It's Official: No WMDs in Iraq.

[cbacon 0]

Bush should not be impeached. I am against the war as well, but Bush merely acted on faulty intelligence. An investigation should take place, no doubt, because I do have my suspicions that Bush was pressuring people to find a reason to justify going into Iraq, but there was documented evidence (as wrong as it was) to show that we should have invaded Iraq. He even had the backing of both houses. My problem has been that once we discovered that there were no WMD's and also once it started being stated publicly on a regular basis that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Bush should have stepped forward and given an estimated time table to pull out the troops.  Now, he should definitely do so. I realize that his focus right now is more on tsunami relief, which is great, but he needs to come forward with a plan very soon.

The 'faulty intelligence' excuse dosen't fly, especially considering that there was such flimsy evidence anyway. The Bush Administration intentionally went out of it's way to ignore any CIA briefings or UN weapons reports that contradicted their need to go to war. Any shred of evidence that would prove there were weapons, no matter how ambiguos, were treated as the holy gospel.

 

Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter how great the intelligence was on the supposed threat, which is similar to what Regean was doing during the Cold War, claiming non-acoustic submarines and such that were being developed by the Soviet Union. If the question of WMD's are such a concern, then why does the US turn a blind eye to their allies, Pakistan when they make deals to help North Korea construct missles?

[Guest CronoT]

If it can be proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that Bush knew there were no WMD's, and went to war anyway, then yes, he should be impeached. Until and unless that happens, Bush will be considered what he always was, a fucking moron.

[Justice 0]

Bush should not be impeached. I am against the war as well, but Bush merely acted on faulty intelligence. An investigation should take place, no doubt, because I do have my suspicions that Bush was pressuring people to find a reason to justify going into Iraq, but there was documented evidence (as wrong as it was) to show that we should have invaded Iraq. He even had the backing of both houses. My problem has been that once we discovered that there were no WMD's and also once it started being stated publicly on a regular basis that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Bush should have stepped forward and given an estimated time table to pull out the troops.  Now, he should definitely do so. I realize that his focus right now is more on tsunami relief, which is great, but he needs to come forward with a plan very soon.

The 'faulty intelligence' excuse dosen't fly, especially considering that there was such flimsy evidence anyway. The Bush Administration intentionally went out of it's way to ignore any CIA briefings or UN weapons reports that contradicted their need to go to war. Any shred of evidence that would prove there were weapons, no matter how ambiguos, were treated as the holy gospel.

This is proven where?

 

Honestly, there was little against it. The UN reports said for years that he DID have them. The UN was one of the primary sources used in our intelligence, plus information gathered from foreign intelligence agencies. The idea and the information on Iraq's WMDs was universal.

 

The whole WMD argument is just you guys using hindsight to try and bash the War on Iraq. When the war began, there was no dispute that he had them with anyone, even the dissenters. The entire argument was to either let the inspectors stay or just invade them and get it over with.There was little in the way of "They don't have 'em!" because no one had any real intelligence to indicate as such. We can now look back and see all the warning signs, but before there was no real indicator that any of this stuff was false. It's hindsight bias, plain and simple.

 

Why the hell does this matter anymore since we are there and doing the best we can to make Iraq a democracy? Seriously, even if we came in on bad intell, we are making it up by trying to bring Iraq into the world as the first Arab democracy in the Middle East.

[NoCalMike 0]

When the war began, there was no dispute that he had them with anyone, even the dissenters. The entire argument was to either let the inspectors stay or just invade them and get it over with.There was little in the way of "They don't have 'em!" because no one had any real intelligence to indicate as such. We can now look back and see all the warning signs, but before there was no real indicator that any of this stuff was false. It's hindsight bias, plain and simple.

 

Why the hell does this matter anymore since we are there and doing the best we can to make Iraq a democracy? Seriously, even if we came in on bad intell, we are making it up by trying to bring Iraq into the world as the first Arab democracy in the Middle East.

Umm, excuse me, but you have to be fucking kidding me right? No one, including the dissenters were saying there were no WMDs there? I think you need to go re-read the archives of this forum leading up to the invasion of Iraq and the following 5-8 months. There was plenty of sources including many close to the whitehouse that told George Bush that there were no WMDs.

[Special K 0]

Yeah, Hans Blix expressed doubt that there were WMDs.

[Skywarp! 0]

I think Bush should be impeached. If you can't be impeached for misleading America into an unjustifyable war that kills over 1,000 of its own people and multiple times that of foreign citizens, than what CAN you be impeached for?

[Red Baron 0]

I think Bush should be impeached. If you can't be impeached for misleading America into an unjustifyable war that kills over 1,000 of its own people and multiple times that of foreign citizens, than what CAN you be impeached for?

cheating on your wife.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Not necessarily.....a bj seems enough to get the boot.....So look for The O'Reilly Factor to be canned, maybe I'll see Pat Buchannan flipping burgers sicne they both blow Bush every time they open their mouths.

 

So, screw the bleeding-heart DUMBocrats and their bleeding heart SMELLfare program

Simpsons reference. One of the better episodes.

[Special K 0]

Bill made it clear: Eattin' ain't Cheatin'

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I read on one of those 24 news ticker things that Bush has expressed regret over saying the "Bring em on" line.

 

Perhaps it was because it sounded like something from a cliched shoot em up western movie? It sounds like some dumbass cowboy thing to be certain, but I think he's talking about the fact that there are no WMD's. Maybe.

 

The US talking smack to a bunch of "insurgents" and asking to take their best shot is like Mike Tyson trying to sound tough by calling out, oh I don't know, Lennox Lewis...' kids.

[NoCalMike 0]

I read on one of those 24 news ticker things that Bush has expressed regret over saying the "Bring em on" line.

 

Perhaps it was because it sounded like something from a cliched shoot em up western movie? It sounds like some dumbass cowboy thing to be certain, but I think he's talking about the fact that there are no WMD's. Maybe.

 

The US talking smack to a bunch of "insurgents" and asking to take their best shot is like Mike Tyson trying to sound tough by calling out, oh I don't know, Lennox Lewis...' kids.

Yeah and just last night Mary Ann Fitzpatrick complimented how big of a man Bush is for saying that, even though it has been a couple of years and she had no problem defending his statement, and now of course has to change her opinion as soon as Bush does. If you are not familiar with this woman she is another one of those "Thank gawd we have a grown up in the white house now that doesn't worry about blue dresses and cigars LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Score one for ME~!" She can't get a sentence out of her mouth without referring to Clinton/Lewisnky/Cigars/Blue Dresses etc.....

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I think Bush should be impeached.  If you can't be impeached for misleading America into an unjustifyable war that kills over 1,000 of its own people and multiple times that of foreign citizens, than what CAN you be impeached for?

cheating on your wife.

He didn't get impeached for cheating on his wife, he got impeached for lying about it under oath.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I think Bush should be impeached.  If you can't be impeached for misleading America into an unjustifyable war that kills over 1,000 of its own people and multiple times that of foreign citizens, than what CAN you be impeached for?

cheating on your wife.

He didn't get impeached for cheating on his wife, he got impeached for lying about it under oath.

The SCOTUS has ruled that a wily defendant who gives evasive answers is not guilty of perjury. Homeboy was slick like that.

[Justice 0]

I think Bush should be impeached.  If you can't be impeached for misleading America into an unjustifyable war that kills over 1,000 of its own people and multiple times that of foreign citizens, than what CAN you be impeached for?

cheating on your wife.

He didn't get impeached for cheating on his wife, he got impeached for lying about it under oath.

The SCOTUS has ruled that a wily defendant who gives evasive answers is not guilty of perjury. Homeboy was slick like that.

Uh... I suppose that depends on your idea of 'sexual relations'.

 

And maybe I missed this, but what court case is that?