We've Seen Enough to Impeach Bush

[Philadelphia Eagle]

Then what flag are you flying?

[BTS]

So TW2005........... Let's impeach all that said he had WMD's....FAIR?....OK?



BRING it ON..........................



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.



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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.



Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.



"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



[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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.



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.



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.



There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.



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.



We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.



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.



We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.



The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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.



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.



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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,



He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.



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



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. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.



NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!

[koan]

US Rejected Peace Offerings from Iraq and Afghanistan

Title: “Dreamers and Idiots”

By: George Monbiot

Source: The Guardian, November 12, 2003

Researched by: Brooke Finley

While thousands of innocent lives have been lost due to the war in Iraq, new information has come out that President Bush and Tony Blair had many opportunities for a peaceful solution before the war began. As most already know there appears to have been no weapons of mass destruction and no evidence to suggest that, as President Bush claimed in March, Saddam had “trained and financed…al Qaeda”. But now, even more lies are starting to surface.

Over the four months before the coalition forces invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s government made a series of offers to the United States. In December, the Iraqi intelligence services approached Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA’s former head of counter-terrorism, with an offer to prove that Iraq was not linked to the September 11th attacks and to permit several thousand US troops to enter the country to look for weapons of mass destruction. If the object was regime change, then Saddam, the agents claimed, was prepared to submit himself to internationally-monitored elections within 2 years. According to Cannistrao, these proposals reached the White House, but were “turned down by the President and vice President.”

By February, Saddam’s negotiators were offering free access to the FBI to look for weapons of mass destruction wherever it wanted, support for the US position on Israel and Palestine, and rights to Iraq’s oil. Another attempt was made on Sept. 20, 2001, before the war with Afghanistan. The Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected that offer. On October 1st, they repeated the offer and once again, the US rejected it.

The charter of the United Nations specifies that “the parties to any dispute…shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation” and as we are beginning to see, President Bush and Tony Blair have somehow, become exempt from international law.


I just saw this last night. I believe a lot of things about this war and why was started...but this, if it proves true, means every life lost in this war was completely avoidable. This is one story I am praying is false. But the source is good.

[BTS]

flopstock wrote: Well okay BTS, I have no problem with this plan...but shouldn't you be listing the republicans too?



You don't feel there was a problem with the intelligence community getting it SO wrong? Personally, i don't see a conspiracy to attack using WMD as a front. it's just not logical. We could have easily stumbled across some evidence if that were the case. The fact that we didn't come up with any, when i'm sure we could have gotten our hands on it to plant, if that was our intent, tells me folks just honestly got it wrong. Every canister found was presented as 'potential' and then examined and proven 'not to be'... I think folks honestly expected to find it.



He wanted the world to believe he had them. And he did convince a good portion of the world that he did. Hope he's satisfied with the result of his ingenious plan.



But I can't help thinking that before we ship off any more of our children to save us from a similar threat, perhaps we need to get a few of our intelligence community folks on the ground to verify first hand, what it is we are attempting to stop. OK Then........... you do the google search with these words :



democrats quotes on war in iraq

republican quotes on war in iraq

How many repubs are quoted as strong as the demorats are????



Just 4 u flopstock, cuzz not only did HE (Bush) want to believe (and need to) it so did all these winners :



Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...



"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998



"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others



"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002



"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998



"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998



"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002



"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002



"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002



"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002



"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998



"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002



"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003



"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998



"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002



"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002



"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002



"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002



"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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002



"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002



"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002



"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002



"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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002



"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002



"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003



"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002



"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002



"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002



"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998



"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998



"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002



"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002



"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[koan]

That a politician lies (any of them) is nothing astonishing. That a war was started with a lie is IMO impeachable.

Wolfowitz from a Defense Department transcript, May 2003, interview with Vanity Fair.

The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason...[T]here have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two....

The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.
No WMD were found, no connection to Al Qaeda discovered...so all we are left with is the third reason which the defense department admits is reason to help Iraqis but not to engage in war. This is a mighty big oops. Even if it wasn't a lie it is still IMO an impeachable oops. If many other people lied as well. It doesn't surprise me. But they aren't president right now and they didn't start the war. Bush Jr. did and he needs to be held responsible. It's part of the job.

[capt_buzzard]

Come on in President Bush. Lets be hearing from you.:-2

[BuckTurgidson]

koan wrote: That a politician lies (any of them) is nothing astonishing. That a war was started with a lie is IMO impeachable.

Wolfowitz from a Defense Department transcript, May 2003, interview with Vanity Fair.



No WMD were found, no connection to Al Qaeda discovered...so all we are left with is the third reason which the defense department admits is reason to help Iraqis but not to engage in war. This is a mighty big oops. Even if it wasn't a lie it is still IMO an impeachable oops. If many other people lied as well. It doesn't surprise me. But they aren't president right now and they didn't start the war. Bush Jr. did and he needs to be held responsible. It's part of the job.


As much as it would be fun to watch, a Bush impeachment is about as likely as a coherent exit strategy from Iraq. Sadly, neither appears to be part of the script.

[Agnes]

The United States has so many of its own problems but we are off to war to fight & kill our men? Iraq people stink, they do not know what SOAP is and still think god is in the mountains? Bush will be around for awhile, although i really feel Hilary Clinton could make a difference, as long as Bill takes his meds to control erections.

So, there is no simple solution to the troubled USA, we just keep sending our people to be shot at? War is not the answer?

[Bryn Mawr]

flopstock wrote: You don't feel there was a problem with the intelligence community getting it SO wrong? Personally, i don't see a conspiracy to attack using WMD as a front. it's just not logical. We could have easily stumbled across some evidence if that were the case. The fact that we didn't come up with any, when i'm sure we could have gotten our hands on it to plant, if that was our intent, tells me folks just honestly got it wrong. Every canister found was presented as 'potential' and then examined and proven 'not to be'... I think folks honestly expected to find it.




The people on the ground might well have been expecting to find the evidence but it's fairly clear that the likes of Tony Blair knew very well that it was not there well before the decision to go to war was taken.

[BLUEDEVIL1]

I wish the liberals in this country would quit their yappin and their "I hate Bush" montra on everything. Wanna know why Democrats are the minority party in the US? Because they have no ideas other than " I hate Bush". Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

[BTS]

BLUEDEVIL1 wrote: I wish the liberals in this country would quit their yappin and their "I hate Bush" montra on everything. Wanna know why Democrats are the minority party in the US? Because they have no ideas other than " I hate Bush". Pretty pathetic if you ask me.


Thank You BLUE:



yA hIT tHE oL nAIL(s) oN tHE hEAD SON....................

[StupidCowboyTricks]

Even Buckley knows it's a lost cause in Iraq.



It Didn’t Work

by: William F. Buckley, jr.



"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes ” it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted ” to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.

Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.

The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others' throats.

A problem for American policymakers ” for President Bush, ultimately ” is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed.

One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.

The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.

This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail ” in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.

Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.

He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.

Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.

[10thMountainMom]

I agree. So where do we start?

The Draft-dodging liar needs to be impeached.

Clinton lied about some pleasure. Bush lied to kill our sons and get cheaper oil for his friends.

To the previous post: Only Americans who can think should vote......................

I want my son home now. There are not enough troups over there for adequate coverage. My son frequently works 18 to 24 hours. Rumsfeld never served a day and is doing a huge disservice to our soldiers.

[daffodil52]

i alway said that bush critter was a fruit inpeach wott....

send him and be liar oops tony to fight their own battles......i'm with u all the way,,,,,,daffy52

[DesignerGal]

:-1

[High Threshold]

10thMountainMom;252894 wrote: ... Bush lied to kill our sons and get cheaper oil for his friends.

...
What is your complaint? He only killed a handfull of your sons. He killed over a million innocent Irak sons.

[FourPart]

High Threshold;1476812 wrote: What is your complaint? He only killed a handfull of your sons. He killed over a million innocent Irak sons.
That makes 2 charges then. One of them being War Crimes.

Plus, I thought only Presidents could be impeached. As he is no longer President, does that change things?

[LarsMac]

Yes, it does. It is far too late to impeach W.

[FourPart]

LarsMac;1476825 wrote: Yes, it does. It is far too late to impeach W.


As I thought, then. No matter how much we've seen, unless he gets re-elected he can't be impeached (and even then, I'm not sure that qualifies) - tried, perhaps, but not impeached.

[LarsMac]

Besides, the claims of the OP are irrelevant. To be impeached the person would have to be chargeable for violations of specific US, or state laws.

Pissing off a bunch of people around the world isn't going to be enough.

All the impeachment would do was to remove him from office, so that these charges could be filed, and he/she could be tried.

[High Threshold]

FourPart;1476820 wrote: That makes 2 charges then. One of them being War Crimes.
He's guilty of more than "one" War Crime.

FourPart;1476820 wrote: Plus, I thought only Presidents could be impeached. As he is no longer President, does that change things?
Good question. But doesn't his status (still today) allow him a certain amount of immunity? If we could "impeach" him from that then we could drag his ass into The Hauge. Well, as you can see I don't know what I am talking about but you know what I mean.

[High Threshold]

LarsMac;1476830 wrote: Besides, the claims of the OP are irrelevant. To be impeached the person would have to be chargeable for violations of specific US, or state laws.

Pissing off a bunch of people around the world isn't going to be enough.

All the impeachment would do was to remove him from office, so that these charges could be filed, and he/she could be tried.
It's all water under the bridge now but .... getting back to what I was saying ...... impeaching him would have made more likely his eligibility to be brought to trial abroad - if I understand anything at all.

Not sure how being an “ex-president affects him but I am led to believe that he's pretty much off limits from entering Switzerland and .... and ...... one other country lest he be arrested on the spot and tried in that country under international law. How glorious that would be!!! :yh_party :yh_clap

[FourPart]

High Threshold;1476833 wrote: He's guilty of more than "one" War Crime.


That's why I said War CrimeS.

[High Threshold]

FourPart;1476837 wrote: That's why I said War CrimeS.
Well, you did say "That makes 2 charges then. One of them being War Crimes" so you must admit there is some unclarity baked in the pie.

[FourPart]

High Threshold;1476812 wrote: What is your complaint? (1) He only killed a handfull of your sons. (2) He killed over a million innocent Irak sons.
2 charges, on multiple counts.

[High Threshold]

FourPart;1476849 wrote: 2 charges, on multiple counts.
:wah: Thank you.