Why isn't BUSH impeached?

[The Pro]

Are you freaking retarded? Go look it up yourself. I was *there*, and I saw that $hit with my own two eyes. Everything but the gassing of the Kurds (which he did in the 80's, along with gassing the Iranians) which was in everything from the National Enquirer to the National Geographic.

It's not *opinion* when it's well publicized, irrefutable evidence n00b.

 

[TurboJunky]

The Knife CAN Cut Both Ways....

1QWIK6,

You're welcome for the link. Their reporting is short, sweet, to the point and non-partisan. You chose some snipits to support your view, however let me respond in kind:

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
-Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilties.

Essentially, Saddam sponsored terrorism against U.S. citizens and property.

Was Saddam involved in the September 11 attacks?
- There is no hard evidence linking Saddam to the attacks.

Essentially, little or no evidence doesn't conclusively mean Iraq is or isn't involved. It just means we have no evidence. Don't read into it.

Does Iraq have ties with al-Qaeda?
- Many experts say there’s no solid proof.

See above.

What evidence does the administration offer?
- Some Iraqi militants trained in Taliban-run Afghanistan helped Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist militia based in a lawless part of northeast Iraq.
- Al-Zarqawi had both planned the October 2002 assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan and set up a camp in Ansar al-Islam’s territory to train terrorists in the use of chemical weapons.

Nothing needs said here.

What type of terrorist groups has Iraq supported?
- Saddam has aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK).
- Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel, including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization.
- Iraq has also supported the Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

This speaks for itself too.

Has Iraq ever used weapons of mass destruction?
- Yes.
+ In the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi troops repeatedly used poison gas, including mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin.
+ Human Rights Watch reports that Iraq frequently used nerve agents and mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds living in the country’s north. In March 1988.

Does Iraq still have WMD?...again, the fact we haven't found any yet DOES NOT mean he hasn't hidden them or shipped them out.

Put it this way, a guy murders 5 people and gets away with it for years. He buries the murder weapon under his house. Did he use the murder weapon...YES, did he commit a crime with the weapon....YES. Is it fair to say the murderer still doesn't have the weapon just because the police can't find it?...no. It only proves he's good at deception and hiding incriminating evidence. Is this making sense yet?

 

[1QWIK6]

Are you freaking retarded? Go look it up yourself.

Why do you resort to name calling? Go look it up yourself? The burden of proof is on you. If you come here running your mouth, you'd better back it up :rolleyes

I was *there*, and I saw that $hit with my own two eyes..

Sure you were there...

Everything but the gassing of the Kurds (which he did in the 80's, along with gassing the Iranians) which was in everything from the National Enquirer to the National Geographic.

What does that have to do with a THREAT TO THE USA? You STILL havn't answered/proved that.

It's not *opinion* when it's well publicized, irrefutable evidence n00b..

Irrefutable evidence? That Saddam gasses the kurds... and.... waiting for what that means for the USA? How something 20+ years ago was a modern day imminent threat to the USA.

Give it up... Bush Lied... people died... plain and simple.

 

[1QWIK6]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
-Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Essentially, Saddam sponsored terrorism against U.S. citizens and property.

Wait... you saying, that during the Gulf War, Saddam attacked US Facilities?! HOLY CRAP! Imagine that.. We attacked a country and they fought back! WOW! I think in the dictionary they call that war... not terrorism





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was Saddam involved in the September 11 attacks?
- There is no hard evidence linking Saddam to the attacks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Essentially, little or no evidence doesn't conclusively mean Iraq is or isn't involved. It just means we have no evidence. Don't read into it.

Uh... yes it does. What your doing is called spin... Until you prove it, you can't conclude it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Iraq have ties with al-Qaeda?
- Many experts say there’s no solid proof.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See above.

Many experts say there’s no solid proof.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What evidence does the administration offer?
- Some Iraqi militants trained in Taliban-run Afghanistan helped Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist militia based in a lawless part of northeast Iraq.
- Al-Zarqawi had both planned the October 2002 assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan and set up a camp in Ansar al-Islam’s territory to train terrorists in the use of chemical weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing needs said here.

based in a lawless part of northeast Iraq... should I not read into this too... that maybe because it is lawless, no one stopped them. Does that mean Saddam supported them? No...



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What type of terrorist groups has Iraq supported?
- Saddam has aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK).
- Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel, including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization.
- Iraq has also supported the Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This speaks for itself too.

Wow... sounds like Saddam had some regional enemies. Hmmm... wonder what that has to do with the USA... a country 1000's OF MILES AWAY.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has Iraq ever used weapons of mass destruction?
- Yes.
+ In the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi troops repeatedly used poison gas, including mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin.
+ Human Rights Watch reports that Iraq frequently used nerve agents and mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds living in the country’s north. In March 1988.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does Iraq still have WMD?...again, the fact we haven't found any yet DOES NOT mean he hasn't hidden them or shipped them out.

Spin-Spin-Spin... Spin-Spin-Spin...

 

[The Pro]

Originally posted by 1QWIK6
Why do you resort to name calling? Go look it up yourself? The burden of proof is on you. If you come here running your mouth, you'd better back it up :rolleyes




Sure you were there...

So now you're calling me a liar?

Dude, go play hide and go f\/ck yourself. I spent nearly 10 months over there, and I saw plenty to convince me we should have done more then. If we *had* supported the rebellion *then*, we'd have less animosity towards us *now*. I am a Fighter Pilot, and former operative. I have forgotten more about that theater of operations than you are likely to ever know. Still, I consider myself a student in that area (you can never know everything) and I had my cover rolled back about 1997, so it's not worth me talking with you anymore about it........

You have your views, based upon soundbytes, and I have mine, based upon having been there and seen it for myself.

 

[TurboJunky]

Sir,

There is no spin. You simply need to take some of your own advice:

First you say "Bush lied, people died"

Then you say "Until you prove it, you can't conclude it."

You CAN'T prove Bush lied since you CAN'T prove Iraq still doesn't have WMD. Isn't it just POSSIBLE they're still hidden and/or buried thus STILL HAVE WMD?? As you say "Until you prove it, you can't conclude it". Step back and think it through.

 

[1QWIK6]

So now you're calling me a liar?

Dude, go play hide and go f\/ck yourself. I spent nearly 10 months over there, and I saw plenty to convince me we should have done more then. If we *had* supported the rebellion *then*, we'd have less animosity towards us *now*. I am a Fighter Pilot, and former operative. I have forgotten more about that theater of operations than you are likely to ever know. Still, I consider myself a student in that area (you can never know everything) and I had my cover rolled back about 1997, so it's not worth me talking with you anymore about it........

You have your views, based upon soundbytes, and I have mine, based upon having been there and seen it for myself.

Whats up with the name calling? Is that what you resort to? Sigh... BTW: I too am a ninja commond navy seal delta force guy too...

Sir,

There is no spin. You simply need to take some of your own advice:

First you say "Bush lied, people died"

Then you say "Until you prove it, you can't conclude it."

You CAN'T prove Bush lied since you CAN'T prove Iraq still doesn't have WMD. Isn't it just POSSIBLE they're still hidden and/or buried thus STILL HAVE WMD?? As you say "Until you prove it, you can't conclude it". Step back and think it through.

Did or did not the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAY SADDAM HAS WMD ?! OK... where are they? If you go to war with a country based on FACTS (TRUE HARD SOLID FACTS), that's one thing... What bush did... well.. I don't see any WMD, so I believe he lied.


__________________

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by 1QWIK6
Did or did not the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAY SADDAM HAS WMD ?! OK... where are they? If you go to war with a country based on FACTS (TRUE HARD SOLID FACTS), that's one thing... What bush did... well.. I don't see any WMD, so I believe he lied.

You're avoiding my question. Please answer:

Isn't it possible they're still buried and hidden? Yes or no?

And since "until you prove it, you can't conclude it" where's your PROOF Iraq has NO WMD hidden?? Since it's still very possible they have it buried, simple logic dictates it CANNOT be a lie.

I'm not asking the President, I'm asking YOU. Proof, proof, proof....

 

[1QWIK6]

You're avoiding my question. Please answer:

Isn't it possible they're still buried and hidden? Yes or no?

And since "until you prove it, you can't conclude it" where's your PROOF Iraq has NO WMD hidden?? Since it's still very possible they have it buried, simple logic dictates it CANNOT be a lie.

I'm not asking the President, I'm asking YOU. Proof, proof, proof....

Sure it's possible... but the PRESIDENT SAID THEY WERE THERE... If he was SOOOO sure they were there.. where are they? Hmmm time to spin... (i.e. there in the desert, there in another country, etc)... spin, spin, spin. OR you can come to the LOGICAL CONCLUSION, that Bush Jr had another plans and used the IMMINENT THREAT OF WMD as an excuse to invade.



If your not asking the president, your asking the wrong person.

 

[GNandGS]

That same lie that Clinton used in '98?

You dont like Bush... just admit it and move on. It will be easier.

S

 

[1QWIK6]

That same lie that Clinton used in '98?

Sigh... (p.s. it get old)

You dont like Bush... just admit it and move on. It will be easier

Yup... I don't like Bush (and don't care for Kerry)... I'm glad your comfortable with Bush starting a war on a pretty flimsy excuse. Hey.. only a few hundred or dead or wounded people for a lie. mad: )

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by 1QWIK6
Sure it's possible... but the PRESIDENT SAID THEY WERE THERE... If he was SOOOO sure they were there.. where are they? Hmmm time to spin... (i.e. there in the desert, there in another country, etc)... spin, spin, spin. OR you can come to the LOGICAL CONCLUSION, that Bush Jr had another plans and used the IMMINENT THREAT OF WMD as an excuse to invade.



If your not asking the president, your asking the wrong person.

I'm sorry to break this to you but I don't think the President is reading this board, so I have to ask you since I'm challenging YOUR assertion the President lied. Apparently you gave him a time limit and once that passed you went from a "wait and see" to "he lied".

As far as your "logical conclusion" it's more like an "emotional assumption". There is NO logic to your anaylsis whatsoever.

To argue using your logic in a court of law would be laughable at best. I can see it now. A team executes a search warrant for guns and drugs in a known crack house. They search it but don't find anything. According to your logic the probable cause needed to get the search warrant in the first place would all be LIES since nothing was found. And according to YOUR logic, there's 100% NO possiblity there are drugs or weapons hidden and missed during the search. Good Lord....

 

[b231v6]

Originally posted by 1QWIK6
Sigh... (p.s. it get old)



Yup... I don't like Bush (and don't care for Kerry)... I'm glad your comfortable with Bush starting a war on a pretty flimsy excuse. Hey.. only a few hundred or dead or wounded people for a lie. mad: )

Ya I know it gets old,kinda like your argument on this subject. I wonder where you think up this stuff.

But wait there's more!!!!!!! your really gorgous and well built> And you might like me too. Now am I lying or not. You tell me ,because you can tell a person is lying without even meeting them. SPIN,,SPIN<< SPIN,, Your not paranoid or anything are you.XXXXOOO!!!!!

 

[Foolis]

Lame

As we all debate the election / GDB - Kerry BS, your <U.S> kids are dieing every frikin day. For what? WMO's? .. nope

As the conflict matures, the Iraqi people are getting a bigger hate on for the U.S. occupation....and yes, it is that right now.

Good luck!


BT

 

[Raven]

I'm really surprised that this thread has gone as many pages as it has! Especially since I haven't even tossed my opinion in here yet, but here goes.

Bush went to war for far more than WMD and he made that clear. Yes, WMD was a huge plank in his platform for war with Iraq but stabilization of the middle east as well as protecting Suadi/Kuwaiti interests were right up there too.

The number of American lives lost is enormously saddening and that can never be minimized. But freedom comes at a price and often war - with the resultant loss in life of our young warriors - is that heavy price we as democratic citizens must pay.

SH proved himself time and again to be a terrorist, a supporter of terroristic activity, a human rights abuser of the worst degree, and an unstable military regime in an already critical mass part of the world.

Bush did what he had to do as leader of the mightiest nation and greatest defender of the peace on this earth - the USA. He went to war and I believe it was the right thing to do.

We, as a nation, have gotten so used to technological wars with smart bombs, laser guided missiles and death from afar. We forgot that more often than not, blood must be shed to win a war. Often, a war's prize is not defense of one's homeland. We tried that philosophy in the '30's, look where THAT isolationalistic thinking got us - Pearl Harbor for starters.

So, no - we can not ignore regimes like SH's in the world, especially when that sort of regime has a history of attacking our allies.

WMD's, whether they are/were there or not, are not the primary reason we went to war. The media would like you and I to believe that so that they, the liberal left, can use it against Bush and the Republican party in general.

But ask the typical Iraqi family how they feel that SH is gone. All they (the Iraqi people) want is what we all want - to support and love our families, to serve our government and our God, and to grow old. With SH in power, they did not have those choices.

Today, they do.

The work isn't done yet. And there will be more young people die, make no mistake. I grieve for all of them and their families.

But we can NOT turn from our responsibilities as people of the greatest Democracy on earth and shirk those duties we have to help others who desire freedom and a life without a yoke of oppression and repression about their very necks.

No, we owe them more that to ignore their plight. God have mercy upon us if we EVER get to that position again.

Peace to all.

 

[TurboJunky]

Raven,

Now that is a heartfelt post. I agree with your anaylsis of the entire situation. Unfortunately, some people think we should either ignore problems and let them fester, seek an isolationist attitude in the face of such a monumental problem or take on these rogue nations with idle threats and digital wars. SH was another Adolf Hitler, just imagine how different the world would be today if someone de-throned Hitler in 1940.

Cleaning up Iraq IS a monumental task and one that cannot be done "free of charge" or overnight. This endeavour is an investment in our future and President Bush sees that. WWII Japan was much like Iraq today with fundamentalist religious zealots and suicide bombers (remember the kamakazi?). We didn't turn their nation around in 3 months or 3 years. It took many years to get them to rebuild and structure a new foundation for a government. Iraqi's will learn it's better to live in a democratic society with free elections just as Japan did, and it won't be done overnight. People today want things RIGHT NOW. If the fanatical Japanese could be turned into a peace loving people, so can Iraqis. And Iraq will be the oasis of freedom in the Middle East. This is the BIG PICTURE our left winging friends refuse to see.

 

[Raven]

Thank you TT/A1233.

There was one other thing I wanted to add to my post. The original question posed at the beginning of the topic was "Why isn't Bush impeached?" I guess my first reply wasn't an answer of sorts so I'll address that here.

Rather than go into some lengthy diatribe and try to debate with the very few who are in the minority here supporting the basis for the question, I will only say this...

If you have to ask why he isn't impeached already (as you suggest he should have been), then you already have your answer.

If you can't figure out the reason "why" he hasn't been impeached, much less even had the possible topic bandied about within our legislative branches, then you are very out of tune with the workings of our government, the beliefs of our populace, and show true lack of understanding of the foundational principals of Democracy and World Leadership.

I would humbly ask that those of you who foolishly carry such a notion to simply do this. Consider for one moment how your life would be if you lived in Sadam's Iraq. What do you think would happen to you, your family, and even your family's family if you so much as dared whisper the notion that Sadam Hussein should be removed from power? In all likelihood, a quick and sudden death for all would be the BEST you could hope for. You would want to die first of course so you could not see the horror of what would happen to your wife, your children and your parents as SH's thugs worked their tortuous barbarisms upon them until they died.

Numerous reports validated time after time after time of merciless cruelties and attrocities tell of pain beyond belief being visited upon dissenters of SH's regime. Do you think that YOU would have the right to speak out against such a man and his army? He even killed his own relatives after inviting them to come back to Iraq to 'kiss and make up'.

So, imagine if you will the daily horror a citizen living in Sadam's Iraq must endure, day after day after day, fearing that someone would even LIE about you or what you may have said (or not said) to only perhaps guarantee THEM another day.

Fundamental human rights, the basic values that each and every one of us take for granted, are only possible in countries that are based upon freedom and democracy. Any other government that allows its government to be greater than its citizens tramples on those basic human rights.

Our forefathers fought against such oppression. Our country has a history of supporting the fight for freedom and human rights across the globe. Yes, it is true that we as a nation have had failures at times in those fights; failures that were brought about by poor leadership decisions. But even given those facts, the fights were honorable and just - it is never without honor to fight for the right and freedom of another.

But it is a travesty of unfathomable dimensions to look the other way when your brother is being oppressed and YOU have the power to help him.

The Iraqi people are indeed our brothers and they deserve our help. George W. Bush recognized their need and answered the calling placed upon as the leader of the free world.

The media may heckle him. Citizens may question him and demonstrate against him (those who do are guaranteed the right to do that - in THIS country). And he can be vilified across the nation and the globe for his decision.

But in the end, his decision was honorable, just and correct. I respect him and our government for listening to the calls for help from an oppressed people. I would be ashamed as an American if he and our other leaders had done less.

This is not a perfect country but it IS the best place on earth to be. Just ask anyone who doesn't live in freedom...

Steve

 

[ThikStik]

Didnt read all this thread but wanted to add: oceans cover most of this planets area, what a great place to scuttle WMD's . They would likely never be found.

 

[1QWIK6]

 

[1QWIK6]

Too much flag-wavin and not enough TRUE indepth look into the reasons for the war... Sure what were doing over there is good, but the reasons for going in the first place is pretty flimsy. I know we all want to be good-ole-flag-wavin-patriotic-americans but please dont just BLINDLY follow someone that cannot back up a CLEARLY STATED CLAIM (IMMINENT THREAT OF WMD). If the PRESIDENT SAID they were there, he must of had an idea of where they might be... But then again... we looked at pictures of a MISSLE LAUNCHER in IRAQ... that turned out to be a fire truck (with dust on it too)... from a photograph that was presented as new but was at least 10 years old.

I would hope the president had solid hard facts... but now....
P.S. follow link... and re-think
http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/pp012103.htm