.......still holding my breath waiting for that list of front page New York Times "happyface" stories. I'll just take your failure to back up your claim that you could provide said list as a tacit concession that the Times is not, in fact, as balanced as you'd like to think. Fair? For all the articles you guys like to link, you seem to have come up short on this one. For you to claim that the Times does not have an anti-Bush agenda is ridiculous. And if the times isn't going after Bush on this issue, there's probably a pretty good reason for it. Granted, it's early....they could always change their mind.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
Quote:
I'm not dismissing unpleasant information. I see the memos, the articles. But I keep hearing you guys talk about impeachment.
gee, when i read this, i assumed that you were in fact reading this information as you came across it. and the various findings about the wmd charade. and the demolition of the connection to "terrorism." in fact, i went so far as to assume that your argument was that there would be no impeachment because, knowing the information that was and is readily available about bushco's marketing of this farce of a war, you did not see the legal basis for impeachment.
|
I did read the information as I came across it. You are only half correct in your assumption though, I see no legal basis for impeachment, I also do not agree that Bush misled by creating a "wmd charade". For you to claim that he did is intellectually dishonest, unless you somehow think that Bush is evil genius enough to mislead the international intelligence community (British, French, Russian, etc)as well as pre-Bush Administration intelligence. Just for shits, here are a few quotes for you to peruse at your leisure....there are plenty more where these came from. The charade game is being played by the left, pretending now to have never believed that Iraq possessed WMD's, and playing their second favorite game of rewriting history......
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert '"Sheets" Byrd, October 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
...and the demolition of the connection to "terrorism."
|
Huh? You tried to sneak that one in there and thought I wouldn't notice? Sneaky roach, sneaky. So your contention is that Iraq had no ties to terrorism, or that any such ties have been "demolished"? Wow.
There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, that's not even considering the "donations' Saddam made to the family members of Palestinian suicide bombers (sorry for not posting text from the articles, I didn't want this post to get out of hand long....links are legit).
Saddam's Philanthropy or Terror
Evidence of Cooperation Between Saddam and Osama
Saddam and Osama Part 2
Ansar al-Islam, Iraqi intelligence, and al qaeda
Iraqi Intelligence Chief met with bin laden in Khartoum
Saddam Killed Abu Nidal over Al Qaeda Training
Sabah Khodada: Iraqi Intelligence trained al Qaeda
Second Hijacker tied to Abu Nidal, Iraq
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
now, in response to mantus, you seem to be claiming either that there is no evidence that the public was...um...mislead (to put it mildly)--whcih is absurd---or that you have not in fact seen any of it, which woudl contradict what you said earlier.
do you really believe that there were no problems with the bushcase for war?
on what basis? that the wmd systems were in fact found? why is that a secret known only to yourself then?
|
There is no perfect scenario for the buildup to war. Bush (and Congress and the Coalition) acted on internationally accepted intelligence within the confines of UN resolutions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
that there was a link to al qaeada? on what basis?
|
Not on links to Al Qaeda specifically, but links to supporting terror through several organizations. And there is much evidence to suggest that Iraq was in bed with Al Qaeda (see above).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
what are you actually arguing for here, apart from the narrow legal claim that you made many posts ago and seem to be content with recycling, over and over, with various minor inflections?
|
My argument hasn't changed. Bush did not mislead us into war, he did nothing illegal, hence there will be no impeachment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
if you do not see any problems with the bushcase (leaving the impeachment issue asiude for the moment because i do not see anywhere for that to go), in your mind is it possible that there could be problems? what would constitute a problem? beyond the president in question being a democrat--i assume that would be one in your mind. but maybe i'm wrong, so enlighten me please.
|
Yes, having a democrat as president right now would be problem #1. Thank God we don't have to worry about that one for a while, we would be trying to tickle the terrorists to death right now. : )
Of course I see problems, it is impossible for a war to be planned, and executed absolutely perfectly.
Let me ask you this, who do you blame more for this war, Saddam or Bush?