Page 15 of 43 FirstFirst ... 5101112131415161718192025 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 845
  1. #281  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Oh ok thats a good attitude. The other side calls us names so we're gonna do it too. How positively infantile.
    Wow...you seem surprised that people resort to name calling...I guess you dont read the papers or turn on the tv much... (I think its called labeling theory...its very effective).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  2. #282  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I think its called labeling theory...its very effective
    I agree....very effective for promoting any political agenda.

    But VERY counter productive for the nation.

    (and yes this applies to all corners of the ring )
  3. #283  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Not like you don't see this from the other side of the isle!
    My comment was directed at a specific poster, whose only contibutions were Beevis and Butthead type "you suck" comments. Not that I'm not guilty of silly comments myself, but inject some substance at least once if you're going to join the debate.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  4. #284  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    ... Not to mention I haven't ever heard of the public bringing about charges. Oh and to impeach there has to be "high crimes or misdemeanors". Care to list what those might be. Last I heard making decisions based on faulty intel was not against the law.
    I know it doesn't rise to the seriousness of trying to hide having had an illicit BJ, but maybe going to war 9 months before even the pretense of congressional authorization might be worth a little tiny look, hmmm??

    or maybe it was all the lying to bring us into this tar pit of Hell that is Iraq.


    bush did this not because it was a haven and training ground for Al Queda (it is now of course); not because Iraq had WMD, not because Iraq was looking to provoke or endanger the US -- he did it because he came to power with it as his top agenda item.

    Daddy chose not to do it -- and then Sadamm tried to kill daddy !

    How many twisted, torn, and broken lives will there be before this ends ...?
    Last edited by BARYE; 07/01/2005 at 11:57 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  5. #285  
    BARYE: hey, I am all for throwing a little mud the conservative way (especially here in treoland where it appears to be leaning on the right a little bit) but you'll have much better success if you provide some evidence when you make an argument ;-)

    Just an fyi.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6. #286  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    I know it doesn't rise to seriousness of trying to hide having had an illicit BJ, but maybe going to war 9 months before even the pretense of congressional authorization might be worth a little tiny look, hmmm??

    or maybe it was all the lying to bring us into this tar pit of Hell that is Iraq.


    bush did this not because it was a haven and training ground for Al Queda (it is now of course); not because Iraq had WMD, not because Iraq was looking to provoke or endanger the US -- he did it because he came to power with it as his top agenda item.

    Daddy chose not to do it -- and then Sadamm tried to kill daddy !

    How many twisted, torn, and broken lives will there be before this ends ...?

    yes yes we've heard this all before. MY point was in order to impeach a president under current govt rules there has to be a crime committed. Lying to the public is not a crime. Immoral, wrong, bad for the common good sure, but NOT illegal. Is that concept so hard to grasp?

    I am quite surprised that none of the lefties have suggested that it was Bush who was feeding all tyhe false intel to the world during the clinton admin to get his plans in place. It's utterly ridiculous but I am sure there are polenty of dummies out ther willing to believe anything that blames Bush.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  7. #287  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    BARYE: hey, I am all for throwing a little mud the conservative way (especially here in treoland where it appears to be leaning on the right a little bit) but you'll have much better success if you provide some evidence when you make an argument ;-)

    Just an fyi.
    T2gungho -- Fair enough.

    it was out of respect for the erudition of my fellow villagers of this commons that I neglected to provide citations.

    I haven't yet found an article I recall that mentioned the 9 month time line -- but these articles I mention below describe heavy bombing 2 months and 6 months before congressional authorization, which is at least supportive of my point.

    (I apologize if I have provided too much text)

    my allegation that bush came to office intending to dispose of Sadamm is based on statements made by bush and his neo-con helpers before he got to the WH. (9/11 become a convenient pretext supported by the neo-cons like wolfowitz & rumsfeld, but opposed by his military advisors who wanted to defeat Bin laden and successfully pacify Afghanistan)

    Sadamm is persuasively alleged to have supported an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate bush's daddy in Kuwait -- and bush made at least one public emotional reference to that in one of his speeches where he says ”... after all, he tried to kill my dad(dy)”.

    bush is also known to wanted to redeem what he saw as his dad's failure to enter bagdad to depose Sadamm back in '91.


    http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050613&s=scahill

    "The Other Bomb Drops
    by JEREMY SCAHILL

    June 1, 2005

    It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war.

    But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002--a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began.

    At the time, the Bush Administration publicly played down the extent of the air strikes, claiming the United States was just defending the so-called no-fly zones. But new information that has come out in response to the Downing Street memo reveals that, by this time, the war was already a foregone conclusion and attacks were no less than the undeclared beginning of the invasion of Iraq.

    The Sunday Times of London recently reported on new evidence showing that "The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war." The paper cites newly released statistics from the British Defense Ministry showing that "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air offensive" was under way months before the invasion had officially begun. ..."


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/wirq06.xml/


    100 jets join attack on Iraq

    By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
    (Filed: 06/09/2002)

    About 100 American and British aircraft took part in an attack on Iraq's major western air defence installation yesterday in the biggest single operation over the country for four years.

    The raid appeared to be a prelude to the type of special forces operations that would have to begin weeks before a possible American-led war. It was launched two days before a war summit between President George W Bush and Tony Blair in America.

    The Prime Minister promised that Britain would be alongside the Americans "when the shooting starts".

    The raid seemed designed to destroy air defences to allow easy access for special forces helicopters to fly into Iraq via Jordan or Saudi Arabia to hunt down Scud missiles before a possible war within the next few months.

    Although only 12 aircraft dropped precision-guided bombs on to the H3 airfield, 240 miles west of Baghdad and close to Jordan, many support aircraft took part.

    The strikes were carried out by nine American F15 Strike Eagles and three RAF Tornado GR4 ground attack aircraft flying from Kuwait.

    At least seven types of aircraft took part. Fighter cover was provided by US F-16 Fighting Falcons and RAF Tornado F3s from Saudi Arabia. RAF VC10 tanker aircraft flying from Bahrain were among the support aircraft.

    These also included EA6b Prowlers, which send out signals to confuse enemy radar, and E3a Awacs aircraft that co-ordinate operations and carry out reconnaissance of any response.

    RAF Tornados also took part in the reconnaissance. American central command refused to go into detail about the number of aircraft involved in the raid.

    It said: "Coalition strikes in the no-fly zones are executed as a self-defence measure in response to Iraqi hostile threats and acts against coalition forces and their aircraft." ...


    http://rawstory.com/news/2005/The_un...r_be_0627.html


    "The unofficial war: U.S., Britain led massive secret bombing campaign before Iraq war was declared

    Larisa Alexandrovna and John Byrne


    A U.S. general who commanded the U.S. allied air forces in Iraq has confirmed that the U.S. and Britain conducted a massive secret bombing campaign before the U.S. actually declared war on Iraq...

    ...The Ides of May-June

    Starting in late May to June of 2002 a flurry of activity began both in the United States and in the Middle East. In what appears to be an admission of covert activity, chief allied air force commander Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley divulged in a little-noticed quote in the New York Times that US/British aircraft flew 21,736 sorties between June 2002 and March 2003.

    Moseley said that some 606 bombs were dropped before the official start of the war, targeting 391 locations and/or installations.

    Moseley explained that the combination of air strikes and covert raids occurred in the southern no-fly zone regions covered by routine patrols.

    The targets of these strikes are difficult to pinpoint, but RAW STORY has found a clear divergence between U.S. and Iraqi reports at the time, as well as disagreement over what provoked the strikes.

    GlobalSecurity.org, a military defense group, raised concerns about the air strikes when they mushroomed in early 2002, though their worries produced few press reports.

    The group saw the strikes as a means by which the U.S. could degrade Iraqi defensive capabilities, and as a precursor to a declared war.

    "It was no big secret at the time," GlobalSecurity.org director John Pike told RAW STORY. "It was apparent to us at the time that they were doing it and why they were doing it, and that was part of the reason why we were convinced that a decision to go to war had already been made, because the war had already started."

    Pike says the allied forces used their position in the `No-Fly- Zone' to engage in pre-emptive action long before war was formally declared.

    "They I think had decided to take advantage of Southern Watch and Northern Watch to go ahead and take the air defense system apart and attack any other targets that they felt needed to be preemptively destroyed," Pike asserted.

    "They explicitly altered the rules of engagement," he added, "because initially the rules of engagement had been that they would shoot back if [someone] shot at them. Then they said that if they were shot at, they would shoot at whatever they wanted to."

    One U.S. Air Force vet told a hearing in Istanbul this weekend, "I saw bombing intensify. All the documents coming out now, the Downing Street memo and others, confirm what I had witnessed in Iraq. The war had already begun while our leaders were telling us that they were going to try all diplomatic options first."

    Iraq complained about the air raids to the UN Secretary-General May 27, 2002. Iraq's Minister for Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri wrote:

    On instructions from my Government, I have the honour to transmit to you herewith a letter dated 27 May 2002 from Mr. Naji Sabri, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq. The Minister calls attention to the ongoing wanton aggression against Iraq by United States and British aircraft in the unlawful no-flight zones and to the fact that in the period from 16 April to 16 May 2002 they carried out 844 armed sorties, 52 of them from Saudi Arabia, 656 from Kuwait and 136 from Turkey, as shown in the statement enclosed with the letter. On 19 April and 1 May 2002, United States and British aircraft bombed civilian and military sites in Ninawa Governorate, killing one citizen and wounding five others and damaging a number of civilian and military installations.

    The Minister reaffirms the Government of Iraq's position that the United States of America and the United Kingdom must bear full international responsibility for these acts of aggression and terrorism, and he further states that Iraq reserves its right, as established by the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to defend itself against this ongoing hostile, terrorist activity. He expresses the hope that you will perform the duties assigned to you under the Charter, that you will urge the governments of the countries in question to halt forthwith their constant aggression against Iraq and that you will call upon the regional parties to desist from providing the necessary facilities." ...



    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062701584.html


    British Advisers Foresaw Variety of Risks, Problems

    By Glenn Frankel

    Washington Post Foreign Service
    Tuesday, June 28, 2005; A01

    "...Critics of the Bush administration contend the documents -- including the now-famous Downing Street Memo of July 23, 2002 -- constitute proof that Bush made the decision to go to war at least eight months before it began, and that the subsequent diplomatic campaign at the United Nations was a charade, designed to convince the public that war was necessary, rather than an attempt to resolve the crisis peacefully. They contend the documents have not received the attention they deserve...

    ...a Cabinet Office briefing paper dated July 21 that expressed concern that stepped-up U.S. air raids inside Iraq created "the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way."...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  8. #288  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    yes yes we've heard this all before. MY point was in order to impeach a president under current govt rules there has to be a crime committed. Lying to the public is not a crime. Immoral, wrong, bad for the common good sure, but NOT illegal. Is that concept so hard to grasp?

    I am quite surprised that none of the lefties have suggested that it was Bush who was feeding all tyhe false intel to the world during the clinton admin to get his plans in place. It's utterly ridiculous but I am sure there are polenty of dummies out ther willing to believe anything that blames Bush.

    Woof --

    Legally it MIGHT not be crime that bush lied to us and took our nation to war on a knowingly false premise.

    It might not be a crime that children have been orphaned, young men and girls have had their limbs and lives crushed, and have had to accept a life sentence of confinement to a paraplegic’s bed because of this war. (I live only blocks from Walter Reed where injured Iraq veterans attempt to recover, btw).

    Not a crime perhaps that our nation has wasted trillions in resources, and recruited and trained legions of angry moslems who hate us so much that they would sacrifice their lives to harm us.

    I concede all that.

    But I believe it would be an impeachable crime if he took us to war without even the legal fig leaf of congressional authorization.

    (for the record -- my hero Bill C. was impeached for lying. He was accused of not admitting in front of a grande jury that getting a BJ was SEX.

    (he wanted to use the modern meaning of "sex" -- which does not include something so casual and incidental as BJs).

    I’ve always want to know what the definition of IS, IS, too.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  9. #289  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    bush did this not because it was a haven and training ground for Al Queda (it is now of course); not because Iraq had WMD, not because Iraq was looking to provoke or endanger the US -- he did it because he came to power with it as his top agenda item.

    Daddy chose not to do it -- and then Sadamm tried to kill daddy !

    How many twisted, torn, and broken lives will there be before thiends ...?
    If anything else when W entered the WH he was continuing the established policy of the last 12 years covering 2 other administrations. For example below is a typical W Bush speech:

    THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.

    Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein

    "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

    The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

    These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998.

    Clinton was speaking at the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.

    Matters looked different in 1998, when Democrats were working with a president of their own party. Tom Daschle not only supported military action against Iraq, he campaigned vigorously for a congressional resolution to formalize his support. Other current critics of President Bush--including Kerry, Graham, Patrick Leahy, Christopher Dodd, and Republican Chuck Hagel--co-sponsored the broad 1998 resolution: Congress "urges the president to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

    Tom Daschle said the 1998 resolution would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law." And he vigorously defended President Clinton's inclination to use military force in Iraq.

    Summing up the Clinton administration's argument, Daschle said, "'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

    John Kerry was equally hawkish: "If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights," Kerry said back on February 23, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

    Considering the views these Democrats expressed four years ago, why the current reluctance to support President Bush?
    You can view the full article here:


    "Just consider the facts," Bill Clinton urged.

    "Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth."

    Clinton was on a roll:

    "Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

    Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. "

    More Clinton: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century," he argued. "They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

    CONCLUSION
    Now, what is the only main difference in the situation in 1998 and in 200x to make the Dems change their minds with such a united 180?

    Did Saddam have a change of heart and welcome unfettered inspections to verify he had gotten rid of his WMDs and their programs? Actually they were allowed back in, but he pulled all the same tricks he did on Clinton.....which, given the strict language of this resolution, made it an even bigger joke than the situation that Clinton discribed during his administration.

    Could it be that we were attacked by terrorist on our own soil? Would that make the Dems feel that Saddam was less of threat now vs before 9/11?

    The only other major difference is there was a Rep pres instead of a Dem one (after a very bitter loss during the election). Would they really change their view on nearly every single national security issue with Iraq just because of that?

    This may be one of the life mysteries that we may never know.


    .
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/03/2005 at 12:55 AM.
  10. #290  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    I haven't yet found an article I recall that mentioned the 9 month time line -- but these articles I mention below describe heavy bombing 2 months and 6 months before congressional authorization, which is at least supportive of my point...
    I think I found the timeline you were looking for, but actually dating all the way back to 1992....just slightly longer than your 9 month one:

    The deep politics of regime removal in Iraq: Overt conquest, covert operations
    The US war lobby


    The roots of the George W. Bush administration's policy for Iraq "regime change" can be traced to strategies formulated since the early 1990s by a small network of inveterate Cold Warriors linked by philosophical lineage and war-intelligence policy collaborations.

    1. 1992 Pentagon Defense Planning Guidance. As noted by Joe Taglieri (From the Wilderness 10/1/02), this was one of the first official regime removal plans, prepared for then-Defense Secretary **** Cheney by his two assistants:

    2. The Open Letter of 1998. In February 1998, 40 "prominent Americans" a signed an open letter to President Clinton, which formed the basis of the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998.

    This letter calling for an insurrection, and recognition of the (CIA-backed) Iraqi National Congress as the official government of Iraq, was spearheaded by Ahmed Chalabi of the INC. Signers of the letter were:

    Link for complete letter and who signed it

    3. Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. The act itself was promoted in Congress by Woolsey, Clarridge, and now-Deputy National Security Advisor for Counter-terrorism Wayne Downing. The act (a piece of bombastic anti-Saddam propaganda full of historical falsehoods) passed Congress and was signed by Clinton, with scant attention from the public at large.

    Link to view the full Act
    Here is some more information about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998:

    Believe it or not, the American call for "regime change" in Iraq didn't start with George W. Bush. For that, we must return to the days of the 105th Congress, when Bill Clinton occupied the White House. Recall a piece of legislation dubbed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338). Not only did it call for Saddam Hussein's ouster, it also spelled out the goal of replacing his regime with a democratic Iraq.

    Here's what the law says: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

    You may think the Iraq Liberation Act was ramrodded down the throats of reluctant Democrats by a House and Senate dominated by conservative Republicans. Consider the final tally:

    The House passed the bill by a vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans and the House's one independent to back the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. The act, with bipartisan cosponsorship of two Democrats and six Republicans, also passed the Senate by unanimous consent. And Bill Clinton signed it into law on Oct. 31, 1998, declaring at the time that the evidence was overwhelming that freedom and the rule of law "will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."
    http://www.vermontgop.org/king_3_8.shtml

    The Iraq Liberation Act

    "Iraq Liberation Act" introduced into Congress SEPTEMBER 29, 1998

    CLICK FOR: STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Bill Clinton THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release October 31, 1998

    CLICK FOR: Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act
    "Iraq News" Meanwhile, this issue deals with the developments regarding the policy promoted by Congress to deal with the Iraqi threat, namely to overthrow Saddam.
    CLICK FOR: Senate Unanimously Passes Iraq Liberation Act, Oct 7
    October 7, 1998
    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ
    Mr. McCAIN: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4655, which is at the desk.
    The PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:A bill (H.R. 4665) to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
    The PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection to the immediate consideration of the bill, There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
    Mr. LOTT: Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is about to act on H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
    For a full discourse on Clinton's call for establishing USA's official policy for regime change in Iraq please read here:

    A Course Set by Congress
    The American call for "regime change" in Iraq when Bill Clinton occupied the White House.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    But I believe it would be an impeachable crime if he took us to war without even the legal fig leaf of congressional authorization.
    Looks like you can't impeach him on that one either.....

    Congress Approves Iraq Resolution
    Friday, October 11, 2002

    WASHINGTON — Congress has given President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq in a major policy victory for the White House.

    The Senate approved the measure 77-23 early Friday morning at the end of a rocky week-long debate. The House voted for the resolution Thursday afternoon, 296-133.

    Because the Democratic-led Senate approved the House version of the measure without changing a word, it now goes directly to Bush for his signature.

    The resolution gives Bush the power to use American military force to enforce existing United Nations Security Council mandates that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein dispose of his weapons of mass destruction.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65395,00.html

    U.N. Panel's Vote Is Unanimous
    By TERENCE NEILAN

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssn/cssn.../11/00035.html

    After more than seven weeks of diplomatic wrangling and finessing, the United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed today on a resolution requiring Iraq show that it has abandoned its weapons of mass destruction or face "serious consequences."

    The 15 to 0 vote came as something of a surprise, because Syria had been widely expected to abstain and earlier today the Russians were still expressing doubts about its passage.

    The resolution, sponsored jointly by the United States and Britain, gives United Nations arms inspectors "immediate, unimpeded and unconditional" rights to search anywhere, including President Saddam Hussein's palaces, for chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

    It went on to threaten Iraq with "serious consequences" if it fails to cooperate, a clear allusion to the use of force by the United States.

    ........

    The new measure still leaves the United States free to attack Iraq without a formal second United Nations resolution authorizing the use of force. But it requires the Security Council to assess any serious violation that could lead to war.

    "The resolution approved today presents the Iraqi regime with a test — a final test. Iraq must now, without delay or negotiations, fully disarm, welcome full inspections and fundamentally change the approach it has taken for more than a decade."

    .................

    After the vote, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said the resolution "affords Iraq a final opportunity."

    "To the Government of Iraq, our message is simple: non-compliance no longer is an option," he said.

    Mr. Negroponte reminded delegates that Secretary General Kofi Annan said on Sept. 12, and in further remarks made by Mr. Annan today, that the Council "must face its responsibilities."


    CONCLUSION
    Simple pop quiz:

    1) Now how long before GWB came to office and how long before 9/11 did planning for taking out Saddam begin?

    2) On what date did Bush receive authority by Congress (and skipping Senate because of the overwhelming vote with the doc without changing a single word)?

    3) On what date did the UN authorize the use of "Extreme Measures" without the need of another UN resolution?



    .
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/04/2005 at 07:17 PM.
  11. #291  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    he wanted to use the modern meaning of "sex" -- which does not include something so casual and incidental as BJs.
    WHAT? Sticking your P*nis in a mistress' mouth repeatedly is causal behavior for the President of the United states in the Oval office while at the same exact time accepting priority phone calls from foreign and domestic dignitaries and discussion confidential and sensitive information and material? (see footnote below)



    I don't buy that by any standard....and find it rather degrading to the moral standards of what I am trying to teach my children. "Go ahead son, follow Pres Clinton's high moral standard. Get married. And please feel free to have sex with any other women you want to, as long you don't have sex (i.e. only your use p*nis with mouths, hands, etc..). Your wife won't mind a bit, because you are not really having sex. Oh...yea if you do get caught just use the word "is" with a lot of different definitions, it worked for Bill."


    =============

    I tell you what.....if I was GWB, the first thing I would have done as President (after replacing all the Ws on all the keyboards in the WH) is replace THE chair behind THE desk....spew.....I just could not sit in it not knowing what I was sitting on.




    ==================

    FOOTNOTE:
    http://www.salon.com/starr_report/6narrit.htm

    Here are just few of many examples of the security of information in Clinton's adminstration:

    White House records corroborate details of Ms. Lewinsky'saccount. She testified that her November 15 encounters with thePresident occurred at about 8 p.m. and 10 p.m., and that in eachcase the two of them went from the Chief of Staff's office to theOval Office area.(167) Records show that the President visited theChief of Staff's office for one minute at 8:12 p.m. and for twominutes at 9:23 p.m., in each case returning to the OvalOffice.(168) She recalled that the President took a telephone callduring their sexual encounter, and she believed that the callerwas a Member of Congress or a Senator.(169) White House recordsshow that after returning to the Oval Office from the Chief ofStaff's office, the President talked to two Members of Congress: Rep. Jim Chapman from 9:25 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., and Rep. JohnTanner from 9:31 p.m. to 9:35 p.m

    ...........

    At some point, Ms. Currie approached the door leadingto the hallway, which was ajar, and said that the President had atelephone call.(179) Ms. Lewinsky recalled that the caller was aMember of Congress with a nickname.(180) While the President was onthe telephone, according to Ms. Lewinsky, "he unzipped his pantsand exposed himself," and she performed oral sex.(181)

    .........

    During this encounter, someone called out from the OvalOffice that the President had a phone call.(324) He went back tothe Oval Office for a moment, then took the call in the study. The President indicated that Ms. Lewinsky should perform oral sexwhile he talked on the phone, and she obliged.(325) The telephoneconversation was about politics, and Ms. Lewinsky thought thecaller might be **** Morris.(326) White House records confirm thatthe President had one telephone call during Ms. Lewinsky's visit: from "Mr. Richard Morris," to whom he talked from 5:11 to 5:20p.m


    .
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/03/2005 at 12:23 AM.
  12. #292  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    bush did this not because it was a haven and training ground for Al Queda (it is now of course)
    Did Saddam have terrorist links? Did he have AQ links? Here is old and NEW information that is building a stronger case for this. At least, it shows enough undienable evidence with terrorism and certain possibilities with AQ:

    ============
    It says "confirmed", but I am not sure it is officially confirmed but at least it is another piece of the puzzle that is now just breaking news:

    The Osama-Saddam Link Confirmed
    http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=18476

    Here is a quote:
    The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.

    "Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri – then deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said.

    According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

    "The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.

    Last week, King Abdullah told a Saudi newspaper that the Jordanians knew Saddam to be sheltering Zarqawi in the last years of the Ba'athist reign of terror and demanded his extradition. Saddam refused to turn Zarqawi over to the Jordanians. Abdullah had been clear on that point; the Ba'athists had not claimed they could not reach him, but that they flatly refused to hand him over.

    Last year, Stephen Hayes wrote about the Islamist conference in his book The Connection, which outlined a number of such ties between the Saddam regime and the AQ network, as well as other terrorists. Now that the new Iraqi government has possession of Saddam's old files, they have begun to corroborate Hayes' work. Far from being an enemy to the Islamists, Saddam reached out to the fanatics as an ally in order to covertly support attacks on Western nations, either directly or indirectly. The IIS records that Allawi has on Zawahiri shows that al-Douri -- currently running the ex-Ba'athist insurgency in Iraq -- knew who to contact in order to set up those connections.

    ==============
    Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked
    NEW YORK, May 7, 2003


    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in552868.shtml

    As the May 8, 2003 New York Post and other news outlets reported, Baer ruled that Saddam Hussein’s government was complicit in the September 11 attacks and that the Baathist government owed the plaintiffs a judgment of $104 million. As Baer stated on May 7, 2003:

    “I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, ‘by evidence satisfactory to the court’ that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.”
    ==========

    The Rationale for the Iraq War: Stability of the Region and American Interests Explained Shows many various links to terrorism, including the possibility of AQ:

    http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m13005&l=i&size=1&hd=0


    ==========
    Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror
    by Deroy Murdock,Hoover Institution at Stanford University


    For the Full Story: http://www.husseinandterror.com/

    In August 2003, former vice president Albert Gore reassuringly stated: “The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all.”

    “Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one,” Senator Ted Kennedy said October 16, 2003.2 “We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not.”

    "Iraq was not a terrorist haven before the invasion," 5 Democratic candidate John Kerry told Philadelphia voters September 24. At the September 30, 2004 presidential debate, Kerry asserted, "Iraq was not even close to the center of the War on Terror before the president invaded it."

    “As we all know by now,” Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen sniffed last May, “there was never a proven link between Saddam, al-Qaida or even the Crips.”

    ......


    ........

    The public evidence of Saddam Hussein’s cooperation with and support for global terrorists is abundant and clear. The Baathist government’s contacts and collaboration with terrorists in general, al-Qaeda in particular, and even the September 11 conspirators should make all Americans highly grateful that President Bush led an international effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

    ......

    Funds for Terrorists Let’s start with money.

    ...........

    Diplomatic Assistance for Terrorists In addition to funds, Saddam Hussein's government provided diplomatic help to Islamic extremists.

    ........

    Safe Haven for Terrorists So far, we have documented that Saddam Hussein harbored terrorists (many with al-Qaeda links) responsible for international mayhem and even the incidental deaths of Americans.

    .....

    Medical Treatment for Terrorists After running an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, he found his way to Baathist Baghdad, where he reportedly checked into Olympic Hospital, an elite facility run by the late Uday Hussein, son of the captured tyrant. Zarqawi is believed to have received medical treatment for a leg injury sustained while dodging American GIs who toppled the Taliban. He convalesced in Baghdad for some two months. Once he was back on his foot, Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq.

    .......

    Training for Terrorists The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors said the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills. This satellite photo shows an urban assault training site, a three-car train for railway-attack instruction, and a commercial airliner sitting all by itself in the middle of the desert.

    ......

    An al-Qaeda Link?Recall that Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary. That’s one clear link to al-Qaeda.

    page 340 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-Iraq-War intelligence indicates that, "Shakir claimed he got this job through Ra'ad al-Mudaris, an Iraqi Embassy employee" in Malaysia. On January 5, 2000, Shakir greeted Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at Kuala Lampur’s airport. He then escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. Shakir, the Iraqi airport greeter, was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered documents connecting him to the 1993 WTC bomb plot and “Operation Bojinka,” al-Qaeda’s 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets simultaneously over the Pacific. Interestingly enough, as a May 27, 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial reported, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir's name appears on three different rosters of the late Uday Hussein's prestigious paramilitary group, the Saddam Fedayeen. A government source told the Journal that the papers identify Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen.

    ............

    Thus, there is abundant and undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing and — according to a Clinton-appointed federal judge — the September 11 attacks. The Iraqi dictator aided al-Qaeda and other global terrorists who murdered Americans, both at home and abroad.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/05/2005 at 06:23 PM.
  13. #293  
    Here were some of the Dem comments concerning the Freed Australian hostage:
    This is completely fictional.

    Regarding the supposed link between Hussein and 9-11, " (Judge) Baer said lawyers relied heavily on "classically hearsay" evidence" They basically repeated everything the Bush adminnistration stated leading up to the invasion.

    Hussein did support Palestinian groups, but not fundamentalist islamic groups. Please stop passing out that kool-aid as it's quite old.
  14. #294  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Regarding the supposed link between Hussein and 9-11, " (Judge) Baer said lawyers relied heavily on "classically hearsay" evidence" They basically repeated everything the Bush adminnistration stated leading up to the invasion.

    Hussein did support Palestinian groups, but not fundamentalist islamic groups. Please stop passing out that kool-aid as it's quite old.
    Confirmation may be premature at the moment, but there is a lot of RECENT (within the last 3 weeks) information for anyone to simply disregard. Here are some of the highlights of the NEW information just coming out this last month:

    The Osama-Saddam Link Confirmed

    Full Story Here

    The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.

    "Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri – then deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said.

    According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

    "The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.

    Last week, King Abdullah told a Saudi newspaper that the Jordanians knew Saddam to be sheltering Zarqawi in the last years of the Ba'athist reign of terror and demanded his extradition. Saddam refused to turn Zarqawi over to the Jordanians. Abdullah had been clear on that point; the Ba'athists had not claimed they could not reach him, but that they flatly refused to hand him over.
    Body of Evidence
    A CNN anchor gets Iraq and al Qaeda wrong. But will the network issue a correction?

    Full Story Here

    Conveniently, such analyses ignore statements like this one from Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Hard to believe reporters just missed it--he made
    the comments at the press conference held to release the commission's final report. And that report detailed several "friendly contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda, and concluded only that there was no proof of Iraqi involvement in al Qaeda terrorist attacks against American interests. Details, details.

    There have been several recent developments. One month ago, Jordan's King Abdullah explained to the Arabic-language newspaper al Hayat that his government had tried before the Iraq war to extradite Abu Musab al Zarqawi from Iraq. "We had information that he entered Iraq from a neighboring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information we had, but they didn't respond." He added: "Since Zarqawi entered Iraq before the fall of the former regime we have been trying to have him deported back to Jordan for trial, but our efforts were in vain."

    One week later, former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi told the same newspaper that the new Iraqi government is in possession of documents showing that Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden's top deputy, and Zarqawi both entered Iraq in September 1999. (If the documents are authentic, they suggest that Zarqawi may have plotted the Jordanian Millennium attacks from Iraq.)
    IRAQ: FORMER PM REVEALS SECRET SERVICE DATA ON BIRTH OF AL-QAEDA IN IRAQ

    Full Story Here

    Baghdad, 23 May (AKI) - The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.

    According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

    Allawi's remarks come after statements to al-Hayat by King Abdallah II of Jordan over Saddam's refusal to hand over al-Zarqawi to the authorities in Amman.

    On this question Allawi said: ''The words of the Jordanian King are correct and important. We have proof of al-Zawahiri's visit to Iraq, but we do not have the precise date or information on al-Zarqawi's entry, though it is likely that he arrived around the same time."

    In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim. "The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area," he said.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/05/2005 at 04:15 PM.
  15. #295  
    Dude, Iyad Allawi would tie Hussein to the missing girl in Aruba if he thought you would buy that. Try to find a better source for your propaganda. Or, like the rest of the Nation, admit your 9-11 jingoism was hijacked by the Bush administration to invade Iraq.
  16. #296  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Try to find a better source for your propaganda.
    Is CNN a better source for you then? Here CNN first reported the beginings of what has recently been developing with this story:

    CNN Sources: Senior al Qaeda official may have been in Iraq

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...eda/index.html

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Dude, Iyad Allawi would tie Hussein to the missing girl in Aruba if he thought you would buy that. Or, like the rest of the Nation, admit your 9-11 jingoism was hijacked by the Bush administration to invade Iraq.
    It is not only Allawi, but former Iraq Secret Service Docs, and the King of Jordan. It shows the possibility of a major WMD attack against Jordan and US interests in Jordan as a collective opporation by AQ with Iraq support. That is a major tie between the two. One that is still currently being investigated, and confirmed.

    I was not originally talking about Saddam and 9/11, but Saddam linked to terrorist and strong substantial evidence to AQ.....two totally different topics. The point I was making is that intel at the time, and even more now, show that there were AQ connections with Iraq gov. (again connections between organizations and not 9/11). Though the strength of these connections may or may not have been known at the time to our Intel and is just now becoming more clear in the public forum, but that is the nature of intel. If in a post 9/11 world, Iraq had WMD plans to attack Jordan and US based sites there, that is pretty good evidence of a potential threat to the US, IMHO.....and if this turns out to be true, hard to fault the US on acting on this intel with such potential consequences.

    The question is, Was there intel we had available to act on? Yes. Was the intel totally bogus? No. Are their questions about the confirmation and extent of the intel? Yes. But again, that is the nature of intel. You have to act on what you know, or what the potential consequenses of the current points to, at the time you decide to act.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/05/2005 at 05:43 PM.
  17. #297  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Dude, Iyad Allawi would tie Hussein to the missing girl in Aruba if he thought you would buy that.
    Cite
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  18. #298  
    Is CNN a better source for you then? Here CNN first reported the beginings of what has recently been developing with this story:

    CNN Sources: Senior al Qaeda official may have been in Iraq
    Oh cripes. That old story. Come on. Never was that person associated with the Hussein Regime.




    I was not originally talking about Saddam and 9/11, but Saddam linked to terrorist and strong substantial evidence to AQ.....two totally different topics. The point I was making is that intel at the time, and even more now, show that there were AQ connections with Iraq gov. (again connections between organizations and not 9/11). Though the strength of these connections may or may not have been known at the time to our Intel and is just now becoming more clear in the public forum, but that is the nature of intel. If in a post 9/11 world, Iraq had WMD plans to attack Jordan and US based sites there, that is pretty good evidence of a potential threat to the US, IMHO.....and if this turns out to be true, hard to fault the US on acting on this intel with such potential consequences.
    This "intel" is being "talked about" NOT shown. The simple fact of the matter is there was no reason to invade Iraq. All the monday morning quarterbacking won't change that.
  19. #299  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Cite
    Who's who in Iraq: Iyad Allawi
  20. #300  
    Oh and Hobbes. Please remove the blatant lie from your post above regarding: "Democrats Ask Freed Hostage to Apologize to Terrorists After Praising Bush and Blair". It's not fair to the people that are supposedly being quoted.

Posting Permissions