Very interesting stuff!

Well, if Kudlow has a direct line to the Lord and the Lord tond him that is the work that HE wants done, that is good enough for me. I won't argue with him on that. Do you argue with an inmate at the nut house? If you do, you belong there with him. How do you know that is the Lord's will? Because you had a dream? Because you found the burning bush and it spoke to you? If you did, it was probably a cheap hooker who had crabs and the message is "Shave the hair off and get something to treat it."

Collective punishment? Really. That is so sad. They are involving people who are not involved. Did you know Hezbollah IS on the government? If they have had a coup, I might understand. However, those are elected Hezbollah people. These are the same people that were supposed to disarm. These were the same people that shot at Isreal FROM Lebanon. Which part of the progression escapes you?

Define "peace", please because I don't know what your definationis. Do you see a point to stopping it because I don't. What is the point? That we stop it today and tomorrow it starts up again? Oh, and you didn't want our money going there to buy them over but now you are willing to use it for what you perceieve as a gain? Smells like a double standard to me.

Does Hezbollah want peace? Hezbollah IS the legal govt in Lebanon, BTW. Have they come forward with any promises of "You stop this and we will that?" Did I miss it in some scribblings on Al Jezzera?

Edit:

Is it such that if your muslim buddies tell the UN to take a leap, it is ok but if Isreal or the US does the same thing, it is an unpardonable sin? You seem pretty adept at showing us how you think Isreal should go along with the UN. OK, I'll bite. In return for what? Peace? How? They pulled back from Lebanon per the UN and what has it gotten them? Why is one side able to ignore the impotent UN while the other not? IMO, the UN is about as impotent as a 90yo man who has lost his genitals when it comes to doing anything besides killing more trees issuing resolutions but please, you explain it to me since I don't really understand your point of view. I'll accept that the Jewfish comment was not anti-semetic and you are totally neutral. So, do explain your position and tell me who can and who cannot ignore the UN and tell me what the returns are because I sure don't see it. Hussien was free to ignore the UN. We did and it was bad. I'm totally confused now.

Pepsi=
 

Put Every Penny to Save Isreal
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1218048,00.html
Parvin Heydari, an Iranian mother of two, was flipping back and forth between the nightly news and Oprah when a bulletin on an Iranian state channel caught her attention. It urged Iranians to boycott what it called "Zionist products," including those made by Pepsi, Nestlé and Calvin Klein, and warned that profits from such products "are converted into bullets piercing the chests of Lebanese and Palestinian children." As evidence, the voice-over intoned, "Pepsi stands for 'pay each penny to save Israel.'" Heydari says she changed the channel, as she has no intention of crossing Nestlé's Nesquik off her shopping list. "Lebanon has nothing to do with us," she says. "We should mind our own business and concentrate on policies that are good for our economy, and our kids."

To many observers in the Western world, Hizballah, the Lebanese guerrilla group battling Israel, is a mere puppet of Iran. Some are convinced that Hizballah triggered the crisis on Tehran's orders to divert world attention away from Iran's controversial nuclear plans. But client states are not necessarily as docile as one might think. Just as Israel sometimes takes actions that surprise (and even displease) the U.S., Hizballah does things Iran has neither ordered up nor necessarily approves of.

It's impossible to know the precise origins of the current crisis in Lebanon, but since it erupted two weeks ago, the mood in Tehran has swung between indifference--the fighting rarely makes the headlines--and resentment over Iran's longstanding sponsorship of Hizballah. True, there have been officially sponsored rallies declaring support for Hizballah, whose leaders pledge religious allegiance to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei. But the emotional support for Hizballah common throughout the Arab world is largely absent here.

Iranians like Heydari believe that their country, ethnically and linguistically Persian, should stay out of the Arabs' fight with Israel and focus on improving living standards at home. "I don't think it's right to support them when our own people are hungry," says Mohammad Reza Afshari, 23, a mechanic who works two jobs yet still cannot afford to move out or attend college. The shop where he works abuts a vast mural depicting a female suicide bomber with a baby in her arms, accompanied by the words I LOVE MOTHERHOOD, BUT I LOVE MARTYRDOM MORE. Frustration with such propaganda underpins young people's reactions to the conflict. "Where are the Arabs?" asks Afshari angrily. "They're sitting around, while we're risking our position in the world."

It's not only ordinary Iranians who are worried about what the Middle East explosion means for Iran. Even as state infomercials order Iranians to boycott soft drinks, officials in Tehran--pragmatists and conservatives alike--concur that the conflict is bad news for the Iranian regime because it exacerbates the West's image of Tehran as a regional troublemaker. Rather than helpfully distracting attention from Iran, as many have charged, the conflict "undermines Iran's position," says a university professor close to senior Iranian officials.

The thorny nuclear negotiations with the West are likely to become even trickier. The delay in efforts to enforce a cease-fire in Lebanon is inflaming divisions within the Iranian regime on how to respond to the U.S.-backed package of incentives offered to Tehran in June. Before the crisis erupted, the momentum seemed to favor advocates of a pragmatic, positive response. But now the radicals are using the U.S.-backed Israeli campaign in Lebanon to push their case for a tough line. As an adviser to a senior conservative ayatullah puts it, "This has strengthened the hand of those who argue, 'If this happened to us, the only thing that would save us is a nuclear deterrent.'"

In the low-rent neighborhood of Tehran Pars, patrons at a café talk of how to balance faith with the politics of aiding Islamic militant groups. Mehdi Sedaghat, 27, a clothing-store clerk, speaks between bites of his bologna sandwich. "It's our religious duty to aid Muslims who are being killed," says Sedaghat, whose car bears a sticker on the rear window that reads INSURED BY IMAM REZA (Shi'ite Islam's revered figure). "But reality is reality, and we can't afford it." He quotes a Persian proverb: "If the lantern is needed at home, donating it to the mosque is haram [forbidden]."

I don't see where you get that idea. Iraq got hammered militarily and economically all through the 1990s because he wouldn't comply with the cease fire agreement and several UN resolutions. Unfortunately, the Iraqi people suffered more than Saddam during that time, but Hussein was hardly free to ignore the UN. Your claim that he was is similar to MedMech's claim that statements made by Bill Clinton and other Democrats in 1998 show that W wasn't lying about Iraq in 2003. It's an illogical, but effective, argument. The reason it's effective is that it has emotional appeal and makes it easy to dismiss opposing viewpoints as being hypocritical. Nobody likes an hypocrit.

It's been a long time since I read MedMech's summary of the statements made by Clinton, but I recall some of Clinton's statements being questionable at best. Others seem reasonable based on what was known at the time.

I have no way of knowing the whole truth because so much was hidden by Saddam and so much was rightfully kept secret by our government. My guess is that it would have been prudent in 1998 to assume that Saddam had WMD and the programs to build more WMD, none of which has anything to do with whether Bush lied about Iraq.

Well, well, well, looky here boys and girls.

Seems like those paragons of humanity and fair play, those lovers of of peace and goodwill, the very boys of the hezbollah summer, had been using the UN outpost as a shiled for their rocket installations.

What a shock...what a surprise...what a stunner. hezbollah and their muslin brothers using the UN as a rocket shield. Who ever heard of such dastardly and awful deed. Can it be teh hezbollah and their arab and muslim friends and supporters actually play dirty?

Mon Dieu...hey Koffi, how about that one, huh bro?

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50

Happy reading all of you Jew hating, self-loathing, pusillanimous, appeasing lovers of all that is anti-American.

And to you Koffi and to the useless UN a big F##K YOU...

Luckily for us, Surf-n-Turf, "dumb rednecks" like you are now running the country.

I shudder to think what would happen if the effete, intellectualloids from a Gore or Kerry administration would be up to right about now.

Estoy contigo hermano!!!

Don't be putting no WTFs on me until I've had a chance to explain.;)

I'm happy to respond to your questions, but out of respect for the other members I am not going to re-hash the details of the Bush Lied issue. That issue has been beaten to death in previous threads.

There are two reasons why beliefs held in 1998 have nothing to do with whether Bush lied in 2002 and 2003. One reason is that we learned a lot between 1998 and 2003. The pace at which the UN inspectors were gathering information was accelerating in 2002 and 2003, until Bush forced the inspectors out of the country. The other reason why Clinton's 1998 statements do not exonerate Bush is that Bush's statements stand on their own. For example, when he said that we invaded Iraq because Saddam had forced out the UN inspectors, he had to know that his statement was untrue because he was the one who forced them out. How can anything Bill Clinton said in 1998 make Bush's statement true? There is no logical connection. Bush and his people made many other specific false statements. That Bill Clinton said similar things 5 years earlier does not make Bush's statements true.

On the government secrets part, I assumed that the government didn't share all of its intelligence with the public. Am I wrong about that?

Everybody who is surprised, raise your hand.

Ah, there's one.

Yes, you in the back, where have you been? Fell off a turnip truck on your head? Ouch.

B

Well, put it this way. Did he comply? By your statements, the answer is "NO". Did Gottadiesel even want to talk about that? Nope. Did he want to talk about 1559? Nope. However, when Isreal tells Kofi to take a flying leap, it is a big deal. I spy something with my little eye beginning with the initials DS. Hint Double S.......

You have proved beyond reasonable doubt that he lied? Really? Newt and Co did prove Clinton lied and he got slapped. Do you have the evidence to do the same to Bush? If you do, Democratic and some Republican senators are waiting to hear from you.

That's funny stuff there...Howie is such a clown. Sometimes I think he is a Republican mole, sent in to infiltrate the DNC and make them all look stupid...oh wait a minute, they already had Pelosi, Schummer and chuckles Rangel...

No thanx. I wouldn't even with someone else's "richard". Being as impotent as they are, I'd have to do the all work and they would probably ask for a "reach around".

Facts, I need facts.

Oh well, that would be to much to expect.

Incidentally, that is why it is so much fun to be a prosecutor. We deal with facts, just the facts, thank you very much. And we have to convince the jury, all 12 jurors, of every element of the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt.

If only the Bush-bashers dealt more with facts, and not just pure, emotional hatred, I may have less contempt for them.

I think that was vaguely pornographic...:eek:

Exactly. Bush told the inspectors that Iraq was about to be bombed and that they should leave unless they want to be blown up. I call that kicking them out of the country. More to the point, though, there is no interpretation of the facts that can support Bush's claim that Saddam kicked out the inspectors. You can agree with me on that small point, can't you?Not willingly. That's why Bush should have supported an increasingly intrusive inspections program. That's what was beginning to happen in 2002 and it was beginning to show that he had no significant WMD. And contrary to all these claims that everybody thought Saddam had WMD, there were people with first hand knowledge expressing serious doubt about that. So, right when the inspectors were on the brink of proving that Saddam has no significant WMD, Bush forced them out of the country. Coincidence? I dunno.You are wrong there. The falsity of Bush's statements in 2003 prove my claim that he lied. IMHO.Come again?Are you asking whether the WMD that Saddam didn't have would still be there? Um, I'm going to say no.

I never said otherwise.I have no idea what that last part means, but who cares whether Gotta said anything about 1559? Does that really have anything to do with his argument?

You have got to be kidding!! Maybe he should have left them there and let them be blown up? Then you would be screaming bloody murder. Can't win for losing with you.

Get the basic program running before you worry about more intrusive programs. People who knew said what? You mean David Kay? He did say that he would find something till he found nothing and then backpedaled. So what would you want him to do? Keep the inspectors there till the bombs fell? Then you could claim he sent a bomber there to cover up by killing the inspectors?

Didn't they find some degraded WMD not too long ago and there was a debate of whether it was still workable?

I believe this is the 1001st time I have said this: Clinton lied under oath, which is illegal. Bush just lied, which is not illegal.

Well, he went on about how his 2 best friends were Isreali when he made the remarks about the Jewfish and got called on it and has tried to show how fair he was and that it was all Isreal and US that was at fault. Of course, the Palestinians and Hezbollah were peaceful inhabitants who simply want to live in peace with the world but for the US via Isreal, they cannot.

OK. How did Clinton lie under oath? If we can get him to make a statement under oath and later prove he lied (he confessed finally) and so he gets slapped, why can't we get Bush to make a statement under oath, catch him (if that is possible) then slap him? Assuming the evidence is there, of course.

Cllinton gave a deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit. He gave many evasive answers, at least one of which was found by a federal judge to be a lie. A similar ploy against W would fail, though, because impeachment is a political matter and this Congress would have no interest in impeaching W, which is a good thing.

Good grief. I didn't say that he should have left them there to be blown up.NO! THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!! BUSH SHOULD NOT HAVE DROPPED THE BOMBS UNTIL HE HAD EXHAUSTED ALL OTHER ALTERNATIVES FOR CONTAINING SADDAM.I wouldn't call it a "debate" exactly. Rick Santorum and a few others cited the recent discovery as being significant. Their claim was so weak they couldn't even get the Bush administration to go along. It was like the incident back in 2003 when they breathlessly announced that had found a drone of the type that Saddam could have used to deliver chemical weapons into the US. It turned out to be this little POS that wasn't a threat to anybody. It looked like a poor attempt at a high school science project.

I, for one, cannot see why this or any Congress wouldn't have an interest in impeaching Bush. I can give you three good reasons. Firstly, this is Bush's 2nd term. He will not have a 3rd and he is done in 08 (little more than 2 years away). By the time it does get to Congress, it will be months away. Either way, he is NOT in a position to trade favors except maybe like what Clinton did with the pardons. Secondly, as a Dem, it would look good with the Dem voters and maybe some Reps. Think re-election. Think Job security. Thirdly, as a Rep, if I am willing to nail someone in my own party because he did a naughty thing, you think it won't be good for re-election? It would show how honest I am. However, all this is moot if I am not certain of my case and it backfires. But if I am that sure, I'll roll the dice.

I'm not sure it is a good thing to not have an interest in impeaching a bad action. Assuming it was a bad action. This way, there is always contraversy. Give him his day in court and it will become clearer than it is now, one way or the other.

dculkin, how could you expect to argue with a first generation Americon who gets his talking points from Fox? And, don't forget, a prosecutor to boot. You're just outgunned, man.

I have nothing against people who disagree with Bush, Clinton, Abe, Joe Schmo or whatever. However, if it is just simple bashing, I'd have contempt for them too. Otherwise, I'd have contempt for myself since I disagree with some of the things Bush did. Stem Cell and Abortion, come to mind. Can I have contempt for half of myself and still like the other half?

When you hit the "Quote" button, it shows the language that you want to quote. You can edit that text to delete the portions you don't want to quote. You can also insert intermediate "quote" and "end-quote" commands as follows:

At the beginning of the language you want to quote type the word "quote" and put it between brackets: [... ] I can't type it out here because then it will think I am quoting this language. What you want to type is [ quote ] except don't have the spaces between the brackets and the "quote"

At the end of the segment you are quoting type "/quote" and put that between brackets: [...]

Does that make any sense?Saddam had WMD at some point in the past and he was doing everything he could to prevent the world from knowing what he had and what he didn't have. He was a total dick the whole time. If he could have gotten away with it, I'm sure he would have had the whole WMD thing = chemical, biological, and nuclear. His ambitions, however, were no threat to us because the No Fly Zone and UN sanctions kept him in a box.

I didn't mean to imply that the inspectors just dropped in. They were there for years and were thwarted by Saddam many times. The correct response, IMHO, would have been to make the inspections increasingly intrusive. If he continued to resist, then we would have been justified in bringing the hammer down. W just jumped the gun.

Small loss even if he did. It seems to only be able to act when it is an issue that the perm. members either agree with or have no beef with after all.

At what point do you decide if you have exhausted all options? When Hussien dies of old age? I mean, 12 years and he was still playing shell games. When does it end? Especially when he agreed to give unfettered access and broke his word again and again and again. Kinda like a guy who cheats on his wife, gets caught and swears he will never do it again and then does it again and again and again. At what point would you divorce the girl?

Yes, today we can see that this or that is or is not a threat. However, when the shell games were going on, how would you know then? Ask yourself this. IF Al Qaeda got their hands on some gas, antrax or whatever and released it and we traced it back to Hussien, would it give you any comfort while you were burying your loved ones that we gave it another year to make absolutely sure?

Mostly, yes.My disgust with Bush is in part related to my disgust with his party - Gingrich, Delay, Cheney, Ashcroft, Meese, Bork, Ollie North, etc., etc., but I also believe that he is of low moral character. He is mean spirited (his highly personal and false attacks on McCain come to mind) and dishonest. He is not only ignorant of the world beyond his own little sphere, he takes pride in that ignorance. He is arrogantly ignorant. Someone, Molly Ivins maybe, said that he was born standing on third base and he acts like he hit a triple.

So, to answer your question, I believe that I have good reasons for my low opinion of Bush. I don't think it is because he is a Republican and I tend to vote Democrat. There are plenty of Republicans who would make tolorable presidents, but none of them could ever get elected in today's political climate.

I claim no expertise in this area, but my sense is that impeachment is so divisive that it should be reserved for people like Nixon. Does W deserve to be impeached? You bet, but it wouldn't work and we are better off just surviving until the next election, especially since impeaching Bush would give us President Cheney.:eek:

I do it all the time.

Two things: First, the inspections did seem to be dragging on, but Saddam also appeared to be contained. Second, I don't see why they could not have stepped up the inspections. If Saddam barred the inspection of a facility, give fair warning to civilians and then send a smart bomb to destroy that facility. I don't know anything amout military tactics, but if W had tried something like that and Saddam still prevented us from confirming the lack of WMD, then we could justify broader military action. Might not have worked, but W was foolish not to try. IMHO.No, but why single out Saddam? There were other people more likely than him to be working with al Qaeda.

I don't claim that W had any easy choices. I just hate the ones he made and the way he made them.

So? If he deserves to be impeached and gets it, no loss is there?

Since Bush is so bad, would Cheney be worse?

No loss is there? Therefore, things can only get better according to what you say. IMO, I'd be all for the hearings. That way we can settle the issue once and for all.

Resolution 1441 in wiki. Specifically this part.
On December 7, 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The four core members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[1] [2]. On January 30, 2003 Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, and by mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."

Also for 3 years, UN inspectors were kicked out by Hussien. Since matter is neither created nor destroyed according to physicists, we don't and probably will never know what happened to it all.

Maybe there were others that could be involved. However, we had legal grounds with Hussien since he did sign a document. If things had gone as hoped, it would have been used as "motivation" for others, I am sure. Now, here is the tricky part. If he did lie about what he knew of Hussien, he could have planted stuff there to make it look good. And so what if it showed US engineering? We did supply him once upon a time with the goods. That is why I doubt that Bush made up the story. If I did make it up or took a SWAG, you bet I would have had the "evidence" held in some storage place and "discovered" later on should I fail to find any of the real evidence. That is why I believe that Bush was confident (just like Kay) that WMD would be found there. OF course it is too late now to do anything about it. But if it were me, I would make sure evidence would be found one way or the other say 6 months after the fighting stopped.

Wow, you guys are some persistent bastards!!! I can't believe you guys are still arguing over this...I find it amusing. :D

AKLIM, the liberals will never even attempt to impeach Bush.

There is one good reason why they won't, and ithas nothing to do with Cheney becoming President.

They won't impeach Bush because notwithstanding all of their blathering, whining, crying and gnashing of teeth, they have NOT single shred of evidence to support the bringing of articles of impeachment against President Bush. If they had any evidence, Kennedy, Pelosi, chuckles Rangel and the rest of the dirty gang would have tried to impeach Bush long time ago.

Personally, I think that impeachment should be reserved for serious maters, as much as I dislike the morally bankrupt former occupant of the White House (Billy Clinton) I don't think he should have been impeached for lying about sticking a cigar in Monica (most married men would have lied about that one).

I think that Nixon should have been impeached, but not for the Watergate cover-up. He should have been impeached for stupidity. There was no need for plumbers when his opponent was so far behind the race and had no chance of winning the election. Nixon's stupidity gave us Carter's imbecility. :(

Don't you have finals to study for or a term paper to write? :eek:

Kamil, I found this on another board. It describes the recent unpleasantness from the POV of an insider:

"A recent explanation can be summarized as the following:

Hamas wins elections in Palestine

Hamas says "die Israel die"

World says "Hamas please don't say that and disarm your militants"

Hamas says "die Israel die and we won't disarm until Israel goes away"

World no longer gives money to Palestine until they disarm militants.

Palestine government works don't get paid because government doesn't have money.

Fatah (losers in last election) start pointing fingers are Hamas

Hamas start a shooting battle

Fatah kicks Hamas ass back to Gaza.

Hamas announces a militant security force.

Fatah and Hamas shoot at each other.

Palestine people are pissed off at both parties.

Hamas tries to get more arms through Egypt.

Egypt says "I don't think so"

Fatah kicks Hamas ass on the streets.

Fatah political leadership decides it's time for a two state solution.

Fatah says "we will have states ... one for Hamas and the other for Fatah"

Hamas says "we are in charge and screw you"

Fatah says "we will have a non binding vote in the end of June"

Poles show more Palestine people agree with a two state solution.

Hamas is freaked out.

Fatah makes concessions with Israel government to receive aid when the two state
solution is implemented.

Hamas is freaked out ... again because they are loosing authority and power.

Hamas decides to wreck the Fatah and Israel relationship by firing mortars into Israel

Israel laughs it off with artillary.

Hamas decides to kill a family on a beach and announce it was done by Israel boats.

This pisses off a lot of Palistine people.

Hamas militants decide to capture Israel soldier thinking they will be able to negotiate a better deal than Fatah.

Hamas was wrong.

Israel attacks Hamas political party and militants.

Hamas Militants loose battles.

Hamas political party in Syria OK's attacks from Lebanon into Isreal.

Hamas militants capture two Israel soldiers in Northern Israel.

Israel gets pissed off and bombs the crap out of Lebanon.

Israel executes a fly over of Syria Hamas political party head quarters to scare them.

Syria freaks out and calls for backup

Iran steps in and says "Israel if you attack Syria ... we will attack you."

US starts laughing because there are so many US military assets in Iraq to prevent Syria from receiving help from Iran.

UN cries foul when no one listens to them.

UN says stop shooting to Israel.

Israel says we can't because Hamas militants will regroup and attack.

Hamas is smiling when more ignorant folks like France say "stop shooting Isreal"

Arab league is so damn tired of Hamas militants in their neighborhood the are cool with Isreal (for now).

UN sends monitors into a fire zone.

Israel reminds UN their is a fire zone.

UN soldiers think their blue hats will protect them from 500 pound shells and Hamas rockets.

UN soldiers are wrong.

Hamas is running out of ammo and people.

Israel is getting more ammo and people.

Lebanon is a wreck

Lebanon was responsible in getting rid of Hamas Militants in 2004.

Israel says "no problem ... we will do it for you"

Hamas prevents the non binding elections of the two state solution at a cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars of damage.

Palestine people won't be able to vote when there's not enough electricity, fuel, food and safety.

Arab League knows Hamas started this mess and says “hey, you start it ... you finish it”

US oil companies take advantage to screw the consumer and raise the prices of oil.

Exxon has record net income for second quarter of the year 2006."

It cracks me up to read this......

Disclaimer: I haven't the resorces or the patience to vet this out so some details may not be accurate. -Az-

I just meant that he, as an individual, deserves impeachment, but the impeachment process would have negative ramifications way beyond W.I don't know. I was just goofing with that one. On the other hand, I think he probably would be worse. None of this is ever going to happen, so I'm just talking.

That's true. I don't understand why that was permitted to occur. It seems to me that was the time to escalate the pressure on Saddam.That is a mystery. Maybe they will still find it, but I don't think they will find anything that showed a level of threat that justified W's invasion.Maybe they believed their own predictions that we would be greeted as liberators, so nobody would care whether there were WMD. I'm not saying that a case couldn't be made for invading Iraq. I'm saying that the case they chose to make was false.Bush might have been sincere in his belief that Saddam was a threat. I doubt his sincerity, but I am not objective about him and I can't prove what was in his mind. When I say that Bush and his people lied, my accusation is limited to specific statements that they made, such as when W said that a particular report supported his position and the report didn't even exist.

They might have been sincere in their overall conclusion about the threat posed by Saddam. My complaint is with specific statements that appear to be intentional falsehoods.

That is the way I felt, too. I still feel that way in summation, but not by much. There are lots and lots of things that they have done that I think were the result of stubbornness and failure to listen to well-intentioned and useful criticism.

Also, I have deplored the cynical abuse of conservatives' values when it comes to spending. The Repos have been talkin' the talk since Goldwater but have only once, during the Gingrich Years, actually walked the walk. On that score, I quit listening to those people long ago.

The other thing that bothers me is what I believe to be extremely cynical behavior by democrats from late 2003 up until early this year, in which they have abused the truth of their own involvement in entering Iraq and have successfully dumped it all on Bush. That is so close to lying about the process that it scarcely makes any difference.

I agree (as to some Democrats).

I agree with this as well.

you know...
 

Since there is so much consternation over who said what, where, when and what lies were bantered around by which president, congress members etc

Why not make them go to war, we have 435 members of congress and can probably muster the same from the executive branch, give them all guns and make them WALK the walk, not issue lies, proclaimations against imaginary enemies and send our citizenry out to be killed in their board game of global domination (that right belongs to Stewie only :) ) BTW this would help tremendously with Term Limits as well :)

Heck, we want to send a peacekeeping force to the demiliterized zone in Lebanon, we really only need to send one person. Yes Just one person can maintain the peace between the Israelis and the Lebanese...Dick Cheney a shotgun and lots of boxes of shells, peace will be had, and both sides will be shot if they get within line of sight. Dick is our savior :P

Surf N Turf...

You can call me all the names you want, but people like you are what is destroying this country.

Have fun.

OK,even I can laugh with that one. :D

BTW, I think that it may be spelled Lebanese and not Lebonese (although Lebonese may be an alternative spelling :silly: ). I

wouldn't want your connections at the NSA seeing you mess up the name for the people of Lebanon. Plus some Lebanese person may see it and take offense to it. :eek:

Actually GD (and with all due respect) I think that you have it backwards.

I believe that it is people like S-n-T who first built and now sustain this country. I think that the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with me on that point.

Ha-ha! So simple, yet so logical. A couple of mistakes in the end about referring to Hizbullah as 'Hamas'... but an excellent layman's view of the situation. I wish everyone was as clear minded as the guy who wrote this.

stand corrected
 

I stand corrected, went back and editied in the right spelling to Lebanese. Thanks for the catch :)

As to my old friends most have left, the past and current administration have promoted a major brain drain in all intel dept.s real shame, because most of who are left are political appointees and lots of greenbeans who cant find their car keys in the morning let alone Bin Laden:(