Does anyone have any thoughts on whether Bush should be impeached.

Is this a possibility? Should we "go there"?

Yeah I know. I'm not asking if its going to happen. I realize that there is a republican congress and senate and niether will do anything. My question was SHOULD not WILL he.

On what grounds, exactly?

More importantly, what would it matter? Bush is the puppet, not the puppeteer.

More importantly, what would it matter? Bush is the puppet, not the puppeteer.

Agreed. Cheney is the one who should be impeached.

I know this is like beating a dead horse, but I will once again point out that our vice president, while CEO of Halliburton, was involved in setting up a dummy company offshore in order to business with Iran, which was in direct violation of UN sanctions. The US also had prohibitions against US companies doing business there, which is why the dummy offshore company office was required.

Dick Cheney has the audacity to question the patriotism of others who have faithfully served their country, but who do not agree with the war, while he avoided serving when his turn was there. He has demonstrated his own patriotism only goes so far as what is convenient to his own ends, and has put making profits ahead of being a patriotic citizen of this country. How much have his business dealings with Iran contributed to that country's nuclear program or it's support of terrorist organizations?

One would have to wonder when that *secret* meeting of the oil company executives took place to have input on the Bush energy policy how much discussion was taking place about getting a foothold in the Mideast, and how much 9/11 really had to do with our being in Iraq.

Comparing Cheney's business dealings as CEO of Halliburton to Clinton's Whitewater land deal, I cannot fathom why there has been no special prosecutor set up to investigate him. The Republican leaders spent millions and millions of dollars trying to nail Clinton, going so far as to allow illegal recording of a conversation to uncover his infidelity; why does Cheney doing business with a member of the Axis of Evil in violation of UN and US sanctions not qualify even more, as it borders on treasonous behavior? Oh yeah, I forgot....the rules got changed once the Republicans gained control.

By the way, it was that investigation and the resulting disgrace and hypocrisy of those championing it that caused me to leave the republicans, and become an Independent.

On what grounds, exactly?

On whatever grounds ones virtual opinion might be.


More importantly, what would it matter? Bush is the puppet, not the puppeteer.


I agree Malse. But as the pinhead at the top, he is the ultimate target.

Best to wait till he lies , under oath, to a Judge. Then he can become a GREAT president in everyones eyes!!

Then he can go to foreign theaters where our troops are under seige and get paid to make questionable statements. And be even GREATER!!!

No, he shouldn't be impeached for not being more public about his plan.

Fandros

Best to wait till he lies , under oath, to a Judge. Then he can become a GREAT president in everyones eyes!!

Then he can go to foreign theaters where our troops are under seige and get paid to make questionable statements. And be even GREATER!!!

No, he shouldn't be impeached for not being more public about his plan.

Fandros

Bush got a blowjob from an intern?

If he does I hope it's one that wouldn't knock a buzzard off a gut truck at 50 paces.

Doesn't matter if it's sexual tho Rover, it was a lie under oath. Clearly outlining his dance with the truth as he always had.

He smoked but didn't inhale....lmao

Back on topic, I don't think Bush has done anything Impeachment worthy.

Fandros

Bush and his crew have envisioned themselves as monumental entries in the history books. The biggest blow to Bush especially and his crew not so much, is that they will forever be a stain in the history books. Bush is such a megalomaniac that this thought must make him loose a lot of sleep. I wish he would be impeached. I wish all the corrupt politicians and status quo methods of politics on both sides could be swept away and new, honest people with integrity and desire for real change could bring up our utopia. It's just not going to happen. I really think the Arbramoff scandal may have some hope for changing some of the most dirty, deceitful practices that poison even the most honorable intentioned politicians.

Totally agree Phel. Business as usual needs to stop in Washington.

Fandros

Take the money out of government by limiting its power. The money is there because money makes things happen, corrupting both parties. Take away the politicians' power (ie big government) and you limit the corruption to an acceptable level for everyone.

And Rover, seek help.

Nice derail here. Anyway, even if the beginning thread of some post was meaningless drivel, we intelligent people can easily make it into a meaningful thread. Its not that difficult. Please try harder not to get sucked into flame bait/fests. Its not very becomming of the elite message board members here. Trust me, I have done some searching for better/more active political boards and I always come back here because people are fairly civilized. Please try harder. Give Rover (or whatever his AKA is) a break. He just needs time to get up to the level of the rest of us. Here is one site I have tried many times to get into but always lose hair over the flaming from the partisan hacks.

www.perspectives.com (http://www.perspectives.com)

Lets get back on topic. I personally think impeachment is bad for the country no matter who the president is or what party he is from. I would absolutely love it if Bush would get on the TV and say "I am so sorry I let cheney and his cabal get us into this mess. I will do everything in my power to make things right. I will clean house on my cabinet, I will send 100000 more troops to iraq to clean house, I will bring all our former allies back to our side lines and I will get our country's finances back in order." I would be Bush's number one fan if that were to happen. Since it its't likely, I will continue to be a registered republican who loathes Bush, his cabinet and his right wing christian extremist policies. I spent a lot of time volunteering for the Tom McClintock campaign for cali governor because he was running as a hard core fiscal conservative. I wish Bush would do the same.

Nice derail here. Anyway, even if the beginning thread of some post was meaningless drivel, we intelligent people can easily make it into a meaningful thread. Its not that difficult. Please try harder not to get sucked into flame bait/fests. Its not very becomming of the elite message board members here. Trust me, I have done some searching for better/more active political boards and I always come back here because people are fairly civilized. Please try harder. Give Rover (or whatever his AKA is) a break. He just needs time to get up to the level of the rest of us. Here is one site I have tried many times to get into but always lose hair over the flaming from the partisan hacks.

www.perspectives.com (http://www.perspectives.com/)

Lets get back on topic. I personally think impeachment is bad for the country no matter who the president is or what party he is from. I would absolutely love it if Bush would get on the TV and say "I am so sorry I let cheney and his cabal get us into this mess. I will do everything in my power to make things right. I will clean house on my cabinet, I will send 100000 more troops to iraq to clean house, I will bring all our former allies back to our side lines and I will get our country's finances back in order." I would be Bush's number one fan if that were to happen. Since it its't likely, I will continue to be a registered republican who loathes Bush, his cabinet and his right wing christian extremist policies. I spent a lot of time volunteering for the Tom McClintock campaign for cali governor because he was running as a hard core fiscal conservative. I wish Bush would do the same.

I didn't post the question to start a flamefest. I do appreciate the feedback on my question as I have not made up my mind as to whether Bush or as Bylimet posted, Cheney should be impeached.

But on the subject of is it good for the country? This can be looked at from at least 2 ways. An impeachment would most certainly have an overall negative effect on the US. I do think it would have a positive effect on the worlds view of the US. Although it could also have the effect of the US coming across as easily manipulated.

He should be impeached for not playing cigar games with his intern.

Bush should be brought up on war crime charges!

btw If you can get your hand on one of those PETA comics that they put out, I bet you they will be worth some good money in some later years.


-Derail off.

Impeach Bush
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6937911065437513449

Kayne West
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4957828504879621173&q=bush

If you think Bush is a great leader ask yourself some of these questions. Links are provided.

1. Do you understand that no tangible, truthful reason has ever been given for the invasion of Iraq and that the 9/11 Commission Report – which is the de facto, official findings of our government – says there was no reason whatsoever for this war?

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

2. Have you ever heard of the Downing Street Memos? Would it interest you to know that these official notes, from the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, show that the Bush administration was dead-set on war with Iraq and twisting intelligence to fit that goal?

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," reported the secret memo, later published in the Sunday Times of London. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC [National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

You can go here to learn more.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

3. When you look at the picture of even one military man or woman killed in Iraq and imagine the pain their family must feel, can you multiply that by 2,134 and believe that was a worthwhile down payment on removing Saddam Hussein from power? Before you answer, are you aware that Iraq had nothing to do with any attacks on our country and that it has been proven that Saddam Hussein had no capability at all to harm our people?

See the 9/11 Commission Report for more information.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

4. Do you approve of how ineffective the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been rendered since 2000 and the deadly results in our inability to protect our own people in disasters -- even those for which we have plenty of warning? Were you surprised to find out that the campaign contributor President Bush appointed to be the recently-disgraced head of FEMA had no experience at all in disaster management?

5. Do you have health insurance? Are you aware that almost 46 million Americans have no medical insurance ( http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html ) and that the Bush administration thinks this works just fine? Most of us parents have seen our young children suffer with a common ear infection. Imagine watching your child in that pain and how you would feel being powerless to get antibiotics to ease your child's suffering. Are you comfortable with children in America living in situations like that – and worse?

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html

6. Is your family better off and more stable socially, medically and economically now than when Bill Clinton was president? Even assuming you are not an economist, how do you compare the 22.7 million jobs created by President Clinton's administration with a net loss of jobs -- a 4.6 percent decrease in total employment -- since Bush took office?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

7. Did the photos of prisoner abuse released from Abu Ghraib – the worst are in litigation and still to come – make you proud of our country?

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

8. Do you ever lie awake at night and question how the world went from a mentality of "we are all Americans today" on September 12, 2001 to almost universally despising our country now? To what do you attribute this?

9. Do you understand that scientists have almost universally agreed that a Category 1 hurricane doesn't become a Category 5 overnight without the impact of significant global warming? Did you know that Team Bush doesn't believe in the concept?

http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm#8

10. Do you believe it is good for your family and the future of your children that President Bush took the biggest federal budget surplus in U.S. history – amassed during the Clinton years – and turned it into the largest deficit ever in just his first term? What is your view of public policy that continues to give massive tax cuts to the richest Americans while doing nothing about our health-care crisis and, at the same time, cutting safety-net programs for children, the elderly, disabled Americans and Veterans?

11. Do you have a "support the troops" sticker on your car? How does this mesh with the fact that the Bush administration has cut Veterans benefits repeatedly and that the Republican Congress has on many occasions voted down Democrat-sponsored measures that would have provided physical and mental-health care funds for returning Iraq-war Vets?

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0328-11.htm

12. Have you heard the name Valerie Plame in the news and just not understood why? Did you know that she's the covert CIA officer outed by the Bush administration as retaliation against her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, who exposed a major lie used by the administration take us to war in Iraq?

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

13. Did you know that the 44 Democrats in the U.S. Senate represent well over 50 percent of the country's population and yet Republicans have voted down almost 90 percent of legislation sponsored by Democrats in 2005?

14. The federal minimum wage has stayed below the poverty level -- $5.15 per hour –for almost a decade, creating a situation where a hard-working American, working 50-60 hours a week, still lives at or below the poverty line. Does that sound right to you? Are you aware that Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy brought minimum wage increases to the Senate floor twice in 2005 and they were shot down each time by the Republican majority?

15. Are you okay with the culture of corruption in the GOP that has the vice president's chief of staff indicted for perjury, Tom DeLay up on money-laundering charges and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist being investigated for insider trading – and that this may only be the tip of the iceberg?

If you are fully aware of everything I have cited here and can still say that you approve of George W. Bush, then we just flat-out have very different views of what America is suppose to be. But I have to ask: What happened to your love of country?

If this has given you food for thought, please do your own homework on these issues and use the information to make you more carefully consider who gets your vote in 2006 and 2008.

For the 60-65 percent of you who already think that the president is doing a lousy job, use these as talking points whenever anyone dares to talk about what a great leader we have in the White House.

I didn't think it was possible for one guppy to swallow every spin by the Bush Haters in one gulp.

Ahhhh and quoting Kayne West? Good lord that gets you a slap in the rep alone. Since when is a previous gang banger is a good source for moral outrage...

Fandros

Do you have a "support the troops" sticker on your car?


Don't forget those stickers/magnets are all made in China. It should read, "Support our Troops and add the the GNP of China"!

I don't see a whole lot of spin in those points that were posted...more fact than spin.

Wow! my post generated alot of nasty negative reps to just one nice positive rep. OK I'll stop you all win, no one here supports my views. The funny thing is that all the negative rep givers seemed frustrated because they couldn't counter any of the questions that I raised or even defend the republican party from them. lol

Don't let it get you down. There are a coulpe people here that have phantom accounts that they use to neg someone to death and boost themselves to the sky. Rep is meaningless.

Dear Grixxly:

Everybody hates a coward :). I'm at 21 hours until grade deadline, so I won't be spending hours pecking away on the boards today or probably tomorrow either, but my advice to you is to remember that if two people agree on everything... then one of them is unnecessary. Grow some hair on your chest, so to speak, and defend your views, if you believe them; I personally took less issue with your points, per se, than the fact that they didn't match your grammatical style and looked like they'd been cut/pasted directly from some other source without any citation or discussion on your part. And by the way, I always sign my rep hits, so in the rare event that you receive one from me, you'll know it :).

Very briefly for the record (for I have strong opinions on the topic but little time), I think that Bush *has* abused the public trust, of the US, the world, and especially, and most cruelly and cynically, the trust of the military, who only want to serve our country and its Commander in Chief with honor. I think that the damage that has been done to our global reputation by this administration, as well as the damage to our citizenry's trust in its government, is enormous, but that having been said, I don't know that impeachment is the best or most appropriate option. As I said several months ago, I think that it was necessary that Bush Jr. be re-elected so that the ugly truth of this administration's modus operandi could come into full flower and force sufficient disgust and outrage amongst a large enough segment of the population that there might be *meaningful* reform with regard to our government and its policies, with regard to foreign and domestic policy both as well as some sort of reform within the parties themselves.

Regards,
Nydia

There are a coulpe people here that have phantom accounts that they use to neg someone to death and boost themselves to the sky.
Um, no actually.

I personally took less issue with your points, per se, than the fact that they didn't match your grammatical style and looked like they'd been cut/pasted directly from some other source without any citation or discussion on your part.

I couldn't agree more. Keep trying though Grixxly and linking to Kayne West was classic...

This forum is full of intelligent people that enjoy discussion, banter, and disagreement. We don't all agree, but we do appreciate the ability to post and enjoy a good group conversation. You cited sources, you built your case,... that's more than a lot of folks do. Regardless of whether I agree or not, it's noticed that you took the time to think about your post.

As to rep, it's what it is- a subjective opinion. It isn't the sole measure of a man. Really. Saddle up and dig deeper.

Warranted or not, no one's getting impeached. Not even Bush.

he funny thing is that all of the neggers seemed fustrated because they couldn't counter any of the questions that I raised or even defend the republican party from them.

As a Poli Sci major, I can say it honestly makes me proud to read this entire thread and only this jumps out at me. Definitely had to do a doubletake on that one. :rolleyes:

Not attacking Grx here folks. He simply posted every spin link without giving opinions.

I want this shit, I can follow the same info from Drudge.

Fandros

I don't see a whole lot of spin in those points that were posted...more fact than spin.

I agree with you rover not much spin but alot of truth that fandos and friends can't admit happened without agreeing that Bush is a horrible president.

It's all about spin. In pool it's called english. Put the right amount of it in your shot and you can run the table.

Ultimately, we may never know all the facts and even if we did, the spin could "spin" it in a positive or negative way. People will believe whichever side they lean towards.

The argument will go on...and on...and on.

If you believe either side blindly, you are a fool.

Yanno, I'll post replies to all your links later Grixx.

Few quickies for ya.

Global Warming is argued by top scientists. As usual politicians use the statement to further their own agenda. Noone is certain how or what is going on with our weather. But I'll share something with ya that's universally known. weather patterns are cyclical in nature. Hell some would argue that sunspot activity from the sun could do more to intensify storms than global warming.

Saddam was making threats and had billions of dollars of resources. He was cutting checks to the families of the homicide bombers in Israel. Hmmmm bud, did any Americans die in those....yyeeeeeesssssss.....guess it has to be 2k + before the likes of you think it's worth taking the sob out.

Just to give a lil Katrina backspin on a few of your links. In 1993 the Army Corp of Engineers found the Levies around New Orleans to be unable to withstand even a Type 3 Hurricane. It was decided, up the chain of command, that it wasn't cost effective to repair them. Especially in light of the fact some rare critters would have been endangered by changing water patterns........what's the cost of human life vs animal there? And who was in the White house then?

Economy is doing great now by all indicators. Look it up, and as for your question....

How many attacks on American soil has there been since 9/11? How many previous?

Just because you aren't told, and I think this is a failing on the Bush presidency, each time a threat is averted doesn't mean it's not happening.

It is, with extreme vigilence and I doubt would have been under Kerry...or even Clinton for that matter.

Is Bush a great president? No, I don't think we have enough of the real facts to decide atm.

But I do find detestable....the utter bullshit that the left is playing to try and win seats of power.

It's American lives they play with, it's our security and our families that their pretty lil speeches in the UAE , and in the press ( which still tells you what they want you to know) that are damaging us.

In times of conflict you pull together, not run to foreign soil and make damaging speeches. I find that type of politics to be slimy to the extreme.

But you go ahead and enjoy that slime covered hook you swallowed Grxx. Enjoy the sugar covered bait you've been fed.....me I'll settle for hard cold facts.

Oh and Phel? See someone about that paranoia that's creeping more and more into your persona.....fake accounts indeed....lmao

Fandros

Just jumping in again to say hi to all my socialist friends. Good to see the horse is still dead and still being beat. Keep up the good work!!!! Cya guys...

[/url]I appreciate you lifting some of the restrictions on me Sanchek. Allow me to dive into this one with some teeth. Grixx, I'm afraid you're focusing too much on hate for Bush, and not enough on the facts. Republicans aren't the only flavor of politicos that have spoken out about Saddam. Here's a rather lengthy sampling...

[url="http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml"]http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4957828504879621173&q=bush)(Sources for quotes below cited on the link above)

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source


I took the time to bold the bits that convince me that the Left was just as sure and certain of Saddam's capabilities prior to the Bush administration. You can say the intelligence was flawed under Bush, but apparently it has been for a lot longer than he's been in office. His crime was taking action when weaker men failed to act. Yeah, I still think he's pretty much a hick, but I feel he tried to make the best decision he could given the intel he had, and the intel he INHERITED. For fucks sake, Hillary came out and directly linked Al-Qaeda and Saddam!

Global Warming is argued by top scientists. As usual politicians use the statement to further their own agenda. Noone is certain how or what is going on with our weather. But I'll share something with ya that's universally known. weather patterns are cyclical in nature. Hell some would argue that sunspot activity from the sun could do more to intensify storms than global warming.


Actually global warming is not really argued by top scientists. They are pretty much in agreement about it. Its more or less argued by the Bush administration.

A vast majority of top and even mediocre scientists agree that global warming not only exists but is one of the causes of the warming of ocean currents which have a direct effect, not on the number of but on the strength of hurricanes. It really is this administration that has played politics with the data. Bowing down to corporate donators and using the argument on the other side to allow higher outputs of "green house" gasses from industry. I don't find much wrong with a "Clean air" agenda, but I do find something a bit twisted in an agenda that puts forth corporate profits over the cleanliness of the environment I live in.


Saddam was making threats and had billions of dollars of resources. He was cutting checks to the families of the homicide bombers in Israel. Hmmmm bud, did any Americans die in those....yyeeeeeesssssss.....guess it has to be 2k + before the likes of you think it's worth taking the sob out.

Saddam had been making threats since 1990. So what? It was known by the UN inspectors that there was not any WMD's there. It was also known that there was a very high probability that the information used as the reasoning to go to war was not only innaccurate but...well lets call it straight...pure bullshit. If the reason to go to war was "Saddam is giving $25000.00 to each family of a suicide bomber in Israel" then at least it would have held an iota of truth. Its the reason given and the handling of the situation after that is most bothersome.

Historically, can you name me one country that has used pre-emptive strikes as their policy or name me a country that has been the aggressor in a war (started that war based on hyped up information) that is currently reaping the benefits of that action? Our own country should have learned that lesson in Vietnam.

To save you time I can name you some that have been drastically altered after they used the tactic of aggressor:

England
Germany
Japan
The Soviet Union
Italy
Egypt
Syria
Iraq
The United States

But you know, some of the countries above have been on the other side of the aggressor and amazingly they tended to beat the piss out of them.


Just to give a lil Katrina backspin on a few of your links. In 1993 the Army Corp of Engineers found the Levies around New Orleans to be unable to withstand even a Type 3 Hurricane. It was decided, up the chain of command, that it wasn't cost effective to repair them. Especially in light of the fact some rare critters would have been endangered by changing water patterns........what's the cost of human life vs animal there? And who was in the White house then?

Actually the Clinton administration did have the funding in place to build up and modernize the levy system. The funding was cut by the Bush administration.


Economy is doing great now by all indicators

I guess that would depend on what sector of industry one worked in. If we asked executives of oil companies they would likely agree with you. We could ask the opinions of some executives and line workers at GM also.


How many attacks on American soil has there been since 9/11? How many previous?

If reffering to the '93 attack on the WTC there was a span of 8 years from that until 9/11. Unfortunately I think its a situation of saying, just wait.


Just because you aren't told, and I think this is a failing on the Bush presidency, each time a threat is averted doesn't mean it's not happening.

Oh I think they tell us. Lets be serious, John Kerry couldn't get 2 minutes of time in before there was a "Terror Alert". It even became the "butt" of jokes on late night TV. Funny how those alerts basically stopped once the election was over. The saddest part was, 99% of those alerts were based on old and decaying information. So my question is: Who played politics with this?


It is, with extreme vigilence and I doubt would have been under Kerry...or even Clinton for that matter.


Its basically common knowledge that the Bush administration has not done the necessary work to prepare this country for a disaster whether it be natural or terrorist created. Katrina response being the most recent example.


As far as Kerry goes, I voted for him. My vote was based on this: He was experienced in the tactics necessary to fight a terrorist based war.


Is Bush a great president? No, I don't think we have enough of the real facts to decide atm.

I say no need to read about it. Just look. Its pretty much out in the open. There is a real inability to lead and to govern.


But I do find detestable....the utter bullshit that the left is playing to try and win seats of power.
It's American lives they play with, it's our security and our families that their pretty lil speeches in the UAE , and in the press ( which still tells you what they want you to know) that are damaging us.

I think that a speech by Clinton holds a bit less weight in so called "damage to us" than something like Abu Gharaib and some other incidents. If truth is damaging, then we need to re-think our policies.


In times of conflict you pull together, not run to foreign soil and make damaging speeches. I find that type of politics to be slimy to the extreme.


In times of conflict there is nothing wrong with questioning the questionable. Is this not a basic right we hold as Americans? Is this not one of the selling points of having us start a democracy?


me I'll settle for hard cold facts.

Most of the links that Grixxly provided were from government sources IE: The 9/11 commission, the Census Bureau. If those aren't cold hard facts what is? Fox News?

Most of the links that Grixxly provided were from government sources...If those aren't cold hard facts what is?
Trusting the facts from government sources, are ya?

Trusting the facts from government sources, are ya?

HAHA...not neccessarily...just pointing out that one who supports the governments actions is ignoring the government sanctioned version(s).

Rover excellent reply to fandros! I agree 100% with every point you made. Good job!

Just to put my own little spin on somethings.

That guy over there has threatened to blow up airplanes for years and year, but he hasn't done it yet. Let him fly anyhow! Oh and don't mind the fact that he has on an oversized coat that LOOKS like its hiding something.

And btw, to get back to the original question, Bush hasn't done anything to warrent an impeachment. He might not be liked by everyone, but public opinion isn't grounds for that. Lying under oath however, is.

So even if articles of impeachment were brought up, I doubt he'd actually get impeached. God we can't even impeach someone LYING under oath. That still grates me. Wish I woulda been able to vote for president back then, at least I wouldn't have felt SO helpless.

What I think people need to realize is that not everyone is going to agree with them. People's political views and ideas come from their lives. For me, I'm a Republican because I grew up and still live in a very small farming community. The Republican party has a strong influence here and I was raised with the values and beliefs of that system. Many of my friends when I was at school were Democrats. They mostly grew up in suburbs or in Chicago itself. Their families came from unions and such. Of course the Dem's have a much bigger following in those areas and they were raised to reflect that.

What I find really interesting is that my parents never were political, they hardly even voted, but yet they raised me the way they were raised and so on and so forth. Disagreement keeps people in check, it just bothers me when people take their opinions to be fact and everyone who disagrees is ignorant. No, those who disagree just didn't have the same life as you.

Anyhow, this is completely off course but oh well. =) I haven't rambled about this stuff in awhile.

Actually global warming is not really argued by top scientists. They are pretty much in agreement about it. Its more or less argued by the Bush administration.

I don't know about you, but I've read PLENTY of material on Global Warming and there are definitely two DISTINCT schools on it, and they've existed long before GWB was in office. That's worthy of its own thread, and claiming that one is right and saying that "top scientists" don't argue about it is utter tripe. Laying it at the feet of Bush and Co, is also ridiculous. There IS mounting proof that Global Warming may be reality, but it's no where NEAR as conclusive as you're playing. Period. I hope you have links to back up your claims, as I'd be interested in seeing them.

Saddam had been making threats since 1990. So what? It was known by the UN inspectors that there was not any WMD's there. It was also known that there was a very high probability that the information used as the reasoning to go to war was not only innaccurate but...well lets call it straight...pure bullshit. If the reason to go to war was "Saddam is giving $25000.00 to each family of a suicide bomber in Israel" then at least it would have held an iota of truth. Its the reason given and the handling of the situation after that is most bothersome.


Tripe. Link the place where the UN inspectors proved there were no WMD's there. And also link the site that proves that the intel on Iraq was BS. I admit the thing was shittily handled, but I've already linked the quotes that PROVE the Democrats also BELIEVED that Saddam was a threat. Respond to those.

Historically, can you name me one country that has used pre-emptive strikes as their policy or name me a country that has been the aggressor in a war (started that war based on hyped up information) that is currently reaping the benefits of that action? Our own country should have learned that lesson in Vietnam.

To save you time I can name you some that have been drastically altered after they used the tactic of aggressor:

England
Germany
Japan
The Soviet Union
Italy
Egypt
Syria
Iraq
The United States

But you know, some of the countries above have been on the other side of the aggressor and amazingly they tended to beat the piss out of them.

You're correct that the aggressor tends to have a hard time of it, but that does nothing to prove your point. We handled Afghanistan with minimal loss, we handled Iraqs first little fuck up well too. If the President at any point believed that Saddam was capable of producing WMD's and was making threats, he should have been taken out.

Before you come at me too hard.. I think the WMD's were shaky ground too. I also happen to believe, and did long before these events occurred, that Saddam needed to be removed because he was a brutal dictator. For me, the end justified the means, and I don't actually care even a little if he lied. I'm just happy Saddam isn't going to be able to inflict cruelty on his people and further. This site (http://fas-www.harvard.edu/%7Eirdp/) basically says it all for me.

Actually the Clinton administration did have the funding in place to build up and modernize the levy system. The funding was cut by the Bush administration.


Link please. The Levy System is a state issue. I'd like to see where the Clinton administration specifically dictated federal monies for this issue.


Its basically common knowledge that the Bush administration has not done the necessary work to prepare this country for a disaster whether it be natural or terrorist created. Katrina response being the most recent example.

Bull. Once more.. Links please. "It's basically common knowlege" is ridiculous. Disaster Relief is primarily a function of the State, not of the Federal Government. Clinton was no more prepared for what we faced in New Orleans than Bush was. He had an idiot in charge of FEMA, but there have been plenty of those. The fault here lies with Louisiana and New Orleans, not with the President.

As far as Kerry goes, I voted for him. My vote was based on this: He was experienced in the tactics necessary to fight a terrorist based war.

How do you back this statement up? Was it his experience in Nam? The fact that he basically cheated his way out of service by getting undeserved purple hearts? Maybe the way he threw his medals on the ground? Kerry was a joke.


I say no need to read about it. Just look. Its pretty much out in the open. There is a real inability to lead and to govern.


Once more with the vague answers. There IS a need to read. Constantly. There are two sides that are furiously spinning information. You need to know both sides if you want to have an informed opinion.


I think that a speech by Clinton holds a bit less weight in so called "damage to us" than something like Abu Gharaib and some other incidents. If truth is damaging, then we need to re-think our policies.

Abu Ghirab laid at Bush's feet to eh? He's like Satan or something, isn't he? Hand in every evil of man. Really.. that was isolated, NEVER sanctioned by the government, and thoroughly investigated. Link some proof that Bush knew they were making human pyramids and pissing on the Koran please.

In times of conflict there is nothing wrong with questioning the questionable. Is this not a basic right we hold as Americans? Is this not one of the selling points of having us start a democracy?


Question EVERYTHING, but don't follow the crowd blindly. You're doing a lot of talk about "it's out there", "top scientists", "common sense".

Most of the links that Grixxly provided were from government sources IE: The 9/11 commission, the Census Bureau. If those aren't cold hard facts what is? Fox News?

There ARE other sites to quote and other viewpoints. Hope you aren't limiting yourself to governmental sources.

There IS mounting proof that Global Warming may be reality, but it's no where NEAR as conclusive as you're playing. Period.

No, that's the old debate. It's now quite settled that the earth is warming. Arctic ice floes are decreasing in size, the Gulf current weakens, and average temperatures are gradually increasing. The only debates are how much humans are involved (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ice25nov25,0,2141135.story?coll=la-home-headlines) in this and whether the process is reversible.
The research, published in today's issue of the journal Science, describes the content of the greenhouse gases within the core and shows that carbon dioxide levels today are 27% higher than they have been in the last 650,000 years and levels of methane, an even more powerful greenhouse gas, are 130% higher, said Thomas Stocker, a climate researcher at the University of Bern and senior member of the European team that wrote two papers based on the core.
There is most certainly a cyclical aspect to climate change over time. Human intervention is almost certainly exacerbating the current trend, but even were that not the case, finding ways to prevent further warming (if possible at all) seems wise.

In the so well thought out words of Gxx..

Dante answered every point perfectly, I agree 100%.

Gotta wonder how some folks get a complete statement out without saying.....BaaaAaaabaaaAA

The levy funds were cut in 1993 Rover. Long before GWB, it was really a bowdown to treehuggers who have shown that they were rather shortsighted inregards to the levies....

Sorry Rover, the debate goes on about Global Warming. You need to really research that one bud. I've been following it since before the bs about Kyoto. Many scientists believe that a single eruption from a major volcano does more to weather patterns than manmade sources.

Ahhhh and trust me when I suggest that a media darling such as Clinton going out on foreign ( hostile) soil and planting his seeds of dispute are far more damaging than some heavily punished soldiers for being awful to prisoners in Iraq.

Fandros

I am honestly surprised this capy'n paste post by Grixxly would cause so much traffic. I stopped reading it after the first bullet point:

1. Do you understand that no tangible, truthful reason has ever been given for the invasion of Iraq and that the 9/11 Commission Report – which is the de facto, official findings of our government – says there was no reason whatsoever for this war?

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

They also didn't find UFOs in Area 51.

Inessence, it wasn't the 9/11 Commission's goal to root out the reasons for the Iraq war. The reasons are well documented in a very bipartisan resolution (http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html) passed by both House and Senate. You should read it some time.

So to beat the dead horse even more, Saddam admitted to producing all those WMDs and couldn't prove he destroyed them. Hans Blix didn't say Saddam destroyed them all. Who ever said that in this thread is a damned liar. Hans Blix pleaded for more time to find them. We didn't give it to him. Long story short, Saddam was hiding many many illegal programs, from biological to long range missile programs. We found those, and any one of the programs were enough on our part to justify the invasion. They just weren't juicy enough for you. Oh well.

A few more points...

Global Warming exists, every summer.

Anyway, few people argue that it doesn't exist at all in the manner in which you're hyperventilating. One part of that argument is whether it is MAN MADE or not. As Fandros pointed out, alot of it is cycilical or caused from the sun's attactivity which is just one more variable that makes it almost impossible to see any patterns.

The second part of the argument if there is man made global warming, how do we fix it. Kyoto was one bad atttempt. Another thread here ages ago gave reasons why that was bad for America and wouldn't solve the global warming issues anyway... namely for reasons that developing countries such as China would be excempt from them. For all of your hatred for WalMart on here, you really should contemplate that aspect some more.

Lastly, about America's reputation abroad. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn whether someone likes us or not. But who knew setting 50 million people free would be hated so much. Perhaps you should question whether you care for their opinion of you or not.

In the so well thought out words of Gxx..

Dante answered every point perfectly, I agree 100%.

Gotta wonder how some folks get a complete statement out without saying.....BaaaAaaabaaaAA



Fandros

Fandros, it must be nice hiding in the shadows and regurgitation short weak verbal jabs. I hardly see you post anything of usful substance that one would consider valuable content. Please go back under your bridge....troll

Inessence, it wasn't the 9/11 Commission's goal to root out the reasons for the Iraq war.


You are correct. But they did a pretty good job in showing it was bullshit.


Hans Blix didn't say Saddam destroyed them all. Who ever said that in this thread is a damned liar. Hans Blix pleaded for more time to find them. We didn't give it to him.

What a difference a "day" would have made.

Also Hans Blix might not have said that. But, there was at least one individual who had spent about 7 years there looking and based on his findings he said this:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter told the Iraqi National Assembly on Sunday that his country, the United States, "seems to be on the verge of making a historical mistake" in its calls for ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Ritter is in Baghdad as a private citizen to voice his criticism of the U.S. threat of military action against Iraq. He looked for weapons in Iraq from 1991 until 1998, when he was called back to the United States two days before a U.S. attack on Iraq.
But a report, to be published in Britain on Monday by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, is said to detail Iraq's efforts to stockpile weapons of mass destruction.
Ritter said Sunday that Iraq was not a threat to the United States.

"Iraq is not a sponsor of the kind of terror perpetrated against the United States on September 11 and in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamental extremism that characterizes those who attacked the United States on that horrible day," Ritter said.
In an interview after the speech, Ritter denied allegations that the Iraqis had interfered with the inspection process. (Read the interview)
U.S. President Bush is trying to garner international support for military action against Saddam, who he said harbors weapons of mass destruction and the intent to use them. (Full story)
Bush is expected to issue an ultimatum to the Iraqi leader -- either allow weapons inspectors unfettered access or face unspecified consequences -- during a speech Thursday to the U.N. General Assembly.
In his address Sunday, Ritter denied that Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction but acknowledged that concerns exist about the country's weapons programs.
"These concerns are almost exclusively technical in nature and do not overcome the reality that Iraq, during nearly seven years of continuous inspection activity by the United Nations, had been certified as being disarmed to a 90 [percent] to 95 percent level," he said.
He warned that if the United States unilaterally launches any military action against Iraq, it would "forever change the political dynamic which has governed the world since the end of the second World War, namely the foundation of international law as set forth in the United Nations charter, which calls for the peaceful resolution of problems between nations."
Ritter resigned as chief weapons inspector for the United Nations in August 1998, saying that the U.N. Security Council and U.S. government had fatally undermined his team's attempts to locate and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
He has said U.S. intelligence agents used the weapons inspectors as a cover for spying and destroyed the inspection teams' credibility.
Before his speech, Ritter said that the Bush administration was "using weapons inspections as an excuse" to go to war with Iraq.
"One of the problems with President Bush issuing that kind of ultimatum is that he has no credibility," Ritter said. "Members of his administration have said inspections don't matter.
"Members of his administration have said that, even if they get back in Iraq and succeed in disarming Iraq, that they're still going to seek regime removal."



Lastly, about America's reputation abroad. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn whether someone likes us or not.

Like us? How about respect us at least, or look at us as a credible country. The Bush administration has lost both respect and credibility worldwide.


But who knew setting 50 million people free would be hated so much. Perhaps you should question whether you care for their opinion of you or not.

We are unfortunately getting opinions everyday in the form of IAD's.

It is best to have the citizens of a country really desiring your presence before you attack them in the name of freedom.

You are correct. But they did a pretty good job in showing it was bullshit.Only if you're stuck on stupid and continue to assert that one reason for invading Iraq was because Bin Laden and Iraq worked together on the 9-11 attacks. That argument was never made, so try again.

Also Hans Blix might not have said that. But, there was at least one individual who had spent about 7 years there looking and based on his findings he said this:Every intelligence agency in the world, including Saddam's knew he had WMD and other illegal weapons programs. Pull your head out of your ass.

The Bush administration has lost both respect and credibility worldwide.Perhaps he should get some in the Oval Office and then lie about it under oath. That'll score some points.

It is best to have the citizens of a country really desiring your presence before you attack them in the name of freedom.Nice try. Had you the wherewithal to actually read the House and Senate Resolution (http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html) on the invasion of Iraq, you would see that the Iraq Liberation Act (passed in 1998 and signed by Clinton) was listed waaaay down at the bottom (number 17 of 23) as reasons to go to war with Iraq.

It continues to be people like you and some of the Democratic leadership in Congress who spout off conspiracy theories and whacko history revisions that do more damage to this country's reputation than anything Bush has ever done.

Grixxly said..


Fandros, it must be nice hiding in the shadows and regurgitation short weak verbal jabs. I hardly see you post anything of usful substance that one would consider valuable content. Please go back under your bridge....troll


That is about the funniest thing I ever heard. I have been very quiet on this subject since Dante and Fan seem to be doing fine. But to say that one of the original posters on this board is a troll.. that is priceless.. I think you need to look at your own post count there Grix.

For the record, I have read many theories that back up what you said Fandros about Global Warming. Many think that Volcanoes do way more damage per eruption that anything that humans have added. But I have also read that since there is less floral coverage out there, that the effect is more pronounced now. Would putting stonger admission controls on us help? Maybe.. but until you can show a percentage of help, it just is not worth it.

And for the original question? Well, I am sure everyone know who controls the blinders that I wear....

Fandros, it must be nice hiding in the shadows and regurgitation short weak verbal jabs. I hardly see you post anything of usful substance that one would consider valuable content. Please go back under your bridge....troll

I have avoided getting into the bashing game with you Grixx, figuring you might evolve into someone who contributes to the discussion here. Your calling Fandros a troll has earned you a neg rep hit from me. If you want to insult folks, at least do your homework so you can sling some decent shit.

Perhaps he should get some in the Oval Office and then lie about it under oath. That'll score some points.


I really hope you and others will eventually learn that every time you raise this issue, it just detracts from any other good points you are trying to make.

The special prosecutor the republicans sicced on Bill and Hilary for the Whitewater investigation could find nothing to hang them with, and moved on two or three times to different subjects before Linda Tripp ILLEGALLY taped a conversation with Monica Lewinsky, and they decided to use infidelity to embarass him publicly. His screw up was in not saying that it was none of the republicans business. He lied instead, and that will haunt his presidency for a long time.

But please, remember, the information was obtained ILLEGALLY, and after all was said and done, the two primary members of congress heading the witch hunt both were disgraced themselves for infidelity. Every time the Clinton 'Lie' is brought up, it shows not only his playing with the truth, but it puts a spotlight on how petty the republicans became in their quest to disgrace him.

Only if you're stuck on stupid and continue to assert that one reason for invading Iraq was because Bin Laden and Iraq worked together on the 9-11 attacks. That argument was never made, so try again.

Ever hear of a guy named Dick Cheney or another guy named George Bush?

They said there was a direct correlation between Bin Laden (Al Queada) and Saddam (Iraq)


Every intelligence agency in the world, including Saddam's knew he had WMD and other illegal weapons programs. Pull your head out of your ass.

I do believe that our government in power at the time that we invaded Iraq had CLEARLY stated that there were WMD's in Iraq and that Saddam was most likely going to use them.


Perhaps he should get some in the Oval Office and then lie about it under oath. That'll score some points.

There you go again. Going back to Clinton. Lets look at it this way. Is it ok to lie as long as you're not under oath?


Nice try. Had you the wherewithal to actually read the House and Senate Resolution (http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html) on the invasion of Iraq, you would see that the Iraq Liberation Act (passed in 1998 and signed by Clinton) was listed waaaay down at the bottom (number 17 of 23) as reasons to go to war with Iraq.

I can't recall where Clinton invaded Iraq. Please specify times, dates etc... to help me clear up my obvious oversight.

It continues to be people like you and some of the Democratic leadership in Congress who spout off conspiracy theories and whacko history revisions that do more damage to this country's reputation than anything Bush has ever done.

Way back in the 70's when I was destroying my country's reputation by serving in the Marine Corps where were you? I don't think you really want to go here with me. I truly don't feel like verbally bitchslapping you would bring me any greatness here. I haven't taken a direct shot at you nor questioned your patriotism or love of our country. Don't do it to me.

Open your eyes son. Don't believe it just because they said it. Live it, learn it then love it enough to defend it.

Bylimet, you're absolutely right. I was flippant there, so I'll step back and try again.

In work, in school, or wherever, how often is doing the "right" thing the most popular or easiest? Poll numbers do not guide a good leader, and in fact, the best leaders this country has seen went opposite the most popular path because it was the right thing to do.

Bleh, there's a Federalist paper written on it, but I don't have time to look now...

Ever hear of a guy named Dick Cheney or another guy named George Bush?They said there was a direct correlation between Bin Laden (Al Queada) and Saddam (Iraq)

And they did, but not for 9/11 as far as we can tell. You've asserted this exact same bull shit not too long ago, and I corrected you then too. Need I even go on?

I can't recall where Clinton invaded Iraq. Please specify times, dates etc... to help me clear up my obvious oversight. See, for this confusion I will apologize. I was actually congratulating Clinton for signing that.

Way back in the 70's when I was destroying my country's reputation by serving in the Marine Corps where were you? I don't think you really want to go here with me. I truly don't feel like verbally bitchslapping you would bring me any greatness here.

First, I salute you and the service you did for our country.

Now get the fuck off your high horse. I never disparaged your service or any other thing you did before I was born, only your repeated comments you leave here.

Open your eyes son. Don't believe it just because they said it. Live it, learn it then love it enough to defend it.Yup, and stop getting your info from du.com

Bylimet, you're absolutely right. I was flippant there, so I'll step back and try again.

In work, in school, or wherever, how often is doing the "right" thing the most popular or easiest? Poll numbers do not guide a good leader, and in fact, the best leaders this country has seen went opposite the most popular path because it was the right thing to do.

Bleh, there's a Federalist paper written on it, but I don't have time to look now...

We have also seen that even though they are popular they can do the wrong thing.... Hitler comes to mind. *sigh*

Here's a simple fact or two for you. It's more black and white than you want to admit.

1) Saddam had WMD's and utilized them repeatedly.
2) The United Nations passed resolutions against him for them.
3) To fulfill the terms of the resolution, and avoid sanctions, Saddam had to show proof of their destruction and allow uninhibited access of inspectors to ensure they and any documentation relating to them was destroyed in a very specific way.
4) He didn't do as instructed.
5) He continued to break said resolutions for a decade with no repurcussions from the UN.
6) We kicked his ass.

If the United Nations is too hand-tied to follow through on it's own resolutions, we have to act in OUR best interests over the worlds. He'd preached hate for the US, and offered rewards to bombers families. Al Qaida aside, he was a madman, rewarded and trained terrorists, and tortured and brutalized his own citizens.

Republicans AND Democrats were universal in their public admissions that we knew he had the WMD's, and HAD to be disarmed. Now that it's proven he was just a dumbfuck that called our bluff and lost, the Dems want to back out of it, but their comments are a matter of public record. Let them eat crow.

Please feel free to dispute any of the points above. If you can't, please O please let the dead horse lie in a pulpy mess.


Like us? How about respect us at least, or look at us as a credible country. The Bush administration has lost both respect and credibility worldwide.


Sez you. I don't see us suffering in international trade or in any way that really matters. Even our greatest opponents (France and Canada for example) kiss our asses and haven't done a thing to change their trading with the US, or done anything to close their borders to our tourism dollars (at least nothing significant). Point to any major efforts to "punish" the US or to close down avenues of trade or diplomacy please.

Rover, there's an important distinction here. While Cheney, et al, did attempt to tie Saddam and Al Qaeda together, it gets trickier saying they tied Saddam and 9/11 (though I think Cheney tried to insinuate as much).



RUSSERT (http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html): Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.
MR. RUSSERT (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/): The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. ...
CHENEY (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/): If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
...
MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that.
Take all that as you will, but akipt has argued that no one has claimed a connection between Saddam and 9/11, and in a literal sense that's a defensible position. Whether a connection was ever insinuated is mostly opinion.

I haven't checked every possible source on this, but I've looked around, and have yet to find an administrative official make that particular claim. Saddam and Al-Qaeda (outside of 9/11) is another issue entirely.

I haven't checked every possible source on this, but I've looked around, and have yet to find an administrative official make that particular claim. Saddam and Al-Qaeda (outside of 9/11) is another issue entirely.

While technically a senator, and not a member of the Bush administration per se.. I already mentioned one person who made that direct connection.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

If I'm not mistaken, she's even a Democrat :P

I don't see anything there about a Bush administration official tying Saddam to 9/11, which was the point in question.

EDIT: Maybe akipt's point included non-admin officials, which I didn't cover, but the Clinton point still doesn't draw the connection.

While technically a senator, and not a member of the Bush administration per se.. I already mentioned one person who made that direct connection.



If I'm not mistaken, she's even a Democrat :P


I see no reference to 9/11. Only restating what the Bush folks had already stated.

Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

"The press, with all due respect, (is) often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework."



Ok, he might not have come straight out and said it. I'll hand you that one. But its like saying: Look out for that diesel powered track guided forward motion machine. Instead of look out for the train.

It means the same thing...its just painted differently.

No it doesn't...all it means is that Osama and Saddam are connected period. Two dirt bags that did some business with one another. Its pretty straight forward.

No it doesn't...all it means is that Osama and Saddam are connected period. Two dirt bags that did some business with one another. Its pretty straight forward.

Yep..pretty straightforward BS..turns out...they werent connected in any way, shape or form other than being Arabic.

The purpose of Cheney's statements to that effect were designed to build a "war fervor" over Iraq. It wasn't necessary to build a war fervor for invading Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Queada took care of that all on their own.

It's been shown and proven time and time again that there was NOT even a remote connection between Iraq and Al Queada. How many investigations must there be showing NO connection for some people to be able to swallow the fact that this war in Iraq was a pre-destined action just looking for reasons?

I have not heard anywhere that people dis-agreed with invading Afghanistan. If there is a "rightful" war that one had the makings of it. In all honesty I feel that invading Afghanistan was as rightful as fighting Japan in 1941-1945.

This person has it exactly correct in why we should not have invaded Iraq and shows us that Father knows best:


The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose.

We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan--just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border--and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; Safwan was waiting.

As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid.

The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.

Yep..pretty straightforward BS..turns out...they werent connected in any way, shape or form other than being Arabic.


Right back at you with some cut and paste Rover style.



As reported by Gaffney in The Washington Times and in several Web publications, Hayes detailed fifty items that clearly establish a long-time collaboration between Osama and Saddam. According to Hayes, these fifty items are only the tip of an iceberg that will be revealed more clearly as the Pentagon continues to examine the large cache of documents obtained from the Saddam regime following its downfall last April. According to Gaffney, some of these collaborations are:

Top Iraqi intelligence officials and other trusted representatives of Saddam Hussein met repeatedly with bin Laden and his subordinates.
Iraq provided safe havens, money, weapons, and fraudulent Iraqi and Syrian passports to al Qaeda.
Iraq provided training in the manufacture and use of sophisticated explosives. Bin Laden specifically requested that Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker, Brig. Gen. Salim al-Ahmed, who was especially skilled in making car bombs, remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.
A Malaysia-based Iraqi national, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, secured a job at the airport in Kuala Lumpur with help from the Iraqi Embassy in Malaysia. He then facilitated the movement of Khalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamzi, two of the 9/11 (http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent1/?file=911_anniversary) hijackers, through passport control and customs to attend an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur on Jan. 5, 2000. Tawfiz al Atash, a top bin Laden lieutenant who masterminded the Oct. 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole, was one of the men at that meeting.
Senior al Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi traveled to Iraq in 1998 to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. In December 2000, after the USS Cole bombing, two al Qaeda operatives went to Iraq for CBW-related training. Iraqi intelligence was "encouraged" to provide this training after the embassy and USS Cole bombings."
Mohamed Atta, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 hijackings, met at least four times in Prague with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani, former Iraqi intelligence chief. During one of those meetings, al Ani ordered his finance officer to issue Atta funds from Iraqi Intelligence Service financial holdings in the Prague office.

You must be the poster boy for brainwashing.


President Bush has been put on the defensive this week about the decision to go to war in Iraq. But the political Play of the Week wasn't the Democrats' doing.
President Bush's friends and allies have thrown him on the defensive about the war in Iraq.
On Monday, former occupation administrator Paul Bremer told an audience, "We never had enough troops on the ground" in Iraq to prevent looting and lawlessness. Bremer later described his criticism as a "tactical disagreement."
The same day, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked to describe the connection between former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. He said, "I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
Then Charles Duelfer, who was chosen by the Bush administration to complete the investigation of Iraq's weapons program, dropped his own bombshell. "It is clear that Saddam chose not to have weapons at a point in time before the war," he said at a Wednesday Senate hearing.
Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group reported that Saddam Hussein had ended Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and they "found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
The report also said, "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991" and found "no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new biological weapons program."
Duelfer did report this about Saddam Hussein. Duelfer said at Wednesday's Senate hearing,"he clearly had ambitions with respect to weapons of mass destruction."
But actual weapons?
Secretary of State Colin Powell stated Wednesday, "It turns out there were no active stockpiles that anybody's been able to find yet."
Tony Blair said on September 28, "The evidence that Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that. I accept it."
Et tu, Tony?
President Bush hasn't acknowledged any mistakes. On Thursday he said, "Based on all the information we have to date, I believe we were right to take action."
His Democratic opponent expressed astonishment. "The president of the United States and the vice president of the United States may well be the last two people on the planet who won't face the truth about Iraq," Sen. John Kerry said on Thursday
But it wasn't the Democrats who created this problem for President Bush. It was his "friends." They get the political Play of the Week.
With friends like these, who needs Democrats?

Right back at you with some cut and paste Rover style.

It's funny how Rover uses pretty fresh and reliable news sources that are fair and balanced where you cut and paste a 3 year old news source. Rover style?... I think NOT!!!

the large cache of documents obtained from the Saddam regime following its downfall last April. According to Gaffney, some of these collaborations are:

Gee, We took Bagdad in April 2002 and in 3 weeks it will be the year 2006. Did you cut and paste that ancient information from the Smithsonian website?

It's age does not invalidate it's veracity nor it's application atm.

All just as valid points, and neither side is more brainwashed than the other.

Fandros

then why did you use the baaaabaaaa response to someone you didn't agree with Fandros?

Because he's blatantly throwing out fishing lures with no thought behind them other than to link them.

Fandros

I'm just staying out of this discussion because all that will result is a bunch of neg rep hits will be thrown around from whatever side I don't agree with. I prefer to stick with the sports discussion board now because there are actual FACTS i can site, and not just specific opinion. I can find sites that would verify either "opinion" on these matters here. Anything about politics can be molded to ones specific desire, and I've learned that arguing with any particular person on this board about politics is futile. I only discuss politics in person now, where a direct dialogue can be had.

there are actual FACTS i can site

Facts are stupid things.
Ronald Reagan (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Ronald_Reagan/)
40th president of US (1911 - 2004) ...and Hitler has already been called.

As reported by Gaffney in The Washington Times ...
I'd really be wary of putting your trust in the Washington Times. The Rev. Moon's paper makes Fox News look like Capitol Blue. Reinforcing data from a more reliable source would be best (just as Rover could supply the source for his own citations).

just as Rover could supply the source for his own citations.
The first article I quoted was written by George Bush Sr.

The 2nd article was written by Bill Schnieder of CNN

Because he's blatantly throwing out fishing lures with no thought behind them other than to link them.

Fandros

When I fish I use Mepps (http://www.mepps.com/mepps/)

And CNN is the epitome of unbiased journalism...

HA

And CNN is the epitome of unbiased journalism...

HA

CNN is pretty good about their reporting, Bill Schnieder is actually considered a very neutral reporter. Funny though...you didn't have much to say about the author of the other article. Why is that?


On other notes, Akipt and others just might be correct about global warming. I found what can be considered scientific or mathematical fact.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.


http://www.netmediazone.net/adobe/pirateswarming.jpg

Arrrgghhhh I always knew we were the best thing to happen to you landlubbers!!

Fandros

Am almost tempted to neg rep hit him for not crediting Max with the graph.:rolleyes:


Of course, I am assuming he cut/pasted that from Max's earlier post.

It's not palimax's graph though, it's from the Flying Spaghetti Monster website.

I wonder where I've seen that graph before. :) I think someone posted it a while back. No matter.

The graph, by the way, comes from http://www.venganza.org/ - the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

*edit* Yes, you all type faster than I do. No, I linked it directly from Venganza. The link in this thread is from elsewhere.

*edit edit* The one that I have printed and tacked up outside my cube is slightly better, and linked from the FAQ page over at the CotFSM page http://www.venganza.org/pirate.pdf

I wonder where I've seen that graph before. :) I think someone posted it a while back. No matter.

The graph, by the way, comes from http://www.venganza.org/ - the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

*edit* Yes, you all type faster than I do. No, I linked it directly from Venganza. The link in this thread is from elsewhere.

Good thing I don't go off half cocked on assumptions and toss rep hits around.
Thanks for clearing where that came from; I only recalled Max posting it before, in the recent past.

I didn't have much to say about the other cause to be honest, I didn't read either of them. I just know that CNN is known for leaning left. Like when they were reporting on Katrina and the lady asked the survivor if she was mad at the government rather than worrying about her well being. Who cares that you lost everything you owned and not to mention family members...we MUST know your opinion on the government RIGHT this second.

God that pissed me off when I saw it, haven't been able to stomach CNN since. I didn't watch it much before that...but now I can't at all.

I didn't read either of them


AHHHHHH...weedhopper...the key to a comment is to know what one is commenting about.

Eh, makes for interesting conversations sometimes. I read the bulk of this thread, just not that.

-"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq," the president told a foreign policy forum on the eve of elections to establish Iraq's first permanent, democratically elected government. "And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."
"We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of brutal dictator," Bush said. "It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in his place.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=AqfRANFc7M4Khpehgouu3vCMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMT A3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM

Faulty intelligence equals let's still kill more American's and Iraqi's inorder to finish what we misakenly started. makes sense to me...NOT! No connection to 9/11 and No WMD's......... Why ARE we there to simply free Iraqi's?

Thought it was rather upfront of him to admit the mistakes of his administration.

Most Americans , even those that think our initial presence in Iraq was a mistake, think it would be a mistake to leave before we get the ball rolling over there...so to speak.

Not sure what your post is about, again, but I'll say this for ya slowly....

Itttsssss a gooood thinggggg for the Iraqqqqqiiii ppeeeoooplleee thaaattt weeeee arrree thereeeee.

Elections are tomorrow, hopefully they'll lead to us leaving soon.

Fandros

Why ARE we there to simply free Iraqi's?I love when questions answer themselves.

Lol no shit.

O.K. then if one day china decides to shock and awe the american people because they don't agree with our style of government, I guess none of you wise asses (Fandros especially) would object. I mean hey why not invade every country we don't see eye to eye with and spread so called democracy? China, North Korea, Iran ect. China is sucking up the world's money with slave labor and using it to advance there military power. Under Bush our national debt is increasing and our trade deficits growing wider, we are on track to become a third world economy. You can't win wars without a war chest just ask Russia. If foriegn investors stopped supporting our national debt this country will go straight down the crapper. China by the way supports our national debt. China is watching how we conduct international business just incase the day comes for them to sit in our thrown. China might one day decide that republicans are just as bad as talibans. These are the examples Bush is paving for future generations to go by. The chimp is in over his head, I say Impeach Bush!

O.K. then if one day china decides to shock and awe the american people because they don't agree with our style of government, I guess none of you wise asses (Fandros especially) would object. I mean hey why not invade every country we don't see eye to eye with and spread so called democracy? China, North Korea, Iran ect. China is sucking up the world's money with slave labor and using it to advance there military power. Under Bush our national debt is increasing and our trade deficits growing wider, we are on track to become a third world economy. You can't win wars without a war chest just ask Russia. If foriegn investors stopped supporting our national debt this country will go straight down the crapper. China by the way supports our national debt. China is watching how we conduct international business just incase the day comes for them to sit in our thrown. China might one day decide that republicans are just as bad as talibans. These are the examples Bush is paving for future generations to go by. The chimp is in over his head, I say Impeach Bush!

A very sad scenario...but, unfortunately, true.

Ibudin you should change your board name to Asskissun

Thought it was rather upfront of him to admit the mistakes of his administration.

Fandros

You really should replace the word MISTAKES with the word LIES if you want to be politically correct!

You really should replace the AIR you breathe with WATER and do all of us a favor.

Most Americans , even those that think our initial presence in Iraq was a mistake, think it would be a mistake to leave before we get the ball rolling over there...so to speak.

Fandros

It's not a question of thinking if going into Iraq was a mistake, when the president has no sane reasoning for invading Iraq to begin with and admits to lieing to the world. Also the American people supported the decision to go into Iraq based on the Bush adminastrations Lies or faulty information as he likes to sugar coat it with so why would the American people admit to being conned by a dumbass hick and say let's high tail it out of Iraq within the next 24 hours and do the right thing? Answer: The masses are brainwashed by the Bush propaganda machine and support his decision to stay til the end even if he lies to them. The bottom line is no one in the world would have supported an American invasion on Iraq based on what Bush is saying today. I guess it's easier to ask for world forgiveness then for permission when there's no just cause for an Iraq invasion. The Bush strategy sucks! Take off the blinders and see how you got lied to. George Sr. was against going into Iraq from day one and said it was a bad idea and now we see how right he was. It's so sad that our president lied to everyone on many many occasions. Impeach the chimp!

So your one of those morons that think leaving Iraq in turmoil at the moment is the win situation for all? US isn't leaving any time soon you might as well get used to it. Do what ever it takes for yourself to get over the fact Bush isn't getting impeached and he will serve his term out. Hey maybe we should set up a vBookie on it?


China attacking the US...paaaleeeease. So when they invade the US..who is going to purchase products from them? Ah maybe Africa can muster up the buying power of 290 million Americans. Get those tin hats off boys.

China attacking the US...paaaleeeease. So when they invade the US..who is going to purchase products from them? Ah maybe Africa can muster up the buying power of 290 million Americans. Get those tin hats off boys.

So your one of the morons who thinks china isn't a threat to the United States. Pleeeeeaaassssss! China is our biggest threat and they play war games with us everyday Wake up! I don't think too many of your buddies here would stand behind your statement but then again I could be wrong. Any war vets agree with him?

I won't loose any sleep over thinking China is going to attack the US. We need each other to live period. Take a basic economics course and you will figure it out.

The idea of China attacking us in the foreseeable future is laughable. The only war games we're playing with them are capitalistic ones.

I won't loose any sleep over thinking China is going to attack the US. We need each other to live period. Take a basic economics course and you will figure it out.

I read the military stategy for dumbies book that has a chapter on basic economics that states "if you defeat a country in war, you can stake claim to everything in it and if you erode a countries economy along with it's technology, it makes it that much easier to take over" Connect the dots below with a few news stories I provided for you. They are all recent stories, if not today

http://www.spacewar.com/news/cyberwar-05zzr.html

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051213-044407-3676r

"First, we need a generation of American students to study China and to learn to speak Chinese,'' said Coleman, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Today, there are more speakers of English in China than there are native English speakers in the United States. Ninety-eight percent of Americans who do study a foreign language are choosing European languages.''

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5782927.html

After almost a decade of explosive growth in its electronics sector, China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest supplier of information technology goods, according to a report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/business/worldbusiness/11cnd-hitech.html

The idea of China attacking us in the foreseeable future is laughable. The only war games we're playing with them are capitalistic ones.

Russia planning war games with India, China

China, along with Russia, is a founding member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) that also includes Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. India joined it as an observer last July, along with Pakistan and Iran.

I would like to dispel any fears that the SCO is acquiring any functions of a military organisation," General Baluyevsky said. "The exercises we are planning will be directed at preventing, combating acts of terrorism and eliminating their consequences

http://www.hindu.com/2005/12/04/stories/2005120404550900.htm

Why don't they invite the United States to be an observer? Take a look at the countries involved here, do you take them for there word? Iran China and Russia all getting together as if they have alot of terrorism going on in there countries... come on it's not laughable... give me that much.

Yea thats all compelling reason to attack your number 1 trade partner. Useless links....other than the fact you want to connect the dots with some hackers, hacking too "hey retards want to do business with the Chinese..better learn the language"..


Iran China and Russia all getting together as if they have alot of terrorism going on in there countries... come on it's not laughable... give me that much.

Ah hell you must of been a sleep during...


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-riebling102402.asp

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-090304russia_lat,1,3997981.story?coll=la-home-headlines

I won't loose any sleep over thinking China is going to attack the US. We need each other to live period. Take a basic economics course and you will figure it out.


Go back to 1940-41: I won't loose any sleep over thinking Japan is going to attack the US. We need each other to live period. Take a basic economics course and you will figure it out.

Man, I can see that Grxx inhales deeply of the contents from his Etch a sketch. The self same Etch a Sketch that he pens his great thoughts upon even.

Goofy sob has it hotwired to his litebrite and it has a dirrect link to TinFoilHatsRUs.

Gods kid, you really cannot be this paranoid...you just can't.

If you were really following relations between China and Russia lately you'd know there's a great deal of tension...

C'mon bud, find the link that tells us what I'm talking about....

It's huge news in the last two weeks....

Fandros

Go back to 1940-41: I won't loose any sleep over thinking Japan is going to attack the US. We need each other to live period. Take a basic economics course and you will figure it out.
Yeah, and look how that worked out for them...

Man, I can see that Grxx inhales deeply of the contents from his Etch a sketch. The self same Etch a Sketch that he pens his great thoughts upon even.

Goofy sob has it hotwired to his litebrite and it has a dirrect link to TinFoilHatsRUs.

Gods kid, you really cannot be this paranoid...you just can't.

If you were really following relations between China and Russia lately you'd know there's a great deal of tension...

C'mon bud, find the link that tells us what I'm talking about....

It's huge news in the last two weeks....

Fandros

Yeh Yeh Yeh...The chemical spill big deal. Let's forget about china for awhile and go back to the president admitting today that we don't have a reason for being in Iraq. The American public, the Iraqi people and All our allies still don't have any clarity about the U.S. military mission in Iraq. This is sick!

Yeh Yeh Yeh...The chemical spill big deal. Let's forget about china for awhile and go back to the president admitting today that we don't have a reason for being in Iraq. I think this is huge news and will really screw up the heads of the troops. The American public, the Iraqi people, All our allies and our troops still don't have any clarity about the U.S. military mission in Iraq. This is sick! Impeach Bush for war crimes.

Hmmm bud, read that speech again. Loosen up the straps on your tinfoil hat and tell me where he said we don't have a reason for being in Iraq.

Wow, I think perhaps you're swimming in waters far too deep for your paranoia to allow you. Mommy always said not to swim in deep thoughts for 30 days after reading a wacko mad magazine didn't she?

Fandros

It's not a question of thinking if going into Iraq was a mistake, when the president has no sane reasoning for invading Iraq to begin with and admits to lieing to the world.


I am in agreement with those who think we never should have invaded Iraq.
I am also in agreement with those who think we should not leave Iraq at this point until they are on a firm footing to move ahead as an independent democratic country.

But, as much as I am a blatant anti-Bush person, I have yet to see anything you have posted, or anyone else for that matter, where he "admits to lieing to the world".

Your blathering and far-reaching statements make you just as irrelevant as those on the extreme right. You have made this personal, rather than keeping to the debate of the issues. And so, you lose.

Hmmm bud, read that speech again. Loosen up the straps on your tinfoil hat and tell me where he said we don't have a reason for being in Iraq.

Fandros


"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said. "As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."

The president's mea culpa was accompanied by a robust defense of the divisive war.

"Saddam was a threat — and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power," Bush declared, as he has before.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

So Saddam was a threat the president states....Interesting, How the fuck was Saddam a threat after the Gulf war? He wasn't because the U.N put sanctions on Iraq that completely prohibited Saddam from rebuilding his army after we destroyed it! Those U.N sanctions restricted all forms of trade to Iraq including Military. The Iraqi's needed to exchange oil for food to eat. The fact of the matter was that Hans blix stated many times that Iraq had nothing to threaten anyone in the world with period end of statement no faulty information with that statement. By Bush saying Saddam was a threat after his father serverly crippled him means just another Bush adminastration Lie! The mistake of faulty information backs my story up because the faulty information was about Saddam's capabilities wich was all fabricated by the cia to attack a defenseless country. Please try and define the president's meaning of faulty information for all of us bet you can't without sounding like a democrate. lol

Your blathering and far-reaching statements make you just as irrelevant as those on the extreme right. You have made this personal, rather than keeping to the debate of the issues. And so, you lose.

I would lose if your worthless opinion mattered to me.

Is it just me or does Grixxly sound like a liberal version of Elren?

He is the President of the National Order of Woodchucks (a.k.a. N.O.W). Hearken unto his words, for tens of woodchucks have come to see his wisedum and their lives are forever emboldened.

Yeah, and look how that worked out for them...


Good point Sanchek, which then takes us back to my other point that historically the agressor ends up in the trash can.

Wars can often be lost over the smallest of battles. One of the first turning points against the Japanese was the Battle of the Coral Sea and in every sense of the word, it was not a "victory" for the US. From there it was Midway and well you probably know the rest.

My fear with our incursion into Iraq is that historically if groups of people don't want you where you might want to be, they will use sticks, rocks and anything else to get you to leave. It doesn't matter if you have Tanks, Planes and Sattelites that can pinpoint everytime someone takes a leak off of a bridge, if they don't want you there the cost to themselves becomes irrelevent.

Do I think there is a probability that China will one day be an agressor against the US? Absolutely! It's been pre-written already, just look back in history.

Hey Grxx...Oil for food program was working out so well huh...

Wow, ostrich much?

Point stands. Bush never said it was a mistake going into Iraq. You're just grabbing what sound bites work for you and twisting them to your own ends.

I'm not sure if you sound like Elren or Shemp but it's not working for you bud.

Fandros

Maybe hes Jedd?

And here I'd just forgotten about Jedd. Merry F'ing Christmas to you, too! :mad:

But seriously, I dislike Bush more than most, and can clearly see that he didn't admit to lying, didn't say it was a mistake to invade, and barely said anything at all. He didn't even admit to mistakes so much as admit to being responsible for them, so this whole kerfuffle is over nothing.

As for Iraq, my inclination is that ethnic and religious differences will impede any sort of real stability for years (perhaps decades) to come. Our decision is whether we want to withdraw now and watch Iraq fall into chaos or withdraw later -- with all that implies for our military forces and equipment -- and watch Iraq fall into chaos.

We'll see what the months following elections bring.

grixxly,

First of all, please do not talk about military things that you have ZERO idea about. The idea of China invading the United States is not only laughable, but pretty much impossible at this time, or any time in the near future. If you would just look at China, and thier history, you can see why they are not "invaders". China is a country of a billion people that requires an enormous amount of logistical support just so the farmers can get the crops in to feed everyone. If you take away from that support in order to support a LARGE scale war in the United States, China would collape from within. We might not be able to ever invade a sponge like China, but we have nothing to fear from them either. Oh, and if China was to concentrate most of thier military might against us, then they better make sure the back door is covered. I know they have had a history of border disbutes with India (another 1 billion nuke enabled country) that would love to exploit that. China also has issues internally with muslim uprisings that you do not see in the media much.

In addition, last I checked, the United States still pretty much controls the Oceans (at least around us), and space, and since this is not the movie Red Dawn, we do not have to worry about some "suprise" attack that would shut us down. Canada or Mexico will not allow them to mass at the border. So, what is next? Nukes? righhht.... So go back to reading military tactics for dummies or whatever you called it, and bring up another invasion that is more creditable... like Klingons..

Rover said...

Do I think there is a probability that China will one day be an agressor against the US? Absolutely! It's been pre-written already, just look back in history.


What history is that? Korea? If that is what you are referring to, then yes, but as for invading us? I have not seen anything that even points to China having military interest in anything not close to thier own borders.

China
Country
United States of America
http://www.militaryfactory.com/imgs/flags/china.gif
Flag


http://www.militaryfactory.com/imgs/flags/united_states.gif $60 Billion


Yearly Military Expense
$399 Billion
3.5% - 5%
% of GNP
3.9%
18
Min. Enlist Age
18
379,524,688
Available Manpower
73,597,731
1,750,000
Active Military
471,500
1,400,000
Frontline Personnel
220,000
9,218
Aircraft
18,169
13,200
Armor
29,920
29,060
Artillery
5,178
18,500
Missile Defense
35,324
34,000
Infantry Support
2,441




If you look, China has a larger infantry, but that means nothing if you cannot get them on the ground... they cannot march here.

Interesting..from Bob Novak. As we know, he is most definately not what one would consider as a member of the Liberal Media.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/cialeakinvestigation.ap/index.html


I'll respond to Shanno in another post.

and bring up another invasion that is more creditable... like Klingons..


ROFLMAO! :)

The history that I refer to is not the history of China. It is the history of warfare. I'm not talking about the so called "cold war brushfire actions" like Korea, Vietnam etc..

But the history of Major wars. The roots of Major wars IE: World War I, World War II, The US civil war even the American Revolution were wars that were fought based on economic control. So, really, its about economic control. Therein lies the history lesson.


China has been steadily building and modernizing its military for at least the last 10 years. They have purchased and operate numerous warships from the Soviet navy.

In particular they have concentrated on purchasing ships that were designed specifically to attack American carrier groups. Many ships are also designed to counter the threat posed by the US Submarine forces.

They have and are currently building an airforce that has excellent "first strike" capabilities along with the ability to transport troops to far off locations and a fairly sophisticated logistics system.

If you think that it can't happen, you can place yourself in the company of Chamberlain...peace in our time!


Here is some interesting reading from the Army War College:

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01winter/barron.htm

Enjoy!

The military is becoming less and less important politically - you don't need to bludgeon countries militarily any more, you do it economically and that's where China's strength lies.

Don't think China's military is just sitting around playing Go: http://www.terra.net.lb/wp/Articles/DesktopArticle.aspx?ArticleID=260955&ChannelId=16

If it is true, I'm not at all surprised.

How this turned into "should bush be impeached" which of course is no...to the chance that China will attack the Us thread I'll never know...but

There's a lot of other ways of measuring military strength that are more pertinent. For example, the US has a huge lead in space systems, and you can bet they've used all those satellites to make target maps of every military and industrial site in China. And then there's battlefield communications and information integration, something America is the clear leader in. Plus, the USAF has enough long-range bombers to give China a real headache without putting aircraft carriers off their coast. Another big issue is allies: the US has tons of valuable allies, such as Japan, Europe, Korea and Australia. If China were to make any kind of belligerent moves, they'd very quickly find themselves on their own. Indeed, their position is much more precarious than America's, since they have Japan, India and Russia to worry about.

Moreover, even where China looks good on paper, they are untested. All of the submarines and missiles and troops in the world aren't any good if battlefield tactics and coordination fall apart once the shooting starts. The US military, on the other hand, has not only a huge technological lead, but has been busily refining their real-world abilities with these systems in wars all over the world for the past several decades.

In conclusion, let's give the alarmism a rest. Yes, China is no longer a third-world country, and they're going to gain in stature. But they've got a long way to go before they can play in the same league as the USA. They might be able to parlay their position into an eventual non-military absorbtion of Taiwan (in fact, the US already recognizes the "one China" policy), but they'd be in a world of hurt if they actually made a military move against any of the US allies in the region.

Whats the last war China's been in and actually won?

Rover you like to keep going back and pointing out World War 1 and 2. Take a look at what Japan was doing up to the war. They where aggressively colonizing Indonesia and S.E. Asia ..what was Germany doing as well? Think if China decided to start taking over and colonizing eyes would open and things would happen. You really think they would come and attack the big O US right out of the box with out testing their military might on some other areas of the world first? I think not...a full blown all out assault on US soil will not happen in this day an age. People who think so remind me of those who thought the world was going to end at the turn of 2000.

"Whats the last war China's been in and actually won?"


Well..I would hate to measure a country's ability to win a war a by how many they have won in the past. I bet if they go to war that they will make sure before it is even started that they will win it hands down.

My cousin who is in the military, for what is worth he told me that they do not worry about the middle east as a threat as much as they worry about China being one.

They where aggressively colonizing Indonesia and S.E. Asia ..what was Germany doing as well?


It wasn't just about the Japanese colonizing. The colonizing was a byproduct of their occupation to gain OIL, RUBBER and other RESOURCES that they NEEDED to be able to become an ECONOMIC power.

I assure you I don't only look at WW I and WW II. If one fails to look at the past on setting a direction for the future...one is doomed to fail.

China NEEDS OIL and other resources that the US still holds the title to. They recently tried to purchase a US company that has control over them. Basically I assure you they see it this way: Sell it to us or we can simply make an effort at taking it.

As far as sending long range bombers. You can send all the bombers you want. Unfortunately they don't hold any ground.

Economic control means survival. Either you control it or kiss someones ass to use it...or you can simply take it with an army.

I am not trying to de-rail the original subject, but this is now something that is both educational and fun to talk about. As much as some people want to make China out as some threat, it still boils down to strategic strats. We have prelocated troops, equipment, and logistical support located all over the world. We can strike alot faster and no matter how many things China buys from Russia, the technology is still behind what we have. For example, any new weapon systems that you see us release, means we had to make space for something else we are developing.

As for first stike capability, there is no way that with all the sats and radar systems that we have covering the world, that ANY country could catch us with our pants down.

Another thing about China we need to look at. One of the reasons that China had a revolution and converted to the current government was because the peasants were sick of the cities getting all the money while they starved. Well, I see history repeating itself, and soon the people will rebel. Keeping a billion people happy is a job all alone...

Hmm... this thread has gone off on a tangent. An informative one though, Thank you.

It wasn't just about the Japanese colonizing. The colonizing was a byproduct of their occupation to gain OIL, RUBBER and other RESOURCES that they NEEDED to be able to become an ECONOMIC power.

I assure you I don't only look at WW I and WW II. If one fails to look at the past on setting a direction for the future...one is doomed to fail.

China NEEDS OIL and other resources that the US still holds the title to. They recently tried to purchase a US company that has control over them. Basically I assure you they see it this way: Sell it to us or we can simply make an effort at taking it.

As far as sending long range bombers. You can send all the bombers you want. Unfortunately they don't hold any ground.

Economic control means survival. Either you control it or kiss someones ass to use it...or you can simply take it with an army.
That just doesn't make any sense at all.

China would have no need for the resources it might aquire by invading and conquering the US, without the US' circlejerking service economy creating demand for Chinese exports.

If they did something to disrupt us economically, it would be disastrous for them. After giving their people a taste, I can't see how the Chinese government could survive the aftermath of taking it away.

China has no need to invade the US. They're doing just fine by keeping their currency devalued and by pursuing corporate espionage, stealing industrial secrets to create cheaper knockoffs of US company products (which are often made in China anyway). And they lend us a ton of money. What China might do at some point is take advantage of this symbiosis by flexing their regional muscle (e.g., Taiwan), trusting the US won't risk responding.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) has been criticizing China's currency practice (and the administration's reaction to it) for a couple (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2003hearings/written_testimonies/03_09_25/snowe.htm) of years (http://wwwc.house.gov/smbiz/press/asp_display_press_releases.asp?pressReleaseId=88) now. This is where our chief concern should lie; US military development already keeps ahead of China (though tech the gap has shrunk considerably over the past decade).

the US still holds the title to


I should rephrase and state this: There is probability that China would make a move on US interests..not necessarily invade the US.

Like what?

Like what?

Read about things like CNOOC. Economic interests, energy interests, natural resources currently controlled by the US or protected by the US.

Like that!

The most likely eventuality is that China will more fully and completely become the regional hegemon, issuing a sort of "Monroe Doctrine" to the United States that we should stay out of its hemisphere in as far as exerting political influence or projecting power. Much like the US wouldnt tolerate European meddling in the affairs of Latin America, I think China will eventually freeze out the US in Asian affairs.

What the implications of this long term, I dont know. It does dimish the US role as "global hegemon".

And I'm sure India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, ... all would have something to say about this so-called Chinese Monroe doctrine.

Check mate.

And I'm sure India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, ... all would have something to say about this so-called Chinese Monroe doctrine.

Check mate.


Well considering India has its own issues with Pakistan, and Japans military just isn't...well...much of a fighting force and South Korea would most likely, along with Australia be a bit more concerned with defense of their countries at that point. I'm not so sure that the scenario you gave would work. But, all of this would make a great sequal to Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising".

I just gotta ask...Rover do you live in the middle of the Nevada desert in a tin shack where you broadcast your own show about the people coming to kill you...and the aliens too?

Kerry predicts Bush will be impeached (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/12/kerry_links_ret.html) ... if ...

lol

Yeh Yeh Yeh...The chemical spill big deal. Let's forget about china for awhile and go back to the president admitting today that we don't have a reason for being in Iraq. I think this is huge news and will really screw up the heads of the troops. The American public, the Iraqi people, All our allies and our troops still don't have any clarity about the U.S. military mission in Iraq. This is sick! Impeach Bush for war crimes.

Have you been to Iraq jackass? I have. I can personally attest that most of the soldiers here are pretty intelligent enough to figure out that Bush fucked up. It doesn't "screw us up in the head" to hear a man admit he fucked up. In fact I was more suprised that he admitted it publicly.

Believe it or not, military personal don't really get a say in where we get sent to, so having "clarity" about why we are there doesn't matter much. To put it bluntly, you just go and do your fucking job making sure you bring your fucking buddies home.

Heres an idea for ya. Join the military and you too can get some clarity on reality.

having "clarity" about why we are there doesn't matter much. .

Yeh! I guess it didn't matter much at the end of the vietnam war did it? Now get down and give me 20!

Do you know anything about the vietnam war? Your ignorance is showing in your last statement, although its not like it hasn't shown from post #1.

Yeh! I guess it didn't matter much at the end of the vietnam war did it? Now get down and give me 20!

Article 91 - Insubordinate conduct towards an NCO. Now whos dropping?

Anyways, this may come as a shocker to you, but Draftee's are alot less likely to fight and believe in what they are fighting for.

Do you know anything about the vietnam war? Your ignorance is showing in your last statement, although its not like it hasn't shown from post #1.


Grixxly might not...but I do. Any questions you need answered?



I just gotta ask...Rover do you live in the middle of the Nevada desert in a tin shack where you broadcast your own show about the people coming to kill you...and the aliens too?

And no LOL...I live in PA and have a "normal life". I'm a bit over analytical in the history area.

Do you know anything about the vietnam war? #1.

what do you wish to know?

Article 91 - Insubordinate conduct towards an NCO. Now whos dropping?

Anyways, this may come as a shocker to you, but Draftee's are alot less likely to fight and believe in what they are fighting for.

I agree with your statement but I still want an explanation for the decision to invade a defenseless country from our politicans in Washington. The people who voted them into office deserve to know the truth. So even if our troops could care less why we invaded Iraq at least let the American people, Iraqi people and our Allies have the clarity for this war. I will edit my other post to reflect my new view on clarity thanks for pointing it out.

Oh I dunno lets ask some of those Kurds that were gassed... oh wait they were dead and unavailble for comment.

Lets ask the people that were 'interviewed' by Saddam's secret police... oh wait they're dead too.

Ask some of the guys who have come back which the Iraqis feared more, an M9 or an M16, and why.

Just a couple of answers why we needed to oust Saddam, same reasons we kicked Milsovec's ass.

I could go on, but apparently your sorry ass just doesn't understand the obvious. No worries we'll just crank up the power on the mind control satellites to break through the protective barrier of your tinfoil hat.

Oh I dunno lets ask some of those Kurds that were gassed... oh wait they were dead and unavailble for comment.

Lets ask the people that were 'interviewed' by Saddam's secret police... oh wait they're dead too.

Ask some of the guys who have come back which the Iraqis feared more, an M9 or an M16, and why.

Just a couple of answers why we needed to oust Saddam, same reasons we kicked Milsovec's ass.

I could go on, but apparently your sorry ass just doesn't understand the obvious. No worries we'll just crank up the power on the mind control satellites to break through the protective barrier of your tinfoil hat.


All good points but unfortunately not the reasons that were given for going to war in Iraq. Unfortunately the reasons for going to war in Iraq ended up being as valid as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. I understand it can be a bit hard to swallow, but Bush and Cheney pulled the wool over our eyes.

Another Bush bashing point from us over here in the left field bleachers: Funny how often they said that polls don't matter and about how making the decisions can't be based on public opinion...look at all the promises being made now that they realize their base support has eroded to just about the number of supporters here.

Anyone remember why the Kurds were gassed? Besides the fact that Saddam was a psycho.

Oh yeah.. we told them to rise up and revolt, and then we never backed them up like we promised. So Saddam used the gas that we thought it was okay for him to use against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war.

Oh I dunno lets ask some of those Kurds that were gassed... oh wait they were dead and unavailble for comment.

Lets ask the people that were 'interviewed' by Saddam's secret police... oh wait they're dead too.

Ask some of the guys who have come back which the Iraqis feared more, an M9 or an M16, and why.

Just a couple of answers why we needed to oust Saddam, same reasons we kicked Milsovec's ass.

I could go on, but apparently your sorry ass just doesn't understand the obvious. No worries we'll just crank up the power on the mind control satellites to break through the protective barrier of your tinfoil hat.

I always thought it was odd why they were more afraid of the M9. I guess watching people (including your family) get executed with a pistol, point blank in the back of the head would do that to ya.

Its too bad that Milosovec will probably die of old age before the UN courts actually reach an agreement. At least the K-Albs and K-Serbs can somewhat safely sell cappucino, bootleg software and dvds and continue to make no progress what-so-ever because they still segregate (I.E. K-Alb children go to school in the morning, and K-Serbs go in the afternoon) and hate each other while happily blowing up UNMIK-P buildings and vehicles.

I guess were making progress since they are downsizing our force here, closing down Camp Monteith next rotation. Or maybe they need more troops back home for the Chinese invasion, dunno.

On a sidenote, I really liked how the french army accused the US of using the Holding Facility at Bondsteel as a secret interrogation cell for the CIA.

I'm kind of curious how they got the information since they've never actually been inside the facility. I mean when they bus them here on Fridays, they are usually so preoccupied with buying every last electronic item out of the PX before US soldiers can go to the PX on the weekends....

Last I checked, when I guarded the holding facility, it was covered in black tarps so you can't see in, and visitors aren't allowed. We also haven't had a prisoner there for years and putting one in there requires the equivelent of "an act of congress" going so far up the military chain to USAREUR itself.

Oh well, at least Condoleeza Rice got a free trip to Europe out of the allegations, right?

Anyone remember why the Kurds were gassed? Besides the fact that Saddam was a psycho.

Oh yeah.. we told them to rise up and revolt, and then we never backed them up like we promised. So Saddam used the gas that we thought it was okay for him to use against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war.

Continued use of factual information just proves you are unpatriotic and not deserving of a life in the land of the patriot act.




Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann


The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.

He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.

A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.

As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.

February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."

Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.

We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.

Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: [i]"fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity. Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests. To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.

Yeh! I guess it didn't matter much at the end of the vietnam war did it? Now get down and give me 20!


I was in-country 3 days after turning 18, having enlisted while 17. I came home with a 40% disability rating, and a much broader outlook on my country and life in general. Knowing everything I do now about our politicians and military commanders and what would be the ultimate outcome, I would still have enlisted and gone.

Now you have become tedious, Grixx. You do little more than cut and paste and edit to suit your agenda, and contribute little if anything in the way of actual discussion. If you are only visiting these boards out of boredom and a vain atempt to make yourself important in some way, you would most likely have better luck elsewhere. In the event you decide to continue posting your inane contributions, at least pay some attention to your lone supporter; Rover has at least attempted to share ideas and opinions along with his links, rather than only behaving like some adolescent who has a brand new internet connection.

The topic of the thread is whether or not Bush should be impeached. Give some data one way or the other to support an opinion, argue your point with some factual foundation, do something more than "spin" the latest news headlines. Much as I dislike Bush, I would be embarassed to be caught espousing the silly stuff you are putting out here calling for impeachment.

Anyone remember why the Kurds were gassed? Besides the fact that Saddam was a psycho.

Oh yeah.. we told them to rise up and revolt, and then we never backed them up like we promised. So Saddam used the gas that we thought it was okay for him to use against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war.

The gassings took place in 1988, when US was still friendly with Saddam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack Please take care to double-check your facts.

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity. Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests. To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.

OMG, it's almost like Bush is the second coming of Hitler or something.

Seriously Rover, you're a smarter version of Grixxly. I bet you even read that entire thing. Keep up the good work and L2 will get jealous.

[/font]

OMG, it's almost like Bush is the second coming of Hitler or something.

Seriously Rover, you're a smarter version of Grixxly. I bet you even read that entire thing. Keep up the good work and L2 will get jealous.

I bet you even read that entire thing.

hmmm...dare I respond?...Well...after getting a few years experience under my belt I came to the conclusion that reading the "whole thing" gave me a better insight to a given situation than those who only read a "part of the thing".

For instance, had Bush read the "whole thing" about the Iraq-Al Qeada link, that was a central part of the reason for the invasion, he would have seen the part that said: "The information is deemed to NOT BE CREDIBLE".

Thereby avoiding the whole 2000+ US death thing. So my advice to you would be this: Whenever possible read "the whole thing" you'll be better informed.

The gassings took place in 1988, when US was still friendly with Saddam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack Please take care to double-check your facts.
Whenever possible read "the whole thing" you'll be better informed.
I read that whole thing...and damn. The US supplied the chemical precursors, civilian helicopters, and satellite images (for use in calibrating their use) to Saddam during the Iran/Iraqi war and then later condemn their use AFTER first blaming the whole damn thing on Iran.

I know that's probably an issue that's been discussed here in the past and also a good subject for an entire thread of it's own, but since it was brought up...damn.

I do see how it applies though. This incident is reportedly part of the evidence that Iraq has/had WMD's that was used to justify the invasion.

How do we know he has WMD's? We gave him the stuff to make'm, duh.

I know, I know...this is OFN. Unfortunately, sometimes I live with my head firmly implanted in my own affairs. Rent, food, raising my kids, farting show tunes...You know, the important things in life.

More fun stuff (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-program.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=63736654e4101aee&ex=1292302800&adxnnl=0&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1134739957-JLlnyGHT6k9DLR1uZEDb7Q):

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 ­- Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval represents a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.
...
The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.
...
Traditionally, the F.B.I., not the N.S.A., seeks such warrants and conducts most domestic eavesdropping. Until the new program began, the N.S.A. typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions in Washington, New York and other cities, and obtained court orders to do so.
Long article, but interesting.

If it can prevent another 9/11 then go for it. If you're not doing something illegal why worry? I don't think in this day and age we can have it both ways.......safety and privacy.

I totally agree with you Fil. I don't worry about my emails or anything I do in life that if some secret service personel had to look into..he might actually..well be BORED.

If it prevents things from happening thats what I am for. Sad fact is they need to resort to these types of things to catch terrorists before they can commit an act of terrorism.

Big brother is watching :D

Fair enough. Now, at one point would you get uncomfortable with the level of surveillance and restrictions put in place in the name of the "war on terror?" At what point are attempts at "protecting our way of life" suddenly protecting something very different than the way of life to which we were accustomed?

Also, how appropriate is it that knowledge gained (especially without warrant) from anti-terrorist activities is used for other purposes (e.g., anti-meth language inserted into the Patriot Act revision)?

Personally, I don't trust the government, much less individuals operating in secret with little accountability or transparency, with legal access to anything I or anyone else might do. Whether it's Watergate or MMO GMs /snooping cyberchat, power corrupts. Let the FBI do its job, and let the Constitution be followed.

My god in heaven! 16 pages! I have read such bullshit since the last election! My god! HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!! /deep breath HAHAHAHHAHHAH!

And Osgiliath returns with his usual level of insight and analysis.

I have been asked by "certain idividuals" to make cameo apperences from time to time.

In the event you decide to continue posting your inane contributions, at least pay some attention to your lone supporter; Rover has at least attempted to share ideas and opinions along with his links, rather than only behaving like some adolescent who has a brand new internet connection.

The topic of the thread is whether or not Bush should be impeached. Give some data one way or the other to support an opinion, argue your point with some factual foundation, do something more than "spin" the latest news headlines. Much as I dislike Bush, I would be embarassed to be caught espousing the silly stuff you are putting out here calling for impeachment.


I guess since all who personally attacked me with insults throughout the course of this thread due to their lack of knowledge on the topic which they exhibited by avoiding head to head debate on the information that I posted makes them as retarded as your comments. They replaced debating the points I brought to light with personal innuendos sort of like you attempted to do. I'll re-post my earlier post to let you explain why I should feel so embarrassed over it. I think it fits all the criteria you accused me of not providing so be more observant before you insult me again. Nothing below should be considered extreme left unless someone doesn't know where the middle is. Your friend Grixxly :)



If you think Bush is a great leader ask yourself some of these questions. Links are provided.

1. Do you understand that no tangible, truthful reason has ever been given for the invasion of Iraq and that the 9/11 Commission Report – which is the de facto, official findings of our government – says there was no reason whatsoever for this war?

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

2. Have you ever heard of the Downing Street Memos? Would it interest you to know that these official notes, from the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, show that the Bush administration was dead-set on war with Iraq and twisting intelligence to fit that goal?

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," reported the secret memo, later published in the Sunday Times of London. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC [National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

You can go here to learn more.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

3. When you look at the picture of even one military man or woman killed in Iraq and imagine the pain their family must feel, can you multiply that by 2,134 and believe that was a worthwhile down payment on removing Saddam Hussein from power? Before you answer, are you aware that Iraq had nothing to do with any attacks on our country and that it has been proven that Saddam Hussein had no capability at all to harm our people?

See the 9/11 Commission Report for more information.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

4. Do you approve of how ineffective the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been rendered since 2000 and the deadly results in our inability to protect our own people in disasters -- even those for which we have plenty of warning? Were you surprised to find out that the campaign contributor President Bush appointed to be the recently-disgraced head of FEMA had no experience at all in disaster management?

5. Do you have health insurance? Are you aware that almost 46 million Americans have no medical insurance ( http://www.census.gov/Press-Release...lth/005647.html (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html) ) and that the Bush administration thinks this works just fine? Most of us parents have seen our young children suffer with a common ear infection. Imagine watching your child in that pain and how you would feel being powerless to get antibiotics to ease your child's suffering. Are you comfortable with children in America living in situations like that – and worse?

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release...lth/005647.html (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html)

6. Is your family better off and more stable socially, medically and economically now than when Bill Clinton was president? Even assuming you are not an economist, how do you compare the 22.7 million jobs created by President Clinton's administration with a net loss of jobs -- a 4.6 percent decrease in total employment -- since Bush took office?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_c...sidential_terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

7. Did the photos of prisoner abuse released from Abu Ghraib – the worst are in litigation and still to come – make you proud of our country?

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

8. Do you ever lie awake at night and question how the world went from a mentality of "we are all Americans today" on September 12, 2001 to almost universally despising our country now? To what do you attribute this?

9. Do you understand that scientists have almost universally agreed that a Category 1 hurricane doesn't become a Category 5 overnight without the impact of significant global warming? Did you know that Team Bush doesn't believe in the concept?

http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm#8

10. Do you believe it is good for your family and the future of your children that President Bush took the biggest federal budget surplus in U.S. history – amassed during the Clinton years – and turned it into the largest deficit ever in just his first term? What is your view of public policy that continues to give massive tax cuts to the richest Americans while doing nothing about our health-care crisis and, at the same time, cutting safety-net programs for children, the elderly, disabled Americans and Veterans?

11. Do you have a "support the troops" sticker on your car? How does this mesh with the fact that the Bush administration has cut Veterans benefits repeatedly and that the Republican Congress has on many occasions voted down Democrat-sponsored measures that would have provided physical and mental-health care funds for returning Iraq-war Vets?

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0328-11.htm

12. Have you heard the name Valerie Plame in the news and just not understood why? Did you know that she's the covert CIA officer outed by the Bush administration as retaliation against her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, who exposed a major lie used by the administration take us to war in Iraq?

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

13. Did you know that the 44 Democrats in the U.S. Senate represent well over 50 percent of the country's population and yet Republicans have voted down almost 90 percent of legislation sponsored by Democrats in 2005?

14. The federal minimum wage has stayed below the poverty level -- $5.15 per hour –for almost a decade, creating a situation where a hard-working American, working 50-60 hours a week, still lives at or below the poverty line. Does that sound right to you? Are you aware that Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy brought minimum wage increases to the Senate floor twice in 2005 and they were shot down each time by the Republican majority?

15. Are you okay with the culture of corruption in the GOP that has the vice president's chief of staff indicted for perjury, Tom DeLay up on money-laundering charges and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist being investigated for insider trading – and that this may only be the tip of the iceberg?

If you are fully aware of everything I have cited here and can still say that you approve of George W. Bush, then we just flat-out have very different views of what America is suppose to be. But I have to ask: What happened to your love of country?

If this has given you food for thought, please do your own homework on these issues and use the information to make you more carefully consider who gets your vote in 2006 and 2008.

For the 60-65 percent of you who already think that the president is doing a lousy job, use these as talking points whenever anyone dares to talk about what a great leader we have in the White House.

I found this article, kind of interesting:



Bush and the Moonies
Another issues that worries me about the Bush family is his connections to the "Moonies". Most people don't know it but Sun Myung Moon is not some small time eastern brainwasher with a few thousand hippie followers. Moon is worth billions and has spent billions in America influencing elections and the news media. Most people don't know it but the Moonies own the Washington Times. Moon founded the Washington Times in the early 1980s and has spent over 2 billion dollars subsidizing it. Moon claims that through the Washington Times that he has greatly influenced America. Moon takes credit for SDI or Star Wars and he takes credit for getting George Bush elected president in 1988.
President Bush has been on Reverend Moon's payroll ever since he left office, if not before. Bush has been the keynote speaker at several Moon mass weddings. In The Unification Church members get married when the church tells you to. The couples meet for the first time on their wedding day.
On November 25th 1996 the South Korean evangelist Sun Myung Moon launched a new Spanish-language newspaper for the whole of Latin America with the backing of guest George Bush who praised Moon. The former U.S. president, guest speaker at a banquet to launch Moon's new publication "Tiempos del Mundo" (Times of the World). Bush then travelled with Moon to neighboring Uruguay to help him inaugurate a seminary in the capital Montevideo to train 4,200 young Japanese women to spread the word of his Church of Unification across Latin America.

President Bush has become the paid mouthpiece of the cult leader, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, accepting huge sums of money to speak at Moonie mass weddings.
Bush praised the Moonies saying, "I want to salute Reverend Moon who is the founder of the Washington Times and of the new paper here," said Bush, who was reported by the Washington Post to have been paid $100,000 for his Buenos Aires appearance. "A lot of my friends in South America don't know about the Washington Times but it is an independent voice," said Bush. "The editors of the Washington Times tell me that never once has the man with the vision interfered with the running of the paper, a paper that in my view brings sanity to Washington DC."
"I am convinced that Tiempos del Mundo is going to do the same thing," said Bush, who managed to avoid being photographed with the 76-year-old South Korean evangelist during his whole stay in Buenos Aires.
But Bush's claim of journalistic independence at The Washington Times was false. Since the paper's inception in 1982, editors and reporters have resigned in protest of editorial interference by Moon's lieutenants. The first editor, James Whelan, resigned in 1984 confessing to "blood on my hands" for giving Moon legitimacy.
Bush has sold out to this cult leader and is using the prestige of the Presidency of the United States of America to help enslave thousands of people into Moon's cult consciousness, for a mere $100,000. Since President Bush has taken in mass quantities of Moonie money, (a source close to Moon put the total as high as $10 million) it makes me wonder how much Moonie money is being funnel led into W's campaign. Is George W. Bush being funded by the Moonies? It would surprise me if he wasn't. What I want to know is, will Son of Bush embrace the Moonies like his dad did? I want someone to ask that question.

Neil Bush has been traveling with Moon trying to raise funding for some Alaska to Russia underwater tunnel (http://www.iifwp.org/programs/pktunnel/files/peacekingtunnel_en2_Vletter.pdf) because, as the brochure puts it, Satan has been using the Bering Strait to separate East and West. Whacky.

If you are fully aware of everything I have cited here and can still say that you approve of George W. Bush, then we just flat-out have very different views of what America is suppose to be. But I have to ask: What happened to your love of country?

Lots of people that are 'the bush administration is awsome' don't need silly things like facts, honesty, or consistancy, so arguing with them is futile. It's like trying to tell a creationist why it doesn't make sense.

Best to wait till he lies , under oath, to a Judge. Then he can become a GREAT president in everyones eyes!!

Then he can go to foreign theaters where our troops are under seige and get paid to make questionable statements. And be even GREATER!!!

No, he shouldn't be impeached for not being more public about his plan.

Fandros

Man, you have one hell of a hardon for clinton don't ya? In almost every post about bush or the goverment, you always bring up the same boring stuff about him.

but...but...clinton!

Sure Disc....see I supported him, I voted for him and he pissed in the mouth of tentents I hold dear.

So yes, I have the right to have...a hard on for him...

Oh, and go read 1k of my posts ya judgemental blind bastach, and then post a percentage. Maybe you could generalize a bit more next time.

Fandros

If it can prevent another 9/11 then go for it. If you're not doing something illegal why worry? I don't think in this day and age we can have it both ways.......safety and privacy.

"The man who chooses security over freedom deserves neither" Thomas Jefferson

Never forget that. If you do not strive for that ideal as set forth by our founding fathers then I call you unpatriotic.

"The man who chooses security over freedom deserves neither" Thomas Jefferson

Never forget that. If you do not strive for that ideal as set forth by our founding fathers then I call you unpatriotic.

Funny you should use that quote. See I've thought, since 91, that you could apply this to the folks who'd rather hide behind our own borders and hope evil never finds us.

Fandros

Feel free to use your liberal new age interpretation on a rock solid founding father statement to help you prop up your failed nation building foriegn policy.

On another note, please recite to me a biblical scripture (new or old tesmtament) that sets a precedent for pre-emptive strike. Thanks.

On another note, please recite to me a biblical scripture (new or old tesmtament) that sets a precedent for pre-emptive strike. Thanks.

As much as I hate to be a killjoy, here you go:


Genesis 34



1And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.

2And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

3And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.

4And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife.

5And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter: now his sons were with his cattle in the field: and Jacob held his peace until they were come.

6And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him.

7And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter: which thing ought not to be done.

8And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife.

9And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you.

10And ye shall dwell with us: and the land shall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions therein.

11And Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give.

12Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife.

13And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father deceitfully, and said, because he had defiled Dinah their sister:

14And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us:

15But in this will we consent unto you: If ye will be as we be, that every male of you be circumcised;

16Then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people.

17But if ye will not hearken unto us, to be circumcised; then will we take our daughter, and we will be gone.

18And their words pleased Hamor, and Shechem Hamor's son.

19And the young man deferred not to do the thing, because he had delight in Jacob's daughter: and he was more honourable than all the house of his father.

20And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed with the men of their city, saying,

21These men are peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein; for the land, behold, it is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters.

22Only herein will the men consent unto us for to dwell with us, to be one people, if every male among us be circumcised, as they are circumcised.

23Shall not their cattle and their substance and every beast of their's be our's? only let us consent unto them, and they will dwell with us.

24And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of his city; and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate of his city.

25And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.

26And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out.

27The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.

28They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field,

29And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.

30And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house. 31And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?




If Iraqi males were not mostly circumcised, the Bush administration just might have had a true biblical precedent not only for a preemptive strike, but for the actual war strategy :eek:

Funny that you mention that because we just read that in synagogue yesterday. I don't quite think it is pre emptive strike because Dinah was raped. However, being that it was retribution, it clearly was an overblown punishment.

I voted for him and he pissed in the mouth of tentents I hold dear.
Pissed in the mouth? I don't think Clinton pissed in the mouth...something else in the mouth, yeah...

This entirely juvenile moment brought to you by rum and egg nog.

Funny that you mention that because we just read that in synagogue yesterday. I don't quite think it is pre emptive strike because Dinah was raped. However, being that it was retribution, it clearly was an overblown punishment.

One could construe an unannounced, excessive responsive force as a pre-emptive strike. If it's not good enough, here's Passage #2:


Exodus 1

7And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.


8Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.

9And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we:

10Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.

11Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.

12But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel.

13And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour:

14And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.

15And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:

16And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

17But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

18And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?

19And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.

20Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.

21And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. 22And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.



I can't claim that it's especially righteous, but it is sure as hell is a preemptive action.

Pre emptive action, yes. Pharaoh increased the labor burden of his slaves. I was thinking more along the lines of our current foriegn policy of pre emptive military strike.

I'm pretty sure that passage means that they were enslaved in the first place and started getting their male offspring killed off.