NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Aha.

BTW, this is why spelling and grammer are your friends. "I do not enjoy it only exsept it as part of war." should have read "I do not enjoy it, but I accept it as part of war." i.e., I don't like it but I know it's a part of warfare.

As written, it came out sounding like "I do not enjoy it, except as a part of war.", i.e. I like it only when it's a part of warfare.

Big difference, neh?

Impeach Bush if you want Cheney for President.

Cheney would be much weaker under all the impeachment proceedings.

Remember, Article II, Section 4 reads “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” If the House goes for Bush, they'd be smart to go for Cheney, Rummy, Gonzales, several others as well. And even if they aren't impeached, there's always the possibility of getting them under the War Crimes Act after 2008...

Still WAITING!!!


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11289776&postcount=495

Then try TGing him if you're so impatient.

Remember, Article II, Section 4 reads “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” If the House goes for Bush, they'd be smart to go for Cheney, Rummy, Gonzales, several others as well. And even if they aren't impeached, there's always the possibility of getting them under the War Crimes Act after 2008...

Then Dennis Hastart becomes President if Bush and Cheney get convicted.

Still WAITING!!!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11289776&postcount=495
Your facts are flawed, your argument is circular. You are convinced that the US has found the motherlode of WMD, but in reality these were found quite some time ago. It is rehash and even the government says so. You don't believe your government on this one?

Here, is a link to a post that I made over a week ago in another thread that sums up the feelings of Kay, Duelfer, Blix, and Powell.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11222025&postcount=50

Now, if you have any earth shattering new news that you want to bring forward, by all means do so, but if not then don't bother with the merry-go-round.

LAST WEEK? LAST WEEK!?

Well, obviously if it's from last week, it's completely out-of-date and shouldn't be considered as credible, CH.

I mean, really.

:rolleyes:

(Just kidding. Really.)

Then try TGing him if you're so impatient.
I think you might find this of interest Dobbs:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11287756&postcount=416

Also, Alpens first post as a noob????

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

Flame and troll from the get go.

Then Dennis Hastart becomes President if Bush and Cheney get convicted.

Depends on the elections in the fall. If the GOP wins Congress, then we'll have to wait for Bush and Co. to keep screwing up or settle for a post presidential war crimes trial.

Depends on the elections in the fall. If the GOP wins Congress, then we'll have to wait for Bush and Co. to keep screwing up or settle for a post presidential war crimes trial.

The GOP will win the majority seats in Congress. As to a war crimes trial, none will be forthcoming.

LAST WEEK? LAST WEEK!?

Well, obviously if it's from last week, it's completely out-of-date and shouldn't be considered as credible, CH.

I mean, really.

:rolleyes:

(Just kidding. Really.)
This is coming from a Semi-Pro Sp@mPig such as yourself? Are you trying to hog the limelight or are you just hamming it up for us?

Isn't there an abattoir with your name on it? :p

Just kidding

I think you might find this of interest Dobbs:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11287756&postcount=416

Also, Alpens first post as a noob????

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

Flame and troll from the get go.
Yeah, I 'member both those posts. It's pretty abundantly clear this is a killer attack puppet, designed from what I can see as a CH-killer attack puppet. I've had my very own killer attack puppets stalking me from thread to thread on occasion, I'd just take it as a back-assed, kinda effed-up compliment to your skills on the forums, CH.

Of course, I always try figuring out who the puppetmaster is - though it's usually very hit-and-miss work. I do recall there was somebody ranting off and on about you in the last few weeks, though - an older hand here on NS who found you rather sanctimonious. You might try checking on posts featuring the diminutive 'CH' if you're curious. Usually, I might do a little bit of search/legwork, but mostly I try seeing familiar turns of phrase, sentence structure, or a tendency towards certain topics when attempting to deduce who it is who's dogging my heels.

I've been correct maybe 50% of the time.

Depends on the elections in the fall. If the GOP wins Congress, then we'll have to wait for Bush and Co. to keep screwing up or settle for a post presidential war crimes trial.
The Dems will win Congress as a prelude to Hilary's run for President.

Yeah, I 'member both those posts. It's pretty abundantly clear this is a killer attack puppet, designed from what I can see as a CH-killer attack puppet. I've had my very own killer attack puppets stalking me from thread to thread on occasion, I'd just take it as a back-assed, kinda effed-up compliment to your skills on the forums, CH.

Of course, I always try figuring out who the puppetmaster is - though it's usually very hit-and-miss work. I do recall there was somebody ranting off and on about you in the last few weeks, though - an older hand here on NS who found you rather sanctimonious. You might try checking on posts featuring the diminutive 'CH' if you're curious. Usually, I might do a little bit of search/legwork, but mostly I try seeing familiar turns of phrase, sentence structure, or a tendency towards certain topics when attempting to deduce who it is who's dogging my heels.

I've been correct maybe 50% of the time.
Thanks! :)

I will check it out. BTW, moi....sanctimonious....:eek:

I do recall a few that had their shorts in a knot. :D

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

Sigworthy. :D

i think he's as smart as the average american, which is an insult in my opinion, but hey it gets him votes cause people can realate to him

I wonder what bushanomics would say here.

I wonder what bushanomics would say here.
It would have something to do with laberals, no doubt.

prolly something like:
Hello. This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like
Personally I think Bush is a great president, and does not deserve to be impeached. only laberals deserve to be impeached as the are evil, gay, tree-huggers, baby killers, and most of all laberals are stupid. Bush is not a laberal. And anyway, how could we impeach him if he does so many great things. he made the patriot act, the No Child left behind act, won the afghanistan and Iraq wars, and follows family values
Of course thats just an impersonation based on his previous posts. if he really posted here it would sound even more stupid.

Yes, because he's too dumb to rule a nation...

The Dems will win Congress as a prelude to Hilary's run for President.

*dies of laughter* Nice sarcasm.

The Dems will win Congress as a prelude to Hilary's run for President.

We can only hope that President Hillary will exercise all the new presidential powers with all the delicacy and grace that Dubya has/ :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

In my opinion, Bush is the only President to consistently commit High Crimes and Misdemeaners against the State. Many of his acts could be construed as treason, yet in the state of the union as it is, to speak thusly is to invite catcalls of being unpatriotic. A little scary.

Your facts are flawed, your argument is circular. You are convinced that the US has found the motherlode of WMD, but in reality these were found quite some time ago. It is rehash and even the government says so. You don't believe your government on this one?

Here, is a link to a post that I made over a week ago in another thread that sums up the feelings of Kay, Duelfer, Blix, and Powell.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11222025&postcount=50

Now, if you have any earth shattering new news that you want to bring forward, by all means do so, but if not then don't bother with the merry-go-round.
I guess you're the one waiting, now.

We can only hope that President Hillary will exercise all the new presidential powers with all the delicacy and grace that Dubya has/ :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
It really seems like if there is going to be a woman president, it's not going to be Hillary or Condoleeza (sp?). Not only too much dirt from Republicans and Democrats for each one but too many people who just wouldn't like a woman president to begin with.

is it actually possible to impeach the the anti-christ?

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

(actually some interesting christian arguments)

I guess you're the one waiting, now.
I guess you are right. He also neglected to provide proof for his allegations, especially about "yellow cake".

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11288534&postcount=455

However, I would understand if he does not reply.

It really seems like if there is going to be a woman president, it's not going to be Hillary or Condoleeza (sp?). Not only too much dirt from Republicans and Democrats for each one but too many people who just wouldn't like a woman president to begin with.
I have to agree with you there. I don't think Americans would elect a female President at this time, especially considering recent world events.

If the Dems did give Hilary the nod in 2008, and she had to run against a male GOP candidate, I believe that she would lose. It would be interesting though.

I guess you are right. He also neglected to provide proof for his allegations, especially about "yellow cake".

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11288534&postcount=455

However, I would understand if he does not reply.
You have more patience than I do. I've gone through this once or twice and the realization of the amount of reading required contrasted by his ability to admit a mistake makes me cringe to think of attempting it.

I guess you are right. He also neglected to provide proof for his allegations, especially about "yellow cake".

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11288534&postcount=455

However, I would understand if he does not reply.

Pardon my oversight.
By April 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had stockpiled 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant south of Baghdad.

That intriguing little detail is almost never mentioned by the big media, who prefer to chant the mantra "Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction" while echoing Joseph Wilson's claim that "Bush lied" about Iraq seeking more of the nuclear material in Niger.

and

The United Nations nuclear watchdog has accounted for most of the uranium feared stolen from Iraq's largest nuclear site, Tuwaitha, reports say.

The prestigious US-based journal Science said inspectors had found virtually all the missing material, quoting an unnamed official from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

and

IAEA confirms yellowcake found in Rotterdam likely from Iraq
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) — The U.N. nuclear watchdog confirmed Friday that Iraq was the likely source of radioactive material known as yellowcake that was found in a shipment of scrap metal at Rotterdam harbor.

I do not lie as you do. It seems you are either willfully ignorant or an outright Liar - AGAIN!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-01-16-netherlands_x.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

is it actually possible to impeach the the anti-christ?

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

(actually some interesting christian arguments)

All I can do is laugh at this. How the hell did I miss this earlier? Bush isn't the Anti-Christ. I know he's not the anti-christ for he has no characteristics of the Anti-Christ.

Pardon my oversight.

I do not lie as you do. It seems you are either willfully ignorant or an outright Liar - AGAIN!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-01-16-netherlands_x.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml
I haven't been following this whole conversation, but I would like to make two points. First of all, don't ever quote Newsmax if you want to be taken seriously. It's like when liberals quote Truthout, only dumber.

Second, Tuwaitha wasn't a secret. It was the one place where everyone knew there was uranium, enriched uranium at that, although not weapons grade (not even close to weapons grade, as a matter of fact). And lightly enriched uranium does not equal WMD.

I do not lie as you do. It seems you are either willfully ignorant or an outright Liar - AGAIN!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-01-16-netherlands_x.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml
I really cannot understand why you are calling me a liar? I asked you to prove your statements about yellow cake. It is obvious that this is NOT the same yellow cake that was alluded to by the US as coming from Niger. That has been proven false.

Also, from the BBC article, it was obvious that this yellow cake was known before the US invasion:

The visit was agreed after weeks of pleading by the IAEA, which has kept the radiological materials at the site safely under UN seal for 12 years.
About 1.8 metric tons of "yellow cake" and 500 tons of unrefined uranium went missing as the Iraqis left Tuwaitha unattended during the war.

If anything, this speaks volumes about the US inability to secure known sites after the invasion of Iraq.

From the USA Today article:

A spokeswoman for the International Atomic Energy Agency said the Rotterdam specimen was scarcely refined at all from natural uranium ore and may have come from a known mine in Iraq that was active before the 1991 Gulf War.

"I wouldn't hype it too much," said spokeswoman Melissa Fleming. "It was a small amount and it wasn't being peddled as a sample."

By small amount, are we talking about tons? Apparently not:

Fleming said the agency will compare the chemical composition of the sample to other samples of ore taken from Iraq's al-Qaim mine, which was bombed in 1991 and dismantled in 1996-97.

She estimated that the Rotterdam sample contained around 5 pounds of uranium oxide.

Why is 5 pounds insignificant? From the same article:

Yellowcake, or uranium oxide, could be used to build a nuclear weapon, although it would take tons of the substance refined with sophisticated technology to harvest enough uranium for a single bomb.

Now, lets re-examine your statement on this matter:

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

Now, who is being disingenuous?

BTW, you still have more claims to answer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11288534&postcount=455).

Edit: Also, why are you using your puppet (Salvelinus fontinalis) to answer questions directed at USalpenstock?

I haven't been following this whole conversation, but I would like to make two points. First of all, don't ever quote Newsmax if you want to be taken seriously. It's like when liberals quote Truthout, only dumber.

Second, Tuwaitha wasn't a secret. It was the one place where everyone knew there was uranium, enriched uranium at that, although not weapons grade (not even close to weapons grade, as a matter of fact). And lightly enriched uranium does not equal WMD.


On your first point, I would agree, that is why I also posted the article from the BBC on the same subject. I just liked the way they put it. I also posted links to OTHER yellow cake finds.

On your second point, the other yellowcake was unknown and not part of Tuwaitha. Either way, they said there was no yellowcake in Iraq, well obviously they were wrong.

In addition to that, they also had 1.77 tons of enriched Uranium, of which there is no other feasible use other than a nuclear weapon.

The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.

"This operation was a major achievement," said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm

On your first point, I would agree, that is why I also posted the article from the BBC on the same subject. I just liked the way they put it. I also posted links to OTHER yellow cake finds.
Of course you "liked the way they put it", as it gives the belief that you are right, even though the story is sensationalized and bogus.

On your second point, the other yellowcake was unknown and not part of Tuwaitha. Either way, they said there was no yellowcake in Iraq, well obviously they were wrong.
I love it when you post material that debunks your own argument. :p

In addition to that, they also had 1.77 tons of enriched Uranium, of which there is no other feasible use other than a nuclear weapon.
Not true. You really are grasping at straws.

Enriched uranium is a critical component for both civil nuclear power generation and military nuclear weapons.

Also, this article is from July 7, 2004. Again, very old news and does not amount to any smoking gun theory that you are trying to create.

Nice try Salvenstock or is it USalpenfont?

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?


No it doesn't.

Why don't YOU Prove your allegations now???? I have backed up my posts with very high quality sourcing - you have not. I call BULL SHIT.

The President admitted there were intelligence failures, not that there were no WMD's there is a HUGE difference.

Of course you "liked the way they put it", as it gives the belief that you are right, even though the story is sensationalized and bogus.


I love it when you post material that debunks your own argument. :p

I also linked to the BBC article. Just because you don't like ONE of the places that published some information, does not mean the other sources are faulty also. But then it would take an intelligent poster to figure that one out, not one operating on pure hatred of our President.




Enriched uranium is a critical component for both civil nuclear power generation and military nuclear weapons.

Um he HAD NO nuclear power generators.


Also, this article is from July 7, 2004. Again, very old news and does not amount to any smoking gun theory that you are trying to create.

So the press has been lying for two years now haven't they. If it is so old SURELY they would have had time to print it and/or broadcast it now wouldn't they????



Time for you to back up your story there mr. canuck. You neglected to show me where in your link "disproves" WMD's. It was a critique of the intelligence, and made no claims whatsoever about not finding any WMD's. NONE. SHow me.

BTW, you still have more claims to answer.

Edit: Also, why are you using your puppet (Salvelinus fontinalis) to answer questions directed at USalpenstock?


No I do not, it is YOUR turn to prove my statements wrong. I have backed up my claims, you, for the most part have not even attempted it, let alone successfully so.

On my "puppet" - I link here from the game. I have two countries. Whether I post as USalpenstock or Salvilinus Fontinalis, depends on which country I am working with and link from. What does it matter anyway???

Why don't YOU Prove your allegations now???? I have backed up my posts with very high quality sourcing - you have not. I call BULL SHIT.

The President admitted there were intelligence failures, not that there were no WMD's there is a HUGE difference.
The only real BS here is your claim that you have provided "very high quality sourcing" to back up your posts. If anything, the"very high quality sourcing" has debunked your claims.

Originally Posted by USalpenstock
In addition to that, they also had 1.77 tons of enriched Uranium, of which there is no other feasible use other than a nuclear weapon.

Not true. You really are grasping at straws.


Try again.


The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.

"This operation was a major achievement," said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.
Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm

The only real BS here is your claim that you have provided "very high quality sourcing" to back up your posts. If anything, the"very high quality sourcing" has debunked your claims.


Not quite. The Duelfer report is the VERY SAME report that the left trumpeted as "proving" there were no WMD's.

If that link is no good, than neither is the "No WMD" claim.

You can't have it both ways.

I have also linked to the UN resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have linked to the BBC, certainly not a pro-Bush mouthpiece.

I have linked to USA today - again they do not like Bush.

I have linked to articles directly quoting both Charles Duelfer and David Kay.

You have offered a link to a senate committee that did not even say what you claimed.

I repeat. It is YOUR turn to back up your posts.

Not quite. The Duelfer report is the VERY SAME report that the left trumpeted as "proving" there were no WMD's.

If that link is no good, than neither is the "No WMD" claim.

You can't have it both ways.

I have also linked to the UN resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have linked to the BBC, certainly not a pro-Bush mouthpiece.

I have linked to USA today - again they do not like Bush.

I have linked to articles directly quoting both Charles Duelfer and David Kay.

You have offered a link to a senate committee that did not even say what you claimed.

I repeat. It is YOUR turn to back up your posts.
I don't know what to tell you. You like the merry-go-round approach, and I find it kind nauseating. Blix, Kay, and Duelfer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11222025&postcount=50)all said the same thing.....that there were NO WMD in Iraq. You for some reason believe that they are wrong and you keep trotting out articles that actually debunk your own argument.

Your own government quickly put a lid on this "new" (actually old) discovery.

American intelligence officials hastily scheduled a background briefing for the news media on Thursday to clarify that. Hoekstra and Mr. Santorum were referring to an Army report that described roughly 500 munitions containing "degraded" mustard or sarin gas, all manufactured before the 1991 gulf war and found scattered through Iraq since 2003.

Such shells had previously been reported and do not change the government conclusion, the officials said.

Now, like I said before, unless you have any "new" earth shattering news that you would like to share and discuss, I will gladly participate. Watching you chase you tail around is getting old and boring.

I don't know what to tell you. You like the merry-go-round approach, and I find it kind nauseating. Blix, Kay, and Duelfer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11222025&postcount=50)all said the same thing.....that there were NO WMD in Iraq. You for some reason believe that they are wrong and you keep trotting out articles that actually debunk your own argument.

Your own government quickly put a lid on this "new" (actually old) discovery.



Now, like I said before, unless you have any "new" earth shattering news that you would like to share and discuss, I will gladly participate. Watching you chase you tail around is getting old and boring.


That is NOT what they said. They said no "stockpiles" in other words no single location had a large amount. That is a far cry from no WMD's. The fact is that those very reports outlined WMD finds. If you deny that, than you are not being honest. In other words, you are LYING.

You misquote your sources and expect that to carry the day???

It might with the liberal crowd you hang with, but for thinking people, it just won't work.

Try again.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm
That story you've linked to is two years out of date. Just FYI, there.

Don't you suppose that if there were any way to have made political hay out of that colossal big pile of glow-in-the-dark kitty litter, Messrs Bush Cheney & Rove wouldn't've already exploited it to the hilt - say, in 2004 - an election year?

Saying you're reaching here is like saying water's wet.

It might with the liberal crowd you hang with, but for thinking people, it just won't work.
Keep beating your chest; maybe you'll loosen the phlegm of clouded thinking you're working under.

Whether or not they were degraded is irrelevent. They are the weapons that we, in conjunction with the United Nations, demanded they destroy and show us that they were destroyed.

If Saddam had done that, he would still be in power and you would be happy that 55,000 Iraqis would die from violence on a yearly basis. You would be happy that the REAL torture chambers were opperating and you would be delighted that Al-Qaeda had a new, safe home in Iraq.

Too bad we ruined all that for you.

That story you've linked to is two years out of date. Just FYI, there.

Don't you suppose that if there were any way to have made political hay out of that colossal big pile of glow-in-the-dark kitty litter, Messrs Bush Cheney & Rove wouldn't've already exploited it to the hilt - say, in 2004 - an election year?

Saying you're reaching here is like saying water's wet.


All that means is that the Press and the left has been KNOWINGLY lying for two years. The fact remains that it did exist, and the left STILL denies it.

Keep beating your chest; maybe you'll loosen the phlegm of clouded thinking you're working under.


Truth hurts, doesnt it.

Now, like I said before, unless you have any "new" earth shattering news that you would like to share and discuss, I will gladly participate. Watching you chase you tail around is getting old and boring.


Watching you lie is amusing.

Pure LOL. :D

I don't know what to tell you. You like the merry-go-round approach, and I find it kind nauseating. Blix, Kay, and Duelfer all said the same thing.....that there were NO WMD in Iraq. You for some reason believe that they are wrong and you keep trotting out articles that actually debunk your own argument.


Read your own articles, they do not dispute that we found WMD's. Again, they said there were no stockpiles. There is a big difference.

NOW, since these reports, we have released information on 500 WMD's found, 1500 gallons of Chemical Weapons, and We have corroberation to Duelfers assertion that there was "sufficiently credible evidence" that WMD's were shipped to Syria.

We have also translated some documents that show Saddam intended on giving WMD's to third parties of course the press had to sanitize this to remove this part, but the original translators said this, not I.

PROVE ME WRONG. You cannot, because every single one of my assertions is true.

The WMD commission report released in March of 2005 stated peremptorily... that "no WMD's were found in Iraq" and that intelligence and the conclusions that were based on such intelligence were "all dead wrong"

If you missed it then it is hardly proper to be endlessly ranting about your "high quality" sources, when you've missed the most important one.

Seriously... seek help. You are ridiculing yourself.

The WMD commission report released in March of 2005 stated peremptorily... that "no WMD's were found in Iraq" and that intelligence and the conclusions that were based on such intelligence were "all dead wrong"

If you missed it then it is hardly proper to be endlessly ranting about your "high quality" sources, when you've missed the most important one.

Seriously... seek help. You are ridiculing yourself.


You are lying. PROVE IT. Post a link to the whole report. I have already posted it, it does not say what you claim.


Hint: look to annex "F" under "Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program" It specifically lists them.


Oh hell here it is AGAIN!!!!!!! --- you can't miss it, these are the first two paragraphs.


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/index.html


Since this report we have declassified 500 instances of WMD's that Saddam failed to destroy.

Those are HARD FACTS. And if you deny it, you are LYING.

Post a link to the whole report.I provided a link several pages back. The report is extremely lengthy.

Plus... The information you have just provided dates prior to the ultimate and conclusive findings of the WMD comission report.

Spare us from your histrionics please.

vote Yes, for another reason. He took my lava lamp and still hasn't given it back. We should destroy him for that.

I provided a link several pages back. The report is extremely lengthy.

Plus... The information you have just provided dates prior to the ultimate and conclusive findings of the WMD comission report.

Spare us from your histrionics please.


And your report didn't say what you said it did. Show me where it said "no WMD's were found". You cannot, because it does not say that.

I provided a link several pages back. The report is extremely lengthy.

Plus... The information you have just provided dates prior to the ultimate and conclusive findings of the WMD comission report.

Spare us from your histrionics please.


I also believe that if you look to the report I posted, it was released at the same time as yours. As in the same month. I believe it is the same report, unless you are referring to the Senate report, in which you mislead people as to what it said also.

The instances of WMDs were too old to be of any real danger.

The instances of WMDs were too old to be of any real danger.


Some were, some weren't. Binary Sarin is VERY stable. We found that AND in large enough quantities that if it were released in a high density area, it would have made 9-11 look like a picnic.

It is also IRRELEVENT whether or not they are usable now! When stored properly, they WOULD have been viable when we invaded. Of course after we invaded, they were no longer stored properly. But even that is not material, these are the very weapons we were talking about when we asked for proof that Saddam destroyed them. Saddam refused. Bush was right.

What this all comes down to is an administration that was bent on doing whatever was necessary to advance their own political and personal agendas. Too much has been written about lies and deception to simply ignore this most serious issue, especially one that has cost the lives of US troops, and innocent Iraqis. The war on Iraq has been a massive con game, and the results have been devestating. Death, destruction and increased terrorism.

Some posters want to belabour the WMD issue, which is surprising because it was the biggest con of them all. Consistently, I have posted that the US decided NOT to give the UN inspectors more time and more resources and to me, the reason for that is obvious. The intelligence that the US had was weak and/or faulty at best. Blix in an interview talks with Jim Lehrer (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html#)and he talks about monumental errors and scandalous actions, especially in regards to the highly publicized "yellow cake" issue.

The reason for the invasion:

President Bush Addresses the Nation (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html)

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
And thus began the "Shock and Awe" show.

I also believe that if you look to the report I posted, it was released at the same time as yours. As in the same month. I believe it is the same report, unless you are referring to the Senate report, in which you mislead people as to what it said also.
The reports you keep on ranting about are all from no earlier than 2004. No WMD's in Iraq is precisely what the WMD comission says.

From now on I will respond to your ignorance with my silence. Quite frankly I have more important things to do than to put up with you.

Whether he was right or not doesn't matter. Iraq was not a threat to us at the time we invaded it. And now, because we invaded Iraq, we cannot invade Iran (the source of Al-Qaeda) without having the oil fields in the Middle-East sabotaged.

The reports you keep on ranting about are all from no earlier than 2004. No WMD's in Iraq is precisely what the WMD comission says.

From now on I will respond to your ignorance with my silence. Quite frankly I have more important things to do than to put up with you.



Can't find where it says "NO WMD's were found, can you!!:p LOL


If it says that, it should be very easy to point it out! I have already read it, cover to cover. It does not say that. PERIOD.

Whether he was right or not doesn't matter. Iraq was not a threat to us at the time we invaded it. And now, because we invaded Iraq, we cannot invade Iran (the source of Al-Qaeda) without having the oil fields in the Middle-East sabotaged.


We have evidence (documents and recordings) of Sadam saying he was going to give WMD's to terrorists so they could attack us. Does that not qualify as a threat??

Doesn't the fact that he shot at our planes on a near daily basis constitute an act of War???


How about trying to assasinate a former President???


Perhaps the fact he gave money to terrorists is a good thing also, no???


Perhaps the terrorist training camps were no problem.

Perhaps the fact that he was reaching out to AL-Qaida was no threat???

That's ok. People like you can sleep at night because People in our military is willing to follow the orders of people like George Bush. They Know the truth. I speak with them EVERY SINGLE DAY and you should thank God that they are willing to protect you, even if you don't support their mission.

I have posted that the US decided NOT to give the UN inspectors more time and more resources and to me, the reason for that is obvious.

Yes it is, Every day we delayed Saddam was able to hide more evidence, erode the sanctions further, kill more innocent people, and give more support to terrorists. We also needed to go in when we did, or risk higher casualties because of the dust storms that come with the Iraqi summer. As it was, we still got caught in a couple.


12 years of him violating the cease-fire agreement was more than enough time for "diplomacy".

I suppose you supported the "diplomacy" that Clinton conducted with North Korea. We now see where that has led.

Because he went after Saddam, we can not go after Al-Qaeda. Should he have gone after Al-Qaeda, Saddam would not be much of an issue.

The intelligence that the US had was weak and/or faulty at best. Blix in an interview talks with Jim Lehrer and he talks about monumental errors and scandalous actions, especially in regards to the highly publicized "yellow cake" issue.

This is another lie perpetrated by the left.


Show me where Bush said "yellow cake from Niger". He did not. The left has lied about this. Joe Wilson Lied - and in fact contradicted the testimony he gave during his debriefing. His trip STRENGTHENED the case for yellow cake.

Is it just me, or is Alpo-sock a moebius loop?

Is it just me, or is Alpo-sock a moebius loop?

I'm just one person tired of the lies that the left has used to effectively harm my country.

If you look honestly, you will see that I am 100% correct on this issue. I will not give ground against the lies.

If I am truly wrong I will humbly admit it. But I don't usually say anything unless I know what I am saying is verifiably true. You will see (if you really are objective) that what I say is accurate.

Deny and spin all you want, but the truth is the truth. The lies of the left will be exposed.

Because he went after Saddam, we can not go after Al-Qaeda. Should he have gone after Al-Qaeda, Saddam would not be much of an issue.


I will have to check again, but something like 2/3 of the Al-Qaida leadership has been captured or killed. But they were not the only terrorists we needed to worry about and Saddam had ties to both Al-Qaida AND to other terrorist organizations.

Going after both Al-Qaida and Saddam was not mutually exclusive. Both will reduce terrorism in the future.

Blix in an interview talks with Jim Lehrer and he talks about monumental errors and scandalous actions, especially in regards to the highly publicized "yellow cake" issue.

Why quote Blix??? He was incompetent. He did not find the WMD's that the ISG found. Since we found them, why does he hold any crediblity???

This is another lie perpetrated by the left.


Show me where Bush said "yellow cake from Niger". He did not. The left has lied about this. Joe Wilson Lied - and in fact contradicted the testimony he gave during his debriefing. His trip STRENGTHENED the case for yellow cake.
Yellowcake forgery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery)

JIM LEHRER: You said in your book that there were monumental... that's your word... monumental intelligence failures about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. What is the most monumental of all?

HANS BLIX: There are two, there are three monumental. The first one I mentioned, this was the alleged contract between Iraq and Niger on the import of raw uranium. Both the CIA and British intelligence had had that for months. It was referred to by President Bush in the State of the Union message in 2003. And the IAEA was asking to get it and they got it fairly late I think in February 2003. And it took them only a day to establish that this was a forgery. Now, I think with the intelligence agency with all their labs and their techniques, that was monumental that they had not discovered this.

In fact also, we know now that Ambassador Wilson of the U.S. had been to Niger and he had also expressed the view that this was not real. The other one was the British news of something that turned out to be a research essay by an Iraqi student at a university, and this was presented as something new, some new evidence. They had to pull it back eventually. So I think there were things that really were, in my view, rather scandalous.

Bush's own words (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html):

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Why quote Blix??? He was incompetent. He did not find the WMD's that the ISG found. Since we found them, why does he hold any crediblity???
Incompetent? Hardly. If anyone was incompetent, it was the Bush administration, especially for not letting the UN inspectors finish their job.

Listen to the Blix interview (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html#). You just might learn something about incompetence?

Incompetent? Hardly. If anyone was incompetent, it was the Bush administration, especially for not letting the UN inspectors finish their job.

Listen to the Blix interview (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html#). You just might learn something about incompetence?

If he was so good at finding WMD's and is your expert, why was he unable to find them when ISG and other groups found LOTS of them?????

I give blix ZERO credibility, he is covering his own ass, and he gave Saddam time to hide his weapons. He allowed Saddam to detain the inspectors outside of suspected WMD sites for hours, while they were scrubbed and evidence was removed.

If he was so good at finding WMD's and is your expert, why was he unable to find them when ISG and other groups found LOTS of them?????

I give blix ZERO credibility, he is covering his own ass, and he gave Saddam time to hide his weapons. He allowed Saddam to detain the inspectors outside of suspected WMD sites for hours, while they were scrubbed and evidence was removed.

Give up. Please. We sent spies. We sent inspectors. We sent a whole fucking army. And what did we find? Sand and insurgents. Not WMDs. The ISG was just 'finding' what it was told to find by the US/UK - we had long decided to go to war. In fact, we were already at war when the Duelfer Report was published. Proving the whole "we went to war because the ISG said he had weapons" argument is bollocks.

Give up. Please. We sent spies. We sent inspectors. We sent a whole fucking army. And what did we find? Sand and insurgents. Not WMDs. The ISG was just 'finding' what it was told to find by the US/UK - we had long decided to go to war. In fact, we were already at war when the Duelfer Report was published. Proving the whole "we went to war because the ISG said he had weapons" argument is bollocks.
Amen.

Why quote Blix??? He was incompetent. He did not find the WMD's that the ISG found. Since we found them, why does he hold any crediblity???

Only YOU think that 500 shells of degraded or partially degraded chemical munitions originating from pre-1991 are the WMD that Blix or anyone else were looking for. Even the BUSH ADMINISTRATION says the junk (somewhat dangerous junk, perhaps,) that was found does not constitute WMD's.

Just give it up. You're giving everyone here, conservative and liberal alike, the imression that you're either a puppet, a child, or a slavering tin-foil hattist. Drop it and gather together any shreds of reputation you might have left.

If you continue in this silly and useless quest to deny reality, then I dub you the Uni-Poster as you monomaniacly drop your bombs of insensibility on this forum.

Give up. Please. We sent spies. We sent inspectors. We sent a whole fucking army. And what did we find? Sand and insurgents. Not WMDs. The ISG was just 'finding' what it was told to find by the US/UK - we had long decided to go to war. In fact, we were already at war when the Duelfer Report was published. Proving the whole "we went to war because the ISG said he had weapons" argument is bollocks.


We went to war because we KNEW he had the weapons, the ISG simply confirmed that he did indeed have them.

The reason the "inspectors" did not find anything is that Saddam refused them imediate access to the facilities.

Here is what the UN has said about the inspections:


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)

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


Here is what David Kay had to say about the futility of the inspections:

We had seven years during UNSCOM's period in which the Iraqis, without any long period of exception, refused to cooperate. They concealed, denied and deceived inspectors. They only cooperated under the threat of military violence. That has passed. And the reason that the regime changed, that is, a replacement of Saddam Hussein is tied to this, as long as Saddam is in power, I think it would be foolish of anyone to believe that you could carry out effective inspections in Iraq.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/inspections_8-28.html

We went to war because we KNEW he had the weapons, the ISG simply confirmed that he did indeed have them.

The reason the "inspectors" did not find anything is that Saddam refused them imediate access to the facilities.

Here is what the UN has said about the inspections:




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


Here is what David Kay had to say about the futility of the inspections:


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/inspections_8-28.html

And we all know why Iraq misled the world as to the status of their WMD's. Without the threat of them, Saddam was F'ed. Radical Islamist elements and Iran itself would have made agressive moves against Saddam.

What Saddam was hiding, in other words, was the ABSENCE of WMD. And none of your saliva-flecked rhetoric has yet to produce actual evidence of viable WMD.

Only YOU think that 500 shells of degraded or partially degraded chemical munitions originating from pre-1991 are the WMD that Blix or anyone else were looking for. Even the BUSH ADMINISTRATION says the junk (somewhat dangerous junk, perhaps,) that was found does not constitute WMD's.

Just give it up. You're giving everyone here, conservative and liberal alike, the imression that you're either a puppet, a child, or a slavering tin-foil hattist. Drop it and gather together any shreds of reputation you might have left.

If you continue in this silly and useless quest to deny reality, then I dub you the Uni-Poster as you monomaniacly drop your bombs of insensibility on this forum.


No they do not. Why am I the only one actually quoting the official reports, instead of sanitized interpretations???

No one can point to ANY official document that says "No WMD's were found" . I have repeatedly asked for such and yet to have recieved one instance of that being said.

Is Sarin gas a WMD???? By the UN's definition it is. It is undisputed that we found binary Sarin gas. It is not I that is insensible.


If you want me to shut up,

1) either admit I am right and cease telling lies about the issue, OR
2) Prove me wrong.


No one has done anything close to either.

No they do not. Why am I the only one actually quoting the official reports, instead of sanitized interpretations???

You're not

No one can point to ANY official document that says "No WMD's were found" . I have repeatedly asked for such and yet to have recieved one instance of that being said.

Yes, you have.

Is Sarin gas a WMD???? By the UN's definition it is. It is undisputed that we found binary Sarin gas. It is not I that is insensible.

By the same logic, we could accuse many parts of Europe of having active landmine and chemical operations because of old, degraded landmines, not to mention chemicals from WWI, buried, lost and unused for decades. ONLY YOU and other nuts think this crap is relevant.

If you want me to shut up,

Yes

1) either admit I am right and cease telling lies about the issue, OR

Those are mutually exclusive requests.

2) Prove me wrong.

Done long before I got here

No one has done anything close to either.

It's time to up your meds. You and reality really need to get reacquainted.

Is Sarin gas a WMD???? By the UN's definition it is. It is undisputed that we found binary Sarin gas. .

Cite?

If Bush were impeached we could finally have healthcare, childcare, housing for the poor, and food vouchers for those who don't have enough to eat.

We went to war because we KNEW he had the weapons, the ISG simply confirmed that he did indeed have them.

The reason the "inspectors" did not find anything is that Saddam refused them imediate access to the facilities.
Wrong answer once again Mr. Uni-Poster.

Here is what the UN has said about the inspections:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/iraq-110702-1198.pdf
Why are you quoting UN Resolution 1441?


Here is what David Kay had to say about the futility of the inspections:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/inspections_8-28.html
IF you paid attention, you would note that article was from August 2002. That was BEFORE the final inspections by Blix had even started.

Cite?

He's referencing the crusty junk found in the sand that Santorum had a fit about. Pre 1991 munitions that were buried, uncared-for and forgotten even by Iraq. Even the Defense department said the crap was not the WMD that the US went to war over. It's a red herring and it's a pathetic grasp of what aren't even straws. It's like attacking the Planet of the Apes because of their nuclear missile/god.

If Bush were impeached we could finally have healthcare, childcare, housing for the poor, and food vouchers for those who don't have enough to eat.

If this post were impeached, would I get the 10 seconds I wasted reading it back? :D

That's what I thought. But he's complaining about not seeing any references, then giving none to support his own case. He won't find anything worthwhile either, although he may find an oblique reference somewhere. So I am sure we can use his own weapons against him.

A couple of cites of interest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4484237.stm
That's a wrap up of the end of the ISG. I've also seen the report of the ISG which basically tries to hype up anything they did find and mentions only in passing that none of it was current.

Also this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2948900.stm
Which is on sarin in particular. It points out that you do not need a chemical weapons programme to produce sarin, just a web connection, a minor lab, "any competent chemist" and some ingredients which are not that difficult to get. Hell, even I could do it if I were so inclined (I'm not) , but finding sarin in my house would not be "proof" of a chemical weapons programme in the UK.

Oh and by the way on the subject of Iraq's weapons, I still recall laughing hysterically at the reports that Iraq had missiles with a range in excess of the UN restriction.......and the subsequent report that this was only true if you took the warhead off....:p

Cite?

For goodness sake LOOK at my links - they are the official ones - the Duelfer report for one, acknowledges that fact.

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).

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

Here are some other references to it and other Sarin finds:




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/

http://www.ngwrc.org/print.cfm?ID=861

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060627-123213-5266r.htm

Wrong answer once again Mr. Uni-Poster.

Prove it. I've been waiting for about a week now.


Why are you quoting UN Resolution 1441?

Would you rather I quote "truthout"??? Of course you would, but then that would not be objective now would it.

Which UN resolution would you like me to quote regarding access to WMD sites??? I will comply, name the resolution that deals with Iraqi WMD inspections, and I will show you where it states inspectors were interfered with. In absence of that, I would suggest you quit lying.





IF you paid attention, you would note that article was from August 2002. That was BEFORE the final inspections by Blix had even started.

Why is that relevent?? He was stating that Inspections were worthless because Saddam would not allow unfettered access. Blix was not allowed unfettered access either.




Time for you to back up what you said. Show me where in your source it says "No WMD's were found."

Come on, if that is what it said, it should not be too hard to find it, would it???

Or perhaps you only read headlines, and biased news sources. It was your misfortune that you ran into a poster that has read, in their entirety, just about every report on this subject.

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 ).

On a sidenote: why is it that the extreme left has so much problems with just following the law?

Yes, because lying about reasons for war is not against anything...law or morals.

If this post were impeached, would I get the 10 seconds I wasted reading it back? :D


Obviously that was all the time you spent. You are still ignorant (not stupid) of the truth. As is the case with many others here, because the information regarding the existence of WMD's is fairly substantial and would take a bit more time than that.

For goodness sake LOOK at my links - they are the official ones - the Duelfer report for one, acknowledges that fact.



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

Here are some other references to it and other Sarin finds:




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/

http://www.ngwrc.org/print.cfm?ID=861

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060627-123213-5266r.htm

Hey, Uni-Poster, you need to read your own articles.

For goodness sake LOOK at my links - they are the official ones - the Duelfer report for one, acknowledges that fact.



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

Here are some other references to it and other Sarin finds:




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/

http://www.ngwrc.org/print.cfm?ID=861

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060627-123213-5266r.htm


URL1 : "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."
And:
"ISG has no information to indicate that Iraq produced more binary Sarin rounds than it declared"
AND:
"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. "

i.e. they found em round the back of a shed, rusty and knackered.

Obviously that was all the time you spent. You are still ignorant (not stupid) of the truth. As is the case with many others here, because the information regarding the existence of WMD's is fairly substantial and would take a bit more time than that.

That comment wasn't directed at you, which it why I QUOTED SOMEONE ELSE. Also, Mr. Uni-Poster, you need to learn the difference between the word "post" and the word "thread."

For goodness sake LOOK at my links - they are the official ones - the Duelfer report for one, acknowledges that fact.



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

Here are some other references to it and other Sarin finds:




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/

http://www.ngwrc.org/print.cfm?ID=861

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060627-123213-5266r.htm

URL2 is negated by URL1:
"# A thorough post-OIF search of forward depots turned up nothing—if the weapons were indeed left behind, they were looted over the 12 years between the wars.
# Iraq’s unilateral destruction of weapons in 1991 was far from perfect—a February 2003 UNMOVIC inspection at the Al Azziziyah Firing Range to attempt to account for 157 R-400 bombs by inspecting the debris turned up 8 bombs that had survived the 1991 explosions. So it is possible that Iraqi—or even UN—explosion pits could have been looted of a few surviving munitions.
# Because of poor Iraqi inventory accounting, simple pilferage before or after the 1991 Gulf war could have resulted in some lost munitions. "

i.e. they got nicked and someone else got hold of em and used em after the invasion.

EDIT: Forgot to paste this bit:
"16 May 2004: 152mm Binary Chemical Improvised Explosive Device

A military unit near Baghdad Airport reported a suspect IED along the main road between the airport and the Green Zone (see figure 2). The munitions were remotely detonated and the remaining liquid tested positive in ISG field labs for the nerve agent Sarin and a key Sarin degradation product.

The partially detonated IED was an old prototype binary nerve agent munitions of the type Iraq declared it had field tested in the late 1980s. The munitions bear no markings, much like the sulfur mustard round reported on 2 May (see Figure 3). Insurgents may have looted or purchased the rounds believing they were conventional high explosive 155mm rounds."

Do I really need to go on?

Got anything that holds water that you are not going to contradict on your own?

No, he's the best president the USA ever had.

That's what I thought. But he's complaining about not seeing any references, then giving none to support his own case. He won't find anything worthwhile either, although he may find an oblique reference somewhere. So I am sure we can use his own weapons against him.

A couple of cites of interest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4484237.stm
That's a wrap up of the end of the ISG. I've also seen the report of the ISG which basically tries to hype up anything they did find and mentions only in passing that none of it was current.


Oh Gee whiz! another incomplete sanitized version! I posted the actual ISG report for you to see, and curiously your article left some pretty important parts out. LOOK AT THE DAMN REPORT, not at the "NEWS" version of it - go to the original.

Also this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2948900.stm
Which is on sarin in particular. It points out that you do not need a chemical weapons programme to produce sarin, just a web connection, a minor lab, "any competent chemist" and some ingredients which are not that difficult to get. Hell, even I could do it if I were so inclined (I'm not) , but finding sarin in my house would not be "proof" of a chemical weapons programme in the UK.


Is Sarin a WMD or not. If it is, then what the hell does it matter how it is produced. It would be just as deadly if it were produced in your basement. Iraq chose sarin because it was deadly and easy to produce. That is hardly a refutation..

Oh and by the way on the subject of Iraq's weapons, I still recall laughing hysterically at the reports that Iraq had missiles with a range in excess of the UN restriction.......and the subsequent report that this was only true if you took the warhead off....:p

No doubt, there HAVE been some things that were wrong, I have no problem acknowleging what is true. But not finding WMD's is not one of those things.




Please try again.

URL1 : "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."
And:
"ISG has no information to indicate that Iraq produced more binary Sarin rounds than it declared"
AND:
"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. "

i.e. they found em round the back of a shed, rusty and knackered.

The Uni-Poster likes to read one sentence and ignore the rest of HIS OWN referenced articles.

No, he's the best president the USA ever had.


I would not agree with that statement. In fact, in my opinion he is only mediocre. But he did not lie about WMD's.

The Uni-Poster likes to read one sentence and ignore the rest of HIS OWN referenced articles.


Did it say there were no WMD's???? ANYWHERE???? So how does anything in there point to the non-existance of them? WHere they were found is not of any consequence (actually the 500 shells were found in many different places).

SHOW ME where I was wrong.

A couple of cites of interest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4484237.stm
That's a wrap up of the end of the ISG. I've also seen the report of the ISG which basically tries to hype up anything they did find and mentions only in passing that none of it was current.


Oh Gee whiz! another incomplete sanitized version! I posted the actual ISG report for you to see, and curiously your article left some pretty important parts out. LOOK AT THE DAMN REPORT, not at the "NEWS" version of it - go to the original.


I see no contradiction. Perhaps you can point me at it.

Time for you to back up what you said. Show me where in your source it says "No WMD's were found."
I have quoted Blix, Kay and Duelfer.

It was your misfortune that you ran into a poster that has read, in their entirety, just about every report on this subject.
It is not my misfortune that you cannot understand the words that you have read. You seem to have a maniacal obsesseion with this old, irrelevant news.

If you go back in my posts from 2004, you would note that these "new" (old now) finds were discussed thoroughly on these boards and completely dismissed. They were dismissed by the posters here as well as your government. Just as your government has dismissed this "new" (old news) news.

This is OLD news. Your government accepts that....why can't you?

"ISG has no information to indicate that Iraq produced more binary Sarin rounds than it declared"
AND:

While you are at it, show me the report that says that we were given proof that all he declared was either found or destroyed.

A bunch of it is still missing. Which is my point.

The claim that was made was that Saddam had WMDs, not that they were in the country somewhere.

If they were lost, looted or otherwise unavailable, then George and Tony's claims fall down.

The Uni-Poster likes to read one sentence and ignore the rest of HIS OWN referenced articles.
It would appear that way. Many times, his own material has debunked his argument. Reminds me of a Simon and Garfunkel line from the Boxer:

"All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest"

Did it say there were no WMD's???? ANYWHERE???

No, but it does clearly indicate that what was found to date does not qualify as the WMD any rational person was looking for. These are degraded, discarded scraps that failed to work even when they were tried. Their existance, just like any other unexploded ordinance, is an expected remnant from the pre-1991 era...as THE CIA REPORT makes clear.

So how does anything in there point to the non-existance of them? WHere they were found is not of any consequence (actually the 500 shells were found in many different places).

SHOW ME where I was wrong.

I admit, just because that nothing that qualifies as WMD has been found does not mean that there are no WMD. The fact remains that NOTHING has been found that fits the specific profile of the WMD that was used as justification for the invasion. ALL reports are in agreement that this stuff that was found was trash.

I have quoted Blix, Kay and Duelfer.

As have I - actually their entire reports. You take a general statements like "We did not all of what we were looking for" and expand it to imply it means "we found NOTHING". I acknowledge that we did not find huge stockpiles, I never claimed otherwise. But you put this line out to imply that we went into Iraq because our President lied, or to claim that Saddam had no WMD's. That is what I rail against. If Saddam we could account for all of the WMD's that we KNOW Saddam at least at one time possesed, I would be satisfied. But there are huge amounts of WMD's that Saddam ADMITTED at one time to having, that are STILL missing.

I am not trying to be unreasonable, but blanket statements of "no WMD's" is simply not accurate.


If I had not come in here in such a foul mood, I think perhaps you would acknowlege that much.

That is all I ask. Fair enough???

No, but it does clearly indicate that what was found to date does not qualify as the WMD any rational person was looking for. These are degraded, discarded scraps that failed to work even when they were tried. Their existance, just like any other unexploded ordinance, is an expected remnant from the pre-1991 era...as THE CIA REPORT makes clear.

I admit, just because that nothing that qualifies as WMD has been found does not mean that there are no WMD. The fact remains that NOTHING has been found that fits the specific profile of the WMD that was used as justification for the invasion. ALL reports are in agreement that this stuff that was found was trash.


They were Pre-1991 I do not dispute that. But that is not relevent. We went into Iraq because Saddam refused full and complete and immediate inspections, because he did not account for all of the WMD's, and because we believed he would use them to attack us, or give them to terrorists who would use them.

The Binary Sarin was NOT degraded. Even those WMD's that were degraded were still deadly and no one has said to what degree they were degraded. By all accounts they were still very dangerous. All of those WMD's that were degraded, if they were stored properly, would have been viable. Did we have proof beforehand that they were not stored properly, or is it possible that they were stored incorrectly BECAUSE we went in???

Look folks, I will apologize for my "attitude", but I do not apologize for my stance.

Perhaps if we tone it down and really look, we will see what is actually true and what is not.

I only ask that we look at ALL of the evidence from the actual reports.


I have to leave now, I hope to continue this later today - in a more agreeable manner.

Fair enuf.

The bottom line is that what was found was not what you might call viable weaponry. The underlining fact is that none of it was ever used to defend the country during the invasion when no conceivable realistic reason can be found for not using them.

Although some politicians did publically claim that this was because if saddam used them he would REALLY be in trouble now. These politicians were ridiculed appropriately.

Evidence of weapons research appears to be of programmes that were shelved to be resurrected at some point in the future. More active documentation and research appears to have been found in the homes of individual scientists than in installations.

So in summary after reading all of these reports it appears that those WMDs in the hands of the military, they were not aware of and the rest had been looted, lost or otherwise gone missing.

I recall having a conversation with someone before the invasion along the lines that it would be conceivable that when told he had to get rid of his WMDs, Saddam had done so shoddily and lost the paperwork to prove it had been done.

Regarding Blix and the rest of the weapons inspections, the amount of cooperation increased markedly just before the invasion. Despite this, at the point where the inspectors were finally allowed to get somewhere, George and Tony invaded anyway.

All of the "proof" which had been offered before the invasion had been denounced quite thoroughly if it had been seen. Other "proof" such as the uranium farce was not seen by anyone but the security services until later when it was debunked in less than 24 hours.

It remains that what was there to be seen convinced nobody outside of either government - except for those who listened blindly to their governments.

The brits are generally seen to be more cynical in outlook wheras in the US you are more positive. Perhaps this is why there was a majority in the UK opposed to the war (until the UN had enough evidence to act) although this made no difference to Tony who went ahead anyway.

So the invasion was made on the basis of what Saddam MIGHT have had and MIGHT have used at some point in the future.

Imagine how you would get on in court if you went out and shot your next-door neighbour and then claimed it was because they MIGHT have had a gun and MIGHT have been about to shoot you.

There have been previous attempts in the UK and I did hear something some years ago about an attempt in Greece to have the war declared illegal and from there have one or both of George and Tony indicted as war criminals. These have been blocked by official secrecy for reasons along the lines of 'We can't tell you, in the interests of national security'

If Bush were impeached we could finally have healthcare, childcare, housing for the poor, and food vouchers for those who don't have enough to eat.

*dies of laughter*

Can't find where it says "NO WMD's were found, can you!!:p LOL
If it says that, it should be very easy to point it out! I have already read it, cover to cover. It does not say that. PERIOD.

Not only does the entire report exist and base itself on the premise of there not being any WMD's in Iraq in the terms described by Republican policy makers but it also severely lashes out at the whole mentality of the institutions involved.
A mentality that you share. A mentality that wakes up one morning and says... "Iraq has WMD's. This is true until proven otherwise. For there not to be any WMD's in Iraq it must be proved."

"Analysts skewed the analytical process by requiring proof that Iraq did not have WMD.

One consequence of this tendency was that analysts effectively shifted the burden of proof, requiring proof that Iraq did not have active WMD programs rather than requiring affirmative proof of their existence. Though the U.S. policy position was that Iraq bore the responsibility to prove that it did not have banned weapons programs, the Intelligence Community's burden of proof should have been more objective. CIA's WINPAC nuclear analysts explained that, given Iraq's history of successful deception regarding the state of its nuclear program and evidence that Iraq was attempting to procure components that could be used in a uranium enrichment program, they could not envision having reached the conclusion that Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear program. The analysts noted that they could have reached such a conclusion only if they had specific information from a very well-placed, reliable human source. 765 By raising the evidentiary burden so high, analysts artificially skewed the analytical process toward confirmation of their original hypothesis--that Iraq had active WMD programs.

Indeed, it appears that in some instances analysts' presumptions were so firm that they simply disregarded evidence that did not support their hypotheses. As we saw in several instances, when confronted with evidence that indicated Iraq did not have WMD, analysts tended to discount such information. Rather than weighing the evidence independently, analysts accepted information that fit the prevailing theory and rejected information that contradicted it."

Other curious phrases...


"The CIA took too long to admit error in Iraq"

(END AUDIO TAPE) POWELL: Let me pause and review some of the key elements of this conversation that you just heard between these two officers.

First, they acknowledge that our colleague, Mohamed ElBaradei, is coming, and they know what he's coming for, and they know he's coming the next day. He's coming to look for things that are prohibited. He is expecting these gentlemen to cooperate with him and not hide things.

But they're worried. "We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it?" What is their concern? Their concern is that it's something they should not have, something that should not be seen.

The general is incredulous: "You didn't get a modified. You don't have one of those, do you?" "I have one." "Which, from where?" "From the workshop, from the al-Kindi company?" "What?" "From al-Kindi." "I'll come to see you in the morning. I'm worried. You all have something left." "We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left." Note what he says: "We evacuated everything." We didn't destroy it. We didn't line it up for inspection. We didn't turn it into the inspectors. We evacuated it to make sure it was not around when the inspectors showed up.

"I will come to you tomorrow." The al-Kindi company: This is a company that is well known to have been involved in prohibited weapons systems activity.

Let me play another tape for you. As you will recall, the inspectors found 12 empty chemical warheads on January 16. On January 20, four days later, Iraq promised the inspectors it would search for more. You will now hear an officer from Republican Guard headquarters issuing an instruction to an officer in the field. Their conversation took place just last week on January 30.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE) Speaking in Arabic.

(END AUDIO TAPE) POWELL: Let me pause again and review the elements of this message.

"They're inspecting the ammunition you have, yes." "Yes." "For the possibility there are forbidden ammo." "For the possibility there is by chance forbidden ammo?" "Yes." "And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there." Remember the first message, evacuated.

This is all part of a system of hiding things and moving things out of the way and making sure they have left nothing behind.

If you go a little further into this message, and you see the specific instructions from headquarters: "After you have carried out what is contained in this message, destroy the message because I don't want anyone to see this message." "OK, OK." Why? Why?

This message would have verified to the inspectors that they have been trying to turn over things. They were looking for things. But they don't want that message seen, because they were trying to clean up the area to leave no evidence behind of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. And they can claim that nothing was there. And the inspectors can look all they want, and they will find nothing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,889531,00.html




Regardless of what you think of Powell's testimony, the tapes he played ARE very telling. They discredit what the left has claimed absolutely and completely.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,889531,00.html

Regardless of what you think of Powell's testimony, the tapes he played ARE very telling. They discredit what the left has claimed absolutely and completely.
You didn't listen to the Blix interview or read the transcript (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html#)now did you?

HANS BLIX: Well, I think the U.S. was a bit ambivalent as to how they would present the case against Iraq. On the one hand they knew that anything that would be called a smoking gun as a concrete evidence of that possession of anthrax or VX or of any biological means, that that was best, that would be the most convincing. At the same time, they were aware that this evidence was rather shaky. So they said that no, you don't need a smoking gun. All that is needed is evidence that Saddam has had a change of heart, that he has taken a strategic decision.That was something fairly nebulous after all. So his presentation fell into the category of proving the smoking gun. It was very difficult to verify.

You take an intercepted telephone call as he played in the Security Council chamber and you don't know who intercepted it and who are the persons, et cetera. So it might have appeared like a solid performance but I asked my experts about it and there were several of the cases, which we were skeptical about. As a result, I went into the Council and I reported on that skepticism.

JIM LEHRER: Did you express your skepticism to Secretary Powell directly?

HANS BLIX: Yeah, yes, he was in the Council I think when I expressed it. Yes, he was. He was present.
Do yourself a favour. Take 20 minutes and listen to the Blix interview. It might help ease your troubled mind.

Fair enuf.

The bottom line is that what was found was not what you might call viable weaponry. The underlining fact is that none of it was ever used to defend the country during the invasion when no conceivable realistic reason can be found for not using them.

Saddam burried a whole fleet of Jet fighters before we invaded also. So it is not like it was something new or unheard of for him. But your first statement is not correct. The Binary sarin was viable - completely so.


Although some politicians did publically claim that this was because if saddam used them he would REALLY be in trouble now. These politicians were ridiculed appropriately.

The reason I think, is that he expected a typical Clintonian response, a missile here a missile there, perhaps at worst, another Gulf war I that would again leave him in power. If WMD's were found, all bets would be off. Of course you say they were ridiculed appropriately, I think if they were ridiculed, it was grossly inappropriate. Also, whether or not they were ridiculed is again, not relevent. Columbus was ridiculed also.

Evidence of weapons research appears to be of programmes that were shelved to be resurrected at some point in the future. More active documentation and research appears to have been found in the homes of individual scientists than in installations.

Which plays into my point that Saddam was working to undermine the UN sanctions. He needed to buy time and France, Russia and the left were playing right into his hand. This allegation is supported by the ISG report also.

So in summary after reading all of these reports it appears that those WMDs in the hands of the military, they were not aware of and the rest had been looted, lost or otherwise gone missing.

You are ignoring the part where Duelfer - head of the ISG said there was "sufficiently credible" evidence that they were shipped to Syria. It ignores the fact that we have sattellite photos of MASSIVE truck traffic from suspected WMD facilities to the Syrian border in the days leading up to the invasion. You also are discounting the testimony we have from the 2nd in command of the Iraqi Air Force, who said he personally supervised 56 jumbo jet flights of WMD's from Iraq to Syria.

I recall having a conversation with someone before the invasion along the lines that it would be conceivable that when told he had to get rid of his WMDs, Saddam had done so shoddily and lost the paperwork to prove it had been done.

This would be possible except we have tape recordings that prove this is not the case. (see my post above)

Regarding Blix and the rest of the weapons inspections, the amount of cooperation increased markedly just before the invasion. Despite this, at the point where the inspectors were finally allowed to get somewhere, George and Tony invaded anyway.

Cooperation ALWAYS increased when it appeared that we would take real action. It ALWAYS ceased when that threat was quelled. It was a running joke!

All of the "proof" which had been offered before the invasion had been denounced quite thoroughly if it had been seen. Other "proof" such as the uranium farce was not seen by anyone but the security services until later when it was debunked in less than 24 hours.


Of course it was debunked - it was not what Bush referred to. The Uranium Farce was a complete misrepresentation that the left and the willing press bought into and repeated endlessly. Bush said yellowcake from North Africa - no mention of Niger. NONE. Joe Wilson contradicted his own testimony he gave in his debriefing. The consensus was, after his testimony, that he STRENGTHENED the case for yellow cake from Africa. He was either lying then, or he is now. BTW it turns out that Saddam was indeed seeking yellowcake from Africa.

The brits are generally seen to be more cynical in outlook wheras in the US you are more positive. Perhaps this is why there was a majority in the UK opposed to the war (until the UN had enough evidence to act) although this made no difference to Tony who went ahead anyway.

The French and the Russions and China were undermining the sanctions and Saddam was working to see that they would be lifted. The propoganda machine of the left revved up to support his efforts, decrying the inhumane sanctions were starving the Iraqi people and of course the villain was the U.S. This begat the "oil for food" program that allowed Saddam to circumvent and further erode those sanctions.

So the invasion was made on the basis of what Saddam MIGHT have had and MIGHT have used at some point in the future.

Imagine how you would get on in court if you went out and shot your next-door neighbour and then claimed it was because they MIGHT have had a gun and MIGHT have been about to shoot you.

He had already fired on our Air Force, he had already tried to assasinate our former President, he had already had contact with Al-Qaida, had been actively supporting terrorists in the Middle East. We had tapes proving he was hiding his WMD's, we knew he had already used them on his people, refused to show they were destroyed, delayed inspectors and vowed he would exact damage on us.

THat is a far cry from Might have them and Might use them.

There have been previous attempts in the UK and I did hear something some years ago about an attempt in Greece to have the war declared illegal and from there have one or both of George and Tony indicted as war criminals. These have been blocked by official secrecy for reasons along the lines of 'We can't tell you, in the interests of national security'


And here in our country, Bush has refused to release evidence that would exonerate him for national security reasons. He has done this in the WIre tapping, the banking, the detainees and with WMD's.

He has been willing to take the political heat instead of giving up secrets that would exonerate him, but harm national security.

You didn't listen to the Blix interview or read the transcript (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html#)now did you?


Do yourself a favour. Take 20 minutes and listen to the Blix interview. It might help ease your troubled mind.

Blix was a puppet of Saddam or an incompetent fool. I have heard him in person. I have spoken briefly with him. He is an idiot.

The tapes are significant no matter what else Powell said that may have been wrong. They were actual recordings of Iraqi personelle that show they KNEW when the "suprise" inspections were coming, and that they actively undertook means to hide things from bafoons like your dear Mr. Blix.

Blix was a puppet of Saddam or an incompetent fool. I have heard him in person. I have spoken briefly with him. He is an idiot.

The tapes are significant no matter what else Powell said that may have been wrong. They were actual recordings of Iraqi personelle that show they KNEW when the "suprise" inspections were coming, and that they actively undertook means to hide things from bafoons like your dear Mr. Blix.
Powell regrets UN speech on Iraq WMDs (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm)

In an interview with American ABC TV news to be broadcast on Friday (US time), Mr Powell said "it's a blot" on his record.

"I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now," he said...........

Some members of the US intelligence community "knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up," Mr Powell said.

"These are not senior people, but these are people who were aware that some of these resources should not be considered reliable," he said.

"I was enormously disappointed."
I am sorry but Mr. Blix has far more credibility than you do. Even Colin Powell admits the deception. I suppose that he is an idiot too?

Good night folks, it is bedtime here in the US.

Good night folks, it is bedtime here in the US.
Sleep well!!

Sleep well!!

Maybe he'll come back with some slightly better facts :D

Maybe he'll come back with some slightly better facts :D
I thought you was having non-conjugal conjugals with yer woman so you wouldn't be here.

*dies of laughter*
*perks up*
Hey ... you're not doing anything with that corpse, are you?

*perks up*
Hey ... you're not doing anything with that corpse, are you?

Weekend at Cornelius!

Weekend at Cornelius!
WooHoo!
*hi-5*
Corny's got good taste in shades, it would appear. They never seem to slip off his nose!

Powell regrets UN speech on Iraq WMDs (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm)


I am sorry but Mr. Blix has far more credibility than you do. Even Colin Powell admits the deception. I suppose that he is an idiot too?


It doesn't really matter what I think of Blix, that is true. And the the intelligence was bad that is also true.

However, the tapes are legitimate, and have nothing to do with other things that were said.

They stand on their own.

That is why I added the "no mattre what you think of Powell's Speech" part.


Explain the tapes.

Weekend at Cornelius!
That would make a great video. I would buy tickets!! :D

As my mother always says: "The day we stop picking on ya is the day we don't love you anymore."

I can feel the love here :D

It doesn't really matter what I think of Blix, that is true. And the the intelligence was bad that is also true.

However, the tapes are legitimate, and have nothing to do with other things that were said.

They stand on their own.

That is why I added the "no mattre what you think of Powell's Speech" part.

Explain the tapes.
The tapes have been explained as has Colin Powell's deceptive "evidence".

For a little more insight, check this out:

Calling Out Colin (http://www.slate.com/id/2086924/)

To me and to millions of others, this is all part of the lies and deception that brings us here to this thread. More and more, the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, exposing one of the biggest con jobs ever.

The tapes have been explained as has Colin Powell's deceptive "evidence".

For a little more insight, check this out:

Calling Out Colin (http://www.slate.com/id/2086924/)

To me and to millions of others, this is all part of the lies and deception that brings us here to this thread. More and more, the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, exposing one of the biggest con jobs ever.


So an authors OPINION is treated as fact in your world. I am sorry, I want PROOF. What a load of baloney. Show me credible evidence that it was a forgery. An opinion will not do. Everybody has one and they are not worth a whole hell of a lot.

So an authors OPINION is treated as fact in your world. I am sorry, I want PROOF. What a load of baloney. Show me credible evidence that it was a forgery. An opinion will not do. Everybody has one and they are not worth a whole hell of a lot.

An explation is an opinion by definition.

This is pure unsubstantiated speculation.

So an authors OPINION is treated as fact in your world. I am sorry, I want PROOF. What a load of baloney. Show me credible evidence that it was a forgery. An opinion will not do. Everybody has one and they are not worth a whole hell of a lot.
I suppose you, as a Bush supporter, would have wholeheardly supported any "opinion/fact" article that was put forward by the same author to support (http://www.slate.com/id/2078196/) Colin's presentation at the UN six months earlier?

Lets look at more angles on this situation, a list of refuted "proofs":

Powell's Case for Iraq War Falls Apart 6 Months Later (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0811-09.htm)

Here you are talking about a few depleted weapons and what was your President telling people in October of 2002:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Hype, overstatement, deception and outright lies. Also Bush conveniently mentions 9/11 5 times in a speech about Iraq. This one stands out:

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.
Note: this is before the UN inspectors went back into Iraq in November to find nothing. They weren't finding any of the WMD that Bush described in his rallying speech. None, nada, zip.

No wonder Bush wanted to stop the inspections and invade Iraq.

YOU ARE STUPID, you don't impeach a president because you dislike him/her, it's because they have done something wrong, as in a crime or some scandalous thing. The impeachment is a trial by congress, NOT the removal of the president. Any of you who said yes without giving a reason is just as stupid as the maker of the thread. Wow, this thread upsets me... Why can't the rest of America know how their country works..

Novice']YOU ARE STUPID, you don't impeach a president because you dislike him/her, it's because they have done something wrong, as in a crime or some scandalous thing. The impeachment is a trial by congress, NOT the removal of the president. Any of you who said yes without giving a reason is just as stupid as the maker of the thread. Wow, this thread upsets me... Why can't the rest of America know how their country works..

1) Because most people are are NOT American

2) The Americans that are on here believe Bush did commit a crime though the facts say otherwise.

3) I would point out that their education is sub par and for that, I do blame the government for never fixing the problem.

1) Because most people are are NOT American

2) The Americans that are on here believe Bush did commit a crime though the facts say otherwise.

3) I would point out that their education is sub par and for that, I do blame the government for never fixing the problem.

So it's the government's fault that its people are too stupid to use the education they're given? Hell, all you have to do is google search "constitution," and you can find out all you need to know about impeachment.

Points 1 and 2 however, I have no problem with. That is all.

So it's the government's fault that its people are too stupid to use the education they're given? Hell, all you have to do is google search "constitution," and you can find out all you need to know about impeachment.

Points 1 and 2 however, I have no problem with. That is all.

People shouldn't need google to look up what the Constitution says on impeachment. I sure as hell do not need it to know what the Constitution says on Impeachment. Any educated person shouldn't have to rely on google for information about the Government.

Has anyone brought up the fact that just because people dislike him is not a reason to impeach? If he has broken laws then sure, go and impeach him; but just because he is a 'bad' president or he is 'too dumb' is not worthy of impeachment.... those things should've been sorted out in the election process. Sorry if this is a repeat... there is like 600 posts.

I suppose you, as a Bush supporter, would have wholeheardly supported any "opinion/fact" article that was put forward by the same author to support (http://www.slate.com/id/2078196/) Colin's presentation at the UN six months earlier?

Lets look at more angles on this situation, a list of refuted "proofs":

Powell's Case for Iraq War Falls Apart 6 Months Later (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0811-09.htm)


NOt at all, it is still an OPINION, apparently you have a problem distinguishing the difference. WHich explains quite a lot actually.

I heard a leftwinger say that all Canadians are rapists, but i dismissed it as an opinion out of hand and a looney one at that. This is much the same - only more looney.

Common Dreams???? How about the National Enquirer!!!!

Here you are talking about a few depleted weapons and what was your President telling people in October of 2002:


Hype, overstatement, deception and outright lies.

Sort of like your source's claims.

Note: this is before the UN inspectors went back into Iraq in November to find nothing. They weren't finding any of the WMD that Bush described in his rallying speech. None, nada, zip. Gee, I wonder why??? They knew the inspectors were coming!! DAYS in advance.

No wonder Bush wanted to stop the inspections and invade Iraq.


I agree! It IS no wonder we wanted to stop the inspections, they were a SHAM. As the tapes, the Duelfer report, MULTIPLE UN resolutions and our Sattellite camera's PROVE. The inspections were buying Saddam more time to undermine the sanctions so-as to reconstitute his programs. Did you not read the ISG report yet???

I agree! It IS no wonder we wanted to stop the inspections, they were a SHAM. As the tapes, the Duelfer report, MULTIPLE UN resolutions and our Sattellite camera's PROVE.

Man, your required level of proof is all over the charts.


The Uni-Poster, everyone. God bless him, he's trying.

Man, your required level of proof is all over the charts.


The Uni-Poster, everyone. God bless him, he's trying.


Audio tapes are pretty conclusive. The United Nations multitude of resolutions, The ISG reports??? It sure as hell beats a hack "reporter's" opinion!

Audio tapes are pretty conclusive. The United Nations multitude of resolutions, The ISG reports??? It sure as hell beats a hack "reporter's" opinion!

1) Always trusting the word of the government over the word of reporters (and vice-versa, of course,) is foolhardy.

2) Where, specifically, do you see a report that the SPECIFIC inspections directly preceding the war were useless?

1) Always trusting the word of the government over the word of reporters (and vice-versa, of course,) is foolhardy.

2) Where, specifically, do you see a report that the SPECIFIC inspections directly preceding the war were useless?


I would agree with you on your first point.

On #2 - The ISG report, personal friends who were involved, The United Nations resolution #1441 (among others). David Kay, Charles Duelfer, Richard Butler, the IAEA, UNSCOM, UNMOVIC.


Nearly everyone who was involved in the inspections KNEW that Saddam was given advance notice of the inspections.

Saddam CONSTANTLY granted concessions only to renig once the threat of action went away.


Look folks, I am not asking you to take my word for it. I am simply asking you to read such things as the ISG report, the UN resolutions, the various articles I have pointed to IN THEIR ENTIRETY. These are the same reports that the left has selectively lifted sections from to "prove" no WMD's. Now all of a sudden, when I point out that they actually specifically refer to WMD's and where they went, all of a sudden, they are no longer good sources!

If these articles were good enough then, they are good enough now. The left is LYING about this topic and people are so apathetic that they will just take a biased sources word for what those things say, instead of looking for themselves.

Canuckheaven and Canada6 pointed to a Senate committe report that they claimed said conclusively that there were no WMD's. I asked them to show me where. It turns out that it does not say that AT ALL. They suddenly have ingnored every request of mine to show me where it says that, I wonder why???

They claim that the tapes we have of Iraqi officials discussing WMD's and hiding them from inspectors are forgeries - without one single shred of evidence.


They point to the conclusion of the ISG that "no STOCKPILES" of WMD's were found and expand that to say no WMD's were found at all. The response I got when I pointed out the specific instances in that very same report, was to either ignore/deny it, critisize the report, or shift the argument to they were not viable weapons. When I point out that it also lists specifically BINARY Sarin gas that WAS viable they ignore it completely and go on as if it does not exist.

This is astounding. I thought people were reasonable and would at least look at the evidence, if they had easy enough access to it. I provided that, and sadly, they just don't care. They would rather keep on with their misconceptions and allow those who would destroy freedom to win the day.

Has anyone brought up the fact that just because people dislike him is not a reason to impeach? If he has broken laws then sure, go and impeach him; but just because he is a 'bad' president or he is 'too dumb' is not worthy of impeachment.... those things should've been sorted out in the election process. Sorry if this is a repeat... there is like 600 posts.



Yes, plenty of people. But like the refusal to look at the whole picture on WMD's many are too apathetic to give a damn. They would rather continue in willful ignorance.

If what I am saying is wrong, why did the United Nations use the term "material breech" in regards to WMD disclosure???? That was the final resolution that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not comply??? And just what were those "serious consequences" they kept referring to?? shaking their finger at them REALLY hard???

Yes, plenty of people. But like the refusal to look at the whole picture on WMD's many are too apathetic to give a damn. They would rather continue in willful ignorance.

Yeah, all those people who are still under the illusion and can't face the fact that their government was wrong.

Yeah, all those people who are still under the illusion and can't face the fact that their government was wrong.

My government is wrong far more often than I am comfortable with, but not in this case.

Yeah, all those people who are still under the illusion and can't face the fact that their government was wrong.


I know - Damn Canadians!:D

My government is wrong far more often than I am comfortable with, but not in this case.
IF that is the case, then WHY and is a big WHY isn't Bush and company jumping up and down and yelling at the top of their lungs:

LOOK!!! WE FOUND WMD!!

They aren't and I am not surprised, because it is OLD very OLD news, and it is NOT the WMD that the Bush administration was claiming to be in Iraq!!

Why can't you figure that out.

BTW, what is your old user name before you adopted Alpen and Fonty? You were obviously here at NS long before those puppets were hatched.

Has anyone brought up the fact that just because people dislike him is not a reason to impeach? If he has broken laws then sure, go and impeach him; but just because he is a 'bad' president or he is 'too dumb' is not worthy of impeachment.... those things should've been sorted out in the election process. Sorry if this is a repeat... there is like 600 posts.

Many people have said that; the thing is, I don't think anyone has argued that we should impeach him because "I don't like him." Personally, I'm sure that he's a nice and funny guy to be around and have a (non-alcoholic) beer with. I also think him giving up drinking stone cold shows no small amount of moxie.

But as you yourself said, this isn't about moxie the law, and when it comes to the law, Bush doesn't seem to care whether he obeys it or not. I do, and more importantly, the Constitution suggests that, under threat of impeachment, he should as well. When the FISA law demands that every time you get a wiretap, you also get a rubberstamp court order to approve that wiretap, simply briefing a few select members of Congress is not "good enough". You have to obey the law. If the law doesn't work, then you go to Congress and you change it. You don't just give a candyass measure and then claim that, because we're at war, I can do whatever the hell I want. At that point, it isn't an understandable, if not necessarily excusable, lapse of proper procedure. It's undermining a central principle of the Constitution, which is that the President must uphold, obey, and carry out the law itself. At that point, then, it does become a matter of impeachment.

Anybody have any specific reasons why Bush should be impeached? I'd be interested to see a good case against him on NSG. If one of you were able to impeach Bush, what would you make your case on and what evidence do you have?
They won't find any because he hasnt done anything except defend our freedom to the best of his ability. And some people want to impeach, its sad really. Its like him giving us a shiny new car and then the world saying, hey thanks and running him over with it. Its a messed up world we live in and it would be a whole alot more messed up without Bush, I can guarentee you that.

IF that is the case, then WHY and is a big WHY isn't Bush and company jumping up and down and yelling at the top of their lungs:

LOOK!!! WE FOUND WMD!!

There are plenty of reasons why, which one specifically is the real reason, I do not know. I don't know why they let Sandy Burger off either. There are many things I wish they would take the gloves off on, but I don't make those decisions.

They aren't and I am not surprised, because it is OLD very OLD news, and it is NOT the WMD that the Bush administration was claiming to be in Iraq!!

How can you say it is not what we were looking for? These were specifically mentioned as the unaccounted for weapons in numerous speeches, UN resolutions etc. It may have been known to a few people for a while, but is it really old news? If it were widely known news, nobody would still be claiming "No WMD's"! As I said earlier, the fact that some of us knew about it a while back, only means that those people who knew, and still are repeating the "no WMD's" line, have been lying for a really long time.



Why can't you figure that out.

BTW, what is your old user name before you adopted Alpen and Fonty? You were obviously here at NS long before those puppets were hatched.


Those are my only two and I am quite new to this forum. I have been active at many other sites, though - I am a moderator on two forums - one is even a liberal site (though not one so stuck on blaming America for everything).

I probably will start another nation at some point, and if I knowingly post under that name, I'll be sure to let you know. I did not mean to post under multiple names in the first place.

I know - Damn Canadians!:D

:eek: I thought you'd be a kinda pro-Harper kind of guy!

Many people have said that; the thing is, I don't think anyone has argued that we should impeach him because "I don't like him." Personally, I'm sure that he's a nice and funny guy to be around and have a (non-alcoholic) beer with. I also think him giving up drinking stone cold shows no small amount of moxie.

But as you yourself said, this isn't about moxie the law, and when it comes to the law, Bush doesn't seem to care whether he obeys it or not. I do, and more importantly, the Constitution suggests that, under threat of impeachment, he should as well. When the FISA law demands that every time you get a wiretap, you also get a rubberstamp court order to approve that wiretap, simply briefing a few select members of Congress is not "good enough". You have to obey the law. If the law doesn't work, then you go to Congress and you change it. You don't just give a candyass measure and then claim that, because we're at war, I can do whatever the hell I want. At that point, it isn't an understandable, if not necessarily excusable, lapse of proper procedure. It's undermining a central principle of the Constitution, which is that the President must uphold, obey, and carry out the law itself. At that point, then, it does become a matter of impeachment.



IF that is what the past courts have held, I would agree with you that we would have to take some sort of action, but the vast majority of the court decisions show that he was on firm legal ground.

In addition, there was a recent decision by a 5 jusdge panel that confirmed that Bush acted within the law.

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now,"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm

Here is an interesting snipit from a recent Wall Street Journal Op ED.

When the Constitution was being ratified, John Jay--America's most experienced diplomat and George Washington's first choice to be secretary of state--wrote in Federalist No. 64 that there would be cases in which "the most useful intelligence" may be obtained if foreign sources could be "relieved from apprehensions of discovery," and noted there were many "who would rely on the secrecy of the president, but who would not confide in that of the Senate." He then praised the new Constitution for so distributing foreign-affairs powers that the president would be able "to manage the business of intelligence in such manner as prudence may suggest."

Also:

The Supreme Court in the 1972 "Keith case" held that a warrant was required for national security wiretaps involving purely domestic targets, but expressly distinguished the case from one involving wiretapping "foreign powers" or their agents in this country. In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734

I also think that this is pretty relevent to the topic.


Space does not permit a discussion here of the congressional lawbreaking that took place in the wake of the Vietnam War. It is enough to observe that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and when Congress attempts to usurp powers granted to the president, its members betray their oath of office. In certain cases, such as the War Powers Resolution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it might well have crossed that line.

Keep in mind that while the Carter administration asked Congress to enact the FISA statute in 1978, Attorney General Griffin Bell emphasized that the law "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." And in 1994, when the Clinton administration invited Congress to expand FISA to cover physical as well as electronic searches, the associate attorney general testified: "Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority" under the Constitution. "We do," she concluded.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734


What is happening is that the President is reasserting the Constitutional Role of the President. Remember that little thingy called "separation of Powers" THIS is what it means, not the stuff the left has tried to redefine as violating the separation.

:eek: I thought you'd be a kinda pro-Harper kind of guy!

Harper's OK, - far better than his predecessor. I just couldn't resist a light-hearted dig at Canuckheaven and Canada6.

I think there's something broken with the quote thingy.

In any case, it wasn't over a blowjob.

The trial and conviction or pardon no.

But all the hubub that led to the trial was about the blowjob.

or at least that was what I was led to believe.

I may be wrong though.

Yes, he should be, I never liked him and neither does anyone I know. Democrats for the win 2008.

Yes, he should be, I never liked him and neither does anyone I know. Democrats for the win 2008.

So you want him impeached because you do not like him? Glad to see you know jack about what is and is not impeachable.

So you want him impeached because you do not like him? Glad to see you know jack about what is and is not impeachable.
What, are you surprised liberals arent that bright? They cry about wire taps and 'oh no he has to be impeached' but I mean come on, has no one heard of special war time powers? checks and balances are null and void to be honest.

--

What, are you surprised liberals arent that bright? They cry about wire taps and 'oh no he has to be impeached' but I mean come on, has no one heard of special war time powers? checks and balances are null and void to be honest.
We're no longer in a war. Are you not that bright?

We're no longer in a war. Are you not that bright?
yes we are, the war on terror isnt over.

Seriously I don't know you conservative **** can like this person? Seriously He has not done anything, good from my stand point. I believe almost alot of people would agree with me and you sir are just a minority.

We're no longer in a war. Are you not that bright?

Last time I checked we still are.

yes we are, the war on terror isnt over.
We are in the middle of an occupation. The war on drugs isn't over, either. Does that mean that every president since the '80s can utilize war-time powers?

Why not just have a war on "When bad things happen to good people"? That should cover everything for a good millenia or two.

Seriously I don't know you conservative **** can like this person? Seriously He has not done anything, good from my stand point. I believe almost alot of people would agree with me and you sir are just a minority.

No grounds for impeachment. How hard is that for you Liberal people to understand?

We are in the middle of an occupation. The war on drugs isn't over, either. Does that mean that every president since the '80s can utilize war-time powers?

Why not just have a war on "When bad things happen to good people"? That should cover everything for a good millenia or two.
the wars you mentioned arent real wars, the war on terror is a very real war that will probably last a very long time. And yes as long as the war on terror goes on, the President will have war time powers which are necessary in defending freedom.

No grounds for impeachment. How hard is that for you Liberal people to understand?
for some reason its really hard

the wars you mentioned arent real wars, the war on terror is a very real war that will probably last a very long time. And yes as long as the war on terror goes on, the President will have war time powers which are necessary in defending freedom.
Stop making the right look silly, UN. They're trying very hard not to.

Stop making the right look silly, UN. They're trying very hard not to.
what are you talking about, I make the right look great, which is what it is.

IF that is what the past courts have held, I would agree with you that we would have to take some sort of action, but the vast majority of the court decisions show that he was on firm legal ground.

In addition, there was a recent decision by a 5 jusdge panel that confirmed that Bush acted within the law.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm

Here is an interesting snipit from a recent Wall Street Journal Op ED.

Also:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734

That is quite relevant, but not in the way that you suggest. First, your exculpatory evidence, namely the five former judges who comprised a panel, by your own evidence's admission, did not know the specifics of the program. How could they possibly then know whether the action was lawful if they did not know what the action was?

Furthermore, what they actually cite is the fact that a wiretapping program carried out exclusively on foreign individuals is not covered under FISA. That is correct, but the problem is that the NSA was conducting a dragnet search, and said search picked up domestic calls to overseas locales. In other words, the NSA program picked up phone calls which do fall under the court provisions of the FISA program, yet the FISA courts were never apprised as stated by law. They were therefore unlawful, and the President that not only initiates them in the first place, but then gives the courts and Congress a big "Screw you guys; I'm going home!" when they have the temerity to point this out is violating his constitutional obligation to uphold the law.

To go even further, especially with respect to the WSJ editorial, the logic of the post is, to my mind, baffling. If you look closely at what they are arguing, they are saying two things. First, they are claiming (wrongly) that the President's actions were lawful. Second, they are claiming that the original intent of the Founding Fathers was to have this power anyway, therefore the law is wrong. I say that this is a baffling train of logic because, obviously, if the program is lawful, why do you need to argue that the president has the authority to violate the law anyway?

The simple fact is that John Jay's quote doesn't apply to the current situation. We aren't talking about foreign wiretapping; we're talking about a program which picked up both domestic and foreign calls. Those domestic calls fall under the purview of a law that the Bush administration seemed to agree with in principle before it ran roughshod over it, seeing as how the Patriot Act itself modified the FISA act to provide the 72-hour post-wiretap provision. It stands to reason that in order to modify rather than repeal a law, you must first accept the principle of that law. In any case, irrespective of whether the FISA bill should exist, it clearly does, and the President therefore, both by direct and explicit calls by the Founding Fathers and Supreme Court decisions such as Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, must obey those laws irrespective of whether or not he agrees with them. Put more simply, the principle "If the president does it, that means it's legal" is not a principle that applies to our nation.

what are you talking about, I make the right look great, which is what it is.
You're such a good boy, UN. Such a very, very good boy.

That is quite relevant, but not in the way that you suggest. First, your exculpatory evidence, namely the five former judges who comprised a panel, by your own evidence's admission, did not know the specifics of the program. How could they possibly then know whether the action was lawful if they did not know what the action was?

They laid out a framework of what FISA covered and gave situations where it applied and where it did not apply. The NSA program fell within this construct.


Furthermore, what they actually cite is the fact that a wiretapping program carried out exclusively on foreign individuals is not covered under FISA. That is correct, but the problem is that the NSA was conducting a dragnet search, and said search picked up domestic calls to overseas locales. In other words, the NSA program picked up phone calls which do fall under the court provisions of the FISA program, yet the FISA courts were never apprised as stated by law. They were therefore unlawful, and the President that not only initiates them in the first place, but then gives the courts and Congress a big "Screw you guys; I'm going home!" when they have the temerity to point this out is violating his constitutional obligation to uphold the law.

That is not the case at all! Numerous court decisions have come back to say that it is within the law to monitor foriegners and enemy agents without congressional OR judicial oversight. The president kept congress in the loop even though he did not have to.


To go even further, especially with respect to the WSJ editorial, the logic of the post is, to my mind, baffling. If you look closely at what they are arguing, they are saying two things. First, they are claiming (wrongly) that the President's actions were lawful. Second, they are claiming that the original intent of the Founding Fathers was to have this power anyway, therefore the law is wrong. I say that this is a baffling train of logic because, obviously, if the program is lawful, why do you need to argue that the president has the authority to violate the law anyway?


Who is arguing that it is okay to violate the law??? I am arguing that it was within the law! That the usurption of executive powers by the legistlative branch back in the 1970's is what violated the law.

They are claiming - based on numerous, CITED court cases that fit this scenario EXACTLY, where they ruled in a manner consistent with what the president did.

The simple fact is that John Jay's quote doesn't apply to the current situation. We aren't talking about foreign wiretapping; we're talking about a program which picked up both domestic and foreign calls. Those domestic calls fall under the purview of a law that the Bush administration seemed to agree with in principle before it ran roughshod over it, seeing as how the Patriot Act itself modified the FISA act to provide the 72-hour post-wiretap provision. It stands to reason that in order to modify rather than repeal a law, you must first accept the principle of that law.


I would have to disagree with you on this. Take the abortion debate for example: many conservatives are willing to go with an incremental approach to ending it. That does not mean that they agree with it, it is just a acknowledgement of the political realities.



In any case, irrespective of whether the FISA bill should exist, it clearly does, and the President therefore, both by direct and explicit calls by the Founding Fathers and Supreme Court decisions such as Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, must obey those laws irrespective of whether or not he agrees with them. Put more simply, the principle "If the president does it, that means it's legal" is not a principle that applies to our nation.

Again, no one is claiming that the President does not have to obey the law. They are claiming, and rightly so in my opinion, 1)that the law does not apply in this case, and 2) the FISA law is itself an unconstitutional usurption of the executive powers granted the President under the Constitution.



BTW: I posted more than just that example. I cited (via the WSJ) the various court cases that are relevent.

I went back and bolded some areas Xenophope, don't you think the bolded areas are relevent???

Seriously I don't know you conservative **** can like this person? Seriously He has not done anything, good from my stand point. I believe almost alot of people would agree with me and you sir are just a minority.


He only turned the economy around and liberated 50 MILLION people.

No I guess that doesn't even compare to Jimmy Carter, who pretty much handed over Iran to the Ayatollah, allowing the Soviets to take over Afghanistan and the agents of the Soviet Union to take over countries all around the globe, not to mention he did all of this while running the economy into the ground.

And yet we are still supposed to listen to Carter on all matters???

Nah, Bush has done nothing good!:rolleyes:

They laid out a framework of what FISA covered and gave situations where it applied and where it did not apply. The NSA program fell within this construct.

Let me quote from the same source you sighted and bold the relevant passages, then:

The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.


In other words, while they were able to lay out situations that FISA did and did not cover, they were unable to say whether this was a case that FISA covered or did not, because they did not know what the program was.

Furthermore, you completely ignored another, rather choice, quotation just one paragraph under said passage:

The judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security.


That is not the case at all! Numerous court decisions have come back to say that it is within the law to monitor foriegners and enemy agents without congressional OR judicial oversight. The president kept congress in the loop even though he did not have to.

Yes, but again, you are missing the point that in a dragnet search of long-distance phone calls, not every person put under such a wiretap is going to fit the definition of a) foreigner and/or b) enemy agent. Any person who does not fit that definition must, by law, go to the FISA court for approval. Briefing the House Majority and Minority leader as well as the partisan heads of the House Foreign Intelligence Committee (which is who they briefed, IIRC) is not enough. Hell, briefing the whole of Congress is not enough. To be lawful, they must not only inform, but get approval from, the FISA court. This is not an issue of apprisal; it's one of seperation of powers.


Who is arguing that it is okay to violate the law??? I am arguing that it was within the law! That the usurption of executive powers by the legistlative branch back in the 1970's is what violated the law.

You are arguing that it is okay to break the law because the law is unconstitutional; in other words, you are saying that the law, even though it exists, does not meet some standard of existence to which laws must be held, therefore the law may be broken because it does not meet this standard. It is logically equivalent to saying: "It is okay to break a law prohibiting display of the Ten Commandments. It is okay because all laws must be in accord with the divine law, and the divine law would allow the display of the Ten Commandments. Therefore, the law may be broken because, in reality, it is not a law at all." Ignoring any of the issues about whether or not First Amendment law is correct, if you substitute "law prohibiting display of Ten Commandments" with "FISA", "divine law" with "Constitution", and "display the Ten Commandments" with "allow domestic wiretapping", you have a neat synopsis of your argument.

The problem, of course, is that you can't say what the standard of the law is. Neither can Bush. That's because it's not the job of the executive to define what is and is not constitutional. It's the job of the judiciary, the same judiciary whose approval in the wiretapping the administration ignored. If the Bush administration feels that it's program is constitutional, then it should release the information, bring a test case to the Supreme Court, and have it affirmed as precedent. It cannot simply determine that it is by fiat.


They are claiming - based on numerous, CITED court cases that fit this scenario EXACTLY, where they ruled in a manner consistent with what the president did.

Then they should have no problem bringing the relevent cases to the FISA court for approval. If they feel that FISA itself is unconstitutional, then they should bring it to Congress for repeal, or they should challenge it in court. Again, they cannot simply decide for themselves whether it does or does not fit the constitutional mandate.


I would have to disagree with you on this. Take the abortion debate for example: many conservatives are willing to go with an incremental approach to ending it. That does not mean that they agree with it, it is just a acknowledgement of the political realities.

Changing something incrementally is different from what is happening here. The conservative assault on abortion may be something I find distasteful, but it is something that is happening through lawful procedures: they are petitioning the judiciary to change established precedent. They are not simply fiating that, despite what the law actually says or what they are required to do by Supreme Court decision, abortion will now become illegal purely on the basis of presidential say-so. That is exactly what is happening on the FISA provision, and that is unconstitutional. It is also something worthy of removing the President in question: you cannot simply negate a law you don't like.


Again, no one is claiming that the President does not have to obey the law. They are claiming, and rightly so in my opinion, 1)that the law does not apply in this case, and 2) the FISA law is itself an unconstitutional usurption of the executive powers granted the President under the Constitution.


If you are not arguing that the President does not have to obey the law, then you cannot but support my position. Your argument is that the President doesn't have to obey the law because the law is unconstitutional. The problem is that it isn't the place of the President to decide whether or not it is unconstitutional. It's the job of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has not said that FISA is unconstitutional. Therefore, under the Sawyer decision, he must obey the law even if he disagrees with it and thinks that it is unconstitutional. That is the very same reason that every President since Reagan has said that despite the fact that they feel (probably rightly) that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, they will nevertheless obey it. Right or wrong, it is still lawfully made and not struck down, therefore, the President must uphold it.

Let me quote from the same source you sighted and bold the relevant passages, then:



In other words, while they were able to lay out situations that FISA did and did not cover, they were unable to say whether this was a case that FISA covered or did not, because they did not know what the program was.

Furthermore, you completely ignored another, rather choice, quotation just one paragraph under said passage:


Yes, but again, you are missing the point that in a dragnet search of long-distance phone calls, not every person put under such a wiretap is going to fit the definition of a) foreigner and/or b) enemy agent. Any person who does not fit that definition must, by law, go to the FISA court for approval.

show me one case. The only ambiguity that I see is if they monitor someone who they think is connected but turns out not to be. I thing intent is a key in that case, and if they cease monitoring as soon as it is determined they are not terrorists, then there should be no problem. I understand your concerns here, but up until congress took this traditional power of the executive branch away in an unconstitutional usurption of power, all Presidents had this ability - even in domestic cases. The FISA law does not apply to foriegn agents and that is the purpose of the survaillance.



Briefing the House Majority and Minority leader as well as the partisan heads of the House Foreign Intelligence Committee (which is who they briefed, IIRC) is not enough. Hell, briefing the whole of Congress is not enough. To be lawful, they must not only inform, but get approval from, the FISA court. This is not an issue of apprisal; it's one of seperation of powers.


THis only applies if they were monitoring purely domestic calls for law enforcement. It does not apply to monitoring of foriegn agents.



You are arguing that it is okay to break the law because the law is unconstitutional; in other words, you are saying that the law, even though it exists, does not meet some standard of existence to which laws must be held, therefore the law may be broken because it does not meet this standard. It is logically equivalent to saying: "It is okay to break a law prohibiting display of the Ten Commandments. It is okay because all laws must be in accord with the divine law, and the divine law would allow the display of the Ten Commandments. Therefore, the law may be broken because, in reality, it is not a law at all." Ignoring any of the issues about whether or not First Amendment law is correct, if you substitute "law prohibiting display of Ten Commandments" with "FISA", "divine law" with "Constitution", and "display the Ten Commandments" with "allow domestic wiretapping", you have a neat synopsis of your argument.

No. I am saying that the law does not apply and if it DID apply, THEN it would be unconstitutional. The court cases say it does not apply.

The problem, of course, is that you can't say what the standard of the law is. Neither can Bush.

Nonsense, the courts have already given a guideline.

That's because it's not the job of the executive to define what is and is not constitutional. It's the job of the judiciary, the same judiciary whose approval in the wiretapping the administration ignored.

And that judiciary ruled that what the President is doing is OK!

If the Bush administration feels that it's program is constitutional, then it should release the information, bring a test case to the Supreme Court, and have it affirmed as precedent.

Effectively eliminating one of the most effective methods we have in tracking terrorists. Needlessly so, as I have already stated, the courts have already decided this issue.


Then they should have no problem bringing the relevent cases to the FISA court for approval. If they feel that FISA itself is unconstitutional, then they should bring it to Congress for repeal, or they should challenge it in court. Again, they cannot simply decide for themselves whether it does or does not fit the constitutional mandate.

They don't need to, it has already been decided!



Changing something incrementally is different from what is happening here. The conservative assault on abortion may be something I find distasteful, but it is something that is happening through lawful procedures: they are petitioning the judiciary to change established precedent.

This example was only to show that people who don't accept a law as legitimate, can settle for incremental steps, it was not meant as a parallel to this case except for that narrow purpose. Specifically this sentence:It stands to reason that in order to modify rather than repeal a law, you must first accept the principle of that law.

will now become illegal purely on the basis of presidential say-so. That is exactly what is happening on the FISA provision, and that is unconstitutional. I do not agree that this is what is happening. The courts have already decided the issue and the President acted within the scope of the court decisions.

you cannot simply negate a law you don't like.

I agree.

If you are not arguing that the President does not have to obey the law, then you cannot but support my position. Your argument is that the President doesn't have to obey the law because the law is unconstitutional. The problem is that it isn't the place of the President to decide whether or not it is unconstitutional. It's the job of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has not said that FISA is unconstitutional. Therefore, under the Sawyer decision, he must obey the law even if he disagrees with it and thinks that it is unconstitutional. That is the very same reason that every President since Reagan has said that despite the fact that they feel (probably rightly) that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, they will nevertheless obey it. Right or wrong, it is still lawfully made and not struck down, therefore, the President must uphold it.

Again, I agree the President HAS to follow the law, where I disagree with you and I think the courts concur, is that I don't believe the President violated any law.

That is the very same reason that every President since Reagan has said that despite the fact that they feel (probably rightly) that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, they will nevertheless obey it. Right or wrong, it is still lawfully made and not struck down, therefore, the President must uphold it.

I disagree. Many of the court decisions have come from disagreements over the meaning of the law - hell ALL of them have! In each case, one party interpreted the law one way, and followed that version, while the other thought a different version is what was meant by that law. That is one of the MAIN purposes of our courts.


I want to draw a distinction between this and not following the law. This is a case of interpretation of the law. I believe the courts have already ruled on this, you don't. This will end up again in some courts lap, and it will be decided once again. That is fine and the way our system is supposed to work.

show me one case. The only ambiguity that I see is if they monitor someone who they think is connected but turns out not to be. I thing intent is a key in that case, and if they cease monitoring as soon as it is determined they are not terrorists, then there should be no problem. I understand your concerns here, but up until congress took this traditional power of the executive branch away in an unconstitutional usurption of power, all Presidents had this ability - even in domestic cases. The FISA law does not apply to foriegn agents and that is the purpose of the survaillance.

I can't show you one case, because I don't have access to the NSA records, and they haven't released the specifics of the program. All that I can do is point out that a dragnet program such as what the President was doing doesn't work by picking out only the preapproved list of terrorist suspects and sympathizers. It works by the precisely opposite means: generally speaking, the most efficient method of doing that kind of surveillance is to look for key words and then automatically tap any conversations when those key words are mentioned. So anyone using the phrase "Al Queda", "terrorism", or "kill the President" would automatically have their phones tapped. I would further suggest that the fact that, owing to the fact that the sentence "The Katrina scandal will kill the President politically" has a key phrase yet would be uttered by political junkies such as myself rather than terrorists, renders it well-nigh ludicrous that the only people picked up by this dragnet program were terrorists. Rather, there were very likely, indeed extremely likely, innocent American citizens picked up for the purposes of intelligence surveillance. If even one such conversation went to court, then the NSA program so constructed would be in violation of the law.


THis only applies if they were monitoring purely domestic calls for law enforcement. It does not apply to monitoring of foriegn agents.


And as I said, the idea that the NSA dragnet wiretapping program picked up only terrorists or native sympathizers borders on the absurd. You cannot lay down a dragnet that precise. As such, it likely picked up calls that originated in the U.S., and were not performed by terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. If so, then it is in violation of the law, because the FISA court oversees the wiretap of any phone call originating in the United States that does not meet the two exceptions.


No. I am saying that the law does not apply and if it DID apply, THEN it would be unconstitutional. The court cases say it does not apply.

The court cases in question merely define when it is okay to wiretap. The court was the one that laid down that it is illegal to wiretap phone calls originating in the United States that are not made by enemies of the United States or subversive allies of said enemies. In this case, however, it is highly unlikely that the NSA program met this standard of legality. It is therefore illegal under the law and under the court cases. Furthermore, your argument that it is illegal is tenuous at best, as in your own links the Carter administration noted that FISA does nothing to undermine presidential authority. Even further, the Bush administration itself did not feel that FISA undermines presidential authority, because they asked merely that the program be modified, not abolished or tested for its constitutionality in the courts.

And that judiciary ruled that what the President is doing is OK!

No, they didn't. They laid out a clear standard of when it was constitutional and when it was not to wiretap a phone. Congress further modified the procedure to argue that it was legal to wiretap in certain circumstances, provided that the President recieve approval from the judiciary. The President, it appears, created a program that wiretapped people under the circumstances outlined by Congress, but did not recieve approval from the judiciary. Then, when the program was revealed, he refused to end the program. That's a fairly clear-cut case of acting in direct contravention of the law. There is a constitutional procedure to remedy it. It's called impeachment.


This example was only to show that people who don't accept a law as legitimate, can settle for incremental steps, it was not meant as a parallel to this case except for that narrow purpose. Specifically this sentence:It stands to reason that in order to modify rather than repeal a law, you must first accept the principle of that law.

Then apparently you misunderstand me. By principle, I am not referring to partisan principles. I am referring to the basic understanding shared by all people living under a common set of laws that, provided those laws are made in the proper manner for a good purpose, then they are valid. Not necessarily just or good, but binding on me as a citizen until such time as the sum total of those laws is more problematic to my continued flourishing than total anarchy. In this case, abortion opponents may not like Roe v. Wade, may not think it is just, and may work to overturn it, but they do nevertheless see it as binding law of the land.

The problem then is that if we are to accept your logic, we must conclude that FISA, even though it was made in the proper manner and done with a good intent, is still not acceptable or binding upon the citizen whom it concerns: the President. Even worse, you are suggesting that the President can by himself decide when and where he will accept the trappings of this law. That is not a principle that this, or indeed any, Republic can accept and remain a Republic.

Apparently this ad was placed in the USA Today newspaper:

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/DocServer/NYT_IMPEACHBUSH_FINAL_3.pdf?docID=121

• He lied to Congress and the American people to launch an illegal war of aggression

• He set up a worldwide network of secret prisons, torture and assassinations

• He unleashed a massive unconstitutional wiretap and spying operation against the people of the United States

Articles of Impeachment (http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr004=4m1uqgacf1.app7b&page=NewsArticle&id=5054&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1061)

Impeach Bush (http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer)

No grounds for impeachment. How hard is that for you Liberal people to understand?
Just liberals?

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping (http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2)

Just liberals?

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping (http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2)

Again, another problem. Well 2!

First the website is bias and they probably commissioned the poll thus making it bias. And the 2nd problem is that the wiretapping was known by members of both houses, of both parties and no one then said anything about it being illegal. All that would come out too for it would have to come out and therefor, destroy the impeachment case.

Therefor, no grounds for impeachment.

Again, another problem. Well 2!

First the website is bias and they probably commissioned the poll thus making it bias.
Awww, come on Corny, what would make you think that a web site calling for the impeachment of Bush and the commissioning of a poll would have any bias at all? :rolleyes:

And the 2nd problem is that the wiretapping was known by members of both houses, of both parties and no one then said anything about it being illegal.
Apparently there are many who are concerned about the legality of what has happened.

All that would come out too for it would have to come out and therefor, destroy the impeachment case.
Huh? :confused:

Therefor, no grounds for impeachment.
Obviously if it is determined that the actions of the President was illegal, then obviously there would be grounds for impeachment?

having blatently committed treason against the constitution, the american people, and all life on earth, and far from offering any cohierent justifacation for doing so, having brazenly bragged about getting away it, yes, i do believe that constitutes sufficient malpheasance in office to mandate empeachment procceedings. if the attorny general being a presidential appointee weren't a major flaw in the u.s. constitution, he wouldhave, couldhave, should have been not only empeached but extrodinarily rendered to the world court to face a war crimes tribunal three or four years ago, even before the massochur of faluga.

=^^=
.../\...

having blatently committed treason against the constitution, the american people, and all life on earth, and far from offering any cohierent justifacation for doing so, having brazenly bragged about getting away it, yes, i do believe that constitutes sufficient malpheasance in office to mandate empeachment procceedings. if the attorny general being a presidential appointee weren't a major flaw in the u.s. constitution, he wouldhave, couldhave, should have been not only empeached but extrodinarily rendered to the world court to face a war crimes tribunal three or four years ago, even before the massochur of faluga.

=^^=
.../\...


Not a true word in the whole post.

Not a true word in the whole post.
Wrong.

Wrong.


If you want to compare treasonous acts, I would suggest that the leakers, the New York times, and the rabid anti-American protestors fit the definition FAR better than Bush.

If you want to compare treasonous acts, I would suggest that the leakers, the New York times, and the rabid anti-American protestors fit the definition FAR better than Bush.

Never disobey the moral authority of the State. Submit now!

Never disobey the moral authority of the State. Submit now!


You've apparently already submitted to the terrorists.

I hope they treat you well.


As for me, I will continue on fighting against evil and it is people like me who probably will save you despite yourself.

Tell me, how is what the leakers, and the New York Times did, any different than what we executed spies for in WWII????


Tell me, how are the protestors all that different from Germany's fifth column???


Then while you are at it, show me the differences between the rights we granted the detainees, and the rights FDR granted the German spies and enemy combatants during that time???


I would argue that as for the leakers, the media and the anti-american left, the parallels are pretty damn close to exact.

In the case of the prisoners, they have more rights, are better fed, and better treated than those counterparts in WWII.

So, in conclusion, :upyours:

Never disobey the moral authority of the State. Submit now!


You mean like in Socialist countries???

You've apparently already submitted to the terrorists.
Have you ever once stopped to think why terrorists are targetting the people that they do target? Have you ever once considered that your Governments and your support have given them a raison d'etre? Have you noticed that despite all the bombs and bullets that destroy lives and property in their countries, that worldwide terrorism has actually increased?

Who is submitting to whom I ask?

I hope they treat you well.
I am sure that they will give what they get. Right now, you are giving them a lot of pain and suffering. As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0107-05.htm).

As for me, I will continue on fighting against evil and it is people like me who probably will save you despite yourself.
I don't see you as a warrior against eveil, I see you as an evil warrior. You certainly don't defend rights and freedoms, since you are dedicated to crushing them.

Tell me, how is what the leakers, and the New York Times did, any different than what we executed spies for in WWII????
I am sure that there is a world of difference, but you certainly wouldn't see it if you tried. There is a huge gulf among Americans as the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. There are no checks and balances. Hopefully this will change in the near future, and some sense of sanity and unity will prevail that will be good for Americans and the citizens of the world.

Tell me, how are the protestors all that different from Germany's fifth column???
You talk about democratic principles but you ignore their great qualities. Referring to protestors as being equivalent to Nazis is laughable to say the least. It is demagogues (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/demagogues.html) and dictators that like to stiffle dissent.

Then while you are at it, show me the differences between the rights we granted the detainees, and the rights FDR granted the German spies and enemy combatants during that time???
What rights have you granted "enemy combatants"? You have denied them their rights.

I would argue that as for the leakers, the media and the anti-american left, the parallels are pretty damn close to exact.
You are so wrapped up in your own ideology that you cannot see the great harm that it causes your great country. Anybody who opposes your ideology is somehow "anti-American". That is a dangerous viewpoint to have.

In the case of the prisoners, they have more rights, are better fed, and better treated than those counterparts in WWII.
I doubt it. As do most objective observers.

So, in conclusion, :upyours:
My way or the highway huh? :(

You mean like in Socialist countries???

No, possibly like either your dream world, where any kind of opposition to irrational right-wing government is considered treason. Or possibly like in Republican America, where the government decides, or wants to decide, their citizens' morals over, say, abortion, homosexual marriage, drugs, need I go on?

And for the record, Socialism is an economic policy in that has NOTHING to to with moral authority. Take a look at the political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2.php), in particular the bottom-left hand corner.

If you want to compare treasonous acts, I would suggest that the leakers, the New York times, and the rabid anti-American protestors fit the definition FAR better than Bush.
Perhaps i'll go with the comparison of which hand will fill up first - the one with wishes (neocon, perhaps) and the one with shit.
Which one filled up quicker?
Which one do you think you're in?

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. George Bush is one of the greatest presidents ever!!! He won the war in Iriq to help get earl, I mean freedom to the iriqies. He signed the partiot act, the no child left behind act, created the department of homeland security, won the war in afganistan. He has good moral and christian family values unlike those homosexual marryin, tree huggin, baby killin, laberals. Anyone that does not support the president, does not support the troops. If you dont support the troops that makes you a tourist. The american people have spoken and they have said they want bush to be president. The problem is the laberal media tries to spin things and make Bush look bad. I think the bush should get to serve more than two terms and should be on mount rushmore.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. George Bush is one of the greatest presidents ever!!! He won the war in Iriq to help get earl, I mean freedom to the iriqies. He signed the partiot act, the no child left behind act, created the department of homeland security, won the war in afganistan. He has good moral and christian family values unlike those homosexual marryin, tree huggin, baby killin, laberals. Anyone that does not support the president, does not support the troops. If you dont support the troops that makes you a tourist. The american people have spoken and they have said they want bush to be president. The problem is the laberal media tries to spin things and make Bush look bad. I think the bush should get to serve more than two terms and should be on mount rushmore.
What the world needs now is earl, sweet earl
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is earl, sweet earl,
No not just for some but for everyone. :D

If Nancy Polosi get's Speaker of the House, then I could probably see it being pushed. But all in all I think it will fail b/c of the Republican stronghold in Congress. I also think it would be a stupid idea b/c it would make the Democrats look even worse than they sadly already do in November.

Keep in mind that the Democrats voted for the Patriot Act back in 2001 (They had to in order for it to be passed. so anyone who says otherwise needs to stfu.) and the majority of them voted to go to war with Iraq. Which I think is totally hypocritical and nothing but political bs. Regarding the PA, it is working and everytime the media and the left say it hurts America, they are the ones who wind up hurting America and not the PA. You guys saw what happened to the New York Times for exposing our secrets. Didn't go too well for them publicly.

Bush needs to finish out his term b/c I would rather have him leading our troops than Kerry or Kennedy. For those who think I'm a Republican btw are wrong. I am a registered Democrat. I'm just tired of the people who represent me bitch and moan and mudsling about stupid shit to get back in power. None of our politicians have solved anything. Actions speak louder than words my friends and I have yet to see any sound actions taken lately by both sides.

Not only should Mr. Bush be impeached, but he should be recommended to the Hague and put in front of a war crimes tribunal.

America should hold itself to the same standards we expect the rest of the world to follow. :upyours:

Anyone that does not support the president, does not support the troops.
So you didnt support the fight against rascism in Yugoslavia? Youd didnt support stopping Al Qaeda trained warlords in somalia? You didnt support punishing Iraq for UN violations? What do these have in common?
If you dont support the troops that makes you a tourist.But I pay taxes.
The american people have spoken and they have said they want bush to be president.Half of them
The problem is the laberal media tries to spin things and make Bush look bad.And the Right lives in a no spin zone.
I think the bush should get to serve more than two terms and should be on mount rushmore.Yeah, we can forget the whole constitutio thing. I mean, all its ever done is get in the way of morals and decency!


not enough :rolleyes: to go around


Bush needs to finish out his term b/c I would rather have him leading our troops than Kerry or Kennedy. For those who think I'm a Republican btw are wrong. I am a registered Democrat. I'm just tired of the people who represent me bitch and moan and mudsling about stupid shit to get back in power. None of our politicians have solved anything. Actions speak louder than words my friends and I have yet to see any sound actions taken lately by both sides.

*claps*

Not only should Mr. Bush be impeached, but he should be recommended to the Hague and put in front of a war crimes tribunal.

America should hold itself to the same standards we expect the rest of the world to follow. :upyours:
Seconded.

Have you ever once stopped to think why terrorists are targetting the people that they do target?

Yes I have - they think all people who don't believe in their version of religion should die. They also don't like the fact that we support Israel in the battle they are fighting against OTHER terrorists.

Have you ever once considered that your Governments and your support have given them a raison d'etre?

Yes I have, and I have rejected it as all thinking people will - once the full story is told.


Have you noticed that despite all the bombs and bullets that destroy lives and property in their countries, that worldwide terrorism has actually increased?


Only when you count the war Zone in Iraq.


Who is submitting to whom I ask?

No one IS submitting, YOU obviously did that a LONG time ago.


I am sure that they will give what they get. Right now, you are giving them a lot of pain and suffering. As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0107-05.htm).

We have helped them in the past. - Bosnia comes to mind and whenever someone needs money - guess who they come to - the US. They attacked us with ZERO justification. Our response was justified and the ONLY responsible course to take.


I don't see you as a warrior against eveil, I see you as an evil warrior. You certainly don't defend rights and freedoms, since you are dedicated to crushing them.

Then open your eyes. You have been blinded by the leftist propoganda that is so pervasive in the world today. You refuse to consider anything other than America is evil and Bush is an idiot/warmonger/puppet. To HELL with the truth - right????


I am sure that there is a world of difference, but you certainly wouldn't see it if you tried.

I know YOU are sure there is - but is there really???? Why not look???


There is a huge gulf among Americans as the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. There are no checks and balances. Hopefully this will change in the near future, and some sense of sanity and unity will prevail that will be good for Americans and the citizens of the world.


The pendulum HAS swung too far - to the left. There are checks and balances all over the place - the SAME ones and MORE than our constitution provides for.

You talk about democratic principles but you ignore their great qualities. Referring to protestors as being equivalent to Nazis is laughable to say the least. It is demagogues (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/demagogues.html) and dictators that like to stiffle dissent.

Not when they fraudulently seek to undermine our Democracy. When they lieterally make things up to destroy our institutions, when they lie about what is happening in Iraq and in Abu-grahib and Guantanamo. It is an organized assualt on western freedoms and ideals. The left has been hoodwinked by members of anti-democratic forces that know they must destroy America in order to dominate the world. Just about every lie told about us has it's genesis in the islamo-fascist camp.


What rights have you granted "enemy combatants"? You have denied them their rights.

What rights were they denied that thier counterparts in WWII enjoyed??? Name ONE.

You are so wrapped up in your own ideology that you cannot see the great harm that it causes your great country. Anybody who opposes your ideology is somehow "anti-American". That is a dangerous viewpoint to have.

As a matter of fact, I believe dissent is ESSENTIAL to our democracy. But it has to be LEGITIMATE dissent. Not intentional lies designed to undermine democracy.


I doubt it. As do most objective observers.

Most people have not been given the truth. Those that have - have often made up their mind and refuse to consider anything that does not support their worldview.




My way or the highway huh? :(


Not at all. Just quit lying.

yes i think he should be impeached i also think that dumbfuck needs to have his legs cut off and dipped in a batch of salt brine. there nuff said.

Yes I have - they think all people who don't believe in their version of religion should die. They also don't like the fact that we support Israel in the battle they are fighting against OTHER terrorists.
So you don't see the implications of your government mucking in their politics, their economy, and their lives for the past 50 or 60 years? Even though Iraq has no WMD and were not involved in 9/11, you can't see a problem with invading their country killing tens of thousands and destroying their country? Also, you have Iran on your radar, and you can't understand that they want weapons to keep you from destroying their country? You put it all down to their religion? What would you do if the tables were turned?

Yes I have, and I have rejected it as all thinking people will - once the full story is told.
Your profound sense of self is clearly on display. As more and more of the story unfolds, the more horrific it appears.


Only when you count the war Zone in Iraq.

Spin it as you undoubtedly will, but the "War on Terrorism" is being lost.

No one IS submitting, YOU obviously did that a LONG time ago.
I don't need a government to tell me how to think, react, or who to hate. I am a free thinker and I value that freedom. On the other hand, you are stuck defending a dangerous ideology.

I am sure that they will give what they get. Right now, you are giving them a lot of pain and suffering. As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0107-05.htm).

We have helped them in the past. - Bosnia comes to mind and whenever someone needs money - guess who they come to - the US. They attacked us with ZERO justification. Our response was justified and the ONLY responsible course to take.
There was ZERO justification for invading Iraq and that fact is coming back to haunt the perpetrators.

Then open your eyes. You have been blinded by the leftist propoganda that is so pervasive in the world today. You refuse to consider anything other than America is evil and Bush is an idiot/warmonger/puppet. To HELL with the truth - right????
Me blinded? Sorry my friend but the disillusionment is all yours. I don't hate your President, I don't call him evil, and I like your country. However, misguided policies based on fear, hate, propaganda, and wealth creation can have a devestating affect on your country and your people. I don't see too much truth coming from your current administration.

As far as Bush is concerned, he is far from being an idiot and he is certainly nobody's puppet. However, his strength does come from those who buy into his ideolgy and he has masterfully carried out his plans with their aid. Fortunately, it appears that the plan is starting to unravel.

The pendulum HAS swung too far - to the left. There are checks and balances all over the place - the SAME ones and MORE than our constitution provides for.
You are kidding right? The "right" controls the Presidency, the Senate, the House and has recently stocked the Judiciary. No checks or balances in that for sure, or else Bush would not have been able to further his complicated agenda.

BTW, who was crying the blues when the Supreme Court ruled against Bush's treatment of "detainees"? Ummmm that would be you?

You talk about democratic principles but you ignore their great qualities. Referring to protestors as being equivalent to Nazis is laughable to say the least. It is demagogues (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/demagogues.html) and dictators that like to stiffle dissent.

Not when they fraudulently seek to undermine our Democracy. When they lieterally make things up to destroy our institutions, when they lie about what is happening in Iraq and in Abu-grahib and Guantanamo. It is an organized assualt on western freedoms and ideals. The left has been hoodwinked by members of anti-democratic forces that know they must destroy America in order to dominate the world. Just about every lie told about us has it's genesis in the islamo-fascist camp.
Do you really believe what you wrote? Your argument is so flawed and your conclusion is totally skewed. You would do well as a sci-fi author.


As a matter of fact, I believe dissent is ESSENTIAL to our democracy.
Obviously you don't, given what you have written thus far.

[But it has to be LEGITIMATE dissent. Not intentional lies designed to undermine democracy.
And YOU will be the judge of the legitimacy of the level and nature of such "dissent"?

Most people have not been given the truth.
Where are these great holders of THE truth? Why don't they come forward?

Those that have - have often made up their mind and refuse to consider anything that does not support their worldview.
Are you referring to yourself? You have THE truth and "refuse to consider anything that does not support your worldview"?

How will you survive when the Dems get their next shot at governance, perhaps as early as this November?

Do you really believe what you wrote? Your argument is so flawed and your conclusion is totally skewed. You would do well as a sci-fi author.
Hey!












Don't denigrate sci-fi like that!

Hey!
Don't denigrate sci-fi like that!
Sorry....my bad!!

I think yes. he is just too stupid to rule a country.

Amen. I SHOULD RULE US. (Just joking... or am I? Am I a superintelligent Omnikinetic? Am I a robot? The Internet's shield will prevent you from knowing. DUN DUNN DUNNN.....)

So you don't see the implications of your government mucking in their politics, their economy, and their lives for the past 50 or 60 years? Even though Iraq has no WMD and were not involved in 9/11, you can't see a problem with invading their country killing tens of thousands and destroying their country? Also, you have Iran on your radar, and you can't understand that they want weapons to keep you from destroying their country? You put it all down to their religion? What would you do if the tables were turned?

The only thing we did to these people is to allow them to suffer too long under Soviet domination. We fixed that and now we are cleaning up the mess. Iraq HAD WMD's, were extensively involved with terrorists all over the world including Al-qaida. We have REDUCED the average number of violent deaths in Iraq from WELL over 70,000 to @19,000 since we went in. (that is using only 4 events of mass death in Iraq under Saddam AND the HIGHEST estimate of current deaths from the anti-war group Iraq Body count)


Spin it as you undoubtedly will, but the "War on Terrorism" is being lost.

They only way we will lose is if people like you are allowed to set policy and we withdraw.


I don't need a government to tell me how to think, react, or who to hate. I am a free thinker and I value that freedom. On the other hand, you are stuck defending a dangerous ideology.

No, but your thoughts are controlled none the less.




There was ZERO justification for invading Iraq and that fact is coming back to haunt the perpetrators.


There were 12 YEARS of justification - shooting at our planes, taking a contract out on the life of our former President, WMD's, terrorist ties, unjustifiably invading Iran and Kuwait. Undermining the sanctions so they would eventually be lifted and then continuing his WMD programs. 70,000 per year unjustifiably killed directly because of Saddam's actions.

Me blinded? Sorry my friend but the disillusionment is all yours. I don't hate your President, I don't call him evil, and I like your country. However, misguided policies based on fear, hate, propaganda, and wealth creation can have a devestating affect on your country and your people. I don't see too much truth coming from your current administration.

Like I said, blinded and thought controlled.

As far as Bush is concerned, he is far from being an idiot and he is certainly nobody's puppet. However, his strength does come from those who buy into his ideolgy and he has masterfully carried out his plans with their aid. Fortunately, it appears that the plan is starting to unravel.

I respectfully disagree. His policies have brought us through some VERY difficult times that SHOULD have sunk us entirely.


You are kidding right? The "right" controls the Presidency, the Senate, the House and has recently stocked the Judiciary. No checks or balances in that for sure, or else Bush would not have been able to further his complicated agenda.

The Republicans may have majorities in those bodies, but the "right" most certainly does not. RHINOS are very prevelent amongst the ranks of the Republicans.

BTW, who was crying the blues when the Supreme Court ruled against Bush's treatment of "detainees"? Ummmm that would be you?

I thought you said there were no checks in our system. (disregarding the fact every President before him had this ablity.) BTW - it was not about treatment at all - it was about their status and access to our normal courts, or whether it would be a tribunal. Now every bit of evidence, no matter it's national security value, will be in the open for the terrorists to see and to use against us. It is my opinion that Bush will probably let them go, (to kill more innocent people and maim more soldiers), rather than risk giving up sensitive information.




Do you really believe what you wrote? Your argument is so flawed and your conclusion is totally skewed. You would do well as a sci-fi author.

I did leave out the communists and the just plain anti-americans and anti-semites but they have formed a loose coalition that absolutely controls the dialog amongst the left and even in the mainstream press. Look into who sponsors and organizes the "rallies" and protests. Look at the origin of many of these accusations against us in Iraq - they are the terrorists.


Obviously you don't, given what you have written thus far.

Then you obviously don't understand what I am saying. Honest debate is critical. Deliberately hiding half of the story, and blowing the other half way out of proportion is dangerous. That is what many on the left have done.


And YOU will be the judge of the legitimacy of the level and nature of such "dissent"?

No, but we need to insure that one side does not dominate the sources of information. We have countered that (slightly) here in the States, but elsewhere in the world, the left has a death grip on information sources that are easily obtained by the general population.


Where are these great holders of THE truth? Why don't they come forward?

They have. But they get no real coverage. They are shunted to the back pages, not covered at all, or are grossly misquoted/interpreted/filtered.


Are you referring to yourself? You have THE truth and "refuse to consider anything that does not support your worldview"?

It is not I who refuses to acknowlege the entire body of evidence. I have argued that you should, and you have utterly rejected it.

How will you survive when the Dems get their next shot at governance, perhaps as early as this November?


It ain't gonna happen, sorry to burst your bubble. The number of competitive seats just are not enough to change the balance of power. I DO believe that the Republicans will loose a few seats, but not a huge amount.

What will I do if it does happen? Exactly what I did during the Carter years, and the Clinton years - wait for and work hard to elect a Republican to bail us out of the messes caused by the Democrats.

The only thing we did to these people is to allow them to suffer too long under Soviet domination. We fixed that and now we are cleaning up the mess. Iraq HAD WMD's, were extensively involved with terrorists all over the world including Al-qaida. We have REDUCED the average number of violent deaths in Iraq from WELL over 70,000 to @19,000 since we went in. (that is using only 4 events of mass death in Iraq under Saddam AND the HIGHEST estimate of current deaths from the anti-war group Iraq Body count)
Your numbers are skewed, and most of them were as a result of the Gulf War (1990 to 1991) and the Iran Iraq war (1980 to 1988), due to revolts by the Shias and the Kurds. You do remember when Bush the Elder encouraged Iraqis to revolt and then did not back them up as promised?

http://pekingduck.org/archives/001773.php

They only way we will lose is if people like you are allowed to set policy and we withdraw.
The Iraqis want you gone yesterday. The longer you stay, the greater the cost, and more you will lose.

No, but your thoughts are controlled none the less.
Perhaps only by the way God would want me to live? You on the other hand appear to be the one that lives and breathes the doctrine that comes forth from Republicans in general and the Bush adminstration specifically.

There were 12 YEARS of justification - shooting at our planes, taking a contract out on the life of our former President, WMD's, terrorist ties, unjustifiably invading Iran and Kuwait. Undermining the sanctions so they would eventually be lifted and then continuing his WMD programs. 70,000 per year unjustifiably killed directly because of Saddam's actions.
The invasion of Iraq was not justified, nor sanctioned. There were no WMD and the ties to Al-Queda proved false. Iraq invading Kuwait....remember April Gillespie (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/review.asp?articleID=263761&commentID=23070)? Iraq had every right shooting at your planes that were violating Iraqi air space. The rest is speculation and conjecture.

Like I said, blinded and thought controlled.
See above.

I respectfully disagree. His policies have brought us through some VERY difficult times that SHOULD have sunk us entirely.
You see him as a saviour. Most would disagree. Two months ago, his approval rating was down in Nixon territory.

I thought you said there were no checks in our system. (disregarding the fact every President before him had this ablity.) BTW - it was not about treatment at all - it was about their status and access to our normal courts, or whether it would be a tribunal. Now every bit of evidence, no matter it's national security value, will be in the open for the terrorists to see and to use against us. It is my opinion that Bush will probably let them go, (to kill more innocent people and maim more soldiers), rather than risk giving up sensitive information.
No matter how you spin this, Bush has finally been nabbed for going to the cookie jar one too many times. For the most part, Bush has had a free hand due to Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

I did leave out the communists and the just plain anti-americans and anti-semites but they have formed a loose coalition that absolutely controls the dialog amongst the left and even in the mainstream press. Look into who sponsors and organizes the "rallies" and protests. Look at the origin of many of these accusations against us in Iraq - they are the terrorists.
IMHO, you despise democratic principles, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and anything else that may conflict with your ideology.

Then you obviously don't understand what I am saying. Honest debate is critical. Deliberately hiding half of the story, and blowing the other half way out of proportion is dangerous. That is what many on the left have done.
Yes honest debate is critical and to suggest that you are the keeper of the truth is laughable considering that you do exactly what you claim the “left” does, that is “deliberately hiding half of the story, and blowing the other half way out of proportion”.

No, but we need to insure that one side does not dominate the sources of information. We have countered that (slightly) here in the States, but elsewhere in the world, the left has a death grip on information sources that are easily obtained by the general population.
You appear to live in fear and paranoia. The evil left is conspiring against the noble traditions of truth and justice!! Give me a break.

They have. But they get no real coverage. They are shunted to the back pages, not covered at all, or are grossly misquoted/interpreted/filtered.
So, only those on the right are the “great holders of THE truth”? IF the right has no voice, how did they win all those seats in Congress? How did they win the Presidency? Your problem is the fact that many of their “truths” are being exposed for what they really are.

It is not I who refuses to acknowlege the entire body of evidence. I have argued that you should, and you have utterly rejected it.
Whenever possible, I read the whole story, and sometimes for perspective and a chuckle, I read what the left and right spin doctors have to say. To say that I don’t weigh all the evidence is incorrect. I believe that you are addicted to the spin cycle.

It ain't gonna happen, sorry to burst your bubble. The number of competitive seats just are not enough to change the balance of power. I DO believe that the Republicans will loose a few seats, but not a huge amount.
Hard to say. From USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-27-poll-politics_x.htm

Americans are paying unusually close attention to the congressional elections in November, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds. They are more inclined to deliver significant gains to Democrats than in any year since Republicans won control of the House and Senate in 1994. .

What will I do if it does happen? Exactly what I did during the Carter years, and the Clinton years - wait for and work hard to elect a Republican to bail us out of the messes caused by the Democrats.
I am sure the Democrats share your sentiments in an opposite sense.

You appear to live in fear and paranoia. The evil left is conspiring against the noble traditions of truth and justice!! Give me a break.
Name more than one major (even remotely) conservative television network besides Fox. Please. I can name several rather liberal fonts of television misinformation.

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC, for example. And we haven't even gotten into the print media yet. To say what you said to him in the above quote was ludicrous and indefensible.

You appear to live with a pair of rose colored glasses permanently welded to your skull.

Name more than one major (even remotely) conservative television network besides Fox. Please. I can name several rather liberal fonts of television misinformation.

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, for example. And we haven't even gotten into the print media yet. To say what you said to him in the above quote was ludicrous and indefensible.

You appear to live with a pair of rose colored glasses permanently welded to your skull.

When the News comes on, all the networks including Fox run the same stories over and over again. I don't care about JonBenet's death, yet they run a two day special on that noise. All are run by major corporations, all are dirty and corrupt, and all of them don't report the news that actually matters. Fox just takes the cake because it does all that crap tenfold.

Please. I can name several rather liberal fonts of television misinformation.

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC, for example. Gawd you're on some kinda roll tonight ... :rolleyes:

They're only as liberal as the companies that own them, you know.
*shakes head*

omg I can't beleive this is still going. Most of this thread is the rabid uni-poster and people trying to make him see sense.

As if that is ever going to happen.

Give up now?

omg I can't beleive this is still going. Most of this thread is the rabid uni-poster and people trying to make him see sense.

As if that is ever going to happen.

Give up now?

Nah, we should rename it the USAlpenstock thread and archive it, for it amuses me.

Maybe he's got a possible future career in comedy given how much everyone is laughing at him

Maybe he's got a possible future career in comedy given how much everyone is laughing at him
Yeah, especially with Corneliu on the skids .... ;)

Straughn...
Crust is the stuff you get from the money you get from the job you do.

[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven]Your numbers are skewed, They were NOT skewed - unless Human Rights Watch is a right wing organization! Either way I took FOUR and ONLY four instances of Saddams Butchery and compared it to the HIGHEST number from Iraq body count - a count that includes FAR MORE than just deaths due to the war.

and most of them were as a result of the Gulf War (1990 to 1991) and the Iran Iraq war (1980 to 1988),

NONE of the 70,000 plus deaths under Saddam I cited were due to the Gulf War. I did not use that in my tally.

And ALL of the current count was taken at war time also! So if anything, they are skewed in Saddam's favor.


due to revolts by the Shias and the Kurds. You do remember when Bush the Elder encouraged Iraqis to revolt and then did not back them up as promised?

http://pekingduck.org/archives/001773.php


Did Saddam still kill them????

I also think we gave in to the "peaceniks" back then - when we refused to get rid of Saddam in the first place. Don't ask me to Support George Sr. on that topic. (BTW - the "no fly zones were started to ensure Saddam would not continue to do this - yet you seem to decry them.)



The Iraqis want you gone yesterday. The longer you stay, the greater the cost, and more you will lose.

This is not the case! The Iraqi's want us to leave when the Iraqi govt. is able to handle things themselves. THAT is what the (again) misreported polls say. Actually here is a quote from ABC news regarding this:Specifically, 26 percent of Iraqis say U.S. and other coalition forces should "leave now" and another 19 percent say they should go after the government chosen in this week's election takes office; that adds to 45 percent. Roughly the other half says coalition forces should remain until security is restored (31 percent), until Iraqi security forces can operate independently (16 percent), or longer (5 percent).http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228
Notice they try to spin a 52-45% spread as almost equal. Disregard the fact that try to lump the "leave after elections" in the "leave iraq now" figures. Those that wanted us to wait after the elections (19%) - apparantly saw we were doing some good there! Only 26% wanted us to leave immediately.

Perhaps only by the way God would want me to live? You on the other hand appear to be the one that lives and breathes the doctrine that comes forth from Republicans in general and the Bush adminstration specifically.

Good for you. My beliefs are that those with the ability to do so, should help others. Whether you want to believe it or not, that is the eventual result of what we are doing now. I have a LOT of disagreements with both the Republican Party and especially with President Bush. In fact, I can think of 3 things that I support Bush on. The war is one of them. Saddam was evil and dangerous and needed to be taken out.


The invasion of Iraq was not justified, nor sanctioned. There were no WMD and the ties to Al-Queda proved false. Iraq invading Kuwait....remember April Gillespie (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/review.asp?articleID=263761&commentID=23070)? Iraq had every right shooting at your planes that were violating Iraqi air space. The rest is speculation and conjecture.

Have you not read anything in the last several years???? Hell, even the 9-11 report said Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda! It only said they were not collaberating on 9-11 specifically. No one claimed that and Bush specifically and repeatedly denied that also! There have been a whole cache of documents uncovered since then - millions still untranslated - that point overwhelmingly to cooperation between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

I have shown you documented evidence including the ISG reports, that specifically list large quantities of WMD's - but suddenly you moved the goal posts and insisted that they be in pristine condition TODAY. (I even have shown you evidence of that) Those weapons were specifically mentioned in the UN resolutions as weapons that must be destroyed. OBVIOUSLY they were not destroyed - just hidden. I have also given you quotes from Charles Duelfer - head of the weapons search team (ISG) AND his predecessor David kay - that indicate as Duelfer said "their is sufficiently credible" evidence that the bulk of WMD's were moved to Syria. Why do you ignore those parts??? I also have pointed you to the second in command of the Iraqi Air Force who has been documented as saying he supervised 56 jumbo jet flights of WMD's out of Iraq and to Damascus, Syria. I also (and I can't expect you to take my word for it) have a very close personal friend who found WMD's himself, but cannot reveal details. He says that what is public knowledge is only the tip of the iceberg. To reveal more would jeopordize finding the rest of them.

Your link does not work (it has expired and it happens to everyone so don't sweat it - but if you could, please let me know what it was you were referring to)

Those planes that you say they had the right to shoot at, are the very same planes we sent in to help protect the Kurds after Saddam used WMD's on them!!!


See above.

I agree - look above! I have used the whole reports, while you have been spoon fed your lines from the leftist press and the "anti-war" groups that are hoping the terrorists win. Many of my positions on this very subject are at odds with the official Bush position also. I am only interested in the whole truth.


You see him as a saviour. Most would disagree. Two months ago, his approval rating was down in Nixon territory.

No I don't. He is just right on this broad issue. I do not care where his approval ratings are except as to how they impede passing other important legistlation. BTW- they are back on the rise as more people are realizing the truth.(10 Points in some polls)


No matter how you spin this, Bush has finally been nabbed for going to the cookie jar one too many times. For the most part, Bush has had a free hand due to Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

Baloney. Bush has been handcuffed by Democrats in Republican clothing. The Rino's have sided with the Dems on almost all issues.


IMHO, you despise democratic principles, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and anything else that may conflict with your ideology.

Not at all. I just want the truth to be told. I would argue that your side is censoring the news and impeding free speech.


Yes honest debate is critical and to suggest that you are the keeper of the truth is laughable considering that you do exactly what you claim the “left” does, that is “deliberately hiding half of the story, and blowing the other half way out of proportion”.

I am not the keeper of the truth - I just expose the whole story. The other side has gotten TONS of exposure, they do not need me to tell that. I am simply completeing the picture.


You appear to live in fear and paranoia. The evil left is conspiring against the noble traditions of truth and justice!! Give me a break.

Then why do they support the terrorists all over the world. Why do they support Chavez and Castro? Why do they continually act as the intelligence arm of Al-Qaeda? Why did they support Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, North Vietnam, Daniel Ortega, Che Guevarra etc???


So, only those on the right are the “great holders of THE truth”? IF the right has no voice, how did they win all those seats in Congress? How did they win the Presidency? Your problem is the fact that many of their “truths” are being exposed for what they really are.

Until very recently, the right has had no voice in the PRESS! They were able to win seats in congress by going directly to the people and fighting for issues that mattered to them. The initial reports were indeed of the expose type - but now the truth is beginning to be told. I think it was Mark Twain who said " a lie is halfway around the world before the truth even puts on it's shoes" (or something like that).


Whenever possible, I read the whole story, and sometimes for perspective and a chuckle, I read what the left and right spin doctors have to say. To say that I don’t weigh all the evidence is incorrect.

THen you absolutely are discounting the conservative arguments without cause, and you give your uncritical approval to the leftists views.


Hard to say. From USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-27-poll-politics_x.htm




I am sure the Democrats share your sentiments in an opposite sense.


I am sure they do. But they are being taken over by the very fringe of their party. WHich is sad. America needs a viable opposition party.

Name more than one major (even remotely) conservative television network besides Fox. Please. I can name several rather liberal fonts of television misinformation.

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC, for example. And we haven't even gotten into the print media yet. To say what you said to him in the above quote was ludicrous and indefensible.

You appear to live with a pair of rose colored glasses permanently welded to your skull.
So FOX TV is the only place where one can find THE truth?

Perhaps you have a crush on Ann Coulter (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html)? :D

Gawd you're on some kinda roll tonight ... :rolleyes:

They're only as liberal as the companies that own them, you know.
*shakes head*


The owners have very LITTLE interest and just about ZERO exercized control over the opinions presented as news by the reporters and producers.

The owners have very LITTLE interest and just about ZERO exercized control over the opinions presented as news by the reporters and producers.

LMFAO

*gasps for breath* no.......no more please........you're killing me.......murdoch.....no control.......hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhaa

MEDIC!

LMFAO

*gasps for breath* no.......no more please........you're killing me.......murdoch.....no control.......hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhaa

MEDIC!


For your information, Fox is ONE station of many. SEcondly, I seem to recall Fox as being the ONLY station that treated Kucinich with respect and allowed him to discuss his issues instead of "the dating game".

Your Idea of "fair and balanced" is three or four aggressive and articulate leftists shouting down a single milquetoast faux conservative like David Gergan - unless they find a "conservative" that agrees with them and suddenly they spin it as "SEE even this REPUBLICAN" agrees with us - and they blast that as loudly and as often as they can - hence the McCain/Spector/Hagle phenomenons.

For your information, Fox is ONE station of many. SEcondly, I seem to recall Fox as being the ONLY station that treated Kucinich with respect and allowed him to discuss his issues instead of "the dating game".

Your Idea of "fair and balanced" is three or four aggressive and articulate leftists shouting down a single milquetoast faux conservative like David Gergan - unless they find a "conservative" that agrees with them and suddenly they spin it as "SEE even this REPUBLICAN" agrees with us - and they blast that as loudly and as often as they can - hence the McCain/Spector/Hagle phenomenons.

Yes fox is one station of many. what makes you think the owners have any less influence than murdoch? A tad naive. All media have an approach and a political stance otherwise they would take opposing views every half an hour when the producer changed. Someone sets that approach and it is not a little democratic meeting between the producers first thing in the morning that sets it for the day.

Its set by the guy who pays the bills. Simple.

As for my idea of fair and balanced......

I've never mentioned it. And I have no idea who the hell any of those people are.

Don't mistake me for an american or a person who gives a shit about american internal policy or media.

You clearly have no idea who I am, so don't try and label me, oh rabid uni-poster.

Yes fox is one station of many. what makes you think the owners have any less influence than murdoch? A tad naive. All media have an approach and a political stance otherwise they would take opposing views every half an hour when the producer changed. Someone sets that approach and it is not a little democratic meeting between the producers first thing in the morning that sets it for the day.

Its set by the guy who pays the bills. Simple.

As for my idea of fair and balanced......

I've never mentioned it. And I have no idea who the hell any of those people are.

Don't mistake me for an american or a person who gives a shit about american internal policy or media.

You clearly have no idea who I am, so don't try and label me, oh rabid uni-poster.



Then you have no clue about Murdoch's policies on Fox. They are the only station that you can even hear the conservative side of things - and you STILL get the leftist side of the story. Since when is reporting BOTH sides, characterized as a negative "influencing" of the coverage. I thought that was what journalists were supposed to do.



On edit: Kucinich was the leftwing anti-war crowd's favorite candidate, and McCain, Hagel and Spector are Republican Senators who often side with the Democrats.

Then you have no clue about Murdoch's policies on Fox. They are the only station that you can even hear the conservative side of things - and you STILL get the leftist side of the story. Since when is reporting BOTH sides, characterized as a negative "influencing" of the coverage. I thought that was what journalists were supposed to do.


I never said anything about fox.

Murdoch has an international reputation for a top-down bias in all his worldwide media organisations. As do most of the other owners although murdoch is particularly renowned for it. Are you seriously not aware of this?

I never said anything about reporting both sides of the story.

If you're going to reply to my posts, try replying to what I SAID. All you are doing is spouting your own entire agenda to anything I say regardless of whether it has any relevance.

Hence: Uni-poster.

On edit: Kucinich was the leftwing anti-war crowd's favorite candidate, and McCain, Hagel and Spector are Republican Senators who often side with the Democrats.

Still means nothing to me but ta for trying.

I never said anything about fox.

Murdoch has an international reputation for a top-down bias in all his worldwide media organisations. As do most of the other owners although murdoch is particularly renowned for it. Are you seriously not aware of this?

I never said anything about reporting both sides of the story.

If you're going to reply to my posts, try replying to what I SAID. All you are doing is spouting your own entire agenda to anything I say regardless of whether it has any relevance.

Hence: Uni-poster.


Still means nothing to me but ta for trying.

My apologies if you did not mean Fox. I am aware of the allegations, I just call bullshit on them.

So FOX TV is the only place where one can find THE truth?

Perhaps you have a crush on Ann Coulter (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html)? :D

Not quite. I tend to make up my own mind on things. Frankly, I don't even watch any network news from any source because of the bias. If it appears openly biased, odds are, I have already moved on. Fox just simply has a different kind of bias than the others I had mentioned. In its' favor, at least they make a half-assed effort to show both sides, which is more than you can say for any of the other choices I had listed.

I can get news from any source, I just am cognizant of the motives behind the message, and then I seek out the other opinions, make up my mind, and usually wind up in the middle somewhere.

I DO like Ann Coulter though. She pisses people off greatly. Turns the liberals absolutely apoplectic, she does. I like that immensely. I'm fond of her in the same way you'd be fond of a pet pit bull that occasionally gets loose and selectively tears up the *ssholes across the road while they're out in their yard. I don't agree with all of her positions though, so I'm not about to go get my "I Love Ann" t-shirt anytime soon.

Not quite. I tend to make up my own mind on things. This reminds me of a certain quote you gave not very long ago that made me mention Corneliu to you. ;)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11352141&postcount=160
I just love to play devils advocate. :p


I DO like Ann Coulter though. She pisses people off greatly. Turns the liberals absolutely apoplectic, she does. I like that immensely. I'm fond of her in the same way you'd be fond of a pet pit bull that occasionally gets loose and selectively tears up the *ssholes across the road while they're out in their yard. I don't agree with all of her positions though, so I'm not about to go get my "I Love Ann" t-shirt anytime soon.Are you about to go get a really good blog reference that had Ruffy and i laughing hysterically a little while back?
I'd post, but you should probably ask for it first. Make up your own mind :p