NEWS: Iraq WMD Program was in disarray

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I know what you're saying, but until the impeachment process has actually begun, no evidence against Bush will be seriously investigated, nor taken seriously. Do you think someone can be impeached without ever attempting to start the process? The impeachment process itself is a serious investigation, which should reveal facts about what has happened. People are charged with crimes all the time. That doesn't mean they're guilty, but unless they are charged, no one is going to sentence them. There are many people investigating this independantly. None of them will be taken seriously, until it's made an official process. That official process (in the president's case) is called impeachment. Keep in mind, that doesn't mean he'll be impeached. It's a hearing, similar to that anyone charged with any crime receives.




posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I ask myself what it is with some people all trying to tackle bush. I like him he got the balls to finally do something and that was not to say of bill clinton he tried to talk just like bush but it kept going and going finally you have to take action. and I hope he does the same with his space exploration statement.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Gone to jail?! Who the hell should go to jail?! This is called RUNNING the most powerful nation on Earth, NOT making book in your garage.


ahhhh, i guess bush gets a green light from you to lie, cheat and steal...he is after all running the most powerful nation on earth...and really doing a bang up job of it.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   
The official process started/starts here: House Judiciary Committee. This will determine if the process will continue/start or not.
For further information:
usgovinfo.miningco.com...

jurist.law.pitt.edu...



As for you enomus: Please feel free to proceed with your formal definition. Actually, please feel free to proceed with a legal "impeachment". May find it is not as easy as you think using those eloquent and expressive words of "lie, cheat and steal".

"II. THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL"
www.abcny.org...


Words are cheap and worthless. It's action that speaks abundantly. You have the means to voice your opinion and gripes. Its called writing a letter to your state senator or state congressman. In such, feel free to do so...at least you can say that you are doing your part instead of throwing condemnations around without the legal system determining if one DID indeed "lie, cheat and steal".




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 26-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
bush won't get impeached and no one will get in any serious trouble. not for 9/11, not for this war. cheney might have to miss a term in office but won't get into any serious trouble. these lack of actions speak louder than words as well.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   
We all know Bush lied. It's whether or not it can be proven, without him passing the blame on to anyone he can, that has yet to be determined. In Clinton's case, just the fact that he lied was enough. There was no proof that he had lied before the trials began, was there? The difference here is, Bush has all of the most powerful and corrupt bastards on his side. Clinton only thought he did.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   
and then suddenly there was prove of wmd pressent in iraq or moved to another country. ... and we have put a sentance on bush... and it comes out he didn't lie and we have an even worse president in the white house a democrate like clinton which is twisting and turnig not to use force when it is needed.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
and then suddenly there was prove of wmd pressent in iraq or moved to another country. ... and we have put a sentance on bush... and it comes out he didn't lie and we have an even worse president in the white house a democrate like clinton which is twisting and turnig not to use force when it is needed.

If a war on Iraq was "needed", then war on many other nonthreatening countries will be "needed" very soon, also.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
and then suddenly there was prove of wmd pressent in iraq or moved to another country. ... and we have put a sentance on bush... and it comes out he didn't lie and we have an even worse president in the white house a democrate like clinton which is twisting and turnig not to use force when it is needed.
Those WMDs seems to not shown so 'suddenly'. Still waiting for *any* evidence of those. No one found still. Unless you count the toxic CO expeled by those burnt oil refineries.



posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   
See this whole thing about WMD really bothers me for several reasons and I'll tell you why:

1. It angers me that Bush first said we are going to war with Iraq because they have WMD's. Then we find out we can't find any.

2. Bush then states later on that we went to Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein, making no mention of WMD's in his statement.

So I'm confused. What's the real reason we went to Iraq? To get rid of Saddam or the WMD's?

3. Now that we've gone to war with Iraq and have so far found no WMD's, why haven't we gone to war with North Korea who has publicly stated they do have WMD's (Nuclear Warheads)? This not only troubles me but confuses me.

[Edited on 28-1-2004 by mrmulder]



posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 02:57 PM
link   


As a result, only a minor program to develop chemical weapons using ricin was under-way during the March invasion by the Americans.


Hey, did you all just skip over this? This counts as WMD and was in operation up to the invasion began. This program and so many others violates ALL the resolutions set forth by the UN. Saddam was actively funding these programs whether his inept scientist were able to progress or not. That is a violation as well.

Has anyone bothered to ponder what the Ricin was to be used for? Nah, if there weren't ICBMs sticking out of his ass, you think you have a case. There were violations and there was never a break in simutanious violations and the world is better for being rid of that SOB! We delt with him plotting and planning for 12 years. The world dealt with his threats and his defiance for 12 years. Now, hes gone and he ain't coming back. Accept it and find a new champion/madman.



posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep



As a result, only a minor program to develop chemical weapons using ricin was under-way during the March invasion by the Americans.


Hey, did you all just skip over this? This counts as WMD and was in operation up to the invasion began. This program and so many others violates ALL the resolutions set forth by the UN. Saddam was actively funding these programs whether his inept scientist were able to progress or not. That is a violation as well.

Has anyone bothered to ponder what the Ricin was to be used for? Nah, if there weren't ICBMs sticking out of his ass, you think you have a case. There were violations and there was never a break in simutanious violations and the world is better for being rid of that SOB! We delt with him plotting and planning for 12 years. The world dealt with his threats and his defiance for 12 years. Now, hes gone and he ain't coming back. Accept it and find a new champion/madman.


i guess the US and their buddies are the only ones that are allowed WMD, huh? they were such a threat with their WMD, how many did they actually use to protect themselves from the US invasion?

they're not a threat to us now and they've never been...just take a deep breath and admit that bush lied to you in order to further the will of the corporate whores who put him there. come on, i know you can do it!



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by enomus
i guess the US and their buddies are the only ones that are allowed WMD, huh? they were such a threat with their WMD, how many did they actually use to protect themselves from the US invasion?

they're not a threat to us now and they've never been...just take a deep breath and admit that bush lied to you in order to further the will of the corporate whores who put him there. come on, i know you can do it!


Bush didn't have to lie to me. I though Bush 41 should have removed Saddam and got pissed that he bowed to the UN and didn't finish it then. I got pissed that Bush 43 wasted all that time trying to beg for permission to uphold the resolution so no, Bush didn't have to lie to me. He had to get his ass in gear and get that SOB because franlkly, I was sick of hearing how Saddam was planning to attack the US for 12 freakin years. He trained terror groups at Salman Pak and just don't try to sell me that crap about no ties to other terror groups. I'm well aware of the big picture in the Mid East. I've dealt with those people enough to know what is going on and I'm as tickled as I can be that they lost their champion, Hussien. They weren't as tough as they though they were and now are either dead, devestated, or in complete denial of just how inept they are...and I love it. ..and I'm actually a member of the opposing political party. I'm just not letting my politics blur my vision of what needed to be done. It got done...change it, why don't you? Go ahead? You can't! All you can do is bitch and moan about something you can't change. If you miss Saddam that much, I'll try to find an address you can send him a card or something. Might even be safer now since if he doesn't like it, he no longer has the ability to have you fed feet first through a plastic shredder.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   

I was sick of hearing how Saddam was planning to attack the US for 12 freakin years.


and funny how it never happened.


He trained terror groups at Salman Pak and just don't try to sell me that crap about no ties to other terror groups.


ohhh, so you've proved what the CIA couldnt? can you define what exatly a 'terror group' is? if so, i'm sure the US has trained some of their own over the years.


I'm well aware of the big picture in the Mid East. I've dealt with those people enough to know what is going on and I'm as tickled as I can be that they lost their champion, Hussien.


hah, you've dealt with 'those people'? which people would 'those people' be? the terrorists? iraqis in general? anyone of arab descent? and from these dealing, what exactly do you know...please enlighten the rest of us as to what is going on...


I'm just not letting my politics blur my vision of what needed to be done. It got done...change it, why don't you? Go ahead? You can't! All you can do is bitch and moan about something you can't change.


yes, but why did it need to get done? because of a broken resolution? the US and many countries all over the world break them, do they get invaded?

and why is it when someone complains about something they're "bitching and moaning"...i guess anyone that doesn't agree with you is bitching and moaning? grow up, please.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   
"and why is it when someone complains about something they're "bitching and moaning"...i guess anyone that doesn't agree with you is bitching and moaning?"

Yeah, pretty much...



"grow up, please."


Never!!!



The reality is, Saddam's rule is over. That was true before you began your rant and is still true regardless of what you typed into your computer. It was useless. Thats the reality. Change it.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   
this is a discussion forum, people discuss things here. if we only talked about things we could change, and only things we agree with, it would be a very boring place.


[Edited on 29-1-2004 by enomus]



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I have no idea why the fate of Saddam is such a bitter pill for you and I'm not asking why. Thats an issue you'll have to deal with alone. I cannot relate as I'm on the opposite side of the argument. We are accomplishing nothing. This is useless. Not all of us can get our way all the time. Better luck next tyrant.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   
hah, tyrant...is name calling all you have left? if you feel the need to blow some more hot air by all means start by discussing any of rebuttals i posted to your ridiculous opinions


come on...tell us about 'those people' you know all about...give us your definition of a 'terror group', tell us how the US never trained or funded any terrorists or broke any resolutions, tell us how saddam was such a threat to the world.

good luck.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I never called you a tyrant, I was reffering to Saddam. As for the terror ties concerning Saddam, I won't repost info that has already been discussed (ATS policy) so I hope a link to the appropriate thread(s) suffice.

I've read the info and made my determination. I suggest you do the same and don't worry so much about what I think. I'm unreachable to your cause.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That should keep you busy for a while unless of course you decide that you wouldn't believe it if Saddam himself stuffed a canister of nerve gas up your bum and kissed ya on the cheek. In which case, you're not going to read the research and I will spend no more time carrying water to someone who isn't thirsty.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   
kudos to you sir, but i have to ask...if they knew of a direct connection between osama and saddam in 93' why didn't they let it be known when starting this war? i think that would have been a great selling point for the administration...no?

one down, four to go...


come on...tell us about 'those people' you know all about...give us your definition of a 'terror group', tell us how the US never trained or funded any terrorists or broke any resolutions,


the fact remains, either the president of the USA lied to the world (WMD), or his staff is incompetent...which doesn't let him off the hook.

i've never once, in these forums or any others, tried to argue that saddam wasn't anything more than a murdering scumbag but imho there are plenty of dictators, leaders, presidents who fit that description. i can point to several countries that enjoy favorable trade status with the US that commit terrible human rights violations everyday but we seem to turn a blind eye towards countries that benefit our economy.





new topics
 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join