Vermont votes to impeach

POSTED BY: Dayve
UPDATED: Friday, March 9, 2007 02:42
VIEWED: 5496
PAGE 1 of 1

DAYVE

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 5:42 PM

Take it to the streets people… at least some folks have the cajones….

Vermont Votes to Impeach Bush/Cheney
John Nichols
Wed Mar 7, 7:36 AM ET

When Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican with reasonably close ties to President Bush, asked if there was any additional business to be considered at the town meeting he was running in Middlebury, Ellen McKay popped up and proposed the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
The governor was not amused. As moderator of the annual meeting, he tried to suggest that the proposal to impeach -- along with another proposal to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq -- could not be voted on.

But McKay, a program coordinator at Middlebury College, pressed her case. And it soon became evident that the crowd at the annual meeting shared her desire to hold the president to account. So Douglas backed down.

"It became clear that no one was going home until they had the chance to discuss the resolutions and vote on them," explained David Rosenberg, a political science professor at Middlebury College. "And being a good politician, he allowed the vote to happen."

By an overwhelming voice vote, Middlebury called for impeachment.

...sigh... if only it were that easy

PENGUIN

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 5:49 PM

YAY Vermont!

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

DAYVE

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 6:49 PM

not many responses... (thanks for yours Mr. Penguin), there must be either A) a new american idol, or B) McDonalds has brought back McRib....

hate to say, but it seems to me that we've become a nation of selfish, overweight, apathetic whiners.. with the attention span of a gnat…but maybe that’s the American dream…

MAL4PREZ

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 9:44 PM

This is why, despite the long winters and nonexistence of spring, I love Vermont! Look - democracy! Look - "normal" people being heard! Look - policy that doesn't come directly from lobbying and funding campaigns!

Yay! Go us!

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 9:53 PM

Via Kagro X's DKos diary (* eta: actually, not diary, front pager) comes this article, "Vermont: 36 towns call for impeachment probe of president" ( http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/032007/TownMeetingImpeach.shtml ).

Looks like 38 towns voted on impeachment and about a half dozen more decided not to vote on impeachment. So, what's that, 36/44, that's B minus type work. Pretty good for Bush.

More than eighty percent of the towns where the topic of impeachment came up voted to impeach. That's gotta leave a mark.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 10:00 PM

It could be worse. Bush coulda gotten his feet blown off in Iraq.

This is just massive public opinion against him.

What do he care Chrisisall

HERO

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 10:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is just massive public opinion against him.

Tiny little meetings in a tiny little state. I note for the record that this is not the first time. I seem to remember them impeaching Bush almost every year...they also voted to move the Yankees to Birmingham...and to eliminate the number 17 and the letters H and Q. Fortunately the plan to physically remove Vermont to a spot between Florida and Cuba was narrowly voted down.

H

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 10:22 PM

Impeachment , and what were the charges ? I saw none posted. I guess Bush is guilty of being President while the opposing party throws a temper tantrum like a 5 yr old ? Wow. That's serious. So, the party of partisan bickering is alive and well in Vermont, a state which is known mostly for it's changing leaves, and not a hell of a lot else.

Think winters up there make folks cranky ? They should be glad for global warming then!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CAUSAL

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 10:27 PM

Heya Soup. Just curious what you imagine the charges might be if an actual impeachment case were brought.

And no offense to anyone here, but I have to say that I, too, find it comical that this vote is being taken seriously.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 10:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Heya Soup. Just curious what you imagine the charges might be if an actual impeachment case were brought.

And no offense to anyone here, but I have to say that I, too, find it comical that this vote is being taken seriously.

I agree that these votes will not be taken seriously. There is a disconnect between what the people on the ground want and what their representatives in DC want. It is pretty clear that the DLC branch of the Democratic Party and pretty much the entire Republican Party do not want to change the status quo. Even if their status quo is one that has gotten progressively more and more out of step with that experienced by the vast majority of Americans.

Should these votes be taken seriously? That's a different question. For me personally, I'm ambivalent on the topic of impeachment. The unitary executive theory that this administration has implemented disturbs me greatly. I think that many decisions were made, based on this idea of the unitary executive, and implemented that clearly broke the law (FISA, extraordinary rendition, torture, preemptive invasion, habeus corpus, etc.). The idea that the President is above all laws, and makes up his own laws simply by his actions, frankly sucks and goes against my perception of what this country stands for. However, there is a substantial minority in this country who disagree with me and are willing to abdicate much to this President in return for the perception that he is making them safer (somewhere around a quarter of the population, if the polls are any indication).

Do I think the President and Vice President have committed impeachable acts? Absolutely. Do I think that there is any chance at all that they will be impeached, given who is responsible for the impeaching? Nope. Would a failed impeachment lend legitimacy to the illegal acts that this administration has committed? Unfortunately I think this is a yes. And that's why I don't even want to go there.

JKIDDO

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 10:47 PM

Too bad we don't have a "vote of no confidence" 'cause that'd be a slam-dunk.

RUE

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 10:53 PM

Every reform that has ever happened in this country has come from the ground up. It depends on if you think there is enough gumption for the long haul (think roughly over the next 20 years). And this, I believe, is also a time when a leader can make the difference. That leader can give people direction and even hope of a better future.

What I HOPE is that during the campaign trial someone (Obama ?) will wake people up from this insane nightmare they find themselves in. Someone will say - look - is there any question about that where we've been going is backward; and now we can throw that all away and go forward. If that happens early enough there will be enough steam to generate an impeachment before the next election.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Impeachment , and what were the charges ?

Oh, I don't know...lying to get his war?
Is that bad? Is lying like that illegal? Taking CIA info and purposely distorting it to his own ends? I mean, there's a law, right? Unless the President is allowed to lie. Does he have a free pass for that?

What a jerk I am...he couldn't have lied...his nose is the same size...what a clown I am!

Bush lie...what nonsense Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Impeachment , and what were the charges ?

Oh, I don't know...lying to get his war?
Is that bad? Is lying like that illegal? Taking CIA info and purposely distorting it to his own ends? I mean, there's a law, right? Unless the President is allowed to lie. Does he have a free pass for that?

What a jerk I am...he couldn't have lied...his nose is the same size...what a clown I am!

Bush lie...what nonsense Chrisisall

Chris, I don't care how much you don't like the war,or President Bush, it still doesn't change the basic facts - Bush didn't lie. There's absolutely zero evidence that supports that position that the intel was 'spun', distorted or twisted.

If you can't at least come to that basic level of understanding, then there's no point even having a discussion. Being wrong is NOT the same as lying. Show were Bush KNOWINGLY presented info pre - Iraq which he knew to be false at the time he presented it, then I'll gladly listen. Short of that, just suck it up and move on. This ' Bush lied' crap is beyond tedious.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
....What I HOPE is that during the campaign trial someone (Obama ?) will wake people up from this insane nightmare they find themselves in. Someone will say - look - is there any question about that where we've been going is backward; and now we can throw that all away and go forward. If that happens early enough there will be enough steam to generate an impeachment before the next election.

What 'nightmare' ?? WTF are you talking about ? Specifics would be helpful. What about a strong economy and sensible tax cuts are you against ? The fact that it's all WORKING ? Sure, I'm no fan of overspending, and every member of Congress is responsible for that fiasco. Bush too, as he's done NOTHING to cut back spending. But this talk of Impeachment...over WHAT ? Low interest rates ? A strong economy ? Low unemployment ? Please! Aside from the petty, get-even-with-them-ism , partisan politics that I've seen displayed by the folks on the Left, there's NO GORRAM CRIME here. Disliking policy of the other party is NOT an impeachable offense. Sorry.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 11:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
the basic facts - Bush didn't lie. There's absolutely zero evidence that supports that position that the intel was 'spun', distorted or twisted.

Well, if it's a FACT, and there's ZERO evidence to the contrary, I guess your mind's made up. Have fun sucking it up and moving on, oh certain one.

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 11:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

What I HOPE is that during the campaign trial someone (Obama ?) will wake people up from this insane nightmare they find themselves in.

Rue, an endless pointless war begun under false pretenses that kills more of our peeps each day, while laws are passed to make torture legal is no nightmare to AU.
He's truly out there.
Citizen was right.

I give up Chrisisall

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 11:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
[B

Chris, I don't care how much you don't like the war,or President Bush, it still doesn't change the basic facts - Bush didn't lie. There's absolutely zero evidence that supports that position that the intel was 'spun', distorted or twisted.

Geez talk about drinking the kool aid!

Auraptor - sure would like to see this volume of FACTS you have. Need something to line the ferret cage with.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:01 AM

I'll just reprint a great TRex line from last night's Late Night FDL:

Quote:
from http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/06/late-nite-fdl-when-the-partys-ov
er/
...
William F. Buckley once famously described a conservative as a man standing athwart the flow of history, crying, "Stop!" Well, the last few years have taught us that a NeoConservative is a man standing athwart the flow of history, saying, "Huh?"
...

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:10 AM

Exactly.

Chrisisall, ahh, ah yessss

CAUSAL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh, I don't know...lying to get his war?
Is that bad? Is lying like that illegal? Taking CIA info and purposely distorting it to his own ends? I mean, there's a law, right? Unless the President is allowed to lie. Does he have a free pass for that?

For the record (and you all know I'm no fan of Bush), I was a Intelligence Analyst for my 10 years in the military, and I was scared shitless the first time we had in-coming rockets. Not of HE warheads, nay--I was scared that they had nerve gas. Now why would that be? Well, not because of anything the president said. It was because the intel that I'd seen (some pre-dating the Bush presidency by a good 5 years) had led me to the conclusion that he had it. Other intel from as close as a few weeks indicated the same thing. So it's not as simple as "Bush lied."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-re-editted: I guess I just feel insulted by the folks who claim that Bush knew conclusively and duped us honest intel folk with some sort of elaborate time-traveling master plan.

Re-editted to add: there are a number of quotes floating around the net, much maligned, but valid nonetheless, of other politicians from other administrations and other parties to the effect that they believed that Iraq had WMD.

Editted to add: spun, selectively interpreted, and others, I don't necessarily deny. I definitely think it's the case that he paid attention to the intel he wanted to. Just don't go to making the assumption that he knew, conclusively, what was and wasn't there. Were that the case, I'd be curious how he started faking and planting intel 5 years before he got elected!

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

RUE

Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:18 AM

Rap,

Do you remember when Bush talked about Iraq and yellowcake and Africa in his SOTU? In no time at all - months in fact - wayyyy BEFORE the US attacked Iraq - there was an investigation into how such an unfounded statement ended up in the speech. In fact there was a Senate investgation, and the report made itself onto the internet.

In that report the history of that allegation was traced. Bush had put it into TWO previous speeches and the CIA had deleted it. When it was put yet again into a speech - this time the SOTU - the speech was NOT sent to CIA for vetting. (Because the CIA would have required retraction, again.)

Bush KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt that that claim was false. Yet he found a way to sneak it into this speech to fire people up over Iraq.

Bush claimed something to be fact that he KNEW was not true. IOW, Bush lied.

CAUSAL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:42 AM

Yep, not denying that. Just the global thing.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FMF:

Geez talk about drinking the kool aid!

Auraptor - sure would like to see this volume of FACTS you have. Need something to line the ferret cage with.

Sorry toots, but this has nothing to do w/ KoolAid drinkin', and everything to do w/ facts. I'd first like to remind you that the burden of proof rests w/ those making the claim , such as BUSH LIED, that need to present the evidence and make their case.

Second, I present the so called - KoolAid :

The Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence - While it acknowledged that mistakes were made from the INTELLIGENCE community....., which was released on July 9, 2004, identified numerous failures in the intelligence-gathering and -analysis process. The report found that these failures led to the creation of inaccurate materials that misled both government policy makers and the American public....there was nothing which indicated that the Bush administration LIED per the intel.

Also, ....The report concludes that prior to October, 2002, it was reasonable for the intelligence community to assess Iraq may have been attempting to obtain uranium from Africa.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_
Iraq#General_conclusions_on_intelligence_relating_to_Iraq.27s_WMD_and_ties_to_terrorism

Also, the report ' he Commission of the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction ', the report absolves the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. It puts the blame for the bad intelligence squarely at the feet of the intelligence community.

http://www.wmd.gov/report/

Ball's in your court, ma'am.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

For the record (and you all know I'm no fan of Bush), I was a Intelligence Analyst for my 10 years in the military, and I was scared shitless the first time we had in-coming rockets. Not of HE warheads, nay--I was scared that they had nerve gas. Now why would that be? Well, not because of anything the president said. It was because the intel that I'd seen (some pre-dating the Bush presidency by a good 5 years) had led me to the conclusion that he had it. Other intel from as close as a few weeks indicated the same thing. So it's not as simple as "Bush lied."

Tsk Tsk Tsk - weren't you debriefed? Do we have "need to know" I think not. Now I have to send the clearance nazi's after you!

snicker snicker

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
[
Sorry toots, but this has nothing to do w/ KoolAid drinkin', and everything to do w/ facts. I'd first like to remind you that the burden of proof rests w/ those making the claim , such as BUSH LIED, that need to present the evidence and make their case.

The Congressional resolution authorizing Bush's War required the president to certify to Congress that war was necessary.

"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Ummmmm, I believe that was were he CERTIFIED to congress that Saddam and Iraq had a role in 9/11. So LIE!

And don't call me toots.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 8, 2007 1:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap,

Do you remember when Bush talked about Iraq and yellowcake and Africa in his SOTU? In no time at all - months in fact - wayyyy BEFORE the US attacked Iraq - there was an investigation into how such an unfounded statement ended up in the speech. In fact there was a Senate investgation, and the report made itself onto the internet.

In that report the history of that allegation was traced. Bush had put it into TWO previous speeches and the CIA had deleted it. When it was put yet again into a speech - this time the SOTU - the speech was NOT sent to CIA for vetting. (Because the CIA would have required retraction, again.)

Bush KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt that that claim was false. Yet he found a way to sneak it into this speech to fire people up over Iraq.

Bush claimed something to be fact that he KNEW was not true. IOW, Bush lied.

Sorry rue, but I hate to burst your bubble. The CIA didn't want that line in there NOT because it wasn't true, but because it didn't come through their intel. It came from BRITISH intel. Further more, it was NEVER shown that the claim was false, quite to the contrary. The Brits STILL stand by their claim of the original story. Sorry, but Bush didn't lie. Bush accurately stated that BRITISH intel said ..... Even if it had turned out to be wrong, the burden of proof was still layed on the Brits. Bush clearly put that in there to show the world that our info wasn't unilateral in its source.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Thursday, March 8, 2007 1:13 AM

I'm going to make a number of assumptions to speed things up. I'm going to assume you're familiar with or have access to the text of Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, comments by Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al regarding Iraq's WMD, Colin Powell's UN address, David Kay's final report (his final report, not 'the' final report), the Senate report and the 9/11 Commission report. I'm also going to assume you have sufficient memory of, or access to, news reporting from that time frame.

A 'yes' answer will also speed things up, a 'no' answer will take more of your time.
----------
1) Do you agree that the DIA, Office of Special Plans and the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group answer to Rumsfeld?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not. A 'no' explanation also requires references to ORIGINAL documents only, with links. I'm not going to spend time addressing some flack's 'interpretations'.
----------
From the Senate Armed Services Committee
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR. KAY: Senator Warner ... I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarized chemical and biological weapons there..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEN. LEVIN: Dr. Kay, on the question of stockpiles, you have stated, I believe, that in your opinion Iraq did not have large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in 2002. Is that correct?
MR. KAY: That's correct, Senator.
SEN. LEVIN: Do you have any evidence that they had any stockpiles,
large or small, in 2002?
MR. KAY: Simply have no evidence, Senator.
SEN. LEVIN: You have not uncovered any evidence of small stockpiles?
MR. KAY: We have not uncovered any small stockpiles, that's correct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) Do you accept David Kay's conclusion that Iraq had no large or small biological or chemical weapons stockpiles?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not, with links to original documents.

Since Iraq did not have existing nuclear weapons, the question was one of nuclear weapons programs rather than stockpiles.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEN. LEVIN: -- in your judgment, had Iraq reconstituted its nuclear weapon program, in the way you understand the word "reconstitute"?
MR. KAY: It was in the early stages of renovating the program,
building new buildings. It was not a reconstituted, full-blown nuclear program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEN. ALLARD: Did they use the aluminum tubes at that point in time to enrich their uranium? Do we know --
MR. KAY: No, they did not. They relied on different processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Do you accept David Kay's conclusion that Iraq had no nuclear programs?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not, with links to original documents.
----------

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 4,2002, the NSC (Condoleezza Rice) sent a draft of a speech they were preparing for the President to deliver in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was draft six of the speech and contained the line, “and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase up to 500 metric tons of uranium oxide from Africa -an essential ingredient in the enrichment process.”
On October 5,2002, the ADDI .. asked the analysts to bring forward any issues that they thought should be addressed with the NSC. The ADDI said an Iraq nuclear analyst raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the facts of the Niger reporting,

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, March 8, 2007 1:15 AM

AURaptor,

Where's the final part of Phase II of that report?

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Saying that this statement wasn't a lie is arguing by semantics. Bush had been told repeatedly that this claim was wrong. So his lie is a lie of omission. An accurate statement would have been, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. This is counter to all the evidence that our own intelligence agencies have looked at."

I can guarantee that if I had tried out this line of defense on my mom it wouldn't have worked, "Mom, Tom next door claims that I did not break the window."

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, March 8, 2007 1:15 AM

I find it amazing that there has been very little discussion about the Downing Street Memos in this country - But Auraptor - I point your attention to the bit that says intelligence and facts were being FIXED AROUND the policy.

"SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minis

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 8, 2007 1:22 AM

First of all, the President doesn't need any authorization from, or clarification to Congress to use military force.

Second, nothing in this ...... " (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." ..which specifically ties Saddam w/ al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks what so ever. It simply says that we can follow into any country which harbors known terrorists we do find have connections to the 9/11 attacks. The part, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned....the terrorist attacks....on September 11, 2001". doesn't directly link Iraq w/ al Qaeda. It only allows for the President to use force where ever he deems it necessary.

Sorry, no lie.

And I take back the 'toots' remark.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, March 8, 2007 1:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
First of all, the President doesn't need any authorization from, or clarification to Congress to use military force.

"

Hang on......hang on.........hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....hang on.......oh geez.....hahahahahahahahahaha

OK so then WHY did Congress create the War Powers Resolution?

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 8, 2007 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
AURaptor,

Where's the final part of Phase II of that report?
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Saying that this statement wasn't a lie is arguing by semantics. Bush had been told repeatedly that this claim was wrong. So his lie is a lie of omission. An accurate statement would have been, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. This is counter to all the evidence that our own intelligence agencies have looked at."

I can guarantee that if I had tried out this line of defense on my mom it wouldn't have worked, "Mom, Tom next door claims that I did not break the window."

Your false analogy aside, it's still not a lie. You can argue how improper it is to put that into the SOTU speech all day long, but it's still not a lie. The Brits still stand by their findings, even if our own CIA won't stand by it.

A more apt analogy.. " Mom, Tom next door says that Billy down the street has illegal fireworks" .
Tom might be wrong, or right, but is it right to tell your mom unless YOU know for sure what Billy has? If you're dealing in a SOTU speech writing, or rumor spreading, that's one thing. But in the world of Int'l Intelligence, it's a different story.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. " b

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, March 8, 2007 1:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
A more apt analogy.. " Mom, Tom next door says that Billy down the street has illegal fireworks" .
Tom might be wrong, or right, but is it right to tell your mom unless YOU know for sure what Billy has? If you're dealing in a SOTU speech writing, or rumor spreading, that's one thing. But in the world of Int'l Intelligence, it's a different story.

Okay. Let's run with that analogy. What if you know exactly what information Tom is basing his claim on and you know that that information is bogus. And you have been told repeatedly that you can't use that information to make the claim yourself. And you still go ahead and repeat Tom's claim. What does that make you? I'm voting for chicken.

GEEZER

Thursday, March 8, 2007 2:16 AM

So, if a bunch of racists get together in some other small town somewhere and decide that the USA should re-institute slavery, that would be all right with you all?

Fortunately, as a representative democracy, it requires a majority of our elected representatives, not just a bunch of folks somewhere, to pass laws, or impeach a president. The Democrats have managed a majority in both Houses. If the Congress decides to impeach, fine. if a group of people at a town meeting decide to, that's interesting, but nothing else.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, March 8, 2007 2:22 AM

Geez Geezer - they just voted a resolution. All they are doing is telling the country where they stand. I wish more communities would do the same.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 8, 2007 3:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

What if you know exactly what information Tom is basing his claim on and you know that that information is bogus. And you have been told repeatedly that you can't use that information to make the claim yourself. And you still go ahead and repeat Tom's claim. What does that make you? I'm voting for chicken.

First of all, where is it written that that info is bogus ? Just because the CIA can't verify it, doesn't mean it's bad intel. As I've stated before, and unless you can show me otherwise, I understand that the Brits STILL stand by their intel on Niger and Yellow Cake uranium.

The key elements are a) is the intel bad ? b) how do we know its bad ? and c) at what point do we know whether or not it's bad intel? There's nothing I've seen which indicates there was bad intel in the SOTU address, OR that Bush knew it was bad, and used it anyway. And the President, not the CIA , writes the SOTU address. If the CIA doesn't like something he says, they're free to say so,but it's still his speech.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Thursday, March 8, 2007 7:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Impeachment , and what were the charges ? I saw none posted.

Well, technically , none were POSTED, but this is the resolution that they voted for in Middlebury, Vermont:

"We the people have the power -- and the responsibility -- to remove executives who transgress not just the law, but the rule of law.

The oaths that the President and Vice President take binds them to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The failure to do so forms a sound basis for articles of impeachment.

The President and Vice President have failed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" in the following ways:

1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.

2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.

3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.

4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.

When strong evidence exists of the most serious crimes, we must use impeachment -- or lose the ability of the legislative branch to compel the executive branch to obey the law.

George Bush has led our country to a constitutional crisis, and it is our responsibility to remove him from office."

KHYRON

Thursday, March 8, 2007 8:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Editted to add: spun, selectively interpreted, and others, I don't necessarily deny. I definitely think it's the case that he paid attention to the intel he wanted to. Just don't go to making the assumption that he knew, conclusively, what was and wasn't there.

Let's say he wasn't sure if the WMDs were there or not. He sure as hell pretended to be convinced when he told everybody to go to war, so he was lying, right? If I'm not sure if there's still any pizza in the fridge but tell you there most certainly is, I think that that would fairly be classified as me lying. So even if Bush didn't have his facts straight (and I'm not saying he did), saying he had some intel and therefore wasn't lying doesn't make sense.

And I still don't see why the weapons inspectors were rushed out of there before completing their inspection, if Bush was unsure then surely he would've preferred finding out for sure before engaging in a war that could eventually show that he didn't know what he was talking about. That, as much as anything else, makes me suspicious of his motives.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:34 PM

Quote:

"We the people have the power -- and the responsibility -- to remove executives who transgress not just the law, but the rule of law.

Yes and No. Yes, through the House of Representitives. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. No, by means of arbitrary and partisan based acts like what VT seems in love with.

Quote:
1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.

Nope, sorry. There's no evidence to that point, and in fact, there's multiple findings to the contrary.

Quote:
2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.

The actions this administration have taken during war are far less intrusive and more in the open than FDR during WW2 or Lincoln during TWBTS.

Quote:
3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.
Quote:
Fact is, the U.S. has exceeded it's responsibility w/ regards to the Geneva convention rules, and there's no evidence of torture of its non uniformed combatents.

Quote:
4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights

Don't know the specifics of this case, but while there 'may' be some merrit to this, it's ridiculous to hold the President and VP accountable for this sort of case.

VT is wasting their time, and anyone elses who bothers to pay attention.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

HERO

Thursday, March 8, 2007 2:31 PM

I note for the record that in 2004 Vermont voted the following in their Democratic Primary:

Dean 54%
Kerry 34%
Kucinich 4%

So Vermont's judgement is seriously suspect.

H

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Nope, sorry. There's no evidence to that point, and in fact, there's multiple findings to the contrary.

The actions this administration have taken during war are far less intrusive and more in the open than FDR during WW2 or Lincoln during TWBTS.

Fact is, the U.S. has exceeded it's responsibility w/ regards to the Geneva convention rules, and there's no evidence of torture of its non uniformed combatents.

Don't know the specifics of this case, but while there 'may' be some merrit to this, it's ridiculous to hold the President and VP accountable for this sort of case.

Anyone with a sixth grade reading level could see that you're spinning here.
While it may be wrong to say that Bush knew that he telling lies, it's also equally wrong to say he was acting in good faith by passing on questionable or speculative or incomplete intel.
Just like those that support the idea that Bush is pure evil, you're seeing what you want to see based on the facts.

Rant over; you can go back to listening to Rush Limbo and the Coulter-geist now.

P.S., My idol is O. J. Simpson- there's no conclusive proof he did any wrong, just hours of footage demonstrating that he was the best player in the history of football; the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise Chrisisall

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Thursday, March 8, 2007 4:57 PM

Originally posted by AURaptor, I think, since he messed up the quote feature, but he's arguing against the original post:

Quote:

Fact is, the U.S. has exceeded it's responsibility w/ regards to the Geneva convention rules, and there's no evidence of torture of its non uniformed combatents.

Nobody has claimed that anybody was torturing non uniformed "combatents" from the U. S.

Or maybe you're a victim of public school education, and don't understand English well enough to know how to use the posessive.

SHINYED

Thursday, March 8, 2007 5:58 PM

Oh Vermont...well it fugures...right? There are about 24 people living in that state, all either pot-smoking ex-hippies, or ex-draft dodgers....and they certainly have a proud history of things they've "voted" for :

Voted to ban the Easter Bunny & Santa Claus
Voted to have maple syrup replace gold as our monetary standard
Voted to secede from the Union and call their new country Assholia.
Voted to remove crosses from every church.
Voted to make Maui Wowie the official state flower.
Voted to give condoms to fetuses
Voted to declare Howard Dean's brain a waste management area
Voted to make Pat Buchannan the winner in their primary & Presidential front-runner
Voted to declare Star Wars...Revenge of the Sith the greatest movie of all time
Voted to authorize a Britney Spears appreciation day.
Voted to decide when their next vote would be
and a zillion other meaningless, fu**ed-up votes over the years....oh, you thilly state!

CAUSAL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 6:14 PM

Just for the record: wow, it's getting nasty in here. And from people from whom I expect more. boy, oh, boy.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
While it may be wrong to say that Bush knew that he telling lies, it's also equally wrong to say he was acting in good faith by passing on questionable or speculative or incomplete intel.

So, philosophical question of the day: is it lying if you don't know that you're telling an untruth? It seems like the following are necessary conditions for something to be considered lying: 1) one knows the truth; 2) one tells a distruth; 3) one has the intent to deceive. So, for instance, Al Gore wasn't lying when he said, "We know that [ Hussein ] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." He was telling an untruth, but not knowingly, and not with the intent to deceive, so (via modus ponens, for all you logic fans out there) Al Gore wasn't lying. The question is, which statements of W's lack one of the necessary conditions for lying? As mentioned above, I saw oodles and stacks of intel (even from before his time) that said Iraq had the goods. Now, if he based his statements on bad intel, but intel he believed to be accurate, that's not lying (in virtue of the fact that it lacks necessary conditions #1 and #3). Now, I have little doubt that there were some instances of out-and-out lying. But I'd be willing to bet that in the main, he was just as surprised as the rest of us (and doesn't that make you feel good? You still get to think of him as a moron, if not as a lying scumbag).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editted to add: you might want to crucify me for what seems to be a defense of Bush, but I assure you: I don't like Bush. At the same time, however, I think that the global assertion that Bush lied in every particular is simply a naive attempt to paint Bush in the worst light possible.

Re-edit: "Bush manipulated" I'll agree to, but I think that "Bush lied" is too simplistic to accurately describe what happened.

Re-re-edit: for those of you who don't have experience working with intelligence data, let me just inject this into the discussion: there is not such thing as absolute certainty in intel. Nope. None. So Sorry. Even when I was convinced of something, my assessment was that "almost certainly" something was the case. Never, no never, no certainty in intel.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

RUE

Thursday, March 8, 2007 6:37 PM

ShinyEd,

You know, I looked up the claims you made about Vertmonters.

--------------------

"Voted to ban the Easter Bunny & Santa Claus
Voted to have maple syrup replace gold as our monetary standard
Voted to secede from the Union and call their new country Assholia.
Voted to remove crosses from every church.
Voted to make Maui Wowie the official state flower.
Voted to give condoms to fetuses
Voted to declare Howard Dean's brain a waste management area
Voted to make Pat Buchannan the winner in their primary & Presidential front-runner
Voted to declare Star Wars...Revenge of the Sith the greatest movie of all time
Voted to authorize a Britney Spears appreciation day.
Voted to decide when their next vote would be
and a zillion other meaningless, fu**ed-up votes over the years....oh, you thilly state!"

---------------------

Not one panned out as genuine. So could you provide links for them? Just so we know you have a point to make and are not as much of an ass-hole as you appear.

SHINYED

Thursday, March 8, 2007 7:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You know, I looked up the claims you made about Vertmonters.
Not one panned out as genuine. So could you provide links for them? Just so we know you have a point to make and are not as much of an ass-hole as you appear

You looked up the claims I made?....lol!...Who's the asshole here, asshole?

And...just for the record, asshole...some of them are really true asshole..not that liberal assholes like you can discriminate between fact, fiction, sarcasm, etc etc ...ONCE AGAIN, asshole...you've proven yer frikkin asshole clueless without your asshole links.....ps. Where exactly, asshole did you attempt to verify my asshole claims?...any asshole chance you looked up George Soro's asshole?...or perhaps Al Gore's asshole?

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 7:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

So, philosophical question of the day: is it lying if you don't know that you're telling an untruth?

My son wanted to go to the local toy store for a special toy the other night. It was after 7:00pm, and I asked him if he was sure it was still open. He stated in no uncertain language that it was definitly open! I called ahead, instead of just rushing out, and found it closed at 6:00pm.
Was my son lying?
In his experience, that store was certainly open into the dark hours. But he had no cause to be so definite in his assertion that it WAS open at that particular late hour, other than his juvinile need for immediate gratification.

Let's just say he was being overzealous.

In light of this example, was Bush lying?
Yes.
Why?
He's not an eight-year-old. And Iraq is not a toy.

Do not attempt to apply logic to this administration Chrisisall

P.S. I wouldn't want to see AURaptor crusified, much less you, Causal

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Just for the record: wow, it's getting nasty in here. And from people from whom I expect more. boy, oh, boy.

Quote:
...ONCE AGAIN, asshole...you've proven yer frikkin asshole clueless without your asshole links.

You're right Chrisisall

RUE

Thursday, March 8, 2007 7:27 PM

Yes, I did look up your claims. I used google and couldn't find anything on even the most plausible - the first two. So if indeed they were true they didn't make a big a splash 'cause even google didn't come up with sites.

And how does that make me an asshole? Just wondering. Your post seemed like flamebait so I thought I'd try to figure it out. As it turned out, it WAS flamebait and, well, since you posted it that makes you the ass-hole. IMHO

BTW, are YOU touchy about YOUR ass-hole? It seems like a sore spot.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, March 8, 2007 7:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Just for the record: wow, it's getting nasty in here. And from people from whom I expect more. boy, oh, boy.

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Not one panned out as genuine. So could you provide links for them? Just so we know you have a point to make and are not as much of an ass-hole as you appear.

You're right Chrisisall.

Missed the first case there Chris.

Posting to stir stuff up.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 7:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Missed the first case there Chris.

There's a lot of flames in here....

Blinded by the light Chrisisall

KHYRON

Thursday, March 8, 2007 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
So, philosophical question of the day: is it lying if you don't know that you're telling an untruth? It seems like the following are necessary conditions for something to be considered lying: 1) one knows the truth; 2) one tells a distruth; 3) one has the intent to deceive.

To your question, no it isn't lying. To the actual question at hand: I'd say it's lying if one doesn't know the truth but says one does.

By the conditions you set out, Bush was lying:
1) Truth is there was no indisputible, conclusive evidence for WMDs and more time was needed to verify the intel, for instance by having, oh I don't know, weapons inspectors in the place - I'm sure Bush knew this;
2) He said the existence of WMDs was conclusively proven and if the US didn't invade now, now, now there'd be a lot of trouble ahead.
3) He deceived by saying it's conclusively proven when in fact it wasn't, so that he could start this war for whatever reason he and his administration felt necessary.

You say calling Bush a liar is simplistic, I say sometimes the simple answers fit the best.

By the way, I don't at all doubt what you have to say about the difficulties of gathering and sorting through intel, and determining what's real and what's not, although I think there can be such a thing as certainty, for instance if weapons inspectors go to the places US intel tells them to go to find WMDs and there are no WMDs, then that certainly shows that the intel is faulty and more time is needed to re-evaluate it before starting a war based on it.

Quote:
Editted to add: you might want to crucify me for what seems to be a defense of Bush, but I assure you: I don't like Bush.

If it's any consolation, I for one don't at all think you're trying to defend Bush and I doubt anybody who read your posts properly does, you're just trying to get people to re-think the slogan "Bush lied", which is perfectly reasonable.

Quote:
At the same time, however, I think that the global assertion that Bush lied in every particular is simply a naive attempt to paint Bush in the worst light possible.

Well, he's been called a lot worse and those descriptions for the most part are mildly to completely inaccurate ("idiot", "Hitler", etc.). To a certain extent saying he lied is stating the obvious because every politician lies (also the "good" guys). It's just the severity of what the lies lead to that provoke outrage at the fact that he lied, whereas in most cases lying is regarded as common practice.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

RUE

Thursday, March 8, 2007 8:12 PM

I consider THIS flaming, don't you?

Oh Vermont...well it fugures...right? There are about 24 people living in that state, all either pot-smoking ex-hippies, or ex-draft dodgers....and they certainly have a proud history of things they've "voted" for :

Voted to ban the Easter Bunny & Santa Claus
Voted to have maple syrup replace gold as our monetary standard
Voted to secede from the Union and call their new country Assholia.
Voted to remove crosses from every church.
Voted to make Maui Wowie the official state flower.
Voted to give condoms to fetuses
Voted to declare Howard Dean's brain a waste management area
Voted to make Pat Buchannan the winner in their primary & Presidential front-runner
Voted to declare Star Wars...Revenge of the Sith the greatest movie of all time
Voted to authorize a Britney Spears appreciation day.
Voted to decide when their next vote would be
and a zillion other meaningless, fu**ed-up votes over the years....oh, you thilly state!

Contributed by ShinyEd

RUE

Thursday, March 8, 2007 8:14 PM

And if that ISN'T flaming, please explain HOW it adds to the discussion. In detail.

SHINYED

Thursday, March 8, 2007 8:24 PM

Hey asshole....you're the f'ing asshole who FIRST USED THE WORD against me...right asshole????? So who's the troll asshole...huh asshole???..Or do you get your asshole jollies off just from attacking people who have not said one f'ing word against you...huh asshole???

You're a tight-assed asshole I see with very limited wit or intelligence....I will therefore withdraw any further asshole conversations with you...ok asshole??? Yes I will continue to post all I want..all day ...every day...all asshole posts...since yer the arbitor of posting appropriateness, you can call me & others assholes all day long..ok again asshole?

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 8:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And if that ISN'T flaming

I detected some incendiary devices there, yeah.
In fact, there were probably WMD's in there as well, since we saw none.
And we all know, it's not what you see that counts, it's what you don't see.
(That sounds like the tag from a game show, eh?)

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 8:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
Hey a**hole....you're the f'ing a**hole who FIRST USED THE WORD against me...right a**hole?????

There's a quote:
"Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool that follows him?"

Chrisisall:
There you go quoting Star Wars again! You obviously have nothing substantive to add!

Chrisisall:
Back off a**hole! This isn't the Schizo Thread!!!!

*sigh*Chrisisall

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, March 8, 2007 8:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
And if that ISN'T flaming, please explain HOW it adds to the discussion. In detail.

I think it was along the same lines as Hero's two posts in this thread. Why did you not try to 'Google' Hero's statements? Did you recognize Hero's attempt at humor and not ShinyEd's?

Posting to stir stuff up.

RUE

Thursday, March 8, 2007 9:11 PM

I don't generally respond to Zero.

RUE

Thursday, March 8, 2007 9:23 PM

Causal,

I think the difference is that Bush had access to intelligence from the DOE nuclear experts saying the aluminum tubes were completely unfit for centrifuges, from Joe Wilson saying the uranium claim was not true, from intelligence analysts who said 'curveball' was a nutcase and so on. There was all this credible information which DIDN'T support the case for WMD.

And if I may point out - IF Iraq had CW, US troops would have suffered a 20-80% casualty rate. Do you think Bush would have sent troops in to that scenario?

CAUSAL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 9:27 PM

I have much existential angst concerning the extent to which we agree, Khyron... (Then again, what's that old saw about great minds...?)

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
2) He said the existence of WMDs was conclusively proven and if the US didn't invade now, now, now there'd be a lot of trouble ahead.

Well, the latter part is predictive and as such doesn't constitute knowledge per se, and so I'm not really sure we can say he was lying as much as inflaming public opinion (which he was definitely doing). I, for one, don't think Hussein posed near the threat that Bush said he did. Say what you will--containment actually worked.

As to the former part, I'd be curious to see where he said that "the existence of WMD was conclusively proven." He might have, but if he did, I missed it.

Also, my assessment at the time, based on the intel that I saw, was that it was "almost certain" that Iraq had the goods. Turns out I was wrong, too. Maybe Bush, not being aware of the finer points of intel analysis, confused "almost certainly" with "certainly." After all, that later would definitely have fit not only his worldview, but his intention to take us to war in Iraq (which, I think, he wanted to do for reasons wholly beyond the question of WMD).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think the difference is that Bush had access to intelligence from the DOE nuclear experts saying the aluminum tubes were completely unfit for centrifuges, from Joe Wilson saying the uranium claim was not true, from intelligence analysts who said 'curveball' was a nutcase and so on. There was all this credible information which DIDN'T support the case for WMD.

In the first place, yes, I think there were some things that he out-and-out lied on (e.g. the yellow cake and Sudan business mentioned above). So did he lie? Yup. But that's different than the global assertion that he lied in every particular.

In the second place, if there was "all this credible information which DIDN'T support the case for WMD," I never saw any of it. The consensus of the intel community was something along the lines of, "He almost certainly has WMD capability, but we're not sure of the exact nature of that capability." Now, part one supports the president. Part two does not, given how confidently he asserted everything. But don't skip too easily past part one.

Quote:
And if I may point out - IF Iraq had CW, US troops would have suffered a 20-80% casualty rate. Do you think Bush would have sent troops in to that scenario?

Well, I'd be curious where you got the 20-80% casualty rate figure, but that's beside the point. Actually, I think that he did send us into what he thought was that scenario. Hence the elaborate training we received with all our chemical protective gear and the exhaustive drills and precautions we took while in-country. As I said, I was scared shitless the first time we had real in-coming because I thought those suckers would belch out CW. I was convinced of that on the basis of intel I'd seen going back 5 years before Bush. So, yeah, I think he did send us into an environment that he thought had the potential for the deployment of WMD. That's part of the reason I'm sore at him.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

RUE

Thursday, March 8, 2007 9:44 PM

I wish I could remember where I got the 20-80 % numbers from. A small portion of my work as a chemist involves CW detection so I had to do some research into that area.

The dissent from DOE experts etc all hit the news VERY briefly and then went - POOF ! and disappeared. It was extant and you could probably dig it up - but it was not after the fact. It was at the time.

Many soldiers - most soldiers - didn't have proper CW gear. You were lucky.

Anyway, I gotta get back to work, so I'd love to continue this later.

CAUSAL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
My son wanted to go to the local toy store for a special toy the other night. It was after 7:00pm, and I asked him if he was sure it was still open. He stated in no uncertain language that it was definitly open! I called ahead, instead of just rushing out, and found it closed at 6:00pm.
Was my son lying?
In his experience, that store was certainly open into the dark hours. But he had no cause to be so definite in his assertion that it WAS open at that particular late hour, other than his juvinile need for immediate gratification.

Let's just say he was being overzealous.

In light of this example, was Bush lying?
Yes.
Why?
He's not an eight-year-old. And Iraq is not a toy.

OK, the overzealous thing I'll grant you. But let's get closer in the analogy to something like intel. Say instead of your son, it was your wife. She wants you to take her to a nice restaurant, quite a swanky one. And you ask her, "Does it require reservations?" And she, on the basis of a conversation with a co-worker, says, "No, definitely not." Suppose further that this co-worker is wrong, that indeed, you do have to have reservations. Is your wife lying? I would say, no she's not. She doesn't know that what she's saying is an untruth. Her addition of "definitely" isn't warranted on the basis of the credibility of the information she has, but that's not enough to constitute a lie. I have to stick to my guns here, and say that I think that a person lies if-and-only-if they knowing speak an untruth with the intent to deceive.

Quote:
Do not attempt to apply logic to this administration Chrisisall

This administration may not think logically, but that's no reason why I shouldn't!

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 9:51 PM

Hmm...everybody I worked with (so various SOF units, as well as Marine and Army infantry) had adequate MOP gear. I'd be curious about your source on the claim that "most soldiers" didn't.

And for the sake of due diligence, you're right, there were dissenting voices on the nuclear side of the question--sorry I didn't pick that up earlier. I thought you were making a broader claim. I didn't think he was getting close to nukes, not based on my info. But Nukes are just one component of CBR.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 10:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Say instead of your son, it was your wife. She wants you to take her to a nice restaurant, quite a swanky one. And you ask her, "Does it require reservations?" And she, on the basis of a conversation with a co-worker, says, "No, definitely not." Suppose further that this co-worker is wrong

No, actually the co-worker is usually correct, it's just my wife has a habit of cutting peeps off when she thinks she's heard enough, and never quite seems to get the whole picture, ergo the mis-understanding...

Now that analogy works for me Chrisisall

CAUSAL

Thursday, March 8, 2007 11:10 PM

Yup, that'd be about right.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, March 9, 2007 1:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Just so we know you have a point to make and are not as much of an asshole as you appear.

Excuse me Oh Grand Idiot of These Boards.....but who the fuck are you to call ANY Firefly Fan an asshole? Grow the fuck up!

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, March 9, 2007 1:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
Oh Vermont...well it fugures...right? There are about 24 people living in that state, all either pot-smoking ex-hippies, or ex-draft dodgers....and they certainly have a proud history of things they've "voted" for :

Voted to ban the Easter Bunny & Santa Claus
Voted to have maple syrup replace gold as our monetary standard
Voted to secede from the Union and call their new country Assholia.
Voted to remove crosses from every church.
Voted to make Maui Wowie the official state flower.
Voted to give condoms to fetuses
Voted to declare Howard Dean's brain a waste management area
Voted to make Pat Buchannan the winner in their primary & Presidential front-runner
Voted to declare Star Wars...Revenge of the Sith the greatest movie of all time
Voted to authorize a Britney Spears appreciation day.
Voted to decide when their next vote would be
and a zillion other meaningless, fu**ed-up votes over the years....oh, you thilly state!

ShinyEd ......this is truly a classic & I love it, but you omitted their most proud liberal acheivement which is basically LEGALIZING PEDOPHELIA & CHILD RAPE....all the judges in Vermont let these despicable & un-speakably vile animals who have SEXUALLY ABUSED young children for months, years...well these fucking judges, ALONG WITH OVERWHELMINGLY POPULAR SUPPORT OF ALL THESE FINE UPSTANDING, BUSH-HATING, GOD-HATING LIBERAL RESIDENTS... well they let these bastards off with either NO PRISON TIME or less than a YEAR!@!!!!!!!!!@!@!@!@!@!!!!!!...Vermonters "feel" that these Democratic Voters" are ...well they're just a little off on their meds..a wee bit tweaked, so to speak..and that they need "help". "Well I say FUCK THEM & A BIG fuck them!, to FUCKING ANYTHING THAT COMES FROM FUCKING VERMONT!...but I digress.

RUE

Friday, March 9, 2007 1:32 AM

Dear Jongstraw,

I believe you've sufficiently demonstrated your age group for all to see.

RUE

Friday, March 9, 2007 1:35 AM

I wonder what it is about the Vermont votes that has all the Bushites in such a lather.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, March 9, 2007 2:03 AM

It was a simple question Ms. Rue... and I'll repeat it just for you : Who the fuck are you to call a Firefly Fan an asshole?

Another question you can answer : Why do you attack people with insults based on individual's beliefs?

Answer these questions Ms. Rue...if you don't, then I guess I'd have to call YOU a bad name...how 'bout two...coward & pisspot.

RUE

Friday, March 9, 2007 2:16 AM

"It was a simple question Ms. Rue... and I'll repeat it just for you : Who the fuck are you to call a Firefly Fan an asshole?"

The question actually went: "Excuse me Oh Grand Idiot of These Boards.....but who the fuck are you to call ANY Firefly Fan an asshole? Grow the fuck up!"

So, when you tell me which question you what answered, I'll reply.

--------------------
"Another question you can answer : Why do you attack people with insults based on individual's beliefs?"

Why does your side?

Zero
"Dean 54%
Kerry 34%
Kucinich 4%

So Vermont's judgement is seriously suspect. "
SNIDE

"Shiny"Ed
"all either pot-smoking ex-hippies, or ex-draft dodgers ...
Voted to give condoms to fetuses
Voted to declare Howard Dean's brain a waste management area"
STOOPID and mean.

--------------------

"Answer these questions Ms. Rue...if you don't, then I guess I'd have to call YOU a bad name...how 'bout two...coward & pisspot."

Oh yeah, now that's a perfect example right there. You get to figure out of what.

BTW Jockstrap, I haven't seen you contribute ANYTHING on-topic in this thread.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Friday, March 9, 2007 2:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
Hey asshole....you're the f'ing asshole who FIRST USED THE WORD against me...right asshole????? So who's the troll asshole...huh asshole???..Or do you get your asshole jollies off just from attacking people who have not said one f'ing word against you...huh asshole???

You're a tight-assed asshole I see with very limited wit or intelligence....I will therefore withdraw any further asshole conversations with you...ok asshole??? Yes I will continue to post all I want..all day ...every day...all asshole posts...since yer the arbitor of posting appropriateness, you can call me & others assholes all day long..ok again asshole?

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
[BShinyEd ......this is truly a classic & I love it, but you omitted their most proud liberal acheivement which is basically LEGALIZING PEDOPHELIA & CHILD RAPE....all the judges in Vermont let these despicable & un-speakably vile animals who have SEXUALLY ABUSED young children for months, years...well these fucking judges, ALONG WITH OVERWHELMINGLY POPULAR SUPPORT OF ALL THESE FINE UPSTANDING, BUSH-HATING, GOD-HATING LIBERAL RESIDENTS... well they let these bastards off with either NO PRISON TIME or less than a YEAR!@!!!!!!!!!@!@!@!@!@!!!!!!...Vermonters "feel" that these Democratic Voters" are ...well they're just a little off on their meds..a wee bit tweaked, so to speak..and that they need "help". "Well I say FUCK THEM & A BIG fuck them!, to FUCKING ANYTHING THAT COMES FROM FUCKING VERMONT!...but I digress.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

RUE

Friday, March 9, 2007 2:24 AM

So anyway, what IS it about these votes that has so many Bushites riled? I haven't seen such a response since I don't know when. Is it the sense that fearless leader might actually be impeached? And what's so bad about that? Wasn't Clinton impeached for getting a blow job? (though acquitted by the Senate). You didn't see democrats going off the deep end like this.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, March 9, 2007 2:26 AM

I just read your swell post & it finally hit me ( it's late ) that I've been engaged here with a collection of water and chemicals held together in a human form with absolutley zero brain activity. Good night & good luck!

RUE

Friday, March 9, 2007 2:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I just read your swell post & it finally hit me ( it's late ) that I've been engaged here with a collection of water and chemicals held together in a human form with absolutley zero brain activity. Good night & good luck!

Still nothing about the actual topic.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Friday, March 9, 2007 2:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So anyway, what IS it about these votes that has so many Bushites riled? I haven't seen such a response since I don't know when. Is it the sense that fearless leader might actually be impeached? And what's so bad about that? Wasn't Clinton impeached for getting a blow job? (though acquitted by the Senate). You didn't see democrats going off the deep end like this.

Maybe because they have defended tooth and nail for so long, and they feel the abject dispair when one realizes that ones own fondly held love has betrayed them utterly and totaly and left them with the tattered remains of a life that was?....... ....oh sorry, I thought we were talking about my divorce

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

RUE

Friday, March 9, 2007 2:32 AM

Just so it doesn't get lost in the snit-fit, I was curious if anyone had any thoughts on this:

... what IS it about these votes that has so many Bushites riled? I haven't seen such a response since I don't know when. Is it the sense that fearless leader might actually be impeached? And what's so bad about that? Wasn't Clinton impeached for getting a blow job? (though acquitted by the Senate). You didn't see democrats going off the deep end like this.

I'm really curious.

RUE

Friday, March 9, 2007 2:34 AM

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ! (though sorry about your divorce. )

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So anyway, what IS it about these votes that has so many Bushites riled? I haven't seen such a response since I don't know when. Is it the sense that fearless leader might actually be impeached? And what's so bad about that? Wasn't Clinton impeached for getting a blow job? (though acquitted by the Senate). You didn't see democrats going off the deep end like this.

Maybe because they have defended tooth and nail for so long, and they feel the abject dispair when one realizes that ones own fondly held love has betrayed them utterly and totaly and left them with the tattered remains of a life that was?....... ....oh sorry, I thought we were talking about my divorce

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Friday, March 9, 2007 2:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ! (though sorry about your divorce. )

So is he. LOL!!!!!

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original