What about impeachment

[medicinal]

Impeachment is an essential tool for preserving democracy. The framers of our Constitution, determined to provide protections against grave abuses of power by a president, created the impeachment process as a special procedure for citizens. Through their representatives, citizens would be able to remove a president run amok.

Our founders created a new form of government that was designed to preserve liberty by breaking up power among three co-equal branches of government and instituting a system of checks and balances. But they worried deeply about presidential misconduct. Left unchallenged, it could be "fatal to the Republic," said James Madison. The new democracy needed the ability to remove a president, if necessary.

Impeachment is the first step of a two-step process that can result in the removal of a president from office. The House of Representatives first decides whether to charge the president with impeachable offenses. If a majority of the House votes to impeach, articles of impeachment, which contain the charges, are forwarded to the Senate. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over a trial in the Senate, and if two-thirds of the senators vote for conviction, the president is removed from office.

THE FOUNDERS SET A HIGH BAR—The grounds for removal of a president are stated in the Constitution in a phrase of only eight words: "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors." Understanding the meaning of this spare language is helped by looking at the original debates on the Constitution. In adopting the impeachment provision, the framers identified treason and bribery as two key reasons for the removal of a president. Treason was defined in the Constitution as providing "aid and comfort" to enemies or "levying war" against the United States. Bribery is a well-established concept that hasn't changed much over time.

But the framers believed that these grounds were not sufficient. A president should also be removed for other "great and dangerous offenses" or the "attempts to subvert the Constitution," in the words of George Mason, a delegate from Virginia to the Constitutional Convention. The grounds were expanded to include "high crimes and misdemeanors"—an archaic phrase that the framers borrowed from British terminology dating back to the fourteenth century. It was defined as "an injury to the state or system of government."

Alexander Hamilton explained in No. 65 of the Federalist Papers that impeachment reached "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may . . . be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself." In essence, "high crimes and misdemeanors" describe a political crime, a serious and grave abuse of power or an abuse of public trust.

High crimes and misdemeanors are not limited to actual crimes. We debated this in the Judiciary Committee during Watergate and reached a firm conclusion. While commission of a crime may be grounds for impeachment, the phrase also covers conduct that is not a violation of the criminal code.

The key is whether the conduct is a grave abuse of power or a subversion of the Constitution. Some presidential misdeeds we encountered in the Nixon impeachment had a basis in the criminal law; others did not. On the flip side, not all violations of the criminal code are political crimes that rise to the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Editor's note: With their party back in power for the first time since 1994, some senior House Democrats who will be rising to committee chairmanships are already planning to conduct investigations into wrongdoings of the Bush administration in everything thing from fraud and abuse in Iraq War contracting to illegal domestic surveillance and detainee interrogations. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders, however, are signaling that any investigations will be kept on a tight leash. They fear that scrutiny of the administration will make Democrats appear excessively partisan and cost the party votes in 2008. As for the possible impeachment of President George W. Bush, Pelosi has explicitly declared it to be "off the table."

Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman is one wise legal thinker who says that, whether or not it would be a political liability for the Democrats, impeaching Bush is their constitutional duty. Holtzman served four terms in Congress, where she played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon. Holtzman's full brief on this subject can be found in The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens (Nation Books), which she co-wrote with Cynthia L. Cooper.

mpeachment is an essential tool for preserving democracy. The framers of our Constitution, determined to provide protections against grave abuses of power by a president, created the impeachment process as a special procedure for citizens. Through their representatives, citizens would be able to remove a president run amok.

Our founders created a new form of government that was designed to preserve liberty by breaking up power among three co-equal branches of government and instituting a system of checks and balances. But they worried deeply about presidential misconduct. Left unchallenged, it could be "fatal to the Republic," said James Madison. The new democracy needed the ability to remove a president, if necessary.

Impeachment is the first step of a two-step process that can result in the removal of a president from office. The House of Representatives first decides whether to charge the president with impeachable offenses. If a majority of the House votes to impeach, articles of impeachment, which contain the charges, are forwarded to the Senate. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over a trial in the Senate, and if two-thirds of the senators vote for conviction, the president is removed from office.

THE FOUNDERS SET A HIGH BAR—The grounds for removal of a president are stated in the Constitution in a phrase of only eight words: "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors." Understanding the meaning of this spare language is helped by looking at the original debates on the Constitution. In adopting the impeachment provision, the framers identified treason and bribery as two key reasons for the removal of a president. Treason was defined in the Constitution as providing "aid and comfort" to enemies or "levying war" against the United States. Bribery is a well-established concept that hasn't changed much over time.

But the framers believed that these grounds were not sufficient. A president should also be removed for other "great and dangerous offenses" or the "attempts to subvert the Constitution," in the words of George Mason, a delegate from Virginia to the Constitutional Convention. The grounds were expanded to include "high crimes and misdemeanors"—an archaic phrase that the framers borrowed from British terminology dating back to the fourteenth century. It was defined as "an injury to the state or system of government."

Alexander Hamilton explained in No. 65 of the Federalist Papers that impeachment reached "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may . . . be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself." In essence, "high crimes and misdemeanors" describe a political crime, a serious and grave abuse of power or an abuse of public trust.

High crimes and misdemeanors are not limited to actual crimes. We debated this in the Judiciary Committee during Watergate and reached a firm conclusion. While commission of a crime may be grounds for impeachment, the phrase also covers conduct that is not a violation of the criminal code.

The key is whether the conduct is a grave abuse of power or a subversion of the Constitution. Some presidential misdeeds we encountered in the Nixon impeachment had a basis in the criminal law; others did not. On the flip side, not all violations of the criminal code are political crimes that rise to the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.

President Bush has attempted to justify his illegal surveillance as falling within his power as commander in chief. The president's failure to recognize that he is bound by a constitutional system in which he is only one of three players and his abuse of his role as commander in chief threaten our democracy to its core, and are grounds for impeachment and removal from office.

3. For Permitting and Condoning the Mistreatment of U.S. Detainees: Congress has enacted laws prohibiting the mistreatment or torture of prisoners in U.S. hands. The War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a crime to violate the ban in the Geneva Conventions regarding torture and cruel or degrading treatment. Ratified by the United States in 1955, the Geneva Conventions are the law of the land, as is the Convention against Torture. The U.S. government has long adhered to the laws and treaties that prevent mistreatment of prisoners.

President Bush unilaterally changed U.S. practice and policy by a 2002 memo rejecting the application of the Geneva Conventions and enabling U.S. personnel to conduct brutal interrogations without fear of prosecution. In so doing, the president voided a U.S. law and permitted others to break it. The president may not violate treaties or interpret them in ways designed to nullify their essential purpose.

In addition, when evidence emerged of abusive treatment of persons in U.S. military detention facilities, the president had a duty to institute a thorough investigation of everyone in the chain of command, from top to bottom. He has not done so. This responsibility is spelled out in the Geneva Conventions. The president is also required to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, including the War Crimes Act and the Anti-Torture Act. President Bush failed to ensure a full investigation and to see that the responsible parties, including higher-ups, were held accountable. These failures are impeachable offenses.

When Congress reaffirmed its opposition to torture and cruel or degrading treatment of detainees in a statute passed in 2005, the president added a statement when he signed the bill, signaling that he intended to violate it. Impeachment is the only way to prevent a president from continuing to disregard his obligations to enforce the law, not to break it.

4. For Reckless Indifference to Human Life during Hurricane Katrina: President Bush showed a reckless indifference to human life in failing to marshal emergency resources in response to Katrina. This type of gross negligence is also apparent in his decision to invade Iraq without providing protective equipment to soldiers and without having an adequate post-invasion plan.
If the president's actions were simple negligence, they might not amount to impeachable offenses. During the debates at the Constitutional Convention, one of the grounds initially raised for impeachment was "neglect of duty." At the convention, the Committee on Detail changed that language to "treason and bribery," which was in turn expanded by adding the term "high crimes and misdemeanors."

The framers were undoubtedly familiar with the history of that British term. At least two noteworthy impeachments for neglect had occurred in Britain: one involved the neglect of the commissioner of the Navy to prepare adequately against an invasion; the other related to neglect by an admiral who had failed to safeguard the seas. In a classic nineteenth-century text on constitutional interpretation, Thomas M. Cooley of the Michigan Supreme Court states that impeachment can result from "inexcusable neglects of duty, which are dangerous and criminal because of the immense interests involved and the greatness of the trust which has not been kept."

Bush's actions during Katrina and in regard to Iraq are "inexcusable neglects." When Hurricane Katrina threatened New Orleans, President Bush was personally informed of an impending catastrophe, but did not take the necessary actions to protect human lives. Under law, he alone was empowered to mobilize additional federal resources. He did not take care that the laws were faithfully executed.

In addition, the president's failure to provide sufficient body armor and protective equipment for our troops in Iraq or to develop a proper plan for the occupation of Iraq after the invasion are violations of his obligation to "take care." U.S. soldiers and the American people trusted the president to exercise special care in making thorough preparations.

The president neglected his duty over matters of vast consequence and in situations where the trust placed in him was great. This conjunction of his failure to take care and his reckless indifference to human life provides the basis for impeachment.

5. For Leaking Classified Information: After the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bush authorized a top White House aide to leak passages of a classified document to key reporters. The leak came in response to criticism that the president had deceived the country about Iraq's nuclear weapons capability in his State of the Union address. The criticism was accurate, but the leak had the effect of distorting the truth.

The leak was intertwined with the "outing" of a covert CIA agent married to the Bush critic. Declassifying information to mislead the public and cover up presidential deceptions about war making is an abuse of power. If the facts, as yet unknown, show that President Bush had any role in releasing the identity of the CIA agent, a potential violation of federal law, that would be an impeachable offense.

President Bush has committed a great many grave and dangerous offenses, and subverted the Constitution. The evidence is clear and strong. Congress cannot shirk its responsibility to protect the nation from tyranny. This is what the founders of this country intended when they added presidential impeachment to the Constitution.

[Bong30]

Why dont we waste some more time.......


Gdub is a MORON....why waste time with him.

Even Socialist ding Bat Nancy Pelosi says we shouldnt.

[Hamlet]

The damage Bush and Cheney have done will last for generations. If they can be dragged out of office now through Impeachment, I'm all for it. They're lame ducks now after the elections, but that's not enough. We need sane leaders for the next two years who aren't busy protecting Exxons interests and covering their own ass's.

[Bong30]

We need to focus on finding a real leader..... you look back.


Ill look forward...one we can change one we cant.


Gdub..will go down as one fo the worst presidents in history......let history try and convict him......


Lets move on......


What im saying is he isnt worth impeaching

[Zimzum]

Hmm.. Robert Byrd as next president then.. interesting.

EDIT: ack sorry not Robert but Nancy Paloci :o Missed a step in the presidential secession

[medicinal]

[quote=Bong30]Why dont we waste some more time.......


Gdub is a MORON....why waste time with him.

Even Morons can be criminals ala GW Bush. What he has done is criminal. They would throw you or I in prison for much less. Justice is due!

[Storm Crow]

If we can do a "two-fer", I'm for it! But just dumping "W" would leave Cheney in charge - shudder!

[medicinal]

Amen to that, I'm of the persuasion that cheney may be behind a lot of this insanity, too bad the lawyer didn't shoot back!

[darkside]

it certainly wasnt worth the money they spent impeaching Clinton for a BLOWJOB. its a little too late to impeach Bush though. he has already rained his destruction on this country.

[Zimzum]

it certainly wasnt worth the money they spent impeaching Clinton for a BLOWJOB. its a little too late to impeach Bush though. he has already rained his destruction on this country.

No it wasn't for the fact he got a BJ.. It had more to do with the fact he lied under oath about it. But to impeach Bush now when alls said and done his term will be about over anyways.

[BlueCat]

I think it would be a waste of money as well. I can't wait for Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rummy all to be free of public office so they can be charged in the International Court.

I don't think this is going to go away for them. At least I hope it won't.
Having everything brought out in the open in the Hague just like any other war criminal before the entire world would be perfect. Maybe we could save face.

[Myth1184]

Bush cant and shouldnt be blamed for the problems down in New Orleans following Katrina...they were told to evacuate, but they decided to stay behind and loot the stores instead. They lied about what went on in the Superdome just to get attention.

Take a look at New Orleans now, well on its way to becoming to crime capitol of the US, it was once the Murder Capitol but lost that title to LA, but its well on its way back to top.

And its no surprise that New Orleans, a city of crime, just voted for a criminal to represent them...Rep Jefferson who had $90,000 stashed in his freezer.

[BlueCat]

Myth...you are aptly named.

My youngest son goes to New Orleans all the time. He goes with a group called the Good Samaritians. In fact he just got back 3 weeks ago and it is still a horrible mess. There is still trash, upside down cars, peices of homes all very unsafe. There are people still living without electricity. THey are still finding bodies for Gods sake. All the people were not evacuated you can't just say EVACTUATE and it magically happens. what about the people that had no tranportation? How about the nursing homes? No plans were in place for these people. THey were forgotten. There is still a lot of heart ache in New Orleans and if it were not for college students and churches there now saving peoples homes those people wouldn't be getting any help at all.

You are VERY misimformed.

Long story short:Bush is partly to blame because he handed FEMA over to friends of his with NO experience what so ever. He gave those jobs to incompetant people as a way to pay off a debt.

[Psycho4Bud]

I can't wait for Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rummy all to be free of public office so they can be charged in the International Court.

LMAO! For what? What have they done that compares to what HAS been done by SOME countries and THEIR leaders?

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[BlueCat]

SO? you don't put a person on trial because other people have done wrong too??
Sorry I don't follow that logic.

ANY leader of any country that invades a sovereign nation should be put on trial in the World Court.

[Nylo]

ANY leader of any country that invades a sovereign nation should be put on trial in the World Court.

But who would enforce it? And how? You might end up having to invade a sovereign nation just to do that very thing.

I've got no love for George Bush, at all. But impeachment is not what the country needs right now. The only sentiment I feel for George Bush is that he gets all the heat, while the people that actually constructed and dictated his mistakes have all but walked away with their pockets loaded, and different government and business positions away from the spotlight. Impeachment is totally going after the wrong guy in a very counter-productive way.

Though Neil Young's song about it sure does kick ass :D

[Ozarks]

Mayor Nagan is/was corrupt,incompetent and overwhelmed, focused on himself and his imagine. and the people reelected him.

Jefferson (their Congressman) got caught with 90,000.00 in MARKED money,and the people reelected him.

New Orleans is responsible for and has exactly the Government it voted for.
Nothing down there has changed except know the rest of the country can see how bad its always been

[Psycho4Bud]

ANY leader of any country that invades a sovereign nation should be put on trial in the World Court.

I take it your talking about Iraq.......

After Iraq invaded Kuwait they managed to be put on U.N. sanctions, had no fly zones, etc..........more less being punished by the international community. Now after breaking 16 U.N. resolutions, funding families of martyrs, etc....we finally had enough and decided to take action but there were "issues". WHY won't our so called allies back this? Well, AFTER we took the bull by the horns guess what.......FOOD FOR OIL! Seems our "so called" allies along with some fine folk from the U.N. were lining their pocket in illegal trade with Saddam and Sons.

Next reason............:yippee:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[medicinal]

Mayor Nagan is/was corrupt,incompetent and overwhelmed, focused on himself and his imagine. and the people reelected him.

Jefferson (their Congressman) got caught with 90,000.00 in MARKED money,and the people reelected him.

New Orleans is responsible for and has exactly the Government it voted for.
Nothing down there has changed except know the rest of the country can see how bad its always been

Are you really from the ozarks? How far did you have to walk to get to a computer cafe. I'll bet them skeeters are relly bad in may eh! Kinda reminds me of the Deliverance scenario, Watch them cottonmouths, copperheads and rattlers too. I think you may have already been snakebit, or maybe it's that swag you're smokin!

[Ozarks]

Are you really from the ozarks? How far did you have to walk to get to a computer cafe. I'll bet them skeeters are relly bad in may eh! Kinda reminds me of the Deliverance scenario, Watch them cottonmouths, copperheads and rattlers too. I think you may have already been snakebit, or maybe it's that swag you're smokin!

Translation: I have nothing intelligent to say, so I will make say something stupid, engage in personal attacks and stereotypes.


round here we swat skeekers, boy.

[medicinal]

Translation: I have nothing intelligent to say, so I will make say something stupid, engage in personal attacks and stereotypes. I calls em as I sees em, you talk like a refuge from Deliverance so be it! Had you been to N.O., experienced the full texture of the place, talked with Ray Naggen, and looked at the response to katrina with wide open eyes, I might have been kinder, but you speak from ignorance. Anyone that has ever experienced a traumatic situation like Katrina would never put down the victims and champion the people whom are supposed to help. Come on now, do you really believe it was all their fault, if so then My opinion of you remains the same!

[Ozarks]

Translation: I have nothing intelligent to say, so I will make say something stupid, engage in personal attacks and stereotypes. I calls em as I sees em, you talk like a refuge from Deliverance so be it! Had you been to N.O., experienced the full texture of the place, talked with Ray Naggen, and looked at the response to katrina with wide open eyes, I might have been kinder, but you speak from ignorance. Anyone that has ever experienced a traumatic situation like Katrina would never put down the victims and champion the people whom are supposed to help. Come on now, do you really believe it was all their fault, if so then My opinion of you remains the same!

Have I ever been to New Orleans :D you just don't get it,do you.

[medicinal]

Have I ever been to New Orleans you just don't get it,do you.It's a cinch that one of us doesn't get it ,what ever it is, as our conversation consists of two monologues instead of a dialogue. I'll step back and take a renewed look at your postings and see if we can have a dialogue, I'm sure we can at least agree to disagree at some point! I'm sure I was hasty in demeaning your name, I apologise!

[Fengzi]

I'd love to see Bush botted from office. The guy is a bungling idiot who has no right to be President. The way he handled the situation after Katrina, the fact that we're in Iraq, and his apparent refusal to accept the experts recomendations on what to do in Iraq (because it would be an admission that he's been wrong all along and would hurt his poor little ego) are proof of that. But what I wonder, is there enough to actually impeach him? I mean that strictly in the legal sense. Maybe its just my ignorance on the whole process but I just wonder, maybe the reason the Dems aren't pushing for it is because they don't want to go through the motions and fail because of some legal loophole.

[Fengzi]

I take it your talking about Iraq.......

After Iraq invaded Kuwait they managed to be put on U.N. sanctions, had no fly zones, etc..........more less being punished by the international community. Now after breaking 16 U.N. resolutions, funding families of martyrs, etc....we finally had enough and decided to take action but there were "issues". WHY won't our so called allies back this? Well, AFTER we took the bull by the horns guess what.......FOOD FOR OIL! Seems our "so called" allies along with some fine folk from the U.N. were lining their pocket in illegal trade with Saddam and Sons.

Next reason............:yippee:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

I thought we went there because of the massive stockpiles of WMD's :confused: Jeez Psycho, you should send your resume to Dubya himself. I'm sure he can always use a good excuse maker.

[mrdevious]

Say what you want about Bush, but at least he didn't get a blowjob! Diminishing rights, wrecking an econmy, lying your way into a pointless war, exlcusively representing conservative ideologies.... that's one thing, but Clinton had to go too far!

[medicinal]

Maybe if he had of got a blowjob, we wouldn't be in this mess we are in! In fact I think all the neo-cons need and have needed Blowjobs to calm them the 'F' down. Invading a soveriegn Nation over sexual tension, sounds about right. Taking liberties with our liberty, No Brainer, just one little blowjob before making major policy decisions might be the answer, the only problem is with these anti-gay Republicans getting blowjobs from teenage boys, the girls don't get a chance. Equal rights for girls too is my motto. Either I'm getting cynical or the politicians moral standards have never been lower!

[Fengzi]

Getting a blowjob wasn't the problem. It was lying about it that was the problem. Clinton should have just told Congress "yeah, an intern blew me, I enjoyed it, and it's my business, not yours, deal with it...and...you'd have done the same in my shoes"

[Fengzi]

Or, just pulled a Dubya: "I'm the President and I say it's ok to get blown in the Oval Office. I'm the President, I'm the decider, and I decide it's ok, now go away so I can come up with another brilliant strategy for dealing with Iraq"

[mrdevious]

Getting a blowjob wasn't the problem. It was lying about it that was the problem. Clinton should have just told Congress "yeah, an intern blew me, I enjoyed it, and it's my business, not yours, deal with it...and...you'd have done the same in my shoes"


But the court had no business in his BJ, and had no right to force him under oath to admit to getting a BJ. And in the end, he just lied about getting a BJ! Maybe in the American psyche that's worse than lying about an international threat to take us into a needless war. That and the illegal spying his own people, setting stem-cell research way back, telling us smoking weed supports terror, turning the economy to crap, etc etc etc...

[Ozarks]

But the court had no business in his BJ, and had no right to force him under oath to admit to getting a BJ.


Maybe, but regardless the lesson is once they have you "under oath" don't lie about ANYTHING. Take the 5th or tell the truth, if you can learn anything from Clinton (and Martha Stewart) learn that. ;)

[medicinal]

Maybe, but regardless the lesson is once they have you "under oath" don't lie about ANYTHING. Take the 5th or tell the truth, if you can learn anything from Clinton (and Martha Stewart) learn that. ;)

The thing is, if they don't have the proof (semen stained dress) you could lie once and get away with it, but if you don't tell the exact lie time after time, they'll catch you as everything is on record. But I agree about the 5th thing, if you don't know what they've got, take the 5th! No-one wants to go before the nation and admit to getting a BJ from someone other than your wife and not even one from your wife, although that becomes a rare occurence in most marriages!

[mrdevious]

Bong30 put it well when he said that picking a politician to elect is like picking the best turd in the toilet.

South park also put it well by saying the election is always a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich lol.

[Psycho4Bud]

Jeez Psycho, you should send your resume to Dubya himself. I'm sure he can always use a good excuse maker.

Excuse??? And what part did I get wrong again.......

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[Fengzi]

Excuse??? And what part did I get wrong again.......

Have a good one!:jointsmile:


Maybe it's just all the weed I've been smoking but I thought the big push for war was because Saddam had massive amounts of WMD's that he was sure to unleash on the world at any minute. Now that it's been determined these never existed the reason we went was because "breaking 16 U.N. resolutions, funding families of martyrs, etc....we finally had enough and decided to take action ". Now let me see, the first reason given didn't exactly come true so Bush comes up with a new reason. Sounds like an excuse to me.

Bottom line, if the real reason we went in was because of faulty intelligence about the WMD's then "breaking 16 U.N. resolutions, funding families of martyrs, etc....we finally had enough and decided to take action " is an excuse. If Bush knew there were no WMD's in the first place and really did go in because of "breaking 16 U.N. resolutions, funding families of martyrs, etc....we finally had enough and decided to take action " then he lied to the world and should be held accountable. Either way Bush is a complete piece of shit.

[Psycho4Bud]

LOL....I could go into the fact of the Syrian journalist that is in hiding because he disclosed the movement of Iraqi WMD's to Syria, or the Iraqi General that confirmed this; OR the Iraqi nuclear engineer that had the blueprints for such buried in his garden but I'm sure that they were all payed off by the CIA-duh to state this..........right? LMAO!!!:D

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[Fengzi]

LOL....I could go into the fact of the Syrian journalist that is in hiding because he disclosed the movement of Iraqi WMD's to Syria, or the Iraqi General that confirmed this; OR the Iraqi nuclear engineer that had the blueprints for such buried in his garden but I'm sure that they were all payed off by the CIA-duh to state this..........right? LMAO!!!:D

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

What, what?? So..it was about the WMD's??? Just when I was about to accept the fact that it was about "breaking 16 U.N. resolutions" and "funding families of martyrs" now you tell me it really was about WMD's. Damn Psycho, you really do deserve a position in the Bush administration.

Don't believe everything you hear my friend. Just because your source isn't prisonplanet.com;) doesn't mean it's more reliable. Whether you're wearing a foil hat or a gas mask, you look just as silly.

[Psycho4Bud]

My views on the middle east really has nothing to do with Bush. Personally, I think we should open up a can of Whoop-Ass starting from Lebonan to the eastern border of Iran. It's a matter of sooner or later.........:vader1: :Tomcat: :vader1:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[Hamlet]

Well, a can of 'whup-ass' has been opened for sure. Bush tried to open a can and got a 55 gallon drum of it poured right back over his head. He thought he was picking a 'half-assed' fight he could win easily and got punked in the process. Like Forrest Gump said 'Stupid is as Stupid does."

[BlueCat]

Maybe it's just all the weed I've been smoking but I thought the big push for war was because Saddam had massive amounts of WMD's that he was sure to unleash on the world at any minute. Now that it's been determined these never existed the reason we went was because "breaking 16 U.N. resolutions, funding families of martyrs, etc....we finally had enough and decided to take action ". Now let me see, the first reason given didn't exactly come true so Bush comes up with a new reason. Sounds like an excuse to me.

Bottom line, if the real reason we went in was because of faulty intelligence about the WMD's then "breaking 16 U.N. resolutions, funding families of martyrs, etc....we finally had enough and decided to take action " is an excuse. If Bush knew there were no WMD's in the first place and really did go in because of "breaking 16 U.N. resolutions, funding families of martyrs, etc....we finally had enough and decided to take action " then he lied to the world and should be held accountable. Either way Bush is a complete piece of shit.


*sigh* I love you, wanna join my hippy commune? :D

[BlueCat]

I take it your talking about Iraq.......

After Iraq invaded Kuwait they managed to be put on U.N. sanctions, had no fly zones, etc..........more less being punished by the international community. Now after breaking 16 U.N. resolutions, funding families of martyrs, etc....we finally had enough and decided to take action but there were "issues". WHY won't our so called allies back this? Well, AFTER we took the bull by the horns guess what.......FOOD FOR OIL! Seems our "so called" allies along with some fine folk from the U.N. were lining their pocket in illegal trade with Saddam and Sons.

Next reason............:yippee:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:


Took the bull by the horns? You still believe that crap?

We don't give a shit about Iraq we wanted an excuse to invade. Period. Bush Sr. LET Saddam invade kuwait they wanted him to. They even went as far as to give one of the Suad princess acting lessons so she could lie and say babies were being torn from incubators, to inflame the public. The Bushites know that if we lose the oil over there the balance of power in OPEC changes and they can choose to trade oil in Euros instead of the US dollar. We stand to lose a lot becuase our leadership has kept us so dependent on oil.



Let me remind you of this little exchange. :)

1990 American ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, gave Saddam Hussein America's go-ahead to invade Kuwait, and Hussein smiled.

The exchange was reported in the New York Times of September 23, 1990.

US Ambassador Glaspie: I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (Pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (Pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship â?? not confrontation â?? regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwaitâ??s borders?

Saddam Hussein: As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (Pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

Glaspie: What solutions would be acceptable?

Hussein: If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab â?? our strategic goal in our war with Iran â?? we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam's view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (Pause) What is the United Statesâ?? opinion on this?

Glaspie: We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles.)

[medicinal]

Blue cat, where did you dig up this info about the Iraqi embassador, thats chilling. That means we set up the whole thing. I guess thats what you get with an ex-CIA for president (Bush one). I'm at a point in my observance of our government where I can almost believe any evil deeds apportioned to them. It seems that evil and deceit are commonplace in everyday governance of our country and our foriegn policy. I'm sure this country is not alone in this activity, but if we're supposed to have the high moral ground, we're certainly showing dismal leadership qualitys! Whatever happened to "MY" america, land of the free, home of the brave!

[Psycho4Bud]

Let me remind you of this little exchange. :)

1990 American ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, gave Saddam Hussein America's go-ahead to invade Kuwait, and Hussein smiled.

OOPS! I forgot that the conspiracy theory ALWAYS takes precedence.:spam4:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[BlueCat]

Excuse me Psycho what exactly are you calling conspiracy theory? The "conspiracy theory" crap just isn't going to work anymore. We have a government of liars and the gig is up.
It IS about oil and its control in the middle east always has been. Prove me wrong.

I am not a conspiracy theorist I fact check and cross reference everything I read.

That article came from the New York times
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

and if that is too "liberal" for you try reading the entire PDF from the Archives of the (Bush Library):
Gulf War: US Embassy Bagdhad to Washington (Saddam's message of friendship to George Bush) [declassified 1998]

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/displaydocument.asp?docid=110705

Oh and then there is the matter of Nurse Nayirah...that was suppose to be conspiracy too.

"Nurse Nayirah" was a creation of public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for promoting the 1991 Gulf War.

Fifteen-year-old "Nayirah" (Nijirah al-Sabah) testified before the United States Congress in October 1990 that she was a refugee volunteering in the maternity ward of Al Adan hospital in Kuwait City, and that during the occupation by Iraq she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers dumping Kuwaiti infants out of their incubators "on[to] the cold floor to die," and then leaving with the machines. The testimony came at a crucial time for the Bush administration, which was pressing for military action to eject Iraq from Kuwait. Nayirah's story was widely reported by the media and Bush referred to the story six times in the next five weeks. The story was an influence in tipping both the public and Congress towards a war with Iraq: six Congressmen would say Nayirah's testimony was enough for them to support military action against Iraq and seven Senators referenced the testimony in debate. The Senate supported the military actions in a 52-47 vote.

In reality, Citizens for a Free Kuwait, organized by the exiled Kuwaiti government, had hired Hill & Knowlton to gain support for the US counterstrike. Hill & Knowlton was paid $14 million by the US government for its help in promoting the Gulf War. It was not revealed until later that the girl was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US. Frieda Construe-Nag and Myra Ancog Cooke, two maternity nurses in that ward, later said that they had never seen Nayirah there and that the baby-dumping had never happened.

Lauri Fitz-Pegado, later Assistant Commerce Secretary, invented Nayirah's story and coached the girl. She also prepared Iraq-invasion testimony for the UN which was later discredited...

Home Box Office (HBO) presented Nayirah's story as truth in their 2002 Live From Baghdad. HBO eventually added, after the final credits, that the incubator "allegations were never substantiated."

[Psycho4Bud]

Excuse me Psycho what exactly are you calling conspiracy theory? The "conspiracy theory" crap just isn't going to work anymore. We have a government of liars and the gig is up.
It IS about oil and its control in the middle east always has been. Prove me wrong.

I am not a conspiracy theorist I fact check and cross reference everything I read.

LMAO! I've come to realize that with some it don't matter what actually happened it just depends on how it's written up. Didn't Iraq invade Kuwait because of oil disputes in the southern Iraq/Northern Kuwait region? Wasn't Saddam stating that Kuwait feels that Iraq is a nation of dogs? Wasn't Saddams/ Iraqs actions condemned by all the U.N. and also the Arab league?

I believe you do cross check info you see and I also believe that there is more than one journalist/paper that is completely anti-U.S.

By the way.....how many U.S. oil companies have contracts in Iraq for drilling or future drilling as opposed to lets say Canada, Norway, England, etc.......:D

Nice to have ya back, if a bird only has a right wing without the left he will never fly!:p

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[BlueCat]

But Psycho the source I posted was from Bush's own library so I don't get your point not one of the links I posted were from anti US sources. Maybe you need to read the history of oil in the region. You tell me who do YOU believe controls and who profits from the oil reserves in Iraq?
Remember my youngest is majoring in Middle Eastern Politics! I hear this stuff all year long.

All producer companies want to gain control of lucrative profits, by fair means or foul. Company rivalry typically leads beyond ordinary market-based competition.

As many studies show, companies and their sponsor governments do not shrink from backing dictatorial governments, using bribery and corruption, promoting civil violence and even resorting to war, to meet their commercial goals and best their competitors.

The modern history of the Middle East bears witness to this process. In one notorious example, US intelligence services recruited in 1959 a young Iraqi thug named Saddam Hussein to take part in the assassination of Iraqi Prime Minister Abd el-Karim Qasim. Washington feared that the nationalist Qasim might act independently and alter the favorable terms under which their oil companies operated. A few years earlier, in 1953, the CIA engineered a coup in Iran, overthrowing the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh and installing the autocratic Shah, in order to gain control over Iranian oil and redistribute British production shares to US companies.

A recent court case in France, involving high officials of the national oil company Elf Aquitaine, provides a glimpse of more recent operations in this world of oil intrigue and covert competition between the giant companies. The case revealed bribes, espionage, sexual favors, arms smuggling, civil strife and plots to overthrow governments, all with the complicity of French military and intelligence services as well as politicians at the highest levels. These actions had a terrible effect on a number of oil-producing countries, mostly in Africa. They spread malfeasance, corruption and anti-democratic practices in France as well.

Those who deny oil company complicity in the Iraq War always insist that the companies have little political influence, that they are â??out of the loopâ?� in Washington, that they are just one industry group among many others. These arguments are utterly false. The oil companies have always enjoyed â??insiderâ?� privileges with the US and UK governments, resulting in many unique favors in the name of â??national security.â?�

The United States government offers the companies extremely favorable tax treatment, including the â??oil depletion allowanceâ?� and â??intangible drilling costsâ?� â?? far more than the ordinary capital depreciation available to other companies. In 1960, at the behest of the National Security Council, the international companies obtained the lucrative â??foreign tax credit,â?� enabling deductions for taxes or royalties paid to foreign governments. In 1974, while the US corporate tax rate was 48%, the nineteen largest oil companies paid a tax rate of only 7.6%.16

The companies have also enjoyed unofficial immunity from anti-trust or anti-monopoly laws. Though the US government knew for decades about the international oil cartel, federal authorities took no enforcement action until 1952, when President Harry Truman ordered a criminal anti-trust suit. The companies mobilized all their legal and political muscle to quash the case. General Omar Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly approached the President and successfully urged that the â??national securityâ?� required a softening of the governmentâ??s legal stance. Shortly afterwards, the National Security Council decided on various limitations to the suit that further weakened the governmentâ??s case. Though the judicial process lumbered on for fifteen years, the oil companies had nothing to fear and remained safely protected by the national security umbrella. Today, after a decade of mega-mergers, the companies still escape anti-trust scrutiny.

US military/security policy has served the oil companies as comprehensively as have the tax and legal rulings. Virtually every US presidential security doctrine since World War II has aimed at protecting company interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. The Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, and the Nixon, Carter, and Reagan Doctrines all asserted Washingtonâ??s special concerns in the Gulf and arrogated to the United States special rights to â??protectâ?� or â??defendâ?� the area. Recently-released secret papers show that during the oil crisis and Arab oil embargo of 1973, Washington seriously considered sending a military strike force to seize some of the regionâ??s richest fields â?? in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi.

In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C. Zinni, commanding officer of the Central Command, affirmed the importance of the Persian Gulf region, with its huge oil reserves. It is a â??vital interestâ?� of â??long standing,â?� he said, and the United States â??must have free access to the regionâ??s resources.â?�

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm

Come on Psycho post some facts that back up what you are saying or at least state your point a little more clearly.

Ahhhhh yep its good to be back :D I'm gonna give you a run for your money!

[Psycho4Bud]

"US military/security policy has served the oil companies as comprehensively as have the tax and legal rulings. Virtually every US presidential security doctrine since World War II has aimed at protecting company interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. "

This should come as no suprise to anyone that knows anything at all regarding history and common logic. How do you run industy.......oil. What is needed during war....a heavy industrial center for manufacturing munitions, etc....

This area is VITAL to not only the U.S. but also Europe, China, etc..... Our government is doing a little give and take with the oil industries for being there........NO suprise at all. WE have supported governments in that region that weren't the most popular with the people in that area.......NO suprise. Fact is we HAVE to have a foothold of some sort in that oil rich area for national security reasons.

What happened when Iran stated that they would shut off the pumps if there were sanctions? Chirac made it possible to use nuclear weapons in the case of not only acts of direct terrorism on France but also Economic terrorism like a country shutting off oil supplies (Iran is it's largest supplier). It's not ONLY the U.S., just that the big dog always gets the bad rap.:(

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[Psycho4Bud]

By the way........if you can show me where Kuwait was acting aggressively against U.S. interests I MIGHT consider the Saddam permission to invade theory. Fact is though, Kuwait actually backed Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war because they to were afraid of Iran marching on the entire middle east. Saddam received backing from the U.S., Kuwait, Saudi Arabia to mention a few........where you see an Iraqi debt that needed to be forgiven you'll find his backers.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[Fengzi]

"US military/security policy has served the oil companies as comprehensively as have the tax and legal rulings. Virtually every US presidential security doctrine since World War II has aimed at protecting company interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. "

This should come as no suprise to anyone that knows anything at all regarding history and common logic. How do you run industy.......oil. What is needed during war....a heavy industrial center for manufacturing munitions, etc....

This area is VITAL to not only the U.S. but also Europe, China, etc..... Our government is doing a little give and take with the oil industries for being there........NO suprise at all. WE have supported governments in that region that weren't the most popular with the people in that area.......NO suprise. Fact is we HAVE to have a foothold of some sort in that oil rich area for national security reasons.

What happened when Iran stated that they would shut off the pumps if there were sanctions? Chirac made it possible to use nuclear weapons in the case of not only acts of direct terrorism on France but also Economic terrorism like a country shutting off oil supplies (Iran is it's largest supplier). It's not ONLY the U.S., just that the big dog always gets the bad rap.:(

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Oh damn, I'm so confused. You're just too tough to keep up with Psycho. First you say this was about WMD's, then it was about "breaking 16 U.N. resolutions" and "funding families of martyrs", then you tell me it really was about WMD's. But now you're saying that all along it's really been about oil. :confused: I can't wait to hear what comes next????

[Psycho4Bud]

Oh damn, I'm so confused. You're just too tough to keep up with Psycho. First you say this was about WMD's, then it was about "breaking 16 U.N. resolutions" and "funding families of martyrs", then you tell me it really was about WMD's. But now you're saying that all along it's really been about oil. :confused: I can't wait to hear what comes next????

No doubt Saddam pissed us off and no doubt we were looking for a GOOD reason.........found one, did that.........

I notice you NEVER mention anything regarding Food For Oil and WHO was envolved in that.......hmmmm, must be an oversight I'm sure. LOL

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[Psycho4Bud]

No doubt Saddam pissed us off and no doubt we were looking for a GOOD reason.........found one, did that.........

LOL...after all, if we didn't have a valid reason for invasion that would be an illegal invasion of a sovereign country and that would be wrong!:D

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[Fengzi]

No doubt Saddam pissed us off and no doubt we were looking for a GOOD reason.........found one, did that.........

I notice you NEVER mention anything regarding Food For Oil and WHO was envolved in that.......hmmmm, must be an oversight I'm sure. LOL

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Sounds like "we" found a lot more than one good reason to go after Iraq. And "we" use which ever one is the most convenient at any given moment. I just wish that "we" would make up our mind.

Anyhow, I fail to see how my lack of refernce to food for oil is signifigant. The Food for Oil program was fucked up. No doubt about it. But I don't see that as a justification for this bullshit war.

We are at war with Iraq because George W Bush wanted us to go to war with Iraq. Saddam Hussien could have renounced his dictatorship and taken up kitten breeding and Dubya would have found a reason. Probably somehting like Saddam was developing a super kitten to use as a delivery mechanism for chemical weapons. In any case, the U.S.,and the rest of the world, is no better off since we've invaded. Additionally, one could strongly argue that the Iraqi's are not better off now than before we've invaded. And it's all because one simple little man had a grudge.

[Psycho4Bud]

Sounds like "we" found a lot more than one good reason to go after Iraq. And "we" use which ever one is the most convenient at any given moment. I just wish that "we" would make up our mind.

Anyhow, I fail to see how my lack of refernce to food for oil is signifigant. The Food for Oil program was fucked up. No doubt about it. But I don't see that as a justification for this bullshit war.

It's VERY significant since Iraqs oil interests were in the hands of France and Russia........the same folk that had Food for Oil program feeding their pockets.

We are at war with Iraq because George W Bush wanted us to go to war with Iraq. Saddam Hussien could have renounced his dictatorship and taken up kitten breeding and Dubya would have found a reason. Probably somehting like Saddam was developing a super kitten to use as a delivery mechanism for chemical weapons. In any case, the U.S.,and the rest of the world, is no better off since we've invaded. Additionally, one could strongly argue that the Iraqi's are not better off now than before we've invaded. And it's all because one simple little man had a grudge.

IF Saddam would have left to "breed cats".....LMAO.........I really doubt we would have been in any position to invade. Keep in mind....both France and Russia had a REAL hard-on regarding our actions.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[Fengzi]

IF Saddam would have left to "breed cats".....LMAO.........I really doubt we would have been in any position to invade. :


I don't know Psycho, I'm sure Dubya could have gotten a lot of milage with this pic. They look like jihadists to me

[Psycho4Bud]

Al-Catda........is there no end to the treachery?:stoned:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[BlueCat]

HAHAHAHA this is a mountain dew out the nose moment :D :D

Fengzi there is a hippy commune waiting for you in Costa Rica! LMAO :D

Psycho are you reaching an epiphany? :D

Now its down in print for all to see:
after all, if we didn't have a valid reason for invasion that would be an illegal invasion of a sovereign country and that would be wrong

So tell me once and for all which valid reason is it?

Al Catda. HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Psycho4Bud]

So tell me once and for all which valid reason is it?

Al Catda. HAHAHAHAHAHA

BESIDES Saddams foiled plans for a clan of terrorist cats? So the circle in this thread is completed..........LOL



I take it your talking about Iraq.......

After Iraq invaded Kuwait they managed to be put on U.N. sanctions, had no fly zones, etc..........more less being punished by the international community. Now after breaking 16 U.N. resolutions, funding families of martyrs, etc....we finally had enough and decided to take action but there were "issues". WHY won't our so called allies back this? Well, AFTER we took the bull by the horns guess what.......FOOD FOR OIL! Seems our "so called" allies along with some fine folk from the U.N. were lining their pocket in illegal trade with Saddam and Sons.

Next reason............:yippee:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Bet ya didn't see that one coming.........LOL

And a few more discoveries on the movements of ...........AL-CATDA!!!:eek:

Have a SAFE one!!!:jointsmile:

[BlueCat]

HAHAHAHAHAHA where did you find those?! thanks Psycho you're a sweetheart :D

[daima]

I think it would be a waste of money as well. I can't wait for Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rummy all to be free of public office so they can be charged in the International Court.

I don't think this is going to go away for them. At least I hope it won't.
Having everything brought out in the open in the Hague just like any other war criminal before the entire world would be perfect. Maybe we could save face.

whats great about your idea is that there is no statute of limitations when it comes to war crimes,

dai*ma:stoned:
http://www.communitycurrency.org/sfteaparty.html

i will be at this event saturday, THE 16TH

Did you know.....?

that airforce jets were scrambled to intercept stray planes 67 times in the year prior to 9-11?

that jets were scrambled 129 times in 2000?

that the pentagon, the north american aerospace defence command and the cia has all run drills before 9-11, involving planes purposefully crashed into the wtc and pentagon?

that the cia was conducting one such drill, centered on the wtc, on the morning of 9-11?

that FEMA had arrived in nyc on sept.10, 2001 to conduct an emergency reponse drill beginning the next day?

according to the latest polls, 89% of americans dont believe bush or the "official" 9-11 story (cnn on 11/06)

[MastaChronic]

just my two bits on this, but i think we should reinstatre hangings and quarterings.
get everbody that was involved with the crimes of the bush regime and string them up till theyve almost died and then tie each limb to a seperate horse and make them run in different directions.
hanging and quartering is the way to go with a situation like the bush regime.

[Psycho4Bud]

get everbody that was involved with the crimes of the bush regime.

What were they again???:confused:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[BlueCat]

IN A NUTSHELL lets review....

First, they fixed the intelligence and facts to further their agenda for war.

Then they punished patriotic public servants who disagreed with them, including Gen. Eric K. Shinseki; Paul H. O'Neill, the former Treasury secretary; and Richard A. Clarke, a former counterterrorism official.

Then they attacked Iraq without provocation, killing tens of thousands of people who did us no harm and posed us no danger while allowing North Korea ,Afganistan and Iran to become greater threats.

And they sent our boys into harms way in too few numbers and without proper equipment.

Then there is the continued lying over and over. The president is suppose to be someone of strong moral character I cannot trust a liar.

And finally, in violation of signed treaties and contrary to long-held values, they besmirched the moral authority of our country by approving, justifying and carrying out torture. Making matters even worse for our soldiers and destroying our reputation as a fair and humane nation.

Not to mention the long list of international obligations he violated.

Now what part of complete and total failure do you not understand? hmmmm?

[Psycho4Bud]

IN A NUTSHELL lets review....

First, they fixed the intelligence and facts to further their agenda for war.

Assumption..........

Then they punished patriotic public servants who disagreed with them, including Gen. Eric K. Shinseki; Paul H. O'Neill, the former Treasury secretary; and Richard A. Clarke, a former counterterrorism official.

What major punishment did they get?

Then they attacked Iraq without provocation, killing tens of thousands of people who did us no harm and posed us no danger while allowing North Korea ,Afganistan and Iran to become greater threats.

LOL.....still haven't seen the light huh?

And they sent our boys into harms way in too few numbers and without proper equipment.

Initially half our force was trapped in Turkey.....they had a last minute change of heart. BLACKMAIL!

Then there is the continued lying over and over. The president is suppose to be someone of strong moral character I cannot trust a liar.

lol.....Something I VERY seriously doubt we'll ever see.

And finally, in violation of signed treaties and contrary to long-held values, they besmirched the moral authority of our country by approving, justifying and carrying out torture. Making matters even worse for our soldiers and destroying our reputation as a fair and humane nation.

LOL....and which country is going to be our judge on this charge? NOBODY wants their dirt exposed.

Not to mention the long list of international obligations he violated.

Now what part of complete and total failure do you not understand? hmmmm?

He's not the greatest we've ever had but I REALLY doubt if he's considered impeachable. LOL....He'll DEFINATELY NEVER see a world court! As for myself.......it should be a COLD day in hell when ANY of our leaders should be held in the eyes of the France, Russia, China, etc........

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[medicinal]

Well they can't make up their minds whether the planet is warming or cooling, if it's cooling, maybe we'll see that cold day in hell, I hope so!

[Perp]

All politicians are crooks and are only there to steal money. What other reason is there to go into politics?

[Breukelen advocaat]

All politicians are crooks and are only there to steal money. What other reason is there to go into politics?

Insecurity is another reason. One example is the male politician that was rejected by the girl he wanted in high school.

[daima]

IN A NUTSHELL lets review....

First, they fixed the intelligence and facts to further their agenda for war.

Then they punished patriotic public servants who disagreed with them, including Gen. Eric K. Shinseki; Paul H. O'Neill, the former Treasury secretary; and Richard A. Clarke, a former counterterrorism official.

Then they attacked Iraq without provocation, killing tens of thousands of people who did us no harm and posed us no danger while allowing North Korea ,Afganistan and Iran to become greater threats.

And they sent our boys into harms way in too few numbers and without proper equipment.

Then there is the continued lying over and over. The president is suppose to be someone of strong moral character I cannot trust a liar.

And finally, in violation of signed treaties and contrary to long-held values, they besmirched the moral authority of our country by approving, justifying and carrying out torture. Making matters even worse for our soldiers and destroying our reputation as a fair and humane nation.

Not to mention the long list of international obligations he violated.

Now what part of complete and total failure do you not understand? hmmmm?

Robert Hunter, Jerry Garcia & Co. were singing about whats happening now in the 60's-70's and 80's.

"There's a richman in his summer home
singing just leave well enough alone
well, his pants are down his covers blown
and the politicians throwing stones
while the kids they dance and shake their bones
'cause its all too clear that we are on our own
ashes to ashes we all fall down"

dai*ma
"and your flag decal wont get you into heaven aymore
they're already over-crowded from your dirty little wars
now jesus dont like killing no matter what the reason for
and your flag decal wont get you into heaven anymore"

j prine

[BlueCat]

You know Psycho I have met people like you. You will never admit to being wrong because your ego won't allow it. It is not an assumption that our country was mislead. You can hold animosity in your heart for all other nations if it makes you feel better but it will accomplish nothing. You are letting emotion interfere with reason and the law. That is why we have courts and law so people like you don't get all crazy and push that big red button. PEACE should always be the goal and peace cannot be accomplished if we continue to shut out the rest of the world. The International Court has Judges from all over the world. You are an isolationist. You think we can bully our way into peace. I just don't believe that is possible. Nothing can be solved without dialog and blaming other nations does not set up a dialog for a solution.

What about the Nuremburg trials do you think they were of no value? Because of the holocaust we have the Geneva convention and those laws protect of soldiers.

Do you feel Milosevic should not have been charged by the ICC simply because you don't like france?

to date, 104 countries have ratified or acceded to the court, including nearly all of Europe and South America, and nearly half of all African countries.A further 35 states have signed but not yet ratified the treaty, which under the law of treaties obliges states to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty. The USA and Israel have "unsigned" the Rome treaty in order to avoid these obligations because they are guilty.

George W. Bush's speech on September 6 amounted to a public confession to criminal violations of the 1996 War Crimes Act. He implicitly admitted authorizing disappearances, extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, transporting prisoners between countries and denying the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners.

You are the one that needs to see the light. Honestly if you have not seen it by now it is becuase you don't want to so debating it with you is a waste of time. It just saddens me becuase I get the feeling you are a really nice guy but all this anger in your heart is clouding your judgment and it will solve nothing. Cool heads and reason are the only chance we have and I am thankful for the many people that feel as I do.

Rumsfield has already been charged just days after his resignation, Rumsfeld faced more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers and I am confident that Cheney and Bush will be as well as soon as they are out of office. The ICC rules cannot charge a government but they can the individual and I am truly looking forward to it.

[BlueCat]

Well they can't make up their minds whether the planet is warming or cooling, if it's cooling, maybe we'll see that cold day in hell, I hope so!

There is NO DOUBT things are getting warmer if you are in doubt just google a few photos of the Patagonia Glaciers or better yet watch An Inconvinent Truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjS1nMCdHf4

[Psycho4Bud]

You know Psycho I have met people like you. You will never admit to being wrong because your ego won't allow it. It is not an assumption that our country was mislead. You can hold animosity in your heart for all other nations if it makes you feel better but it will accomplish nothing. You are letting emotion interfere with reason and the law. That is why we have courts and law so people like you don't get all crazy and push that big red button. PEACE should always be the goal and peace cannot be accomplished if we continue to shut out the rest of the world. The International Court has Judges from all over the world. You are an isolationist. You think we can bully our way into peace. I just don't believe that is possible. Nothing can be solved without dialog and blaming other nations does not set up a dialog for a solution.

LOL.........more assumptions.

What about the Nuremburg trials do you think they were of no value? Because of the holocaust we have the Geneva convention and those laws protect of soldiers.

Do you feel Milosevic should not have been charged by the ICC simply because you don't like france?

Milosevic.......another genocidal type. How does this relate to Bush and friends? Sure your not thinking Chirac?

to date, 104 countries have ratified or acceded to the court, including nearly all of Europe and South America, and nearly half of all African countries.A further 35 states have signed but not yet ratified the treaty, which under the law of treaties obliges states to refrain from â??acts which would defeat the object and purposeâ?� of the treaty. The USA and Israel have "unsigned" the Rome treaty in order to avoid these obligations because they are guilty.

Hey, YOU asked for honesty in politics in a previous post. By not signing aren't we stating that terrorists may just have an ass kicking coming.....like it or not?

George W. Bush's speech on September 6 amounted to a public confession to criminal violations of the 1996 War Crimes Act. He implicitly admitted authorizing disappearances, extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, transporting prisoners between countries and denying the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners.

What type of prisoners.........prisoners of war that would mean that a country claimed them; terrorists have no country or fight for a flag and therefore aren't under the same prisoner of war status.

You are the one that needs to see the light. Honestly if you have not seen it by now it is becuase you don't want to so debating it with you is a waste of time. It just saddens me becuase I get the feeling you are a really nice guy but all this anger in your heart is clouding your judgment and it will solve nothing. Cool heads and reason are the only chance we have and I am thankful for the many people that feel as I do.

LOL....it takes us flag wavin' ass kickers to protect tree huggers; we each play a role.

Rumsfield has already been charged just days after his resignation, Rumsfeld faced more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers and I am confident that Cheney and Bush will be as well as soon as they are out of office. The ICC rules cannot charge a government but they can the individual and I am truly looking forward to it.

LMAO!!!! I got a hundred stating that they will NEVER see a world court trial.......you on? Send me an e-mail....it's posted in my signature. Hell, I'll give it 5 years if ya wish.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[BlueCat]

you're on if the bets in something other than money ;)

[Psycho4Bud]

you're on if the bets in something other than money ;)

Sex? I thought you were married???:D Well, may have to pop some viagra but I'll hold to a hundred.:D

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[BlueCat]

HAHAHAHAHA well we know where your naked little santa mind is.... I was thinking more along the lines of weed. This is cannabis.com geez :D