Break out the tinfoil, 88 members of Congress have signed a letter to the President requesting an investigation into a 'secret meeting' in which Tony Blair and G.W. Bush plan to invade Iraq and come up with justifications for it later.
1
Hard to dismiss 88 members, that's a nice chunk of change.
Was justification for the war manufactured? Is the pope German?
George Bush's legacy will be that of a liar.
Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 09:26 AM (/+dAV)
2
But it's so much fun watching the donks implode! It seems that the dems strategy is to become more anti-American. Is this how they are going to get those "value voters" into their camp? This is just like a car accident, you want to look away but you just can't.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 09, 2005 09:39 AM (xkIHW)
3
One thing is for sure. Greg is still a boobie.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 09, 2005 10:02 AM (yBHNA)
4
That there is a list of blithering idiots.
Posted by: Ob Snooks at May 09, 2005 10:03 AM (yBHNA)
5
There are so many things fundamentally wrong with that letter I don't know where to start. I'll let someone else tackle it point by point. It kills me that they're STILL saying that justification for the war had to be "created". We would first have to say that 12 years of defying sanctions and non-compliance with resolutions wasn't enough. Openly administrating payments by cheque to families of terrorist "martyrs" wasn't enough. Repression, imprisonment, torture, assassination, and execution of his own people wasn't enough. Everyone was content to let the US foot the bill for years in the containment of Saddam's forces while being accused of starving Iraqi children. In that case you'd have to deny the OFF scandal existed too. His regime was, by Iraq's own constitution, illegitimate.
And John Kerry didn't sign it? What? Is he going soft? Clinton didn't sign it? Nor did Biden, Byrd, Pelosi, Boxer, Ted [hiccup] Kennedy, etc?
Greg's legacy will be, "At least he was consistent."
Posted by: Oyster at May 09, 2005 10:03 AM (fl6E1)
6
Saddam was either faking a WMD program, or he was fooled by his own scientists into thinkin he had one. In either case, that's how he was behaving. So serves him right.
Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 10:19 AM (8e/V4)
7
Saddam said he had no WMD.
Saddam let the inspectors look wherever they wanted.
The inspectors looked high and low and found no WMD.
The WMD story was a LIE.
Can you say, "Bush is a liar"?
Bush lied, people died.
Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 10:25 AM (/+dAV)
8
I agree with Oyster on some stuff. The only thing we really needed
for justification to invade Iraq was the continual breaking of the UN
resolutions. All of the U.N. should of joined us on that.
But I also say that Bush, should have impeachment proceedings
brought against him because he did "lie" about WMD. Shoot, they
try to impeach Clinton for a B.J., which really only effected 3 people, (Hilary, Bill, and Monica), when George's lie effect millions of people and Billions of Dollars?
Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 10:36 AM (Gqhi9)
9
Moonbats are out in full force. Greg, you are such an ass. I think you are full of shit and there is no way in hell you are as educated as you claim.
Put down the weeeeed, stop beating off to Nick Jr. Magazine and go get a job you degenerate hippy.
Posted by: Earl Dittman at May 09, 2005 10:38 AM (yBHNA)
10
Better impeach Kennedy, Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi, Biden and the rest of the degenerate lib scum for "lying" about WMD as well you f-ing piece of shit.
Posted by: Ob Snooks at May 09, 2005 10:40 AM (yBHNA)
11
Kennedy, Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi, and Biden relied on "intelligence" reports provided by the Bush administration. They were lied to just like the rest of us.
Bush started a war based on lies. He knew they were lies. He twisted the arms of his intelligence providers to paint the story he desired. He manipulated the evidence to start WWIV. Bush should be impeached.
Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 10:49 AM (/+dAV)
12
Well, the London Times went to press with it, so it must be true. And relevant, rather than the possibility of poor wording. Not like the British Press has an agenda or has pulled out "fake but accurate" documents or
photos before.
Am I surprised that local rep Tammy Baldwin signed on? Not at all. Note that Russ Feingold didn't. He's got a career based on integrity to uphold. She's got to use whatever comes out of the dem playbook.
Posted by: tee bee at May 09, 2005 10:49 AM (q1JHF)
13
Greg you douchbag. CLinton Intel said the same thing. So did French and german and russian intel.
So, f- off gregg.
Posted by: filthy allah at May 09, 2005 11:12 AM (yBHNA)
14
Actively demonstrating that they weren't serious about terrorism helped marginalize the Dems. To keep revisiting this over and over confirms their near-Freudian desire to fail.
Guys, it's nearly over. You may never get your wish to stick your "Vietnam" label on this.
Posted by: Gordon at May 09, 2005 11:26 AM (SN0Ew)
15
Clinton, the French, the Germans and the Russians were not confident of the intelligence assessment. They felt it prudent to exhaust the weapons inspection process. Saddam let the innspectors have a free hand in looking for WMD. There were none. But Bush had to have his war anyway 'cause he doesn't give a shit about America only his corporate buddies at Halliburton etc.
Filthy Blood Lusting Nazis.
Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 11:26 AM (/+dAV)
16
Greg, you are not even worth the energy.
Posted by: ob snooks at May 09, 2005 11:48 AM (yBHNA)
17
Obsnooks, go back to sleep precious.
Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 11:51 AM (/+dAV)
18
This is for greg who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the a**
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating AmericaÂ’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"SaddamÂ’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against IraqÂ’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the AdministrationÂ’s policy towards Iraq, I donÂ’t think there can be any question about SaddamÂ’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 09, 2005 12:35 PM (xkIHW)
19
OH MY! ALL those filthy Libs lied and people Died! Ohhhh the Humanity!
Hey Greg, grow up.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 09, 2005 12:40 PM (yBHNA)
20
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of m@ss destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of m@ss destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of m@ss destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of m@ss destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of m@ss destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "San Fran Nan"
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of m@ss destruction and palaces for his cronies.."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of m@ss destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of m@ss destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should @ssume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of m@ss destruction! ."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of m@ss destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F.. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of m@ss destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, ! 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of m@ss destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of m@ss destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of m@ss destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
What could this mean? Greg?
Posted by: Harold T. Fancypants at May 09, 2005 12:45 PM (yBHNA)
21
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
Ohhhhhhh She Lied and People Died!! OhhHhHhh I just blotted my panties!
Posted by: MOONBAT GREG at May 09, 2005 12:47 PM (yBHNA)
22
"...they try to impeach Clinton for a B.J.,..." This is factually wrong. They went ahead with impeachment procedings against Clinton for "obstructing justice". He was eventually only dis-barred for the same reason. Apparently the bar association thought it was serious enough to kick him out.
Greg, Saddam did NOT give the inspectors free reign. The IAEA even went so far as to allow him to "self-declare" what his arsenal inventory was at one point. And inspectors were thrown out entirely for years.
You know what? As far as the Bush and Blair "alleged conspiracy" goes, a little critical thinking might be in order; do you really think it would have been smart to say,
"Hey, we're going to invade you if you don't comply by oh, say, March next year, is that okay?" This 'new and revealing' information means nothing. In the event Saddam did-not-
finally-comply after more than a dozen years, plans for an invasion had to be in place. You don't tell someone you're coming after them and then sit around and plan afterwards. This talk of a "rush to go to war" is BS. As it was, we waited too long. Saddam had many years to comply. Too many.
Posted by: Oyster at May 09, 2005 12:49 PM (fl6E1)
23
Greg, you're giving Bush too much credit for assuming he could twist his policy advisors to lie. Anyone with a shred of intelligence knows dubya had false info fed to him by Cheney et. al, and tried to pass that off as the truth.
Posted by: Venom at May 09, 2005 12:54 PM (dbxVM)
24
Well, I suck (aka Ob snook), the reason we don't impeach
Kennedy, Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi, and Biden, is because they are
not the ones in power. They are not the one who initiated a war
and lied to the America Populace. What I am saying is what is good
for the goose is good for the gander. Clinton lied, impeach him, Bush
lied, lets impeach him. As I stated earlier, I believe there
were two reasons to go to war, 1, help the Iraqis escape the
tyrant Saddam, 2, Saddam ignored the U.N. resolution repeatedly.
Now I do support the war, and I do support our troops, what I don't support is two lying, cheating, stealing thieves who happens to occupy
our nations top two executive positions, Bush and Cheney. The Bush adminstration makes Grant's adminstrations looks like choir boys. That is really sad due to the fact that I, as a Texan, will not support a fellow Texan.
Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 01:03 PM (Gqhi9)
25
Fancy Pants and Cap. Infidel,
Impressive collections of quotes.
Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 01:11 PM (Gqhi9)
26
Butch, you are an idiot. You must be one of those inbred texans the libs always talk about.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 09, 2005 01:11 PM (yBHNA)
27
Neither will this Texan.
And so what if a bunch of Democrats bought into the lie. It was still a lie.
The Democrats are as gutless as the Republicans are liars.
Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 01:19 PM (/+dAV)
28
Whaaaoo unto any Democrat that doesn't embrace Bush's Nazi Movement.
The Libertarian Party is where it's at.
Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 01:26 PM (/+dAV)
29
Whats the difference between Filthy Allah and a camels?
Camels have humps, Filthy humps camels. You are right about
two things, I am a Texan and a Liberal. Much better then being
a right wing slaver.
Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 01:44 PM (Gqhi9)
30
Butch, you are nothing but a dick.
I have a tin foil hat for you. Loonie whacko-
Posted by: Harold T. Fancypants at May 09, 2005 01:48 PM (yBHNA)
31
WoW Butchie! Did you make that one up yerself?
Your trailer has a flat boy-
Posted by: obsnooks at May 09, 2005 01:50 PM (yBHNA)
32
"Filthy humps camels."-Butch
LMFAO
I can see Filthy now on top of a stepping stool, and yet still straining on his tippie toes to get his stumpy little dick lined up with Ms. Camel's ''gina.
Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 01:59 PM (/+dAV)
33
Okay, Harry Gaypants, tried to pay you and Cap Infidel a compliment, what do I get, abuse. I really thought you and Infidel
did a good job of looking those up. But since, you can not take
compliments, I will be sure not to insult you in the future with
compliments. And you are wrong again, I am not a dick, I am a pussy. And you know what they say, "You are what you eat, DICK."
Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 02:07 PM (Gqhi9)
34
You know Greg, I could be wrong. I am assuming that Filthy
is the dominate one. It might just be that the camels are humping
Filthy. I am sure they are humping Harry Gaypants.
Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 02:13 PM (Gqhi9)
35
Greg remains a slanderer and a liar. There have been several investigations of the intelligence pre-war in both the US and Britain and none have found any evidence that President Bush or Tony Blair lied about the intel involved.
But we have a lot of evidence that greg is a liar. QED.
Meanwhile, this bag of nutbags and their letter are demonstrating their need for an aluminum foil deflector beanie prescription. None of the list of allegations is actually anything wrongful. And none of the allegations are actually within Congress' power to investigate.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 09, 2005 02:24 PM (xauGB)
36
Butch, Filthy can play offense or defense in a pinch. I'm quite certain you're correct about Gaypants and would add Obsnooks and Earl Dittman to that list.
Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 02:28 PM (/+dAV)
37
Oyster, you are correct. Technically I do believe is was for
either obstructing justice or perjury, since he lied under oath.
But what I want to know is what justice was he obstructing by
denying a b.j. That question should of never have been asked.
Don't get me wrong. If they would of found anything improper
with white water or true misuse of his powers as Gov or Pres,
string him up. It just goes to show that the Texan has the right
idea about government. Let them meet as little as possible, that
way they can only screw you so much.
Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 02:34 PM (Gqhi9)
38
Camel pussy doesn't sound so bad when Robin Roberts' Ga-gina is in the house.
Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 02:38 PM (/+dAV)
39
Mission Accomplished.
I declare victory and don't I look cute strutting around in my cod piece.
Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 03:35 PM (/+dAV)
40
Once again, Greg takes advantage of the fact that there are no consequences for his foul little mouth and cowardice.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 09, 2005 03:46 PM (xauGB)
41
"But what I want to know is what justice was he obstructing by
denying a b.j." You didn't pay too much attention to what was happening, did you?
Butch, don't get me started on Whitewater. Both Clintons were guilty of what they were "suspected" of. The idea that he was not found guilty simply doesn't hold water with all the evidence. The fact that the Rose law firm conveniently "lost" (read that - shredded) paperwork and Madison Bank & Trust Co. neglected to fill out the proper paperwork at all is the only thing that saved them. Very little paper trail. All they had to go on was hearsay evidence and whatever minor corroboration they could dig up. That shredded paperwork has probably since been recycled and we've all used it as toilet paper. You can't defend a guy who isn't sure what "is" means.
Posted by: Oyster at May 09, 2005 03:59 PM (fl6E1)
42
I guess a blow job is out of the question then.
Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 04:01 PM (/+dAV)
43
MAybe not Greg, Ask Butch.
Posted by: filthy allah at May 09, 2005 04:28 PM (yBHNA)
44
Oyster,
I am not saying Bill is not guilty in whitewater. (Although,
my personal opinion, Hilary is more so then Bill.) What I read
was that they (the GOP) were able to bring about and impeachment
due to Clinton lying about the B.J. under oath. I agree, I think
slick Willie, was probably to slick, and as able to make a lot
of the stuff disappear. But just to clearify my points, they are:
1. I believe he was impeached due to perjury.
2. Clinton perjured himself only on the B.J. (The only lie we
know 100% to be a lie.)
3. If this was the only thing the G.O.P. could get on Clinton,
where is the justice in this for getting a B.J.
Once again, if there was other perjured statements Clinton made,
I did not see them. I do not love the Clinton's adminstration any
more than Bush's. I do hate Bush's admistration more then Clinton's.
(I love no adminstration, I tolerate some more then others.)
Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 04:38 PM (Gqhi9)
45
Butch, you are grossly misrepresenting what Clinton lied about. In a deposition for a civil action involving Clinton's alleged sexual harrassment of an Arkansas state employee, Clinton was asked about other sexual relationships with his employees. He denied having any relationships with employees in a series of questions. Those denials were the lies - lies he perpetuated in order to win a court case and deny justice to a woman who had sued him.
That was an impeachable offense and one that would have gotten him removed from office had the Democrats any integrity.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 09, 2005 04:55 PM (xauGB)
46
Whats moonbatty about this. Do you think those UK memo's aren't real?
Posted by: actus at May 09, 2005 07:00 PM (0HUw1)
47
I guess that pesky memo is going to come out after all, eh?
Posted by: carla at May 09, 2005 07:20 PM (kuXYV)
48
I think the far left has gone so far left, that they will do anything to make Bush look bad. They've fallen so under Soros' spell and Moore's stupidity that they'll forget that they took an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies domestic and foreign.
Just this week, we've heard that Iran is going to develop nuclear weapons and will use them on us. They have already test fired ICBM's and have already stated that they'll use them to fire Electro-magnetic pulse weapons that will shut down all the electronics in the northern Hemisphere. That means that they'll shut down every computer, TV, Radio, and Cardiac pacemaker in our sphere.
Now, do you think the democrat lefties will actually allow us to conduct a first strike against the terror leaders? Of course not, in fact, I'd wager that the left loonies would be standing in the dark screaming in victory that someone had finally shut us down, and in the process killed millions of people in hospices and hospitals.
And they call Islam a religion of peace. right.....
Posted by: A Texan at May 10, 2005 01:21 AM (LtbPK)
49
Damn this greg guy really is a nut case. You know 10 years ago all these conspiracy case people would have been laughed out of their own towns, I mean the stuff they preach is harder to believe than a Science Fiction movie. As far as WMD...none was found. Does it prove there wasn't any as everyone says, NO it doesn't. I been to Iraq. Let me tell you is someone wanted to hide something in that country they could. I could take 2 football statdiums, bleachers and all, and you wouldn't find it after giving me 1 month to do whatever I wanted. It'd still be in the country, you just would never find it.
Posted by: Daniel at May 10, 2005 02:53 AM (kYw+W)
50
Hah! I knew it. You did just invade Iraq because you hated Saddam and wanted the oil. Only WoMD was Husseins ass gas...
Posted by: A Finn at May 10, 2005 05:15 AM (cWMi4)
51
Robin,
I am not trying to misrepresent anything. I am just saying
that I thought, and I could be wrong, Clinton was impeached for lying about his sexual relationships during his deposition for the Whitewater hearings. I am certain he lied else where, but I thought the impeachment was for his perjury during that hearing only. If this is true, and they only thing Clinton lied about (that the GOP caught
him on) was this one issue, then the GOP should of just walked away.
Now if you are saying that Clinton needed to be impeached because
he did lie, no matter when or on what he lied, then the same should hold true for Bush and Cheney. Once again I want to point out,I am not a loyal fanatic of Clinton or Bush. My political philosophy is
politicians = Liars, Cheaters, Thieves and Evil.
Governments = unfortunately a necessary of life.
The less a govenment meets = less they can still, lie, cheat the people out of the peoples stuff.
Posted by: Butch at May 10, 2005 04:44 PM (Gqhi9)
52
Butch, and you are wrong. The deposition was related to a civil suit for sexual harrassment - where the questions were plainly relevant and within the scope of discovery. As the judge ruled at the very moment they were asked.
And no, I'm not saying that Clinton should be impeached for lying - which is sometimes necessary to run a government ( and I don't agree that Bush or Cheney have themselves lied ) - but he should be impeached for the obstruction of justice he engaged in. Something you seem to continue to wilfully not understand.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 10, 2005 07:12 PM (xauGB)
53
Robin,
I admit, and I said before, “I” was only aware of his lying under oath. I have just gone back and looked up the point you are trying to make, and I now see that his impeachment process came about in this order:
Gov. Clinton had and encounter with Paula Jones in hotel.
Clinton elected President.
Paula sues
Kenneth Starr appointed Independent Counsel to investigate
a real estate deal called Whitewater.
Clinton and Lewinsky fool around.
Lewinsky subpoenaed by Jones lawyers.
Starr is now authorized to investigate Lewinsky.
Starr reports on the Lewinsky matter to Congress.
Congress votes to hold impeachment hearings on two accounts,
Obstruction of justice and perjury charges.
Senate votes, 45 to 55 in ClintonÂ’s favor on perjury charges, 50
to 50 on obstruction charges.
Clinton Cleared.
Now my questions is why was Starr, who was suppose to investigate Whitewater, now has been given permission to investigate a totally unrelated event. (Sex and real estate, yes I can now see the connection, NOT.) Once again, I do not, and did not care if
Clinton was found guilty or not. What I am saying is that although Clinton did some very shady deals, Bush and Cheney are a lot worse and should be brought under the microscope also. And if Bush is as good as Clinton, then he can get his Republican Senate to let him off
also.
Posted by: Butch at May 11, 2005 08:50 AM (Gqhi9)
54
Butch, everything that Ken Starr investigated was referred to him by the Clinton Attorney General. The Clinton administration decided early on to keep refering most but not all of the new scandals that arose to Starr because they didn't want to have new independant counsels appointed - after all they'd done to discredit Starr. For that reason, Starr ended up investigating a lot of stuff outside of Whitewater
because the Clinton administration wanted him to be the investigator. The Clinton white house preferred Starr because the reality was that he had ethics that prevented him from fighting back against the Clinton's smear PR campaign against him as much as he should have. Each time, the new matter had to also be approved by the 3 judge DC circuit panel that supervised Starr under the old now-expired independant counsel statute. That is how for instance Starr investigated the crooked billing of Webb Hubbell and the apparent suicide of Hillary's former law partner and White House counsel Vincent Foster. The White House travel office scandal, etc. etc. In each and every case, Janet Reno referred the matter to Starr. And every time, as Starr's office spent more money investigating ever more Clinton admin scandals, he was attacked by the very White House that had referred the scandal to him.
The Lewinsky matter was a little different. When Linda Tripp learned from Monica Lewinsky that there were phone calls from Clinton to Monica regarding what she should say to the Jones' lawyers, this was reported to Starr's office. Starr's office immediately reported this to the Clinton Dept of Justice who decided that Starr should investigate it. Starr then did investigate the matter and turned over what he found to the House of Reps for their consideration. Starr's successor also reached a plea bargin with Bill Clinton regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
The Clinton partisans liked to claim that Starr went looking for this stuff on his own - and usually coupled that false claim with a swipe at Starr's religious principles. Those were blatant Clinton admin lies. Starr didn't work that way and they knew it.
As a contrast, the independant counsel who investigated Iran-Contra during the Reagan administration spent about as much money investigating that one matter ( with a very cooperative White House ) as Starr spent investigating many different Clinton admin scandals against a non-cooperative, even obstructing White House.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 11, 2005 01:51 PM (xauGB)
Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 02:45 PM (/+dAV)
56
There I go pissing off greg again by using words of more than one syllable.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 12, 2005 03:53 PM (xauGB)
57
I'm afraid to leave a message because I'll be torn to bloody shreds (this is a very nasty, kick em in the crotch discussion)
I'm actually quite conservative and have supported the Bush Administration the entire time. I have said dozens of times that Saddam was a tyrant, Saddam defied sanctions, It's a reality of our economy to protect oil interests etc. (I'm not claiming that I have an educated opinion - so please don't humiliate me if I've said something asinine)...BUT 1 year ago my little brother joined the army as a infantryman.
On some level I still hold to the political beliefs mentioned above, but when I think of giving my precious little brother's life to the cause it suddenly takes on a different light. Not saying that we should never go to war...ever - that's not realistic. But it does make me re-evaluate my ideals.
If my little brother dies for this war and Bush really did lie and misrepresent the facts to manipulate or motivate the nation to war(even if Saddam deserved it), I don't know if I'll ever get over it or forgive Mr. Bush.
Posted by: Whitelock at June 10, 2005 05:48 PM (tiPh2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
UPDATE 5/28/05: The Army of Ansar al-Sunnah has posted a video and images of Saito Akihiko's dead body. Apparently, Mr. Saito was killed in the initial battle.
━━━━━
━━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ
PEACEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
