VICTORY in Iraq now in sight

[blackascoal]

Dick Cheney; US Vice-President, 1999

Dick Cheney wasn't Vice President in 1999.

As well I like how you take all of those quotes out of context so we can't see the full article.

You didn't answer the question .. and pardon me if I assume you have a brain and a computer. If you want to see the full context of what was said you can EASILY find them with the quotes.

Do you need me to show you how?

[Greg]

I've read the rules.

Nor did I see anywhere how BAC's post would be so voluminous in context of it's offering as to violate the rules.

Nor do I see your name on the list of admin so, what authority do you claim in support of your bullying effort????

For someone who has just arrived at this forum, you should seem to think you know the rules. Here's a tip, head the advice of forum veterens like M.Dancer - they know what they're talking about.

blackascoal's post was an obvious copyright infringement - if you read the rules you'd know that. I suggest you take a hard look before posting again.

[M.Dancer]

For someone who has just arrived at this forum, you should seem to think you know the rules. Here's a tip, head the advice of forum veterens like M.Dancer - they know what they're talking about.

How true......the hard way

[blackascoal]

I've read the rules.

Nor did I see anywhere how BAC's post would be so voluminous in context of it's offering as to violate the rules.

Nor do I see your name on the list of admin so, what authority do you claim in support of your bullying effort????

For someone who has just arrived at this forum, you should seem to think you know the rules. Here's a tip, head the advice of forum veterens like M.Dancer - they know what they're talking about.

blackascoal's post was an obvious copyright infringement - if you read the rules you'd know that. I suggest you take a hard look before posting again.

The error was mine entirely as I did not know the posting rule and assumed it to be the same as most other forums where posting an article is not against the rules. I hope I addressed that in the second excerpt from an article that I posted.

Now that I have read he rules more closely, I have no problem adhering to them. My problem was with the threatening manner in which this was originally pointed out .. followed by the mind-boggling foolish demand that I should "get a grip on Bush".

[Black Dog]

Considering what Clinton was impeached for, this should have happened a long time ago for Bush. Or can no one see the hypocracy of that? Clinton lied about having sexual relations with a woman (ok an Intern). If the Lewinski case can bring down a President (which to me seemed like more of a personal affair, to which I did not see Hilary make a big deal of it, and they are still together), then getting the US involved in a war that had nothing but lies/bullshit supporting it, then YES he should be impeached.

I'm not asking whether Bush should be impeached, but whether it's feasible.

[Canadian Blue]

Well, is their enough support from the general population for impeachment, and would it get support from Congress and Senate.

I highly doubt it since quite a few democrat's supported Bush's policies with regards to National Security and Iraq, so if they were to try impeaching the president then they would come off as hypocrites.

[blackascoal]

Well, is their enough support from the general population for impeachment, and would it get support from Congress and Senate.

I highly doubt it since quite a few democrat's supported Bush's policies with regards to National Security and Iraq, so if they were to try impeaching the president then they would come off as hypocrites.

I'm not sure that democrats could possibly be viewed as more hypocritical than they already are.

Impeachment will never happen and the democrats, in thir typical hypocritical fashion, have backed off all the talk of impeachment that they spouted during the campaign .. even John Conyers, who I previously had much admiration for and was the first political campaign I ever worked for, has backtracked on all the volumes of evidence he has acquired over the years.

[Canadian Blue]

Obviously, American's do not want Bush impeached. If the American's were to call for impeachment, I wouldn't be surprised to see it go through.

[Guthrie]

Obviously, American's do not want Bush impeached. If the American's were to call for impeachment, I wouldn't be surprised to see it go through.

It is far to early to dismiss impeachment.

...By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq,...

From 2005

wait til the oversight comittees start finding skulls

[bush_cheney2004]

President Bush will never be impeached. Not enough support for charges (articles of impeachment) in the House. It would never get to a trial in the Senate, unliked Clinton's impeachment. Better yet, the reason George Bush will be president until January 2009 is President Dick Cheney.

[blackascoal]

President Bush will never be impeached. Not enough support for charges (articles of impeachment) in the House. It would never get to a trial in the Senate, unliked Clinton's impeachment. Better yet, the reason George Bush will be president until January 2009 is President Dick Cheney.

"president" Cheney .. who has an approval rating of about 8%

[Guthrie]

-- hence the rallying cry -

'Impeach Cheney First'

[bush_cheney2004]

-- hence the rallying cry -

'Impeach Cheney First'

While they cry, Vice President Dick "Ironman" Cheney laughs.

...Come and listen to a story 'bout a man named Dick....

[GostHacked]

Considering what Clinton was impeached for, this should have happened a long time ago for Bush. Or can no one see the hypocracy of that? Clinton lied about having sexual relations with a woman (ok an Intern). If the Lewinski case can bring down a President (which to me seemed like more of a personal affair, to which I did not see Hilary make a big deal of it, and they are still together), then getting the US involved in a war that had nothing but lies/bullshit supporting it, then YES he should be impeached.

I'm not asking whether Bush should be impeached, but whether it's feasible.

Feasible in what way? Money to investigate? Can't get people to testify. There is more evidence here than a smoking cigar. And judging by how things are going? I'd say that is more evidence than what is needed. Yes it is feasible. Just remember what Clinton was impeached for, and you should be shaking your head in disbelief that Bush has not had a serious attempt on him to bring him down. Not sure how that would have manifested. Also if Bush had a trial for impeachment, many many behind the scenes people would be testifying. That could get ugly. That is not favoured by the current Administration.

Saddam was not a imminent direct threat to the US.

Saddam was NOT working with Al-Qeada.

Saddam could not get a WMD program off the ground after the first Gulf War.

Saddam did not get yellowcake from Africa.

10 years of sanctions.

Two no fly zones.

However

Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds that the US gave them during then 80s.

Saddam was a close ally of the US in the 80s (Remember the Shah of Iran and the stand off?)

Saddam was not a threat. The war was illegal, Bush (and now I will say Cheney) should be impeached.

[blackascoal]

Considering what Clinton was impeached for, this should have happened a long time ago for Bush. Or can no one see the hypocracy of that? Clinton lied about having sexual relations with a woman (ok an Intern). If the Lewinski case can bring down a President (which to me seemed like more of a personal affair, to which I did not see Hilary make a big deal of it, and they are still together), then getting the US involved in a war that had nothing but lies/bullshit supporting it, then YES he should be impeached.

I'm not asking whether Bush should be impeached, but whether it's feasible.

Feasible in what way? Money to investigate? Can't get people to testify. There is more evidence here than a smoking cigar. And judging by how things are going? I'd say that is more evidence than what is needed. Yes it is feasible. Just remember what Clinton was impeached for, and you should be shaking your head in disbelief that Bush has not had a serious attempt on him to bring him down. Not sure how that would have manifested. Also if Bush had a trial for impeachment, many many behind the scenes people would be testifying. That could get ugly. That is not favoured by the current Administration.

Saddam was not a imminent direct threat to the US.

Saddam was NOT working with Al-Qeada.

Saddam could not get a WMD program off the ground after the first Gulf War.

Saddam did not get yellowcake from Africa.

10 years of sanctions.

Two no fly zones.

However

Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds that the US gave them during then 80s.

Saddam was a close ally of the US in the 80s (Remember the Shah of Iran and the stand off?)

Saddam was not a threat. The war was illegal, Bush (and now I will say Cheney) should be impeached.

Where is the APPLAUSE and AMEN button?

[M.Dancer]

Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds that the US gave them during then 80s.

Good luck finding a credible source for that claim.

[blackascoal]

-- hence the rallying cry -

'Impeach Cheney First'

While they cry, Vice President Dick "Ironman" Cheney laughs.

...Come and listen to a story 'bout a man named Dick....

No one believes the Dark Overlord can laugh.

He has to be the most invisible Vice-President ever.

He only rises from his crypt every 6 months and even then is only seen on military bases .. when the moon is out.

[blackascoal]

Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds that the US gave them during then 80s.

Good luck finding a credible source for that claim.

WHAT ???

Are you serious?

Perhaps you're not an American, because all of America knows and even the republicans don't deny it. They try to excuse it, but they don't deny it.

Don't you guys do any research?

It's as simple as putting "US Saddam chemical weapons" in your search engine.

Yikes

[Canadian Blue]

I did research on who gave Saddam what. Here is what I found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

So the entire Western world is to blame for the WMD's which were attained by Saddam Hussein.

By the way blackasshit, if you do "research", then why can't you put the link in yourself?

[GostHacked]

Let's show some of this.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

Let me point it out.

approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent

Degraded meaning, NOT as effective, if effective at all.

But if you read on you get...

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

OH really? Not useable? Some threat. But then after a while when this proved to be a dead end, Bush just said that the WMDs were not really the point anyways. And it's not like the US did not themselves use WMDs in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle328703.ece

[M.Dancer]

Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds that the US gave them during then 80s.

Good luck finding a credible source for that claim.

WHAT ???

Are you serious?

Perhaps you're not an American, because all of America knows and even the republicans don't deny it. They try to excuse it, but they don't deny it.

Don't you guys do any research?

It's as simple as putting "US Saddam chemical weapons" in your search engine.

Yikes

Perhaps my cousin twice removed on my sister in law's side, there is a reason you want someone else to waste their time....perhaps the request is too difficult for you or anyone. So let's just drop the conseptual proof and do your own homework attenmpt to provide real proof for those fringe claims.

Lets see the documents proving the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons.

[M.Dancer]

And it's not like the US did not themselves use WMDs in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle328703.ece

Okay, now that we have established you don't kbnow what you are talking about......

incendiary weapons are no more WMD as hand grenades

[blackascoal]

Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds that the US gave them during then 80s.

Good luck finding a credible source for that claim.

WHAT ???

Are you serious?

Perhaps you're not an American, because all of America knows and even the republicans don't deny it. They try to excuse it, but they don't deny it.

Don't you guys do any research?

It's as simple as putting "US Saddam chemical weapons" in your search engine.

Yikes

Perhaps my cousin twice removed on my sister in law's side, there is a reason you want someone else to waste their time....perhaps the request is too difficult for you or anyone. So let's just drop the conseptual proof and do your own homework attenmpt to provide real proof for those fringe claims.

Lets see the documents proving the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons.

Nope .. you have no interest in the obvious truth.

[M.Dancer]

[Nope .. you have no interest in the obvious truth.

And you have no interest in backing up you lies.

[GostHacked]

I did research on who gave Saddam what. Here is what I found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

So the entire Western world is to blame for the WMD's which were attained by Saddam Hussein.

By the way blackasshit, if you do "research", then why can't you put the link in yourself?

blackasshit??? Don't get yourself banned for that remark.

It is a test for you. To see if you can find it yourself. And since you easily did, others can do the same to educate themselves on the topic. People need to know this skill. The skill of informing themselves and not letting the media and the government shove lies down your throat. Go with what YOU see out there. When Bush llies about things and then lies about the lies, and yet you STILL swallow every little bit of it, you need to give your head a shake. Or maybe head to the bathroom to purge yourself.

Something satisfying in looking and searching for answers. Something that only you can do for yourself. Don't expect the: and I will use Black Dog's: claptrap media to do it for you. When is the last time you saw real news and real reporters. Investigative reporting. Not some 'talking points memo' slantspin on daily events.

Lets see the documents proving the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2002/506/27605\

From this article I looked for the LA Times artile.

Found it archived here.

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00776.html

In addition to clearing the way for new financial aid, senior Bush aides as late as the spring of

1990 overrode concern among other government officials and insisted that Hussein continue to be

allowed to buy so-called "dual use" technology -- advanced equipment that could be used for both

civilian and military purposes. The Iraqis were given continued access to such equipment, despite

emerging evidence that they were working on nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction.

Fringe claims indeed. OH and hypocracy.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle328703.ece White Phosphourus used in Iraq BY the US military.