Impeachment - Removal - Good Riddance !!!

[reprob8]

It's the elephant in the room, folks, if you'll pardon the pun.

But given the past five years of incompetence, corruption, and mendacity, it's well past the time to run the whole gang of criminals out on a rail, from Bush to Cheney to Rice to Rumsfeld, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Just a small sampling:

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/04/george_w_bush_r.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/washington/09leak.html?ei=5090&en=9ca1ca75893baf03&ex=1302235200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

What's it going to take an 8 by 10 glossy of Rice playing tonsil hockey with Bush?

[guest]

I was watching CNN a few weeks ago, a call in show, and the topic of the day was about Bush changing up things like moving Rice to the VP stuff like that. I don't remember the newspaper the article came out in then, I think it was the "Wall Street", not to sure, because I never thaught that this subject would come up.
Sorry Andy, I don't want to get you in trouble over this post because I can't remember the newspaper source 100%.
Any hoo a caller called in to talk about the mixing up of the office, caller was from Florida I do remember that, and he said something to the effect that Bush should get people like him in office and said the two names of the people he should get... Sadam and Ohsama. I just found that coment funny.
Like I said before, Andy if I need to quote correctly I'm sorry I can't so feel free to delete this post. Don't want to get you in trouble.

[The Pirate]

i'm just glad there is finally a start with delay out, problem, he invented the unlimited cash flow from lobbyists in dc,and now he gets a job 10 seconds after announcing his resignation, wait for it.......a lobbyist!!!!
anybody know of a good warm cave available in norhtern alberta???
1 down, 10 to go........

[andy]

Canada's beer is too expensive. How about Mexico? Oh wait... global warming.

Australia!!! My kind of town!

[reprob8]

How about if we stay here and ship them to some nice iceberg in the Artic Circle? With any luck, in about ten years they'll drown.

[noodles]

How about if we stay here and ship them to some nice iceberg in the Artic Circle? With any luck, in about ten years they'll drown.


Wouldn't work... Chevron would send a tanker to pick them up.

[The Pirate]

we thought this out back in '77-78, when we were in san diego. every month, our the 20+ bases in the area had to send some security duty section help to the border patrol for what we called "meat barrier duty", ie; we were the meat barrier in case an agent was shot at or attacked. any hoo, even back then, when on the mid watch, they would let us use the night vision goggles, and it was like a free-way out there in the eastern dessert from san diego. so even back then, we decided that after all the immigrants get here, there would be plenty of room there to go for retirement. problem, they come from hot, dry and bad places that are not a good vacation/retirement area to live, so now what.
the latest problem, gov't says 11 million illegals in the us, HA HA, any one livin in socal, texas, florida, arizona, new mexico, etc., can tell you it is waaaay more than that. if we paid for 11 million agents to hunt down the illegals, it would take so long, that 12 million more would come to fill the void.
besides, who would trim and mow and make shirts and clean your hotel room, bo derek, pam anderson, george bush and family?? do you really want those job's??
what disappointed me was that during the rallies, that was the best chance to round up 500,000 at a time to send home.
just a side; there are 6 generations of my family in the same cemetery.
Including myself, i can trace my fathers ,fathers, etc back 10 generations to the first reported person with our last name in 1730 in monogahila, virginia, and guess what, ?? an immigrant, of course it wasn't illegal then, and daniel boon's grampa was still wet dreaming about cutting a trail to kentucky some day.
my 2 cents.

[reprob8]

Read on...


http://thelastchancecafe.blogspot.com/2006/04/remember.html


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/041306.html



pissed-of

[bluesman]

Check this out.

I don't know if this was mentioned because I haven't read every post on this thread.

A while back every electrician on a job had to be licensed (apprentice, journeyman, master, etc...). They passed a law a few years back in Tejas that says that all you have to have is one licensed electrician on a job. Guess who the other electricians on the are now? purplex:
Guess what the other licensed electricians are doing? huh4:
bump:

[reprob8]

It's all too easy to blame illegal immigrants, but I'm afraid issue is much more complex...When was the last time we heard anyone in this administration, or any administration before it, urge the governments or employers in Latin America that they raise the wages and benefits paid to their workers? Instead, we have the reverse...The wages and benefits of Americans are driven down instead to match those across the border.

So we have American workers squaring off against illegal immigrants for the crumbs, while big business laughs all the way to the bank.

Click here:

//http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060501/kvh (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060501/kvh)

$13,700 an Hour

by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL
[from the May 1, 2006 issue]
The New York Times recently reported that--for the first time--a full-time worker earning minimum wage cannot afford a one-bedroom apartment anywhere in America at market rates. That means more and more people like Michelle Kennedy--a former Senate page and author of Without a Net: Middle Class and Homeless (With Kids) in America--are finding themselves homeless and living out of their cars.
At a town hall meeting in Ohio on April 2, Representative Sherrod Brown, a staunch advocate for social and economic rights (he and Bernie Sanders are the two best candidates running for Senate in 2006) railed against the economic hardship brought on by stagnant wages: "It is unacceptable that someone can work full-time--and work hard--and not be able to lift their family out of poverty." He blasted a system where a full-time minimum-wage worker earns $10,500 a year, while "last year the CEO of Wal-Mart earned $3,500 an hour. The CEO of Halliburton earned about $8,300 an hour. And the CEO of ExxonMobil earned about $13,700 an hour."
Robert Kuttner recently argued in the Boston Globe that while people are blaming undocumented workers for driving down wages, the real villains are "the people running the government, who have made sure that the lion's share of the productivity gains go to the richest 1 percent of Americans. With different tax, labor, health and housing policies, native-born workers and immigrants alike could get a fairer share of our productive economy." Kuttner points to Census data showing that "median household income fell 3.8 percent, or $1,700, from 1999 to 2004... during a period when average productivity rose 3 percent per year." And as income is falling, working people are increasingly squeezed. Costs for housing, healthcare, education and childcare rose 46 percent between 1991 and 2002, according to economist Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute.
And the situation is getting worse. Look at the Delphi Corporation's moves. The company asked a bankruptcy judge to void its union contracts so it could lower wages and benefits. CEO Steve Miller played the ever reliable global-competition card, saying in a recent Washington Post article, "At the end of the day, Delphi must be competitive in the global marketplace." But as Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research at Cornell University, makes clear, this new tactic will further erode labor's power in the workplace. "What in our laws and in our democracy gives a bankruptcy judge the right to take away freedom of association and collective bargaining?" Bronfenbrenner asks. "Bankruptcy judges should not have that power."
In the current climate--with tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, a minimum wage frozen for eight years in a GOP-dominated Congress, deterioration of labor's power in the workplace and corporate-written free-trade agreements that exacerbate these trends--it is heartening to hear Sherrod Brown make the case that "a hard day's work should mean a fair day's pay."
The Democratic Party needs to find its moral compass, its heart and soul. Closing the gap between workers' pay and CEO compensation and raising the minimum wage (a movement that is under way in many states)--is what heart and soul are all about.


PS: That having been said, I could have sworn that the original thread was impeachment.

[bluesman]

Sorry Repob8,

I dozed off reading your article.

I did have one thing to point out.

Disclaimer: I have nothing against the hispanic community and I know deep in my heart that they are an intgral part of my society, being from Texas.

Now .....

Let's analyze something.

Many folks call these people that come across our borders (and subsequently taking our tax-paid monies for their benefit) illegal aliens. Well, all of the sudden it seems that "illegal alien" is a politically incorrect label.

Well, they did come across the border "illegally"

They are aliens (not citizens).

Now ... Congress wants to OK if they've been in the country for a while (grant amnesty for aliens who've lived in the US for 7 years).

Does that mean I can rob banks (illegal) for 7 years and if I'm not caught I should be granted amnesty?

Get my point? Huh? DuhYa, Huh?, Duhya?

[guest]

my ancestors were "imagrants" as when we hid in the bilge of some store ship or came over as indentured servants to pay our way here, it wasn't "illegal" and "kentuk" was beyond the edge of the universe, so in some way, most humans here are "imegre" to a point. But, to that point, considering the situation in all the favorite destinations of most illegal aliens is in cities that are already packed to the gills with too many people, something has to be done. suggestion #1. amnesty after a period of time for not getting caught by imagration, but green card issued for states that have less than 6 million by census. #2. free bus and train rides to anyone that gets past the border patrol to canada. #3. close our borders and join the rest of the first world countries on the other side of the pond and enforce imagration laws, and quota's.
#4. if you want to stay, you got to pay, serve 6 years in a non-sensative military position, and after an honorable enlistment, poof, citizen. if you don't want to serve in military, serve 6 years in a "government sponsored project", like making roads, building habitat for humanity homes, kinda "peace corp stuff."
If we are as the shrub says, the #1 nation on the planet, the "BMOC", then act like it, as even the BMOC has to once in a while kick a bullies ass to keep the BMOC position. I served in the military defending this country to earn my right to complain. maybe if we tighten the rules up and stop the rule that if you come here illegal, and have a child, the child is not a citizen, and mom and dad don't get to stay to care for the child. maybe if we get tough with the big buisiness, hiding behind small buisiness status who illegally import alien workers to work locked in abandon warehouses making designer rip-off clothes and accessories, etc., then we can chip away at the giant rock one chip at a time untill its gone.
my views used to be a little different, untill i got to live in imagrant hotspots during my service at poverty level in San Diego, South Florida, Chicago, Tri-state area in the northeast, places that on low end enlisted pay and 3-4 year waiting list's for base housing, you get a new perspective. it never bothered me then as most seemed to be willing to assimalate into the community, work hard, get ahead, the american dream. then after my service was up, a few years later, my wife got very sick and tried to get SSDI. we had to fight for 5 years to get SSDI, and after fighting the good fight, we ended up paying a lawyer 25% of the back pay owed to goto a SSA judge and read 5 paragraphs we supplied to him from all our medical evidence, the judge banged the gavel, we won, but SSDI said even tho she should have got 5 yrs back payments, they only legally have to go back 2 years, so the lump sum went to the lawyer, who before he was a SSDI specialist, he was a SSA law clerk helping judges deny people applying for benefits. my point, my wife worked for 25 years straight and got 600 bucks from SSDI. the illegal across the street that hit the kid born here lotto gets 800 for the kid plus medical and she gets 800 for herself as she cant work and stays home with the baby. just doesn't seem right.
steam gage in normal range, reactor in green band, a-hole filter re-installed between brain and keyboard, pm complete, power off......

[reprob8]

Okay, it's time to move this over to a new thread. I don't know how we managed to segue from impeachment to immmigration.

Bluesman, I have your response in the new thread.

'bout time we from you!biggrin:

[The Pirate]

maybe the tie-in is bush wants to make illegals guest worker legals, so we should impeach the little pecker wood.

[reprob8]

Seems to me they've probably done more for this country than Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice.

[guest]

I suppose that you all think having Lurch or Mr. I Invented the Internet would have been any better. Personally, I am not crazy about the war in Iraq, but better to deal with the Islamotrash over there than over here again. Remember, it was Bill Clinton's inaction on Bin Lauden that lead to 9-11.

[The Pirate]

clinton gets the blame?, go back a few more years, and note the previous administrations dumped huge amounts of money and arms, etc., to Bin Laden to fight the russians in afganastan, we sent trainers, trained them in gorilla warfare sent in special forces to advise and assist, made him the great warlord and leader he is to day. so clinton, being in his early years, in state government in arr'kin'saw gets the blame? o.k, then george w. gets the blame for iran/contra. oh, wait, that was his dad....hmmmm

[reprob8]

...Remember, it was Bill Clinton's inaction on Bin Lauden that lead to 9-11.

To add to what Pirate wrote below, and coming from one who was not a fan of Mr. Clinton, please go to the following, and pay very close attention to the dates on these documents...

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

http://www.emergency.com/2001/21stcentury_rpt.htm

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html)

I suppose that you all think having Lurch or Mr. I Invented the Internet would have been any better. Personally, I am not crazy about the war in Iraq, but better to deal with the Islamotrash over there than over here again.

1. We were told, in unequivical terms, that Hussein had WMDs. A Lie.

2. We were told, in unequivical terms, that Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program. A Lie.

3. We were told that we were in "grave" danger. A Lie.

There were people here who thought otherwise, and had the proof to refute every one of the above assertions. But they were either ignored or their competence was called into question by an insouciant press that was all gung-ho for a splendid little war.

And now you'll have us believe that the reason we're fighting is because of Islamotrash in Iraq. Talk about an Orwellian leap of faith. They weren't there before; and it is highly unlikely that they existed in such numbers before then. And by the way, the administration had been warned about that eventuality. Please look up the term cognitive dissonance.

And please, quote for me from the record somewhere that Al Gore, in his own words, said he invented the internet.

[reprob8]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml)

Text of above link appears below:

Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
By Jason Leopold

t r u t h o u t | Report

Saturday 13 May 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the special prosecutor was unavailable for comment. In the past, Samborn said he could not comment on the case.

The grand jury hearing evidence in the Plame Wilson case met Friday on other matters while Fitzgerald spent the entire day at Luskin's office. The meeting was a closely guarded secret and seems to have taken place without the knowledge of the media.

As TruthOut reported Friday (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml) evening, Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.

Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House, where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.

Speaking on condition of anonymity Friday night, sources confirmed Rove's indictment was imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."

Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.

A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said.

That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.

The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.

But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been
coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.

Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters.

However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column.

The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony and resulted in the indictment.

Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and that the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.

"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward."

Jason Leopold (http://truthout.org/contactjl.php) spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. Jason has spent the last year cultivating sources close to the CIA leak investigation, and is a regular contributor to t r u t h o u t. He is the author of the new book NEWS JUNKIE. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com (http://www.newsjunkiebook.com/) for a preview.


clap: clap: clap: clap: clap:

[Simmi]

May 24, 2006
Unchecked Executive Power

A Winning Argument for Impeachment

By DAVE LINDORFF
It's becoming clear to me that for people on the left, just about everything this president has done is considered impeachable--a sentiment I share.
But it's hard to convince many more conservative people that the president should be tossed out because he lied about the war (they'll argue that he believed the cooked evidence), or because he has authorized torture or started a war of choice (9-11 and all that).
It's equally hard to get conservatives worked up about the NSA spying, which they'll say is needed to go after terrorists. Never mind that the NSA would have no problem getting a court okay to do that, so clearly the spying is for something much more unsavory, like hunting down government leakers who are embarrassing the government, or spying on the so-called "opposition" party, or anti-war activists.
But I find one argument to be very compelling for conservatives of almost all stripes, and that's Bush's overturning or revoking or ignoring of over 750 acts passed by Congress during his two terms of office.
When I point out to these people that if Bush is allowed to invalidate acts of Congress with the stroke of a pen with a claim that he has special powers in his self-defined role as Commander in Chief, then the next president, who could well be a Democrat-indeed who could be (gasp!) Al Gore, John Kerry or, god forbid, that arch-demon of the conservative firmament, Hillary Clinton, they suddenly sit up and pay attention.
Here is an unimpeachable impeachment argument to try on your rabid right Uncle Fred at the next family picnic. Trust me, it works wonderfully.
The odd thing is it doesn't seem to work on the lame-o's in the Democratic Party leadership. They're still running from impeachment as fast as they can, claiming that the public doesn't want "all that divisiveness." They're saying, like House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, that Democrats need to focus on their "agenda," whatever that is.
But what I want to know is this: Let's just suppose that somehow the Democrats manage to win the 15 additional seats that they need in order to take over the House in November. Let's say they do even better than expected, and pick up a health majority of 25-30 seats. Now, supposedly, they would be able to pursue that liberal (are we allowed to say that?) agenda. So they would pass bills maybe banning oil exploration on the Alaskan north slope, make Medicare drugs cheaper, legalize stem cell research and maybe slap mileage mandates on cars.
And the president would issue signing orders setting those acts aside or gutting their main provisions, as he has done with torture bans, the establishment of an independent inspector to examine corruption, and numerous other congressionally passed measures.
In other words, as long as this president, with his delusional view of executive power, it won't matter if the Democrats take the House or both houses of Congress. He must be removed from office.
The president must be impeached for rank and blatant abuse of power in subverting the very basis of the republic. The Founders envisioned a tripartite government in which Congress, elected directly by the people, legislates, and the President implements. This president has decided that he can assume the power to legislate, too, by deciding which laws, or portions of laws, passed by Congress, he will implement.
No nation where a leader claims and is allowed to exercise that kind of power can call itself democratic.
No party that allows such a usurpation to go unchallenged can call itself an opposition.

[sandy61]

A big WAAH to all.
I dont think that Bush will be impeached. Get over it. If someone with the problems that Clinton had was unable to be impeached, what makes you think that our current president would be impeached. So you want to impeach a politician for lying, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.

reprob8 - There were WMD's found, 500 according to this article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200726,00.html

In a country as big as Iraq, and with the past use of chemical weapons by Saddam, to unequivocally claim that there were or are none seems to be a bit arrogant. I agree with the article in the fact that there were not the amounts found as originally claimed (100,000), but there have indeed been WMD's found.

Clinton was offered 4 times the chance to capture Bin Lauden, so I agree with the guest comment about him being responsible for 9/11. I don't recall him being a problem prior to Clinton. I also don't think that tons of money were taken by Bin Lauden from western sources in the 80's. I would be interested in your sources (the pirate), especially since OBL has plenty of cash from his family and supporters.

Snopes has a good article on what Al Gore said.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
You read into it what you want. He needs a better speech writer.

[reprob8]

A big WAAH to all.
I dont think that Bush will be impeached. Get over it. If someone with the problems that Clinton had was unable to be impeached, what makes you think that our current president would be impeached. So you want to impeach a politician for lying, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.

reprob8 - There were WMD's found, 500 according to this article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200726,00.html

In a country as big as Iraq, and with the past use of chemical weapons by Saddam, to unequivocally claim that there were or are none seems to be a bit arrogant. I agree with the article in the fact that there were not the amounts found as originally claimed (100,000), but there have indeed been WMD's found.

Clinton was offered 4 times the chance to capture Bin Lauden, so I agree with the guest comment about him being responsible for 9/11. I don't recall him being a problem prior to Clinton. I also don't think that tons of money were taken by Bin Lauden from western sources in the 80's. I would be interested in your sources (the pirate), especially since OBL has plenty of cash from his family and supporters.

Snopes has a good article on what Al Gore said.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
You read into it what you want. He needs a better speech writer.

Pirate, you handle the questions directed at you.

From my side here are a few quick replies, with more to come later:

- With respect to WMDs being found, if I didn't know better I could swear they came from the office of Senator Rick Santorum.

- Relying on an an opinion-based show such as Hannity and Combs for your sole source of information on the recent WMD finds, is akin to relying on the Koran as the sole foundation for determining whether women are entitled to the same rights as men. A simple search on Google would have yielded more than enough sources to put the lie to that claim.

- Gore's comment occurred within the context of an interview, not a speech. A speech writer within such a venue would have been cumbersome at the least.

I'll finish up addressing the rest of your claims later.

[Textech]

O.K. Pirate...deeep breaths....calm down...

You were 100% right. You forgot to mention the Billions (American billions) spent on construction projects in Saudi Arabia in the 70s, and 80s, with Bin Laden himself as the contractor, and actual onsite engineer at times when he wasn't physically in Afghanistan. I know this is true because my Father was the construction manager on one of these jobs in 82-83. Back then, Bin Laden was a hero freedom fighter.

[guest]

On Wednesday afternoon, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum--along with Michigan Congressman Peter Hoekstra--held a press conference where they breathlessly announced that WMD had in fact been found in Iraq. Santorum's office billed this as a "major announcement." The press release quotes Santorum as saying: "This is critically important information that the world community needs to know." At the press conference, Santorum said:

This is an incredibly -- in my mind -- significant
finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have
repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of
the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass
destruction, is in fact false.

We have found over 500 weapons of mass
destruction. And in fact have found that there are
additional weapons of mass -- chemical weapons,
still in the country, that need to be recovered.


So what exactly was found? According to the document Santorum cites:

Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered
approximately 500 weapons munitions which
contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

Since 2003? Degraded? These hardly seem like the long lost, mythical WMD. And if they are, why have several independent commissions and the White House itself subsequently acknowledged that there were no WMD?

If you're guessing that the answer to this riddle is that Santorum is a clown, you're right. According to Dafna Linzer of the Washington Post (page A10):

The lawmakers [Santorum and Hoekstra] pointed
to an unclassified summary from a report by the
National Ground Intelligence Center regarding
500 chemical munitions shells that had been
buried near the Iranian border, and then long
forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year
war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that
several crates of the old shells had been uncovered
and that they contained a blister agent that was no
longer active. Neither the military nor the White
House nor the CIA considered the shells to be
evidence of what was alleged by the Bush
administration to be a current Iraqi program to
make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the
shells were old and were not the suspected
weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after
the 2003 invasion.

Of course, that didn't stop Santorum and Hoekstra from pretending like this was earth-shattering news and thereby intentionally misinforming a lot of people. Santorum went on Hannity & Colmes last week to hype the story. Various right wing pundits and blogs quickly picked up the story and ran with it (though, to be fair, some of the more intelligent ones saw right through the stunt).

This is how GOP political propaganda works. You hype a completely trivial fact in an entirely misleading way in order to make a point that is the opposite of the truth. The claim is then repeated by the unscrupulous and the confused, and a significant percentage of the public ends up hearing it. The next day the claim is debunked in a story on page A10 of the paper, but by then the damage has already been done.

[guest]

Defense Department Disavows Santorum?s WMD Claims

Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced ?we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.? Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House?s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/santorum-wmd/).
Fox News? Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra?s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are ?not the WMD?s for which this country went to war.?

Transcript:
COLMES: Congressman, Senator, it?s Alan Colmes. Senator, the Iraq Survey Group ? let me go to the Duelfer Report ? says that Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle reported this for Fox News quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded. And the official went on to say these are not the WMD?s this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMD?s for which this country went to war. So the chest beating at this Republicans are doing tonight thinking this is a justification is not confirmed by the defense department.
SANTORUM: I?d like to know who that is. The fact of the matter is, I?ll wait and see what the actual Defense Department formally says or more important what the administration formally says.


The Bush administration commissioned the Iraq Survey Group to determine whether in fact any WMD existed in Iraq. After a year and half of meticulously combing through the country, here?s what the administration?s own inspectors reported (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm):
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad?s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
The White House should immediately announce whether it stands with Santorum or whether it stands behind the review conducted by Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group. Recall, in October 2004, Bush said of Duelfer?s analysis (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14897-2004Oct7?language=printer):
The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.
Fox News isn?t waiting for an administration statement. Their right wing pundits are already peddling the story as truth. Host John Gibson: ?Sen. Rick Santorum announcing a startling find ? In fact, WMDs were found in Iraq.?

[reprob8]

Re Guest posts # 25 and 26: Not disagreeing with what you posted. However, if those were not your own words, please identify the source, less our illustrious webmaster get his 'nads in a legal vice.

[MAllen]

huh4:
This is how GOP political propaganda works. You hype a completely trivial fact in an entirely misleading way in order to make a point that is the opposite of the truth. The claim is then repeated by the unscrupulous and the confused, and a significant percentage of the public ends up hearing it. The next day the claim is debunked in a story on page A10 of the paper, but by then the damage has already been done.


Lets make this a bit more clear shell we,

This is how ALL political propaganda works.

And what say most of the people to this? hide1: sleep: huh4:

[sandy61]

Reprob8 ? Please note that I wasn?t disagreeing with your other points, my main item is the WMD claims. Either he had some or he didn?t. I believe that there are more to be found. As for Fox news, you find what you can get. I find it interesting that other new outlets that I look at (CNN, MSNBC) never said a peep about the WMD?s that have been found. I would think that it should be news worthy since there have been many claims that there were none.

Pirate ? Where does Rush come into play in any of my comments? I don?t even listen to him. Bin Laden and his jihad is decidedly anti-west. They would like to destroy us and Europe. I would like to see some legitimate news articles showing that he took money from the west during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Please post some real news sources for your claims (CNN, MSNBC, and Fox). Your BBC sources would also be acceptable, just prove to me the link from the west to OBL.
Clinton committed perjury, pure and simple; however, I?m glad he didn?t get removed from office. If he had acted on taking care of bin laden instead of trying to keep his fly zipped, 9/11 may not have happened. So yes, I believe he is to blame.
I would like your source for the $20 Bush comment. I was unable to find it. Acceptable news sources again please.
As for your other comments, you should stay away from the conspiracy web sites (rense.com, surfingtheapocalypse.com, etc?), that will help your comments remain more coherent.

For the guest comments, you guys should sign up to take credit for your comments. I would also like to see your sources.

[sandy61]

Pirate - Looking back thru the posts on here, at least reprob8 would post his sources. You make all these claims about the association of the Bushes with OBL then prove it. If you have some newspaper sources, where are they? Most papers are online now; tell me where these articles are. Don?t assume that everyone has seen the same articles you have seen. I am somewhat open minded and there are even times when I will even agree with Reprob8 on some things. All I am asking for is your proof.

My point with the rense.com & surfingtheapocalypse.com websites is that they run left-wing conspiracy crap. There are also plenty of right-wing sites out there to. I am very leery of paying to much attention to them. I was just checking to see if these types of sites were where you were getting your information.

BTW - What is the capitol of south america?

[The Pirate]

where i live, miami/ft lauderdale, fl. any opinions on that? do the tea leaves tell you who i am by where i live? expect the unexpected.
it has been my experience that when proof is so greatly desired by the opponent in a exchange of this type, to prove a point, even direct quotes will never be enough. i do not think there are black helicopters over my house, they are just helicopters doing what ever they do. is there a left/right wing conspiracy, i don't know. as all the talking heads that blabber all the extremes on the left and the right i don't have a staff to prepare me for direct quote and conclusive proof. only 2 people know what bill did to monica. only 2 people know what made jfk jr's plane go down. we don't know that bush or clinton or whoever did whatever, as we were not there. we opinionate. i do not spend the time you people seem to have to copy all the news fit to print. i served active duty from gerry ford to george the first, my life experience and my access to average daily reading materials are my sources. i quote none, nor expect to be quoted. thats not my point. i lived, saw, heard, voted, regretted, opinionated, answered. if you think there are wmd in iraq, fine. i'm waiting to see them on the news with shrub pointing at them. is bush the compassionate conservative? not from where i sit. are his policies good for america and the world we live in, I don't think so, but i can't prove it! are americans getting killed in iraq everyday? yes. are the iraqi people happy we are there? doesn't look like it. should we be there at all? i don't think so.
do i support our troops, definitely and with respect and pride. do i want them home asap? he!! yes. do i want you to find someone else to argue with? most definitely. am i done? yes.

[Textech]

Daaaamn Pirate, You're alright! Even if you do chose to live on America's wang.:biggrin:

[The Pirate]

i did not mention that i also chose to have today as my last day at work for airbus and will be living in Gods Country by the end of July. for those who don't know, wisconsin is refered to as gods country, just ask "old style beer, brewed in Gods Country". it actually was used by the old folks that wisconsin was gods country because he spared most of it from the last ice age. there are really cool "moraines" the piles of rock and gravel the ice shelf left when it melted all over the northern half, Kettle Moraine Park betweem Milwaukee and Madison wisconsin is awsome, check it out sometime.

p.s. thank you.

[The Pirate]

Daaaamn Pirate, You're alright! Even if you do chose to live on America's wang.:biggrin:
FYI, in the local language, Cubano, it's "Pinga", wang is more china town!!:winkie:

[guest]

Is Sandy61 for real? The world rarely sees such rantings anymore just as we don't see too many adults believing in Santa either.

Can you believe the bumper sticker philosophy? Right down to the fallback on Clinton and even a Dixie Chicks bash in another post. What's next, France bashing?

There are too many ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family. And if you think otherwise than you have your head in the sand. For Christ's sake, read the paper. That crime family goes all the way back to Prescott Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush), who served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926
until 1942. That evidence is located in the National Archives and Library of Congress in case you decide to spout about that one.

Produce news stories? Are you serious? Have you not heard on Jim Bath? Arbusto Energy? Holy shit, HELLO??? Are you even aware that on 9/11/2001 Dubya's daddy was in a meeting with Osama bin Laden's brother, Shafig bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden), in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Washington to discuss Carlyle Group business?

Dubya ties to Osama? No. Ties to the family itself? This has already been proven.

[nastyb]

Does anybody know how old sandy61 is? Maybe that has something to do with his/her view points.

[nastyb]

The Pirate, I thought you would have moved back to Washington state.biggrin:

[The Pirate]

The Pirate, I thought you would have moved back to Washington state.biggrin:
know of any jobs open for an a320/a330/a340 simtech there??
got tired of choppin trees down and jerkin lumber off the mill chain long ago. i'd like to live back home again, but where the jobs are, the cost to live there is way too hi for a one income set up. where i can afford to live is too far to drive the I5 corridor. you wouldn't happen to need a house boy or a gardener would ya?, i work cheap if room and board ar in the deal!!!demon: laugh:

[reprob8]

Sandy61:

A ?big waah to all?? Is that supposed to be some sort of in-our-face crying jag? Perhaps it?s best to save it for the families of those who came back in flag-draped coffins. But I doubt they?ll see the humor in it. Let me introduce you to one such family:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0319-05.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0319-05.htm)

Grounds for impeachment go beyond mere lies, Sandy, but to the devastating impact those lies have had. Clinton lied to save himself the personal embarrassment of getting caught in a sexual peccadillo. Yet even at that level it does not constitute perjury. Perjury requires that the lie given under oath pertain to a material fact in a case. The Lewinsky-Clinton liaison was not considered material issue in Jones vs. Clinton as ruled by the judge in the case. Former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has written, and I?m paraphrasing, that the lie itself is must be of such a nature as to cause harm to another person. As I?ve written before, even if we admit to the fact that Clinton did indeed commit perjury, it is doubtful that it rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Best example I can provide is Richard Nixon, during the Watergate scandal. He filed a tax return in which he claimed somewhere in the vicinity of $500,000 in government upgrades to his San Clemente home as a tax deduction for himself. Yet none of the articles of impeachment that were being drawn up against him pertained this tax fraud.

Now consider the lies of George Walker Bush. War is probably the most momentous decision that any country can enter into; families are devastated, the fabric of civil society can be ripped apart, the national treasury is depleted, and it threatens to dehumanize all who participate. It may have been Thomas Paine who said that war was too important an issue to be decided upon by one man. If a president is to go before the Congress and ask for a resolution involving military action against another country, then it becomes his responsibility to present a compelling argument for such action, and the facts in question must be such that they support your case. How in the world can we expect Congress to make such a decision, based on cherry-picked evidence, knowingly falsified documents, and statements from sources of dubious integrity to say the least? Understand something here, this administration's case for war was unequivocal. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Hussein has purchased aluminum tubes for which there is no other use than as centrifuges for manufacturing weapons-grade uranium. There is no doubt that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program. Notice that there is no parsing of words in these statements made by administration officials. There is no allowance made for doubt. According to previous administration officials, such as Richard Clark, the Bush administration had its sights set on Iraq since the first inauguration, before, during, and after September 11. Representative Henry Waxman?s office has released a report entitled Iraq on the Record detailing 237 misleading statements made by this administration as a causus belli. Click here: http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

Notice too how this administration via very clever means induced the American people to conflate the attacks of September 11 with Saddam Hussein. On paper a simple statement can be understood in the context in which is presented. Example: - ?The attacks of September 11, serve as warning that states that support terrorism, such as Hussein?s Iraq, must be dealt with.? However, we as a people rely more and more on the electronic media, such as television and radio, as our sole source of news. We are apt to remember only the key words we hear, especially if they?re repeated constantly: September 11 ? Hussein, September 11 ? Hussein, September 11 ? Hussein...Say it often enough and in our mind?s eye we have made the connection, all evidence to the contrary.

It?s rather interesting that you should mention conspiracy theories and how leery you are of lending them any credence. Your skepticism is to be commended, and I?m not trying to be disingenuous. But is this not what the administration presented the American people, a complete fabrication about a supposed conspiracy by Saddam Hussein, who with a fresh stockpile of chemical, biological, and probably nuclear weapons was ready to deploy them against us, either directly or by proxy? Who then is the conspiracy theorist at this juncture when you try scare the American people into war with accusations spun out of whole cloth? It is not for us to prove without equivocation that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The burden falls squarely on those who asked for the authority to commit our troops into hostile action. There need not be unequivocal evidence either. But there was more than enough to call the whole thing into question. Lastly, I?m willing to venture that there is more documented evidence to be found establishing a close connection, business or otherwise, between the Bush family and the bin Ladens and House of Saud than there is establishing a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Aqaeda and the resurgence of any WMD program in Iraq.

Just what WMDs that were found are you talking about? Are these the same weapons hyped by Senator Rick Santorum and Representative Pete Hoekstra? If there is, there?s ample space to refute such claims. Click here just for starters:


http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2006/06/23/olbermannSantorumWmdsFalseStory.html

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062306.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/us/23believers.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I remember in 1998 pundits and politicians alike asking what do they tell their children with respect to Clinton-Lewinsky affair. Let?s carry it forward to the present. What are we to tell the parents of Karina Lau, the subject of the Chronicle article? ?We?re real sorry for the loss of your daughter. She died an honorable death in service to her country, but unfortunately it was all based on lie. You now how it is, politicians lie, and sometimes people get hurt. What can you do?? Or, ?Your daughter?s was an honorable death in service to her country. Regrettably, it was all for a dishonorable end, perpetrated by a cabal of deceitful men in the highest reaches of power. We know it?s small consolation, but these men will made to answer for what they have done, if for no other reason to make it clear as to what the consequences are for anyone who dare attempt the same in the future.?

[nastyb]

The Pirate, Bob is already my house boy and other misc. tasks. laugh: You are right, it is expensive out here. If we ever need a house sitter during the winter, we will let you know. Sound ok?

[The Pirate]

deal, just make sure it's during the puyalup fair, if they still have it.
or i'll take my pay in ivar's clam chowder and fresh halibut steaks!!!arms:

[little jake]

Hey Pirate, just make sure you are in Wis. for deer season so I can come up there to hunt!
Take care in the "Great White Nort" ya,
The last of the Three Amigos... little jake.

[The Pirate]

your welcome any time, my brother. just make sure you bring enough diapers and wipes, cause i'm too old to change them nasty things!!. we'll get a .223 for the kid, and he/she can sit the drive!~!!!!!!!bump:
i wish you and the wife peace and love, and a long life together and all your kids grow up like they do in lake woe-be-gone, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the kids are above average!!!!
keep your stick on the ice, eh?
and tell APF to have a coke and a smile and shut the f'&* up!!!
bump: arms: star:

[little jake]

With the kid coming at least there will be someone to walk the trees and kick the deer out!!

[The Pirate]

yeah, we can put a little blaze orange/camo snow suit on the little bugger from gander mountain and let 'em crawl around the tree stand!!
"and while yer down der, get daddy a beer."!!!dunce: jester:

[andy]

Any copies of articles I PLEASE ask that you post the source. This website is a one person operation and I have received several threatening letters from lawyers in the past because copyrighted articles were posted without crediting the source, or articles were posted out of context without the authors' permission.

I don't care what's said... but if you copy it from another site PLEASE PLEASE simply list the link of the source.

I'm busy fixing up the house and listing books on eBay, so I don't have time to check all posts. If there is an issue (and there always is wink: ) would folks please send me a private message or email?

Post what you want... say what you wish (this is still a free country) but if you grabbed it from another site all that I ask is that you please reference the source.

[LBLUNTX]

I've been following this tread and others of a simular vein with mild amusement. Apparently there are some strong opinions out there from a variety of Americans and at least one Canuk.
Apparently, The general consensus is G. W. Bush is a total moron, so moronic in fact, that any of you, especially those of you who can write a coherent sentence and love to spout off about it regularly, could have done a better job.
I hear-by issue a challenge to all of you Presidentially challenged individuals, What would you have done as president after 9-11.
If you read the New York Times, you should have plenty of classified intelligence to work with, and you all have extraordinary powers of deduction so this should be a breeze, walk in the park, etc.
Just a couple of caveats, Don't tell us what you'd not do (we've already heard that), And don't agree with anything G. W. has done (such as Afganistan, attempting to hunt down Osama, etc), because He's such a freakin idiot, missing from a town in Texas, that He couldn't possibly run the Executive branch, execute a war against terrorism ( where ever it may occur or be condoned), and chew gum at the same time. Also simply electing (insert name here) to the presidency is not an answer, because the majority of them don't have an answer either,other than the classical Monty Python's "Run away, Run away", even though they do have speech writers who can write a coherent paragraph.
Good luck and Godspeed.:winkie:

P.S. If this wasn't coherent enough, PM me and I'll go over it with you REAL SLOW. Thank you.:biggrin:

LBLUNTX
(Still hangin wit da rednecks in south Georgia, for the time being, dang dat BRAC)gurn:

[The Pirate]

presidents don't run anything anymore, do they? thats what the cling-ons are for, right? bush good, any other opinion bad. free expression shrinking. unpatriotic if bad things said about king george II, yeah, i know. never did like the weather at gitmo. still can't figure out all the pictures of old pinch face lovin up to saddam for ordering the right number of chemical weapons for future oil deals. kinda hard to fake that.

O.K., here's my answer to your challenge.
shoulda nuked the goat buggerin jerks, i heard if you get vaporized, the amount of virgins doubles, and you get head-of -the line rights at the table with lunch with ala, and you get mohamed's parking space for a month.
besides, nuke iraq, and all the other b.s. wanna be's get right back in line.

logic behind strategic weapons, if you ain't got the stones like truman did, don't send in our troops to die by terrorism, which is what we were told the war is about.

reason i think the nuke option was not used? can't get close to the oil for a few thousand years, can't use it.
cloud: lolhit:
signed, another incoherent babbling fool with a bad case of free expression and constitutional rights, we have those you know, i know it's been a while since we were reminded.

[LBLUNTX]

Dear Irate Pirate,
Thank you for your prompt reply, and your assumptions about myself, and yes I have read the constitution and completely defend your right to express yourself. My questions are simply an exercise in said rights, or are conservatives not allowed an opinion. Some liberals are already expressing that people of faith should not be allowed to vote because of the so called "Separation of church and state". I hope you're not in that crowd.
Now exactly, other than Iraq, where would you drop the BOMB, if Jimmy Carter had not given away the Neutron bomb, we could 'nuke em and go back in a couple of months and restart oil production and keep all those soccer moms in their SUVs happy, but of course France and Kerry wouldn't be happy, but I digress. I do disagree with you on the nuclear option, but it is a novel approach and has not been talked about by either party or the main stream press, so you get 5 points for originality, but lose 10 points for making America a pariah for generations to come.

LBLUNTX

[The Pirate]

do i get points for being a sarcastic jerk?
no, seperation of church and state are there so we didn' end up like the english of days of yore where the state had an official religion and everyone else was a heretic and burned at the stake, or so we didn't end up with the taliban. we ended up with the "of the people, by the people, for the people , one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty nd justice for ALL, which needs to be. prayer in school, i grew up with prayer at ball games, graduation, sunday school, we stood up proud and loud as we recited the pledge of alegence EVERY day of school, took our hats off at parades as old glory passed by and either saluted or hand over heart. didn't warp my mind, i did that all on my own. boy scout leaders were not gay or sstraight, just in charge . democrats and republicans stood side by side , difference of opinion, but still were decent to each other, respectfull of each other, we let our politicians do the deciding by democratic process, trusting that they indeed had our lives in their minds and in our hands as they made hard decisions. now if i say the wrong thing about the present administration, i get this kind of stuff, flamed, blamed, and the opposers telling me i'm liberal, or anti-something, or un-american, fill in the blankety blank. far left wing flamers are just as bad as far right wing flamers, too far out for me, too extreme, too agravating, too loud, which gives both a loud voice and seen as representing all the views of each party from center out to far edge of both wingsgiving other the opinion that these whaco's represenmt the majority of each said party. rush no more represents me than al gore or ralph nader or ross perot. the dixie chick or toby keith don't represent me, as i don't get filthy rich fighting on stage singing about my veiwas, but they have a right to do so, just as the audience has a right to pay too much for tickets to see either one. green is a color, not a political view. i stood watch and watched with total amasement as the coast guard patrol boats blasted green peace off zodiac boats with water cannons to keep them off the USS OHIO SSBN 726 arrived at the subase for the first time at home station and cheered my ass off as the were then rescued from balmy 36deg water in hood canal in washington state. i stood watch in groton, ct. as the protesters tried to throw cows blood on my nice clean uniform calling us baby killers because the ship i was on had the capability to carry and deploy strategic weapons at the evil empire. i road around under the ocean hopin like hell that that alarm was just a drill, but stood ready to carry out our mission ifm asked. it made me mad, cause dress blues were expensive to clean and replace, but i hold no grudge, the americans in the crowd had the right to protest. thats why i was there, and my shipmates were there, to uphold these rights. liberal or conservative do not describe me, i have conservative thoughts about liberal subjects and vice versa. the one thing that gets me the most vocal is when someone tells me what i am, or what i should be. i do not think celebrity's represent me, nor do i think bush is right. he is the president. i respect the office, not the man. i am aware, awake and capable of forming, making and expresing my own opinions, sarcastic or not. i read what others write and the arguments they get pro or con. i am me. we dis-agree. we agree. we exchange ideas. we interact. we flame.
i'm going to catch it now, as i have broken 2 of the rules my granndpa tried to teach me, don't argue politics or religion, you can never win. leave that to the politicians and the preachers. i don't want to nuke anybody. i don't want to lose any more fellow countrymen fighting on foreign soil. i don't want whaco's blowing up our building here on our soil, oklahoma, new york, or anywhere else. i want to walk softly but carry a big stick. i want our troops home protecting us, not oil. i think nixon lied. i think clinton had sex with monica. i think binladen is a terrorist. i think i'm done. i think i broke spell check.

[reprob8]

I've been following this tread and others of a simular vein with mild amusement. Apparently there are some strong opinions out there from a variety of Americans and at least one Canuk.
Apparently, The general consensus is G. W. Bush is a total moron, so moronic in fact, that any of you, especially those of you who can write a coherent sentence and love to spout off about it regularly, could have done a better job.
I hear-by issue a challenge to all of you Presidentially challenged individuals, What would you have done as president after 9-11.
If you read the New York Times, you should have plenty of classified intelligence to work with, and you all have extraordinary powers of deduction so this should be a breeze, walk in the park, etc.
Just a couple of caveats, Don't tell us what you'd not do (we've already heard that), And don't agree with anything G. W. has done (such as Afganistan, attempting to hunt down Osama, etc), because He's such a freakin idiot, missing from a town in Texas, that He couldn't possibly run the Executive branch, execute a war against terrorism ( where ever it may occur or be condoned), and chew gum at the same time. Also simply electing (insert name here) to the presidency is not an answer, because the majority of them don't have an answer either,other than the classical Monty Python's "Run away, Run away", even though they do have speech writers who can write a coherent paragraph.
Good luck and Godspeed.:winkie:

P.S. If this wasn't coherent enough, PM me and I'll go over it with you REAL SLOW. Thank you.:biggrin:

LBLUNTX
(Still hangin wit da rednecks in south Georgia, for the time being, dang dat BRAC)gurn:


It was my sad misfortune to witness Connie Chung singing Thanks For The Memories following the cancellation of her show on MSNBC. Without a doubt, the woman has no talent for singing. Does the fact that I?m not a singer preclude me from criticizing her performance? Does it mean that I aspire to be singer myself? Yet that is the logic you apply to those of us who question George Bush?s competence and intelligence.

We?ll humor you just the same. However, I will not abide by the arbitrary limits you place on the issue at hand. So if I was to tell you what I would not do, and it causes you any distress, skip a few lines. But you cannot divorce what this administration did from those actions it should not have pursued, since the latter served as a distraction, and an impediment in the effective prosecution of the former, in terms of lives, resources, and money. In addition, your mention of ?Run way, run away? can only be construed as an oblique reference and critique of those who criticize the administration?s policies in Iraq. Yet somehow you now impose a prior constraint on our mentioning of that war.

The first step should have been to go in and take out the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Oops, and contrary to your terms, that?s what George did. It doesn?t take a genius to figure that one out. In W?s case, that old adage applies: even a broken clock is right two times a day. Yet even then, as we?ve heard from former administration insiders, there was an initial attempt to lay the blame for September 11 on Saddam Hussein.

The next step should have been to convene an international summit of European, Asian and American states with the goal of not only creating an international clearinghouse for the exchange of data and intelligence on groups such as Al Qaeda, but also the creation of several international rapid-response forces whose goal is to move in on and destroy the bases from which these criminals operate, and arrest their opratives. It would also require the use of the one resource that was missing in tracking the movements of Al Qaeda: ass-in-grass human intelligence. If John Walker Lind could walk into Afghanistan and find himself in an Al Qaeda training camp, why couldn?t an undercover operative? We simply cannot go-it-alone with this issue. And don?t call it a war. You declare war on other nations, not religious ideologies and tactics. You are dealing with insects invading your house from the outside. If you use a bazooka instead of an appropriate insecticide, you only wind up letting more of them in.

The next step, and this is the tricky one, would have been to address local issues of government responsiveness to the problems of civil society in the very countries that have spawned these radical groups. If we lend financial and military support to countries where government corruption is the order of the day, you can expect more of its disenfranchised and alienated population to become a ripe recruiting pool for religious and political demagogues.

Ask and listen to the counsel of others, especially outside your immediate staff, and your biological father, not some voice within the inner reccesses of your mind, which you now ascribe God. At times loyalty demands that we convey the most uncomfortable truths to those we love or serve, not act yes men and enablers.

The American people deserve answers. Don?t wait two years to be dragged kicking and screaming to establish a commission to review the facts of September 11. And make sure it is an independent commission with full access to all relevant documents, and power of subpoena. I think it was a gentleman by the name of Lincoln who said that this was a government of, by, and for the people. It is still the foundation for a republic, your Attorney General, the doctrine of a unitary executive, and presidential signing statements notwithstanding.

Do you mean to say that W was attempting to hunt down Osama bin Laden? Is this the same W who in March of 2002 said Osama was irrelevant?

I don?t know what secret information you refer to that the NY Times has. Are you now in agreement with the wingnuts on Faux News and hate radio ? is there a difference? ? who now, with pitchforks and torches raised, call for the head of Times editor Bill Keller? Over what, publishing something that has been common knowledge since days after 9-11? Click here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200607010004 (http://mediamatters.org/items/200607010004)

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/category/keith-olbermann/ (http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/category/keith-olbermann/)

I have not witnessed such paroxysms of angst and anger from the Right since Valeria Plame?s non-official-cover was blown. Oops, I stand corrected?they didn?t say a damn thing, did they?

Lastly, stupidity and rascality, in its archaic form, are not mutually exclusive. The presence of the former can lull a potential victim into thinking that such an individual is harmless. A dangerous assumption to make as the past five years have proven.

PS: I?ll concur with most of Pirate?s response. We may not even agree on the time of day. But we agree on the times we?re living in.

[reprob8]

...Some liberals are already expressing that people of faith should not be allowed to vote because of the so called "Separation of church and state"...

LBLUNTX

Source please. Who are these ?some liberals? of which you speak?

For your edification:

http://www.constitution.org/jm/17850620_remon.htm (http://www.constitution.org/jm/17850620_remon.htm)

[The Pirate]

THANK YOU!!!
i've been trying to find that for aong time, just couldn't find it. didn't think to look under the virginia link.:winkie:

[reprob8]

You may want to consider following:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/index.html

[The Pirate]

thanks again.

[sandy61]

Pirate ? Like I have said before, I?ll keep an open mind on most things, even if I don?t agree on them or like them. Both you and Reprob8 bring up some valid points in your arguments, all I was asking for were some links to the comments that you seem to think are general knowledge for everyone. Like OBL being good buds with him and the CIA. The only article that I could find was this one: http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp , however there is something wrong with the link and you can?t view the whole story. Most of the other links I was able to bring up were from conspiracy type web sites with little to no credibility.

Here is another WMD story: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/01/MNG7MJNURS1.DTL

Clearly, the amount of weapons yet found doesn?t reach what was claimed. But it is more proof that Iraq had WMD?s.

Pirate ? My comment about the capital of South America was just that I was curious to what you were referring to. Nothing else, I assumed Miami. I hope you enjoy Wisconsin. I also would not label you a lefty; I just think you don?t like the Prez.

To the lamer guest - As far as the Dixie Chicks go, I was just wondering where others opinions stood on them. I have mine (just guess) but I would like to see some others. Why don?t you quote me some NY Times or MSNBC sources on the Bush, OBL link since you are such a Seeing Eye know-it-all? And please, don?t be afraid to use your real login.

Please don?t assume from my postings that I am enjoying Iraq. I think that we should have finished in Afghanistan before we went out looking for another fight. That being said, it was obvious that the sanctions and all were not working there. The remainder of the coalition forces that were left, were conducting air raids on almost a daily basis. If the UN and our so-called European allies had any real balls they would have helped us get a handle on whole Iraq issue before it was escalated.

As far as GW?s reasons for going in, how many of you were sitting in on his CIA and NSA briefings? You probably have no real idea what type of information they were feeding him on Iraq, right or wrong. I think that he actually believed in all the reasons we went into Iraq. Maybe the poor/wrong intel is why he will never get impeached.


reason i think the nuke option was not used? can't get close to the oil for a few thousand years, can't use it.

You can still drill thru the glass.

[reprob8]

Pirate ? Like I have said before, I?ll keep an open mind on most things, even if I don?t agree on them or like them. Both you and Reprob8 bring up some valid points in your arguments, all I was asking for were some links to the comments that you seem to think are general knowledge for everyone. Like OBL being good buds with him and the CIA. The only article that I could find was this one: http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp , however there is something wrong with the link and you can?t view the whole story. Most of the other links I was able to bring up were from conspiracy type web sites with little to no credibility.

Here is another WMD story: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/01/MNG7MJNURS1.DTL

Clearly, the amount of weapons yet found doesn?t reach what was claimed. But it is more proof that Iraq had WMD?s.

Pirate ? My comment about the capital of South America was just that I was curious to what you were referring to. Nothing else, I assumed Miami. I hope you enjoy Wisconsin. I also would not label you a lefty; I just think you don?t like the Prez.

To the lamer guest - As far as the Dixie Chicks go, I was just wondering where others opinions stood on them. I have mine (just guess) but I would like to see some others. Why don?t you quote me some NY Times or MSNBC sources on the Bush, OBL link since you are such a Seeing Eye know-it-all? And please, don?t be afraid to use your real login.

Please don?t assume from my postings that I am enjoying Iraq. I think that we should have finished in Afghanistan before we went out looking for another fight. That being said, it was obvious that the sanctions and all were not working there. The remainder of the coalition forces that were left, were conducting air raids on almost a daily basis. If the UN and our so-called European allies had any real balls they would have helped us get a handle on whole Iraq issue before it was escalated.

As far as GW?s reasons for going in, how many of you were sitting in on his CIA and NSA briefings? You probably have no real idea what type of information they were feeding him on Iraq, right or wrong. I think that he actually believed in all the reasons we went into Iraq. Maybe the poor/wrong intel is why he will never get impeached.




You can still drill thru the glass.


Sandy61:

You are quite right. Those 500 canisters are proof that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It does not constitute proof that in 2002 he had a stockpile on the order of a ?conservative estimate of 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.? (not my words, but Colin Powell in February of 2003). Or would have us now believe that a blind man can see, by virtue of the fact that he once had sight and still has eyes?

Do you believe in all honesty that the American people would have approved of an invasion of Iraq if we strip away all other pretexts and go on the mere assertion that there may still be left over WMD agents in a degraded state? A few years ago I read an online article from the Independent of London in which a former Blair official stated that any left over chemical agents from 1991 were of no use, because Iraq?s production of those agents was such that they had a shelf life of no more than five years. I believe Scott Ritter made a similar assertion.

Again, this administration made the unequivocal claim that Hussein had revived his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. He was armed to the teeth and ready to strike. ?The danger is real,? so said George Bush on March 17th of 2003. But how can that be, when throughout the 1990s the UN Security Council, led by the US and UK, had slapped such a stringent import embargo on Hussein?s Iraq that water purification chemicals and tanker trucks were not allowed because of the potential risk they carried for being dual-use technology?

As for asking how many of us were sitting in on those CIA briefings, that?s a bit specious. How many analysts complained about being pressured to produce intelligence that conformed to policy? More than a few made such a claim, some anonymously, while others resigned. This occurred during the lead-up to the war. But the press was too busy dressing up for George and Dick?s excellent adventure in Babylon. One study, from FAIR I believe, listed the number of guests appearing on news shows, who favored an invasion, as out-numbering those opposed by a 3 to 1 margin. Others such as Scott Ritter were marginalized, their motives and character called into question. Just about every administration claim was called into question in the months prior to the invasion. Look at the 200-plus misleading statements made by this administration. Two or three can be construed as an honest misinterpretation of the facts. But 200 take us into the realm of a conspiracy to deceive that borders on the pathological.

You want sources? Here you go:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html)

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/memo.htm (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/memo.htm)

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/intelligence/11901380.htm (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/intelligence/11901380.htm)

http://www.bnfp.org/neighborhood/VetIntPro_for_Sanity.htm (http://www.bnfp.org/neighborhood/VetIntPro_for_Sanity.htm)

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/aboutoil.htm (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/aboutoil.htm)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2945750.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2945750.stm)

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp07262003.html (http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp07262003.html)

http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/ (http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/)

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2847 (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2847)

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj03prados (http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj03prados)

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/17/intel-pressure (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/17/intel-pressure)

http://www.antiwar.com/av/?articleid=3440 (http://www.antiwar.com/av/?articleid=3440)

Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W Bush By John Dean (2004, Little, Brown, & Co.)

A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America?s Intelligence Agencies by James Bramford (2004, Doubleday)

Go to your local library, preferrably a university research library, and do a search on the Bush family, the Carlyle Group, the Saudi royal family, and the bin Laden family.

American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush by Kevin Phillips (2004, Penguin)

[The Pirate]

no proof, as there is never enough. i do not get the feeling from your post's that proof is not what you really want. your right, i don't like the prez. i don't like dick, never did, don't like rummy, never did. rummy to me dubya is like macnamera to lbj. wrong. rummy should be the compass to guide the prez to filter the intel and help make a good decision on the defense side. i see him as a man that is wringing his hands with glee for war and the profit he will make.
i see dubya as a alfred e. newman puppet that should spend more time prepping his speeches and needs better guidance. i'm glad he prays for guidance, i just think he misunderstood the message he got back.
as far as the other stuff, 7-8 years in south florida will make you sarcastic and jaded if you look like me. over 50, anglo over weight, drive a pickup, own my own guns, don't speak spanish. creole, or spanglish, or poutegese, and driving to work is a challenge in ethnic tolerance every day, 24/7/365.
i feel i wasted my vote on w. because i sure wasn't gonna help elect al moon beam and the greeners, ralph nader ain't gettin my vote, cause he killed the best car i ever drove, and ross perot and the meat monster that he took as his vp was just plain altzheimer'd out, plus i worked on some of the equipment his company sold to the navy, and if he ruled as bad as the tech support, we'd all be back to pony express and smoke signals.
i just think that a broke ass hill billy from ar-kansas that never made more that 20 bucks an hour had a better idea what i live like than a trust fund baby that got his edjecashun by legacy,not sweat and blood. i believe w. cheated on his guard time. most trust fund baby's did in the late 60's and 70's. same reason newt, and rush got 4f'd for boils or flat feet, or whatever. clinton dodged 'nam, smoked pot, went to oxford, etc. so did half the guys my age area when they got the same letter i got. just they went north, cause they didn't get the free ride scholarship, and the beer was better up nort' eh?
we made our decision, i made mine, learned to live with the consequences, and keep my eye's open and my mind alert.whoa: shocked:

[sandy61]

Reprob8 ? Thanks for all the links. Will get back after I have a chance to digest it all.

Pirate ? I liked your alfred e. newman comment.

[reprob8]

Reprob8 ? Thanks for all the links. Will get back after I have a chance to digest it all.

Pirate ? I liked your alfred e. newman comment.

I prefer to think of him more as Eddie Haskell with a college degree.

[The Pirate]

at least eddie had a plan, and lumpy to back him and wally to be the conscience of the group, and ward cleaver got on all their butts when the plan went south.