An Impeachable Offense?

[Pierzin]

I was all for the Iraq War when it started. "Yes, they are linked to terrorists, and Al Queda, they're bad, let's take them out, blah blah blah. " But since then, the truth has come out, and it disgusts me. No one has found stockpiles of weapons, or missiles or nerve gas. No WMDs at all.

Reports state that intelligence reports were rushed, and those that supported the administrations views were heeded, but those that urged caution, were not.

Since then, it would appear that Bush lied. And if he lied about taking us to war, isn't that an impeachable offense?

And if he did, isn't this the scandal of our time? I mean, really? Where is the outrage? Isn't taking advantage of public sentiment -ie- anger and revenge for & about 9-11- and directing it toward another nation well, - wrong? This makes Watergate pale by comparison, should the whole story ever see the light of day.

Here's my sources: Read for yourselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?...eb2 [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5677812/

 

[PreMier]

 

[Pierzin]

see also:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5677812/

 

[Stickboy]

Um, if you don't KNOW the intel is bad, and you make a decision based on that intel you are given - that isn't a lie. It's simply a decision based on bad information.

You don't know what they have. Troops have uncovered aircraft buried in the sand. What else may lay there?

Thanks to people like Clinton and Kerry cutting funding for intel, how could you expect anything less?

People that bring this up forget one thing. Alot of countries thought that Iraq was producing WMD's. It just wasn't the U.S. All to common that we are the only ones with the balls to back up what we say.

Iraq could not account for the destruction of such weapons.
Iraq repeatedly violated sanctions against it.
Iraq was repeatedly condemed for non-compliance by the UN.
Iraq repeatedly refused to allow inspectors back in.

Any of those could have resulted in a War. This isn't the U.S's fault. Saddam brought it upon himself. Too bad the UN body didn't have the BALLS to do what they should have early on. Having allies that are a bunch of pussies (France, Germany) didn't help either.

Tell, Mr. Armchair Quarterback, what would you have done differently?

 

[kbm8795]

http://www.impeachbush.org

 

[Stickboy]

http://www.catholicsagainstkerry.org/

Hmmm. Kerry's Catholic, and even they hate him.

 

[PreMier]

http://www.communistsforkerry.com/

 

[redspy]

http://www.bushorchimp.com/

 

[BoneCrusher]

 

[redspy]

http://dogshatebush.com/

 

[PreMier]

What are you confused about? I am just sick of seeing political threads lol

 

[BoneCrusher]

What are you confused about? I am just sick of seeing political threads lol

 

[BoneCrusher]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0820-04.htm

 

[BoneCrusher]

Um, if you don't KNOW the intel is bad, and you make a decision based on that intel you are given - that isn't a lie. It's simply a decision based on bad information.

1st off Stick if he really did not know what was up, than he should not have the Job. I knew it was B.S. when I first heard this was going down from Rush & i'm just the average Joe Shmo.

2ndSaddam was bombed back to the Stone Age by Bush1 and sanction so hard he never recovered. Even with the underground "aid" from France and Germany, he still had nothing.

3rd he ignored the intel that did not line up with his expressed desire to get Saddam, ignored all the reports from weapons inspectors that were saying even then that nothing was showing up ... not even any traces of hiding anything were showing up. Bush had sat recon of every grain of sand in the place dating back a decade. No way he did not know what the deal was.

4th and most important ... this whole thing is a right turn from chasing down the terrorists that blew us up. One moment we are going through Afghanistan looking under rocks for Bin-hidin' ... next thing were rolling through the streets of Baghdad. I mean WTF?!? Congress says it is OK to get those terrorists ... then we blow up Iraq?

You don't know what they have. Troops have uncovered aircraft buried in the sand. What else may lay there?

You don't, I don't, but he damn well better or he's fired. It is his job to know bro. He has the best intel on the planet at his table.

Thanks to people like Clinton and Kerry cutting funding for intel, how could you expect anything less?

I listen to Rush too. He has blamed everything from 9/11 to the weather on Clinton. That is getting a lil old now ... really. Throwing Kerry in the mix without showing his complete voting record kills your argument.

People that bring this up forget one thing. Alot of countries thought that Iraq was producing WMD's. It just wasn't the U.S. All to common that we are the only ones with the balls to back up what we say.

No my bro a lot of countries did not really thinks so.

Iraq could not account for the destruction of such weapons.

Iraq repeatedly violated sanctions against it.
Iraq was repeatedly condemed for non-compliance by the UN.
Iraq repeatedly refused to allow inspectors back in.

The other choice for Iraq was to say OK you got me and I aint got shit. Just all this oil and nothing to defend my self with. So please be nice and don't come steal it from me OK?

Any of those could have resulted in a War. This isn't the U.S's fault. Saddam brought it upon himself.

Bush chose to target the dude and used our media and military to get what he wanted.

Too bad the UN body didn't have the BALLS to do what they should have early on. Having allies that are a bunch of pussies (France, Germany) didn't help either.

Ahfuckingmen on that Stick.

Tell, Mr. Armchair Quarterback, what would you have done differently?

I'd have done what I said was going to do were I him. I would have chased all the players in the 9/11 tragedy to the ends of the earth. Pakistan has a nuke ... Bin-hidin' wants to hid there? Get the dude anyway cuz they aint gonna do shit.

 

[Pepper]

Yes, I always turn to CNN for unbiased, object news on the Bush administration.

 

[Luke9583]

Excellent post BC.

 

[Pepper]

Where was all the liberal outrage when we had a certain other liar in office?

He couldn't finish a sentence w/o at least stretching the truth.

You anti-Bush people are starting to embarrass yourselves, give it a rest.

 

[Pepper]

Bush chose to target the dude and used our media and military to get what he wanted.

What is absurd about this is that Bush is constantly torched by the media. The media is clearly biased against him and has been since day one. The notion that Bush used the media is completely laughable.

 

[ZECH]

Why do these idiots keep popping up? Yes they had WMD's! We know they did. We gave them to them. We just don't know what they did with them. Do some more research and come back when you can prove what you say.

 

[Luke9583]

Why do these idiots keep popping up? Yes they had WMD's! We know they did. We gave them to them. We just don't know what they did with them. Do some more research and come back when you can prove what you say.

The question was not if they "ever" had WMD, that was common knowledge


And I would like to see Bush "prove something he says"


what gives you the right to call me an idiot? I bet you were head of your debate team

 

[Dale Mabry]

Where was all the liberal outrage when we had a certain other liar in office?
QUOTE]


Didn't you know, it is completely impossible for someone who is very far partisan to either side to admit when one of their brethren is full of shit or doing something wrong.

To those of you that say Clinton had all of the intelligence that Al Qaeda was going to bomb and did nothing, isn't this the EXACT same intel that Bush had for at least a year prior to 9/11 or did the intel stop coming in right when Bush took office? If Clinton DID slash intel spending, why did not Bush correct this. If there was a problem and he didn't fix it he is AS guilty as Clinton. Everyone fucked up. Clinton/Bush, both are guilty on 9/11. Kerry had nothing directly to do with 9/11, this puts him ahead of Bush in this area IMO.

Oh, and dg, as far as them having WMD because we gave them to them. Sure, they did have WMD and we gave them to them years ago, but I had a boner when I woke up this morning, and that doesn't mean I have one right now.

 

[I Are Baboon]

I think Bush sucks, but I don't consider him a liar. Making decisions based on bad intelligence does not constitute lying. If you think he is a liar, you are saying that with your heart and not with your brain.

 

[Luke9583]

I think Bush sucks, but I don't consider him a liar. Making decisions based on bad intelligence does not constitute lying. If you think he is a liar, you are saying that with your heart and not with your brain.

Great point. We will never know everything, unfortunately. My heart screams liar.

 

[ZECH]

The question was not if they "ever" had WMD, that was common knowledge


And I would like to see Bush "prove something he says"


what gives you the right to call me an idiot? I bet you were head of your debate team

Seeing you only had one post in here "Excellent post BC", I was not referring to you. I meant the one who started this thread. But if you truely believe this, you are brainwashed.

 

[Luke9583]

Seeing you only had one post in here "Excellent post BC", I was not referring to you. I meant the one who started this thread. But if you truely believe this, you are brainwashed.

It's all very beleivable. I make a effort too look at things from different angles.

 

[ZECH]

Where was all the liberal outrage when we had a certain other liar in office?
QUOTE]


Didn't you know, it is completely impossible for someone who is very far partisan to either side to admit when one of their brethren is full of shit or doing something wrong.

To those of you that say Clinton had all of the intelligence that Al Qaeda was going to bomb and did nothing, isn't this the EXACT same intel that Bush had for at least a year prior to 9/11 or did the intel stop coming in right when Bush took office? If Clinton DID slash intel spending, why did not Bush correct this. If there was a problem and he didn't fix it he is AS guilty as Clinton. Everyone fucked up. Clinton/Bush, both are guilty on 9/11. Kerry had nothing directly to do with 9/11, this puts him ahead of Bush in this area IMO.

Oh, and dg, as far as them having WMD because we gave them to them. Sure, they did have WMD and we gave them to them years ago, but I had a boner when I woke up this morning, and that doesn't mean I have one right now.

We know they didn't destroy them. So where are they hiding them?
Iran? Pakistan?

 

[ZECH]

It's all very beleivable. I make a effort too look at things from different angles.

Hell, your're not even 21 yet. All you know is what people tell you. I was voting before you were even born. I've forgot more than you know. And this is not a direct attack toward you, but mostly toward people your age that are very liberal because of what they have been taught and not what they know.

 

[Pierzin]

Y'all just watch. This traveling circus called the Bush White house is going down. You say the media has a liberal bias? Clinton couldn't even sneeze but a reporter was all over his butt, and then they investigated him over a land deal and a BJ? Please! Every president has lied at one point or other, but what was the consequence of the lie?
We got a war going on and the media is all talking about a war record from 35 years ago for two weeks straight? It kinda makes me wonder...
And you think Abu Ghraib was some GI's having perverted fun? Man, that was just wrong, and it dont take rocket science to figure that out.
We need a special prosecutor lookin into this dude, cause he's got more secrets than Nixon.

 

[ZECH]

You think things like this has never happened? You are credulous.

 

[Dale Mabry]

We know they didn't destroy them. So where are they hiding them?
Iran? Pakistan?

We obviously don't KNOW anything with regards to them. We KNOW they had them and until we find them, we cannot say that they WERE NOT destroyed, just that there is no record of them being destroyed and that they cannot be accounted for.