Why Bush Should be Impeached

[Skeptic]

What if Clinton had said "Oh, don't worry, I didn't have sex with that woman, and I'm not lying to the American public about it.", and Congress simply believed him, because he is, well, the President, and did not impeach him?

Nothing would really have changed, other than the fact that we would not know something about the President's sex life that many of us would rather not know anyway.

But, what if a President goes to war and almost 200 American troops are killed, as well as many thousands of Iraqis, and we discover that it is very possible that the President lied to the American public and Congress about the reasons and justification for going to war? Wouldn't this be at least as good a reason, if not a far greater reason, to begin televised hearings that might lead to impeachment? Doesn't the American public deserve to know the truth about Bush's actions at least as much as they needed to know about Clinton's actions?

THEY IMPEACH MURDERERS, DON'T THEY?

By Ted Rall

Bush Must Step Down

NEW YORK--George W. Bush told us that Iraq and Al Qaeda were working together. They weren't. He repeatedly implied that Iraq had had something to do with 9/11. It hadn't. He claimed to have proof that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons of mass destruction. He didn't. As our allies watched in horror and disgust, Bush conned us into a one-sided war of aggression that killed and maimed thousands of innocent people, destroyed billions of dollars in Iraqi infrastructure, cost tens of billions of dollars, cost the lives of American soldiers, and transformed our international image as the world's shining beacon of freedom into that of a marauding police state. Presidents Nixon and Clinton rightly faced impeachment for comparatively trivial offenses; if we hope to restore our nation's honor, George W. Bush too must face a president's gravest political sanction.

As the Bush Administration sold Congress and the public on the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein last winter, White House flack Ari Fleischer assured the American people: "The President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense would not assert as plainly and vocally as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it." That's unambiguous rhetoric. But since allied occupation forces have failed to find WMDs, Bush is backtracking: "I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program," the C-in-C now says.

What's next? Claiming that Saddam had WMDs because, you know, you could just feel it?

A ferocious power struggle is taking place between Langley and the White House. "It's hard to tell if there was a breakdown in intelligence or a breakdown in the way intelligence was used," says Michele Flournoy of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. No it's not. Career analysts at the Central and Defense Intelligence Agencies, furious at Bush for sticking them with the blame for the weapons scandal, are leaking prewar memoranda that indicate that the Administration covered up the spooks' assessments, making the case for war with a pile of lies constructed on a bedrock of oil-fueled greed.

A September 2002 DIA study said that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons," but Bush ignored the report--and told us the exact opposite. After Bush used the discovery of two alleged mobile weapons labs to claim "we found the weapons of mass destruction," CIA "dissenters" shot back that Bush had lied about their reports and that they "doubted the trailers were used to make germ agents, not[ing] that the plants lacked gear for steam sterilization, which is typically necessary for making bioweapons." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld parried: "Any indication or allegation that the intelligence was in any way politicized, of course, is just false on its face...We haven't found Saddam Hussein either, but no one's doubting that he was there." Rummy also floated the CIA-debunked tale of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.

Both factions are missing the point.

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.

George W. Bush, like Richard Nixon, "endeavor[ed] to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency." George W. Bush, like Richard Nixon, "[made] or caus[ed] to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States." (The legalese comes from the first Article of Impeachment against Nixon, passed by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974. Faced with certain impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate, Nixon resigned two weeks later.)

In the words of Bill Clinton's 1998 impeachment, George W. Bush "has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."

Nixon and Clinton escaped criminal prosecution for burglary, perjury and obstruction of justice. George W. Bush, however, stands accused as the greatest mass murderer in American history. The Lexington Institute estimates that the U.S. killed between 15,000 and 20,000 Iraqi troops during the fraudulently justified invasion of Iraq, plus 10,000 to 15,000 wounded. More than 150 U.S. soldiers were killed, plus more than 500 injured. A new Associated Press study of Iraqi civilian casualties confirms at least 3,240 deaths. Although Bush, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice denied such legal niceties to the concentration-camp inmates captured in their illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, these high-ranking Administration henchmen should be quickly turned over--after impeachment proceedings for what might properly be called Slaughtergate--to an international tribunal for prosecution of war crimes.

Anything less would be anti-American.


From: http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20030610 True American patriots will demand an immediate investigation and Congressional hearings!

[RogerB]

No.

[Skeptic]

For more information and justification, go to the thread Do the ends justify the means? (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6938) and read the last several articles I posted.

[Is it possible?]

Originally posted by RogerB
No.

You did it again Roger. Keep up the good work!:thumb:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by RogerB
No. And why not?

[Is it possible?]

Skeptic,

This is old news...Clinton by the way lied to a grand jury....Did we try to impeach Kennedy? He (clinton) was the worst thing to come along in pants and sit behind the dest at the oval office...at leats Nixon had the deceny to step down. I find the Republicans(some) have just a wee bit more integrity going for them.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Is it possible?
...at least Nixon had the decency to step down. I find the Republicans(some) have just a wee bit more integrity going for them. Don't you think that, if investigations show that Bush was lying, he should also have the decency to step down?

[Is it possible?]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Don't you think that, if investigations show that Bush was lying, he should also have the decency to step down?


To be honest I did not even read all of what you posted. Clinton by the way got us in this mess. Bush is doing the best he can to work with the poh-pooh Clinton left.

I read some of it and I do not believe a word....they are describing Clinton not Bush...a liberal tactic.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Don't you think that, if investigations show that Bush was lying, he should also have the decency to step down?
Didn't you know, Skeptic?

If it gets the country that much-needed OIL, anything is acceptable! :greedy::greedy::greedy::greedy:

Bush and Co. had to lie: Americans, as a people, have no stomach for conquest and empire-building, and the neo-cons have every intention of founding a global American Imperium.

They have our best interests at heart. Really they do.

Ave Imperator!
Ave Georgius Secundus!
Ave Imperator!

;)

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Don't you think that, if investigations show that Bush was lying, he should also have the decency to step down?

What investigations?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What investigations?
The investigations that Congress should call for but won't.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Gerald
The investigations that Congress should call for but won't.

Why should they, and why won't they?

[Is it possible?]

Originally posted by Gerald
They have our best interests at heart. Really they do.

Well apparently so. Look at all the money they have alocated to Education. The first thing out of the Democrates mouth is 'We have to save the children.' This next election should prove quite interesting especially since no one could tell you who is running on the side of the Democrats.

[Gerald]

Well, the justifications the Administration has tossed out ("Saddam poses a clear and present danger to the US", "Saddam has WMD", "Saddam is working with Al Qaeda", etc.) are all turning out to be bogus.

Face it, Jack: this little bit of unpleasantness was fought because of one thing: oil. That much is becoming more obvious every day.

Iraq has oodles of the stuff, and the Administration is tired of messing about with the House of Saud, who've been playing both ends against the middle for years.

Congress won't call for an investigation because it is not in their interest to do so; such an investigation would start a whole lot of skeletons rattling in a whole lot of closets...

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Is it possible?
This next election should prove quite interesting especially since no one could tell you who is running on the side of the Democrats.
I'm not overly concerned about the next election; Bush most likely has it in the bag. The Administration's real task is to get Patriot II passed beforehand.

I'm not expecting there to even be an election in 2008...

[paleo-Reformed]

Skeptic and I probably don't agree on much, but I would more or less second his opinion. Only, I'd go much further and suggest that the entire Federal gov't be dissolved forthwith and all powers expropriated be returned to the sovereign states, who would then be free to govern themselves according to their own constitutions without interference. There is actually a group I heard of called the Committee of Fifty States, headed by a former governor of Utah, that is trying to do something much like that. They're trying to get 38 state legislatures to pass bills that say if the Fed gov't ever goes past the 6 trillion dollar mark in debt, it will be automatically dismantled. I forget all the details, but it's a great idea.

PS- Clinton is a bad man and was a bad President, but Lincoln has to be the worst one we've had by far:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html

Paleo

[Is it possible?]

Originally posted by Gerald
I'm not overly concerned about the next election; Bush most likely has it in the bag. The Administration's real task is to get Patriot II passed beforehand.

I'm not expecting there to even be an election in 2008...

Why are you not overly concerned about the next election since our side will be in the White House? Don't you think you should get out the vote? Thank you for being honest...

What is going to happen in 2008? World coming to an end or something?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Is it possible?
What is going to happen in 2008? World coming to an end or something? I fully expect Something Really Bad to happen, something to dwarf even 9/11, which will give the Administration cause to declare a national emergency and suspend the Constitution.

For no longer than the duration of the emergency, of course...:think:

[One Eyed Jack]

They held elections in 1944 didn't they?

[RogerB]

George W. Bush told us that Iraq and Al Qaeda were working together. They weren't

HUH?!?! Is Ted sleeping with Sadam or what?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
They held elections in 1944 didn't they?
There was a major attack on the US mainland in 1944?

I must've missed that memo...

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Gerald
There was a major attack on the US mainland in 1944?


Are you predicting a major attack on the US mainland in 2008?

[Is it possible?]

Originally posted by Gerald
I fully expect Something Really Bad to happen, something to dwarf even 9/11, which will give the Administration cause to declare a national emergency and suspend the Constitution.

For no longer than the duration of the emergency, of course...:think:


So do I, believe it or not...not necessarily the scenerio you have come up with...but I believe it will happen none the less...I don't worry about it because I can do nothing to stop the chaos. It is in the hands of GOD. HE will deal with it...Make sure your life is right...then you will have nothing to worry about either.

I have to get work done some time. This is as good a time as any. God bless and God bless America...Land of the free and home of the brave!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Are you predicting a major attack on the US mainland in 2008?
Probably sooner, depending on when Patriot II gets passed...

[wholearmor]

An excerpt from: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20030603.shtml

The Democrats' WMD fraud
Rich Lowry (archive)

June 3, 2003

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists," the president of the United States warned. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

The secretary of state loyally followed this hard line, defending the U.N. sanctions on Saddam Hussein: "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Leveraging U.N. resolutions to support military action, the secretary of defense said: "The United Nations has determined that Saddam should not possess chemical or biological or nuclear weapons, and what we have is the obligation to carry out the U.N. declaration."

The officials argued that U.N. inspections weren't enough. "It is ineffectual; it is not able to do its job by its own judgment," the president's national security adviser said of the U.N. inspections regime. "It doesn't provide much deterrence against WMD activity."

The president's congressional loyalists stood behind him. "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction," said a prominent senator, sounding a familiar theme, "but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."

"For the United States and Britain, an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description," said another hawk, taking aim at the split in the international community. "France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach."

Who were the political leaders who, according to critics of the Iraq war, perpetrated this fraud on the American people by making overblown warnings about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Respectively, President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Sen. Tom Daschle and Sen. John Kerry.

They were all speaking in the late 1990s when Clinton bombed Iraq to "degrade" an Iraqi WMD capacity that we are supposed to believe disappeared in the inspection-free years that ensued, only to be resurrected as a false justification for war by the Bush administration.

[White]

these high-ranking Administration henchmen should be quickly turned over--after impeachment proceedings for what might properly be called Slaughtergate--to an international tribunal for prosecution of war crimes.

Exactly what war crimes? You are just talking about there being a lack of reason for going to war.

Also, let me ask you this?

Is the world a better place now that a man like Saddam (who apparently has no compunctions against gassing hundreds of thousands of innocent people) is not the dictator of a country the size of Texas?

[Is it possible?]

Sorry guys but when I read over some of my posts i am afraid I give myself the best laugh. Thanks God. :)

[BillyBob]

Right on Wholearmor!

Clinton said that Saddam had WMD, should we impeach him again? [I wouldn't mind, myself, but not for the reason stated]. Tony Blair said the Saddam has WMD. The UN said that Saddam has WMD. American intelligence said that Saddam has WMD. The Israelis know he did because Saddam launched some of them. The Kurds will tell you that Saddam has WMD, they will show you the graves of the victims.

You silly neo-libs are blowing smoke because you hate conservatism and you hate Bush. This isn't about WMD and you know it! The best chance you have of defeating Bush is to paint him as a criminal regardless of the fact that he has defended this country in an honorable fashion during very precarious times. That is his job and he does it well.

I guess if we are going to claim that Bush lied, we better accuse Clinton and Blair and Annan and Israel and the Kurds and the CIA and Iraqi defectors. Let's impeach them all!

[paleo-Reformed]

BillyBob You silly neo-libs are blowing smoke because you hate conservatism and you hate Bush.

You should try to avoid blanket statements, Billy. I make Bush look like a granola eating commie-pinko. The heck it isn't about WMD's.

[BillyBob]

If you aren't a neo-lib, then I wasn't referring to you, obviously.

It isn't about WMD, just as I said. It has always been about terrorism and regime change. The war was a spectacular success.

Simple. Concise. Victorious!!!!!! WOO HOO!!!!!!!!

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Is it possible?
Skeptic,

This is old news...Clinton by the way lied to a grand jury....
Has Bush been put before a grand jury? I wonder if he would have the guts to tell the truth about how he had lied before?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Is it possible?
To be honest I did not even read all of what you posted. Clinton by the way got us in this mess. Bush is doing the best he can to work with the poh-pooh Clinton left.

I read some of it and I do not believe a word....they are describing Clinton not Bush...a liberal tactic.
Really? So you're saying it was actually Clinton, not Bush, who sent hundreds of thousands of our troops to the Gulf, who lied to the American people about having irrefutable proof of Saddam's WMD program, and who started an extremely costly war? Hmmm, I didn't know that.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Why should they?
Well, the fact that he LIED to the American people in order to justify a war would be a good reason to start with.

[wholearmor]

I wish Iraqi citizens had access to these boards. Of course, because of George W. Bush, they will in time, and you Bush-can't-do-anything-right-no-matter-what-he-does-types will simply find something else to whine about after we're told, first hand, of the WMD.

Please reference:
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7900&highlight=skeptics

Post # 2.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Eireann
Well, the fact that he LIED to the American people in order to justify a war would be a good reason to start with.

What did he lie about?

[Is it possible?]

Originally posted by Eireann
Really? So you're saying it was actually Clinton, not Bush, who sent hundreds of thousands of our troops to the Gulf, who lied to the American people about having irrefutable proof of Saddam's WMD program, and who started an extremely costly war? Hmmm, I didn't know that.

Eireann,

First didn't Sadam help Osama? Second the trade towers were bomb I think in '93 by Osama. Third Clinton had a chance to extrdict Osama hence Clinton did get us in the mess we are in. he even promised the poor parents of the men killed on the 'Cole that I'll take care of it'. Osama was responsible for this as well. Yes Clinton was in charge. It was his watch. 9-11 happened 9 months after Bush got in office. Clinton left pooh-pooh everywhere and he let people pooh-pooh the white house which is MY house and your house. I don't like the man Eireann. He is immoral and not only that he exposed MY children to pooh-pooh. So you will not see me sing prasies of Mr. Clinton (don't even think he deserves the respect of the title of President). I will not talk about the gulf war because this was about oil. period. so what? Afgahnastan was about survival and just because they did not find anything does not mean there was not anything to find. I did hear that the Tigerous river was polluted with mustard gas, anthrax, botchelitum and also two mobile chemical vans were found and other things. I do not care Eireann how you feel about Bush. He did the right thing. You can not do nothing...the bully will still continue to punch your face...this is what Clinton did. Bush is trying to protect the country and you should be glad that he is....in the end though how can you protect yourself against terrorism?

p.s. Eireann I mischaracterized what Clinton did....He gave away the store.... there I like this better.

Also what Clinton did while he was in office will haunt every single American and your children. You can take this to the bank.

[Is it possible?]

Originally posted by Eireann
Has Bush been put before a grand jury? I wonder if he would have the guts to tell the truth about how he had lied before?

Bush doesn't need to be put before a grand jury. He is actually doing his job, not just pretending. You know Eireann, Clinton already used this tactic. he put it out on the streets that it was just about sex and people fell for it. Don't you remember his spin doctors telling everyone 'if you had an affair wouldn't you lie?' Well it was not just about sex. 9-11 proved it.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Is it possible?
So do I, believe it or not...not necessarily the scenerio you have come up with...but I believe it will happen none the less...I don't worry about it because I can do nothing to stop the chaos. It is in the hands of GOD. HE will deal with it... To simply say "It is in the hands of God" is a very irrational, irresponsible and scary attitude. :down:

[Is it possible?]

Originally posted by Skeptic
To simply say "It is in the hands of God" is a very irrational, irresponsible and scary attitude. :down:

Of course you would state thisl Look at your sign-in name. Why would you think this is scary?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by White
Also, let me ask you this?

Is the world a better place now that a man like Saddam (who apparently has no compunctions against gassing hundreds of thousands of innocent people) is not the dictator of a country the size of Texas? Americans are LESS safe, since Bush ordered the illegal preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Bush invasion and occupation is a rallying cry for terrorist recruits! Overall, the world is a more dangerous place to live, and Bush has taken us down this dangerous road.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Is it possible?
Eireann,

First didn't Sadam help Osama?
No. In fact, they have long been bitter enemies. In the tapes that were released earlier in the year, Osama was heard to call for Muslims to rise against the infidel Saddam Hussein as well as to come to arms against the US. Saddam was not a practicing Muslim, which really grated on Osama who despises (despised?) the idea of a secular government in place over a Muslim state. Saddam ran a secular government. The only interest Osama ever had in Saddam was in his downfall.

Second the trade towers were bomb I think in '93 by Osama.
Yes, although at the time Osama was only one of several possible suspects. They suspected him but were not certain of his involvement.

Third Clinton had a chance to extrdict Osama hence Clinton did get us in the mess we are in.
It's doubtful that extradition would have been successful. Part of the Islamic creed is that Muslims must grant asylum to another Muslim when it is asked. It is very unlikely that an Islamic state would have willingly extradited Osama at our request, especially since we weren't even certain of his involvement at the time.

He even promised the poor parents of the men killed on the 'Cole that I'll take care of it'.
One of the usual promises made by Presidents that are rarely fulfilled. You could have expected the same response from any president. Presidents tell you what you want to hear. It's expected of them.

I don't like the man Eireann.
I don't either. I didn't like Clinton. I didn't like Gore. I didn't like Bush, Sr., or his son. It's been many generations since we've had a morally upstanding President.

He is immoral and not only that he exposed MY children to pooh-pooh.
As did the Presidents before, as will the Presidents after him.

I did hear that the Tigerous river was polluted with mustard gas, anthrax, botchelitum and also two mobile chemical vans were found and other things.
The Tigris was found to be polluted with two dual-use agents that could have potentially been used in the manufacture of mustard gas and other chemical weapons, but they could also have been used in the manufacture of numerous things, including fertilizer and household chemicals. What they were originally intended for is conjecture. As for the vans, there were a lot of theories floating around about what they were for, but no facts. Proponents of the war automatically proposed that they must have been used for chemical weapons transport. Truth is, they don't know what they were used for. Could've as easily been hauling televisions to the local Wal Mart (or whatever). The Administration claimed they knew what the vans were for, but the CIA disclaimed their pronouncements as overzealous.

I do not care Eireann how you feel about Bush. He did the right thing.
He did the right thing in Afghanistan (although he ultimately messed that up, too). He did the wrong thing in Iraq. He claimed to have proof that he didn't have, and to this day his best efforts have turned up nothing. Iraq was an effort, among other things, to distract from his failure in Afghanistan to find bin Laden. He lied and claimed a connection between bin Laden and Saddam, a connection that no one has yet been able to adequately demonstrate.

You can not do nothing...the bully will still continue to punch your face...
Agreed. And that's why he should have kept after bin Laden, rather than turning his attention to someone who had nothing to do with bin Laden or 9/11.

Bush is trying to protect the country and you should be glad that he is....in the end though how can you protect yourself against terrorism?
Bush isn't trying to protect anyone. Bush is trying to stay rich and in the oval office. That's all. If it were about our protection, he would have kept his attention on the responsible parties, not given up and turned his sights on someone who had nothing to do with it and who has never threatened our national security.

Also what Clinton did while he was in office will haunt every single American and your children. You can take this to the bank.
Yes, the American people will be forever haunted by a man who couldn't keep his pants on. I would rather be haunted by that than by the man who was willing to send our boys out to die just to secure control of some oil and to boost his falling ratings.

[Is it possible?]

Look guys you can not have it both ways. First you critisize Bush for not stopping 9-11 and now you critisize him for defending the country so we will not have another 9-11. Just like I have always figured. You can not please people so why try instead do what is right and let the chips fall where they may.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Is it possible?
Look guys you can not have it both ways. First you critisize Bush for not stopping 9-11 and now you critisize him for defending the country so we will not have another 9-11.
He wasn't defending our country in Iraq. Our country was not under any threat by Iraq. Saddam and his regimes were catagorically "in a wheelchair" long before we turned out attentions there. Zulu warriors would have provided a bigger threat to us than Iraq!

[Is it possible?]

Eireann I know you disagree. I happen to think he was. Do you want to arm wrestle over it?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Is it possible?
Eireann I know you disagree. I happen to think he was. Do you want to arm wrestle over it?
Sure. Can I cheat and use both arms?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Clinton said that Saddam had WMD, should we impeach him again? [I wouldn't mind, myself, but not for the reason stated]. Tony Blair said the Saddam has WMD. The UN said that Saddam has WMD. American intelligence said that Saddam has WMD. The Israelis know he did because Saddam launched some of them. The Kurds will tell you that Saddam has WMD, they will show you the graves of the victims. Obviously, American intelligence was wrong, and the WMD threat was either extremely exaggerated or fabricated, or both! Bush was very irresponsible for not listening to those in the intelligence community who agreed the Iraqi threat was blown way out of proportion. Bush may very well have known that the Iraqi threat was blown way out of proportion, but proceeded to invade Iraq anyway for political and economic reasons. Invading a country and risking thousands of lives shoud be based on 100% proof that Iraq was a clear and imminent threat to America based on solid intelligence showing where and how many WMDs Iraq actually had. Some vague suspicion of a "weapons program" is grossly insufficient.

You silly neo-libs are blowing smoke because you hate conservatism and you hate Bush. This isn't about WMD and you know it! The best chance you have of defeating Bush is to paint him as a criminal regardless of the fact that he has defended this country in an honorable fashion during very precarious times. That is his job and he does it well. Typical of you, BillyBob. I expected you to try to turn it around and say it is just "blowing smoke" by liberals who "hate Bush."

I guess if we are going to claim that Bush lied, we better accuse Clinton and Blair and Annan and Israel and the Kurds and the CIA and Iraqi defectors. Let's impeach them all! If it can be shown that they lied to the American public about the Iraqi threat in order to justify a massive invasion, then yes, impeach them too!

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Americans are LESS safe, since Bush ordered the illegal preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Bush invasion and occupation is a rallying cry for terrorist recruits! Overall, the world is a more dangerous place to live, and Bush has taken us down this dangerous road.

Yep...good ol' George W. did it all on his own. No Congress or anything...just him. He's a total dictator like Saddam Hussein used to be and he does whatever he pleases regardless of what anyone else says or how Congress votes. Amazing!!

[Is it possible?]

Originally posted by Eireann
Sure. Can I cheat and use both arms?

You can use one. You would probably would not need two.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What did he lie about?

Hello, Eireann... you gonna answer my question?

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Typical of you, BillyBob. I expected you to try to turn it around and say it is just "blowing smoke" by liberals who "hate Bush."

Billy;
I call 'em as I see 'em. If it wasn't about your hatred of GW, you would not continuously call him stupid. You would be calling for an investigation of the intelligence community of the entire free world. That is where Bush got his info, which I still say is correct.

Instead, you just insinuate that Bush is a liar and pretend that he was in this alone. Silly neo-lib, you are transparent and grasping at straws.

Thanks for playing, please try again.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Americans are LESS safe, since Bush ordered the illegal preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Bush invasion and occupation is a rallying cry for terrorist recruits! Overall, the world is a more dangerous place to live, and Bush has taken us down this dangerous road.

Billy;
ARE YOU INSANE? The terrorists attacked US!!!!!!!!!!!! They are the ones who have made this a dangerous world, not Bush! If you want to sit back and let them kill you, that is fine with me, God knows we could do with a few less commies, but don't expect the rest of us to not fight back.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
Thanks for playing, please try again.

...if you dare! :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

I'll say one thing for him, he has balls.

[BillyBob]

...just no brains.

[wholearmor]

I'd rather have the brains because using them wisely can get you to heaven. Having the other ones can just make you a good pool player! :crackup:

[BillyBob]

Or a stupid commie...

[Eireann]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Hello, Eireann... you gonna answer my question?
Sorry, I didn't see it before. He lied about a number of things. For one, as contained in the original post for this thread, he lied about having undeniable and indisputable proof that Iraq has an active WMD program. He lied about having undeniable evidence of Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda. Then there's that whole "staging of the statue-dropping" thing (not sure if Dubya actually had any part in that, but it doesn't look good on the Admin's resume).

Here's a more cogent list of Bush and Administration lies (http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm) for your perusal. Be warned, it's long.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
Sorry, I didn't see it before. He lied about a number of things. For one, as contained in the original post for this thread, he lied about having undeniable and indisputable proof that Iraq has an active WMD program. He lied about having undeniable evidence of Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda. Then there's that whole "staging of the statue-dropping" thing (not sure if Dubya actually had any part in that, but it doesn't look good on the Admin's resume).

Here's a more cogent list of Bush and Administration lies (http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm) for your perusal. Be warned, it's long.

Does anyone here know Bill Clinton? If so, will they go ask him what the definition of "Lied" is? Once we find that out, then maybe we can determine if Bush lied or not. :chuckle:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Billy;
ARE YOU INSANE? The terrorists attacked US!!!!!!!!!!!! They are the ones who have made this a dangerous world, not Bush! If you want to sit back and let them kill you, that is fine with me, God knows we could do with a few less commies, but don't expect the rest of us to not fight back.
Yes, but there are several different kinds of terrorists, terrorist groups and targets. Generally, most of them are not terribly concerned with the United States. There are more groups who are concerned with Israel, being right at their borders as they are, than with us. 9/11 notwithstanding, that attack does not indicate that all or even a majority of the different terrorist groups out there want to attack the United States. That is just a paranoid assumption on the part of scared Americans. The terrorist group that was operating in Iraq was the MEK, which was directed against Iran and the Kurds. He didn't even start funding terrorism against Israel until after we made it clear this year that war was inevitable in Iraq. There has never been any real indication that Iraq was tied to terrorist groups who were bothered with the US.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Does anyone here know Bill Clinton? If so, will they go ask him what the definition of "Lied" is? Once we find that out, then maybe we can determine if Bush lied or not. :chuckle:
It hardly matters. He was already impeached. The question was whether or not Bush should be impeached for his own ... uh ... creative liberties. You can attempt to divert attention from Bush back to Clinton all you like, but Clinton was already impeached, so you would just be shooting blanks, so to speak.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Eireann
Sorry, I didn't see it before. He lied about a number of things. For one, as contained in the original post for this thread, he lied about having undeniable and indisputable proof that Iraq has an active WMD program. He lied about having undeniable evidence of Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda. Then there's that whole "staging of the statue-dropping" thing (not sure if Dubya actually had any part in that, but it doesn't look good on the Admin's resume).

Here's a more cogent list of Bush and Administration lies (http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm) for your perusal. Be warned, it's long.

I admit I didn't go through the whole thing, but all I saw were claims that he lied. Do you have anything specific, like a quote from President Bush? Thanks.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I admit I didn't go through the whole thing, but all I saw were claims that he lied. Do you have anything specific, like a quote from President Bush? Thanks.
You need to read further. The first few paragraphs are general claims that he lied, but without specifics being provided. Below that is a list of links to other authors and their articles that list some more of the lies. Below that is a rather lengthy list of very specific citations, quotes and so on.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
Yes, but there are several different kinds of terrorists, terrorist groups and targets. Generally, most of them are not terribly concerned with the United States. There are more groups who are concerned with Israel, being right at their borders as they are, than with us. 9/11 notwithstanding, that attack does not indicate that all or even a majority of the different terrorist groups out there want to attack the United States. That is just a paranoid assumption on the part of scared Americans. The terrorist group that was operating in Iraq was the MEK, which was directed against Iran and the Kurds. He didn't even start funding terrorism against Israel until after we made it clear this year that war was inevitable in Iraq. There has never been any real indication that Iraq was tied to terrorist groups who were bothered with the US.

WRONG! Most of the terrorists don't appear to be terribly concerned with the United States because they know George W. will pound the bejeebers out of 'em if they pull anything, so they'll go ahead and pick on little ol' Israel. They must be terribly concerned with the United States because 9/11 did not come together for them in a couple of weeks. They planned that for years. They didn't plan that long and that hard just for grins.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
WRONG! Most of the terrorists don't appear to be terribly concerned with the United States because they know George W. will pound the bejeebers out of 'em if they pull anything, so they'll go ahead and pick on little ol' Israel.
Then what was their excuse for all the years before Dubya came into office?

They must be terribly concerned with the United States because 9/11 did not come together for them in a couple of weeks. They planned that for years. They didn't plan that long and that hard just for grins.
It doesn't matter how many years they planned it. It was still just one terrorist group. There are many groups out there. Al Qaeda alone decided to target the American mainland, as they've done more than once. So far, they're the only group that has done so. Saddam's MEK is not part of Al Qaeda.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Eireann
You need to read further.

I don't think so. I can only take so much liberal garbage...

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
Then what was their excuse for all the years before Dubya came into office?

Oh, you're right...there has been absolutely no terrorist activity in America or on American interests before 9/11. My mistake. Sorry. My fault.

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
There are more groups who are concerned with Israel, being right at their borders as they are, than with us.

Billy;
They hate us as much as they hate Israel. Israel just happens to be a more convenient and economical target. [Don't get me wrong, they HATE the Jews, but they don't like us any better]

Eireann;
9/11 notwithstanding, that attack does not indicate that all or even a majority of the different terrorist groups out there want to attack the United States. That is just a paranoid assumption on the part of scared Americans.

Billy;
Why do you think they keep attacking US Embassies and US representatives and US ships? You can't discount the 9-11 attack, it set the new bar for future attacks.

Look, I know that we share different political ideologies, but we have to reconcile those when it comes down to defending ourselves against a very clear and determined enemy. I don't want to live in fear. I don't want to have to fight these guys. I don't want the stock market to flounder and the economy lay-in-wait. But, they chose to fight and that being the case, I expect the administration, whichever one happens to be on duty, to fight them with everything we've got.

This isn't about GW Bush, it is about OUR survival.

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
It doesn't matter how many years they planned it. It was still just one terrorist group. There are many groups out there. Al Qaeda alone decided to target the American mainland, as they've done more than once. So far, they're the only group that has done so. Saddam's MEK is not part of Al Qaeda.

Billy;
Are you aware that Iraq has been implicated in the Oklahoma bombing?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I don't think so. I can only take so much liberal garbage...
So, OEJ doesn't want to face facts again! Wow, twice in one day! First he backs away from answering questions about the KJV. Then, when he asks for citations of Bush lies, he doesn't want to look at them! Tsk, tsk. :nono:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Oh, you're right...there has been absolutely no terrorist activity in America or on American interests before 9/11. My mistake. Sorry. My fault.
The only significant terrorist attack on US soil, prior to 9/11, was the WTC bombing in 1993. Also carried out by ... duh duh duhhhhhh ... yep, Al Qaeda! Those are the only ones that couldn't be traced easily to some direct or nearly direct provocation on the part of the US.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Billy;
Are you aware that Iraq has been implicated in the Oklahoma bombing?
Yes, I've heard that theory popped around a few times. It has practically no merit whatsoever, but yes, I've heard it.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
The only significant terrorist attack on US soil, prior to 9/11, was the WTC bombing in 1993. Also carried out by ... duh duh duhhhhhh ... yep, Al Qaeda! Those are the only ones that couldn't be traced easily to some direct or nearly direct provocation on the part of the US.

Maybe I changed my post after you read it but I changed it to include U.S. interests as well. I don't posses the exhaustive list of terrorist attacks against the U.S and its interests abroad, but I believe the length of the list would surprise even you.

Of course, you probably think they should have let the motorcyclist go in Benton Harbor, Michigan. I guess it just doesn't matter what harm people do to others. If we're nice to them they'll be nice to us, right?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Eireann
So, OEJ doesn't want to face facts again! Wow, twice in one day! First he backs away from answering questions about the KJV.

I'd be glad to answer any legitimate questions you have about the KJV, but I've already told you I'm not going to answer any loaded questions. And you're not going to goad me into doing it either. Your mojo ain't all you think it is.

Then, when he asks for citations of Bush lies, he doesn't want to look at them! Tsk, tsk. :nono:

I'm not going to wade through a garbage heap to get them. Why don't you just cut and paste a few of them here? Then we can debate the issue.

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
The only significant terrorist attack on US soil, prior to 9/11, was the WTC bombing in 1993. Also carried out by ... duh duh duhhhhhh ... yep, Al Qaeda! Those are the only ones that couldn't be traced easily to some direct or nearly direct provocation on the part of the US.

Billy;
Aren't US Embassies considered US soil? Even if they aren't, they have been attacked. What about the USS Cole? Yep, another attack. I don't see the difference of being attacked on US soil or foreign soil, we were attacked! Don't forget that Hammas has killed American citizens and, whether you give creedence to the acusation, Iraq may have been involved in the Oklahoma bombing. I have seen the evidence, it is much more compelling than you wish to acknowledge.

Also, WE ALL KNOW THAT AL-QAEDA HAD CAMPS IN IRAQ. This has been demonstrated time and again.

[wholearmor]

I've determined that Eireann is a glutton for punishment.
:drum: Drums are Eireann's head.

[BillyBob]

It looks as if Skeptic has given up......silly commie.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Also, WE ALL KNOW THAT AL-QAEDA HAD CAMPS IN IRAQ. This has been demonstrated time and again.
The only camp in Iraq that has been conclusively shown to be Al Qaeda was the one in northern Iraq, inside the borders of Saddam's enemies, the Kurds. The Kurds were Saddam's enemies, and so have claimed to be Al Qaeda. Is it a far stretch to assume the two might have been working against Saddam Hussein?

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
Is it a far stretch to assume the two might have been working against Saddam Hussein?

Billy;
Iraq was a police state. Saddam killed the Kurds to keep them in line. A mobile Bio-lab was found in Norther Iraq. It is much less of a stretch to assume that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were working together towards a common goal.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by BillyBob
It looks as if Skeptic has given up......silly commie.

You don't have to bother to put the word "silly" in front of commie. It's self-evident.

Of course, on second thought, the word could easily be stupid, ignorant, brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, dodo, doltish, dopy, dotterel, dull, dumb, dummy, foolish, futile, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, irrelevant, irresponsible, laughable, loser, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, short-sighted, simple, simple-minded, slow, sluggish, stolid, stupefied, thick, thickheaded, trivial, unintelligent, unthinking, witless...

So go ahead, use any of the above or choose you own! :thumb:

[BillyBob]

Roget would be proud!

[wholearmor]

:chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
Americans are LESS safe, since Bush ordered the illegal preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Bush invasion and occupation is a rallying cry for terrorist recruits! Overall, the world is a more dangerous place to live, and Bush has taken us down this dangerous road.

Billy;
ARE YOU INSANE? The terrorists attacked US!!!!!!!!!!!! They are the ones who have made this a dangerous world, not Bush! If you want to sit back and let them kill you, that is fine with me, God knows we could do with a few less commies, but don't expect the rest of us to not fight back. Are YOU insane? Iraq was NOT a significant terrorist threat to America! Why, in a conversation about Iraq, do you even make the statement: "The terrorists attacked US!!" After 9/11, which had no Iraqi involvement, we were taking some improved steps against terrorism. But progress was lost against terrorism when Bush invaded Iraq. This is because resources and attention were take away from real terrorist threats, and put toward Iraq, which was not a terrorist threat. You continue to fail to see this. In addition, the preemptive invasion of Iraq increased the number of potential Islamic terrorists who could pose a threat to America and other pro-American countries. The world was becoming somewhat safer, until the illegal preemptive invasion of Iraq.

You continue to talk as if all Muslims are potential terrorists. Your logic seems to suggest that, if Muslims were behind 9/11, and there are Muslims in Iraq, then Iraqis must be terrorists as well. This is faulty reasoning.

[Skeptic]

My bold:Originally posted by BillyBob
Look, I know that we share different political ideologies, but we have to reconcile those when it comes down to defending ourselves against a very clear and determined enemy. I don't want to live in fear. I don't want to have to fight these guys. I don't want the stock market to flounder and the economy lay-in-wait. But, they chose to fight and that being the case, I expect the administration, whichever one happens to be on duty, to fight them with everything we've got.

This isn't about GW Bush, it is about OUR survival. Notice BillyBob's frequent use of the word "they" and "them." Are "they" the ones who were behind 9/11? If so, "they" are not the same "they" who live in Iraq. Therefore, when you say "they," try to be more specific. Unless, of course, you really mean "they" are all Muslims. If your "they" are all Muslims, then you are simply wrong.

[Skeptic]

Demanding the Truth

By Rep. Henry Waxman
June 12, 2003

A June 10 letter to Condoleeza Rice from Rep. Henry Waxman, the ranking member of the House Committee on Government Reform.

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Dr. Rice:

Since March 17, 2003, I have been trying without success to get a direct answer to one simple question: Why did President Bush cite forged evidence about Iraq's nuclear capabilities in his State of the Union address?

Although you addressed this issue on Sunday on both Meet the Press and This Week with George Stephanopoulos, your comments did nothing to clarify this issue. In fact, your responses contradicted other known facts and raised a host of new questions.

During your interviews, you said the Bush Administration welcomes inquiries into this matter. Yesterday, The Washington Post also reported that Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet has agreed to provide "full documentation" of the intelligence information "in regards to Secretary Powell's comments, the president's comments and anybody else's comments." Consistent with these sentiments, I am writing to seek further information about this important matter.

Bush Administration Knowledge of Forgeries

The forged documents in question describe efforts by Iraq to obtain uranium from an African country, Niger. During your interviews over the weekend, you asserted that no doubts or suspicions about these efforts or the underlying documents were communicated to senior officials in the Bush Administration before the President's State of the Union address. For example, when you were asked about this issue on Meet the Press, you made the following statement:

We did not know at the time – no one knew at the time, in our circles – maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course, it was information that was mistaken.

Similarly, when you appeared on This Week, you repeated this statement, claiming that you made multiple inquiries of the intelligence agencies regarding the allegation that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from an African country. You stated:

George, somebody, somebody down may have known. But I will tell you that when this issue was raised with the intelligence community... the intelligence community did not know at that time, or at levels that got to us, that this, that there were serious questions about this report.

Your claims, however, are directly contradicted by other evidence. Contrary to your assertion, senior Administration officials had serious doubts about the forged evidence well before the President's State of the Union address. For example, Greg Thielmann, Director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Issues in the State Department, told Newsweek last week that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) had concluded the documents were "garbage." As you surely know, INR is part of what you call "the intelligence community." It is headed by an Assistant Secretary of State, Carl Ford; it reports directly to the Secretary of State; and it was a full participant in the debate over Iraq's nuclear capabilities. According to Newsweek:

"When I saw that, it really blew me away," Thielmann told Newsweek. Thielmann knew about the source of the allegation. The CIA had come up with some documents purporting to show Saddam had attempted to buy up to 500 tons of uranium oxide from the African country of Niger. INR had concluded that the purchases were implausible - and made that point clear to Powell's office. As Thielmann read that the president had relied on these documents to report to the nation, he thought, "Not that stupid piece of garbage. My thought was, how did that get into the speech?"

Moreover, New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof has reported that the Vice President's office was aware of the fraudulent nature of the evidence as early as February 2002 - nearly a year before the President gave his State of the Union address. In his column, Mr. Kristof reported:

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.... The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted - except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.

"It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," one insider said.

When you were asked about Mr. Kristof's account, you did not deny his reporting. Instead, you conceded that "the Vice President's office may have asked for that report."

It is also clear that CIA officials doubted the evidence. The Washington Post reported on March 22 that CIA officials "communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence." The Los Angeles Times reported on March 15 that "the CIA first heard allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger in late 2001," when "the existence of the documents was reported to [the CIA] second- or third-hand." The Los Angeles Times quoted a CIA official as saying: "We included that in some of our reporting, although it was all caveated because we had concerns about the accuracy of that information."

With all respect, this is not a situation like the pre-9/11 evidence that al-Qaeda was planning to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. When you were asked about this on May 17, 2002, you said:

As you might imagine... a lot of things are prepared within agencies. They're distributed internally, they're worked internally. It's unusual that anything like that would get to the president. He doesn't recall seeing anything. I don't recall seeing anything of this kind.

That answer may be given more deference when the evidence in question is known only by a field agent in an FBI bureau in Phoenix, Arizona, whose suspicions are not adequately understood by officials in Washington. But it is simply not credible here. Contrary to your public statements, senior officials in the intelligence community in Washington knew the forged evidence was unreliable before the President used the evidence in the State of the Union address.

Other Evidence

In addition to denying that senior officials were aware that the President was citing forged evidence, you also claimed (1) "there were also other sources that said that there were, the Iraqis were seeking yellowcake - uranium oxide - from Africa" and (2) "there were other attempts to get yellowcake from Africa."

This answer does not explain the President's statement in the State of the Union address. In his State of the Union address, the President referred specifically to the evidence from the British. He stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Presumably, the President would use the best available evidence in his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation. It would make no sense for him to cite forged evidence obtained from the British if, in fact, the United States had other reliable evidence that he could have cited.

Moreover, contrary to your assertion, there does not appear to be any other specific and credible evidence that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from an African country. The Administration has not provided any such evidence to me or my staff despite our repeated requests. To the contrary, the State Department wrote me that the "other source" of this claim was another Western European ally. But as the State Department acknowledged in its letter, "the second Western European government had based its assessment on the evidence already available to the U.S. that was subsequently discredited."

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also found no other evidence indicating that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from Niger. The evidence in U.S. possession that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Niger was transmitted to the IAEA. After reviewing all the evidence provided by the United States, the IAEA reported: "we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." Ultimately, the IAEA concluded: "these specific allegations are unfounded."

Questions

As the discussion above indicates, your answers on the Sunday talk shows conflict with other reports and raise many new issues. To help address these issues, I request answers to the following questions:

1. On Meet the Press, you said that "maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency" that the evidence cited by the President about Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium from Africa was suspect. Please identify the individual or individuals in the Administration who, prior to the President's State of the Union address, had expressed doubts about the validity of the evidence or the credibility of the claim.

2. Please identify any individuals in the Administration who, prior to the President's State of the Union address, were briefed or otherwise made aware that an individual or individuals in the Administration had expressed doubts about the validity of the evidence or the credibility of the claim.

3. On This Week, you said there was other evidence besides the forged evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Africa. Please provide this other evidence.

4. When you were asked about reports that Vice President Cheney sent a former ambassador to Niger to investigate the evidence, you stated "the Vice President's office may have asked for that report." In light of this comment, please address:

(a) Whether Vice President Cheney or his office requested an investigation into claims that Iraq may have attempted to obtain nuclear material from Africa, and when any such request was made;

(b) Whether a current or former U.S. ambassador to Africa, or any other current or former government official or agent, traveled to Niger or otherwise investigated claims that Iraq may have attempted to obtain nuclear material from Niger; and

(c) What conclusions or findings, if any, were reported to the Vice President, his office, or other U.S. officials as a result of the investigation, and when any such conclusions or findings were reported.

Conclusion

On Sunday, you stated that "there is now a lot of revisionism that says, there was disagreement on this data point, or disagreement on that data point." I disagree strongly with this characterization. I am not raising questions about the validity of an isolated "data point," and the issue is not whether the war in Iraq was justified or not.

What I want to know is the answer to a simple question: Why did the President use forged evidence in the State of the Union address? This is a question that bears directly on the credibility of the United States, and it should be answered in a prompt and forthright manner, with full disclosure of all the relevant facts.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

From: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16155

[Skeptic]

Many Misinformed About Iraq, Sept. 11 Attacks

By Frank Davies
Knight Ridder News Service


WASHINGTON -- A third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll. And 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons.

Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001.

But such weapons have not been found in Iraq, and were never used. Most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None of them were Iraqis.

These results startled the pollsters who conducted and analyzed the surveys.

"It's a striking finding," said Steve Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which asked the weapons questions during a May 14-18 poll of 1,256 respondents.

He added, "Given the intensive news coverage and high levels of public attention, this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."

That is, having their beliefs conflict with the facts.

Kull added that the poll's data showed that the mistaken belief that weapons of mass destruction had been found "is substantially greater among those who favored the war."

Pollsters and political analysts see several reasons for the gaps between facts and beliefs: the public's short attention span on foreign news, fragmentary or conflicting media reports that lacked depth or skepticism, and White House efforts to sell war by oversimplifying the threat.

Before the war, the U.S. media often reported as fact the assertions by the Bush administration that Iraq possessed large stockpiles of illegal weapons. CBS News in December reported how Bush officials were "threatening war against Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."

During and after the war, reports of weapons discoveries were often trumpeted on front pages, while follow-up stories debunking the "smoking gun" reports received less attention.

"There were so many reports and claims before the war, it was easy to be confused," said Larry Hugick, chairman of Princeton Survey Research Associates. "But people expected the worst from [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein and made connections based on the administration's policy."

Bush has described the pre-emptive attack on Iraq as "one victory in the war on terror that began Sept. 11." Bush officials also claim that Iraq sheltered and helped al-Qaida operatives.

"The public is susceptible to manipulation, and if they hear officials saying there is a strong connection between Iraq and al-Qaida terrorists, then they think there must be a connection," said Thomas Mann, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, a centrist-liberal think tank.

While Bush critics see an effort to mislead the public, some analysts say Bush has been following a long presidential history of framing a foreign crisis for maximum domestic benefit.

"I'm not going to defend the president, but a policy of pre-emptive attacks sure looks better after this country has been hit hard," said Sam Popkin, a polling expert at the University of California at San Diego who has advised Democratic candidates.

Polls show strong support for Bush and the war, although 40 percent in the May survey found U.S. officials were "misleading" in some of their justifications for war. A majority, 55 percent, said they were not misleading.

"People supported the war for national security reasons and that shifted to humanitarian reasons when they saw evidence of Saddam's atrocities," said Republican strategist Frank Luntz. "There's an assumption these weapons will be found because this guy was doing so many bad things."

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What investigations? Congress Begins Hearings on Iraq Weapons (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=703&e=2&u=/ap/20030620/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq)

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
The world was becoming somewhat safer, until the illegal preemptive invasion of Iraq.

Billy;
You are blaming the US for the terrorism against it. You actually think that terrorism would have ended if we hadn't gone to Iraq. You actually think that Saddam was not training terrorist while we ALL know he was. Camps were found in Iraq including one that trained them to hijack planes using a plane fuselage. Saddam was known to supply money to terrorists. Now he can't. WOO HOO!!!!!!!!!

I will remind you one more time that your pal, Bill Clinton bombed Iraq a couple of times because they were a threat, did that increase terroriosm? The UN also agreed that Saddam had WMD and Tony Blair concurred.

Last year, terrorist attacks were at their lowest rate in over 30 years.

Skeptic, it's people like you are going to get the rest of us killed. Shut up, sit down and get out of the way, we can handle this without you. Go back to your basement, smoke another joint and look at your collection of Blue Boy magazines while your Mom is upstairs pouring you a bowl of Fruity Pebbles.

Oh, one more thing. Most of us don't read looooooooonnnnng posts.

Keep it pithy.

[shima]

>>You are blaming the US for the terrorism against it.<<

Most of the time, US forreign policy is at the roots of the terrorism.

Like Russia is finding out right now, terrorism is often the only weapon available to strike at a militarily superior enemy. US forreign policy has made many enemies who dislike their involvement and support of the Israeli's. Thus, terrorism strikes the US.

[Is it possible?]

Originally posted by shima
>>You are blaming the US for the terrorism against it.<<

Most of the time, US forreign policy is at the roots of the terrorism.

Like Russia is finding out right now, terrorism is often the only weapon available to strike at a militarily superior enemy. US forreign policy has made many enemies who dislike their involvement and support of the Israeli's. Thus, terrorism strikes the US.

Shima,

I don't know what to say since you were not brave enough to even list your country on post. I will venture to say when you do the right thing and help people out (it is called being a good neighbor-which the US is) than you will make enemies. You are right terrorism is the way cowards deal with their problems. I guess I do know what to say after all.

[RogerB]

Iraq was NOT a significant terrorist threat to America!

For being such a big Skeptic you sure are awfully confident about something you likey know NOTHING about.

Iraq IS NO LONGER a significant threat to America now that Sadam Insane is gone.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
The world was becoming somewhat safer, until the illegal preemptive invasion of Iraq.

Billy;
You are blaming the US for the terrorism against it. Not the entire US, just Bush, his neocons, and those who supported the invasion.

You actually think that terrorism would have ended if we hadn't gone to Iraq. Terrorism will never end. All we can do is try to keep it at a minimum. If we hadn't gone to Iraq, the threat of terrorism would be less than it is now.

You actually think that Saddam was not training terrorist while we ALL know he was. Camps were found in Iraq including one that trained them to hijack planes using a plane fuselage. Old news: Almost immediately after September 11th, the I.N.C. began to publicize the stories of defectors who claimed that they had information connecting Iraq to the attacks. In an interview on October 14, 2001, conducted jointly by the Times and Frontline,” the public-television program, Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,” and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.

In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter- terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain’s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,” the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane---which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training---when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,” the former agent said. They train in basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.”

Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war.

From: http://63.105.20.33/hersch00.html

Saddam was known to supply money to terrorists. Now he can't. WOO HOO!!!!!!!!! A minor player, not worthy of a full-scale illegal preemptive invasion.

I will remind you one more time that your pal, Bill Clinton bombed Iraq a couple of times because they were a threat, did that increase terroriosm? It was hardly a full-scale illegal preemptive invasion.

The UN also agreed that Saddam had WMD and Tony Blair concurred. There are lots of people who believed in the hype floating around in segments of the intelligence community.

Last year, terrorist attacks were at their lowest rate in over 30 years. Calm before the storm? What has not been reported?

Skeptic, it's people like you are going to get the rest of us killed. Shut up, sit down and get out of the way, we can handle this without you. Go back to your basement, smoke another joint and look at your collection of Blue Boy magazines while your Mom is upstairs pouring you a bowl of Fruity Pebbles. No, it's people like YOU, BillyBob, who are going to get the rest of us killed!

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No, it's people like YOU, BillyBob, who are going to get the rest of us killed!

BillyBob's a pretty darn good terrorist, but I don't think he can get around to the rest of us in his lifetime.

[Is it possible?]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq was NOT a significant terrorist threat to America!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



For being such a big Skeptic you sure are awfully confident about something you likey know NOTHING about.

Iraq IS NO LONGER a significant threat to America now that Sadam Insane is gone.



Roger,

Is this what Skeptic said?

I can not believe such folly. My goodness don't you think Saddam was really sore after we beat his pants off in the gulf war? (why are now some of my posts rhyming?-thanks Dimo you are a real pal). I think he was none too pleased.

[BillyBob]

Billy;
You are blaming the US for the terrorism against it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skeptic;
Not the entire US, just Bush, his neocons, and those who supported the invasion.

Billy;
So the terrorist attack against the World Trade Center in '93 was because of Bush and his neocon buddies?

What, DID OSAMA HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL!???!!!!

How about the USS Cole? I GUESS OSAMA HAD A OUIJI BOARD!!!!


Billy;
The UN also agreed that Saddam had WMD and Tony Blair concurred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skeptic;
There are lots of people who believed in the hype floating around in segments of the intelligence community.

Billy;
Yes, the UN, Bush, Blair, the CIA, Clinton, Daschle, ....they were all wrong and you Bush hating neo-libs are suddenly right.


You are a friggin retard but I still love ya. Maybe some day you will get your story straight, until then, keep 'em coming.

How's it going with the evolution debate? Do you see that it is endless? As you know, I agree with you on that topic but it is pointless to me to argue it. Besides, most of the people I would be arguing against are people who I agree with on almost every other issue. I would rather strike relationships that bear fruit and stay away from a subject that is disputable. Kind of a Romans 14 thing....

Good luck....

[Eireann]

Originally posted by RogerB
For being such a big Skeptic you sure are awfully confident about something you likey know NOTHING about.

Iraq IS NO LONGER a significant threat to America now that Sadam Insane is gone.
Can you show that he was a significant threat to us? Don't just go aping the words of a lying administration either. Show us some actual, indisputable facts, not just some baseless and unsupported assertions. Please?

[Is it possible?]

Originally posted by Eireann
Can you show that he was a significant threat to us? Don't just go aping the words of a lying administration either. Show us some actual, indisputable facts, not just some baseless and unsupported assertions. Please?

Eireann,

Please. I am not picking on you. I promise but you are not specific enough with one of your statements and it can leave one wondering. Which administration? Saddams?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Is it possible?
Eireann,

Please. I am not picking on you. I promise but you are not specific enough with one of your statements and it can leave one wondering. Which administration? Saddams?
The Bush administration, which told us they had hard evidence that they did not have, that they had already found things they had not found, and even quoted an admitted forgery in the State of the Union Address, which they touted as proof of the strength of Saddam's WMD program. So what I'm looking for is something that's actually TRUE, not just something the administration once lied about.

[BillyBob]

How about the Clinton administration? Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt all said that saddam was a threat and even launched missles at him. Did Saddam suddenly become inert? Did it happen the same day GW took office?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob
How about the Clinton administration? Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt all said that saddam was a threat and even launched missles at him. Did Saddam suddenly become inert? Did it happen the same day GW took office?
The Clinton lies are kind of a non-issue, since he's already been impeached.

[BillyBob]

Yes, but he also had the same intelligence sources that Bush has. Everything points to Saddam having been dangerous and a threat to
us.

Give it up, Eireann, Bush kicked saddam's *** and we are all better for it.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Yes, but he also had the same intelligence sources that Bush has. Everything points to Saddam having been dangerous and a threat to us.
Everything except facts, apparently.

[Skeptic]

Some reading for all you skeptics:

Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense? (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html)

Intelligence Officers Challenge Bush (http://impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/Bush/challenge.htm)

We Used To Impeach Liars (http://impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/Bush/pittliars.htm)

The Truth Will Emerge (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0521-10.htm)

Ex-U.N. weapons: Bush lied to the nation (http://impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/Bush/bushlied.htm)

Investigate and Impeach Bush (http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911)

Impeach Bush (http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/)

Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush (http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle01172003.html) (January 17, 2003)

Truth In Politics - Impeach George Bush (http://www.thetip.org/impeach.php)

Impeach George W. Bush (http://www.petitiononline.com/ddc12/petition.html)

Bush's actions cannot go unpunished!! :box:

[One Eyed Jack]

Man, you guys are going to get apoplectic if he wins the next election, ain't ya? :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Man, you guys are going to get apoplectic if he wins the next election, ain't ya? :chuckle: If Bush wins the next election, this will mean there is something terribly wrong with our society!

It could only mean that conservative corporate media moguls, recently bolstered by new Republican-backed FCC policies, can help their party out-spend the Democrats by tens of millions of dollars on their right-wing brainwashing campaign.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Skeptic
If Bush wins the next election, this will mean there is something terribly wrong with our society!

It could only mean that conservative corporate media moguls, recently bolstered by new Republican-backed FCC policies, can help their party out-spend the Democrats by tens of millions of dollars on their right-wing brainwashing campaign.

LOL!!! You guys are funny sometimes...

[Crow]

I'm going to vote for Bush just because Skeptic can't stand him. Now that's an endorsement I can trust.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Some reading for all you skeptics:

Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense? (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html)

Intelligence Officers Challenge Bush (http://impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/Bush/challenge.htm)

We Used To Impeach Liars (http://impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/Bush/pittliars.htm)

The Truth Will Emerge (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0521-10.htm)

Ex-U.N. weapons: Bush lied to the nation (http://impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/Bush/bushlied.htm)

Investigate and Impeach Bush (http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911)

Impeach Bush (http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/)

Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush (http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle01172003.html) (January 17, 2003)

Truth In Politics - Impeach George Bush (http://www.thetip.org/impeach.php)

Impeach George W. Bush (http://www.petitiononline.com/ddc12/petition.html)

Bush's actions cannot go unpunished!! :box:

It's way too early for any of this. Rome wasn't built in a day.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
If Bush wins the next election, this will mean there is something terribly wrong with our society!

It could only mean that conservative corporate media moguls, recently bolstered by new Republican-backed FCC policies, can help their party out-spend the Democrats by tens of millions of dollars on their right-wing brainwashing campaign.

Let the good times roll!

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
It's way too early for any of this. Rome wasn't built in a day.
We already know he lied. There's no question about that. He said they had what they didn't have. He sent troops to their deaths on "guarantees" that have already been conclusively disproven. It's certainly not too early to say that.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
It could only mean that conservative corporate media moguls, recently bolstered by new Republican-backed FCC policies, can help their party out-spend the Democrats by tens of millions of dollars on their right-wing brainwashing campaign.

Billy;
11 of the top 15 richest Senators are democrats......what is your point, my fine finned four-legged friend?

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
We already know he lied. There's no question about that. He said they had what they didn't have. He sent troops to their deaths on "guarantees" that have already been conclusively disproven. It's certainly not too early to say that.

Well, Clinton, the habitual, pathological liar, sent a few thousand civilians to their deaths, some jumping to their deaths, because he didn't take care of business when he had the chance.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Well, Clinton, the habitual, pathological liar, sent a few thousand civilians to their deaths, some jumping to their deaths, because he didn't take care of business when he had the chance.
Well, you're talking about 9/11. And I don't how many times I have to say this, but ...

9/11 and Iraq had nothing to do with each other!

[One Eyed Jack]

I think wholearmor is talking about Bin Laden.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I think wholearmor is talking about Bin Laden.
His quote was in response to claims about Bush leading us into an unjust war with Iraq. His response was apparently intended to link 9/11 and Iraq. Either that, or he was just petulantly wailing about Clinton as a retort because his man Bush had been attacked. If that's the case, he makes two mistakes: 1) he incorrectly assumes that I care anything about Clinton; 2) his retort is pointless, since Clinton was already impeached.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
Well, you're talking about 9/11. And I don't how many times I have to say this, but ...

9/11 and Iraq had nothing to do with each other!

What was that?

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
Well, you're talking about 9/11. And I don't how many times I have to say this, but ...

9/11 and Iraq had nothing to do with each other!

Yes...they did. 9/11 happened when George Bush was President and so did the war in Iraq.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
What was that?
Why? Because 9/11 was carried out by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was (is?) headed by Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden hates (read: HATES) Saddam Hussein. In the tapes released earlier in the year, Osama (?) was heard to urge the Muslims of the world to unite to rise up against the United States and to overthrow the infidel Saddam Hussein. See, bin Laden wants pure Muslim governments in Islamic states. Saddam Hussein was not a practicing Muslim and he ran a secular government. Iraq, in fact, is one of the few Arab states with secular government, which is one reason we helped Saddam during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Al Qaeda and Saddam's Ba'ath regime were sworn enemies and have been for a long time. Al Qaeda even had a camp in northern Iraq, in the territory of Saddam's other sworn enemies, the Kurds. The only interest that Osama and Saddam had in each other was in seeing the destruction of the other. They most CERTAINLY were not in cahoots over 9/11.

[wholearmor]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Eireann
Well, you're talking about 9/11. And I don't how many times I have to say this, but ...

9/11 and Iraq had nothing to do with each other!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


wholearmor:
What was that?

wholearmor:
It was a sarcastic joke. I said, "What was that?" because you yelled so loudly like a typical lib. No one listens to you (for good reason) so you try to force your dogma down our ear canals with ear-splitting volume.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
Why? Because 9/11 was carried out by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was (is?) headed by Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden hates (read: HATES) Saddam Hussein. In the tapes released earlier in the year, Osama (?) was heard to urge the Muslims of the world to unite to rise up against the United States and to overthrow the infidel Saddam Hussein. See, bin Laden wants pure Muslim governments in Islamic states. Saddam Hussein was not a practicing Muslim and he ran a secular government. Iraq, in fact, is one of the few Arab states with secular government, which is one reason we helped Saddam during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Al Qaeda and Saddam's Ba'ath regime were sworn enemies and have been for a long time. Al Qaeda even had a camp in northern Iraq, in the territory of Saddam's other sworn enemies, the Kurds. The only interest that Osama and Saddam had in each other was in seeing the destruction of the other. They most CERTAINLY were not in cahoots over 9/11.

George W. felt Saddam Hussein was enough of a threat to the U.S. to stop him in his tracks and he did that. How can you say he didn't succeed at anything (in an earlier post)? Whether you like what he did or not, he still succeeded at it. He set out to displace Saddam Hussein and that has happened. When you set a goal and reach it, you succeed.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor

wholearmor:
What was that?
Sorry, I misread. I thought you said, "Why was that?"

wholearmor:
It was a sarcastic joke. I said, "What was that?" because you yelled so loudly like a typical lib.
Except I'm not a lib, I'm a mod. I side with the cons on way too many things to be a lib. It's just I don't always side with the cons on some of the hottest issues that get brought up here (although I do side with them on issues of abortion, generally).

No one listens to you (for good reason) so you try to force your dogma down our ear canals with ear-splitting volume.
No, I "yelled" it out because you and your neocon buddies tend to chant that farcical 9/11 - Iraq connection like a mindless mantra on almost a daily basis, although there is not one shred of evidence that they have a connection, although there is quite a bit of evidence of their mutual hatred for each other. Your farce keeps getting pointed out over and over and over, yet you still keep clinging to it like some silly security blanket. But I can't say I'm surprised. Since just about every other justification you all tossed out there for the war has gone down the tubes, that was about all you had left, so it didn't matter to you all if it was true or not, it only mattered that it sounded good. Right?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
George W. felt Saddam Hussein was enough of a threat to the U.S. to stop him in his tracks and he did that. How can you say he didn't succeed at anything (in an earlier post)? Whether you like what he did or not, he still succeeded at it. He set out to displace Saddam Hussein and that has happened. When you set a goal and reach it, you succeed.
Sorry, but in my book a President who acts the aggressor and then sits back comfy in his living room while real American people fight and die, doesn't deserve the credit for anything. Those people who actually went over there and put their lives on the line -- that's who deserves the credit for all this stuff that Bush is sitting back soaking up the glory for. That chickenhawk didn't do a darn thing. Real Americans did.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
Sorry, I misread. I thought you said, "Why was that?"


Except I'm not a lib, I'm a mod. I side with the cons on way too many things to be a lib. It's just I don't always side with the cons on some of the hottest issues that get brought up here (although I do side with them on issues of abortion, generally).


No, I "yelled" it out because you and your neocon buddies tend to chant that farcical 9/11 - Iraq connection like a mindless mantra on almost a daily basis, although there is not one shred of evidence that they have a connection, although there is quite a bit of evidence of their mutual hatred for each other. Your farce keeps getting pointed out over and over and over, yet you still keep clinging to it like some silly security blanket. But I can't say I'm surprised. Since just about every other justification you all tossed out there for the war has gone down the tubes, that was about all you had left, so it didn't matter to you all if it was true or not, it only mattered that it sounded good. Right?

Wrong. You say there's no evidence, others say there is. Actually, I don't care. Just like the Indian in The Outlaw Josey Whales said, "It is a good day to die," I say, "It was a good day for Hussein to go away."

[wholearmor]

Eireann, I just tried to send you a PM to let you know I'm hanging it up for the night but it said "Denied receipt." Talk to you tomorrow (or later today as the case may be.)

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Eireann, I just tried to send you a PM to let you know I'm hanging it up for the night but it said "Denied receipt." Talk to you tomorrow (or later today as the case may be.)
Hmmm, I don't know why it did that. My inbox is only at 60%, I think. I'll clean it out, though, just in case.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
It could only mean that conservative corporate media moguls, recently bolstered by new Republican-backed FCC policies, can help their party out-spend the Democrats by tens of millions of dollars on their right-wing brainwashing campaign.

Billy;
11 of the top 15 richest Senators are democrats......what is your point, my fine finned four-legged friend? Why is it that, after the invasion of Iraq, the major network and cable broadcasters presented virtually no dissenting viewpoints, accept a distant view of protesters? Patriotism? No. It was because conservative media moguls felt they could boost their ratings by waving the flag, while sidelining the dissenters to improve their bottom line. The recent ruling by the FCC was their reward for standing by Bush during the invasion and occupation. Likewise, several countries, whose governments (not general citizens) supported Bush on Iraq, were soon after rewarded with membership into NATO. The Bush administration made some pretty slick back-door deals before the invasion. And then there are the conflicts of interest with defence contractors (http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/articles/030328-dpb-advisors.html).

Why is it that Bush has been able to raise far more campaign money than the Democrats? That "11 of the top 15 richest Senators are democrats" is irrelevant to my point. Just because a Senator is rich does not mean their party is going to raise the most money. Overall, it's the Republicans that appeal to the wealthiest people in our society - those who stand the most to gain from massive tax cuts. Unfortunately, in our society, money means power. Too often, it's not how much money an individual politician has that gets them elected. It's who can extract the most contributions from the most wealthy. If money did not control politics in America, and both parties were equally financed, and had equal media coverage, the Republicans wouldn't stand a chance.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Well, Clinton, the habitual, pathological liar, sent a few thousand civilians to their deaths, some jumping to their deaths, because he didn't take care of business when he had the chance. That's a stretch!! :chuckle:

You know, there will always be some acts of terrorism that our government will not foresee and cannot prevent. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try - as long as we work hard to maintain our liberties in the process.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
George W. felt Saddam Hussein was enough of a threat to the U.S. to stop him in his tracks and he did that. How can you say he didn't succeed at anything (in an earlier post)? Whether you like what he did or not, he still succeeded at it. He set out to displace Saddam Hussein and that has happened. When you set a goal and reach it, you succeed. Charles Manson set out to do something and he succeeded, as well!
He set a goal and reached it.

You talk as if the MEANS are justified by the ENDS! Are they? (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6938)

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Why is it that, after the invasion of Iraq, the major network and cable broadcasters presented virtually no dissenting viewpoints, accept a distant view of protesters?

Billy;
You need to get out of your Mom's basement more often. There was a CONSTANT stream of dissenting viewpoints before the war, during the war, after the war....you just make this stuff up, don't you. C'mon, admit it. You don't have a clue about this stuff. C'mon....

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Why is it that Bush has been able to raise far more campaign money than the Democrats? That "11 of the top 15 richest Senators are democrats" is irrelevant to my point.

Billy;
It is very relevent. You are insinuationg that Republicans are beholding to special interest groups and it is no less so for the dems.

Skeptic;
Just because a Senator is rich does not mean their party is going to raise the most money. Overall, it's the Republicans that appeal to the wealthiest people in our society

Billy;
Conservatism appeals to the wealthy people in this country because they are smart, intelligent hardworking people. Just the opposite of the the democrat constituency.

Skeptic;
those who stand the most to gain from massive tax cuts.

Billy;
They gain the most from tax cuts because they pay the most. My 8 year old understands this better than you do....are you younger than 8?

Skeptic;
Unfortunately, in our society, money means power.

Billy;
Which is exactly why the democrats steal money from the wealthy and throw money into tons of social programs....it buys them power. Sure, power over a bunch of stupid, worthless, do-nothing people, but they are happy with it.

Skeptic;
Too often, it's not how much money an individual politician has that gets them elected. It's who can extract the most contributions from the most wealthy. If money did not control politics in America, and both parties were equally financed, and had equal media coverage, the Republicans wouldn't stand a chance.

Billy;
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are a pisher, Skeptic. Very entertaining.

[o2bwise]

gerald,

The Administration's real task is to get Patriot II passed beforehand.
Yeah, it would be nice for the government to CRUSH what little is left of the Constitution and to fully institue a Stazi-like, totalitarian police state.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Charles Manson set out to do something and he succeeded, as well!
He set a goal and reached it.

You talk as if the MEANS are justified by the ENDS! Are they? (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6938)

George W. Bush set out to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein and he succeeded. Yes, the ends (which aren't a reality yet) will justify the means...in a big way for the Iraqi people.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
George W. Bush set out to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein and he succeeded. Yes, the ends (which aren't a reality yet) will justify the means...in a big way for the Iraqi people.
Only one problem -- freeing the Iraqi people was never his goal. He couldn't have cared less if they lived free or enslaved. Many cultures live enslaved and are oppressed as badly or worse than the Iraqis, and Dubya turns a blind eye to them since they hold so special interest to the US. Iraqi oil reserves, on the other hand, hold a significant interest to the US. Still, did you notice as many others did that Bush didn't offer up Iraqi liberation as a justification for war until the very last minutes before the war, when it became increasingly obvious that he was losing support because the weapons inspectors were turning up empty? Iraqi liberation is the ONLY thing that would have justified that war, but it was the LAST thing they offered as a desperation move to try to win back the support that was waning. They tried every other justification they could think of before they turned to that one in a last-ditch effort. So if freeing the Iraqis was really his goal, then why did it take him until the very last minute to even think of it?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
George W. Bush set out to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein and he succeeded. Yes, the ends (which aren't a reality yet) will justify the means...in a big way for the Iraqi people. The ends do not justify the means. If you don't see this now, I doubt you ever will.

Bush's primary stated ends/justification in Iraq was to stop Iraq's threat of WMD and spread of terrorism. Both now appear to be myths, as far as Iraq is concerned. The ends were not to liberate the Iraqi people.

Hypothetically, if, before the illegal preemptive invasion, you had polled (and they were able to answer honestly) all of the people of Iraq, asking them if they would like to be liberated from Saddam, even though it would mean that perhaps ten thousand of their fellow citizens are killed in the process, their country would be occupied for months or years by a military force dominated by the U.S., and those who survived would have their daily lives significantly disrupted for many months or years, how do you think they would answer?

The Iraqi people want the U.S. out of their lives and out of their country. The U.S. occupation in Iraq might appear to some to work for a while, but it will fail.

[Eireann]

As far as the ends justifying the means, there are a lot of medical breakthroughs that can be traced to the works of Josef Mengele. Does anyone here think that those ends justified those means?

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
So if freeing the Iraqis was really his goal, then why did it take him until the very last minute to even think of it?

Billy;
It was always mentioned as one of the reasons for ousting Saddam. I know, however, that if Bush took out Saddam for that reason alone, you would still be bellyaching because this isn't about Saddam at all, is it? It is about your hatred for GW and the conservatism he espouses.

What are you going to say when the WMD is proven beyond even your ability to pretend it isn't there? I will answer for ya. You will still be making wild claims and move onto the next popular excuse to deride Bush. You libs are so transparant.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by BillyBob
You libs are so transparant.

I don't know how transparent they are, but I can see right through them!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Eireann
As far as the ends justifying the means, there are a lot of medical breakthroughs that can be traced to the works of Josef Mengele. Does anyone here think that those ends justified those means? No. Whatever breakthroughs Josef Mengele may have made could have been made in some other more humane way at a later time. Actually, I'm not aware of his breakthroughs.

"The goal of Mengele’s work was to unlock the secrets of genetic engineering, and to devise methods for eradicating inferior gene strands from the human population as a means to creating a Germanic super-race. However, despite the scientific premise for his work, Mengele’s accomplishments added volumes to the annals of human cruelty while contributing nothing of value to the greater understanding of human genetics and genetic engineering."

From: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/mengele/index_1.html?sect=3

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Billy;
It was always mentioned as one of the reasons for ousting Saddam. I know, however, that if Bush took out Saddam for that reason alone, you would still be bellyaching because this isn't about Saddam at all, is it?
Incorrect. If he had espoused that as his goal from the start (which he didn't, despite your claim to the contrary), I would have been more supportive. Instead, he tossed out a lot of transparent lies and backpedaled in most awkward fashion when asked to support his silly claims.

It is about your hatred for GW and the conservatism he espouses.
I don't hate conservatives. I hate neoconservatives (who I liken to a cowardly version of neo-nazis) and idiot conservatives like George W. Bush.

What are you going to say when the WMD is proven beyond even your ability to pretend it isn't there?
I guess we'll cross that bridge IF we ever come to it ... which is looking less and less likely every day.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No. Whatever breakthroughs Josef Mengele may have made could have been made in some other more humane way at a later time. Actually, I'm not aware of his breakthroughs.
Which is my position exactly. I used that because that was the example used by one of my old philosophy professors to illustrate the fallacy of the Utilitarian movement (Utilitarians espouse the idea that the ends justify the means). Although Mengele didn't accomplish any major breakthroughs himself, some of what he learned contributed significantly to later breakthroughs. But no matter how much good may have eventually come from some of his discoveries, they don't justify the means by which he came across such.

[BillyBob]

Hey Eireann, here is a quote from GW....hmmmmm I don't see any mention of WMD.


"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept UN administration of funds from that program to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq, and it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis." March 17 of 2003, GW Bush

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Hey Eireann, here is a quote from GW....hmmmmm I don't see any mention of WMD.


"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept UN administration of funds from that program to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq, and it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis." March 17 of 2003, GW Bush

Wow! Excellent, BillyBob!

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Wow! Excellent, BillyBob!
Excellent, eh? Hmmm. That's an interesting appraisal. Recall that I said he didn't start touting Iraqi liberation as the justification for war until the last days before the war started. BillyBob claims that he's used that justification since the beginning, and I challenged him to prove that point. In an effort to prove that point, he puts up a quote that was made three days before the invasion began ... and you consider that an "excellent" job? Wow, you don't ask for much, do you?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept UN administration of funds from that program to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq, and it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis." March 17 of 2003, GW Bush More Bush hype.

If, on the same day, March 17, Iraq had said, "Sure, we'll end all illicit trade, and accept UN admin of funds and ensure proper use of the money.", Bush would have claimed they were lying and would still have illegally and preemptively invaded Iraq 3 days later.

[wholearmor]

Why Bush shouldn't be impeached:

http://www.vote.com/owth1/

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Why Bush shouldn't be impeached:

http://www.vote.com/owth1/
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. It doesn't matter one bit how much Clinton left in his wake. Clinton was impeached for some of his crimes. Nevertheless, what Clinton may have left for Bush has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Bush lied to the American people, to the UN Security Council, and to Congress. Bush did lie, that much is not in dispute. He can't blame Clinton for his own failure to tell the truth or for his propelling our country into a war by the use of his own lies. Clinton has a lot to answer for, certainly, but that does not exxonerate Bush from his own complicity in sending troops to their deaths on lies.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. It doesn't matter one bit how much Clinton left in his wake. Clinton was impeached for some of his crimes. Nevertheless, what Clinton may have left for Bush has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Bush lied to the American people, to the UN Security Council, and to Congress. Bush did lie, that much is not in dispute. He can't blame Clinton for his own failure to tell the truth or for his propelling our country into a war by the use of his own lies. Clinton has a lot to answer for, certainly, but that does not exxonerate Bush from his own complicity in sending troops to their deaths on lies.

Bush did not lie. Neither you nor anyone else has one shred of evidence that he did.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Bush did not lie. Neither you nor anyone else has one shred of evidence that he did.
Oh, puhleeeze! That post is so pathetic it doesn't even deserve a response. If you believe that Bush didn't lie, then you are about the most gullible human being on the planet! Get real!

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
Oh, puhleeeze! That post is so pathetic it doesn't even deserve a response. If you believe that Bush didn't lie, then you are about the most gullible human being on the planet! Get real!

So why'd you respond?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
So why'd you respond?
Purely public service. I figured that if you are that incredibly gullible and naive, you might want to know about it so that you can improve that character flaw in the future.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
Purely public service. I figured that if you are that incredibly gullible and naive, you might want to know about it so that you can improve that character flaw in the future.

But you said it didn't deserve a response and you responded anyway. You're just as big a liar as you say George W. is. I might be dumb, but I'm not a liar.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
But you said it didn't deserve a response and you responded anyway. You're just as big a liar as you say George W. is. I might be dumb, but I'm not a liar.
I didn't say I wouldn't respond. I say it didn't deserve one. Lots of people get what they don't deserve. You didn't deserve a response but got one anyway. Nothing to do with lying.

[Skeptic]

I'm posting this article in its entirety, as I feel it is important.

I will spare those who choose to skim the article by highlighting in red what I feel are important points.

For those who choose not to read it, ...:shut:


Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction:
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jun. 06, 2003

President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.

President Bush's Statements On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Should The President Get The Benefit Of The Doubt?

When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no-words posture was convincing to many Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them.

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses - including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.

On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the President of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.

First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's thought. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.

Second, I explained that - at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton - statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the President is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In addition, others in the Administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs - and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.

So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist?

There are two main possibilities. One that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.

A Desperate Search For WMDs Has So Far Yielded Little, If Any, Fruit

Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the President had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.

Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMDs continued. None were found.

As the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside, special search teams were dispatched to look for WMDs. None were found.

During the past two and a half months, according to reliable news reports, military patrols have visited over 300 suspected WMD sites throughout Iraq. None of the prohibited weapons were found there.

British and American Press Reaction to the Missing WMDs

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also under serious attack in England, which he dragged into the war unwillingly, based on the missing WMDs. In Britain, the missing WMDs are being treated as scandalous; so far, the reaction in the U.S. has been milder.

New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat," Krugman argued. "If that claim was fraudulent," he continued, "the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra." But most media outlets have reserved judgment as the search for WMDs in Iraq continues.

Still, signs do not look good. Last week, the Pentagon announced it was shifting its search from looking for WMD sites, to looking for people who can provide leads as to where the missing WMDs might be.

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs will indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some 1400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being deployed to assist in the searching.

But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."

Perhaps most troubling, the President has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting evidence. Was there an Iraqi informant thought to be reliable, who turned out not to be? Were satellite photos innocently, if negligently misinterpreted? Or was his evidence not as solid as he led the world to believe?

The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President's misstatements may actually have been intentional lies.

Investigating The Iraqi War Intelligence Reports

Even now, while the jury is still out as to whether intentional misconduct occurred, the President has a serious credibility problem. Newsweek magazine posed the key questions: "If America has entered a new age of pre-emption --when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons--exact intelligence is critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a cave if the CIA can't say for sure where they are? And how will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad?"

In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O. J.'s looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference: Unless the members of Administration can find someone else to blame - informants, surveillance technology, lower-level personnel, you name it - they may not escape fault themselves.

Congressional committees are also looking into the pre-war intelligence collection and evaluation. Senator John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee would jointly investigate the situation. And the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans an investigation.

These investigations are certainly appropriate, for there is potent evidence of either a colossal intelligence failure or misconduct - and either would be a serious problem. When the best case scenario seems to be mere incompetence, investigations certainly need to be made.

Senator Bob Graham - a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee - told CNN's Aaron Brown, that while he still hopes they find WMDs or at least evidence thereof, he has also contemplated three other possible alternative scenarios:

One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities, because now the very thing that we were trying to avoid, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could be in the hands of dozens of groups. Second, that we had bad intelligence. Or third, that the intelligence was satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as just to present to the American people and to the world those things that made the case for the necessity of war against Iraq.

Senator Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration."

Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Senator Graham requested that the Bush Administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the Administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq.

But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.

Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decisionmaking process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggests manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."

Worse than Watergate? A Potential Huge Scandal If WMDs Are Still Missing

Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.

From: http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by wholearmor
But you said it didn't deserve a response and you responded anyway. You're just as big a liar as you say George W. is. I might be dumb, but I'm not a liar.

I think it has something to do with being a liberal. I've noticed that honesty is something liberals are seriously lacking in, which is probably why they have such a hard time getting anyone to take them seriously.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I think it has something to do with being a liberal. I've noticed that honesty is something liberals are seriously lacking in, which is probably why they have such a hard time getting anyone to take them seriously.
No, but I think you just described your neocon buddies to a "t."

[Skeptic]

Anyone care to comment on the John Dean article?

[Eireann]

And speaking of honesty, I wonder if One-Eyed Jack will have the courage to stand up and admit he made a mistake on the other thread (he knows which one I'm talking about). I'm rather doubting that he will. I'm actually anticipating that he'll continue to obfuscate and try to remove the fault from himself (as anyone can see the error was his and his alone), which seems to be his way. Any takers?

[BillyBob]

You Neo-coms are silly.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
You Neo-coms are silly. You right-wing conservatives hold narrow-minded pseudo-patriotic ideologies, and espouse ideas dangerous to humanity's future. :kookoo:

[BillyBob]

Yawn.....:yawn:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Yawn.....:yawn: Good to see you are bored. Now, perhaps you can move along to something more exciting for you, like plotting to kill Muslims to save America.

[BillyBob]

Snore....:yawn:

[Sealeaf]

If it can be shown that President Bush lied to us, the American people, to induce us to go to war, then not only should he be impeached, he should be tried in an international war crimes tribunal as the murder he would be. We owe it to our own national honor to investigate this question as completely as possible. However, just what law does a president break in lieing to the public? Being lied to offends me but is it illiegal? Politicians lie all the time. At least that is the popular view.

From a moral stand point lying is worse than sexual misconduct. Sometimes sex is good. Lying, according to classical ethics, is inherently wrong since it preverts the very purpose of communication. According to classical ethics there can be no justification for lying.

In any case the depth of the sin is dependent on how much harm is intended, and done, and to how many people it happens. Sexual mis-conduct is limited in its effect primerily to the two people involved, their sexual partners and their children. Lying to induce a nation to go to war damages the honor of a whole country and causes the death of thousands. If the president lied to the American people, and the people of the world, he is a mass murderer. If that is the case he is every bit as bad as Sadam. If he is innocent he should be asking for the most complete investigation possible inorder to clear his name.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Sealeaf
If it can be shown that President Bush lied to us, the American people, to induce us to go to war, then not only should he be impeached, he should be tried in an international war crimes tribunal as the murder he would be. We owe it to our own national honor to investigate this question as completely as possible. However, just what law does a president break in lieing to the public? Being lied to offends me but is it illiegal? Politicians lie all the time. At least that is the popular view.

From a moral stand point lying is worse than sexual misconduct. Sometimes sex is good. Lying, according to classical ethics, is inherently wrong since it preverts the very purpose of communication. According to classical ethics there can be no justification for lying.

In any case the depth of the sin is dependent on how much harm is intended, and done, and to how many people it happens. Sexual mis-conduct is limited in its effect primerily to the two people involved, their sexual partners and their children. Lying to induce a nation to go to war damages the honor of a whole country and causes the death of thousands. If the president lied to the American people, and the people of the world, he is a mass murderer. If that is the case he is every bit as bad as Sadam. If he is innocent he should be asking for the most complete investigation possible inorder to clear his name. Makes sense to me, Sealeaf.

[frostmanj]

I just gotta ask.

Did he lie about Iraq having WMD? I don't even remember France saying they didn't, and France has a pretty good intelligence capability.

Did he lie about Iraq being a threat to it's neighbors? Just check this with Kuwait.

Did he lie about Iraq harboring terrorists? We have solid proof of this.

What exactly did he lie about? It's not enough to prove he was wrong about WMD, you have to prove that he knew he was wrong. The entire U.N. combined couldn't do this.

[RogerB]

Bush did lie, that much is not in dispute.

I think it's VERY MUCH in dispute. Your baseless theories and regurgitated lies are far more harmful to Americans and the rest of the free world.

[RogerB]

And speaking of honesty, I wonder if One-Eyed Jack will have the courage to stand up and admit he made a mistake on the other thread (he knows which one I'm talking about). I'm rather doubting that he will. I'm actually anticipating that he'll continue to obfuscate and try to remove the fault from himself (as anyone can see the error was his and his alone), which seems to be his way. Any takers?

I'd take OEJ's side over that of a witch any day.

[Skeptic]

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002


Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002


If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002


We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003


Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003


We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003


We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003


If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003


So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003


There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003


I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003


One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003


We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003


Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003


But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003


We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003


We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003


I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003


We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003


I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003


U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003


I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003


Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003


Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003


They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003


It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003


Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there.

Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
May 30, 2003

From: http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html

[RogerB]

And what exactly was your point in posting what the majority of Americans and the rest of the free world believes to be true statements?

Sadam had and used WMD in the past. Is it more likey that he had a change of heart and destroyed them all without retaining proof or that he's hiding them somewhere in the region?

All your bellyaching about it isn't helping or proving anything. When WMD are found I'll be most happy about the fact that you have to sit down and shut up.

[BillyBob]

What are you silly neo-coms going to say when the WMD are found?

[BillyBob]

Worse yet, what are you going to say when WMD are used against us?

....silly neo-coms.....

...silly dead neo-coms....

[ebenz47037]

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. William J. Clinton - 12/16/1998

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. William J. Clinton - 12/16/1998

As the principal proponents of last year's Iraq Liberation Art, we are writing to express our dismay over the continued drift in U.S. Policy toward Iraq.

We were greatly encouraged by your decision last October to sign the Iraq Liberation Act, which established as an objective of U.S . foreign policy the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, and we welcomed your pledge last November 15th to work with Congress to implement the Act. We were also pleased with the execution of Operation Desert Fox last December, and the continued commitment of your Administration following the conclusion of that Operation to fully enforce the no- fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. Trent Lott,
Joseph I. Lieberman, Jesse Helms, J. Robert Kerrey, Richard C. Shelby, Sam Brownback, Benjamin A. Gilman, Howard L. Berman - 8/11/1999

When 32 out of 37 members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) voted against a resolution last week authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, critics asked whether the group was opposed to war with Iraq or just to a Republican White House.
On Dec. 16, 1998, then-President Bill Clinton ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," Clinton said at the time. "Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."

At the time, the 38-member CBC did not adopt an official position on Clinton's decision to launch Operation Desert Fox. But only three members of the CBC voted against the House resolution in support of Clinton's unilateral use of force against Iraq: Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Calif.; Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga.; and John Conyers, D-Mich.

Yet, when President Bush presented both chambers of Congress with a resolution authorizing the unilateral use of military force against Iraq, the CBC's members voted 32 to 5 against the measure. www.newsmax.com - 10/18/2002

WE BELIEVE THE RESOLUTION GIVES US THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTIONS ARE NECESSARY. BUT OF COURSE WE WOULD CONSULT. IT WOULD BE UNTHINKABLE THAT WE WOULD NOT DO THAT. WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME ANYWAY. I HAVE SPENT AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME ON THE TELEPHONE WITH LARGE NUMBERS OF WORLD LEADERS IN THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS SINCE THIS DIFFICULTY HAS UNFOLDED, SO I AM NOT SURE THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN OUR POSITIONS. William J. Clinton; addressing the UN about going into Iraq without UN approval - 3/11/1998

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The US-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.
Hillary Clinton - 10/10/2002

With solid bipartisan support, the Clinton administration launched a military assault against Iraq September 3.

Under the pretext of protecting the Kurdish population in northern Iraq, President William Clinton ordered two rounds of cruise missile strikes, expanded the imperialist-enforced "no- fly zone" in the south to the edge of Baghdad, and threatened further attacks. He announced that limited oil sales by the Iraqi government were now frozen. The Militant (http://www.themilitant.com/1996/6032/6032_2.html) - 9/16/1996

I don't think I need to put anything else. Obviously, with a democrat president in office, everything he does is fine (like attacking a foreign nation for torturing their own people or "liberating" the people). But, have a republican president do the same thing, and everybody gets all hyped up about it. Before Clinton gave the order to go into Iraq, he also said that they had WMD's. After the fact, he was praised for trying to liberate the Iraqi people. Before Bush gave the order to go into Iraq, he said that they had WMD's. After the fact, he was put down by every liberal news organization I've seen for being a war monger even though we've all seen the pictures of the children coming out of prison and the mass graves in Iraq.

Before the war with Iraq, some democrats supported going into Iraq because of WMD's. Now, after the fact, most of them are back-tracking.

Seriously, you guys need to get a life outside of politics.

[BillyBob]

Nice work, Nori!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by RogerB
And what exactly was your point in posting what the majority of Americans and the rest of the free world believes to be true statements? Perhaps most Americans. But this majority is dwindling. Most people in the world opposed the illegal preemptive invasion of Iraq.

Sadam had and used WMD in the past. Is it more likey that he had a change of heart and destroyed them all without retaining proof or that he's hiding them somewhere in the region? Regarding WMD, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the intelligence community did not really know what Iraq had, where they had it, when they had it, or whether they had it, just before the invasion.

I think it is wrong to go to war - especially an illegal preemptive war - without having very clear unequivocal knowledge of the threat one is trying to neutralize! No president (Clinton included) should invade a country, out of concern for WMD, without knowing the exact whether, what, where, and when of WMD.

Bush and the Pentagon went into Iraq with guns blazing on the basis of hearsay, suspicion, and old, faulty or fabricated intelligence, not the here-and-now specifics of WMD. Such action should only occur when there is a DEMONSTRABLY CLEAR AND IMMINENT THREAT upon which most of the countries of the world can agree. Bush's small "Coalition of the Willing" was a joke and would agree to anything Bush said, as long as they got the economic or other favors they wanted (which they got after the invasion)!

Because there was no CLEAR EVIDENCE that Iraq posed an IMMINENT THREAT to America, the Iraqi threat was quite vague and speculative. Therefore, under those circumstances, to preemptively attack Iraq in a full-scale invasion, without U.N. approval, and with such massive world-wide opposition, this action was illegal and wrong.

Even if WMD are someday found in Iraq, the evidence at hand tells us that such weapons were obviously not poised to strike, as Bush told us, and Iraq was hardly a CLEAR and IMMINENT THREAT to America - on the other side of the planet!

If you think that the U.S. should invade and occupy any country the MIGHT pose a threat years down the road, then I would prefer that you find another planet to live on. Because this is not what America is or should be about.

[BillyBob]

....sillie Neo-Com.....:yawn:....yawn.....snore.......

[BillyBob]

:hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
:hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: You'd better watch it with those hammers. You don't what to create any more brain damage than you already have, do you? :kookoo:

[BillyBob]

They represent you, fish head. Have you properly apologized to frostman, yet?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
They represent you, fish head. Have you properly apologized to frostman, yet? I didn't criticize him as a person or his service in the military. I criticized the idea he was expressing regarding "my president/military, right or wrong."

I believe that people believe what makes sense to them, and that it is not right to criticize others for holding a belief - even though it is OK to criticize the beliefs they hold.

Therefore, I often criticize religious beliefs, but avoid criticizing the believers. Likewise, I also take issue with political beliefs, but try (sometimes unsuccessfully) to avoid criticizing the people who hold a particular political belief. I try not to get caught up in the bad-mouthing against individuals the often goes on here. However, I rant against Bush and his neoconservative right-wingers, even though I'm sure I might enjoy their company on a personal basis. I usually get along well with those who hold opposing viewpoints. But, it is sometimes difficult to maintain civility toward Bush and the Pentagon neocons when I believe that what they have done is so unethical.

Regarding frostmanj, I think you were much more offended than he was by my words, BillyBob. Frostmanj finally answered the issue the way I hoped he would, by saying he would rather be court-martialled than follow an order he thought was morally wrong. For that, I commend him. We need thinking soldiers to defend America, not blind followers of their Commander-in-Chief. If frostmanj agrees with Bush's policies, then I commend him for abiding by them. I don't, so I wouldn't.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
But, it is sometimes difficult to maintain civility toward Bush and the Pentagon neocons when I believe that what they have done is so unethical.

You forgot to add, "Regardless of the evidence to the contrary."

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by Skeptic
However, I rant against Bush and his neoconservative right-wingers, even though I'm sure I might enjoy their company on a personal basis. I usually get along well with those who hold opposing viewpoints. But, it is sometimes difficult to maintain civility toward Bush and the Pentagon neocons when I believe that what they have done is so unethical.


That's funny! Lord help us if we criticize a "demon"crat, though.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by ebenz47037
That's funny! Lord help us if we criticize a "demon"crat, though.

...or a dumbocrat.

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by wholearmor
...or a dumbocrat.

I like the way my daughter used to say it when she was about 6: demoquack. :chuckle:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by RogerB
I'd take OEJ's side over that of a witch any day.
So in other words, religious affiliation is more important to you than honesty? That's typically Christian.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by RogerB
And what exactly was your point in posting what the majority of Americans and the rest of the free world believes to be true statements?

Sadam had and used WMD in the past. Is it more likey that he had a change of heart and destroyed them all without retaining proof or that he's hiding them somewhere in the region?
How do you know there wasn't proof? There were tens of thousands of pages of documented proof of the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. It is only you, your fellows, and the oil-monkey you all are mindlessly aping who are saying that the documentation wasn't enough ... on a hunch! They don't know that Iraq had a lot more than was documented, they think they had more. Bush even said so himself that they didn't have solid proof of how many wmd's Iraq had (this was, of course, before he turned around and changed his story, lying, telling the US and the UN that not only did they have irrefutable proof of the strength of Iraq's wmd program [which turned out to be a forgery] but that they had actually FOUND some!). All your bellyaching that they didn't provide enough proof is all based on your ape-lord's "hunch."

[Eireann]

You all are trying very diligently to switch the blame for Bush's sins off of Bush and onto Clinton. It's a diligent effort, I'll give you that. But it's a wasted effort. It really doesn't matter what Clinton did or what Clinton said. Bush lied to the American people. He claimed to have irrefutable proof that he never had. His administration claimed to have actually FOUND wmd's that they never found (not to mention, his declarations were made AFTER the Atomic Energy agency, the UN, and the CIA declared the findings untrue). They claimed to have irrefutable knowledge of the whereabouts of stores of wmd's and facilities, all of which turned out to be untrue. As much as you may want to blame Clinton for your ape-boy's sins, they are Bush's alone to bear. Last time I checked, I didn't see any footage of William Jefferson Clinton standing behind George W. Bush with a gun to his head forcing him to lie to the American people. He did that all on his own!

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by Eireann
You all are trying very diligently to switch the blame for Bush's sins off of Bush and onto Clinton.

Actually, that's not what I was doing, Eireann. What Clinton did, Clinton will be held accountable for. What Bush did, Bush will be held accountable. I'm just saying that if we didn't prosecute Clinton for doing the exact same thing that the dems are saying that Bush is doing, we shouldn't prosecute Bush. You know equal justice and all that crud.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
You forgot to add, "Regardless of the evidence to the contrary."
Well, when all your "evidence" of wmd is finally brought out of the phantom zone and into the real world, we might consider it.

[Skeptic]

I asked this question earlier, but no one cared to answer it. I'll try again.

Hypothetically, if, before the war, you had polled all of the people of Iraq, asking them if they would like to be liberated from Saddam, even though it would mean that perhaps ten thousand of their fellow citizens are killed in the process, their country would be occupied for months or years by a military force dominated by the U.S., and most who survived would have their daily lives significantly disrupted for many months or years, how do you think they would have honestly answered?

How would most Iraqis have answered?:

A. They would be in favor of liberation from Saddam, despite 10,000 dead fellow citizens, long occupation by U.S. forces, and long disruption of their lives.

or

B. They would not be in favor of liberation from Saddam, because they would feel that 10,000 dead fellow citizens, long occupation by U.S. forces, and long disruption of their lives would be an unacceptable result of such a "liberation."

:think:

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I asked this question earlier, but no one cared to answer it. I'll try again.

Hypothetically, if, before the war, you had polled all of the people of Iraq, asking them if they would like to be liberated from Saddam, even though it would mean that perhaps ten thousand of their fellow citizens are killed in the process, their country would be occupied for months or years by a military force dominated by the U.S., and most who survived would have their daily lives significantly disrupted for many months or years, how do you think they would have honestly answered?

How would most Iraqis have answered?:

A. They would be in favor of liberation from Saddam, despite 10,000 dead fellow citizens, long occupation by U.S. forces, and long disruption of their lives.

or

B. They would not be in favor of liberation from Saddam, because they would feel that 10,000 dead fellow citizens, long occupation by U.S. forces, and long disruption of their lives would be an unacceptable result of such a "liberation."

:think:

Well, Skeptic, I noticed that you didn't mention the children that were in prison or the people who didn't know what had happened to their family members until we went in there. With just what you gave, I'd say the answer would be B. But, you also have to take into account all of those children. With that, I'd say the answer is an unequivocal A.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by ebenz47037
Actually, that's not what I was doing, Eireann. What Clinton did, Clinton will be held accountable for. What Bush did, Bush will be held accountable. I'm just saying that if we didn't prosecute Clinton for doing the exact same thing that the dems are saying that Bush is doing, we shouldn't prosecute Bush. You know equal justice and all that crud.
Did Clinton do the same thing? Did he send troops to their deaths or cause the deaths of several thousand Iraqis, based on lies about evidence he claimed to have that was actually nonexistent? One of the passages you posted on an earlier page suggested that his attack against Iraq was justified in order to protect the Kurds (who were constantly under threat from Saddam's military and Republican Guard). That was a very real and present danger, not the same as lying about having proof of a strong and extant wmd program. The question isn't whether or not there was any justification to invade Iraq. The question is whether the justifications that were given were sufficient and honest.

Also, if Clinton did lie and unjustly attack Iraq (unjust for his "reasons," even if there was a truly just reason for attacking), it doesn't change anything. To answer your question of whether Bush should be prosecuted if Clinton wasn't, the answer is yes. The further answer is that if Clinton was guilty of the same thing, then he should be prosecuted, too. But Bush should not be exempted from prosecution just because Clinton managed to get away with it. If two people commit a similar crime, and the first one gets away with it, escaping prosecution, I don't think you'll find a court anywhere who will agree that the second one should not be prosecuted for that reason. Now, if the first one HAD been prosecuted and exxonerated on the facts, then the second one could use those facts in his favor, if they apply (i.e. "precedence.") But if the first one escaped prosecution altogether, then he is no defence for the second one.

[ebenz47037]

Clinton sent our boys into Iraq to cover his butt with the impeachment thing. He just used WMDs, the Kurds, and Kuwait as an excuse. What I was trying to point out was that Clinton also basically said, "Screw the UN!" and acted without world approval. But, no one complained about that. It took a republican saying, "Screw the UN!" to make the media notice.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by ebenz47037
Clinton sent our boys into Iraq to cover his butt with the impeachment thing. He just used WMDs, the Kurds, and Kuwait as an excuse. What I was trying to point out was that Clinton also basically said, "Screw the UN!" and acted without world approval. But, no one complained about that. It took a republican saying, "Screw the UN!" to make the media notice.
Reread my previous post. I edited it, so the last paragraph probably wasn't available before you posted.

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by Eireann
Also, if Clinton did lie and unjustly attack Iraq (unjust for his "reasons," even if there was a truly just reason for attacking), it doesn't change anything. To answer your question of whether Bush should be prosecuted if Clinton wasn't, the answer is yes. The further answer is that if Clinton was guilty of the same thing, then he should be prosecuted, too. But Bush should not be exempted from prosecution just because Clinton managed to get away with it. If two people commit a similar crime, and the first one gets away with it, escaping prosecution, I don't think you'll find a court anywhere who will agree that the second one should not be prosecuted for that reason. Now, if the first one HAD been prosecuted and exxonerated on the facts, then the second one could use those facts in his favor, if they apply (i.e. "precedence.") But if the first one escaped prosecution altogether, then he is no defence for the second one.

Okay. I'll give you this one. But, to be honest, I think that Bush was just given bad information that he happened to believe. I thought the same about Clinton until I started paying attention to the impeachment.

Basically, Clinton's getting a free ride on this one though. If Bush lied to us about why he (with Congressional approval) sent our boys back there, he should be prosecuted. But, I don't think that anyone will ever be able to prove whether he knew or not. Like I said, it could be a case of getting and believing bad information.

[RogerB]

Even if WMD are someday found in Iraq, the evidence at hand tells us that such weapons were obviously not poised to strike, as Bush told us, and Iraq was hardly a CLEAR and IMMINENT THREAT to America - on the other side of the planet!

Not poised to strike?!?! These are the people who think it's fun to strap dynamite to their bodies and go to the mall. Perhaps you'd like a little nerve gas with your next visit to The Gap?

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Eireann
Did Clinton do the same thing? Did he send troops to their deaths or cause the deaths of several thousand Iraqis, based on lies about evidence he claimed to have that was actually nonexistent? One of the passages you posted on an earlier page suggested that his attack against Iraq was justified in order to protect the Kurds (who were constantly under threat from Saddam's military and Republican Guard). That was a very real and present danger, not the same as lying about having proof of a strong and extant wmd program. The question isn't whether or not there was any justification to invade Iraq. The question is whether the justifications that were given were sufficient and honest.

Also, if Clinton did lie and unjustly attack Iraq (unjust for his "reasons," even if there was a truly just reason for attacking), it doesn't change anything. To answer your question of whether Bush should be prosecuted if Clinton wasn't, the answer is yes. The further answer is that if Clinton was guilty of the same thing, then he should be prosecuted, too. But Bush should not be exempted from prosecution just because Clinton managed to get away with it. If two people commit a similar crime, and the first one gets away with it, escaping prosecution, I don't think you'll find a court anywhere who will agree that the second one should not be prosecuted for that reason. Now, if the first one HAD been prosecuted and exxonerated on the facts, then the second one could use those facts in his favor, if they apply (i.e. "precedence.") But if the first one escaped prosecution altogether, then he is no defence for the second one.

:spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam:

What a waste of electrons. Bush has committed NO CRIME.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by RogerB
Not poised to strike?!?! These are the people who think it's fun to strap dynamite to their bodies and go to the mall. Perhaps you'd like a little nerve gas with your next visit to The Gap?
I'm surprised there haven't been any belt-bombers already; it isn't like such a stunt is that difficult to pull off, just by using household chemicals...

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by RogerB
Not poised to strike?!?! These are the people who think it's fun to strap dynamite to their bodies and go to the mall. Perhaps you'd like a little nerve gas with your next visit to The Gap? Who are "these people" you are talking about? Iraqis, Palestinians, or just Muslims in general?

How many times do you have to be told that Iraq has not been significantly implicated in international terrorism, especially against the U.S.? When was the last time you heard that Iraqi terrorists attacked Americans before the war?

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Who are "these people" you are talking about? Iraqis, Palestinians, or just Muslims in general?

How many times do you have to be told that Iraq has not been significantly implicated in international terrorism, especially against the U.S.? When was the last time you heard that Iraqi terrorists attacked Americans before the war?

How many times do I have to ask you if you'd like a little nerve gas with your Cinnabon?

Iraq has not (YET) been significantly (WHAT THE HECK IS AN INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TERRORISM???) implicated...

[Gerald]

Originally posted by RogerB
Iraq has not (YET) been significantly (WHAT THE HECK IS AN INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TERRORISM???) implicated...
Agreed!

After all, manufacturing good evidence takes time...

[Zakath]

... and then there's shipping it over there, getting rid of the witnesses, staging the "discovery", managing the media, etc.

It's a tough job! :chuckle:

[RogerB]

Oh, look, it's Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum....

[Zakath]

and then there's Tweedle Dumber! :chuckle:

[RogerB]

OK, diploma boy, answer these:

1. How long does it take to search an entire country and surrounding regions?

2. What is an insignificant implication of terrorism involvement?

3. Are you capable of thinking about anyone but yourself?

DO NOT PEEK - ANSWERS GIVEN BELOW!!!

1. You have absolutely NO IDEA.

2. There's no such thing. Call a spade a spade.

3. Nope.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by RogerB
How long does it take to search an entire country and surrounding regions?Not very long, actually, if you have decent intel to start with.

Are you capable of thinking about anyone but yourself?You consider this a bad thing, I take it...?

[BillyBob]

Gerald;
I'm surprised there haven't been any belt-bombers already; it isn't like such a stunt is that difficult to pull off, just by using household chemicals...

Billy;
We nominate you to be the first one to try it! When you do, could you please do it while standing next to Skeptic?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
We nominate you to be the first one to try it! When you do, could you please do it while standing next to Skeptic? I'd rather do it while standing next to you, but I'm sorta mean that way...:devil:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by RogerB
:spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam:

What a waste of electrons. Bush has committed NO CRIME.
So lying to an entire country in order to cause the deaths of your own servicemen as well as thousands of the enemy is not a crime in your book?

[BillyBob]

Gerald;
I'd rather do it while standing next to you, but I'm sorta mean that way...

Billy;
Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Odel Roo]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Who are "these people" you are talking about? Iraqis, Palestinians, or just Muslims in general?

How many times do you have to be told that Iraq has not been significantly implicated in international terrorism, especially against the U.S.? When was the last time you heard that Iraqi terrorists attacked Americans before the war?


Odel: Notice the qualification: "significantly"? The old "tic" is pretty slick.:chuckle:

[Odel Roo]

Originally posted by Eireann
So lying to an entire country in order to cause the deaths of your own servicemen as well as thousands of the enemy is not a crime in your book?


Odel: What part of peace in the Middle East don't you understand?:doh:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Odel Roo
Odel: What part of peace in the Middle East don't you understand?:doh:
What part of "lied to the American people" don't you understand?

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
What part of "lied to the American people" don't you understand?

Billy;
Who lied?

[BillyBob]

I just saw Senator Evan Bayh [D] who sits on the Itelligence Comittee being interviewed. He said that he does not believe Bush lied or misled the American public, nor did he coerce anyone to exagerate the reports of WMD.

He also agreed that WMD was just one of many reasons that we went to Iraq and he was quite pleased that we removed Saddam.

You are wasting your time barking up that tree, Eireann. The coon got away.....

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Eireann;
What part of "lied to the American people" don't you understand?

Billy;
Who lied?
The one who said he had evidence he didn't have, that they had already found things they hadn't found. Last time I checked, that was George W. Bush.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Odel Roo
Odel: Notice the qualification: "significantly"? The old "tic" is pretty slick.:chuckle: There are several countries that have had some implication in international terrorism. But the question is: is their implication in international terrorism significant enough to warrant a preemptive full-scale invasion?

Here is a list of Countries Where al Qaeda Has Operated (http://usembassy.state.gov/japan/wwwhse0612.html):

Albania
Algeria
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bosnia
Egypt
Eritrea
France
Germany
India
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Kenya
Kosovo
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Mauritania
Netherlands
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Yemen

From: http://usembassy.state.gov/japan/wwwhse0612.html Some of these countries have provided financial support to al Qaeda. But, you know what's interesting? Iraq is NOT on the list!!

This list is from a United States Embassy web site, and it is from an article entitled "THE NETWORK OF TERRORISM - An Attack on the Civilized World." It is a lengthy article.

Go to the page and do a quick word search for the term "Iraq" and see what you find. The words "Iraq" and "Saddam" are nowhere to be found in this article! Why? Because Iraq's implication in international terrorism was so insignificant that the authors did not think it was even worthy of mentioning!

Referring to a White House article, entitled "A Decade of Deception and Defiance (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html)," Keith Boykin states the following in his article "Public Enemy Number 1":The 20-page paper, "A Decade of Deception and Defiance," provides very little new information, the Post reported. "Given the high priority for knowing what is going on in Iraq, I'm stunned by the lack of evidence of fresh intelligence," Gary Milhollin, executive editor of Iraq Watch, told the paper. "You'd expect that, for the many billions we are spending on intelligence, they would be able to make factual assertions that would not have to be footnoted to an open source," he told the Post.

The Post reported that the White House document's evidence of Iraq's "support for international terrorism" is one-page long and lacks any connection to al Qaeda or the September 11 attack. In fact, Hussein's last terrorism operation was the 1993 attempt to kill then-President George H.W. Bush during his visit to Kuwait. That was nine years ago, so why rush to war today?

From: http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/000508.html Nothing in the White House article suggests that Iraq's support for international terrorism was so significant that it warranted a preemptive full-scale invasion, one which was opposed by a vast majority on the planet!!

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Some of these countries have provided financial support to al Qaeda. But, you know what's interesting? Iraq is NOT on the list!!

Billy;
Yes, it would be kinda stupid for Saddam to publish his affiliations with terrorists in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Silly, stupid, misled, head-up-his-***, haven't a clue, sure wish that Santa was real, Clinton was not a liar, communism rocks, NEO-COM!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
Some of these countries have provided financial support to al Qaeda. But, you know what's interesting? Iraq is NOT on the list!!

Billy;
Yes, it would be kinda stupid for Saddam to publish his affiliations with terrorists in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. And you think the leaders of the other countries on the list published their terrorist affiliations? What are you talking about?

Any terrorist affiliation or activity in a particular country is based on information gathered by the intelligence community! What, you no longer trust military intelligence reports? You think that Saddam was so clever as to be able to hide his terrorist affiliations from intelligence experts? If actual terrorists activities cannot be traced to Iraq by the intelligence experts, then there is no rational reason to believe that Iraq posed any significant terrorist threat to America before the preemptive invasion!

Bush had us go to war on the basis of intelligence reports that claimed Iraq had WMD. Now, it appears the evidence is lacking to support this claim. Perhaps, you should be more skeptical about this intelligence.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Silly, stupid, misled, head-up-his-***, haven't a clue, sure wish that Santa was real, Clinton was not a liar, communism rocks, NEO-COM! You and your right-wing friends hope that, if you use enough pejoratives against those who hold opposing viewpoints, this will be sufficient to convince others you are right and they are wrong! :kookoo:

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Any terrorist affiliation or activity in a particular country is based on information gathered by the intelligence community! What, you no longer trust military intelligence reports?

Billy;
You need to discuss this with Eireann. He is the one who denounces the intel gathered about Saddam and WMD and Saddam's terrorist activities.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
You and your right-wing friends hope that, if you use enough pejoratives against those who hold opposing viewpoints, this will be sufficient to convince others you are right and they are wrong!

Billy;
I have no intention of convincing anyone about anything. I simply wrote it to harrass you.

[frostmanj]

Billy wrote:
I have no intention of convincing anyone about anything. I simply wrote it to harrass you.
Yeah, Skeptic, Noony..Noony..Noony!!!
:p

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Eireann
The one who said he had evidence he didn't have, that they had already found things they hadn't found. Last time I checked, that was George W. Bush.

Do you think it's possible that Bush, et al, have information that YOU DON'T HAVE??? Maybe??? YES???

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You and your right-wing friends hope that, if you use enough pejoratives against those who hold opposing viewpoints, this will be sufficient to convince others you are right and they are wrong! :kookoo:

You and your left-wing fanatical friends hope that if you use enough unfounded claims and false postulations this will be sufficient to convince us normal, red blooded American folk that you are right and we are wrong? :ha: :ha: :ha:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Odel Roo
What part of peace in the Middle East don't you understand?:doh:
The only ways there'll be peace in the Middle East is to cordon the whole region off, and let the barbarians tear into each other until they finally get it out of their systems (now that would be fun to watch...), then make friends with the dozen or so people left alive when the smoke clears...

[Gerald]

Warning: this post is not for the humor-impaired

Originally posted by BillyBob
Silly, stupid, misled, head-up-his-***, haven't a clue, sure wish that Santa was real, Clinton was not a liar, communism rocks, NEO-COM!
Silly, stupid, misled, reactionary, ***-on-his-shoulders, haven't a clue, sure wish that Jesus was real, Republicans don't lie, NEO-CON!

See? I'm pretty good at invective, too.

By the way, your dad's a wimp and your mother is ugly. So's your dog.
:chuckle: :ha: :chuckle: :ha: :chuckle: :ha: :chuckle:

[RogerB]

Hey, BillyBob, what do you expect? Gerald is just a :zakath: wanna-be.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by RogerB
Hey, BillyBob, what do you expect? Gerald is just a :zakath: wanna-be.
Nah, I'm not as classy as he is, not by a long shot.

I don't pretend to be, either...

[Eireann]

Originally posted by RogerB
Do you think it's possible that Bush, et al, have information that YOU DON'T HAVE??? Maybe??? YES???
The way they've been backpedaling lately. with everyone trying to point the blame of misinformation at everyone else, I would say the answer to that question would be a big resounding NO!

[Zakath]

I just ran across the real reason why we invaded Iraq. :D

According to a report on Ha'aretz.com, our president actually told another world leader that the reason we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq was because:"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did..."

So now we have foreign policy being dictated by Bush's voices from "God". That's a sad state of affairs... :shocked:

Link (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)

Updated to correct link. - Z

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Zakath
So now we have foreign policy being dictated by Bush's voices from "God". That's a sad state of affairs... :shocked:

It's not the first time God gave direction to someone to strike another nation.

[Zakath]

I must have missed something. When did the U.S. become a theocracy? :confused:

[wholearmor]

What does that have to do with an individual receiving direction from God?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Zakath
I just ran across the real reason why we invaded Iraq. :D

According to a report on Ha'aretz.com, our president actually told another world leader that the reason we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq was because:

So now we have foreign policy being dictated by Bush's voices from "God". That's a sad state of affairs... :shocked:

Link (http://www.sunspot.net/news/sns-othernews-james,0,1822417.story?coll=bal-features-specials)
Wow, that is truly sad! Funny as hell, but sad.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by wholearmor
What does that have to do with an individual receiving direction from God?

Or claiming to have received direction from "God"...

I find it disconcerting to think that the lives of my sons (both active duty military) are at the whim of someone's alleged "communications from beyond". :mad:

[BillyBob]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zakath
I just ran across the real reason why we invaded Iraq.

According to a report on Ha'aretz.com, our president actually told another world leader that the reason we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq was because:

So now we have foreign policy being dictated by Bush's voices from "God". That's a sad state of affairs...



Eireann;
Wow, that is truly sad! Funny as hell, but sad.

Billy;
Oh, now you choose to believe something Bush said.....make up your mind.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Billy;
Oh, now you choose to believe something Bush said.....make up your mind.
You seem to misunderstand. I never doubted that he said certain things. In fact, it was the things he DID say that condemn him. It is the truthfulness OF what he said that I doubt. I don't believe that he received anything from God. What I find truly sad is that he would even say that.

[wholearmor]

Zakath:
I must have missed something. When did the U.S. become a theocracy?

wholearmor:
What does that have to do with an individual receiving direction from God?

Zakath:
Or claiming to have received direction from "God"...

I find it disconcerting to think that the lives of my sons (both active duty military) are at the whim of someone's alleged "communications from beyond".

wholearmor (again because he didn't receive an answer the first time as usual):
What does that have to do with an individual receiving direction from God?

And so, I might add, you'd rather have your sons at the whim of Bush himself without God's guidance? I thought you didn't trust Bush's judgement.

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
You seem to misunderstand. I never doubted that he said certain things. In fact, it was the things he DID say that condemn him. It is the truthfulness OF what he said that I doubt. I don't believe that he received anything from God. What I find truly sad is that he would even say that.

Billy;
But your whole thing lately is about lying. How do you know that Bush ever said this?

Also, you seem to be in constant denial about things that Bush actually did say, so how do you pick and choose the quotes you believe?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Billy;
But your whole thing lately is about lying. How do you know that Bush ever said this?
I don't. But if he did say it, it's sad. And he strikes me as the type that would be just dumb enough to actually say something like that.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
And so, I might add, you'd rather have your sons at the whim of Bush himself without God's guidance? I don't trust the judgment of anyone who claims they made their decisions based on what God told them. :kookoo:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I don't trust the judgment of anyone who claims they made their decisions based on what God told them. :kookoo:

So you'd rather have your sons (if you had sons in the service as Zakath does) under Bush's leadership without Bush seeking God for guidance?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
So you'd rather have your sons (if you had sons in the service as Zakath does) under Bush's leadership without Bush seeking God for guidance? I didn't say that! However, if Bush is going to lead (- :doh: -), I'd rather have him lead with guidance from human advisers (more knowledgeable and ethical than the ones he has now), without trying to seek guidance from some mythical supernatural entity.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
So you'd rather have your sons (if you had sons in the service as Zakath does) under Bush's leadership without Bush seeking God for guidance?
There's a big difference between seeking guidance (praying for wisdom and insight, etc.) and claiming that you're hearing voices of supernatural entities and acting on that. Ever heard of "Son of Sam?" In the Psychology profession, we call such people "mentally ill." And no, I wouldn't want my kids under the leadership of someone who is mentally ill in that way.

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
There's a big difference between seeking guidance (praying for wisdom and insight, etc.) and claiming that you're hearing voices of supernatural entities and acting on that.

Billy;
If you are actively praying for guidance, isn't it logical to assume that you expect to get an answer of some sort? When you get that answer or insight, wouldn't it be logical to attribute that epiphony to the entity to whom you have prayed?

[RogerB]

The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned.

The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel.

U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking.

So we have to look under every rose bush and dandelion? This could take much longer than you Bush-bashers imagine.

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Eireann
There's a big difference between seeking guidance (praying for wisdom and insight, etc.) and claiming that you're hearing voices of supernatural entities and acting on that. Ever heard of "Son of Sam?" In the Psychology profession, we call such people "mentally ill." And no, I wouldn't want my kids under the leadership of someone who is mentally ill in that way.

And who exactly do you seek wisdom and insight from?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by wholearmor
What does that have to do with an individual receiving direction from God? When the individual is in the position of commander in chief of one of the largest military forces on the planet and has just used those forces to carry off the invasion and overthrow of two nation state within three years, it concerns me that the individual is claiming he exercised his military authority because he's "hearing voices"...

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
When the individual is in the position of commander in chief of one of the largest military forces on the planet and has just used those forces to carry off the invasion and overthrow of two nation state within three years, it concerns me that the individual is claiming he exercised his military authority because he's "hearing voices"...

You git...he's not "hearing voices". You said he was? YOU?! SKEPTIC?! :ha:

[Zakath]

He allegedly claimed that "God told him" to get Bin Laden by invading Afhghanistan and Hussein by invading Iraq.

Do you believe that your God told him to do those things, Roger?

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I didn't say that! However, if Bush is going to lead (- :doh: -), I'd rather have him lead with guidance from human advisers (more knowledgeable and ethical than the ones he has now), without trying to seek guidance from some mythical supernatural entity.

I didn't say you said that, I was asking a question (- :doh: - back at ya').

And what if God's NOT a mythical, supernatural entity?