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 14:28:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
264 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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.
Clearly all false... But I'm not sure he actually CLAIMED those things (what he
did claim was bad enough in the lying department, though...), Dave!
> Bush also claimed that
> Saddam was actively supporting and actively linked to Al-Qaida.
I'm still in the "maybe" camp on that one, Dave!
> 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.
As usual when discussing Demopublican politicians, with rare exceptions, there's
a lot of misleading going on, Dave! That doesn't excuse it, mind you, Dave!
> 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
Adultery is legal in Arkansas (I think it SHOULD be, but that's not the
question... as I've said before, either speak out against a law, or obey it. You
don't get to say "my wife and I have a special deal")???
> (I remind the reader that he was not guilty of perjury nor of obstruction of
> justice).
How do you figure? He might not have been convicted of those (it's hard to be
convicted if you are not charged) but he's sure *guilty*, Dave!
He admitted it (parse away the parsiflage in his statements), and you know it,
Dave!
> Why, then, should not Dubya, the self-appointed moral policeman, be
> held to a similar standard of responsibility?
More so, I'd say, Dave! Especially since Bush is such a weenie.
> 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.
Got ya beat there, Dave! I've been wondering since his daddy was a VP,
actually... but he does have some intelligence, you have to admit.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
