the poor Democrats

[strandinthewind]

THIS is the best they can do?
_________________________________________________________

Democratic forum focuses on 'Downing Street memo'

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Some congressional Democrats, brandishing a document known as the "Downing Street memo," are insisting that the White House provide more information about what led to the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, and other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee were conducting a public forum Thursday afternoon, prompted by documents that have surfaced from inside the British government about pre-war planning.

The Downing Street memo says the Bush administration believed that war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam.

The "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," says the memo, recounting a July 23, 2002 meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his national security team. The meeting took place just after British officials returned from Washington.

U.S. officials and Blair deny the assertion about intelligence and facts being "fixed," a comment that the memo attributes to the chief of British intelligence at the time. The meeting took place eight months before the invasion of Iraq.

Conyers pointed to past statements by Bush in the run-up to invasion that war would be a last resort. "The veracity of those statements has -- to put it mildly -- come into question," he said.

The London Sunday Times disclosed the contents of the memo May 1.

Bush should respond to questions raised by the Downing Street memo, says a letter signed by Conyers and over 90 other members of Congress, as well as a half-million Americans.

The Sunday Times also reported on an eight-page briefing paper prepared for Blair which concludes that the U.S. military has given "little thought" to the aftermath of a war in Iraq.

The briefing paper of July 21, 2002 says that a postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise and that "as already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/16/downingst.memo.ap/index.html

______________________________________________

I mean though everyone and their brother knew W was hell bent on going to war, W's use of the UN, and his building of coalition (such as it is), W's reliance on essentially the same WMD intelligence Clinton relied on to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (missle strikes and Oil for Food) , and the UN's consistent finding of SH in breach of his duty to account for the WMD - will all exonerate W from any statement I have heard. It pains me to say that because I do not like W, but thems the facts.

[golddustdragon]

"Provide more information"!!! F***, it was the White House that made up the reasons to go to war and... :mad: :mad: :mad:. More proof that there is only one party in this wonderful country.

[strandinthewind]

"Provide more information"!!! F***, it was the White House that made up the reasons to go to war and... :mad: :mad: :mad:. More proof that there is only one party in this wonderful country.


I agree because most of the D's went right along with them hand in hand - Again, Clinton with the urging of Kerry bombed Iraq, killing many, and then during his eight years killed hundreds of thousands with the Oil for Food program - all based on the same BS intelligence. So, I think the R and D party are equally as culpable in this. It is not like W woke up on day and said, Iraq is no longer our friend - let's invade them :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

THIS is the best they can do?
_________________________________________________________



High crimes and misdemeanors aren't enough for you? :confused: Whaddya want, treason?
Do you know that the Republicans weren't even going to let them have this hearing on the Capital Grounds? Do you have any idea how hard they fought just to get this out there? I'll ask you again, have you read the DSM and accompanying documents that were summarized in the article published last Sunday?
Conyers didn't vote for this war. The majority in both the House and Senate are REPUBLICAN.
Remember, Watergate was just a third rate burglary.

[irishgrl]

High crimes and misdemeanors aren't enough for you? :confused: Whaddya want, treason?
Do you know that the Republicans weren't even going to let them have this hearing on the Capital Grounds? Do you have any idea how hard they fought just to get this out there? I'll ask you again, have you read the DSM and accompanying documents that were summarized in the article published last Sunday?
Conyers didn't vote for this war. The majority in both the House and Senate are REPUBLICAN.
Remember, Watergate was just a third rate burglary.

Badum PUM! Well put! and as I always say:

[irishgrl]

by the way, as far as Im concerned, W's misuse of his office (squandering $$, lying to the WORLD etc,) is FAR more deserving of Impeachment than Clinton's dalliance with Monica EVER was. And before you start talking about "having others lie for Clinton" Jason, just add up in yer noggin all the freakin LIES Bush had told by persons in this county and BEYOND. FAR more deserving of impeachment is our disgusting old BushyPOO. :nod: :nod: :nod:

[strandinthewind]

by the way, as far as Im concerned, W's misuse of his office (squandering $$, lying to the WORLD etc,) is FAR more deserving of Impeachment than Clinton's dalliance with Monica EVER was. And before you start talking about "having others lie for Clinton" Jason, just add up in yer noggin all the freakin LIES Bush had told by persons in this county and BEYOND. FAR more deserving of impeachment is our disgusting old BushyPOO. :nod: :nod: :nod:

Why don't you list them for me :wavey:

[irishgrl]

Why don't you list them for me :wavey:

I tried...........I got writer's cramp :xoxo:

[SuzeQuze]

Why don't you list them for me :wavey:

Saddam has WMDs
There's a connection between Iraq and Al Queda
I'm a compassionate conservative
I wasn't wearing a radio to be coached in that debate
I've never been arrested


I'm sure I could look up a bunch more but those are the ones I can rattle off of the top of my head.

Edit: Apparently there are enough for an entire book. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400050669/102-3476398-9593710?v=glance

This Google search brought up a ton of pages:
George W. Bush lies list

[strandinthewind]

Saddam has WMDs
There's a connection between Iraq and Al Queda

. . .



Are you willing to assign those to Clinton and Kerry as well most of the D party :laugh: :wavey: :laugh:

Seriously, both parties have killed hundreds of thousands in the name of the WMD and SH's refusal to account for them as he agreed to do in the treaty that ended the first Gulf War. Thus, my point earlier that W will never be impeached on acting on SH'd refusal, however disingenuous W was. BTW - W never used the word connection, he used the word contacts, which there were, though they were mostly insignificant - thus, he also will never be impeached on that.

In the end, I reassert that the Downing Street Memo carries no teeth in it.

Here is an article on the connection vs. contact argument:

Bush Reasserts Hussein-Al Qaeda Link

President Draws Distinction Between Involvement in 9/11 Attacks, Other Contact

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; 3:00 PM


President Bush insisted today that "numerous contacts" between the ousted government of Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorist network showed that the former Iraqi leader was a threat to the United States, despite a report by the Sept. 11 commission that found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting at the White House.

Bush said the contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda provided proof of a relationship.

The report, issued yesterday by the bipartisan commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attack on the United States, said that all relevant classified information that it reviewed showed that the contacts that took place between Iraq and al Qaeda officials never led to actual cooperation.

In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The report challenged one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. Along with the contention that Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network. Earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

Asked about the commission's findings on an Iraq-al Qaeda link, Bush said, "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."

Bush said he had called Saddam Hussein a threat "because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. Now, he was a threat because he had terrorist connections, not only al Qaeda connections but other connections to terrorist organizations."

Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean, asked at a news conference about Bush's comments, said the panel did not dispute that there were contacts between Hussein's government and al Qaeda. But Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, said the panel's staff found "that there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were in any way part of the attack on the United States."

Vice chairman Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman, said, "I must say, I have trouble understanding the flap over this." The commission's position, he said, is that "we don't have any evidence of a cooperative . . . relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States."

The commission's staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."

As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.

In his remarks today, Bush again mentioned Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan who runs the al Tawhid terrorist network. Bush said Hussein had "provided safe haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is still killing innocents inside of Iraq."

Bush also cited Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, whose Fatah Revolutionary Council was active in the 1970s and 1980s, as another example of Hussein's terrorist ties. Nidal died under mysterious circumstances in Baghdad a few months before the Iraq war.

Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), sought to profit from the commission's finding. "The administration misled America, and the administration reached too far," Kerry told Michigan Public Radio yesterday. "I believe that the 9/11 report, the early evidence, is that they're going to indicate that we didn't have the kind of terrorists links that this administration was asserting. I think that's a very, very serious finding."

A Bush campaign spokesman countered that Kerry himself has said Hussein "supported and harbored terrorist groups." And Cheney's spokesman pointed to a 2002 letter written by CIA Director George J. Tenet stating that "we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and "credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression." Cheney's office also pointed to a 2003 Tenet statement calling Zarqawi "a senior al Qaeda terrorist associate."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the commission finding of long-standing high-level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq justified the administration's earlier assertions. "We stand behind what was said publicly," he said.

Bush, speaking to troops in Tampa yesterday, did not mention an Iraq-al Qaeda link, saying only that Iraq "sheltered terrorist groups." That was a significantly milder version of the allegations administration officials have made since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.

Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."

In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Speaking about Iraq's alleged links to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney connected Iraq to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by saying that newly found Iraqi intelligence files in Baghdad showed that a participant in the bombing returned to Iraq and "probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven." He added: "The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."

Shortly after Cheney asserted these links, Bush contradicted him, saying: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th." But Bush added: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

In January, Cheney repeated his view that Iraq was tied to al Qaeda, saying that "there's overwhelming evidence" of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. He said he was "very confident there was an established relationship there."

The commission staff, in yesterday's report, said that while bin Laden was in Sudan between 1991 and 1996, a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan, and that he had a meeting with bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden was reported to have sought training camps and assistance in getting weapons, "but Iraq never responded," the staff said. The report said that bin Laden "at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan."

As for the Atta meeting in Prague mentioned by Cheney, the commission staff concluded: "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred." It cited FBI photographic and telephone evidence, along with Czech and U.S. investigations, as well as reports from detainees, including the Iraqi official with whom Atta was alleged to have met. On the 1993 trade center bombing, the staff found "substantial uncertainty" about whether bin Laden and al Qaeda were involved.

At yesterday's hearing, commissioner Fred F. Fielding questioned the staff's finding of no apparent cooperation between bin Laden and Hussein. He pointed to a sentence in the first sealed indictment in 2001 of the al Qaeda members accused of the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; that sentence said al Qaeda reached an understanding with Iraq that they would not work against each other and would cooperate on acquiring arms.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superceding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand.

The staff report on Iraq was brief. Though not confirming any Iraqi collaboration with al Qaeda, it did not specifically address two of the other pieces of evidence the administration has offered to link Iraq to al Qaeda: Zarqawi's al Tawhid organization and the Ansar al-Islam group.

In October 2002, Bush described Zarqawi as "one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks."

Zarqawi wrote a January 2003 letter to bin Laden's lieutenants, intercepted at the Iraqi border, saying that if al Qaeda adopted his approach in Iraq, he would swear "fealty to you [bin Laden] publicly and in the news media."

In March, in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Tenet described Zarqawi's network as among groups having "links" to al Qaeda but with its own "autonomous leadership . . . own targets [and] they plan their own attacks."

Although Zarqawi may have cooperated with al Qaeda in the past, officials said it is increasingly clear that he has been operating independently of bin Laden's group and has his own network of operatives.

The other group, Ansar al-Islam, began in 2001 among Kurdish Sunni Islamic fundamentalists in northern Iraq, fighting against the two secular Kurdish groups that operated under the protection of the United States. At one point, bin Laden supported Ansar, as did Zarqawi, who is believed to have visited their area more than once. Tenet referred to Ansar as one of the Sunni groups that had benefited from al Qaeda links.


© 2004 The Washington Post Company
____________________________________________________

In the end, W will assert that after 9/11 - SH was too variable a threat to leave unaccounted for. After all, SH was repeatedly found in violation
of the deal he struck with the UN and he was a terrorist who invaded an ally of the US. Thus, no one will impeach him for the Iraqi War, esp. given that the Clinton Adminstration used essentially the same WMD evidence to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's. The D's are not about to delve into that too deeply and they would be fools to do so considering most of them gleefully went along with W.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Bush lied about Iraq many times, although he responds to that by saying it was the intelligence, yadyada, of course never taking the blame for anything..

He claimed Iraq had 500 tons of chemicals weapons, none were found. He said Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, and again not true. He said Iraq aids and protects terrorists including members of Al Qaeda, that was never proved. Bush said Saddam had attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production, it was found that the tubes were not suitable for nuclear weapons production.
He told us Iraq has specifically sought large amounts of uranium from Africa, not true. In 2003 Bush claimed Saddam had been refusing to let weapons inspectors in Iraq, but in fact they had been let in from Dec 02 till the begin of the war..

Chris

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Are you willing to assign those to Clinton and Kerry as well most of the D party :laugh: :wavey: :laugh:




But shouldn't it be said that the President makes the decision to go to War, and consults with Congress of course...I don't think it's fair to blame the Senators, D or R who voted to give him the authority to use force if necessary. I don't think they ever thought he would use it as misguided and freely as he did. I think they just felt like they should give him that option if necessary, because lets not forget he said it would be a last resort...Now why did they believe him? Who knows...

Chris

[strandinthewind]

Bush lied about Iraq many times, although he responds to that by saying it was the intelligence, yadyada, of course never taking the blame for anything..

He claimed Iraq had 500 tons of chemicals weapons, none were found. He said Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, and again not true. He said Iraq aids and protects terrorists including members of Al Qaeda, that was never proved. Bush said Saddam had attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production, it was found that the tubes were not suitable for nuclear weapons production.
He told us Iraq has specifically sought large amounts of uranium from Africa, not true. In 2003 Bush claimed Saddam had been refusing to let weapons inspectors in Iraq, but in fact they had been let in from Dec 02 till the begin of the war..

Chris

All of that is fine and dandy and perhaps even truw - but and again, the D's killed hundreds of thousands of iraqi's in the Clinton Administration and mostly went along with W down this path. Thus, the D's are to blame as well and are not about to open this Pandora's Box.

[strandinthewind]

But shouldn't it be said that the President makes the decision to go to War, and consults with Congress of course...I don't think it's fair to blame the Senators, D or R who voted to give him the authority to use force if necessary. I don't think they ever thought he would use it as misguided and freely as he did. I think they just felt like they should give him that option if necessary, because lets not forget he said it would be a last resort...Now why did they believe him? Who knows...

Chris


I think anyone who voted to give W the authority to go to war should be judged accordingly. I mean you would have had to have been a horse's ass not to know that W was hell bent on going to war in Iraq and to say you voted to give him that authority thinking he was not so is laughable. I mean I knew it and I am not in politics :laugh:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I think anyone who voted to give W the authority to go to war should be judged accordingly. I mean you would have had to have been a horse's ass not to know that W was hell bent on going to war in Iraq and to say you voted to give him that authority thinking he was not so is laughable. I mean I knew it and I am not in politics :laugh:


There are still 22 Democratic Senators who voted NO don't forget. I agree though, nothing will come out of this memo except talk and more debate--which is good though I think. Even if there are no consequences, the people will understand more what a mistake this was I think

Chris

[SuzeQuze]

All of that is fine and dandy and perhaps even truw - but and again, the D's killed hundreds of thousands of iraqi's in the Clinton Administration and mostly went along with W down this path. Thus, the D's are to blame as well and are not about to open this Pandora's Box.

The Ds condoned the war and acted powerless and they should be ashamed for that. Perhaps many were even for the war. That doesn't mean Bush isn't a liar. There is no connection between Ds having accountability for the war and Bush being a liar. Sometimes the connections you make are tangential and confusing IMO.

[strandinthewind]

The Ds condoned the war and acted powerless and they should be ashamed for that. Perhaps many were even for the war. That doesn't mean Bush isn't a liar. There is no connection between Ds having accountability for the war and Bush being a liar. Sometimes the connections you make are tangential and confusing IMO.

I am not saying W is unaccountable. Please do not ever confuse me saying that when I say almost everyone went along with him on the march to war and that Clinton slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's based on essentially the same intelligence. All of that is one big bad, bad act and I excuse no one, esp. W. The reason I bring it up and brought it up in this thread is that the D's are bitching and moaning about the DSM yet, nothing will ever come of it because the D's are not about to sacrifice their own, esp. both Clintons (the big money makers), in the process of getting W. That is why I am making the connection here.

[gldstwmn]

All of that is fine and dandy and perhaps even truw - but and again, the D's killed hundreds of thousands of iraqi's in the Clinton Administration and mostly went along with W down this path. Thus, the D's are to blame as well and are not about to open this Pandora's Box.

If Saddam would have complied with the resolutions he wouldn't have been sanctioned in the first place.

[strandinthewind]

If Saddam would have complied with the resolutions he wouldn't have been sanctioned in the first place.

I know- which is my point - SH is ultimately responsible for the invasion of Iraq, though W's actions and the US and UN's actions over the last 15 or so years were deplorable. I think I am missing something in you statement though :shrug:

And, as an aside, if ole Poppy Bush had not obeyed the Saudis and taken out SH in the first Gulf War, we would be in a different and IMO better situation today judt by the fact that millions of Iraqi lives perhaps could have been saved by installing a puppet leadership then as opposed to now. of course, the UN would not have that because they had to line their pockets too, along with the French and the Russians. The whole thing makes me sick.

[irishgrl]

Seriously, both parties have killed hundreds of thousands in the name of the WMD and SH's refusal to account for them as he agreed to do in the treaty that ended the first Gulf War. Thus, my point earlier that W will never be impeached on acting on SH'd refusal, however disingenuous W was. BTW - W never used the word connection, he used the word contacts, which there were, though they were mostly insignificant - thus, he also will never be impeached on that.

I think the GLARING MAJOR DIFFERENCE between Clinton's involvement in Iraq and Bush's is the INTENT. Clinton had no original intent, upon taking office, to wage a phony war with a bogus reason for control of another country's resource to line his cronies' pockets. Bush, on the other hand, had two very clear agendas as I have said time and again: 1) Eradicate any and all Clinton policies and (2) Get Saddam out and control the oil reserves or at least capitalize on the profit potential. No claim was too outrageous, no matter how tenuous (or absent!)....for Bush, the end justified the means, ANY MEANS. NO sacrifice was great enough, the only thing that mattered was the Oil. Personally, I think Bush was secretly delighted that Saddam wasnt cooperating, because it gave him the excuse he NEEDED to help fabricate his straw man fairy tale.

My original statement was that W LIED about the need for this war, and managed to get at least one nation to LIE along with him. THAT, IMO, is much much worse that what Clinton did in Iraq or with Monica...it is the single biggest hoax perpetrated upon the WORLD in the name of GREED, and W should be impeached for it. Fabricating a war, sacrificing our soldiers, manipulating the media, torturing innocents (the list goes on and on....)
Whether he actually will be impeached or not is not my point, the fact remains, I staunchly believe he SHOULD BE.

The whole thing makes me sick.
on THAT we can agree :xoxo:

[SuzeQuze]

on THAT we can agree :xoxo:

Yes, all three of us. And I love reading people's points of view because I have learned so much from you all. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

I think the GLARING MAJOR DIFFERENCE between Clinton's involvement in Iraq and Bush's is the INTENT. Clinton had no original intent, upon taking office, to wage a phony war with a bogus reason for control of another country's resource to line his cronies' pockets. Bush, on the other hand, had two very clear agendas as I have said time and again: 1) Eradicate any and all Clinton policies and (2) Get Saddam out and control the oil reserves or at least capitalize on the profit potential. No claim was too outrageous, no matter how tenuous (or absent!)....for Bush, the end justified the means, ANY MEANS. NO sacrifice was great enough, the only thing that mattered was the Oil. Personally, I think Bush was secretly delighted that Saddam wasnt cooperating, because it gave him the excuse he NEEDED to help fabricate his straw man fairy tale.

My original statement was that W LIED about the need for this war, and managed to get at least one nation to LIE along with him. THAT, IMO, is much much worse that what Clinton did in Iraq or with Monica...it is the single biggest hoax perpetrated upon the WORLD in the name of GREED, and W should be impeached for it. Fabricating a war, sacrificing our soldiers, manipulating the media, torturing innocents (the list goes on and on....)
Whether he actually will be impeached or not is not my point, the fact remains, I staunchly believe he SHOULD BE . . .

Actually, Bush I, Clinton, and W apparently all got the UN to lie unanimously for them for over ten years because though the actual invasion took place under W, hundreds of thousands died under the same rationale under the two before W under other killing methods :shrug:

Yet, you are always so quick to excuse Clinton - I will never get it. Again, they used essentially the same info. Thus, I think surely they must both be held accountable as both killed hundreds of thousands. I see little difference in their intent.

I mean if you want to talk about self-serving intent - on August 20, 1998, Clinton sent a few missles over to the Sudan based on BS info. in a clear effort to take public perception from the Lewinsky scandal. So, while I get that is different than bombing Iraq and risking an all out war in the Middle East which Clinton also did and for the same reason W invaded Iraq, the intent on the former is rather horrid and far more self serving than W - who at least had 9/11 and the fact that SH was a known agressive terrorist who was in repeated violation of the UN's orders to account for WMD, which he did once have :shrug: Thus, I give Clinton no slack whatsoever and out him right up there with W.

[strandinthewind]

Yes, all three of us. And I love reading people's points of view because I have learned so much from you all. :xoxo:


I agree. I love to read other people's opinions. I rarely agree with Mary and we fight a lot, but I like reading her opinions - the same with your's and many others :cool:

[irishgrl]

Actually, Bush I, Clinton, and W apparently all got the UN to lie unanimously for them for over ten years because though the actual invasion took place under W, hundreds of thousands died under the same rationale under the two before W under other killing methods :shrug:

Yet, you are always so quick to excuse Clinton - I will never get it. Again, they used essentially the same info. Thus, I think surely they must both be held accountable as both killed hundreds of thousands. I see little difference in their intent.

I mean if you want to talk about self-serving intent - on August 20, 1998, Clinton sent a few missles over to the Sudan based on BS info. in a clear effort to take public perception from the Lewinsky scandal. So, while I get that is different than bombing Iraq and risking an all out war in the Middle East which Clinton also did and for the same reason W invaded Iraq, the intent on the former is rather horrid and far more self serving than W - who at least had 9/11 and the fact that SH was a known agressive terrorist who was in repeated violation of the UN's orders to account for WMD, which he did once have :shrug: Thus, I give Clinton no slack whatsoever and out him right up there with W.

Jason, as an attorney, I know you know what intent means: it is the motivation behind an action...Clinton's actions may have been based on the same faulty INFO as Bush's, I dont know. But the REASON behind each man's actions was vastly DIFFERENT: Bush was motivated by GREED, and POWER. He was bound and determined to control Iraq's OIL. Clinton had NO such motivation. Therefore, I maintain the INTENT was at polar opposites.

As for Bush having 9/11 to use as an excuse, there's the fact that the Bushies knew about THAT too and didnt stop it. Think of how many thousands of lives he could have saved and didnt? Not to mention the flower of our next generation dying by the hundreds? Clinton didnt ask that of this country.

Clinton didnt have NEAR the emphasis on his bombing that W has on his phony war. There is NO comparison. W is a criminal of the highest order, and if lying about having sex with a woman is worth getting impeached over, then Lying about a war and sending thousands of our young men to die to fight this goddam phony freakin war is even MORE worthy of impeachment. :nod:

As I recall, you bought into that whole WMD argument hook line and sinker and now that I can say I told you so, you cover yer butt by saying "well W was wrong BUT SO IS CLINTON!" Which is about the LAMEST excuse an intelligent person could offer--it seems like a knee jerk reaction with some people, to always find a way to blame Clinton for everything! The man isnt even President and yet everything is his fault! Its hilarious! :lol: :lol:


btw: I know Im on the right track if you come out on the opposite side of me in any discussion. :nod: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Jason, as an attorney, I know you know what intent means: it is the motivation behind an action...Clinton's actions may have been based on the same faulty INFO as Bush's, I dont know.

Hogwash - you know that is a fact but refuse ever to slam Clinton. Again, I guess it is okay for Clinton to kill hundeds of thousands in the name of essentially the same intelligence.

But the REASON behind each man's actions was vastly DIFFERENT: Bush was motivated by GREED, and POWER. He was bound and determined to control Iraq's OIL. Clinton had NO such motivation. Therefore, I maintain the INTENT was at polar opposites.

I am glad you know W's intent - did he call you personally and tell it to you.

I am also glad W personally has all that rev. from Iraqi oil in his personal bank account :rolleyes:

But, I suppose it could be argued that W's intent is demonstrated because Halliburton, which people incorrectly think is the same as W, made a pretty penny off of Iraq with its no bid contract. However, Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts and other work from the US govt. for years and Clinton also gave them to Halliburton for the Balkans. Thus, Clinton must have had the same intent as W if lining Halliburton's pockets demonstrated intent.

Also and interestingly, I believe Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work. Take that for what it is worth.

As for Bush having 9/11 to use as an excuse, there's the fact that the Bushies knew about THAT too and didnt stop it.

Yep - W knew that four planes were going to be hijacked the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 and he also knew exactly where they were to be flown and all the relevant details :rolleyes:

The facts demonstrate all the Administration knew was that OBL wanted to attack the mainland US, which BTW, OBL had done before. The specifics were not known. If they were, let's see the docs.?

Note - I think W must be held accountable for 9/11 as the buck stops with him and he was too busy pissing in the wind in other areas, etc. But, to say W knew the exact details of 9/11 and purposefully did nothing to stop it, which is what you implied, is speculation that is unsupported by any facts I have ever seen.

Think of how many thousands of lives he could have saved and didnt? Not to mention the flower of our next generation dying by the hundreds? Clinton didnt ask that of this country.

Clinton didnt have NEAR the emphasis on his bombing that W has on his phony war. There is NO comparison. W is a criminal of the highest order, and if lying about having sex with a woman is worth getting impeached over, then Lying about a war and sending thousands of our young men to die to fight this goddam phony freakin war is even MORE worthy of impeachment. :nod:

So, its okay to kill people in another country and not to involve US soldiers to any significant degree? :rolleyes:

As for impeachment - I never said I thought W should not be impeached - in fact, I have called for it more than once. I simply said in the context of this thread that the Downing Street Memo. will not achieve that purpose because the D's are too much in bed with the R's here, which then necessitates the discussion of Clinton's killing of innocent Iraqi's in the name of WMD - they go hand in hand.

As I recall, you bought into that whole WMD argument hook line and sinker and now that I can say I told you so, you cover yer butt by saying "well W was wrong BUT SO IS CLINTON!" Which is about the LAMEST excuse an intelligent person could offer--it seems like a knee jerk reaction with some people, to always find a way to blame Clinton for everything! The man isnt even President and yet everything is his fault! Its hilarious! :lol: :lol:

I am not saying W was justified because Clinton did it as well - so please stop putting those words in my mouth.

Again, I think W is a horrible person for the Iraq situation. But, I think that people want to put all of the blame on W and that is just not right. Iraq did not happen overnight and the current war is happening because of a series of events spanning over ten years :shrug: But, you will never see it that way because to these eyes, you are blindly partisan and never fault anyone but W for anything. I mean bless your heart, you just cannot ever admit Clinton was just as much of a murderer as W - oh well - so be it.

As for buying into the Iraq War and the reasoning behind it, I have always maintained that W was placed in a precarious situation after 9/11. SH was, once again and pay attention this time, a known terrorist who the entire world via the UN agreed had WMD. SH had agressively invaded an American ally and was being punished by the UN for doing so- yet SH was not living up to his end of the bargain he made. After 9/11, Clinton, W, Kerry, and just about everyone involved said something needed to be done about SH because we did not want to get attacked again and SH, a known terrorist, had had some contact with Al-Q, which has been proven though the contacts did not demonstrate a working relationship. So, W went to the UN and once again the UN unanimously found SH in violation of his agreement to prove he had disarmed. Once again, SH balked at that - but then after a brief bit of stalling about where the inspectors could and could not go, SH allowed the inspectors back into Iraq. I, like Clinton, think W should have allowed the inpectors to conclude their work, which was working by all accounts. However, W did not do and that is where I and Clinton fault W. Again, Clinton does not fault W for holding Iraq to task on its obligation to the UN or really even wanting to oust SH through military action - Clinton just thinks W should have waited for the inspections to conclude. So, that is why I think any discussion of Iraq must span a decade or so and must include all of the US' actions leading up to it.

But, I think you fault W on everything having to do with Iraq prior to W's stopping the last set of inspections. If you are going to fault W for that prior time period, then you have to fault the US and its policy prior to then as well because the US (under Bush I and Clinton) killed hundreds of thousands of people under that policy all in the name of trying to make SH live up to his agreement to prove he had destroyed his WMD. Again, the UN found SH in breach of that obligation numerous times prior to W and the US acted militarily on those violations numerous times and also essentially starved the children of Iraq with the corrupt Oil for Food program, which stemmed from the WMD intelligence.

So, in the end, I think it is factually incorrect to say or imply that W on his own got the bright idea to make SH live up to his UN obligations or face the consequences and W did so all in the name of personal greed and power. But, if that was the sole motivation, then to be fair, one must conlcude that the US had been doing that for a decade or so prior to then.

btw: I know Im on the right track if you come out on the opposite side of me in any discussion. :nod: :wavey:

I submit you know nothing at all :wavey:

On edit:

I found this article. I am not a fan of the author, but I thought it was a good example of the same justification used by Clinton and W to kill Iraqis:

Remember Clinton's war in Iraq?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 20, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


The opponents of the Bush administration's possible military action against Iraq make the following arguments: "He's simply trying to finish the job his father started"; "No blood for oil"; "Iraq poses no imminent threat"; "Wars kill innocent women and children"; "Allow the United Nations inspections to proceed"; "Containment works"; "Avoid unilateralism, and proceed only with the United Nations' approval"; and the all-encompassing "No smoking gun exists demonstrating that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction."

But Bill Clinton, four years ago, took to the airwaves and explained his authorization of non-U.N.-approved missile strikes against Iraq, using the very same arguments now advanced by President Bush. Yet the silence was deafening.

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."

Clinton: "Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. ... Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. ... Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection."

Bush: "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves."

Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Bush: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

Bush: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans, this nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes, peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military."

What a difference an administration makes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31143

_____________________________________

I cite this article solely to demonstrate that in many ways W acted as Clinton did - thus consistent with the US' stance toward Iraq and the US' consistent belief that SH had WMD and the motivation to kill to make SH prove he did not.

In no way should my posting of this article be confused with me saying I support W's decision to go to war or that Clinton did it too so its okay. I am not saying that.

[irishgrl]

Hogwash - you know that is a fact but refuse ever to slam Clinton. Again, I guess it is okay for Clinton to kill hundeds of thousands in the name of essentially the same intelligence.



I am glad you know W's intent - did he call you personally and tell it to you.

I am also glad W personally has all that rev. from Iraqi oil in his personal bank account :rolleyes:

But, I suppose it could be argued that W's intent is demonstrated because Halliburton, which people incorrectly think is the same as W, made a pretty penny off of Iraq with its no bid contract. However, Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts and other work from the US govt. for years and Clinton also gave them to Halliburton for the Balkans. Thus, Clinton must have had the same intent as W if lining Halliburton's pockets demonstrated intent.

Also and interestingly, I believe Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work. Take that for what it is worth.



Yep - W knew that four planes were going to be hijacked the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 and he also knew exactly where they were to be flown and all the relevant details :rolleyes:

The facts demonstrate all the Administration knew was that OBL wanted to attack the mainland US, which BTW, OBL had done before. The specifics were not known. If they were, let's see the docs.?

Note - I think W must be held accountable for 9/11 as the buck stops with him and he was too busy pissing in the wind in other areas, etc. But, to say W knew the exact details of 9/11 and purposefully did nothing to stop it, which is what you implied, is speculation that is unsupported by any facts I have ever seen.



So, its okay to kill people in another country and not to involve US soldiers to any significant degree? :rolleyes:

As for impeachment - I never said I thought W should not be impeached - in fact, I have called for it more than once. I simply said in the context of this thread that the Downing Street Memo. will not achieve that purpose because the D's are too much in bed with the R's here, which then necessitates the discussion of Clinton's killing of innocent Iraqi's in the name of WMD - they go hand in hand.



I am not saying W was justified because Clinton did it as well - so please stop putting those words in my mouth.

Again, I think W is a horrible person for the Iraq situation. But, I think that people want to put all of the blame on W and that is just not right. Iraq did not happen overnight and the current war is happening because of a series of events spanning over ten years :shrug: But, you will never see it that way because to these eyes, you are blindly partisan and never fault anyone but W for anything. I mean bless your heart, you just cannot ever admit Clinton was just as much of a murderer as W - oh well - so be it.

As for buying into the Iraq War and the reasoning behind it, I have always maintained that W was placed in a precarious situation after 9/11. SH was, once again and pay attention this time, a known terrorist who the entire world via the UN agreed had WMD. SH had agressively invaded an American ally and was being punished by the UN for doing so- yet SH was not living up to his end of the bargain he made. After 9/11, Clinton, W, Kerry, and just about everyone involved said something needed to be done about SH because we did not want to get attacked again and SH, a known terrorist, had had some contact with Al-Q, which has been proven though the contacts did not demonstrate a working relationship. So, W went to the UN and once again the UN unanimously found SH in violation of his agreement to prove he had disarmed. Once again, SH balked at that - but then after a brief bit of stalling about where the inspectors could and could not go, SH allowed the inspectors back into Iraq. I, like Clinton, think W should have allowed the inpectors to conclude their work, which was working by all accounts. However, W did not do and that is where I and Clinton fault W. Again, Clinton does not fault W for holding Iraq to task on its obligation to the UN or really even wanting to oust SH through military action - Clinton just thinks W should have waited for the inspections to conclude. So, that is why I think any discussion of Iraq must span a decade or so and must include all of the US' actions leading up to it.

But, I think you fault W on everything having to do with Iraq prior to W's stopping the last set of inspections. If you are going to fault W for that prior time period, then you have to fault the US and its policy prior to then as well because the US (under Bush I and Clinton) killed hundreds of thousands of people under that policy all in the name of trying to make SH live up to his agreement to prove he had destroyed his WMD. Again, the UN found SH in breach of that obligation numerous times prior to W and the US acted militarily on those violations numerous times and also essentially starved the children of Iraq with the corrupt Oil for Food program, which stemmed from the WMD intelligence.

So, in the end, I think it is factually incorrect to say or imply that W on his own got the bright idea to make SH live up to his UN obligations or face the consequences and W did so all in the name of personal greed and power. But, if that was the sole motivation, then to be fair, one must conlcude that the US had been doing that for a decade or so prior to then.



I submit you know nothing at all :wavey:

On edit:

I found this article. I am not a fan of the author, but I thought it was a good example of the same justification used by Clinton and W to kill Iraqis:

Remember Clinton's war in Iraq?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 20, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


The opponents of the Bush administration's possible military action against Iraq make the following arguments: "He's simply trying to finish the job his father started"; "No blood for oil"; "Iraq poses no imminent threat"; "Wars kill innocent women and children"; "Allow the United Nations inspections to proceed"; "Containment works"; "Avoid unilateralism, and proceed only with the United Nations' approval"; and the all-encompassing "No smoking gun exists demonstrating that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction."

But Bill Clinton, four years ago, took to the airwaves and explained his authorization of non-U.N.-approved missile strikes against Iraq, using the very same arguments now advanced by President Bush. Yet the silence was deafening.

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."

Clinton: "Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. ... Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. ... Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection."

Bush: "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves."

Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Bush: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

Bush: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans, this nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes, peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military."

What a difference an administration makes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31143

_____________________________________

I cite this article solely to demonstrate that in many ways W acted as Clinton did - thus consistent with the US' stance toward Iraq and the US' consistent belief that SH had WMD and the motivation to kill to make SH prove he did not.

In no way should my posting of this article be confused with me saying I support W's decision to go to war or that Clinton did it too so its okay. I am not saying that.

1) The Difference between Clinton and Bush's actions against SH is that Clinton acted with the blessing of the UN, Bush did NOT. Just because two Presidents used faulty info doesnt mean their motivations were the same. Bush used WMD as an EXCUSE to get at the OIL. To do that he had to discredit SH. To discredit SH, he used the "faulty" info (by the way werent YOU the one that said it WASNT faulty because the US SOLD the WMD to SH in the first place? That was your whole rationale for supporting this bogus war to begin with and now that there are NO WMD, you suddenly believe the info was "faulty" how convenient. At any rate, saying that Clinton was also wrong is unfair because he wasnt aware the info was faulty, whereas Bush DID know, but did his best to ignore it AND convince the world it was true via his various mouthpieces. IMO, THAT constitutes malfeasance of the highest order, to deliberately mislead the American public that way and put our young people in harm's way all to secure more O.I.L. (wish I had a barfing smiley)

2) no, I am going by daily news reports from NPR etc that confirm that this Iraq invasion was planned long before 9/11, and that W chose to IGNORE evidence of an impending attack because it wasnt on his radar. He then capitalized on the National OUTRAGE to get support for his agenda. THAT is disgusting.

3) I dont know WHAT W has in his personal bank account and never said so. I SAID that W saw to it that his cronies got lucrative contracts worth billions. FACT.

4) you brought up Clinton the minute I made a comment about W...it seems to be a knee jerk reaction of yours to ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS say: Well the GOP (or the Repugs or W, you use the same argument for all of them) may be doing wrong, BUT SO DID CLINTON!! ALWAYS! its as certain as death and taxes. you cant seem to say "Yep, ol W is screwing up" and leave it at that...
You've already bashed Clinton to death about Clinton related actions, why bring him up when he's not doing anything NOW??????? As far as Im concerned the two ARENT related. If Clinton was wrong for what he did, then WHY did W do the same? the answer lies in the MOTIVATION as I said.
Clinton's was based on faulty info, W's was based on GREED and POWER. Clinton deplored the loss of life, W does NOT. TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

5) Again and for the record because you just keep getting mixed UP: IMO, Bush fully intended to invade Iraq long before he did so. He just needed the right excuse that the Nation and the World would buy. 9/11 was the catalyst to get National support, WMD was the reason he used with the UN (and thus the World). The UN wasnt biting and neither did I. I find it most interesting how you change your position from your original stance. MOST interesting.

[irishgrl]

With hat in hand, I stand corrected for earlier comnments that we would find something.


at least HERE you had the grace to admit it....

edit: Jason, I found a good Link (http://www.lysistrataproject.org/bushagenda.htm#EvolutionofAgendaforIraqInvasion) Regarding Bush's Agenda. Also, I found this article on Haliburton fromDemocracyNOW (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/17/1431237) I hope you'll take a look at....

I also want to say that in looking over your old posts, we actually dont disagree as much as you seem to think--maybe the real reason we are always on opposite sides is we both like to argue? I liked a LOT of what I saw that you had posted in the past..... :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

at least HERE you had the grace to admit it....

if you go to this thread (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=17029&highlight=Iraq)
you will see an article YOU posted about Haliburton and their MISMANAGEMENT of funds etc in Iraq (so much for defending them)

edit: Jason, I get a lot of my info from DemocracyNOW (http://www.lysistrataproject.org/bushagenda.htm#EvolutionofAgendaforIraqInvasion) and I think its more accurate than mainstream media, especially Fox news which you seem to be so fond of....

I also want to say that in looking over your old posts, we actually don't disagree as much as you seem to think--maybe the real reason we are always on opposite sides is we both like to argue? I liked a LOT of what I saw that you had posted in the past..... :xoxo:

I know - we agree that W is the worst thing that has happened to this country in a long, long time and not only on Iraq. I just think out loud before concluding and I hate general statements that tend IMO to exonerate all culpable parties, which in this case are many on both sides of the aisle as the war in Iraq has been going on far longer than our actual invasion of that country, which complicates the situation.

In the end, this is how I feel:

1. Bush alone is responsible for the current war in Iraq. He and his henchmen manipulated the intelligence to suit his purposes and then when WMD, which the world via the UN unanimously thought were there, were not discovered, Bush said essentially "oh well who cares because SH was a bad guy." That was a horrible thing to do and I think he should be impeached for that and, perhaps more importantly, the apparent complete lack of a plan to win the peace after the initial invasion and his other significant and numerous "errors" in the war on terror. I also think the corruption in the UN, France, and Russia certainly did not help matters - but in the end, Bush pushed for it and he must take the blame, which he will not do. Sadly, people buy into his BS because they hate all Muslims and do not really care which ones die as long as they die.

2. In the discussion of the Downing Street Memo. and its text implicating Bush in the manipulation of the WMD intelligence to wage an already planned war, I maintain the D's cannot and will not impeach Bush on this for two related reasons. First, too many D's voted to give W the authority to go to war based on the intelligence and these same D's had been vociferous in the past about ousting SH, making him comply with the UN, etc. - all based essentially on this same intelligence. Second, Clinton, with the support of the D's, also killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and also outright attacked Iraq and risked an all out war in that region based essentially on this same intelligence, which he still stands by to this day. Thus, the D's will never go to impeach Bush on this topic - if anything, Clinton will not let them because his and the D's hands are too dirty, though perhaps not as dirty as Bush in this particular war or last set of events in Iraq. That is the only reason I brought up Clinton in this thread.

3. Though the people that actually do the grunt work for Halliburton and related companies mostly are good people (I actually know many because I am from a oil service related town) - the fact that Halliburton got a no bid contract now or at any other time is horrible and I wish the D's would investigate that, but I think they know their hands are too dirty there as well given their past support of Halliburton.

BTW - almost all of the Fox articles I cite are AP articles that could be found on just about all large news cites. I tend to avoid cites like the one you cited because I am not fond of one sided opinions, which I think the AP is not.

[irishgrl]

I know - we agree that W is the worst thing that has happened to this country in a long, long time and not only on Iraq. I just think out loud before concluding and I hate general statements that tend IMO to exonerate all culpable parties, which in this case are many on both sides of the aisle as the war in Iraq has been going on far longer than our actual invasion of that country, which complicates the situation.

In the end, this is how I feel:

1. Bush alone is responsible for the current war in Iraq. He and his henchmen manipulated the intelligence to suit his purposes and then when WMD, which the world via the UN unanimously thought were there, were not discovered, Bush said essentially "oh well who cares because SH was a bad guy." That was a horrible thing to do and I think he should be impeached for that and, perhaps more importantly, the apparent complete lack of a plan to win the peace after the initial invasion and his other significant and numerous "errors" in the war on terror. I also think the corruption in the UN, France, and Russia certainly did not help matters - but in the end, Bush pushed for it and he must take the blame, which he will not do. Sadly, people buy into his BS because they hate all Muslims and do not really care which ones die as long as they die.

2. In the discussion of the Downing Street Memo. and its text implicating Bush in the manipulation of the WMD intelligence to wage an already planned war, I maintain the D's cannot and will not impeach Bush on this for two related reasons. First, too many D's voted to give W the authority to go to war based on the intelligence and these same D's had been vociferous in the past about ousting SH, making him comply with the UN, etc. - all based essentially on this same intelligence. Second, Clinton, with the support of the D's, also killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and also outright attacked Iraq and risked an all out war in that region based essentially on this same intelligence, which he still stands by to this day. Thus, the D's will never go to impeach Bush on this topic - if anything, Clinton will not let them because his and the D's hands are too dirty, though perhaps not as dirty as Bush in this particular war or last set of events in Iraq. That is the only reason I brought up Clinton in this thread.

3. Though the people that actually do the grunt work for Halliburton and related companies mostly are good people (I actually know many because I am from a oil service related town) - the fact that Halliburton got a no bid contract now or at any other time is horrible and I wish the D's would investigate that, but I think they know their hands are too dirty there as well given their past support of Halliburton.

BTW - almost all of the Fox articles I cite are AP articles that could be found on just about all large news cites. I tend to avoid cites like the one you cited because I am not fond of one sided opinions, which I think the AP is not.

I like AP too, but Ive long since stopped relying on ONLY mainstream media, which is why I go to NPR and PBS (btw, the House is NOT slashing as much as they were which is good...) for the bulk of my news.

I consider you a fair minded person, and I know you are well informed. I also think we actually could probably find a lot we agree on. And I will say this, even when we DO disagree, you are a gentleman first, last and always and dont stoop to personal attacks. For that, I thank you :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

. . And I will say this, even when we DO disagree, you are a gentleman first, last and always and dont stoop to personal attacks. For that, I thank you :xoxo:

YOU ARE A MOTHER%&#$%(*&%)(*$&%)($&*%)(&)^@ -- sis%% - mother%&%*&*%&)(#&$)*# -- O*UT)IO&*)(#&$)(#&*$)(#&$ -- panty revealing and listing spin immediately following :laugh:

so there :angel: :eek: :angel: :eek: :] :] :]

[strandinthewind]

GEEZ! I take it BACK! You are the ultimate trailer trash foul mouthed tobacky spitting, gun toting, dog loving moldy covered lump of vomit covered POOP ever to grace the hallowed halls of this board, ANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNND, you're a secret CLINTON LOVER TOO :nod: :shocked:
Good Grief, ya give a guy a compliment and you get bombarded!

ps: thanks to you, I now know there is a limit to how many smilies you can post...who'd a thunk it?

Well, any chance to reference the Mirage video SOTM speaking in tongues, pany revealing listing spin, is okay with me :cool:

[irishgrl]

Well, any chance to reference the Mirage video SOTM speaking in tongues, pany revealing listing spin, is okay with me :cool:

OH MY GOD, I TOTALLY misunderstood, my mistake, I am abjectly sorry! I thought you were, well, you know what I thought.....GEEZ, this is what I get for not playing all FM all the time.........Im deleting it now, and toddling off to stand in the corner for being clueless... :eek: :shrug: :(

[David]

OH MY GOD, I TOTALLY misunderstood, my mistake, I am abjectly sorry! I thought you were, well, you know what I thought.....GEEZ, this is what I get for not playing all FM all the time.........Im deleting it now, and toddling off to stand in the corner for being clueless... :eek: :shrug: :(Your Mirage concert tape.

Watch it.

Embrace it.

Adore it.

Learn it.

[strandinthewind]

Your Mirage concert tape.

Watch it.

Embrace it.

Adore it.

Learn it.

and we got PANTIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :angel: :angel: :angel:

[strandinthewind]

OH MY GOD, I TOTALLY misunderstood, my mistake, I am abjectly sorry! I thought you were, well, you know what I thought.....GEEZ, this is what I get for not playing all FM all the time.........Im deleting it now, and toddling off to stand in the corner for being clueless... :eek: :shrug: :(

I kind of thought that -- so I thought a little hint mught be in order :wavey: :wavey:

For the faint of heart - Mary and I really do adore each other - we just both LOVE to argue :cool:

[irishgrl]

I kind of thought that -- so I thought a little hint mught be in order :wavey: :wavey:

For the faint of heart - Mary and I really do adore each other - we just both LOVE to argue :cool:

David: I watched it, I adore it, I embrace it! btw: I think that there are only two people who are that intense during songs, Stevie and Tina Turner.

Jason: bless yer heart, you know I am a bit thick sometimes (not about law or politics however!) and I appreciated your hint! I just finished watching the tape and my two fave parts: LINDSEYS PANTS during The Chain, and SOTM for obvious reasons! Im glad you guys saw panties, all I saw was the tops of her hose.....oh well, maybe I just didnt care enuff to LOOK....I will say this however:
I think Lindsey is adorable in this video and during this time period and Stevie is an IDIOT not to have hoarded him all to herself....he was a true babe magnet then......course he's not chicken liver now but we ALL looked better during our twenty something years right?

[strandinthewind]

. . . Stevie is an IDIOT not to have hoarded him all to herself....he was a true babe magnet then......course he's not chicken liver now but we ALL looked better during our twenty something years right?


Well there are those rumors about him taking her like the wind on that tour :eek:

P.S. I know more about politcs and law than you :p

As for our 20's - do I need to haul out those Speedo model outtakes again :laugh:

[irishgrl]

Well there are those rumors about him taking her like the wind on that tour :eek:

P.S. I know more about politcs and law than you :p

As for our 20's - do I need to haul out those Speedo model outtakes again :laugh:
1) NO you dont need to haul out the speedo outtakes again we all know you WERE gorgeous...but I think if you intend to promote yourself as time proof, you need to get something out there a bit more recent!!!!

2) as for Politics and Law and your alleged superiority, I say--bring it ON! I am every bit as informed as YOU are my dear, I dont give up the Law School ethic so easily.......I still do legal research and I still lobby in my State's Capitol! I take a back seat to NO ONE! Bless yer Heart!

[strandinthewind]

. . . I take a back seat to NO ONE! Bless yer Heart!

:laugh: visions of Mary and Jason both sitting in the front seat trying to steer the war while it is carreening down the highway, windows open, and sounds of shrieking billiowing out sounding like - "CLINTON WAS A PRICK" - - "BUSH APPEASER" --

ah life :cool:

[irishgrl]

:laugh: visions of Mary and Jason both sitting in the front seat trying to steer the war while it is carreening down the highway, windows open, and sounds of shrieking billiowing out sounding like - "CLINTON WAS A PRICK" - - "BUSH APPEASER" --

ah life :cool:

ROAD TRIP!!!

hey: I just felt an earthquake (4.8) and my mom thinks she's gonna go brave all the Gay Priders and go to SF today to see a man about a temple....Im kinda surprised she is going because after the big one that collapsed the Nimitz freeway and the top deck of the Bay Bridge she only goes to SF by Ferry (she seems to think if she goes across the Bridge an earthquake will happen) go figure? anyway, I updated the "earthquake central" thread with graphics and all that....have a look :angel:

[strandinthewind]

ROAD TRIP!!!

hey: I just felt an earthquake (4.8) and my mom thinks she's gonna go brave all the Gay Priders and go to SF today to see a man about a temple....Im kinda surprised she is going because after the big one that collapsed the Nimitz freeway and the top deck of the Bay Bridge she only goes to SF by Ferry (she seems to think if she goes across the Bridge an earthquake will happen) go figure? anyway, I updated the "earthquake central" thread with graphics and all that....have a look :angel:


cool - I shall!!!