Impeachment, not investigation...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bullypulpit, Feb 4, 2004.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    David Kay said it...Ther are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So what's to investigate?

    With those words, David Kay gave lie to everything Dubbyuh said about the threat Iraq posed in his 2002 SOU speech. So why hasn't Dubbyuh been impeached? Goatboy was impeached for lying about consensual sex in the Oval Office, no one died, and it only cost the taxpayer $70 million for David Starr's fruitless witch-hunt.

    Dubbyuh's lie, on the other hand, has cost us over 500 American lives, a number of "Coalition" lives and countless Iraqi lives. And let's not forget the wounded and maimed, nearly 3,000 American s alone. And then there's the issue of financial costs. The continuing costs of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan aren't even addressed in the new budget, which are already running into the $100 billion dollar range.

    So why is Dubbyuh appointing a "Bipartisan, independent commission" to investigate the intelligence failures leading up to Iraq instead of preparing to defend himself against impeachment proceedings?
     
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Nice try, Bully! Shall I help you with what exactly was stated? Is there ever an end to your twisting of the facts?




    Key Excerpts from David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee:


    Acting in Iraq was justified to protect the United States and the world

    Senator McCain: "[Y]ou agree with the fundamental principle here that what we did was justified and enhance the security of the United States and the world by removing Saddam Hussein from power?"

    David Kay: "Absolutely."

    "It would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat"

    Senator Kennedy: "Many of us feel that the evidence so far leads only to one conclusion: that what has happened was more than a failure of intelligence, it was the result of manipulation of the intelligence to justify a decision to go to war..........."

    David Kay: ".......All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD."

    "Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441"

    "In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had. We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material."

    "Iraq was in clear and material violation of 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their program. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal. I hope we find even more evidence of that."

    "The world is far safer with the disappearance and removal of Saddam Hussein"

    "I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought. I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover that after 1998 it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate."

    Analysts were not pressured

    "And let me take one of the explanations most commonly given: Analysts were pressured to reach conclusions that would fit the political agenda of one or another administration. I deeply think that is a wrong explanation. And never -- not in a single case -- was the explanation, 'I was pressured to do this.' The explanation was, very often, 'The limited data we had led one to reasonably conclude this. I now see that there's another explanation for it' ...... And each case was different, but the conversations were sufficiently in depth and our relationship was sufficiently frank that I'm convinced that, at least to the analysts I dealt with, I did not come across a single one that felt it had been, in the military term, 'inappropriate command influence' that led them to take that position."

    "Absolutely no doubt" Saddam harbored ambitions to develop and use WMD

    Senator McCain: "Saddam Hussein developed and used weapons of mass destruction; true?"

    David Kay: "Absolutely."

    Senator McCain: "He used them against the Iranians and the Kurds; just yes or no."

    David Kay: "Oh, yes."

    Senator McCain: "OK. And U.N. inspectors found enormous quantities of banned chemical and biological weapons in Iraq in the '90s."

    David Kay: "Yes, sir."

    Senator McCain: "We know that Saddam Hussein had once a very active nuclear program."

    David Kay: "Yes."

    Senator McCain: "And he realized and had ambitions to develop and use weapons of mass destruction."

    David Kay: "Clearly."

    Senator McCain: "So the point is, if he were in power today, there is no doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and use of weapons of mass destruction. Is there any doubt in your mind?"

    David Kay: "There's absolutely no doubt. And I think I've said that, Senator."

    "We have learned things that no U.N. inspector would have ever learned given the terror regime of Saddam"

    Senator Clinton: "I think that rightly does raise questions that we should be examining about whether or not the U.N. inspection process pursuant to 1441 might not also have worked without the loss of life that we have confronted both among our own young men and women, as well as Iraqis."

    David Kay: "Well, Senator Clinton, let me just add to that. We have had a number of Iraqis who have come forward and said, 'We did not tell the U.N. about what we were hiding, nor would we have told the U.N. because we would run the risk of our own' -- I think we have learned things that no U.N. inspector would have ever learned given the terror regime of Saddam and the tremendous personal consequences that scientists had to run by speaking the truth." That's not to say, and it's not incompatible with the fact that inspections accomplish a great deal in holding a program down. And that's where the surprise is. In holding the program down, in keeping it from break out, I think the record is better than we would have anticipated. I don't think the record is necessarily better than we thought with regard to getting the final truth, because of the power of the terrorist state that Saddam Hussein had."
     
  3. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Allow me to rip apart these asinine statements even further:

    Can you quote EXACTLY what he said in regards to no WMD being found thus far? Nevermind, I'll do it for you:

    "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 weapons there,"

    Did you conveniently forget the part where Kat clearly lays blame on the shoulder of the intelligence community? I know I've asked you this 100 times, but you've failed to answer appropriately 11 times - Please point out where Bush lied. Not more of your imaginative rhetoric, but bonafide proof of a lie.

    What are the impeachable offenses? Hell, you couldn't even get him on a parking ticket! Your skewed opinion doesn't result in impeachment. You want him impeached, but you fail to provide even the smallest amount of any wrongdoing. Well done! :rolleyes:

    And this is an example of a bonafide lie. Thanks for pointing out the difference to all of us.

    No, war has caused these deaths and injuries. Saddam, his regime, insurgents & terrorists are responsible. Keep throwing your slants at us though, no one is falling for it.

    And what's your point? Should we reduce costs? Maybe remove some tanks and fighter jets? Maybe cut in half the amount of active soldiers in the ME? This is one of the few places where I agree wholeheartedly with the spending.

    Because there won't be any proceedings, except maybe in your wet dreams!

    Keep seacrhing, Bully, you're going to have to do better than this amateur crap.
     
  4. Johnney
    Offline

    Johnney Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    4,330
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    IOWA
    Ratings:
    +141
    and obviously kay is next to god, so we should take his word for it?
     
  5. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    From <a href=http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html>The National Security Strategy of the United States of America</a>

    Section V: ...For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an <b>imminent danger</b> of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

    <b>We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries</b>. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning...

    <a href=http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/excerpts_oct16.html>Excerpts from the Press Briefings by Ari Fleischer October 16, 2002</a>

    ...QUESTION: Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.

    MR. FLEISCHER: <b>Yes.</b>

    QUESTION: The chief U.N. inspector, however, is saying that, even under those conditions, it would be as much as a year before he could actually make a definitive report to the U.N. that Iraq is complying with the resolutions and allowing the inspections to take place. Isn't there a kind of a dichotomy? Can we wait a year, if it's so imminent we have to act now?

    MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's why the President has gone to the United Nations to make certain that the conditions by which the inspectors would go back would be very different from the current terms that inspectors have been traveling around Iraq in as they've been thwarted in their attempt to find out what weapons Saddam Hussein has. But it's also important to hold Saddam Hussein accountable to make certain he no longer violates the will of the United Nations....

    <a href=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-6.html>January 27, 2004:</a>

    MR. McCLELLAN: Those were not words we used. We used "grave and gathering threat." We made it very clear that it was a gathering threat, that it's important to confront gathering threats in this post-September 11th world, because of the new dangers and new threats that we face.

    Q So then under your interpretation, if you're not using the word "imminent" and the President didn't use it, this was not a preemptive attack, this was a preventative war? Is that the White House position?

    MR. McCLELLAN: No, again, September 11th taught us that we must confront gathering threats before it's too late. Saddam Hussein -- Saddam Hussein had ample opportunity to come clean.

    Consider the following in contrast with "grave and gathering threat."

    from Merriam-Webster Third International Unabridged Dictionary, 2003.
    Main Entry: im-mi-nent
    Function:adjective
    Etymology:Latin imminent-, imminens, present participle of immin*re to project, threaten, from in- 2in- + -min*re (akin to Latin mont-, mons mountain) * more at MOUNT

    1 : ready to take place : near at hand : IMPENDING *our imminent departure*; usually : hanging threateningly over one's head : menacingly near *in imminent jeopardy* *this imminent danger*

    <i> "Imminent threat"... "Grave and gathering threat"...Same thing. A pathetic attempt by the Administration to play a game of semantics. A bunch of Mayberry Machiavellis.</i>
     
  6. Jeff
    Online

    Jeff Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Bully I dont know if there was WMD or not out there but dont ya think with all the time that went buy Sadam could of had hid his weapons preety good...if I was to fault the current admin , it would be that we gave them months to prepare before we went in....so is there WMD still there maybe or maybe not....they could be in Iran or another country in that area????
    Jeff
     
  7. jon_forward
    Offline

    jon_forward Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,436
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    nashville.tn
    Ratings:
    +5
    I am with you jeff...we waited too long

    These people are sooo hard headed!!!! they cling to what they feel is their last and only hope to regain the whitehouse... Isolationism,protectionism...Let the world go down the crapper, we will worry about that later,what happens on the other side of our borders is not a concern...as long as we are safe INSIDE the confines of this prison that used to be called the USA...I believe that is where the Democrats want to go..I take things to extreme sometimes...but comparing people to snakes is so far out there to be grounds for a stay in the mental ward of a state hospital including a special jacket and nice soft walls...
     
  8. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    ...Government of the People, by the People and for the People? Pretty novel concept I know, as Dubbyuh's sold his ass so many time he should have the names of his corporate sponsors tattooed to it.

    As it stands now, we're a nation of corporations, by corporations and for corporations.
     
  9. eric
    Online

    eric Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Thank the good lord for that !
     
  10. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    :eek:
     

Share This Page