Why Bush Should be Impeached

[BillyBob]

Clinton was impeached. In fact, he was the only elected President to ever be impeached.

:darwinsm:


:loser:

[Zimfan]

Clinton lied under oath. Ok, that's against the law, so persecute him.

persecute him? Whaddaya want us to do, burn him at the stake or something?








Oh, you meant prosecute him. ;)

[Ninjashadow]

Clinton was impeached. In fact, he was the only elected President to ever be impeached.

:darwinsm:


:loser:

Yes, but he really didn't get punished or anything.

[Zimfan]

Yes, but he really didn't get punished or anything.

At least he'll go down in U.S. history books as the only president ever to be impeached.

[BillyBob]

Yes, but he really didn't get punished or anything.

Not to the degree he deserved to be. He was fined $850,000 and got disbarred.

His partners in crime [The McDougals] actually did hard time and one of them even died in prison while Bill was busy pardoning 150 other criminals.

[Zimfan]

Found this on the web a short while ago. I kinda like it. Something all of us can agree on. So, in the interest of bipartisanship:

Finally, a new bumper sticker for BOTH political parties.

This hottest selling political bumper sticker comes from New York State:

"RUN HILARY RUN'

Democrats put it on the rear bumper.

Republicans put it on the front bumper.

[Zimfan]

Not to the degree he deserved to be. He was fined $850,000 and got disbarred.

His partners in crime [The McDougals] actually did hard time and one of them even died in prison while Bill was busy pardoning 150 other criminals.

It seems rather unfair that someone else took the brunt of the punishment for his breaking the law.

[Ninjashadow]

Not to the degree he deserved to be. He was fined $850,000 and got disbarred.

His partners in crime [The McDougals] actually did hard time and one of them even died in prison while Bill was busy pardoning 150 other criminals.

What a scumbag.

[Ninjashadow]

It seems rather unfair that someone else took the brunt of the punishment for his breaking the law.

That's because Clinton was an unethical son of a gunn.

[Zimfan]

Q: What does Monica Lewinsky have on her Resume?
A: "Sat on the Presidential Staff"

Q: What's the new press name for the latest Presidential scandal?
A: Fornigate.

Q: What do Monica Lewinsky and Bob Dole have in common?
A: They were both upset when Bill finished first.

[Shalom]

Some one should start a "favorite bumper sticker" thread.......................dito on the whole Clinton sucks thing

[koban]

Some one should start a "favorite bumper sticker" thread.......................dito on the whole Clinton sucks thing




Someone should start a thread about impeaching Bush.



Oh - never mind.

[BillyBob]

Q: What does Monica Lewinsky have on her Resume?
A: "Sat on the Presidential Staff"

Q: What's the new press name for the latest Presidential scandal?
A: Fornigate.

Q: What do Monica Lewinsky and Bob Dole have in common?
A: They were both upset when Bill finished first.

:eek:

[Zimfan]

:eek:

I found quite a few of them, and they only get dirtier. Shall I continue?

[BillyBob]

...dito on the whole Clinton sucks thing


Are you sure you're not thinking of Monica....?

[Zimfan]

I think I can come up with an even shorter summary.

Skeptic: :baby:
BB: :rotfl:

Repeat.


And now, back to our regularly scheduled program.


Skeptic bad.

Bush good.

War good.






No it isn't!


Yes it is!


No it isn't!






There - that oughta get it going again.

[Ninjashadow]

Someone should start a thread about impeaching Bush.



Oh - never mind.

Did you come up with that one all by yourself? ;)

[koban]

Did you come up with that one all by yourself? ;)


Yeah - nothing to Google tonight.


Funny - I was showing my kids last night's thread and they were quite familiar with Futurama.

:cheers:

[Zimfan]

Q: What is the difference between Clinton and the Titanic?
A: Only 200 women went down on the Titanic.

Q: How does Bill keep Monica Lewinsky away from the White House?
A: He keeps offering to send Ted Kennedy over to give her a ride.

Q: Why does Bill Clinton cheat on Hillary?
A: He wants to be on top.

[Ninjashadow]

Yeah - nothing to Google tonight.


Funny - I was showing my kids last night's thread and they were quite familiar with Futurama.

:cheers:

Futurama is a great show.

[Zimfan]

Futurama is a great show.

:thumb: Yes it is.

[Ninjashadow]

And Clinton was a bad president.

[Zimfan]

Bill Clinton: "No, thank you, Lisa. For teaching kids everywhere a valuable lesson: If things don't go your way, just keep complaining until your dreams come true."
Marge: "That's a pretty lousy lesson."
Bill Clinton: "Hey, I'm a pretty lousy president."

[Zimfan]

"I'll be back. You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever, and when they get in, I'm back on the streets, with all my criminal buddies." -- Sideshow Bob

[Ninjashadow]

:chuckle:

[Zimfan]

This one's only indirectly related to Clinton and his fellow democrats.

"Lemmie tell you what I tell everyone who comes in here, the police are powerless to help you." -- Chief Wiggum

[Zimfan]

Bart: But Grandpa, didn't you wonder why you were getting checks for doing absolutely nothing?
Grandpa: I figured it was 'cause the Democrats were in power again.

[HerodionRomulus]

Clinton was impeached. In fact, he was the only elected President to ever be impeached.



Hmmm, guess you were coked-up or drunk in American History class. President Johnson was impeached and the Senate was only one vote shy of conviction and removal from office.

[HerodionRomulus]

At least he'll go down in U.S. history books as the only president ever to be impeached.

Hmmm, guess you were Home-Schooled. President Johnson was impeached and the Senate was only one vote shy of conviction and removal from office.

[HerodionRomulus]

Bart: But Grandpa, didn't you wonder why you were getting checks for doing absolutely nothing?
Grandpa: I figured it was 'cause the Democrats were in power again.

You mean Grandpa is an Executive with Tumbleweed Oil??? :sinapisN:

[BillyBob]

Hmmm, guess you were Home-Schooled. President Johnson was impeached and the Senate was only one vote shy of conviction and removal from office.


Clinton was the only ELECTED President to ever be impeached. Johnson was not elected.

This is noteworthy because impeachment of an elected President is in direct conflict with the idea of elected representation of the populous.

Clinton was a scumbag.

[BillyBob]

Clinton was impeached. In fact, he was the only elected President to ever be impeached.


Hmmm, guess you were coked-up or drunk in American History class. President Johnson was impeached and the Senate was only one vote shy of conviction and removal from office.

Hmmmm....looks like you are the coke-head afterall.


On February 12, the U.S. Senate finally ended a historic 37-day impeachment trial, and more than a year of troubles for President Bill Clinton. The Senate voted not to remove Clinton from office.

The President had been charged with two crimes. The first was perjury, or lying under oath. Ten Republicans joined all 45 Democrats to reject that charge. The second charge, or article of impeachment, accused the President of blocking justice by interfering with a legal investigation. That was rejected by a 50-to-50 vote. Both outcomes fell far short of the 67 votes needed for removal.

Clinton is the only elected President ever to be impeached. (Andrew Johnson took office when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Richard Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment.)

Two hours after the Senate finished voting, Bill Clinton walked out into the bright sunshine of the White House Rose Garden. There he gave a speech that he had worked on late into the night. It lasted only 82 seconds. "I want to say again," he announced, "how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people."

Care to apologize, smartasss?

[Gerald]

Clinton was a scumbag.
You misspelled "Every politician is", but I understand the sentiment...

[BillyBob]

I see that Herod has slunked away with his tail between his legs......:BillyBob:

[koban]

Hmmmm....looks like you are the coke-head afterall.




Hmmmm - so you don't deny being drunk in American History class ??? :think: :p :rotfl:

[Skeptic]

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Unnecessary U.S. Troop Deaths: 1,846
Unnecessary U.S. Troops Wounded: 13,877
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 23,456 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 reported wounded - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

[Frank Ernest]

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Unnecessary U.S. Troop Deaths: 1,846
Unnecessary U.S. Troops Wounded: 13,877
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 23,456 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 reported wounded - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!
Daily :skeptic: check
:yawn: :sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Skeptic]

:yawn: :sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz That's right, sleep.

That way you won't have to think about the many thousands of innocent men, women and children who have died UNNECESSARILY because of Bush's immoral rush to war!!

[BillyBob]

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Unnecessary U.S. Troop Deaths: 1,846
Unnecessary U.S. Troops Wounded: 13,877
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 23,456 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 reported wounded - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!



Stop spamming this thread!!! :sozo2:

[BillyBob]

That's right, sleep.

That way you won't have to think about the many thousands of innocent men, women and children who have died UNNECESSARILY because of Bush's immoral rush to war!!


:yawn:

[koban]

Stop spamming this thread!!! :sozo2:



:cheers:

[Zimfan]

Stop spamming this thread!!! :sozo2:

That's our job! ;)

[Zimfan]

Hmmm, guess you were Home-Schooled. President Johnson was impeached and the Senate was only one vote shy of conviction and removal from office.

Actually I've gone to public schools all of my scholastic career up to and including college. As I recall, we skipped straight from Lincoln to Grant in every college U.S. history course I've taken, including the college course I took my freshman year. We had to skip reconstruction ere in order to finish the course before the end of the semester and I was too busy trying to maintain a 4.0 to read through parts of the book that would not show up on any tests. You may be omnipotent but there are still things I've yet to learn.

So, in short:

Sod off, ya wanker. :p

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

Soon as we stop :darwinsm:, we'll go impeach somebody -- anybody.

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

It might be a while..... :darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

And then we say they are all homos.

[Skeptic]

Neither the Pentagon nor the CIA ever presented Bush with any clear hard evidence of a real significant and imminent threat from Iraq. Therefore, Bush KNEW Iraq posed no threat, even though he and his Pentagon/CIA buddies claimed just the opposite!

No imminent threat, no moral justification for war!

When there is no evidence of a significant imminent threat, there is ALWAYS time to explore non-lethal ways to deal with uncooperative leaders of other countries.

The RIGHT thing to do would be to remove Bush from office or pressure him to resign for one of the most immoral acts any leader of a nation can commit: launching a massive military invasion of another country based on false premises, after dramatically exaggerating the threat and misleading Congress and the American people!!

More and more Americans are finally waking up to this fact. But even having a majority of American's opposed to this unnecessary and immoral war may not be enough to get Bush dumped. At least history will rightly judge Bush as a President who clearly misled our nation into an unnecessary and unjust war, which increased global terrorism, passed on a massive debt to our children, and in which many thousands innocent men, women and children, as well as our brave troops, lost their lives because of political and strategic arrogance and stupidity, and oil.

[simply one]

:darwinsm:

My hope is that you two laugh so hard that you forget to go vote in any elections..

[simply one]

then again, maybe plenty of :cheers: will do the trick... bottoms up!!

billybob, the alchohol induced brain damage is showing...

[Frank Ernest]

My hope is that you two laugh so hard that you forget to go vote in any elections..
Lie-beral political strategy in a nutshell! :noway:

Thanks, simpleton! :thumb:

[Frank Ernest]

Neither the Pentagon nor the CIA ever presented Bush with any clear hard evidence of a real significant and imminent threat from Iraq. Therefore, Bush KNEW Iraq posed no threat, even though he and his Pentagon/CIA buddies claimed just the opposite!

No imminent threat, no moral justification for war!

When there is no evidence of a significant imminent threat, there is ALWAYS time to explore non-lethal ways to deal with uncooperative leaders of other countries.

The RIGHT thing to do would be to remove Bush from office or pressure him to resign for one of the most immoral acts any leader of a nation can commit: launching a massive military invasion of another country based on false premises, after dramatically exaggerating the threat and misleading Congress and the American people!!

More and more Americans are finally waking up to this fact. But even having a majority of American's opposed to this unnecessary and immoral war may not be enough to get Bush dumped. At least history will rightly judge Bush as a President who clearly misled our nation into an unnecessary and unjust war, which increased global terrorism, passed on a massive debt to our children, and in which many thousands innocent men, women and children, as well as our brave troops, lost their lives because of political and strategic arrogance and stupidity, and oil.
September 11, 2001.

Which part of the phrase "imminent threat" do you not understand?

The rest is :spam:

[BillyBob]

My hope is that you two laugh so hard that you forget to go vote in any elections..

That's the only way you commies have half a chance of actually winning one! :darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

September 11, 2001.

Which part of the phrase "imminent threat" do you not understand? Surprise attacks against nations have occurred for thousands of years. Such attacks, however, have never justified invading potential attackers long before they even become a real threat!

After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, would the U.S. have been justified if it had responded by not only fighting Japan, but also invading China, or some other country that had not posed a threat, yet might someday? Afghanistan did pose a threat, because they harbored and supported those who actually attacked America! Iraq did NOT pose a threat, because they did NOT harbor or support those who actually attacked America, and were not a WMD threat, despite what the Bush Administration wanted us to believe!!

Invading other countries, in the absence of any evidence of a real threat from those countries, thereby unnecessarily killing thousands of innocent people, makes the leader of such invading nations no better that Osama bin Laden.

In my opinion, Bush's doctrine of striking pre-emptively when a county is merely suspected of being a threat, or before a country becomes a serious threat, is immoral. There are other more ethical ways to prevent countries from becoming a threat. Bush chose to ignore such options and invaded Iraq for political, economic and strategic reasons, even though his public reasons were to stop Saddam from attacking America! Here is the evidence:

"He's a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible." -- President Bush, September 13, 2002

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."-- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." -- President Bush, September 26, 2002

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." -- President Bush, 10/2/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." -- President Bush, 10/7/02

"Some have argued we should wait -- and that is an option. In my view, it is the riskiest of all options -- I am not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein." -- President Bush, October 7, 2002

"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" -- President Bush, October 7, 2002

"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." -- President Bush, October 7, 2002

"Well, if we don't do something, he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat..." -- President Bush, November 7, 2002

"We cannot allow weapons of mass destruction to remain in the hands of volatile, unpredictable leaders. Which is exactly why we must act quickly and decisively against Saddam Hussein." -- President Bush, January 15, 2003

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" -- President Bush, January 28, 2003
(So Bush wants to lower America to the immoral level of terrorists by attacking countries pre-emptively before they are a threat?)

"This is about imminent threat." -- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now..." -- President Bush, March 17, 2003

"Absolutely." -- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03


Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. There was no hard pre-war evidence that Iraq posed a serious threat that would warrant a massive invasion that everyone knew would result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children!

[Skeptic]

Japanese PM Apologizes for Past Invasions (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050815/ap_on_re_as/asia_liberation_day)

Bush should do the same!!

[Frank Ernest]

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. There was no hard pre-war evidence that Iraq posed a serious threat that would warrant a massive invasion that everyone knew would result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children!

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19129

[Frank Ernest]

Japanese PM Apologizes for Past Invasions (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050815/ap_on_re_as/asia_liberation_day)

Bush should do the same!!
:Commie:

[BillyBob]

Yep.

[Skeptic]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19129 And we should believe this ultra-right-wing rag because ....?

Like I said, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Until there is a general consensus within the intelligence community that Iraq had meaningful or operational ties (not mere suspected meetings) with al-Qaeda, and evidence that Iraq knew about the plans and supported those who attacked us on 9/11, there is no good reason to believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

Again, there was no hard pre-war evidence that Iraq posed a serious threat that would warrant a massive invasion that everyone knew would result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children!

[BillyBob]

And we should believe this ultra-right-wing rag because ....?


Because this story is everywhere, Skeppie, not just Right Wing publications.

Are you going to deny the story?



:blabla:

:yawn:

[Husband&Father]

ABC, AP and CNN 9/99:
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

That's all I need. Can we hang Saddam and move on now.

[BillyBob]

Hang him! :dead:

[Husband&Father]

Surprise attacks against nations have occurred for thousands of years. Such attacks, however, have never justified invading potential attackers long before they even become a real threat!

Nuclear weapons have only existed for 60 years. They changed things.
Pakistan was selling nukes like hot dogs out the back of a trailer at the county fair. Iran will soon have a bomb and North Korea most likely already has one.
Cash rich Saddam had the means and would, by now, have the opportunity to buy a nuke.
He was openly hostile to the US and was by all accounts an international terrorist.

We could have left him in power, and in fact did, 10 years ago, but not today.

Suppose Bush was wrong. OK we had a war and now an evil dictator is gone and Iraq has its own government and a constitution.

Now suppose Bush was right but we did not go to war; Saddam with billions in oil money and North Korea with a nuke and no money. Saddam with a bomb, nightmare scenario.

[Frank Ernest]

And we should believe this ultra-right-wing rag because ....?
... it's true. :thumb: You got something against the truth? Oh! That's right! You're a :Commie:!

Like I said, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Until there is a general consensus within the intelligence community that Iraq had meaningful or operational ties (not mere suspected meetings) with al-Qaeda, and evidence that Iraq knew about the plans and supported those who attacked us on 9/11, there is no good reason to believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
All of a sudden there are more requirements needed to make the facts true. Next you'll be demanding a video of Saddam shaking hands with Osama before the requirement of "meaningful ties" can be met. :bang:

Again, there was no hard pre-war evidence that Iraq posed a serious threat that would warrant a massive invasion that everyone knew would result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children!
:darwinsm: Again, :cow:

[Frank Ernest]

Oh my! More beans are spilling ...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=19146

[BillyBob]

Oh Frank, you know the Washington Times is just another Extremist Right Wing Rag.....:darwinsm:

[simply one]

Suppose Bush was wrong. OK we had a war and now an evil dictator is gone and Iraq has its own government and a constitution.


So.... Iraq now has a constition, eh?

The Iraqi political process descended toward paralysis on Monday, when leaders failed to meet the deadline for completing the new constitution and voted to give themselves another week to resolve fundamental disagreements over the future and identity of this fractious land.

"The differences are huge, and there is not enough determination from the political leaders to solve the problems," said Saleh Mutlak, a Sunni leader in the negotiations. "Almost 50 percent of the constitution is not finished yet."

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/international/middleeast/16iraq.html)

So, still want to claim that Iraq has a unified Constitution?

But the fact remains that Iraq is coming apart -- the Kurds into their own state (with their own flag), the Sunnis into their own armed camps, and the dominant Shiites forming an Islamic republic that will in due course become our declared enemy.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/15/AR2005081501149.html)

1) Iraq is coming apart at the seams, with factions all going their own ways
2) Bush's promise of democracy has been abandoned, replaced by an Islamic Republic
3) The highly touted Constitution is not even close to completion, and fundamental issues like women's rights has not even been addressed.
4) Outside the orderly Green Zone, Iraq is falling into violent chaos. With dozens (and rising) of attacks by insurgents everyday, and dozens of Iraqis dying, the great promise of Iraqi Freedom seems farther away than ever.




Now suppose Bush was right but we did not go to war; Saddam with billions in oil money and North Korea with a nuke and no money. Saddam with a bomb, nightmare scenario.

Arm the B-52s and reinstate the draft! Iran and North Korea are next!

[Frank Ernest]

Oh Frank, you know the Washington Times is just another Extremist Right Wing Rag.....:darwinsm:
OOPS! My bad. :thumb: :D

[BillyBob]

I posted your article in Art's 'Able Danger' thread, hope you don't mind. I gave you credit, of course. :D

[Frank Ernest]

I posted your article in Art's 'Able Danger' thread, hope you don't mind. I gave you credit, of course. :D
No problema, amigo.

[garymorton]

I'm a Canadian.
Last night I had quite a vivid dream. I won't describe the details. It appeared as from God.

I saw a wreath made for Bush, and the word SIN was on it ... I interpret it as he is dead in Sin now.

Iraq is a lost cause.
Basically you're looking at a civil war directed by forces from outside.
American troops against armies of muslims and Iraquis funded by even the Arab nations that pretend to be America's allies.

The most fatal errors were the dismantling of the Baath Party and the Iraqi army and privatisation of all of Iraq's state companies.
US taxpayers thru taxes and Iraquis through the oil revenues seized by the US pay multinational corporations billions on billions to do reconstruction work that mostly isn't done.

It is a huge crime against Americans, Iraquis and all people.

The attempt to impose democracy won't work ... the US is likely going to be stuck in there in a hellish quagmire of horrible misery, murder and decay.

War does not stop terror. It is the ultimate crime, and from the fires of its hell all forms of evil emerge.
==================

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

:sigh: Yet another lofty prophet appears.

:darwinsm: :Commie:

[BillyBob]

I somehow doubt that God communicates with Canadians....with their recent sanction of homo marriages and continued commie policies....I'm guessing that 'crack' was the culprit.

[Skeptic]

Notice that all these righties have to fall back on are ad hominem attacks. Try to discredit the messenger in the hope that doing so will be enough to discredit the message.

[BillyBob]

Not at all, we just spend more time at TOL than you do and have gotten to know other posters better than you have.

Now, back to the topic of Bush's Impeachment:

:darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

Hey Skeppie, do you agree that Garymorton was visited by God in his dream?

[Skeptic]

Federal Whistle Blower Claims Chicago Grand Jury Indicted Bush And Others For Perjury and Obstruction Of Justice! (http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/30722.htm)

Dreams can sometimes become reality!

[Frank Ernest]

Notice that all these righties have to fall back on are ad hominem attacks. Try to discredit the messenger in the hope that doing so will be enough to discredit the message.
That was one of :aikido:7's rants. :yawn: :sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Frank Ernest]

Federal Whistle Blower Claims Chicago Grand Jury Indicted Bush And Others For Perjury and Obstruction Of Justice! (http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/30722.htm)
See post #395, August 3, 2005, in thread "Karl Rove off the lifeboat."

Dreams can sometimes become reality!
You're going to get Bush impeached with random eye movements?

[BillyBob]

:noid:

[BillyBob]

:lucky:

[BillyBob]

It doesn't seem to be working!

:darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

And we should believe this ultra-right-wing rag because ....?




Oh look, the ultra-right-wing rag New York Times has a few things to add to this story! :think:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/politics/11intel.html

[Frank Ernest]

From the ultra-right-wing rag New York Sun:

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2005/08/15&ID=Ar01000

[Caille]

From the ultra-right-wing rag New York Sun:

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2005/08/15&ID=Ar01000



Ultra-right-wing? pshaaw! Bunch of lily livered pinko commie fags.


You want right wing? Here's right wing....http://www.infowars.com/



Hold on to your shorts, though. Alex can prove that 9/11 was a CIA orchestrated plot...

[Skeptic]

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Overall strength of insurgency (June '05): 15,000 - 20,000
Number of foreign fighters in insurgency (June '05): 750 - 1000
Foreign fighters in detainee prison population (Jan 21, '05): 224
Source (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm)

U.S. troops unnecessarily dead: 1,862
U.S. troops unnecessarily wounded: 13,877
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 23,589 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 reported wounded - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

[BillyBob]

Impeachment? No, not yet.

:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

Impeachment? No, not yet. Impeachment ain't gonna happen.

Bush is more likely to resign, if enough $hit hits the fan.

Bush should be impeached, but he won't be.

[BillyBob]

Oh, so do you want to change the title of this thread?


{psssst Bush ain't gonna resign, either] :nono:

[Frank Ernest]

Ultra-right-wing? pshaaw! Bunch of lily livered pinko commie fags.


You want right wing? Here's right wing....http://www.infowars.com/



Hold on to your shorts, though. Alex can prove that 9/11 was a CIA orchestrated plot...
:darwinsm:

[Gerald]

{psssst Bush ain't gonna resign, either] :nono:
No, but it wouldn't surprise me to see him to go for President-for-Life come 2008...

[BillyBob]

:doh:

[Skeptic]

Oh, so do you want to change the title of this thread? The only title change I can think of would be:

Why Bush Should be Impeached (but won't be)

[Frank Ernest]

No, but it wouldn't surprise me to see him to go for President-for-Life come 2008...
:darwinsm: Wasn't there a minor movement back in the 90s to repeal the 22nd Amendment so that Clinton could run for a third term? Sure didn't hear from any "President-for-life" critics then.

[Caille]

No, but it wouldn't surprise me to see him to go for President-for-Life come 2008...



I thought Arnold was going for that one.... :think:

[Caille]

:darwinsm: Wasn't there a minor movement back in the 90s to repeal the 22nd Amendment so that Clinton could run for a third term? Sure didn't hear from any "President-for-life" critics then.



Look for Hillary to push that one in the middle of her second term, say 2014....:shocked:

[Gerald]

Look for Hillary to push that one in the middle of her second term, say 2014....:shocked:It would be easier to just stage a high-profile terrorist act and declare Martial Law (only for the duration of the present emergency, of course...)...

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: :yawn:

[HerodionRomulus]

:darwinsm: Wasn't there a minor movement back in the 90s to repeal the 22nd Amendment so that Clinton could run for a third term? Sure didn't hear from any "President-for-life" critics then.

Yep, just like the idea was bandied about during Reagan as well. It'll always be a perennial topic for the talking heads because everyone knows it won't ever happen but these clowns have to make a living somehow. .

[HerodionRomulus]

"civil war" is already here (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0822/p01s02-woiq.html)

"It's not a threat. It's not a potential. Civil war is a fact of life there now,'' says Pavel Baev, head of the Center for the Study of Civil War at the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway....What this means in practical terms, is that an immediate US withdrawal isn't likely to bring peace to Iraq, say analysts. Nor is simply "staying the course,"....

...The spreadsheets in Dr. Faad Ameen Bakr's computer shed some light on the casualty rate. Baghdad's chief pathologist pulls down the death toll for Iraq's capital in July: 1,083 murders, a new record.
Under Saddam Hussein, Baghdad was a violent city. But the highest murder rate before the war was 250 in one month.....

"We are living in an undeclared civil war among Iraq's political groups,'' says Nabil Yunos, the head of political affairs for the Dignity Party, a Sunni party. "It's not just Sunnis that are the problem. It's the Shiites, the Kurds, it's everyone. The violence has gotten worse, and we're entering a very dangerous period."....

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: The MSM have been beating the drum on this one for almost a year now. Pavel, Faad and Nabil are kinda late out of the blocks. They should have checked with NBCABCCBSCNNPBSBBS.

[simply one]

:darwinsm: The MSM have been beating the drum on this one for almost a year now. Pavel, Faad and Nabil are kinda late out of the blocks. They should have checked with NBCABCCBSCNNPBSBBS.

hm.... so, if the mass media, whose purpose is to make $$$ more than to report things exactly as they are, do not mention it, it cannot be true!

yeah... right...:rolleyes:

Frank, the ignorant, gung-ho, superficial "Patriot" in you is showing...

follow blindly over the cliff

[BillyBob]

That's the smartest thing you've ever said......

[simply one]

That's the smartest thing you've ever said......

aww cute.

billybob made a funny everyone... you should laugh.. ha ha.

What's that saying... you know the one about attacking the messenger...

[BillyBob]

aww cute.

:o



billybob made a funny everyone... you should laugh.. ha ha.

It happens quite frequently. :devil:



What's that saying... you know the one about attacking the messenger...


Are you attacking me?

[simply one]

Are you attacking me?

actually, quite the opposite.

[BillyBob]

You're attacking yourself? :freak:

[simply one]

You're attacking yourself? :freak:

Not quite BB... you, as usual, are attempting to demean the poster, instead of trying to debate the information. But, forget about it this time.

Back to "Why Bush Should Be Impeached (But Almost Definitely WIll Not Be)"...

[Frank Ernest]

hm.... so, if the mass media, whose purpose is to make $$$ more than to report things exactly as they are, do not mention it, it cannot be true!

yeah... right...:rolleyes:
:darwinsm: Simpleton! As if on cue you come up with yet another idiotic pontification. No they don't mention it because they don't want you to know. Has nothing to do with truth or falsity.

Frank, the ignorant, gung-ho, superficial "Patriot" in you is showing...

follow blindly over the cliff
:darwinsm: :Commie: :loser:

[Skeptic]

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Estimated overall strength of insurgency (June '05): 15,000 - 20,000
Estimated number of foreign fighters in insurgency (June '05): 750 - 1000
Foreign fighters in detainee prison population (Jan 21, '05): 224
Source (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm)

Number of global acts of terrorism in 2004: 651
this is the highest yearly total since 1987.
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html), source (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf)

U.S. troops unnecessarily dead: 1,871
U.S. troops unnecessarily wounded: 14,021
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 23,589 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 reported wounded - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

[Frank Ernest]

What :skeptic: and the other :Commie:s don't want you to know.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/20050825.shtml

[BillyBob]

From Frank's article:

"No, Fallujah doesn’t rival Jamaica as a vacation resort. But last year at this time it was the epicenter of Iraq terrorism, filled with decapitators and bomb-makers. If progress can be made there, it can be made anywhere in Iraq. Don’t listen to the “quagmire” crowd. This war is being won."

[Frank Ernest]

Matthew 5:4-6 "Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled."

http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050825-120635-1786r

[Skeptic]

What skeptic and the other Commies don't want you to know.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/20050825.shtml The fact the U.S. soldiers often do good things, or the fact that the lives of many Iraqis have improved in some ways, does not justify Bush's invasion and occupation.

There was no great urgency to "liberate" the Iraqi people by killing many thousands of them, since March 2003. Before Bush invaded, Saddam was surrounded and monitored 24/7, and was unlikely to pull the kind of crap he pulled in the late 1980's against the Kurds. There was plenty of time for dealing with Saddam in more ethical ways. Therefore, even if tomorrow Iraq became the most peace-loving and democratic country the world has ever known, this would still not justify the unnecessary slaughter of many thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Even if most Iraqis felt they were better off as a result of Bush's invasion, the United States and the world is NOT better off as a result. Bush's unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq resulted in the highest yearly incidents of international terrorism since 1987! In 2004, Bush's unnecessary 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq dramatically increased global terrorism, making the world LESS SAFE!

[BillyBob]

:blabla:



:yawn:

[simply one]

From Frank's article:

"No, Fallujah doesn’t rival Jamaica as a vacation resort. But last year at this time it was the epicenter of Iraq terrorism, filled with decapitators and bomb-makers. If progress can be made there, it can be made anywhere in Iraq. Don’t listen to the “quagmire” crowd. This war is being won."

BillyBob, as is evident much in this forum, you can always find someone supporting your position. But, when one man says one thing about one place, and hundreds of other sources point the opposite direction, it makes one think.

House Intelligence Chairman Pete Hoekstra said Thursday he worries about the possibility of a civil war erupting in Iraq because of disputes surrounding the drafting of a constitution.
Source (http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw120365_20050825.htm)


Basically, President George Bush has lost the support of the American people for his ill-conceived war in Iraq. As the American death toll has soared over 1,800, including too many people from this area, as suicide bombers strike with impunity, and as a civil war in Iraq seems imminent, polls indicate a dramatic decline in both Bush's personal approval rating and in the broader approval for the war.
Source (http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050825/EDIT/508250328/1003)

Observers continue to ask, "Will Iraq descend into civil war?" The answer is that civil war is already underway in Iraq. Most people do not see it, because it is not following the Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurd fault lines on which we have been lead to focus. As is usually the case in war, we are the victims not of deception but of self-deception.

In Iraq's civil war, the most prominent faction is what America calls Iraq's "government." It is, of course, not a government, because there is no state. The "government's" goal is to recreate an Iraqi state and become a real government. What are its chances of success?

Source (http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=3120)

:think:
:(

[BillyBob]

BillyBob, as is evident much in this forum, you can always find someone supporting your position. But, when one man says one thing about one place, and hundreds of other sources point the opposite direction, it makes one think.


Yes it does, and the conclusion is that the mainstream media in the US predominately leans to the extreme left.

They have been that way for decades, there's nothing new about it.

[BillyBob]

By the way, quoting 'Anti-War.com' isn't going to help you convince anyone that you are right.

[Frank Ernest]

BillyBob, as is evident much in this forum, you can always find someone supporting your position. But, when one man says one thing about one place, and hundreds of other sources point the opposite direction, it makes one think.
:darwinsm: What you're saying is that a hundred sources who lie are better than one source who tells the truth.
Observers continue to ask, "Will Iraq descend into civil war?" The answer is that civil war is already underway in Iraq. Most people do not see it, because it is not following the Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurd fault lines on which we have been lead to focus. As is usually the case in war, we are the victims not of deception but of self-deception.
:darwinsm: :blabla: :Commie: You keep spewing the agit-prop and we'll keep telling the truth.

'K?

[Skeptic]

You keep spewing the agit-prop and we'll keep telling the truth. :darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Estimated overall strength of insurgency (June '05): 15,000 - 20,000
Estimated number of foreign fighters in insurgency (June '05): 750 - 1000
Foreign fighters in detainee prison population (Jan 21, '05): 224
Source (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm)

Number of acts of international terrorism in 2004: 651
this is the highest yearly total since 1987.
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html), source (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf)

U.S. troops unnecessarily dead: 1,877
U.S. troops unnecessarily wounded: 14,021
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 23,646 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 reported wounded - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

Read: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism (http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html)

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: + :spam:

[Skeptic]

Published on Tuesday, August 30, 2005, distributed by Knight-Ridder Newspapers
Nuremberg Lesson for Iraq War: It’s Murder
by Michael Mandel

This month marks the 60th anniversary of the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, the basic legal document for the trial of the major Nazi war criminals that commenced in November 1945.

One of the great innovations of that charter was the charge of "Crimes Against Peace," defined as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances."

In a famous passage from their judgment of the following year, the four judges of the tribunal (American, British, French and Russian) declared the crime of aggressive war to be "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The innovation of the crime of aggressive war was in fact denounced by the Nazi defendants as "ex post facto law," but Justice Robert Jackson, America's prosecutor at Nuremberg, had an answer for this: Illegal wars were nothing more than mass murder, and there was nothing ex post facto about the crime of murder. Here's what Jackson said to the tribunal in his opening statement on Nov. 21, 1945:

Any resort to war - any kind of war - is a resort to means that are inherently criminal. War inevitably is a course of killings, assaults, deprivations of liberty and destruction of property. An honestly defensive war is, of course, legal and saves those lawfully conducting it from criminality. But inherently criminal acts cannot be defended by showing that those who committed them were engaged in a war, when war itself is illegal. The very minimum legal consequence of the treaties making aggressive war illegal is to strip those who incite or wage them of every defense the law ever gave, and to leave the war-makers subject to judgment by the usually accepted principles of the law of crimes.

The crime of aggression is nowhere to be seen in modern international criminal codes, and leading the charge against including it has been the United States itself. It's easy to see why. The war in Iraq, for one example, constitutes the quintessential war of aggression, falling very far short, rhetoric apart, of any justification in self-defense or authorization by the Security Council of the United Nations, the only two accepted legal grounds for war in international law. The U.N. Charter is one of those "international treaties" mentioned in the London Charter of 1945. And with the best estimates of the cost in Iraqi civilian lives ranging between 25,000 (Iraq body count) and 100,000 (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore), all well within prewar predictions, it seems perverse to keep on insisting that this was a "humanitarian intervention," itself a dubious legal ground for war. In fact, it amounts to rather a lot of counts of murder on Jackson's definition.

To put this in some kind of perspective, in Canada the press has recently been obsessed with sex killer Karla Homolka, who participated with her husband, Paul Bernardo, in the sadistic murder of two teenage girls, and then served only 12 years in jail for it. And the British press has been desperate to understand how four Britons could have had it within them to murder 52 people on July 7. The claim that civilians aren't targeted by American weaponry ("collateral damage") is irrelevant. Not only does Jackson's definition apply to soldiers as well, but, according to most definitions of murder, it's enough that the criminal knew that his or her unlawful behavior would result in death, whether or not it was meant to. Under Texas law, for example, a person commits murder if he or she "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual." It's also murder if the person "intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual."

Nuremberg prosecutor Bernard Meltzer wrote soon after the Nazi trials that, "a modern war, no matter how chivalrous, involves so much misery that to punish deviations from the conventions without punishing the instigators of an aggressive war seems like a mocking exercise in gentlemanly futility."

Perhaps it is worth pondering, in the midst of the immense suffering unleashed by the Iraq war whether we are engaged in the same mocking exercise when we prosecute those far down the chain of command for violations of the Geneva Conventions and let the unleashers of illegal wars get away with murder.

Michael Mandel is a professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University.

[Frank Ernest]

"Any resort to war - any kind of war - is a resort to means that are inherently criminal."

"An honestly defensive war is, of course, legal and saves those lawfully conducting it from criminality."

Care to resolve the contradiction here? Seems to me that your law professor needs some tutoring. :doh:

[Frank Ernest]

We're getting closer ...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19327

[Skeptic]

"Any resort to war - any kind of war - is a resort to means that are inherently criminal."

"An honestly defensive war is, of course, legal and saves those lawfully conducting it from criminality."

Care to resolve the contradiction here? Seems to me that your law professor needs some tutoring. Resorting to war in the absence of an imminent threat is criminal. Bush had no hard pre-war evidence that Iraq was such a threat. Bush had no good reason to believe that invading Iraq was necessary to defend America. Bush knew that such an all-out military invasion would result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children. Therefore, Bush's unnecessary non-defensive invasion was criminal.

[BillyBob]

I finally found the reason to Impeach Bush. He is directly responsible for Katrina! :darwinsm:


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46059

[Skeptic]

I finally found the reason to Impeach Bush. He is directly responsible for Katrina! Absurd.

Bush was, however, directly responsible for an unnecessary and immoral invasion of Iraq, which he knew would result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children!

[BillyBob]

Equally absurd.

[Skeptic]

Equally absurd. Wrong. The vast majority of people on the planet agree with me.

[BillyBob]

Wrong. The vast majority of people on the planet agree with me.

The vast majority of people on the planet hate your guts.

[simply one]

The vast majority of people on the planet hate your guts.

The vast majority of people on this planet hate YOUR guts for supporting this unjust war. The vast majority of the people on this planet agree with Skeptic. So, do not try to pull the "everyone hates the USA" excuse. Everyone does not hate the USA, many many many people worldwide hate the Bush Administration.

[Skeptic]

The vast majority of people on the planet hate your guts. Oh, ... I see. :rolleyes:

[BillyBob]

The vast majority of people on this planet hate YOUR guts for supporting this unjust war. The vast majority of the people on this planet agree with Skeptic. So, do not try to pull the "everyone hates the USA" excuse. Everyone does not hate the USA, many many many people worldwide hate the Bush Administration.

Do you really think that Muslims give a flying crap whether you're a Republican or a Democrat? How about the Chinese? Russians?

[BillyBob]

Oh, ... I see. :rolleyes:

Is this news to you? :noway:

[simply one]

Is this news to you? :noway:

No, its just that your ranting. And he's already used to the ignorant, arrogant half of America hating his guts.

[Skeptic]

Do you really think that Muslims give a flying crap whether you're a Republican or a Democrat? How about the Chinese? Russians? Regardless of party affiliation, most Muslims, as well as the Chinese, Russians and people from most other countries, know that Bush is the one who started a war based on false premises, knowing full well he did not have the kind of clear hard evidence of a significant and imminent threat that would have justified such a massive military invasion. Bush knew there was plenty of doubt in the intelligence community about Iraq's alleged WMDs. Yet Bush & Co. were more interested in obtaining ammunition than evidence. Therefore, they cherry-picked whatever they felt might support an invasion and fixed the facts to fit their pre-existing policy. As a result, many thousands of innocent men, women and children, as well as our brave troops, died unnecessarily! :madmad:

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: I see the dispute has reached the point of irreducible complexity.

[Skeptic]

I see the dispute has reached the point of irreducible complexity. No, it's pretty simple really.

Bush lied, people died!

[BillyBob]

Regardless of party affiliation, most Muslims, as well as the Chinese, Russians and people from most other countries, know that Bush is the one who started a war based on false premises, knowing full well he did not have the kind of clear hard evidence of a significant and imminent threat that would have justified such a massive military invasion. Bush knew there was plenty of doubt in the intelligence community about Iraq's alleged WMDs. Yet Bush & Co. were more interested in obtaining ammunition than evidence. Therefore, they cherry-picked whatever they felt might support an invasion and fixed the facts to fit their pre-existing policy. As a result, many thousands of innocent men, women and children, as well as our brave troops, died unnecessarily! :madmad:

How do you explain all the terrorism and hatred of Americans BEFORE Bush became President?

[Skeptic]

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Estimated overall strength of insurgency (June '05): 15,000 - 20,000
Estimated number of foreign fighters in insurgency (June '05): 750 - 1000
Foreign fighters in detainee prison population (Jan 21, '05): 224
Source (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm)

Number of acts of international terrorism in 2004: 651
this is the highest yearly total since 1987.
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html), source (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf)

U.S. troops unnecessarily dead: 1,882
U.S. troops unnecessarily wounded: 14,021
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 24,495 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 reported wounded - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

Read: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism (http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html)

[BillyBob]

How do you explain all the terrorism and hatred of Americans BEFORE Bush became President?

:think:

[Frank Ernest]

No, it's pretty simple really.

Bush lied, people died!
:darwinsm: :spam: You really won't get anywhere with :Commie: sloganeering.

[Skeptic]

How do you explain all the terrorism and hatred of Americans BEFORE Bush became President? This has nothing to do with the current global hatred of the Bush Administration.

Anti-American hatred has existed for a long time, as has terrorism. After 9/11, most of the world, including most Muslims, were outraged and supportive of America, and terrorism understandably dropped significantly. After Bush's unnecessary and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq, all of that changed.

If Bush had not unnecessarily invaded Iraq, he might be admired and respected around the world for going after al-Qaeda after 9/11. But that all changed when he unnecessarily and immorally invaded Iraq.

[Skeptic]

You really won't get anywhere with sloganeering. Here's an example of Rightie sloganeering for you: :Commie:

[drbrumley]

Skeptic, we are in the middle of a natural disaster. I think you can shut your freaking pot hole up.

[Skeptic]

Skeptic, we are in the middle of a natural disaster. I think you can shut your freaking pot hole up. We have more than one natural disaster here. One was the result of Katrina. Another is called Bush. The sad thing is that the destruction of lives and property from the hurricane was largely unpreventable. Whereas the disastrous destruction of lives and property from Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq was preventable! All Bush had to do was to not invade unless he had clear hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat from Iraq. If he had done that, the tragic loss of many thousands of innocent men, women and children would have been prevented.

[drbrumley]

Move to Iraq already since you love it there then.

[Skeptic]

Move to Iraq already since you love it there then. :kookoo:

[drbrumley]

Well, you preceive an immoral injustice and you want to defend them. Well then defend them, just do it there.

[BillyBob]

We have more than one natural disaster here. One was the result of Katrina. Another is called Bush. The sad thing is that the destruction of lives and property from the hurricane was largely unpreventable. Whereas the disastrous destruction of lives and property from Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq was preventable! All Bush had to do was to not invade unless he had clear hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat from Iraq. If he had done that, the tragic loss of many thousands of innocent men, women and children would have been prevented.

:Commie:

[simply one]

Bush misled Americans into unjustly invading Iraq. (not necessarily LIED... that may be a wee bit too harsh, considering that the Administration had wanted to invade since pre-Election 2000)

Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis unneccessarily died as a result (direct or indirect) of the invasion.

Saddam did not pose an imminent threat to the USA, his neighbors, or Iraqis, especially considering the intense pressure and survellience on Iraq pre-Invasion.

Iraq is not a cheery, Free Democracy like Bush and Co. promised (and used as an excuse for invasion). Hopefully, Iraq may be able to scrape by as an Islamic Federated Republic.


The fact that we are in the middle of a natural disaster does not change that. I believe that ALL Americans should support Louisiana and do everything they can to help (I myself will be donating some $). Katrina brought about a tragedy on US soil that is unparalled in damage in modern times.

[dRock]

Bush misled Americans into unjustly invading Iraq. (not necessarily LIED... that may be a wee bit too harsh, considering that the Administration had wanted to invade since pre-Election 2000)
So then, lets blame this on Clinton...
Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis unneccessarily died as a result (direct or indirect) of the invasion.
Its called war...sometimes people die.
Saddam did not pose an imminent threat to the USA, his neighbors, or Iraqis, especially considering the intense pressure and survellience on Iraq pre-Invasion.
By who? By the UN that had to pass 17 different sanctions that proved futile?
Iraq is not a cheery, Free Democracy like Bush and Co. promised (and used as an excuse for invasion). Hopefully, Iraq may be able to scrape by as an Islamic Federated Republic.
But we're not done yet........only time will tell
The fact that we are in the middle of a natural disaster does not change that. I believe that ALL Americans should support Louisiana and do everything they can to help (I myself will be donating some $). Katrina brought about a tragedy on US soil that is unparalled in damage in modern times.
And where is our foreign aid? So far, Germany is the only, I repeat, ONLY, country helping us out...
Why does no one care, even after we spent on the foreign aid in India?

[simply one]

So then, lets blame this on Clinton...

I was actually blaming on the fact the Bush talked to his advisors in the leadup to the 2000 Election, and the subject of a possible invasion of IRaq was discussed even then.

Its called war...sometimes people die.

This one was totally unjustified. People should not unneccessarily die. Life is sacred, right?

By who? By the UN that had to pass 17 different sanctions that proved futile?

Actually, I was referring more to the US spy planes and fighter jets crisscrossing Iraqi airspace, the UN weapons inspectors ON THE GROUND (who were there until Bush booted them), etc..

But we're not done yet........only time will tell

Many sources are saying that Iraq may descend into civil war. If I were GW Bush, I would be HOPING that Iraq at least makes it into becoming some kind of republic. Even if its just a loose theocratical type.

And where is our foreign aid? So far, Germany is the only, I repeat, ONLY, country helping us out...
Why does no one care, even after we spent on the foreign aid in India?

First, only time will tell if more foreign aid is to come.

Second, thats very nice of Germany, considering America's shunning of them after the Iraq Invasion.

Do not tout the US's contributions to foreign aid. In dollar value, we pay the most aid, but as percentage based on income, America is in the bottom 5 of the top 20 or so wealthiest countries.

Katrina is definitely a primarily American disaster. It happened on American soil and only affected Americans. We are going to feel the brunt of the effects. Therefore it is first and foremost, the responsibility of Americans to aid New Orleans. We are the wealthiest country on the planet, and I think we should be able to deal with a national crisis. Hopefully this will create some type of solidarity amongst America.

[Frank Ernest]

Skeptic, we are in the middle of a natural disaster. I think you can shut your freaking pot hole up.
Proverbs 26:11

[BillyBob]

I was actually blaming on the fact the Bush talked to his advisors in the leadup to the 2000 Election, and the subject of a possible invasion of IRaq was discussed even then.

Of course he was, Saddam had been in breach of the agreement that left him in power since the first Gulf War. He had rejected UN Resolutions. He had WMD, if you don't believe me, ask Bill Clinton. Saddam refused to co operate with weapons inspectors. If Bush had not considered Saddam's removal from day one, he would have been derelict in his duties.





This one was totally unjustified.

:cow:

[Frank Ernest]

Katrina is definitely a primarily American disaster. It happened on American soil and only affected Americans. We are going to feel the brunt of the effects. Therefore it is first and foremost, the responsibility of Americans to aid New Orleans. We are the wealthiest country on the planet, and I think we should be able to deal with a national crisis. Hopefully this will create some type of solidarity amongst America.
Example of "solidarity" created by some Americans:

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=100495

[HerodionRomulus]

Of course he was, Saddam had been in breach of the agreement that left him in power since the first Gulf War. He had rejected UN Resolutions....


Israel has repeatedly ignored UN Resolutions. I have yet to hear calls to Invade or even to stop making billions in welfare payments to Israel.

A just and viable peace between Israel and Palestine would go a long way towards ending Islamist terrorism.

[BillyBob]

I have no problem picking and chosing which country to invade and which one not to. Israel is our ally. I don't recognize the UNs authority anyway, but it's just one more reason on a long list that we had to depose Saddam.

[HerodionRomulus]

I have no problem picking and chosing which country to invade and which one not to. Israel is our ally. I don't recognize the UNs authority anyway, but it's just one more reason on a long list that we had to depose Saddam.

So, if it's OUR bloody vicious dictator it's ok.
Since you don't recognize the UN, stop using Iraq's avoidance of compliance with the UN as one of Bush's excuses for imperialist aggression.

[BillyBob]

I use the UN argument when debating libs because they love the UN. :devil:

[simply one]

Example of "solidarity" created by some Americans:

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=100495

1) The Boston Herald is a right-wing paper written at a fourth grade level. It's credibility is EXTREMELY dubious (trust me on this one, I'm from MA and have plenty of experience with the Herald)

2) Everyone says stupid, untrue things every once and a while. Such as "Iraq had WMD at the time of invasion"...

[Skeptic]

He had WMD, if you don't believe me, ask Bill Clinton. It does not matter who or how many people believe that Iraq had WMD. What matters is whether there was clear hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent WMD threat! Bush and his neocon CIA/Pentagon buddies had no such pre-war evidence!

Threats are like hypotheses in science, it is not rational to believe either, without hard empirical evidence.

[Frank Ernest]

1) The Boston Herald is a right-wing paper written at a fourth grade level. It's credibility is EXTREMELY dubious (trust me on this one, I'm from MA and have plenty of experience with the Herald)
:darwinsm: you forgot the "ultra" before "right-wing."

2) Everyone says stupid, untrue things every once and a while. Such as "Iraq had WMD at the time of invasion"...
And,

Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis unneccessarily died as a result (direct or indirect) of the invasion.

[simply one]

:darwinsm: you forgot the "ultra" before "right-wing."

Actually, I think "right-wing" suffices. The Boston Herald is not ultra-conservative. It IS written at a VERY low level, and it does not contain a lot of relevant news. Many of its stories are fairly irrelevant to society

And,

And, what? I was expecting a smilie. Possibly one of these ":darwinsm:" as you so often post. Instead you made no rebuff and actually reposted two statements of reality.

[BillyBob]

Threats are like hypotheses in science, it is not rational to believe either, without hard empirical evidence.

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people with WMD's, I'd consider that 'hard empirical evidence'.

[Skeptic]

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people with WMD's, I'd consider that 'hard empirical evidence'. Your tactic is flawed, yet you continue to use it thinking that readers don't know no better.

1980s - Iraq develops WMDs with material support from the U.S.

1990s - UN inspectors ensures destruction of all accounted-for WMDs. There is no evidence that any WMDs remained.

2000s - Still no evidence of any remaining WMDs from years past.

2003 - Bush & Co. hoodwinks Congress and the American people into believing that Saddam is an "urgent" WMD threat, despite the fact that they could provide no hard evidence that any WMDs or WMD programs remained in Iraq.

[BillyBob]

1998, Saddam kicks out weapons inspectors.

1998, Bill Clinton launches hundreds of missles into Iraq to destroy Iraq's WMD.

[Skeptic]

1998, Saddam kicks out weapons inspectors.

1998, Bill Clinton launches hundreds of missles into Iraq to destroy Iraq's WMD. In October 1998, Saddam Hussein said he would no longer cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors, who by then had been in Iraq for 7 1/2 years, destroying all WMDs they could find. Six weeks later, Clinton launched limited strikes against certain suspected weapons facilities, to motivate Saddam to start cooperating again.

Clinton said that the job of the UN inspectors was "to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability." So, Clinton said that he was concerned that Iraq did not attempt to rebuild a capacity that they once had. Sure, he suspected that Saddam might have retained some unaccounted-for WMDs, which is why he wanted those inspectors on the ground and Saddam's cooperation.

Everyone had questions about possible WMDs in Iraq. But one does not rationally or ethically start a war by launching a massive pre-emptive invasion against another country because one has questions or suspicions that they might posses WMDs!

Saddam was cooperating fully with weapons inspectors, in the months leading up to Bush's unnecessary invasion. No WMDs had been found. No WMD programs had been found. And during the time the inspectors were not finding any WMDs or programs, the U.S. was steadily bombing Iraq, right up to before Bush's unnecessary invasion.

But Bush didn't want to hear about no WMDs! That would have spoiled his PR strategy! Therefore, he cherry-picked whatever he could find from scraps of intelligence that would serve as ammunition for hoodwinking Congress and the American people into supporting his unnecessary and immoral invasion!

A President does not justifiably start all-out wars and invade countries merely because he believes they pose a WMD threat. If there is no clear hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat, killing thousands of innocent men, women and children in an unprovoked invasion is NOT warranted!!

[BillyBob]

1998, Saddam kicks out weapons inspectors.

1998, Bill Clinton launches hundreds of missles into Iraq to destroy Iraq's WMD.

Funny that you neglected to include this info in your home made timeline. :think:

[Skeptic]

Funny that you neglected to include this info in your home made timeline. Clinton did not launch missiles in 1998 to destroy Iraq's WMD.

Funny that you ignored what I wrote in my last post:

In October 1998, Saddam Hussein said he would no longer cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors, who by then had been in Iraq for 7 1/2 years, destroying all WMDs they could find. Six weeks later, Clinton launched limited strikes against certain suspected weapons facilities, to motivate Saddam to start cooperating again.

Clinton said that the job of the UN inspectors was "to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability." So, Clinton said that he was concerned that Iraq did not attempt to rebuild a capacity that they once had. Sure, he suspected that Saddam might have retained some unaccounted-for WMDs, which is why he wanted those inspectors on the ground and Saddam's cooperation.

Everyone had questions about possible WMDs in Iraq. But one does not rationally or ethically start a war by launching a massive pre-emptive invasion against another country because one has questions or suspicions that they might posses WMDs!

Saddam was cooperating fully with weapons inspectors, in the months leading up to Bush's unnecessary invasion. No WMDs had been found. No WMD programs had been found. And during the time the inspectors were not finding any WMDs or programs, the U.S. was steadily bombing Iraq, right up to before Bush's unnecessary invasion.

But Bush didn't want to hear about no WMDs! That would have spoiled his PR strategy! Therefore, he cherry-picked whatever he could find from scraps of intelligence that would serve as ammunition for hoodwinking Congress and the American people into supporting his unnecessary and immoral invasion!

A President does not justifiably start all-out wars and invade countries merely because he believes they pose a WMD threat. If there is no clear hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat, killing thousands of innocent men, women and children in an unprovoked invasion is NOT warranted!!

[Frank Ernest]

Actually, I think "right-wing" suffices. The Boston Herald is not ultra-conservative. It IS written at a VERY low level, and it does not contain a lot of relevant news. Many of its stories are fairly irrelevant to society
:darwinsm:

And, what? I was expecting a smilie. Possibly one of these ":darwinsm:" as you so often post. Instead you made no rebuff and actually reposted two statements of reality.
:darwinsm: :loser:

[BillyBob]

Clinton did not launch missiles in 1998 to destroy Iraq's WMD.




December 17, 1998

Hundreds of cruise missiles have been fired into Iraq by US forces to punish the Baghdad government for obstructing the work of the United Nations weapons inspectors.

Sirens sounded the all-clear in Baghdad after nearly six hours of sustained attack ordered by President Bill Clinton to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.msu.edu/course/iss/325/stein/IRAQ-BOMB-98.htm

[Frank Ernest]

I do believe that's a Big-Time Gotcha! :first:

[BillyBob]

Under normal circumstances, I would agree Frank. But Skeptic ain't normal! :eek:

[Skeptic]

December 17, 1998

Hundreds of cruise missiles have been fired into Iraq by US forces to punish the Baghdad government for obstructing the work of the United Nations weapons inspectors.

Sirens sounded the all-clear in Baghdad after nearly six hours of sustained attack ordered by President Bill Clinton to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.msu.edu/course/iss/325/stein/IRAQ-BOMB-98.htm Which is it, (1) to punish the Baghdad government for obstructing the work of the United Nations weapons inspectors, or (2) to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?

Did Clinton have evidence of WMD in 1998? I don't think so. Therefore, if he said (1), it makes sense, given the situation. If he said (2), then he was lying (it wouldn't be the first time).

Did Clinton actually say that those missile strikes were meant to destroy known WMDs or certain suspected weapons facilities?

[BillyBob]

Which is it, (1) to punish the Baghdad government for obstructing the work of the United Nations weapons inspectors, or (2) to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?


Both. You see, when someone has WMD, they don't want weapons inspectors snooping around.

[Frank Ernest]

Under normal circumstances, I would agree Frank. But Skeptic ain't normal! :eek:
He is for a hard-core :Commie: ideologue.

[Frank Ernest]

Speaking of Iraq ...

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Roundup.htm

[Skeptic]

Both. You see, when someone has WMD, they don't want weapons inspectors snooping around. Did Clinton actually say that those missile strikes were meant to destroy known WMDs or certain suspected weapons facilities?

Clinton: I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam, if you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price.

Source (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/981216-bill.htm) I've lost respect for Clinton regarding his general stance on Iraq. His rhetoric was unfounded and politically motivated. At least he had the sense not to launch a massive all-out invasion of Iraq based on false premises, which everyone knew would result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children. But his support for Bush's unnecessary invasion was wrong.

[BillyBob]

I've lost respect for Clinton

Welcome to the Club!

[Skeptic]

Welcome to the Club! Oh, so you too have lost respect for Clinton regarding his general stance on Iraq?

Welcome to the Club!

[Skeptic]

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Estimated overall strength of insurgency (June '05): 15,000 - 20,000
Estimated number of foreign fighters in insurgency (June '05): 750 - 1000
Foreign fighters in detainee prison population (Jan 21, '05): 224
Source (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm)

Number of acts of international terrorism in 2004: 651
this is the highest yearly total since 1987.
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html), source (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf)

U.S. troops unnecessarily dead: 1,892
U.S. troops unnecessarily wounded: 14,021
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 24,508 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 reported wounded - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

Read: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism (http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html)

[Frank Ernest]

:yawn: :spam:

[koban]

Re-elect Bush - third term!!!


Or, let's get Jeb in the white house!

:devil:

[BillyBob]

Oh, so you too have lost respect for Clinton regarding his general stance on Iraq?

Welcome to the Club!

No, I lost respect for Clinton because he is a lying scumbag.

[simply one]

No, I lost respect for Clinton because he is a lying scumbag.

Clinton lied = zero deaths

Bush misleads America = 24,500+ Iraqi civilians dead...1,892 US soldiers dead

And Clinton is the scumbag for lying about something that happens daily with kids as young as 7th grade? True, thats a sign of the decline of values in our culture, but that is still not as bad as UNECESSARILY KILLING TENS OF THOUSANDS!

[BillyBob]

Clinton lied = zero deaths

I guess you never heard of Waco.....or Bosnia......



Bush misleads America = 24,500+ Iraqi civilians dead...1,892 US soldiers dead

Bush didn't lie and thsoe lives could have been spared if Saddam had complied with the terms of the First Gulf War, the UN Resolutions and the last chance Bush gave him.


And Clinton is the scumbag for lying about something that happens daily

I see, so rape, adultery, perjury and obstruction of justice are daily occurances? For whom???

with kids as young as 7th grade?

:darwinsm:



True, thats a sign of the decline of values in our culture, but that is still not as bad as UNECESSARILY KILLING TENS OF THOUSANDS!

Tell that to Saddam Hussien who killed Hundreds of Thousands of innocent Iraqis.....

[simply one]

Bush didn't lie and thsoe lives could have been spared if Saddam had complied with the terms of the First Gulf War, the UN Resolutions and the last chance Bush gave him.


Tell that to Saddam Hussien who killed Hundreds of Thousands of innocent Iraqis.....

Do you truly still believe that Saddam was still a threat even though he was being monitored 24/7 by the international community in 2002 and 2003, and the UN weapons inspectors were on the gorund, reporting no WMD UNTIL BUSH KICKED THEM OUT! These Iraqis and American soldiers did not need to die! Iraq could easily have been pressured into complying, or if not complying, then at least Saddam would not kill any more because he was atched constantly.

Saddam would have died in a decade or so. Then we could have supported democracy in Iraqi. True reform must come from within, which is why Iraq is currently in shambles. Because the US came roaring in, and tried to IMPOSE reform.

[Army of One]

Saddam would have died in a decade or so. Then we could have supported democracy in Iraqi. True reform must come from within, which is why Iraq is currently in shambles. Because the US came roaring in, and tried to IMPOSE reform.Ummm, you do realize who was next in line to rule after Saddam died, right? (Hint: He and his brother are now both :dead: )

[simply one]

Ummm, you do realize who was next in line to rule after Saddam died, right? (Hint: He and his brother are now both :dead: )

It still would have been MUCH MUCH easier, and less costly in lives and money for us to have supported democratic reform during the period of civil unrest that inevitably follows the death of a dictator such as Saddam. Also, Saddam nor anyone else in the government of Iraq would have committed anymore mass crimes, once they were being watched and inspected. There should have been consistant international pressure, coupled with inspections, and not the sort of apathy towards Iraq which prevailed in the mid 90s.

There was no need to uneccessarily and unjustly invade Iraq. period.

[On Fire]

There was no need to uneccessarily and unjustly invade Iraq. period.

Not only was it necessary and just it has been fantastically successful.

[Army of One]

It still would have been MUCH MUCH easier, and less costly in lives and money for us to have supported democratic reform during the period of civil unrest that inevitably follows the death of a dictator such as Saddam.I think you fail to realize just how crazy his sons were. They did a good job of making Saddam look like a sane and rational man. I mean, come on. His one son (I forget if it was Uday or Qusay) used torture and death as a punishment for olympic athletes that didn't perform well. Chances are, they would have been an even bigger threat than their dad.

[simply one]

Not only was it necessary and just it has been fantastically successful.

I'm guesses that our definititions of success must vary somewhat... Since, there is an armed, growing, and damaging terrorist insurgency striking at Iraqis everyday (luckily for Bush, Katrina has pushed THAT off the news for a while), tense dischord over the new Iraqi Constitution... a constitution which fails to fulfill Bush's promises of democracy, and may at best leave Iraq an Islamic Republic.

And this, all after almost 1900 US soldiers and 25,000 Iraqis have already payed the ultimate price.

To consider that success is a perversion of the very meaning of the word.

[BillyBob]

Do you truly still believe that Saddam was still a threat even though he was being monitored 24/7 by the international community in 2002 and 2003, and the UN weapons inspectors were on the gorund, reporting no WMD UNTIL BUSH KICKED THEM OUT! These Iraqis and American soldiers did not need to die! Iraq could easily have been pressured into complying, or if not complying, then at least Saddam would not kill any more because he was atched constantly.

You have no clue or understanding about the events of the last dozen years with Saddam.



Saddam would have died in a decade or so.

What does that have to do with anything?

Then we could have supported democracy in Iraqi.

Why wait?

True reform must come from within,

It is.

which is why Iraq is currently in shambles.

No, Iraq is not in shambles. However, I am happy to see Iraqi's struggle for power and control of their country, it shows that their freedom means something to them. Contrary to the lefties declaration that people in the Middle east are incapable of living in a free society.

Because the US came roaring in, and tried to IMPOSE reform.

If you call deposing a terrorist dictator and facilitating free elections and Iraq's first Constitution an imposition.....:rolleyes:

[BillyBob]

I'm guesses that our definititions of success must vary somewhat... Since, there is an armed, growing, and damaging terrorist insurgency striking at Iraqis everyday (luckily for Bush, Katrina has pushed THAT off the news for a while), tense dischord over the new Iraqi Constitution... a constitution which fails to fulfill Bush's promises of democracy, and may at best leave Iraq an Islamic Republic.

And this, all after almost 1900 US soldiers and 25,000 Iraqis have already payed the ultimate price.

To consider that success is a perversion of the very meaning of the word.

Hey look Simpleton, here is an Iraq voter giving you the 'finger'.......

:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

No, I lost respect for Clinton because he is a lying scumbag. I'll take lies about sex under oath any day over lies that start unnecessary wars that unnecessarily put our brave troops in harm's way and result in the unnecessary deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children!

[BillyBob]

I'll take lies under oath any day

I know.....

[Skeptic]

I know..... You prefer lies by Presidents that start unnecessary wars that unnecessarily put our brave troops in harm's way and result in the unnecessary deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children! Right BillyBob?

[Frank Ernest]

:yawn: :sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[koban]

You prefer lies by Presidents that start unnecessary wars that unnecessarily put our brave troops in harm's way and result in the unnecessary deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children! Right BillyBob?



Yeah - me too!

Like that :Commie: Roosevelt!

How many lives lost in that one, Skreppie?

[Frank Ernest]

And they elected him for a FOURTH term!

[Skeptic]

:yawn: :sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Yes, we all know, ... the truth puts you sleep.