Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Decker on September 06, 2007, 08:45:34 AM
-
Allegations are coming out that President Bush actively concealed and changed evidence that Iraq did not have WMDs in the run up to war. …Not a difference of opinion on the evidence, but active, actual concealment and manipulation so that every congressman looking at the best evidence available would conclude that Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs.
Impeach this man so that we can get to the bottom of this issue.
Here are the highlights:
“On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.”
“Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD…The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.”
“Tenet never shared…(the) intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. …the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion…Instead, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/print.html
-
Allegations are coming out that President Bush actively concealed and changed evidence that Iraq did not have WMDs in the run up to war. …Not a difference of opinion on the evidence, but active, actual concealment and manipulation so that every congressman looking at the best evidence available would conclude that Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs.
Impeach this man so that we can get to the bottom of this issue.
Here are the highlights:
“On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.”
“Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD…The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.”
“Tenet never shared…(the) intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. …the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion…Instead, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/print.html
So this "top secret intelligence" was a member of Saddam's regime saying they didn't have WMDs?
-
I try not to get too verbose in the original posting but here's another excerpt from the article that addresses your concern:
"On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."
Both the French intelligence service and the CIA paid Sabri hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least $200,000 in the case of the CIA) to give them documents on Saddam's WMD programs. "The information detailed that Saddam may have wished to have a program, that his engineers had told him they could build a nuclear weapon within two years if they had fissile material, which they didn't, and that they had no chemical or biological weapons," one of the former CIA officers told me.
On the eve of Sabri's appearance at the United Nations in September 2002 to present Saddam's case, the officer in charge of this operation met in New York with a "cutout" who had debriefed Sabri for the CIA. Then the officer flew to Washington, where he met with CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, who was "excited" about the report. Nonetheless, McLaughlin expressed his reservations. He said that Sabri's information was at odds with "our best source." That source was code-named "Curveball," later exposed as a fabricator, con man and former Iraqi taxi driver posing as a chemical engineer."
-
good credible source, I mean he would have no reason to lie. I can't believe you guys trust Saddams hench men more than your won president
-
Let's not forget that that this was one person in a large chorus giving Our Dear Leader the same message and let's not also forget that we now know that Hussein did not have WMD's and Bush has admitted this so it's kind of moot at this point to argue about veracity of this single messenger
-
good credible source, I mean he would have no reason to lie. I can't believe you guys trust Saddams hench men more than your won president
It was the Bush administration that trusted the source "Curveball"--the iraqi cab driver pretending to be an insider w/ Hussein--b/c he told Bush what Bush wanted to hear: there are WMDs all over Iraq.
So Bush trusted one of Hussein's henchmen to start the war in the first place...and it was all lies.
Also, Naji Sabri's message of no WMDs was changed to: there are WMDs in Iraq. That's troubling.
-
All this from the same guys who said ....." There are no Americans in Bagdad"... I think i was 12 miles away. Nothing really new here.
.
-
All this from the same guys who said ....." There are no Americans in Bagdad"... I think i was 12 miles away. Nothing really new here.
.
lol. :) Yeah. I agree. The source was an Iraqi. I wouldn't have believed him either.
-
One story i heard was that at the 3rd ID TOC, they had stat Tv and saw him say that on CNN and FOX...the Div Arty commander was calling around trying to drop arty on his ass as he was on TV.
-
All this from the same guys who said ....." There are no Americans in Bagdad"... I think i was 12 miles away. Nothing really new here.
.
What are you talking about HH?
-
Bagdad Bob.... ;D
-
I see. This guy: Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf.
But he's not this guy: Naji Sabri.
That guy Sabri had his intel (no Iraqi WMD) ignored and ultimately reworded by team Bush to state the exact opposite conclusion--that Iraq had WMDs.
-
Neither Beach or I were adressing the particular guy u mentioned. I am sure Bush fit the intel to paint the picture....not new to me. Or it was painted for him. From what I hear about Rummy and his group of shitheads....only what they wanted, got to Bush. Alot of folks Blame Bush..i blame Rummy.
-
Bagdad Bob.... ;D
Hahahahahaha!! I loved that guy. ;D
-
Yeah we loved him...we'd go around yelling at each other...Hey we're not here, can we go home now".
-
Hahahahahaha!! I loved that guy. ;D
That's funny because you remind me of that guy.
You both make idiotic statements that blatanly contradict reality leaving one wondering if you (and he) are just goofing or are really that stupid
-
That's funny because you remind me of that guy.
You both make idiotic statements that blatanly contradict reality leaving one wondering if you (and he) are just goofing or are really that stupid
Aw now isn't this sweet. I have my very own internet stalker. :-*
-
Aw now isn't this sweet. I have my very own internet stalker. :-*
don't flatter yourself
you're too stupid to even know the definition of stalking
-
don't flatter yourself
you're too stupid to even know the definition of stalking
Does this mean I'm off your Christmas list? :'(
-
Does this mean I'm off your Christmas list? :'(
no I'll still send you those coloring books and crayons that you love so much
-
no I'll still send you those coloring books and crayons that you love so much
Cool. And I'll get you a new bong for all those special moments you spend breaking state and federal law. :) http://www.bongs-sale.com/
-
Cool. And I'll get you a new bong for all those special moments you spend breaking state and federal law. :) http://www.bongs-sale.com/
I don't break any state or federal laws
I'm only going to send you crayons if you promise not to eat them this time
-
i aint no genius but i got a question for ya tards...
if he had WMDs...why didn't he use em against an invading army now?
he feared bad publicity?? lmao. ::)
-
I don't know the veracity of this claim but if it's true it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Clearly Bush wanted to invade Iraq and 9/11 was his ticket, it provided the motivation Congress and the general public needed.
Read that Rolling Stone piece, you'll never trust another thing you hear the Bush administration say again. What an absolute disgrace.
-
I don't know the veracity of this claim but if it's true it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Clearly Bush wanted to invade Iraq and 9/11 was his ticket, it provided the motivation Congress and the general public needed.
Read that Rolling Stone piece, you'll never trust another thing you hear the Bush administration says. What an absolute disgrace.
Seymour Hersh, the journalist, has been dead-on with his Bush Administration stories: from Abu Grhaib to the Redirection, he has been on the money.
In a wider sense, the allegations fit the larger neo-fascist impulse that runs through this administration: top-down control of information to control the other branches of government and the national dialogue. If all the Congressmen are on the same page re the best evidence available for the existence of WMDs in Iraq, then a Congressional grant of authority to enforce UN disarmament requirements would be a slam dunk. Once that is secured, the president can exercise his authority as commander and chief to order the attack (he broke international law to do it, but he did have the requisite authority to make the call).
-
i aint no genius but i got a question for ya tards...
if he had WMDs...why didn't he use em against an invading army now?
he feared bad publicity?? lmao. ::)
Not often, but every once in a while, Toxic hits home (when he decides to not act like he can't spell or pretend to be drunk).
Great post.
-
Not often, but every once in a while, Toxic hits home (when he decides to not act like he can't spell or pretend to be drunk).
Great post.
\\
i really cant spell too well mate...and up untill recently i ws mostly drunk while posting...
as for my original point..the bush wackers have no answer to that 1..
-
\\
i really cant spell too well mate...and up untill recently i ws mostly drunk while posting...
as for my original point..the bush wackers have no answer to that 1..
You know that the WMD inspectors were on the ground in Iraq in 2002 up until the US led attack. They were finding no WMDs and Bush ordered the attack anyways to ensure Iraq disarmed it's WMDs.....of which there were none.
That is incredible.
-
You know that the WMD inspectors were on the ground in Iraq in 2002 up until the US led attack. They were finding no WMDs and Bush ordered the attack anyways to ensure Iraq disarmed it's WMDs.....of which there were none.
That is incredible.
disarming a terrorist by behaving like one!
anyone else c a problem here and why the world is kinda pissed at us..
-
yup, he did he did...
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=116029.0
-
Neither Beach or I were adressing the particular guy u mentioned. I am sure Bush fit the intel to paint the picture....not new to me. Or it was painted for him. From what I hear about Rummy and his group of shitheads....only what they wanted, got to Bush. Alot of folks Blame Bush..i blame Rummy.
That's where I'm at, HH6! >:( Colin Powell or Norman Schwartzkopf would have been a much better choice for Defense Sec.
-
That's where I'm at, HH6! >:( Colin Powell or Norman Schwartzkopf would have been a much better choice for Defense Sec.
I would like to think that either of those men had the integrity not to work for the Bush administration.
But Powell sold out and displayed all the character and courage of the cowardly lion with his disgraceful show of 'evidence of WMDs' at the UN. He is ignominious.
-
I think the thing is that, if u know something is wrong, then u jump on ur sword, especially at that level. I think Bush is a nice guy that means well, but is pretty dim. i think he was snowed by that asshole Cheney and Rummy. I don' think he ever got to talk candidly to anybody with a differing opinion. Certainly nobody who said we needed 400,000 troops etc..or hey we need to think this post war Iraq out because these people are fucking crazy, don't want or can't handle democracy, would rather shoot each other over miniscule religious differences then swim in oil profits or see their kids grow up.
-
I would like to think that either of those men had the integrity not to work for the Bush administration.
But Powell sold out and displayed all the character and courage of the cowardly lion with his disgraceful show of 'evidence of WMDs' at the UN. He is ignominious.
I would hardly call Powell cowardly. His analysis of the Democratic party was dead on after he had been courted by both gangs parties.
-
I think the thing is that, if u know something is wrong, then u jump on ur sword, especially at that level. I think Bush is a nice guy that means well, but is pretty dim. i think he was snowed by that asshole Cheney and Rummy. I don' think he ever got to talk candidly to anybody with a differing opinion. Certainly nobody who said we needed 400,000 troops etc..or hey we need to think this post war Iraq out because these people are fucking crazy, don't want or can't handle democracy, would rather shoot each other over miniscule religious differences then swim in oil profits or see their kids grow up.
Well put. He could have chosen the honorable way and he didn't.
-
I would hardly call Powell cowardly. His analysis of the Democratic party was dead on after he had been courted by both gangs parties.
I think he should have fallen on his sword.
-
What i should have added is that by doing so, it would have called into question the tactics and possibly the why..of the invasion. Maybe we could have prevented the mistakes, or not gone at all.
-
I think the thing is that, if u know something is wrong, then u jump on ur sword, especially at that level.
buut bro thats the thing you DONT JUMP..cause JUMPING is exactly what the terrorists do...
we r seen by most of the planet as occupires..which is just synonym for terrorist.. :(
-
I would hardly call Powell cowardly. His analysis of the Democratic party was dead on after he had been courted by both gangs parties.
I believe his specific comment was the Democrat party is "intellectually bankrupt." He was dead on.
Unfortunately, the Republican party isn't far behind. Not a lot of focus in the party. No clear leader (not including Bush, because he is a lame duck). Not sure what the complete agenda is. :-\
-
You know that the WMD inspectors were on the ground in Iraq in 2002 up until the US led attack. They were finding no WMDs and Bush ordered the attack anyways to ensure Iraq disarmed it's WMDs.....of which there were none.
That is incredible.
Being the Black Sheep of the Bush clan, Georgie has tried his whole life to prove he's not the fvckup everyone thinks he is.
It never worked, nor will it.
-
I believe his specific comment was the Democrat party is "intellectually bankrupt." He was dead on.
...
If he said, "Democrat party" then he doesn't know what he's talking about. A man in his position should know its name is "Democratic party". http://www.democrats.org/
I can't find that quote you attribute to him.
I don't think it is dead-on when you compare the ideas to the current popular republican platforms:
privatizing social security--a big winner for Wall Street; too bad everyone else will suffer
tax cuts and deregulation are only way to stimulate economic growth--Watch George triple the national debt!
immigration--why let's build a 700 mile fence on 2000 mile border...Brilliant!
Defense---we were attacked by 19 guys with box cutters so lets invade Iraq!
Healthcare---we'll take away the government's ability to negotiate lower costs w/ big Pharmaceuticals--we'll pass the costs on to the american people
I'd go on but I think you can spot the mental vacuity in each topic. In other words, it's hard not to miss the sheer stupidity of contemporary republican ideas.
And I haven't even addressed the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the party.
-
If he said, "Democrat party" then he doesn't know what he's talking about. A man in his position should know its name is "Democratic party". http://www.democrats.org/
I can't find that quote you attribute to him.
I don't think it is dead-on when you compare the ideas to the current popular republican platforms:
privatizing social security--a big winner for Wall Street; too bad everyone else will suffer
tax cuts and deregulation are only way to stimulate economic growth--Watch George triple the national debt!
immigration--why let's build a 700 mile fence on 2000 mile border...Brilliant!
Defense---we were attacked by 19 guys with box cutters so lets invade Iraq!
Healthcare---we'll take away the government's ability to negotiate lower costs w/ big Pharmaceuticals--we'll pass the costs on to the american people
I'd go on but I think you can spot the mental vacuity in each topic. In other words, it's hard not to miss the sheer stupidity of contemporary republican ideas.
And I haven't even addressed the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the party.
I'm not sure if he said "Democrat" or "Democratic," but I prefer "Democrat." I know it irritates some Democrats. :)
Powell made the comment when he came out of the closet and announced he was a Republican. It was true then and it's true today. There aren't really any fresh, solid ideas coming out of the Democrat party. It has been dead for years. They still haven't recovered from the 94 massacre. I'm not sure what that party is all about these days, other than complaining and always finding ways to stick their hand in my pocket.
-
always finding ways to stick their hand in my pocket.
Interesting choice of words on your part and I'm sure you probably like it
-
Interesting choice of words on your part and I'm sure you probably like it
::) Stalker. Go smoke a joint pothead.
-
::) Stalker. Go smoke a joint pothead.
Have you showered with your son today??
-
Have you showered with your son today??
Have you violated state and federal law today pothead? Have you experienced any psychosis? Is today a lucid interval?
Inquiring minds want to know . . . .
-
Have you violated state and federal law today pothead? Have you experienced any psychosis? Is today a lucid interval?
Inquiring minds want to know . . . .
Still too much of a pompous, hypocritical, liar to even admit that you've also smoked pot?
It must be a drag to go through life so filled with shame over your own actions that the only way you can make yourself feel better is to judge others.
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven."
~Luke 6:37~
-
Still too much of a pompous, hypocritical, liar to even admit that you've also smoked pot?
It must be a drag to go through life so filled with shame over your own actions that the only way you can make yourself feel better is to judge others.
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven."
~Luke 6:37~
Straight from the pothead himself.
Quote from: Straw Man on September 05, 2007, 06:40:49 PM
The only thing I've ever admitted is that I will occassionally smoke
-
Straight from the pothead himself.
Are you the guy who wrote this?
I don't have any animosity towards weed or any other drug.
Any chance you can stop your preaching long enough to actually read the Bible? Then maybe you can start actually acting like a Christian instead of just being hypocrite and a liar
Start with this section:
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven."
~Luke 6:37~
-
Are you the guy who wrote this?
Any chance you can stop your preaching long enough to actually read the Bible? Then maybe you can start actually acting like a Christian instead of just being hypocrite and a liar
Start with this section:
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven."
~Luke 6:37~
Thou shalt not repeatedly break state and federal law by repeatedly smoking weed, pothead:
Quote
Quote from: Straw Man on September 05, 2007, 06:40:49 PM
The only thing I've ever admitted is that I will occassionally smoke
-
Thou shalt not repeatedly break state and federal law by repeatedly smoking weed, pothead:
I don't break any laws but thanks for you concern
I'd try to explain this too you again but you're clearly too fucking stupid to understand it.
Now go read your bible and start acting like a christian for once in your life
-
Okay pothead. ::) You just repeatedly smoke a drug outlawed by state and federal law, but you don't break the law. ::)
-
Okay pothead. ::) You just repeatedly smoke a drug outlawed by state and federal law, but you don't break the law. ::)
For about the tenth time now - there are legal ways on this planet to smoke pot
I know by your own admission your're too stupid to do elementary school math but what exactly don't you understand.
BTW - Why are you so AFRAID to either admit you've also smoked pot or just say that you've never smoked it??
-
For about the tenth time now - there are legal ways on this planet to smoke pot
I know by your own admission your too stupid to do elementary school math but what exactly don't you understand.
BTW - Why are you so AFRAID to either admit you've also smoked pot or just say that you've never smoked it??
Whatever you say Gomer Pyle. ::) You just keep on keeping on, pothead. Keep avoiding the DEA and your local authorities. Perhaps you can stay out of prison.
I bet you like Rick James:
I'm in love with Mary Jane.
She's my main thing.
She makes me feel alright.
She makes my heart sing.
. . . .
-
Whatever you say Gomer Pyle. ::) You just keep on keeping on, pothead. Keep avoiding the DEA and your local authorities. Perhaps you can stay out of prison.
I bet you like Rick James:
I'm in love with Mary Jane.
She's my main thing.
She makes me feel alright.
She makes my heart sing.
. . . .
if you're concerned then why don't you call the FBI and tell them that someone on a Get Big mentioned that they have occassionally smoked Pot.
After that - go read your bible and try for once in your miserable, shame filled life to have some humility and start acting like the Christian that you claim to be
-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086250/
-
once again, like the dumb dog that you are you've chased your tail to the point of absurdity
What does a movie about a guy trafficking cocaine have to do with someone occasionally smoking a joint.
Do you seriously believe the two are equivalent?
Do you think they are equivalent in terms of the law??
Why won't you simply admit or deny that you've smoked pot.
Perhaps because you know you would shown to be either a liar or a hypocrite?
-
You know good and well marijuana isn't the only illegal drug you repeatedly use:
Marijuana Gateway Drug
Marijuana, a so-called "gateway drug," is the most widely used illicit drug in the United States and tends to be the first illegal drug teens use. It’s a widely held theory of drug use and abuse that there are stages of progression, from tobacco and alcohol to marijuana and from marijuana to other illicit drugs. Studies of drug abusers seem to bear the theory out: "Very few individuals who have tried heroin and cocaine have not already used marijuana and the majority have already used tobacco and alcohol," says Denise Kandel, a researcher in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University.
. . .
http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/marijuana-gateway-drug.htm
The world is yours, Tony Montana . . .
-
You know good and well marijuana isn't the only illegal drug you repeatedly use:
Marijuana Gateway Drug
Marijuana, a so-called "gateway drug," is the most widely used illicit drug in the United States and tends to be the first illegal drug teens use. It’s a widely held theory of drug use and abuse that there are stages of progression, from tobacco and alcohol to marijuana and from marijuana to other illicit drugs. Studies of drug abusers seem to bear the theory out: "Very few individuals who have tried heroin and cocaine have not already used marijuana and the majority have already used tobacco and alcohol," says Denise Kandel, a researcher in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University.
. . .
http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/marijuana-gateway-drug.htm
The world is yours, Tony Montana . . .
speak for yourself Bum
I've never used herion or coke - HOW ABOUT YOU?
What is it that you've done in your life that filled you with so much shame and turned you into such a judgmental jackass??
-
Gomer Pyle's favorite actor: http://www.friendsofcannabis.com/friends/woody_harrelson.htm
-
Gomer Pyle's favorite actor: http://www.friendsofcannabis.com/friends/woody_harrelson.htm
What is it that's eating you up inside and making you such a miserable prick?
-
i cant believe that someone like beach bum is a mod on a bbg site.... fuck i wouldn't leave him in charge of my kids dolly..... lol
as for the gwb thing....
of course g bush knew there were no wmd's in iraq....anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool....
american oil resources had been getting low ....and the threat from the iraqi's to turn to the euro as a trading currency turned the screw for ol' georgie....so he did what any texan would....he got the guns out!
remember.....this guy was an alcoholic....with very few brain cells to start with...(look at his bloodstock)
and his dad had fucked over the iraqi's already.... like father like son...eh?
how many of u yank guys knows some friend/brother/sister/dad/etc that has been killed in this war....
and for what? is america a better place for the war? is the world? fuck no....we all face bomb scares on a regular basis...
no ....it's worse off than ever...with every muslim country hating u....
all cos gwb wanted to eradicate ''the axis of evil'' (what a joke) and keep his 7ltr petrol guzzler in cheap gas...
why do u guys listen to this buffoon?????
i admire the american patriotism.....i really do...
but patriotism to a fool makes u an even bigger fool.... jmo guys
-
Nice job derailing the thread with utter nonsense that has zero relevance to the topic of the thread.
But Powell sold out and displayed all the character and courage of the cowardly lion with his disgraceful show of 'evidence of WMDs' at the UN. He is ignominious.
Powell is one of those people that cross political boundaries. He's generally liked by people of all political affiliations. It's too bad the way that played out. He could have been of benefit to all of us.
-
Are you implying that "mary jane" is more dangerous than the short list below ?
1 Million people die annually from cigarettes.....yet their legal. Hundreds of thousands die from alcohol, from illness and accidents......yet their legal.
Tens of thousands die from prescribed drugs......yet their legal.
Please inform me the numbers of rigid corpse's from many jane intake.
I await your educated reply.......
i have indicated the flaws in your education MONS VENUS, just for your information.....lol
-
Colie, I'll inform you when your part of the discussion, otherwise STFU.
STFU goes against my religion fanny lips.....
i coudn't help but interject, due to the handicapped nature of your response to BB et al. Why do you post on a bodybuilding board and bodybuilding thread, which relates to Bush concealing WMD's, with a retarded post about 'mary jane'?
ooops
Sorry, have to go now, my loser alarm is going bonkers. Seems to happen every time I come across one of your posts. Mad eh?
-
at least he was capable of a load...
your grandad and his fellow care home mates saved up their loads for weeks to conceive you..... your momma loved the attention tho.....she loved your grandads sticky load....
-
i cant believe that someone like beach bum is a mod on a bbg site.... fuck i wouldn't leave him in charge of my kids dolly..... lol
as for the gwb thing....
of course g bush knew there were no wmd's in iraq....anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool....
american oil resources had been getting low ....and the threat from the iraqi's to turn to the euro as a trading currency turned the screw for ol' georgie....so he did what any texan would....he got the guns out!
remember.....this guy was an alcoholic....with very few brain cells to start with...(look at his bloodstock)
and his dad had fucked over the iraqi's already.... like father like son...eh?
how many of u yank guys knows some friend/brother/sister/dad/etc that has been killed in this war....
and for what? is america a better place for the war? is the world? fuck no....we all face bomb scares on a regular basis...
no ....it's worse off than ever...with every muslim country hating u....
all cos gwb wanted to eradicate ''the axis of evil'' (what a joke) and keep his 7ltr petrol guzzler in cheap gas...
why do u guys listen to this buffoon?????
i admire the american patriotism.....i really do...
but patriotism to a fool makes u an even bigger fool.... jmo guys
Just to be accurate... he's no texan. He's from the northeast, ...and afraid of horses. All hat, ...no cattle. carry on
-
i cant believe that someone like beach bum is a mod on a bbg site.... fuck i wouldn't leave him in charge of my kids dolly..... lol
Me neither!
-
Are you implying that "mary jane" is more dangerous than the short list below ?
No.
-
Allegations are coming out that President Bush actively concealed and changed evidence that Iraq did not have WMDs in the run up to war. …Not a difference of opinion on the evidence, but active, actual concealment and manipulation so that every congressman looking at the best evidence available would conclude that Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs.
Impeach this man so that we can get to the bottom of this issue.
Here are the highlights:
“On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.”
“Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD…The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.”
“Tenet never shared…(the) intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. …the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion…Instead, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/print.html
Lets get this thread back on track.
If this is true, it's very serious, and would IMO be more than enough to indict GWB.
Whatever happens in the election, the next president would pardon Bush, regardless of party color.
-
Lets get this thread back on track.
If this is true, it's very serious, and would IMO be more than enough to indict GWB.
Whatever happens in the election, the next president would pardon Bush, regardless of party color.
If true, it means Bush didn't believe a member of Saddam's regime was telling the truth when he said Saddam didn't have WMDs and wasn't a threat, which would have been contrary to what our elected representatives--Democrat and Republican--believed both before and after Bush took office. Hardly the stuff of impeachment and removal.
This impeachment talk will never get past message board material, and the handful of “legislators” who make fools of themselves by introducing resolutions. No teeth to impeachment talk whatsoever IMO.
-
If true, it means Bush didn't believe a member of Saddam's regime was telling the truth when he said Saddam didn't have WMDs and wasn't a threat, which would have been contrary to what our elected representatives--Democrat and Republican--believed both before and after Bush took office. Hardly the stuff of impeachment and removal.
This impeachment talk will never get past message board material, and the handful of “legislators” who make fools of themselves by introducing resolutions. No teeth to impeachment talk whatsoever IMO.
But why would he actively conceal such information?
I guess this discussion won't get anywhere without more facts about the case, speculating without enough facts is just like conspiracy theorism, and I am no fan of that. ;D ;D
-
But why would he actively conceal such information?
I guess this discussion won't get anywhere without more facts about the case, speculating without enough facts is just like conspiracy theorism, and I am no fan of that. ;D ;D
I don't know. Maybe he didn't consider it credible. I'd like to know what else didn't make it into the official reports. I just find absurd the notion that Bush fooled the world about Saddam. Too many people thought the guy was a threat.
You're right about the lack of facts. Maybe Democrats should hold hearings? They have majorities in the House and Senate. I suspect they won't, because they don't want to risk losing favor in 08 elections.
-
I don't know. Maybe he didn't consider it credible. I'd like to know what else didn't make it into the official reports. I just find absurd the notion that Bush fooled the world about Saddam. Too many people thought the guy was a threat.
You're right about the lack of facts. Maybe Democrats should hold hearings? They have majorities in the House and Senate. I suspect they won't, because they don't want to risk losing favor in 08 elections.
Agree.
Hold hearings, no need for them to be public. But walk the fcuking line. If you get majority, you have to respect the voters by taking some action.
The house holds much economic power. I don't see the Democrats doing anything with it?
-
If true, it means Bush didn't believe a member of Saddam's regime was telling the truth when he said Saddam didn't have WMDs and wasn't a threat, which would have been contrary to what our elected representatives--Democrat and Republican--believed both before and after Bush took office. Hardly the stuff of impeachment and removal.
This impeachment talk will never get past message board material, and the handful of “legislators” who make fools of themselves by introducing resolutions. No teeth to impeachment talk whatsoever IMO.
Really? Bush based his most damning WMD allegations on what a con-man cab driver from Iraq said. Remember the insider Curveball?
We went to war with Iraq largely b/c of the evidence Curveball provided.
On the "No WMD" side of the issue, we have Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister.
I would say he has a bit more credibility than Curveball the cab-driver, don't you?
And who in the hell does Bush think he is to disregard any countervailing evidence re the WMDs? He should be impeached on that basis alone.
You see Beach Bum, we don't want to start wars if we don't have to start wars. War should never be the first option. It should be the last resort. All the death, destruction and loss and what not should be avoided if possible.
Don't you think?
-
Agree.
Hold hearings, no need for them to be public. But walk the fcuking line. If you get majority, you have to respect the voters by taking some action.
The house holds much economic power. I don't see the Democrats doing anything with it?
They don't have the votes to override a Bush veto.
Bush Vetoes Troop Withdrawal Bill
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8ORRIT83&show_article=1
This Iraq fiasco is now owned entirely by the Republicans and the President.
-
The imminent danger from WMD's was always a smokescreen (now confirmed by many sources - Downing Street Memo, George Tenet, Doug Feith,etc.... After that no longer worked it became freeing them from a dictator and then helping them set up a new governement and now we can't leave or they will massacre each other ....more accurately the Shia's will massacre the Sunni's and then Saudi Arabia (Bush's boss) will jump in and of course Iran will jump in.
The real reason we went all along is to secure new sources or product for the oil companies and of course it didn't hurt that they could create hundreds of billions of dollars in government contracts for US companies.
If the Iraqi governement would just pass that damn hydrocarbon law Bush could declare the real victory. Of course we'd have to maintain a presence there to ensure compliance with the law.
-
Really? Bush based his most damning WMD allegations on what a con-man cab driver from Iraq said. Remember the insider Curveball?
We went to war with Iraq largely b/c of the evidence Curveball provided.
On the "No WMD" side of the issue, we have Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister.
I would say he has a bit more credibility than Curveball the cab-driver, don't you?
And who in the hell does Bush think he is to disregard any countervailing evidence re the WMDs? He should be impeached on that basis alone.
You see Beach Bum, we don't want to start wars if we don't have to start wars. War should never be the first option. It should be the last resort. All the death, destruction and loss and what not should be avoided if possible.
Don't you think?
No. Depends on the circumstance. If we are attacked, war is the first option IMO. Like 911. Other than responding to an attack or perhaps making a preemptive strike, I do agree we should use diplomacy whenever possible as the first option.
I think Dubya might have been influenced by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, and the plethora of other Democrats who thought Saddam had WMDs and was a threat.
-
No. Depends on the circumstance. If we are attacked, war is the first option IMO. Like 911. Other than responding to an attack or perhaps making a preemptive strike, I do agree we should use diplomacy whenever possible as the first option.
I think Dubya might have been influenced by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, and the plethora of other Democrats who thought Saddam had WMDs and was a threat.
You can tell how much W was influenced by the Clinton's, Kennedy etc... by the way he did absolutely nothing about terrorism until Sept 12th
-
I can't believe you guys are still wasting your time arguing this shit. It doesn't matter, Bush will finsh his term and live happily until death.
-
No. Depends on the circumstance. If we are attacked, war is the first option IMO. Like 911. Other than responding to an attack or perhaps making a preemptive strike, I do agree we should use diplomacy whenever possible as the first option.
I think Dubya might have been influenced by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, and the plethora of other Democrats who thought Saddam had WMDs and was a threat.
I understand your point but I was referencing the Iraq situation and not some general policy for war.
Again, I wish Dubya was influenced by the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq in 2002-2003 prior to the invasion.
If he had the patience that he begs for now re the Surge back then before the war, we would not be in the Iraq mess and he would not be a poster child for war crimes.
-
I can't believe you guys are still wasting your time arguing this shit. It doesn't matter, Bush will finsh his term and live happily until death.
I am not a fatalist. I do believe we have free will. I do believe a difference can be made.
-
I understand your point but I was referencing the Iraq situation and not some general policy for war.
Again, I wish Dubya was influenced by the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq in 2002-2003 prior to the invasion.
If he had the patience that he begs for now re the Surge back then before the war, we would not be in the Iraq mess and he would not be a poster child for war crimes.
Understood. Your original comments were much broader: "War should never be the first option. It should be the last resort."
-
Understood. Your original comments were much broader: "War should never be the first option. It should be the last resort."
I understand now.
-
I am not a fatalist. I do believe we have free will. I do believe a difference can be made.
How, serious, what do you think will happen? How can you make a difference?
-
How, serious, what do you think will happen? How can you make a difference?
It takes one person with an idea...with a vision.
Ideas, good and bad, can spread like a virus.
The counter-argument(s) to your assertion re one person not making a difference is that we live in a process determined reality where individual achievement means little. What matters is being in the right place at the right time in the process.
Who needed FDR when anti-aristocratic sentiment of the times would carry the day?
Who needed Ronald Reagan when a pro-business/anti-communist atmosphere prevailed?
The actors aren't important b/c the play's the thing.
I don't agree with that. I think I make a difference. Somewhere and somehow...even if only to myself.
-
It takes one person with an idea...with a vision.
Ideas, good and bad, can spread like a virus.
The counter-argument(s) to your assertion re one person not making a difference is that we live in a process determined reality where individual achievement means little. What matters is being in the right place at the right time in the process.
Who needed FDR when anti-aristocratic sentiment of the times would carry the day?
Who needed Ronald Reagan when a pro-business/anti-communist atmosphere prevailed?
The actors aren't important b/c the play's the thing.
I don't agree with that. I think I make a difference. Somewhere and somehow...even if only to myself.
as long as you realize it is only to yourself.....you make a difference in the Iraq war debate the same way Cindy Sheehan did.....zero...aside from proving what an ass you are shouting democratic CTs
-
as long as you realize it is only to yourself.....you make a difference in the Iraq war debate the same way Cindy Sheehan did.....zero...aside from proving what an ass you are shouting democratic CTs
Really? Wow.
I fail to see where you have ever put me in my place on the Iraq war debate? I, however, can point to multiple instances of where you are dead wrong on your sentimental yet erroneous beliefs about Iraq: from the legality of the invasion to the carving up of Iraqi assets, the one thing about your opinion that has been so right is that you have been consistently wrong.
So if I were you, I would be a little more careful about flying the 'legend in your own mind' flag b/c you seem to be the walking epitome of that sentiment.
-
Really? Wow.
I fail to see where you have ever put me in my place on the Iraq war debate? I, however, can point to multiple instances of where you are dead wrong on your sentimental yet erroneous beliefs about Iraq: from the legality of the invasion to the carving up of Iraqi assets, the one thing about your opinion that has been so right is that you have been consistently wrong.
So if I were you, I would be a little more careful about flying the 'legend in your own mind' flag b/c you seem to be the walking epitome of that sentiment.
I will believe the war in Iraq was Illegal when I see someone tried for it.......You have nothing but 3rd party knowledge of Iraq son....after your next tour, then you can tell me how things are going in Iraq...
-
I will believe the war in Iraq was Illegal when I see someone tried for it.......You have nothing but 3rd party knowledge of Iraq son....after your next tour, then you can tell me how things are going in Iraq...
Thank you for serving your country.
But your anecdotal evidence about Iraq means nothing to me.
I don't have to be a soldier to read the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Holdings and Resolution 1441 and understand that our president has satisfied the requirements to be labeled a war criminal because he misused a congressional grant of authority to use force to disarm Iraq, as per REs. 1441, when Iraq was already under inspection for wmds (i.e. complying w/ UN resolution 1441).
So you can hide behind your anecdotal evidence.
I know you are smarter than that. On some level you know I'm right.
-
Thank you for serving your country.
But your anecdotal evidence about Iraq means nothing to me.
I don't have to be a soldier to read the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Holdings and Resolution 1441 and understand that our president has satisfied the requirements to be labeled a war criminal because he misused a congressional grant of authority to use force to disarm Iraq, as per REs. 1441, when Iraq was already under inspection for wmds (i.e. complying w/ UN resolution 1441).
So you can hide behind your anecdotal evidence.
I know you are smarter than that. On some level you know I'm right.
if it isn't a war, how can he be a war criminnal?
-
if it isn't a war, how can he be a war criminnal?
Technically what he's done is "Crimes against Humanity" and "Crimes against Peace", 'war crimes' is just a title comprehending those charges.
-
I'm still waiting for the left to bring Bush up on formal charges. ::)
Of course that would mean that all of those on the left that authorized military force would be guilty too.
-
I'm still waiting for the left to bring Bush up on formal charges. ::)
Of course that would mean that all of those on the left that authorized military force would be guilty too.
It's not up to the 'left' to bring war crimes charges against the president. That's for the World Court to do. The democrats can only vote to impeach Bush. But thanks to spineless republicans, that will never happen. And in fairness there are democrats spineless on the matter too.
The US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the world court, the court with jurisdiction in this matter, b/c the US is already on the docket of that court for alleged terrorist war crimes perpetrated by the Reagan/Bush administration for the mining of Nicaraguan Harbors back in the Iran/Contra Scandal.
How are the democrats guilty of anything besides poor judgment in trusting the president's judgment?
The Congress authorized Bush, as commander and chief of the military, to use force, if necessary, to compel Iraq's compliance with UN resolution 1441 to disarm.
Iraq was complying with Res 1441 starting in 2002 by letting the WMD inspectors in to do their work and voluntarily providing the inspectors with requested materials.
Bush ordered the attack in 2003 anyways irrespective of Iraq's compliance with the Resolution.
Do you see what I'm saying?
Bush misused the Congressional grant of authority to use force to enforce a resolution that the Iraqis were already complying with.
It was Bush's call to make re the triggering of use of force and he broke the law to do it. The democrats share no such blame.
-
I'm still waiting for the left to bring Bush up on formal charges. ::)
Of course that would mean that all of those on the left that authorized military force would be guilty too.
Exactly. Numerous members of Congress said Saddam was a threat and should be disarmed before the war. Congress endorsed the war after it started. There is no way they can try and impeach/remove Bush for the war now. Really makes no sense.
-
Exactly. Numerous members of Congress said Saddam was a threat and should be disarmed before the war. Congress endorsed the war after it started. There is no way they can try and impeach/remove Bush for the war now. Really makes no sense.
Beach Bum, If I give you a gun and tell you that if the mugger threatening me doesn't cease and desist, you can shoot him.
The mugger stops threatening me.
Beach Bum shoots the mugger.
That is precisely what happened w/ the Iraq war. Am I (Congress) to blame for your (Bush) shooting the mugger(Iraq)? No. You couldn't follow a simple instruction and what could have been self-defense is now murder.
On a related note, what about Bush's burying of evidence re No WMDs in Iraq? What about Bush's continued coupling of Hussein and 9/11? What of Bush's manufacturing of 'evidence' of Iraq's WMDs and the ease at which Curveball the Iraqi Cab Driver duped the Bush Adm into believing his tales of WMDs (solid source my ass)?
In other words Beach Bum are you surprised that the Democrats came to the conclusion that Iraq could pose a threat based on the Bush WMD 'evidence' and that the president should have at his disposal power to deal with that threat if the threat materializes?
-
Beach Bum, If I give you a gun and tell you that if the mugger threatening me doesn't cease and desist, you can shoot him.
The mugger stops threatening me.
Beach Bum shoots the mugger.
That is precisely what happened w/ the Iraq war. Am I (Congress) to blame for your (Bush) shooting the mugger(Iraq)? No. You couldn't follow a simple instruction and what could have been self-defense is now murder.
On a related note, what about Bush's burying of evidence re No WMDs in Iraq? What about Bush's continued coupling of Hussein and 9/11? What of Bush's manufacturing of 'evidence' of Iraq's WMDs and the ease at which Curveball the Iraqi Cab Driver duped the Bush Adm into believing his tales of WMDs (solid source my ass)?
In other words Beach Bum are you surprised that the Democrats came to the conclusion that Iraq could pose a threat based on the Bush WMD 'evidence' and that the president should have at his disposal power to deal with that threat if the threat materializes?
I think your hypothetical would be more accurate if you told me the mugger was threatening you and that I should shoot him, I shoot him, and then you tell me, repeatedly, that the shooting was justified. You then give me more bullets to shoot the guy again. Then you'd have to be the judge at my murder trial who decides whether or not the shooting was justified. (Congress decides impeachment and the Senate removes from office.)
I am not surprised that Democrats believed each other, both before and after Bush took office, that Saddam was a threat and needed to go.
-
I think your hypothetical would be more accurate if you told me the mugger was threatening you and that I should shoot him, I shoot him, and then you tell me, repeatedly, that the shooting was justified. You then give me more bullets to shoot the guy again. Then you'd have to be the judge at my murder trial who decides whether or not the shooting was justified. (Congress decides impeachment and the Senate removes from office.)
I am not surprised that Democrats believed each other, both before and after Bush took office, that Saddam was a threat and needed to go.
Bush was providing the WMD info from Curveball to all the Congress to ensure that everyone was on the same page re the danger presented by Iraq and its WMDs. Remember the republican/Bush talking point that: the democrats had access to the same intel the president did! Not only was that true it was the height of intellectual dishonesty. Bush Manufactured evidence and buried counterevidence. If you can look at that and still accuse the democrats of complicity then you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
I read your analogy and it was good. Wholly inaccurate, but good. Now I know why analogies always breakdown no matter how well-intentioned. So you're telling me that Bush was just listening to the democrats who were jonesing to attack Iraq from day one? That they were soothsaying to George, keep up the attack George honey, you're doing a great job...
I wonder if that happened before or after John Kerry voted against the funding bill? Remember that famous flip-flop which really wasn't a flip-flop at all?
-
Bush was providing the WMD info from Curveball to all the Congress to ensure that everyone was on the same page re the danger presented by Iraq and its WMDs. Remember the republican/Bush talking point that: the democrats had access to the same intel the president did! Not only was that true it was the height of intellectual dishonesty. Bush Manufactured evidence and buried counterevidence. If you can look at that and still accuse the democrats of complicity then you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
I read your analogy and it was good. Wholly inaccurate, but good. Now I know why analogies always breakdown no matter how well-intentioned. So you're telling me that Bush was just listening to the democrats who were jonesing to attack Iraq from day one? That they were soothsaying to George, keep up the attack George honey, you're doing a great job...
I wonder if that happened before or after John Kerry voted against the funding bill? Remember that famous flip-flop which really wasn't a flip-flop at all?
You're saying Bush duped Congress. The facts don't support you. Decker why don't we track the comments from members of Congress regarding Saddam both before and after Bush took office? I can start if you like. Let me know. :)
What I'm saying is Congress thought Saddam was a threat before and after Bush took office. Congress then gave Bush the authority to strike. I know you believe Bush misused that authority, but then Congress passed resolutions supporting the war after it started and after Bush supposedly misused this grant of authority to use force. Then they funded the war and continue to do so. IMO, that makes it impossible for Congress to now try and impeach the president for going to war.
And I like my hypothetical better. It's more accurate. :)
-
You're saying Bush duped Congress. The facts don't support you. Decker why don't we track the comments from members of Congress regarding Saddam both before and after Bush took office? I can start if you like. Let me know. :)
What I'm saying is Congress thought Saddam was a threat before and after Bush took office. Congress then gave Bush the authority to strike. I know you believe Bush misused that authority, but then Congress passed resolutions supporting the war after it started and after Bush supposedly misused this grant of authority to use force. Then they funded the war and continue to do so. IMO, that makes it impossible for Congress to now try and impeach the president for going to war.
And I like my hypothetical better. It's more accurate. :)
Oh but the facts do support me. Just do some reading on how the Bush administration listened to conmen like "CurveBall" and Chalabi just b/c they too wanted regime change.
Where was Bush's famous patience when the WMD inspectors were finding nothing? He attacked anyway.
That is the way of cowards. Bush is a coward. Have your target prone from following your directions and then attack.
Congress's activities re the war have nothing to do with the Commander and Chief violating inter-national law to attack Iraq. It was his call to make...not the Congress.
Kerry pulled his support for the war b/c of Bush's illegal attack and was labeled a flipflopper by republican apologists--"he's against the troops" these zombies said.
Congress can impeach Bush and should b/c like I pointed out, he was the Commander and Chief making the call for attack. Who cares who supported him before or after.
Have a great weekend Beach Bum.
It was that man's responsibility and I believe in accountability for someone in such a supremely powerful position.
-
Oh but the facts do support me. Just do some reading on how the Bush administration listened to conmen like "CurveBall" and Chalabi just b/c they too wanted regime change.
Where was Bush's famous patience when the WMD inspectors were finding nothing? He attacked anyway.
That is the way of cowards. Bush is a coward. Have your target prone from following your directions and then attack.
Congress's activities re the war have nothing to do with the Commander and Chief violating inter-national law to attack Iraq. It was his call to make...not the Congress.
Kerry pulled his support for the war b/c of Bush's illegal attack and was labeled a flipflopper by republican apologists--"he's against the troops" these zombies said.
Congress can impeach Bush and should b/c like I pointed out, he was the Commander and Chief making the call for attack. Who cares who supported him before or after.
Have a great weekend Beach Bum.
It was that man's responsibility and I believe in accountability for someone in such a supremely powerful position.
Have a great weekend. We can continue this on Monday. I'm getting snowed under over here. People need to get their priorities straight. Too much work . . . .
-
It's not up to the 'left' to bring war crimes charges against the president. That's for the World Court to do. The democrats can only vote to impeach Bush. But thanks to spineless republicans, that will never happen. And in fairness there are democrats spineless on the matter too.
The US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the world court, the court with jurisdiction in this matter, b/c the US is already on the docket of that court for alleged terrorist war crimes perpetrated by the Reagan/Bush administration for the mining of Nicaraguan Harbors back in the Iran/Contra Scandal.
How are the democrats guilty of anything besides poor judgment in trusting the president's judgment?
The Congress authorized Bush, as commander and chief of the military, to use force, if necessary, to compel Iraq's compliance with UN resolution 1441 to disarm.
Iraq was complying with Res 1441 starting in 2002 by letting the WMD inspectors in to do their work and voluntarily providing the inspectors with requested materials.
Bush ordered the attack in 2003 anyways irrespective of Iraq's compliance with the Resolution.
Do you see what I'm saying?
Bush misused the Congressional grant of authority to use force to enforce a resolution that the Iraqis were already complying with.
It was Bush's call to make re the triggering of use of force and he broke the law to do it. The democrats share no such blame.
Yes. I see what you're saying and I respectfully disagree. Like it or not the left played Americans because they did not want to be seen as weak on national security. Like it really mattered though. In the end they did anyway.
As far as the World Government Court goes, you're right. It has ZERO authority over the United States and I pray to God it never does. The last thing we need is a bunch of socialist third world countries telling the United States how to conduct it's business and how to protect itself from those that would do us harm.
Let's face reality here. Bush will NEVER be impeached and there isn't a damn thing the World Government Court or the radical left can do about it. If the Democrats had an ounce of evidence that would stick and actually impeach Bush they would have done it already. Additionally, it sets a precedent that I really do believe the Democrats do not want to establish.
-
As far as the World Government Court goes, you're right. It has ZERO authority over the United States and I pray to God it never does. The last thing we need is a bunch of socialist third world countries telling the United States how to conduct it's business and how to protect itself from those that would do us harm.
What countries in the third world are socialist?
I can think of two: Cuba and North-Korea.
What other countries are there?
I can think of
-
What countries in the third world are socialist?
I can think of two: Cuba and North-Korea.
What other countries are there?
I can think of
Venezuela
China
Vietnam
Laos
Belarus
Syria
Canada (that's just for Judi ;))
-
Yes. I see what you're saying and I respectfully disagree. Like it or not the left played Americans because they did not want to be seen as weak on national security. Like it really mattered though. In the end they did anyway.
As far as the World Government Court goes, you're right. It has ZERO authority over the United States and I pray to God it never does. The last thing we need is a bunch of socialist third world countries telling the United States how to conduct it's business and how to protect itself from those that would do us harm.
Let's face reality here. Bush will NEVER be impeached and there isn't a damn thing the World Government Court or the radical left can do about it. If the Democrats had an ounce of evidence that would stick and actually impeach Bush they would have done it already. Additionally, it sets a precedent that I really do believe the Democrats do not want to establish.
You make a good point. The democrats simply do not have the ability to stand up to Bush. Here's an example: Funding for the troops for '08 came up. The democrats proposed funding with deadlines for troop withdrawal. Bush vetoed that bill.
So in essence, Bush cut the funding to the troops. Since the democrats do not hold enough seats to override a presidential veto they could stand their ground or propose new legislation. Did the democrats stand pat? No.
They loaded up with pork the bill the president wanted and let it pass.
It could have been a showdown but wasn't. The democrats let down the country by caving into Bush and the republicans.
The way I look at the entire Iraq mess is that the US's occupation will always be viewed with an air of illegitimacy b/c of the way Bush ordered the invasion. That being said, I also think that as long as we have troops occupying the country, they will be attacked. Not a very complex analysis but I think it's true.