Ralph Nader says impeachment (Boston Globe article)

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
Our main source of intelligence that we relied on was a alcoholic named "curveball" that other intelligence agencies around the world told us was unreliable and known to fabricate. Bush took a page from his pals at Enron and cooked the books to create a fallacy in order to justify a tragic war that has resulted in chaos. To even compare a blowjob to the loss of life of one American serviceman over lies and doctored information is a disgrace. Bush's inner circle was also very aware that the facts about Nigeria were a lie, but yet we were told that this was true. Cheney even suggested this was still true 6 months ago, which makes me wonder if he is mentally fit? It's very easy for men whom have never had to face combat such as Bush and Cheney to send young men and women to a hostile area since they have nor will they ever know the carnage that takes place.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
gardenweasel said:
kosar...we`ve been through this a zillion times....

must i pull up previous responses to the same old questions?....

reelected by more votes than clinton ever won by.....

you guys didn`t do your jobs,did you?


if he lied,and that`s as ridiculous a statement as seeing europeans march with posters showing scenes from abu ghraib, not of the beheading of daniel pearl or the murder of margaret hassan....or dan rather still saying that we still don`t know if the national guard documants are legitimate.....lol

it must have slid by the majority of american voters...........

You may want to sharpen your pencil about margins of victories for presidents.

Clinton-1992 won by about 6 million votes and 43-37%

Clinton-1996 won by 8 million votes and 49-40%

Bush lost the general vote in 2000 but had the support of the majority of supreme court justices.

Bush-2004 won by 3 million votes, most significantly had the support of 200,000 out of 200,000 homophobes in southern Ohio. 50-48%

I addressed that article in the other thread. Yes, they once had a program. They didn't in 2003. Period.

You're right about one thing though-the Dems didn't do their job in 2004 and Rove was brilliant as always, getting the gay marriage amendment on the Ohio ballot.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
These guys like to twist everything. GW, there were more votes cast against Bush then any other President in history. How is that for twisting figures. Someday you will see photos of real torture done in our name. As to Bush's lying read the Downing Street Memo, it is most likely not on any of the Blogs you go to.
 

Englishman

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 20, 2003
2,268
26
0
Lincoln Park, New Jersey
It must be great being a Democrat.....all you need is to have no principles, morals or shame.

OK, I'm going to try this just once for you illogical liberals who seem to ignore all fact:

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, NOT shooting his wad onto a fat slut's dress.

OK, any questions guy's? I'm really happy to help out if I can.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Englishman said:
It must be great being a Democrat.....all you need is to have no principles, morals or shame.

OK, I'm going to try this just once for you illogical liberals who seem to ignore all fact:

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, NOT shooting his wad onto a fat slut's dress.

OK, any questions guy's? I'm really happy to help out if I can.

lmao- good post. Yes, we all know and aknowledge that he lied about the blow job.

But, ummmm, why is it that all you goofballs can talk about is this from 7 years ago and TOTALLY ignore all the evidence, proof, FACTS that W lied, deceived and made YOU PEOPLE look foolish in his haste to oust Saddam.

E-man, I sense some frustration and I understand.

As has been mentioned 50x(and of course, never ever responded to or rebutted), lying about a blow job had nothing to do with anything. Lying about a major undertaking has cost hundreds of billions and many lives. Not to mention, it took resources away from finding Bin Laden and opened up a whole new front that breeds terrorists, where it didn't exist before.

Yet you STILL want to talk about him lying about a blowjob 7 years ago.

I've yet to get an answer to this oft repeated question: how does this occupation help the US compared to the costs, in every way?

Likely response: Clinton lied about a blow job and perjured himself.
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
Englishman said:
It must be great being a Democrat.....all you need is to have no principles, morals or shame.


I think you had a brain cramp, as lack of morals, ethics reminds me of Tom Delay and I believe he is a poster child for the Republican party
 

Marco

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 29, 2003
793
0
0
"It must be great being a Democrat.....all you need is to have no principles, morals or shame."

Personally speaking, I'm not a fan of either party. Had I been given the choice between a president who got a blowjob and lied about it under oath, or a president who got us involved in Vietnam II......

It would be a no-brainer. Give me the president who settles for getting a blowjob from an intern. Whether he's Republican or Democrat doesn't matter.

Some of you guys are so staunch and stubborn about defending party lines that you're not seeing the reality of what's going on and how it effects the average taxpayer.
 

gecko

Senior Lurker
Forum Member
Dec 7, 2001
2,469
0
0
parts unknown
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
This memo thing been around for years and do you not think the liberal media would be pounding it like a drum if they thought it noteworthy--they know it fizzeled in UK last year.

If I'm not mistake "the memo" is nothing but notes security aide Matthew Rycroft took in a meeting in July 2002---

But the potentially explosive revelation has proven to be something of a dud in the United States," reports the Chicago Tribune.

The White House has denied the premise of the memo, the American media have reacted slowly to it and the public generally seems indifferent to the issue or unwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the reasons for the war. All of this has contributed to something less than a robust discussion of a memo that would seem to bolster the strongest assertions of the war's critics.
The Los Angeles Times reported last Thursday that the story "appears to have blown over quickly in Britain."
But in the United States, where the reports at first received scant attention, there has been growing indignation among critics of the Bush White House, who say the documents help prove that the leaders made a secret decision to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein nearly a year before launching their attack, shaped intelligence to that aim and never seriously intended to avert the war through diplomacy.
Democrats and other war critics have launched campaigns to get this story a wider hearing.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Good old honest Ralph. He would never get elected by telling the truth. And he has never been bought off. Two strikes against him.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
DOGS THAT BARK said:
This memo thing been around for years and do you not think the liberal media would be pounding it like a drum if they thought it noteworthy--they know it fizzeled in UK last year.

If I'm not mistake "the memo" is nothing but notes security aide Matthew Rycroft took in a meeting in July 2002---

But the potentially explosive revelation has proven to be something of a dud in the United States," reports the Chicago Tribune.

The White House has denied the premise of the memo, the American media have reacted slowly to it and the public generally seems indifferent to the issue or unwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the reasons for the war. All of this has contributed to something less than a robust discussion of a memo that would seem to bolster the strongest assertions of the war's critics.
The Los Angeles Times reported last Thursday that the story "appears to have blown over quickly in Britain."
But in the United States, where the reports at first received scant attention, there has been growing indignation among critics of the Bush White House, who say the documents help prove that the leaders made a secret decision to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein nearly a year before launching their attack, shaped intelligence to that aim and never seriously intended to avert the war through diplomacy.
Democrats and other war critics have launched campaigns to get this story a wider hearing.

The memo was just leaked last month, so unless you were at the meeting, I don't know how it has 'been around for years.' You're probably thinking of one of the other damning reports.

Ya think Bush will respond to this letter signed by 89 congressman? Right!


The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. President:

We the undersigned write because of our concern regarding recent disclosures of a Downing Street Memo in the London Times, comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers. These minutes indicate that the United States and Great Britain agreed, by the summer of 2002, to attack Iraq, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action, and that U.S. officials were deliberately manipulating intelligence to justify the war.

Among other things, the British government document quotes a high-ranking British official as stating that by July, 2002, Bush had made up his mind to take military action. Yet, a month later, you stated you were still willing to "look at all options" and that there was "no timetable" for war. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, flatly stated that "[t]he president has made no such determination that we should go to war with Iraq."

In addition, the origins of the false contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction remain a serious and lingering question about the lead up to the war. There is an ongoing debate about whether this was the result of a "massive intelligence failure," in other words a mistake, or the result of intentional and deliberate manipulation of intelligence to justify the case for war. The memo appears to resolve that debate as well, quoting the head of British intelligence as indicating that in the United States "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

As a result of these concerns, we would ask that you respond to the following questions:
1)Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

These are the same questions 89 Members of Congress, led by Rep. John Conyers, Jr., submitted to you on May 5, 2005. As citizens and taxpayers, we believe it is imperative that our people be able to trust our government and our commander in chief when you make representations and statements regarding our nation engaging in war. As a result, we would ask that you publicly respond to these questions as promptly as possible.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
Friends from the Center and Left and Right:

MOST logically thinking persons UNDERSTAND and realize that Clinton lied about getting a blowjob. They also understand that he shouldn't have even been asked the question in the first place. They also realize that it was completely immaterial to the President's ability to govern.

In contrast you have this admin:

1) Serious credibility issues surrounding Cheney's meetings with Oil Biz that for SOME reason he won't say anything about - WHY?

2) Serious TREASONOUS act from inside White House revealing a CIA operative! For POLITICAL gain - hello Karl?

3) Serious issues about WMDs in Iraq.

But to the FAR RIGHT these are NO PROBLEM.

Cuz Clinton lied about a blowjob. But then strangely they have no compassion for his wife. But hate her. Go figure.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
ocelot said:
2) Serious TREASONOUS act from inside White House revealing a CIA operative! For POLITICAL gain - hello Karl?

Not really even political gain, but political revenge, which is even more sickening.

The husband of the agent who was outed was a former CIA operative and went to Nigeria to look into these uranium claims. He came back and wrote a column for the NYT stating that these claims were baseless and false and that the letter they had was a forgery(of course they already knew that). His wife was then outed.
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
This administration is possibly the most cynical, sickening, corrupt and outright evil one ever.

But that is just my opinion.

Yeah, I know - Clinton lied about a blowjob.
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
I agree that this administration is the most evil, vile, and lying group to grace the White House in my lifetime, but don't you think this has alot to do with Cheney? Bush really doesnt bother me except when he has to kiss the radical religious rights ass, but Cheney is a crook plain and simple. I really don't get how Conservatives can like this guy, he lies, he has been arrested numerous times, he steals all of which completly go against the teachings of the good book.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
This administration is possibly the most cynical, sickening, corrupt and outright evil one ever.



you guys got to settle down.......your over reacting.

i'm sure that your lives haven't changed much since bush has become the president & won't change much when somebody else becomes president.

in the long run there isn't much difference between the 2 parties that will alter anybody's life.
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top