^I'm sorry, did you suddenly develop logical reasoning abilities

6/28/2005 8:38:05 PM

Quote :

"Starting in late May to June of 2002 a flurry of activity began both in the United States and in the Middle East. In what appears to be an admission of covert activity, chief allied air force commander Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley divulged in a little-noticed quote in the New York Times that US/British aircraft flew 21,736 sorties between June 2002 and March 2003. The focus turned to what may ultimately be the most important part of the memo: the point where Hoon said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime”. Ministry of Defence figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that virtually none were used in March and April; but between May and August an average of 10 tons were dropped each month, with the RAF taking just as big a role in the “spikes of activity” as their US colleagues. Then in September the figure shot up again, with allied aircraft dropping 54.6 tons. If this was a covert air war, both Bush and Blair may face searching questions. In America only Congress can declare war, and it did not give the US president permission to take military action against Iraq until October 11, 2002. Blair’s legal justification is said to come from UN Resolution 1441, which was not passed until November 8, 2002. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669292_2,00.html



In May 2002, the United States withdrew from the Internation Criminal Court.

Interesting how our withdrawal coincided with the increased bombings.

Quote :

"U.S. objections The United States, which signed but did not ratify the statute during the Bill Clinton administration, withdrew its support soon after George W. Bush assumed the presidency. It signed the ICC Statute at the last minute, primarily so that it could continue to take part in negotiations on the rules of procedure for the new court, in an attempt to obtain an exemption for U.S. nationals taking part in UN-sponsored peacekeeping missions—as several other countries were able to do. The U.S. fears that American soldiers and political leaders may be subject to "frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions." On May 6, 2002, the United States informed the United Nations Secretary-General that "the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

6/28/2005 9:53:28 PM

Quote :

"wow. Nevermind that WMD was just about the biggest way they hypothetically could have posed a threat to us."

We have engaged in military action in and against quite a few countries that did not really present a threat to us, and Congress has let it slide. What threat, precisely, was Korea posing to us? Vietnam? Yugoslavia? Iraq circa 1990? Serbia?

You all act like it is utterly inconceivable that Congress might´ve OK´d action without the perception of a tangible threat. Sure, WMD´s maybe sped the process along, but I am far from convinced that support for some kind of serious actions in Iraq could not have been procured using more honest approaches.

6/29/2005 12:34:06 AM

Quote :

"I am far from convinced that support for some kind of serious actions in Iraq could not have been procured using more honest approaches."

Do you believe the Bush administration falsified, concealed, or covered up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact?

Do you believe the Bush Administration make materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation?

Do you believe the Bush Administration made or used any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry?

6/29/2005 6:15:07 PM

I have already answered that question, and will not answer it again just because you worded the question like a lawyer three fucking times.

6/29/2005 6:16:23 PM

Ok. Since you believe it's ok for the president to lie to Congress in order to get the funding to invade Iraq, I'm curious to know if you supported the impeachment of Clinton for lying under oath?

[Edited on June 29, 2005 at 6:20 PM. Reason : curious]

6/29/2005 6:20:03 PM

But, Pryderi...

I thought Clinton wasn't President anymore, and that we should move on? Why are you living in the past?

I thought Clinton needed to catch some hell for lying to Congress, but it didn't really strike me as impeachable. That said, I told you that I approved of lying as a means to an acceptably good end. The end for Clinton lying was to cover his own ass. The end for Bush lying was to get the support that in a sane world would be readily available to kill a dictatorship. Still, given the difference in scale of both the means and the ends, I don't give much of a shit at all about Clinton.

And, just as an aside, let's consider the possibility (as though you lot hadn't already accepted it as the Gospel) that Bush's end was some sort of shady oil-guzzling endeavor. OK. Let's say that as a result of this, Iraq becomes at least a semistable democracy that poses no threat, even on the horizon, to its peaceful neighbors. You know what I'll say in that case? That I don't give two shits how shady Bush's oil deal was. Because what I want to come out of this is a free Iraq. If, in order to acheive that end, bad things have to be done, depending on the scale of the things in question, I consider that to be acceptable. In order to liberate almost any people bad things have to be done. In order to free Kuwait more than ten years ago we had to kill Iraqis -- that's a bad thing. Quite a worse thing, in fact, than lying to Congress. But it was what had to be done for the greater good, just as lying to Congress was apparently perceived as ''what had to be done'' (though I think a better route could've worked).

6/29/2005 6:32:15 PM

I brought up Clinton in order to gauge what you believe to be an impeachable offense.

Iran and Syria are peaceful neighbors????

[Edited on June 29, 2005 at 6:34 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2005 6:33:38 PM

Quote :

"I brought up Clinton in order to gauge what you believe to be an impeachable offense."

You mean...just like I bring up Clinton in order to gauge what you believe is an acceptable lie, or which military conflicts are acceptable, or...

Quote :

"Iran and Syria are peaceful neighbors????"

No. Kuwait is.

6/29/2005 6:37:26 PM

Quote :

"Powell: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992558/

8/24/2005 12:35:12 PM

Quote :

"jeebus, why do you continually bttt these threads by making a statement that contributes absolutely nothing to a discussion that is no longer going on?"

8/24/2005 12:37:53 PM

I'm keeping it alive for the impeachment trial of '07.

8/24/2005 12:38:59 PM

BTW, in case you haven't heard, we still have American soldiers dying because of these intentional lies.

8/24/2005 12:42:48 PM

bringing back this thread should really have an impact on that.

good work.

8/24/2005 12:46:09 PM

WOULD ALL YOU LEFT WING PUSSIES JUST MOVE TO CANADA?

LITTLE FUCKING GIRLS.

8/24/2005 1:49:29 PM

pryderi - solders are dying for a justified cause. you don't agree, then don;t join the army. There will be no impeachment - and the republications will run the Whitehouse for the next DECADE. No matter how much you cry and bitch like a 12 year old having her first period - the pre mentioned facts will not change. now why don't you log off, brew up some herbal tee and relax with the girls on the View. Missed the view - Orpahs on at 4.

8/24/2005 1:55:11 PM

Hahahaha...that's rich. Republicans running things for the next decade? Running it four years from now will be impressive enough.

8/24/2005 2:11:30 PM

Quote :

" In order to free Kuwait more than ten years ago we had to kill Iraqis -- that's a bad thing. Quite a worse thing, in fact, than lying to Congress."

Um, we've had to do a bit o' that this time around too...

8/24/2005 2:29:30 PM

Quote :

"Hahahaha...that's rich. Republicans running things for the next decade? Running it four years from now will be impressive enough. "

Funny - that's what all you lefties were saying in 2004. How did that work out for you?

8/24/2005 2:32:02 PM

What can I say? Incumbency's a bitch.

But at least teh l3ft (which I barely belong to, n00b) has a presidential candidate for '08.

8/24/2005 2:35:46 PM

Who is that?

8/24/2005 2:45:15 PM

Hillary Clinton, primarily. Joe Biden behind her. Edwards, maybe. Bill Richardson.

8/24/2005 2:53:15 PM

Quote :

"Hillary Clinton"

Bhahahahahahahahahahahaahhaahahhaha. Witehouse is safe. The only woman president you will be seeing is Gina Davis on ABC this fall.

Whoever they run - they are not going to beat Giuliani. It's a fact.

8/24/2005 3:02:25 PM

Giuliani won't even be his party's nominee....he's pro-abortion.

8/24/2005 3:06:32 PM

Quote :

"Giuliani won't even be his party's nominee....he's pro-abortion"

Oprah over? Giuliani will be he next Pres.

8/24/2005 3:10:42 PM

We've been over this.

He's not Republican enough for the party to win the nomination.

8/24/2005 3:12:51 PM

You will see.

8/24/2005 3:19:41 PM

Hows the impeachment coming pryderi?

8/24/2005 3:22:28 PM

Funny you should ask.

Quote :

"Republican Congressman Breaks Ranks, Joins Demand for Documents on Downing Street Memos By David Swanson Related stories: antiwar 8-24-05, 10:58 am Congressman Jim Leach (R, Iowa) has informed Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D, California) that he will co-sponsor her Resolution of Inquiry into Bush Administration communications with the U.K. about Iraq at the time of the Downing Street Memos. Leach is the first Republican member of Congress to publicly support a demand for an inquiry into the Bush Administration's pre-war claims. The 131 congress members who have signed Congressman John Conyers' letter to the President about the Downing Street Memo are all Democrats. The 11 Senators who have asked the Senate Intelligence Committee to do the investigation it committed to in February 2004 but never did are all Democrats. The Resolution, H. Res. 375, is a privileged resolution which must be brought to a vote in the House International Relations Committee by September 16th, or Lee is permitted to demand a vote of the full House. Fifty-two Democrats, including Lee, have co-sponsored the Resolution. Leach is the first Republican to join them, and he is a member of the International Relations Committee.. The International Relations Committee has 27 Republican members and 23 Democratic members. Thus far 10 of the Democrats have co-sponsored the Resolution. If the other 13 vote for it as well, then along with Leach, one more Republican vote will be needed for a tie, or two more for passage. Leach has questioned Bush's war policies for years and was one of five Republicans in May to vote for Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey's amendment requiring an exit strategy. Another of those five, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, also serves on the International Relations Committee. "Congressman Leach has broken the silence of the Republican Party on the Downing Street Minutes," said John Bonifaz, Co-Founder of the After Downing Street Coalition. "His willingness to co-sponsor Congresswoman Barbara Lee's Resolution of Inquiry is bound to make the White House nervous. It is not possible for the President to paint this demand for documents as coming solely from his opponents. This is a demand for the truth. Did the president deliberately deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq? We as a people -- from Crawford to Des Moines to Washington, DC, regardless of our political persuasion, deserve to know the answer to that basic question." "Congress returns to Washington from its summer break on September 6," said David Swanson, Co-Founder of the After Downing Street Coalition. "The first 10 days will test the Democrats' ability to stand together and challenge the Bush Administration, as well as Republicans' willingness to break ranks on an issue where public opinion has diverged widely from White House policy." "

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/1719/1/32/

8/24/2005 7:55:46 PM

I'm waiting for an investigation to prove something before I join you in chanting "Bush lied. Bush lied." while masturbating.

To be honest, your unproven allegations make you look like a bit of a blinded partisan nut.

8/24/2005 10:05:03 PM

burden of proof is a BITCH.

8/25/2005 7:29:11 AM

Let's get the investigation going. Subpoena powers etc.

[Edited on August 25, 2005 at 8:15 AM. Reason : etc]

8/25/2005 8:14:48 AM

So you now admit their is no actual, physical proof that "bush lied, people died"?

You can't "wish" something true.

8/25/2005 8:28:06 AM

No response - what a shock.

8/26/2005 11:24:34 AM

Quote :

"Let's get the investigation fishing expedition going"

8/26/2005 3:35:58 PM

16 words.

8/27/2005 12:11:10 AM

yes, and i think it goes like this:

Quote :

"SHUT THE FUCK UP!!! SHUT THE FUCK UP!!! SHUT THE FUCK UP!!! SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!"

8/27/2005 12:16:19 AM

Quote :

"I have already answered that question, and will not answer it again just because you worded the question like a lawyer three fucking times."

Spoken like a true politician...

GrumpyGOP, I value your input because they tend to actually be well-written, logical, and supported by the evidence. I see your stance on the Iraq war and understand why the public had to be fed lies in order to embark on a necessary war. Presidents certainly must make diffcult decisions and the "right" choices often aren't the "politically viable" choices.

However, I disagree with a principle tenet of your argument, namely that the war was "necessary." When you weigh in what was gained and lost over the Iraq war, the US came out the biggest loser. Lets outline things:

Benefits

1) Potential ally in middle east
2) Removal of oppressive dictatorship
3) Prevent future attacks and threats of violence from a known murdering dictator
4) Oil
5) Destruction of alleged Al Qaida terrorist cells (heard this from other, anyone got poof?)

Costs

1) More than 1300 US soldier deaths
2) Countless civilian casualties
3) Deterioration of diplomatic ties to several nations around the world
4) Over $500 billion of US taxpayer money
5) The need to actively deceive the public worldwide as to the rationale for war.


Post 9/11, and several thousand American lives, the world nearly united in sympathizing with the US and its great loss. Since then the US has gradually lost that sympathey and turned it into outrage. The war in Iraq nearly singlehandedly cost the US its worldwide diplomatic stock. A nation proclaiming freedom duped by its own officials into war.

Granted, its happened before, I'm not pretending this is new, but we live in the information age. If you make shit up, somewhere down the line its going to bite you. You think Bush thought anyone would give a crap that he didn't show up for Guard duty? You think he's the first president to serve a light load in the military for political reasons? No, and I certainly don't condemn him any more than any other politician in the past.

That said, the Iraq war was a mistake. This pre-emptive war nonsense flooded Al Qaida ranks with recruits. It cost the US dearly in terms of PR. It cost an obscene amount of money and US soldier lives. That simply doesn't justify military force.

I've said it before, but I would have backed a war against Saddam Husein if had been started for the right reasons. I have friends with Iraqi descent, and none of them wanted Saddam to stick around. However, this propaganda type nonsense about WMDs and whatnot was a farce and we're going to take heat for it for decades. The Bush Administration used 9/11 as a rallying call, even during the 2004 campaign, to gather supporters. That disrespected the memory of the brave men and women who lost their lives almost 4 years ago.

For once, I'd like the Bush Administration to give us the TRUTH. I realize it's a stretch, but lets try giving people THE FACTS. You'd be amazed what people can puzzle out when you tell them straight up whats going on. I realize this is how politics have functioned sinc ethe US was born, but seriously...

And Democrats, stop acting like a sack of whining pussies and stand up to this bullshit. The failure of Democrats to actually put their reputation at stake against politically charged topics is why they lost in 2004. No one was willing to support a hardline against the Bush Administration's bullshit. The public votes for candidates with some fucking conviction, and the Democrats had none.

So there you have it. The country is in one big mess, and we're talking semantics over whether we were mislead. Let me save you the trouble: it doesn't matter. The damage has been done, and now we have to pick up the pieces and learn from it. The only things that will save the US form this fate in the future are:

1) honest, politically neutral, and independent journalism
2) Politicians with some fucking backbone

Just a small dose of each will do wonders. Far-fetched perhaps, but I have to be optimistic, because this is a damn fine country we live in and I have to believe we can pull ourselves out of any shithole we dig into. So, I guess I'm saying....

Grab a shovel and get to work...

8/29/2005 5:37:13 AM

Congress needs a good kick in the ass. They're supposed to have the final say when it comes to war. The outrageous thing about this is that every president that actively pursued war was not denied it by Congress. What are we paying these guys for?

8/29/2005 10:38:20 AM