Acorn!

[txlonghorn]

NOpe, he killed over 3 thousand americans because of a lie about wmd's and mushroom clouds. Which one is worse?

What? To my knowledge, which I admit is vast, the ONLY WMD that causes mushroom clouds is nuclear weapons, and no one ever claimed Saadam had those.

As far as WMD there are 5,000 dead Kurds and 11,000 injured kurds from a nice quiet little attack that happened on March 16, 1988 who would like to testify that Saadam indeed did have WMD but alas they are either dead or too ill to come to court.

Perhaps you'd like a link?

Did Saddam Hussein Gas His Own People?

Now maybe you believe that Iraq fell in some weird wormhole which actually took them back to a time before he acquired WMD , but I prefer to look at the reality of the situation and see that we just didn't find them. My personal thought is he got everything into Syria before we got to Iraq, but that's just a theory.

Link, sure...

Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud

There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

CNN.com - Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud - Oct. 6, 2002

He actually mentioned 9/11. We went to war with the wrong fucking country based on a lie.

Now bow down.

Way to go...you just proved that you can't answer a simple request.

I'll repeat it in case you just lost your ability to read momentarily....

Show me the link that shows where Bush was indicted for doing something illegal....

That should be easy enough to understand. It's almost word for word the same demand you made in reference to ACORN.

I know I pissed you off when I turned the tables on you, but hey...if you can't take the heat, step away from the fire. Little kids can get hurt playing with things they can't handle. And you obviously can't handle this.

 

[Cuyo]

Yes, shame on them for recognizing that just as BP is responsible for what it's employees did or didn't do, ACORN is as well.

Yes, yes, now that you've explained it, I can see the parallels between a community advocacy group and a multinational conglomerate that was drilling for poisonous yet necessary resources a mile below sea level in the Gulf of Mexico.

yes, an organization that is for proliferation of illegal immigrant child prostitution is so much more savory to the palette.

Da hell are you thinking??!!!???

Sigh... OK quick law lesson.

BP is guilty of a tort. The individual employees who "Caused" the leak were acting in an official capacity as agents of the corporation. They were probably negligent, but we need not prove that they were. Even in an absence of negligence, BP (the whole corporation) is still responsible for these damages, because their products and processes caused the disaster. We all assume it was an accident (hell nobody believes it was done on purpose, do we), and let's assume they performed their procedures by the book. They're still responsible. This is called a strict liability tort.

Acorn is completely different. When the employees break protocol, the individual employees are guilty of crimes. They do not commit these crimes in an official capacity; The law just doesn't allow for it. The crimes (predominantly fraud) are committed by the individuals. If there is a tort, either intentional, negligent, or strict liability, there must first be an aggrieved party. I don't know of any.

That's the difference, and it is a significant one. You automatically assumed I was attacking BP just because I hate oil; Not the case. Just pointing out what a profound legal difference there is between the two situations.

 

[ConHog]

9/11? I am talking about Iraq you dumb as a rock republican. He said we had to go to war based on a lie about wmd's.

Are you knew to this whole history thing? We went to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Can you imagine this?

Would you like to debate history with me? Better go ask your loonie friend Sangha about arguing history with someone who has the knowledge to put you in your proper place.

I swear this douche erases thoughts when he wipes his ass....

He appears to be one of those quality posters who gets thoroughly thrashed then claims "victory" when the other person gets bored and leaves.

 

[ConHog]

Yes, yes, now that you've explained it, I can see the parallels between a community advocacy group and a multinational conglomerate that was drilling for poisonous yet necessary resources a mile below sea level in the Gulf of Mexico.

yes, an organization that is for proliferation of illegal immigrant child prostitution is so much more savory to the palette.

Da hell are you thinking??!!!???

Sigh... OK quick law lesson.

BP is guilty of a tort. The individual employees who "Caused" the leak were acting in an official capacity as agents of the corporation. They were probably negligent, but we need not prove that they were. Even in an absence of negligence, BP (the whole corporation) is still responsible for these damages, because their products and processes caused the disaster. We all assume it was an accident (hell nobody believes it was done on purpose, do we), and let's assume they performed their procedures by the book. They're still responsible. This is called a strict liability tort.

Acorn is completely different. When the employees break protocol, the individual employees are guilty of crimes. They do not commit these crimes in an official capacity; The law just doesn't allow for it. The crimes (predominantly fraud) are committed by the individuals. If there is a tort, either intentional, negligent, or strict liability, there must first be an aggrieved party. I don't know of any.

That's the difference, and it is a significant one. You automatically assumed I was attacking BP just because I hate oil; Not the case. Just pointing out what a profound legal difference there is between the two situations.

Unless of course it can be proven that ACORN employees participated in a conspiracy, which I believe it could be if we had a justice department with the integrity to do so.

 

[txlonghorn]

Yes, yes, now that you've explained it, I can see the parallels between a community advocacy group and a multinational conglomerate that was drilling for poisonous yet necessary resources a mile below sea level in the Gulf of Mexico.

yes, an organization that is for proliferation of illegal immigrant child prostitution is so much more savory to the palette.

Da hell are you thinking??!!!???

Sigh... OK quick law lesson.

BP is guilty of a tort. The individual employees who "Caused" the leak were acting in an official capacity as agents of the corporation. They were probably negligent, but we need not prove that they were. Even in an absence of negligence, BP (the whole corporation) is still responsible for these damages, because their products and processes caused the disaster. We all assume it was an accident (hell nobody believes it was done on purpose, do we), and let's assume they performed their procedures by the book. They're still responsible. This is called a strict liability tort.

Acorn is completely different. When the employees break protocol, the individual employees are guilty of crimes. They do not commit these crimes in an official capacity; The law just doesn't allow for it. The crimes (predominantly fraud) are committed by the individuals. If there is a tort, either intentional, negligent, or strict liability, there must first be an aggrieved party. I don't know of any.

That's the difference, and it is a significant one. You automatically assumed I was attacking BP just because I hate oil; Not the case. Just pointing out what a profound legal difference there is between the two situations.

This is a very informative post. Good stuff...but I am confused...even though you have established very well that BP would most likely NOT purposefully cause such a disaster.

What confuses me is the widespread fraud within ACORN. We're not talking about one or two people in a small group...we're talking about MANY individuals in multiple cities doing the same thing. That, to me, reflects some sort of organized effort to commit fraud. I'm just stating a possibility. This could go for either the voter registration issues or the tax dodging advice. It happened in different cities by different people...SOMEONE was instructing those individuals to offer that information. I'm no expert, but I don't think you have to be an expert to see the strange coincidences here.

So, if we assume that some of ACORN's employees were trained to do things that might not be on the up and up, then is it altogether plausible to only hold the employee responsible?

And then, of course, there is the striking coincidence of our current POTUS and his previous role or connection with the organization(s) in question. He was involved with ACORN as far back as 1992, as an invited speaker for seminars and then later in 1995, he became Acorn's attorney, participating in a landmark case to force the state of Illinois to implement the federal Motor Voter Law. That law's loose voter registration requirements would later be exploited by Acorn employees in an effort to flood voter rolls with fake names. His connection with ACORN went all the way up to the presidential election when he claimed that "ACORN would help shape his presidential agenda".

And we all know the connection with BP and their rather large financial support of Mr. Obama...need we say more?

So, how does he handle all this?

 

[Zona]

What? To my knowledge, which I admit is vast, the ONLY WMD that causes mushroom clouds is nuclear weapons, and no one ever claimed Saadam had those.

As far as WMD there are 5,000 dead Kurds and 11,000 injured kurds from a nice quiet little attack that happened on March 16, 1988 who would like to testify that Saadam indeed did have WMD but alas they are either dead or too ill to come to court.

Perhaps you'd like a link?

Did Saddam Hussein Gas His Own People?

Now maybe you believe that Iraq fell in some weird wormhole which actually took them back to a time before he acquired WMD , but I prefer to look at the reality of the situation and see that we just didn't find them. My personal thought is he got everything into Syria before we got to Iraq, but that's just a theory.

Link, sure...

Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud

There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

CNN.com - Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud - Oct. 6, 2002

He actually mentioned 9/11. We went to war with the wrong fucking country based on a lie.

Now bow down.

Way to go...you just proved that you can't answer a simple request.

I'll repeat it in case you just lost your ability to read momentarily....

Show me the link that shows where Bush was indicted for doing something illegal....

That should be easy enough to understand. It's almost word for word the same demand you made in reference to ACORN.

I know I pissed you off when I turned the tables on you, but hey...if you can't take the heat, step away from the fire. Little kids can get hurt playing with things they can't handle. And you obviously can't handle this.

Show me a link where I said he was indicted for doing something illegal.....

I will go slowly here....

LINK PLEASE.

I said he took us to war based on a lie about WMD's. Am I going to fast for you skippy? I never said he did anything illegal, your rightys are the ones who say Acron is illegal and I asked for a link so you could prove it.

Word for word my ass. How is the small bus? Please come back here with your tail betweeen your legs unless of course you can actually find a link where I said he did something illegal.

BOW DOWN.

 

[Zona]

Would you like to debate history with me? Better go ask your loonie friend Sangha about arguing history with someone who has the knowledge to put you in your proper place.

I swear this douche erases thoughts when he wipes his ass....

He appears to be one of those quality posters who gets thoroughly thrashed then claims "victory" when the other person gets bored and leaves.

Do you need a link to the mushroom cloud thing again or are you bowing down yet?

 

[ConHog]

Link, sure...

Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud

There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

CNN.com - Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud - Oct. 6, 2002

He actually mentioned 9/11. We went to war with the wrong fucking country based on a lie.

Now bow down.

Way to go...you just proved that you can't answer a simple request.

I'll repeat it in case you just lost your ability to read momentarily....

Show me the link that shows where Bush was indicted for doing something illegal....

That should be easy enough to understand. It's almost word for word the same demand you made in reference to ACORN.

I know I pissed you off when I turned the tables on you, but hey...if you can't take the heat, step away from the fire. Little kids can get hurt playing with things they can't handle. And you obviously can't handle this.

Show me a link where I said he was indicted for doing something illegal.....

I will go slowly here....

LINK PLEASE.

I said he took us to war based on a lie about WMD's. Am I going to fast for you skippy?

And I showed you where Sadaam did in fact kill 5000 of his own citizens with WMD. Do you care to deny that happened? Or do you claim that he used his entire supply up in 1988 and no longer had WMD?

Come on Zona , debate history with me, I dare you.

 

[Zona]

Way to go...you just proved that you can't answer a simple request.

I'll repeat it in case you just lost your ability to read momentarily....

Show me the link that shows where Bush was indicted for doing something illegal....

That should be easy enough to understand. It's almost word for word the same demand you made in reference to ACORN.

I know I pissed you off when I turned the tables on you, but hey...if you can't take the heat, step away from the fire. Little kids can get hurt playing with things they can't handle. And you obviously can't handle this.

Show me a link where I said he was indicted for doing something illegal.....

I will go slowly here....

LINK PLEASE.

I said he took us to war based on a lie about WMD's. Am I going to fast for you skippy?

And I showed you where Sadaam did in fact kill 5000 of his own citizens with WMD. Do you care to deny that happened? Or do you claim that he used his entire supply up in 1988 and no longer had WMD?

Come on Zona , debate history with me, I dare you.

MUSHROOM CLOUD.....I linked you to where bush falsly warned us about them. Are you denying he threatened us with WMD's directly after the 9/11 attack? If you agree with me you agree we went to war based on a lie with the wrong fucking country.

So.....you agree? Are you saying we found ANY of that "supply"? If not, what happened to all of it?

Rubes.

 

[ConHog]

I don't understand why Zona won't argue the historical context of Iraq and 9/11 with me

 

[ConHog]

Show me a link where I said he was indicted for doing something illegal.....

I will go slowly here....

LINK PLEASE.

I said he took us to war based on a lie about WMD's. Am I going to fast for you skippy?

And I showed you where Sadaam did in fact kill 5000 of his own citizens with WMD. Do you care to deny that happened? Or do you claim that he used his entire supply up in 1988 and no longer had WMD?

Come on Zona , debate history with me, I dare you.

MUSHROOM CLOUD.....you said bush didnt say it. I linked you to where he did. ARe you saying he didnt say there was wmd's as well?

post where I said bush didn't say mushroom cloud. post that right now or shut your moth.

Oh, and there were undoubtedly WMD there, we just failed to find them before they got buried or spirited off to Syria.

 

[Zona]

Bush said wmd's and mushroom clouds. Did he lie?

 

[Zona]

And I showed you where Sadaam did in fact kill 5000 of his own citizens with WMD. Do you care to deny that happened? Or do you claim that he used his entire supply up in 1988 and no longer had WMD?

Come on Zona , debate history with me, I dare you.

MUSHROOM CLOUD.....you said bush didnt say it. I linked you to where he did. ARe you saying he didnt say there was wmd's as well?

post where I said bush didn't say mushroom cloud. post that right now or shut your moth.

Oh, and there were undoubtedly WMD there, we just failed to find them before they got buried or spirited off to Syria.

I went back and read exactly what you said...you said you doubted if anyone said Sadaam had nukes. I changed what I posted as you will see.

I LINKED YOU TO BUSH SAYING MUSHROOM CLOUDS...are you saying he is so dumb he didnt know wmd's wouldnt produce a mushroom cloud. lol

This is too funny.

SO THATS A NO ON THOSE PESKY FOUND WMD'S? Did we go to war with the wrong country directly after 9/11?

This has to sting.

 

[Zona]

NOpe, he killed over 3 thousand americans because of a lie about wmd's and mushroom clouds. Which one is worse?

What? To my knowledge, which I admit is vast, the ONLY WMD that causes mushroom clouds is nuclear weapons, and no one ever claimed Saadam had those.

As far as WMD there are 5,000 dead Kurds and 11,000 injured kurds from a nice quiet little attack that happened on March 16, 1988 who would like to testify that Saadam indeed did have WMD but alas they are either dead or too ill to come to court.

Perhaps you'd like a link?

Did Saddam Hussein Gas His Own People?

Now maybe you believe that Iraq fell in some weird wormhole which actually took them back to a time before he acquired WMD , but I prefer to look at the reality of the situation and see that we just didn't find them. My personal thought is he got everything into Syria before we got to Iraq, but that's just a theory.

Link, sure...

Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud

There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

CNN.com - Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud - Oct. 6, 2002

He actually mentioned 9/11. We went to war with the wrong fucking country based on a lie.

Now bow down.

In case you forgot how you got pwned.

 

[ConHog]

Bush said wmd's and mushroom clouds. Did he lie?

The entire mushroom cloud speech

Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight. I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions, its history of aggression and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons and to stop all support for terrorist groups.

The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism and practices terror against its own people.

The entire world has witnessed Iraq's 11-year history of defiance, deception, and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September 11, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons, and diseases, and gases, and atomic weapons.

Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is: How can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: About the nature of the threat. About the urgency of action -- and why be concerned now? About the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror.

These are all issues we have discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant, who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility towards the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique.

As a former chief weapons inspector for the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons.

Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Yet Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons, despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world. Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.

We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.

And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems are not required for a chemical or biological attack -- all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups.

Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than ninety terrorist attacks in twenty countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.

Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror, and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq.

These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb making, poisons, and deadly gases.

And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.

Alliances with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.

When I spoke to the Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells, and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction, are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. We don't know exactly, and that is the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon; after the war, international inspectors learned that the regime had been much closer. The regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium-enrichment sites.

That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected, revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue. The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahedeen" -- his nuclear holy warriors.

Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.

Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.

And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder: After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now?

There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

As President Kennedy said in October of 1962: "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991.

The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next. They forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors.

Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass 12 square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities ... only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people ... and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons, and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions, or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps to keep the peace. That is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements.

Among those requirements, the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside of the country.

And these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them, so they are all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder.

And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs.

And that is why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously. Those resolutions are very clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. And it must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and only by taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. These steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice.

Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. This is why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished.

If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully, we will act with the full power of the United States military, we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail.

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that is an option. In my view, it is the riskiest of all options -- because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I am convinced that is a hope against all evidence.

As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace -- and there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I am not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants; allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources; and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events.

The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. This nation -- in world war and in Cold War -- has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course.

Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own. Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security, and for the people of Iraq.

he lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban.

The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control within his own cabinet, and within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights -- to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity.

People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture.

America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women, and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only choice is full compliance -- and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote, and I am confident they will fully consider the facts and their duties.

The attacks of September 11 showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs.

Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined -- and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice -- and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. By our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America.


Strangely enough, Bush never mentioned a "mushroom cloud" being an immediate concern and clearly as can be seen in the bolded section BOOSH never said Iraq had nuclear weapons, only that they were trying to get them.

As I told you stupid, you don't want to get into this debate with me. Now are you man enough (yeah right) to admit that Bush didn't say "mushroom cloud?"

 

[jeffrockit]

ACORN is bad. Deal with it.

It favors a political party. Illegal for a nonprofit.

It has allowed employees to systematically register people to vote that were not legal voters in that district.

Employees were allowed to give tax advice to pimps and prostitutes on company property.

A fair number of employees were and are ex-felons.

The founder of ACORN was convicted of stealing from ACORN.

Rotten through and through.

Did I mention ACORN is bad?

Link? Did you really say pimps and prosititutes? You are back to Okeefe? Are you serious?

Acorn bad. I cant prove it, but Acorn bad! Fox said so.

Fox did not say it, the employees on the video in their own words did. You think its ok to give tax advice for an underage prostitution ring. Does that bother you in the least or are you so partisan, you have no problem with it? Just be honest in your response. If you think it is ok then fine, that's your opinion as morally reprehensible as it may be.

 

[ConHog]

Hey Zona, why you avoiding this thread? Are you waiting for ACORN to email you your next talking points?

 

[txlonghorn]

Link, sure...

Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud

There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

CNN.com - Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud - Oct. 6, 2002

He actually mentioned 9/11. We went to war with the wrong fucking country based on a lie.

Now bow down.

Way to go...you just proved that you can't answer a simple request.

I'll repeat it in case you just lost your ability to read momentarily....

Show me the link that shows where Bush was indicted for doing something illegal....

That should be easy enough to understand. It's almost word for word the same demand you made in reference to ACORN.

I know I pissed you off when I turned the tables on you, but hey...if you can't take the heat, step away from the fire. Little kids can get hurt playing with things they can't handle. And you obviously can't handle this.

Show me a link where I said he was indicted for doing something illegal.....

I will go slowly here....

LINK PLEASE.

I said he took us to war based on a lie about WMD's. Am I going to fast for you skippy? I never said he did anything illegal, your rightys are the ones who say Acron is illegal and I asked for a link so you could prove it.

Word for word my ass. How is the small bus? Please come back here with your tail betweeen your legs unless of course you can actually find a link where I said he did something illegal.

BOW DOWN.

once again, you missed the ENTIRE point. Just like you say everyone cries ACORN this and ACORN that, and then demanded a link that showed where they broke the law, I challenged you in the same light with Bush because it's been Bush this and Bush that for 9.5 years now.

I think you've established the fact there isn't an indictment on ACORN. I already explained why ACORN disappeared so fast and even though it's just my thoughts on it, it makes alot of sense.

So my point is the same as yours...you want someone to prove ACORN is legally guilty of something because of all the bad things that happened surrounding the organization and I want you, or anybody else, to show me what laws Pres Bush was convicted of breaking. It's a stale mate.

I'll bypass the grade school insults this time around so as to not lower myself to your level.

It's really too bad that we can't have a decent honest debate over this subject. I sometimes enjoy the heated head to heads until they just become childish insults and splitting hairs.

For the record, I NEVER said you claimed that Bush broke the law. So quit making shit up. As for me bowing down or coming back with my tail between my legs...keep holding your breath on that one....I'm sure you look good in blue.

 

[txlonghorn]

I think we're done here.....

 

[ConHog]

Way to go...you just proved that you can't answer a simple request.

I'll repeat it in case you just lost your ability to read momentarily....

Show me the link that shows where Bush was indicted for doing something illegal....

That should be easy enough to understand. It's almost word for word the same demand you made in reference to ACORN.

I know I pissed you off when I turned the tables on you, but hey...if you can't take the heat, step away from the fire. Little kids can get hurt playing with things they can't handle. And you obviously can't handle this.

Show me a link where I said he was indicted for doing something illegal.....

I will go slowly here....

LINK PLEASE.

I said he took us to war based on a lie about WMD's. Am I going to fast for you skippy? I never said he did anything illegal, your rightys are the ones who say Acron is illegal and I asked for a link so you could prove it.

Word for word my ass. How is the small bus? Please come back here with your tail betweeen your legs unless of course you can actually find a link where I said he did something illegal.

BOW DOWN.

once again, you missed the ENTIRE point. Just like you say everyone cries ACORN this and ACORN that, and then demanded a link that showed where they broke the law, I challenged you in the same light with Bush because it's been Bush this and Bush that for 9.5 years now.

I think you've established the fact there isn't an indictment on ACORN. I already explained why ACORN disappeared so fast and even though it's just my thoughts on it, it makes alot of sense.

So my point is the same as yours...you want someone to prove ACORN is legally guilty of something because of all the bad things that happened surrounding the organization and I want you, or anybody else, to show me what laws Pres Bush was convicted of breaking. It's a stale mate.

I'll bypass the grade school insults this time around so as to not lower myself to your level.

It's really too bad that we can't have a decent honest debate over this subject. I sometimes enjoy the heated head to heads until they just become childish insults and splitting hairs.

For the record, I NEVER said you claimed that Bush broke the law. So quit making shit up. As for me bowing down or coming back with my tail between my legs...keep holding your breath on that one....I'm sure you look good in blue.

You do know what he, and all the libbietards, are implying BOOSH did that was illegal don't you?


They claim that he illegally ordered the military into Iraq with no formal declaration of War by the Senate. The obvious problem with that theory is that the idiots don't understand the CON and the authority of the President under the War Powers Act. Apparently they also don't understand that Bush's "illegal" invasion of Iraq and then Afghanistan was the 57th and 58th instances of a US President using his authority to send the military into an action sans a declaration of war by the Senate. After 60 days, well 90 really if you count the 30 days troops have to leave an area, Congress can in fact refuse to fund further action if they want the troops brought home, or they can do as they have done for 9.5 years now and vote to continue funding every time the issue comes up.



Sometimes I love my Masters of History degree