Rumsfeld resignation petition
 

If you wish to sign, please go here:

http://action.truemajority.com/index...=10169&ms=rum4

There is one as well as www.johnkerry.com.

I mean his generals had time to try and block CBS from airing the pics because of the immediate threat to the soldiers these pics could cause, but Rummy and advisors could not be bothered to inform Congress (as they are legally bound to do) much less tell W. PUUHHHLLLEEEZZEEE :mad:

Consider it done. Anyone see Bush's speech today? He's so full of **** that I can see it dribbling down his chin!!

Done.

Bush thanked Rummy for his "hospitality"??? WTF? Did they have tea and crumpets together this morning before he declared Rummy a "really good" secretary of defense. :lol:

Kick!
He serves at the pleasure of the president who doesn't seem to realize he WORKS for the American people. Fire the liars! :wavey:

If I had a dollar for every time a Repug told me during the Clinton impeachment era that it wasn't the sex that bothered them-it was the "lies". Okay--so no one died when Clinton lied about sex. How many Americans have died as a result of George Bush's lies? Why aren't they calling for his impeachment? Let's face it, it really was about the sex with Clinton. So let's sum up shall we? Lying about sex=bad. Lying about war=good?????? WTF?

Foul - Clinton, like W, had a pattern of lying to get out of illegal situations. If you do not believe me, ask the woman I believe is still currently serving time because she refused to sell out the Clintons. Then there was the "suicide" of V. Foster, then there were the Clintonian wars and the missle lobbing. In sum, they both lied. Scum, the lot of them IMO :shrug:

Interestingly, at least W had the world's opinion for the last 11 years and the opinion of the UN behind him when he declared Iraq had WMD and then ousted SH. I mean the UN had just declared SH must disarm or prove he no longer had WMD - yet SH once again refused to do anything. Also, it is proven now that SH bribed France and Russia and, indeed, the head of the UN by selling them, via complex legal arrangements, the oil for food oil at significantly discounted prices, which they in turn sold at a HUGE profit (we are talking billions here). So, to say the UN was not behing the US for legitimate reasons is insorrect. If Russia and France had made the UN's Security Council fully behing the US, things would have been very different. So, they are to blame more than W IMO.

McDougal got out and wrote a book about how the Rethugs tried to get her to turn on the Clintons. :wavey:

And you know what I think about Vince Foster! He never committed suicide, it was murder.

However, when I look at Shrub, I sure do miss Bill. A lot.

Me too!!!!!! A hole in a tree is better than this self-righteous a$$$hole and his pompous far religious right hate spewering MF's. The only good thing about him is Barney!!!!!!!

:lol:

They had some guy who wrote a book called "The Faith of George W. Bush" on Washington Journal this morning and you should've heard the callers screaming about how Shrub was a religious hypocrite. And most of the callers were from swing states and the Bible Belt!

Then they had Nader on. ;)

Just gotta ask this: So you're one of those conspiracy theory folks huh? Gosh, isn't it bad enough being a Republican without being a CT too?

Seriously, I'm not going to say for one minute that Clinton didn't lie. He clearly did. But can you honestly tell me that the damage that was caused by Clinton's lies have resulted in a loss of standing of our country in the eyes of nations around the world or in anyway equal to the loss of human life or human rights abuses that have happened as a direct result of all of W's many, many lies and manipulations of the truth?

:lol: He's not a Republican, he just plays one on the board to piss us off. :lol:

Seriously, Vince Foster's death is HIGHLY suspicious (and I have many reservations about him killing himself), and no one can ever accuse me of being a Rethug. ;) :laugh:

Consider it...
 

signed...Thanks for the link.

Well, I think the people killed in C's bombings and military actions that were done without the UN's approval would say they were treated unfairly. But, Clinton can operate without UN approval and for humanitarian reasons and the D's applaude. W does it, and again, he has UN approval but for France, Russia, and the head the UN taking bribes from SH, and W is far worse than C? I just do not see it. I think they are equally as guilty of it. BTW - I am not talking about conspiracies here. I am talking about facts. Again, THE WORLD thought SH had WMD and acted on such info. for 11 years, which resulted in the loss of life :shrug:

In any event, I agree W should be impeached for using the nuclear stuff when he knew it was false. But, I am just willing to call a spade a spade by asserting Clinton did the same thing which you assert he did not. Instead, you think people were after C for having sex, when he clearly was guilty of far worse.

\
Actually - I am a Republican that is pissed off that this far religious right idiots masquerading as R's have taken over the party over the last 20 or so years. I think I am a Liberitarian more than anything now. In thruth, I think all politicians are lying scum and few have facts to rebut my conclusion.

No taxes and legalized weed. Sounds good to me. :p

You can't equate Clinton's military actions to Bush's actual, full-fledged war with not one, but two different foreign countries. And enough with the UN conspiracy theories. Man, I beg of you-please stop watching Fox News!

So, you think we should not have invaded Afganistan? We should just have believed them that OBL could never have done the actions of 9/11 and even if he did, they would not turn him over because they did not know where he was :rolleyes: I mean come on. You crazy liberals say the strangest things sometime :laugh:

Moreover, all W did was do what the UN should have done but for France, Russia, and Kofi's bribe taking. Or do you refute the fact that SH sold all three discounted oil, which has been proven.

Again, i am not saying I agree with W, I am just saying you make it sound like the US had no reasons to go into Iraq, which I submit the facts do not support. Now who is the conspiracy theorist :laugh:

Well, the Bush admins. track record on going against terrorism up until Afghanistan was pretty bad (i.e. the Cole bombing investigation that they were in charge of) because they thought if they did anything to combat terrorist attacks, it would become a "tit for tat" situation. Whatever that means. :rolleyes:

And the US had no reason to go into Iraq. None at all. I don't buy this horse**** about Shrub not knowing that Saddam had no weapons. He knew all along but went in anyway for obvious reasons that I won't go into because we've discussed it 6,770,835,092 times over.

Ain't that the truth :laugh: :cool:

Did I say that I didn't support the Afganistan action? No. I didn't. We were justified in going in there and trying to find OBL--which I'd like to point out we still haven't found. Maybe if we would have shaken down some of the many Saudi citizens and Bin Laden family relations we allowed to leave this country in the days immediatly following 9/11 one of them could have told us something useful about his probable whereabouts. Oh that's right-we can't ask the Saudis anything and just because their citizens were mostly responsible for the actions of 9/11--why, that doesn't mean they aren't bad people, right? Yeah, whatever.

Anyway, I will admit to having had huge problems with the logic behind invading Iraq. The evidence simply wasn't there to warrant our actions in that country. And don't tell me Saddam's a bad man. No ****. But so are half-a-dozen leaders in countries around the world who pose a far greater and proven threat to the US (South Korea, anyone?). Why not remove them first? Hmm. . gee, could it be because there aren't any oil reserves in those countries?

And forget about the argument about creating a model of democracy in the Muslim world. It ain't gonna happen. Ever. Especially not now.

Interestingly enough, Linda Tripp was close to that situation too. Makes you wonder.

Her face has that effect on me, too.

Not so fast. Patty Buchanan is really a Lib too.

:eek:

I should've known; he is the biggest isolationist I've ever seen. And he licks Rethuglican ass at every opportunity.

I think the role of Israel in 9/11 has never been fully investigated becasue the minute someone brings that up, people start screaming anti-semitism. At first, we were being told that the Palestinians were taking credit for it. there's a whole lot that doesn't flow right with the administration's 9/11 story.
As far as invading Iraq, well that has certainly worked out well, now hasn't it? How much is gas now? They think we are so simple minded. For the most part, they are right.

Paid for by a friend of Hillary's. Weirder.

Over $2 for regular in my area. :shocked:

On CNN last night, I heard $3.11 in CA. :shocked:

:lol: Her "new" hair made her look like a white-trash country singer who moonlights at the biker bar down the road from her double-wide. It was awful. She went nuts with the Gheri curls.

:shocked: Just feel lucky that we don't live in Europe. I couldn't pay $6 a gallon.

True darling but here is my perspective on that. Europeans buy less oil, drive smaller cars for the most part and their countries are much smaller, therefore they are charged more for oil. They also have much more effective methods of public transportation. Please Europeans, don't take this as any kind of a slam, just my perspective on the economics of your oil prices.
I think it could get even higher for us by mid-summer which could hurt our "recovering" economy even more. In a way, I feel like I'm living in the 70's all over again.

My point was you seemingly praised Clinton and said he was attacked for merely having sex. I submit Clinton never shook down the Saudi's when OBL and by your loigic SA was attacking us. Moreover, Clinton entered into an assinine pact with a maniac in NK that merely bought him time to grear up to produce neclear weapons. So, my point is while W is not the greatest I think the facts celarly show C, the man you suggested did nothing wronger than get a hummer in the Oval office, is guilty of the same things :shrug:

Finally, we attacked Iraq because for 11 years the world agreed he had WMD and SH never met his burden of proving he did not. Then, when called on to act on its 1.8 billion resolutions, the France, Russia, and Kofi A., take a bribe and refuse to act. You may not like those facts, but they are facts.

Those are not the facts and if you believe they are, then it's pretty obvious that you're the ideal George Bush enabler.

The UN did not for 11 years believe that SH had WMD?

SH did not sell oil via the oil for food program at discounted prices to France, Russia, and the head of the UN (via his relatives)?

These are facts. If you know otherwise, please prove it. I submit you cannot.

Yes, I can. The UN knew that SH didn't have weapons of mass destruction because their inspectors couldn't find them. And Joe Wilson couldn't find proof that SH tried to buy yellow cake uranium in Africa either. When Joe Wilson tried to expose this Bush lie, the identity of his CIA wife was revealed--which is actually a violation of Bush's own beloved "Patriot Act". When UN officials tried to point out that they could find no evidence of WMD prior to the beginning of the Iraq war, they were verbally attacked. The whole "We hate the UN" movement is a direct result of the UN's opposition to Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Here is the evidence of the bribes by SH

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...russia.saddam/

http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos200405051300.asp

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/20...19-2004/un.htm

http://www.suntimes.com/output/osull...dt-osul05.html

Please explain to me how the evidence of bribes is incorrect :shrug:

So, why did the UN for 11 years agree on essentially the same info. that SH had WMD?

Moreover, why are you not so quick to place the blame of SH. He NEVER EVER met his burden of proving to the UN that he had destroyed the WMD we all knew he had :shrug:

Now - if you want to talk about how W screwed up the fight in Iraq or that W was too quick to act on the intelligence, we will more likely than not agree all day. But to say W lied about the existence of WMD via the intelligence is just wrong - period.

Look, I am not saying Bush is an angel. In fact, he is FAR from it. But to say the US had absolutly no reasons to oust SH suggests you have not been informed of the facts. AND - I agree, I think W ought to be impeached for the way he went about it in that he lied about the nuclear stuff. But, Bush I, Clinton, W, pretty much all members of Congress, and the entire world believed SH had WMD. But if that is not good enought for you, i am unsure what else to point to :laugh: Just admit you are wrong on this point because you are :cool:

Moreover, then you would have to agree that Clinton should have been impeached because he repeatedly stated SH had WMD during and after office :shrug: In fact, he still says it as does Kerry. So, how do they differ from W on this issue. They do not.

All good points. Europe has some great public transportation, whereas we have an AWFUL one. As for it going up, there's no doubt that it will.

I know - Atlanta spent billions on a public train that essentiall goes nowhere except the airport and midtown/downtown. It was desigend to be a commuter line, which means you have to drive to the station, which I suppose is better than driving an additional 20 miles each way for your commute, but people are less than thrilled with it. Then, a place like Manhattan has no train to La Guardia, its closest airport and the trains to JFK and Newark are slow and somewhat costly when you consider time and the fare. Chicago's system is actually pretty good though.