JG-TC.com > Opinion > COLUMN: Harrison should have been impeached forbeing only 5-feet-6

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Monday, June 16, 2008 9:01 PM CDT
COLUMN: Harrison should have been impeached forbeing only 5-feet-6

By HARRY REYNOLDS, Editorial Page editor
hreynolds@jg-tc.com

I don’t like Gov. Rod Blagojevich; I don’t like a lot of things President George Bush has done, particularly his handling of the war in Iraq; I don’t like the fact Bill Clinton cheated on his wife when he was president and then lied about it; I don’t like the way President Lyndon B. Johnson managed the Vietnam war; I’m still mad at President Andrew Johnson for the way he handled the South after Lincoln’s assassination; and I resent the Alien and Sedition Acts President John Quincy Adams tried to use to stifle criticism.

Lincoln’s actions in suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War, I don’t condone, but understand. Bush’s manipulation of habeas corpus, defense of torture and rank violations of the Geneva Convention, I condemn.

Sheer pettiness would drive me to add President William Henry Harrison for making the longest inaugural speech in history then dying 31 days later of pneumonia stemming from delivering it in the rain on a cold day.

As for the other Harrison, Benjamin, if I favored impeachment, it would be on the grounds he stood only 5-feet-6. Any president worth his salt should be able to see over the podium.

President Warren G. Hardin would be on my list for the Teapot Dome and other scandals; being incompetence and lazy; and messing around with another woman.

An argument could be made for impeaching Herbert Hoover who failed to confront what would become the Great Depression.

There has been much blathering about impeaching Bush for starting the war in Iraq. The bill of particulars also argues there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Critics are quick to dismiss the fact the United Nations passed a passel of resolutions condemning Iraq; the Congress stampeded to support the invasion; and the American people in overwhelming numbers endorsed the war.

Whether Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, an endless debate. The truth is we don’t know, and probably will never know, if Iraq had WMDs.

Still, it makes a nice acronym.

The wars the U.S. has engaged in enjoyed the deep and enthusiastic support of the American people — at the onset. We’re more reserved in our endorsement these days. No fair maidens tossing flowers in the path of green recruits, or cobbled local bands playing patriotic tunes.

War declines in popularity the longer it continues, the ranks of the dead and wounded climb, and the prospect of victory fades.

Support wanes with the tone.

The war in Iraq, launched in 2003, promises no victory and reeks of bungling. The changes in strategy, which began with the surge, have improved the situation. Still, trying to hold a fractured nation together is a Herculean task.

Impeaching Bush would be impeaching the great majority of people who backed the U.S. effort to get rid of Saddam Hussein. But supporters of war have the luxury of flipping and pinning the blame on their leaders for its initiation.

The Democratic and Republican parties wield impeachment like a sword. Its threat helped force Nixon out of office. The Republicans in Congress impeached Clinton, but lost.

Clinton committed perjury in testifying he didn’t have sex with “that woman.” A crime every husband in America would commit.

Whether he did have sex with “that woman” in the White House, he argued, was a matter of semantics.

Millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted by prosecutor Kenneth Starr on the futile attempt to get rid of Clinton. Starr fixated on Clinton’s sexual indiscretions, building its import beyond the pale of reality.

The release of thousands of documents detailing in minute detail what Clinton did in the White House backfired on Starr and the Republicans.

We’d would have lost a number of presidents if they were impeached and convicted on the basis of private sexual behavior while in the White House.

Richard Nixon should have been impeached and convicted; he violated the Constitution and faced the real prospect of landing in prison for his involvement in serious criminal acts.

President Gerald Ford, his successor, pardoned Nixon. An unpopular decision, but time’s wisdom vindicated Ford.

Impeachment mindset has dripped from Congress to state legislatures. Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, who has been engaged in a silly battle with Blagojevich over power, leads the mob seeking to impeach the governor.

In a 14-page document, Madigan outlined his rationale for impeachment, including “misdeeds” and “malfeasance.” He could have added “incompetence.”

There are no grounds for impeaching Blagojevich. He has yet to be charged with a crime, though that could happen.

The legislature didn’t elect the governor, the voters did. They did it in spite of Blagojevich’s incompetence and stubbornness during his first term.

Citizens have the right to make bad choices in electing officeholders, from the president on down. We have the right to enthusiastically support wars.

We also have the right to change our minds and deny what we did.

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

Rotty wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:15 PM:

" zzzzzzzzzz "

The Question wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:00 AM:

" "Whether Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, an endless debate. The truth is we dont know, and probably will never know, if Iraq had WMDs."
-------
Of course we know, Harry. You just don't want to admit it because you were a cheerleader for Bush's lie-driven quagmire war, the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history. "

sapient wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:09 AM:

" According to one of Saadam's generals they had WMDs, but when the attack became imminent they were all shipped to Syria via Russian trucks. You didn't hear that on the news?? Surprise!! Surprise!! "

Becky wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:18 PM:

" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

CIAs final report: No WMD found in Iraq
Recommends freeing detainees held for weapons knowledge

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/

Inspector: Iraq had no WMD before invasion
Final report says Saddam had ambitions but no chem or bio arms

and now for Faux Noise er...sorry Fox News:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

Now Harry, your statement about not knowing if Saddam had WMDs???? Puhleeze STOP WATCHING FAUX NOISE...er. Fox (cough**) News. They'll feed you bologna every time ;) "

sapient wrote on Jun 17, 2008 5:06 PM:

" Becky, how can you say there were none when they used them on the Kurds among others? "

ed miller wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:15 PM:

" Becky wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:18 PM:

"Inspector: Final report says Saddam had ambitions ..."

Good enough for me.

Or maybe we should have done nothing until he gave one to some idiot who brought it over here and blew up a school. Wouldn't that be better than this terrible war. "

Cognitus wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:46 PM:

" Interesting you should mention Warren G. Harding, who was the center of the Teapot Dome Scandal.
With George Bush's ratings at an absolute minimum, I understand the Warren G. Harding Club is dancing with glee in the thought that there may soon be an ex-president with lower reputation than Warren. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:27 AM:

" The U.S. hides its torture victims from the Red Cross, like some slimy Third World thug government. Why not put that message in your skyrockets and fire it off on the 4th?
-------l
The U.S. military hid the locations of suspected terrorist detainees and concealed harsh treatment to avoid the scrutiny of the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to documents that a Senate committee released Tuesday.
"We may need to curb the harsher operations while ICRC is around. It is better not to expose them to any controversial techniques," Lt. Col. Diane Beaver, a military lawyer who's since retired, said during an October 2002 meeting at the Guantanamo Bay prison to discuss employing interrogation techniques that some have equated with torture. Her comments were recorded in minutes of the meeting that were made public Tuesday. "

Becky wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:30 AM:

" Saddam had ambitions so it's ok to invade? What about Bush's ambitions to invade a foriegn country with no proof of wmds? How about his ambitions to lie the country into a war without end? What about Bush's AMBITIONS to nuke Iran and then Syria? Is that reason enough for another country to come and bomb the bejebus out of us? I mean, we actually DO have WMDs. Ambitions? Puhleeeze. Once I had an ambition to rob a bank. It looked so cool in the movies. So now I'm a bad person who needs taken out? None of the so-called excuses given is good enough to start a possible WW III and obliterate the entire world's populations. Bush is a nut case. Oh, and by the way....Your emperor has no cloths. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:41 AM:

" Here we go again-

To say that Saddam had no WMD before the war period- is ridiculous.

From The ISG's final report (The Duelfer Report):

ISG technical experts fully evaluated less than one quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons caches throughout Iraq, and visited fewer than ten ammunition depots identified prior to OIF as suspect CW sites.

Moreover, certain defined questions remain unanswered. For example, we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war Likewise, there remains some uncertainty concerning reports of mobile BW capabilities.

The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectilecontaining a 40 percent concentration of Sarinwhich insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:46 AM:

" According to David Kay,

Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them.

Both David Kay and Charles Duelfer noted that Iraq continued to conceal its WMD activities, and suspected sites were often cleaned or looted. Per the Kay report"

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.

----------

There are two viable hypotheses: (1) Iraq destroyed its WMD, and (2) Iraq hid its WMD or transported them to other countries, prior to the March 2003 invasion. The ISG simply did not find enough evidence to falsify either hypothesis, or even to favor one hypothesis over the other. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:08 AM:

" From the declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center (a Defense Department intelligence unit:

June 2006-

" * Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

* Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraqs pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.

* Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out.

* The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projectiles.

* The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.

* It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons." "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:16 AM:

" Becky- "Saddam had ambitions so it's ok to invade?"

---------

You betcha!

Saddam had a history of using WMD, concealment, a refusal to account for missing WMD, and an active bribery program designed to ramp up his dual-usage WMD programs, and he was in violation of 16 U.N. Resolutions, all the while nurturing camouflaged ties to well know terrorist groups.

And that's exactly how those 29 Democrats who vote for the war saw it. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:58 AM:

" As a principle of moral clarity, I would suggest that when you reach the point where you are willing to kill children, torture people and create a police state for the sake of your cause, you have become evil. When you are willing to invade and occupy another country that has not attacked or threatened you, you have become evil. And you admit that to the world by your refusal to call those things by their right names, instead labeling them "shock and awe," "harsh interrogation" and "Homeland Security." "

Becky wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:11 AM:

" Bryant quoted: Moreover, certain defined questions remain unanswered. For example, we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war Likewise, there remains some uncertainty concerning reports of mobile BW capabilities.

Unanswered questions? firm view on the POSSIBILITY? UNCERTAINTY? Oh yeah, now I see. Yeah, these are all great reasons for killing, maming and bombing thousands, if not millions of people. Uncertainty. Possibility. Yeah, you've convinced me......NOT! "

Becky wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:23 AM:

" To sapient: Yes, Saddam was a bad man. So is many other dictators in the world who kill millions of their own people every year. Should we invade all of them? You were duped. You were lied to. You were not given the entire story from an administration bent of going to war and they lied to you, me and congress to do it. They manipulated the intel and omitted intel to make you think Saddam was an immediate threat. There's so many reports FROM HIS OWN PEOPLE that this was so. You fell for it. Deal with it. You have to wake up before we go after Iran because RUSSIA has promised to protect their ally. Are you ready for that? The NIE report of 16....I repeat SIXTEEN, American intel agencies have said that Iran does not have and is not making weapons grade uranium. The UN inspectors have said REPEATEDLY that they can find NO EVIDENCE of it either. They've lied us into Iraq and they are lying us into Iran. Wake up and smell the coffee. They want to start Armegeddon to hasten the return of Christ. They are nuts and have a personal God complex thinking that God wants them to do this. NUT CASES! Scary nut cases with their finger on the button. Are you ready for WW III? I'm not. I still have a lot of living to do and my children do too. All of you war mongerers. Go to the nearest recruiting station and sign on the dotted line if you are so sure you love this war. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:30 AM:

" CIA Unclassified Report to Congress July - December 2002:

"UNSCR 1441, passed unanimously by the UN Security Council on 8 November 2002, declared Iraq in material breach of its disarmament obligations. Iraq never gave up completely on almost all aspects of its previous WMD and missile programs, and continued to pursue ever more elaborate schemes for denial and deception. Between late 1998 and late November 2002, Baghdad denied UN inspectors entry into Iraq, and interfered with automated video monitoring systems previously installed by the UN at known and suspected WMD facilities in Iraq. Also, in recent years and during this reporting period, Baghdad diverted goods contracted under the Oil-for-Food Program for military purposes and increased solicitations and dual-use procurements--outside the Oil-for-Food process--some of which almost certainly went to prohibited WMD, missile, and other weapons programs. Baghdad doubtless also used some of the money it gained through its illicit oil sales to support its WMD efforts."

-----------

Now how about that - Libtards?

Now why did the corrupt U.N. declared Iraq in material breach of its disarmament obligations? Why?

Why was Saddam continuing to "pursue ever more elaborate schemes for denial and deception"? Why?

Why did Saddam "deny UN inspectors entry into Iraq, and interfer with automated video monitoring systems"? Why?

Why did Saddam "divert goods contracted under the Oil-for-Food Program for military purposes and increased solicitations and dual-use procurements--outside the Oil-for-Food process--some of which almost certainly went to prohibited WMD, missile, and other weapons programs"? Why?

Tell me Libtards- Does this sound like the actions of an innocent dictator? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:35 AM:

" Becky- "The NIE report of 16....I repeat SIXTEEN, American intel agencies have said that Iran does not have and is not making weapons grade uranium-"

--------

Oh really Becky? So why is Iran pursuing a nuclear program- again? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:45 AM:

" Becky- "Yes, Saddam was a bad man. So is many other dictators in the world who kill millions of their own people every year. Should we invade all of them?"

--------

Name me another dictator who shared Saddam's track record of past WMD usage, an invasion of a neighboring country, an active relationship with known terrorist groups, a track record of violating 16 U.N. Resolutions to disarm, an active bribery scheme to further the advancement of dual-use WMD programs, and who had a daily practice of state-sponsored torture and murder of his own citizens?

Name me the dictator who had all those lovable little qualities Becks.......... "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:11 AM:

" Becky- "The NIE report of 16....I repeat SIXTEEN, American intel agencies have said that Iran does not have and is not making weapons grade uranium."

-------------

See this- this is EXACTLY how this nonsense starts. One absolute statement by the Intel Community plastered all over the media- and you mindless, drone-like Liberals just eat it up.

Consider this little caveat, if you will- Becks:

CNN- INTELLIGENCE: IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM STILL IS A THREAT

(Dec 6 2007)

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The deputy intelligence chief tried Thursday to squash any suggestion that the newly released assessment on Iran's nuclear weapons program indicates Iran is less of a threat.

At a hearing before a House intelligence subcommittee, Donald Kerr defended the conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate -- which said Iran stopped work on a nuclear weapon in 2003 -- but at the same time insisted that the NIE "did not in any way suggest that Iran was benign for the future."

He said Iranians continue work on what he called the "most important component" of any future program, a civilian uranium enrichment plant. Both intelligence officials and nuclear weapons experts have said producing fissile material such as highly enriched uranium is the most difficult aspect of creating a nuclear weapon.

Kerr also said Iran continues to develop a medium ballistic missile, which could be used as the delivery system for nuclear weapons.

Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kansas, expressing concern about the Iranian threat to the United States, questioned Kerr about whether the intelligence community has a "clear signal" of what Iran is up to.

He said there are "mixed signals," arguing that the NIE's conclusion that the Iranians "haven't been doing anything since 2003" regarding a nuclear weapon program doesn't match the words and actions of the Iranian government.

But Kerr said the latest report "is probably one of the most well-sourced NIEs that has ever been written," pointing out that more than 1,000 source notes are contained in the document."

-----------

But by all means Becky- just ignore this press release. It was probably some sort of evil lie cooked up by Bush - huh? "

sapient wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:18 AM:

" To Becky: Yes, if they have WMD and are threatening to use them against us then we should take action necessary to protect ourselves. I assume you left wingers want us to sit back and just let them do to us as they will. Or I guess we could do what you do to your enemies and just call them names. That would probably work. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:47 PM:

" "To Becky: Yes, if they have WMD and are threatening to use them against us then we should take action necessary to protect ourselves."
------
The Iraqis did not have WMD, and were not threatening to us them against us, so you must therefore admit that the U.S. should not have taken the action of launching an invasion against them, since you can hardly protect yourself from a threat that does not exist. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:56 PM:

" "[F]rankly [sanctions] have worked. [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State, Statement to press, Cairo, Egypt, 2/24/01. "

Becky wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:01 PM:

" OK Bryant....Israel "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:03 PM:

" Herr Goebbels- "The Iraqis did not have WMD, and were not threatening to us them against us,"

------

Then why the 16 U.N. Resolutions?
Why did the U.N. say that Saddam was IN VIOLATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS?
Why the weapons inspections?
Why the elaborate schemes for denial and deception?
Why the Oil For Food Scam?
Why the Dual-usage programs?
Why did the ISG search less than one quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons caches throughout Iraq, and visited less than ten ammunition depots?
Why did the CIA Reports to Congress say that he had them?
Why did 29 Democrats vote to disarm Saddam by force?
Why did Democrats on The Senate Intel Comm say that Saddam was a threat who needed to be dealt with?

Why Herr Goebbels?....... Why? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:14 PM:

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:22 PM:

" Herr Goebbels- "[F]rankly [sanctions] have worked. [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State, Statement to press, Cairo, Egypt, 2/24/01. "

-----------

More from-

From The Iraq Survey Group Final Report-

"Scientific Research and Intention to Reconstitute WMD:

Many former Iraqi officials close to Saddam either heard him say or inferred that he intended to resume WMD programs when sanctions were lifted. Those around him at the time do not believe that hemade a decision to permanently abandon WMD programs.Saddam encouraged Iraqi officials to preserve the nations scientific brain trust essential for WMD. Saddam told his advisors as early as 1991 that he wanted to keep Iraqs nuclear scientists fully employed. This theme of preserving personnel resources persisted throughout the sanctions period.

Reaction to Sanctions

Baghdad reluctantly submitted to inspections, declaring only part of its ballistic missile and chemical warfare programs to the UN, but not its nuclear weapon and biological warfare programs, which it attempted to hide from inspectors.In 1991, Husayn Kamil and Qusay Saddam Husayn attempted to retain Iraqs WMD and theater missile capability by using MIC, along with the SSO, RG, SRG, and Surface-to-Surface Missile Command to conceal banned weapons and deceive UNSCOM inspectors.

Looking Ahead to Resume WMD Programs

The Regime made a token effort to comply with the disarmament process, but the Iraqis never intended to meet the spirit of the UNSCs resolutions. Outward acts of compliance belied a covert desire to resume WMD activities. Several senior officials also either inferred or heard Saddam say that he reserved the right to resume WMD research after sanctions." "

Becky wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:29 PM:

" To Becky: Yes, if they have WMD and are threatening to use them against us then we should take action necessary to protect ourselves.

Yes Sapient, IF they have and IF they threaten. But, right now they DON'T have and are not threatening. You see, it's the US that DOES have them and it's the US that is threatening to use them. Like I said before, you can go sign up at the nearest recruiting station. If you love the idea of war so much, go put your money where your mouth is. I'm sure the brave soldiers that are caught in this conflict would love the help.

Oh, and Bryant, the other country that's used wmds....the USA. "

sapient wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:32 PM:

" TQ: I assume then that Saddam did not support terrorism which HAD attacked us, not only 911, but USS Cole, embassies around the world, etc. Answer me this question please--Who do you want to win the war on terror and who do you want to win in Iraq? No dancing around the subject. Just a straight answer please. "

Becky wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:50 PM:

" "-- but at the same time insisted that the NIE "did not in any way suggest that Iran was benign for the future."

How far in the future? 10 years? 50 years? So we should just bomb them to green glass today because IN THE FUTURE they might, possibly, maybe be a threat? Now, you make for good conversations but you really must come up with better reasons for nuclear holocaust than Iran could possibly, maybe, in the future, be a threat. This means that there is time to slow down and find out what's really going on. Tehran is not a threat to the US and even if, IN THE FUTURE, they get a nuclear missle and fire it, they will be green glass in 30 minutes and they know this. It's called a deterent. It's why we built up the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Iran couldn't even come close to being a threat. And they have the right to build nuclear power plants for their people. It's in the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Bombing Iran right now is like killing a fly with a torpedo. It's not necessary and the collateral damage would destroy much much more than the fly. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:57 PM:

" One of the many news stories you didn't hear on American corporate media, which serves the right wingers.
-----
Shortly before the U.S. president met British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, hundreds of demonstrators gathered in Parliament Square to shout: "George Bush - terrorist".
The protest rally was organised by the Stop War Coalition, CND and the British Muslim Initiative.
The demonstrators had planned to march to Downing Street, but police closed down Whitehall and used heavy reinforcements to ensure the metal barrier they erected was not breached.
Police said at least 10 officers received minor injuries, and 25 people were arrested.
Andrew Burgin, a spokesman for the coalition, which earlier staged a small demonstration outside Windsor Castle, said: "We think Bush is a war criminal. Both Blair and Bush are responsible by duplicity and lying for an illegal invasion of Iraq." "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:05 PM:

" "Answer me this question please--Who do you want to win the war on terror and who do you want to win in Iraq? No dancing around the subject. Just a straight answer please. "
-----
There is no "war on terror." You can't wage war on a tactic. The "war on terror" is a con job designed to divert trillions in debt-financed taxpayer dollars to Bush and Cheney's criminal pals in the military-industrial complex, and has spectacularly succeeded in doing so.
The U.S. should have captured or killed the 9-11 super-criminal Osama bin Laden long ago. But Bush failed to do that, and has stated many times that he isn't concerned about bin Laden.
If you actually fear terrorism, why haven't you and your GOP pals protested Bush's indifference to stopping the world's most infamous terrorist, who also happens the author of the 9-11 attack on the U.S.? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:12 PM:

" Becky- "Oh, and Bryant, the other country that's used wmds....the USA."

----------

Oh don't be shy- Becks- go ahead elaborate.

Let your hatred for this country all hang out!

Go for it girl!

Show your true Libtard colors!

Oh and.......... I'm still waiting for an example of someone who had a record as bad as Saddam's...........

...........lah dee dah dah.......... "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:20 PM:

" Becks- "How far in the future? 10 years? 50 years? So we should just bomb them to green glass today because IN THE FUTURE they might, possibly, maybe be a threat?"

---------

Oh heavens no girl!

I say we don't do ANYTHING pre-emptive!

Oh my no!

I think we should listen to you Libtards and ONLY attack if we are CLEARLY THREATENED!

Ergo- we MUST wait until one of our cities sustains a nuclear attack- then- AND ONLY THEN- we should crawl back to the incorruptable U.N. and beg for permission to slap some really STERN SANCTIONS on them!

Heck I say we should go for broke and even.......GASP!......WAG OUR FINGER AT 'EM!!!!!!!!

But wait! What am I saying Becks.......

WE DESERVE TO BE ATTACKED!

Yep! What we really need to do is apologize to the world if we're attacked!

God we are SOOOOOOO evil......America sux!!!!!!

(sarcasm set to 11)

Yes indeedy! That'll fix'em! "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:23 PM:

" "If you actually fear terrorism, why haven't you and your GOP pals protested Bush's indifference to stopping the world's most infamous terrorist, who also happens the author of the 9-11 attack on the U.S.?"

--------------

You mean we aren't really looking for Bin Laden- Herr Goebbels? GASP!

EVIDENCE PLEASE EVIDENCE! "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:32 PM:

" Becks- "OK Bryant....Israel"

----------

Oh well now! Libtard Anti-Semitism rears it's ugly head.

Please- DO elaborate Becks! "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:45 PM:

" Gather 'round the campfire kids! Let's hear from good ole uncle Jay! He'll tell ya alllllll about dear ole Grandpa Saddam!

Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia) Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Addressing the US Senate October 10, 2002:

"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat." "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:51 PM:

" Please take special note of the Bush lie here.
----
"I don't know where [Bin Laden] is..You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. ...I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
- Bush, March 13, 2002, Press Conference at the The James S. Brady Briefing Room.
----
"I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations."
Bush, Oct. 13, 2004, 3rd Presidential Debate.
----
In 2005, The Central Intelligence Agency closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed to the New York Times in 2006.
The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded and its analysts reassigned within the CIA Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.
Michael Scheuer, a former senior C.I.A. official who was the first head of the unit, said the move reflected a view within the agency that bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:17 PM:

" The American torturers are getting scared. That's awfully ironic, don't you think?
------
Today, the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Rights held a hearing on abusive interrogation to look at the role of administration lawyers in crafting policies allowing the torture of detainees.
Former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith was scheduled to testify about his role in vigorously pushing to eliminate the standards of the Geneva Conventions and making the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay a Geneva-free zone. However, at the opening of the hearing, subcommittee chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) declared that Feith withdrew from the hearing. Nadler explained:
"Despite his prior commitment to testify, this morning, Mr. Feith informed this committee through his counsel that he would not appear today because he is not willing to appear alongside one of our other witnesses."
Sources on Capitol Hill told ThinkProgress that Feith was afraid to appear with Colin Powells former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson, who was also testifying today. After leaving the State Department in protest over Bushs policies, Wilkerson became an outspoken critic of Bushs foreign policy and aggressively criticized Feiths incompetence. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:42 PM:

" Herr Goebbels- "Michael Scheuer, a former senior C.I.A. official who was the first head of the unit, said the move reflected a view within the agency that bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was."

--------

a.......yeah?...... The CIA closed it's OWN unit because they felt Bin Laden was no longer a threat.....

.........and your point is............? "

ed miller wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:59 PM:

" Becky wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:50 PM:

" How far in the future? 10 years? 50 years? So we should just bomb them to green glass today because IN THE FUTURE they might, possibly, maybe be a threat"

Why don't you ask that to the victims of 9/11, the USS Cole, etc... Ask them how well our strategy of doing nothing worked out for them? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:20 PM:

" Hey Question- (AKA Herr Goebbels Minister of Libtard Propaganda)-

I think ole uncle Jay was giving the misleading "impression" that Saddam had something to do with 9-11!

Tell me whatcha think!

"As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!"

.....UH OH!!!!!

I think ole uncle Jay was trying to hypnotize the American public (Joe Sixpack) with that one!

but....what do YOU think Herr Goebbels?

oh and as always Seig Heil! "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:29 PM:

" Turns out that right-wing American torturers just have terrible memories. How sad.
------
William "Jim" Haynes II, the man who blessed the use of dogs, hoods and nudity to pry information out of recalcitrant detainees, proved to be a model of evasion himself as he resisted all attempts at inquiry by the Armed Services Committee.
Did he ask a subordinate to get information about harsh questioning techniques?
"My memory is not perfect."
Did he see a memo about the effects of these techniques?
"I don't specifically remember when I saw this."
Did he remember doing something with the information he got?
"I don't remember doing something with this information."
When did he discuss these methods with other Bush administration officials?
"I don't know precisely when, and I cannot discuss it further without getting into classified information." "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:43 PM:

" John McCain should be popular. He's on all sides of all issues.
-----
Jack Cafferty: On Iraq, the economy, guns, and God, McCain is to the right. On immigration, campaign finance reform, and global warming, McCain is to the left. Sort of reminiscent of John Kerry back in 2004. McCain went after Barack Obama yesterday for proposing a windfall tax on the oil companies. A month ago McCain said he was willing to consider a windfall tax on the oil companies. What about offshore drilling? During his run for president in 2000, McCain was against it. Now he's for it, saying the state should decide if they want to drill for oil off their coastlines. This could cost him big-time in states like California and Florida which are very environmentally conscious. Then there are the Bush tax cuts, McCain was against them - twice - now he's for them. McCain has also called for the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay to be closed down, and torture banned. But last week he criticized the Supreme Court's ruling that detainees there should have access to U.S. courts, calling the Supreme Court decision one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. So here's the question. How clear is it where John McCain stands on the issues? "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:52 PM:

" The U.S. is a nation that tortures people. Wrap your head around it. The U.S. hides its torture victims from the Red Cross, just like some slimy Third World thug government. Why not put that message in your skyrockets and fire it off on the 4th?
We torture people whom we have permanently imprisoned without access to due process, which inevitably means we torture innocent people, because unchecked power will always be abused to the limit.
But as long as we call torture "interrogation," and kidnapping "rendition," and blowing children to pieces "shock and awe," and unjustified invasion "liberation," we'll be all right. Just avert your eyes from the red-eyed truth that is staring you in the face, and call it some stupid Fox News propaganda word.
The founders of this nation would be disgusted with us.
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: You liberate a city by destroying it. Words are used to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests."
Gore Vidal. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:22 PM:

" Retired Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, whose 2004 investigation documented torture at Abu Ghraib prison, has confirmed that the Bush administration is headed by war criminals.
The remarks came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.
"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba wrote. "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
"The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture," he wrote.
A White House spokeswoman, Kate Starr, offered "no comment."
Some days you just can't torture hundreds of people and get away with it scot free. It's enough to make a sadistic Republican fascist weep. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:36 PM:

" Herr Goebbels- "...abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices."

--------

Most Democrat politicians would pay big bucks for a weekend like that.

So where's the torture.......Herr Goebbels? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:40 PM:

" Herr Goebbels- "It's enough to make a sadistic Republican fascist weep."

-----

hmmmm.....that's funny....you're the one getting all misty-eyed, Herr Goebbels.

I guess it's enough to make a sadistic Democrat fascist propagandist weep......

And as always, Herr Goebbels- Sieg Heil! "

what? wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:08 PM:

" I'm busy. I have paint drying. I'm going to watch it now. 216 days and counting. "

sapient wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:33 PM:

" O Becky! Becky! Please answer my questions. "

sapient wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:37 PM:

" When the court ruled that we had to give the detainees at Gitmo the same rights as American citizens rather than enemy combatants we had to give them the evidence that we had against them. Osama then found out that we had been tracking his phone calls and from that time on we lost track of him. Thanks again to the liberals helping the enemies. "

Rotty wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:38 PM:

" LMAO @ all this!
Keep up the great work folks!
LMAO! "

Early Bird wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:49 AM:

" Changing the subject here (not that that ever happens), I see that Cindy McCain has decided to go on the offensive against Michelle Obama. Considering Cindy's checkered past, including adultery, getting busted for stealing from a charity she ran and illegal drug use (what is it with Republicans and their affliction for adultery and drug use?), she might be on thin ice criticising anyone. The McCain handlers might want to consider keeping the ice princess under wraps till the election.

I predict, that if for some reason McCain gets elected, his wife will be a bigger embarrassment than even Nancy Reagan. Anyone else remember her getting old RR to make his decisions based on horoscopes?

Hey Tom, that's probably where she got the just say no idea, you know the one that started the war on drugs. LOL! She probably stole that one from Jeannie Dixon. "

The Question wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:55 AM:

" Four years ago, when Pentagon contract manager Charles Smith Iearned from auditors that the Cheney-darling defense contractor KBR could not explain more than $1 billion in war billings, he confronted the former Halliburton company.
Smith told them that unless they supplied credible justification, he would levy penalties on their future work payments and, of course, block any "performance bonuses" for the company.
What happened? Smith got the ax. KBR not only suffered no penalties, it got its "performance bonuses" back for cheating U.S. taxpayers out of more than $1 billion.
KBR was recently rewarded for its massive corruption with part of a new 10-year, $150 billion Iraq occupation contract.
Ultimately, the money that was going to KBR was money being taken away from the troops, and I wasnt going to do that, Smith told the New York Times.
So they got rid of him. That's Bush and Cheney's Republican America, where the honest people get replaced and the thieves get to steal all the public money they want.
That form of government is known as "kleptocracy," or rule by thieves, class. Thus ends the Bush era civics lesson for today. "

The Question wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:27 AM:

" You right wingers wanted to know what resources the U.S. invaded Iraq to steal from its people? Here are some of them.
------------
Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on no-bid contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.
Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP -- the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company -- along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq's Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.
The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. "

sapient wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:11 AM:

" Becky, your silence speaks volumes. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:01 PM:

" The Question- "Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on no-bid contracts that will return them to Iraq,"

--------

OMG!!! That certainly sounds ominous!

Now then- let's take a closer look at THE REST OF THAT ARTICLE- shall we?

Here's what Herr Goebbels DIDN'T show you:

"The Iraqi governments stated goal in inviting back the major companies is to increase oil production by half a million barrels per day by attracting modern technology and expertise to oil fields now desperately short of both. The revenue would be used for reconstruction, although the Iraqi government has had trouble spending the oil revenues it now has, in part because of bureaucratic inefficiency."

For the American government, increasing output in Iraq, as elsewhere, serves the foreign policy goal of increasing oil production globally to alleviate the exceptionally tight supply that is a cause of soaring prices.

The Iraqi Oil Ministry, through a spokesman, said the no-bid contracts were a stop-gap measure to bring modern skills into the fields while the oil law was pending in Parliament.

It said the companies had been chosen because they had been advising the ministry without charge for two years before being awarded the contracts, and because these companies had the needed technology."

Read the full story here:

http://tinyurl.com/3vnd6x

---------

So here we see yet ANOTHER example of The Question- intentionally misleading and deceiving, all for the sake of a political agenda.

He definitely lives down to his title-

Herr Goebbels (Minister of Left-Wing Propaganda)

And as always- Sieg Heil! "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:54 PM:

" No bid contracts? Sounds like Dick Cheney was involved. "

The Question wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:13 PM:

" I do believe two words of your post are sincere, BL. The "Sieg Heil." "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:16 PM:

" Harry Potter - "No bid contracts? Sounds like Dick Cheney was involved."

--------

No evidence of that-

but- by all means....

don't ever let that stop you from claiming that he was............ "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:52 PM:

" The Question- "I do believe two words of your post are sincere, BL. The "Sieg Heil."

--------

That really speaks to you doesn't it Dr. Goebbels- .....

and towards you- it is most sincere.....

Sieg Heil! Herr Minister of Propaganda "

father bob wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:12 PM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:52 PM:
" The Question- "I do believe two words of your post are sincere, BL. The "Sieg Heil."

--------

That really speaks to you doesn't it Dr. Goebbels- .....

doh....i would think you might try and use you're own comebacks. using the same ones others have just used shows just how shallow your thought process is........keep spinning eventually you'll screw yourself into the ground. "

The Question wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:00 PM:

" "doh....i would think you might try and use you're own comebacks. using the same ones others have just used shows just how shallow your thought process is........keep spinning eventually you'll screw yourself into the ground."
LOL. Now, Bob, please don't goad Doh into a battle of wits. He's unarmed. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:05 PM:

" fat-headbob - "i would think you might try and use you're own comebacks. using the same ones others have just used...."

---------

uhm......speedbump-bob.....who else used-

"That really speaks to you doesn't it Dr. Goebbels-"

What the he11 are you talking about bobby.....?

--------

speedbump-bob - "keep spinning eventually you'll screw yourself into the ground."

--------

I believe you Libtards have already MORE than scr*wed yourselves into the ground-

do me a favor oh, special-ed bob; look back over this thread and count the number of FACTS that you Libtards have yet to refute.....then get back to me for a real debate (after your nap) of course......... "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:12 PM:

" Question- Now, Bob, please don't goad Doh into a battle of wits. He's unarmed.

--------

Your use of "Bob" and "wits" in the same sentence, is indicative of just how far the butter has slipped off of your flapjacks- Herr Goebbels.

And oh yeah- Sieg Heil! "

lefty wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:29 PM:

" Seriously, BRYANT really likes to hear/see himself talk/type. Wow... "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:51 PM:

" lefty- " Seriously, BRYANT really likes to hear/see himself talk/type. Wow... "

--------

Yeah- unlike Herr Question- huh....lefty... "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:52 PM:

" Seriously.....LEFTY "

Green Wave in Florida wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:55 PM:

" John Adams was responsible for Alien & Seditions Act not JQA. "

The Question wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:29 PM:

" Scott McClellan has an interesting theory about why Bush's popularity is in the toilet.
---------------
If the nation doesn't trust the Bush White House, it's the president's and Dick Cheney's own fault, Bush's former spokesman told Congress Friday.
From life-and-death matters on down the rationale for war, the leaking of classified information, Cheney's accidental shooting of a friend the government's top two leaders undermined their credibility by "packaging" their version of the truth, former press secretary Scott McClellan said.
He described the loss of trust as self-inflicted, telling the House Judiciary Committee that Bush and his administration failed to open up about White House mistakes.
The focus of the panel's hearing was the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, and McClellan said that was a good example of the administration damaging itself by backtracking on a pledge be upfront.
"This White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us they would talk publicly about it. And they have refused to," McClellan said. "And that's why I think more than any other reason we are here today and the suspicion still remains." "