Subject:
|
Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:04:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
252 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > If failing to account
> > for WoMD is a good reason to invade, well, didn't someone find some stuff on
> > your home soil a few months back that was missing since '69?
>
> Wait a minute. People can see that the US was missing some stuff for over 40
> years and only recently found it but are complaining that we haven't found
> anything burried in the Iraqi desert after only a few months!? Color me
> confused.
But that's not the issue. The issue is that Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice
(among other admin officials and toadies) asserted that Saddam was an active and
immediate threat with an active chemical/biological weapons program and an
active nuclear agenda. Bush et al also claimed that Saddam could be ready to
attack the US within 45 minutes. Bush also claimed that Saddam had
remote-operated weapons capable of reaching the US. Bush also claimed that
Saddam was actively supporting and actively linked to Al-Qaida.
So the problem isn't simply that weapons (supplied, in some cases, but the US
and its allies) have gone missing from Iraq. The problem is that Lt. Bush has
misled the US public, Congress, the UN, and the world at large. Even if, as the
spin-doctors now allege, Bush acted in good faith with the intell supplied to
him, that's not good enough. He squandered the world's goodwill, not to mention
causing the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis and an ever-increasing number
of US citizens. If he knowingly lied, then he should certainly be impeached.
If he was fanatical enough to embrace 100% incorrect information, then he should
resign out of respect for the office.
Remember--this is the man who campaigned on a platform of restoring dignity
and honor to the Whitehouse. As I recall, the previous occupant (ie, the most
recently elected President) was impeached for having a legal sexual relationship
(I remind the reader that he was not guilty of perjury nor of obstruction of
justice). Why, then, should not Dubya, the self-appointed moral policeman, be
held to a similar standard of responsibility?
Dave K's comment about missing US materiel is valid but tangential to the main
point, which is that Dubya must be held accountable for his statements.
And let's not overlook the humor in Dubya's complaining about his faulty
intelligence. I've been questioning his intelligence for more than three years
now.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
