OP/ED: Impeach Bush Now!

Boatphone: Poor Boatphone

From your link:

It claims America had proof that the Iraqi government and “Bin Laden’s group” had agreed to co-operate to attack targets in America and that the US might strike Iraq and Afghanistan in retaliation.

However, the information comes from an unidentified Afghan informant who states merely that he heard it from an Afghan consul, also unnamed. According to ABC News, which translated the tapes, the claims are “sensational” but the sourcing is “questionable”.

Another document from a “trustworthy” source and dated August 2002 claims people with links to Al-Qaeda were in Iraq. There is a picture a few pages later of the Jordanian terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. But the papers suggest Saddam’s agents were trying to verify the presence of Al-Qaeda rather than colluding with it.

The title of the link you provided is :

Released Saddam papers hint at links to Al-Qaeda

I don't remember Bush saying, "We think that he MAY have POSSIBLE links to Al Qaeda". He said they DID, and he was SURE.

Lies and lies and lies.... I will await the next proof you can find.

unidentified Afghan informant who states merely that he heard it from an Afghan consul, also unnamed

Unidentified Afghan says he HEARD about it from another unidentified Afghan. It's called HEARSAY and it doesn't stand up in any court anywhere, but I guess if your President believes it then he can get 2400 US soldiers killed due to hearsay. Interesting legal side there.

More papers will be released...when your the President of the United States you don't have the luxury of second guessing yourself, you must act to protect Americans.

Intellegents information is what he had to go on...therefor it is not a lie. The President did not lie.

If I wake up and my roomate tells me its rainning outside, and I believe him. Then I tell someone on the phone its rainning, I not lying; even if it is just foggy.

It should be simple for you to understand, but I know its fun to yell lies, lies!! All the time...

-- Boat

Originally posted by Boatphone
Intellegents information is what he had to go on...therefor it is not a lie. The President did not lie.

Boatphone, you invite everybody to "get informed" and then proceed to either pretend to be uninformed or to actually be uninformed. This aint cool. If you read the sources you realize in 5 microseconds that indeed he needed a pretext for teh invasion and that there was a pressure on the intelligence community, quite heavy at times, to produce "evidence" conducive to his maniacal obsession with Iraq. If you are saying that he was not lying, you must believe that Clinton did not have sex with Monica.

If I wake up and my roomate tells me its rainning outside, and I believe him. Then I tell someone on the phone its rainning, I not lying; even if it is just foggy.

How damn convenient! Imagine you wanted to pull a practical joke on somebody and make them believe it was raining. You asked you roommate if it's raining outside and he says no. You then ask him to look closer, especially at the clothes you hung out to dry the night before (they didn't dry yet and are still wet). He then, being hungover from the party, decided that yes, because the clothes are wet there must be some rain outside. You then call another person and tell them that a reliable source (your roomate) claims it's like totally raining outside and they can safely leave for the weekend without watering the lawn. By the time they come back, the lawn is crispy dry. Haha. You win.

Originally posted by Aelita

Boatphone, you invite everybody to "get informed" and then proceed to either pretend to be uninformed or to actually be uninformed.

Yes, people should know that President Bush was not "lying". The idea that he would make up a huge lie that would not benefit him or America in anyway is beyond absurd.

This aint cool.

I know its a lot cooler to "fight the power man", yeah just like in the 60's!

he needed a pretext for teh invasion

If he needed a pretext for an invasion, then he had many to choose from, why make one up?

Saddam was firing on U.S. & British planes everyday. What not send a few more in unitll Saddam hit one; instant war. The idea that President would push a lie to invade Iraq, is silly.

-- Boat

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Boatphone]

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Boatphone]

want to source us to the information that he was shooting at us before the war continually?

second yes it is a lie, ignorance is not an excuse, dont shovel off the blame to some one else. At least during the bay of pigs kennedy had the guts to take the blame.

The US DID need a pretext for the Iraq war, and obviously it didnt have ANY reasons or the international community would have backed it. 49 little nothing countries is not wavering international support yea right next war we will have the unwavering support from the international communuity including:
peru, madagascar, equador, tonga, etc.

yes the corporations did benefit. Bush doesnt need to directly benefit, hes sent once hes out of office though. He made his buddies a ton of money...a complete killing. And yes the people didnt benefit from these wars, but since when(in capitalistic america) has the government worked for the people?

[edit on 3-5-2006 by grimreaper797]

Hey Boatphone, why don't you phone it in next time. You're boat is full of ... bilge.

Maybe you should pump the bilge out of your bottom and you could move that boat out of the realm of fairy tales into the world of reality.

Check this out and understand that while verbosity is not necessarily offensive on this site, unsupported drivel wastes everyone's time.

According to the consensus of Bush's intelligence services, there was "low confidence" before the war in the views that "Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland" or "share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qaida."

Their message to the president was clear: Saddam wouldn't help al-Qaida unless we put his back against the wall, and even then it was a big maybe. If anything, the report was a flashing yellow light against attacking Iraq.

Bush saw the warning, yet completely ignored it and barreled ahead with the war plans he'd approved a month earlier (Aug. 29), telling a completely different version of the intelligence consensus to the American people. Less than a week after the NIE was published, he warned that "on any given day" – provoked by attack or not, sufficiently desperate or not – Saddam could team up with Osama and conduct a joint terrorist operation against America using weapons of mass destruction.

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," Bush said Oct. 7 in his nationally televised Cincinnati speech. "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving fingerprints." The terrorists he was referring to were "al-Qaida members."

By telling Americans that Saddam could "on any given day" slip unconventional weapons to al-Qaida if America didn't disarm him, the president misrepresented the conclusions of his own secret intelligence report, which warned that Saddam wouldn't even try to reach out to al-Qaida unless he were attacked and had nothing to lose – and might even find that hard to do since he had no history of conducting joint terrorist operations with al-Qaida, and certainly none against the U.S.

If that's not lying, I don't know what is.

What's worse, the inconvenient conclusions about Iraq and al-Qaida were withheld from the unclassified version of the secret NIE report that Bush authorized for public release the day before his Cincinnati speech, as part of the launch of the White House's campaign to sell the war. The 25-page white paper, posted on the CIA website, focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction, and conveniently left out the entire part about Saddam's reluctance to reach out to al-Qaida. Americans also didn't see the finding that Saddam had no hand in 9-11 or any other al-Qaida attack against American territory. That, too, was sanitized.

Over the following months, in speech after speech, Bush went right on lying with impunity about the Iraq-al-Qaida threat, all the while flouting the judgments of his own intelligence agencies.

Even after the war, Bush continued the lie. "We have removed an ally of al-Qaida," he said May 1 from the deck of the USS Lincoln. "No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime."

In the glaring absence of any hard proof of either those alleged weapons or al-Qaida links, the White House press corps has finally put down their stenographer's pads and started asking tough questions, forcing the president to at least level with the American people about Saddam's assumed role in 9-11.

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks, Bush confessed last month, finally repeating for the public what his own intelligence services had told him a year earlier.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Support the Evil One if you must, but do it with links to support your claims or leave it alone. Quit wasting our time boatphone!

seattlelaw, you providing a 2003 article to downplay the Iraqi documents that are being currently (2006) translated, known as the Saddam Files or Harmony, indicating that perhaps the war was more justified than you or others may be willing to acknowledge? Even ABC and NBC have started picking up on the recent translations and what they are saying. Then again, it is easier to stick with old news then to go with current translated news: Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents.





seekerof

Originally posted by grimreaper797
second yes it is a lie, ignorance is not an excuse, dont shovel off the blame to some one else. At least during the bay of pigs kennedy had the guts to take the blame.

Ignorance about what?... You and some people like yourself are the ones that "want to blame someone else" for the same information pretty much the whole world had... Half of the world just wanted more sanctions because they were getting rich off the Oil For Food program... The countries which benefitted the most from those sanctions were the same countries that didn't want to go to war...China, Russia, France, and Germany among others.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
The US DID need a pretext for the Iraq war,

You are calling it a pretext, i call it making sure that sob of Saddam and his regime did not continue sponsoring terrorism against the U.S. and the rest of the western countries.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
and obviously it didnt have ANY reasons or the international community would have backed it.

Right, like the same international community which the U.S. did urge to do something about Sudan? Like the same international community which nominated a dictator (fidel castro) for the nobel prize?... The same international community in which those countries which were against the war in Iraq were found to have had illegal deals with Saddam?, which was the reason why they didn't want to back the U.S., Britain, Spain, and the other countries which did back up and formed the coalition.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
yes the corporations did benefit. Bush doesnt need to directly benefit, hes sent once hes out of office though.

Tell us of a war where corporations and large businesses have not benefitted from a major war.....

After every major war there is always reconstruction efforts, which does make money to large businesses, but you are just making an accusation without any evidence if you claim that the war was made up just for profit....

Originally posted by grimreaper797
And yes the people didnt benefit from these wars, but since when(in capitalistic america) has the government worked for the people?

That's not what the Russian intelligence, (together with president Putin)the spaniard authorites, and the Zech authorities among others said before and after the war. They all said that there was a link between Saddam and terrorism against the U.S, and the Russians went as far as having given the U.S. evidence since 9/11 and up to the war in Iraq that Saddam was preparing on making terrorist attacks in U.S. soil and other U.S. interests.

BTW, the government has worked for the people since the Declaration of Independence.]

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Seattlelaw, perhaps you should follow your own advice.

Russian President Vladimir Putin says that after the 9/11 attacks Moscow warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on the US.

He said Russia's secret service had information on more than one occasion that Iraq was preparing acts of terror in the US and its facilities worldwide.

Mr Putin said he had no information the Iraqi ex-leader was behind any attacks.

It came a day after US President George W Bush insisted there had been links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

He disputed the preliminary findings of a US commission investigating the 9/11 attacks on Washington and New York that found no "credible evidence" of a relationship between the two.

"After the events of 11 September 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," he told reporters.

He said the information received by Russian intelligence suggested Iraq was planning attacks in the United States, "and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets".

news.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by Aelita
How damn convenient! Imagine you wanted to pull a practical joke on somebody and make them believe it was raining.

That was really good! Good job! Oh, and don't forget the 100,000 people that got killed as a result of the practical joke!

Originally posted by Muaddib
Ignorance about what?... You and some people like yourself are the ones that "want to blame someone else" for the same information pretty much the whole world had... Half of the world just wanted more sanctions because they were getting rich off the Oil For Food program... The countries which benefitted the most from those sanctions were the same countries that didn't want to go to war...China, Russia, France, and Germany among others.

so let me get this straight, though russia was getting great deals by iraq, they told the US that iraq was a danger of national security? Why would any country intentionally damage their profits for another country it doesnt like? What your trying to say is even though russia was doing great off of the sanctions on one end, the same time it sends info to the US which would cause the US to attack iraq and destroy their great deal? that doesnt fit AT ALL.

You are calling it a pretext, i call it making sure that sob of Saddam and his regime did not continue sponsoring terrorism against the U.S. and the rest of the western countries.

truely i dont care how you personally feel about sadam and his regime. if the documents prove authentic world wide(because i dont trust the "sob's" in our government telling us its authentic) then i will be more likely to say ok maybe he was a threat. I want solid proof though.

Right, like the same international community which the U.S. did urge to do something about Sudan? Like the same international community which nominated a dictator (fidel castro) for the nobel prize?... The same international community in which those countries which were against the war in Iraq were found to have had illegal deals with Saddam?, which was the reason why they didn't want to back the U.S., Britain, Spain, and the other countries which did back up and formed the coalition.

yes but notice how the US hasnt stormed into sudan when the UN didnt back them on that? wonder why? guess if its not for "our" safety then we shouldnt act like we did on iraq. what did they elect castro for the nobel peace prize for?

Tell us of a war where corporations and large businesses have not benefitted from a major war.....

none, i guess that would explain why we are constantly at war to preserve peace(never thought that would be true...well to me it isnt but i guess in the minds of some it is). we must fight everyone in order to preserve peace for everyone...wait that isnt right....

After every major war there is always reconstruction efforts, which does make money to large businesses, but you are just making an accusation without any evidence if you claim that the war was made up just for profit....

not just after the war, but during the war, come on you know how much gets spent to make all this stuff. bombs, armor, tanks, aircrafts, weapons contracts. i dont need evidence, as you said about tell us a war where corporations havent benefited from a major war. exactly, i guess that why war is so popular.

That's not what the Russian intelligence, (together with president Putin)the spaniard authorites, and the Zech authorities among others said before and after the war. They all said that there was a link between Saddam and terrorism against the U.S, and the Russians went as far as having given the U.S. evidence since 9/11 and up to the war in Iraq that Saddam was preparing on making terrorist attacks in U.S. soil and other U.S. interests.

yes ill be sure to take into consideration intelligence from a country that we had a nuclear arms race with. but tell me how does this make sense? if russia were part of the oil for food program, why in the WORLD would they blow that to tell us about al qaeda and saddam connection? my theory, they did it purposely to make us look stupid. Its a great way to damage a nation. We are a superpower, so every nation is waiting for our downfall to take the thrown. You really dont think that russia would make a trade that wouldnt benefit them do you?(oil for food program exposed for US looking inept and wrong, maybe even starting the collapse of the US if they are lucky.) when you put 2 and 2 together and get 5, something went wrong.

BTW, the government has worked for the people since the Declaration of Independence.

technically the government was formed during the declaration of indepenence. but anyway i said in corporate american history. that mean since capitalism has taken over as the representative of what america is. Its not a republic anymore, its a corporation. Doesnt matter who you vote for, because a corporation owns them, thats when they stopped working for us. if you fail to realize this, i dont see the point in this conversation going any further because it would mean you arent living in the current US.

[edit on 3-5-2006 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by Seekerof
seattlelaw, you providing a 2003 article to downplay the Iraqi documents that are being currently (2006) translated, known as the Saddam Files or Harmony, indicating that perhaps the war was more justified than you or others may be willing to acknowledge? Even ABC and NBC have started picking up on the recent translations and what they are saying. Then again, it is easier to stick with old news then to go with current translated news: Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents.
seekerof

Thanks, seekerof, you prove my point.

The fact that three years and 100,000 plus killed and many more mutilated with an entire people in desolate misery and daily bombings and sniping with no end in sight some documents are surfacing that might, perhaps, tend to support the original lies about WMD, etc., just shows that the "intelligence" didn't exist when the decision to invade a sovereign nation under false pretenses was made.

What is relevant to the evaluation is what the intelligence showed back in 2003, not what documents may or may not reveal today about things Bush knew nothing about in 2003 when the decision was made. Unless, of course, you agree with the Colbert "feeling in my gut" method of making decisions (like the 'decider' in chief) on where to spend the treasure of the US of A and the lives of its citizens. In that case, I have no argument for you which can hope to persuade.

Originally posted by seattlelaw
The fact that three years and 100,000 plus killed and many more mutilated with an entire people in desolate misery and daily bombings and sniping with no end in sight some documents are surfacing that might, perhaps, tend to support the original lies about WMD, etc.,

War is hell and in ALL wars, who suffers the most? So your point, from a historical perspective and context is what?

just shows that the "intelligence" didn't exist when the decision to invade a sovereign nation under false pretenses was made.

Your not checking with the right CIA and foreign intel sources, huh?

What is relevant to the evaluation is what the intelligence showed back in 2003, not what documents may or may not reveal today about things Bush knew nothing about in 2003 when the decision was made.

Umm, what the intel used to make the decision to go into Iraq indicated that Iraq had WMDs, and again, that was per the CIA and foreign intel. 2003 is an after the fact, you think, being the decision to go to war was made based upon intel prior to 2003?

Unless, of course, you agree with the Colbert "feeling in my gut" method of making decisions (like the 'decider' in chief) on where to spend the treasure of the US of A and the lives of its citizens. In that case, I have no argument for you which can hope to persuade.

Read above. Apparently, your intel sources are after the fact...like 2003. Umm, the invasion of Iraq took place when, late Spring early Summer 2002? Yeah, that would be after the fact.






seekerof

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Seekerof]

Seekerof what hes trying to say is that its quite apparent that until lately we couldnt prove that Iraq might have had connections or WMD. Not that they didnt, but that we finally have proof that they MIGHT. That would mean that before these documents there wasnt any proof of possible WMD or connections.

Just pointing out his point because i read your post and really didnt see how it responded to that.

And what the Bush apologists are struggling to accomplish, like Sisyphus, is the distraction away from the clear intent of the Bushies which was itself to distract the attention of the American public with lies and deceits with the goal of stoking the fear resulting from 911.

That fear, they knew, if properly manipulated, would provide them unfettered access to the purse strings of the US Treasury, force Congress to heel, and yoke the US military to their ultimate objectives in the oil rich mideast. Why do the Bush apologists like Seekerof continue to defend these brutes? Because they have invested so much of themselves into the goodness of Bush and his commandants. Ironically (based upon what they lose by their defense) they feel, essentially, that by defending the Bushies they are defending themselves.

Now you might justly wonder why the Bushies wouldn't be honest about their objectives in the mideast. If control of the region and its resource wealth was to be for the benefit of the American people, i.e. to control oil and bring peace to the region, it is highly likely that the vast majority of Americans would happily go along with their apparent goals. So why lie?

The reason is apparent from the quarterly tax statements from Exxon-Mobil and Halliburton, etc. It is also apparent from the oilgarchy trust manipulation of gas prices at the pump based upon factors unrelated to the availability or price of a barrel of oil. The gouging is tacitly condoned by the Bushies. And why not? It serves their bottom line too. Are you still bending over, apologists? Good boys.

You see, the goal is not to secure America or provide wealth for the nation as a whole. Rather, the goal is to secure the wealth and power for the oligarchy (or "oilgarchy" tm) of which the entire Bush administration are members. Security is only important to the extent it furthers the interests of the oilgarchy. The rest of us are sheeple to be tossed at the cannons.

Believe it or not. But by denying/ignoring this reality you only continue to live the myth they choose for you. The chains on your wrists are there with you permission.

The proof is in the pudding, gentlepeople.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by seattlelaw]

Seekerof,

I have the answer.

Impeach the entire contents of the White House. Including furniture. You'd be surprised the bad vibes furniture can have

Then have hand voting- yes, i dont care if it takes 3 months to count them. I would definatedly volunteer.

Then, and only then, would i be happy as an American. If WE vote for another incompetent, oh well, its our fault. There would be no more back and forth as to Bush did this and Bush did that- and the millions of apologies and interpretations!

See? Its real simple. Foist, we must get rid of the problema.

HAD this clown been elected by the PEOPLE, we would only be wondering what the hell is the matter with us, not HIM.

See? Its extremely simplistic, but i am simple. Delta Airlines did not hire me for my genius....They hired me for my nice personality- I thought i'd throw that in, because i am not a writer who will go down in history as, what's that word, a prolific writer or a writer on the par of some here. Still, i do have opinions, and good ones!

Luv you, Seekerof

What's taking so long?

I really want to know.

Like dgtempe said, Bush was NOT elected by the people of America. Bush has diddled a lot more Americans than a consenting secretary. So what's the hold up?

.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by soficrow]

Boatphone:

More papers will be released...when your the President of the United States you don't have the luxury of second guessing yourself, you must act to protect Americans.

What does that mean? As Prez you can’t second guess yourself? You just have to make a decision and stick to it even if it is wrong? HUH?! Please explain.

Intellegents information is what he had to go on...therefor it is not a lie. The President did not lie.

Again, bs. The CIA said their info was that he had NONE. ZERO WMDs. Wilson said it about the yellowcake, and UNSCOM and the IAEA said it about the rest. Either you yourself are trying to deceive or you are just misinformed. Terribly, terribly misinformed.

The idea that he would make up a huge lie that would not benefit him or America in anyway is beyond absurd.

And that, my friend, heralds the end of our debate. Invading Iraq did not benefit him? Not the military-industrial complex? The Oil companies? You are clearly not equipped to deal with arguing your points based on actual reality, so good luck with everything.

Seeker:

Umm, what the intel used to make the decision to go into Iraq indicated that Iraq had WMDs, and again, that was per the CIA and foreign intel.

Since you’re smart enough to know the truth, why would you say that?

www.cnn.com...


They cherrypicked the intel that they wanted. Where exactly have you been for the last 3 years? Tenet took the fall for it. Bush just blamed the CIA, which was the only way he could do it with taking flak.

thinkprogress.org...


[edit on 4-5-2006 by Jakomo]

Originally posted by soficrow
Like dgtempe said, Bush was NOT elected by the people of America.

No, incorrect. President Bush was elected by a majority of the people of the United States of America.

Have you been living under a rock?

-- Boat

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Boatphone]

Originally posted by soficrow
Like dgtempe said, Bush was NOT elected by the people of America.

Originally posted by BoatphoneNo, incorrect. President Bush was elected by a majority of the people of the United States of America.

Have you been living under a rock?

-- Boat

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Boatphone]

Well that's certainly true if you don't consider minorities 'people'.