid of him he will drive the USA right in the ground... then again maybe it's time for someelse to become the world's most powerful nation... like i don't maybe England/UK, China, Japan, CANADA.

in other words get rid of him.. that's right bush is refered to as him

Now if this post was factual....I might put stock in it. However...1) We do have freedoms and they are not getting smaller by the day. I'm sorry to burst your bubble on that one. 2) The US is not being driven into the ground. just the opposite. The Economy is booming in a way not seen since the Reagan Years. 3) England was the most powerful nation and went on conquering foreign lands. 4) China is a possibility but they have to play by the rules. 5) Japan is a powerful nation economically. 6) Canada doesn't have the ability to be a powerful nation.

My apologies, I shall.
Thank you. At least some new players on this site can be considerate to the rest of us. You don't know how many times I've come up against newbs who not only wrote completely unreadable stuff but fired gun smilies at me when I tried to steer them towards spell checkers. :headbang:

Anyway, I'll probably be back later, as I'm going out for lunch, but you don't seem to have understood my question...

Now if this post was factual....I might put stock in it. However...1) We do have freedoms and they are not getting smaller by the day. I'm sorry to burst your bubble on that one.
You should check out this book:
http://www.kingdomcoming.com/

Now if this post was factual....I might put stock in it. However...1) We do have freedoms and they are not getting smaller by the day. I'm sorry to burst your bubble on that one. 2) The US is not being driven into the ground. just the opposite. The Economy is booming in a way not seen since the Reagan Years. 3) England was the most powerful nation and went on conquering foreign lands. 4) China is a possibility but they have to play by the rules. 5) Japan is a powerful nation economically. 6) Canada doesn't have the ability to be a powerful nation.
For the first time in my life..... I never thought I'd ever say this.

I agree with you.

Bolded points, at least.

I love him? First its I don't like him now it I love him? I don't hate him nor do I love him.
Come on.....admit it.....you love the guy. Most posts in this "impeach Bush" thread are by you and you staunchly defend the guy. Mind you, you don't bring too many facts to support your case, but you defend him none the less. And if you think that his policies have made the US safer, I think you are delusional:

Iraq invasion spurs terrorism (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/iraq-invasion-spurs-terrorism/2006/04/30/1146335611937.html)

As for the UN....they can't even do Kosovo, Haiti, Cote d'Ivorie right. They screwed over the civilians of Iraq as well. Sorry but no. And we did go through the UN. Oil For Food Scandle prevented the right thing being done.
Most of the screwing over of Iraqi civilians lately has been at the hands of coalition soldiers and an inept US foreign policy. The US ignored the UN Security Council by invading Iraq before UN inspections were completed.

As for the Washington Post poll and the Polling report... you do realize I put no stock in polls right?
Then why do you start some threads with polls?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449554

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=436913

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=455189

BTW, you were continually citing polls in the weeks and months before the Presidential election, so lying is not an option?

I guess polls are only useful if they support your ideals?

Sorry but you are mentaly retarded.

The WMD comission's report came almost one full year after the Duelfer report. It totally debunks everything that the gop would hope Americans believed about WMD's.

Any and all weapons that were found were small in numbers and amounts, useless, degraded, previously declared, or lost.


By that criteria, the recently declassified documents regarding the 500 WMD's Nukes YOUR post.



The FACTS of the matter are:


Saddam had WMD's.

Saddam USED WMD's.

Saddam worked to undermine the sanctions with the intention of reconstituting manufacture of WMD's

Saddam did not follow the UN mandates.

Saddam REFUSED to destroy all of his WMD's.

Saddam LIED about destroying all of his WMD's

We went to war partly because of his WMD's.

We found WMD's that he did not destroy.

We found evidence that he was planning on reconstituting his WMD capabilities after the santions were lifted.

Those are absolute facts and are not even challengeable.



Here is list of very likely things (but not yet indisputable)

We found evidence that he moved the bulk of WMD's to Syria.



He planned on giving WMD's to terrorists in order to attack America - (this one depends on which translator you believe)


Saddam was collecting materials for a Nuclear weapon. - (he ABSOLUTELY had 500 tons of yellow cake Uranium of which 1.77 tons were enriched.)
Proving intent is a bit tenuous, but there is no other plausable reason for him posessing the enriched Uranium.

They are not the ones that have been talked about since '03 and they also posed no immediate threat to the US. Saddam didn't even pose any threat to the US.



Baloney. Read the UN resolutions. They are EXACTLY the ones being talked about.


The CIA wrote a report detailing that they believed Saddam would only use WMDs if pushed into a corner.

The CIA wrote many reports. The CIA director that Bill Clinton appointed said the case for WMD's was a "Slam Dunk". In other words, there was no doubt whatsoever. He happened to be correct on that point.

Why will you all not admit it???

I love him? First its I don't like him now it I love him? I don't hate him nor do I love him.

As for the UN....they can't even do Kosovo, Haiti, Cote d'Ivorie right. They screwed over the civilians of Iraq as well. Sorry but no. And we did go through the UN. Oil For Food Scandle prevented the right thing being done.

As for the Washington Post poll and the Polling report... you do realize I put no stock in polls right?

You really need to learn about the concept of lying by omission, C. You blame the U.N. for the Oil-for-Food Scandal, but you neglect to mention who designed the Oil-for-Food program in the first place: Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby, etc. Put simply, they designed the Oil-for-Food program, and they did it purely in the interest of preventing Iraq from reconstituting a WMD program. Apparently, they were successful. But you cannot blame the U.N. for failing to help the Iraqi people when 1) they didn't even design the program, and 2) those who did created it to complete an entirely different mission. It's the equivalent of blaming the Great Society for not protecting us from terrorism: that wasn't its objective in the first place.

That same kind of lie-by-omission equally applies to the larger point in your post: if the U.N. is ineffective, it's because neo-cons have worked to make it ineffective. It's either extremely foolish or disingenuous to argue that the dog is all bark and no bite if you know damn well that the people you support have worked tirelessly to defang it.

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

You really need to learn about the concept of lying by omission, C. You blame the U.N. for the Oil-for-Food Scandal, but you neglect to mention who designed the Oil-for-Food program in the first place: Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby, etc. Put simply, they designed the Oil-for-Food program, and they did it purely in the interest of preventing Iraq from reconstituting a WMD program. Apparently, they were successful. But you cannot blame the U.N. for failing to help the Iraqi people when 1) they didn't even design the program, and 2) those who did created it to complete an entirely different mission. It's the equivalent of blaming the Great Society for not protecting us from terrorism: that wasn't its objective in the first place.

That same kind of lie-by-omission equally applies to the larger point in your post: if the U.N. is ineffective, it's because neo-cons have worked to make it ineffective. It's either extremely foolish or disingenuous to argue that the dog is all bark and no bite if you know damn well that the people you support have worked tirelessly to defang it.



So when a murderer breaks a law you blame the person who made murder illegal????

By that criteria, the recently declassified documents regarding the 500 WMD's Nukes YOUR post.

The FACTS of the matter are:

Saddam had WMD's.

Many of them supplied by the US and other countries

Saddam USED WMD's.

Yup, he did. Against the hated Iranians and the US turned a blind eye to this.

Saddam worked to undermine the sanctions with the intention of reconstituting manufacture of WMD's

Intention does not equate to fact. Many countries helped Saddam undermine UN sanctions as did some US companies.

Saddam did not follow the UN mandates.

Neither does Israel or the US. Check out the number of vetoes used by the US in this regard.

Saddam REFUSED to destroy all of his WMD's.

According to all the weapons inspections that have taken place, Saddam was in compliance. Keep in mind that Blix had not completed his task in Iraq before he had to leave because of the imminent US invasion.

Saddam LIED about destroying all of his WMD's

Not according to the reports that have been submitted to date. Certainly he did not possess any that were an "imminent or long range threat".

We went to war partly because of his WMD's.

Correction. You went to war mostly because of WMD.

We found WMD's that he did not destroy.

This has been thoroughly discussed. Your point has been totally refuted.

We found evidence that he was planning on reconstituting his WMD capabilities after the santions were lifted.

You are repeating yourself here.

Those are absolute facts and are not even challengeable.
Your "facts" are faulty at best. They have been challenged and have been refuted.

Here is list of very likely things (but not yet indisputable)

We found evidence that he moved the bulk of WMD's to Syria.
Please provide proof.

He planned on giving WMD's to terrorists in order to attack America - (this one depends on which translator you believe)
Again, proof please. Keep in mind that intention does not equate to commission, and/or ability.


Saddam was collecting materials for a Nuclear weapon. - (he ABSOLUTELY had 500 tons of yellow cake Uranium of which 1.77 tons were enriched.)
Again, proof please.

Proving intent is a bit tenuous, but there is no other plausable reason for him posessing the enriched Uranium.
Your opinion does not equate to Saddam's intentions? Yes indeed, very tenuous.

Baloney. Read the UN resolutions. They are EXACTLY the ones being talked about.




The CIA wrote many reports. The CIA director that Bill Clinton appointed said the case for WMD's was a "Slam Dunk". In other words, there was no doubt whatsoever. He happened to be correct on that point.

Why will you all not admit it???
There was no immediate threat and the war was not justified and we are less safe from terrorists now. Others have more pointed arguments than myself in this thread so I'm not going to reargue them or reargue my own points in threads now far in the past. Oh, well.

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided and accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometers, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable-material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional and unrestricted acces to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crises in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organization to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperated in accounting for Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/iraq-110702-1198.pdf

That is part of the United Nations resolution 1441.

So when a murderer breaks a law you blame the person who made murder illegal????

Um, no. And I don't see what you're getting at, because that's a terrible analogy.

A better analogy would be to ask whether I would blame an American cop for dereliction because he did not arrest a potential murderer for violating a French law outlawing obstruction of justice. Given that a) the cop was not part of a system that made the law in the first place, and b) that law had nothing to do with the crime in question, I would say that no, I wouldn't blame the cop. That should be fairly obvious.

Saddam had WMD's.

Many of them supplied by the US.

Oh really???? PRove it. (cue photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam:rolleyes: )

The Center for Disease control sent materials for VACCINATIONS and other agencies sent pesticides for agricultural use, but we sent no WMD's.

The MOST we did for Saddam during the Iran - Iraq war was give him intelligence on Iranian troop movements.

We also were WAY DOWN on the list of those who did supply some conventional weapons - near last as a matter of fact. (less than one HALF of one percent)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

WHO supplied them is irrelevant to the war in Iraq. We went there (in part) to eliminate them.

This is a Red Herring.

Your "facts" are faulty at best. They have been challenged and have been refuted.


Please provide proof.


Again, proof please. Keep in mind that intention does not equate to commission, and/or ability.



Again, proof please.




I have provided links to UN resolutions, the ISG report WHere is YOUR proof???


I expect similar level links (official UN resolutions,Dulfer reports citations etc.) not some Greg Pallast opinion article or similar trash.

Forget it USalpenstock. The lefties on this board don't care for the actual facts.

Oh really???? PRove it. (cue photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam:rolleyes: )

The Center for Disease control sent materials for VACCINATIONS and other agencies sent pesticides for agricultural use, but we sent no WMD's.

The MOST we did for Saddam during the Iran - Iraq war was give him intelligence on Iranian troop movements.

We also were WAY DOWN on the list of those who did supply some conventional weapons - near last as a matter of fact. (less than one HALF of one percent)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

WHO supplied them is irrelevant to the war in Iraq. We went there (in part) to eliminate them.

This is a Red Herring.
Perhaps a red herring to you because you want to turn a blind eye to the historical events that led up to a US invasion of Iraq, and you want live in denial of US complicity in this matter?:

Made in the USA (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USmadeIraq.pdf)

US role in Iraq's chemical, biological weapons program comes under scrutiny (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021001-iraq3.htm)

Saddam USED WMD's.

Yup, he did. Against the hated Iranians and the US turned a blind eye to this.

You forgot the Kurds, and Shiites. Also you seem to forget the fact that we condemned Saddams use in 1984 - almost immediately after we verified their use. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq48.pdf

Saddam worked to undermine the sanctions with the intention of reconstituting manufacture of WMD's

Intention does not equate to fact. Many countries helped Saddam undermine UN sanctions as did some US companies.

Read the DUelfer and Kay reports, That was their conclusion, not mine.

Saddam did not follow the UN mandates.

Neither does Israel or the US. Check out the number of vetoes used by the US in this regard.

Good misdirection!!! :rolleyes:

Saddam REFUSED to destroy all of his WMD's.

According to all the weapons inspections that have taken place, Saddam was in compliance. Keep in mind that Blix had not completed his task in Iraq before he had to leave because of the imminent US invasion.

Again, you ignored my link to UN resolution 1441 and the Duelfer report - read them and you will find you are wrong.

Saddam LIED about destroying all of his WMD's

Not according to the reports that have been submitted to date. Certainly he did not possess any that were an "imminent or long range threat".

Then explain the 500 WMD's in the Recently Declassified report, the 53 specific ones mentioned in the ISG report also please explain why the UN resolved to use "serious consequences" if he did not follow UN mandates.

We went to war partly because of his WMD's.

Correction. You went to war mostly because of WMD.

I thought intentions do not equate to fact??? The fact of the matter is we had a multitude of reasons to go to Iraq.

We found WMD's that he did not destroy.

This has been thoroughly discussed. Your point has been totally refuted.

Just because you say so????? When you post something more credible than the ISG report or the Declassified documents, you might have a case - except for the inconvenient truth that Binary Sarin was discovered and reported in the mainstream media after it was used improperly in an IED.

Forget it USalpenstock. The lefties on this board don't care for the actual facts.


The WILLFUL ignorance they exhibit is astounding.

The WILLFUL ignorance they exhibit is astounding.

Yep. Don't worry. You'll actually get a person once in awhile on here who will actually listen to what you say and think about it despite them having their own opinions.

Forget it USalpenstock. The lefties on this board don't care for the actual facts.
Several posters are waiting for you to respond to their posts. Perhaps you could respond to them rather than taking half assed swipes at posters who are responding with some very damaging info.

Try responding to this one:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11284602&postcount=380

Or this one:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11288293&postcount=449

How about this one:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11284634&postcount=381

Or this one:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11277722&postcount=274

In other words, quit trolling, and drop the sarcastic remarks. Try something novel, like actually debating the topic at hand and providing some proof for your points. :p

*snipo*

CH, I have been on here long enough to know that no matter what proof I give here, it'll still be wrong in their eyes.

People will believe whatever they want to believe.

I have debated many issues and provided proof. I may not use webpages but the proof I have shown most of the time is accurate. However, because it isn't a webpage, it gets ignored.

We have put to much trust on the net and our people are not becoming smarter. Luckily for me, I have been trained not to rely on the internet alone. I don't search for proof on the net for there is alot of false information out there. My truth comes from the Congressional Record and speeches that I do pick up off the net as well as books from the history section of the bookstore.

My proof is just as real as your proof.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/iraq-110702-1198.pdf

That is part of the United Nations resolution 1441.
First of all, that link was to the provisional text. Try the actual document:

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

And instead of concentrating solely on the preamble, perhaps you should read the actual Resolution? Pay particular attention to Articles 2. 4, 11 and 12.

Also note that the US failed to comply with Article 10 of the Resolution that they helped draft. Damning evidence indeed!!

First of all, that link was to the provisional text. Try the actual document:

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

And instead of concentrating solely on the preamble, perhaps you should read the actual Resolution? Pay particular attention to Articles 2. 4, 11 and 12.

Also note that the US failed to comply with Article 10 of the Resolution that they helped draft. Damning evidence indeed!!

And Iraq complied with none of it whereas we did.

Yep. Don't worry. You'll actually get a person once in awhile on here who will actually listen to what you say and think about it despite them having their own opinions.

Those are the ones I post for. The "hate America" crowd is not worth my time.

Those are the ones I post for. The "hate America" crowd is not worth my time.

There are those on here but most of the ones I have run into don't hate america. Just the opposite. Most on here just don't like Bush.

First of all, that link was to the provisional text. Try the actual document:

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

And instead of concentrating solely on the preamble, perhaps you should read the actual Resolution? Pay particular attention to Articles 2. 4, 11 and 12.

Also note that the US failed to comply with Article 10 of the Resolution that they helped draft. Damning evidence indeed!!

Here is article 10. What did we not comply with?


10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;


We complied with everything here!



It is not I that is ignoring the whole story. I have simply been exposing the parts you would rather not be known.

You know, the WHOLE story.

Still waiting for some real info there buddy.

To refresh your memory, here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11288914&postcount=463

CH, I have been on here long enough to know that no matter what proof I give here, it'll still be wrong in their eyes.

People will believe whatever they want to believe.

I have debated many issues and provided proof. I may not use webpages but the proof I have shown most of the time is accurate. However, because it isn't a webpage, it gets ignored.

We have put to much trust on the net and our people are not becoming smarter. Luckily for me, I have been trained not to rely on the internet alone. I don't search for proof on the net for there is alot of false information out there. My truth comes from the Congressional Record and speeches that I do pick up off the net as well as books from the history section of the bookstore.

My proof is just as real as your proof.
So in other words, rather than debate the issues at hand, you will be content to make statements such as these:

"Forget it USalpenstock. The lefties on this board don't care for the actual facts."

"And we also know that most of the people on here are foreigners who do not like Bush so......"

"Do you quote nothing else but opinions?"

"You realize that is his own opinion? Yea thought so. Stop posting opinions please."

This one reminds me of you, but it is your words:

"Oh brother. A nice little troll who has no facts at all."

"Youd have a point if it was violated but since it wasn't....you don't."

"Bush shouldn't be impeached. We all know he has done nothing impeachable."

"Sorry straughn but his post had no evidence in it for impeachment. Any defense lawyer can punch holes in it."

This also made me smile, but again, they are your words:

"I told him that many times. He hasn't gotten the hint yet. Be prepared though for long drawn out responses with no basis of facts or very little of it in them."

Another laugher:

"How about cute little troll who has to use name calling and accusations with no bases in reality work for you better?"

"Why? Everytime someone points it all out to you, you ignore it. What's the point?"

More Corny pearls:

"Don't you just love little lefties who have limited vocabulary and have to resort to name calling and accusations to make a point?"

You don't want to debate because you are not equipped with the tools to support your cause. You are famous for your one liner put downs, but rarely do you answer the posts that have some substance to them. Thats the facts and many will support my claims and have in the past.

I may be moving to Canada.

Facts are facts. You can't argue facts. Opinions are opinions. Those can be argued till your blue in the face but yet people will believe what they want to believe.

Unlike you, I post facts. I do not post opinion pieces as facts. That is all you have done in most of these types of debate is post opinions.

The facts have been posted numerous times but yet for some reason, they get ignored by both left and right because it does not fit their opinions. Luckily, I'm not like that for I look at all the facts in context and not facts out of context. I review everything and reject anything that appears to be bias and not based on fact. I do not read opinion pieces for that is all that they are...opinions.

If you have a problem with that, that isn't my problem.

Yes I said those things. I won't claim otherwise. I do seek the truth and will dig deep to find it for by doing so, I become a more dangerous voter. A voter that actually deals with the facts and not the Political BS that both sides spout.

I am equipped to debate. I debate all the time. I use facts in my debate. You cannot argue facts. Opinions you can argue but with opinions, you have to accept the fact that that is that person's opinion. You can discuss the opinions openly among yourselves and look at both opinions and weigh them both.

The problem on this forum is that when an opinion is posted that does not comport to someone else's opinion, they are immediately labeled as wrong and a diatribe ensues. Yes I am guilty of doing that just as you are CH. Most if not all of us on this forum are guilty of it at one time or another depending on the issue at hand.

What we all need to do is recognize that opinions are rampant and people will take an assault on their opinion personal even though it may not be personal. Everyone will have their own set of "facts" but normally the answer lies in the middle of both sets of facts. As the saying goes, "understanding is a 3 edge sword. There is your side, my side, and the truth". The truth is always subjective. As Obi Wan Kenobi said to Luke "What I said is true, from a certain point of view" It all depends on what we want to believe.

In this type of debate (Impeachment, Iraq, etc), There is a case to be made for both sides of the argument. I will not deny that there can be a case made for Impeachment just like there is a case against it. There is a case for the Iraq War and a case against it. We all have to listen to eachother and respect other points of view even if we disagree with it.

Still waiting for some real info there buddy.

To refresh your memory, here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11288914&postcount=463
Sorry Alpen but I am not going to play into your circular debating points. The Commission report posted by Canada 6 should have been more than enough to resolve your obvious dilemna.

The real info has been supplied to you on numerous occaisions. The WMD that was found has all been dealt with. Again, I state for perhaps the 3rd or 4th time, that this is all old news that was cultivated off of declassified documents.

End of story.

And Iraq complied with none of it whereas we did.
Be gone troll....have some popcorn (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10629435&postcount=181).

Be gone troll....have some popcorn (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10629435&postcount=181).

Fine. Call me a troll for stating a fact. Anyways...what you call me doesn't matter to me anyway. Not anymore.

Sorry Alpen but I am not going to play into your circular debating points. The Commission report posted by Canada 6 should have been more than enough to resolve your obvious dilemna.

The real info has been supplied to you on numerous occaisions. The WMD that was found has all been dealt with. Again, I state for perhaps the 3rd or 4th time, that this is all old news that was cultivated off of declassified documents.

End of story.

I don't give a flying fig if they were old or not. They did and DO exist. WE found them. Your ONE source does not say what you say it does. Read it Troll.

Facts are facts. You can't argue facts. Opinions are opinions. Those can be argued till your blue in the face but yet people will believe what they want to believe.

Unlike you, I post facts. I do not post opinion pieces as facts. That is all you have done in most of these types of debate is post opinions.

The facts have been posted numerous times but yet for some reason, they get ignored by both left and right because it does not fit their opinions. Luckily, I'm not like that for I look at all the facts in context and not facts out of context. I review everything and reject anything that appears to be bias and not based on fact. I do not read opinion pieces for that is all that they are...opinions.

If you have a problem with that, that isn't my problem.

Yes I said those things. I won't claim otherwise. I do seek the truth and will dig deep to find it for by doing so, I become a more dangerous voter. A voter that actually deals with the facts and not the Political BS that both sides spout.

I am equipped to debate. I debate all the time. I use facts in my debate. You cannot argue facts. Opinions you can argue but with opinions, you have to accept the fact that that is that person's opinion. You can discuss the opinions openly among yourselves and look at both opinions and weigh them both.

The problem on this forum is that when an opinion is posted that does not comport to someone else's opinion, they are immediately labeled as wrong and a diatribe ensues. Yes I am guilty of doing that just as you are CH. Most if not all of us on this forum are guilty of it at one time or another depending on the issue at hand.

What we all need to do is recognize that opinions are rampant and people will take an assault on their opinion personal even though it may not be personal. Everyone will have their own set of "facts" but normally the answer lies in the middle of both sets of facts. As the saying goes, "understanding is a 3 edge sword. There is your side, my side, and the truth". The truth is always subjective. As Obi Wan Kenobi said to Luke "What I said is true, from a certain point of view" It all depends on what we want to believe.

In this type of debate (Impeachment, Iraq, etc), There is a case to be made for both sides of the argument. I will not deny that there can be a case made for Impeachment just like there is a case against it. There is a case for the Iraq War and a case against it. We all have to listen to eachother and respect other points of view even if we disagree with it.

With all due respect, your own post is internally contradictory: are or are not facts subjective? If they are, then how can we not argue about them, because we all inherently see the world differently. If they are not, then what one side believes is wrong, and you have to admit the heretofore unadmitted possibility that it is you who are wrong.

In some sense, this is something that cuts to the core of the "leftist" problems with you, C. On the one hand, you seem to be a strong opponent of admittedly goofy liberal tenets as relativism, yet you hide behind them before you'll admit that you could conceivably be mistaken. Either you're just a silly relativist like so many deluded "liberals", or you're possibly in err. Either way, you have to live with the consequences; as straddling is impossible.

With all due respect, your own post is internally contradictory: are or are not facts subjective? If they are, then how can we not argue about them, because we all inherently see the world differently. If they are not, then what one side believes is wrong, and you have to admit the heretofore unadmitted possibility that it is you who are wrong.

Some of it is the obligatory right wing comments. Gotta keep up appearances :D I already admitted that I do it to.

In some sense, this is something that cuts to the core of the "leftist" problems with you, C. On the one hand, you seem to be a strong opponent of admittedly goofy liberal tenets as relativism, yet you hide behind them before you'll admit that you could conceivably be mistaken. Either you're just a silly relativist like so many deluded "liberals", or you're possibly in err. Either way, you have to live with the consequences; as straddling is impossible.

I tell the politicians that each and every single solitary day. With me though, I always take the opposite of a popular opinion. Why? Its the only way to learn.

How could I possibly harm your country? If anything, I am trying to help.

On the other hand, Bush and his supporters have done a lot of damage to your country and it appears that he is not quite finished yet.

There have been lots of threads about George Bush and his policies and for the most part, they have condemned the actions of your boy wonder.


The reason policies have been condemned is that people like you LIE about them. They have no objective information with which to an informed decision.

People like you ignore the whole story, and work to silence any information that runs contrary to your world view. Unfortunately you and your ilk have been stunningly successful at censoring the information that is readily available to the public, and they are too apathetic to look beyond the headlines.

So yes, you are very much like Germany's infamous 5th column and you are absolutely harming my country.

I may be moving to Canada.


Please do.

Indeed. But I believe what is ocurring is the questioning of not those who have punished those who have done wrong (lawyers and judges involved) but those who may have ordered the wrongdoing. Generals, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc, etc.


This is simply an unsubstantiated lie. Show me the orders.

We have documents of Rumsfeld EXPRESSLY forbidding such things as making prisoners stand still for extended periods of time - despite the fact his legal council advised him that they were legal.


Still waiting for your proof here, Canada6.

Please do.
Sure. It'll be easier to argue from a distance and without being actually affected by the fuckedupness.

I don't give a flying fig if they were old or not. They did and DO exist. WE found them. Your ONE source does not say what you say it does. Read it Troll.
I hope that what you believe gives you a warm fuzzy feeling.

You are but a puppet, trolling for your master nation whatever one that may be. Your very first post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11164819&postcount=20)here on NS confirms your trollish, flaming attitude.

Be gone troll. Come back when you truly are interested in actually debating the topic.

Be gone troll. Come back when you truly are interested in actually debating the topic.

Look whose talking.

Impeach Bush if you want Cheney for President.

Impeach Bush if you want Cheney for President.
Cheney would be much weaker under all the impeachment proceedings.

The reason policies have been condemned is that people like you LIE about them. They have no objective information with which to an informed decision.

People like you ignore the whole story, and work to silence any information that runs contrary to your world view. Unfortunately you and your ilk have been stunningly successful at censoring the information that is readily available to the public, and they are too apathetic to look beyond the headlines.

So yes, you are very much like Germany's infamous 5th column and you are absolutely harming my country.
You want to call someone a traitor, you better come with a lot more than that, punk. And as to that bolded bit, you might want to look in a fucking mirror.

The reason policies have been condemned is that people like you LIE about them. They have no objective information with which to an informed decision.

People like you ignore the whole story, and work to silence any information that runs contrary to your world view. Unfortunately you and your ilk have been stunningly successful at censoring the information that is readily available to the public, and they are too apathetic to look beyond the headlines.

So yes, you are very much like Germany's infamous 5th column and you are absolutely harming my country.
Okay, lets correct any misconceptions that you may have about me.

Firstly, I have no need to lie, whereas your illustrious leader seems to thrive on them. And people such as yourself will do whatever it takes to hold onto power.

Secondly, I was totally against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. The UN requested more time for inspections and more inspectors to speed up the process. France, Riussia, and China supported that initiative. Bush wouldn't have anything to do with that, which is why I said that the US violated Article 10 of UN Resolution 1441.

Perhaps you could read some of the linked stories here. They are quite intertesting:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/weapindex.htm

Personally speaking, I think Bush wanted to thwart the UN inspections because he knew that he possessed low grade intelligence on WMD. Even Clarke and O'Neill admit that Bush was looking to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11.

Thirdly, I don't want your soldiers to die, or be injured for life for what amounts to be a lie. One soldiers death, was one death too many.

Fourthly, seeing the results of the US invasion is truly sickening. Death and destruction of innocent Iraqis, increased terrorism worldwide, and a destablized Middle East.

Fifthly, the US wanton disregard for democratic principles and the violation of human rights boggles the mind.

You should be supporting democracy and justice, and promoting good governance. Instead you seem to be willing to go down with the ship. I think that Bush has failed the American people and his policies have cast a dark shadow on your country.

Right now, you are grasping at straws. Your disappointments will be great.

You want to call someone a traitor, you better come with a lot more than that, punk. And as to that bolded bit, you might want to look in a fucking mirror.


Bring it on.

It is I that have posted full links to the UN, the Duelfer report etc.

I have read the mainstream press and that is all I see spouted here. Nothing beyond talking points and absolutely no inclination to read the full story.

When you willfully disregard the whole story, and purposely work to hide information contrary to your world view and when your lies harm my country, YOU ARE a traitor. If you are not from my country, and you work to spread lies about it, than you are my enemy.

Bring it on.

It is I that have posted full links to the UN, the Duelfer report etc.

I have read the mainstream press and that is all I see spouted here. Nothing beyond talking points and absolutely no inclination to read the full story.

When you willfully disregard the whole story, and purposely work to hide information contrary to your world view and when your lies harm my country, YOU ARE a traitor. If you are not from my country, and you work to spread lies about it, than you are my enemy.

USalpenstock, you have good sources and good facts. However, this statement negates whatever you just said. Never post in anger and never let your emotions run the way you type. I have learned that lesson but I do sometimes forget it :P

Okay, lets correct any misconceptions that you may have about me.

Firstly, I have no need to lie, whereas your illustrious leader seems to thrive on them. And people such as yourself will do whatever it takes to hold onto power.

You have no proof of that, yet I have proven that you are a liar.


Secondly, I was totally against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning.
The UN requested more time for inspections and more inspectors to speed up the process. France, Riussia, and China supported that initiative. Bush wouldn't have anything to do with that, which is why I said that the US violated Article 10 of UN Resolution 1441.


Curiously, those are the very same countries that Saddam was paying off.

Personally speaking, I think Bush wanted to thwart the UN inspections because he knew that he possessed low grade intelligence on WMD. Even Clarke and O'Neill admit that Bush was looking to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11.

EVEN Clarke and O'Neill???? Clarke was against Bush from the very beginning and he was one of the people responsible for our inability to thwart 9-11!

Thirdly, I don't want your soldiers to die, or be injured for life for what amounts to be a lie. One soldiers death, was one death too many.

Thank you - if that is sincere. I do hope that you realize that the misinformation you keep passing around helps the enemy to kill them.

Fourthly, seeing the results of the US invasion is truly sickening. Death and destruction of innocent Iraqis, increased terrorism worldwide, and a destablized Middle East.

Innocent Iraqis are dying at a slower rate now than before we invaded. Saddam was responsible for @ 55,000 deaths per year. So far, in the three years we have been there, we STILL have not seen that many people die. If we take the high estimate from Iraq body count (you will note that they are VERY anti-war) and divide it by the number of months of the war you will see that the yearly average has fallen to 13,300. Dropping the deaths by roughly 42,000 per year is a pretty damned good thing, don't you think???

Fifthly, the US wanton disregard for democratic principles and the violation of human rights boggles the mind.


Absolutely specious allegations, not a bit of it is true. Have there been acts of individual crimes - absolutely. They have been punished or are being investigated.

You should be supporting democracy and justice, and promoting good governance. Instead you seem to be willing to go down with the ship. I think that Bush has failed the American people and his policies have cast a dark shadow on your country.

No, the lies that people keep telling about us may have damaged us in peoples opinions, but the facts point to a very successful Presidency. YOU should support democracy in Iraq, but instead you support the terrorists.

Right now, you are grasping at straws. Your disappointments will be great.




My disappointment is huge, I would have thought that you would care about the actual facts. I have friends that found WMD's in Iraq personally. I have shown you the ISG reports etc that say we found WMD's. Your only response is a Senate committee that said our intelligence agencies failed us. I happen to agree with that, but it does NOT say there were no WMD's. Read your own damn link and point me to the phrase "there were no WMD's."

If you are not from my country, and you work to spread lies about it, than you are my enemy.
Could I be your enemy even if I don't work to spread lies about it? Please?

'Cause friends like you I need like I need a Tory majority.

Could I be your enemy even if I don't work to spread lies about it? Please?

'Cause friends like you I need like I need a Tory majority.


Nope, I'll be friendly with anyone who has an interest in the truth.

Nope, I'll be friendly with anyone who has an interest in the truth.
The truth as you see it, one assumes. So your statement should properly be amended to read, "Nope, I'll be friendly with anyone who agrees with me."

Pass.

The truth as you see it, one assumes. So your statement should properly be amended to read, "Nope, I'll be friendly with anyone who agrees with me."

Pass.


Not really, just don't lie and we will be OK.

I guess you like seeing US soldiers tortured to death by foreign militaries.
NO. I do not enjoy it only exsept it as part of war.

Say what? Do you really think it's OK for US forces to be tortured to death in war??? :confused: :(

this consept of "POW protetion" has only exsited sence about WWI (Either right before or right after i forgert)

The concept goes back quite a bit further. It has been codified since the mid-19th century. The first prosecutions I can think of for war crimes involving prisoners was the case of Henry Wirz, the superintendent of Andersonville, who was executed in 1865 for the abuse, torture, and murder of Federal prisoners. [1 (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Wirz/Cont3.htm)]