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?