|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by JaTo:
...blind themselves to facts and reality.
that's exactly what i'm talking about. you guys want to have an excuse for all the facts and results that don't add up.blame it on intelligence failure, blame it on clinton, blame it on islam.
You and caltour are seriously starting to bore me, and it takes a lot of foolishness to bore me out of a political discussion...
Let me put it as simple as I can to those that are clinging to the so-called "Downing Street Memo" as a life-line. It's not quite at a pop-up book level, but it should suffice:
1)The ONLY way the "Downing Street Memo" will ever hold water as the harbinger to impeachment is IF AND ONLY IF there is undisputable evidence that Bush and his cabinet KNEW there were absolutely NO WMD's in Iraq, despite the CIA stating the EXACT opposite and Democrats from ALL WALKS OF LIFE believing the SAME thing during the Clinton administration. Why? This was the MAIN reason for invasion after the security concerns that 9/11 brought to light.
2) To further elaborate, Democrats would have to figure out how, according to the Left, a dumb-ass, shoot-from-the-hip Texan and his "lackies" that aren't regarded as that much more intelligent managed to cook up one of the MOST elaborate ruses known to mankind; one that managed to bilk the CIA back in the Clinton days into fabricating faulty Intel on Iraq and managed to CONTINUE the deception for YEARS, one that somehow was able to penetrate Hussein's "Inner Circle" and discern that there were NO WMD, one that managed to fool the UN into continuning their WMD searches in Iraq during the Clinton and Bush, Jr. administration, one that managed to somehow sucker MI6 and Mossad into reporting the same story that the CIA held, one that managed to cajole and fool Democrat and Republican senators and reps alike along every vote on Iraq, one that ALSO had the French, Chinese and Russians believing that Hussein also had WMD, but just not willing to do anything about it...
...and ALL of this for WHAT?
Higher ratings and cheaper gas? Check both today, O' Wise One.
Now, take that pink elephant photo, sell it for a bundle and go
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by caltour:
caltour: "JaTo, do you see the pink elephant in that photo?"
JaTo: "Your asinine question about the so-called "elephant" reveals your complete lack of education and morals. Everyone - except liberal slime like you - knows that elephants are gray."
caltour: "JaTo, I only asked if you see the photo of the pink elephant posted in this thread. I didn't ask you what color elephants really are."
JaTo: "Are you stupid or what? Elephants cannot be PINK. You are a brain-dead idiot if you say otherwise. It's just like you to bring up such a idiotic point anyway, since you apparently know nothing about the Boer War of 1898. If you had even gone to school at all, you would know that the Boers attacked the Swazi tribes to quell a rebellion in Oogadoogoo . . . . [blah blah inky dinky blah on and on for two or three pages] . . . . . .
. . . [many pages later]. . .
caltour: "So you are really not going to admit that you see the photo of the pink elephant?"
JaTo: "Are you still sniveling about that stupid elephant? Even if the "elephant" in the so-called "photo" maybe does kind of look a little pinkish in color, that doesn't prove anything. Besides, I would definitely say it is more of a chartreuse color, not really a true pink at all. I guess you left-coast nutjobs are imagining there is a conpiracy by photographers to make elephants look pink now? . . .
caltour: [clutches head and moans]
I see our resident "Al Franken in Traning Pants" is taking another crack at humorous side-bars.
Your day-job just called and said you might consider taking it back...
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
... seriously starting to bore me, and it takes a lot of foolishness to bore me out of a political discussion...
Let me put it as simple as I can to those that are clinging to the so-called "Downing Street Memo" as a life-line. It's not quite at a pop-up book level, but it should suffice:
1)The ONLY way the "Downing Street Memo" will ever hold water as the harbinger to impeachment is IF AND ONLY IF there is undisputable evidence that Bush and his cabinet KNEW there were absolutely NO WMD's in Iraq, despite the CIA stating the EXACT opposite and Democrats from ALL WALKS OF LIFE believing the SAME thing during the Clinton administration. Why? This was the MAIN reason for invasion after the security concerns that 9/11 brought to light.
2) To further elaborate, Democrats would have to figure out how, according to the Left, a dumb-ass, shoot-from-the-hip Texan and his "lackies" that aren't regarded as that much more intelligent managed to cook up one of the MOST elaborate ruses known to mankind; one that managed to bilk the CIA back in the Clinton days into fabricating faulty Intel on Iraq and managed to CONTINUE the deception for YEARS, one that somehow was able to penetrate Hussein's "Inner Circle" and discern that there were NO WMD, one that managed to fool the UN into continuning their WMD searches in Iraq during the Clinton and Bush, Jr. administration, one that managed to somehow sucker MI6 and Mossad into reporting the same story that the CIA held, one that managed to cajole and fool Democrat and Republican senators and reps alike along every vote on Iraq, one that ALSO had the French, Chinese and Russians believing that Hussein also had WMD, but just not willing to do anything about it, and tricked the Iraqi government into submitting a declaration to the UN documenting their weapons programs & stockpiles...
...and ALL of this for WHAT?
Higher ratings and cheaper gas? Check both today, O' Wise One.
Now, take that pink elephant photo, sell it for a bundle and go
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
...and ALL of this for WHAT?
that's the 200 billion dollar question. many have asked, but all we get in response is this...
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
1) The ONLY way the "Downing Street Memo" will ever hold water as the harbinger to impeachment is IF AND ONLY IF there is undisputable evidence that Bush and his cabinet KNEW there were absolutely NO WMD's in Iraq, despite the CIA stating the EXACT opposite and Democrats from ALL WALKS OF LIFE believing the SAME thing during the Clinton administration. Why? This was the MAIN reason for invasion after the security concerns that 9/11 brought to light.
You don't know what you're talking about. Please read this: Cornell Law School explains the law and procedure of impeachment., since you apparently didn't read it when I posted it earlier.
Under the constitution, a president can be impeached for almost any kind of misconduct. There is no requirement of "undisputable [sic] evidence." There is no requirement that Bush knew there were "absolutely NO WMD's." The actual legal standards for impeachment are set forth in the constitution and in federal case law, and they bear no resemblance to the fantasy you are trying to palm off on us here.
Originally posted by JaTo:
2) To further elaborate, Democrats would have to figure out how, according to the Left, a dumb-ass, shoot-from-the-hip Texan and his "lackies" that aren't regarded as that much more intelligent managed to cook up one of the MOST elaborate ruses known to mankind; one that managed to bilk the CIA back in the Clinton days into fabricating faulty Intel on Iraq and managed to CONTINUE the deception for YEARS, one that somehow was able to penetrate Hussein's "Inner Circle" and discern that there were NO WMD, one that managed to fool the UN into continuning their WMD searches in Iraq during the Clinton and Bush, Jr. administration, one that managed to somehow sucker MI6 and Mossad into reporting the same story that the CIA held, one that managed to cajole and fool Democrat and Republican senators and reps alike along every vote on Iraq, one that ALSO had the French, Chinese and Russians believing that Hussein also had WMD, but just not willing to do anything about it...
This makes just about no sense at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,978
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,978 |
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by JaTo:
...and ALL of this for WHAT?
that's the 200 billion dollar question. many have asked, but all we get in response is this...
Originally posted by Forum Rules:
This is not a porn or sex forum....All topics with such pictures will be deleted and the poster will be warned. Further abuses will be met harshly.
Thanks for playing 'lets break the rules!' 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 624
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 624 |
There are too many big words in here....... but the pictures are funny! 
I don't "mod" I just fix what breaks!
98 CSVT #2527 T-Red (Limping)
98 CSVT #2228 T-Red (Donor)
98 SE Sport ATX V6 (Running again)
If swimming is good for your figure, explain whales to me!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by caltour:
You don't know what you're talking about. Please read this: Cornell Law School explains the law and procedure of impeachment., since you apparently didn't read it when I posted it earlier.
Under the constitution, a president can be impeached for almost any kind of misconduct. There is no requirement of "undisputable [sic] evidence." There is no requirement that Bush knew there were "absolutely NO WMD's." The actual legal standards for impeachment are set forth in the constitution and in federal case law, and they bear no resemblance to the fantasy you are trying to palm off on us here.
Now please join the regularly scheduled reality that the rest of this planet partakes in. If you think that the Downing Street Memo in of itself is something that will bring forth impeachment hearings, I have beachfront property here in Kansas you may be interested in. Why? Evidence! You fringe left-wingers are like a group of Howler Monkeys; if you scream a particular line long and loud enough, you think everyone will pay attention and believe your message despite any HARD evidence. Well, the political posturing just doesn't line up too well against the ACTUAL evidence:
First, Bush and his staff kept pushing a peaceful UN route all the way up to the invasion. They kept offering Husssein outs; Hell, they even offered an ultimatum that put forth exile as an option that would stave off invasion. Having a decade of history to look at that put forth the pattern of continual lies and obfucation by Iraq definitely didn't paint a rosy picture of any type of honest compliance.
In short, it looks like the US prepared for the worst, but hoped for the best.
Secondly, the invasion of Iraq was put to a vote in the House and Senate and PASSED. Many of your left-wing pals apparently made an independent judgement call on the evidence presented by the intelligence community themselves in favor of ousting Hussein, or have you convienently forgot that?
Finally, you actually think that with the current House and Senate that impeachment has a snowball's chance in Hell? Drop the hookah. Seriously. There will have to be OVERBEARING evidence brought forth and I think that has about as much chance as existing as us finding massive amounts of WMD in Iraq...
Originally posted by caltour:
This makes just about no sense at all.
Precisely! You left-field straight-jacket cases are so focused on fixing events and viewing them through a kaleidoscope to line up with impeachment that you are missing the bigger picture. This country didn't go to war on Iraq SOLELY over the the importation of aluminum tubes, the supposed "Al-Qaeda" links, which were brought up in the last months of the saga; we went to war with Iraq due to the OVERWHELMING reason of missing WMD from the official UN tallies (which came from Hussein and his staff), this going on for a decade and finally the HUGE security concern it presented in light of 9/11.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
This country . . . went to war with Iraq due to the OVERWHELMING reason of missing WMD from the official UN tallies (which came from Hussein and his staff), this going on for a decade and finally the HUGE security concern it presented in light of 9/11.
THIS IS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!!! You cannot seriously believe that Bush and his cronies went to war with Saddam because they genuinely thought he might unleash WMDs on us. There was NO evidence whatsoever that Saddam was capable of striking us with WMDs (or any other kind of weapons, for that matter). There is not one shred of evidence that Saddam could ever have inflicted harm on the U.S. with WMDs. Even the most paranoid accounts indicated he had nothing more than the ability to spray poison gas within his own borders, and the vain hopes of having nuclear weapons someday. Just like every other tinpot dictator on the planet.
If Saddam was in fact a true military threat to the U.S., then why did the Bushmen have to lie and spin and manipulate in order to get its war? They lied about the yellowcake uranium, the aluminum tubes, the ties to Al-Quaeda, the "reconstituted" WMD programs. They lied because they had no real case. They lied because the public did not want the war until they were made to pee their pants by endless talk of african uranium and aluminum tubes. Bush used the post-9/11 hysteria to spin Saddam into a military threat to the U.S.
If the Bushmen didn't have any genuine reason to fear attack by Saddam, then why did they go to all the trouble of starting a war? Four reasons:
1. Re-election. This is by far the most important reason. Bush only narrowly won election in 2000 (some say he actually lost). The messy and suspicious vote counting in Florida pissed off Democrats nationwide. As a result, Bush was very unpopular, with approval ratings well below what he needed to be assured re-election in 2004. He and his handlers anticipated an uprising of frustrated and angry Democrats in 2004. What to do? Enter Karl Rove. "The only thing that will save you is running as a wartime president," Karl says. So Karl & Co. cook up a war to save an unpopular president's ass, and hang it on the peg of 9/11.
2. Bush's corporate pals want some war profits! The economy wasn't looking so hot after Bush took office. Economists were predicting months or years of slow or no growth. Bush and Cheney's corporate pals use their unprecedented access to the first "MBA president" (and to all the Republican and Democrat corporate shills in congress) to lobby for more military spending. "Hey, George, listen to those brilliant neo-conservative thinkers in your administration, especially Perle, Wolfowitz, and Rice," they say. "A war would be good. We could sell you everything from missiles to saltine crackers if you would just start a splendid little war."
3. Revenge on Saddam for attack on Bush's father. Don't even think of downplaying this one. The Bushes are known for a bizarre family allegiance and a ruthless streak of vengeance. They are like a combination of the Appalachian Hatfields and the New Jersey Gambinos. When Saddam launched his unsuccessful hit on Bush Sr., it was only a matter of time before the Bushes launched a counterattack. On our nickel.
4. Future access to oil. Cheney, Bush and their cronies come from the oil business, and they owe a lot of favors there for all those generous campaign contributions. They rode to wealth on cheap oil, and they want that to continue as long as possible. They know as well as anyone that cheap oil is coming to an end. They are all about grabbing what they can, while they can. That means that oil reserves that are locked up under tinpot dictators must be "liberated." No they aren't trying to steal Iraq's oil. No one is that stupid. But they are trying to get those oil contracts on the market, so the Bush dynasty (and hundreds of others in that business) can keep on getting richer.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Secondly, the invasion of Iraq was put to a vote in the House and Senate and PASSED. Many of your left-wing pals apparently made an independent judgement call on the evidence presented by the intelligence community themselves in favor of ousting Hussein, or have you convienently forgot that?
I don't follow your logic here. You think that because some Democrats voted to authorize war, Bush is not responsible for his decision? That's the same argument people use when they are pulled over for speeding ("Hey, you can't write me up for speeding! Everyone else is speeding, too!)
Secondly, the fact that Democrats and many others voted to authorize war would make no legal difference in impeachment hearings. Bush pulled the trigger, and he would have to answer for his decision. There is no "I-was-just-going-with-the-flow-of-traffic" defense for chief executives in impeachment hearings.
And don't assume that the Democrat lapdogs in congress are my pals. I am not a member of their party, and I don't agree with their decision to authorize the war.
Originally posted by JaTo:
First, Bush and his staff kept pushing a peaceful UN route all the way up to the invasion. They kept offering Husssein outs; Hell, they even offered an ultimatum that put forth exile as an option that would stave off invasion.
I don't follow your logic here, either. What difference does it make that Bush didn't start the war for a while before he started it? If someone is charged with murder, since when is it a defense to say "But I didn't kill anyone for many years before I killed that guy." Man, you are really grasping at straws here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899 |
Originally posted by caltour:
Originally posted by JaTo:
This country . . . went to war with Iraq due to the OVERWHELMING reason of missing WMD from the official UN tallies (which came from Hussein and his staff), this going on for a decade and finally the HUGE security concern it presented in light of 9/11.
THIS IS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!!! You cannot seriously believe that Bush and his cronies went to war with Saddam because they genuinely thought he might unleash WMDs on us. There was NO evidence whatsoever that Saddam was capable of striking us with WMDs (or any other kind of weapons, for that matter). There is not one shred of evidence that Saddam could ever have inflicted harm on the U.S. with WMDs. Even the most paranoid accounts indicated he had nothing more than the ability to spray poison gas within his own borders, and the vain hopes of having nuclear weapons someday. Just like every other tinpot dictator on the planet.
He may not have been able to hit the US with his weapons but he could have aimed them at US interests in the region.
Quote:
If the Bushmen didn't have any genuine reason to fear attack by Saddam, then why did they go to all the trouble of starting a war? Four reasons:
1. Re-election. This is by far the most important reason. Bush only narrowly won election in 2000 (some say he actually lost). The messy and suspicious vote counting in Florida pissed off Democrats nationwide. As a result, Bush was very unpopular, with approval ratings well below what he needed to be assured re-election in 2004. He and his handlers anticipated an uprising of frustrated and angry Democrats in 2004. What to do? Enter Karl Rove. "The only thing that will save you is running as a wartime president," Karl says. So Karl & Co. cook up a war to save an unpopular president's ass, and hang it on the peg of 9/11.
Hey, in case you forgot, the Election of 2000 is over.
Quote:
2. Bush's corporate pals want some war profits! The economy wasn't looking so hot after Bush took office. Economists were predicting months or years of slow or no growth. Bush and Cheney's corporate pals use their unprecedented access to the first "MBA president" (and to all the Republican and Democrat corporate shills in congress) to lobby for more military spending. "Hey, George, listen to those brilliant neo-conservative thinkers in your administration, especially Perle, Wolfowitz, and Rice," they say. "A war would be good. We could sell you everything from missiles to saltine crackers if you would just start a splendid little war."
3. Revenge on Saddam for attack on Bush's father. Don't even think of downplaying this one. The Bushes are known for a bizarre family allegiance and a ruthless streak of vengeance. They are like a combination of the Appalachian Hatfields and the New Jersey Gambinos. When Saddam launched his unsuccessful hit on Bush Sr., it was only a matter of time before the Bushes launched a counterattack. On our nickel.
4. Future access to oil. Cheney, Bush and their cronies come from the oil business, and they owe a lot of favors there for all those generous campaign contributions. They rode to wealth on cheap oil, and they want that to continue as long as possible. They know as well as anyone that cheap oil is coming to an end. They are all about grabbing what they can, while they can. That means that oil reserves that are locked up under tinpot dictators must be "liberated." No they aren't trying to steal Iraq's oil. No one is that stupid. But they are trying to get those oil contracts on the market, so the Bush dynasty (and hundreds of others in that business) can keep on getting richer.
You just keep hurling that [censored] in hopes it will stick to somthing, huh?
Quote:
Originally posted by JaTo:
Secondly, the invasion of Iraq was put to a vote in the House and Senate and PASSED. Many of your left-wing pals apparently made an independent judgement call on the evidence presented by the intelligence community themselves in favor of ousting Hussein, or have you convienently forgot that?
I don't follow your logic here. You think that because some Democrats voted to authorize war, Bush is not responsible for his decision? That's the same argument people use when they are pulled over for speeding ("Hey, you can't write me up for speeding! Everyone else is speeding, too!)
Secondly, the fact that Democrats and many others voted to authorize war would make no legal difference in impeachment hearings. Bush pulled the trigger, and he would have to answer for his decision. There is no "I-was-just-going-with-the-flow-of-traffic" defense for chief executives in impeachment hearings.
And don't assume that the Democrat lapdogs in congress are my pals. I am not a member of their party, and I don't agree with their decision to authorize the war.
Originally posted by JaTo:
First, Bush and his staff kept pushing a peaceful UN route all the way up to the invasion. They kept offering Husssein outs; Hell, they even offered an ultimatum that put forth exile as an option that would stave off invasion.
I don't follow your logic here, either. What difference does it make that Bush didn't start the war for a while before he started it? If someone is charged with murder, since when is it a defense to say "But I didn't kill anyone for many years before I killed that guy." Man, you are really grasping at straws here.
The only straw grasper is you.
|
|
|
|
|
