More evidence against soon to be impeached President Bush

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Bush had the unfortunate "luck" of having 9/11 happen on his watch after he ignored the advice he received from the outgoing Clinton administration on terrorism as well as ignoring the advice of his own staff members like Richard Clarke. Along with ingoring over 50 reports on the subject between Arpil 10, 2001 and September 10, 2001. Stop the re-write. Can't you people hold this incompetent boob responsible for ANYTHING?

Perhaps the Clinton Administration should have followed its own advice given that it did nothing to stop the tide of terrorism...then again, I do not think that anything could have been done to prevent an Al Quaida attack on American soil, given that the very nature of our free society enables multiple opportunities to exploit.

Had Bush followed the advice of the Clinton Administration, and done something to improve the security situation in America as a protective measure, it would have infringed on our freedoms in ways similar to the current Patriot Act...the American people would never have gone for increased security measures or limitations to their freedoms to prevent an attack that hadn't happened yet...it took 9/11 to wake up America to its vulnerability.

The Clinton administration foiled the Millenium plot. Bush dropped the ball on terrorism and instead insisted on pursuing a non-working and possibly non-workable missile shield.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The Bush administration was in posession of specific information prior to 9/11 that said bad people were going to use airplanes as missiles in a terrorist attack.

Apparently no one acted on that intelligence prior.

Are you deaf? The Clinton administration gave Bush the heads up on terrorism. Bush ignored them. Eight months later the WTC collapsed after the terrorists Bush chose to ignore took advantage of his ignorance.

 

[aniepras]

This is off topic however I think we have been off topic for awhile. Honestly, Democrats and Republicans both stink. I?d say the vast majority of Politicians on either side of the fence are corrupt. Look at all the senators who used government money for personal trips. Look at all the politicians on both sides that help out big business and what do you know after there agenda gets passed they retire and get a fatty check from the big companies. Do people who care about this country do things like that. The real problem is you can?t get into power positions anymore with out selling your self.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

*yawn*. So now he's going to be impeached? I trust that you've got a valid, legitimate news source? Also, the date on this purported letter is almost THREE YEARS AGO. I'd bet that if something was going to be done about it, it would have already been done.

There are LEGITIMATE reasons to hate Bush. Iraq isn't one of them, nor is it anything that you can change now. Try focusing on CURRENT issues that are of FAR greater importance. Perhaps the fact that Bush and Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, REFUSE TO PROTECT OUR BORDERS and now FORCE US TO PAY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS HEALTH CARE (as if insurance for *ourselves* wasn't expensive enough!).

You have absolutely no sense of perspective at all, and you make it clearer all the time.

Jason

 

[Starbuck1975]

Are you deaf? The Clinton administration gave Bush the heads up on terrorism. Bush ignored them. Eight months later the WTC collapsed after the terrorists Bush chose to ignore took advantage of his ignorance.

The planning of the WTC attacks extended far prior to the 8 month window between Bush taking office and 9/11. The terrorists involved in the taking and flying of those planes were already in America receiving their flight training...the process of researching flights and target selection had already been conducted. Al Quaida was already well established and intent on conducting a terrorist attack on the United States...this all happened well before Bush was even selected as the Republican nominee.

Al Quaida was an identified threat to America by the late 1990s, yet where was the response or protective measures in place?

Regardless, it is impossible to place the blame on any one person or administration as numerous failings opened the window that allowed 9/11 to occur...and some would argue that had 9/11 not occurred, Al Quaida would have found another vulnerability to exploit.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Is this the same Ramsey Clark that was with the Dem administrations that accelerated involvement in Vietnam?

Apparently some people learn from their mistakes. Bush should try it sometime.

When Bush is asked to list his mistakes he can't think of a single one. :roll:

Admittedly, that was funny and sad. Honestly I think he'd have scored more points if he'd have pointed out at least a couple of small ones. He didn't have to admit to anything huge, for example, but it would have shown some character and humility to admit to some small ones.

Jason

 

[Comanche]

Excellent poing!

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The Bush administration was in posession of specific information prior to 9/11 that said bad people were going to use airplanes as missiles in a terrorist attack.

Apparently no one acted on that intelligence prior. Also, do you realize the sheer number of intelligence reports, threats and scenarios our military and intelligence community processes on a daily basis. It is impossible to act or put preventative measures in place for every one of these scenarios, particularly one so seemingly outlandish as kamikaze commercial plane attacks.

 

[aniepras]

Originally posted by: BBond

The Bush administration was in posession of specific information prior to 9/11 that said bad people were going to use airplanes as missiles in a terrorist attack.

By the way starbuck that information you are reffering to was proven totally false. So stop believing what you hear and start thinking especially before you try and pass it on.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Who gives a sh*t about the UN? This is about Bush and Blair fabricating evidence to illegally invade a sovereign nation.

Iraq wasn't a Sovereign Nation. It was a dictatorship, period. That's not a matter that's open for dispute unless you are the kind of person who believes that some men have a RIGHT to dominate, oppress, torture, rape and murder others.

If you believe that is true, then we can talk about Sovereignty of Saddam's Iraq. If you don't, then it's a dead subject and a moot point.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Originally posted by: Deptacon
yawn..... "I did not have sexual relations with that women"

if a pres got by that...well..... your gonna need a lot more than this....

anways....

off to the next anti bush thread

Clinton was impeached over a blowjob. Why would the impeachment of President Bush be of any suprise?

Clinton wasn't impeached over a blowjob (though it's true to say that the Republicans were WAY out of line to investigate him over that issue. His WIFE should have been investigating him, divorcing him and taking everything he's got).

Clinton was impeached because he LIED under oath. At that he STILL got off pretty much scott-free, whereas you or I would have been thrown in jail for at least 30 days.

Just as the Republicans were WRONG to spend so much time wrangling about whether he screwed around on his wife, the Democrats were WRONG to look the other way when he LIED under oath.

Jason

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Who gives a sh*t about the UN? This is about Bush and Blair fabricating evidence to illegally invade a sovereign nation.

Iraq wasn't a Sovereign Nation. It was a dictatorship, period. That's not a matter that's open for dispute unless you are the kind of person who believes that some men have a RIGHT to dominate, oppress, torture, rape and murder others.

If you believe that is true, then we can talk about Sovereignty of Saddam's Iraq. If you don't, then it's a dead subject and a moot point.

Jason

Iraq was a UN member sovereign nation. The UN Security Council refused to give the Bush administration a green light to invade Iraq. The resulting invasion and occupation failed to produce the WMD Bush used as an excuse for his illegal unprovoked attack against a UN member sovereign nation.

One of the principal reasons world bodies are formed is so that rogue nations cannot simply make up reasons to attack other nations. That's also one of the main reasons the Bush administration wants to destroy the UN.

 

[Starbuck1975]

By the way starbuck that information you are reffering to was proven totally false. So stop believing what you hear and start thinking especially before you try and pass it on.

What information are you referring to, given that you have not expanded on your point beyond claiming I am wrong.

 

[Last Rezort]

Originally posted by: aniepras
Last Rezort,

You really need to stop believing everything you hear and start thinking on your own. How would we be better off with Clinton he is partially to blame for sept. 11, his fake economy was falling fast, he was selling technology secrets to china for personal gain he still gets paid by China, he is the reason North Korea has the nuclear power plant he practically built it for them.

Now Bush has helped us recover from the trauma of 9/11, we haven?t had another attack during his presidency; he freed millions of suffering Iraqis captured Saddam Hussein and over a hundred other terrorist.

Now tell me what Bush has done so wrong to you? And what Clinton did so well besides all the women?

That we have not had another attack in Bush?s presidency is not indicative of bush?s involvement. By your logic I could assert that because of bush 9/11 happened, though we both know neither is the case.

As of what bush has done to me? What about the fact that we now live in one of the most hated countries on the planet? That I cannot step outside America without being labeled a hate mongering American?

Though yes we have ?freed? the Iraqi?s we have put them in the middle of a war that has Iraqi citizens dieing every day.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Who gives a sh*t about the UN? This is about Bush and Blair fabricating evidence to illegally invade a sovereign nation.

sovereign.....SOVEREIGN hahahahaha more like a nation held hostage by saddam

oh boy.....tell that to the milions of iraqis that are happy saddam is gone

D00D

If someone would remove Bush from office (PLEASE GOD) millions of Americans would be ecstatic.

Does that make it right?

What gave Bush the right to invade a sovereign UN member nation without approval of the UN Security Council? Can't you understand that if every nation operated under these rules we'd have hegemony being practiced everywhere?

For the ten millionth time: IRAQ WAS NOT A SOVEREIGN NATION. IRAQ WAS A DICTATORSHIP. THE ONLY WAY TO ARGUE THAT IRAQ WAS SOVEREIGN IS IF YOU BELIEVE THAT SOME MEN HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE THEIR WILL ON OTHERS AND TO USE MURDER, TORTURE AND OPPRESSION TO GET THEIR WAY.

Of course, it's been clear for a long time, BBond, that you BELIEVE some men have the right to treat others as their private property, to be used, abused or destroyed in any manner they choose. Of COURSE you would argue that Saddam's Iraq was sovereign. If this were 1860 you'd argue that the North had no right to tell the South to free the slaves, too!

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond
George W. Bush. Winner of the 2005 Richard Nixon Award.

Impeachment.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party's lack of ethics combined with America's inability to tell right from wrong, or to demand accountability in the rare instances when we do, will postpone any efforts unless and until, hopefully, the American people wake up in 2006.

But I wouldn't count on it. The Republicans can always simply steal another election and maintain their church, state, and corporate axis of evil.

Of course you haven't the honesty or integrity to admit it, but the lack of ethics on the part of the Republican Party (which is true, I agree) is equalled only by the lack of ethics on the part of the DEMOCRATIC party.

Both are DISHONEST, FRAUDULENT, and COMPLETELY IN BED WITH EACH OTHER.

D's and R's alike care about one thing and one thing only: Keeping themselves in power.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond
George W. Bush. Winner of the 2005 Richard Nixon Award.

Impeachment.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party's lack of ethics combined with America's inability to tell right from wrong, or to demand accountability in the rare instances when we do, will postpone any efforts unless and until, hopefully, the American people wake up in 2006.

But I wouldn't count on it. The Republicans can always simply steal another election and maintain their church, state, and corporate axis of evil.

You might argue that they stole the 2000 election (but only if you think the Electoral College shouldn't exist) but you certainly *can't* argue that they stole 2004. It was a narrow victory, but it was legitimate both in the Popular and the Electoral vote.

Spread your lies somewhere else. Yes, we need to fight the agenda of the Republicans, but your fraud, deceit and stupidity do nothing but undermine any credibility that LEGITIMATE protestors have.

Jason

 

[Last Rezort]

Originally posted by: Comanche
Blaming Bush or Clinton for the 9/11 attacks is kind of stupid don't you think. There are bad people out there in the world that are going to do things no matter who is president. You could say that they ignored intelligence, but who would have thougth that these people would use suicides to try to further thier cause.

And the guy that wrote the letter at the beggining of this thread wrote more letters to the UN complaining about the US than you can shake a stick at. He put what ever he could into those letters to sabatage both Clinton and Bush. He's a cry baby.

Your joking right? Yes who would of thought they would kill themselves to further their cauze?
Great post, oh wait, no it wasnt.

 

[Last Rezort]

Originally posted by: aniepras
This is off topic however I think we have been off topic for awhile. Honestly, Democrats and Republicans both stink. I?d say the vast majority of Politicians on either side of the fence are corrupt. Look at all the senators who used government money for personal trips. Look at all the politicians on both sides that help out big business and what do you know after there agenda gets passed they retire and get a fatty check from the big companies. Do people who care about this country do things like that. The real problem is you can?t get into power positions anymore with out selling your self.

You are dead on, it is off topic!

 

[ITJunkie]

Iraq was a safehouse of terrorists and Saddam did pay terrorists. On top of that one of the biggest problems with terrorism in that region is the people have little political representation. This leads to anger and opression of the people. The terrorists feed off this anger and can recruit easier when people lack political representation.

Following this line of thought...why have we not invaded Saudi Arabia then? They have done far more to promote terrorism than Iraq ever did.

Sticking a democracy in the heart of the Middle East will bleed democracy in all directions. The hope is eventually the nations around Iraq will end up being much more politically accessible to the people and thus will make it tougher for terrorists to recruit.

In theory, this makes sense. The problem though is the lack of cultural understanding of the area. Without that understanding, foisting any form of government on another country only leads to more problems. History is cluttered with failed attempts to install "Democracy" in regions that neither need it nor want it. The rising death toll of American soldiers since "the end of military operations" (or whatever) only proves the point.
The "idea" isn't the problem, necessarily, but more the policy behind the idea that is creating more instability than there was prior.

 

[Last Rezort]

Originally posted by: aniepras
Originally posted by: BBond

The Bush administration was in posession of specific information prior to 9/11 that said bad people were going to use airplanes as missiles in a terrorist attack.

By the way starbuck that information you are reffering to was proven totally false. So stop believing what you hear and start thinking especially before you try and pass it on.

QFT

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond
That Bush invaded Iraq, without UN Security Council approval, pretty much cements the fact that invasion was the only alternative ever seriously considered. Don't you think?

Umm, no. For one thing, the US government does NOT answer to the UN. For another, diplomatic efforts had been going on for TWELVE (that's 12 for you, BBond) years. For a last, Saddam was given a clear and simple warning: Pack your sh1t, load up your sons and get the hell out of Iraq. You have 48 hours.

Saddam could have averted the entire war, his sons' deaths (though I am glad they were killed) and retired happily with plenty of cash to any of several nations who would have harbored him. Saddam CHOSE the war instead. Why? Because like any Democrat or Republican in government today, he wanted to maintain his own POWER over other people. It wasn't the money-he could have taken *plenty* of money with him. Goodness knows we found *truckloads* of cash that he could have taken with him.

I'll say it for you again: Bush is an idiot and a terrible president. There are, however, bigger, more important fvckups he's made than Iraq, and they're affecting us HERE and NOW. Only people like you have fallen right into stupid-land and become STUCK on this ONE subject that's already done, can't be changed and you can do nothing about. You're WASTING YOUR TIME, WASTING YOUR ENERGY. Try to find other legitimate issues (there are MANY) that you can DO something about and try to make a positive change instead of sitting here pissing your pants.

Jason

 

[Last Rezort]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Who gives a sh*t about the UN? This is about Bush and Blair fabricating evidence to illegally invade a sovereign nation.

sovereign.....SOVEREIGN hahahahaha more like a nation held hostage by saddam

oh boy.....tell that to the milions of iraqis that are happy saddam is gone

D00D

If someone would remove Bush from office (PLEASE GOD) millions of Americans would be ecstatic.

Does that make it right?

What gave Bush the right to invade a sovereign UN member nation without approval of the UN Security Council? Can't you understand that if every nation operated under these rules we'd have hegemony being practiced everywhere?

For the ten millionth time: IRAQ WAS NOT A SOVEREIGN NATION. IRAQ WAS A DICTATORSHIP. THE ONLY WAY TO ARGUE THAT IRAQ WAS SOVEREIGN IS IF YOU BELIEVE THAT SOME MEN HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE THEIR WILL ON OTHERS AND TO USE MURDER, TORTURE AND OPPRESSION TO GET THEIR WAY.

Of course, it's been clear for a long time, BBond, that you BELIEVE some men have the right to treat others as their private property, to be used, abused or destroyed in any manner they choose. Of COURSE you would argue that Saddam's Iraq was sovereign. If this were 1860 you'd argue that the North had no right to tell the South to free the slaves, too!

Jason

Your argument has nothing to do with fact. The UN declared them a SOVEREIGN nation. Nothing you can say can make it not so.

 

[Last Rezort]

sorry repost

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Who gives a sh*t about the UN? This is about Bush and Blair fabricating evidence to illegally invade a sovereign nation.

Iraq wasn't a Sovereign Nation. It was a dictatorship, period. That's not a matter that's open for dispute unless you are the kind of person who believes that some men have a RIGHT to dominate, oppress, torture, rape and murder others.

If you believe that is true, then we can talk about Sovereignty of Saddam's Iraq. If you don't, then it's a dead subject and a moot point.

Jason

Iraq was a UN member sovereign nation. The UN Security Council refused to give the Bush administration a green light to invade Iraq. The resulting invasion and occupation failed to produce the WMD Bush used as an excuse for his illegal unprovoked attack against a UN member sovereign nation.

One of the principal reasons world bodies are formed is so that rogue nations cannot simply make up reasons to attack other nations. That's also one of the main reasons the Bush administration wants to destroy the UN.

You really don't understand the moral principle that no man has a right to force his will upon others, do you, BBond? Or more likely you just don't care.

Iraq WAS NOT A SOVEREIGN NATION. Iraq WAS A DICTATORSHIP. Iraq's people were TORTURED, OPPRESSED and MURDERED by Saddam's regime.

Whatever else may be true about Bush's other motives (and I'm sure many of them are true), the fact is that Saddam's Iraq was NOT a legitimate sovereignty. Just because the UN "says so" does not make it so. A dictatorship is NEVER a valid form of government, PERIOD.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Iraq was a safehouse of terrorists and Saddam did pay terrorists. On top of that one of the biggest problems with terrorism in that region is the people have little political representation. This leads to anger and opression of the people. The terrorists feed off this anger and can recruit easier when people lack political representation.

Following this line of thought...why have we not invaded Saudi Arabia then? They have done far more to promote terrorism than Iraq ever did.

Sticking a democracy in the heart of the Middle East will bleed democracy in all directions. The hope is eventually the nations around Iraq will end up being much more politically accessible to the people and thus will make it tougher for terrorists to recruit.

In theory, this makes sense. The problem though is the lack of cultural understanding of the area. Without that understanding, foisting any form of government on another country only leads to more problems. History is cluttered with failed attempts to install "Democracy" in regions that neither need it nor want it. The rising death toll of American soldiers since "the end of military operations" (or whatever) only proves the point.
The "idea" isn't the problem, necessarily, but more the policy behind the idea that is creating more instability than there was prior.

We SHOULD invade Saudi Arabia and take out their government. Bush and company have failed to consider that as a valid action.

As for people not "needing or wanting Democracy", ie, not needing or wanting participation in their government or a voice in deciding their own fate, I'm sorry but I don't find that line of reasoning to be convincing at all. Just because you're USED TO being abused, oppressed and victimized doesn't mean it's right for you to *stay* in that position.

Jason