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 (an