i would agree...he shouldnt...but he never will

5/5/2005 9:57:16 AM

Why won't he answer questions?

[Edited on May 5, 2005 at 10:04 AM. Reason : misunderstood your statement.]

5/5/2005 10:04:08 AM

Mindstorm won this thread a long time ago with

Quote :

"HEY, CHINA IS STILL COOL! YOU PAY LATA! LATA!!!"

5/5/2005 10:13:31 AM

I agree, DirtyGreek. It is important that people realize this about people of all professions. Except lawyers.

5/5/2005 11:30:07 AM

Quote :

"Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President By Neil Mackay A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001. The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.' The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'. This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'. The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'. The PNAC report also: l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership'; l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations'; l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA; l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has'; l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China'; l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US; l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool'; l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'. Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. 'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.' "

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

[Edited on May 6, 2005 at 9:47 AM. Reason : link]

5/6/2005 9:47:23 AM

What a stupid, stupid article.

5/6/2005 9:51:10 AM

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

5/6/2005 10:00:34 AM

Are you going somewhere with this?

5/6/2005 10:03:41 AM

^Just reinforcing the title of the thread.

5/6/2005 10:07:45 AM

From the memo itself:

Date: 23 July 2002

Quote :

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August. The two broad US options were: (a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait). (b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

[Edited on May 6, 2005 at 2:31 PM. Reason : date of memo added]

5/6/2005 2:30:47 PM

Quote :

"While Bush might not be an evil emperor (yet), it's not that far a trip from Senator Palpatine to Tom DeLay."

5/6/2005 3:04:31 PM

Nor is it that far a trip from Howard Dean to Jar Jar Binks.

5/6/2005 3:13:40 PM

nor is it a far trip from making Star Wars references to me turning my computer off entirely

5/6/2005 8:42:03 PM

Quote :

"^ please to show me the definition of high crime in the Constitution. "

Not specifically in the Constitution, but here are some thoughts and definition by some of the founders:

Quote :

" "...must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, -- in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him." "

--
James Iredell Supreme Court Justice

Overview
Born: October 5, 1751
Died: October 20, 1799
Party: Federalist
Time served: 9 years, 5 months, 8 days
Position: associate Justice
Nominated by: Washington
Commissioned: February 10, 1790
Sworn in: May 12, 1790
Left Office: October 20, 1799
Reason for leaving: Death

More info here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

5/7/2005 12:59:15 AM

Quote :

"Not all of our intelligence was illegitimate. No one denies that saddam had them. If you deny that, go back to moveon.org to find more talking points."

The UN weapons inspectors denied Saddam had them.

From January 2003:

Quote :

"U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another. # Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing." # Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing." # Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight." "

Quote :

"So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage.""

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

Interesting that intelligence from first hand reports were ignored, but false intelligence reports were used as a basis to go to war.

The U.N. knew Saddam didn't have them before the war, and they were right.

Tailoring information to support going to war is an impeachable offense.

5/8/2005 10:37:11 AM

5/8/2005 1:10:06 PM

Quote :

" "

Is that the extent of your argument?

5/9/2005 3:39:20 PM

teve torbes is a neocon?

5/9/2005 3:47:22 PM

So, judging by the lack of debate, I guess we're all agreed that there's enough evidence here to start an investigation.

5/10/2005 6:30:18 PM

I'd bet more along the lines that absolutely nothing new can be said since this dead horse was beat on repeatedly last year.

5/10/2005 9:59:55 PM

Quote :

"I'd bet more along the lines that absolutely nothing new can be said since this dead horse was beat on repeatedly last year."

Except now there's evidence to support opening an investigation, whereas last year there was none.

5/10/2005 10:10:06 PM

Members who have already signed letter:
Neil Abercrombie
Brian Baird
Tammy Baldwin
Xavier Becerra
Shelley Berkley
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Sanford Bishop
Earl Blumenauer
Corrine Brown
Sherrod Brown
G.K. Butterfield
Emanuel Cleaver
James Clyburn
John Conyers
Jim Cooper
Elijah Cummings
Danny Davis
Peter DeFazio
Diana DeGette
Bill Delahunt
Rosa DeLauro
Lloyd Doggett
Sam Farr
Bob Filner
Harold Ford, Jr.
Barney Frank
Al Green
Raul Grijalva
Louis Gutierrez
Alcee Hastings
Maurice Hinchey
Rush Holt
Jay Inslee
Sheila Jackson Lee
Jessie Jackson Jr.
Marcy Kaptur
Patrick Kennedy
Dale Kildee
Carolyn Kilpatrick
Dennis Kucinich
William Lacy Clay
Barbara Lee
John Lewis
Zoe Lofgren
Donna M. Christensen
Carolyn Maloney
Ed Markey
Carolyn McCarthy
Jim McDermott
James McGovern
Cynthia McKinney
Martin Meehan
Kendrick Meek
Gregory Meeks
Michael Michaud
George Miller
Gwen S. Moore
James Moran
Jerrold Nadler
Grace Napolitano
James Oberstar
John Olver
Major Owens
Frank Pallone
Donald Payne
Charles Rangel
Bobby Rush
Bernie Sanders
Linda Sanchez
Jan Schakowsky
Jose Serrano
Ike Skelton
Louise Slaughter
Hilda Solis
Pete Stark
Ellen Tauscher
Bennie Thompson
Edolphus Towns
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Chris Van Hollen
Nydia Velazquez
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Maxine Waters
Diane Watson
Melvin Watt
Robert Wexler
Lynn Woolsey
David Wu
Albert R. Wynn

http://rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502

5/10/2005 10:56:34 PM

Thats barely a third of the Democrats in Congress. Not exactly overwhelming support just yet.

5/10/2005 11:49:09 PM

Quote :

"Thats barely a third of the Democrats in Congress. Not exactly overwhelming support just yet."

If/when the conservative media/Bush propoganda machine ever runs with this story, momentum will build.

5/11/2005 11:32:01 AM

Quote :

"Bush asked to explain UK war memo Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Posted: 7:36 PM EDT (2336 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002 -- well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval. The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1. British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/index.html

CNN is finally reporting on it.

5/11/2005 10:39:17 PM

i'm sure it will still play far second fiddle to a single engine Cessna

5/11/2005 10:47:23 PM

LIBERAL MEDIA COVERUP! errr...uh...

5/11/2005 10:50:49 PM

so British official "C" decided to wait until Britain's election campaign to come forward with the information?

5/11/2005 11:30:23 PM

In other news, CBS has a memo that proved that Bush was AWOL.

5/11/2005 11:49:26 PM

Quote :

"So, judging by the lack of debate, I guess we're all agreed that there's enough evidence here to start an investigation."

no...the lack of debate means there that everyone has looked at all the evidence and that GWB will not be impeached.......ever

5/12/2005 2:48:25 AM

So, judging by the lack of debate, I guess we're all agreed that these accusations are suspect.

5/13/2005 1:15:54 AM

^^b/c if you hate the president you hate america.

and plenty of offense to the democrats, but some of those guys are more concerned with winning reelection than trying to stand up for a principle. why would you try and impeach a president that apparently garners more radical support than all the major faiths combined, and risk your career on it?


seeing as all this info is true, Bush should get his ass impeached. but it wont happen. the dems arent as ruthless and cunning as the GOP. honestly.

[Edited on May 13, 2005 at 1:24 AM. Reason : up2]

5/13/2005 1:24:29 AM

Quote :

"and plenty of offense to the democrats, but some of those guys are more concerned with winning reelection than trying to stand up for a principle. why would you try and impeach a president that apparently garners more radical support than all the major faiths combined, and risk your career on it? seeing as all this info is true, Bush should get his ass impeached. but it wont happen. the dems arent as ruthless and cunning as the GOP. honestly."

Dems have no balls, and it pisses me off.

5/13/2005 2:48:24 AM

Quote :

"no...the lack of debate means there that everyone has looked at all the evidence and that GWB will not be impeached.......ever "

There is enough evidence to start an investigation of the Administration.

5/13/2005 10:24:25 PM

I'm going to make a conspiratorial prediction....WMDs will mysteriously appear in Iraq.

5/14/2005 8:09:48 PM

Why?

See this is what doesn't fit with the conspiracy nuts. Bush's credibility rested soley on two things:

1) Finding Osama bin Laden

2) Finding WMDs in Iraq

With that in mind, why would Bush and his conspiracy team wait so long, to the point where even his supporters are questioning him, and to the point where it doesn't even matter anymore for political reasons, before they plant WMDs? Furthermore, given how much the rest of the world is watching, where do you propose he get WMDs to plant from? Obviously taking them from the US is a dead give away. Getting them from another country is almost entirely out of the question.

So in order for your conspiracy to play out, you need to give us at least motive and means.

5/14/2005 9:12:13 PM

The transformation is complete:

Pryderi has become Salisburyboy

Just like Revenge of the Sith

5/14/2005 9:17:11 PM

Quote :

"So in order for your conspiracy to play out, you need to give us at least motive and means."

The Downing St. Memo.
Also, the former head of the Mossad said, "Keep looking for WMDs" on May 9th. [a little over a week

after the Downing St. Memo was made public.]

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/5524.htm

Also, the pressure the US put on Jordan to drop charges against Chalabi.

Quote :

"American and Jordanian officials said Thursday that they also discussed ways Jordan might bury its longstanding differences with Mr. Chalabi, who has been under indictment in Jordanian courts in bank fraud and theft."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/08/wirq08.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/08/ixworld.html

[Edited on May 15, 2005 at 1:13 AM. Reason : seriously, I don't think it will really happen....I just wanted to post it in case it does happen. ]

5/15/2005 12:54:12 AM

Quote :

" A Reputation in Tatters George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America’s reputation. It is likely to stay destroyed, because at this point the only way to restore America’s reputation would be to impeach and convict President Bush for intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people in order to start a war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to the United States. America can redeem itself only by holding Bush accountable. As intent as Republicans were to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual affair, they have a blind eye for President Bush’s far more serious lies. Bush’s lies have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, injured and maimed tens of thousands more, devastated a country, destroyed America’s reputation, caused 1 billion Muslims to hate America, ruined our alliances with Europe, created a police state at home, and squandered $300 billion dollars and counting. America’s reputation is so damaged that not even our puppets can stand the heat. Anti-American riots, which have left Afghan cities and towns in flames and hospitals overflowing with casualties, have forced Bush’s Afghan puppet, “President” Hamid Karzai, to assert his independence from his U.S. overlords. In a belated act of sovereignty, Karzai asserted authority over heavy-handed U.S. troops whose brutal and stupid ways sparked the devastating riots. Karzai demanded control of U.S. military activities in Afghanistan and called for the return of the Afghan detainees who are being held at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Abundant evidence now exists in the public domain to convict George W. Bush of the crime of the century. The secret British government memo (dated July 23, 2002, and available here), leaked to the Sunday Times (which printed it on May 1, 2005), reports that Bush wanted “to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. . . . The (United Kingdom) attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC (U.N. Security Council) authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.” This memo is the mother of all smoking guns. Why isn’t Bush in the dock? Has American democracy failed at home? COPYRIGHT 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC. "

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/roberts.cgi

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.

5/20/2005 11:10:44 PM

Quote :

"French fries protester regrets war jibe Jamie Wilson in Washington Wednesday May 25, 2005 The Guardian It was a culinary rebuke that echoed around the world, heightening the sense of tension between Washington and Paris in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. But now the US politician who led the campaign to change the name of french fries to "freedom fries" has turned against the war. Walter Jones, the Republican congressman for North Carolina who was also the brains behind french toast becoming freedom toast in Capitol Hill restaurants, told a local newspaper the US went to war "with no justification". Mr Jones, who in March 2003 circulated a letter demanding that the three cafeterias in the House of Representatives' office buildings ban the word french from menus, said it was meant as a "light-hearted gesture". But the name change, still in force, made headlines around the world, both for what it said about US-French relations and its pettiness. Now Mr Jones appears to agree. Asked by a reporter for the North Carolina News and Observer about the name-change campaign - an idea Mr Jones said at the time came to him by a combination of God's hand and a constituent's request - he replied: "I wish it had never happened." Although he voted for the war, he has since become one of its most vociferous opponents on Capitol Hill, where the hallway outside his office is lined with photographs of the "faces of the fallen". "If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong," he told the newspaper. "Congress must be told the truth.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1491567,00.html

Finally! The tide may be turning!
Maybe an investigation of the WH lies will be possible...

5/25/2005 1:33:16 PM

http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC={0F1B03E0-080B-4100-B143-36A5985EF1E3}

Quote :

"Letter to Pres Bush Concerning "Downing Street Memo" The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Dear Mr. President: We the undersigned write to you because of our concern regarding recent disclosures of a “Downing Street Memo” in the London Times, comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers. These minutes indicate that the United States and Great Britain agreed to by the summer of 2002 to attack Iraq, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action, and that U.S. officials were deliberately manipulating intelligence to justify the war. Among other things, the British government document quotes a high-ranking British official as stating that by July, 2002, “Bush had made up his mind to take military action.” Yet, a month later, the you stated you were still willing to “look at all options” and that there was “no timetable” for war. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, flatly stated that “[t]he president has made no such determination that we should go to war with Iraq.” In addition, the origins of the false contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction remains a serious and lingering question about the lead up to the war. There is an ongoing debate about whether this was the result of a “massive intelligence failure,” in other words a mistake, or the result of intentional and deliberate manipulation of intelligence to justify the case for war. The memo appears to resolve that debate as well, quoting the head of British intelligence as indicating that in the United States “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” As a result of these concerns, we would ask that you respond to the following questions: 1) Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document? 2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain’’s commitment to invade prior to this time? 3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate? 4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq? 5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to “fix” the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states? These are the same questions 89 Members of Congress, led by Rep. John Conyers, Jr., submitted to you on May 5, 2005. As citizens and taxpayers, we believe it is imperative that our people be able to trust our government and our commander in chief when you make representations and statements regarding our nation engaging in war. As a result, we would ask that you publicly respond to these questions as promptly as possible. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely,"

Plz sign.

Thx.

[Edited on May 28, 2005 at 1:44 AM. Reason : link]

5/28/2005 1:44:24 AM

Quote :

"The Sunday Times - Britain May 29, 2005 RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war Michael Smith THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown. The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive. The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make “regime change” in Iraq legal. Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, told the meeting that “the US had already begun ‘spikes of activity’ to put pressure on the regime”. The new information, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, shows that the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001, and that the RAF increased their attacks even more quickly than the Americans did. During 2000, RAF aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone over Iraq dropped 20.5 tons of bombs from a total of 155 tons dropped by the coalition, a mere 13%. During 2001 that figure rose slightly to 25 tons out of 107, or 23%. However, between May 2002 and the second week in November, when the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441, which Goldsmith said made the war legal, British aircraft dropped 46 tons of bombs a month out of a total of 126.1 tons, or 36%. By October, with the UN vote still two weeks away, RAF aircraft were dropping 64% of bombs falling on the southern no-fly zone. Tommy Franks, the allied commander, has since admitted this operation was designed to “degrade” Iraqi air defences in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991 Gulf war. It was not until November 8 that the UN security council passed resolution 1441, which threatened Iraq with “serious consequences” for failing to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html

5/31/2005 1:17:32 AM

so pryderi, have you yet to come up w/ your own opinions yet? or do you still just spout off anything anti-bush that you can find?

5/31/2005 1:20:06 AM

Nope. Just piling up the evidence, so when the impeachment process does begin, you can refer to this thread during the Congressional hearings.

5/31/2005 1:26:27 AM

So basically:

Bush knew that there were no WMDs. Bush went to war anyway knowing that no WMDs would ever be found.

If he really is as evil as you make him out to be, why not base the war on something that wouldn't be an embarrassment and endanger his chances of reelection? Why didn't he say that the war was a humanitarian effort to help the Iraqi people or say that he wanted to prosecute Hussein for war crimes? Hell, why didn't he come up with something akin to the Bay of Tonkin resolution? Why would he start a war over something that didn't exist with the understanding that it would bite him in the ass later?

5/31/2005 9:42:24 AM

False Statements Accountability Act of 1996

Quote :

" Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -- 1. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; 2. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or 3. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/law/FederalMaterials/FederalStatutes/fraudandfalsestatements18usc1001.pdf

6/1/2005 11:18:33 AM

^ Can you prove that W did any of that, or is it just more pointless pryderi speculation?

6/1/2005 11:21:57 AM

From 23 July 2002 the Downing St. Minutes " intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

When Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union speech, " Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. "

He said it after the CIA told him not to in October 2002.

This is knowingly lying, and thousands of men, women and children are dead and permanently disabled.

6/1/2005 11:41:47 AM

Quote :

"If he really is as evil as you make him out to be, why not base the war on something that wouldn't be an embarrassment and endanger his chances of reelection? Why didn't he say that the war was a humanitarian effort to help the Iraqi people or say that he wanted to prosecute Hussein for war crimes? Hell, why didn't he come up with something akin to the Bay of Tonkin resolution? Why would he start a war over something that didn't exist with the understanding that it would bite him in the ass later?"

because he could never get approval from congress or the US people for a war over this. We've known this stuff for years, but that doesn't mean the public will support a war to solve it. The only way he could get approval was to create a false threat of violence against us. And since we're living in a "post-9/11 world", apparently most people are willing to roll over and take-it, as long as "it makes us safer"

6/1/2005 11:46:43 AM

OMFG THIS IS THE FIRST TIME EVER THAT PROPAGANDA HAS BEEN USED TO INCREASE POPULAR SUPPORT FOR A WAR

THE FIRST TIME EVER

6/1/2005 11:49:38 AM