Impeach him? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Simple_Min · 06-12-2003, 05:08 AM

I've asked this before...

What's worse: screwing an intern or the entire nation?

My favorite one is:

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

Quote:

By John Dean

FindLaw.com
June 11, 2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
– United Nations Address, September 12, 2002

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

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons – the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
– Radio Address, October 5, 2002

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

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

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

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" – his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
– Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
– State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
– Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003

Should The President Get The Benefit Of The Doubt?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British and American Press Reaction to the Missing WMDs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investigating The Iraqi War Intelligence Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President of the United States.

Liquor Dealer · 06-12-2003, 05:25 AM

"I've asked this before..."

That's right so why drag it up again?

Peetster · 06-12-2003, 05:34 AM

John Dean, the impartial and unbiased reporter.

Simple_Min · 06-12-2003, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer

That's right so why drag it up again?

I think it's ovious why if you read on past the first line.

MSD · 06-12-2003, 06:23 AM

I'm sorry, your questioning of the President and his motives is unpatriotic. John Ashcroft would like a word with you, after which he will decide whether to send you to Guantanamo Bay or to Joe McCarthy's Council on Un-American Activities.

Anyway, I vote for impeachment.

The_Dude · 06-12-2003, 06:27 AM

i remember the thing about aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse wmd's

now that was the biggest bull shit he fed us.

i remember UN inspectors finding a radio controlled plane, all patched up w/ tape. it was the most ghetto ass looking thing on earth.

i'd love to see bush go on tv for an interview or something and the interviewer quote his earlier quotes and see his response then.

it would be hilarious.

reconmike · 06-12-2003, 06:34 AM

You have to love it, liberals grasping at straws.

Anything to get at GW.
Buckle up lefties, you have 5 more years of this man.

The_Dude · 06-12-2003, 06:37 AM

make that 1 if the congressional probe finds something.

we'll have nixon jr here if they do.

Liquor Dealer · 06-12-2003, 06:48 AM

I read much further than the first line - Why I said don't bring it up again! The same 4 or 5 of you are beating it to death in 3 or 4 other posts right now! How damn many ways can you say the same thing over and over.

http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?threadid=10565

http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?threadid=9181

Do you need more - look past these that are on this page. It's a dead horse unless you can come up with something new.

Daval · 06-12-2003, 07:08 AM

Great article. A very interesting read!

It'll be interesting to watch all of this unfold.

Dammit, How I wish for a viable demotcratic candidate.

geep · 06-12-2003, 07:56 AM

I think we should wait to impeach him until after he invades North Korea.

Prophecy · 06-12-2003, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrSelfDestruct
I'm sorry, your questioning of the President and his motives is unpatriotic. John Ashcroft would like a word with you, after which he will decide whether to send you to Guantanamo Bay or to Joe McCarthy's Council on Un-American Activities.

That's hilarious

But anyway, whatever happened to those chemical suits and barrells the army found?

Xeen · 06-12-2003, 09:15 AM

Hmmm.. I've been following the StratFor footage of the conflict and even before the invasion began they were saying that there'd be hell to pay for the polititians at some point over the WMD claims...

...looks like they were right. I guess you can't lie about that sort of thing and not be found out...

Simple_Min · 06-12-2003, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
You have to love it, liberals grasping at straws.

Anything to get at GW.
Buckle up lefties, you have 5 more years of this man.

Hardly. Accountability & truth vs. blindly following a leader who himself is blind.

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs...une_10_let.pdf

reconmike · 06-12-2003, 09:34 AM

Let's try this again, Hussien had WMD the world knew this as fact.
He failed to prove to the UN that he ever destroyed any of them, so for all intents and purposes he still had them.
So who was deceiving who?

As for blindly following, doesnt even rate a reply.

seretogis · 06-12-2003, 10:05 AM

It's a good thing that we have yet another thread full of exagerrated liberal hysteria. I can almost see the frantic arm-waving while liberals run around in circles claiming that the sky is falling. In my opinion, the mass graves that we found is much more damning than any WMD we could find, but that's just me.

Sparhawk · 06-12-2003, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
It's a good thing that we have yet another thread full of exagerrated liberal hysteria. I can almost see the frantic arm-waving while liberals run around in circles claiming that the sky is falling. In my opinion, the mass graves that we found is much more damning than any WMD we could find, but that's just me.

The Ends Justify the Means, do they? I think that's Karl Rove's motto as well.

The_Dude · 06-12-2003, 11:19 AM

let's not bash groups here/ideology here.

i've yet to see a somebody stereotype conservatives as doing something. (maybe i havent looked hard enough), but i see a lot of people bascially dismissing arguments because "it's liberals whining" or "exagerrated liberal hysteria".

Lebell · 06-12-2003, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
let's not bash groups here/ideology here.

Oh, like gun owners and the NRA?

geep · 06-12-2003, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
i've yet to see a somebody stereotype conservatives as doing something.

This statement makes no sense to me, especially since conservatives are constantly being accused of doing things liberals don't like.

james t kirk · 06-12-2003, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
It's a good thing that we have yet another thread full of exagerrated liberal hysteria. I can almost see the frantic arm-waving while liberals run around in circles claiming that the sky is falling. In my opinion, the mass graves that we found is much more damning than any WMD we could find, but that's just me.

As a liberal kind of guy myself, i must admit, i agree with you 100%.

Saddam was a murdering prick and i am glad the USA took him to task and removed him.

But that was never the arguement bushy gave for war now was it?

Never the less, since the you are taking the moral highground, and i commend you for your noble stance, I think the US should now turn it's attention to Africa.

There you will find many more mass graves and lunatic leaders. Then you can move on to half of central america and get rid of half of those mad men.

It's a fucked up world out there i am afraid.

It's ironic in a way that the best thing that came out of this war was getting rid of the murdering prick, and for that, i sincerely tip my hat to my american cousins.

As far as impeaching bush goes, please don't. The world doesn't need to be tipped on its ear for the second time in 5 years by politics. The last time was the height of stupidity and a waste of billions of dollars.

If you don't like what bush did, you will have your opportunity to express that fact in November of 2004 i believe.

Personally, i hope you vote that mental midget right out on his ear. Not so much because of iraq, but because of the incompetant boob that he is.

The_Dude · 06-12-2003, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
This statement makes no sense to me, especially since conservatives are constantly being accused of doing things liberals don't like.

what i meant to say was "being disprectful to each other's arguements", that's a very rude thing.

couldnt find those words when i posted earlier

Sparhawk · 06-12-2003, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
As a liberal kind of guy myself, i must admit, i agree with you 100%.

Saddam was a murdering prick and i am glad the USA took him to task and removed him.

But that was never the arguement bushy gave for war now was it?

Never the less, since the you are taking the moral highground, and i commend you for your noble stance, I think the US should now turn it's attention to Africa.

There you will find many more mass graves and lunatic leaders. Then you can move on to half of central america and get rid of half of those mad men.

It's a fucked up world out there i am afraid.

Here here!

seretogis · 06-12-2003, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
what i meant to say was "being disprectful to each other's arguements", that's a very rude thing.

couldnt find those words when i posted earlier

It's not an argument, it's an unending drone. I showed a little restraint in keeping the Texas Democrat thing to one thread, why can't the "Bush vs Cuddles Hussein" conspiracy theory be kept to one thread as well?

The_Dude · 06-12-2003, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
It's not an argument, it's an unending drone. I showed a little restraint in keeping the Texas Democrat thing to one thread, why can't the "Bush vs Cuddles Hussein" conspiracy theory be kept to one thread as well?

i dont know i didnt start the threads.

but if you dont like it being dragged out, then dont read it. nobody's making you.

reconmike · 06-12-2003, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
It's not an argument, it's an unending drone. I showed a little restraint in keeping the Texas Democrat thing to one thread, why can't the "Bush vs Cuddles Hussein" conspiracy theory be kept to one thread as well?

Because seretogis this is therapy for the most left ones, it gives them something to vent at because the war wasn't as bad as they had hoped.

Anything to try and take pot shots at GW.

The_Dude · 06-12-2003, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
Because seretogis this is therapy for the most left ones, it gives them something to vent at because the war wasn't as bad as they had hoped.

Anything to try and take pot shots at GW.

comments like this.......i've never seen a left-wing person post something like this.

this is disrespecting the whole discussion.

Lebell · 06-12-2003, 07:42 PM

Why don't we all face an unpleasant truth and admit we all do it?

Those who lean to the left and the right, all drag their own agendas, tones, etc. into every thread.

Human nature.

Kadath · 06-12-2003, 08:08 PM

It's just the same old tactic. "I don't want to talk about this, as it casts my views in a negative light, so I'll refer to it as beating a dead horse, or whining, etc." Transparent and simple-minded.

a_divine_martyr · 06-13-2003, 12:02 AM

Well, if being an oppressive leader is cause for war...

We might as well just lay a huge fucking hydrogen bomb on Africa and South America.

And I think Bush is just digging himself a bigger drave.

But he'll find a way to take the attention off of his fuck ups.

We didn't find Osama... we went to war with Iraq.

We haven't found WMD's (and looks like we won't)... let's fix the Irael / Palestine conflict!

seretogis · 06-13-2003, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
It's just the same old tactic. "I don't want to talk about this, as it casts my views in a negative light, so I'll refer to it as beating a dead horse, or whining, etc." Transparent and simple-minded.

Honestly, I think it's that liberals are so used to controlling 80% of the media, that they feel it necessary to create enough different threads on one issue that it composes 80% of the first page.

I bow to Kadath's obvious intellectual superiority over us simple-minded and transparent buffoons. Obviously Kadath is right, and quantity of threads is better than quality of posts.

XenuHubbard · 06-13-2003, 03:22 AM

It's interesting how all threads regarding American politics are hell-bent to end up in neocon/liberal trolltopia.

I think the USA is dying to find a third political party.

Prophecy · 06-13-2003, 05:05 AM

True enough but the US is set up a bicameral system. And I doubt the given parties want to split votes anymore than they already are. Bush will never get impeached, but he might get voted out of office. If I remember he didn't win the popular vote in the first election.

Sparhawk · 06-13-2003, 05:25 AM

Revenge is not a good motivator. Just remember all of this when you hit the ballot box in November '05. And remind all your friends to vote too

geep · 06-13-2003, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
I bow to Kadath's obvious intellectual superiority over us simple-minded and transparent buffoons. Obviously Kadath is right, and quantity of threads is better than quality of posts.

Most intellectuals don't understand that the object of politics is to win people over to your side, not make them feel stupid.

LewisCouch · 06-13-2003, 08:22 AM

Focusing on the question whether GWB should be impeached, I vote that we do not. The last time this action was pursued simply divided the country. What is an impeachable offense? This is poorly defined and subject to much debate. The bottom line is this: 67 votes in the US Senate are necessary. The current senate is comprised of one Independent, 48 Democrats and 51 Republicans. In case of a tie breaker we have a Republican Vice President. The numbers just don't add up. We need cohesivness in these difficult times, not dissent. I'm not suggesting that we blindly follow this current administration, and I believe questioning authority is a proper thing to do, however, ideologic warfare is not helping this country.

The solution is simple, if you want GWB out, vote against him in the next election.

seretogis · 06-13-2003, 11:41 AM

A formal probe into wrongdoing on the part of the President in the war was voted down in Congress, and so will probably never happen (let alone something as harsh as impeachment). Sorry dems.

As for Bush being voted in for another term or not, his approval rating is still nearly 70% I believe, so don't count on it.

snezcoby · 06-13-2003, 01:39 PM

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter wether or not we find the weapons (though I think we will.) The burden of proof was on Saddam, and he never proved to the requirements of 1441 (let alone all the other resolutions) that he destroyed all the weapons. Given the lack of proof and cooperation on his part, the coalition had no choice but to assume he still had the weapons, and intended to use them (which he had a past record of.) This crap about the Bush administration lying/covering things up is just that. Aside from the inherent complications in any kind of intelligence gathering, Iraq is a big country, and all this clamoring about "no WMD's" demonstrates a huge lack of patience on the part of those who kept insisting "Give the inspections more time." Not to mention that the inspections were meant to *verify*, not prove that Saddam had dismantled and destroyed all weapons programs -- which he did not do. I really don't see how people can sit there and complain when an entire country has been freed of a brutal dictator, and the world has one less threat to security. But I guess complaining is more fun.

TaLoN · 06-13-2003, 02:35 PM

lying and false accusations are part of being a politician. deal with it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Simple_Min
Hardly. Accountability & truth vs. blindly following a leader who himself is blind.

nothing is ever as it seems

Phaenx · 06-13-2003, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
It's a good thing that we have yet another thread full of exagerrated liberal hysteria. I can almost see the frantic arm-waving while liberals run around in circles claiming that the sky is falling. In my opinion, the mass graves that we found is much more damning than any WMD we could find, but that's just me.

We are justified in overthrowing Saddam whether we find WMD's or not, and we will, what I never hear about when these guys are going on about an unjust war against a totally innocent Saddam is the two confirmed mobile weapons labs we found, just like Colin Powell said they had.

06-12-2003, 05:25 AM	#2 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	"I've asked this before..." That's right so why drag it up again? __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

06-12-2003, 06:27 AM	#6 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i remember the thing about aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse wmd's now that was the biggest bull shit he fed us. i remember UN inspectors finding a radio controlled plane, all patched up w/ tape. it was the most ghetto ass looking thing on earth. i'd love to see bush go on tv for an interview or something and the interviewer quote his earlier quotes and see his response then. it would be hilarious. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-12-2003, 06:34 AM	#7 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	You have to love it, liberals grasping at straws. Anything to get at GW. Buckle up lefties, you have 5 more years of this man. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

06-12-2003, 06:37 AM	#8 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	make that 1 if the congressional probe finds something. we'll have nixon jr here if they do. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-12-2003, 06:48 AM	#9 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	I read much further than the first line - Why I said don't bring it up again! The same 4 or 5 of you are beating it to death in 3 or 4 other posts right now! How damn many ways can you say the same thing over and over. http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?threadid=10565 http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?threadid=9181 Do you need more - look past these that are on this page. It's a dead horse unless you can come up with something new. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!! Last edited by Liquor Dealer; 06-12-2003 at 06:55 AM..

06-12-2003, 05:34 AM	#3 (permalink)
Peetster Right Now Location: Home	John Dean, the impartial and unbiased reporter.

06-12-2003, 06:23 AM	#5 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I'm sorry, your questioning of the President and his motives is unpatriotic. John Ashcroft would like a word with you, after which he will decide whether to send you to Guantanamo Bay or to Joe McCarthy's Council on Un-American Activities. Anyway, I vote for impeachment.

06-12-2003, 07:08 AM	#10 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	Great article. A very interesting read! It'll be interesting to watch all of this unfold. Dammit, How I wish for a viable demotcratic candidate. __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill

06-12-2003, 07:56 AM	#11 (permalink)
geep Insane Location: Imprisoned in Ecotopia	I think we should wait to impeach him until after he invades North Korea.

06-12-2003, 09:15 AM	#13 (permalink)
Xeen Psycho Location: UK	Hmmm.. I've been following the StratFor footage of the conflict and even before the invasion began they were saying that there'd be hell to pay for the polititians at some point over the WMD claims... ...looks like they were right. I guess you can't lie about that sort of thing and not be found out... __________________ ~~ Xeen ~~ This court rules that religion must stay 500 yards away from science at all times.

06-12-2003, 09:34 AM	#15 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Let's try this again, Hussien had WMD the world knew this as fact. He failed to prove to the UN that he ever destroyed any of them, so for all intents and purposes he still had them. So who was deceiving who? As for blindly following, doesnt even rate a reply. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him? Last edited by reconmike; 06-12-2003 at 12:30 PM..

06-12-2003, 10:05 AM	#16 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	It's a good thing that we have yet another thread full of exagerrated liberal hysteria. I can almost see the frantic arm-waving while liberals run around in circles claiming that the sky is falling. In my opinion, the mass graves that we found is much more damning than any WMD we could find, but that's just me. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

06-12-2003, 11:19 AM	#18 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	let's not bash groups here/ideology here. i've yet to see a somebody stereotype conservatives as doing something. (maybe i havent looked hard enough), but i see a lot of people bascially dismissing arguments because "it's liberals whining" or "exagerrated liberal hysteria". __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-12-2003, 07:42 PM	#28 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Why don't we all face an unpleasant truth and admit we all do it? Those who lean to the left and the right, all drag their own agendas, tones, etc. into every thread. Human nature. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-12-2003, 08:08 PM	#29 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	It's just the same old tactic. "I don't want to talk about this, as it casts my views in a negative light, so I'll refer to it as beating a dead horse, or whining, etc." Transparent and simple-minded. __________________ it's quiet in here

06-13-2003, 12:02 AM	#30 (permalink)
a_divine_martyr Insane	Well, if being an oppressive leader is cause for war... We might as well just lay a huge fucking hydrogen bomb on Africa and South America. And I think Bush is just digging himself a bigger drave. But he'll find a way to take the attention off of his fuck ups. We didn't find Osama... we went to war with Iraq. We haven't found WMD's (and looks like we won't)... let's fix the Irael / Palestine conflict! __________________ Censorship and thought control can only exist in secrecy and darkness... Last edited by a_divine_martyr; 06-13-2003 at 12:07 AM..

06-13-2003, 03:22 AM	#32 (permalink)
XenuHubbard Cute and Cuddly Location: Teegeeack.	It's interesting how all threads regarding American politics are hell-bent to end up in neocon/liberal trolltopia. I think the USA is dying to find a third political party. __________________ The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me. "What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

06-13-2003, 05:05 AM	#33 (permalink)
Prophecy Oracle & Apollyon Location: Limbus Patrum	True enough but the US is set up a bicameral system. And I doubt the given parties want to split votes anymore than they already are. Bush will never get impeached, but he might get voted out of office. If I remember he didn't win the popular vote in the first election. __________________ La Disciplina È La Mia Spada, La Fede È Il Mio Schermo, Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza, E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

06-13-2003, 05:25 AM	#34 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	Revenge is not a good motivator. Just remember all of this when you hit the ballot box in November '05. And remind all your friends to vote too __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

06-13-2003, 08:22 AM	#36 (permalink)
LewisCouch Insane Location: Pacific NW	Focusing on the question whether GWB should be impeached, I vote that we do not. The last time this action was pursued simply divided the country. What is an impeachable offense? This is poorly defined and subject to much debate. The bottom line is this: 67 votes in the US Senate are necessary. The current senate is comprised of one Independent, 48 Democrats and 51 Republicans. In case of a tie breaker we have a Republican Vice President. The numbers just don't add up. We need cohesivness in these difficult times, not dissent. I'm not suggesting that we blindly follow this current administration, and I believe questioning authority is a proper thing to do, however, ideologic warfare is not helping this country. The solution is simple, if you want GWB out, vote against him in the next election. __________________ "The gift of liberty is like that of a horse, handsome, strong, and high-spirited. In some it arouses a wish to ride; in many others, on the contrary, it increases the desire to walk." -- Massimo d'Azeglio

06-13-2003, 11:41 AM	#37 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	A formal probe into wrongdoing on the part of the President in the war was voted down in Congress, and so will probably never happen (let alone something as harsh as impeachment). Sorry dems. As for Bush being voted in for another term or not, his approval rating is still nearly 70% I believe, so don't count on it. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

06-13-2003, 01:39 PM	#38 (permalink)
snezcoby Upright Location: georgia	The bottom line is that it doesn't matter wether or not we find the weapons (though I think we will.) The burden of proof was on Saddam, and he never proved to the requirements of 1441 (let alone all the other resolutions) that he destroyed all the weapons. Given the lack of proof and cooperation on his part, the coalition had no choice but to assume he still had the weapons, and intended to use them (which he had a past record of.) This crap about the Bush administration lying/covering things up is just that. Aside from the inherent complications in any kind of intelligence gathering, Iraq is a big country, and all this clamoring about "no WMD's" demonstrates a huge lack of patience on the part of those who kept insisting "Give the inspections more time." Not to mention that the inspections were meant to verify, not prove that Saddam had dismantled and destroyed all weapons programs -- which he did not do. I really don't see how people can sit there and complain when an entire country has been freed of a brutal dictator, and the world has one less threat to security. But I guess complaining is more fun.