slim
Member
Yes. The repeal of the 22nd ammendment is a warning of what could be if we are not careful. The people should have more power than a government.
Hard to find something when you've given up looking.GottaHurt said:They haven't found WMD's,yet.
The United States is taking steps to determine how it received erroneous intelligence that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was developing and stockpiling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday.
shuamort said:
Well, because we wouldn't want those imaginary WMDs to fall into the enemies' hands I'd assume.GottaHurt said:Why waste valuble manpower and money chasing out through the desert,
The naysayers? You mean like the administration?GottaHurt said:to appease the naysayers?
Like an exit strategy that should have been made before invasion.GottaHurt said:Right now, we're focused on what's important.
Yeah. Time told the Downing Street memoes, you're right.GottaHurt said:Time will tell though.
shuamort said:Well, because we wouldn't want those imaginary WMDs to fall into the enemies' hands I'd assume.
No, that would be anyone who acknowledges that the WMD's don't exist.shuamort said:The naysayers? You mean like the administration?
There is an exit strategy, we'll leave when the mission is accomplished.shuamort said:Like an exit strategy that should have been made before invasion.
You're certainly entitled to believe what you read.shuamort said:Yeah. Time told the Downing Street memoes, you're right.
My point is, that you're believing that they're real. Funny that that should be an impasse to logic.GottaHurt said:Well if they're imaginary, (according to you) then they can't fall into enemy hands.So, what's your point?
"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction. Why the intelligence proved wrong I'm not in a position to say, but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail." - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.GottaHurt said:No, that would be anyone who acknowledges that the WMD's don't exist.
That's like someone saying "I'll stop hitting you when you grow up".GottaHurt said:There is an exit strategy, we'll leave when the mission is accomplished.
OK, so what are you believing?GottaHurt said:You're certainly entitled to believe what you read.
And you're believing that they're not.That is why I stated in a previous post, that "Time will tell".shuamort said:My point is, that you're believing that they're real. Funny that that should be an impasse to logic.
Sounds like an accurate statement to me.shuamort said:"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction."
Sounds like another accurate statement.shuamort said:"Why the intelligence proved wrong I'm not in a position to say"
And yet another accurate statement.shuamort said:..but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail."
No, it sounds like we'll pull out of Iraq when the job is complete.shuamort said:That's like someone saying "I'll stop hitting you when you grow up".
Exactly what I said in my earlier post. We haven't found WMD's,yet.shuamort said:OK, so what are you believing?
That if there were proof that there were WMDs to begin with, the administration would still be looking for them. Instead, they gave up. No sane administration would allow WMDs to sit out there unguarded when there is so much instability in the country. Wouldn't you agree?GottaHurt said:Again, what's your point?
And what decides that? How does one get to a complete job? Those two points are the crux of an exit strategy.GottaHurt said:No, it sounds like we'll pull out of Iraq when the job is complete.
I said in a previous post, why spend the money and the manpower digging up the desert to prove a point? Focus on what is important, getting Iraq in a position to manage and defend their own country.shuamort said:That if there were proof that there were WMDs to begin with, the administration would still be looking for them.
No, you're failing to realize that there is no need to announce a date to withdraw our troops.It serves no purpose.shuamort said:And what decides that? How does one get to a complete job? Those two points are the crux of an exit strategy.
Let's say there are Al Qaeda terrorists hanging out in Iraq. Hard to imagine I know, since most of them came from Saudi Arabia, but bear with me here. Now, let's say that Bush was correct when he stated that Iraq did have WMDs and were also capable of developing more. Enjoying those leaps of logic and fact, let's say Al Qaeda find these WMDs and use them. Wouldn't that be a shame?GottaHurt said:I said in a previous post, why spend the money and the manpower digging up the desert to prove a point? Focus on what is important, getting Iraq in a position to manage and defend their own country.
There are many reasons. One would be cost control and budgetary. A second would be to assure the muslims that a country they consider to be heretical would be getting out of the land. Then there's also the fact that Bush has previously announced an exit strategy.GottaHurt said:No, you're failing to realize that there is no need to announce a date to withdraw our troops.It serves no purpose.
Let's see.President Bush National Address said:Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives: destroying the terrorists, enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future.
First, we are taking direct action against the terrorists in the Iraqi theater, which is the surest way to prevent future attacks on coalition forces and the Iraqi people. We are staying on the offensive, with a series of precise strikes against enemy targets increasingly guided by intelligence given to us by Iraqi citizens.
Since the end of major combat operations, we have conducted raids seizing many caches of enemy weapons and massive amounts of ammunition, and we have captured or killed hundreds of Saddam loyalists and terrorists. So far, of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi leaders, 42 are dead or in custody. We are sending a clear message: anyone who seeks to harm our soldiers can know that our soldiers are hunting for them.
Second, we are committed to expanding international cooperation in the reconstruction and security of Iraq, just as we are in Afghanistan. Our military commanders in Iraq advise me that the current number of American troops -- nearly 130,000 -- is appropriate to their mission. They are joined by over 20,000 service members from 29 other countries. Two multinational divisions, led by the British and the Poles, are serving alongside our forces -- and in order to share the burden more broadly, our commanders have requested a third multinational division to serve in Iraq.
Some countries have requested an explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council before committing troops to Iraq. I have directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to introduce a new Security Council resolution, which would authorize the creation of a multinational force in Iraq, to be led by America.
I recognize that not all of our friends agreed with our decision to enforce the Security Council resolutions and remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties. Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world, and opposing them must be the cause of the civilized world. Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity -- and the responsibility -- to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation.
Third, we are encouraging the orderly transfer of sovereignty and authority to the Iraqi people. Our coalition came to Iraq as liberators and we will depart as liberators. Right now Iraq has its own Governing Council, comprised of 25 leaders representing Iraq's diverse people. The Governing Council recently appointed cabinet ministers to run government departments. Already more than 90 percent of towns and cities have functioning local governments, which are restoring basic services. We're helping to train civil defense forces to keep order, and an Iraqi police service to enforce the law, a facilities protection service, Iraqi border guards to help secure the borders, and a new Iraqi army. In all these roles, there are now some 60,000 Iraqi citizens under arms, defending the security of their own country, and we are accelerating the training of more.
Iraq is ready to take the next steps toward self-government. The Security Council resolution we introduce will encourage Iraq's Governing Council to submit a plan and a timetable for the drafting of a constitution and for free elections. From the outset, I have expressed confidence in the ability of the Iraqi people to govern themselves. Now they must rise to the responsibilities of a free people and secure the blessings of their own liberty.
Our strategy in Iraq will require new resources. We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon submit to Congress a request for $87 billion. The request will cover ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, which we expect will cost $66 billion over the next year. This budget request will also support our commitment to helping the Iraqi and Afghan people rebuild their own nations, after decades of oppression and mismanagement. We will provide funds to help them improve security. And we will help them to restore basic services, such as electricity and water, and to build new schools, roads, and medical clinics. This effort is essential to the stability of those nations, and therefore, to our own security. Now and in the future, we will support our troops and we will keep our word to the more than 50 million people of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Later this month, Secretary Powell will meet with representatives of many nations to discuss their financial contributions to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Next month, he will hold a similar funding conference for the reconstruction of Iraq. Europe, Japan and states in the Middle East all will benefit from the success of freedom in these two countries, and they should contribute to that success.
If that's what you expect in a leader.... I guess I have nothing to say but "wow".GottaHurt said:The other thing you're not taking into consideration, is Bush doesn't have to sweat out the "polls".
He's in his last term, so there's no pressure for him to answer any demands in regard to an "exit strategy". He's got three more years left, before he has to make a decision, either pull out, or hand the ball off.
One more point I forgot. Bush would then be a liar if he didn't have one.GottaHurt said:He's in his last term, so there's no pressure for him to answer any demands in regard to an "exit strategy".
Bush said:BUSH: I don't think so. I think, I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.
Our military's meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets over extended, morale drops.
(SNIP)
But I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.
galenrox said:Alright, I agree that I don't see any reason to impeach Bush, but for God sakes, don't pretend like he was decieved! I have access to about a thousandth, if that, of the information that he has access to, and I knew he was full of ***** about the weapons of mass destruction.
What I was saying was about holding him to the same standard, which means you've got to let a lot of things go. Every president in the history of this country, and I'd assume every other country, ever, has lied quite consistantly, and sure it can't be proven neccisarily, but don't play dumb, even if you like him, you still know he lies to you constantly.
He's not a victim here, and if he is, then he's too dumb to be president.
Hornburger said:So all those intelligence agencies around the world also were "full of ****"?
ShamMol said:Do I want him out of office...trick question...because then Cheney would take over and I really don't like neo-cons...but I want Bush impeached. Now. Does that mean that there are grounds for it, likely not, because it was proven that it was the CIA who misrepresented and not he...
Hornburger said:There was more than one reason for the war. Nuclear weapons was the only reason I supported going into Iraq. The President got the same information the whole American public got. And from that information, the American public wanted to go to war. Like it or not, the CIA is the one who made the major screw up. Again...the President does not know how to do an intelligence job because it isn't his job to do! Where do you get the reasoning that the President is in charge of the CIA? They are completely seperate. It is the job of the head CIA chief, not Bush, to see that info is valid. And do you know what Bush is doing to correct the problem that primarily started this war? He is reforming the intelligence agencies.
Hoot said:Clinton did more to combat terrorism than any president in history, unfortunately, he was fought at every turn by the Republicans.
Bush did nothing for 9 months, despite multiple warnings, until the events of 9/11 forced him to wake up.
Bush should be impeached for lying to the American public, but it will never happen with a republican controlled congress.
GySgt said:Me niether. I mean it's not like he's a Communist or a Democrat.
That's an excellent point. :applaudguns_God_glory said:The question isn't should he it's can he. And the answer is no. Republicans dominate the court system the house and the senate. He would have to screew up REALLY bad in order for an impeachment to take place.
yep. I bet he could strangle babies on tv and they still wouldn't touch him and no one in the media would dare call them out on it.guns_God_glory said:The question isn't should he it's can he. And the answer is no. Republicans dominate the court system the house and the senate. He would have to screew up REALLY bad in order for an impeachment to take place.
scottyz said:yep. I bet he could strangle babies on tv and they still wouldn't touch him and no one in the media would dare call them out on it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?