"Let's Impeach The President"

[George Gervin's Afro]

The intelligence wasn't faulty, it was just cherry-picked.

1. UN weapons inspectors who were ordered out by the Bush Administration before Gulf War 2, never found evidence of a active WMD program, clandestine or other-wise. Saddam was giving inspectors full, unfeathered access and as has been reported here this week, he capitulated to all U.S., and UN demands.

2. One of Saddam's son-in-laws who was in charge of the WMD program defected to the U.S. before the war and told the U.N. and the U.S. that Saddam had destroyed him WMD stockpile after Gulf War 1.

3. Intelligence from Russia, China, France contradicted what cherry-picked US intelligence was getting through the M$M to the general consuming public and to Senators on the intelligence Committee.

The reasons Dubya should have had serious su ions that the intelligence he was getting was faulty go on and on and on....but it didn't matter, because PNAC wanted this war as a staging ground for emplamenting Cheney's TOP SECRET energy plan against Iran and the rest of the ME and Caspien Sea region.

No, No, No..we told Saddam to prove to us that he did not have WMDS?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I guess you didn't hear. The New York Times validated the administration's rationale for invading Iraq, just this morning.

Thanks for playing though.

The same New York Times you claim has no credibility? Ok let's set the premise for your duration on this board..Is the New York Times a reliable source when it comes to Bush? Yes or No..

[Yonivore]

The same New York Times you claim has no credibility? Ok let's set the premise for your duration on this board..Is the New York Times a reliable source when it comes to Bush? Yes or No..

Well, in this case you have the NYTimes referencing do ents that were in the public domain for a bit...it wasn't their usual "according to unnamed sources" M.O. So, go figure. I guess even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then.

I can just imagine the conversation being had at the Times this afternoon.

"We did what? !"

[boutons_]

Were those blueprints radioactive?

Was the delivery system that Saddam was going to use to drop them on the USA?

Iraq with all its oil $$$ and no embargo is expected to be 5 - 10 years from a nuclear bomb while Saddam was going to have one in the immediate future after March 2003? GMAFB

There was no threat in Iraq before the invasion, and there was no actual threat in Iraq found by the invaders. Saddam and his ability to threaten the USA were completely harmless.

iow, we did have Saddam successfully tied down "over there" so we wouldn't have to fight him "over here".

Invading Iraq in March 03 was not because there was an immediate threat that could only be dealt with by invastion, but because Rove wanted to get dubya re-elected as a "war president".

And dubya, after losing the popular vote by 600K in 2000, wont the 2004 vote by the smallest margin ever by a sitting president. ie, the "war president" tactic worked just enough. Too ing bad about the US military who died to get dubya re-elected.

[smeagol]

You know what would REALLY rally Democrat voters for next week's election? If all of you got together with your "Impeach Bush" and "Bush is a Nazi" and "Buck Fush" banners and marched on the streets. You could have Neil Young and the Dixie Chicks perform concerts, and you could do it in all the busy intersections of major cities.

You could have Michael Moore film and Cindy Sheehan speak. It would really do a lot towards motivating voters to kick the Republicans out of Washington. Much more so than keeping your mouths shut and letting rational Democrats be the voice of the party.