Why isn't BUSH impeached?

[Red Regal T]

Originally posted by JDSfastGN
It is not rediculious. You act like an "oops turned out they didnt have them" is not a big deal. i don't care who thought they had weopons. Before you make a case for war, and send thousands of troops over there, you better be 99.999% sure they do, and the U.S. was not. And yes it is lies, when they have Colin Powell up in front of the media, holding pictures of wharehouses with trucks, claiming them to be moving WMD and the whare house to contain them. And what are you talking about, Bush said the exact words of "Imminent threat" many times, its you that needs to wake up and realize what is going on. There is a nice little soundclip goin around the internet, with all the times he said those exact words. If he was duped then its still not excusable, before you do something as big as a WAR, i you better double check to make sure they have the WMD, just because a previous administration thought the same thing doesn't mean crap, thats info is 3+ years old. The other nations believed it because we said so not because they knew any better. And even if by chance he did have WMD, we obviously do not have them, so if we don't then they are in the wrong hands anyways. Saddam never had the capability to attack us. The administration knew that they were not a threat, yet told us and the world they were.

It isn't rediculous to say Bush lied because there were no WMDs? Of course, it is. You ARE brainwashed by all the left wing internet sites you go to. Bush NEVER said that Iraq was an IMMINENT threat. Only Democrats and left wingers tried to put that on Bush. HE NEVER SAID IT. I know you think all those locals over there in the desert have different agendas. We know, of course, that Sadaam wouldn't think of handing off a WMD to one of Osama's buddies to use over here. You people on the left never listen..........This is old news. Where've you been?

 

[suprbuick7]

Hey Red Regal, Powell in his address to the UN said exactly that, maybe GWB didn't speak it but his Secy of state did ergo He said it.

 

[Red Regal T]

Well, if Powell did indeed say "imminent" threat, I'm sure you can cut and paste it here, so we can all see it. Of course, if Powell said it, it doesn't mean Bush said it. Bush is the President, not Secratary of State Powell.

 

[suprbuick7]

Hey Read Regal , you asked for it. Here it is again, If you bothered to read 3 posts up you would have seen it.... I don't know how big your vocabulary is, but the phrase "gravity of this moment...." sounds like "imminent" to me


Thielmann was admired at the State Department. One high-ranking official called him honorable, knowledgeable, and very experienced. Thielmann had planned to retire just four months before Powell’s big moment before the U.N. Security Council.

On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary Powell presented evidence against Saddam:
“The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world."

At the time, Thielmann says that Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat to the U.S.: “I think it didn't even constitute an imminent threat to its neighbors at the time we went to war.”

And Thielmann says that's what the intelligence really showed. For example, he points to the evidence behind Powell’s charge that Iraq was importing aluminum tubes to use in a program to build nuclear weapons.

Powell said: “Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries even after inspections resumed.”

“This is one of the most disturbing parts of Secretary Powell's speech for us,” says Thielmann.

 

[suprbuick7]

Please, You really can't be that ignorant are you?? You think Powell just made up his speech on his own?????, Was he winging it? GWB signed off on it , because that is what President's do when their Secretaries of State go before the UN.

 

[kevans]

I don't know why everyone says there were no WMD's ever found. Sunday December 14, 2003 they found one of the most destructive weapons ever created on earth. It was hidden away in a little hole in Bagdad. It was all over the news but I guess no one was paying attention.

Kev

 

[UNGN]

Originally posted by suprbuick7
Hey Red Regal, Powell in his address to the UN said exactly that, maybe GWB didn't speak it but his Secy of state did ergo He said it.

You said he said "Imminent threat". "exactly that" means to me and the rest of us sheep on the board that Powell said "Imminent threat". "sounds like .... to me" isn't the same as "said".

You said if you were wrong, you would admit it.

Please admit you were wrong, if you can.

Say "Colin Powell AND George Bush NEVER said Iraq was an Imminent Threat". That's the truth.

What's the matter, can't handle the truth?

 

[suprbuick7]

UNGN, you really need help! Now it is a "semantics" (look it up ) issue with you, Please you don't know how dumb you sound arguing over a point like that I pasted it, you deny it. PLEASE

 

[suprbuick7]

“The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world."-------------- UNGN what does that phrase mean to you???????, Call your neighbor if you can't figure it out on your own?????!!!!!!!!!!

 

[suprbuick7]

UNGN: I said i would admit i was wrong about the outcome of this "war on terror" and if we becqme a safer country!


Los Angeles Times January 29, 2003
THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS; Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat
The above front-page headline in the L.A. Times is the earliest media report that I can find which claims that the administration called Iraq an imminent threat.

San Francisco Chronicle February 6, 2003

For all the damning evidence of Hussein's tyranny and evil ambitions -- neither of which has been in doubt since the Persian Gulf War -- Powell did not show that Iraq amounted to an imminent threat to the United States.
Robert Scheer in the Los Angeles Times March 4, 2003
The second lie was that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction represent an imminent threat to U.S. security.

Paul Krugman in the New York Times June 3, 2003
The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than the Iran-contra affair. Indeed, the idea that Americans were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.

 

[suprbuick7]

Imminent Threat? Who thought we were going to war because Iraq was an imminent threat? Everyone agreed Iraq posed no imminent threat. We clearly went to war because Bush didn't like Hussein and on 9/11/01 found an excuse to do something about it. Just about every other reason he's given has been found to be an overstatement if not an outright lie:

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons" but still no weapons have been found. "Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" but at best the evidence shows that the program was dormant. "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" but again the best evidence we have to day shows no weapons and only a static capability to produce non-nuclear weapons if even that.

The thing is, if the Bushies had said "let's go to war to free Iraq from their horrible dictator and bring democracy to the middle east," it would have sounded far too much like Hitler or the Russians or even the Brits of centuries past in conquering nations just because we don't like them. Every other country in the middle east (and most in Asia) would be worried that they were next. So Bush tried to make something palatable about why we were invading Iraq and therefore what the rest of the world could do to avoid invasion. Which would have been great, if the fig leaf were truthful enough that anyone believed it. Instead, it was seen as a sham and a lie and now every other country in the middle east (and most in Asia) are worried that they could be next.

 

[UNGN]

Originally posted by suprbuick7
UNGN: I said i would admit i was wrong about the outcome of this "war on terror" and if we becqme a safer country!


Los Angeles Times January 29, 2003
THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS; Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat
The above front-page headline in the L.A. Times is the earliest media report that I can find which claims that the administration called Iraq an imminent threat.

San Francisco Chronicle February 6, 2003

For all the damning evidence of Hussein's tyranny and evil ambitions -- neither of which has been in doubt since the Persian Gulf War -- Powell did not show that Iraq amounted to an imminent threat to the United States.
Robert Scheer in the Los Angeles Times March 4, 2003
The second lie was that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction represent an imminent threat to U.S. security.

Paul Krugman in the New York Times June 3, 2003
The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than the Iran-contra affair. Indeed, the idea that Americans were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.

Bush DID NOT say "Iraq was an Imminent Threat" in his state of the union message. I don't care what the headlines in some liberal california rags said, he never said it. Colin Powell NEVER said it either. If you heard either of them say it, you are the only one.

This doesn't even stoop to the definition of the words "is" or "alone". They NEVER said "Imminent threat", you said they did.

YOU WERE AND STILL ARE WRONG if you think or maintain that they did.

We didn't go into Iraq because they were an Imminent threat to the US. We went into Iraq because they were a state sponsor of terrorism and we could take them out before they BECAME AN IMMINENT THREAT to the US. If you don't think Saddam had the potential to be an Imminent threat to the US, you have a screw loose.

 

[The Radius Kid]

Saddam probably wasn't an imminent threat to the States unless he planned on selling bio weapons to Al Qaeda.
He wouldn't do that would he,especially after the US helped save the Israeli's or the Kuwaiti's butts.
Naw.

 

[Red Regal T]

Oh! I'm so embarrassed. The gravity of this moment! Sounds just like "imminent threat", but I never realized it. Like, because of the gravity of this moment, you so called allies should support the use of force after 16 UN resolutions stating that purpose............you bunch of despotic morons, friends of suprbuick7, who run at the drop of a hat, who wish the US ill, who make up the UN.

 

[jy211]

Bush is Great!!!

 

[suprbuick7]

I wouldn't expect much more form you Red Regal, even when it is plain fact you still deny it. Gravity of the situation is not serious or imminent, maybe you didn't get that far in school to learn those words

Hypothetical : You red regal are a D+ student( I don't know how far from fact that is, but that is not the point.) You really want that pretty blue dress you saw in the Dept. store window. Your parents ask what your next report card will be and you tell them "C+'s and C's". They buy you that dress. ( because you wanted it so bad) Your report card comes in and it is all D's and F's. Apparently you stretched the truth to get what you want.

 

[suprbuick7]

History Lesson:

You should really learn a little more about the relationship between SH and the fundamentalists Islamics like al Queda. He killed and imprisoned them by the thousands, they hated him as much as or more than the fundamentalists hated us. If he armed them, they would probably turned those weapons on him just as fast.

 

[suprbuick7]

UNGN, O Blind one, it is you who needs to digest the CIA and other intelligence reports because they infact state that he didnt have the capacity to be that threat, the"grave one" that Powell and you just labeled him as. Powell spoke of in this speech to the UN. Look it up UNGN. It is there in his transcripts or don't you want to believe. again RRT confuses GWB's intentional misleading of our nation to take us to war w/ someone's patriotism. Why didn't GWB just say the guy is a murderer, Human rights violator and we should help the Iraqi people??????. He then would have been telling the truth.

 

[slimm]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." > - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[UNGN]

Originally posted by suprbuick7
UNGN, O Blind one, it is you who needs to digest the CIA and other intelligence reports because they infact state that he didnt have the capacity to be that threat, the"grave one" that Powell and you just labeled him as. Powell spoke of in this speech to the UN. Look it up UNGN. It is there in his transcripts or don't you want to believe. again RRT confuses GWB's intentional misleading of our nation to take us to war w/ someone's patriotism. Why didn't GWB just say the guy is a murderer, Human rights violator and we should help the Iraqi people??????. He then would have been telling the truth.

In Bob Woodward's new book, he claims that CIA director George Tenet told George Bush that the case for going to war against Iraq was a "Slam Dunk".

If what you are saying is true... if George Tenet's own CIA "reports .... infact state that he didnt have the capacity to be that threat, the"grave one" that Powell and you just labeled him as" does that mean HE LIED TO THE PRESIDENT?

Forget Perle and Rumsfeld, the REAL architect for going to war with Iraq was Clinton's George Tenet.

I may be blind, but I know that you are among the .1 of 1% of people that when asked if "Gravity of the moment" is the same as "imminent threat", would say "yes".