Another Democrat, former Brooklyn Rep. Liz Holtzman, is pushing for Bush’s impeachment via a new book she’s promoting, which is discussed here.
Prepare. Despite Pelosi’s denials that this will happen, Rep. John Conyers, who is in line to be the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has been itching for years to impeach Bush. So have other Democrats. He - and they - may soon get their chance to try.
Although the donkey logo fits them perfectly, I think the new symbol for the Democratic party should be Cujo:
Rabid, foaming at the mouth, hyper-angry dangerous far lefties salivating over the opportunity to take a bite out of the President. Will the few moderates and conservatives elected to serve in the House for Democrats be able to save them? I don’t hold out much hope, especially considering the fact that the far lefties in the party have made it clear they will not be ’suppressed.’
| Email This Post | Print This |
Talk about stuck on stupid, the 4 things she lists are things that have been endlessly investigated to death. The prewar intel was investigated, and it was found Bush did nothing wrong, same for the “leaking classified info” which is code for the Plame debacle, Katrina was primarily the fault of the local and state govt, and the torture thing has been found to be BS as well. That’s the liberals for you, if you don’t like the facts, keep asking the question and muddying the waters until you can make up whatever facts you want.
Talk about beating a dead horse into horse tartar, but it’s all about vengence because Bush “stole” the election from Gore (even though that’s been endlessly investigated as well). The Dems are showing their true petty, vindictive, lying nature. These leftist morons seem incapable of living with the facts, they are so immature they absolutely have to prove they were right and they don’t care how many lies they have to use to get there. Disgusting.
Comment by Severian @ 11/9/2006 - 11:14 am
“Rabid, foaming at the mouth, hyper-angry dangerous…” For a second there I thought you were describing the Republicans during Clinton’s Administration. So…only Republicans can impeach a President for lying? Interesting.
Comment by Tim @ 11/9/2006 - 12:23 pm
I agree, Sev. All those Democratic estimates would come boiling back to embarrass them again. The other things are laughable at best. Go for it, Toots! We can always use a good chuckle.
Comment by benning @ 11/9/2006 - 12:29 pm
I’d think they’d want to avoid such an action because it would come across as just petty…
Comment by The Stout Republican @ 11/9/2006 - 12:33 pm
One of the problems with the leftwing and the Kossacks, is that they suffer from a lack of perspective. Not only do they fail to understand that impeachment will make them look vindictive and petty, they fail to understand how anyone else could perceive them to be vindictive and petty.
Comment by gahrie @ 11/9/2006 - 1:02 pm
Tim, the nutroots wing of the Dems far outshadows any of the dislike Reps had for Clinton. Nice try though. And Clinton deliberately perjured himself under oath, it caused him not only to be impeached but also disbarred, the prewar intel meme still sticks around, despite the fact that bipartisan investigations have found absolutely no basis for the nutroots whining and pants wetting about it. The Dems who voted for the war and now fear the nutroots are desperate to find some kind of excuse and cover by blaming someone else.
But, thanks for proving my point about how it’s all vengence for Clinton’s impeachment. That’s the only thrust of your post, it was done to Clinton so it’s deserved eh? Pathetic.
Comment by Severian @ 11/9/2006 - 1:23 pm
- People I talk to inside the beltway, tell me that the Dem core political advisors are warning Pelosi, and Reid, to move the party to the center as quickly as possible and get some specific plans together as talking points, sideline the hard left dribble, forget all the acrping and vengence crap, and try erneatly to get things done, or kiss ‘08 goodbye.
- Wonder if they’ll be smart enough to heed their own peoples advice. We’ll see. It’s put up, or shut up time for the Dems on the real issues, and they don’t have a lot of time to look like they have a plan.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 11/9/2006 - 1:34 pm
There will be no impeachment movement but there will be investigation and creation of a historical record of the last 6 years.
How does it go?:
“If you’ve got nothing to hide, don’t be afraid to answer the questions.”
When people start seeing the billions of dollars lost, wasted and stolen over the last 6 years, we won’t need impeachment or the political division it will cause. We’ll let the people vote on the record in 2008. Besides the Presidency, remember that in 2 years Democrats only have to defend 11 Senate seats, the Republican’s have 22 to defend. The Democratic control of Washington will be solidified.
WMD won’t be the issue that kills the GOP in 2008. The massive corruption and waste will be.
Comment by Other Ed @ 11/9/2006 - 1:47 pm
The Democratic control of Washington will be solidified.
- Nobody knows at this point, how astute, or effectively, the dems will be in discarding the campaign rhetoric, and showing they can, in fact, govern. But this much is sure Ed. If a year and a half from now, all they have to show for themselves is a few witchhunts, most of which will just serve to show the electorate how unserious and petty the party is, the Dems will have blown the shaky, but real chances they have. You don’t need to be a Cleo to see the people of America are dog-eared tired of all the partisan BS. So keep dreaming of ways to recover from stains on blue skirts, and you’ll be right back where you were in 2000.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 11/9/2006 - 2:01 pm
“If you’ve got nothing to hide, don’t be afraid to answer the questions.”
Yeah, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Comment by Severian @ 11/9/2006 - 2:07 pm
There hasn’t been a single oversight hearing held on the Iraq Reconstuction money.
If people see that one of the primary reasons that we failed in Iraq was because of the mismanagement, waste and corruption of republican political appointees, what do you think the odds are they will rehire the GOP?
There’s been minimal congressional oversight of Katrina funds.
No meetings of the Ethics committee until last month. K Street Project anyone?
These are the issues that you have to be worried about. Not impeachment.
Comment by Other Ed @ 11/9/2006 - 2:17 pm
Yeah, you guys did such a great job with the Plame investigation. What was that? About 2 million dollars and almost 2 years of investigation and all you got was “Scooter”?!?! LOL!!
What was that you were saying about waste and corruption again???
Comment by NC Cop @ 11/9/2006 - 2:36 pm
Then it wasn’t Scooter, it was just another Dem hack who actually did it, and the special prosecutor knew who it was while he was after Scooter. Yeah all sorts of waste, but none of the responsibilities, man somedays I wish I was a Dem, but then again, I just can lie to myself that often. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 11/9/2006 - 2:52 pm
People I talk to inside the beltway, tell me that the Dem core political advisors are warning Pelosi, and Reid, to move the party to the center as quickly as possible
I don’t know if an uber-lefty San Francisco Democrat would consider moving to the center. Even if they do, they’ll piss off the nutroots who will abandon them for the greens. The Democrats do have the ability to solidify their power, but only if they can make both the centrists and the nutroots happy–a job I sure as hell wouldn’t want.
Comment by CT @ 11/9/2006 - 2:55 pm
I think Pelosi, being a SF nutroots type herself, probably considers Barbara Boxer a moderate/centrist.
Comment by Severian @ 11/9/2006 - 3:06 pm
Who cares about Plame and WMD. Follow the money!
David Safavian, the former procurement chief of the Office of Management and Budget in the White House was sentenced in October. He’s just the first and he was caught as sideshow to Abramoff. Wait until the subpeonas start being issued for the floodgate of contracts that came out after 9/11 and the books that have been closed for are opened.
The Dems are clearing the deck for this by supporting State Rep. Karen Carter in her runoff with soon to be indicted crook Jefferson. They don’t want him muddying the waters. You don’t think they noticed that Corruption beat Iraq as the leading issue in the exit polls? That’s the issue the GOP has to worry about.
Comment by Other Ed @ 11/9/2006 - 3:10 pm
“If people see that one of the primary reasons that we failed in Iraq was because of the mismanagement, waste and corruption of republican political appointees, what do you think the odds are they will rehire the GOP?”
Or, people could see that the primary reason we fail — if that happens — is because we have one political party (the Democrats) who have worked to sabotage every effort for the past several years. And we have another political party — the media — that helps!
Comment by Beth @ 11/9/2006 - 4:01 pm
- Because the Dems have such a small majority in both the House and the Senate, and a little thing called “clouture”, requiring 60 yes votes on any major legislature, the last thing they can afford to do, if they hope to get anything accomplished, is get caught up in a lot of partisan hackery from this point on.
- At the same time, many of the incoming Junior Senators are a great deal more moderate than the hard left group they’ll be joining, which isn’t going to be easy to manage. Pelosi has her work cut out for her, without even thinking about distractions.
- So their path is clear. Either they really join the Reps in true non-partisan fashion, or squander their chances for a real run in ‘08. Anyone that continues to yammer of petty vengence is doing his or her party a great disservice, and blocking the wheels of future Democratic progress.
- Of course I fully expect the SecProgg hard left to try to burn down the barn, when they see they’re not going along on the hayride. Remember, with the Proggs, it’s all about ideology. America, it’s safety and future, is of no concern. It’s not the America they want, so its just another means to thier ends. But the core moderates have the real power, and no excuse now, if they fail.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 11/9/2006 - 4:02 pm
“So their path is clear. Either they really join the Reps in true non-partisan fashion, or squander their chances for a real run in ‘08. Anyone that continues to yammer of petty vengence is doing his or her party a great disservice, and blocking the wheels of future Democratic progress”
I think what you say here is very accurate, Bang. Only problem I see is that I don’t think the Moonbat Coalition can be silenced. They want what they want when they want it. Maybe I’m biased, though … I work at a newspaper (unfortunately) and I’m surrounded by these people who actually believe Valerie Plame’s identity (non-covert as she was) was more important than the national security secrets leaked by The New York Times.
There are lots of insects in the Fever Swamp. The liberals I know won’t be happy with a move to the center. Then again, it’s all about power, so I suspect it will be a pretend move to the center (at best) while trying to surreptitiously pass all kinds of left-wing fringe legislation.
Comment by Beth @ 11/9/2006 - 4:18 pm
- Beth, with things as they stand, they can’t pass anything without substitive Republican cooperation. Even then they have to get past the Bush veto, other than direct funding bills. If they don’t join in, hands across the aisle, they won’t get much of anything done, particularly left-wing junk, other than committe funding. What’s really happened in this “mandate” is the grid lock has simply switched parties. It’s a bit like winning a porsche, but only being allowed to drive it for one hour, every other month.
- On the other hand, IF the Dems play centrist for real, then they could lay the groundwork, given a true moderate candidate, for a real run in ‘08. My money says they get so torn between the hard Left, a base that can’t afford to lose, and the moderates, that they won’t be all that effective at anything. But that’s just a guess.
- Sometimes diversity means everyone going off in so many different directions, you never get to the finish line. All silver clouds have their grey lining’s.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 11/9/2006 - 5:15 pm
- Incidently for all you SecProggs, just to make your day, Conyers just released a press statement that “impeachment” is OFF the table. He aggrees totally with Pelosi.
- I can tick that off with a check mark on my list of predictions. The hard Left is toast.
- Now that WalMart has put the “Chris” back in Christmas, along with Macy’s, the whole world must be going crazy….What next… Men dancing with thier wives?
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 11/9/2006 - 5:46 pm
So, then, what does the “hard left” do? They have to do something, right? It’s not like they’re going to disappear …
I’m not being argumentative toward you, by the way. I’m just trying to figure out this stuff. I wouldn’t trust any of these people (Pelosi, Conyers, etc.) as far as I could throw them. What they say and what they’ll do can be two entirely different things.
Comment by Beth @ 11/9/2006 - 6:22 pm
It was reported on Fox this afternoon on Gibson’s show that nancy was not going for impeachment and conyers has agreed with her …. I guess someone told him to keep his pie hole shut while they are setting up at least 100 new investigations.
This is gonna be something to watch.
Heard Biden wants to NOT GIVE BOLTON AN UP OR DOWN vote for conformation to the U.N. Wonder who these idiots want to see there.
God help us all.
Comment by Drewsmom @ 11/9/2006 - 6:34 pm
- Actually you’re EXACTLY correct Beth. But I think it means something different than you’re worried about. They’ll continue to talk hard left from time to time, to throw red meat to the far Left base (it won’t be enough, the crazies are already tearing thier own leaders apart on the various fevor swamp blogs), and they’ll move everything to the center because they want to get elected. It’s already started, and why I am completely at odds with all the talking heads.
- The second act is yet to start. When the Dems have to stop yammering about “bi-partisan cooperation”, and start actually stating some specific concrete idea’s. I can’t wait.
- As I said, I’m not at all unhappy about the elections. In retrospect, they may turn out to be exactly what thr Republican do nothing Congress needed, and a wake up call for ‘08.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 11/9/2006 - 6:35 pm
Just to clarify:
I assume anything they SAY will be an effort to fool as many people as they can into thinking they really are moderate — and, yet, we know the leadership is not moderate at all. So, if they pretend to be moderate for the moment, their end goal is still to enact as many liberal policies as possible — from higher taxes to open borders (and more victims) to universal health care. It’s what they’re always working toward, right? I mean, why would they want power so desperately if they weren’t going to use it to advance leftist policy? If they really are moderates, then it seemingly wouldn’t matter which party had control. The agendas wouldn’t be all that different either way.
But, I’m rambling.
Comment by Beth @ 11/9/2006 - 6:36 pm
Thanks Bang — I think I posted at about the same moment you did, so I hadn’t seen your last response before I posted my “clarification.”
Comment by Beth @ 11/9/2006 - 6:38 pm
- My point is Beth, that in spite of what ever rhetotic they may use, they’re just as powerless as the Reps were in most meaningful ways, so they’ll hew to the modertae line in deed, in the run up to ‘08. I fully expect by the time we get to withing 6 months of that cycloe, you’ll have a very hard time telling the two sides apart. they’ll both be fighting tooth and nail for the middle America vote. The Dems are very unlikely to repeat the Kerry mistake this soon.
- That’s why I think parties are going to be far less important than the Candidate the next time around, even more than usual, and why I think if we run someone like Guiliani, he’ll be almost unbeatable.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 11/9/2006 - 6:51 pm
Good point, I can’t argue with that one bit.
So, what do we do next?
If the Democrats even pretend to be moderate, the media will portray them as kind and wonderful, hearts and flowers, all the beautiful things we were missing when the cruel Republicans had a majority (don’t you love how after years of smearing the president, the troops, Christians and everyone else in their way, Democrats are now saying we have to cooperate — as if they knew the meaning of that word a few weeks ago).
If the Democrats act like their true selves — you know, impeachment, investigation, etc. — they’ll be portrayed as brave crusaders against the evil Bush.
I still contend that the mainstream media handed this election to the Democrats. The polls were moving in a very positive direction in September.
Now, I’m not saying that the Republicans didn’t give them ammunition. But everyone knows by now that the media doesn’t use ammunition in the same way against all parties. They use it selectively, to say the least. When Clinton was in trouble, we got stories about how lying was OK if it saved someone’s feelings — and, my personal favorite, the painful truth about sexual addiction! Heck, by the time it was over, the media was trying to make people feel sorry for Clinton because he couldn’t control his urges and then — the horror — his wife had to find out, too.
We absolutely can’t let the media determine our fate ever again. This much, I know.
Comment by Beth @ 11/9/2006 - 7:59 pm
Well get ready for investigation after investigation for awhile, but I can bet the American Public will tire of the constant investigation with no results, the constant grandstanding Democrats will do, ect.
How long do you think it will be before the American public begins to tune out soemthing that happens over and oevr again…investigation, democrats don’t ask question but use it for a pulpit to spout and spew for 30 minutes a piece…ect.
I fully expect the Democrats to try and pull Impeachment soon. It is a given.
Look at the little fake, play acting impeachment hearings they had before. They are just drooling for it.
Here is what I expect…
1. A bunch of investigations to start.
2. A bunch of investigations to start.
3. Did I mention investigations?
4. Raise taxes, for the good of the people.
5. Roll back the tax cuts for the ‘rich’.
6. Institute a big gas tax because of the record profits of the Big Oil.
7. Investigation for Impeaching the President.
8. Impeach the President
9. Congratulate each other and give themselves a raise.
Comment by sanity @ 11/9/2006 - 8:16 pm
- Well heres a little more realistic way to look at the “Big fat Greek wonderous Technicolor Trenchcoat Cosmic MANDATE of the Dems”. The Dems have a string of Network and cable outlets that numbers in the mid to high teens, Ditto on the laim-brain media, except even more so, even FOX has a large number of Liberal talking heads from Kalb to Jane Hall to Gabler ect ect. With all that cheerleading…all of it…The Dems were barely able to eek out majorities, and this against a totally abdurrant Rep Congress that couldn’t find their derriers with an atomic powered broom and a company of Marines. In several ways it’s perfect. the Dems go on doing what they always do, happily alienating voter block after voter block, and the Reps get a kick in the can to get them going for ‘08. What’s not to like?
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 11/9/2006 - 8:23 pm
sanity….You need to scratch 7 and 8 off your list. Conyers rooled over for the leadership slot. Nancy made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 11/9/2006 - 8:31 pm
You can say all these things have been investigated before, but the Dems never had the power to subpeona people and put them under oath.
Also I think a little investigation into W releasing plans for building nukes (in Arabic!) on the internet is in order.
The Reps had 1,000 hours of hearings about Clinton’s Christmas card list. I think George deserves at least that much.
Comment by leaf @ 11/9/2006 - 10:26 pm
uhuh. They have had people subpoenaed and under oath. Who are you saying wasn’t that needs to be leaf?
As for your second paragraph, do you have proof that “W” did that? Please recite for us how many people work in the Executive Branch of government (more than 100,000 people leaf).
The third paragraph is irrelevant to whether or not Bush is overstepping constitutional authority. I’ve read over 1,000 pages on this issue and I simply disagree. I agree with the experts who think the Bush administration has used authority he has to wage the war. Accusations are nice and investigations are nicer but they need substance.
Comment by Baklava @ 11/9/2006 - 10:32 pm
Baklava said:
uhuh. They have had people subpoenaed and under oath. Who are you saying wasn’t that needs to be leaf?
Let’s start with everyone in the White House Iraq Group. Also Rummy, Cheney. See where that leads us.
As for your second paragraph, do you have proof that “W” did that? Please recite for us how many people work in the Executive Branch of government (more than 100,000 people leaf).
I can’t prove it. That’s why there should be an investigation. Certainly somebody did it.
The third paragraph is irrelevant to whether or not Bush is overstepping constitutional authority. I’ve read over 1,000 pages on this issue and I simply disagree. I agree with the experts who think the Bush administration has used authority he has to wage the war. Accusations are nice and investigations are nicer but they need substance.
You’re not the decider on that one Baklava, our elected representatives are. Let them investigate and if your boy is as clean as you say, what are you worried about?
As much as I’m enjoying this, I have to get up early tomorrow, so good night.
Comment by leaf @ 11/9/2006 - 11:28 pm
You can’t prove it yet you’ll go out on a limb making wild accusations?
When did you stop beating your wife? Let’s investigate….
Yes. Somebody did “it” and somebody in management somewhere was notified and took appropriate action to have it removed.
I may not be the decider, but you not liking Bill’s Christmas card list being investigating is still irrelevant. Did I assert that I was the decider? No. Yes. Our elected representatives are. And guess what, the investigations and reports have come out. Read them.
BTW, I don’t mind if there are more studies or investigations. But the topic at hand is impeachment…. On what grounds? What are the charges?
False and reckless ones? Cool….
Comment by Baklava @ 11/9/2006 - 11:46 pm
Investigations are fine. I am particularly looking forward to seeing all the dems that went to Bill Clinton clamoring about how Saddam’s WMD program was a severe threat to not only the middle east, but the U.S. as well. Can’t wait to see Albright, Clinton, Kennedy, and the rest of the crew under oath telling why they thought Saddam was so dangerous years before G.W. came into power. Should be a hoot, right leaf?!
Perhaps we can subpoena Rockefeller and ask him about his trip to Syria 4 months after 9/11 where he let everyone know that Bush was determined to invade Iraq. Nothing like letting the enemy know that we’re coming.
Then we can subpoena the pride of the democratic party, Ted Kennedy, and ask him about his memo to the Soviets during the middle of the cold war when he offered help against Reagan.
yeah, the dems have nothing to hide. I look forward to it.
Comment by NC Cop @ 11/10/2006 - 12:09 am
From what I could see, Bak, leaf just wants a fishing expedition. He’s got nothing but hopes an investigation will provide something they can use. It’ll be taking 2+2 and gettting 7 and then they’ll run with it. I’m bored already.
Comment by Marshall Art @ 11/10/2006 - 2:07 am
From what I could see, Bak, leaf just wants a fishing expedition. He’s got nothing but hopes an investigation will provide something they can use. It’ll be taking 2+2 and gettting 7 and then they’ll run with it. I’m bored already.
Comment by Marshall Art @ 11/10/2006 - 2:08 am
Now, after the election on Tuesday, we hear that the period of “partisan politics” will be over. Nancy Pelosi, the she-wolf left-winger who has never shown President Bush any respect throughout his presidency, and has made a career of spewing mud-splattering diatribes and criticism towards him is now poised to work with our president?
Wow!
So what happened?
Did she have some sort of political “born-again” experience when we weren’t looking?
I doubt it.
Oh yeah….they are going to appear sweet, moderate, non-critical, positive, and forward looking (similar to the hopes that Republicans are now talking about on all the shows), but just wait till January! The moment the gavel changes hands…look out! It’s most likely going to come down upon several Republican heads; starting with President Bush! Watch what happens. The Dems now consider themselves the “gods” of the government and they will most likely take the “revenge is mine” mantra more seriously in January, as well as for the next 2 years. After being out of power and angry about it for the past 12 years, how could they resist not using their newly found power to get back at Bush, the Administration people whom they hate and any Republican who they have been seething about?
Comment by Christinewjc @ 11/10/2006 - 12:00 pm
What I think is funny is the automatic assumption that Bush released nuke info. Couldn’t be any of his enemies within the executive branch attempting to make him look incompetent?? Nope, nope, nope, that is impossible. This is the same logic that is used when we hear stupid garbage about detonations being set off in the World Trade Center. Couldn’t have been bombs in the checked in luggage, it had to be Bush who had the Army Corps of Engineers put explosive devices in the exact same floors that the airplanes flew into. This is just like the thermos, it keeps cold things cold, and hot things hot, HOW DOES IT KNOW???
- Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 11/10/2006 - 1:02 pm
- Somehow a little birdie tells me that all the “leaks” will stop now, you know, the ones that were done because “the American people have a right to know”.
- Now that the absolutely totally honest Dems are in office, the american people don’t need to know anymore.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 11/10/2006 - 1:33 pm
Congressional and Senate leaders including Santorum and Hoekstra urged Bush to release the Iraq documents without knowing what they were. A big deal was made of it and I think it did come from very high up in the administration. Negroponte warned against releasing them so it must have come from higher up than him. From the nytimes article (my emphasis):
The director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, had resisted setting up the Web site, which some intelligence officials felt implicitly raised questions about the competence and judgment of government analysts. But President Bush approved the site’s creation after Congressional Republicans proposed legislation to force the documents’ release.
The administration had been warned about the sensitive documents weeks before they took them down and did nothing about it until contacted by NYtimes.
Lots of right-wing bloggers were thrilled when the Iraq documents were released, including ST:
Batch of pre-war Afghanistan and Iraq documents are released
Politics trumps security again!
I think if a real investigation is done there will be plenty of grounds for impeachment. Having the Bush lapdog congress investigate him is a joke. I don’t actually want Bush impeached though. We need to get Cheney out first or things could get really bad!
Comment by leaf @ 11/10/2006 - 3:39 pm
Many including ST and myself still want the documents out there to prove you guys making FALSE RECKLESS CHARGES are WRONG.
That doesn’t mean that ST and I and anyone else in top management in the administration knew what every page of content was in the documents… That would be a high hurdle of proof to bear and you can’t do it leaf. You can only throw out more false allegations….
Government is slow. It is not quick. It’s slowness is not a sign of somebody wanting to HAVE secrets out there.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Comment by Baklava @ 11/10/2006 - 4:33 pm
Baklava said:
Many including ST and myself still want the documents out there to prove you guys making FALSE RECKLESS CHARGES are WRONG.
You still want the documents out there showing terrorists how to make nukes? Or do you just want the other unknown documents out there that could also be a national security risk?
That doesn’t mean that ST and I and anyone else in top management in the administration knew what every page of content was in the documents… That would be a high hurdle of proof to bear and you can’t do it leaf. You can only throw out more false allegations….
They released documents and they didn’t know what was in them. That is criminally negligent. It doesn’t take a genius to guess that there might be sensitive information in documents taken from the Iraq government. I think even Bush is capable of understanding that. Negroponte understood it well enough.
The documents were released by the Bush administration. Nobody disputes that. Where does the buck stop? If this had happened under Clinton you righties would have been freaking out.
I’ll take the 5th on the wife-beating question. Is that amendment still good?
Comment by leaf @ 11/10/2006 - 5:13 pm
Let me get this straight, Sadamn did have a Nuclear Weapons Program??? According to what I have read by the left, Sadamn didn’t have such programs. So how could there be nuke plans in those classified documents? - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 11/10/2006 - 6:38 pm
Wow, leaf is locked onto that nuclear bomb stuff like a dog on a soupbone!!! Perhaps it’s because no matter what comes out of Iraq, the media will give it no attention if it justifies the Bush administration’s reasons for invading Iraq. Since you are so concerned with security issues, you must want a wall on the border, right? You must also want Rockefeller and Kennedy investiated and punished for treason, right?
Comment by NC Cop @ 11/10/2006 - 7:04 pm
Lorica, the documents were pre 1991. He had no active nuclear program at the time of the illegal invasion and occupation in 2003. Having documents is not the same as having nukes, which is lucky for us because who knows how many terrorists now have those documents.
Comment by leaf @ 11/10/2006 - 7:50 pm
Yeah leaf, tell us about it:
Iraqi Documents Show Plans for Prohibited Nuclear Projects
Document CMPC-2004-000156.pdf dated October 19 2002 contains a very important list of projects which indicate that Saddam regime planned to re-start their prohibited nuclear activities. The list is written by the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate warning the Iraqi Atomic Energy Organization that some of these projects that they are planning to execute are prohibited by the UN resolution 707, some require constant monitoring, and some may raise a lot of questions about it. Also the document talks extensively about an Iraqi project to rehabilitate the old building where the Iraqi used to produce Tetra Uranium Chloride and Hexa Uranium Fluoride (UF6) according to the document. The document talks about an agreement to adopt one of the suggestions to rehabilitate this building and rebuild the HOT CELLS.
Comment by Severian @ 11/10/2006 - 7:55 pm
If this had happened under Clinton you righties would have been freaking out.
You seem to conveniently forget, leaf, that Clinton already gave the Iranians the same kind of information on a silver platter in what has to be one of the stupidest, most juvenille “spy vs. spy” type of ops in the world. He gave them the same plans, with errors in them to supposedly lead them astray, and then let them be delivered by an ex Soviet bloc nuclear scientist who corrected them for the Iranians. Clinton was and remains a comlete idiot.
Comment by Severian @ 11/10/2006 - 7:58 pm
From the same site:
Document ISGQ-2003-00000813.pdf shows that the Iraqi were working on producing TANTALUM COATED GRAPHITE as part of research activities for the year 2002. The Graphite coated Tantalum to create a highly corrosion resistant surface for graphite. Tantalum coated Graphite was totally prohibited for use in Iraq according to the UN since it falls under the prohibited nuclear activities…
Comment by Severian @ 11/10/2006 - 8:06 pm
Having documents is not the same as having nukes
Right!! Let’s wait until they DO have working nukes, and then we can take action. Brilliant!!!!!!
Comment by NC Cop @ 11/10/2006 - 8:38 pm
Having documents is not the same as having nukes,
Well, leaf, then what’s all the fuss about? If having the documents on plans to build nukes is no big deal, then why are you so hot on having an investigation?
On the other hand, if documents revealing an ongoing WMD program in 2002 are important, then you have to admit Bush was right.
That’s some dilemma…do you admit that Chimpy was right and you were wrong all along? Or do you go marching off the senseless investigation cliff that’ll have your butts back in the minority in two years? Decisions, decisions….
Comment by Great White Rat @ 11/10/2006 - 9:24 pm
Seems to me if you kept the documents, you want an active program. I have never been an evil tyranical dictator, but if I were that is what I would want. I love how the left continues to credit Sadamn with more huggy feely peace and love, than George Bush. You people take the cake when it comes to logic. Sadamn not evil man, Bush totally evil. Sadamn lovey dovey tree hugger, Bush ecological madman. LOL Sure leaf. Even the Iraqi Survey Group could see that Sadamn was just waiting until he could bribe or blackmail the right people in the UN before they dropped sanctions and ignored Sadamn’s surrender agreement. Then all those “pre-1991″ programs would start right back up again. Take the blinders off leaf. This war was not illegal the heros of the left voted for it. It was the resumption of aggressions which is what Sadamn was hoping for us to do. He was then hoping that his brother muslims would help him destroy the US Army in the sands of Iraq. Ohhh the glory for Sadamn. Well it didn’t happen, and now Sadamn is going to be hung until dead, and Good Riddance, May God have Mercy on His Soul. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 11/11/2006 - 2:25 am
Great White Rat,
I never said, and I don’t think any Dem officeholder ever said, that Saddam was not an evil, dangerous dictator. He wanted to have nukes. The point is that occupying Iraq was not the right solution to the problem. Inspectors were in Iraq until two days before the invasion. Inspectors were in Iraq destroying missiles during Bush’s state of the union speech when he lied and said Saddam wouldn’t let inspectors in. Now we have Iraq worse off than under Saddam, we have strengthened al Qaeda, and the world is less safe then when Saddam was in power.
What Sevarian left out of the quote from the page he linked was this little gem:
The project was later cancelled in November 2002 mainly because the UN inspectors started their work again in Iraq.
Lorica,
You’re wrong about my feelings about Saddam. I think he is just as evil as Bush, and smarter too.
I am disgusted with the Dems that voted to authorize the use of force, although they didn’t actually vote to go to war. Bush gave them misleading intel, and lied and said he would only go to war as a last resort.
As far as all this “muslim brothers” BS, Iraq under Saddam was a secular nation. Now it appears to be on the way to becoming an Islamic republic.
Comment by leaf @ 11/11/2006 - 1:21 pm
A lack of perspective causes someone to write, “I think he is just as evil as Bush, and smarter too.”
There is no talking to someone with that perspective. I think you are evil. When did you stop beating your wife?
See… It’s not just disagreements on how to solve problems… it’s that Bush is evil to you….
Comment by Baklava @ 11/11/2006 - 3:59 pm
leaf would you like a scalpel to cut that hair abit finer??
I am disgusted with the Dems that voted to authorize the use of force, although they didn’t actually vote to go to war.
Can you tell me the difference between the “use of force”, and “go to war”. Seems like verbal symantics to me. From 1991 to 2003 we had troops on the ground, and fly boys in the air. We trashed several dozen pieces of Sadamn’s equipment. I remember stories from a couple of our fighter pilots about releasing some j-dam missiles against some mobile radar units and then they went after some migs that Sadamn purposely tried a coordinated attack against this country. That happened in 1998.
Bush gave them misleading intel, and lied and said he would only go to war as a last resort.
As far as your comment about Bush misleading people. He mislead with the very same intel that Clinton mislead the people about. Seems to me that Bush was more spot on that you all give him credit for. We know he massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people. We know that he was bribing officials around the country. We know that the whole “oil for food” program was a cover for corruption. We also know, that he wanted to re-start his WMD programs. We have found a great deal in the way of Chemical / Biological WMDs that Sadamn had. If there is an investigation, I have no doubt that your eyes will be opened to the truth that Sadamn was an evil man and Bush was right to go to war with him.
As far as all this “muslim brothers” BS, Iraq under Saddam was a secular nation. Now it appears to be on the way to becoming an Islamic republic.
Sadamn at the end of the 1st Gulf War, decided he wanted to rally muslims to his cause. He started yakin’ on about how much he cared for the Koran, and for the Islamic faith. This is part of the reason that we stopped when we did in the 1st Gulf War. Bush 41 didn’t want a major religious war, so he didn’t go all the way.
What Sevarian left out of the quote from the page he linked was this little gem:
The project was later cancelled in November 2002 mainly because the UN inspectors started their work again in Iraq.
Here you go again leaf. You can’t see the forest for the trees. Sadamn started a program to research a nuclear WMD. He wanted them, He would of gotten them eventually. Especially since he is soooo much smarter than George Bush. He would eventually bribed / schemed his way into this program. Ohhhh Yes also the only reason the “Weapons Inspectors” were back in Iraq, IS because of George Bush. Guess he ain’t that much smarter. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 11/11/2006 - 5:04 pm
The point is that occupying Iraq was not the right solution to the problem.
So what is the right solution, leaf? Try to bribe them like Clinton did with N. Korea. Yeah, that worked out beautifully. Like most Bush haters you have many criticisms, but no solutions. The inspectors were not working. Saddam was moving his WMD’s all around the country staying one step ahead of the inspectors. When the inspectors eventually did come to a site with WMD’s, Saddam would call them spies and throw them out of the country. He played this game throughout the 8 years of the Clinton Administration. He finally expelled inspectors in 1998 and Clinton did nothing to get the inspectors back in. He must have had is hands “full” at the time. Apparently, Saddam felt Bush was going to do more of the same. He wasn’t prepared for a president who was actually going to do something about it, imagine that.
Inspectors were in Iraq destroying missiles during Bush’s state of the union speech
That’s only because Saddam was being surrounded by U.S. troops, not because he had a change of heart. And like he did for the previous 8 years he was allowing minimal inspection, just enough to satisfy the U.N. inspectors. If Saddam had been cooperating in the first place he wouldn’t have had ANY missles to destroy in 2003, now would he?
Now we have Iraq worse off than under Saddam
Absolutely ridiculous statement. I take it that this is from your many months spent in Iraq, right? Only the left would think that a terrorist insurrection is worse than a dictator who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people, used WMD’s on other countries as well as his own people, stifled human rights, attacked 4 other nations, and attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president. Not to mention his state sponsored support of international terrorism. Now Iraq has had 3 successful elections which turnout was better than even the most optimistic estimates. Women are voting and getting involved in politics and are moving towards a women’s rights movement. 98% of the children in the country have been vaccinated, whereas during the years of all the sanctions hundreds of thousands of children died from disease. Yeah, Iraq is so much worse off.
Bush gave them misleading intel
Proof of this, please? Other than the democrats who were trying to save their own hides when the war started getting tougher. Did you notice how there was not much congressional opposition to the war when troops were rolling through Baghdad and citizens were cheering them on. Didn’t hear much from them, did we? As soon as things got tough they all started crying “We didn’t get all the intel”. Truly pathetic.
I realize that you hate Bush, but if you could give some realistic reasons, backed up by actual evidence, it might be easier to take you more seriously.
Comment by NC Cop @ 11/11/2006 - 5:11 pm
What Sevarian left out of the quote from the page he linked was this little gem:
The project was later cancelled in November 2002 mainly because the UN inspectors started their work again in Iraq.
Which means, leaf, that as soon as the inspectors left, and the would have, as the entire sanctions regime was being corroded by Hussein’s bribary and UN corruption, it would have been full speed ahead. The documents show that the nuke program was not dismantled, but was only in stasis, in a holding pattern waiting the end of sanctions.
Nice try though.
Comment by Severian @ 11/11/2006 - 5:25 pm
It’s a war for Halliburton, Cheney and Bush are lining their posckets….oops no more Halliburton in the mix.
It’s that darned Rumsfeld’s fault, he is incompentent, a war-monger…blah,blah,blah…..oops, no more Rumsfeld now.
You still have to “put up with” President Bush for another couple of years, but after that who are the liberals going to blame…everyone but themselves or the terrorists.
I find it incredibly hypocrital that liberals would act like for americans, and their ally in Israel. Such hatred, but when it comes to terrorism, it comes to terrorist, well we brought that on ourselves, or we bear partial responsbility, or they are just mis-understood, or they are mother and fathers also…ect ect
I will call them as I see them, and I see libs and some democrats as apologists for terrorists, but when it comes to our own men and women, even if they are of a different ideoligical thought on how things should be, they will, attack them, smear them, denigrate them….
Its funny really, I have seen more spine in attacking republicans and Israel than democrats have in attacking or denouncing terrorism and terrorists.
Least we know where their priorities are….
Comment by sanity @ 11/11/2006 - 6:16 pm
Lorica,
I am not trying to differentiate between “use of force” and “go to war”. The point I was trying making is that force was authorized as a last resort. Reading my comment again now I see that I didn’t make that clear. The point is that the vote gave Bush the authority to go to war but did not require or even recommend that he go to war.
As for everyone’s comments about inspectors, the argument that the inspectors would have left is unsupported. Do you have a crystal ball? In any case, if the inspectors did leave, that would have been the time to pressure the UN and/or threaten military force. Everyone here seems to be admitting that the inspectors were preventing Saddam from developing WMDs.
As for misleading intel, there is plenty of evidence:
Bush Resurrects False Claim That Congress Had “Same Intelligence” On Iraq
Comment by leaf @ 11/12/2006 - 11:47 am
leafs contentions, and all of the empty anti-Bush rhetoric on the Left, depends on peoples ignorance of the way the Congree works. The Congressional Intel committee, made up of half Dems and half Reps, had EXACTLY the same intel as Bush, right down the line. If this was all an evil NeoCon plan to take us to war based on lies, where were the Democratic Senators voices in protest while all this was going on.
- It’s total BS, just as Bak said. They hate Bush, and that justifies any and all lies, to Demonize him.
- One of the things that’s so feckless about the entire issue of BDS, and the “Get Bush” Mooney-Loons, is they ignore the fact that Saddam was busy killing his own people, Children by the hundreds were dying each month for lack of medicines and the food, that nasty little bastard was hording from his REAL WMD, the Oil For Food scam.
- I’m assuming that, contrary to their constant pleats becuase they “care” so damn much for all the “brown people, that they would have turned their backs on that ongoing genecide by Hussein, simply because he had no nukes. Notice now they’re screaming for the US to intervien in Dufar for exactly the same reasons.
- Wherever Bush is, he should be somewhere else. whatever he’s doing, he should be doing something else. The Left is nothing, if not totally inconsistant, ankle-biting ideologs.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 11/12/2006 - 12:51 pm
And yet the link I gave has a member of the Senate Intelligence Comittee and a member of the House Intelligence Comittee saying they do not get the same intel. Also the issue of credibility comes into play. If Bush says “we have this intel” and neglects to say “we got this intel from Chalabi, who is completely discredited” or “we got this from a guy called ‘Curveball’ who will say anything if you get him drunk” then you take that with a few grains of salt.
Yes I hate Bush. I hate him for what he’s done to my country. I don’t have to lie to demonize him. His own lies demonize him.
As for Saddam killing his own people, according to the Lancet study:
“Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq’s population have died above what would have occurred without conflict,” according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled “The Human Cost of the War in Iraq.”
Oh, wait, they used science to come up with that number. We all no science is how we Secprogs spread our evil, terrorist-loving agenda.
“Intervene in Darfur” is not the same as “occupy Darfur and set up a new government.” That’s the problem with you guys, you see no gray area between doing nothing and kill ‘em all.
Comment by leaf @ 11/12/2006 - 2:52 pm
Yes and we waited over a year, which gave Sadamn an opportunity to prepare and elimimate some of the WMD programs. I have heard those tubes were not meant for use in a WMD project, but were meant for missile use. Well the missile Sadamn wanted to make out of them were above the 1200 KM range that the surrender agreement allowed him to have. He had all sorts of illegal technical equipment. NO one has been able to sufficiently explain the mobile asprin factories. No one can tell us why Sadamn washed the whole thing down clean. NO one can tell us what exactly he had those aluminum tubes for. He was making a remote surveilance / attack Drone. He had Brand spankin’ new MIGs which he shouldn’t of had, Thanks Russia. He had night vision equipment he shouldn’t of had, thanks France. He had the latest Chem suits strategically located around the country. He was constantly challenging the surrender agreement. If anyone acted illegally it was Sadamn himself. And soon he will pay for that stupidity with his life. I just hope it happens before we leave Iraq. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 11/12/2006 - 3:04 pm
I never said, and I don’t think any Dem officeholder ever said, that Saddam was not an evil, dangerous dictator.
leaf, I didn’t charge you or anyone else with saying that. Nice attempt to change subject, though. One straw man disposed of.
The point is that occupying Iraq was not the right solution to the problem. Inspectors were in Iraq until two days before the invasion. Inspectors were in Iraq destroying missiles during Bush’s state of the union speech when he lied and said Saddam wouldn’t let inspectors in
You’re suggesting that UN inspectors were the solution? Come on, you cannot be that gullible. The ‘missiles’ you’re talking about were outdated and not the prime delivery mechanism for nuclear warheads anyway. Basically, Saddam let them in for the sole purpose of taking out the trash, while letting the real program continue. He probably figured having UN drones schlep around on a useless endeavor would give him cover with the leftists in the west and a free hand to continue development. If your comments are any indication, it would seem that he calculated correctly.
Now we have Iraq worse off than under Saddam
All those people voting and proudly holding up purple fingers - yeah, that’s much worse off than more mass graves. The prosperity in the north of iraq, and along the Euphrates delta where Saddam deliberately destroyed farmland to punish Shia who he considered insufficiently servile - yeah, that’s much worse than before.
we have strengthened al Qaeda
The majority of al Qaeada’s leadership is dead or in Gitmo - by golly, that’s the classic recipe for strengthening an organization, isn’t it?
the world is less safe then when Saddam was in power.
Uh huh. You think the world was safer when we were fighting terrorists with firemen and EMS techs in New York and Washington instead of with soldiers and Marines in Fallujah and Baghdad. You think it was safer when Libya was working on a nuclear program. You think it was safer when Saddam was in a palace scheming with terrorists instead of in a jail cell whining about the flavor of Doritos being served. OK, I think I get where you’re coming from.
I know you guys on the left like to quibble about the meaning of the word “is” - do you also have a contorted definition of the word “safe”?
Bush gave them misleading intel, and lied and said he would only go to war as a last resort.
Lorica and NC Cop have already dissected this remark nicely, but let me also remind you that this same intel was subscribed to by, among others, the French and the UN. For you left wingers, that ought to make it above criticism. And do you want to take a stab at how many attempts we made to resolve this problem by going to the UN - a waste of time, in my opinion, but it WAS done.
As far as all this “muslim brothers” BS, Iraq under Saddam was a secular nation.
OK, then maybe you can explain why Saddam set up the al Qaeda training camps in Iraq? Why he was giving cash bonuses to the families of islamofascist suicide bombers? Why he was providing refuge to wanted islamic terrorists? Why there’s an organization called ‘al Qaeda in Iraq’ if Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda and AQ had nothing to do with Iraq?
Comment by Great White Rat @ 11/12/2006 - 3:54 pm
Oh, wait, they used science to come up with that number. We all no science is how we Secprogs spread our evil, terrorist-loving agenda.
Wow, they used science? So how exactly do they come up with these numbers when we have been unable to get an accurate death toll to begin with. Certainly makes me suspect of their “science”.
As far as your link, all that provided was a group of congressmen who were doing exactly what I said they were: covering their hide. Perhaps you could tell me why these “concerned” politicians waited until the insurgency started growing and things started getting tough in Iraq before they thought to “re check” the intelligence.
While your at it, please tell me what Bush “did” to your country for you to hate him so much. That should be entertaining.
neglects to say “we got this intel from Chalabi, who is completely discredited” or “we got this from a guy called ‘Curveball’ who will say anything if you get him drunk”
Once again, I suppose all the intelligence that the CLINTON adminstration was getting about Saddam’s WMD were innacurate as well.
Observe: http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
Or perhaps Bush was manipulating the intelligence as far back as 1998 when he was still governeor, hmm? Please take note of the quote by Clinton when he says that when he left office there were still WMD’s unaccounted for. Just in case you forgot, Clinton left office in 2001. So apprently you believe that, with no inspectors in his country, he destroyed all the remaining WMD’s in two years. Also, please take note of the first one by Hillary when she states that nations are either with us, or against us. I seem to recall alot of the left slamming Bush for being an “extremist” for using the exact same language. Interesting.
That’s the problem with you guys, you see no gray area between doing nothing and kill ‘em all.
As such is the problem with “you guys” since, and this is the second time that I’ve said it, you have criticisms, but no solutions. What would you have done in Iraq, what would you do in Darfur, please enlighten us all.
As for everyone’s comments about inspectors, the argument that the inspectors would have left is unsupported. Do you have a crystal ball?
Not at all, just like you do not have a crystal ball. What I do know is that we have been inserting and removing inspectors for 12 years in Iraq and the problem of WMD’s was still not resolved. I can only assume that your solution is to keep inspectors in Iraq forever, until the end of time. That sounds plausible.
The point is that the vote gave Bush the authority to go to war but did not require or even recommend that he go to war.
I believe John Kerry said the exact same thing, verbatim. That’s my favorite, by the way, “Yes we gave him the authority to go to war, but we didn’t know he was going to USE it!!!”
Just face it, leaf. No matter what they find in Iraq you will never admit that it was necessary to go into Iraq, because that would mean Bush was right. It wouldn’t matter if they found all the stocks of WMD’s, because you would just claim it was planted. IF they found Osama in Iraq, you would claim he was kidnapped and placed there, so really, what’s the point? You are eaten up with BDS and there is nothing that’s going to change that. I feel bad that you have so much hate inside you, I hope you get better soon.
Comment by NC Cop @ 11/12/2006 - 6:42 pm
I think we’re going in circles here. You asked what my plan was instead of going to war. What I have tried to say is my plan would have been continuing the inspections with the threat of military intervention if Saddam would not comply. If you are right, and he would not have cooperated with the inpectors to their satisfaction, then you could have still had your war. That was never an option because Bush planned to attack Iraq even before he was elected. He lied when he said war was a last resort. He lied.
Comment by leaf @ 11/12/2006 - 7:34 pm
Apparently you missed this quote in my last link:
“Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance — not even today — of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.” Dr. Hans Blix
It was dated Jan. 27, 2003, a mere two months before U.S. forces invaded Iraq.
So basically, we were using the exact same strategy you were describing, since by this time U.S. troops had already begun moving to surround Iraq. We had inspectors on the ground and still Hans Blix, an opponent of the war, was telling the U.N. that Iraq was still not cooperating. So please tell me how this is any different than the strategy you are proposing.
Comment by NC Cop @ 11/12/2006 - 7:55 pm
NC, He gets to say Bush lied. That’s how it’s different. He’s the typical attacking armchair quarterback/president.
Comment by Baklava @ 11/12/2006 - 10:30 pm