Rumsfeld resignation petition

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

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

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

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.

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

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.

[DeeGeMe]

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

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.

[DeeGeMe]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

[strandinthewind]

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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

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.

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

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 Just admit you are wrong on this point because you are

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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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 "revoering" economy even more. In a way, I feel like I'm living in the 70's all over again.

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

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.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

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.

On top of that, didn't we find out no to long ago that Saddam tried to cut a last minute deal? It got buried underneath the mountain of **** that was coming out at the time but my point is, this whole thing could have been avoided. I also think we could have had Bin Laden. But we've been lied to so many times about 9/11 I've got to wonder if they really want to find him. John Dean was right when he said this is worse than Watergate. We are through the looking glass. The people in charge have no souls.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

On top of that, didn't we find out no to long ago that Saddam tried to cut a last minute deal? It got buried underneath the mountain of **** that was coming out at the time but my point is, this whole thing could have been avoided. I also think we could have had Bin Laden. But we've been lied to so many times about 9/11 I've got to wonder if they really want to find him. John Dean was right when he said this is worse than Watergate. We are through the looking glass. The people in charge have no souls.

But even if SH really did try this last minute deal, who would have believed him. I would not have - what is the expression about crying wolf once too often. I mean if it could have stayed the war, it was worth a go. But, he could have left the country - that was the deal offered. He had a significant period of time to do so and did not. Rather, he prepared his troops for battle, which suggests no believable counter deal was offered Thus, any alleged deal must be taken with a grain of salt IMO.

Again, I am not saying I believe in the way W went about getting rid of SH. I am just saying the world, W, Clinton, Kerry, the UN, etc. ALL thought for 11 years SH had to go because of the mounting threat of WMD. So, to say W was alone in that boat is just flat out wrong.

Interetingly, even David Kay said it was a good thing SH was ousted because the mechanisms to produce the WMD were there (or something like that). So, W was right to think they had WMD. Again, its his lack of a clear plan for after the war and his baiting Americans with information he knew was false are the reasons I think he should be impeached.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Interetingly, even David Kay said it was a good thing SH was ousted because the mechanisms to produce the WMD were there (or something like that).

Wonder how David Kay feels today?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Wonder how David Kay feels today?

I do not know - but he said this months after we invaded. My point is people in general act like we had no reason whatsoever for ever even contemplating removing SH and that SH should have stayed in power. I think that ignores the 11 years of the UN trying to work with him and his openly bribing Russia, France, and the head of the UN not to allow the UN to enforce its numerous Resolutions and, thus, to allow him to stay in power. I think that is wrong. I do think, however, W and his admin. have botched this up and they were too quick to go to war, even though I get the 9/11 no tolereance excuse.