Impeachment, not investigation...

[Bullypulpit]

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?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
David Kay said it...Ther are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So what's to investigate?

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."

 

[jimnyc]

Allow me to rip apart these asinine statements even further:

David Kay said it...Ther are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So what's to investigate?

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,"

With those words, David Kay gave lie to everything Dubbyuh said about the threat Iraq posed in his 2002 SOU speech.

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.

So why hasn't Dubbyuh been impeached?

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!

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Johnney]

and obviously kay is next to god, so we should take his word for it?

 

[Bullypulpit]

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>

 

[Jeff]

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

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by Jeff & Laura
Bully I dont know if there was WMD or not out there but dont ya think with all the time that went by 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

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...

 

[Bullypulpit]

...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.

 

[eric]

Thank the good lord for that !

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by eric
Thank the good lord for that !

 

[eric]

Don't take it too serious DK, just messing with a fool, who will go unnamed !

 

[DKSuddeth]

 

[jimnyc]

DK has laryngitis and is now speaking with smileys

 

[DKSuddeth]

I'm going to the club and have a drink with my larangyitis now. see ya

:

 

[jimnyc]

Enjoy, have a few shots for me!

 

[MS36]

WHAT BUSH AND BLAIR AND THE US AND BRITISH GOVERNMENTS HAVE COMMITTED IS A VERY SERIOUS CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE PENALTY MUST BE MUCH GREATER THAN THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT OR PRIME MINISTER.

Bush's Lying To Start A War Is A Major War Crime!!!

Plain and simple>>>lying to start a war that has killed and wounded tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi babies, children, women and men. and has unnecessarily destroyed the Iraqi Nation IS A MAJOR HOMICIDE WAR CRIME!!!!

This is no little matter that one can simply apologize for or conduct an internal government investigation to see what went wrong.Tens of thousands of innocent human beings have been killed or wounded in an UNNECESSARY WAR!!! The WARS FOR PROFIT in Afghanistan and Iraq has made untold billions of dollars for unscrupulous war corporations, OIL corporations and individual in-compassionate, heartless war profiteers.

The Bush government is already admitting that they used "faulty" intelligence to start the war in Iraq. This is the reason Bush is setting up a "government commission" to investigate how this could possibly have happened.Are the American people and the World Community just going to sit there and let Bush and his government go through this ridiculous "investigation", which does not recognize that a MAMMOTH CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY HAS BEEN COMMITTED!!! This is like having the criminal investigate his own crime without being taken to a court of law, where justice can be done!!! Bush and his associates in crime cannot be permitted to WHITEWASH their crime.

Someone has got to take responsibility for their actions, so this crime cannot be committed again in the future. Bush and the heads of the US military and every government agency along with Senators and Congressmen, who voted to go to war with Iraq must be held accountable for participating in the act of pre-emptively starting a war on "faulty {lying} intelligence."

BUSH, CHENEY AND ALL MILITARY AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO PARTICIPATED IN STARTING AN UNNECESSARY WAR WITH IRAQ MUST BE TAKEN TO THE WORLD COURT FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

The British Blair government and military must also be charged with the same crimes against humanity in the World Court.

The USA and England should withdraw their troops immediately and democratic free and open elections should take place in Iraq to restore the Iraqi government. International Peacekeeping monitors could be brought into Iraq to make sure the elections are fairly held.

The USA and Britain should have to pay reparations to Iraq for destroying their country unnecessarily. Surviving families of victims who were killed or wounded by the American and British military in Iraq should be able to file a class action lawsuit against the US and British governments in order to recover damages for the killing or wounding of their family members.The reparations and damages that the US and Britain would be liable for would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Bush, Blair, Cheney and any head of an American or British government or military agency along with Congressmen, Senators, Parliament members, who voted in favor of going to war must be put on trial in a World Court for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.Their guilt or innocence and penalty will be decided by the Court!!!

If no action is taken by the World Community in this instance, then what is being said here is that it is acceptable for leaders of Nations to start wars by lying and these leaders will not be penalized for killing and maiming innocent human beings and destroying a Nation unnecessarily.

If the over 6 billion humans of the World Community allow Bush and Blair and their governments to get away with this obvious WAR CRIME, then we the people are leaving the door open to a repeat performance by others in the future!!!

STOP THE KILLING OF HUMAN BEINGS BY ANYONE
IT'S A BETTER WAY TO LIVE

 

[jon_forward]

very original MS36.....is the 36 your IQ???

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jon_forward
very original MS36.....is the 36 your IQ???

A piece of dirt has an IQ of 36. Please don't insult the dirt.

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by jimnyc
A piece of dirt has an IQ of 36. Please don't insult the dirt.

My apology goes out to the dirt...

 

[Scourge]

Stinging rebukes... well said. I guess that blows his argument out of the oil-slicked water.