Why Bush Should be Impeached

[Is it possible?]

Skeptic all that you have stated is enuindo and personal opinion and some of the things you mentioned would have happened anyway even if a certain Democrat sat in the White House: such as the deficit. Some of the things that are listed I agree with. All bush has done is take away the democrates issues. Bush never lost the election and the only people who's vote was they disenfranchised was the vote of the military. Bush would have won easy if it had not been for the corruption that is now the Democratic party which is made up of femmie Natzis, Baby Killers, Gays, Enviromental Whacko's, commies and commie sympathizers.(I am using Rush Limgaugh terminology here) The are fringe groups not main stream at all but anyway for your viewing pleasure let's visit memory lane:


The Clinton Legacy


RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been
convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."


STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

SMALTZ INVESTIGATION

- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million

CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED

Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.

OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED
BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED
IN THE MEDIA

Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.

ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMERS

Number of Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress that they didn't remember, didn't know, or someting similiar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey ******** 161
Bill Burton ********** 191
Mark Gearan *********** 221
Mack McLarty *********** 233
Neil Egglseston ************ 250
Hillary Clinton ************ 250
John Podesta ************* 264
Jennifer O'Connor ***************** 343
Dwight Holton ***************** 348
Patsy Thomasson ********************* 420
Jeff Eller *********************************** 697

THE CLINTON LEGACY:
LONELY HONOR

Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and others who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill Clinton's political machine -- some at risk to their careers, others at risk to their lives. A few points to note:

- Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story often found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only major dailies that consistently handled the story well were the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times.

- Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even heard of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or rewarding experience. At least ten reporters have been fired, transferred off their beats, resigned, or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on the scandals. Whistleblowing is even less appreciated within the government. One study of whistleblowers found that 232 out of 233 them reported suffering retaliation; another study found reprisals in about 95% of cases.

- Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed ranges from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the independent.

- We have not included victims of the Clinton machine, some of whom have acted with considerable danger and at considerable risk to themselves. They will be included on a later list.


PUBLIC OFFICIALS

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ was a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr. His attempts to uncover the truth in the Vincent Foster death case were repeatedly foiled and he was the subject of planted stories undermining his credibility and implying that he was unstable. Rodriguez eventually resigned.

JEAN DUFFEY: Head of a joint federal-county drug task force in Arkansas. Her first instructions from her boss: "Jean, you are not to use the drug task force to investigate any public official." Duffey's work, however, led deep into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including members of the Clinton machine and the investigation of the so-called "train deaths." Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that when she produced a star witness who could testify to Clinton's involvement with cocaine, the local prosecuting attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena for all the task force records, including "the incriminating files on his own activities. If Duffey had complied it would have exposed 30 witnesses and her confidential informants to violent retributions. She refused." Harmon issued a warrant for her arrest and friendly cops told her that there was a $50,000 price on her head. She eventually fled to Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was later convicted of racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.

BILL DUNCAN: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30 federal indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other charges. Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed the evidence: "Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever was one." The cases were suppressed, many in the name of "national security." Duncan was never called to testify. Other IRS agents and state police disavowed Duncan and turned on him. Said one source, "Somebody outside ordered it shut down and the walls went up."

RUSSELL WELCH: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan. Welch developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money laundering operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised that a high state police official even let one of the targets of the probe look through the file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the face with poison, later identified by the Center for Disease Control as anthrax. He would write in his diary, "I feel like I live in Russia, waiting for the secret police to pounce down. A government has gotten out of control. Men find themselves in positions of power and suddenly crimes become legal." Welch is no longer with the state police.

DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and prosecuting charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, yet was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate reporting by the likes of the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was acquitted under a law that made it necessary to not only prove that he accepted gratuities but that he did something specific in return. On the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years' probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of USDA subsidies. Incidentally, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from pursuing leads aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in Arkansas and payoffs to the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton. Espy had become Ag secretary only after being flown to Arkansas to get the approval of chicken king Don Tyson.

DAVID SCHIPPERS, was House impeachment counsel and a Chicago Democrat. He did a highly creditable job but since he didn't fit the right-wing conspiracy theory, the Clintonista media downplayed his work. Thus most Americans don't know that he told NewsMax, "Let me tell you, if we had a chance to put on a case, I would have put live witnesses before the committee. But the House leadership, and I'm not talking about Henry Hyde, they just killed us as far as time was concerned. I begged them to let me take it into this year. Then I screamed for witnesses before the Senate. But there was nothing anybody could do to get those Senators to show any courage. They told us essentially, you're not going to get 67 votes so why are you wasting our time." Schippers also said that while a number of representatives looked at additional evidence kept under seal in a nearby House building, not a single senator did.

JOHN CLARKE: When Patrick Knowlton stopped to relieve himself in Ft. Marcy Park 70 minutes before the discovery of Vince Foster's body, he saw things that got him into deep trouble. His interview statements were falsified and prior to testifying he claims he was overtly harassed by more than a score of men in a classic witness intimidation technique. In some cases there were witnesses. John Clarke has been his dogged lawyer in the witness intimidation case that has been largely ignored by the media, even when the three-judge panel overseeing the Starr investigation permitted Knowlton to append a 20 page addendum to the Starr Report.


OTHER

THE ARKANSAS COMMITTEE: What would later be known as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy actually began on the left - as a group of progressive students at the University of Arkansas formed the Arkansas Committee to look into Mena, drugs, money laundering, and Arkansas politics. This committee was the source of some of the important early Clinton stories.

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS E-LIST: Moderated by Ray Heizer, this list has been subject to all the idiosyncrasies of Internet bulletin boards, but it has nonetheless proved invaluable to researchers and journalists.


I can site the website if you wish. This is just the tip of the iceberg. To be continued

[BillyBob]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IiP, I was getting ready to fight back after reading Skeptic's silly post but you crossed the finish line before I could even enter the race!!!!!!!!!!!!

WELL DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

{ I will be here in the wings waiting to back you up if you need it, as unlikely as that is}

[BillyBob]

Hey Skeptic, I could easily dismember every single accusation you have made against GW. You know you are deliberately perpetrating a deception and it makes you a hypocritical partisan hack.

I am so ashamed of you........

I used to like you and even trust you..............

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I am so ashamed of you........

I used to like you and even trust you.............. Please. :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Is it possible?

The Clinton Legacy ... Clinton should not have been impeached for lying about something that was nobody's business in the first place. His impeachment was a result of a right-wing conspiracy.

I could care less about the legal problems of Clinton's buddies.

The evidence suggests that Bush has committed one of the most heinous crimes a president can commit: launching a full-scale preemptive invasion against a country, against international law, without evidence of a clear and imminent threat to America or other countries, based on old intelligence, lies, and exaggerations, and which has resulted in the unnecessary deaths of a few hundred U.S. troops, along with many thousands of Iraqis, for political and economic advantage.

Saddam was not so significant a threat to America or our allies to warrant such a massive full-scale preemptive invasion. If Bush had let the U.N. inspection process continue and accelerate, we would probably know more today about any alleged WMD or weapons programs. But, Bush did not want that process to continue, for it would have probably have negated any perceived justification for invading Iraq.

Saddam was a brutal tyrant, and killed many people over the past few decades. But, the old crimes of Saddam was hardly justification for a massive U.S. invasion! If Saddam was just as criminal, but had been leader of a country with zero oil, he would still be in power in Iraq today!!

I bet if Liberia had the second largest oil reserves on the planet, Bush would have sent troops in there long ago!

Bush has the blood of thousands of people on his hands and he refuses to take responsibility for it. He also publicly refused to take responsibility to for the contents of his State of the Union speech, which contained some of the bogus evidence he used to justify the invasion.

Unless the Republicans in Congress are successful in hiding the truth from the American public, Bush is going down!! Not only should he be impeached, but he should be tried for crimes against humanity!! :mad:

[Skeptic]

=====================
Posted on Tue, Jul. 08, 2003

ROBERT STEINBACK
No oil in Liberia

If you loved Iraq, you should be seriously gung-ho about Liberia. You have hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. You have a brutal head of state. You have a nation longing for peace and true democracy -- and a region that could benefit from the establishment of one.

These, after all, were among the many concocted justifications that the Bush administration offered for its unprovoked invasion of Iraq. Of course, Liberia doesn't have weapons of mass destruction posing a serious threat to the United States -- then again, based on what has been uncovered in the wake of America's first true war of aggression, neither did Iraq.

And no clear links have been established between Liberian leader Charles Taylor and al Qaeda. But none were established between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, either. So all we have left to argue that America was right to invade Iraq are reasons that apply equally well to Liberia.

Some 200,000 people died in Liberia and more than a half million were displaced, during the seven-year civil war that carried Taylor to power. Taylor may not have WMDs, but he knows about terrorism -- he supported the Sierra Leone rebels that became notorious two years ago for hacking off the limbs of civilians.

The argument for intervention in Liberia could be considered stronger than Iraq in two respects: The Liberian people almost assuredly would welcome American troops -- both the embattled leader and the two primary rebel groups have asked for U.S. intervention. And they're only asking for 2,000 American troops, not the 150,000 currently posted in turbulent Iraq.

''The reception would be warmer than in Iraq,'' said Mark Schneider, vice president of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, which monitors resolution of conflicts worldwide. ''You have the Liberians urging the United States to take a leading role in a multinational force to help stabilize the situation and oversee a transition'' to democratic government.

UNSPEAKABLE ATROCITIES

Yet one doesn't hear any fiery presidential speeches about the need to deliver freedom to the Liberian people. No declarations about the need to rid the world of an evil man who kills his own people and commits unspeakable atrocities. No rhetoric about how establishing a working democracy in Liberia could help spread democracy throughout West Africa.

Why not? Liberia isn't sitting on an ocean of oil and it isn't in a geopolitically strategic location -- the real reasons Bush invaded Iraq. Maybe Bush really believed that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ready to deploy, or maybe he misled us. But it was never about the Iraqi people.

Yet, with no pressing strategic or economic cherries to pick, the only reason for getting involved would be the people of Liberia -- a nation founded by freed American slaves who first arrived in 1821. The American connection in Liberia is not insignificant; respect for the United States far exceeds what America deserves for its historically tepid support of the West African nation. But it's more of a foundation for involvement than we had in Iraq.

Nevertheless, President Bush has dragged his feet about intervening -- and as cease-fire violations increase, civilians continue to die. On an African tour that won't include Liberia, Bush has conditioned intervention on Taylor's resignation -- and he might get his way. Word out of Liberia is that Taylor said he would be willing to step down to visiting Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo this weekend.

If true, the spotlight will shift back to Bush to demonstrate that Iraq was not just a massive exercise in cynicism. It would be a chance to deploy U.S. diplomatic and military force properly: with restraint, a deliberate strategy for peace and the cooperation of sympathetic nations.

From: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/6253354.htm
=====================

[BillyBob]

Skeptic, you keep regurgitating the same old crap.

It's very cute!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic, you keep regurgitating the same old crap.

It's very cute! Simply calling it "old crap" does not make it any less true!

[RogerB]

AFTER PEARL HARBOR, President Roosevelt rounded up more than 100,000 Japanese residents and citizens and threw them in internment camps. Indeed, both liberal deities of the 20th century, FDR and Earl Warren, supported the internment of Japanese-Americans. In the '20s, responding to the bombing of eight government officials' homes, a Democrat-appointed attorney general arrested about 6,000 people. The raids were conducted by A. Mitchell Palmer, appointed by still-revered Democrat segregationist Woodrow Wilson, who won the 1916 election based on lies about intelligence and war plans.

In response to the worst terrorist attack in the history of the world right here on U.S. soil, Attorney General John Ashcroft has detained fewer than a thousand Middle Eastern immigrants. Ashcroft faces a far more difficult task than FDR did: Pearl Harbor was launched by the imperial government of Japan, not by Japanese-Americans living in California. The 9-11 Muslim terrorists, by contrast, were not only in the United States but, until the attack, had broken hardly any laws at all (aside from a few immigration laws, which liberals don't care about anyway). And yet, Ashcroft's modest, carefully tailored policies have prevented another attack for almost two years since Sept. 11, 2001. No internment camps, no mass arrests. And no more massive terrorist attacks.

Naturally, therefore, the Democrats have focused like a laser beam on the perfidy of John Ashcroft. Rep. Dick Gephardt recently said, "In my first five seconds as president, I would fire John Ashcroft as attorney general." (In his first four seconds, he would establish the AFL-CIO wing of the White House.)

Sen. John Kerry has vowed: "When I am president of the United States, there will be no John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights." (Experts are still trying to figure out why Kerry didn't mention his service in Vietnam during that last statement.) Let me be the first to predict that when John Kerry is president, pigs will fly.

Sen. John Edwards said that "we must not allow people like John Ashcroft to take away our rights and our freedoms." Apparently, we must, however, allow Janet Reno to run over our rights and our freedoms with a tank.

As usual, the Democrats have come up with a lot of bloody adjectives, but are a little short in the way of particulars as to how Ashcroft is trampling on anyone's rights. Their case-in-chief seems to be Tarek Albasti. Albasti's story has now run in more than 70 overwrought news stories. His tale of torment led a New York Times report on terrorism suspects whose lives have been uprooted and was the featured story on a PBS special this week about the civil-liberties crisis sweeping America.

Tarek Albasti is an Egyptian immigrant who married an American woman, brought seven of his Egyptian friends to America and was enrolled in flight school when America was hit on 9-11. Based on a tip from the ex-wife of one of the men that they were plotting a suicide mission, the eight Egyptian immigrants were held for one week in October 2001 – one week. The men were questioned and released. Since then, the government has issued copious apologies to the men and has expunged their records.

What are liberals claiming law enforcement was supposed to do with information like that? We're sorry for any Arabs whose dearest dream was to go into crop dusting, but this really isn't a good time. (Perhaps we could have a five-day waiting period for Muslims who apply to U.S. flight schools for a background check.)

Albasti told PBS – that's right, PBS, the television network owned, operated and funded by the very same federal government Albasti now claims is oppressing him – that during his one-week confinement he was worried he would be hanged without anyone ever knowing what happened to him. For that remark alone, he should be deported. Is that what he thinks of America? But at least detained Arabs – and more to the point, their lawyers – have a monetary incentive to make absurd claims of persecution. What is the Democrats' excuse?

Based on the wails from our stellar crop of Democratic presidential candidates, you would think every Muslim in the country is cowering in fear of a pogrom-oriented attorney general. Meanwhile, the left's principal evidence of a civil-rights crisis in America consists of a one-week detention of eight Egyptian immigrants – one in flight school, no less – after the ex-wife of one of the men tipped off the FBI to a possible terrorist plot in the making.

Apparently, a lot of the false tips to law enforcement are coming from ex-wives. (Maybe Muslim men should have thought of that before introducing the burka.) Esshassah Fouad, a Moroccan student, was detained in Texas after his former wife accused him of being a terrorist. She is now serving a one-year prison sentence for making a false charge.

But some day, small children will be reading somber historical accounts about the dark night of fascism under John Ashcroft. (Thanks to Ashcroft, at least they'll be reading them in English, rather than Arabic.) If liberals applied half as much energy to some business endeavor as they do to creating the Big Lie, they would all be multimillionaires.

What are we to make of people who promote the idea that America is in the grip of a civil-liberties emergency based on 100 hazy stories of scowls and bumps and one-week detentions? Manifestly, there is no civil-liberties crisis in this country. Consequently, people who claim there is must have a different goal in mind. What else can you say of such people but that they are traitors?

[mrsnacks]

Billy George Bush Bob : If what skeptic states is crap THAN REFUTE HIS STATEMENTS instead of namecalling. That's childish - and you not win someone over by namecalling .

I'm wondering whether you have set up Bush as an idol. It is obvious that he has lied and misled the American people. He is for big goverrnment and really, come on, no matter who is the white house it's the same old policies. Big government and wasteful spending of our hard earned tax dollars.
I'm convinced that logic and rationality doesn't mean anything here. Christians like non- christians believe what they want and facts are interpreted thru your core beliefs.

I may look at the universe as a creation of God - a miracle. The atheist sees the universe as a result of natural processes and evolution. The eastern mindset sees the universe as an illusion.I believe the christian worldview makes sense out of reality. But the views cannot all be true because they contradict each other. But the relativist sees all views as equal.

It's the same here with Bush . Billy Bob will believe Bush is great and moral and maybe even perfect . i would think the first thing Billy will do if he were to walk into heaven is to run past Jesus , Abraham, David, CS Lewis, Peter, Paul, Mary, loved ones and etc and go run into the arms of George W ( if he is there).

I believe Skeptic or I for that matter wouldn't do that of course. .

I close with the that these conversations and debates don't get anywhere. Billy Bob is convinced along with others that Bush or republicans are moral and think in the best interest of the people. That's obviously garbage but no matter how many facts you present to counter they will believe what they will believe. Christians can be blind also.

I did want to say that my ex wife grew up in Texas and her dad was in the oil business . She doesn't have any nice things to say about Bush and these oil people. I don't either. There sinners like everyone else. They are a bunch of cowboys as she says . Bang Bang shoot em up mentality. That's her opinion but it comes from someone who has been there .

So there you have it . I just would have expected more openness or desire for truth here but it's the same everywhere. people don't change their views unless they want to. It has been said that criminals that are serving long time sentences in prisons believe that they are good people. Go figure.

The only party i see that wants to make significant changes in our country never get the exposure ( liberatarian and etc. ) They want the US out of the UN . They want to rid the IRS and quit our stupid foreign policy. They want reduce the big government spending and power.

Do you see that from the democrats or republicans ????? NO NO NO .:down:

[Granite]

Skeptic said,

"Saddam was a brutal tyrant, and killed many people over the past few decades. But, the old crimes of Saddam was hardly justification for a massive U.S. invasion! If Saddam was just as criminal, but had been leader of a country with zero oil, he would still be in power in Iraq today!!"

He's at least consistent with liberalism: Castro's a thug but we'll hop in bed with him; Stalin's a monster but he's a good old Uncle Joe; Kim Il Song is a psychopath but we'll just pretend he isn't there.

Is there any despot you leftists won't side with?

granite

[Eireann]

Originally posted by granite1010

He's at least consistent with liberalism: Castro's a thug but we'll hop in bed with him; Stalin's a monster but he's a good old Uncle Joe; Kim Il Song is a psychopath but we'll just pretend he isn't there.

Is there any despot you leftists won't side with?
I think you need to check sides, because you've got a few facts twisted. Let's set some of those straight, shall we?

Granted, Stalin was popular among the liberals, but ...

Who was it that provided significant funding for Adolph Hitler's regime? Would his name have been Bush, by chance? Yes, it would! Would he be the grandfather of our current president? Yes, he would! Would he be a leftist? No, he would be part of the Right.

Who was it that was in bed with Cuba's previous bloodthirsty dictator, Batista, while we knew of Batista's despotic tendencies but before we knew any such thing of Castro? Would his name be Dwight David Eisenhower? Yes, it would! Would he be a leftist? No, he wouldn't. He would be a Republican!

Who imposed the full economic embargo against Fidel Castro in the first place? Would it be a member of the "righteous" Right? No, it would be JFK, a liberal Democrat!

Who is it that has been ignoring Kim Jong Il ever since he raised his ugly head and started spouting nuclear threats to the world? You say it is the Left, but who is it really who has been ignoring him. Would his name be George W. Bush? Why, yes it would! Is Bush a member of the Left? Why, no he isn't! He's a member of the Right!

Honestly, if you're going to come out with your rediculous blunders against the Left, at least TRY to get some of your facts straight first!

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
Who imposed the full economic embargo against Fidel Castro in the first place? Would it be a member of the "righteous" Right? No, it would be JFK, a liberal Democrat!

Billy;
SO!? JFK was a democrat, yes. Was he a liberal? NO! He fought for a major income tax cut and got it. He also was not afriad to use the military if needed and because of this stood off the Russians during the Cuban Missle Crisis.

The definition of Republican and democrat has changed immensely over the last 40 years. JFK would be a Republican if he were alive today, at least by definition of his ideologies. He was most certainly a Conservative, except for the fact that he stole his Presidency, that was pure democrat politics.

Eireann;
Who is it that has been ignoring Kim Jong Il ever since he raised his ugly head and started spouting nuclear threats to the world? You say it is the Left, but who is it really who has been ignoring him. Would his name be George W. Bush? Why, yes it would! Is Bush a member of the Left? Why, no he isn't! He's a member of the Right!

Billy;
Billy Carter is directly responsible for the situation in North Korea and you know it. C'mon Eireann, you are expected to be honest, even if you are a flaming commie. Bush is actually doing something other than encouraging a nuclear blackmailer. Clinton sold our military secrets to China and made the world a much more dangerous place. Oh, what was Clinton? A LEFTIST COMMIE DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eireann;
Honestly, if you're going to come out with your rediculous blunders against the Left, at least TRY to get some of your facts straight first!

Billy;
I say the exact same thing back to you!!!!!!!!!!

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Billy;
SO!? JFK was a democrat, yes. Was he a liberal? NO! He fought for a major income tax cut and got it. He also was not afriad to use the military if needed and because of this stood off the Russians during the Cuban Missle Crisis.

The definition of Republican and democrat has changed immensely over the last 40 years. JFK would be a Republican if he were alive today, at least by definition of his ideologies. He was most certainly a Conservative, except for the fact that he stole his Presidency, that was pure democrat politics.
JFK was quite a bit to the right of the far left, but as moderates go, he was more left than right of center. He wasn't a radical Democrat or a radical liberal, but was more of a moderate than anything else. He held conservative viewpoints on some issues, but liberal viewpoints on more issues. He was a left-leaning moderate if he was anything. Taken today, he wouldn't likely be a Republican by any standard.

Billy;
Billy Carter is directly responsible for the situation in North Korea and you know it.
Billy Carter? What, did he give Kim Jong Il too much Billy Beer? I think you meant "Jimmy Carter," who was Clinton's envoy to North Korea in 1994 and was the man responsible for first getting North Korea to sign a nuclear nonproliferation agreement and agree to dismantle its nuclear program. True, that agreement very recently fell apart, but not by the fault of Jimmy Carter.

Clinton sold our military secrets to China and made the world a much more dangerous place.
Let me see if I've got this straight -- the Chinese nuclear weapons program that was successfully tested BEFORE Clinton's tenure was the result of purloined secrets sold to them WHILE Clinton was in office? How did they manage that? Did we sell them the secrets to a time machine, too?

“On Sept. 25, 1992, a nuclear blast shook China’s western desert,” the Times wrote. “From spies and electronic surveillance, American intelligence officials determined that the test was a breakthrough in China’s long quest to match American technology for smaller, more sophisticated hydrogen bombs.”

In September 1992, George H.W. Bush was still president. By that point, the barn door had been left open for years and the horses apparently were long gone.

In the early years of the Clinton administration, U.S. intelligence experts began to appreciate the potential magnitude of the Chinese espionage. They came to believe that the Chinese nuclear breakthrough was most likely achieved through purloined U.S. secrets.

“It’s like they were driving a Model T and went around the corner and suddenly had a Corvette,” said Robert M. Hanson, a Los Alamos intelligence analyst, in early 1995, the Times reported.

A Scandal 'Fix'

The W-88 story, however, did not break until 1999, in the weeks after President Clinton’s impeachment and Senate trial. It came at a time when the Republicans and the national news media seemed hungry for another "Clinton scandal" fix. To get one, they brushed aside the timing of the lost secrets.

The espionage story often was paired with allegations of suspicious Chinese money going into Democratic coffers in 1996 and with images of Vice President Al Gore visiting a Buddhist temple in California that same year. The picture of Asian-looking monks and Al Gore became the enduring image of "Chinagate."

Virtually never noted was the logical impossibility of Democrats selling secrets to China in 1996 when China apparently had obtained those secrets almost a decade earlier during a Republican administration.

Feeding the media's appetite for scandal, Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., released a high-profile “Chinagate” report on May 25, 1999. The well-received report played down any Reagan-Bush role, even through the presentation of misleading graphics.

The report's time-line chronology of the scandal covered two full pages [p. 74-75] and packed all the boxes alleging espionage into the years of the Carter and Clinton administrations. Nothing sinister appeared in the 12-year swath of the Reagan-Bush years, other than a 1988 test of a neutron bomb built, the Cox report said, from secrets believed stolen in the “late 1970s,” the Carter years.

Only a careful reading of the text inside all the boxes revealed that the principal security breaches under review occurred between 1984-92, the Reagan-Bush years.

Similar misleading charges came from Republican allies. Larry Klayman’s Judicial Watch, for instance, sent out a solicitation letter in 1999 seeking $5.2 million for a special “Chinagate Task Force” that would “hold Bill Clinton, Al Gore and the Democratic Party Leadership fully accountable for election fraud, bribery and possibly treason in connection with the ‘Chinagate’ scandal."

“Chinagate involves actions by President Clinton and Vice President Gore which have put all Americans at risk from China’s nuclear arsenal in exchange for million of dollars in illegal campaign contributions from the Communist Chinese,” Klayman's letter said.

Political Mileage

During the 2000 presidential election campaign, an obscure conservative group got more mileage out of blaming Clinton and Gore for the espionage. The group aired an ad modeled after Lyndon Johnson's infamous 1964 commercial that showed a girl picking a daisy before the screen dissolved into a nuclear explosion.

The ad remake in 2000 accused the Clinton-Gore administration of selling vital nuclear secrets to communist China, in exchange for campaign donations in 1996. The compromised nuclear secrets, the ad stated, gave communist China “the ability to threaten our homes with long-range nuclear warheads.”

While the attacks on Clinton and Gore were high profile, less-noticed evidence continued to build indicating that the hemorrhage of nuclear secrets actually had occurred on the Reagan-Bush watch.

Last year, federal investigators began translating other documents from the Chinese defector who approached U.S. officials in Taiwan in 1995. The closer examination indicated that the exposure of nuclear secrets in the 1980s was worse than previously thought.

According to an article in The Washington Post on Oct. 19, 2000, “the documents provided by the defector show that during the 1980s, Beijing had gathered a large amount of classified information about U.S. ballistic missiles and reentry vehicles.”

Still, the overwhelming public impression remained that the Clinton-Gore administration was responsible.

The Payoff

The ultimate payoff for this twisting of history may have come in November, when possibly millions of Americans went to the polls determined to throw out the Clinton-Gore crowd for selling nuclear secrets to communist China. Given all that the public had heard, the sentiment was understandable.

By voting against Al Gore, these voters might have thought they were taking the keys of the Executive Branch away from the people responsible for Chinese espionage that made Americans more vulnerable to devastating nuclear attack.

In reality, however, these voters simply were helping return the keys to the political leaders who actually had overseen the loss of the nuclear secrets in the first place.

-- emphasis mine
Secrets-trading blamed on Clinton HAD to have occurred during the Reagan-Bush years (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/021601b.html)

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by granite1010
Skeptic said,

"Saddam was a brutal tyrant, and killed many people over the past few decades. But, the old crimes of Saddam was hardly justification for a massive U.S. invasion! If Saddam was just as criminal, but had been leader of a country with zero oil, he would still be in power in Iraq today!!"

He's at least consistent with liberalism: Castro's a thug but we'll hop in bed with him; Stalin's a monster but he's a good old Uncle Joe; Kim Il Song is a psychopath but we'll just pretend he isn't there.

Is there any despot you leftists won't side with? What makes you think I am siding with Saddam? I hate the bastard as much as you! However, my hatred of Saddam does not mean that I should throw rationality out the door! The brutal acts that Saddam did years ago were horrible. But, the question is, what justifies a massive full-scale preemptive invasion of a country? One thing that does NOT rationally justify such an act is the prior brutality of a dictator! There are much better ways of dealing with such a criminal as Saddam. Killing many thousands of Iraqi citizens, losing a few hundred U.S. troops, and spending tens of billions of our tax dollars, occupying Iraq for years, and incurring the hatred of most of the civilized world is NOT a rational way to remove Saddam from power!

Bush did not invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam, despite "Operation Iraqi Freedom"! To think otherwise is absurd!! Bush launched his massive preemptive invasion of Iraq under the pretense of the "war on terrorism", even though (for the nth time) Iraq was not a terrorist threat to America or our allies! Iraq was a defeated nation! Any WMD they had were probably destroyed years ago. Iraq's contribution to international terrorism was minuscule - definitely note worthy of the massive Bush invasion!

No, it is obvious that Bush invaded Iraq for economic (oil) and political advantage. 9/11 gave Bush and the neocons the opportunity they had been waiting for years to fulfill their pre-9/11 plans to invade Iraq to gain strategic advantage! Even today, I read that Wolfowitz is claiming the Iraq invasion was all about the war on terrorism! What a f****** joke!
"If you wait until the terrorism picture is clear, you're going to wait until after something terrible has happened," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"And we went to war, and I believe we are still fighting terrorists and terrorist supporters in Iraq (news - web sites), in a battle that will make this country safer in the future from terrorism."

Making the rounds of television talk show, Wolfowitz told "Fox News Sunday" that "Iraq now is the central battle in the war on terrorism."

He similarly linked the U.S.-led invasion and its aftermath to President Bush (news - web sites)'s war on terror. At the same time, he emphasized that intelligence dealing with terrorists is intrinsically "murky."

On CBS' "Face the Nation," Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he was struck by Wolfowitz's use of the word.

"Boy, it sure didn't sound murky before the war," Levin said. "There were clear connections, we were told, between al-Qaida (terrorists) and Iraq. There was no murkiness, no nuance, no uncertainty about it at all. ... That's the way it was presented to the American people."

Critics of the Bush policy of pre-emptive attack based on intelligence revealing a threat to U.S. security, on which the Iraq invasion was based, have contended that spying is too uncertain to support such a policy.

Wolfowitz did not say specifically that the Iraq campaign resulted from murky intelligence....

"The sacrifices that our troops are making are spectacular. It's difficult conditions, it's dangerous conditions, and it takes a lot of ingenuity to figure out how to do some of these civil military things they're doing," Wolfowitz said on Fox.

"But it is a sacrifice that is going to make our children and our grandchildren safer, because the battle to win the peace in Iraq now is the central battle in the war on terrorism, and what these troops are doing — and they understand the mission — is something that's going to make our country safer." ...

From: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_14
The massive full-scale preemptive invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation has done NOTHING to "make our country safer." It has made our country LESS safe!! Wolfowitz is one of the brains behind the neocons conspiracy to fulfill their long-term plan for American global dominance! Go here to read their 1997 strategy: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Here is their alleged ultimate purpose for invading Iraq
The successful disarming, rebuilding, and democratic reform of Iraq can contribute decisively to the democratization of the wider Middle East. This is an objective of overriding strategic importance to the United States, as it is to the rest of the international community - and its achievement will require an investment and commitment commensurate with that. We offer our full support to the President and Congress to accomplish these vitally important goals.

From: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm The "disarming" is a joke! Disarming of what? WMD? :chuckle:

The rebuilding is a joke (and will be a tragedy for Iraqis and Americans)!

The hoped for "democratic reform of Iraq" will be a joke! Yea, they can vote on anything they want, as long as it falls in line with America's interests.

Bush has got to go!!

[Granite]

Originally posted by Eireann
I think you need to check sides, because you've got a few facts twisted. Let's set some of those straight, shall we?

Granted, Stalin was popular among the liberals, but ...

Who was it that provided significant funding for Adolph Hitler's regime? Would his name have been Bush, by chance? Yes, it would! Would he be the grandfather of our current president? Yes, he would! Would he be a leftist? No, he would be part of the Right.

Who was it that was in bed with Cuba's previous bloodthirsty dictator, Batista, while we knew of Batista's despotic tendencies but before we knew any such thing of Castro? Would his name be Dwight David Eisenhower? Yes, it would! Would he be a leftist? No, he wouldn't. He would be a Republican!

Who imposed the full economic embargo against Fidel Castro in the first place? Would it be a member of the "righteous" Right? No, it would be JFK, a liberal Democrat!

Who is it that has been ignoring Kim Jong Il ever since he raised his ugly head and started spouting nuclear threats to the world? You say it is the Left, but who is it really who has been ignoring him. Would his name be George W. Bush? Why, yes it would! Is Bush a member of the Left? Why, no he isn't! He's a member of the Right!

Honestly, if you're going to come out with your rediculous blunders against the Left, at least TRY to get some of your facts straight first!

How do you take a guy seriously when he can't even spell the word ridiculous? Product of a liberal public school, I'm sure...

To say that Republicans are ignoring North Korea is absurd and untrue. What about the whole Axis of Evil speech that sent you liberals into orbit? That's more negative attention than North Korea ever got during the Clinton years.

By the way, the whole World War II innuendo of the Bush family being tied to Nazi Germany is just that: innuendo. Even if it were true, I don't really see how that could have any influence on the politics of Dubya. (You might also remember that Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and other luminaries were fiercely pro-Hitler in the early years of World War II, as was a Boston gangster named Joe Kennedy. Does that mean Teddy is a closet fascist?)

Nothing the left can do will do away with its abominable foreign policy record and the lousy politics of liberalism.

granite

[Granite]

Skeptic said: "What makes you think I am siding with Saddam? I hate the bastard as much as you! However, my hatred of Saddam does not mean that I should throw rationality out the door! The brutal acts that Saddam did years ago were horrible. But..."

Skeptic, you obviously don't hate him ENOUGH. This is the same excuse used by the left for decades: "I'm uncomfortable with Ho Ch Minh, but..." "I detest Stalin as much as you do--however..."

Your solution is appeasement and groveling: be nice to these tyrants and maybe they'll go away. What would your solution be? Let Saddam alone? I guess so. By the way, the Iraqis being raped, tortured, and shot on a regular basis might take issue with your phrase, "The brutal acts that Saddam did YEARS AGO..."

You people fall to pieces when someone clubs a baby seal, and you shrug and say that it's not our business when a thug sides with haters of America.

granite

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Bush did not invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam, despite "Operation Iraqi Freedom"! To think otherwise is absurd!!

Billy;
It was one of the objectives stated from day 1. You are just mad because you libs/commies pretend to be the party of the people and you hate to see a Republican prove you wrong.

Skeptic;
Bush launched his massive preemptive invasion of Iraq under the pretense of the "war on terrorism", even though (for the nth time) Iraq was not a terrorist threat to America.

Billy;
For the nth time, Saddam was a terrorist. He supported terrorism. He trained terrorists. He harbored terrorists. He funded terrorists. He paid the families of terrorists. Perhaps you are unaware that we are currently engaged in a war on terrorism?

Skeptic;
or our allies!

Billy;
Hmmmm isn't Israel our ally? He was a threat to them. He openly paid the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Your balatant lies are starting to fall apart on you, Skeptic. So is your credibility.

Skeptic;
Iraq was a defeated nation!

Billy;
They had ten years since the last Bush kicked their @$$es and had Kofi Annan helping them to syphon money out of the 'Oil-for-Food' program. Saddam has BILLIONS of dollars and you KNOW that he was funding terrorism with it.

Skeptic;
Any WMD they had were probably destroyed years ago.

Billy;
Yes, that is exactly what Saddam said. You believe him? You are a fool. Saddam had a multitude of opportunities to prove that he destroyed WMD and he could not provide that evidence. If he had, Bush and the UN would not have gone to war.

Skeptic;
Iraq's contribution to international terrorism was minuscule - definitely note worthy of the massive Bush invasion!

Billy;
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh! So now you are finally willing to admit that Saddam was a terrorist. That he was funding terrorism and that he was a player in international terrorism. A few sentences ago you denied that which you just admitted. What a dope.

There is your reason for our Invasion of Iraq. Thank you for being honest for the FIRST TIME IN YOUR LIFE!

If you keep up this trend of honesty, by next week you will be a registered Republican. Welcome aboard!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by granite1010
Skeptic said: "What makes you think I am siding with Saddam? I hate the bastard as much as you! However, my hatred of Saddam does not mean that I should throw rationality out the door! The brutal acts that Saddam did years ago were horrible. But..."

Skeptic, you obviously don't hate him ENOUGH. This is the same excuse used by the left for decades: "I'm uncomfortable with Ho Ch Minh, but..." "I detest Stalin as much as you do--however..."

Your solution is appeasement and groveling: be nice to these tyrants and maybe they'll go away. What would your solution be? Let Saddam alone? I guess so. By the way, the Iraqis being raped, tortured, and shot on a regular basis might take issue with your phrase, "The brutal acts that Saddam did YEARS AGO..."

You people fall to pieces when someone clubs a baby seal, and you shrug and say that it's not our business when a thug sides with haters of America. So, why has Bush focused so much on regime change in Iraq that he had to launch a massive full-scale preemptive invasion? Why has he ignored all of the other brutal regimes in the world? Do you really believe that the invasion was about getting ride of bad-guy Saddam's regime to liberate Iraqis from brutality? Did Bush have so much empathy for the Iraqi people that he was willing to kill many thousands of them and destroy their infrastructure in order to liberate them from brutality? Bush felt so sorry for them that he just had to send in over 150,000 troops and spend tens of billions of our tax dollars? How can you be so naive?

Why is it that, for Wolfowitz, it's mainly about the "war on terrorism", not liberating people from Saddam. Bush and others focus on this "liberation" thing or "war on terrorism" in order to try to win public support for the massive invasion and massive expenditures that were for really made for economic, political and strategic advantage. If empathy for the suffering Iraqi people were their main goal, they would talk about plans to invade and overthrow the other brutal regimes of the world, regardless of their oil reserves!! Stop being so naive!!

The Bush regime will fall!!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
Iraq's contribution to international terrorism was minuscule - definitely note worthy of the massive Bush invasion!

Billy;
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh! So now you are finally willing to admit that Saddam was a terrorist. That he was funding terrorism and that he was a player in international terrorism. A few sentences ago you denied that which you just admitted. What a dope. Sorry for my spelling error. Let me correct my spelling and rephrase:

Iraq's contribution to international terrorism was so minuscule that it was definitely NOT worthy of the massive Bush invasion!

[BillyBob]

Ah, so you are saying that some terrorism is acceptable?

What scale do you use?

[elected4ever]

There was no legal justification for the invasion of Iraq, Period. It was done so the globalist bankers and cooperations could get there meat hooks into Iraq's natural resources and make Iraq an example of what happens when the globalist are defied.

[Granite]

Originally posted by Skeptic
So, why has Bush focused so much on regime change in Iraq that he had to launch a massive full-scale preemptive invasion? Why has he ignored all of the other brutal regimes in the world? Do you really believe that the invasion was about getting ride of bad-guy Saddam's regime to liberate Iraqis from brutality? Did Bush have so much empathy for the Iraqi people that he was willing to kill many thousands of them and destroy their infrastructure in order to liberate them from brutality? Bush felt so sorry for them that he just had to send in over 150,000 troops and spend tens of billions of our tax dollars? How can you be so naive?

Why is it that, for Wolfowitz, it's mainly about the "war on terrorism", not liberating people from Saddam. Bush and others focus on this "liberation" thing or "war on terrorism" in order to try to win public support for the massive invasion and massive expenditures that were for really made for economic, political and strategic advantage. If empathy for the suffering Iraqi people were their main goal, they would talk about plans to invade and overthrow the other brutal regimes of the world, regardless of their oil reserves!! Stop being so naive!!

The Bush regime will fall!!

Given what the administration's said about Iran and North Korea, I don't think Bush is ignoring the other thugs of the world.

What you're doing is picking at semantics, instead of focusing on what happened: Saddam is out of power, his sons are dead, and the Iraqis are better off than they were before. Liberating Iraq is part of the war on terror. I have to wonder what your solution to Iraq would have been: ignoring Saddam, I guess.

As usual, liberals are willing to attack anyone else except a terrorist state a Republican president specifically targets: Panama and Grenada come to mind.

granite

[Granite]

Originally posted by elected4ever
There was no legal justification for the invasion of Iraq, Period. It was done so the globalist bankers and cooperations could get there meat hooks into Iraq's natural resources and make Iraq an example of what happens when the globalist are defied.

Globalists and Saddam...who do you root for in that one?

granite

[elected4ever]

Tragedy and Hope--a glimpse behind the scenes of global management.

Dr. Quigley knew a lot about the behind-the-scenes work of global power because he was a part of that power network for most of his life. In his book, Tragedy and Hope, Quigley states:

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversions to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

The "Hope" in the title of Quigley's book represents the thousand-year reign of a collectivist one-world society which will be created when the "network" achieves its goal of world government. Quigley believed that the "network" is so powerful at this point that resistance by the common people is futile. Hence, those who resist the schemes of the globalist planners represent the "Tragedy." By Dr. Quigley's logic, there is no point in struggling against the noose around our necks, because resistance will merely guarantee
strangulation.

[Granite]

Originally posted by elected4ever
Tragedy and Hope--a glimpse behind the scenes of global management.

Dr. Quigley knew a lot about the behind-the-scenes work of global power because he was a part of that power network for most of his life. In his book, Tragedy and Hope, Quigley states:

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversions to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

The "Hope" in the title of Quigley's book represents the thousand-year reign of a collectivist one-world society which will be created when the "network" achieves its goal of world government. Quigley believed that the "network" is so powerful at this point that resistance by the common people is futile. Hence, those who resist the schemes of the globalist planners represent the "Tragedy." By Dr. Quigley's logic, there is no point in struggling against the noose around our necks, because resistance will merely guarantee
strangulation.

The rest of the book (I know this is the one quote cited most frequently) makes for interesting reading as well. A little dry though. Give an Anglophile over 1000 pages to play with and the result is chloroform in print...

granite

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Ah, so you are saying that some terrorism is acceptable? Are you saying that even the tiniest hint of terrorism warrants a massive full-scale military invasion?

What scale do you use? When there is clear and convincing evidence of an imminent threat to our country or our allies (and, no, just before the invasion, Iraq was not a significant threat to Israel), then military intervention is warranted. There was no clear and convincing evidence that Iraq was a threat before the invasion!

[elected4ever]

This Bush is no different than any President that we have had sense Woodrow Wilson. They take there orders from the globalist elite with one purpose in mind. World Domination. WE are now in the possession of enforcer. We attack Iraq because of global interest, not American interest. We are not a sovereign nation anymore in terms of We The People being sovereign. We owe the International Bankers so much money that they get to call the shots.

[Skeptic]

From my first post in this threat (my bold): Calling for a full Congressional investigation, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) of the Armed Services Committee, says: "I think that the nation's credibility is on the line, as well as Bush's." But not even the discovery of a vast WMD arsenal should save Bush now. Assuming that one accepts preemption as a legitimate cause for war--and one ought not--you must possess airtight substantiation that a nation poses an imminent and significant threat before you drop bombs on its cities. Evidence that falls short of 100 percent proof, presented in advance, doesn't pass the pre-empt test.

Bush claimed to have that proof. He said that Iraq could deploy its biological and chemical weapons with just 45 minutes notice. He painted gruesome pictures of American cities in ruins, their debris irradiated by an Iraqi "dirty bomb." It was all a bald-faced lie, and lying presidents get impeached.
Impeach Bush NOW!! :mad:

[elected4ever]

SkepticImpeach Bush NOW!!

e4e------Not a chance. Bush is one of there own, like Clinton. The party leadership will not allow it. Just like they would not let Clinton be convicted. It wasn't the Dems. that saved Clinton's hide but the Republican leadership of the Senate. The globalist elite do look after there own.

[Granite]

Originally posted by Skeptic
From my first post in this threat (my bold): Impeach Bush NOW!! :mad:

"It was all a bald-faced lie, and lying presidents get impeached."

And which president hasn't lied or concealed facts from the American people, in one way or another?

Should deception be the biggest litmus test for impeachment?

Johnson, if I recall, wasn't impeached for lying; he was crucified by Congress. To be consistent you'd have to support Clinton's impeachment, which of course you do not.

granite

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
When there is clear and convincing evidence of an imminent threat to our country or our allies (and, no, just before the invasion, Iraq was not a significant threat to Israel), then military intervention is warranted. There was no clear and convincing evidence that Iraq was a threat before the invasion!

Billy;
This is exactly why the citizens in this country know they are safer with a Conservative in the White House.

Liberals are Cowards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by granite1010
"It was all a bald-faced lie, and lying presidents get impeached."

And which president hasn't lied or concealed facts from the American people, in one way or another?

Should deception be the biggest litmus test for impeachment? To me, it's not so much the lying itself, but what is lied about and who is harmed by the lie.

Here is something I wrote around the time Clinton was impeached:

Clinton's Lie Under Oath

Suppose Clinton had told his family and the American public that he was on a diet and expressed his commitment to not eat any fattening chocolate deserts by saying "I will not eat any chocolate for the next six months." Then, two weeks after making this statement, Clinton has a private lunch with Monica Lewinsky. Suppose that, during this lunch, Clinton broke down, gives in to his craving for sweets, and has a huge chocolate-fudge brownie topped with chocolate ice cream.

He then feels very guilty about caving into his weakness for sweets and decides he does not want others to know that he ate such a fattening desert. So he proceeds to say to Monica, "Let's keep this confidential, OK? I publicly committed to abstaining from chocolate and I don't want my family or the American public to know how weak I am when it comes to chocolate. If anyone asks you what I had for lunch, just tell them I had a salad with nonfat salad dressing. Monica, I know I can trust you to keep this confidential." Monica agrees and swears never to reveal to anyone that Clinton had chocolate for lunch that day.

The next day, Monica's best friend calls her on the phone and asks, "So what did you and Clinton do for lunch yesterday? Is Clinton sticking to his diet? C'mon, Monica, you can tell me. I'm your friend and will not tell a soul!" Monica proceeds to tell her best friend that Clinton had a huge chocolate-fudge brownie topped with chocolate ice cream. Her best friend secretly records their phone conversation.

Several months later, Kenneth Starr, as Independent Counsel investigating the Paula Jones sexual harassment allegations, asks Monica's best friend if Monica ever told her what she and Clinton did during their lunch together on that day several months ago. Her best friend tells Kenneth Starr that Monica told her they ate lunch and that Clinton had a huge chocolate-fudge brownie topped with chocolate ice cream. Kenneth Starr later questions Monica Lewinsky about what transpired during lunch that day. She tells Starr that they ate lunch and that Clinton had a salad with nonfat salad dressing.

Clinton himself is later asked under oath by Kenneth Starr about what happened during his private lunch with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton says, "I did not eat chocolate with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." The question of what Clinton and Monica did during lunch that day is later ruled as irrelevant to the Paula Jones case. However, Clinton is still embarrassed to reveal his transgression with chocolate. He continues to tell his family and the American public that he only had a salad with nonfat salad dressing for lunch that day.

Kenneth Starr later gives Monica full immunity from any prosecution if she testifies truthfully about what Clinton ate during their lunch together. During questioning, she admits that Clinton ate a chocolate-fudge brownie topped with chocolate ice cream. It is also revealed that Monica kept a chocolate stained dress she wore that day. This dress is currently being analyzed for traces of chocolate.

Clinton later admits to a Grand Jury that he was not truthful about what he ate that day with Monica. He goes on national television and admits that he ate an inappropriate meal in private with Monica, and that he misled people and now has to try to reconcile his transgression with his wife, daughter, and his dietitian.

Clinton lied under oath about something that was ruled irrelevant to the Paula Jones case, and about something that is none of our business! It was inappropriate for Kenneth Starr to ask Clinton what he and Monica did in private. Whether what Clinton did was right or wrong, he and Monica should never have been forced to reveal under oath the nature of their private activities. This should never have been made public. It is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!

Everybody has lied about sex at one time or another. Anyone who says they haven't are lying. Most people, if they were in Clinton's situation, would have also lied about having sex, to avoid unnecessary embarrassment and hurting of family members if they found out. If Clinton had lied under oath about eating chocolate, we would not be having this legal and media fiasco! Most people, including Kenneth Starr (maybe), would not care. But because the issue was sex, it's a big deal! There are some things that are personal and private that we should be allowed to lie about, even under oath, as long as it is not relevant to a criminal case and is none of anyone's business. If the law says otherwise, this law is bad, and deserves to be broken and abolished! However, when a president lies about something that is relevant to something as significant as justification for launching a massive full-scale preemptive invasion of another country, that results in the death of many thousands of people, then this lie is EVERYONE'S BUSINESS!! Of any lies that should cause a president to be impeached, lies of this tragic magnitude ought to be at the top of the list!!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
When there is clear and convincing evidence of an imminent threat to our country or our allies (and, no, just before the invasion, Iraq was not a significant threat to Israel), then military intervention is warranted. There was no clear and convincing evidence that Iraq was a threat before the invasion!

Billy;
This is exactly why the citizens in this country know they are safer with a Conservative in the White House.

Liberals are Cowards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How does waiting to launch a full-scale preemptive invasion, that kills many thousands of people, only until one has clear and convincing evidence of an imminent threat to our country or our allies, make one a coward?

Failing to wait for such clear and convincing evidence makes one an overconfident foolish criminal against humanity!

:mad:

[Brellix]

Originally posted by Skeptic
How does waiting to launch a full-scale preemptive invasion, that kills many thousands of people, only until one has clear and convincing evidence of an imminent threat to our country or our allies, make one a coward?

Failing to wait for such clear and convincing evidence makes one an overconfident foolish criminal against humanity!

:mad:


I'm surprised at you Septic. I would have guessed that you would have written the war off as a by product of natural selection. After all, that's what you godless Darwinites live by.

Did you ever think about the fact that right now, even Darwin knows the truth?
:grave: :chuckle:


Brellix

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
How does waiting to launch a full-scale preemptive invasion,

Billy;
Yep, pre-emptive after Saddam continuously refused to submit to the UN resolutionS, supportd terrorism, refused to prove he destroyed any WMD, committed attrocities in Iraq for 20 years, trained terrorists, paid terrorists, Stole money from the 'Oil for Food' program, had a stupid looking mustache......

Skeptic;
that kills many thousands of people,

Billy;
Yeah, Saddam's soldiers. So?

Skeptic;
only until one has clear and convincing evidence of an imminent threat to our country or our allies, make one a coward?

Billy;
Not recognizing an imminent threat to our country and not acting on it is reckless, cowardly [Clinton comes to mind] irresponsible and grounds for impeachment. Our President did what he was required by the Constitution to do.

Skeptic;
Failing to wait for such clear and convincing evidence makes one an overconfident foolish criminal against humanity!

Billy;
No, it makes us the VICTOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOO HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bye Bye Saddam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bye Bye evil Brothers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[elected4ever]

Billy;Not recognizing an imminent threat to our country and not acting on it is reckless, cowardly [Clinton comes to mind] irresponsible and grounds for impeachment. Our President did what he was required by the Constitution to do.

Let me ask you again, Did the President use the Armed Forces to quail an insurrection against the Government? Yes or no

Did the president respond to an Iraqi invasion of the United States? yes or no

Is Iraq, being a sovereign power among nation, subject to the laws of the United States and being in violation of thoses laws the military was simply inforceing American law?

If none of those conditions apply to Iraq then the use of the US Military is not now or was it then justified.

War power vested in congress
Article I.

Section. 8.

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 15:To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Gentlemen, the constitution of the United States gives legal parameters for the use of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Any law passed by congress must be defined within the limits set by the constitution. The War Powers Act is powerless to expand those constitutional limits. The War Powers act does not give the president or the congress Card Blanch in use of the Military. The president and the Congress are limited by the constitution.

If you wish to change the constitution then there is constitutional remedies for changing it. Passing a statute does not accomplish this purpose. The constitution defines the limits of a statute and the actions of the President and congress.

What the Prisident did was a violation of the constitution and not a requirement of it. Stop beliving the hogwash you hear on tv.

[elected4ever]

And by the way, every congressman and senator who voted for the president in this matter also superseded their authority as Senators and congress men. Weather liberal of conservative does not matter. Both will violate the constitution when it is in their political best interest to do so.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Brellix
Did you ever think about the fact that right now, even Darwin knows the truth? No. Darwin is dead.

[Skeptic]

What? No response to my "Clinton's Lie Under Oath" article?

I thought I'd get a rise out of at least some of you Clinton haters.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
How does waiting to launch a full-scale preemptive invasion,

Billy;
Yep, pre-emptive after Saddam continuously refused to submit to the UN resolutionS, supportd terrorism, refused to prove he destroyed any WMD, committed attrocities in Iraq for 20 years, trained terrorists, paid terrorists, Stole money from the 'Oil for Food' program, had a stupid looking mustache...... Your criteria for massive military preemption is merely the past brutality of a dictator or possible insignificant links to terrorism?

No, a rational criteria for such preemption is an undeniably clear and imminent threat to America or its allies. This Saddam was NOT!

Skeptic;
that kills many thousands of people,

Billy;
Yeah, Saddam's soldiers. So? You know this is not true!

Recent estimates put the civilian body count at over 5,000!! (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_june1203.htm)

Skeptic;
only until one has clear and convincing evidence of an imminent threat to our country or our allies, make one a coward?

Billy;
Not recognizing an imminent threat to our country and not acting on it is reckless, cowardly [Clinton comes to mind] irresponsible and grounds for impeachment. Our President did what he was required by the Constitution to do. Tell us, exactly how was Iraq an imminent threat to our country? And from where did you get this information?

Skeptic;
Failing to wait for such clear and convincing evidence makes one an overconfident foolish criminal against humanity!

Billy;
No, it makes us the VICTOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOO HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bye Bye Saddam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bye Bye evil Brothers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You said above that "not recognizing an imminent threat to our country and not acting on it is reckless,..." Now, you are saying that failing to wait for clear and convincing evidence of an imminent threat "makes us the victor!"

Was there a clear and imminent threat or not? If you think there was, then what was it and how was it a clear and imminent threat to America?

And was it so clear and imminent that the Bush, the Pentagon and the world could see it? If so, why is it that such concrete empirical evidence for a clear and imminent threat to America has not been presented to the American public?

[Is it possible?]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What? No response to my "Clinton's Lie Under Oath" article?

I thought I'd get a rise out of at least some of you Clinton haters.

You will get no response out of me Skeptic but pure symapthy... for you of course.

God bless!

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
What? No response to my "Clinton's Lie Under Oath" article?

Billy;
I got as far as the chocolate analogy and started laughing too hard to finish reading the rest of that stupid article.

You are such a partisan hack, Skeptic. You defend the indefensible when it is a democrat/commie/socialist who is being scrutinized. Then you hammer away at a Republican and go out of your way to post articles from every commie website you can find knowing full well that most of it isn't truthful or accurate.

Silly Neocom.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
You defend the indefensible when it is a democrat/commie/socialist who is being scrutinized. Then you hammer away at a Republican and go out of your way to post articles from every commie website you can find knowing full well that most of it isn't truthful or accurate.

Silly Neocom. You defend the indefensible when it is a Republican/right-wing/fascist who is being scrutinized. Then you hammer away at a Democrat and go out of your way to rant from your right-wing red-neck perspective, knowing full well that most of it isn't truthful or accurate.

:kookoo:

Silly Neocon.

[BillyBob]

C'mon Skeptic, write your own insults and stop stealing mine.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Silly Neocon.
Here's a better insult, Skeptic! Google this:

"Cheap labor conservative"

:chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Don't you have a job, Gerald?

[frostmanj]

Originally posted by Gerald
Here's a better insult, Skeptic! Google this:

"Cheap labor conservative"

:chuckle:
"Government controled Labor communist"

Sure worked well for the former Soviet Union. Loved those modern conveniences.

Silly NeoCom (Sorry BillyBob if I steal your catch phrase)

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Don't you have a job, Gerald? Is that what you are, BillyBob? A cheap labor conservative?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Don't you have a job, Gerald?
Irrelevant.

But I believe you indicated at some point that you consider American labor to be hideously overpriced...

[BillyBob]

Frostman;
Silly NeoCom (Sorry BillyBob if I steal your catch phrase)

Billy;
Please use it LIBERALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha!

[BillyBob]

Gerald;
Irrelevant.

Billy;
No it isn't. What a man does for a living is very relevant.

Gerald;
But I believe you indicated at some point that you consider American labor to be hideously overpriced...

Billy;
I said that unions have inflated the price of labor in this country beyond the actual value of that labor.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I said that unions have inflated the price of labor in this country beyond the actual value of that labor. What has inflated the price of the labor performed by CEOs and six+ figure corporate executives beyond the actual value of their labor?

[frostmanj]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What has inflated the price of the labor performed by CEOs and six+ figure corporate executives beyond the actual value of their labor? Oh, I don't know...maybe ambition, the trust of the board of directors, and if nothing else the ability in this country to be successful.

Honestly, Skeptic, aren't class warfare arguments beneath you?:rolleyes:

No wait a minute. You're a communist at heart. I quess this is your only argument.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by frostmanj
Oh, I don't know...maybe ambition, the trust of the board of directors, and if nothing else the ability in this country to be successful. So, the labor of those who actually make products, but who do not have the opportunities to learn how to impress and convince others that they know what they are talking about, should be valued much less than those who tell them what to do?

Something just doesn't seem right about a few people making millions off of efforts of many relatively low-wage workers.

What harm is there in having an entity (unions) advocating for the real laborers to gain a greater piece of the profits, when those few at the top take millions out of the profits?

Just because a few individuals have learned how to take advantage of the fruits of the labor of many individuals, and take a radically disproportionate share of the profits, does not make it right!

[frostmanj]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Just because a few individuals have learned how to take advantage of the fruits of the labor of many individuals, and take a radically disproportionate share of the profits, does not make it right!
It's called the American Dream. You need to quit confusing egality with equality.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
So, the labor of those who actually make products, but who do not have the opportunities to learn how to impress and convince others that they know what they are talking about,

Billy;
What are you talking about? They do not have the opportunities to impress? This is the land of opportunity. If someone isn't happy with his job, he can go somewhere else. The problem you commies have is that you think some brainless, unambitious hack deserves more than he is worth to the company. If he really is ambitious, he can go start his own company.

Skeptic;
should be valued much less than those who tell them what to do?

Billy;
Absolutely. I could have ten guys working on my job site but if I don't tell them what I want done and watch over them, the work will never get completed. Also, if I never pick up a tool or carry a single bit of building material, I will still make more money than my employees.

Why???? Because I am the guy who invested money to launch my business. I took the risk. I went out and found customers. I bid the job. I sold my services to the customer. I am the one guaranteeing the work. I am the one who the customer will call if something isn't right. It is the same with any business. The guys doing the actuall labor are not the guys making the most money, any knucklehead can swing a hammer.

Jeez Skeptic, do I have to draw you a picture???

Skeptic;
Something just doesn't seem right about a few people making millions off of efforts of many relatively low-wage workers.

Billy;
See above.....

Skeptic;
What harm is there in having an entity (unions) advocating for the real laborers to gain a greater piece of the profits, when those few at the top take millions out of the profits?

Billy;
Unions artificially jack-up labor costs beyond what the market can purchase elsewhere. The company isn't going to make less profit so the only thing it can do is raise prices and pass the high labor costs to the consumer. You pay more for an automobile because of unions than you would pay without them. Let's face it, you could train a monkey to do what most autoworkers do! It should be entirely up to the Company how much it is willing to pay for labor. If they cannot find anyone who wants to work for that wage, they will have no choice but to offer more. If they can find someone willing to work for that wage, they have just taken one person off of unemployment.

Skeptic;
Just because a few individuals have learned how to take advantage of the fruits of the labor of many individuals, and take a radically disproportionate share of the profits, does not make it right!

Billy;
Of course it does!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man, you are dangerously close to espousing communism. I know you deny being a commie but everything I see you write convinces me that you are just that.

Silly Neocom!

[BillyBob]

Don't forget the Redneck Auction!!!!

C'mon folks. If everyone gave just ten bucks, Tye would be digging his way out of a very deep hole.

I would love to see Minus 3000 posts!!!!!!!!!

-3000

[isn't it pretty!!!!]

Ten bucks each!!!!!!!

That's less than the cost of a cup of coffee every morning for a month.

The Redneck Club will match every ten dollar donation from here on until the end of the Auction.

If you wanna donate more, all the better!

Let's watch Tye's post count sink into oblivion!!!!!


Remove Tye's Posts Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=294019#post294019)

[Skeptic]

==================
Published on Friday, August 1, 2003 by the Seattle Times
Bush's High Crimes Against the Nation
by Walter Williams

George W. Bush has knowingly deceived the American people on the two overriding policy issues of his presidency — the invasion of Iraq and the deep tax cuts.

Other presidents have lied. Only Bush has repeatedly duped Congress and the public to thwart their exercise of informed consent.

He is the first president to use propaganda as the main weapon in selling his policies. Bush's unprecedented pattern of deception may constitute an impeachable offense.

To date, only the deception in Iraq has brought forth the "I" word. The case for impeachment is materially strengthened, however, when Iraq is combined with Bush's 2001 and 2003 propaganda campaigns to convince the public that tax filers with lower levels of income benefited more from his tax cuts than the nation's richest families.

Hoodwinking the public that Saddam posed a perilous immediate danger to the United States is Bush's greatest treachery. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman observed: "If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American history."

John Dean, counsel to the president during Watergate, wrote in mid-June: "Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be a 'high crime' under the Constitution's impeachment clause."

Before the U.S. invasion, the strong consensus based on intelligence community information held that there were only negligible Iraqi ties with al-Qaida, no nuclear weapons program of any consequence, and limited chemical and biological weapons programs at most.

Lacking hard facts, as evidenced by his now much-discussed deception in his State of the Union address that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa, Bush mixed misinformation, distorted allegations and unsubstantiated rumors to persuade the public of the imminent danger posed by Saddam Hussein.

The experience with the massive tax cuts for families and individuals in both 2001 and 2003 makes patently clear how Bush used the same unscrupulous tactics over time. Moreover, the level of the deception is staggering, as indicated by Bush's 2003 proposal to eliminate taxes on taxable corporate dividends.

Joel Friedman and Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out: "The group with incomes over $1 million — which consists of about 226,000 tax filers in 2003 — would receive roughly as much in benefits as the 127 million tax filers with income below $140,000. Stated another way, the top 0.2 percent of tax filers would receive nearly as much from the tax cut as the bottom 95 percent of filers combined."

Claiming that the 127 million tax filers with incomes of under $140,000 are the big winners when 226,000 of the richest tax filers benefit nearly as much is surely world-class policy deception.

But is it a high crime that warrants impeachment, as was the case with Watergate?

Republican operatives breaking into the Democratic Party's national committee headquarters and President Nixon's covering it up clearly constituted crimes. Bush's propaganda campaign to hide how much the tax cuts benefited the rich is more likely to be viewed by the public as the stuff of politics in which politicians make inflated claims about the importance of a proposed policy and its likely benefits and ignore potential problems.

In actuality, the president's purposeful duping of the public on the nation's most critical policy issues strikes at the heart of American constitutional democracy when it robs the electorate of informed consent. This fraudulent act makes a mockery of Abraham Lincoln's immortal words in the Gettysburg Address, "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."

Deeming presidential deception a high crime under the impeachment clause can open a Pandora's box of problems. Yet, President Bush's actions appear to be a far more serious assault on the Constitution than Watergate. I hold that interpreting Bush's pattern of deception on his most important policy proposals as a high crime against the nation is a necessary step in rescuing American democracy.

Walter Williams is a professor emeritus at the Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, and author of the forthcoming book, "Reaganism and the Death of Representative Democracy."
==================

Impeach Bush!! :mad:

[One Eyed Jack]

Face it Septic -- President Bush isn't going to be impeached.

[frostmanj]

I love it. When all else fails, fall back on typical democrate class warfare arguments.

Step 1: Point out that during a tax cut that the richest get the most dollars back. (well duh, if you get a certain PERCENTAGE back, the people who pay the most taxes will get the biggest tax break)

Step 2: Ignore the fact that those who make the most money, pay the most taxes. (It works both ways you know)

Step 3: Pray (yes, some democrats pray) that the American public will be shortsighted, jealous, and greedy enough to buy it.

Results: More votes.

P.S. If you're so worried about your tax burden, why the heck would you vote for a party that wants to INCREASE it across the board?

[Is it possible?]

I don't think Bush should be impeached for this but one of the things I totally disagree with, and there actually a number of things, is this talk of a Palestinian state. I think he is veering off course in this area and it sounds to me like left over rhetoric from our former president.

[Skeptic]

Who wants to answer any of these questions for Bush?

It seems Bush is either unable of unwilling to do so.

===========================
Howard Dean's 16 QUESTIONS FOR PRESIDENT BUSH

There has been much discussion about the 16 words included in the State of the Union address. Today I call on the President to answer these sixteen questions to ensure that the American people can retain their trust in their government and to help ensure that the United States can retain its credibility as a moral force in the world.

1 Mr. President, beyond the NSC and CIA officials who have been identified, we need to know who else at the White House was involved in the decision to include the discredited uranium evidence in your speech, and, if they knew it was false, why did they permit it to be included in the speech


2 Mr. President, we need to know why anyone in your Administration would have contemplated using the evidence in the State of the Union after George Tenet personally intervened in October 2002, to have the same evidence removed from the President's October 7th speech. (The Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Mike Allen, 7/13/2003)


3 Mr. President, we need to know why you claimed this very week that the CIA objected to the Niger uranium sentence "subsequent" to the State of the Union address, contradicting everything else we have heard from your administration and the intelligence community on the matter. (The Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)


4 Mr. President, we urgently need an explanation about the very serious charge that senior officials in your Administration may have retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson by illegally disclosing that his wife is an undercover CIA officer. (The Nation, Corn, David, 7/16/2003)


5 Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration persisted in using the intercepted aluminum tubes to show that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear program and why your National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, claimed categorically that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," when in fact our own government experts flatly rejected such claims. (CNN, 9/08/2002, Knight Ridder News Service, 10/04/2002)


6 Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld created a secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon that selectively identified questionable intelligence to support the case for war including the supposed link to al-Qaeda while ignoring, burying or rejecting any evidence to the contrary. (New Yorker, Seymour Hersh, 5/12/03)


7 Mr. President, we need to know what the basis was for Secretary Rumsfeld's assertion that the US had bulletproof evidence linking Al Qaeda to Iraq, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to Al Qaeda. (NY Times, Schmitt, Eric, 9/28/2002, NY Times, Krugman, Paul, 7/15/2003)


8 Mr. President, we need to know why Vice President Cheney claimed last September to have "irrefutable evidence" that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, an assertion he repeated in March, on the eve of war. (AP, 9/20/2002, NBC 3/16/2003)


9 Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Powell claimed with confidence and virtual certainty in February before the UN Security Council that, "Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." (UN Address, 2/05/2003)


10 Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld claimed on March 30th in reference to weapons of mass destruction, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (The Guardian, Whitaker, Brian and Rory McCarthy, 5/30/2003)


11 Mr. President, we need an explanation of the unconfirmed report that your Administration is dishonoring the life of a soldier who died in Iraq as a result of hostile action by misclassifying his death as an accident. (Time, Gibbs, Nancy and Mark Thompson, 7/13/2003)


12 Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration has never told the truth about the costs and long-term commitment of the war, has consistently downplayed what those would be, and now continues to try to keep the projected costs hidden from the American people.


13 Mr. President, we need to know why you said on May 1, 2003 , that the war was over, when US troops have fought and one or two have died nearly every day since then and your generals have admitted that we are fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq. (Abizaid, Gen. John, 7/16/2003)


14 Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration had no plan to build the peace in post-war Iraq and seems to be resisting calls to include NATO, the United Nations and our allies in the stabilization and reconstruction effort.


15 Mr. President, we need to know what you were referring to in Poland on May 30, 2003, when you said, "For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (The Washington Post, Mike Allen, 5/31/2003)


16 Mr. President, we need to know why you incorrectly claimed this very week that the war began because Iraq would not admit UN inspectors, when in fact Iraq had admitted the inspectors and you opposed extending their work. (The Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)


If you can't or won't answer these 16 questions, Mr. President, I call on the Republicans in Congress to stop blocking efforts to create an independent, bipartisan committee to investigate what is a matter of the highest importance: whether your decision to go to war was sound and just.

The American public deserves answers to all of these questions. I urge you to lead with the honor and integrity that you promised as a candidate.

From: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6998&news_iv_ctrl=1301
===========================

[BillyBob]

I can answer them for ya, IT DOESN'T MATTER!

We got rid of Saddam, that is all that matters.

Woo Hoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why don't you neocoms stop with your typical mudslinging and politics of personal destruction. Instead, tell us how a democrat President is going to be better for the country.

[this outta be very entertaining]

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I can answer them for ya, IT DOESN'T MATTER!

We got rid of Saddam, that is all that matters. It does matter, if there is evidence that our President lied about, distorted and exaggerated the threat Saddam posed to America!

And there is such evidence.

If Saddam was not the threat Bush claimed he was, then IT DOES MATTER!

[Granite]

Those sixteen questions remind me of the "Wanted for Treason" and "Welcome, Mr. Kennedy" pamphlets they were passing out in Dallas when JFK showed up for his last visit.

granite

[Skeptic]

Do any of you even care whether Bush lied about, distorted or exaggerated the threat Iraq posed to America before the invasion?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Do any of you even care whether Bush lied about, distorted or exaggerated the threat Iraq posed to America before the invasion? Of course they don't. The only things of interest to them are oil and subjugating the "Moo Slims" before they try to subjugate us...:rolleyes:

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Do any of you even care whether Bush lied about, distorted or exaggerated the threat Iraq posed to America before the invasion?

Skeptic,

Do you even care that he may have just jumped when he got the wrong information (if it was wrong)? I'm pretty sure that the government knows a lot more about why we went to war than the general public knows. And, we probably won't find out everything for at least twenty years. Just because some reporter or columnist or democrat politician says it doesn't make it so.

[Delmar]

Why Bush Should Be Impeached ???

Oh I don't know
For appointing pro abortion judges?
For not applying "if you harbor a terrorist you are a terrorist to Asser Arafat ?
For throwing millions of dollars at destructive liberal programs ?
Delmar

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by deardelmar
Why Bush Should Be Impeached ???

Oh I don't know
For appointing pro abortion judges?
For not applying "if you harbor a terrorist you are a terrorist to Asser Arafat ?
For throwing millions of dollars at destructive liberal programs ?
Delmar No, for lying about, distorting and exaggerating the threat that Iraq posed to America and the world! For unnecessarily launching a full-scale preemptive invasion of Iraq, violating international law, resulting in the deaths of over 200 American troops and many thousands of people in Iraq!

There are so many unanswered questions about Iraq that should be investigated and answered. However, the Republican controlled Congress refuses to allow such an investigation, because they are afraid of what such an investigation will uncover. And they are afraid that they would eventually have to impeach their Republican president.

[BillyBob]

Gerald;
Of course they don't. The only things of interest to them are oil and subjugating the "Moo Slims" before they try to subjugate us...

Billy;
I agree with the part about the stinkin' Muslims. They have to go. This week proved it with the UN bombing and another bombing in Israel. It would be best if they were exterminated, wholesale.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Gerald;
Of course they don't. The only things of interest to them are oil and subjugating the "Moo Slims" before they try to subjugate us...

Billy;
I agree with the part about the stinkin' Muslims. They have to go. This week proved it with the UN bombing and another bombing in Israel. It would be best if they were exterminated, wholesale.

Even the nice ones, just in case.

[BillyBob]

Yeah, just kill them all.

Maybe we could put a little beard on Tye and a towel on his head, call it collateral damage....

[Skeptic]

BillyBob
I agree with the part about the stinkin' Muslims. They have to go. This week proved it with the UN bombing and another bombing in Israel. It would be best if they were exterminated, wholesale.

wholearmor
Even the nice ones, just in case.
Maybe we should also exterminate all Christians! Look at all of atrocities performed by Christians of various faiths over the centuries. Christianity has committed some of the most brutal atrocities by any religion throughout history!

777 AD - Charlemagne, a devout Christian, after conquering the Saxon rebels, gave them a choice between baptism and execution. When they refused to convert, he had 4500 of them beheaded in one morning.

1122 AD - Christian crusaders swept over Jerusalem and slaughtered men, women and children, 'until their horses were knee deep in blood." They then went to the church to thank the Lord for his mercy.

4th century - Roman Emperor Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to become a Christian, had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his.

12th and 13th centuries - the Inquisition killed hundreds of thousands of people because their Christianity did not agree with official dogma.

English Catholics suffered horribly under Protestant regimes. American historian William T. Walsh writes: "In Britain, 30,000 went to the stake for witchcraft; in Protestant Germany, the figure was 100,000" (, p. 275).

This is just a small sampling. If you really want to learn about the historical brutality of Christianity, then check out VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH (http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html)

And don't forget those pesky Bible Atrocities (http://www.geocities.com/AhSeow/bible_arocities.htm)

So, just in case those stinkin' Christians start more killing sprees and Inquisitions, we had better exterminate them wholesale, even the nice ones. Don't you think?

Why stop with Muslims, when Christians are historically far more murderous?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Yeah, just kill them all.I'm proud of you, BB; you're starting to sound just like me!:D

However, you do realize the risks involved, yes? And that the Muslims aren't going to just let themselves be slaughtered.

In all likelihood, a campaign of extermination would involve large chunks of real estate being rendered uninhabitable...and remember: irradiated petroleum is of no use to anyone...

[Gerald]

Oops!

Double post.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Skeptic
777 AD - Charlemagne, a devout Christian, after conquering the Saxon rebels, gave them a choice between baptism and execution. When they refused to convert, he had 4500 of them beheaded in one morning.

1122 AD - Christian crusaders swept over Jerusalem and slaughtered men, women and children, 'until their horses were knee deep in blood." They then went to the church to thank the Lord for his mercy.

4th century - Roman Emperor Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to become a Christian, had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his.

12th and 13th centuries - the Inquisition killed hundreds of thousands of people because their Christianity did not agree with official dogma.

English Catholics suffered horribly under Protestant regimes. American historian William T. Walsh writes: "In Britain, 30,000 went to the stake for witchcraft; in Protestant Germany, the figure was 100,000" (, p. 275).

This is just a small sampling. If you really want to learn about the historical brutality of Christianity, then check out VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH (http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html)

And don't forget those pesky Bible Atrocities (http://www.geocities.com/AhSeow/bible_arocities.htm)


Those weren't Real Christians™.

:chuckle:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Maybe we should also exterminate all Christians! Look at all of atrocities performed by Christians of various faiths over the centuries. Christianity has committed some of the most brutal atrocities by any religion throughout history!

777 AD - Charlemagne, a devout Christian, after conquering the Saxon rebels, gave them a choice between baptism and execution. When they refused to convert, he had 4500 of them beheaded in one morning.

1122 AD - Christian crusaders swept over Jerusalem and slaughtered men, women and children, 'until their horses were knee deep in blood." They then went to the church to thank the Lord for his mercy.

4th century - Roman Emperor Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to become a Christian, had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his.

12th and 13th centuries - the Inquisition killed hundreds of thousands of people because their Christianity did not agree with official dogma.

English Catholics suffered horribly under Protestant regimes. American historian William T. Walsh writes: "In Britain, 30,000 went to the stake for witchcraft; in Protestant Germany, the figure was 100,000" (, p. 275).

This is just a small sampling. If you really want to learn about the historical brutality of Christianity, then check out VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH (http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html)

And don't forget those pesky Bible Atrocities (http://www.geocities.com/AhSeow/bible_arocities.htm)

So, just in case those stinkin' Christians start more killing sprees and Inquisitions, we had better exterminate them wholesale, even the nice ones. Don't you think?

Why stop with Muslims, when Christians are historically far more murderous?

1. They weren't Christians.
2. If they were (and they weren't), what have Christians done lately?

[frostmanj]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Gerald;
Of course they don't. The only things of interest to them are oil and subjugating the "Moo Slims" before they try to subjugate us...

Billy;
I agree with the part about the stinkin' Muslims. They have to go. This week proved it with the UN bombing and another bombing in Israel. It would be best if they were exterminated, wholesale.

Hey, BB, you know I'm on your side here, but you need to be careful what you say. I just took a tour of Dachau in Munich, and can tell you that there may be some out their who take the idea of extermination of a people seriously. I know you meant it to ruffle Skeptic's feathers (always a noble idea). Just think it might be going a bit too far.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
1. They weren't Christians. Maybe they weren't your specific brand of Christian, but they were Christians. There have been hundreds of types of Christians throughout history.

(Hmmm.... I wonder how many types of Muslims there are? Should every type be killed? I'll have to ask BillyBob and wholearmor.)

2. If they were (and they weren't), what have Christians done lately? Well, Bush is a Christian, isn't he? Need I repeat myself about his most recent murderous act?

See Iraq Body Count (http://iraqbodycount.net/) .

[Crow]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Maybe we should also exterminate all Christians! Look at all of atrocities performed by Christians of various faiths over the centuries. Christianity has committed some of the most brutal atrocities by any religion throughout history!

777 AD - Charlemagne, a devout Christian, after conquering the Saxon rebels, gave them a choice between baptism and execution. When they refused to convert, he had 4500 of them beheaded in one morning.

1122 AD - Christian crusaders swept over Jerusalem and slaughtered men, women and children, 'until their horses were knee deep in blood." They then went to the church to thank the Lord for his mercy.

4th century - Roman Emperor Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to become a Christian, had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his.

12th and 13th centuries - the Inquisition killed hundreds of thousands of people because their Christianity did not agree with official dogma.

English Catholics suffered horribly under Protestant regimes. American historian William T. Walsh writes: "In Britain, 30,000 went to the stake for witchcraft; in Protestant Germany, the figure was 100,000" (, p. 275).

This is just a small sampling. If you really want to learn about the historical brutality of Christianity, then check out VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH (http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html)

And don't forget those pesky Bible Atrocities (http://www.geocities.com/AhSeow/bible_arocities.htm)

So, just in case those stinkin' Christians start more killing sprees and Inquisitions, we had better exterminate them wholesale, even the nice ones. Don't you think?

Why stop with Muslims, when Christians are historically far more murderous?


Skeptic, I'm pretty much certain that all of those Christians y'all have listed there are already dead, especially that Charlemange guy.

[Crow]

Originally posted by Gerald

Those weren't Real Christians™.

:chuckle:

Of course those were real Christians, and that particular period of time was pretty bloody. Now, let's deal with the generation we're living in. What religious group is declaring jihad faster than the French load their drawers when someone says "BOO!"--Muslims. Not all, but they're head and shoulders above other religions or faiths in the terrorism department at this time.

[ebenz47037]

Hey Skeptic! I thought that most Communists were against the death penalty. Found some quotes from different communists online:

http://www.jamestown.org/pubs/view/mon_002_204_000.htm

Duma Deputies Call for Moratorium on Death Penalty. Russian Duma speaker Gennady Seleznev and International Affairs Committee chairman Vladimir Lukin have appealed to President Boris Yeltsin to declare a moratorium on the death penalty in Russia. (NTV, October 29) When Russia joined the Council of Europe in February, it undertook to abolish the death penalty within three years, and the Council called for a moratorium on executions until abolition became law. About 200 people are believed to have been executed in Russia annually in the last five years. (Komsomolskaya pravda, July 30)


http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1999/03/F.RU.990331131007.html

Prague, 31 March 1999 (RFE/RL) -- The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly is threatening to expel delegates from Kyiv and Moscow unless the death penalty is abolished in their countries once and for all.

When Russia and Ukraine joined the council more than three years ago, they promised to protect human rights, to carry out judicial reforms and to draw up new penal codes that do not include the death penalty. They also promised to adopt Protocol Six of the European Convention on Human Rights, which bans death sentences.

Since then, both countries have declared a moratorium on capital punishment. But legislators in Kyiv and Moscow continue to block the promised criminal code amendments and passage of Protocol Six. Even more disturbing to European officials, they say, was the council's discovery that authorities in Kyiv lied about declaring a moratorium.

http://www.wpiran.org/publications/nader_capital_punishment.htm

Capital punishment is the state's terminology for murder. Individuals murder each other, but states sentence individuals to 'capital punishment.' The demand to end capital punishment and prohibit murder stems from opposition to intentional, deliberate and planned murder of one by the other. That a state or ruling political force is responsible does not make the slightest difference to the fact that we are dealing with intentional murder. Capital punishment is the most deplorable and appalling form of intentional murder since a political authority, publicly, with prior notice, on behalf of society, with the utmost legitimacy and ruthlessness, decides to murder someone, and announces the date and time of the event.

It is an interesting question. With the abolishment of capital punishment, right from the start, a leading murderer, the state, will immediately be stopped. Your question implies that capital punishment has been invented to file grievances against murderers or that lawmakers found it suitable for the crime of murder after lengthy deliberations. Capital punishment, however, has nothing to do with murder in society. It has its own history. It is the state's rights and powers over citizens today as a continuation of the state's rights and powers in the past. When Agha Mohammad Khan Ghajar blinds and kills residents of an entire town, he is not objecting to a specific crime. When a horse thief in America is hanged or a soldier who has escaped military service is executed, they are not registering a grievance in a judicial sense, but rather they are putting people in their places and forcing them to submit to rules and regulations. They are terrorising people. They are governing. In today's world, capital punishment is not just a so-called punishment for murder, it is also a punishment for unauthorised sex, hoarding, believing in common ownership, forming opposition parties, mocking of god and prophets, homosexuality, etc. From the beginning of state rule, the killing of inhabitants has always been and is a pillar of forcing people into submission. The history of capital punishment is not found in judicial debates about crime and punishment, but rather in the history of class rule and the state. States kill their citizens today. This must be stopped.

You ask if there is no capital punishment, what can we do with murderers? The killing of murderers is a repetition of murder. This cannot be done. What else can be done depends on the judicial philosophy of society. In the current system, a murderer could be imprisoned. Perhaps in an ideal society, people could be protected from the repetition of murder, or the murderer could be made to understand its offensiveness, without even taking away his/her freedom. In an ideal society, it may even be possible to create conditions so that pre-meditated murder does not occur.

There are no capital punishment or life sentences in our system of laws. Clearly, these people should be imprisoned and worked on so that they can return to society and be forgiven.

The idea that the family of the victim owns the victim's blood and that justice is a debt owed by society is a backward and unacceptable concept. The victim's family's sadness and sorrow is undeniable. But if capital punishment is allowed to appease their sorrows, why is murder not excused for similar emotions? Can anyone who has suffered humiliation, been crushed, lost everything, become a drug addict, bankrupt or homeless commit murder to appease bitter emotions? Is the state a killing machine, which individuals refer to for retribution? Is justice a concept replacing retribution? The meaning of justice should be discussed later. The concept is not so objective and beyond the class system that some might think.


Well, you've told us you're a Communist before. Are you for or against the death penalty?

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Maybe we should also exterminate all Christians!

Billy;
Oh, you must be a Muslim. You guys are allready trying to exterminate all Christians....and Jews......and Americans......And we are going to let it happen, Muslim boy. No way.

Skeptic;
Look at all of atrocities performed by Christians of various faiths over the centuries. Christianity has committed some of the most brutal atrocities by any religion throughout history!

Billy;
So?

[BillyBob]

Frostman;
Hey, BB, you know I'm on your side here, but you need to be careful what you say.

Billy;
Why? The Muslims keep blowing stuff up. Innocent people keep dying. People like Skeptic keep making excuses for them.

I guarantee, if it was happening in my backyard, I would be killing them before they could kill me. If we don't stop them now, they will eventually be in my back yard. I would rather stop them now.

Frostman;
I just took a tour of Dachau in Munich, and can tell you that there may be some out their who take the idea of extermination of a people seriously.

Billy;
Instead of worrying about me SAYING it, they should be worried about the Muslims DOING it. The Israeli's have the right idea, they are just fighting with gloves on. They are about to take them off and the Muslim world will see what it's like when 'Infidels' fight back.

Frostman;
I know you meant it to ruffle Skeptic's feathers (always a noble idea). Just think it might be going a bit too far.

Billy;
As the Muslims continue to attck the US, the UN and Israel, it will become harder and harder to seperate the 'nice ones' from the fanatics [I think they are all fanatics]. If it comes down to them dying or me dying, I choose them.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Why stop with Muslims, when Christians are historically far more murderous?

Billy;
Yes, Skeptic. Let's list all the Christian countries where the people are ruled by an evil Christian dictator who murders, rapes, dismembers, imprisons, shreds, executes and enslaves. Oh, and please tell me how many times Christian fanatics have hijacked airplanes and flew them into buildings. And let's not forget about those pesky Christian suicide bombers, they seem to be everywhere these days. I wonder when the last time a Christian jumped into a cement truck and blew up a UN building?

You are so stupid.

[BillyBob]

Gerald;
However, you do realize the risks involved, yes? And that the Muslims aren't going to just let themselves be slaughtered.

Billy;
You have it backward, Gerald. They are trying to slaughter us and WE are the ones who aren't just going to let it happen.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
You have it backward, Gerald. They are trying to slaughter us and WE are the ones who aren't just going to let it happen. I beg to differ, friend.

The Muslims don't have the means to wipe out Everybody Else, and that is unlikely to ever change, because for every one glassy-eyed fanatic there are two or three who have walking-around sense, and know that pitching nukes, or germs or poison gas around is a Bad Idea.

OTOH, wiping out the Muslims (all 1 billion of them) will require the use of those very same weapons. There is no way around this.

I trust you can imagine the sorts of horrors that would be loosed in such a campaign, because you don't strike me as the "I'll destroy the world before I'll let you conquer it" type...

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by ebenz47037
Well, you've told us you're a Communist before. Are you for or against the death penalty? I'm not a Communist, and I am against the death penalty.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Billy;
As the Muslims continue to attck the US, the UN and Israel, it will become harder and harder to seperate the 'nice ones' from the fanatics [I think they are all fanatics]. If it comes down to them dying or me dying, I choose them. I think you are a fanatic! And a fear-monger. :kookoo:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I'm not a Communist, and I am against the death penalty.

Aren't all US of A haters communists?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
Why stop with Muslims, when Christians are historically far more murderous?

Billy;
Yes, Skeptic. Let's list all the Christian countries where the people are ruled by an evil Christian dictator who murders, rapes, dismembers, imprisons, shreds, executes and enslaves. Oh, and please tell me how many times Christian fanatics have hijacked airplanes and flew them into buildings. And let's not forget about those pesky Christian suicide bombers, they seem to be everywhere these days. I wonder when the last time a Christian jumped into a cement truck and blew up a UN building?

You are so stupid. Did you bother to read about the history of Christianity? Christians have done far worse things than what you have just mentioned. Why aren't you outraged about the legacy of Christianity? In order to be consistent, I'd abandon my Christian faith, if I were you. :kookoo:

[wholearmor]

Just because someone says they're a Christian, does that mean they are one?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Aren't all US of A haters communists? I love America! This is why I'm so outraged that Bush has abandoned long-held principles by unnecessarily launching a preemptive invasion of Iraq, killing many thousands of people in the process!! This was totally unnecessary, and wrong! This is not what America is about! Bush has lots of blood on his hands (despite what BillyBob says), and should be impeached!!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Just because someone says they're a Christian, does that mean they are one? By who's standards are we to judge whether someone is a Christian? Yours? :chuckle:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
By who's standards are we to judge whether someone is a Christian? Yours? :chuckle:

...or yours? :chuckle:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I love America! This is why I'm so outraged that Bush has abandoned long-held principles by unnecessarily launching a preemptive invasion of Iraq, killing many thousands of people in the process!! This was totally unnecessary, and wrong! This is not what America is about! Bush has lots of blood on his hands (despite what BillyBob says), and should be impeached!!

I love America! That's why I'm so outraged that commies like you ignore suicide bombing after suicide bombing after suicide bombing like they never happened. You could be next.

[elected4ever]

Why don't you Guy's just knock off the garbage. Do you really wont to know the truth about Clinton and Bush? Or should I say Democrats and Republicans. read this ex-cert from an artical I read.

Let us look at the supreme example of how Republican and Democrats unexpectedly cooperated during a time of extreme national crisis. In this scenario, Republican leadership took a totally unexpected turn, which is exactly the sign for which you are looking when discussing the workings of the invisible One-Party system really operating in this country.

I am speaking of the Impeachment of President Clinton. Chicago attorney, David Schippers was appointed by Republican Congressman Henry Hyde to serve as the Chief Investigative Counsel of the House Judiciary Committee researching possible impeachment charges. In his book, "Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment", Schippers unwittingly captures the essence of the inner workings of the invisible single party system in America.

Schippers states the purpose of the impeachment. "Impeachment was not only the proper remedy, it was the only constitutional remedy available to correct some of the most outrageous conduct ever engaged in by a president of the United States. Mr. Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and for perjury, both federal criminal offenses … Repeatedly, we hear that the whole case was about sex and that everybody lies about sex … Once the truth is known, though, it becomes apparent that the President's transgressions were neither defensible nor only about sex. Evidence showed a far-reaching conspiracy to obstruct justice and to deprive Paula Jones of her constitutional right as an American … If sexual misconduct were all that could be shown, there would have been no inquiry or impeachment. No, the impeachable offenses were committed much later: perjury, lies, witness tampering, suborning perjury …"

Schippers would later list other more serious offenses of the President that were known to the committee, but never reported out of the office of Ken Starr, Republican Independent Counsel appointed by Janet Reno. We shall come back to this issue in a few moments, but first, let us listen to Schippers as he tells us who put the "fix" in place so that President Clinton got off scot-free, acquitted of all charges.

"… before we ever appeared on the floor of the United States Senate, the House impeachment managers and I knew we didn't have a shot to win. It was a flat-out rigged ball game, what we in Chicago would refer to as a First Ward election. No shot. No way … it wasn't all the Senators. But it was the ones that counted -- the leadership. And not just the Democratic leadership. The Republican leaders … Our own guys, selling us down the river!" [Page 7]

The Republican leadership of the Senate is the culprit that ensured that President Clinton would get acquitted. Schippers then zeroes in on Republican Senate leader Trent Lott as the point man in this effort. "Lott leaned back in his chair with a power lean that said, 'I am in charge'. I'll never forget the first words out of his mouth: 'Henry, you're not going to dump this garbage on us'. Stupid me, I thought everything was on the legit … but no … the Senate Republican leadership wanted to sink us … [Page 8-9]

Schippers continues: "Lott mentioned the importance of 'bipartisanship' … I learned that every time I heard the word 'bipartisan' on Capitol Hill, we were about to be sold out, because bipartisan meant doing the will of the Democrats."

This is a critical revelation in our discussion, because the Democrats have been given the role of the active agent constantly agitating against the Status Quo system, while the Republicans have been assigned the passive role of defenders of the Status Quo. The Democrats are supposed to win the battle most of the time, constantly battling in a "controlled conflict" to gradually move American government and the values and attitudes of the people, into the globalist, socialist system of Antichrist.

The Democrats must win the majority of the battles. When Democrats control one or both houses of Congress, the final decisions on a particular matter come from their top leadership, and the matter is usually public; however, when the Republicans control, the Democrat agenda still prevails, but the fact that the top Republican leadership was acting in the best interests of the Democrats is very much hidden from view.

Let us return to Schippers for even more detail on this subject: When the House impeachment managers realized they were not going to be able to present their case thoroughly, one congressman said, " 'We've got boxes of evidence here. We've got witnesses. One day? That's insane.' Congressman Jim Rogan of California added the exclamation point to the whole exchange: 'We're entitled to a trial. Why are we being sold out? You're double-crossing us. We've done our duty; it's up to you to do your duty. We are all Republicans." [Page 11]

Obviously, the knowledge of the invisible single-party system does not extend all the way down the ranks of the Congressmen, which is pretty typical of a secret society, where only the very top leadership knows the truth, while the remaining 95% of the members are duped.

Senator Lott made it quite clear that the Senate was writing its own rules in this trial, casting aside all written regulations. Schippers lamented, "The reality was that we had no Republican friends in that room. The Democrats ran the whole show." [Page 18] Schippers then listed the six Senators present at that meeting in which the House impeachment managers were informed that the fix was in, and what form it would take. Present at this meeting were three Democrats and three Republicans. The three Democrat senators were: Joseph Biden, Delaware; Carl Levin, Michigan; and Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut; the three Republican senators were: Fred Thompson, Tennessee; Pete Domenici, New Mexico; and Ted Stevens, Alaska.

The quote of the century belongs to Senator Ted Stevens, Republican, Alaska. Since House impeachment managers did not initially get the message, they pressed the fact that they had considerable evidence that Clinton had brutally raped Juanita Broaddrick. At this moment, an exasperated Senator Stevens said, "Henry, I don't care if you prove he raped a woman and then stood up and shot her dead -- you're not going to get sixty-seven votes [to impeach]."

The House congressmen were stunned into silence. Schippers then asked Stevens, "Senator, I just watched one hundred Senators raise their right hand to God and swear to do equal and impartial justice. I'm only a Democrat from Chicago, but are you telling me that the Senators are going to ignore that oath also?' Without batting an eye, and without hesitation, Stevens shot back, saying "You're [blank] right they are'." [Page 23]

Senator Lott is THE man who ensured the acquittal of Clinton. But, why should we be surprised, for it is common knowledge that, after Clinton and the Democrats lost the 1994 elections, Lott offered a dispirited Clinton his media expert, Dick Morris. Now, why would the Republican Senate Majority Leader off his supposedly bitter Democrat "enemy" his media expert? This incident proves our contention that America has only a one-party system in America. Republicans are battling Democrats in the truest sense of the Hegelian doctrine of "Controlled conflict bringing about controlled change". And, it has been very successful. America has moved consistently into gradually bigger government, more regulatory control, larger spending, and more murder of the innocent, both inside and outside the womb. It is most telling that President Reagan never rolled back any of this monstrous government, even though he had a mandate to do just that.

Now, let us return to the subject of Independent Counsel, Ken Starr. Mass Media made a great deal of smoke about Starr being a Republican, saying prayers before meals, and singing Gospel songs when he jogged. The first sign of the "fix" being installed should have been when Starr was appointed by Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton's main Judicial watchdogs, charged with ensuring that no legal trouble get close enough to Bill to cause him serious problems.

But, you say, the law stipulates that the Attorney General is the one who has to appoint an Independent Counsel, and you are right. Therefore, we should have known from the beginning that whomever Reno appointed would be charged with getting the President off. Let us return to the subject of the really serious crimes with which Starr should have indicted the President. You will see that the crimes arising out of the Monica Lewinsky were the least serious of all the possible offenses.

Now, let us examine some more instances where Republican Starr ignored obvious Clinton crimes.

THE I.N.S. FRAUD -- LED BY AL GORE

So bold and blatant was the INS -- acting under the direct leadership of Vice President Gore -- that Schipper and his colleagues on the House Impeachment legal team were rock-solid positive that they firmly had Gore and Clinton on Abuse of Power, and in ordering their own departments to act illegally, a very serious charge since President Clinton had taken an oath of office to "faithfully execute the laws" of the land.

Therefore, Schipper was shocked into silence when he learned that the 17 boxes of evidence coming over from Independent Prosecutor Ken Starr, was totally about Monica Lewinsky! Starr had ignored all the really solid evidence of wrong-doing by Clinton!

Vice-President Gore presided over the successful effort to blatantly break the law governing the procedures the INS must follow in processing any claim from an alien to become a U.S. citizen. Gore's effort was largely concentrated among the Latino immigrant population, because history has shown they traditionally vote very heavily Democratic. After breaking many laws, Gore successfully granted citizenship in 1996 to over 1 million Latinos in the states but, since the 1996 elections, Gore and the INS have granted citizenship to 5.6 million such people in selected states. In the 2000 election, Gore took 5 out of 6 of these states, giving him 124 Electoral Votes from these corrupted states. Now, if the Electoral College is abolished, the Democrats will be able to win almost every election from the corrupted popular vote out of the most populous states!

Therefore, when Ken Starr refused to hand down an indictment on this I.N.S. citizenship fraud, Schippers was not only stunned into silence, he know the "fix" was in.

KEN STARR'S INTERROGATION TACTICS WITH CLINTON

Even though Clinton's testimony was one lie after another, Schippers could not believe they were sitting there like "bumps on a log", letting Clinton get away with the most transparent, provable lies after another. "I am an old prosecutor and it drove me nuts that Clinton wasn't pressed harder in the questioning before the grand jury. Starr's people were interrogating the President of the United States ... Whenever questions cut too close for comfort, he'd say, 'I stand by my statement'. The statement itself was false, but they never forced him to defend it ... Starr's team let him get away with that. Clinton would not have gotten away with it on the stand, on trial ... A witness has three choices: tell the truth, lie, or take the Fifth Amendment. There is no 'stand on my statement' in cross-examination." [Page 57-58]

Therefore, the very way in which Starr's people interrogated Clinton was setting the "fix".

HOW SELECTED RELEASE OF LEWINSKY MATERIAL HELPED ACQUIT CLINTON

Once the evidence arrived from Starr's office to the House chambers, Minority Leader, Richard Gephardt of Missouri began to put pressure on Schippers to release all of the material to the general public, and a number of Republican members of the Judiciary Committee agreed. Schippers said, "I thought they were crazy", since he knew a public release would doom their case against Clinton. A "compromise" was suggested by the Republican leadership that ultimately did doom the case. Selected portions would be released. Democrats used highly skilled "spin doctors" to convince the American people that Clinton was being railroaded by "partisan" Republicans. Schippers explains:

"It [the selected release] was a terrible mistake, as the spin doctors easily deflated its evidence by leaking wildly exaggerated stories about the tapes. Using a tactic that proved successful throughout the impeachment process -- lessening the impact of adverse information by anticipating it and making it sound worse than it was ... they missed the most important part of his [Clinton's] testimony -- the obvious lies." [Page 57] Thus, when the actual release of the tapes were not as bad as the exaggerated leaks, people felt Clinton was being unfairly treated, and they missed the fact that he had committed perjury. Schippers summed the disaster succinctly: "... whatever was leaked would lose its impact".

CLINTON'S "SOFT ON CHINA" OFFICIAL POLICY

Additionally, Congress and Starr knew of the many illegal campaign financing schemes of the Clinton-Gore team. They knew that Communist China had boldly funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaign coffers of Clinton-Gore. They knew; they had the hard evidence. Starr buried the indictment. This charge would have been far more serious than Lewinsky.

Congress and Starr knew that President Clinton seemed to be in collusion with Loral Corporation so as to transfer critically secret technology to China that enabled them to target their missiles so as to achieve a hit within 100 feet of a target; before this time, the Chinese would have been fortunate to have hit a continent with a missile. This treasonous activity was provable, and was known to Congress. Republican Senator Fred Thompson complained to Bill Gertz, in his book, The China Threat, "I keep hearing the Cold War's over. The most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans who are trying to push the merchandise out the door are together in this 'the Cold War's over'. And we're going to have to get a [blank-blank] bomb laid on us in order to get anybody's attention any more." [Page 32]

It seems that Fred Thompson knows the real score and the real danger here. Yet, Schippers reports that Thompson was one of the Senators present at the meeting when the House impeachment managers were told that Clinton's impeachment trial was as rigged as any can get.

Bill Gertz correctly observes Clinton's official line that China is no longer a threat, and that it can be "liberalized" by constant "engagement" via economic trade. [The China Threat, p. 40-43] Clinton repeatedly is seen as rewarding China despite its despicable behavior toward dissidents and obvious military moves aimed at the United States. A.M. Rosenthal, retired executive editor of the New York Times, describes the end result of 8 years of Clinton's soft-China policy.

"Never before in American policy has this country been so influenced by a foreign dictatorship ... In fact, never to my memory has any country at all had so much influence in American political, economic, and academic life." [Ibid.]

But, then Gertz quite properly notes that the Chinese success "needed the support of major politicians in both parties". [Page 42] He noted that the GOP 2000 Republican Party national security platform nearly contained a definite pro-Beijing plank, until conservatives forced it out. But Robert Blackwell, who wrote the pro-China plank is director of the China Initiative at Harvard University, an academic organization that advocates the "China is not a threat" lie.

Further, Gertz notes that "the platform differences over China were a sign that the Republicans remain divided on the issue of China, with many of the leading figures adopting the shortsighted view that China poses no threat ... and seeing China as a business opportunity." [Ibid., p. 44]

Gertz then notes prominent Republicans who propagate this view:

Henry Kissinger -- Former National Security Advisor to President Nixon

Alexander Haig -- Kissinger's deputy, former NATP commander, and Secretary of State under Reagan

Brent Scowcroft -- President George Bush's national security adviser

Lawrence Eagleburger -- President Bush's Deputy Secretary of State

Therefore, you can easily see that the invisible single-party system in the United States is determinedly following the lie that "China is not a threat". Gertz ascribes this nonsense to the American penchent for greed and certainly that greed plays a part. But, Gertz is not aware that China right now is a loyal fellow-soldier in the globalist Illuminati plan to produce Antichrist. As such, Democrat and Republican policy is following the directives of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

"In a word, to sum up our system of keeping the governments ... in check, we shall show our strength to one of them by terrorist attempts and to all, if we allow the possibility of a general rising against us, we shall respond with the guns of America, or China ..." [Protocol 7, World Wide Wars, Paragraph 6]

THIS is the REAL reason America is following a policy of deliberately building up China! The armies of China and America are supposed to police the world of Antichrist, once he arises. And, both Democrat and Republican are following this plan.

THE DECEPTION OF THE EXECUTION OF THE PLAN

You might complain, at this point, that history is full of examples where Republicans and Democrats were at each other's throats for very good reasons, and many of these battles resulted in the good of the nation preserved. You would be right. You see, the Dialectic Process envisions also that you never go immediately from Point A to Point Z, nor do you go in a straight line. Rather, you go two steps forward and one step back; you might zig-zag, going forward and then back a little. You might attack your opponent one year, and then secretly cooperate with him the next year. But, the progress is steadily forward.

One of the greatest shocks I received in studying hard-core Satanism was this realization that the Republican Part has been assigned the role of Thesis [Positive Force and Passive Defender of the Status Quo], while the Democrat Party has been assigned the role of Antithesis [Negative Force and Active Attacker of Status Quo]. America and her citizens have been consistently moved toward the ideal of larger government, a government cooperating with the global government of the United Nations, and of a people very in tune with the occultism of the coming New World Order.

If you would like to know more then I will post a link that you can read the whole thing.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by elected4ever
Why don't you Guy's just knock off the garbage.

e4e aka the "Garbage Detector." One man's garbage is another man's treasure, e4e. Lighten up.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
...or yours? :chuckle: No, just most historians. There is not just one type of Christian. There are many.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No, just most historians. There is not just one type of Christian. There are many.

...again...yours? :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Did you bother to read about the history of Christianity?

Billy;
I told you before, I never read any articles you post.

Skeptic;
Christians have done far worse things than what you have just mentioned. Why aren't you outraged about the legacy of Christianity?

Billy;
That question was already answered a couple of times by other posters. I am concerned with what is going on in THIS century. Can we please stay current??????????

Skeptic;
In order to be consistent, I'd abandon my Christian faith, if I were you.

Billy;
If Christians were doing what the Muslims are doing, I would. But being a Christian has nothing to do with religion, so the comparison is moot.

[elected4ever]

Wholearmor "THE TRUTH SEEKER" Wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the head with a base fiddle!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by wholearmor
I love America! That's why I'm so outraged that commies like you ignore suicide bombing after suicide bombing after suicide bombing like they never happened. You could be next.Only if he lives in Israel; that seems to be where most of the suicide bombings of late have been.

Fact is, it ain't happening here in the US; no belt-bombers showing up at shopping malls, sporting events, and churches. Everybody was scared witless that that sort of foolishness would start happening in '01. It hasn't.

[BillyBob]

Don't discount it. These guys will do whatever they can. It's far from over with.

[BillyBob]

Gerald;
The Muslims don't have the means to wipe out Everybody Else, and that is unlikely to ever change,

Billy;
We still haven't found Saddam's WMD. Iran has a nuclear program and all sorts of WMD are missing from Russia.

Gerald;
because for every one glassy-eyed fanatic there are two or three who have walking-around sense, and know that pitching nukes, or germs or poison gas around is a Bad Idea.

Billy;
It's the '1 in 3' that I'm worried about.

Gerald;
OTOH, wiping out the Muslims (all 1 billion of them) will require the use of those very same weapons. There is no way around this.

Billy;
I don't WANT to wipe out all the muslims, it just seems to be heading in that direction. How do you separate the good ones from the rest?

Gerald;
I trust you can imagine the sorts of horrors that would be loosed in such a campaign, because you don't strike me as the "I'll destroy the world before I'll let you conquer it" type...

Billy;
I don't want to do either. I just want to be left alone in certain safety from terrorism.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by elected4ever
Wholearmor "THE TRUTH SEEKER" Wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the head with a base fiddle!

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me."

I agree with that statement.

Are you calling Jesus a liar, e4e?

Oh, and the instrument is a BASS fiddle, not a BASE fiddle.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Don't discount it. These guys will do whatever they can. It's far from over with. It will NEVER be over with! Terrorism, in one form or another, domestic or international, has been around for a long time, and will always exist. The key to diminishing its frequency is to minimize the conditions that promote it. Just like crime in America. You will never stop crime by simply locking up criminals or executing them! More keep springing up because the conditions that foster criminal behavior does not change. Israel and the Palestinians have to come to an agreement. (Israel had been the more stubborn one) And all sides must have a forum to sit together and work out their differences.

Bush's illegal full-scale preemptive invasion of Iraq, in reality, had nothing to do with the "war on terrorism", did nothing to diminish international terrorism, and increased the threat of terrorism by outraging many militant groups around the world! Bush's actions have fueled the fire of terrorism. Therefore, I would not be surprised to see more 9/11-type attacks here and around the world. Get Bush out of office, and the threat will decrease. But, terrorism will never totally go away, as there will always be some crazies who are not happy with things.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Don't discount it. These guys will do whatever they can. It's far from over with. Ah, yes: "Beware, for The Enemy is everywhere! Be alert! Trust no one! Keep your sidearm handy! He could be the man next door. He could be the little old lady down the block. He could be the convenience store clerk. He could be the postman. He could be the garbage collector. He could be the plumber. He could be the UPS or the FedEx man. He could be a police officer. He could be your best friend. He could be your cousin. He could be your brother. Beware! Beware!"

Are you good and paranoid yet...?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I don't want to do either. I just want to be left alone in certain safety from terrorism. If the "war on terrorism" continues to be waged in the way it has, and if it is supposed to continue until we have "certain safety from terrorism", then the world will be a war zone for a centuries to come.

[elected4ever]

Wholearmor, How can I lighten up when I see my country going down the path to certain destruction. How can I lighten up when I see my brethren blindly supporting a terrorist organization for worse than the Taleban. Christians are blindly supporting the Democrats and Republicans and are constantly being played like that proverbial bass fiddle. What concerns me more than that is that it seems most Christians could care less. I love my country and my brethren and I will do what I can to save both.

Yes, Jesus is the way the truth and the life and your knowledge of Him is not in question by me. But your accepted knowledge of what is taking place is. As is BB"s and others. I seek for you to question what is being told to you and your blind acceptance of the official story line given out by the supposed liberals and conservatives. If we buy into ether dogma blindly we have lost our way. Liberalism and conservatism are two legs on the same beast. The beast that seeks to destroy us. I cannot lighten up. Your life may be at stake and you are precious to me.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by elected4ever
wholearmor, How can I lighten up when I see my country going down the path to certain destruction. How can I lighten up when I see my brethren blindly supporting a terrorist organization for worse than the Taleban. Christians are blindly supporting the Democrats and Republicans and are constantly being played like that proverbial base fiddle. What concerns me more than that is that it seems most Christians could care less. I love my country and my brethren and I will do what I can to save both.

Yes, Jesus is the way the truth and the life and your knowledge of Him is not in question by me. But your accepted knowledge of what is taking place is. As is BB"s and others. I seek for you to question what is being told to you and your blind acceptance of the official story line given out by the supposed liberals and conservatives. If we buy into ether dogma blindly we have lost our way. Liberalism and conservatism are two legs on the same beast. The beast that seeks to destroy us. I cannot lighten up. Your life may be at stake and you are precious to me.

The TRUTH is, no one knows what's going on for 100% sure, e4e. Making sweeping statements saying someone doesn't know the truth is not a very intelligent thing to do, IMHO.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by elected4ever
I love my country and my brethren and I will do what I can to save both.It is too late for them. Flee while you still can.

[elected4ever]

Billy; I just want to be left alone in certain safety from terrorism. :think::Popup:

e4e ----Your desire for safety may result in the loss of your liberty. Is your certain safety worth the price you may have to pay to obtain it? I think not!:nono:

[elected4ever]

wholearmorMaking sweeping statements saying someone doesn't know the truth is not a very intelligent thing to do,

e4e------ You mean that for me to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you didn't know is unintelligent of me? Maybe I should come at you with railing accusations and claim you to be a willing party to the destruction of America and a supporter of the One World Socialist dictatorship run by the Anti Christ? With out knowledge of that I would be irresponsible and certainly unintelligent.:bang:

[elected4ever]

Gerald

It is too late for them. Flee while you still can.

e4e------ No place to run. I just stopped taking my medications and maybe I will just die. I wont to go home to my Father's house. I know I will be safe there. No socialist garbage and interference there.:bannana:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by elected4ever
I just stopped taking my medications and maybe I will just die. Must...resist...taking...really...cheap...shot...
:chuckle:

[elected4ever]

Gerald Must...resist...taking...really...cheap...shot...

e4e Why not, you are to cheap to take any other kind!:p

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by elected4ever
wholearmor

e4e------ You mean that for me to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you didn't know is unintelligent of me? Maybe I should come at you with railing accusations and claim you to be a willing party to the destruction of America and a supporter of the One World Socialist dictatorship run by the Anti Christ? With out knowledge of that I would be irresponsible and certainly unintelligent.:bang:

No, you said I wouldn't know the truth if it hit me over the head with a base (sic) violin, or something like that. I demonstrated that I do know the truth, so you made an unintelligent, sweeping judgement and statement about me.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
The key to diminishing its frequency is to minimize the conditions that promote it.

Billy;
YES. If we minimize [I guess that is a nice term for it] Muslims we will eliminate terrorism. You finally got it!

[BillyBob]

Look, if we want to eliminate terrorism, we have to eliminate terrorists.

Simple.

[BillyBob]

WA;
Oh, and the instrument is a BASS fiddle,

Billy;
Is that a Largemouth Bass or a Smallmouth Bass?

[elected4ever]

A Bass fiddle smells worse than the other. Maybe he prefers that.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by BillyBob
WA;
Oh, and the instrument is a BASS fiddle,

Billy;
Is that a Largemouth Bass or a Smallmouth Bass?

:chuckle:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by elected4ever
A Bass fiddle smells worse than the other. Maybe he prefers that.

You do realize that there's no such thing as a "base" fiddle, right?

[BillyBob]

Hey Elected,

Skeptic posted an cool spell checker. After you write a post, just 'right click' and it will check your spelling quickly. Pretty cool.
You might wanna consider downloading it, it's free. I use it....when I remember to......

[BillyBob]

WA;
You do realize that there's no such thing as a "base" fiddle, right?

Billy;
So, in baseball, is there a '1st Bassman'?

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by BillyBob
WA;
You do realize that there's no such thing as a "base" fiddle, right?

Billy;
So, in baseball, is there a '1st Bassman'?

yes...and a 2nd Bassman and a 3rd Bassman!

[BillyBob]

So I guess you get 3 'pikes' and yer out!

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by BillyBob
So I guess you get 3 'pikes' and yer out!

Especially when 'Catfish' Hunter was pitching!

[BillyBob]

Yeah, but he 'floundered' once in awhile!

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Yeah, but he 'floundered' once in awhile!

Ya', that's true. Every once in awhile, someone would hit a 'rainbow' into the stands off of him.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Look, if we want to eliminate terrorism, we have to eliminate terrorists.

Simple. Do you think we can eliminate crime by eliminating criminals? That's like trying to eliminate poverty by eliminating poor people! :kookoo:

Terrorism isn't like some genetic disease that can be eliminated by killing off all those with some kind of defective terrorist genes.

BillyBob, your strategy would be a never-ending futile battle. Success can only be had if the ideas that support terrorism are replaced with those which are more rational. Eliminating the people holding the ideas will do nothing.

Education and frequent exposure to alternative rational viewpoints is a much more powerful weapon than those that kill people.

And one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter! So, before the world could eliminate all terrorists (which will never happen), everyone must first agree on what constitutes terrorism.

An argument can rationally be made that Bush's unnecessary massive preemptive invasion of Iraq, which violated international law, and was opposed by a vast majority of people on the planet, was a huge act of terrorism - one far worse that 9/11!!

:mad:

[wholearmor]

Bush didn't deliberately kill innocents as terrorists do.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Bush didn't deliberately kill innocents as terrorists do. Yes he did!!

There was no justifiable reason that Bush had to deliberately violate international law and launch a full-scale preemptive invasion of Iraq, which killed many thousands of innocent people!

All of the real evidence to date (despite the fake evidence before the war) suggests that Iraq was NOT a threat to America or other countries. Need I rehash what you should have been reading in all of the major newspapers about Bush's failure to prove Iraq's pre-war threat, the real-time existence of WMD, and a link between Iraq and international terrorists? These facts are uncontroversial. There are various unproven assumptions and suspicions, but these do not rise to the level of certainty required to justify a full-scale preemptive military invasion of a country!!

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yes he did!!

There was no justifiable reason that Bush had to deliberately violate international law and launch a full-scale preemptive invasion of Iraq, which killed many thousands of innocent people!

All of the real evidence to date (despite the fake evidence before the war) suggests that Iraq was NOT a threat to America or other countries. Need I rehash what you should have been reading in all of the major newspapers about Bush's failure to prove Iraq's pre-war threat, the real-time existence of WMD, and a link between Iraq and international terrorists? These facts are uncontroversial. There are various unproven assumptions and suspicions, but these do not rise to the level of certainty required to justify a full-scale preemptive military invasion of a country!!

Not deliberately like terrorists do.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic, put on a turban, find a camel and go live with your brethren in the Middle east, PLEASE. I am sure they will welcome you with open arms....or open AK47's.

I am so sick of your 'Terrorist apologetics'. You are actually saying that the terrorism aimed at this country is deserved and we are the ones to blame for the terrorist!

You are a sick, misguided, pup who should stop listening to Bill Clinton and the Communist Left, you are actually starting to believe that crap.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Not deliberately like terrorists do. Oh, I suppose Bush accidentally gave the order to preemptively invade Iraq and drop all of those bombs on innocent people?

Bush's actions were premeditated and deliberate!!

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
You are actually saying that the terrorism aimed at this country is deserved and we are the ones to blame for the terrorist! Show me where I have said that the terrorism aimed at this country is deserved! I have never said any such thing!! No one deserves acts of terrorism, including the Iraqis at the hands of the U.S. military.

The U.S. is partly to blame, not for specific terrorists acts (other that the invasion of Iraq), but rather for the proliferation of the ideas/hatred toward the U.S. and other countries who have had a strong bias in favor of Israel over the Palestinians. Israel's stubbornness to negotiate in fairness a resolution to the dispute, and their refusal to actively work toward a Palestinian state (which should have been formed decades ago) continues to fuel the fire of terrorism.

And Bush's unnecessary unjust massive preemptive invasion of Iraq, which violated international law and killed many thousands of people, is partly to blame for any increase in terrorist threats to America or against Americans!!

[elected4ever]

The spell checker makes no destination between base and bass. Bass can also be a fish. The right spelling is bass pronounced base.

[Skeptic]

========================
Published on Thursday, August 21, 2003 by the New York Times
A Price Too High
by Bob Herbert

How long is it going to take for us to recognize that the war we so foolishly started in Iraq is a fiasco — tragic, deeply dehumanizing and ultimately unwinnable? How much time and how much money and how many wasted lives is it going to take?

At the United Nations yesterday, grieving diplomats spoke bitterly, but not for attribution, about the U.S.-led invasion and occupation. They said it has not only resulted in the violent deaths of close and highly respected colleagues, but has also galvanized the most radical elements of Islam.

"This is a dream for the jihad," said one high-ranking U.N. official. "The resistance will only grow. The American occupation is now the focal point, drawing people from all over Islam into an eye-to-eye confrontation with the hated Americans.

"It is very propitious for the terrorists," he said. "The U.S. is now on the soil of an Arab country, a Muslim country, where the terrorists have all the advantages. They are fighting in a terrain which they know and the U.S. does not know, with cultural images the U.S. does not understand, and with a language the American soldiers do not speak. The troops can't even read the street signs."

The American people still do not have a clear understanding of why we are in Iraq. And the troops don't have a clear understanding of their mission. We're fighting a guerrilla war, which the bright lights at the Pentagon never saw coming, with conventional forces.

Under these circumstances, in which the enemy might be anybody, anywhere, tragedies like the killing of Mazen Dana are all but inevitable. Mr. Dana was the veteran Reuters cameraman who was blown away by jittery U.S. troops on Sunday. The troops apparently thought his video camera was a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

The mind plays tricks on you when you're in great danger. A couple of weeks ago, in an apparent case of mistaken identity, U.S. soldiers killed two members of the Iraqi police. And a number of innocent Iraqi civilians, including children, have been killed by American troops.

The carnage from riots, ambushes, firefights, suicide bombings, acts of sabotage, friendly fire incidents and other deadly encounters is growing. And so is the hostility toward U.S. troops and Americans in general.

We are paying a terribly high price — for what?

One of the many reasons Vietnam spiraled out of control was the fact that America's top political leaders never clearly defined the mission there, and were never straight with the public about what they were doing. Domestic political considerations led Kennedy, then Johnson, then Nixon to conceal the truth about a policy that was bankrupt from the beginning. They even concealed how much the war was costing.

Sound familiar?

Now we're lodged in Iraq, in the midst of the most volatile region of the world, and the illusion of a quick victory followed by grateful Iraqis' welcoming us with open arms has vanished. Instead of democracy blossoming in the desert, we have the reality of continuing bloodshed and heightened terror — the payoff of a policy spun from fantasies and lies.

Senator John McCain and others are saying the answer is more troops, an escalation. If you want more American blood shed, that's the way to go. We sent troops to Vietnam by the hundreds of thousands. There were never enough.

Beefing up the American occupation is not the answer to the problem. The American occupation is the problem. The occupation is perceived by ordinary Iraqis as a confrontation and a humiliation, and by terrorists and other bad actors as an opportunity to be gleefully exploited.

The U.S. cannot bully its way to victory in Iraq. It needs allies, and it needs a plan. As quickly as possible, we should turn the country over to a genuine international coalition, headed by the U.N. and supported in good faith by the U.S.

The idea would be to mount a massive international effort to secure Iraq, develop a legitimate sovereign government and work cooperatively with the Iraqi people to rebuild the nation.

If this does not happen, disaster will loom because the United States cannot secure and rebuild Iraq on its own.

A U.N. aide told me: "The United States is the No. 1 enemy of the Muslim world, and right now it's sitting on the terrorists' doorstep. It needs help. It needs friends."

========================

[Delmar]

Dear Bush bashers
For all of you who REFUSE to understand why Saddam had to be defeated, let me suggest a Mel Gibson movie marathon. Start with Braveheart followed by The Patriot then just about the time you start to hate yourself for wanting to stand up and cheer when the bad guy takes it in the neck... It's time to watch Ransom. Ok it's been a long day but I have the feeling that the principles of justice are just beginning to sink in. You better watch Braveheart again. You can catch We were soldiers another day.


Love Delmar

[Delmar]

See the ad that kicked off the JusticeMomentum campaign in the Washington Times, April 9, 2003, the same day Baghdad and Saddam's statue fell.


http://kgov.com/gallery/justice-momentum-ad.jpg

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Show me where I have said that the terrorism aimed at this country is deserved! I have never said any such thing!! No one deserves acts of terrorism, including the Iraqis at the hands of the U.S. military.

Billy;
Uh, see below paragraph. Oh, and if you call the liberation of Iraqi people a form of terrorism, you are confirming your membership in the communist/liberal Partisan Hack Club.

Skeptic;
The U.S. is partly to blame, not for specific terrorists acts (other that the invasion of Iraq), but rather for the proliferation of the ideas/hatred toward the U.S. and other countries who have had a strong bias in favor of Israel over the Palestinians.

Billy;
So, Israel is an ally of ours and they are the good guys in the war against the palestinians.

Skeptic;
Israel's stubbornness to negotiate in fairness a resolution to the dispute, and their refusal to actively work toward a Palestinian state

Billy;
You don't know what you are talking about. Israel was willing to comply with a deal brokered by Bill Clinton in which the 'palestinians' would have their own state. Arafat pulled out, not Israel. You are repeating the same communist/democrat mantra that your liberal media is brainwashing you with.

Skeptic;
(which should have been formed decades ago)

Billy;
Why? Those people would still be killing Israeli's with or without a 'State'. The palestinians blew it again just this week, but I suppose you are going to blame the Israeli's for the palestinians blowing up a bus full of children.

Skeptic;
continues to fuel the fire of terrorism.

Billy;
Bull! palestinians terrorize Jews because they hate Jews. The muslim doctrine is one of hate, murder and vengeance against ALL who are not muslim. Go read a history book, junior.

Skeptic;
And Bush's unnecessary unjust massive preemptive invasion of Iraq, which violated international law and killed many thousands of people, is partly to blame for any increase in terrorist threats to America or against Americans!!

Billy;
You are insane! By your line of reasoning, the US and the rest of the world should be extorted by the muslims and give them whatever they desire because if we don't, they will blow up a building.

That is the stupidest thing you have ever said....[I didn't think it was possible for you to say something stupider than your previous 'stupidest thing you ever said']

[BillyBob]

e4e;
The spell checker makes no destination between base and bass. Bass can also be a fish. The right spelling is bass pronounced base.

Billy;
Yes, that is correct. I just wondered if you had seen the spellchecker that Skeptic posted twice. I is a handy tool.

[Delmar]

Skeptic;
A sniper is shooting out a window killing women ,children and spoted owls (just in case you're a PETA member) A cop returns fire and the bulllit goes though the bad guy and kills a child. Who is guilty for killing the child?
A: the sniper
B: the cop
C:PETA

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
Skeptic;
A sniper is shooting out a window killing women ,children and spoted owls (just in case you're a PETA member) A cop returns fire and the bulllit goes though the bad guy and kills a child. Who is guilty for killing the child?
A: the sniper
B: the cop
C:PETA Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the cop's shoulders; 'twas he who fired the bullet. But most reasonable people would view such an incident as a tragic accident; once the bullet leaves the weapon, it is under nobody's control.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by deardelmar
Dear Bush bashers
.... You can catch We were soldiers another day. No, you should watch "We Were Soldiers" first! I watched it just a few nights ago, and was thinking about how the Pentagon sure learned its lesson from Vietnam regarding how to control the media. If reporters from around the world had been allowed the same kind of access to the Iraq invasion as they had in Vietnam, the American public would be much more outraged by the horrors of this war. The Vietnam war was unjust and the U.S. had to withdraw due to media and public pressure at home. The Iraq invasion was also unjust and the U.S. will eventually have to withdraw and admit its mistakes. But, until then, Bush and the Pentagon are hoping that they can keep the real reasons for the invasion under wraps from the majority of Americans long enough to keep hold of the White House in Nov. '04.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by deardelmar
See the ad that kicked off the JusticeMomentum campaign in the Washington Times, April 9, 2003, the same day Baghdad and Saddam's statue fell.

http://kgov.com/gallery/justice-momentum-ad.jpg Despite the trivial evidence BillyBob wants to site, the massive preemptive invasion of Iraq, which violated international law and killed many thousands of innocent people, had NOTHING to do with the "war on terrorism."

And abortion is not murder. But, the unnecessary killing of thousands of Iraqi people is murder!

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Despite the trivial evidence BillyBob wants to site, the massive preemptive invasion of Iraq, which violated international law and killed many thousands of innocent people, had NOTHING to do with the "war on terrorism."

And abortion is not murder. But, the unnecessary killing of thousands of Iraqi people is murder!

You say abortion is not murder. You are wrong and your heart is too hard to know it.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the cop's shoulders; 'twas he who fired the bullet. But most reasonable people would view such an incident as a tragic accident; once the bullet leaves the weapon, it is under nobody's control.

NO NO NO!! reasonable people would see that the cop had no moral choice but to stop the killing if he could. TRY AGAIN

[Delmar]

Does any one remember when Bush first came out with the whole if you sponsor a terrorist ........ thing.
ALL of the talking heads said at the time that if we follow the "Bush Doctrine" we would have to go after Saddam next. Then.... when we go after Saddam! WAIT..... NO BLOOD FOR OIL...... KOREA IS WORSE......WE CAN'T FIND WMD

JUST SHUT UP !!!!!!

[philosophizer]

Believe it or not, there are actually people who do not want peace. There are people who will strap on C4 and blow up themselves, busses, and buildings no matter how much peace is promised to them. There are people who cannot do anything but hate enough to snipe from buildingtops and hijack planes. These people do not want peace. They cannot be reached with diplomacy. They must be reached with bullets.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by philosophizer
Believe it or not, there are actually people who do not want peace. There are people who will strap on C4 and blow up themselves, busses, and buildings no matter how much peace is promised to them. There are people who cannot do anything but hate enough to snipe from buildingtops and hijack planes. These people do not want peace. They cannot be reached with diplomacy. They must be reached with bullets. :thumb:
You tell em philosophizer do you want to get together and watch Braveheart!!!!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
NO NO NO!! reasonable people would see that the cop had no moral choice but to stop the killing if he could. TRY AGAIN I thought I said that, you yeast-brain!

The death of the child would be viewed by most as an unfortunate accident. I couldn't care less about the criminal in your little scenario: cap him, then mutilate his body for good measure.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by deardelmar
Does any one remember when Bush first came out with the whole if you sponsor a terrorist ........ thing.
ALL of the talking heads said at the time that if we follow the "Bush Doctrine" we would have to go after Saddam next. Then.... when we go after Saddam! WAIT..... NO BLOOD FOR OIL...... KOREA IS WORSE......WE CAN'T FIND WMD

JUST SHUT UP !!!!!! Iraq was not sponsoring those terrorists who posed a threat to America! Saddam did pay money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, but this had nothing to do with any clear and imminent threat to America, and did not warrant Bush's preemptive invasion of Iraq, which killed many thousands of innocent people!

Iraq was not a threat to America. Show me hard empirical evidence that Iraq was a clear and imminent threat to America or other countries. Bush's preemptive invasion of Iraq was based on hearsay and suspicions. And the evidence suggests that our President lied about, distorted and exaggerated the threat Saddam posed to America! As I've said before, Bush claimed Iraq was in the process of producing and stockpiling tons chemical and biological weapons; that these weapons could be sprayed from unmanned planes over U.S. cities; and that Iraq was "six months away" from building a nuclear weapon, saying "I don't know what more evidence we need." Bush declared that not acting quickly against Iraq to disarm them of these weapons would be "suicidal." By often mentioning both in the same breath, Bush continued to implicate Iraq and 9/11, even though there has never been evidence that Saddam had anything to with the 9/11 attacks. Connect the dots, people!! You pseudo-patriots have been duped by your President and the Pentagon!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by philosophizer
Believe it or not, there are actually people who do not want peace.Indeed. In the short-term, peace is not profitable...

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
I thought I said that, you yeast-brain!

The death of the child would be viewed by most as an unfortunate accident. I couldn't care less about the criminal in your little scenario: cap him, then mutilate his body for good measure.

OK I am a yeast-brain BUT
The correct answer should have been A: the sniper bears the guilt just as Saddam bears the guilt for the dead in Iraq and Yaser bears the guilt for the children on the bus!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Gerald
Indeed. In the short-term, peace is not profitable... Agreed. And sometimes, as Bush is aware, war can be quite profitable, in the short-term. Follow the money, people! (That is, if the Bush administration allows access to this information.)

[Delmar]

BTW what is a yeast brian.....is that bad?:think:

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Agreed. And sometimes, as Bush is aware, war can be quite profitable, in the short-term. Follow the money, people! (That is, if the Bush administration allows access to this information.) Oh I forgot It's all about oil... I'm sure Bush dosn't give a rip about the fact that Saddams boys are no longer raping and stuff Who really cares about that!!!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
OK I am a yeast-brain BUT
The correct answer should have been A: the sniper bears the guilt just as Saddam bears the guilt for the dead in Iraq and Yaser bears the guilt for the children on the bus! By extension, if I'm not on the barricades trying to physically prevent women from having abortions, I'm responible for those that get performed, which is ludicrous on its face!

[Delmar]

Gerald
your extension is ludicrous on its face! Follow the players
The sniper is guilty because it is him who caused the incedent. I didn't address whether or not the cop would have been guilty for loss of life had he walked away....but come to think of it a case could be made for that since it is his job to protect and serve. How did I imply it was everyones job.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by deardelmar
OK I am a yeast-brain BUT
The correct answer should have been A: the sniper bears the guilt just as Saddam bears the guilt for the dead in Iraq and Yaser bears the guilt for the children on the bus!


Gerald see if you can follow this. If you are the one who caused the whole thing IT'S YOUR FAULT GET IT
It is the snipers fault the cop shot him
It is Saddams fault we bombed Iraq get it Gerald

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
It is Saddams fault we bombed Iraq get it Gerald That assertion has yet to be demonstrated. And don't even think of screeching "But Saddam was a tyrant who tortured and murdered his own people!", because I couldn't care less.

Stalin tortured and murdered. We didn't bomb him.

Mao Tse-tung tortured and murdered. We didn't bomb him.

Pol Pot tortured and murdered. We didn't bomb him.

Idi Amin tortured and murdered. We didn't bomb him.

See the pattern here...?

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
That assertion has yet to be demonstrated. And don't even think of screeching "But Saddam was a tyrant who tortured and murdered his own people!", because I couldn't care less.

Stalin tortured and murdered. We didn't bomb him.

Mao Tse-tung tortured and murdered. We didn't bomb him.

Pol Pot tortured and murdered. We didn't bomb him.

Idi Amin tortured and murdered. We didn't bomb him.

See the pattern here...?

YOU ARE RIGHT We certainly would have been justified in taking out all of the guys you mentioned. I didn't say we always did the right thing. Nor did I say that you can't pick your battles.

[Delmar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gerald
That assertion has yet to be demonstrated. And don't even think of screeching "But Saddam was a tyrant who tortured and murdered his own people!", because I couldn't care less.

You could care less that Saddam was a tyrant who tortured and murdered his own people! I think that is kind of a shame. What do you have against the people of Iraq that causes you not to care if they are raped at will or murdered for sport? You must hate them pretty bad!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
YOU ARE RIGHT We certainly would have been justified in taking out all of the guys you mentioned. I didn't say we always did the right thing. Nor did I say that you can't pick your battles. The ironic thing is, we could've mopped the floor with each one. Including Stalin. We had the atom bomb when he didn't...

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
You could care less that Saddam was a tyrant who tortured and murdered his own people! I think that is kind of a shame.Better his people than mine. In any case, being a murderous fiend to one's own people, within one's own borders is not adequate cause for another country to conduct a full-scale invasion.
What do you have against the people of Iraq that causes you not to care if they are raped at will or murdered for sport? You must hate them pretty bad!Indifference does not equal hatred. I'm also indifferent to the starving children in sub-Saharan Africa; I suppose you'll tell me I hate them, too?

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
The ironic thing is, we could've mopped the floor with each one. Including Stalin. We had the atom bomb when he didn't... GERALD I THINK WE JUST AGREED!!!!! LET THERE BE DANCING IN THE STREETS:bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana:
I just love those bannanas..... they are so perky
bannanasmke me ;) and sing:)and dance :o and sing some more la la la la la la :D

[elected4ever]

The fact is that the invasion of Iraq was constitutionally, ethical and morally wrong. Now that we are there lets try to make a silk purse out of this sows ear.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
GERALD I THINK WE JUST AGREED!!!!! LET THERE BE DANCING IN THE STREETS:bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana:
I just love those bannanas..... they are so perky But, would you have used the atom bomb to "get" Stalin simply because he caused millions of his own people to starve to death?

That's a bit like swatting a fly with a Buick...

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
But, would you have used the atom bomb to "get" Stalin simply because he caused millions of his own people to starve to death?

That's a bit like swatting a fly with a Buick...

Geral you sneaky little bugger:devil: Did I say or otherwise imply that we needed to drop an Atom bomb on Stalin to as you said "wipe the floor with him. don't tell me you REALLY belive I was implying that?

[Delmar]

Originally posted by deardelmar
Geral you sneaky little bugger:devil: Did I say or otherwise imply that we needed to drop an Atom bomb on Stalin to as you said "wipe the floor with him. don't tell me you REALLY belive I was implying that?

I agreed when "we could have" you don't even have me on record as saying we should have. It would be fair to say that having the A bomb was a tacical advantage.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
Geral you sneaky little bugger:devil: Did I say or otherwise imply that we needed to drop an Atom bomb on Stalin to as you said "wipe the floor with him. don't tell me you REALLY belive I was implying that? I'm just askin'. I have many talents, but mind-reading is not among them...

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
I agreed when "we could have" you don't even have me on record as saying we should have. It would be fair to say that having the A bomb was a tacical advantage. I believe that in order to win against the Red Army at that time, use of the atom bomb would have been required. A conventional war would've dragged on for years.

And you mustn't forget General Winter; he stopped Napoleon and he stopped Hitler.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
I'm just askin'. I have many talents, but mind-reading is not among them... oops I misread

this is what I thought I read
But, you would have used the atom bomb to "get" Stalin simply because he caused millions of his own people to starve to death

sorry for the missunderstanding
BTW I don't advocate nukes as the solution for starvation:o

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by deardelmar
Skeptic;
A sniper is shooting out a window killing women ,children and spoted owls (just in case you're a PETA member) A cop returns fire and the bulllit goes though the bad guy and kills a child. Who is guilty for killing the child?
A: the sniper
B: the cop
C:PETA In the State of Texas, any reasonable consequence that follows from a peace officers attempt to stop a felony is charged to the bad guy. Idea being, if that sniper hadn't started all this mess, the child would not have been in any risk to begin with.:cool:

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
I believe that in order to win against the Red Army at that time, use of the atom bomb would have been required. A conventional war would've dragged on for years.

And you mustn't forget General Winter; he stopped Napoleon and he stopped Hitler.

I do know that Genral Patton belived we coud and should defeat Stalin but what kind of expert was he? Patton didn't he have somthing to do with stoping Hitler also? I could be wrong.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
I do know that Genral Patton belived we coud and should defeat Stalin but what kind of expert was he? Patton didn't he have somthing to do with stoping Hitler also? I could be wrong. Actually, both Patton and MacArthur were for continuing the war in order to take out the Soviets.

Patton is reputed to have said something to the effect of "Give me 24 hours and I'll make it look like the Russians started it."

Patton was also wise enough to know the difference between the forests of Germany and the steppes of Russia.

There is a reason for the old saying "Never start a land war in Asia"...

[Delmar]

[/QUOTE]
And the evidence suggests that our President lied about, distorted and exaggerated the threat Saddam posed to America! As I've said before, Bush claimed Iraq was in the process of producing and stockpiling tons chemical and biological weapons; that these weapons could be sprayed from unmanned planes over U.S. cities; and that Iraq was "six months away" from building a nuclear weapon, saying "I don't know what more evidence we need." Bush declared that not acting quickly against Iraq to disarm them of these weapons would be "suicidal." By often mentioning both in the same breath, Bush continued to implicate Iraq and 9/11, even though there has never been evidence that Saddam had anything to with the 9/11 attacks. Connect the dots, people!! You pseudo-patriots have been duped by your President and the Pentagon! [/QUOTE]
the evidence suggests that you just lied about what the President said I defy you to show me a quote saying Iraq was "six months away" from building a nuclear weapon, that you didn't suck out of your thumb

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald

There is a reason for the old saying "Never start a land war in Asia"...

yes iv'e heard that one......it was quoted it the move THE PRINCESS BRIDE ....good movie.... directed by famos commie rob riener:D

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
Be
Indifference does not equal hatred. I'm also indifferent to the starving children in sub-Saharan Africa; I suppose you'll tell me I hate them, too?

not dwelling on a problem because you can't fix all of the worlds problems is ok and healthy. Indifference toward starving children or rape victoms of any land, now that is twisted!!!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
yes iv'e heard that one......it was quoted it the move THE PRINCESS BRIDE ....good movie.... directed by famos commie rob riener:D You realize, of course, that the notion is older than that, yes?

Do you doubt its validity?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
not dwelling on a problem because you can't fix all of the worlds problems is ok and healthy. Indifference toward starving children or rape victoms of any land, now that is twisted!!! But those are problems I can't solve either!

Indifference = Not dwelling on a problem

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Iraq was not sponsoring those terrorists who posed a threat to America!

Billy;
I have demomnstrated a multitude of times how Saddam was a threat to America and our allies. You have NEVER refuted them and yet you continue to claim that Saddam was not a threat and that we should not have gone to Iraq. It's getting old, Skeptic.

You will not win this argument by attrition, although that is your best chance, all you really end up doing is denying the obvious.

[BillyBob]

Deardelmar;
BTW I don't advocate nukes as the solution for starvation

Billy;
I didn't know you could eat them.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
Iraq was not sponsoring those terrorists who posed a threat to America!

Billy;
I have demomnstrated a multitude of times how Saddam was a threat to America and our allies. No, you have not. Likewise, Bush and his administration have not demonstrated to the American people clear and convincing evidence that Saddam was a threat to America and our allies. Bush attempted to convince us with lies, distortions and exaggerations, but this has worked only for the most gullible (which, unfortunately, is far to many of you).

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
You realize, of course, that the notion is older than that, yes?

Do you doubt its validity?

I have no real idea but as I said before Patton thought it was a good idea...... My point that you were to dense to get was that he probably knew more about it than I do. let me go out on a limb and suggest he might have even known more about it than Gerald

[Delmar]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skeptic;
Iraq was not sponsoring those terrorists who posed a threat to America!





Terrorism is a threat to the world....but you won't admit that!!!
Delmar

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
But those are problems I can't solve either!

Indifference = Not dwelling on a problem


No Indifference= not giving a RAT about a problem
as in " Don't make me any difference".

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No, you have not. Likewise, Bush and his administration have not demonstrated to the American people clear and convincing evidence that Saddam was a threat to America and our allies. Bush attempted to convince us with lies, distortions and exaggerations, but this has worked only for the most gullible (which, unfortunately, is far to many of you).


I'm with Billy it is you and your friends in the liberal press who are distoring by paraphrasing the case set out by the Bush administration to make it look like they said things they never said.
Deny this: IF we had not gone to war the sons of Saddam would still be raping and murdering!!! BUT YOU DON'T GIVE A RAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ .....You will of coarse respond by saying "thousands were killed"
Yes I know but he was allready killing thousands without our help. The idea is we put a system in place that give the people of Iraq a chance for the killing to stop. It does ,however, take time!!!
Do you think the Germany just ran like a well oiled machine the first year after WW 2

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
No, you have not.

Billy;
Have so!

[Neener, neener, neener]

[Delmar]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
No, you have not.

Billy;
Have so!

[Neener, neener, neener]

I wondered how to spell that.:rolleyes:

[Mr. 5020]

I'm with Billy it is you and your friends in the liberal press who are distoring by paraphrasing the case set out by the Bush administration to make it look like they said things they never said.
Deny this: IF we had not gone to war the sons of Saddam would still be raping and murdering!!! BUT YOU DON'T GIVE A RAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ .....You will of coarse respond by saying "thousands were killed"
Yes I know but he was allready killing thousands without our help. The idea is we put a system in place that give the people of Iraq a chance for the killing to stop. It does ,however, take time!!!
Do you think the Germany just ran like a well oiled machine the first year after WW 2
Well said, Delmar. :thumb:

[Lucky]

What I don't understand is, what is the motive behind Bush wanting to "free the people of Iraq." Even if that's his truest intentions, why? I can easily understand a missionary going into Iraq to spread the Gospel. I don't understand our government going into Iraq to spread democracy. Sure Saddam and his regime is evil, but he isn't a U.S. citizen and is not under our law. What the U.S. has done is use its world super power status to rid one country of a government system different from ours. There are plenty of other countries with different forms of government. Why Iraq? Has God put a special place in Bush's heart for the people of Iraq? I find that absurd. It seems that Bush dodges bullets by the "Where are the WMDs press" by hiding under his "We gotta help the poor Iraqis" umbrella. Why liberate the Iraqis? Why them? Why now? Too me, the whole situation is clouded by so much politics, its impossible to see a clear picture (I think I will end this post with that thought.) By the way, don't label me a war protester, I am not. Don't label me anti-democracy, I am not. As a tax-paying U.S. citizen, I just don't believe Bush has given me a clear reason, a clear purpose, a clear plan of action regarding Iraq.

[BillyBob]

Saddam was a terrorist. He harbored terrorists. He trained terrorists. He funded terrorists. He rewarded the families of terrorists. He had developed WMD for 20 years and he ignored a couple dozen UN Resolutions to come clean.

His 'departure' was way overdue.

Freeing the Iraqi's was a nice bonus!!!!!!

[Lucky]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Saddam was a terrorist. He harbored terrorists. He trained terrorists. He funded terrorists. He rewarded the families of terrorists. He had developed WMD for 20 years and he ignored a couple dozen UN Resolutions to come clean.

His 'departure' was way overdue.


To put it that way -- that the war on Iraq was purely defense, then 3 cheers for Prez. Bush. :cheers: Good job, Bush. He defended his country.

But....

Freeing the Iraqi's was a nice bonus!!!!!!

Who gives a care about the stupid Iraqis, most of them hate us. If you think about, most can be called terrorists. If you really think about it...WE JUST GAVE A BUNCH OF TERRORISTS FREEDOM!!!

And about Saddam ignoring the U.N., I could care less what the U.N. thinks or says. (I don't mind being called Anti-U.N. / Anti-world govt.) Not that it justifies Saddam, just felt like lashing out on the U.N. :)

[BillyBob]

I'm with you, Lucky.

CBS took a poll and 66% of Iraqi's polled were in favor of the US liberation. This was a month ago before they knew that Saddam's sons were dead and realized that if Saddam came back to power, they might be punished for declaring their support for the US. Can you imagine what the real number is if the Iraqi's were sure that they could speak freely without ramifications?:think:

[Delmar]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I'm with you, Lucky.

CBS took a poll and 66% of Iraqi's polled were in favor of the US liberation. This was a month ago before they knew that Saddam's sons were dead and realized that if Saddam came back to power, they might be punished for declaring their support for the US. Can you imagine what the real number is if the Iraqi's were sure that they could speak freely without ramifications?:think:

Keep in mind that CBS has not been all that Bush freindly
Delmar

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by deardelmar
Keep in mind that CBS has not been all that Bush freindly
Delmar

Could it be because CBS is gay?

[BillyBob]

HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Nice......

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Eireann,





The Tigris was found to be polluted with two dual-use agents that could have potentially been used in the manufacture of mustard gas and other chemical weapons, but they could also have been used in the manufacture of numerous things, including fertilizer and household chemicals. What they were originally intended for is conjecture.

As for the vans, there were a lot of theories floating around about what they were for, but no facts. Proponents of the war automatically proposed that they must have been used for chemical weapons transport. Truth is, they don't know what they were used for. Could've as easily been hauling televisions to the local Wal Mart (or whatever)

. The Administration claimed they knew what the vans were for, but the CIA disclaimed their pronouncements as overzealous.



the vans in question were mobile chemical labs and we can only assume what they were used for....but it would be a lot easyer and cheaper to have a lab in a statioary building..... unless you wanted to hide something.
the CIA as awhole did NOT disclaim their pronouncements as overzealous. One mid level bauracrat with a political agenda says they are not sure what the van is used for and it is reported that "the CIA says its NOT TRUE"

[BillyBob]

Eireann hasn't posted here in weeks......maybe he will come back to answer you.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Eireann hasn't posted here in weeks......maybe he will come back to answer you.
I yeah I finally got around to reading some old stuff and still wanted to reply to it. :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Eireann was a self proclaimed witch. He was an eco-terrorist who even spent time in Jail for 'spiking' trees.

[Just so you know]

[Skeptic]

Here is another reason (more to come) Bush should be removed from office:

=====================
Published on Saturday, August 23, 2003 by the Long Island, NY Newsday
EPA Misled Public on 9/11 Pollution
White House ordered false assurances on air quality, report says

by Laurie Garrett

NEW YORK -- In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available.

That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA. It noted that some of the agency's news releases in the weeks after the attack were softened before being released to the public: Reassuring information was added, while cautionary information was deleted.

"When the EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement," the report says. "Furthermore, the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced . . . the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."

BUSH ADMINISTRATION: NYC AIR 'SAFE TO BREATHE'
The Statue of Liberty stands in the foreground as New York is shrouded in smoke and pollution in New York image made from television, Tuesday Sept. 11, 2001. (ABC via APTN)

On the morning of Sept. 12, according to the report, the office of then-EPA Administrator Christie Whitman issued a memo: "All statements to the media should be cleared through the NSC (National Security Council in the White House) before they are released." The 165-page report compares excerpts from EPA draft statements to the final versions, including these:

The draft statement contained a warning from EPA scientists that homes and businesses near ground zero should be cleaned by professionals. Instead, the public was told to follow instructions from New York City officials.

Another draft statement was deleted; it raised concerns about "sensitive populations" such as asthma patients, the elderly and people with underlying respiratory diseases.

LEVELS OF ASBESTOS

A statement about discovery of asbestos at higher than safe levels in dust samples from lower Manhattan was changed to state that "samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern."

Language in an EPA draft stating that asbestos levels in some areas were three times higher than national standards was changed to "slightly above the 1 percent trigger for defining asbestos material."

This sentence was added to a Sept. 16 news release: "Our tests show that it is safe for New Yorkers to go back to work in New York's financial district." It replaced a statement that initial monitors failed to turn up dangerous samples.

A warning on the importance of safely handling ground zero cleanup, due to lead and asbestos exposure, was changed to say that some contaminants had been noted downtown but "the general public should be very reassured by initial sampling."

The report also notes examples when EPA officials claimed that conditions were safe when no scientific support was available.

New York's leaders responded with dismay.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, a Manhattan Democrat, called for a Justice Department investigation. "That the White House instructed EPA officials to downplay the health impact of the World Trade Center contaminants due to 'competing considerations' at the expense of the health and lives of New York City residents is an abomination," he said in a news release.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said in an interview it was "understandable that in the midst of a crisis the White House did not want the EPA to sound alarmist." But, he warned, "If the public loses faith that things are safe when the government says so, we'll have done more damage than a pointed statement the week after 9/11 would have."

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

EPA CHIEF

Acting EPA Administrator Marianne Horinko, who sat in on EPA meetings with the White House during the attack's aftermath, said in an interview that the White House had played a coordinating role, assembling information from various federal agencies.

"It was a role someone had to play," Horinko said. "There was a potential for a Tower of Babel, and we needed to speak with one voice."

The National Security Council played the key role, filtering incoming data on ground zero air and water, Horinko said. "I think that the thinking was, these are experts in WMD (weapons of mass destruction), so they should have the coordinating role."

The focus at EPA, she continued, was on gathering data and making it public as rapidly as possible.

"Under unbelievably trying conditions, EPA did the best that it could," she said.
=====================

[wholearmor]

Another example of who in the government you choose to believe not knowing for sure who's telling the truth and who isn't.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by deardelmar
the evidence suggests that you just lied about what the President said I defy you to show me a quote saying Iraq was "six months away" from building a nuclear weapon, that you didn't suck out of your thumb The following is an excerpt. (my bold)

=========================
Sept. 7, 2002, 5:02PM

Text of Bush, Blair news conference Saturday
Associated Press
Text of President Bush's news conference at Camp David on Saturday with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks Inc.:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUSH: Spending a good three hours talking to our friend about how to keep the peace. This world faces some serious threat and threats, and we're going to talk about it. We're going to talk about how to promote freedom around the world. We're going to talk about our shared values of--recognizes the worth of every individual. And I'm looking forward to this time. It was awfully thoughtful of Tony to come over here. It's an important meeting, because he's an important ally, an important friend.

Welcome.

BLAIR: Thanks.

I'm looking very much forward, obviously, to discussing the issues that are preoccupying us at the moment with the president. And I thank him for his kind invitation to come here, and his welcome.

The point that I would emphasize to you, is that the threat from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological, potentially nuclear weapons capability--that threat is real. We only need to look at the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency this morning, showing what has been going on at the former nuclear weapon sites to realize that.

And the policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to. So the purpose of our discussion today is to work out the right strategy for dealing with this. Because deal with it we must.

BUSH: AP lady?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: We just heard the prime minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied--finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic--the IAEA, that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.

BLAIR: Absolutely right. ...

From: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/side/1565713
=========================

[wholearmor]

Again...

Another example of who in the government you choose to believe not knowing for sure who's telling the truth and who isn't.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Again...

Another example of who in the government you choose to believe not knowing for sure who's telling the truth and who isn't. All the more reason for a public independent investigation! Don't you agree?

[Skeptic]

The following is an excerpt (my bold):

=========================
For Bush, Facts Are Malleable
Presidential Tradition Of Embroidering Key Assertions Continues

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, October 22, 2002; Page A01

President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."

All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. ...

On Sept. 7, meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David, Bush told reporters: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA -- that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

The IAEA did issue a report in 1998, around the time weapons inspectors were denied access to Iraq for the final time, but the report made no such assertion. It declared: "Based on all credible information to date, the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material." The report said Iraq had been six to 24 months away from nuclear capability before the 1991 Gulf War. ...
=========================

Bush said confidently: "I don't know what more evidence we need." But, this so-called "evidence" was quickly shown to be false! How can you construe Bush's statement as being anything other than a lie to the American people?

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The following is an excerpt. (my bold)



BUSH: We just heard the prime minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied--finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic--the IAEA, that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.

BLAIR: Absolutely right. ...

From: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/side/1565713
=========================

OK I stand corrected Bush did say that it was reported that Iraq was 6 months away from nukes. Do you know for a fact that they were not working on nukes? I'm defenitly willing to admit that Bush is not God's answer to the evils in the world. If you recall I had my own list of reasons why he is not fit to lead ,but I am still very glad that he had the wisdom to take out Saddam!

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
All the more reason for a public independent investigation! Don't you agree?

Can I choose the investigators?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Can I choose the investigators? Don't you think it should be a bipartisan team of investigators?

[wholearmor]

No, because then it would be back to the same old thing. Who do we believe?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
No, because then it would be back to the same old thing. Who do we believe? But, if all sides can at least agree on the empirical evidence they find starring them in the face, then would you be satisfied?

The American people should at least have the opportunity to see the evidence and know as much of the facts of the situation as possible. If Bush is truly innocent of lying, distorting or exaggerating the threat from Iraq before the invasion, then the bulk of the evidence should weigh in his favor. Don't you think?

However, at this time, the evidence at hand does not weigh in favor of Bush. It would seem that Bush supporters would want to set the record straight and insist that an independent investigation be conducted to exonerate Bush once and for all.

[wholearmor]

OK, let's say for a moment there was evidence that Bush did all the things you say he did (I don't really know, honestly, because I haven't read even one of your extremely long posts), what difference would it make now in the overall scheme of things?

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
But, if all sides can at least agree on the empirical evidence they find starring them in the face, then would you be satisfied?

Billy;
You mean like they did in with the Clinton Scandals? Where is the investigation of Clinton's 11th hour 'pardons'? His selling military secrets to China? His murder of Vince Foster? His raping of who knows how many women? His gathering of illegal campaign contributions? His orchestration of the democrats blatant defiance of law in the New Jersey Senatorial election? His negligence in the war on terrorism when he turned down three separate opportunities to imprison Bin Laden AFTER Bin Laden blew up the World Trade center?
White Water? Rose Law Firm? Hillary's miraculous 1000 dollar investment which netted her 100, 000 dollars? Terry McAulif's little stint with Glabal Crossing?

Should I go on?

I don't hear you pounding on your desk demanding bi-partisan investigations into democrat corruption or malfeasance when it comes to Clinton.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Freeing the Iraqi's was a nice bonus!!!!!! Too bad they're being a bunch of ingrates...

[BillyBob]

I agree Gerald. I imagine they'll figure it out in time.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
No Indifference= not giving a RAT about a problem
as in " Don't make me any difference". No, I don't give a RAT. You got a problem with that?

[Delmar]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Eireann was a self proclaimed witch. He was an eco-terrorist who even spent time in Jail for 'spiking' trees.

[Just so you know]
Sounds right thanks for the info

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
No, I don't give a RAT. You got a problem with that?

Just wanted you to admit it since you were so concered with the " injustuce" we showed to the people in Iraq

[Delmar]

By the way I'm still on record as beliving that we will find plenty of evidence of the WMD that Saddam had!! Let me also go on record as pedicting that no matter what evidence is found and no matter who authenticates the evidence ,Skeptic and Gerald will still deny it!

[BillyBob]

I agree.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
Just wanted you to admit it since you were so concered with the " injustuce" we showed to the people in Iraq Good grief! Someone else is confusing me with Skeptic!

I haven't posted any complaints whatsoever about supposed injustices visited upon the Iraqi people; I've merely pointed out to BillyBob that they will not be a truly free people until they can tell the US to bugger off, and the Bush Administration is not about to let that happen anytime soon, if ever.

My perspective is that the Administration has gone and stuck the country's collective male member into a hornet's nest, and has yet to present a reason for having done so that hasn't fallen apart under scrutiny.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
By the way I'm still on record as beliving that we will find plenty of evidence of the WMD that Saddam had!! Let me also go on record as pedicting that no matter what evidence is found and no matter who authenticates the evidence ,Skeptic and Gerald will still deny it!
Heiferdust.

The most I'll do is observe that such evidence was probably fabricated, but fabricated evidence is still evidence...in fact, I'm surprised that no evidence of any kind, fabricated or not, has surfaced.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
Heiferdust.

The most I'll do is observe that such evidence was probably fabricated, but fabricated evidence is still evidence...in fact, I'm surprised that no evidence of any kind, fabricated or not, has surfaced.
good point most politicians well meaning or not would have moved into cover your butt mode. You know because they are after all politicians!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by deardelmar
By the way I'm still on record as beliving that we will find plenty of evidence of the WMD that Saddam had!! Let me also go on record as pedicting that no matter what evidence is found and no matter who authenticates the evidence ,Skeptic and Gerald will still deny it! Not yet much to deny. :chuckle:

I predict Bush and his cronies will "find" (plant) something someday. :thumb:

[Skeptic]

BEFORE THE PRE-EMPTIVE INVASION OF IRAQ, THERE WAS

NO hard evidence that Iraq had WMD.
NO hard evidence that Iraq was a threat.
NO hard evidence Iraq was involved with 9/11.
NO hard evidence Iraq supported international terrorism.
ONLY hearsay, suspicions, fabricated intelligence, and words!

Bush's unnecessary invasion killed thousands of people!
Bush's unnecessary invasion killed many American troops!
Bush's unnecessary invasion waisted billions of American taxes!
Bush's unnecessary invasion helped create America's worst deficit!
Bush's unnecessary invasion has increased the threat of terrorism!

Bush's war violated international law!
Bush's war was for economic and political reasons!
Bush's war was opposed by a vast majority on the planet!
Bush's war caused him to lose integrity and respect around the world!
Bush's war has made America the No. 1 enemy of the Muslim world,
Bush's war led to an unwinnable quagmire in Iraq!
Bush's war was WRONG!

WE CANNOT TRUST BUSH AGAIN! :down:

[Lucky]

skeptic:Bush's war violated international law!

>America is a sovereign nation, we don't and should never give a dime about what the world-government says.

skeptic:Bush's war was for economic and political reasons!

>all wars can be linked to economics and politcs, nice way of stating what is a given in any war.

skeptic:Bush's war was opposed by a vast majority on the planet!

>Maybe that's because the vast majority on the planet is either ignorant, unaware, or muslim.

skeptic:Bush's war caused him to lose integrity and respect around the world!

>My goodness, again, Bush is not popular with the ignorant, unaware, and muslims? Gee, what are we going to do, how we sleep at night? (implied sarcasm)

skeptic:Bush's war has made America the No. 1 enemy of the Muslim world,

>Bush did that? Like all of a sudden in 2000, muslims just woke up and hated america? Hellooooo! Did you just wake up in 2000?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Lucky8
skeptic:Bush's war violated international law!

>America is a sovereign nation, we don't and should never give a dime about what the world-government says. Whether you want to believe it or not, America needs the rest of the world for many reasons. One main reason is national security! If America is hated by the other countries, that just adds to the threat to our security. You talk as if America has the resources to repel any number of attacks from any number of countries. If this is what you believe, you're dreaming. Do you want to live in a world where your country is hated by the majority on the planet? This only ensures that America will be under increasing terrorist threats. Do you think that all we have to do is kick some Afghanistan or Iraqi butt, and tighten our boarders and airport security, then America will be safe from terrorists? :chuckle:

skeptic:Bush's war was for economic and political reasons!

>all wars can be linked to economics and politcs, nice way of stating what is a given in any war. The preemptive invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with fighting terrorism, and everything to do with economics and politics. And Bush lied about this!!

skeptic:Bush's war was opposed by a vast majority on the planet!

>Maybe that's because the vast majority on the planet is either ignorant, unaware, or muslim. Supporting Bush's preemptive invasion of Iraq demonstrates one's ignorance and lack of awareness. Most people who opposed the invasion were not Muslim.

skeptic:Bush's war caused him to lose integrity and respect around the world!

>My goodness, again, Bush is not popular with the ignorant, unaware, and muslims? Gee, what are we going to do, how we sleep at night? (implied sarcasm) You are very naive if you think America can stand alone in the world!

skeptic:Bush's war has made America the No. 1 enemy of the Muslim world,

>Bush did that? Like all of a sudden in 2000, muslims just woke up and hated america? Hellooooo! Did you just wake up in 2000? There were many Muslims throughout the world who supported the U.S. attack against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Bush blew this support BIG TIME when he unnecessarily invaded Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with al-Qaeda or international terrorist attacks around the world, and unnecessarily killed many thousands of people in the process. Bush has lots of blood on his hands, and his actions cannot be rewarded!

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Whether you want to believe it or not, America needs the rest of the world for many reasons. One main reason is national security! If America is hated by the other countries, that just adds to the threat to our security. You talk as if America has the resources to repel any number of attacks from any number of countries. If this is what you believe, you're dreaming. Do you want to live in a world where your country is hated by the majority on the planet? This only ensures that America will be under increasing terrorist threats. Do you think that all we have to do is kick some Afghanistan or Iraqi butt, and tighten our boarders and airport security, then America will be safe from terrorists? :chuckle:



The rest of the world will always hate us until they are as prosperous as we are and since they never will be they will always hate us.

It's no different than liberals in this country who hate the rich.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by wholearmor
The rest of the world will always hate us until they are as prosperous as we are and since they never will be they will always hate us.

It's no different than liberals in this country who hate the rich. Oh right, the heathens covet American wealth, and are doing the international equivalent of trying to knock us in the head and take our stuff...
:greedy::greedy: :greedy: :greedy:
:ha:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Gerald
Oh right, the heathens covet American wealth, and are doing the international equivalent of trying to knock us in the head and take our stuff...
:greedy::greedy: :greedy: :greedy:
:ha:

Oh right, it was a mistake they hit the World Trade Center. Those buildings must have gotten in their way en route to flying into the ocean, right?

[Skeptic]

:chuckle: If America does not need the U.N. or other countries, then what's this all about?: (my bold)

=========================
U.S. Wants Larger U.N. Role in Iraq

By Mike Allen and Vernon Loeb, Washington Post Staff Writers

In an effort to win broader international support for U.S. policies in Iraq, President Bush decided yesterday to seek U.N. Security Council approval of a resolution granting the world body greater control over multinational peacekeeping forces and a role in forming a new Iraqi government, administration officials said.

The decision marks a major shift for Bush after months in which the administration had strongly resisted granting any significant military or political authority to the United Nations. It reflects a recognition within the administration that a stronger U.N. mandate is essential to winning greater foreign military and economic help in stabilizing Iraq.

Central to that effort is winning more pledges from other governments to send troops to Iraq to ease the burden on U.S. forces, who have come under daily attacks for weeks and are struggling to contain a recent outbreak of bombings against institutions supporting the U.S. effort. "We need the forces," a senior administration official said.

Turkey, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are among the countries that could supply substantial peacekeeping forces, but have held back because of the absence of a resolution conferring greater U.N. legitimacy on the U.S.-led occupation.

It remains unclear how much authority the administration is willing to cede to the United Nations. The Pentagon insists that U.S. generals remain in command of the nearly 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and the administration has been reluctant to grant much control to the world body over the shaping of Iraq's political system and economy.

The president's decision came in the face of mounting congressional calls for allowing the United Nations to play a greater role, and marked an opening gambit in what should prove to be prolonged and difficult negotiations with Security Council members in the run-up to an address by Bush to the opening of the U.N. General Assembly later this month. The speech will come one year after the president went to the world body to outline his case for war against Iraq.

Several council members, led by France, have refused to back any measure that would endorse a U.S.-dominated occupation. The differences have largely mirrored the disputes within the Security Council before the war, which Bush decided to launch without specific backing from the 15-nation chamber.

Aides said a draft resolution is circulating within the administration, and that Bush authorized Secretary of State Colin L. Powell during a meeting yesterday to begin negotiations with Security Council members to see what they would support. One official said the resolution is still "in the consultative phase" and that the response of Security Council members would determine what the United States does next.

The idea of seeking a U.N. mandate was first broached publicly last week by Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, who told reporters the United States would consider supporting a multinational military force under U.N. mandate, but still subordinate to U.S. commanders. One official said the idea was "a multinational force under a unified command," with a role for the United Nations in Iraq's political, economic and security operations.

"What remains key is that the U.S. remain in charge of the operation," a senior defense official said.

Security Council members reacted coolly to Armitage's proposal last week, saying it did not grant the United Nations a big enough say.

The officials would not spell out what role the United Nations might play in forming an Iraqi government. But they said they will continue to keep the process in the hands of Iraqi citizens, first through a constitutional convention and later through elections.

State Department officials have long favored a resolution that would give some U.N. legitimacy to the occupation. But it appeared yesterday that the Pentagon is also coming around to this position. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other Pentagon civilian leaders have adamantly opposed granting the United Nations a greater role in Iraq.

A senior administration official said that Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had recently begun lobbying key members of the administration to support a U.N. resolution. The official added that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have become "much more interested in this than before," because they know a new resolution is necessary for them to attract new peacekeeping forces to Iraq.

The defense official said Gen. John P. Abizaid, the new head of the U.S. Central Command and the top commander in Iraq, and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been "strongly engaged in the internationalization effort, to include a new U.N. resolution."

"The military is focused on finding a way to internationalize the effort, and if a new U.N. Security Council resolution would help, then the military is all for it," the official said.

The officials said several means for "internationalizing" postwar peacekeeping operations are being discussed, "all of which really are focused on just that -- keeping the U.S. in charge of the operation."

A senior administration official said recent assurances given by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to John D. Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and others played a major role in the shift in the administration's thinking. Annan told the envoy that "there would have to be a unified command of any international participation, and that that command would be the United States," the official said.

Administration officials compared the idea to a U.N.-mandated force, under Australian leadership, that quelled a violent uprising in East Timor in the late 1990s. After peace was achieved and East Timor moved toward independence and elections, that force was replaced by a traditional U.N. peacekeeping force.
=========================

Did idiot Bush bite off more than he could chew? :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

========================
Published on Tuesday, September 2, 2003 by the Boston Globe
Facing the Truth About Iraq
by James Carroll

THE WAR IS LOST. By most measures of what the Bush administration forecast for its adventure in Iraq, it is already a failure. The war was going to make the Middle East a more peaceful place. It was going to undercut terrorism. It was going to show the evil dictators of the world that American power is not to be resisted. It was going to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis. It was going to stabilize oil markets. The American army was going to be greeted with flowers. None of that happened. The most radical elements of various fascist movements in the Arab world have been energized by the invasion of Iraq. The American occupation is a rallying point for terrorists. Instead of undermining extremism, Washington has sponsored its next phase, and now moderates in every Arab society are more on the defensive than ever.

Before the war, the threat of America's overwhelming military dominance could intimidate, but now such force has been shown to be extremely limited in what it can actually accomplish. For the sake of "regime change," the United States brought a sledge hammer down on Iraq, only to profess surprise that, even as Saddam Hussein remains at large, the structures of the nation's civil society are in ruins. The humanitarian agencies necessary to the rebuilding of those structures are fleeing Iraq.

The question for Americans is, Now what? Democrats and Republicans alike want to send in more US soldiers. Some voices are raised in the hope that the occupation can be more fully "internationalized," which remains unlikely while Washington retains absolute control. But those who would rush belligerent reinforcements to Iraq are making the age-old mistake.

When brutal force generates resistance, the first impulse is to increase force levels. But, as the history of conflicts like this shows, that will result only in increased resistance. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has rejected the option of more troops for now, but, in the name of force-protection, the pressures for escalation will build as US casualties mount. The present heartbreak of one or two GI deaths a day will seem benign when suicide bombers, mortar shells, or even heavier missile fire find their ways into barracks and mess halls.

Either reinforcements will be sent to the occupation, or present forces will loosen the restraints with which they reply to provocation. Both responses will generate more bloodshed and only postpone the day when the United States must face the truth of its situation.

The Bush administration's hubristic foreign policy has been efficiently exposed as based on nothing more than hallucination. High-tech weaponry can kill unwilling human beings, but it cannot force them to embrace an unwanted idea. As rekindled North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs prove, Washington's rhetoric of "evil" is as self-defeating as it is self-delusional. No one could have predicted a year ago that the fall from the Bush high horse of American Empire would come so hard and so quickly. Where are the comparisons with Rome now? The rise and fall of imperial Washington took not hundreds of years, but a few hundred days.

Sooner or later, the United States must admit that it has made a terrible mistake in Iraq, and it must move quickly to undo it. That means the United States must yield not only command of the occupation force, but participation in it. The United States must renounce any claim to power or even influence over Iraq, including Iraqi oil. The United States must accept the humiliation that would surely accompany its being replaced in Iraq by the very nations it denigrated in the build-up to the war.

With the United States thus removed from the Iraqi crucible, those who have rallied to oppose the great Satan will loose their raison d'etre, and the Iraqi people themselves can take responsibility for rebuilding their wrecked nation.

All of this might seem terribly unlikely today, but something like it is inevitable. The only question is whether it happens over the short term, as the result of responsible decision-making by politicians in Washington, or over the long term, as the result of a bloody and unending horror.

The so-called "lessons" of Vietnam are often invoked by hawks and doves alike, but here is one that applies across the political spectrum. The American people saw that that war was lost in January 1968, even as the Tet Offensive was heralded as a victory by the Pentagon and the White House. But for five more years, Washington refused to face the truth of its situation, until at last it had no choice.

Because American leaders could not admit the nation's mistake, and move to undo it, hundreds of thousands of people died, or was it millions? The war in Iraq is lost. What will it take to face that truth this time?
========================

I know what it will take. Remove Bush from Office! :thumb:

[wholearmor]

It's kinda' like us being nice to you, Septic, because we have to put up with you for now.

[Tye Porter]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I really love men :chuckle:

Hey Septic. How's that relationship with the male gigalo from Miami going? You are planning a move to Vermont, right? Or are you two skipping to Canada? How does it feels to know you're going to hell, simply for denying God. Yet you do nothing about it? Thank God I'm not you. Hey, when you're done with this guy, I got a friend, who refuses to come out of his homosexuality, who is interested in you, let me know, i'll give you his 411. BTW, any interest in staying in Canada, once you get there? I am sure we can gathre the financing, for your move.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Tye Porter
Hey Septic. How's that relationship with the male gigalo from Miami going? You are planning a move to Vermont, right? Or are you two skipping to Canada? How does it feels to know you're going to hell, simply for denying God. Yet you do nothing about it? Thank God I'm not you. Hey, when you're done with this guy, I got a friend, who refuses to come out of his homosexuality, who is interested in you, let me know, i'll give you his 411. BTW, any interest in staying in Canada, once you get there? I am sure we can gathre the financing, for your move. Is your post supposed to offend or embarrass me? Your fabricated quote: "I really love men" is laughable. As if there was something bad or wrong with men loving men, or women loving women. :chuckle: I love both! And I seem to recall a person, who lived a long time ago, who also loved both. Good idea. Unfortunately, the guy who allegedly felt this way, long ago, also reportedly made the absurd claim he was the Son of God.... as if there were a God to begin with! :chuckle:

So much for your homophobic attempt at ridicule.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Is your post supposed to offend or embarrass me? Your fabricated quote: "I really love men" is laughable. As if there was something bad or wrong with men loving men, or women loving women. :chuckle: I love both! And I seem to recall a person, who lived a long time ago, who also loved both. Good idea. Unfortunately, the guy who allegedly felt this way, long ago, also reportedly made the absurd claim he was the Son of God.... as if there were a God to begin with! :chuckle:

So much for your homophobic attempt at ridicule.

That's IYHO. IMHO it was hilarious!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
That's IYHO. IMHO it was hilarious! You would find it hilarious. :chuckle:

[wholearmor]

You wouldn't. :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Here's a good download for you! :thumb:

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/pdf/impeach31.pdf

[Skeptic]

=========================
We Used To Impeach Liars
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 03 June 2003

In September of 2002, fully six months before George W. Bush attacked Iraq, I published a small book entitled "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know." The essential premise of the book was that the threats surrounding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were wildly overblown by the Bush administration for purely political reasons. In the opening paragraphs, I framed the argument as follows:

According to Bush and the men who are pushing him towards this war-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle.The United States will institute a "regime change" in Iraq, and bring forth the birth of a new democracy in the region. Along the way, we will remove Saddam Hussein, a man who absolutely, positively has weapons of mass destruction, a man who will use these weapons against his neighbors because he has done so in the past, a man who will give these terrible weapons to Osama bin Laden for use against America.

A fairly cut-and-dried case, no? America is more than prepared to listen to these pleasing arguments about evil in black and white, particularly after the horrors of September 11th. Few can contemplate in comfort the existence of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in the hands of a madman like Saddam Hussein. The merest whisper that he might give these weapons to Qaeda terrorists is enough to rob any rational American of sleep. Saddam has been so demonized in the American media-ever since the first President Bush compared him to Hitler-that they believe the case has been fully and completely made for his immediate removal.

Yet facts are stubborn things, as John Adams once claimed while successfully defending British redcoats on trial for the Boston Massacre. We may hate someone with passion, and we may fear them in our souls, but if the facts cannot establish a clear and concise basis for our fear and hatred, if the facts do not defend the actions we would take against them, then we must look elsewhere for the basis of that fear. Simultaneously, we must take stock of those stubborn facts, and understand the manner in which they define the reality-not the rhetoric-of our world.

The case for war against Iraq has not been made. This is a fact. It is doubtful in the extreme that Saddam Hussein has retained any functional aspect of the chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons programs so thoroughly dismantled by the United Nations weapons inspectors who worked tirelessly in Iraq for seven years. This is also a fact.

This was a straightforward argument, set against stern and unrelenting prophesies of doom from Bush administration officials, and from Bush himself. I can tell you, as the writer, that it was a tough sell. The facts contained in the book were absolutely accurate, as has been proven in the aftermath of war, but Americans are funny. They fall for Hitler's maxim on lies over and over again: "The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." Over and over and over and over and over again, the American people were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction practically falling out of his ears. The American people were told that Hussein was giving away these weapons to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda the way you and I might give away birthday presents.

Feast for a moment, on this brief timeline:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
- Dick Cheney, August 26 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
- Ari Fleischer, December 2 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
- Ari Fleischer, January 9 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
- Colin Powell, February 5 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
- Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
- Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003

"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found."
- Ari Fleischer, April 10 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
- Donald Rumsfeld, April 25 2003

"I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction."
- Colin Powell, May 4 2003

These are the words of administration officials who were following orders and the party line. It has been axiomatic for quite a while now that the people behind the scenes, and not the Main Man Himself, are running the ways and means of this administration. Harken back to the campaign in 2000, when the glaring deficiencies in ability and experience displayed by George W. Bush were salved by the fact that a number of heavy hitters would be backstopping him. Yet a Democrat named Harry Truman once said, "The buck stops here." What did the man in receipt of said stopped buck have to say on the matter?

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
- George W. Bush, September 12 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
- George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
- George Bush, February 8 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
- George Bush, March 17 2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."
- George Bush, April 24 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
- George Bush, May 3 2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program."
- George W. Bush, May 6 2003

It has become all too clear in the last several days that the horrid descriptions of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were nothing more than the Big Lie which Hitler described. The American people, being the trusting TV-stoned folks they are, bought this WMD lie bag and baggage. Imagine the shock within the administration when Lieutenant General James Conway, top US Marine Commander in Iraq, said that American intelligence on Iraqi WMDs was "Simply wrong." Conway went on to state about the WMDs that, "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."

Imagine the consternation within the administration when Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said on May 28 that, "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." A short translation of that comment is as straightforward as one can get - There was no real threat of WMDs, but everyone who wanted the war for whatever reasons decided to settle on that concept because it was an easy sell to Americans still traumatized by September 11.

Imagine the teeth-gnashing within the administration when Patrick Lang, former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defense Intelligence Agency, accused Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld's personal intelligence team of having "cherry-picked the intelligence stream" to make it seem like the WMD threat in Iraq was real. Lang went on to say that the DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD." Vince Cannistraro, former chief of the CIA counterterrorist operations, described serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for proffering "fraudulent" intelligence, "a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi."

Ahmad Chalabi, it should be noted, is the hand-picked-by-Don-Rumsfeld successor to power in Iraq. Chalabi was convicted in 1992 of 31 counts of bank fraud and embezzlement in Jordan and sentenced to 22 years hard labor in absentia. Even the most optimistic of intelligence observers take what he has to say with a massive grain of salt. Certainly, as the chosen leader of Iraq - a position he has enjoyed thanks to Rumsfeld and his cabal since 1997 - Chalabi had no reason whatsoever to exaggerate or lie about Iraq's weapons program. Of course.

The process of proving the presence of Iraqi WMDs has been tortured, to say the least. Bush at one point described recent Iraqi efforts to purchase "significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Greg Thielmann, recently resigned from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, was appalled by these claims. "When I saw that, I was really blown away," said Thielmann. His Bureau of Intelligence and Research had absolutely debunked this claim. The documents used to support the accusation were crude forgeries - the name on the letterhead of the main evidentiary document was that of a Nigerian minister who had been out of office for ten years. When he saw that Bush was using the fraudulent documentation to back up his claims, he thought to himself, "Not that stupid piece of garbage," according to Newsweek.

And then, of course, there was the famous presentation by Colin Powell to the UN on February 5th. Powell held aloft a British Intelligence dossier on the current status of Iraqi weapons, praised it lavishly, and used it as the central underpinnings of his argument that Iraq was a clear and present danger. It came to light some days later that vast swaths of the dossier he praised had been plagiarized from a magazine article penned five months earlier by a California graduate student from California whose focus had been Iraq circa 1991. You can read more on this aspect of the mess in my article from that time entitled Blair, Powell UN Report Written By Student. Last week, Powell described this profoundly flawed UN presentation as "the best analytic product that we could have put up."

The aggravation within the administration, after all these statements, caused George W. Bush to exclaim on May 30, "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." He was referring to an alleged Iraqi mobile chemical laboratory, one of the "Winnebagos of Death" described by Colin Powell. Said mobile facility contained exactly zero evidence of having been used to produce weapons of any kind, and was in fact most likely used as a mobile food testing platform in the service of Saddam Hussein, who was always paranoid about assassination.

Over 170 American soldiers died in the second war in Iraq. The Iraqi populace is deeply angered by the American presence in their country, and they are armed to the teeth. More soldiers will die in the impossible police action that has become victory's inheritance. Thousands of Iraqi civilians have died, along with untold scores of Iraqi soldiers. The Middle East has been inflamed by the war; bombings in Riyadh and Casablanca provide a bleak preview of what is to come. According to Mr. Bush, the entire thing was aimed at that one mobile lab. The thousands of tons of WMDs we were promised do not exist, so that empty mobile lab is what we must settle for if we are to justify this war in our hearts and minds.

Once upon a time, we impeached a sitting President for lying under oath about sexual trysts. No one died, no one had their legs or arms or face or genitals blown off because of the lies of a President who had been caught with his pants down. Today in America, we endure a sitting President who lied for months about the threat posed by a sovereign nation. That nation was invaded and attacked, and thousands died because of it. The aftereffects of this action will be felt for generations to come. The very democracy which gives us meaning as a country has been put in peril by these deeds. When the smoke cleared, every reason for that war was proven to be a lie.

Of course, there will be no impeachment with a Republican Congress. This must not dissuade us from demanding satisfaction. Let the House be brought to order. Gavel the members to attention, and let the evidence be brought forth. Let there be justice for the living and the dead. Let this man Bush be impeached and cleansed from office for the lies he has told. These are not innocent lies. The dead remember.

From: http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/Bush/pittliars.htm
=========================

[Tye Porter]

:yawn:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Tye Porter
:yawn:

Come on, Tye, I found that 8-monitor-length post of Septics to be quite....:yawn: ..... informati.....:yawn: .....inform.....:yawn: .....:sleep:

[Lucky]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Come on, Tye, I found that 8-monitor-length post of Septics to be quite....:yawn: ..... informati.....:yawn: .....inform.....:yawn: .....:sleep:

Don't make fun of skeptic's post like that! It ain't easy having to make up so much bull droppings. :)