Comic Genesis Forums

Timmy Ramone wrote:Wow--and Calbeck thinks I have rage issues...

Your fascination with my ass is flattering, Ralphie. But you'll probably be surprised to learn that I don't much like Clinton, either, so say what you like about him. However, while the Republicans, like Henry Hyde, lectured the rest of us about Clinton's amorality, it turned out that they had plenty of their own "monkey business" to answer for. Their hypocritical obsession with Clinton's sex life probably let ol' Bill get away with other, more serious crimes.

So along comes Junior Bush, with all his promises of restoring integrity to the Presidency and bringing a "new tone" to Washington politics. But when a top aide for his VP was indicted, Bush, rather than condemning the alleged misdeeds of Lewis Libby, whined about how much "Scooter" would be missed around the White House. This aide revealed the identity of a CIA agent, destroying her undercover work monitoring nuclear proliferation, and damaging U.S. national security. Not coincidentally, this same aide was part of the White House Iraq Group, tasked with creating a nonexistent Iraqi threat and selling the country on a phoney war.

Clinton's affair with Lewinsky was a serious matter, but at most it involved only a few people close to him. Bush lied this country into a war that has cost tens of thousands lives, many billions of dollars, and doesn't appear to be ending any time soon (10 years or more, according to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... ress_x.htm). If Clinton deserved to be impeached for his actions, then the Lesser Bush deserves no less. What's good for the goose, and all that.

(This just in: <a href="http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/4421">New Poll: Majority of Americans Support Impeachment</a>)

Okay, looks like the troll has reading comprehension issues as well as his other problems...

Primus: Did you even understand what the point was? Clinton was suspected of lots of things, but all they could prove was perjury, so they went with it. And in spite of the Senate's failure to convict him, he was guilty of it - this is why Arkansas and the USSC both yanked his license to practice law in their jurisdictions.

Secundus: Libby has not been convicted of revealing Plame's identity. He is currently under indictment for perjury for what may simply be a truly hashed-up bit of testimony to the grand jury. In any rational sequence of events, the morons who -published- the reports about Plame should be the ones to get the maximum punishment, in any event... if the press wants to be trusted with background information, they'd durn well better know the difference between necessary reporting, unnecessary gossip, and damaging national security. Besides, Plame and her idiot husband appear to have outed her themselves long ago.

Tertius: If you are convinced that taking out Saddam cost more lives than leaving him in power would have, you're either ignorant, stupid, or lying. If you are convinced that having one reason out of a dozen for taking out Saddam turn out to be mistaken (and a mistaken impression shared by most of the world, and apparently encouraged by Hussein himself) is tantamount to 'lying us into an unnecessary war'... you're either stupid, ignorant, or lying, or more likely some combination of the three. As for whether it will work, the jury's still out and anyone with any knowledge of history expected the whole process to take a generation.

And finally, your poll (one of Zobgy's, too... imagine my surprise) was worded with an IF statement. IF Bush was lying, should he be impeached? Barely got a majority. They didn't ask, or perhaps just aren't showing the results for 'Should he be impeached if he did NOT lie?' or 'Do you believe he DID lie?' As such, it's meaningless. Rather like the rest of your post.

Kesarra wrote:

Kerry Skydancer wrote:

Kesarra wrote: Oh, you mean this link I posted a page back? That's Bush and Cheney's own church that openly admits there's torture and the war itself never should have been carried out. I'm seeing an agreement of script there. But I guess you're too busy insulting people in the past 6 posts and then some. All I'm hearing is talk-show pundit robots.

Umm... this is the United Methodist Church. They can't possibly 'admit' to these things. They have no particular information about it (or do you think that Bush consults with his church's hierarchy before making a decision?) nor do they have the responsibility of running the country. And they've got a track record of being on the left side of the debate, not the right. If this is the best you can do, you might as well just give up.

'Admit' was a poor choice of a word. 'Acknowledge' would have been better. So let's bring in a different view from former Reagan assistant and Cato Institute man, Doug Bandow (dated July 8, 2003 from CSMonitor). {Tell me again which side of the debate is left and which is right.}

...If the WMD didn't exist, or were ineffective, Washington's professed case for war collapses. .... It is foolish to turn the Iraq war, a prudential political question, into a philosophical test for conservatism. It is even worse to demand unthinking support for Bush. He should be pressed on the issue of WMD - by conservatives. ...

And a recent Jimmy Carter: "But the Bush administration's decision to invade to prevent any future act of aggression from Saddam Hussein's Iraq came in for a scathing reproach. "The attitude of going to war against a relatively defenseless country in order to prevent violence in the world is a complete fallacy," Carter said."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1104/p05s01-usmb.html

'Acknowledge' isn't any better a word than 'admit'. The United Methodist Church hierarchy has neither the information sources nor the expertise to have a useful opinion on the matter. Bandow isn't much better - the fact is that there were many reasons for going in, some practical, some legal, and some moral. Having one of them fall apart is not a major ethical dilemma, and he's missing the point if he thinks it is.

(Practical: the sanctions were coming unglued and were highly corrupted. We were losing personnel and material readiness -maintaining- the truce patrols. The presence of bases in Saudi territory, needed to maintain the cease-fire, was inflaming the lunatic wing of Islam. Legal: Saddam was violating the cease-fire agreement on an almost daily basis. We have not found major WMD caches, but we did find hibernating programs and missile construction in violation of UN requirements. Moral: Saddam was a corrupt thug who killed millions in his wars and hundreds of thousands in the last decade by malfeasance and outright torture and slaughter.)

Carter? His opinions aren't worth the trouble necessary to throw them out. He seems to think Bush is worse than Fidel, Kim Jong Mental, and the ayatollahs of Iran. The man would have made a wonderful televangelist. He's a terrible politician... our very own Neville Chamberlain, without the self-honesty to admit when he screwed up.

Narnian wrote:As for the Republican philanderers, they at least had the honor to resign. Something congressional Democrats as a whole seem to have very little of.

The Congressional Republican philanderers who were also among Clinton's biggest critics included Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde (mentioned earlier), John McCain, Dan Burton, Bob Livingston, Tim Hutchinson and Bob Barr. None of them resigned over their indescretions.

Man, this is like shooting fish in a barrel -- and twice as fun!

Kerry Skydancer wrote:Libby has not been convicted of revealing Plame's identity. He is currently under indictment for perjury for what may simply be a truly hashed-up bit of testimony to the grand jury.

Oh, absolutely! First, he tells the Grand Jury that he read about Plame in the newspaper. Then, under pressure from the prosecutor, he "suddenly" remembers he actually got the name from Dick Cheney -- who only happens to be the Vice President and his boss. A perfectly understandable mistake.

In any rational sequence of events, the morons who -published- the reports about Plame should be the ones to get the maximum punishment, in any event...

That would be Robert Novak, a conservative columnist (he was "on the right" to Michael Kinsley's "on the left" on CNN's Crossfire).

Besides, Plame and her idiot husband appear to have outed her themselves long ago.

Naturally, that's a lie -- and a rather ridiculous one at that. But, when all else fails, blame the victim, right? And here I thought only those darn "liberals" did that.

you're either ignorant, stupid, or lying.

Aww. And I love you, too, snookums!

No. Ignorant, stupid and lying is telling us that Saddam was a threat to the U.S., when he was not. Ignorant, stupid and lying is attacking a nearly defenseless country, murdering its people, leaving it in ruins, and calling it "liberated." Ignorant, stupid and lying is... well... I think you get the point.

If you are convinced that having one reason out of a dozen for taking out Saddam turn out to be mistaken...

"Mistaken" -- I just love that! Clinton was a liar and a perjurer and a criminal. But Bush -- well, he was just "mistaken," that's all! Hee-hee! Man, you oughta write for Leno!

And finally, your poll (one of Zobgy's, too... imagine my surprise) was worded with an IF statement. IF Bush was lying, should he be impeached? Barely got a majority. They didn't ask, or perhaps just aren't showing the results for 'Should he be impeached if he did NOT lie?' or 'Do you believe he DID lie?' As such, it's meaningless.

In similar polls taken at the time, Clinton never got more than 36% "yes." Sign of the times, I guess.

Timmy Ramone Wrote:

No. Ignorant, stupid and lying is telling us that Saddam was a threat to the U.S., when he was not.

So what you are saying is that all these people are ignorant, stupid and liars?

"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 times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. 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, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 a 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 weap ons 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

Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.
- Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.
- Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
- Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

Jaydub wrote:Timmy Ramone Wrote:

No. Ignorant, stupid and lying is telling us that Saddam was a threat to the U.S., when he was not.

So what you are saying is that all these people are ignorant, stupid and liars?

"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 times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. 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, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 a 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 weap ons 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

Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.
- Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.
- Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
- Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

You bet. Most of those are the same people that signed the Patriot Act without reading it!!

By the by, Iraq's "attempts" to procure uranium was debunked after these statements were made. All this laid on a guy that couldn't aim a SCUD properly across his own border. And then you got Osama who at times wished he had Hussein's head on a pike in his front yard.

But quite a number of those Dem's have taken a step back and made many statements contrary to those pre 2003 ones. They've been looking at evidence that's cropped up since then. But do you see Bush or the Republicans doing the same? No. "Let's build some new military bases in Iraq and pull soldiers out of Afghanistan." "Let's enforce Patriot Act version 2 and take more rights away from our citizens."

Kesarra wrote:You bet. Most of those are the same people that signed the Patriot Act without reading it!!

And I assume you have read it.

By the by, Iraq's "attempts" to procure uranium was debunked after these statements were made.

And after the invasion, as well. By the by, it was never indicated that Iraq attempted to procure uranium, only that it was asked about. And he did have a fair amount of radioactive material which has been found.

But quite a number of those Dem's have taken a step back and made many statements contrary to those pre 2003 ones. They've been looking at evidence that's cropped up since then. But do you see Bush or the Republicans doing the same? No. "Let's build some new military bases in Iraq and pull soldiers out of Afghanistan." "Let's enforce Patriot Act version 2 and take more rights away from our citizens."

Because Bush isn't a mealy mouth political opportunist, unlike the Democrats.

maxgoof wrote: And after the invasion, as well. By the by, it was never indicated that Iraq attempted to procure uranium, only that it was asked about.

Really? It's right in Bush's State of the Union address. Go ahead and head me off by pointing out the later retraction of the statement. You'll only eat your own words of "mealy mouth political opportunist".

Timmy Ramone wrote:

Narnian wrote:As for the Republican philanderers, they at least had the honor to resign. Something congressional Democrats as a whole seem to have very little of.

The Congressional Republican philanderers who were also among Clinton's biggest critics included Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde (mentioned earlier), John McCain, Dan Burton, Bob Livingston, Tim Hutchinson and Bob Barr. None of them resigned over their indescretions.

Man, this is like shooting fish in a barrel -- and twice as fun!

Thank you for proving my point on the Left being the ones infatuated with sex - keeping a list I see? Pictures too, no doubt.

As for the fish in a barrel I am afraid even at close range you missed many of them. I was speaking of those identified during Clinton's impeachment (I should have made that clearer).

Livingston resigned (look it up), Gingrich and Barr didn't run after they were shown to be hypocritical. Most of the others were old (which doesn't make them OK, but time and repentance as Democrats argue for themselves should be taken into account.).

Hutchinson got kicked out by the voters (deservedly).

But the bar his so much higher for Republicans anyway - Democrats seem to condone murder (Kennedy), rape (Clinton) and male prostitution (Frank) among their fold.

Jaydub wrote:Timmy Ramone Wrote:

No. Ignorant, stupid and lying is telling us that Saddam was a threat to the U.S., when he was not.

So what you are saying is that all these people are ignorant, stupid and liars?

Yeah, pretty much. (Though I should point out that it was Kerry Skydancer who first used the phrase "ignorant, stupid and lying" -- leave it to a conservative to take the high road in this discussion.) You already know my thoughs on Clinton. Albright should be in jail right now for her part in the attacks on Yugoslavia and Iraq and Lieberman is a Republican in all but name only.

The only thing I can say in their favor is that they were merely accomplices. They were the enablers (witting or unwitting) for the real criminals: Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld (and lesser stooges like Libby, Gonzales, Wolfowitz, Bremer and others). It is the latter group who are ultimately responsible for the unfolding disaster in Iraq.

Oh, I'm sorry -- were you expecting a different answer?

US intel on Iraq-Qaeda ties 'intentionally misleading'
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/051107/1/3w8kv.html

US Forces 'Used Chemical Weapons' during Assault on City of Fallujah
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... 325560.ece

I've actually known about the banned chemical weapons for awhile. Iraqi doctors already told reporters they saw bodies that looked like they had had chemical weapons used on them. This is old news. Why isn't anyone paying attention? Here:http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110805Z.shtml Have some video footage.

Kesarra wrote:And a recent Jimmy Carter: "But the Bush administration's decision to invade to prevent any future act of aggression from Saddam Hussein's Iraq came in for a scathing reproach. "The attitude of going to war against a relatively defenseless country in order to prevent violence in the world is a complete fallacy," Carter said."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1104/p05s01-usmb.html

...Ok, I just lost what little respect I still had for Jimmy Carter. I suppose that as long as Saddam is only killing his own people, it's ok...

Kesarra wrote:US intel on Iraq-Qaeda ties 'intentionally misleading'
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/051107/1/3w8kv.html

US Forces 'Used Chemical Weapons' during Assault on City of Fallujah
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... 325560.ece

As if that weren't bad enough, the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... Washington Post</a> reported this week that the CIA is holding al-Qaeda suspects in a network of secret prisons, mostly located in old Soviet facilities in former Warsaw Pact countries. Republican leaders are outraged -- not at the criminality of this enterprise, but because someone leaked this story to the press. Just when you thought these right-wing sewer rats couldn't get any more loathsome, they outdo themselves. Remember the howls of protest earlier this year over Amnesty International's charge that our government was maintaining an <a href="http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/EN ... >"American Gulag"</a>? I guess Amnesty's critics can chow down on an extra helping of humble pie tonight. To paraphrase <a href="http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/la ... >columnist Rosa Brooks</a>, Khrushchev must be laughing at us from his grave.

In a recent message, Calbeck tried to rationalize the abuses at Abu Ghraib, parroting the administration line that they were committed by "a few bad apples." Only the most gullible fool would fall for that. And only the most useful idiot would think the trial of Lynndie England and the eight other soldiers charged with torturing and abusing Iraqi prisoners was anything other than a classic military whitewash (throw a few soldiers to the wolves, but allow the higher-ups to escape punishment). As we learned this week, the secret prisons still exist and the torture most likely continues. And good ol' Dick Cheney is upset that Congress is trying to pass a law making it illegal for the CIA to torture people (what a shocking piece of legislation!). Can anyone seriously believe this torture scandal does not go all the way to the highest levels of our government?

Finally, the one thing most Americans won't tolerate is being lied to. And they're starting to wake up to the fact that the war on Iraq was a massive fraud. That's why <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm">Junior Bush's approval rating is in the toilet</a>, most Americans think <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm">the war isn't worth fighting</a>, and a majority think <a href="http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/4522">Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war</a>. The pro-war crowd can make all the excuses they like (I'm surprised they haven't tried to blame Clinton -- not yet, anyway), but the truth is finally starting to catch up to the racist, warmongering scumbags who started this phoney war.

LoneWolf23k wrote:...Ok, I just lost what little respect I still had for Jimmy Carter. I suppose that as long as Saddam is only killing his own people, it's ok...

Somehow, I think Jimmy Carter will manage to get by.

Of course it was not "ok" for Saddam to kill his own people -- it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise, or to insinuate that Carter would believe that. In fact, Saddam never got one red cent from Jimmy Carter, but he got hundreds of millions from Reagan and Bush the First.

And that begs the question: if Saddam was so evil, why was he on the U.S. payroll for so many years? Why, if he was such a bad, bad man, did he receive financial and military support from our government during the worst years of his reign? As I said earlier, I keep asking those questions but I have yet to get any satisfactory answers.

Liberals. Always determined to lose the last war America fought in.

Okay, "Timmeh." We've shown you the evidence refuting your accusations, answered your arguments with logic, and pointed out the flat out brokenness of the mantras you chant. And the only thing it's brought about is you going right back to the same old liberal hogwallow.... any accusation, no matter how baseless, no matter how libelous, no matter how often its been repeatedly demonstrated as false. You've gone all the way to repeating yourself, and words cannot encompass how absolutely tiresome it is.

The sheer irrelevence of whether Saddam was ever on "America's payroll"--- he was not--- is absolutely staggering. So what, fool? America attended the Olympics right alongside Hitler once. Does that somehow invalidate our decision to go to war with him at a later date?
(The answer, fool, is "no, it does not.")

In World War II, it was Japan, not Germany, that attacked America directly. Does that invalidate our declaration of war against Japan's <I>known supporters and allies,</i> fool?

In the late 1930s, Hitler was merely an emergent threat.Had the rest of Europe stopped him THEN, he would have been defanged. Millions of lives would have been spared. Unfathomable destruction would have been prevented. But he wasn't "imminent" enough for the pacifists, who thought words and blither would stop a megalomaniac. They refused to deal with a monster appropriately, and millions of innocents paid with their lives.
Do the "noble" intentions of Neville Chamberlain and the other fatheaded pacifists like him change the fact that they paved a road to hell?

Pacifism and liberal self-loathing in the West led to a war of unspeakable slaughter. This was in the days of tanks, planes and guns.

Today we live in a world where a weapon the size of a shoebox can kill every person in Manhattan.

We, the people, do not have time to waste on your petulant, resentful leftwing snivelling. And that's all it is-- SNIVELLING. The puerile whining of a defeated ideology, a little monkey flinging shit in jealous rage. All your accusations and libel and slander and red-faced playground squalling amounts to petty jealousy against your betters, because you cannot cope with, you cannot STAND the fact that one Republican president accomplished in less than 6 years what your ilk and all their peace-ins and love beads and protest marches and whiny folk songs and bowing and scraping and appeasing and slobbery blubbery handwringing and after-school specials and Bra-Burning Very Special Episodes and running around in the streets with giant puppet heads NEVER ACCOMPLISHED AND NEVER WILL....

Deposed not one but two tyrant regimes, decimated a terrible threat to the world--- a megalomaniac whose designs on the world matched any ambition Hitler had ever held--- and liberated millions of men, women and children who had suffered under tyranny as terrible as any in history.

I've had a crawful of your ilk, "Timmeh." Either speak respectfully of this country, or get out of my forums.

Did you know that 47 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?

Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq?

Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?

Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational?! They have 5- 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?

Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?

Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?

Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.

Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?

OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!

WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW? OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!

Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.

Who left Saddam in power after the failed invasion of Kuwait? Who pulled focus off Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama after 9/11 and decided to muck about in Iraq? Which country joined up with a country that had killed millions of its own citizens in order to take down some other country that killed millions?

Timmy Ramone wrote:

Calbeck wrote:You keep saying that, and I keep pointing out that the UN inspection teams have declared otherwise in their final report. You, sir, are simply wrong.

The House, Senate, and even a Presidential commission all found that there were no -- repeat NO -- WMDs in Iraq when the U.S. invaded in March of 2003:

You've quoted three news agency sources. I'm quoting the Iraq Survey Group report itself...the one all your links refer to:

IRAQI STRATEGY
"Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."

That's the very first paragraph of the actual report. However, precisely the opposite is reported/suggested by all three of your media links.

"The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifi able group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam."

This is commonly cited as "proof of no WMD programs". However, that's only part of the paragraph. The last sentence corrects misinterpretation:

"Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them."

FOOD-FOR-OIL USED TO FURTHER WMD PROGRAMS
"The successful implementation of the Protocols, continued oil smuggling efforts, and the manipulation of UN OFF (Oil For Food) contracts emboldened Saddam to pursue his military reconstitution efforts starting in 1997 and peaking in 2001. These efforts covered conventional arms, dual-use goods acquisition, and some WMD-related programs. Once money began to flow into Iraq, the Regime

Timmy Ramone wrote:FWIW, Clinton was a liar, and there were legitimate reasons for which Congress could have impeached him (his war on Yugoslavia, for example, or Al Gore's shady deals with the Chinese government). Unfortunately, the radical Christian right-wing of the Republican party preferred to focus on Bubba Bill's little "indescretions,"

Incorrect. The actual fact is that the Justice Department, under Reno, refused to prosecute any of these cases. Most were barely investigated, the DoJ accepting at face value pretty much any story the Clinton White House presented...which in each case set someone distinctly distant from the President up as the fall guy.

For example, "FileGate" ended up with hundreds of confidential FBI files on Republicans appearing as if by magic on the White House desk of a midlevel staffer who himself apparently had no motive for obtaining the files in the first place.

But the investigation that DID trip Bill up didn't start over "indiscretions", it started over the Clintons' involvement in the Whitewater scandal. Nothing involving Lewinsky would have come up, except Clinton himself used his "meetings" with Lewinsky to provide himself with an alibi. These meetings were then investigated to corroborate Clinton's story in connection with Whitewater. And that's when the feces contacted the rotary oscillator.

Timmy Ramone wrote:So along comes Junior Bush, with all his promises of restoring integrity to the Presidency and bringing a "new tone" to Washington politics.

And so he has. It's definitely an improvement.

But when a top aide for his VP was indicted, Bush, rather than condemning the alleged misdeeds of Lewis Libby, whined about how much "Scooter" would be missed around the White House.

Let's see: this is the FIRST Bush aide to actually be indicted for anything.

Compare that with the last three Presidents: even Carter had more personnel indicted than that, and I happen to think Carter was one of the most honest and straightforward Presidents in living memory.

Not to mention you put the button on it right there: "condemning the alleged misdeeds". Boy, it sure would be embarassing for a sitting President to bash his own staffer and then have it turn out the guy was innocent, wouldn't it? Bush can always take a shot at Libby when and if he's actually sent to the pokey.

This aide revealed the identity of a CIA agent, destroying her undercover work monitoring nuclear proliferation

Plame's identity had in fact been compromised in 1994. Aldrich Ames was thought to have given her identity to Russia along with the rest of his purloined data, resulting in the CIA yanking her to a desk job and shifting her career track to management and analysis. She was in fact not an agent on the ground or in harm's way regarding her work on nuclear proliferation. Nor has she done any undercover work since 1997.

In September 2003, Cliff May of NationalReviewOnline writing about Novak's column saying Plame worked at the CIA: ""That wasn't news to me... I had been told that [Plame was CIA] - but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of."

Nor, according to the indictment list, is Libby being accused of being THE leak that led to Novak's column. Since THAT is what's at issue, Libby amounts to a distraction right now. It may be that he did indeed commit perjury in claiming not to have ever mentioned Plame's real job to anyone, but it also seems that plenty of other people --- including in the press corps --- knew about it long beforehand.

If Clinton deserved to be impeached for his actions, then the Lesser Bush deserves no less.

That would be the case if Bush in fact lied. Your definition of "lie" so far amounts to any time someone states erroneous data, whether or not they believe they are lying.