Where are those weapons of mass destruction anyway? That question is beginning to be asked by more than just anti-Bush Dems and progressives. In England Tony Blair has his problems with this same question. It could be that they are still out there, really. Iraq is a big country and no one can say for certain that they are not there at the present.

Nevertheless, the question is no longer should the war have happened in the first place, but now the question is, what if someone did not tell the truth? What should be the consequences?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

[ June 13, 2003, 07:06: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Interesting point. If it were to be confirmed that he did lie, I'm not sure it would be an impeachable offense unless he lied under oath about it. Some would argue that because he's the president, he should be held to this standard regardless. But even though I was in favor of the war to begin with, because I personally felt Saddam needed to be dealt with, I have to admit that now I'm kind of pissed off about the whole thing. At this point I won't go as far as saying it was an outright lie, but I feel very much misled. I'm not convinced there was an overwhelming need to do this right now. In a few years maybe when our economy was more stable and more concrete evidence could be presented.

I can't even believe Bush when I hear him address the press. He'll say "we've found the weapons" in one speech, and then "we will find them" in another. As far as I'm concerned, our credibility is now very much in question. It worries me greatly that our reputation throughout the world is now so tarnished and the Bush administration doesn't really seem to care. All Bush can say is "freedom" this and "freedom" that - but he never really explains anything worth a damn. Makes me wonder if he even knows what the hell is going on half the time.

But now I'm ranting. To answer your original question: I believe that if confirmed that he did lie, it should be an impeachable offense. But I'm not an expert on what the Constitution states about such things, so I'm not sure it technically can be considered such. IMO, this is far worse than any blowjob from any intern. Bill's lie cost him his integrity. Bush's lie (if it is) will cost himself and our nation infinitly more. In many ways I think it already has.

:( Makes me sad.

Good link, another one: http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8034

a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
This is one of the accusations, which the nazi officials faced, in the Nuremberg trials. In my opinion it fits perfectly to Bush and Blair.

I've read this article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=1777&e=3&u=/ap/us_iraq_weapons) today and i believe that it shows something that it is rumoured but not believed yet.
Mr Bush has been IMHO been munipulated by his officials and he did not lie but he performed like a total ignorrant of the situation. I do believe also that even himself cannot believe this turn of events. But this does not makes him less guilty he should had listen to the CIA headquarters that insisted that there were not enough evidence for mass destruction weapons in Iraq and Collin Powell who demanded enough evidence in order to make his speech to the UN.
"Iraq had a weapons program," Bush said. "Intelligence throughout the decade (of the 1990s) showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out they did have a weapons program."


Bush did not use the phrase "weapons of mass destruction." Nor did he promise any remnants of any "weapons program" will be found.
:rolleyes:
What now the US administration is looking even a programm for a rifle man they are desperate

@Mithrantir
If Bush was totaly ignorant of the situation he shouldn't (IMO) be president. No one should not know every thing about a situation before they make decision (which could affect millions of people).

Personally I think that he knew all about the fact that USA had no proof (sp?)of "weapons of mass destruction". And I also think that the USA law system (or what ever) shouldn't punish him . I think that the UN should punish him for war crimes like they have the Nazis. He broke international laws (revolution 1441 i think?) on the basis that Iraq had "Weapons of mass destruction", which now can't be backed up, so therefore he broke these laws with no basis at all.

What about the fact that one of the world 's most bloodthirsty regimes has come to an end ? Doesn't that count at all ?

I don't give a rats ass if they can or can't find any WoMD, or agents, or whatever. The fact remains that Saddam used them in the past against his own people, and in the war against Iran, and that makes him a massmurderer, who got what he deserved.

But i don't hear anyone about that.

The opinions on this thread range for a concerned conservatives who want to see the right thing done all the way to a few liberals who are still pissed off that their heros have been proven to be out of touch and is some cases, outright criminals.

Thus far, the only thing that Bush could be impeached for is crimes against liberalistic ideology, which thankfully is not a crime (yet).

The problem with conservatives is that they want to take responsibility, whereas liberals want to pass responsibility to someone else. The war in Iraq was never just about WMD, but the Democratic party with a few wolves in sheep’s clothing (i.e. McPainintheass, and Spector) are doing the damndest to make it so because it is the only angle they have left. The problem is, instead of attacking back, conservatives choose instead to say, yes that is one the things we said, and we will prove it. If they prove it (which was done long ago, or do all those chemicals just naturally flow down the Tigris?), the Democrats and a few sell out Republicans will try to go back to the economy as an issue, which seems to be evaporating under them.

That said, it has already been shown that Saddam had the equipment and access to the ingredients necessary to make many different weapons. He has shown that he is more that willing to use them on his own people, and even threatened to use them on others just before the war. He had the method of delivery, and would not demonstrate that he was willing to give up those capabilities as res 1441 demanded.

Ability + availability + motive + history + lack of cooperation = removal.

Now for those of you who want to turn this around on gun-control, and say because someone has the ability and the weapon, they are guilty, you are conveniently leaving out some things, namely motive and history. In the US it is illegal for a person with a record of violent crime to posses a firearm. Also, the police routinely take firearms away from people because of a high motive to commit a crime (such as revenge for a child being raped, or a drunk driver killing a loved one). So you can quit running that analogy out there.

Impeachable, not for anything shown yet. The case for the removal of Saddam is quite sufficient even without his possession of WMD.

Oh, and all you raving libs, where is the faked proof that you all said long ago would be created if they couldn't find any WMD?

I'd like to point out that but the very same people who, Bush Jr. excepted, toppled Saddam supplied targeting data to him about how to best use his gas against the iranians. Whatever drove them, I have difficulties to believe that they suddenly developed a sense of mission to re-establish huma rights.

Madeleine Albright, a wild leftist by today's standards, once said in an interview on "60 minutes" on NBC about the UN embargo when asked "If the death of more than half a million children is the price we'd have to pay ..." "We think, the price is worth it..."

In the past human rights have not been a serious and honest motive in US foreign policy. The lack thereof was accused out among rogue-states and it was overlooked among the allies.

Now what you overlook Pac-man, is that, when you say that something good also came out for the iraqis, you turn away the view from the actual motives and the actual methods. There was a massive breach of international law, that is something you have to be aware of. Unlike what some people here foolishly say it has *not* at all been legitimised at all by the latest UN resolution about iraq.

That is nothing unimportant. Saddam may be or have been a dictator - that does not give Bush Jr. the right to act at will in a so-called pre-emptive strike, much less when - as becomes clearer - he lied about his case against iraq. Pre-emptive means that there is am imminent threat. This threat apparently was non-existent.

Certainly the iraqis appreciate the freedom. But I hope you don't seriously believe that they love the US for their rescue - after having been embargoed and bombed by them for a decade. It is probably so that the US - thanks to the embargo and the bombs - killed more iraqis than Saddam did in the same period. Worse, by inducing shortage of food in iraq they even drove the people deeper into Saddam's grip because gvt-obediance was the only way to get food. I cannot see why the iraqis should be overly thankful for the "liberation".

When a woman wishes to have children but she can't do that alone, then raping her, resulting in her getting pregnant, is hardly the right way to help.

Wether you give a rats ass or not - results do not justify anything.

Well you did hear me about it. As I said above, the main - if not the only - reason I was in favor of the war was because of the idea that tge world would finally be rid of Saddam. If it were any other country (save for Iran and North Korea, I suppose) I wouldn't have been in favor. Considering the state of our economy and the myriad of problems we're currently facing as a nation, I fail to see why dealing with Iraq was so urgent. Considering the state and way the aftermath is being handled (complete f*cking mess, IMO) it makes me wonder if this was planned at all.

The problem I have is that if we were lied to, then the rest of the world was lied to as well. The problem will lie in the fact that I will never trust anything this administration ever says again. What's more, we will never be able to perform any kind of preemptive military action against anyone unless we have 30 smoking guns, the man who fired them, his blood samples, his mother's wallet and his dog. Basically: our word is no longer good internationally. This administration insisted on going after Saddam against the support of the majority of our allies, and furthermore putting out the "if you're not supporting us, you're wrong and we don't care what you say" vibe to the entire world, effectively drying up any and all good will we had after 9-11. It will take us years to earn that credibility back - if ever.

Whether they lied outright or were going on bad information, the fact that they were saying and still say they're 100% convinced about Iraq's weapons either means they're liars or idiots, neither of whom I want running my country. I say idiots because even if their information was 80% confirmed, they shouldn't have gone in. Just look at the actual conflict. There's no doubt whatsoever that we absolutely kicked Saddam's ass. He never stood a chance. You're telling me he was that serious a threat? We completely took over the entire country in about 3 weeks. I find it very hard now to believe our administration's claims that they were such a horrible and looming threat that needed immediate irradication. If it was so clear this needed to be done, why go in without properly convincing our allies we were in the right? Whatever was accomplished by squishing Saddam, was it worth the price of our credibility?

Someone please explain to me why I'm wrong, because I'd love to be. I think we've seriously screwed ourselves here and it really worries me how blind this administration seems to be about this. If we aren't proven right - and fast - this is gonna make Watergate look like a traffic ticket.

I fear I have to say I think you're not wrong. Basically: our word is no longer good internationally. This administration insisted on going after Saddam against the support of the majority of our allies, and furthermore putting out the "if you're not supporting us, you're wrong and we don't care what you say" vibe to the entire world, effectively drying up any and all good will we had after 9-11. It will take us years to earn that credibility back - if ever.That sums it up quite well. The devastation caused by the Bush administration due to their lies, not only in iraq but also in the architecture of international law, the transatlantic relations, even in NATO, is terrific. It'll indeed take a while to restore that.

There's another aspect: When the US have lied - how does the franco-US conflict look in the light of this? Remember? The french disagreed on the US assessment of the threat by iraq.

France has indigenous intelligence assets next only to russia and the US - and seemingly their analysis, and that of friendly services, deeply disagreed on the US claims. It is quite likely that Chirac was as pissed off as he was only because he knew that the US played the world for a sucker.
Now, were the french just egoistic? Or are they - typically old europe - just oldfashioned enough to still insist in needing a *good* reason and foundation to go to war?

The franco-US relations are another victim of Bush's disastrous policy of lies to somehow sell a wanted war.

Very right, Ragusa. However, I shall be less politcally correct here: I believe that 9/11 was used to justify the already considered action. Contrary to what American performance in Iraq suggests, the action might have been and most probably had been planned way beforehand.

What's more, all that argumentation of fighting terrorism has fallen as such a blatant violation of international law constitutes an act of terrorism as well. Of course, not on the side of those poor American lads coming back home in wooden chests who actually could think they were doing that for the Iraqi people, but on the side of their leaders headed by Bush jr.

Personally I not only insist that Saddam had been left in power for too many years for the invasion to look as only aimed to overthrow him, but I also believe that the situation of an average Iraqi isn't going to improve. In a few months they will burn the star spangled flags they waved at US soldiers, not that so really many Iraqis were happy to see them come. For them it's just a trade off: Saddam for Coca-Cola, McDonald, Microsoft, other great business, oil companies etc etc. Those will suck their blood, pay them pennies and destroy them economically instead of
physically. That, however, will be 'the price to pay'. Life is hard, you know and capitalism is not for weak units.


As for the thread subject: Think, what Bush would say if UN required him to let UN inspectors in American weapon factories and heavy industry? I'm also sure that the findings would be times more interesting than Saddam's pathetic toys.

Ragusa, your last post brings to attention another interesting question: will US at some point stop lying? From what is seen, which is a rising tendency, we may only foresee contrary.

A few things. @ Darkwolf

Ability + availability + motive + history + lack of cooperation = removal.
Agreed. No one is argueing that Saddam didn't deserve to be/shouldn't have been removed. That's not the issue. Sure he was bad news, and would have been removed eventually - your rant there was nothing new. But the possibility that this administration lied about it is appearing more and more likely every day. Whether they lied, exaggerated, or simply went blindly on bad information rather than checking it 100%, clearly somebody is bullsh*tting us here. To say it's all made up by the petty liberals is a cop out and is making it easy for the Bush administration to not have to answer for itself.

From Bush:
"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."

Even Rumsfeld repeatedly stated HE KNEW where they were. Even if they were moved around, how far could the weapons have possibly moved when we were handing Saddam's army their asses? You'd think we would have noticed SOMETHING.

From the Marine general in charge of the ground search:
"[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."

Somehow I explain my positions better through analogies, so here we go.

Say you're a farmer. Another farmer down the road, Farmer Joe, says there's a pack of wolves devouring the flock of a farmer a few miles away. He has no evidence to support this other than "everyone knows wolves kill sheep" and "I know for a FACT the wolves are about to wipe out the flock and the people on that farm, and they're a danger to every other farm in the world. We have to act now!!"

You go along with it, but when you get to the farm, there's only 2 wolves and they're so starving and weak they don't put up much of a fight, though they show no fear and fight viciously before meeting their end. No pack of wolves, yet the Farmer Joe now takes over this farm, moves in, and says "Don't worry - we'll find the REAL wolves soon! I'll set up a new farm for you, where no wolves will ever dare come here again!" Despite accusations from farmers all over the countryside that Farmer Joe exaggerated these claims to move in on this other farms and steal their sheep for his own gain, all Farmer Joe seems to be able to say in his defense is "I've brought wonderful, beautiful freedom to THESE sheep, and am a champion of peace loving sheep everywhere. I was right, too, because I found a cave next to that mountain where a wolf pack COULD have called a lair. There aren't any wolves there now, and it doesn't look like there ever were...but still! Trust me, we're serving the right cause! I promise."

All kidding aside, you have to admit this doesn't make us look very good. I'm no Republican hater. I have no agenda here other than the safety of my country and the integrity of our leadership. But even I don't just believe them anymore and people like me are springing up all over the country. "The benefit of the doubt" has long since run it's course for me.

All we're asking is "So where's the f*ckin' beef, George?" So far, he's given pathetic answers. If this were a criminal trial the jury would have fried him by now. All he can talk about is "Oh, the wonderful cause of freedom freedom freedom!' Tell that to the majority of nations around the world who have less than 30% of their populations who have a favorable opinion of us. Tell that to the Iraqis, who now despite Bush saying "They are now tasting true freedom and happiness for the first time because of our efforts," yet the rate at which our fans in Iraq are rapidly diminishing is astounding.

Basically, I feel that if we were SO RIGHT about this, right enough to defy nearly every other major nation in the world, and ignore the UN which we helped create, we better damn well have something to show for it. You don't have to be a liberal to have a major problem with this. I'm tired of the smug "We know we're right, even if you don't" crap from the White House - I want the truth.

Oh, and all you raving libs I'm not attacking you, but can you not come up with anything better than "oh you crazy hippy liberals are just jelous and petty?" Why is it that anyone who doubts the integrity of the Bush administration seems to you to be an unpatriotic lib out to destroy America? Can I not think George Bush is full of sh*t and still be a good American? I respect you, but I know you can do better than that.

[ June 10, 2003, 17:27: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

I'm with Pac man -- I really don't care if they find them or not. God knows he was working toward getting them, and history tells us what he would likely do with them.

As for a Bush impeachment, it'll never happen. That's just a pipe dream. If a cop acting in good faith presents evidence to a judge that I have crack cocaine in my house, and that judge issues a warrant, and then the cops don't find that crack, they are not required to undergo discipline. They were acting in good faith. Proving that they weren't would be EXTREMELY difficult, and the same goes for Bush. So he was wrong about the WMD presently existing in Iraq. Proving that he KNEW they didn't exist and lied about them anyhow would be next to impossible.

Hm, now only BTA missing. If he shows up, the same personnell will be drawing the same circles in the sand again :) ;)

To the impeachment question. I don't think that's a legal question.
But maybe a question about reform of the way, how intelligence information is transmitted to the congress ? The lawmakers are there to check the goverment, I thaught, not be dependend on information that comes from there.

It's a political question: Is that a good way to lead the country ? Or is it just disastrous bad policy, which will harm them ?

At Darkwolf: Oh, I don't intend to say, that the blue elephant isn't the bluest elephant of all and there is no other blue elephant, then the GOP-blue elephant. Only he's so blue ! And red ! And White ! :D

Now, WMA's don't matter and never did. Anyone new in what a disastrous shape Iraw was. A country which isn't able to feed it's soldiers doesn't pose a clear and present military danger to none of the neighberoung countries. Even less to countries here in Europe.

An interesting example:

That's just a pipe dream. If a cop acting in good faith presents evidence to a judge that I have crack cocaine in my house, and that judge issues a warrant Wouldn't that have been the UN, the due-procedure ? Anyway, it don't matter. There would have been no international legal problem, if one more important prerequisite whould have been there. I bet, every country would have gladly joined in overthrowing the Iraqi-goverment, if there was a plan known (not public, but behind closes doors, where diplomats like to be) which made the whole thing look promising.

I don't talk about bombing them into oblivion, rebuilding and reshaping, that's hard. But a promising way to turn Iraq into a stable democracy. Maybe, it's because most European nations had sobering experiences in the past with "nation-building" of their colonies and aren't as optimistic as Americans are. Everyone wants to have stable democracies in the Middle-East. But please, without rising oil-prices :cool: :D . Anyway, there is a huge difference between the way one wants thing to be, and the way thing turn out. The British had their first chance in the first half of the 20th century in Iraq. Seems like they failed. But maybe they are cleverer now ? An European nation is going to spread democracy, like it did in Burma (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1300003.stm) .

The military government has been accused of gross human rights abuses, including the forcible relocation of civilians and the widespread use of forced labour, which includes children Saddam Hussein wasn't the only SOB on this world.

This is actually straying far from the original topic. Can he be impeached? No, not in reality. Politically, this country is more to the right than it has been in a while and he's perfectly safe unless he's caught in a flat out lie under oath (or covering up his or someone else's crime). Please understand that the impeachment process is onerous, time consuming, expensive and very difficult to come to fruition. There have been, I believe, two actual impeachments in US history, neither of which resulted in a conviction.

Next, a hasty impeachment with improper evidence would be political suicide for the Democrats. Remember that Clinton beat his even though pretty much everyone believed that he had lied under oath (i.e., perjury). I'm sure that, if push came to shove, Bush would be able to produce enough "evidence" to justify the statements he made at any given time.

All that aside, it just looks bad -- "gee, I thought they were around here somewhere, maybe the nukes are over in that neighborhood"

While he may be "impeached" in world opinion, and he may even technically be impeachable here, it's never going to happen on these facts.

The topic of the thread is impeachment. It was never intended to revisit the argument about the reasons for the war, but about the accountability of Bush's statements to the American people. Of course, judging by some of the responses on this topic it appears to some to be just fine that Bush lied, since they want to justify the war for other reasons. This is "the end justifies the means" mentality in action.

It is starting to appear that the adiminstration goons will find a "fall guy" to try and neutralize the critics. Right now the candidate looks like George Tenet of the CIA.

Tenet probably won't be a big sacrifice because he was a holdover from the Clinton days anyway. But if it does not stop there, they could find one higher - maybe Rumsfeld if things get bad.

[ June 11, 2003, 17:33: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Bush should be procecuted because he lied and if he lied without knowing he was doing so i do believe he is a danger because he took a very important decision without trying to learn something about the situation and because of the people he chose to be around and advise him.
Anyway i believe that this incident is if not the worst surely second in the history of USA and if it goes unpunished i believe that it would be a fatal blow to the ideal of democracy and justice in the USA since after that every president of the USA can wage a war without fearing that he should have a really good reason to start a war in order to avoid impeachments of office :(

Mithrantir - I'm interested in why you think this is the worst that's been done in US history (if you're right, then I think we've got a better track record than any other major historical power). Let's assume the worst here -- Bush not only did not believe there were WMDs in Iraq, he had actual intelligence that there were none. Let's also assume that he pushed this war for purposes of getting rid of Saddam and controlling Iraq's oil fields. Let's say he callously played on national and international sentiment over 9/11. (Am I missing any other accusations?)

That being done, how is this worse than, say, going into Vietnam to interfere with a purely local conflict and a self-determination as to what economic system the Vietnamese would choose for themselves? How is this worse than the half-a-dozen stupidities that we've done in South American (Iran-Contra, for example)? How is this worse than starting the Spanish-American War because we needed to beat someone up? How is this worse that stripping Mexico of her territories for a few trumped up reasons that no one outside of a history department remembers? How is this worse than, say, looking at FDR, the champion Democrat and learning that he lived in a segregated neighborhood where there were recorded certain covenants and restrictions so that no individual who was a minority could ever buy and live in a house there? How is this worse than Watergate?

My point, by the way, is not to show how bad the track record is for the US, as I'm sure that every country that ever wielded international power is equally bad. My point is that this is how politics is done. Good politicians (whether individually, departmentally or on a national basis) get what they want without the "public" taking umbrage. Bad politicians get what they want but cause an uproar. Incompetent politicians do not get what they want. In my opinion, the WMD issue makes Bush a bad politician.

Impeachment, by the way, is more of a political measuring stick: how powerful does the legislature feel as compared to the President (i.e., how does the public view the President), and do they feel that he is a bad or incompetent politician. If the answers are "very" and "yes", they may well start impeachment proceedings. Any other answer and they will not do it. Even then, as I set forth above, it happened a total of twice. Andrew Johnson was impeached because, in essence, he wasn't Lincoln and there was a prevailing view that he was an incompetent drunk. Bill Clinton was impeached because he perjured himself. In both cases, the President won and kept the job. I think that even if you take the above scenario as the gospel truth, it not only fails to add up to Clinton and/or Johnson, it won't pass the political test I set forth. First, the legislature isn't all that empowered compared to the President right now. Second, there's still time for Bush to pull some maneuvers to make him a good politician.

My two cents.

To be completely frank: I dislike Bush. I think he's an idiot. I mean, come on! he's said some really moronic things "we support NATO; we are part of NATO. We support europe; we are part of Europe." :confused: Huh? I wonder if he was kicking himself after that...

anyways, my dislike for Bush is due to a few things, namely his insistance that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Still haven't found anything. If he proposes another attack on a middle-eastern country i'll scream. I'd rather not have more troops die because we think that they have weapons.

My opinion: Impeach the bugger!

Valkyrie,

I am sure that Bush is very upset that you think he commits sodomy and that you don't like him.

He probably is crying right now, commiserating with the 75%+ of the US the population who give him a positive approval rating.

The fact that he has said some illogical things is well documented in other threads on this board if you care to search for them, but be aware, you will read about quite a few from (making a safe assumption) your hero Bubba. The lack of ability to speak publicly, especially off the cuff, is not an indication of intelligence. I mean, look as some of the quotes from “the smartest woman in the world”.

“Who’s going to find out? These women are all trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” (During the 1992 campaign)

“Gentlemen, I have looked at your proposal, and it’s pure BS. Now, you’ve had your meeting. Get out.” (To a group of health insurance company executives.)

“Stay the F back, stay the F away from me. Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else.” (To her Secret Service detail)

“My personal trained pigs.” (Her opinion of her Secret Service guards.)

Where’s the goddamn F'ing … I want the goddamn F'ing flag up every F'ing morning at F'ing sunrise.” (To the staff of the Arkansas governor’s mansion.)
Wow! Now that I look at it, I will take the bumbling of Pres Bush over the wrath of this ***** any time

Sorry Tal, not trying to bypass the filter, I actually cleaned them up from the way they came off the website. Please advise if you want me to attempt to clean them up some more! :good:

To be honest they did find weapons of mass destruction or at least the
(MOBILE WEAPONS LAB TRUCKS) to make them. The UN was told by Sadams People that they don’t have any (MOBILE TRUCKS) that can make chemical weapons.

But that President Bush did send in the American troops, we now Know the truth, that Sadam was plying France as its Sugar daddy. By getting the Socialist French to stop any hard sanctions on Sadam.

The scary thing is that these (MOBILE WEAPONS LAB TRUCKS) were going to Iran, when they got stopped by American troops.

So once again France let a modern day (Hitler) (Sadam) get away with things, and left it up to America to save the day.

God Bless Bush! :cool:
:cool: :cool:

Those 2 trucks really don't deserve CAPS. If anyone in the Bush administration thought they could make any use of that as far as the horrible, looming WMD threat goes, they would be trumpeting them for the whole world to hear. But even they realize they need at least a bit more than that.

And, Agudo, please contain the nationalistic outbursts.

[ June 14, 2003, 01:40: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

The only large WMD wich has killed millions of "innocents", is still being used..

It has power to destroy economies, laying nations in waste and forcing the population to (amongst others) terroristic acts.

And no, the big bad guy ain't North Korea or Iran or some obscure african/asian/south-american nation half of the world has never heard of.

It's being used by the western world, (wont go namepicking) and it's called embargo

About the two posts above this one, starting from the top down.......

As far as talking about the trucks, Bush has and so has the "TV News." This made clear Bush was right. Also Sadam used “weapons of mass destruction” ((Chemicals)) on five thousand Kurdish villagers in Iraq as seen on CNN and told by the U.N. in the nineteen eighty’s.

The Iraq people, who lost love ones to Sadam, and his chemicals, will tell you that “America” did the right thing by taking him out. The majority of Iraq people, our glad to be in their new democracy.

Now as far nationalism, I would say that history shows “France” did not stand up to Hitler in time. They even tried to make concessions to the tyrant. So America understood the mistakes of France, and took Sadam out!
((God Bless America!)) :cool:

Now for the last post…..

If you are trying to say, that it’s every country duty to trade with North Korea, or others like them. Well lest just put it this way, If some dictator wants to spend all its money on weapons, so that its people will starve. Then that is not the responsibility of any other country to support this despot through trade.

Actually "France" stood up to Hitler more than two years before America did. And the Iraqi people, who lost loved ones to Saddam, are already tired from losing other loved ones to George.

God bless the third world, it needs it!


But I guess we are now :yot:

Agudo -- Your comments reminded me of what a Russian journalist once commented on regarding propaganda. Note that I'm parapharsing: "In Russia there is a lot of blatant propaganda, but most of the Russian people don't believe it; in America the propaganda is more subtle, but the Americans tend to believe their government's propaganda."

As for the last couple of post you’re Embarrassing :rolleyes: yourselves with such unfounded statements! WHY ?

France never did anything but talk to Hitler and give Poland away.As far as Iraqi people who have lost loved ones in the war, just remember GERMANY is a better place now, because we stood up to Hitler; and a lot more civilians died in that war!

Also in Iraq, they dig up tens of thousands of bodies of innocent people murdered by Sadams government, for doing what you practice everyday {Freedom of speech}

Besides ignoring my statement, that Sadam killed Five thousand people with ((Chemical)) weapons, on ordinary civilians as seen on CNN and by report from the U.N.

The Iraqi people in America, and in the majority of Iraqi, say that they are happy that America came to free the country from the evils of Sadam.

The only Iraqi, who hate Americans, are those who lost their jobs in the government of Sadam and fanatics.

Now as far as propaganda from TV in America, lets just say it’s very liberal, and almost imposable for a conservative president to use them in anyway.

((God Bless Bush and the world :D ))

Hope you guys are having fun debating the thief in chief, because you are going to have four more years of it when he is re-elected.

In Cambodia they dug up hundreds of thousands, maybe over 2 million died. Was there any outrage on the part of Americans? No, not really. Pol Pot died of old age, before he could be brought to trial. Why? Because there was no oil there. Go figure.

(((About the last post above this one)))

I can see what your saying but.....

Cambodia did not have Chemical weapons either, and the Vietnam war had just happen.
America was not in a hurry to go back there.

But that does not mean that after
SEP 11 America has not learned its lesson about waiting to long.

[ June 15, 2003, 07:08: Message edited by: Agudo Archmage of Light ]

((((((((about the post just below the post that is two posts above this one))))))))

Dude you're killin me. If you want to respond to someone, say "@ (insert their name here)." As in:

@ Agudo the Archmage of Light

Dude...yer killin me. And...

We had plenty of opportunities to go after Pol Pot. The man only died about 5 years ago. Viet Nam had nothing to do with it. We didn't because A) we had nothing to gain economically or politically in Cambodia; and B) Pol Pot's regime wasn't openly threatening us or anyone else. Yes he was slaughtering his own citizens, but many administrations, particularly the Clinton administration, had a policy of "pet and play nice" with regard to dictators of other nations. They just kinda hoped the people would rise up and take their country back, and for that reason they didn't want to get involved. That's my understanding anyway.

[ June 15, 2003, 08:25: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

@ Agudo
The Iraqi people in America, and in the majority of Iraqi, say that they are happy that America came to free the country from the evils of Sadam. I wonder why you think this? Could it be that American TV/Newpapers/other media only interview and publish the interviews of those who are for the American Invasion?

France never did anything but talk to Hitler and give Poland away.As far as Iraqi people who have lost loved ones in the war, just remember GERMANY is a better place now, because we stood up to Hitler; and a lot more civilians died in that war! If i remember my history right Frace did not give away Poland. When Germany invaded Poland Frace and England decleared war against Germany.
So you are saying that Germany is a better place because you stood up to hitler. You is refering to USA is it not? Aren't you forgetting about all the other countries that stood up to them? It was called World War Two for a reason, you know.
You are right in one point there, a lot more people did die in that war. But if you ask some people they will say it is because of USA joining the war late, not because of germany.

that Sadam killed Five thousand people with ((Chemical)) weapons, on ordinary civilians as seen on CNN and by report from the U.N. This was one of the reasons for the first gulf war. Nothing like this (to my knowledge) has happened since then.

But that does not mean that after
SEP 11 America has not learned its lesson about waiting to long In some cases it is good to wait. Look at the cubain missle crises for example. What would have happened if USA didn't wait? Well lets say USA wouldn't be USA any more.

(((About the two post on the first page at the bottom)))

I agree ;) what ((Rabbit)) said, that the liberal Clinton presidency, let some former dictators get away. But Clinton did stand up to Milosavich (Not sure on the spelling).

As far as ((Rabits)) media comment, that the Tv only shows pro American people is not true. They also show former Sadam supporters hating America, but those at this point are the minority, the majority do support us ((temporally)) in their country.


((Now for the second post))

**********************************************
Said by “Rotku”…… *****You are right in one point there, a lot more people did die in that war. But if you ask some people they will say it is because of USA joining the war late, not because of Germany.****
***********************************************


Well Rotku ;) your right!!!! I believe that America was to closed-minded about the outside world, and should have been in world 2 sooner.

Also about who was in the WWll...it was really England, Australia, and America not France, because they had been put under the German flag with in days of a surprise attack.

But your statement above that I quoted also invalidates your last one. (See below)

************************************************
***In some cases it is good to wait. Look at the Cuban missile crises for example. What would have happened if USA didn't wait? Well lets say USA wouldn't be USA any more.***
***********************************************

I understand what your saying, that the Big Nukes they had would of been death to everyone.

But I believe if America, took out Castro on the Day of Pigs, then we would not have this problem about Nukes.

[ June 16, 2003, 00:19: Message edited by: Agudo Archmage of Light ]

Another way to interpret the Second World war would be, the young and new nations fighting against eachother for dominance.

-Japan
-Germany
-USA
-Russia

Whereas the old world, former big powers who have become only medium sized, compared to their rivals, tried to keep up the status-quo, which was bound to fail.

- British Empire (UK, India, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Hong-Kong and on and on...)
- France

All other nations which had the unpleasant experience of being made to a battlefield, are merely footnotes. :(

Agudo - The only thing that is liberal about Bill Clinton is his wife -- also soon to be your first woman prez (hope that's better, Death Rabbit, and I understand what you mean).

The only thing that is liberal about Bill Clinton is his wife -- also soon to be your first woman prez About as likely as Clinton choosing Ann Coulter as a running mate.

@ Agudo
Possibly slightly :yot:
Also about who was in the WWll...it was really England, Australia, and America not France, because they had been put under the German flag with in days of a surprise attack There are many many other countries which participated. And IIRC it took much over a year for France to be completly over run. In fact it was never completly over run, just like Iraq will never be. The only way to completly over run a country is by convincing all its' occupants to let you stay there and not to fight against you. Right throughout WW2 there were frence resistance fighters who fought against the Germans.


As far as ((Rabits)) media comment, that the Tv only shows pro American people is not true. They also show former Sadam supporters hating America, but those at this point are the minority, the majority do support us ((temporally)) in their country This maybe true, but do you think they'll show every one they interviewed. Ok, lets say that they (the TV) only showed people who thought USA should have occupied Iraq. How many people would believe this? It's much more relistic if they showed a few people who thought USA was wrong going in there and a lot of people who thought the opposite. Which would you be more likely to believe.
They may interview, lets say, 100 people. Of these people only 10 might support USA. The TVs will show these 10 but maybe only 5 of the other 90 who don't support USA. Understand? Good.


Oh and Agudo
If you don't mind it's not ((now for the second post)) or what ever, it's @ whoever. Much faster and easier to read. And there is also a quote option under the "Add Reply" button. This will save you having to write a lot of those star thingys and it looks better as well. Thanks.

If Bill Clintons wife, wants to be prez. Well it would be fun seeing her run. I am sure she has fans, who will vote for her. NOT ME! But fun to see the show..... :D

about((Rotku)) and his thoughts on the French resistance militarily....... Maybe in French history books, but thats not how the rest of the world saw it! :rolleyes:

Dont get me wrong, I am sure some French people did fight back, and bravely. But as far as the French Army.....Well....Ya Right! :rolleyes:

From back a bit:

To be honest they did find weapons of mass destruction or at least the
(MOBILE WEAPONS LAB TRUCKS) to make them. Look here:

An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.

The conclusion by biological weapons experts working for the British Government is an embarrassment for the Prime Minister, who has claimed that the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein.

Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'

The conclusion of the investigation ordered by the British Government - and revealed by The Observer last week - is hugely embarrassing for Blair, who had used the discovery of the alleged mobile labs as part of his efforts to silence criticism over the failure of Britain and the US to find any weapons of mass destruction since the invasion of Iraq. http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html

(Laches) PLEASE! YA THAT’S RIGHT A MOBILE BALLON MAKER!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Anyway more OFFICAIL investigations this in America have proven, they ARE for DUEL USE purposes! Chemical being one of them.

The Mobile trucks can not be disputed by some liberals in the ANTI -Toney Blair factions. Even the U.N. say they are for DEUL purpose and they can make Chemicals.

I ahve seen the BBC, CNN, and other news paper like the Wall Street Journal. They point out by Experts that those trucks are for Duel use!

So the only Embarrassment is the news rag OBSERVER you got that from!
:rolleyes:

:yot:

about((Rotku)) and his thoughts on the French resistance militarily....... Maybe in French history books, but thats not how the rest of the world saw it!

Dont get me wrong, I am sure some French people did fight back, and bravely. But as far as the French Army.....Well....Ya Right Agudo

Have you ever heard about MAKI (the french partisans, who were a real pain in the ass for the occupation forces) or De Gaulle's Free French?

Also, as far as french military performance in 1940 is concerned, the french military faced Germans when they were almost in the top of their power. There wasn't a second front to keep busy the majority of the german armored divisions, the continuous bombing of the german cities and factories had not started and Blitzkrieg was a totally new concept in warfare and nobody knew how to deal with it. Do you think that if Americans had faced Germans under the same terms, they would have a better performance than the French?

When the Americans faced Germans in 1944, things were very different. Wehrmacht had met its destiny in Russia (and the best german divisions were still fighting there), the British had learned their lessons from their defeats in France and in desert, Germany was under a continuus air bombing campaign and the Americans had 3 years to build up their forces for the invasion. Although, even under these terms, Germans would throw allies back to the sea, if they had not the total air superiority.

@Agudo

Are you talking about the duel that Hussein proposed between him and Bush? The labs were for that in some manner? Would they take ten strides within the lab, turn, then shoot? I'm just teasing -- duel vs. dual.

First, I'm not familiar with the Observer but it was carried by the Guardian which is a reputable source. Second, I try to read a lot of news and haven't seen any experts quoted beyond initial reports regarding the purpose of the labs; I particularly read the Washington Post about ever day and don't recall seeing it. Just to make sure though, I went to the sources you cited: CNN, BBC, and the Wall Street Journal and did a search on each site to see what I could find:

Drumroll please..... nothing. Oh, that's not really true I admit. Back in May the US released a report that they must be labs because they couldn't determine any other use for them. That's a pretty slip shod way of demonstrating they were weapons labs in my opinion. More recently, at the sources you cited, I found things such as these quotes:

From the most recent relevant CNN article:

After dispatching dozens of G.I. patrols to some 300 suspected WMD sites in Iraq over the past two months, only to come up empty-handed, the Pentagon announced last week that it will shift from hunting for banned weapons to hunting for documents and people who might be able to say where banned weapons are — or were.

But it is clear that the U.S. is running out of good leads. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," Lieut. General James T. Conway, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said last week. "But they're simply not there."
From the most recent relevant BBC article:

The secret September 2002 Pentagon intelligence report concluded that there was "no reliable information" that Iraq had biological or chemical weapons.

It is believed the report was widely circulated in the Bush administration at a time when senior officials were putting the case for military action.....

US forces have not yet found any WMD in Iraq. Two suspect mobile laboratories have been located but have not provided any proof of banned weapons programmes.
The Wall Street Journal apparently requires subscription so no dice there. A similar search of the Washington Post revealed similar articles.

Basically, this is the story with the labs:

1. US finds them and says they may possibly be weapons labs. They say this and it's reported.

2. Preliminary tests prove to be "interesting." (that's a quote by the way from the BBC, pretty 'intersting' quote in how non-commital it is eh?)

3. A US report is released, that bears no author, and concludes they must be weapons labs because they can't figure out another use for them. (I suspect you saw these reports back in May.) The British are unwilling to commit at this point saying further testing is needed.

4. About a month goes by and there isn't much talk about these labs anymore. This is very surprising if they demonstrated some type of evidence don't ya think?

5. British officials state that the labs were not used for weapons.

6. Bush is quoted in June as saying that he knows we'll find proof, it was "common knowledge" Hussein had WMDs. This is weird because I thought the labs were this proof, weren't they?

So, the question for you is: if these labs are the proof, can you explain why Bush is making statements that we WILL find proof rather than we HAVE found proof? I'd also urge you to provide a source that after the initial testing,( and barring the one criticized unauthored report that admits to not finding any chemical or biological agents but insisting they must be weapons labs just because what else they could be?) that purports to demonstrate evidence of the labs being used for biological or chemical production.

By the way, the assertion is they were for artillery balloons - not kids balloons.

EDIT -- oh, and on topic, what dmc said way back. Nail meet head and stuff.

[ June 16, 2003, 09:16: Message edited by: Laches ]

@ Agudo AoL (<<- for the 3rd time now, THIS is how you address someone here)

Anyway more OFFICAIL investigations this in America have proven, they ARE for DUEL USE purposes! Chemical being one of them. Source, please? Like Laches, I've neither read or heard anything OFFICIAL confirming this, so if you're going to laugh at someone for disputing something you say, back it up with something other than the caps lock key and excessive smilies. :rolleyes: (<<- Look...all you need is one to get your point across! :heh: )

They can have a thousand experts contend that these trucks "could" have a "dual-use," but no one as of yet can confirm whether they were used for such a purpose. My lawnmower has a "dual-use" as a weapon of terror, but that doesn't mean I mowed down my neighbors with it just because it's a possibility. I want proof, not possibilities - and so far, there is NO proof of WMD at all. I'm not saying there never were, because frankly at this point I have no idea. But you seem to think that concrete evidence has been found, and it simply hasn't. It's clear you love Bush and want to believe him, and I respect that I suppose. But nationalism isn't going to win you any arguements or credibility...least of all HERE. You site official sources as being mainstream television news media. But EVERY major news source throughout this war, from CNN to BBC to whoever has been regularly printing false leads and stories in an attempt to beat one another to the punch, so don't laugh at someone else's sources when yours are questionable at best.

I'll say again: no proof. Prove me wrong by showing me something official (IE Government or UN report, published/declassified document, etc.).

[ June 16, 2003, 16:25: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

Agudo Archmage of Light wrote: The Mobile trucks can not be disputed by some liberals in the ANTI -Toney Blair factions Just a sidenote. I guess in American terminology (which is the opposite to European terminology for political views) Blair would be an "ultra-liberal" himself.

oooh, I just have called a socialist liberal, I want to slap myself.

Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith repeated his call for a full independent inquiry into whether intelligence documents on Iraq's weapons were changed on the orders of Downing Street to strengthen the case for military action.

Tories on the other hand, are the right-wing party. So, Blair gets fire from the right-wing and his own party.

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2969522.stm)

[ June 16, 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: Yago ]

((BOC))

a quote
************************************************** ***************
Do you think that if Americans had faced Germans under the same terms, they would have a better performance than the French?
************************************************** ***************

My answer is………….YES! :cool: If it was based on Sep 11 effects and because we would have gone in there, if we had a madman on border like the French did. Just Like after the Japs attacked us, thats when America got into the fight in WWll


((Laches)) my Goodman, even though I thank you, for telling me that I misspelled **Dual**. One should always use (spell-check) when pointing out others mistakes. :p

Lets take a look at yours ((Laches))
{Drum roll} is two words, and {Interesting} has two “T” in it. Also non-Committal has two “T” in it as well!!!!!!!
{Please see what you wrote below}
************************************************** ***********
Drumroll please..... nothing. Oh, that's not really true I admit. Back in May the US released a report that they must be labs because they couldn't determine any other use for them

2. Preliminary tests prove to be "interesting." (that's a quote by the way from the BBC, pretty 'intersting' quote in how non-commital it is eh?)
************************************************** ************
But hay, I am sure you wont be petty, and do that anymore. ;)

Now as far as everything else you said, from what I saw, it made clear that the Labs have not been proven wrong.

Also the reason why “President Bush” is saying they will find more weapons, is because they have some proof, like the (Mobile labs, Nerve toxin antidote, and Bio suits.)
But he believes Sadam took the time, to bury the Bio/Chemical Weapons, in a country like Iraq, that is the size of Texas. Or sadly shipped them out, and that is the more dangerous situation


Now for the fun part ((RABIT))

I was going for extra sarcasm, as far as the :rolleyes:

Besides know sane person believes Sadam, who is on record for using weapons of mass destruction, on the Kurdish people of Iraq.Would have a "Balloon" truck to make targets for practice. He also is known to murder, anyone who did what we do now, that is use our freedom of speech

Lets go with your statement about BBC, CNN and other more reputable news source. I am not going to say they are perfect, but the (Observer) is more like a {National Enquirer} they may catch someone in bed, that they should not be sleeping with; or Elvis at a fast food place.

But I would not say the Observer or National Enquirer can be trusted when other more reputable agencies don’t agree with such ridicules statements.
As far as your lawnmower well, If you killed thousands of people before, like a modern day “Hitler” aka Sadam. Then I would look at your lawn mower funny also! ((Joke)) ;) but my point is made about Sadam, not to be trusted.

Ok ((Yago)) your up.
I am sure Toney Blair is a socialist on domestic policies. But on international policies
He did the right thing. Now I am sure the conservatives in England are attacking him.
I never seen a politician not try to one up his rival, even he/she agree with their rival.

[ June 16, 2003, 19:28: Message edited by: Agudo Archmage of Light ]

My typos stand corrected, although some of the typos were wrongly pointed out (I forgot an 'e' in interesting not a second 't' etc.) The only reason I brought up the 'duel' vs. 'dual' is it is a common mistake that I see all the time here usually in the game forums where someone wants to 'duel' two weapons or is wondering who would win a 'dual.' No hard feelings.

Now, something is noticeably lacking from your latest retort however: any recent source. I went through the trouble to go to the sources you relied on earlier and quoted what I came up with earlier, which indicates the labs were either likely not used for biological weapons or at the least there is no real evidence they were.

Remember the old Wendy's commercials with the old ladies yelling "Where's the beef!" (am I dating myself?) Well, where's the beef!

Ok we both stand corrected, :D and normally people put the word in large print. DUEL/DUAL to give the hint.

Now as far as (hard feelings) :( well after two boxes of tissue paper I am ok now. No! Really! :eek: I am ok….”Sniff” :( …..People “Like” me….. and I don’t spend…”Sniff”. :( . to much time…. on Chat boards, than with real people………….OK maybe I do! ;) :p ;)

@ Agudo "I can't be bothered to post properly" Archmage of Light

I'm not trying to attack you, but...

First of all: Don't comment on anyone's spelling or grammer until yours less resembles a third grader's. And the name's "RABBIT."

Second: Is it so difficult to post properly? Look at everyone else's posts, take a cue. Read the forum rules on how to post if you have to. Yes, it is annoying and disrespectful to the rest of us.

Third:

Besides know sane person believes Sadam, who is on record for using weapons of mass destruction, on the Kurdish people of Iraq.Would have a "Balloon" truck to make targets for practice. He also is known to murder, anyone who did what we do now, that is use our freedom of speech This has nothing to do with what I asked you. You're right - Saddam was a bastard and everyone knows it. Whether or not Saddam was making balloons has nothing to do with the fact that no one has confirmed that the trucks found were ever used for the purpose of WMD manufacture, period. Once again: I want proof. If you're so convinced, then convince me.

Fourth:

My point about the news sources is that throughout the course of the war, I can think of 4 seperate times where several mainstream news media outlets have declared that the weapons were found, and were later either retracted or not followed up on (because it was a bad lead and there was nothing to follow up on).

I ahve seen the BBC, CNN, and other news paper like the Wall Street Journal. They point out by Experts that those trucks are for Duel use!This is wrong. These "experts" have said it COULD have a dual-use, but like I said - nothing conclusive. Once again - no proof. Owning a gun doesn't mean you shot 100 people, unless forensics determines that that was the gun that fired the bullets. If it's confirmed that your gun found in your house killed 100 people, THEN it's reasonable to believe you did it. It's called burden of proof. Please don't miss that point now for the second time.

If your point was that Saddam was not to be trusted, then it has nothing to do with what was discovered, and in fact in that respect makes Saddam look pretty good. If you read Laches point earlier, it has been "officially" confirmed (by a Coalition government official, I might add) that these trucks turned out to be exactly what Saddam's government claimed them to be. Could they use them to make WMD? Yes. Not terribly likely given the evidence at hand, but yes it's possible. It's also possible that I'm plotting to take over the entire state of Texas alone...with my lawnmower of doom. But not likely.

Now...please back up any further arguements on this subject with something other than "I'm sure" or "I think," or else I will have no choice but to believe you have no idea what you're talking about.

I am sorry DEATH-RABBIT :rolleyes: but you missed the point between me and ((Laches))
It ended in a joke, by me to show that I had “O” ZIP hard feelings! :D

We were talking about my one, and only spelling mistake….Or at least until the WORD POLICE find more…..the word was Duel/Dual on my part.

((Rabbits Quote))
************************************************** ***********
First of all: Don't comment on anyone's spelling or grammer until yours less resembles a third grader's. And the name's "RABBIT."
************************************************** **********

Um…. RABBIT :rolleyes: you missed spelled GRAMMER :p its (AR) at the end. So even a third grader can make a mistake{RABBIT)

Anyway I am sure anyone with the name ;) (Death Rabbit) has a lot of anger management classes to go to SOOOOOOOOOOOOO

lets not take what you say as believable ((Rabbit)) until you stop being the
(WORD POLICE) :rolleyes:


((Now as far as your next quote))
************************************************** *****************
It's also possible that I'm plotting to take over the entire state of Texas alone...with my lawnmower of doom. But not likely.
************************************************** *****************
((Even though I like the Joke)) about the lawnmower, it does not change what Sadam was trying to do. That was to make BIO weapons, but thats if you dont use your third grade quote above! As a logical analogy on why he was not using those trucks or anything else to make weapons of mass-destruction.

Also I did read Laches post and its NOT OFFICIAL by any standard.

Coalition forces does not include every government person that’s in the Democratic party, or Republican. Be it American or England.

So Please stop saying its OFFICIAL, :rolleyes: because its one faction opinion, who is try to get rid of Toney Bair. ;) I also say that the info. comes from a Rag news paper he was quoting and not from more well known ones; like the Wall Street Journal or Tv, CNN, BBC that say that its been #100 proven wrong or Right.

As far as my sources I believe the American Scientists, Military and President Bush, over some smear campaign; by Liberals that want to replace Tony Blair in England.

[ June 16, 2003, 21:06: Message edited by: Agudo Archmage of Light ]

Alright - * groan * You missed pretty much every point I tried to get across to you, so I will no longer bother. Your points are unfounded and irrelevant. You rag on my use of the word "official," yet you cannot, after repeated requests, come up with anything of the support to back yourself up. If you have nothing of value to say, and are obviously too stupid to post properly or back up anything you say with any validity, DO NOT post here. I mean honestly - did anything sink in? At all?

Touche on the word "grammar." If you want to browse over my posts and pick out mistakes, feel free (as I assure you, they are very few). I'm not perfect. But if you honestly don't know how absolutely horrible your typing is, then I feel sorry for you.

I'm still waiting for you to answer ANY of my questions, particularly asking you to back up your statements, and it seems obvious that you can't. I'm done with you.

I was just editing my last post above yours ((Death Rabbit)) when you posted.
So if you missed that then fine.

((Quote from Rabbit))
************************************************** ***************
If you have nothing of value to say, and are obviously too stupid to post properly or back up anything you say with any validity, DO NOT post here.
************************************************** ****************

Please DEATH RABBIT control your personal attacks, and try not to be so blinded, to what the American government is saying. Just because you don’t like Bush, they showed you the trucks, and yes you can find someone else, who might disagree with them.

But as far as completely proving it to you, we our all waiting to see if in the next twelve months they find more proof

But hay you’re the one who attacked me, I just used your (third grade) analogy. To point out how embarrassing it is for you, to say that others are (third grade) when you miss spell words yourself and grammar! ;)

As far as my sources I believe the American Scientists, Military and President Bush, over some smear campaign; by Liberals that want to replace Tony Blair in England. :rolleyes:

www.wsj.com (http://www.wsj.com) www.un.org (http://www.un.org)

www.loc.gov/ (http://www.loc.gov/)
for more information of what I said above.

[ June 16, 2003, 23:56: Message edited by: Agudo Archmage of Light ]

As far as my sources I believe the American Scientists, Military and President Bush, over some smear campaign; by Liberals that want to replace Tony Blair in England.

Well, it's the Tories and/or the Lib/Dems who want to replace Tony Blair. Well, they wished they could, but I think Blair will be very stable for the time being. Much to the dismay of a big part of the Labour-voters, as far my understanding is. But that has nothing to do with the war, but with British domestics. The Tories are down and out, resp. don't have any appealing leadership, the lib/dems are in a marginal position, but maybe, maybe...

Well "smear campaign" and "liberals". The Tories would love to replace Blair. "Smear Campaign". It may sound strange, but in the UK, they got a parliament, which let's the Prime Minister sweat, when has to explain his policies to the MP's (own and other parties). One may call it a sideeffect of a Parlimentary Democracy.

(No, I did not use any spellcheck program)

Thats ok YAGO, RABBIT is the WORD and Grammar POLICE ;) But I liked what you said about UK, way of doing things. I see what your saying. :D

Agundo

It's your opinion, I respect it but like it or not the U.S. army could not face germans in 1944 without total air superiority therefore it would be an easy prey in 1940 when it would have to deal with the whole Wehrmacht and without air superiority since Luftwaffe was powerful this time.

Anyway, this is totally of topic and really I don't want to continue this in this thread. If you want to continue this discussion open a new thread.

((BOC))

Well I admit that would be a fun topic, but for the sake of your mature stand on the boards……Thanks! :) …. I will say this……….

That France was going against a soupier force. the Germanys in wwll. Yes some could say, that those in control of France, did ignore the obvious build up of hostilities.

But I will humble myself, and say that any country would be hard pressed, in dealing with the Germanys. That Includes Americans!

Now to save the topic……… BUSH should NOT be Impeached

Ok first do you mind using the standard way of setting posts out.
1) address people @ then their name. Not ((name))
2)And please don't use so many ! and { and (. It gets very annoying and makes your posts even harder to read
3)Please could you use the quote thingy when posting, instead of using the *s
And if you want I can even give you an example of this:
Lets take a look at yours ((Laches))
{Drum roll} is two words, and {Interesting} has two “T” in it. Also non-Committal has two “T” in it as well!!!!!!!
{Please see what you wrote below}
************************************************** ***********
Drumroll please..... nothing. Oh, that's not really true I admit. Back in May the US released a report that they must be labs because they couldn't determine any other use for them

2. Preliminary tests prove to be "interesting." (that's a quote by the way from the BBC, pretty 'intersting' quote in how non-commital it is eh?)
************************************************** ************ First of all see how I showed there was a quote. And the second, do you know how hard the quote above was to read?
I'm sure there are many more things but I'm going to leave them for you to work out your self and save you any more embarisment (sp?).

I don't like telling other SP members what to do but i would seriously suggest you drop it! . Death Rabbit was very mature in not going on about your posts, but I can't help it sorry.

Now if you don't mind can we get back to the topic please.

Totally agreed. Consider what RotKU said as coming from me. Because if he hadn't done it I would.

@Rotku I believe your missing, ;) @ and the “Name” of the person your addressing. But because your mentioning, @Rabbit I assume you meant me. As far as how to post, I was not disagreeing with him.

But on his personal attacks against me. Using “Third Grade” and “Stupid” and “Don’t Post” Because of his @Rabbit wanted me to prove that the “Trucks” were Bio weapons.
I told him I believe the President, Military, and American scientists who looked at it. He felt that was not enough

@Rabbit does not have the power to tell people to stop posting!
Also if @Taluntain was less biased, he would have told @Rabbit that he cant tell people to stop posting. Its hard to see @Taluntain as objective when he posts about this subject and as the Administrator.

see quote below frompg 1


posted June 13, 2003 09:24

Those 2 trucks really don't deserve CAPS. If anyone in the Bush administration thought they could make any use of that as far as the horrible, looming WMD threat goes, they would be trumpeting them for the whole world to hear. But even they realize they need at least a bit more than that.

And, Agudo, please contain the nationalistic outbursts.

If the Administrator wants to post, he should take on a new ID so that he seems objective when Problems come up. like what I am saying below

So if you disagree with someone, you can tell them your “stupid” and “stop posting” and if you don’t do as they say. That Mature to you @Rotku :rolleyes: To me @Rabbit embarrassed himself for taking such a childish position :p

Please see @Rabbit quote

If you have nothing of value to say, and are obviously too stupid to post properly or back up anything you say with any validity, DO NOT post here. My "Value" is my opinion :cool:

OK. I understand that the Alley has emotional topics and so a little more leeway is given in here, but that's enough sniping at eachother for this thread. Try to discuss the topic rather that getting personal.

Oh, and Agudo, you don't have to put @ in front of everyone's nick, you can just address them directly. You typically put the @ in front when the nick you are addressing your comment to is separate and not part of the sentence.

Agudo Archmage of Light, you obviously haven't read the sticky on top of the topic listing in this forum. It's there especially for people like you who HAVE to read it because if they don't, they're not able to post properly in this forum. I have no obligation to you or anyone else to share their opinion. My opinion is my own and if I choose to share it (or even enforce it), that is my prerogative on these boards. All of this is clearly stated in the AoDA sticky.

And certainly the last person I'll take criticism and "advice" from is someone who doesn't even read the rules of this forum before posting in it, and who can't even spell one sentence right so I could understand it without having to read it 5 times. So do yourself and us a favour and first read the forum rules (which you've violated by arguing with me here), then the AoDA rules sticky, and then spell/grammarcheck any text before posting it here.

Taluntain” you just completely ignored “Blackrthorne Ta” post, :rolleyes: see quote

OK. I understand that the Alley has emotional topics and so a little more leeway is given in here, but that's enough sniping at each other for this thread. Try to discuss the topic rather that getting personal. Once again :rolleyes: showed that this is your personal playground. You lack any objective view, as an Administrator by once again personally attacking me.

Also by not talking about how Rabbit, Can tell people not to post and call people names showes that I am right :cool: By the way its "Favor" not "Favour" and grammarcheck is two words

So before you tell me to use sp-check maybe you should take your own advice ;) As far as not posting personal subjects to you here thats fine we can Email.

[ June 17, 2003, 21:13: Message edited by: Agudo Archmage of Light ]

I hear a song, way off in the distance -- what is it? Oh, yes, it's Freddy Mercury and the boys of Queen. Their singing Another One Bites the Dust. It was nice knowing you.

As for the ORIGINAL topic, well, all I have to say is that the grounds for impeaching Bush are slim to non-existant -- he did not lie, at least not that can be proven -- all he was was the victim of poor data. He's totally safe, and the topic is rather pointless.

YA, new guy on the block, and he is already jumping into hot water. But hay I have been reading this stuff for awhile, and I see something that’s good to me so “Ya” know I had to give my moneys worth. :p

I think agudoos right! We all should be able say what we want, when we want.

Don’t take it personally taluntain sir, but it does look like death rabbit is taking control of the place and telling people not to post.

Just my opinion, so please don’t smite me :( “O” powerful administrator :D

@ Agudo

:rolleyes: Sayonara.

@ Knight

Welcome to the Boards. It looks like you missed the point of why I said that as well. I don't have the power to tell people where to go and I don't pretend to. But if you ask me, if you can't respect the rules of SP and it's members, you aren't welcome in such discussions. I stick by what I said, and it would seem to me many here share the sentiment. If Agudo can't see the fault in his behavior, then I pity him. I've responded to him privately, and he should do the same. Otherwise he just proves me right with each new post.

He's a schmuck, and I won't dignify him any further by responding.

( ps - you wouldn't happen to be Agudo, signing on with a different name...are you? :D )

@ Lord Keldin Depaara

I agree, but if it turns out that he DID lie, and it's legally proven, then I would say he should be impeached, at least on an idealogical level. I'm not sure exactly what the grounds are in the constitution. I'm still reserving judgement for the most part on this one.

I think Death Rabbit was completly right. It wasn't about content, but about the forum rules and customs. About how posts are written, how posts are organized and how people are usually adressed in posts on this board. It's just the "usance" here. It never was about content, but about the decency to stick to the customs here.

Well, well, well. Here we have Agudo ignoring the rules once again and directly after specific direction to the contrary. And guess what else we have? A new member Knight with... wait for it... the same IP address as Agudo!

So, guess what we now have? Two less members able to post.

And Death Rabbit, please refrain from personal attacks on the boards.

Now everybody (with the exception of other Administrators or Moderators :) ): I don't want to see any more off topic nonsense in this thread from here on out.

if it turns out that he DID lie, and it's legally proven, then I would say he should be impeached Didn't Clinton set a precedent for allowing the President to lie and get away with it???

There is also a difference between active subterfuge and poor intelligence.

Just my two cents ... trying to get this back on topic.

I get the feeling that, ideologically speaking, we probably would have good reason to want to impeach most Presidents, and most leaders, come to think of it (hey, what's it called when they remove a senator or congressman -- is that also impeachment?)

It'll never happen unless some private memos come out trhat show him basically saying "I know for a solid fact there's no WMD in Iraq, but I'm going to say there are." I'd bet my left nut that such a memo will never appear.

My understanding of the impeachment process is, that it consists out of 2 factors.

A. Legal. Some crime, described in the constitution, must be committed.

B. Political. Some opposition, who wants to get rid of the President.

So, everything which was said about the WMA's in Iraq was a political judgment. It's not a legal crime to have an opinion and say:"We are under a clear and present threat, that's what I've read from the secret reports. Sorry, you are not allowed to see them yourselves, just trust me."

Nor is it a crime to lie per se, as far my understanding is. Which would be impossible to prove anyway. "Clear and present danger, that's what I thought, as I read it".

It comes down to: Was it good politics or bad politics. That remains to be seen. Impeachment, I don't think is the case here, but political questions. If the Iraq-thing (which still is going on) turns out to be a failure, I think the republicans will have to answer many things. If it turns out as it was planned (i.e. successful establishment of a democracy), no one will bother.

[ June 17, 2003, 23:02: Message edited by: Yago ]

Lord Depaara -- I have ignored most of what has gone on regarding where this topic ended up. But I created this topic to get a feel for what others on SP think about the situation regarding WMD and the administration's comments before embarking on this "grand endeaver" that became the Gulf War II.

I'm sorry that you feel that the topic is "pointless," but I really must take exception. If anything was pointless it was this artificially created war, and the loss of lives --Iraqi, American, English and others that never needed to have been sacrificed because the man in charge failed to give the right facts. If, and that is an "if" he lied, should he be impeached for causing this loss of life?

If you and others wish to equate this situation with the Bill Clinton "affair" then go right ahead. But if you think that Bill should have been impeached for not telling the truth to Ken Starr about his sex life, then why should Bush not be impeached for destroying an entire country and the loss of American and other coalition lives?

Chandos

Your statement above is so wrong it can be called nothing short of what it is, a pack of lies.

If anything was pointless it was this artificially created war, and the loss of lives --Iraqi, American, English and others that never needed to have been sacrificed because the man in charge failed to give the right facts. If, and that is an "if" he lied, should he be impeached for causing this loss of life?
You keep running the premise that this war was about nothing other than WMD. That is simply not true, as BTA has pointed out on numerous occasions. In addition, the intelligence agencies of many nations believe that Saddam had WMD, so how is it that Bush got all of them to lie for him? As far as giving the right facts, there were never any "facts" given. Evidence and facts are 2 different animals. Finally, Saddam is the one precipitated the war by not complying with the UN resolutions. The US elected to act out of concern for its national security among many other reasons.

If you and others wish to equate this situation with the Bill Clinton "affair" then go right ahead. But if you think that Bill should have been impeached for not telling the truth to Ken Starr about his sex life, then why should Bush not be impeached for destroying an entire country and the loss of American and other coalition lives? Nice misdirection there, but I am going to call you on it. The difference is that Bush provided evidence that suggested that Saddam most likely had WMD, and he stated that he believed, and still believes that. Bubba knowingly lied UNDER OATH TO A FEDERAL JUDGE IN AN OFFICIAL HEARING. There is a difference between stating an opinion (when Bush states that "Saddam has WMD, we have the evidence" there is an implied opinion there, if people are not smart enough to understand that, too bad for them) and knowingly making a false statement of fact under oath. Bubba is a criminal (and not just for perjury), Bush is not, for if stating opinions that turn out to be wrong is a punishable crime, we are all going to jail!


:toofar:

Are you serious? "We have solid evidence that Iraq has WMD." is an opinion to you? There is no "I think/believe/speculate/guess" in there. It is plain statement of fact. And if it proves that the actual situation does not correspond with that statement, you can only call it a lie. Nothing else.

The whole bullying of half of Europe into signing petitions and declarations of support for the Iraqi war was based on that "solid evidence" Powell and Bush flaunted around. There was no other reason anyone would sign anything that would give Bush a go-ahead for war in Iraq.

In addition, the intelligence agencies of many nations believe that Saddam had WMD, so how is it that Bush got all of them to lie for him? Ahm, which ? Which agencies of which nations ?

Usually, secret agencies won't make a public statement about what they know, what they think and what they guess. So, I would find it interestig to know, which agencies supported the thought, that there would be WMA's piled in Iraq.

And to other reasons for the war instead of WMA. There we agree Darkwolf, I am convinced that there where many reasons for that war and WMA sure wasn't one at all. But the reasons of the war have been discussed in other threads and will probably be discussed in future threads.

Darkwolf -- This war was not about WMD? Here are a few quotes made by your man on the subject:


"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

Hope you enjoyed reading what may tun out to be the real pack of lies, Darkwolf.

Regarding the Ken Starr regime: How did a prosecutor investigating an ancient real estate deal in Arkansas suddenly end up investigating whether or not the prez was doing his intern? The case was phoney from the start. It was a clumsy attempt to overturn a democratically elected president. Of course, most Americans did not stand still for this sort of contrived "justice." Hence, the reason Bill was able to finish his elected term in office.

The good thing about the whole Ken Starr inquisition was that two repulican leaders in the House bit the dust during the "impeachment process." I hope Newt is enjoying retirement. :wave:

Didn't get any enjoyment because I didn't bother reading your list. :D You can keep making the claim, and you can pull quotes that show that WMD were part of the reason, but anyone with an IQ above the moron level knows that there were many reasons for the war. Those who make such statements are either idiots or have an agenda and don't care what they do to the truth to fulfill it.

I guess it proves the old adage "simple ideas for simple minds" :rolleyes:

So go on with your worship of the rapist (allegedly, but never personally denied by the accused) President, and keep on attacking a President who takes action simply because you don't like said action. The liberal mentality is on a rapid decline in this nation, and not a moment too soon. Your little bunch of vapid bleating hearts are on the brink of being pushed completely out of politics in this country.

By the way, tit-for-tat for your Newt comment, how do you like the fact that since this "idiot" President got his "worthless" tax cuts pushed through the DJIA is up over 500 points? If the economy turns around before the election we will have a new species to add to the endangered list... Democrats in DC area. Hopefully they will soon be extinct and the Libertarians can take over as the second party. Once mainstream America understands what Libertarians stand for it will be a whole new ball game in Washington.

Time to admit that this entire exercise of "did Bush tell the truth?" is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the Republicans in hopes of election victories in 2008. When are Liberals going to figure out that right now in America we want people who stand for something, not a bunch of sniveling whiners who can only stand against what the other side stands for? Until things change, or until the Democrats figure out an agenda that they can stand for, (and that people will get behind) they will continue to look negative, and will continue to lose political power. For some reason I hope they never figure it out. :D :D :D :D

Darkwolf -- I enjoyed hitting your conservative nerve. However, all the name calling will not change the "simple truth" that either your guy doesn't know what he's talking about (no surprise there). Or he did not tell the truth.

Of course, all this is premature, since all the results on WMD are not in yet. Unlike you I refuse to take anything on faith just because someone who is in the "right party" says it is so. Yet, I won't shed any tears though when your delusional dreams of conservative grandeur fail to come to pass. Oh, and about the subject of "whining" - it seems funny how you can see your own shortcoming in other people.

Once mainstream America understands what Libertarians stand for it will be a whole new ball game in Washington.
The end of the Republican party with it's ahm... keep us save from the market-policies (And to a lesser degree the end of the democrats, which are just a little bit less hostile to the concept of free market then the Republicans) ? The US will beceome finally a free trader like the UK was in the 19th century ? That's going to change the whole wide world. For the better.

Darkwolf, this is the only warning you'll get. Throw another personal insult aimed at any single person or group of people and your posting career in AoDA is finished. Go read the sticky with the rules for AoDA.

Also - and this is just a personal comment from me not on the administrator level - if your best shot at proving your right is to ignore everything everyone else says and posts, you can keep posting ad infinitum and you still won't convince anyone except yourself. I guess I'm lucky I'm one of the rare few to possess the ability to shatter Stone Deaf (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html).

Chandos, I guess my "pointless" comment came out in a way I didn't intend. What I mean is, it'll never happen, because proving that Bush was lying as opposed to simply acting on bad evidence would be next to impossible. I'm in full agreement that should it be discovered that a president lied, he should get the boot. Like I said before, though, I have an unpleasant feeling that we'd have to impeach every single president and world leader!

I in no way meant to insult your thread -- it's a good one and a good idea, it's just that I see the chances of Bush being impeached as being about the same as my winning the next Mr. Universe contest. However, whether or not he DESERVES it, well, that's worth discussing.

OK - Sorry for the misunderstanding, Lord Depaara. All this stuff with Agudo, kind of put me off on what was happening with this thread. And I agree with your comments, that it is highly unlikely that Bush will be impeached over lying about WMD. But, if the Amercian people feel that he is lying and it gets enough press focus, it could cost him points in the election.

Someone said that lying is not a crime which is correct, so long as the person was not under oath. To the best of my knowledge Bush never made any statements under oath, so he cannot be impeached for perjury. If Bush et al., however, lied in order to convince congress to wage the war for his own gain, then he has conspired to defraud the federal government, which is a felony.

Link to relevant statute
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=371

@ Darkwolf do you imply that they were other reasons than the existence of WMD's in Iraq? The non compliance with the resolution of 1441 of the UN perhaps; But if the US army can't find the WMD's if they existed doesn't this mean that Saddam did comply with this resolution;
Another reason; The supressive regime of Saddam; Did the Iraqies asked from the USA to come and save them; i think not. Other reason; i can't think of one... oh yes the one reason that really existed OIL :eek: But noone talks about it. It is confidential :p
I understand your concern for your goverment and the underlying fear that maybe there was rotten in the kingdom of Danes but if we allow any goverment to do whatever they like and get away with it we will come up with some very nasty situations. It is the responsibility of the people to check their goverment and to point out her faults and to guard the democratic system of goverment since that is the main principle of democracy.
To delude ourselves and not strive to preserve justice just because it is our goverment and we back her up is the worst thing that it could be done.

Havent been here a while but anyways as a respond to Agudo's respond on my post here:

If you are trying to say, that it’s every country duty to trade with North Korea, or others like them. Well lest just put it this way, If some dictator wants to spend all its money on weapons, so that its people will starve. Then that is not the responsibility of any other country to support this despot through trade. Nope... it was just a reminder that also "good" western people seem to use WMD's


Now for something completely different (http://maddox.xmission.com/tictacs.html)

The importance of the WMD's lies not if they truly were the reason for the war or not, the importance was that they were what they used to legimitize the conflict with and what they used to scare up their own populace with. It was WMD's that lent the entire farce atleast a semblence of credibility. Everyone with half a brain knows that the WMD's was not the main issue by a long shot, but it was the argument used to sell this war. Thus their existance or no existance is vital for the Bush II administrations credibility.
If the WMD's was not the issue people will start to question what other reasons they were, especially those who are so keen on beliving what your great leader tells you. If he greatly exaggerated this why wouldnt he do it with other things and what kind of credibility does he have?

As you have pointed out so is Clinton's credibility low since his affairs and lying under oath is more blatant than if you are not under oath. But for some reason I think lying to drag your country into war and make your populace live in constant fear of a non-existant threat is worse than lying about boning some intern. Oath or no oath. I would also like to add that especially the Europeans here are still not Democrats just because we are not Republicans. So you vomiting gall over Clinton is not really aimed at anyone here that I can tihnk of as he wasnt overly popular either.

I dont see Bush getting impeached.Most of the polls I see here in the States still show a high level of approval for Bush and company.

These are strange times in the US right now.We have a presidant who by all appearences mislead the public so he could run a war ,and no one seems to care.If the economy makes a come back he will probably get re-elected.Sad isnt it.

To make things worse I heard Rumsfeild the other day on the radio making his case against IRan again.He had great catch phrases like People who spend their time thinking about this kind of thing beleive Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

I just wonder if these are the same people who said Iraq was a clear and presant danger to us?

Man I cant spell at all!

Dorion Blackstar -- Don't worry about the spelling because everything you commented on is right on, IMO. It's really equally curious as it is sad though that Americans don't care if this guy tells the truth or not. When he was elected a lot of Americans didn't think he was very smart but they claimed that he had "character." The issue of Bush II having "character" has certainly gone down the drain if it turns out that he was lying.

The Dems really have an issue here if they wish to ratchet it up, because a lot of them voted for this war. I, for one, detested them for doing so, and then coming back and trying to criticize what they were obviously in favor of. IMO, the dems really looked like their namesake (jackasses), until all this stuff about phoney intel started surfacing. Now they have an out that they were as misled as the rest of us, but somehow I feel that may not be necessarily an honest excuse. But what in politics is an honest excuse at this point? Hype is the order of the day now on both sides and Americans don't care as long as they can cruise around in their SUVs, wave their plastic flags and shout: "We're number 1!"

So, you're right after all: It is sad, isn't it?

The situation is getting out of hand not only in USA but throughout the world as well. I believe that the manipulation of the masses by playing with their fears and misleading them in order to hide bigger issues or even to serve causes less than pure is widespread politic for the politicians of this world. Too bad because as a saying from my country reminds the fish smells from the head. Is this a bad sign for our future or a sign that something must change that the system is not working properly anymore;
I fear that the second thought is true and the concequences will be dramatic for the people of this planet :(

manipulation of the masses by playing with their fears and misleading them in order to hide bigger issues This reminds me of a movie I saw a while back, where the USA persident was caught having an affair and made up a fake war to get peoples minds away from his affair.
Could something like this be happening now? Bush didn't catch Binladin (sp?) so he made up some convincing story about there been WMD in Iraq to take everyones minds off his failure in Afganistain? If this is true he should certainly be impeached. If this is so he should be tried (sp?) for war crimes.

But if he was simply misinformed, well is this really the type of person who we want leading the most powerful country on the face of our planet.

And Blackstar, it is sad, very sad indeed, when a country doesn't care if their leader lies to them or not.
To make things worse I heard Rumsfeild the other day on the radio making his case against IRan again.He had great catch phrases like People who spend their time thinking about this kind of thing beleive Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

I just wonder if these are the same people who said Iraq was a clear and presant danger to us? I really wouldn't be surprised, Iran does have a big oil suppy does it not. I find it horrible that some one with so much power lies in order to legally declear war on Iraq.