Quote:

---

But George should be impeached for lying to the American people about the reasons for the Iraq war (WMD's, imminent threat, etc.)

---

Quote:

---

And the conflicts of interest are the friends of his getting jobs when they aren't qualified (FEMA), and friends getting contracts due to the war to rebuild that which we destroyed...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
No, just the ones that knowingly allign themselves with monsters in the cause of making better worlds...

---

Quote:

---

In his first major address on the Iraqi threat in October 2002, President Bush invoked fiery images of mushroom clouds and mayhem, saying, “Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. In March 2003, Cheney went on national television days before the war and claimed Iraq “has reconstituted nuclear weapons.” He was echoed by State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, who told reporters of supposedly grave “concerns about Iraq’s potential nuclear programs.” Even after the invasion, when troops failed to uncover any evidence of nuclear weapons, the White House refused to admit the truth. In July 2003, Condoleezza Rice told PBS’s Gwen Ifill that the administration’s nuclear assertions were “absolutely supportable.” That same month, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted: “There’s a lot of evidence showing that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.' National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," Rice said.

---

Quote:

---

Nothing impeachable there either...
You'll have to come up with MUCH better than that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Please don't talk to the crazy person. You'll only encourage him.

---

Quote:

---

That's because you only listen to right-wing morons whose talking point straight from Rove is to always refer to the Democratic Party

---

Quote:

---

because the term Democratic plays too well in the polls.

---

Quote:

---

AFA saying that WMD was an imminent threat...

---

Quote:

---

BTW- I actually feel sorry for Saddam. I don't believe in the death penalty and I don't think anyone should die that way.

---

Quote:

---

That's because you only listen to right-wing morons whose talking point straight from Rove is to always refer to the Democratic Party because the term Democratic plays too well in the polls. -signy

It's funny the fear some have for Rove, and the power they try to instill in him. There's no 'talking point' issue here, and Rove isn't the start/ end of all that is conservative. Me thinks you obsess a tad too much. Which demonstrates the 'style' over 'substance' mentality of the Left wing, being ruled by polls, and not principle. -auraptor

---

Quote:

---

No where in your little 'commentary' was it shown that Bush said anything about Iraq or its nuclear program being an imminent threat.

---

Quote:

---

"Absolutely. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an imminent threat 5/7/03

WH Natl Security briefing
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack...We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. "

"This is about imminent threat." White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Well, of course he is." White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, responding to the question "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" 1/26/03

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent-- that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

---

Quote:

---

When a man like Saddam is so far removed, in the public's eyes, from the crimes he committed, it's easy to feel sympathy for him. But remember, no one should die in their village being gassed to death by their gov't either. Mothers and their children shouldn't have died ,embracing each other, gasping for their last breaths. No one should die being fed to a pack of dogs, as Saddams victims did. No one should die being fed - alive - feet first into industrial sized wood chippers, as Saddam's victims were. No one should be forced to dig their own grave, then be shot in the back of the head , simply because of their political views. The list of atrocities committed under Saddam's power is long and greusome

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Succatash:
When a man like Bush is so far removed, in the public's eyes, from the crimes he committed, it's easy to feel sympathy for him. But remember, no one should have their country invaded using false pretenses.

---

Quote:

---

Very interesting how your reply didn't address my point

---

Quote:

---

But I don't believe that we have the lawful right to take a person's life when they do NOT pose an "imminent threat". The whole concept of righteous violence makes us Saddam's equal.

---

Quote:

---

That's because you have no point. The premise that I only listen to those whose talking points come directly from Rove is flat out nonsense and baseless. I've no need to defend that which isn't valid.

---

Quote:

---

No quote where Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat.

---

Quote:

---

Post anything you want, but you can't find Bush saying it. It was the PRESS that jumped on those words, egged on by the Left wing Democrats, who used that sound bite mentality to give themselves some cover for the exact same things Bush said concerning Iraq, even before Bush was in office. Nice try, but not cigar.

---

Quote:

---

Saddam wasn't executed by us, nor was he executed for posing an 'imminent threat' to us, but for the crimes against humanity , and the planet, which he himself was guilty.

---

Quote:

---

BTW- it wasn't "the press" that jumped on the term, since it appeared in WH documents and in cabinet and VP statements. You CAN read, can't you?

---

Quote:

---

Yes, it was ' the press' that jumped on the imminent thread ' band wagon, after Bush mentioned it in his SOTU speech. If you recall, it was the Lib Dems and the willing Left wing press that erronously spread the lie that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat, when what he really said is that we must act BEFORE Iraq becomes one. Big, large time difference in meaning there, and no 'parsing of words'. Just one of the many such tricks the left wing media does when reporting 'the news'

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Bush has committed no crimes. Iraq was not invaded under false pretenses. Your position is moot.

---

Quote:

---

Unless they are Islamic terrorist who are blowing up civilians, then it's ok.

---

Quote:

---

There are no attrocities. You're nothing more than a political hack. You have nothing but baseless accusations and petty hatred for those not of your political affiliation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Yes, it was ' the press' that jumped on the imminent thread ' band wagon, after Bush mentioned it in his SOTU speech. If you recall, it was the Lib Dems and the willing Left wing press that erronously spread the lie that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat, when what he really said is that we must act BEFORE Iraq becomes one. Big, large time difference in meaning there, and no 'parsing of words'. Just one of the many such tricks the left wing media does when reporting 'the news'

---

Auraptor- I quoted several sentences in which key Administration figures used the term "imminent threat" specifically and others used dictionary synonyms. There are more to be found at the posted links.

EDIT: Since you insist that Bush and his Administratition did not characterize Iraq as an "imminent threat" then by YOUR reasoning Bush is guilty of violating international law.

---

Quote:

---

It is moot, because moot means debatable, not inconsequential or wrong as you'd like it too mean I suspect, and in that case you're point is also moot, that is open to debate.

---

Quote:

---

The original claim has always been trying to lay blame on BUSH, and his 'misleading us into Iraq', by stating an existing 'imminent threat'. I've already pointed out the distortion the press and the Left are guilty of creatiing over this issue. What the administration did was RESPOND to the characterization by the Press in regards to 'imminent threat '

---

Quote:

---

Bush is by no means guilty of violating any international law, and nothing I'm suggesting even remotely implies as such. I have no idea where you're getting that nonsense from, other than thin air.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
[You keep missing the point. I never said Bush " and his administration " . That was YOUR doing. The original claim has always been trying to lay blame on BUSH, and his 'misleading us into Iraq', by stating an existing 'imminent threat'. [edited...edited] What the administration did was RESPOND to the characterization by the Press in regards to 'imminent threat '.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

It is moot, because moot means debatable, not inconsequential or wrong as you'd like it too mean I suspect, and in that case you're point is also moot, that is open to debate.

---

Sorry citizen, this is how I was using the word:
moot:

1. Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
2. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.


Hope any confusion on your part is cleared up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Where, exactly, in your world, AU, does the buck stop? Who is the person in charge of what happens in the White House, or is it no-one?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
...what he really said is that we must act BEFORE Iraq becomes one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

It is against international law to attack a sovereign nation that is NOT an "imminent threat" to your own. Either we went to war under the false pretenses of Iraq being an "imminent threat" (it was not) or we went to war without proper provocation. Either way, Rap, the war was illegal. Either the Congress is at fault for giving Bush permission to wage his unjustified war, or the Bush Admin. is at fault for promoting a lie--or both!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Either the Congress is at fault for giving Bush permission to wage his unjustified war, or the Bush Admin. is at fault for promoting a lie--or both!

---

Quote:

---

AURaptor, if we acted (i.e.: went to war) BEFORE Iraq became an "imminent threat," then we went to war in violation of interantional law.

---

Quote:

---

Either the Bush Admin. claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, falsely, to goad us into war, or they did not, and the war in Iraq was pure adventurism.

---

Quote:

---

It is against international law to attack a sovereign nation that is NOT an "imminent threat" to your own. Either we went to war under the false pretenses of Iraq being an "imminent threat" (it was not) or we went to war without proper provocation. Either way, Rap, the war was illegal. Either the Congress is at fault for giving Bush permission to wage his unjustified war, or the Bush Admin. is at fault for promoting a lie--or both.

---

Quote:

---

As far as it was the UN is concerned, it was legal. Has there been any sanctions against the US for the war w/ Iraq? No.

---

Quote:

---

I doubt the UN could put effective sanctions on the US if you guys dropped a Nuclear weapon on Paris.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
WHAT are you talking about? Is this the usual avoiding the topic/ ad hominem again?

---

Quote:

---

Should he (Saddam) be hanged?

Will he be hanged?

After the fact, will stand-up comics joke about Saddam being well-hung?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

As far as it was the UN is concerned, it was legal. Has there been any sanctions against the US for the war w/ Iraq? No.

---

The US is a permenant member of the UN council. How, pray tell is it supposed to put sanctions on one of it's permenant members. I doubt the UN could put effective sanctions on the US if you guys dropped a Nuclear weapon on Paris.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
]


Could this be some of the reason people feel compelled to fly US airplanes into US buildings to begin with ?

Perhaps the world really has to grow a set, and tell the US where to go, while governments seem reluctant... popular opinion is going the other way...........




" Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack

Run to the hills run for your lives "

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/ironmaiden/liveafterdeath.html#12

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
PirateJenny then claims that Bush should be hanged for his (unspecified) crimes before Saddam. Succatash proclaims that PJ is justified in this statement.

---

Quote:

---

Could this be some of the reason people feel compelled to fly US airplanes into US buildings to begin with ?

Perhaps the world really has to grow a set, and tell the US where to go, while governments seem reluctant... popular opinion is going the other way...........

---

Quote:

---

Is Saddam a martyr?

---

Quote:

---

Yes. For all those who favor gassing of Kurdish villages filled with women and children.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Is Saddam a martyr?

---

Yes. For all those who favor gassing of Kurdish villages filled with women and children.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Yes. For all those who favor gassing of Kurdish villages filled with women and children.

---

Oh yes, let's see... where DID Saddam get those "crop spraying" choppers from again....? I

.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
C'mon, even you'd like it if we did that !

---

Quote:

---

Does it matter ? I'd say it matters more what he DID with them. But that's just me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Yes. For all those who favor gassing of Kurdish villages filled with women and children.

---

Oh yes, let's see... where DID Saddam get those "crop spraying" choppers from again....? I

---

Quote:

---

1983
* A SD report concluded that Iraq continued to support groups on the SD’s terrorist list.[5]

* Iraq reportedly began using chemical weapons (CW) against Iranian troops in 1982, and significantly increased CW use in 1983. Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz, said that reports of Iraq using CWs on Iranian military personnel "drifted in" at the year’s end.[6] A declassified CIA report, probably written in late 1987, notes Iraq's use of mustard gas in August 1983, giving further credence to the suggestion that the SD and/or National Security Council (NSC) was well aware of Iraq's use of CW at this time.[7]

* Analysts recognized that "civilian" helicopters can be weaponized in a matter of hours and selling a civilian kit can be a way of giving military aid under the guise of civilian assistance.[8] Shortly after removing Iraq from the terrorism sponsorship list, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters.[9] Later, and despite some objections from the National Security Council (NSC), the Secretaries of Commerce and State (George Baldridge and George Shultz) lobbied the NSC advisor into agreeing to the sale to Iraq of 10 Bell helicopters,[10] officially for crop spraying. See "1988" for note on Iraq using U.S. Helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons.

* Later in the year the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons.[11] Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[12]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
To put this inperspective, the Iraninas were frequent targets of Iraqi WMD attacks (w/ USA intel assistance) and the Kurdish gas attack of Halajabah occurred at near the end of the Iran-Iraq war, with USA reluctanct to lay blame squarely on Iraq for many years after the attack.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Interesting. An eyewitness account of the Halajaba attack indicates that it was Mig-23 fighter-bombers using bombs, not helicopters spraying gas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
So, while it looks like American choppers weren't used, it does look like American chemical weapons were used. It also looks like the CIA and the US's positions were radically altered on a whim when the political winds changed.

To me, even though you may have successfully refuted the helicopter claim, the link you cited did more harm to your case than good.

---

Quote:

---

According Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China.[1] By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

From Wiki, right at the beginning of the piece:
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Any outrage against Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, UAE, Germany, the UK, France, and China?

---

Quote:

---

O.K. Find me an unbiased source that gives a differing account of the Halajaba attacks.

---

Quote:

---

Any outrage against Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, UAE, Germany, the UK, France, and China?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Any outrage against Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, UAE, Germany, the UK, France, and China?

---

Of course. However, since the USA is my country... and yours too.... any outrage about what OUR country did?

---