If this trend continues, Bushie COULD BE impeached

[Willie99]

Way to be condescending with a weak argument. :thumbsup:

Adviser on National Security Richard Clarke said the SAME THING O'Neil said about Bush having a "hard-on" for invading Iraq and he worked under both Clinton's and Bush's administrations.

Why would he publicly make a point of this if it was just a continuation of policy????????

I guess Clarke must be lying too. Probably one of those conspiracy things going on. Man, that Clarke and O'Neil are two sly devils.

The first meeting happened to be on national security, I believe that's the first issue for every administration. At such meeting, W retained Bubba's policy. There were arguments to eliminate such.

That's a far cry from the leftie sales job "that the first day in office, W made removal of Saddam on priority". It's an intellectual lie.

 

[BASEHEAD]

Way to be condescending with a weak argument. :thumbsup:

Adviser on National Security Richard Clarke said the SAME THING O'Neil said about Bush having a "hard-on" for invading Iraq and he worked under both Clinton's and Bush's administrations.

Why would he publicly make a point of this if it was just a continuation of policy????????

I guess Clarke must be lying too. Probably one of those conspiracy things going on. Man, that Clarke and O'Neil are two sly devils.

Neocons had been thinking on it (regime change) for a while.Shocking I know, that after years of non compliance and outright violation someone would have the forethought to plan on the world without Saddam in the mix.However there were far easier ways to massage the country into war than a government planned 911.

At that time there was no bigger antagonist than Saddam.I mean how many times does it have to be explained.You guys have such short memories.The propects of Saddam ever being part of a bigger, better middle eastern world was slim.He cared for his own and nothing of his people.He put his people though this war.He had a choice remember.

Its really not a stretch to beleive folks had thought about the fact Saddam was going to need to go.Saddams free passes ended on 9-11-01.

Maybe if Saddam had cooperated,maybe if he kept better records,maybe if he had better control of those under his direction,maybe if he didnt choose to use WMD on his people,maybe if he didnt corrupt the UN (and the UN allow itself to be corrupted),maybe if he showed even one simple gesture of good will towards those looking to avoid conflict or maybe if he and his sons just went into exile none of this would be happenning but he didnt do any of those things.In fact he was the exact opposite of them all.

 

[cutacrossshorty]

I think Dick Cheney should be put away in an insane asylum for the good of everyone. The man is dangerously deranged and appears to put the interests of Halliburton above the interests of the nation and the troops.

George W Bush is just dangerously incompetent. He should probably be impeached for his failure to read (let alone follow) the state department recommendations in the pre-war document titled "The Future of Iraq project" (Although much of the blame could go to Don Rumsfeld).

 

[LeadWeight2020]

My personal feeling is that this administration is a lame duck, lets not put the country throught the trauma of impeachment proceedings again.

However, I wish that both Bush and Cheney would step down and resign for the good of the union. It's not going to happen, but it's the best solution for we the people.

Not a huge fan of Olbermann, but I really did like this piece.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

On the other hand I am not against impeachment should the investigations and proceedings go forward. It is dangerous to let future administrations get the idea that they can get away with what this administration has gotten away with.

In any case as the behind doors events of this administration become public in the future, I'm not so sure many of the participants won't become criminals anyway. Not that charges will be brought. See the CIA, "family jewels."

While I'm at it...let me ask...Who is going to prison? If I murder someone, or do some heinous act I will go to prison. End of story. The CIA releases a litany of abominations against the people, and it's like...do to te do...No big deal. Oh yeah we had these back in the vault somewhere, had'em lying around the office for decades. We all get a kick out of them. Who is going to prison I say? Our armed serviceman aren't to good to go to prison when in uniform, how about a few CIA suits.

 

[FatTony]

The first meeting happened to be on national security, I believe that's the first issue for every administration. At such meeting, W retained Bubba's policy. There were arguments to eliminate such.

That's a far cry from the leftie sales job "that the first day in office, W made removal of Saddam on priority". It's an intellectual lie.

If that's the case, why did two members of his administration make a big deal about Bush wanting to go into Iraq???????? They didn't know what you know about national security being the first issue on the plate when a new administration comes in, right???????


They brought this to light for shits and giggles. They wanted to fuck with the administration for the purpose of, fucking with the administration.

Please come up with a different direction for your defense. Yours is not believable.

 

[FatTony]

Neocons had been thinking on it (regime change) for a while.Shocking I know, that after years of non compliance and outright violation someone would have the forethought to plan on the world without Saddam in the mix.However there were far easier ways to massage the country into war than a government planned 911.

At that time there was no bigger antagonist than Saddam.I mean how many times does it have to be explained.You guys have such short memories.The propects of Saddam ever being part of a bigger, better middle eastern world was slim.He cared for his own and nothing of his people.He put his people though this war.He had a choice remember.

Its really not a stretch to beleive folks had thought about the fact Saddam was going to need to go.Saddams free passes ended on 9-11-01.



Maybe if Saddam had cooperated,maybe if he kept better records,maybe if he had better control of those under his direction,maybe if he didnt choose to use WMD on his people,maybe if he didnt corrupt the UN (and the UN allow itself to be corrupted),maybe if he showed even one simple gesture of good will towards those looking to avoid conflict or maybe if he and his sons just went into exile none of this would be happenning but he didnt do any of those things.In fact he was the exact opposite of them all.

So bottom line, from what you're saying is, that they wanted Saddam gone before they had any evidence of weapons of mass destruction? Correct?

 

[Woody0]

I believe the best case has nothing to do with Iraq but to impeach due to a breach of his oath of office "to depend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, so help me God".

 

[Willie99]

If that's the case, why did two members of his administration make a big deal about Bush wanting to go into Iraq???????? They didn't know what you know about national security being the first issue on the plate when a new administration comes in, right???????


They brought this to light for shits and giggles. They wanted to fuck with the administration for the purpose of, fucking with the administration.

Please come up with a different direction for your defense. Yours is not believable.

The facts are not believable. :aktion033

Par for the course around here.:thumbsup:

 

[Willie99]

So bottom line, from what you're saying is, that they wanted Saddam gone before they had any evidence of weapons of mass destruction? Correct?

There you go again, getting it backwards.

You see, the world knew he had WMD, he actually used them.

The UN signed resolution after resolution telling Saddam he had to allow inspections to prove he no longer had them.

Saddam was supposed to prove he did not have them any longer, he defied UN Resolutions for over a decade.

The whole world, which includes leftie leaders, believed he still possesed WMD. In retrospect, the worldwide intelligence community may have underestimated the effect of the embargo and / or overestimated Iraq's ability to sustain / grow their programs.

 

[husker]

There you go again, getting it backwards.

You see, the world knew he had WMD, he actually used them.

The UN signed resolution after resolution telling Saddam he had to allow inspections to prove he no longer had them.

Saddam was supposed to prove he did not have them any longer, he defied UN Resolutions for over a decade.

The whole world, which includes leftie leaders, believed he still possesed WMD. In retrospect, the worldwide intelligence community may have underestimated the effect of the embargo and / or overestimated Iraq's ability to sustain / grow their programs.

i think Saddam wanted us to invade Iraq. he probably thought he could hide for long enough until we left, then he would come back to power and say he won. he and his sons had the hiding part wrong, but the rest seems to have bin a good plan.

 

[Mike63]

you guys are sooooooooooooooooo stupid

 

[husker]

you guys are sooooooooooooooooo stupid

enlighten us, please!

 

[FatTony]

The facts are not believable. :aktion033

Par for the course around here.:thumbsup:

How is it not believable?????

Two members of his administration said the same exact thing. Are you saying they're both liars???

 

[FatTony]

There you go again, getting it backwards.

You see, the world knew he had WMD, he actually used them.

The UN signed resolution after resolution telling Saddam he had to allow inspections to prove he no longer had them.

Saddam was supposed to prove he did not have them any longer, he defied UN Resolutions for over a decade.

The whole world, which includes leftie leaders, believed he still possesed WMD. In retrospect, the worldwide intelligence community may have underestimated the effect of the embargo and / or overestimated Iraq's ability to sustain / grow their programs.

Here's the guy who took that great evidence to the UN. Doesn't seem he felt it was worth going in.


<!-- END: Source and Global links --><!-- div class="grey-line"></div--><!-- END: M76 Global Navigation - Header --><!-- BEGIN: Region for all content --><!-- BEGIN: Module - Main Heading --> From The Sunday Times
July 8, 2007
Powell tried to talk Bush out of war

<!-- END: Module - Main Heading -->
<!--CMA user Call Diffrenet Variation Of Image --><!-- BEGIN: Module - M24 Article Headline with no image (a) --><!-- getting the section url from article. This has been done so that correct url is generated if we are coming from a section or topic --><!-- Print Author name associated with the article --><!-- Print Author name from By Line associated with the article --> Sarah Baxter, Washington

<!-- END: Module - M24 Article Headline with no image --><!-- Article Copy module --><!-- BEGIN: Module - Main Article --><!-- Check the Article Type and display accordingly--><!-- Print Author image associated with the Author--> <!-- Print the body of the article--><!-- Pagination -->THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.
“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”
Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war. “The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms,” he said. “It’s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don’t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now.”
He added: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.” All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew”.
<!--#include file="m63-article-related-attachements.html"-->The signs are that the views of Powell and other critics of the war are finally being heard in the Pentagon, if not yet in the White House. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, is drawing up plans to reduce troop levels in Iraq in anticipation that General David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, will not be able to deliver an upbeat progress report in September on the American troop surge.

 

[husker]

Here's the guy who took that great evidence to the UN. Doesn't seem he felt it was worth going in.


<!-- END: Source and Global links --><!-- div class="grey-line"></div--><!-- END: M76 Global Navigation - Header --><!-- BEGIN: Region for all content --><!-- BEGIN: Module - Main Heading -->From The Sunday Times
July 8, 2007
Powell tried to talk Bush out of war

<!-- END: Module - Main Heading -->
<!--CMA user Call Diffrenet Variation Of Image --><!-- BEGIN: Module - M24 Article Headline with no image (a) --><!-- getting the section url from article. This has been done so that correct url is generated if we are coming from a section or topic --><!-- Print Author name associated with the article --><!-- Print Author name from By Line associated with the article -->Sarah Baxter, Washington

<!-- END: Module - M24 Article Headline with no image --><!-- Article Copy module --><!-- BEGIN: Module - Main Article --><!-- Check the Article Type and display accordingly--><!-- Print Author image associated with the Author--><!-- Print the body of the article--><!-- Pagination -->THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.
“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”
Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war. “The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms,” he said. “It’s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don’t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now.”
He added: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.” All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew”.
<!--#include file="m63-article-related-attachements.html"-->The signs are that the views of Powell and other critics of the war are finally being heard in the Pentagon, if not yet in the White House. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, is drawing up plans to reduce troop levels in Iraq in anticipation that General David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, will not be able to deliver an upbeat progress report in September on the American troop surge.

if he was so against invading Iraq, why didn't he resign? so he is either lying, or he is a phony for pushing for the invasion. i guess that makes him a great candidate for president! lol

 

[cincy_]

if he was so against invading Iraq, why didn't he resign? so he is either lying, or he is a phony for pushing for the invasion. i guess that makes him a great candidate for president! lol

You're right. He should have resigned but he couldn't because he's the one who made the UN speech.

 

[Willie99]

Here's the guy who took that great evidence to the UN. Doesn't seem he felt it was worth going in.


<!-- END: Source and Global links --><!-- div class="grey-line"></div--><!-- END: M76 Global Navigation - Header --><!-- BEGIN: Region for all content --><!-- BEGIN: Module - Main Heading -->From The Sunday Times
July 8, 2007
Powell tried to talk Bush out of war

<!-- END: Module - Main Heading -->
<!--CMA user Call Diffrenet Variation Of Image --><!-- BEGIN: Module - M24 Article Headline with no image (a) --><!-- getting the section url from article. This has been done so that correct url is generated if we are coming from a section or topic --><!-- Print Author name associated with the article --><!-- Print Author name from By Line associated with the article -->Sarah Baxter, Washington

<!-- END: Module - M24 Article Headline with no image --><!-- Article Copy module --><!-- BEGIN: Module - Main Article --><!-- Check the Article Type and display accordingly--><!-- Print Author image associated with the Author--><!-- Print the body of the article--><!-- Pagination -->THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.
“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”
Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war. “The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms,” he said. “It’s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don’t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now.”
He added: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.” All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew”.
<!--#include file="m63-article-related-attachements.html"-->The signs are that the views of Powell and other critics of the war are finally being heard in the Pentagon, if not yet in the White House. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, is drawing up plans to reduce troop levels in Iraq in anticipation that General David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, will not be able to deliver an upbeat progress report in September on the American troop surge.

I'm not saying Powell is right or wrong, that's moot at this point. He did give a convincing speech at the UN, so something doesn't exactly pass the smell test either.

I'm pointing out that the whole world believed Saddam had WMD, and that there is one UN resolution after another as well as first hand statements from world leaders documenting such.

Many significant Democratic leaders in this country called for Saddam's removal beginning in the mid 90's, and they retained those positions until about 2004. After a war they approved started to go ugly, they started to rewrite history.

W did not make up WMD arguments, they existed for nearly 2 decades.

W did not lie about British Intelligence believing Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake from Niger, the Brit's stand by that position still today.

The Dems approved the war because they thought it was the right thing to do at that time.

PS: There will be no impeachment, but I'd love to see it for the benefit of the GOP. It would guarantee the GOP in 2008. The reasons a Republican victory is important to me is (1) their positions on the war on terror, (2) lower taxes (3) investment incentives (4) the left's healthcare reform is scary.

Security, economy, healthcare, that about sums it up.

 

[Willie99]

and Tony, Powell never said Saddam did not have weapons, did he?

There were some that believed he had the weapons, but that still didn't justify the war.

 

[Willie99]

How is it not believable?????

Two members of his administration said the same exact thing. Are you saying they're both liars???

Very simple, and it should be obvious by now.

Clinton signed a bill calling for the removal of Saddam from office.

On the first day in office, at a meeting on National Security, W retained that policy.

Those are the facts.

Saying W hade the hots to remove Saddam is just a tad bit subjective.

Why would somebody say stuff like that? I don't know, maybe they didn't get the job they wanted, maybe for political purposes, maybe for 15 minutes of fame, maybe to sell books or maybe for some combination thereof.

 

[cincy_]

Why would somebody say stuff like that? I don't know, maybe they didn't get the job they wanted, maybe for political purposes, maybe for 15 minutes of fame, maybe to sell books or maybe for some combination thereof.

MAYBE is a great word to use when you have no facts.

One historian said that with celebrities, each individual incident might be false, but we can figure out a person's makeup when that same thing happens again and again and again.

Just like Clinton didn't just have one person talk about his propensity to unzip his fly ... the INSIDERS criticizing Bushie and challenging his motives has reached six or seven now.

If one is a fluke, and two is a trend, what is six and what is seven?