An urgent investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by passing on bogus intelligence through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, it emerged yesterday.
-----------------
"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi."
-------------------
However, it is clear that the CIA - at loggerheads with Mr Chalabi for more than eight years - believes it has caught him red-handed, and is sticking to its allegations.
--------------------------
"The suggestion that Chalabi is a victim of a smear campaign is outrageous," a US intelligence official said. "It's utter nonsense. He passed very sensitive and classified information to the Iranians. We have rock solid information that he did that."
------------------------
Those claims helped make the case for war but have since proved groundless, and US intelligence agencies are now scrambling to determine whether false information was passed to the US with Iranian connivance.
--------------------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...1223998,00.html

If proven that Iran masterminded the intel. and the objectives in this war through Chalabi. Should the trusting Bush administration be impeached? The war in Iraq, if proven true that Iran has manipulated the superpower and has purposely put the US security at risk, and the administration blindly believing the intel. presented to it through Chalabi and seemingly Iran. Should it not bare some responsibility? If Clinton got impeached for Blow Jobs, what the hell is this?

Impeachment at this point would serve only ceremonial purpose, and there is some value to that.

However, the election is coming up, and if all the besmirching of the Oval Office the Bush junta has done is legitimized by the electorate, well ... such is life, and we'll have to figure things anew.

Well if it's found that this is true, then that would certainly be something. In fact I think that maybe an investigation should be launched, and then recalled a bit early, followed by a premature invasion of Iran. We can figure out what our investigation figured out in the aftermath of having taken Iran for ourselves, and then maybe leave an occupying force in there or something and return sovereignty to them under new honest leaders, or something like that; thinking up what happens after the invasion is getting a bit ahead of ourselves, isn't it?

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go put on my generals hat and pretend I'm driving a tank while I sit at my desk watching footage from all of our really cool wars these past four years. Yeehaw! Lets root out those Liars of Mass Deception!

There are so many grounds for impeachment at this point that its ridiculous. If we had justice the Chalabi thing would just add one more consecutive life sentence to Bush's jail term.

Well at least we know one member enjoys being manipulated by Tehran. It is true that this administration mere existence now is really quite an achievement unto itself. What the greatest irony is that the admin. has wrapped itself to tightly with the American flag, that if proven true there would seem to be a duplicity in the admin. nationalistic pride. If true, Iran has pulled off one of the greatest mass deception in history. I don’t think there is a question (in a logical, cognitive) persons mind that if true this administration should be charged with something, and those involved should be under great scrutiny. What Garfolo has said is true if you support this administration you must have a “character flaw”.

I don't know. This looks to me like yet another desperate attempt, by an Administration being crushed by its own lies, to try to point the finger at someone else. It would be so easy for the Bush Administration to just point the finger at Iran and blame them, instead of accepting the blame that the intelligence committee basically had no real intelligence on the WMD's (the supposed first reason for war). To me this looks like the Bush Administration trying to kill two birds with one stone. 1 they are trying to further remove themselves from the lack of WMD's debacle and 2 they get to finger an old enemy and one who Bush deemed to be one of the Axis of Evil (if memory serves me correct).

Maybe I'm way out of line here and pardon me if I am, but the result of blaming Iran for the false intelligence is that the Iraqi people would then have someone else to blame for all that the US and the Allies has done to them. The US can say to the Iraqi people that it was Iran who manipulated them into attacking their country because they were fed false intelligence. Make the Iraqi turn the blame toward an old enemy while the US backs out slowly all while sticking their tongues out at Iran and saying ner ner.

Bush should definitely be impeached, not necessarily for the Chalabi incident though. He should be impeached for shameless toadying to his corporate masters, he should be impeached for promoting inhumane acts in the capture and interrogation of people around the world, he should be impeached because of the shame he has brought on the american people, for hastening our downfall as a respected world power.

Remember, impeachment does not mean to remove from office. I think the election will serve to remove him from office. But perhaps he should take the place of the first president to be removed from office. His actions are disgraceful and impeachment, at the least censure, would establish a precedent to future presidents who think they can act like they're god's chosen one, that they have a mandate to act in a disgraceful manner without consequence.

impeachment while tasting great as well as less filling, might result in inflation and other assorted voodoo ecosociophysics. incident at....ring a bell? the american peep's downfall has hastened because of interrogative tactics derived from age old mystical kabbalah rituals of a nature that hastened not only the downfall of the shah but also maximized a flowering... sorry , a vegetating of a neocon military industrial maximus complex that emphasizes negative growth of the space program

alas i digressed...name is chalabi! james chalabi! secret iranian spy! (music..crescendo)

haha holly cow man this forum must be like 50 billion EU ppl cause this is just insian. Impeach him? hell you with the thing you listed exonerated him. I mean learn to read ppl. Impeachment is for when an offical does something illegal. Based on what I just read Bush did nothing illegal. He simply believed false intel fed to him by Iran. If he himself had realy lied to the public etc then yes that would be impeachable. As it is all you did was prove at MOST his gulibility because of his previous dislike of Saddam etc. That just proves he's human. If you think your above mistakes like this your deluded.

You ppl are so blinded by hate you forgot who your fighting. I mean wake up and look around Bush doesn't want to kill you. The terrorist want to kill you. Why are you so obsesed with attacking Bush?

I just don't get it. Hell I don't even realy like Bush. I'm atheist. His religious speachs bug me. However the man is doing a damm good job of handling this whole situation. I mean how is it that everyone 3 yrs after the fact has TOTALY forgoten that we lost 3000+ ppl in a terrorist attack on US soil.

All you EU ppl need to look around. Your nieghbor spain just got the shit kicked out of them. Guess who's next? What you think the terrorist are just going to pack up and go home just cause you say peace and love is the best way? Plz. They will laugh at you and cut your head off. Owe wiat they already did that to that guy in Iraq.

Sorry I just got to laugh. Not at him for dieing. At you cause your next... I laugh cause its ironic that you have to power to stop it by helping the US. Yet you sit on your asses preaching peace and love and understanding. Meanwhile the terrorist are killing ppl every day.

I just reread this and I find it funny that EU as a whole is falling for the EXACT same sortof misdirection that they fault pres bush of falling for. Bush was blinded by his prior hate for Saddam into beliveing he had to act. Based on false intel about WMD supplied by iran. EU hates america based on propaganda and false acusations. I guess its implied that you already disliked us. I have no idea why.

Frankly I just don't get it. I mean if I didn't know better I'd say you liked being under the heal of the natzi's and we did the wrong thing SAVING YOUR ASS. You obviously feel that we shouldn't have saved the Iraqs from the heal of Saddam and his 2 wacko sons.

Bah whatever.

what do you have against the EU? go to europe and see the difference. they really have their shit together. it isnt propaganda taht makes europe pist at the US. it is the cavalier arrogance that pisses them off. we dont live in an international community similar to that existing prior to ww1. bush hasnt realized that, nor have you.

he himself had realy lied to the public etc then yes that would be impeachable.

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, Oct. 7, 2002:

"The Iraqi regime... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
----------------------------
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
-----------------
United Nations Address, Sept. 12, 2002:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

Just some of his lies, yes he has already lied to you and America. The Iranian issue could be characterized as criminal negligence by not only the administration but the intelligence community in the US. Sen. Graham …"there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration." There sure as hell has been…do I hear fraud? These are the best:

2:28 p.m. May 29, 2003

In an interview with Polish TV station TVP, hours before leaving on a seven-day trip to Europe and the Middle East, Bush says: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.” [White House, 5/29/2003; The Washington Post, 5/31/2003]


An overt and complete lie, these were not biological labs. No traces of biological agents were found. Let us not forget the Niger/uranium scenario:

Sources: Unnamed intelligence official] Following Tenet's statement, a barrage of news reports citing unnamed CIA officials reveal that the White House had in fact been explicitly warned not to include the African-uranium claim. These reports indicate that at the time Bush delivered his State of the Union address, it had been widely understood in US intelligence circles that the Africa-uranium claim had little evidence supporting it. [The Washington Post, 7/20/03;

Yet he clearly stated those famous 16 words, which was tantamount to recklessness, and overtly lying even though the CIA warned him not to do it. So yes Bush is a liar and should be impeached, Iran is merely the cherry on top of a shit pile of this administration.

...Impeachment is for when an offical does something illegal. Based on what I just read Bush did nothing illegal. He simply believed false intel fed to him by Iran. If he himself had realy lied to the public etc then yes that would be impeachable...

Personally, I don't think he can be held accountable for falling for a double agent (if that's the case), but I do think he should be held accountable for the human rights violations that are happening during his watch. Unfortunately, the investigation will never reach the point where it can be confirmed that the orders came from high above. And he should also be held accountable for dragging the constitution through the mud for his vaunted "war on terror".

As I say, an impeachment may not be the order of the day, but a censure should be. A message should be sent to future presidents that they are not allowed to use emotional response to a catastrophe to further a right-wing (or left-wing) agenda. I'm still waiting for drug dealers to be labelled terrorists and either sentenced to death or shipped of to Guatanamo.

It's entirely possible (in fact, probable) that Bush is not responsible for these things. Bush could very well (read likely) be a puppet for his vice-president and cabinet members. But this should be censured as well. Anyone with an agenda of less than constitutional means could hide behind a puppet president (not even a well hidden one) and be safe from prosecution if we don't stand up for our rights. Men must be held accountable for their actions. It is time for the powers that be to own up to their actions, good and bad.

On a plus side, it is wise to note that after 9/11, the administration could easily have destroyed what we think of as personal rights and the majority of the public would have accepted it. Hell, I think we expected it. Roadblocks and shifty-eyed security agents demanding to see your papers (Papers, pleazzzz). It is either a credit to the administration that they did not do this, or it is to be seen as further incompetence as it took them so long to get their shit together to start doing it (i.e. Patriot Act, etc...). If 9/11 hadn't happened, we'd likely be discussing whether Bush should be impeached or censured for working 2 days out of the week and taking a break from his "strenuous" activities the rest of the tiime. Pre-9/11, Bush did nothing. He sat on his ass and quacked like a duck.

And perhaps a precedent should be made about the sheer amount of stupidity a president should be allowed to show. It is obvious when he tries to make speeches and such that he is a brain-dead retard that needs either a voice in his ear or Cheney at his side to tell him what to say. And even then he still appears the fool. It is said that he has a lot of charisma close at hand, but that charisma doesn't come through on the television screen. I have a feeling it has to do with self-effacement that people in a personal conversation might find refreshing, but in a more official setting seems idiotic.

Anyway, it is highly doubtful that either censure or impeachment proceedings will ever be held unless someone does some serious digging and connects the dots. And it's entirely possible that during this search it might turn out that Bush is not as bad as it seems. In the absence of responsible investigation, we'll never know.


Edit: Oh yeah, and then there's the whole dumbing down of science that is occuring during his watch. Stem cells, environmental science, etc... It's disgraceful that he kowtows so obviously to religious and corporate influences. And the gay marriage thing is just stupid. What right does the president have to say anything about who should marry who. Next, he'll be choosing your partner and we'll have mass weddings, Reverand Moon style.

what do you have against the EU? go to europe and see the difference. they really have their shit together. it isnt propaganda taht makes europe pist at the US. it is the cavalier arrogance that pisses them off. we dont live in an international community similar to that existing prior to ww1. bush hasnt realized that, nor have you.

International community? Your joking right? So what your saying is that just because we now have high tech comunications and can talk to each other that the US should do things the way France likes? I mean seriously you talk about international community then act like your part of it and help. In one of my posts I used the example of a nieghbor hood bully that got a gun and was killing ppl. If my other nieghbor didn't help me deal with him. I'd piss on his lawn. Which is exactly what the French did. The US got hit and hit HARD. Our responce was to fight back. Our EU allies duty was to support us and help us. Instead you (france and russia) activly campianed to stop us.

Your idea for solveing the problem? Sit and wiat I guess? I have still yet to hear a solution come from anyone on these boards. its jan 2003. Saddam is on the ropes the troops are biulding up in Kewait. What would you do? Scratch that lets go back to sep 2002. Afgaistan is a done deal. UBL is on the run. What now?

My REAL bitch in all this is after EVERYTHING was siad and done. Iraq was taken down in 6 weeks flat. Not even 2-3 months later you start seeing info about how there was issues with the oil for food. I mean lets face it France and Russia were looking out for there own ass. Even if they (there leaders) weren't activly part of the scandal. Thier country's had special deals with Saddam to get oil cheep. Oil that they desparetly need. Not to mension the fact that Saddam owes them assloads of money. Money that now probibly will never be piad. No France and Russia were looking out for there own damm selves. Bush was looking out for america.

He wasn't pandering to them and playing politics. He had a job to do kick some ass take some names kill some terrorist. You know he did a good job to. Cause they all dislike him alot. Why? cause he didn't cow tow to them. Your damm right americans are arrogant. In fact I'm proud of it. You know what you don't like it come kick our ass. Owe wait thats right your military is so small and pourly armed we would wipe you out in a matter of days. Heh whatever.

Ask yourself this. What if tommarrow the terrorist blew up the Ifal tower (sp). Just boom it falls over crushing everything around it. 1000 ppl die. Now what? Now imagine that the ppl that blew it up were hiding in say hmmmm Kewait. You KNOW they are there. Accept when you go to the UN and say lets go get them America veto's everything you do because that is were we get ALOT of oil from Kewait. Not an exact compairison but hopefully it will make you think and understand why most americans just don't care what 80% of EU thinks. Its because we can see that they CLEARLY don't care what we think want or consider important.

I still keep coming back to that burning question. What is your solution? I'm all ears. Enlighten me as to how we should deal with radical muslums in a post 911 world???

You think France likes radical Muslims, Dark? Every European country has a far longer history of dealing with both radical Muslims and with terrorists than the United States.

Afghanistan is a done deal? Are you fuckin' insane? Afghanistan is a shithole right now.

If he did a good job, then where the fuck is Osama, and why's another terrorist attack expected over the summer?

Furthermore, we don't know that al Qaeda was in Iraq, and in fact, there's much better evidence to suggest that they were in Afghanistan, and we had to divert resources from Afghanistan because of Bushdick's hard-on for Hussein.

dark man who was the neighborhood bully? no one was pushing the US around or threatening them. when the whole world tellls you a war is wrong and unwarranted, it is prolly you his wrong and not every one else.

war is a terrible and serious thing, it should be avoided at all costs and be only a last resort. in bush's case it really was his only choice considered. regardless of what the weapon's inpsectors found we were going to war.

now that we took over iraq, who do we see was right? hmm it was the rest of the world. what a fool's game.

Saddam is a very bad man and needed to be removed for his own faults. We dare not let another Hitler endure.

I can compare Bush to Hitler as well :rolleyes: . The reality of the situation was the Saddam and his regime was barely surviving, and they were surviving by American money, and other Western states importing his oil. Not only did we in the West prop up Saddam we were the ones who gave him all his little toys to play with, and gave him a carte blanche for all his actions, even the Gulf War. If you really wanted to rid of Saddam the most opportune moment was in 1991 with the Shi’a uprising, you blatantly lied to the Shi’a saying you would support their rebellion, the US did nothing. This war was completely unnecessary, and history will record it as such.

Do you lie or just beliving someone elses lies? You must either be a Pal or a Baathist.

If I am a Baathist, then you are gimp. Can you please show me where I "lied"?

As for giving Saddam toys (military equipment), that may have happened decades ago but not recently. If he got his "toys" from US then why were the US soldiers fighting against Soviet tanks and MIGs?

I didn't say that the US gave him toys; we know that the US gave Saddam satellite photos of Iran; we know that the US gave Iran chemicals; we know France gave Iraq tones of shit, as well as the USSR. But at least the latter didn't pretend that they were shocked about Saddam, nor were they the ones attacking him. What happened decades ago is very relevant indeed, it was Western and US acceptance of Iraq that made Saddam do what he did. You do realize that the US took Iraq off the terrorist supporting list in 1986 (I believe that was the year), and defended his actions in 1988 with the chem. Attacks against the Kurds. So it’s really rich for you an American to be uttering anything about “morality” and “right”.

Saddam is a very bad man and needed to be removed for his own faults. We dare not let another Hitler endure.

Is Stalin really so inaccessible to people that they must insist on the inaccurate "Hitler" comparison?

True, especially considering that Saddam himself said he liked Stalin.

Your idea for solveing the problem? Sit and wiat I guess? I have still yet to hear a solution come from anyone on these boards. its jan 2003. Saddam is on the ropes the troops are biulding up in Kewait. What would you do? Scratch that lets go back to sep 2002. Afgaistan is a done deal. UBL is on the run. What now?

We are sitting and waiting like you are dark. After all, you claim that Afghanistan is a done deal, yet where is Bin Ladin? He is the head of Al Qaeda is he not? Not Saddam, but Bin Ladin. Yet who does the US have in custody? Saddam. Now will someone tell me how we went from a war on terror and the all out assault in trying to capture OBL to now having Saddam in custody? Who was the enemy of the US from 9/11? OBL wasn't it? Oh wait that's right, Saddam is an old enemy and Bush had a grudge to grind and he basically ignored all the warnings about Al Qaeda because he was too focused on the man who once threatened daddy.

My REAL bitch in all this is after EVERYTHING was siad and done. Iraq was taken down in 6 weeks flat.
Have you failed to watch the news in the last 6 months or so? Iraq is not 'taken down'. Your soldiers are still dying over there. The war is only at its infancy my dear dark. And I have a feeling that it will get uglier as the Allied forces have lost complete control. No wonder they are so eager to hand it all over to the UN and to the interim Iraqi government now. In the meantime, innocents are dying daily. And yes I mean the soldiers who shouldn't be there and the Iraqi people.

Not even 2-3 months later you start seeing info about how there was issues with the oil for food. I mean lets face it France and Russia were looking out for there own ass. Even if they (there leaders) weren't activly part of the scandal. Thier country's had special deals with Saddam to get oil cheep. Oil that they desparetly need. Not to mension the fact that Saddam owes them assloads of money. Money that now probibly will never be piad. No France and Russia were looking out for there own damm selves. Bush was looking out for america.
Err no, the money wont be paid because the US upon invading Iraq nullified all contracts that Iraq previously had with other countries. And you seriously think Bush was looking out for America? Ok, lets go with this shall we?

If Bush was looking out for America, why did he attack Iraq? After all, who posed the biggest risk to the US? Saddam or Osama and his little ghouls? I'll give you a hint dark. Only one of them launched an attack on the US. Yes, that's right, it's good old OBL. Iraq was not capable of launching an attack on the US. The WMD's that the US had supplied Saddam in the past had already been used in the 80's and early 90's so that reason is moot. Where are the WMD's that Bush tried to convince the world posed a danger to the US and the world in general?

So how was Bush looking out for America by launching an attack on Iraq? On the contrary, I think he's done the complete opposite. He's sent a bunch of poor kids over there to die while he sits at home gleefully counting how much American companies and the oil barons (which he is also a member of) will make from the contracts of rebuilding and drilling Iraq for oil. While the oil for food program has proven that it was rendered with holes of corruption, the US 'gimme the oil or I shoot' program is proving a prosperous boon for Bush and his cronies. Too bad for all the young men and women who are dying because of it. So again I ask you dark, how is Bush looking out for America again? Ah yes.. that's right.. money in his pocket..

He wasn't pandering to them and playing politics. He had a job to do kick some ass take some names kill some terrorist. You know he did a good job to. Cause they all dislike him alot. Why? cause he didn't cow tow to them. Your damm right americans are arrogant. In fact I'm proud of it. You know what you don't like it come kick our ass. Owe wait thats right your military is so small and pourly armed we would wipe you out in a matter of days. Heh whatever.
Hmm interesting. He did a good job? Where? When? OBL is still on the loose and still harming US soldiers and civilians on a daily basis. Iraq is now an uncontrolled frontier where no one has any idea who is trying to kill who. And you're so proud that the terrorist dislike Bush a lot. My how lovely to be hated. It's a shame that in their hating Bush so much, they also hate and kill the everyday American citizen and anyone else who looks American. And they are kicking your arse dark. Every single day. Read the papers and you'll see how many terrorist attacks there are in Iraq on a daily basis. See how many soldiers are dying while Bush arrogantly strides from his helicopter on the White House lawn, looking like a rooster in a hen-house.

And you know what I find most amusing in a morbid kind of way? The fact that after it dawned on Bush that there were no WMD's, his reason for attacking Iraq was to free the Iraqis from Saddam. The oppressive Saddam who was torturing his people. Now please let me know when Bush will attack North Korea, China and Russia for the same reasons. After all, they too oppress their people and deny their citizens their basic human rights. Oh yeah that's right. Bush wont attack someone he knows can and will fight back. Unfortunately for Bush, he didn't realise that Iraq would be so difficult to control. What he thought would take a few months, now has no end in sight. I wonder if Bush regrets that day he strutted across the deck of that air-force carrier in his pilots gear to declare that the war was over and let the re-building begin.

And let me know when you've managed to wipe out Al Qaeda would you? You know, the ones who originally attacked the US? Because from where everyone is sitting, they are still wiping your arse on the floor, and unfortunately that can be witnessed daily as we watch the news and see how many soldiers are killed by a terrorist bombing in Iraq every day. Now maybe if you stopped being a proud arrogant prat, you'd see that those soldiers and the innocent people of Iraq are dying senselessly on a daily basis. But you're probably too busy shouting 'wooohoooo' as you watch the war from the comfort of your lounge room.

Impeach? Impeach??? The dude is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force. Doesn't that automatically make him eligible for a court martial?

Civilians who volunteer to participate in military missions and then violate "military discipline" or "military orders" can be court martialed. So a civilian who is legally appointed by the Constitution to be in charge of ALL military missions should certainly be subject to a court martial if he is guilty of treason (allowing Saudi Arabian officials to leave the country a few hours after the 9/11 attacks), conduct unbecoming (prominently citing his Christian religion as a motivation for his actions), and dereliction of duty (selecting idiots to be his vice president and his defense secretary and then trusting their judgment without the slightest review of the evidence they cited that supposedly warranted an attack on Iraq).

The advantage of a court martial over an impeachment is that he could not only be removed from office, he could be imprisoned. Military justice even permits the death penalty, but I'm an opponent of capital punishment and that means I don't believe in it even for this jerk.

Hitler is just the default for some reason

Yes... (http://www.mit.edu/people/mingyanf/ignorance.jpg)

yes he should be impeached immediately.

unless u guys want him to cheat the votes again...

yank yank 965 or so dead US service men.... big deal... more die in training every year.... when ever they do a wargame they expect 128 men to die... it is expectied............ what and we have wargames every 3 months in out in the sand dunes.... so what thats 512 service men dieing every year to training just in wargames... not to mention boot camps.... or chopper crashes... or getting cut in half by aresster lines on air craft carriers...

we lose less people when in combat then we do in peace time... in my opinon its safer to be at war in the US military then it is to be at peace...


here is another funny tid bid in samalia when the black hawk choppers got shot down... we lost 16 men and had like 84 wounded... and 3 black hawk choppers.. and a few hummers needed scraped after it was all said and done... and guess what they walked out on foot... the samalians that where fighting us lost 5000-9000 depending on where you look... thats 562 to 1 or 312 to 1 kill ratio... and these guys have been fighting for the last 10 years they where hardend combat vets.... experts with the RPG... it really shows me how tuff the US armed forces really are...

"go to europe and see the difference. they really have their shit together"

Translation: France and Germany make all the policies and bully the smaller countries.

shadarlocoth

The US only lost 50,000 men in Vietnam, that's not even close to what the US lost on D-day. See what happens when we make stupid illogical compares? Modern wars with America are not militaristic, I’ve even stated that the US can win her battles, but she can’t win her wars. The US has been in Iraq for over a year, and the violence is only increasing. It is short sighted thought like 800 dead so what? That makes you lose wars.

I can't believe that I actually agree with you!!!

I think you agree with me more then you let on :p

It is a matter of losing the political will to finish the job and I am concerned.

I don’t agree with that statement, this war is independent of US political will. This war like that of Vietnam depends on the motives and desires of the Iraqi ppl. This war is independent of the American people really; their only influence is whether they want a pull out or not. It is up to the Iraqi people whether or not they accept anything.

I expect the violence will increase on both sides of June 30 and then decline as the Iraqi's take over. What tickles me pink is that the war is drawing the world's terrorists to Iraq -- and away from the US. Sounds good to me!

When Iraqi’s take over there will be a civil war, this is a dangerous situation. About the terrorists, the irony is that you have created a magnet for terrorists not only to organize and hide out, but to recruit from a very wiling Iraqi population. You shouldn’t dancing yet, the situation for the US is significantly worse then pre-2003.

"If Clinton got impeached for Blow Jobs, what the hell is this?"

He was accused of perjury, not getting a blow job, which is perfectly legal.

He was accused of perjury, not getting a blow job, which is perfectly legal.

Lying about BJ, or WMD which is worse?

Lying about WMD is worse.

I don't think anyone really believes Bush lied about WMDs.

The man lied, the 16 words fiasco proves it. The CIA told him not to say anything about it because the intel. was very weak, he said it anyways. That is sexing up and essentially lying, one of the many instances. Bush lied, period.

No, only military is subject to court martial. In the US, it is a basic axiom that civilians always control the military to avoid a military coup. The President is civilian, and besides, I voted NO.I admit that it's dangerous to believe stuff you learn in fiction, but "JAG" has always been scrupulously accurate in its portrayal of military procedure. There was an episode in which a civilian reporter traveling with a group of soldiers violated the captain's orders and caused a lot of grief. He was brought up on a court martial and they made a big point of explaining to the audience that that is how things work. Even if you're not a sworn soldier, if you agree to participate in a military exercise, you have agreed to abide my military procedures and military justice.

I really would love to see Bush court-martialed. I think a lot of those generals and admirals would love to get their hands on him. Perhaps as punishment they could send him to prison in Abu Ghraib.

By the way, Bush's brain-dead daughters just finished their university education. They have no reason now not to join the military. I realize there's no draft, but shouldn't the President be sending a message of solidarity to all the families who are watching their children get blown up in Iraq? How can he demand that we send our children to fight his stupid war if he won't even send his own?

What does trusting the American people have to do with anything since Congress must impeach a President? The Republicans control both Houses so an impeachment process would be a waste of our time and money, would take longer than we have until the next election and would ultimately fail since Bush's party has more than enough votes to block an impeachment. If people insist on insulting Americans, please at least know what you're talking about.

shrubby pegasus, it is not necessarily true that a majority of international opinion is always right, since 10 out of 11 million British voters opposed military action against Germany in the early stages of World War II. I am not a big supporter of this war because I think planting democracy in the Middle East is like planting a garden in the Mojave Desert (as in, what's the point?) but Americans have not been able to trust the various selfish motivations of the international community in a very long time. Post 9/11 I don't think you can actually say that no one was threatening the US and with Ansar al-Islam operating freely in Iraq and Hussein funding Hamas and Islamic Jihad, it is not a huge leap to say Iraq needed to be dealt with, although isolation would probably have been more effective than war.

Since the French declared that they would veto anything the US brought to the table in regards to Iraq, they rendered impossible any shot at an international consensus against terror funding. My biggest problem with Bush is that he lacked the foresight to realize he was being manipulated into war by France and Germany so that we would have to go humbly back to the UN for help, something I feel we must not do.

Dear Paula:

What does trusting the American people have to do with anything since Congress must impeach a President?

What I was trying to say is this, firstly I readily admitted that Bush would not be impeached because the republicans own all three levels of gov’t. Secondly the whole point of this conversation is more a moral stance rather then one that is based in reality. Thirdly what did I mean by “not trusting the American people?” Well it’s not (or shouldn’t) be a hard concept, if you notice I wrote “Well...the election is coming up”, not trusting the American public insinuates that they will not vote Bush out of office, so it’s better to impeach the man. Sorry it confused you.

Post 9/11 I don't think you can actually say that no one was threatening the US

Of course people threatened the US and still do, but Iraq and Saddam was not one of them:

Recently retired intelligence official Greg Theilman provided the following assessment at a July 9 press conference sponsored by the Arms Control Association:

"From my perspective as a former mid-level official in the U.S. intelligence community and the Department of State, I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq. Some of the fault lies with the performance of the intelligence community, but most of it lies with the way senior officials misused the information they were provided.
"After three months of intensive searches on the ground, no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. But while the search is not yet over, I am confident in concluding that as of March 2003, when we began military operations, Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States. Its military, exhausted by the long war with Iran, severely depleted by Desert Storm, and hobbled by continuing sanctions, was significantly less capable than it was when Iraq invaded first Iran and then Kuwait.

and with Ansar al-Islam operating freely in Iraq and Hussein funding Hamas and Islamic Jihad, it is not a huge leap to say Iraq needed to be dealt with, although isolation would probably have been more effective than war.

There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist operation, which had attacked the United States on 9/11."

Firstly Ansar al-Islam was not under the control of Saddam he did not control that part of Iraq. I feel pretty confident that if Saddam could, he would have destroyed that enclave inside Kurdistan. The ones who tolerated Ansar was not Saddam it was the US’ allies in Northern Iraq. Iraq was being dealt with quite effectively, she was on the verge of collapse, another 5-10 years she would be gone (if not even less). Saddam gave up on his WMD programs way back in the mid-90’s, there was no need for them. The substanciation comes from the book “Saddam’s Bomb”:

“When they felt confident they weren’t going to be attacked again, the Iraqi’s realized they couldn’t suddenly produce this hidden arsenal because they would be accused of lying. Their only option, they told UN inspectors, was to destroy these weapons themselves.” (McGrory 250).

Also the UN weapons inspectors were doing their job very well:

It is now fair to say that the U.N. inspection process was working, and if given the time and resources necessary, could have had a good chance of both preventing any ongoing programs, discovering any activities that were underway, and ending a good deal of this low-level activity, (such as the hiding of critical blueprints and parts recently unearthed in the backyard of an Iraqi scientist), and preventing the restart of any of these programs as long as the UNMOVIC plan had been allowed to continue. The UN-approved plan was always intended to keep inspectors in Iraq indefinitely. Phase Two of the inspections was the imposition of an onsite monitoring and verification regime. There would never have been a time when Saddam would have been allowed freely restart these programs. Inspectors would have always been there, looking over his shoulders able to discover any militarily significant activity.
The derisive critics of the UN inspectors were wrong; the inspections were working. The usefulness of these kinds of inspections deserve a thorough re-evaluation. http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/article.asp?NewsID=5067
Since the French declared that they would veto anything the US brought to the table in regards to Iraq, they rendered impossible any shot at an international consensus against terror funding.

This is a massive mischaracterization of the facts; France (along with Russia) was going to veto a resolution for war because the inspections were not yet complete. The US remember was the one who was impatient and wanted war stating that the inspections were taking too long, and that Saddam was hiding all his weapons. Well it seems France was right, the US was completely unjustified in going into Iraq. Secondly what terror funding?

My biggest problem with Bush is that he lacked the foresight to realize he was being manipulated into war by France and Germany so that we would have to go humbly back to the UN for help, something I feel we must not do.

Actually that makes very little sense…think about it. If anything all the evidence is pointing to the US being manipulated by Iranian intelligence.