Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on July 13, 2003, 06:13:55 AM
-
From:
Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction:
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense? (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20030606.html)
By JOHN W. DEAN
Worse than Watergate? A Potential Huge Scandal If WMDs Are Still Missing
Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.
As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.
To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."
It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.
Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.
-
If you're interested in politics then we certainly live in interesting times - much the same is happening on our side of the pond - was amazed to see the cost will be 3.8 billion per MONTH!!
Remember to vote folks - best thing about voting is making a politician lose his job!!
-
I don't see how this is going to be worse than Watergate. The President had blank check authority from congress and strong support from the people to do what he did long before the case for war was made. You may see an inquiry and a demonstration that some of the intelligence was wrong, but I don't think there is any way they could prove the administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence regarding Iraq. You already have the CIA falling on the sword regarding the bogus intelligence that showed Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials from Africa.
I don't want an impeachment, just a voteworthy democrat candidate.
-
Originally posted by Lance
I don't see how this is going to be worse than Watergate. The President had blank check authority from congress and strong support from the people to do what he did long before the case for war was made.
Congress' Joint Resolution for the use of military force in Iraq was made on the 2nd of October, 2002. I think you'll find that much of the "case for war", as erroneous as it's now turning out to be, had been laid out by the Bush administration prior to this (including Bush's September address to the UN)... and that you'll no doubt be hearing some say that their vote was swayed by it.
If there were to be an investigation, I'm not sure to what extent the CIA could collectively fall on their swords if even they wanted to. It would not be too difficult, I imagine, to learn what information was known by whom and when, and if this information ultimately jibed with the case that the administration put before the congress, the public and the world.
-
It's embarrassing is what it is.
-
I think to compare this with Watergate is not in the same class. Watergate had the President running illegal operations against the Dem's to get information.
The war in Iraq is a whole differant thing. We all know that S.M. was up to no good. He had WMDs, at the very least in the past. And he has used them also. He also tried to kill Pres. Bush (41) after he left office when he was visiting the Middle East. And on & on. Now clearly he stated in his speach that through British intell that he was triing to buy stuff for his nuke program. So now what, do you believe your intell from a friend, who has a very good service or not? I think the problem I has with this whole problem is that our intell service is lacking in alot of ways. They have proven unreliable in the information they have given to our top leaders. So now we don't believe them when the next time they come up with something? Possibly. It's to that point now. But I think alot of our problem goes back to the '70s when they fired all our field agents. Our leadership back then didn't like the CIA. So they cut them down thought that high tech was the way to go. Now we'er paying that price now.
-
Impeachment is a trial.
Bring it on. It's a far more important issue than Clinton's dick.
-
Lying under oath about ANYTHING, let alone his cock, should have landed that assloader in prison.
WMDs existed in Iraq prior to the military excercise. Keep trying you pudknockers. Keep trying.
-
It really is disgusting that the democrats have to manufacture half truths, quote out of context, and generally lie to get anything done. Let's hope they can get into office again and raise government social programs to support the "do nothings", expand foreign aid to further sponsor terrorism, remove all aspects of our founding father's vision for this country, and stifle us with continued big government.
Someday, I really hope these blind eyed liberals open their eyes. Until then, I will try to say a prayer for them.
:rolleyes:
-
Don't be silly Nash. Nixon got busted because he misused government agencies to commit illegal acts, namely the Watergate B&E. Nobody has come even close to demonstrating that anything done in Iraq was illegal.
-
20 lies (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3512516&thesection=news&thesubsection=world)
too bad the Democrats could never get elected by showing the US public how stupid and dangerous they are.
-
The feeble minds of HTC's NG will not settle this, let the upcomming investigation run it's course. If missdeeds are uncovered then let the law handle it. Whether we were duped or not will not be decided here, let the law makers make the decision to prosecute if the facts prove any wrongdoing.
Our little NG hasn't all the facts nor the temperment to decide who is right or wrong on this issue.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
It really is disgusting that the democrats have to manufacture half truths, quote out of context...
We can just leave it to the current administration to lie straight out.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Lying under oath about ANYTHING, let alone his cock, should have landed that assloader in prison.
WMDs existed in Iraq prior to the military excercise. Keep trying you pudknockers. Keep trying.
It's not enough that they existed. The administration claimed that they threatened the U.S.
IMHO, the State of the Union address might as well be an oath to the citizens of this country.
Oh... and Clinton was acquitted. :p
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It's not enough that they existed. The administration claimed that they threatened the U.S.
[/b]
And indeed it can be argued that by existing, they were such a threat.
IMHO, the State of the Union address might as well be an oath to the citizens of this country.
Yeah, well thats just your opinion. Even if we assume that he was intentionally lying (which he was not) there is a difference between lying under oath, and lying when saying something you feel should be equal to an oath.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
It's embarrassing is what it is.
Embarrassing? Just embarrassing? Getting caught with yer pants down in the oval office is embarrassing. Invading Iraq under totally manufactured pretenses is the vilest form of political BS. In this case I really and truly hate to say "I told you so", but
I TOLD YOU SO
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Even if we assume that he was intentionally lying (which he was not)...
Speaking of opinions...
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Speaking of opinions...
Exactly...
-
Bush lies, and troops die.
Nope, nothing to worry about...move along now, nothing to see here...
-
THIS JUST IN: POLITICIANS SPIN THE TRUTH!
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Impeachment is a trial.
Bring it on. It's a far more important issue than Clinton's dick.
Not in the same ballpark as selling us out to China though.
-
Originally posted by firbal
I think to compare this with Watergate is not in the same class. Watergate had the President running illegal operations against the Dem's to get information.
The war in Iraq is a whole differant thing. We all know that S.M. was up to no good. He had WMDs, at the very least in the past. And he has used them also. He also tried to kill Pres. Bush (41) after he left office when he was visiting the Middle East. And on & on. Now clearly he stated in his speach that through British intell that he was triing to buy stuff for his nuke program. So now what, do you believe your intell from a friend, who has a very good service or not? I think the problem I has with this whole problem is that our intell service is lacking in alot of ways. They have proven unreliable in the information they have given to our top leaders. So now we don't believe them when the next time they come up with something? Possibly. It's to that point now. But I think alot of our problem goes back to the '70s when they fired all our field agents. Our leadership back then didn't like the CIA. So they cut them down thought that high tech was the way to go. Now we'er paying that price now.
Don't forget that Saddam IN THE PAST bought WMD from USA and how USA turned down Irans complain to UN about Iraq using WMD in the war.
Simply believing that someone isn't good or doesnt have nice plans in his mind, isn't enough to go attack countries.
Otherwise we'd have World War III at our hands.
Obviously the case with intel here was that Bush decided to gamble and lost.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Not in the same ballpark as selling us out to China though.
An issue so heinous that he was impeac... uh... never mind.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Oh... and Clinton was acquitted. :p
So was OJ Simpsom. It's the Jury baby. Select enough morons who are not going to convict no matter what and you get away with anything.
Did you really think that this F* Senate is going to convict Clinton? Ted Kennedy? Robert Byrd?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Oh... and Clinton was acquitted. :p
You do not understand the process.
-
Originally posted by mietla
So was OJ Simpsom. It's the Jury baby. Select enough morons who are not going to convict no matter what and you get away with anything.
Did you really think that this F* Senate is going to convict Clinton? Ted Kennedy? Robert Byrd?
Big difference is that Simpson probably committed a crime worth worrying about.
Originally posted by LePaul
You do not understand the process.
Was he not acquitted according to the process?
-
Well yes and no, the Senate just wimped out. They've never wanted to get this case to begin with. They just arbitralily decided to end this thing and they did.
And since the law is what ever they say it is, you are right, they "followed the process", but still they let the crook off the hook.
-
I think Blair is worse out than Bush....
-
That's a pretty interesting dynamic to this thing... the difference between what the fallout is in Britain as compared to the US.
Will Blair take a huge hit, while Bush gets a pass for the very same thing? Will the opposite happen? How much will the folks involved be taking their cues from what happens across the pond? Might be interesting...
-
ive pretty much given up nash. I'll vote democrat once again next election and thats about all i can do. its what the majority of voters did in 2000 and hopefully the majority will fallow suit again. Your never going to convice the hardcore republicans that make up about 35 percent of their voters to think anything but happy thoughts about bush. Hell they still think reagan was a economical genius.
-
Originally posted by Nash
That's a pretty interesting dynamic to this thing... the difference between what the fallout is in Britain as compared to the US.
Will Blair take a huge hit, while Bush gets a pass for the very same thing? Will the opposite happen? How much will the folks involved be taking their cues from what happens across the pond? Might be interesting...
Absolutely HUGE hit, all his opponents have to say when he puts a point across is say " You can't believe a word he says" and everyone nods in agreement.
Also taking on the BBC is about the stupidest thing anyone has ever done, especially as it's seen as a tactic to divert attention away from the fact that no Scud's, Nuclear Programmes or WMD's have been found yet. Can't think of the USA equivalent - bit like attacking the US Army would be the closest.
The whole Uranium from Africa thing is great too - CIA, the facts were wrong, we didn't tell the President - it's our fault, oh and we did tell the British Gov, who told the President but didn't tell him that we told them that they were wrong. The British Gov now says that they are actually right, the CIA is wrong and Prez was right...but they can't tell you how they know they're right because it's a secret!!
Noticed that Mr Blair isn't going to be getting his medal that Congress wanted to award him on his visit.
Just remember when you guys see him on TV that he's not called Phony Tony back home for nothing. Voted most hated man in Britain for a reason.
-
Originally posted by mietla
So was OJ Simpsom. It's the Jury baby. Select enough morons who are not going to convict no matter what and you get away with anything.
Did you really think that this F* Senate is going to convict Clinton? Ted Kennedy? Robert Byrd?
I dont really see a reason to convict Clinton, the over hyped media show around the thing was surely enough, for something that little.
IMO it shouldn't been even brought to the court or anywhere for that matter.
However, with Bush it's another thing, considering all the laws hes violated....
For this freedom fighter president, it surely amazes how hes willingly violating the human rights without anyone doing anything for it, while US has been said to fight for the freedom and other blahblah ever since its independency.
..and thats only one thing hes violated.
terrorists or not (obviously some have not been!), I hate the double stantards by Bush.
I cannot stand hypocrits.
-
seems the people making the biggest deal out of this aren't even from the U.S.
someday nash you will have to tell me why you are so interested in the U.S. and why you have such a lefty bent. Are you an academic or a cripple with lots of time and on a government disability income of some sort?
lazs
-
seems the people making the biggest deal out of this aren't even from the U.S.
Priceless!
-
"seems the people making the biggest deal out of this aren't even from the U.S."
Funny nobody's pointed this out: It's one thing for the Prez to lie to y'all to get you to support his war - whatever the real motives actuallly were, absent a WMD threat.... But he also served up completely bogus information to compell countries like mine to also send our boys to war. For what, again? It aint just about you. And it's pretty disgusting.
Hehe lazs.... a lefty bent indicates an academic or a cripple on government disability money. Pretty funny. :)
-
so you are not?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nash
That's a pretty interesting dynamic to this thing... the difference between what the fallout is in Britain as compared to the US.
Will Blair take a huge hit, while Bush gets a pass for the very same thing? Will the opposite happen? How much will the folks involved be taking their cues from what happens across the pond? Might be interesting...
I just read an AP piece (sorry, don't have the link anymore) that says the UKs stand behind its intel re: Iraq buying yellow cake from Niger. The story said that the UK didn't give the U.S. all of the backup the intelligence was based on.
So, yes, this is an interesting dynamic. The U.S. is now officially discounting the intel, the U.K. is again insisting it was genuine.
Geez, if the U.S. and the U.K. intel and diplomatic services can't get it straight, I guess I'll have to get my information from all the international affairs geniuses that cruise this BBS.
And so it goes!:D
-
lol no, I am neither of those.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
20 lies (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3512516&thesection=news&thesubsection=world)
too bad the Democrats could never get elected by showing the US public how stupid and dangerous they are.
You have to dig all the way to New Zealand to make your case....cmon....really.
-
However, with Bush it's another thing, considering all the laws hes violated....
Cite the laws of which you speak.
-
Here's the full story about the UK still backing it's claim about Iraq and Yellowcake:
British foreign secretary still defends Iraq uranium charge
Jordan Times
Sunday, July 13, 2003
LONDON (AP) — Foreign Secretary Jack Straw defended Britain's publication of a disputed charge that Iraq tried to get uranium from Africa, writing in a letter released Saturday that the CIA expressed doubts about the allegation but did not say why. Straw said in the letter to the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs that Britain was unaware until recently that a US envoy went to Niger to investigate the claim and found it could not be substantiated.
Britain made the accusation in a September dossier about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The Foreign Office says it still believes the charge was true, although one of the documents suggesting Saddam Hussein's regime sought uranium in Niger has since been exposed as a forgery.
The accusation is now the subject of angry questions about how it ended up in US President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech in January. The White House has said the charge was false and Bush said Friday that the CIA had reviewed his address and did not raise any alarms.
Straw, in the letter dated Friday and released by the Foreign Office Saturday, said Britain had based its charge in part on intelligence it did not share with the United States.
He said the CIA had expressed reservations about the uranium claim.
"However, the US comment was unsupported by explanation and UK officials were confident that the dossier's statement was based on reliable intelligence which we had not shared with the US ... A judgement was therefore made to retain it." The letter did not say why Britain declined to share the information with its ally, but Straw wrote that he had explained the reasons privately to the parliamentary committee.
A Foreign Office spokeswoman said Britain still believes the disputed allegation is correct.
"We stand by what we said," she said on condition of anonymity. "We think there's no reason to doubt the accuracy ... of the intelligence on which this dossier is based." She added that the intelligence "drew on additional evidence other than documents." Straw wrote that until press reports revealed US envoy Joseph Wilson's early 2002 visit to Niger to investigate the uranium claim, Britain had been unaware of his trip. He said American officials have since confirmed they did not tell Britain of the visit.
Wilson's report, Straw wrote, "does indeed describe the denials of Niger government officials in early 2002 that a contract had been concluded for the sale of yellowcake to Iraq." Yellowcake is a lightly processed form of uranium.
But Straw argued that part of Wilson's report bolstered the British claim. Wilson, he wrote, noted that an Iraqi delegation had in 1999 "sought the expansion of trade links with Niger — and that former Niger government officials believed that this was in connection with the procurement of yellowcake." "Uranium is Niger's main export," Straw continued. "In other words, this element of Ambassador Wilson's report supports the statement in the government's dossier." Bush attributed the allegation to Britain in his State of the Union speech.
On Friday, the White House blamed the CIA for allowing the charge to be included in the address. CIA Director George Tenet later took responsibility, saying the statement "did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed." Also Saturday, a newspaper charged that the British dossier drew heavily on information culled from the Internet and other public sources even though it claimed to rely mainly on intelligence.
The vehemently anti-war Independent newspaper said many of the September document's allegations were similar to those in a January 2001 paper by then-US Defence Secretary William Cohen, Senate testimony by Tenet, an unclassified CIA report to the American Congress and a report by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank.
The newspaper said the uranium claim did not appear to come from any of the public documents.
Straw Defends Iraq Uranium Charge
Beth Gardiner • Associated Press
Arab News
LONDON, 13 July 2003 — Foreign Secretary Jack Straw yesterday defended Britain’s publication of a disputed charge that Iraq tried to get uranium from Africa, saying the CIA expressed doubts about the allegation but did not say why.
Straw, in a letter to the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, said Britain was unaware until recently that a US envoy went to Niger to investigate the claim and found it could not be substantiated.
Britain made the accusation in a September dossier about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The Foreign Office says it still believes the charge was true, although one of the documents suggesting Saddam Hussein’s regime sought uranium in Niger has been exposed as fake.
The accusation is the subject of angry questions about how it ended up in President Bush’s State of the Union speech in January. The White House says the charge was false, and Bush said Friday the CIA had reviewed his address and did not raise any alarms.
Straw, in the letter dated Friday and released by the Foreign Office yesterday, said Britain based its charge in part on intelligence it did not share with the United States.
He said the CIA had expressed reservations about the uranium claim. “However, the US comment was unsupported by explanation and UK officials were confident that the dossier’s statement was based on reliable intelligence which we had not shared with the US ... A judgment was therefore made to retain it.”
The letter did not say why Britain declined to share its information with its ally, but Straw wrote that he had explained the reasons privately to the Parliamentary committee.
A Foreign Office spokeswoman said Britain still believes the disputed allegation is correct.
“We stand by what we said,” she said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “We think there’s no reason to doubt the accuracy ... of the intelligence on which this dossier is based.”
She added that the intelligence “drew on additional evidence other than documents.”
Straw wrote that until press reports revealed US envoy Joseph Wilson’s early 2002 visit to Niger, Britain had been unaware of his trip. He said American officials have since confirmed they did not tell Britain of the visit.
Wilson’s report, Straw wrote, “does indeed describe the denials of Niger government officials in early 2002 that a contract had been concluded for the sale of yellowcake to Iraq.”
Yellowcake is a lightly processed form of uranium.
But Straw argued that part of Wilson’s report bolstered the British claim. Wilson, he wrote, noted that an Iraqi delegation had in 1999 “sought the expansion of trade links with Niger -- and that former Niger government officials believed that this was in connection with the procurement of yellowcake.”
“Uranium is Niger’s main export,” Straw continued. “In other words, this element of Ambassador Wilson’s report supports the statement in the government’s dossier.”
Bush attributed the allegation to Britain in his State of the Union speech.
On Friday, the White House blamed the CIA for allowing the charge to be included in the address. CIA director George Tenet later took responsibility.
Also yesterday, The Independent charged that the British dossier drew heavily on information culled from the Internet and other public sources — though it claimed to rely mainly on intelligence.
-
Yes, but Jack Straw is a banana.
-
it was the british intel that said saddam was trying to buy uranium from Africa , not the CIA or Bush , and the british still say it is true.
the uranium was not the only reason for the war,it's just the latest liberal whine, what ever happened to "no blood for oil"?
-
Remind us john, what was the other reason for the war? And the liberation of the Iraqi people doesn't count - that was never a casus belli.
-
We are concerned over the wording of some reports about possible uranium purchases?
Does anyone else think this is way bigger spin than that politician par excellance' Clinton ever devised?
Go back and read the transcript of the UN speech by Powell. Iraq war freakin swimming in anthrax and small pox and mustard gas and nuclear dirty bombs.... OUR security was in danger!
Was it????????
-
Of course it wasn't MT.
Saddam had an epiphany and suddenly realized the error of his ways and decided to play nice.
-
the reason was to remove the dangerous madman (butcher of bagdad) from power and stabilize the middle east, and remember englishman, it was the english and french that started this whole mess after the first world war when they carved up the ottoman empire.
NOTE: for them what don't speak latin, "casus belli" means "cause for war"
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
It really is disgusting that the democrats have to manufacture half truths, quote out of context, and generally lie to get anything done. Let's hope they can get into office again and raise government social programs to support the "do nothings", expand foreign aid to further sponsor terrorism, remove all aspects of our founding father's vision for this country, and stifle us with continued big government.
Someday, I really hope these blind eyed liberals open their eyes. Until then, I will try to say a prayer for them.
:rolleyes:
This one cracked me up. I'm still chuckling.
Subsititute, 'Republicans' for 'democrats' and stick in 'conservatives' for 'liberals' and it's a bi-partisan manifesto.
Politicians are boobs. political hacks are boobs. Political Activists are boobs.
With all the saggy flap-jack boobs runnin around lately, I should be thinkin about gettin into in the political bra buisness.
Looks like a growth industry.
:D
-
Saddam is a pile of subhuman slime.
But tell me again how our security was endangered by Iraq.
-
Oh please tell me again, Yank, how evil Britain created Iraq and therefore Saddam, and how the US in no way armed him, supported and nurtured him, unlike Britain who did all those things unilaterally. I really need that history lesson!
Also, you didn't mention WMDs in your little abstract. That seems to be a popular approach to matters these days...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
But tell me again how our security was endangered by Iraq.
the main reason given by benladen for 9-11 was the US troops in saudi arabia.(holy land)
the reason US troops were in saudi arabia was to protect the saudis from iraq.
::therefore:: remove the threat to the saudis and US troops can leave arabia.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Oh please tell me again, Yank, how evil Britain created Iraq and therefore Saddam, and how the US in no way armed him, supported and nurtured him, unlike Britain who did all those things unilaterally. I really need that history lesson!
Also, you didn't mention WMDs in your little abstract. That seems to be a popular approach to matters these days...
Actually dude, it started with that Magna Carta thingy, didn't it. If youse british dudes would just have kept on stomping around your empire, instead of liberating all them folk all over the world, then none of us would be in this pickle today!
Gee Whiz Wally!:D
-
Originally posted by john9001
the reason was to remove the dangerous madman (butcher of bagdad) from power and stabilize the middle east, and remember englishman, it was the english and french that started this whole mess after the first world war when they carved up the ottoman empire.
NOTE: for them what don't speak latin, "casus belli" means "cause for war"
Just don't forget who supported Saddam and sold him WMD, which he used against iranians - which again got saddam in trouble with UN, but thanks to US, it didnt matter.
-
the US never sold saddam WMD , what they gave him was a bio starter kit for medical research, he prob got the poison gas from some euro country, they are good with that stuff.
-
Krhm... bios can be WMD...
nuclear, gas, bio..
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
We are concerned over the wording of some reports about possible uranium purchases?
Does anyone else think this is way bigger spin than that politician par excellance' Clinton ever devised?
Go back and read the transcript of the UN speech by Powell. Iraq war freakin swimming in anthrax and small pox and mustard gas and nuclear dirty bombs.... OUR security was in danger!
Was it????????
And you really, really feel safe now right?
-
How sad....
Some of you point to the US support for Saddam and Bin Laden and accurately, we did build these boys up. Was it wrong? Well, I'm not sure....I tend to think that policy in that part of the world is not as simple as black and white.
Still, even if it were wrong, is that a good reason to not right some of those wrongs, or should we just lay down and let them thrive, when it means the lives of innocents will be lost or WMD's will be used against us?
At what point do we do what's right?
What really pisses me off is that some of you don't have the balls to do whats right....if you were placed in an actual position of authority where your choices meant the life or death of innocent people, you'de wrap up like a fetus.
Just like Monday Morning QB's here in the US.....you guys have all the solutions.
You're guttless in my opinion....educated and well read, lacking the common sense to be effective.
The next year will tell alot....if Bush lied, Americans will deal with him....I personally don't think he lied, but I could surely be wrong on that account, which is more than many of you could admit....you're blinded by you own greatness...so well read and well spoken.
As for me, I need to stay out of these threads.....very few of you want an honest discussion....you're sold so hard on your hate and dislike of Bush or America or whatever the flavor of the day is, that you can't see honestly, anything else.
-
Any Arab nation with WMD is a potentially serious threat to me.
You Saddam Hussein supporters deserve whats coming.
-
Its all Roger Moore's fault. Had he not retired, he would've infiltrated the whole bit, killed the bad guys and woo'd a sexy MidEastern chick in true 007 style. Geez, I thought British intell was awesome. We know the secret weapons and gizmos are
Damn him! :p
-
um British Intelligence has gone a bit downhill since Mr Moore's days, apparently when they were building their new MI6 building they found out that several of the electricians working on the building were members of the IRA (this might just been an urban legend but is too funny not to be true)
Also they went through a nasty phase of "agents" losing their laptops in wine bars, on trains and in the back of taxi's.......all jolly embarrassing and difficult to keep a stiff upper lip when everyone keeps pointing at you and laughing....
Bit of finger pointing between MI6 and Downing Street as who said what and when and who then went and told the BBC who then of course told the rest of us......
-
Originally posted by john9001
the main reason given by benladen for 9-11 was the US troops in saudi arabia.(holy land)
the reason US troops were in saudi arabia was to protect the saudis from iraq.
::therefore:: remove the threat to the saudis and US troops can leave arabia.
My how supple you are.
when you bend over that far to come up with things like that can you taste your own colon?
The US invades Iraq to get out of Arabia! of course. Like they got out of Japan and Germany and cuba and South Korea and Panama and Vietnam..oh ya. they did leave Vietnam.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Any Arab nation with WMD is a potentially serious threat to me.
You Saddam Hussein supporters deserve whats coming.
Strange the nonsence you can babble on this board and not get banned for it. Your a disgrace to you handle.
-
Actually Pongo, your personal attacks are more of a reason for banning that anything else said in this thread. Just FYI.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Actually Pongo, your personal attacks are more of a reason for banning that anything else said in this thread. Just FYI.
LOL....I love it when you mask subtly with a big mallet
-
I disagree that the Bush's desinformation about the yellowcake was a deceit similar to the Watergate.
I would hardly call it a deceit at all because it required enourmous cooperation on the part of the persons supposedely being deceited.
Like if Bush said "Hussein is collecting rubber bands, he may build a huge slingshot and hurl giant spitballs of destruction towards the american cities". It does not matter really if he was or was not buying rubber bands. A congressman who is willing to believe that rubber bands can be assembled into a trans-continental slingshot has no right to claim being deceited.
Any half-educated person or anyone with an access to expert's opinion (physics college student for example) would easily learn that in order to enrich yellowcake into weapon-grade uranium Iraq would need a giant industrial facility on the scale of a small city that would be impossible to build and run undetectably even if they had the necessary components.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I disagree that the Bush's desinformation about the yellowcake was a deceit similar to the Watergate.
Any half-educated person or anyone with an access to expert's opinion (physics college student for example) would easily learn that in order to enrich yellowcake into weapon-grade uranium Iraq would need a giant industrial facility on the scale of a small city that would be impossible to build and run undetectably even if they had the necessary components.
miko
Miko:
Haven't you heard of the Bat Cave?
Sheesh! Get a clue young man!:rolleyes:
-
Your a disgrace to you handle.
====
Dont know much about the General do you........ Lets just say that he and I share a similar common sense and wisdom about the world which you apparently lack. Stick with it though, wisdom isnt something your born with. It takes time -and like a good wine, just gets better with age :)
-
Any half-educated person or anyone with an access to expert's opinion (physics college student for example) would easily learn that in order to enrich yellowcake into weapon-grade uranium Iraq would need a giant industrial facility on the scale of a small city that would be impossible to build and run undetectably even if they had the necessary components.
Like a small city? What a load of misinformation....you really expect anyone to buy that?
The enrichment of uranium can be accomplished in a building as small as 1m sq. ft.
Do your homework next time before sellin us the biz wally.
-
Originally posted by Rude
The enrichment of uranium can be accomplished in a building as small as 20k sq. ft.
And the Bat Cave was easliy 30,000 sq feet. See!
-
Actually, the entire process from cleaning thru refinement would require a 1m sq. ft. facility...kinda like a great big batcave:)
-
Oh yeah??????
I eat enriched wheat bread, and the bakery that makes it is 50,000 square feet.
So there.
-
I could enrich that uranium in 15k sq feet.
(this is a contest isn't it?)