OP/ED: Kerry Wants Bush Impeached

Originally posted by Valhall

Dean's an idiot, and we're not talking about him right now, are we?

Right, Dean is your guy and when he helps make a point against your own position, well, you don't want to talk about him.

Well, then why not re-call Kerry? The voters of Massachussetts would have ample reason based on his vote for the war before he voted against it. This is the second time in the second war that Kerry has done things to undermine our own troops in the field. Then there are all the lies he's made about his service record - based on at least as much factual evidence as you have for Bush.

[edit on 12/17/2005 by centurion1211]

Thanks for the WATS and compliments guys Good to know im not alone in my beliefs.

Originally posted by CelticHeart
It seems these days that there are quite a few people who think that President George W. Bush should be impeached. While I'm not surprised at this, I was however surprised when I read an article that said that John Kerry wanted to impeach President Bush on the basis of his misleading the US. Is that really any reason to get rid of one president, when the next president would also probably mislead the US? It seems that during these day and ages misleading is the name of the game.

And in this day and age, it seems that we are so disheartened, and cynical in that there are no easy answers that we can garner from a keyboard and CNN.

I'm sure that he wanted Bush impeached from the very beginning, just as so many of his leftist lackeys have, if for no other reason than tit for tat for Clinton's impeachment. The left-wing has been howling for Bush's impeachment all along, and their calls are doubly ironic since so many of them really don't even know what impeachment is. It's just what was done to Clinton, and they want to get even for that.

That said, I have no particular issue with Bush being impeached. If evidence is presented that he actually committed an impeachable offense, then I'll call for it, just as I did when evidence was presented that Clinton had perjured himself in sworn testimony. The president cannot be held above the law, no matter which president or which law.

However, despite the clearly evil and harmful things that Bush has done, I have yet to see any indication of a specific impeachable offense. Impeachment doesn't hinge on the popularity of a president's actions or the acceptability or legitimacy or even international legality of them, but on the domestic legality of them. That's the only standard that counts.

And honestly, impeachment would do nothing to stop the abuses of this administration. Bush is nothing other than a figurehead, and if he was gone, the policies that he represents would continue to be the policies of the administration.

I really don't see impeachment as anything other than a bit of pointless vengeance on the part of petty Democrats. And this particular call for it seems to be little more than an excuse for Kerry to get his name into print, and to align himself with those same petty Democrats, demonstrating yet again that he doesn't know how to reach anyone else.

Not only has Bush trashed the Constitution (he said last week, "the Constitution is just a God-damned piece of paper..."), but he is complicit in war crimes and also 9-11...just do a little research.

Yes, this man should be impeached, Cheney thrown out of office, Rice charged with perjury...the list is endless.

Our current government is corrupt beyond belief and when we, the people, finally wake up to the fact that our government has been hijacked by neo-cons, then perhaps, we may be able to turn things around.

Our forefathers crafted the Constitution to protect us, to enrich our lives. The Bush regime is herding the U.S. populace towards an unthinkable Nazi-esque way of life. Don't you see it?

Well, he did get just about half the votes in the last election. He may not have as much "political" power as Bush, but a lot of people still listen to him. It's almost as if he wants this so called divided country to exist.

I don't think half of the votes were FOR Kerry as much as they were votes AGAINST Bush. I think Orville Redenbocker, Jr. would have gotten half of the votes just because he wasn't George W. Bush. If the democrats had chosen a candidate who actually had strong convictions and stood in the same place on every issue regardless of which crowd he was speaking in front of then they may have been able to win the election. But we all know the Dems just put Kerry up in '04 so that Hillary could go up against a non-incumbent in '08.

Originally posted by centurion1211


Right, Dean is your guy and when he helps make a point against your own position, well, you don't want to talk about him.

What are you talking about? Why is "Dean my guy"? Why would he be my guy?

Well, then why not re-call Kerry? The voters of Massachussetts would have ample reason based on his vote for the war before he voted against it. This is the second time in the second war that Kerry has done things to undermine our own troops in the field. Then there are all the lies he's made about his service record - based on at least as much factual evidence as you have for Bush.

[edit on 12/17/2005 by centurion1211]

What does Kerry's voting record have to do with Bush garnering the U.S. citizen's support based on false intelligence and misleading statements?

Why are you trying so desperately to change the focus of this discussion?

Originally posted by grafxgal

Not only has Bush trashed the Constitution (he said last week, "the Constitution is just a God-damned piece of paper..."),

Actually, he has been reported as having said that. I have no doubt that he did, but that's an important legal distinction. Impeachment depends, as I already said, on clear evidence of the willful commission of a criminal act (or an act of treason), and ill-considered and frightening though that statement might be, IF he did indeed make it, it still would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

but he is complicit in war crimes...

Again, IF that is indeed the case (and I don't doubt that it in fact IS), that's an international issue, and is not an impeachable offense. It's not a violation of domestic law. One might be able to make the case that, in violating international law he somehow failed to "faithfully execute (his) responsibilities" and thereby violated his oath of office, but that would be a tough case to make, and, more to the point, is something of which entirely too many politicians could be found guilty, so it wouldn't be in any of their interest to actually attempt to impeach him for that.

...and also 9-11

Honestly I don't even doubt that, but it's not only unproven but almost certainly unproveable, and therefore couldn't be used as a legitimate basis for impeachment.

...just do a little research.

I have. That's why I know what is REALLY necessary for an impeachment. I would suggest that YOU do a little research into that subject.

Yes, this man should be impeached, Cheney thrown out of office, Rice charged with perjury...the list is endless.

Arguably Bush and all the rest of them-- ALL of the political power-mongers, regardless of party, should be thrown out of office. That's not the issue. The issue is whether, under the Constitution, Bush CAN be impeached, and no matter how much you or even I might wish it were otherwise, the simple truth is that, as of now, he can't. There's no charge that can be made against him that would serve as a legitimate cause of the LEGAL process of impeachment. And if we are not to follow the legally-dictated course, then we're really no better than them.

Our current government is corrupt beyond belief and when we, the people, finally wake up to the fact that our government has been hijacked by neo-cons, then perhaps, we may be able to turn things around.

You're exactly half right Government, by its very nature, REGARDLESS OF PARTY, is corrupt. THAT'S the fact that people need to wake up to. A focus on only one party actually serves the purposes of the corrupt government, since it turns us against each other, and allows the power-mongers to operate in relative freedom from legitimate scrutiny and legitimate opposition. So long as our criticisms are partisan, other partisans will counter them, even if it means defending the indefensible. People need to understand that partisanship is a diversion, and that we need to cooperate with each other against ALL of those who seek to wield power over us.

Our forefathers crafted the Constitution to protect us, to enrich our lives. The Bush regime is herding the U.S. populace towards an unthinkable Nazi-esque way of life. Don't you see it?

Yes, I do see it, but that process started long ago, and has been successfully pursued by politicians on both sides of the imaginary aisle, and they have succeeded in large part because they have managed to convince entirely too many people that only the "other" side is a threat.


My point here is twofold:

1) Bush IS a threat, and arguably the most overt threat we've yet faced, but he's ultimately just a product of a system that is firmly entrenched and is largely supported by short-sighted people who only complain about the "other" side and who actually defend those on "their" side from the criticisms of the "other" side. We need to let go of that indoctrinated partisanship in order to stand together against ALL of the power-mongers.

2) If Bush really has committed or does commit a genuinely impeachable offense, THEN we need to come together and call for that impeachment. But until he really does commit or is shown to have committed a legitimately impeachable offense, calls for his impeachment only serve to discredit the idea. All that is accomplished by making a premature and illegitimate call for his impeachment is to provide an opportunity for his supporters to use a "boy who cried 'wolf'" (or "gal who cried 'wolf,' as the case may be defense-- something along the lines of, "Oh yeah, we need to impeach him don't we? Just like you said we needed to impeach him a month ago for this or two months ago for that, right?"

If this is really to be done, it has to be done legitimately, which requires a legitimate charge, and much though you or even I might wish there was one, there simply isn't. Yet.

Originally posted by subz
Uhm, the evidence presented to congress for the likes of Kerry to base their decisions on came from tainted sources. Namely the CIA, in which Dick Cheney had had his grubby little mitts in concocting false documents. Just because Congress believed these false documents and accusations doesn't convey the same guilt onto congress as should be levelled at those who created said false documents. Gees, you guys are good i'll give you that.

[edit on 17/12/05 by subz]

Subz that's an unfair thing to say. Cheney certainly did visit the CIA a lot in the early days of his Vice Presidency, but the public record shows that his visits were to try to get corroboration on Iraqi WMD's that the CIA was reporting, not that he was over there concocting and serving up bogus intelligence. That's a pretty serious allegation to outright say he was responsible for the bad intelligence when the primary source was not even from within this country, but from the U.K. and Italy.

I will freely stipulate that Cheney used what the CIA provided and further stipulate there is some evidence to suggest he strongly suspected the CIA intelligence on WMD's was wrong and used it anyway. However, the only records around would seem to show Cheney to be a fairly prudent person, since he personally queried the CIA on the intelligence in question several times before using it.

Everything is fine here. There is no reason to question the decisions of those who hold power over us. We can trust em, trust me. No one has ever abused their authority to further their own interests. Guess I'll go pick some blackberry and make an nice pie now.

Mission Statement

It doesn't matter whether President Bush deserves to be impeached or even if he is.

All that matters is that the Great Political Divide be maintained, so that the electorate will keep pointlessly arguing amongst themselves while the people who really run the country can continue to do so with impunity.

Senator Kerry, along with his fellow-travelers in both major U.S. political parties, continue to serve this function, and they serve well.

The proof of their effectiveness can be found throughout U.S. politics.

And throughout the Internet.

Well done.

Originally posted by Majic
Mission Statement

It doesn't matter whether President Bush deserves to be impeached or even if he is.

All that matters is that the Great Political Divide be maintained, so that the electorate will keep pointlessly arguing amongst themselves while the people who really run the country can continue to do so with impunity.

Senator Kerry, along with his fellow-travelers in both major U.S. political parties, continue to serve this function, and they serve well.

The proof of their effectiveness can be found throughout U.S. politics.

And throughout the Internet.

Well done.

Wanna piece a pie.? I made some ice cream too.

Just to throw this out there...

What is the proof that officials of the Bush administration were the origin of said falsified information? The information was claimed to have come from the CIA. As far as I have seen, there has been no proof otherwise. There is no certainty as to who supplied/planted/pushed false information.
Rather than argue political positions back and forth, wouldn't it be more beneficial to discuss evidence? I haven't seen much if any discussion of evidence. Just either blaming Bush or defending Bush. But who says he was the one behind it? He could be, but I doubt it. To me, the tactic of manipulating external intelligence speaks of someone who doesn't have the inside power. Meaning, I think the Bush admin was lead to war like a bunch of fools. So who was the piper?

Originally posted by Valhall
uhhh - this is a non-argument. The DATA is what is being claimed to be falsified, so you just lumped Kerry in the duped category not the duper.

Valhall, but the data from the previous administration was stating exactly the same thing, as well as the data from most countries, if not all. In fact president Clinton has been quoted many times saying this same thing, even after the war had already started and there were already allegations that no stockpiles of wmd had been found, president Clinton kept saying that he saw the data when he was president and he believes that Saddam had wmd.

Let's see again some of the things said by Clinton.

................
In October 2003, months after the Iraq war began, former President Bill Clinton visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. Durao Barroso said, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."
..................
Former President Bill Clinton on Dec. 16, 1998, stated, "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . "
...............
-- Former President Clinton, in an appearance on "Larry King Live" on July 22, 2003, said, " . . . (I)t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."

Excerpted from.
www.townhall.com...

Originally posted by Valhall
.............
Clinton thought the Iraqi's were noncompliant and could be hiding WMD materials.

Clinton thought more than that Val, as the information clearly shows.

Originally posted by Valhall
And though I believe there were some dishonest things going on concerning the U.S. inspectors on the UNSCOM inspection (i.e. I think the U.S. was trying to delay the process),

Actually the group that seems to have done many "dishonest things" was UNMOVIC, not USNCOM. UNMOVIC was being paid off using money from the Oil For Food program, and all employees of UNMOVIC were employees of the UN, which we know there were many UN employees, including Annan's son, who were part of the dirty deals with Saddam.

Originally posted by Valhall
Clinton did not produce false intelligence to the American people and Congress, or the Security Council, to further his desires to attack Iraq. And he did want to attack Iraq. The major difference is - he didn't cross the line and mislead the American people in order to get it done.

Valhall, we have covered in this forum the little fiasco in which a member of Clinton's administration, Samuel Berger, who happened to be Clinton's national security advisor, stole documents from a national archives screening room, and then "lost" many of those documents. Those documents had information prior to 9/11 about terrorism. We will never know exactly what information was in those stolen documents and hidden from public, and government knowledge by Berger.

BTW Clinton did attack Iraq, and he called for a body of nations, a coalition, to deal with Iraq if diplomacy didn't work. At the end of his office term there was already a coalition formed. I have presented evidence of this in the past in these same forums.

Originally posted by Valhall
And this is simply not true, Seekerof. The only thing used from past administrations was a review of Saddam's noncompliance with the resolutions that required unfettered inspections and total disclosure. We didn't invade Iraq because Saddam had been a pain in the ass for 10 years. We invaded Iraq because Saddam had been a pain in the ass for 10 years and, now, look - we have satellite pictures of him having mobile laboratories, and he tried to buy yellow cake from Nigeria. You can't stick those last two on anybody but the current White House. And THAT's where the line got crossed.

Information from the past administration was also used Val, because a new administration gets in office, it doesn't mena that the new administration trashes all the intel gathered for years by the previous administration.

BTW Val, we did invade Iraq because Saddam was a threat, not just because of what you stated above. I have already given excerpts and links from president Bush stating before the war the reasons why we were going to war with Saddam's regime. Why do you keep ignoring that fact?

About your statement on mobile labs in Iraq. Labs could be cleaned out, and very well, leaving no traces of what they were used for. Many people want to see the Russian government as our friend, and the Russian government would like the world to think the same thing.

But Russia had been selling military equipment, even banned military equipment to Iraq, and they even had plans on how to help regimes like Saddam get rid of the evidence, which would point directly to them. You don't want to believe this? that's fine, but there is evidence to prove this, and there are military Russian defectors who have been talking about this for years.

If you think the Russian government is really our friend or friends to the west, look at what they are doing helping Iran now.

Anyways, here is information on one of those labs that was found in Iraq.

By Walter Pincus and Michael Dobbs
THE WASHINGTON POST
Wednesday, May 7, 2003


WASHINGTON -- A suspected mobile biological weapons lab has been recovered in northern Iraq, a development that senior U.S. officials said Tuesday would lend support to Bush administration claims of a banned weapons program by the government of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
A senior administration official said the Pentagon will announce today the results of a two-week investigation into a tractor-trailer truck stolen from a government depot in the northern Iraqi town of Mosul and later handed over to U.S. forces. He said equipment found on the truck included a fermenter bolted to the floor that could be used for the production of biological agents.

The official said the truck and the equipment inside it had been cleaned with bleach and therefore did not show any identifiable residue of biological agents. But intelligence analysts have concluded that "there doesn't seem to be any legitimate use for it, other than as a biolab."

Excerpted from.
www.pittsburghlive.com...


Let's review some of the other evidence found once again of a wmd program in Iraq.

Vials: A total of 97 vials-including those with labels consistent with the al Hakam cover stories of single-cell protein and biopesticides, as well as strains that could be used to produce BW agents-were recovered from a scientist's residence.

Lab Equipment From Mosque.

Burned Documents Found at SAAD Center: An exploitation team on a recent mission to the SAAD Center, part of the Baghdad New Nuclear Design Center, found massive looting and the remnants of deliberately destroyed documents. Other documents were left untouched, however, and recovered by the team

Storage room in basement of Revolutionary Command Council Headquarters. Burned frames of PC workstations visible on shelves. All rooms sharing walls with this storage room were untouched from fire or battle damage.

www.cia.gov..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The basement historical files were systematically selected and destroyed.

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.


A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.


Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.


New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.


Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).


A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.


Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.


Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.


Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.


In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts. For example,

On 10 July 2003 an ISG team exploited the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) Headquarters in Baghdad. The basement of the main building contained an archive of documents situated on well-organized rows of metal shelving. The basement suffered no fire damage despite the total destruction of the upper floors from coalition air strikes. Upon arrival the exploitation team encountered small piles of ash where individual documents or binders of documents were intentionally destroyed. Computer hard drives had been deliberately destroyed. Computers would have had financial value to a random looter; their destruction, rather than removal for resale or reuse, indicates a targeted effort to prevent Coalition forces from gaining access to their contents.


All IIS laboratories visited by IIS exploitation teams have been clearly sanitized, including removal of much equipment, shredding and burning of documents, and even the removal of nameplates from office doors.


Although much of the deliberate destruction and sanitization of documents and records probably occurred during the height of OIF combat operations, indications of significant continuing destruction efforts have been found after the end of major combat operations, including entry in May 2003 of the locked gated vaults of the Ba'ath party intelligence building in Baghdad and highly selective destruction of computer hard drives and data storage equipment along with the burning of a small number of specific binders that appear to have contained financial and intelligence records, and in July 2003 a site exploitation team at the Abu Ghurayb Prison found one pile of the smoldering ashes from documents that was still warm to the touch.
..........

All of the above excerpted from.
www.cia.gov...

If Saddam's regime was not working on any wmd program, why would they go to such lengths to destroy so much information and evidence?

There was no reason for them destroying all that information and evidence, unless they were clandestine programs, and the only programs we were looking for that would justify ousting Saddam were wmd programs.

The west was only looking for evidence of wmd programs and wmd, so exactly why would the regime of Saddam destroy any evidence if it had nothing to do with clandestine wmd programs?

Originally posted by Valhall
I simply can't understand how anyone can become so married to a political position that they refuse to admit actions taken that shouldn't have been. The American people were misled into why Iraq needed to be invaded at this point. At this point in time when we had a very important task at hand, and that was to show a strong-willed, focused effort against organized terrorism. At a time when the American people had unified resolve against something, an administration stepped in and misused that resolve. They misused it by producing false intelligence, and stacking information to create an appearance of immediate and impending danger from Iraq when there was none.

Valhall, you still don't want to see, along with other people, that Saddam's regime had ties with terrorism, and the Russian intelligence agencies along with pressident Putin, for whatever reasons..., gave the US government evidence and warnings since 9/11 and until the beginning of the war that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on US soil and US interests. That has something to do with terrorism Val.

Even a judge from Spain found evidence proving that there was a connection between the Iraqi government ( the Iraqi embassy in Spain) and at least one terrorist who was part of the 9/11 attacks, despite the claims from the liberal media in the US that no evidence has been found confirming that Iraq had ties with Al Qaeda.

Atta's travels in the last months of his life brought him in contact with some of those allegedly behind plots against the U.S. embassies in Rome and Paris, as well as a cell officials say was plotting to attack the European Parliament and other targets in Strasbourg, France. He also met an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague and is suspected of links to a group of North Africans in Spain that authorities say was planning to attack U.S. interests in Europe.

And another Iraqi diplomat who was found by Czech authorities to have met with Atta.

Atta also met last spring at a Prague hotel with an Iraqi spy who was allegedly plotting an attack on a U.S. financed radio station.

Czech authorities have said they do not know what the two discussed during the meetings but the Iraqi, Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir Al-Ani, was expelled in April for "activities that are incompatible with his status as a diplomat."

The two above excerpts taken from.
www.suburbanchicagonews.com...


Not only this but even Clinton, and Hillary also, have stated that Iraq had ties with terrorism even when they were in office.

Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts.

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Excerpted from.
www.washtimes.com...



The point made by president Bush since the beginning of the war was that Saddam, and his regime, were a threat to the US and the world, that he had ties with terrorists, was supressing his people and had working wmd programs as well as wmd.

Those were mostly all the points made by the present administration, all of which are true.

Remember also that it has been common knowledge that Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers who killed Israelis and even Americans.

Originally posted by Valhall
Now I don't agree with subz but once every 6 months, so I guess we won't enjoy our same-side-of-the-fence stance again for a while, but the petty arguments being thrown at him right now are beneath most of the members doing it. You guys are twisting his words, and if you can't see that, step away from the screen for a minute and think about it.

Val, when subz talks about giving all the blame to the present administration, he is talking about president Bush. We are not twisting his words.

Originally posted by Valhall
This story is of relevance, and maybe more than you can see if you're currently walking around with blinders on, not because of WHO is quoted making this statement, but that the statement has been made. As some one who will have my heart plucked out before I'll ever be called a democrat, I can tell you I've seen this coming since Rove's comments were revealed that the White House intended to trash Wilson because he spoke out against the false information concerning Nigeria. In 2006 the democrats are most likely going to take Congress, and I have no doubt Bush is going to be in for a bumpy ride. That's the story.

Val, this story is about one of those people who agreed with the evidence presented, not only by the present administration, but now is just trying to play the political game and blame everything on the present administration.

[edit on 18-12-2005 by Muaddib]

Bush needs to be impeached no matter what the cost.What Kerry is trying to say without being blunt is that the intel report was propagandalized at the white house before the congress read the report.

Originally posted by therealdeal
Bush needs to be impeached no matter what the cost.What Kerry is trying to say without being blunt is that the intel report was propagandalized at the white house before the congress read the report.

Riiight....did you read anything that i posted above?.....

Kerry is just playing politics and trying to score points now because president Bush is not very liked by many people....

Kerry agreed with the evidence and he saw the evidence even before this administration was in power......

impeachement at all costs huh?.... that is what some people would like, nomatter what the evidence says.....

I visualize a mass of people scattered around a field. Dirt and debris litter the field and the people are tattered and bruised. Most of them have one arm tied behind their backs and one eye blinded. Those with only a left arm and a left eye and those with only a right arm and a right eye are flailing away at each other-- swinging, spinning, very occasionally connecting. Sometimes the lefties seem to dominate and sometimes the righties, but mostly they just flail away at each other.

Scattered around those people are others with two arms and two eyes. They occasionally try to insert themselves into the fights, but usually end up being hit by both of the fighters. Generally they just sit around the edges and watch and sigh, or try not to watch. You can see them flinch from time to time when the fighting gets particularly heated.

High above all of that is a group of well-dressed and well-fed people, sitting in ornate chairs at damask-covered tables. One can see glints of light as the sun flashes off of gold and diamonds, and can hear the quiet clinks and ticks of silver against fine china and glasses against glasses as fine food is eaten and toasts are made. Occasionally, one or another of those seated high above will lean over and call down to the masses below. "Lefties suck!" he'll say, or "Righties are scum!" then he'll look at his fellows and smile, and maybe raise a glass for another toast.

Those down below, upon hearing those slights, will pick them up and repeat them, or bristle at them, depending on the side they represent. "Yeah!" some of them'll shout, "Lefties suck!" "Yeah!" the others will shout, "Righties are scum!" The combatants will then redouble their efforts-- swinging, spinning and very occasionally connecting.

The two-armed and two-eyed will sometimes try to get the attention of the righties and the lefties. "Look," they'll say, pointing, "those people up there are telling you to do this! It's not you-- it's them. They're making you do this!" The lefties and the righties, intent on their private battles, don't listen. They don't dare, really. If one of them stops swinging for even a moment, how is he to know that the other will stop too? He has to keep swinging-- those lefties/righties just can't be trusted. After all, they're scum-- everybody knows that.

And from somewhere high above come the sounds of silver on china, and glass clinking glass, and quiet and self-satisfied laughter.



[edit on 18-12-2005 by Bob LaoTse]

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
......................
And from somewhere high above come the sounds of silver on china, and glass clinking glass, and quiet and self-satisfied laughter.

....What exactly does any of that has to do with the topic?....

Does it corroborate anything or does it contribute anything to the topic?....

We could also say that there is a group of people whose common sense is blinded by their hatred towards the present administration, and nomatter what evidence is presented they will always claim "it was planted and it is not the truth..."

Does that makes what i say truth?.... or is the truth found by what the "evidence" demonstrates?



[edit on 18-12-2005 by Muaddib]

Nixon resigned over alot less than the evil perpetrated by Bush.

The moral Bush has fostered 34 scandals in his 1st 4 yrs.

www.truthout.org...

Alot more reasons cataloged here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...







[edit on 12/18/2005 by bodebliss]

Some of you folks have been watching too much Fox News. I can't believe the misinformation I've seen here on this topic. FYI:

- Kerry DID admit he was wrong, but not in so many words. He did say he was misled by faulty intelligence.

- We knew before we ever went into Iraq that Iraq was not harboring terrorists against the U.S.

- The 2 top guys who went in looking for WMD's said there were no WMD's before we ever voted to go into Iraq.

- No, not all countries believed Hussein had WMD's. There were countries who tried to warn us that this wasn't true.

- Just the other day, even BUSH said there were no WMD's that he had made a mistake in believing so.

- Undermining our troops??? We shouldn't have ever gone to Iraq anyway, all the reasons why were simply made up. I read about that before we invaded Iraq. If you want to undermine our troops and lower morale, leave them in Iraq lilke we've been doing. THey should be brought home immediately, especially since now we know that our "reasons" for invading were bogus.

ANd hey, I also notice ATS that conservatives engage in Democrat bashing on a regular basis, but Dems aren't doing that. Isn't there a rule against blanket insults? I don't know how many times I've seen heinous motivations ascribed to Democrats that are simply insults, nothing more; they're not based on ANY evidence or information. Valhall's recent statement about Dems "wanting to get even for Clinton's impeachment" is just simply ridiculous. I have yet to meet one Dem who feels that way. Most Dems want to impeach Bush because he simply is evil; he believes in torture and has said so; he believes in invading any country he wants to and has made that policy; and he espouses downright fascist beliefs, he's destroyed our democratic rights. Lastly, he was never elected in the first place. THe Supreme Court appointed him, somelthing which is highly unsconstituitonal and should never have happened. The General Accounting Office just came out and said it has evidence that the 2004 election was stolen by BushCo. Even people in Germany are saying that Bush reminds them of Hitler...

- Forestlady