Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by 1BiGG1, Nov 26, 2008.
he should just go away without the perks of retirement and be forced to take a remedial reading class......... SMU says get that shit house library off their campus it makes them look bad.
He should be found guilty and put in prison among the general population so he can be fucked up his ass and catch a beating every single day.
All this while the guards just simply look the other way.
Ah..but such a dream couldn't possibly come true.
Too bad, because I would pay top dollar for a ticket to see that.
I don't have a problem with him going to jail, as long as every member of congress, Repubs and Demos go with him. You can't blame one without the other.
I say we render him to Syria for a few days to find out anything that might be of use. Send Cheney along with him for company.
I'm glad Gonzales is going to be prosecuted but that should be just a beginning.
Impeach and remove the bastard and his master.
send him on a one man hunt to wander the rest of his days looking for
osama bin laden.
Bush was acting on intelligence reports...before you condemn him, listen to Hillary Clinton's speech on the Senate floor. She was given the same intelligence reports Bush had. There are similar speeches by John Kerry and other Democrats who supported the war.
YouTube - Hillary Clinton Iraq War Vote Speech
He was doing what every president does. Acting on the info given to him by his advisors. The kind of stuff BO will do just to find his way around every issue.
Everyone knows Sadaam had these weapons, because he did indeed use them on his own people. he got rid of them, and then He led everyone to believe he did have them (so i'd rather not blame my country)...maybe to discredit the US after the invasion.
But i believe after going in (similar to finding concentration camps in WW2) and finding the torture and killing that was going on there (you tube it - IT AINT WATERBOARDING) pouring hot plastic on people , skinning them, throwing them off buildings....and to have a democratic stronghold in the middle of the middle east as an example to these people who denegrate their women, and stone to death 8 year olds.
There are some that would say then what about darfur, or another atrocity...Well, at the time, we were led to believe (my sadaams false information) that there was a threat to the country (there were al qaeda training bases there).
i wonder what the people THERE think, as opposed to the monday morning quarterbacking on this when history hasnt yet been written. Give it (and by it i mean historians) 10 years
Thats a serious oath, to protect and defend the people and the constitution. And sometimes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. An example would be, the regretable deaths of servicemen ad their civilians, but also think of the people on that flight that brought it down over Pennsylvania and how the Air Force could have shot it down before it did much more harm. Scary.
I am just so fucking fucking fucking fucking grateful that Barack Obama is coming onto office!
(I've just discovered text colors. very liberating!)
Im sure there are a lot of middle easterners think that too.
Or maybe just a hunting trip with Dick Cheney would do?
oh yes zippy w. bush is just a product of his incompetent staff nothing is his fault. IN A PIGS ASS
I still love how people to this day still blame all this on Bush. Again every politician is responsible, liberals and conservatives alike, Democrats are to blame just as much as Bush for the Iraq debacle.
To think otherwise shows a limited understanding on the political process and flat out deniability based on a personal opinion that needs to defend your party at any cost.
Blaming Bush is the easy thing to do, but the blame runs so much deeper.
Annoy a Liberal...use facts and logic:
YouTube - Hillary Clinton Iraq War Vote Speech
To believe that you can definitively categorize and pigeonhole all possible viewpoints and understandings, much less derive any meaningful analyses of those holding them, is utterly laughable. I truly pity those who lack the ability to think beyond such artificial constraints.
If you honestly think that members of Congress share the same degree of culpability as Bush for the malfeasance of his administration, then it's you who demonstrates an extremely limited understanding of the dynamics involved.
Clinton's speech is irrelevant. Please see the articles of impeachment showing the allegations against George W. Bush at the links below:
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Resolved, That President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate: (Introduced in House)
Article I--Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign To Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 3 of the Constitution `to take care that the laws be faithfully executed', has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, illegally spent public dollars on a secret propaganda program to manufacture a false cause for war against Iraq.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has engaged in a years-long secret domestic propaganda campaign to promote the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This secret program was defended by the White House Press Secretary following its exposure. This program follows the pattern of crimes detailed in articles I, II, IV, and VIII. The mission of this program placed it within the field controlled by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a White House task-force formed in August 2002 to market an invasion of Iraq to the American people. The group included Karl Rove, I. Lewis Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, Stephen Hadley, Nicholas E. Calio, and James R. Wilkinson.
The WHIG produced white papers detailing so-called intelligence of Iraq's nuclear threat that later proved to be false. This supposed intelligence included the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger as well as the claim that the high strength aluminum tubes Iraq purchased from China were to be used for the sole purpose of building centrifuges to enrich uranium. Unlike the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, the WHIG's white papers provided `gripping images and stories' and used `literary license' with intelligence. The WHIG's white papers were written at the same time and by the same people as speeches and talking points prepared for President Bush and some of his top officials.
The WHIG also organized a media blitz in which, between September 7-8, 2002, President Bush and his top advisers appeared on numerous interviews and all provided similarly gripping images about the possibility of nuclear attack by Iraq. The timing was no coincidence, as Andrew Card explained in an interview regarding waiting until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq, `From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'.
September 7-8, 2002:
NBC's `Meet the Press': Vice President Cheney accused Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms.
CNN: Then-National Security Adviser Rice said, regarding the likelihood of Iraq obtaining a nuclear weapon, `We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.'.
CBS: President Bush declared that Saddam was `six months away from developing a weapon', and cited satellite photos of construction in Iraq where weapons inspectors once visited as evidence that Saddam was trying to develop nuclear arms.
The Pentagon military analyst propaganda program was revealed in an April 20, 2002, New York Times article. The program illegally involved `covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties'. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recruited 75 retired military officers and gave them talking points to deliver on Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC, and according to the New York Times report, which has not been disputed by the Pentagon or the White House, `Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.'.
According to the Pentagon's own internal documents, the military analysts were considered `message force multipliers' or `surrogates' who would deliver administration `themes and messages' to millions of Americans `in the form of their own opinions'. In fact, they did deliver the themes and the messages but did not reveal that the Pentagon had provided them with their talking points. Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and Fox News military analyst described this as follows: `It was them saying, `We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you.'.'.
Congress has restricted annual appropriations bills since 1951 with this language: `No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.'.
A March 21, 2005, report by the Congressional Research Service states that `publicity or propaganda' is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) `covert propaganda'.
These concerns about `covert propaganda' were also the basis for the GAO's standard for determining when government-funded video news releases are illegal:
`The failure of an agency to identify itself as the source of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the viewing audience to believe that the broadcasting news organization developed the information. The prepackaged news stories are purposefully designed to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public. When the television viewing public does not know that the stories they watched on television news programs about the government were in fact prepared by the government, the stories are, in this sense, no longer purely factual--the essential fact of attribution is missing.'.
The White House's own Office of Legal Council stated in a memorandum written in 2005 following the controversy over the Armstrong Williams scandal:
`Over the years, GAO has interpreted `publicity or propaganda' restrictions to preclude use of appropriated funds for, among other things, so-called `covert propaganda'. . . . Consistent with that view, the OLC determined in 1988 that a statutory prohibition on using appropriated funds for `publicity or propaganda' precluded undisclosed agency funding of advocacy by third-party groups. We stated that `covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties' would run afoul of restrictions on using appropriated funds for `propaganda'.'.
Asked about the Pentagon's propaganda program at White House press briefing in April 2008, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino defended it, not by arguing that it was legal but by suggesting that it `should' be: `Look, I didn't know look, I think that you guys should take a step back and look at this look, DOD has made a decision, they've decided to stop this program. But I would say that one of the things that we try to do in the administration is get information out to a variety of people so that everybody else can call them and ask their opinion about something. And I don't think that that should be against the law. And I think that it's absolutely appropriate to provide information to people who are seeking it and are going to be providing their opinions on it. It doesn't necessarily mean that all of those military analysts ever agreed with the administration. I think you can go back and look and think that a lot of their analysis was pretty tough on the administration. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk to people.'.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Bush was incompetent before he was even elected. To this day, his driving records in Texas, along with the papers he dealt with as Governor are sealed.
So where was this man when he was AWOL from the National Guard?
Why did so many of his businesses fail?
How come he says his favorite book as a kid was "The Very Hungry Caterpiller", which wasn't written until he was in college...?
How come he can't speak proper English...?
Nice try, kiddo...
We criticize them for supporting the war and THAT'S IT. Clinton & Kerry didn't have the final word on whether or not we went to war. They were not the ones controlling our military. So instead of trying to shift blame onto someone else, let's focus on the ONE PERSON who got us into this mess.
Instead of just "acting" on the same intelligence reports, why didn't Bush request more thorough investigation? He just assumed that he had the best intelligence on hand, and the last thing you want to base a decision on is assumptions. Bush was more eager to start dropping bombs on someone than actually looking for an effective resolution. Try to spin this all you want in order to make everyone else as guilty as the culprit... but without the source, there would have NEVER been an issue.
Some reports indicate that Bush was eager to drop bombs long for he got into office, to avenge himself on the man who "tried to kill my Daddy"...