Bush - Impeached! Or Not?

[Chandos the Red]

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 ]

[Death Rabbit]

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.

[Ragusa]

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

[BOC]

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.

[Mithrantir]

I've read this article 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.

What now the US administration is looking even a programm for a rifle man they are desperate

[Rotku]

@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.

[Pac man]

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.

[Darkwolf]

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?

[Ragusa]

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.

[Death Rabbit]

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.

[Prozac]

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.

[Ragusa]

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.

[chevalier]

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.

[chevalier]

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.

[Death Rabbit]

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 ]

[LKD]

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.

[Iago]

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 !

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 . 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 .

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.

[dmc]

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.

[Chandos the Red]

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 ]

[Mithrantir]

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

[dmc]

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.

[Valkyrie]

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."

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!

[Darkwolf]

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!

[Agudo Archmage of Light]

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!

[Taluntain]

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 ]