Impeachment?

July 3rd, 2005, 09:46 AM

According to the minutes of the meeting, Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of Britain's intelligence service, said the White House viewed military action against Saddam Hussein as inevitable following the Sept. 11 attacks.

President Bush "wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," read the memo, seen by the AP. "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

HMMMMM, lying to congress is an impeachable offense isn't it? [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] S'long George haha, I wish. From the memos
"Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks. ... From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions: How to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified; What value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition; How to coordinate a U.S./allied military campaign with internal opposition; (assuming there is any); What happens on the morning after?"? [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]Good Ole Condi, no wonder they wanted to name a supertanker after her. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]meeting yesterday showed that there is more work to do to ensure that the figures are accurate and consistent with those of the US. But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapon) fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."?

"?"?"?"?

"US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing. To get public and Parliamentary support for military operations, we have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending out troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran)."? Would a "DADDY Grudge " be enough ?

"?"?"?"?

**SunTzu** · July 3rd, 2005, 12:30 PM

Saddam needed to go as do others. Thank God we have a president with a backbone . Offense is the best deterrent to these regimes . They will not rest til the US lies in ashes and a lesser show of committment will only strengthen their resolve . 9-11 was small potatoes compared to what is being planned , bet the farm on that.

**greencrest1272** · July 3rd, 2005, 01:08 PM

Great post

**imported_burrhead** · July 3rd, 2005, 01:09 PM

You are 100 percent correct. Ole Spuds is ready to give everything away. Liberals-------well they are their own breed! [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

**imported_ut1** · July 3rd, 2005, 01:58 PM

You give GWB far too much credit and blame. He could do nothing without Congressional approval. Everyone did what they thought was right at the time...as in a football game, Monday morning quarterbacking wins the game everytime.
See above posts....I agree...as soon as the terrorists get the opportunity, we're in for another big one...unless they can be deterred....

**gcdevil22** · July 3rd, 2005, 02:17 PM

9-11???

what the hell does that have to do with iraq? [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

**imported_mega** · July 3rd, 2005, 02:44 PM

my thoughts exactly.........most peoples response, they harbor terrorists........my reply, so do iran,lybia, isreal,afghanistan,pakistan,egypt,syria,lebanon... .......their response, well al quaida was in iraq.......my reply, so hezbollah and hamas being radical fundamental muslim activists organizations dont matter? Their reply, what?

lol, point being, how can iraq be singled out when there are plenty of countries just as dangerous, even more dangerous, and harbor terrorists just like iraq does.....what do you do, invade them all? No, its suicide to do that, yet bush and company seem to think they can go to war with iran next week.

Its funny how everyone makes such a big deal out of 9/11 when the trail of tears was easily as brutal, yet the actions of our forefathers was swept under the rug....I guess that means that american poloticians are terrorists too, obviously they destroyed a cherokee nation. Bush is definitely a terrorist imo....just a point to think about.