Democrats & Liberals Archives

September 18, 2003

Impeachment should begin!

In this AP story President Bush finally confessed to the American people that there were no ties between attacks on September 11, 2001 and Saddam Hussein. A week ago, a poll showed that 70 percent of Americans believed there probably was a tie between them. This was not ignorance on the part of Americans. It was gullibility. They wanted to believe their President and he had carefully and meticulously crafted his speeches months before the invasion of Iraq, to leave the impression that there was a link between the terror that hit our nation and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Years before the invasion, Cheney, Wolfowitz and other Neo-Cons had already decided they wanted to invade Iraq and establish a military presence in the Middle East.

However, they knew they could not sell the bankrupting of the taxpayer for such a venture without making a national interest case for going to war in Iraq. 9/11 gave them the opportunity to make that case, though, it was completely false. They deliberately designed their speeches to persuade the American tax payer to cough up the 100's of billions of dollars it was going to take to carry out their plan.

I for one, would now like to see impeachment hearings begin. This constitutes a deliberate, intentional abuse of the office of President by misleading the American people in order to support hidden and secret agendas which had no relation to the case made to the American people. Our children are now going to be saddled with a 10 to 12 trillion dollar debt and the interest that debt incurs (a large part of which will go to rebuilding Iraq) for a cause we now know was false. If this is not grounds for impeachment, then democracy and the rule of law are in serious jeopardy.

Posted by David R. Remer at September 18, 2003 09:04 AM
Comments
Comment #2556

Show me a single quote where Bush or any in his administration linked Iraq with bring responsible in any way with 9/11. The ignorance and stupidity of the population is no reason to impeach a president.

This is seriously reaching. If you really want to get Bush, go after the WMD claims.

Posted by: Chris at September 18, 2003 09:22 AM
Comment #2557

Chris,
If conservatives are going to blame the public for being stupid and ignorant on this issue, they can kiss it goodbye in 2004. The’ll be swallowing the hand that fed them…

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 18, 2003 09:47 AM
Comment #2559

You’ve avoided my question. What has Bush said that merits impeachment? What quote did he make regarding Saddam and 9/11 that would be grounds for removal from office? From the tone of your article, you make it sound like there is plenty. I’m just surprised that given the severity of the accusation, you did not include a single one in your article. The issue is not about the 2004 election, it’s about impeachment. There’s no way that anyone could impeach Bush given the (lack of) evidence you’ve provided.

Posted by: Chris at September 18, 2003 10:09 AM
Comment #2561

70 percent of the people polled who said they believed there was a link is evidence enough. Show me where anyone other than the administration discussed before the public the war on terrorism and Iraq in the same venue. Either 70 percent of the population had a miraculous mass hallucination or the president designed the link.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 18, 2003 10:13 AM
Comment #2562

What seventy percent of people believe is irrelevant. You have to prove one of two things — Bush made statements explicitly linking Saddam and 9/11 or that he had the intent to make his statements ling Saddam and 9/11. You obviously don’t have proof for the second point, and I suspect that you are unable to prove the intent in the second case in a manner that would stand up in a judicial proceeding. I’m sure that I can come up with all kinds of statistics about what seventy percent of people believe that are just as silly.

Given the typical American’s lack of education, it’s not surprising that they think Saddam was connected to 9/11. After all, the terrorists were from the Middle East and, gee, didn’t we fight a guy in the Middle East who has tried to do things like assassinate a former president? The connection, while incorrect, is an easy one to draw — with or without Bush saying a word. Did Bush benefit from this situation — without a doubt. Is he responsible for it — not at all, unless you can PROVE otherwise.

For what it is worth, I’ve been following this area pretty intently since 9/11. NEVER in that time did I EVER think that Bush tied Saddam Hussein to 9/11. Is this because I’m a Bush-loving conservative — absolutely not. It’s because he never did any such thing.

Posted by: Chris at September 18, 2003 10:23 AM
Comment #2563

Err the “You obviously don’t have proof for the second point,” , should read “You obviously don’t have proof for the FIRST point,”.

My bad.

Posted by: Chris at September 18, 2003 10:26 AM
Comment #2564

I hate to say it, but Chris is right. It’s close to weasel words, but Bush’s State of the Union included only this:

“Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qa’eda.”

…which would make them connected to 9/11 *via* al-Qa’eda - but that’s not close enough to technically be contradicted by this new statement. You do need a direct quote linking 9/11 and Saddam to back up your point.

Posted by: Thomas Scott at September 18, 2003 10:57 AM
Comment #2566

Read the link. It states the case. Sleeze can get you impeached. Remember Bill?

http://russcon.org/blog/archives/000016.html

Posted by: Repugnant at September 18, 2003 11:13 AM
Comment #2567

Chris, I agree with you that if put before a court of law on the charge of perjury, the case would not hold up. You get no argument from me there.

The issue is not one of perjury. The issue is one of misleading the public using the awesome power of the office of President and his free use of public airwaves granted to that office. If the public decides they were mislead, that is all the proof that would be required for an impeachment based on the charge of abuse of the power of the office.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 18, 2003 11:53 AM
Comment #2568

Thomas, your view is well rationed. But what of my point made to Chris regarding the abuse of the power of office as opposed to a charge of perjury?

Thanks. David

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 18, 2003 11:59 AM
Comment #2569

Repungant: Bill Clinton was impeached, but not convicted. This was despite the evidence of him having committed perjury in a court of law. Given the shaky evidence here, do you think that Bush would have anything to worry about, even if Congress were overwhelmingly composed of Democrats (which it is not)?

David: The crux of your argument is that somehow Bush lied. If you cannot prove that he lied, how can you prove that he abused the office of President. To me it seems that it would be necessary to prove that he lied to the public before going after him for having abused his office. From the angle you are taking, you still have to prove that Bush was responsible for misleading the public somehow. As I have said before, you’re probably going to have better luck with the WMD statements BUSH MADE than with the fact that 70% of Americans thought that Saddam and 9/11 were connected.

Posted by: Chris at September 18, 2003 12:31 PM
Comment #2573

Chris, your point is valid from the standpoint of Bush lying. However, misleading the public, while not lying, is also an abuse of power. The case is being made in Congress by Democrats, and in the media, and by George Soros (quite convincinly, I might add) that the perceived link by the public was deliberate and intentional.

Polls going back months indicated the public’s belief in the link. If the Bush administration did not want to perpetuate this erroneous link, they could, and should have announced the fact of no link months ago. They milked the public’s misperception for all it was worth, and only now disavow the link between 9/11 and Iraq, as a means of putting the issue behind them before the election season begins in earnest.

Ultimately, I think it is the people who will decide whether an abuse of power took place, and their representatives have an obligation to act on it, if the public voices overwhelming outrage at being duped. I am only one citizen who is outraged by it, we will have to wait a month or so for the rest of the public to catch up on the news and see what they say, I guess.

BTW, thank you Chris for a good debate on this topic.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 18, 2003 01:35 PM
Comment #2577

Prediction: Bush won’t be impeached.

Posted by: Richard Bennett at September 18, 2003 01:45 PM
Comment #2579

Prediction: Clark/Dean will be elected. Bush and Dick go work for Big Oil once again.

Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at September 18, 2003 02:23 PM
Comment #2586

Want to put some money on it, Jake? The things I’ve read about Clark say that it’s quite unlikely he’d ever share a ticket with Dean, so the question of such a ticket winning or losing is moot.

My guess is that when Bush and Cheney leave Washington, in 2008, Bush will become comissioner of Major League Baseball, and Cheney will retire to Wyoming and principally concern himself with fly fishing. Bush has never actually worked for Big Oil, although he does have a background in Small Oil and Big Baseball. Halliburton is also more of a Big Construction firm than anything else.

But why is it that putting “Big” on the name of any enterprise automatically makes it evil? I can understand people hating “Big Tobacco” because it sells a dangerous and addictive drug, but “Big Oil” deals in a commodity that we all need and all use. Is it just the bigness that makes them bad? If this is case, isn’t “Big Government” the baddest thing of all? It’s certainly the biggest, so QED. And how about “Big Environmentalism” or “Big Feminism”, they’re bad too, right?

The emotional fixations of the radical left continue to confuse me.

Posted by: Richard Bennett at September 18, 2003 03:06 PM
Comment #2587

How about this: In his May 1 speech announcing the end of major combat in Iraq, onboard the now infamous aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego, Bush said, “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001.” He went of the say: “With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.”

Now that is a strong, very strong insinuation, that Bush and his band of neo-conservative brethren were directly linking Saddam to the September 11 attacks. One might say that in a court of law, the statement proves intent by the Bush Administration to justify war in Iraq by linking Saddam—without saying his name—to the attacks of September 11. The test of course is whether or not a reasonable person would draw the inference from Bushes statement that Saddam was duplicitous in the September 11 attacks. The fact that 70 percent of the American population believes that there is link between Saddam and September 11, proves in my mind (and perhaps in the halls of justice) that the Bush Administration established the link, and that reasonable people believed him.

I am with Mr. Remer, time to start the Impeachment proceedings!

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at September 18, 2003 03:40 PM
Comment #2590

The fact that 70 percent of the American population believes that there is link between Saddam and September 11, proves in my mind (and perhaps in the halls of justice) that the Bush Administration established the link, and that reasonable people believed him.

What an amazing piece of empirical and logical fallacy we have here. I’m impressed that anyone can so much crap into one small sentence.

Posted by: Richard Bennett at September 18, 2003 04:08 PM
Comment #2593

Mr. Martin,

It appears you have won the debate. When your opponent begins throwing “crap” into the debate, it is best to walk away victorious.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 18, 2003 04:27 PM
Comment #2594

Mr. Bennett,

What is amazing is that Republicans, no matter how many falsehoods the Bush Administration piles one on top of the other, fall in lockstep behind aforementioned administration. While I applaud you for your misguided, misplaced loyalty, I must express “amazement” at your continual blind devotion and somewhat dim refusal to see that you are being bamboozled by a “C” average under-achiever who happens to wear the mask of the Presidency.

When did the enlightened start following the dunce, and when did the dunce become more than a blithely tolerated joke barely noticed by the enlightened of this nation?

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at September 18, 2003 04:36 PM
Comment #2595

(via the daily kos)
The Congressional resolution authorizing Bush’s War required the president to certify to Congress that war was necessary. Part of that letter:

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

In other words, Bush is certifying that Iraq had a role in the 9-11 attacks, thus justifying the subsequent invasion.

But now, Bush says:

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties,” the president said. But he also said, “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.”
And notice his use of the past tense (“we’ve had no evidence”), precluding the posibility that they originall thought a link existed.

**personal note (the above was mostly pasted)- This argument ignores the fact that the letter for Congressional approval words it as “including nations who planned..” - this gives Bush the excuse that the war is not exclusively against those responsible for 9-11.. but the implication is pretty obvious..

Posted by: nobody at September 18, 2003 04:42 PM
Comment #2596

Crap #1: 70%. Prove it, preferably with a cite. Saying “that’s what my friend said a poll said” doesn’t cut it.

Crap #2: “ties”. There are ties and there are ties. Does “ties” mean Saddam was in a plane, or that he planned Sept. 11 personally, or that he harbored and/or financed some of those who did personally, or that he knew of the effort and either supported it or did nothing to stop it, or that he applauded it after it was over? Some of these ties existed, some of them didn’t, and some are still to be determined.

Crap #3: The American public has no beliefs except those the President wants them to have. Self-evidently crap.

Get serious, V.

Posted by: Richard Bennett at September 18, 2003 04:51 PM
Comment #2597

With all of the talk about lies and misleading the public, it reminds me of a collection of editorial cartoon’s that Slate has entitled “Clinton Lies” http://cagle.slate.msn.com/scandal/BEST/ClintonLies/ClintonLies.asp

I am a registered Republican, but I don’t necessarily vote Republican. If there was a candidate from the Democrat or any other party, I would vote for that candidate. I only filled in the Republican dot on my voter registration card because I had to check something. My only wish for 2004 would be that a exceptional 3rd party candidate would come out. I love the monkey-wrench it throws into the parties plans. It hurt the Republicans in 92 and hurt the Democrats in 2000. If people would stop putting on the conservative or liberal blinders, maybe we would someday have a great president. We have not had a president that has left behind a legacy worth noting since FDR and even that could be debated until the end of time.

I also found this article on slate interesting:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2087591/

It’s title is Liar, Liar.

Posted by: Steve at September 18, 2003 05:22 PM
Comment #2598

Hey Democrats…
Please try to impeach Bush. It would only make you look even more radical than you already are.
I should say that it would highlight what is brewing deep down inside….which is pretty ugly.
I wish Remer were in charge of the DLC.

Posted by: Pete at September 18, 2003 05:40 PM
Comment #2599

REPUBLICANS READ THIS
(http://www.c-span.org/resources/fyi/IraqAuth.asp)
March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH


Posted by: Glenn Brown at September 18, 2003 05:43 PM
Comment #2601

See! We must move to impeach!
Democrats! This is your chance!

“including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

It does not state that Iraq participated in the Sept 11th attacks. Democrats will say that it is implied. That is not grounds for impeachment. Also the President never made any definitive statements regarding any Iraqi connection with 9-11 but implied, rather that there was a possibility (maybe). Also the war on terror and the “axis of evil” was not just Iran, Iraq and North Korea. It included the countries that support them and highlighted them specifically.
Language is a vague thing but it all depends on what your definition if “is” is.

Posted by: Pete at September 18, 2003 06:03 PM
Comment #2602

In legal documents, “including” generally means “including, but not limited to”; it’s like the “or” function in Boolean logic, not the “exclusive or” function.

But elections are not won or lost on the basis of such fine-edged parsing as this. Was Saddam a bad guy, yes or no? Most people say “yes”, and that’s all there is to it.

Posted by: Richard Bennett at September 18, 2003 06:08 PM
Comment #2603

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

The above two paragraphs are from W’s State of the Union address. While Bush does not say “Saddam was connected to 9/11” there is a VERY strong implication that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida were interconnected. He says that Hussein harboured members of Al Qaida. He mentions 9/11 as the change in perception about whether Hussein could be contained. He tried very hard in this speech to connect the two.

Posted by: blipsman at September 18, 2003 06:09 PM
Comment #2604

There’s nothing in that statement that’s not true, blipsman.

Posted by: Richard Bennett at September 18, 2003 06:23 PM
Comment #2605

1)He did support terrorists and housed them as well. He sent money to Palestinian suicide bombers families to the tune of 25,000$ per bomber.

2)”Abu Abbas, architect of the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking recently was found living in Iraq, as was Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the alleged designer of the radio-bomb that demolished Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.”

3)”Mansoor Ijaz cites an Iraqi intelligence document in which the secret Mukhabarat invited a senior al Qaeda operative to Baghdad from the Sudan. The correspondence said: “We may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden.” The al Qaeda representative indeed visited Baghdad in March 1998, five months before the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania exploded, killing 224 people, 12 of them American, and wounding some 5,000 others, many of them Africans and Muslims.”

Those who scream for evidence of WMDs RIGHT NOW will only say that we planted them when we do find them….furthermore, if this administration was so corrupt and evil then why haven’t they? It would make for a pretty easy political victory for the evil Bushies right?
Just ask yourself….

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/354

Posted by: Pete at September 18, 2003 06:38 PM
Comment #2609

Richard,

What point are you trying to establish? That Bush hasn’t lied? That Bush won’t be impeached?

If you’re point is that he won’t be impeached, I don’t think anyone, even the most hardened lefty, would disagree with you. The definition of impeachable offense is basically whatever Congress wants it to be, and this Congress has no interest in impeachment. There’s no real debate on whether we will be impeached.

If your argument is that he hasn’t lied, then you’re on shakier ground. I don’t know if there’s a quote where he said that “Saddam led 9/11”, but there’s no doubt that there’s a pattern of deception in his dealings with the American people and Congress over the war. His deceptions are not just about the 9/11 link, but also about WMD, the cost of the war, and also many non-war related topics (enviroment, taxes, education, etc.).

Whether you’re willing to spin these deceptions as not lies depends on your willingness to be as slick as Clinton.

So the real issue is whether America will realize that we didn’t get a President who brought “integrity and honesty back to the White House”. We got someone who deceives about the nation’s economy and international affairs instead of someone who deceives (but does not technically lie to) a Grand Jury about his sex life.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030612.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_09_07_archive.html#106335193983450346
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_02_02_archive.html#90272005
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_05_12_archive.html#85091476
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_06_01_archive.html#200371537

(Don’t worry, spinsanity is not a liberal site - they also point out mistruths spoken by liberals, too).

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 18, 2003 08:07 PM
Comment #2610

There’s lying and then there’s lying, and our definitions of it, and its seriousness, are always going to be colored by our general perception of the politician in question and whether we think he’s doing the right thing. My tendency is to believe that actions speak louder than words, so I rate politicians accordingly.

Clinton’s lying about sex was only interesting because he did it in connection with a lawsuit enabled by a sexual harassment law he signed with great fanfare. So the issue there was simply the hypocrisy of claiming to be a champion of women’s rights while shamelessly exploiting women for his entire adult life. He raped Juanita Brodderick, after all.

The anti-Bush claims about Bush’s alleged lying strike me as a different issue altogether. Nobody needed much convincing that Saddam was a bad guy, that he had an illegal weapons program, or that he was a genocidal tyrant. The problem he posed was simply one of inertia, where we’d allowed him to remain in power so long, and even encouraged him versus Iran, that he’d acquired a sort of legitimacy in the eyes of the complacent. Sept. 11 shook America out of its complacency and made it tenable to settle some old scores and clean up some dirty rooms, and one of those was Saddam’s. I don’t see this as deception, I see it as seizing the opportunity and using it to do some good. And whether you like Bush or not, it’s hard to argue that the Iraqi people and their neighbors are not better of now than they were in February.

You’re not going to defeat or depose a president on a mere technicality, and we should all have learned that from the Clinton impeachment.

Posted by: Richard Bennett at September 18, 2003 08:23 PM
Comment #2611

Richard,

I don’t know if your post from 8:23 was in response to mine, but it’s insufficient if it was.

Your claim seems to be that Bush’s lies about the war are irrelevant because the war was a good war to fight (the ends justify the means). For many people, the ends don’t justify the means, so lying for a good cause is not justified (sorry Col. North).

I agree that the fate of the Iraqi people is largely better than it was before the war, so some of the “ends” are good. Many conservatives stop there, seeming to ignore the bad effects of the war: loss of American lives, spending of at least $87 billion, creating a terrorist mecca in Iraq where there wasn’t one before and where we have thousands of Americans stretched thin, the loss of respect for America in much of the world, the potential incitement of thousands of muslims, the failure to improve the situation in Israel, etc.

So some of the ends are good, but many are bad. Does the good outweigh the bad? That’s a personal choice, but lies to justify that result are not justified.

Additionally, Bush’s lies are about more than just the war in Iraq. They extend to tax cuts, the economy, AIDS in Africa, the environment, regulations, etc. Some of this is natural, as all politicians (all people) lie and dissemble at times. However, Bush portrays himself as an honest broker with integrity, and that’s not true, either. His lies are too broad, too often repeated, and too sophisticated to ignore them.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 18, 2003 08:40 PM
Comment #2612

David, I thought you were a political guru? How could you not recognize that this “confession” is a political tar-baby designed to snare the left-wing pundits such as yourself. It’s another one of his speeches that says nothing, but instead of blunderously saying nothing (“Bring ‘Em On”), it’s meant to give the left some talking point that is easy for the right-wing pundits to trounce and dissect.

As Richard and pete have shown, this line of attack is fruitless… you are better off attacking him on WMDs and faulty intelligence of the threat Iraq posed to the US (directly and indirectly via Al Qaeda aid). Put the puzzle together and understand that Al Qaeda hated Saddam as much as they hate us… but there were no terror attacks or provable presence in Iraq (against Saddam or otherwise) prior to our occupation.

Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 18, 2003 09:15 PM
Comment #2613

Many conservatives stop there, seeming to ignore the bad effects of the war: loss of American lives, spending of at least $87 billion, creating a terrorist mecca in Iraq where there wasn’t one before and where we have thousands of Americans stretched thin, the loss of respect for America in much of the world, the potential incitement of thousands of muslims, the failure to improve the situation in Israel, etc.

I count four or five lies in this one statement, Mr. Boy. You must be impeached.

Posted by: Richard Bennett at September 18, 2003 09:36 PM
Comment #2614

Richard, Pete—

You are beginning to sound a lot like Clinton; watch the spin of you might get dizzy, fall and smack some sense into your hardened head. You matter how you try to gyrate it, Bush lied in order to invade Iraq period. Putting your hands over your ears and jumping up and down while sing God Bless America will not make his lies turn into truths, nor bring back the dead American soldiers who have lost their lives defending that lie.

“Integrity and honesty back to the White House,” the very notion is laughable.

BTW Pete, the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, I don’t see us massing troops on the border of that country, or Syria, or Iran, of Lebanon, or Egypt, or Pakistan, or Indonesia, or Gaza, all know terrorist hotbeds. If the Bushies were really serious about hunting terrorist, then these countries would be next.

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at September 18, 2003 09:38 PM
Comment #2615

V. Edward Martin: I’m going to inform you about the Saudi hijackers who were mistakenly identified (and corrected 10 days later as witnessed by this article)LA Times - FBI Chief Raises New Doubts Over Hijackers’ Identities

Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 18, 2003 09:45 PM
Comment #2616

Richard,

Please refute my points that you find to be lies. Some are hard facts ($87 billion and lost American lies), and some have fudge words (“potential” incitement of thousands of muslims) because the points are debatable.

To what do you object?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 18, 2003 09:45 PM
Comment #2617

Uhh, here’s the article… don’t know why that didn’t link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092101probe.story

Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 18, 2003 09:48 PM
Comment #2622

Since everybody ignored this I will give you but one more chance to refute it.
1)Saddam did support terrorists and housed them as well. He sent money to Palestinian suicide bombers families to the tune of 25,000$ per bomber.

2)”Abu Abbas, architect of the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking recently was found living in Iraq, as was Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the alleged designer of the radio-bomb that demolished Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.”

3)”Mansoor Ijaz cites an Iraqi intelligence document in which the secret Mukhabarat invited a senior al Qaeda operative to Baghdad from the Sudan. The correspondence said: “We may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden.” The al Qaeda representative indeed visited Baghdad in March 1998, five months before the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania exploded, killing 224 people, 12 of them American, and wounding some 5,000 others, many of them Africans and Muslims.”

Those who scream for evidence of WMDs RIGHT NOW will only say that we planted them when we do find them….furthermore, if this administration was so corrupt and evil then why haven’t they? It would make for a pretty easy political victory for the evil Bushies right?
Just ask yourself….

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/354

By the way Democrats…Type in mansoor ijaz into the spinsanity.org search engine. Think you will find anything? Nope.

The reason all the Dems refuse to answer my points is because they can’t attack this man and Call him a liar. He used to be a Clintonite but retired in frustration over his lack of action on terrorism. He was a strong Democratic supporter of Clinton and a trusted advisor for years. When you do some checking you will find him to be a reliable source and an expert onthe matter.

Posted by: pete at September 18, 2003 10:59 PM
Comment #2625

Lawn, it sounds as if you know the alleged facts you’re slinging around are dubious, so why do you demand I rub your face in them?

When you whine about lost American lives (or dollars) in Iraq, or lost Iraqi lives for that matter, it’s helpful to contrast your figures with those that would have been lost had we done nothing. Are you prepared to do that?
If you could, that would eliminate one of your lies.

Are you prepared to offer evidence that Iraq is now a “terrorist Mecca?” While I’ve seen evidence that it’s a sort of magnet for terrorists, they aren’t doing well at all, so that’s not something an honest person you consider Utopian.

Are you prepared to offer evidence on America’s respect in the Rest of the World? It’s my experience and belief that terrorists in particular and tribal people (Arabs being a tribal people) in general only respect what they fear, and they do fear America now more than they did during the time they viewed us as a soft a weak people too narcissistic to defend ourselves. I haven’t seen too many terrorist attacks heading our way since we corrected matters in Afghanistan or Iraq, and Al Qaeda has now been reduced to bombing soft targets in Muslim countries, such as the disco in Bali and a Jewish graveyard in Algeria.

Sloppy lies, half-truths, and distortions such as yours don’t really warrant much examination, so I’ll leave it at that.

Posted by: Richard Bennett at September 19, 2003 03:48 AM
Comment #2626

Stephen said, “David, I thought you were a political guru?”

Nah! Just a citizen with opinions like most others here.

“How could you not recognize that this “confession” is a political tar-baby designed to snare the left-wing pundits such as yourself.”

I have family who have argued to support Bush, despite the fact that they are Democrats and Independents, precisely because they believed in the link. I even have a brother-in-law who dropped me from his email list altogether. It is these Democrats and Independents who, upon hearing Bush’s “confession” should feel duped and resent being led down a path of misinformation.

“It’s another one of his speeches that says nothing, but instead of blunderously saying nothing (“Bring ‘Em On”), it’s meant to give the left some talking point that is easy for the right-wing pundits to trounce and dissect.”

The implication of what he now confesses for those who made the connection based on his speeches, has the potential of changing votes for Bush into votes against him. I doubt most Democrats who voted for Bush and many Independents who voted for him, follow the right-wing pundits.

Your point is well made for C-span junkies and those who follow the debate closely.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 19, 2003 07:39 AM
Comment #2627

Richard,

It’s not that I think my facts are dubious, it’s that some are potential downsides of the war that need to be considered. The administration sold the war based on assuming that everything would go perfectly without planning for the real possibilities that things wouldn’t go well. So, now the US is caught flat-footed because we weren’t treated as liberators to the level expected, we weren’t able to re-use Saddams army as a security force loyal to us, we weren’t able to get the oil industry up to $100 billion a year immediately, etc. I know that the incitement of muslims is a potential downside that might or might not have happened, but there are signs that it has, and that should be considered when judging whether the war was a success.

“When you whine about lost American lives (or dollars) in Iraq … If you could, that would eliminate one of your lies.”

It’s not a lie that American lies were lost. It’s a hard fact. You’re right that those lives have to be put in context and weighed against what was gained. That’s exactly my point. I’m not lying in saying that lives were lost. I don’t know what you think I’m saying.

“Are you prepared to offer evidence that Iraq is now a “terrorist Mecca?” While I’ve seen evidence that it’s a sort of magnet for terrorists…”

Fine, I’ll use the word magnet instead of mecca. That’s fine with me, and makes my point sufficiently.

“Are you prepared to offer evidence on America’s respect in the Rest of the World?”

I didn’t say the “Rest of the World”, I said “much of the world”. Your arguments about whether Arabs and terrorist respect us more have to be balanced against the fact that much of the muslim world sees this as confirmation that the US wants to destroy Muslims and control their oil. Additionally, I wasn’t talking about them in my “much of the world” statement. I meant much of Europe, Canada, etc.

“Sloppy lies, half-truths, and distortions such as yours don’t really warrant much examination, so I’ll leave it at that.”

Nothing I said was a sloppy lie, half-truth, or distortion. Your refutations fail because you challenge a different statement than what I said. I didn’t whine about American lives lost, I stated the fact that they were lost. You changed my arguments. Yours are the distortions.

BTW, you never answered my initial question. Do you think that Bush did not try to deceive the American people.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 19, 2003 08:33 AM
Comment #2630

Stephen,

Thanks for the interesting link to the LA Times areticle. That still leaves a lot of Saudi participants, but it would be good to find out the true identities of those using fake passports, etc.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 19, 2003 09:01 AM
Comment #2631

Stephen—

One can hardly convincingly quote a September 21st 2001 article on the hijackers stating that only six were Saudi’s when it is now well known the 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. The remaining four were from Egypt, UAE and Jordan.

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at September 19, 2003 09:36 AM
Comment #2634

Oh. I didn’t look at the date on that article - I thought it was more recent information. Maybe it’s not so interesting after all. Oops.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 19, 2003 09:45 AM
Comment #2638

Still noone answers my comments. I guess that says it all.

Posted by: Pete at September 19, 2003 11:22 AM
Comment #2640

I’m not really following this long and drawn out debate, but I stopped in to drop some more facts into the mix:

Up until recently, the White House Talking Points on Saddam’s links with International Terrorism said:

“Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations. These facilities were employed to train operatives for the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.”

Now, that talking point reads:

“Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.”

This can be verified by anyone on the mailing list for White House briefings who saved the original notice. Is this what you guys mean by history revisionists? ;)

Posted by: nobody at September 19, 2003 11:28 AM
Comment #2644

The Democrtaic Party’s new hope: Wesley Clark.

Howard Dean is too far to the left to be electable. I am very concerned that the far-left is going all out for Dean due to the hatred of George Bush…I might also like to add that Americans—for the most part—support Bush.

Howard Dean is driving the Democrats toward certain failure and I want badly for Bush to be defeated. Clark is a moderate Democrat who cannot be smeared by the right-wing press.

Posted by: Dan Kornegay at September 19, 2003 12:31 PM
Comment #2650

Connecting Saddam to 9/11 is what the Administration did, allowing people to draw the (logical) conclusion that he was at least partially behind it. The Administration never claimed that Saddam was behind it himself. A key difference, and one that shows that asking for proof that the Administration claimed Saddam was behind 9/11 is missing that difference.

Impeachment? Our standards for that certainly seem to have dropped, where the smallest things seem to gain a call for it. This Administration doesn’t deserve re-election because of its spin (plus single-bidder contracts on Iraqi reconstruction, and many other things). But this does not rise to the level of impeachment. Fanning the flames of 9/11 sentiment to aid certain political aims is simply part of the landscape.

Posted by: Frederick T. Courtright at September 19, 2003 04:35 PM
Comment #2652

Hey “nobody”
since you made an allegation why don’t you back it up with some proof instead of dropping in and disappearing.

Why has nobody yet responded to my 3 facts about Hussein? Anyone? Yet?
Nope, because they can’t be refuted without looking stupid.

Posted by: Pete at September 19, 2003 04:42 PM
Comment #2657

I don’t respond to your 3 points because I dont dispute them. Saddam is bad. Thats not the issue that people have been arguing.

Posted by: nobody at September 19, 2003 05:06 PM
Comment #2658

Pete,

I’m with nobody on this. I didn’t bother to respond because your post was a tangent I didn’t need to address.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 19, 2003 05:19 PM
Comment #2659

“Saddam is bad”

That is not what my 3 statements were so why don’t you read them again….and dispute them. Or at least tell me how it was wrong to say what Bush said when you take my 3 statements into account.
Try again.

Posted by: Pete at September 19, 2003 05:20 PM
Comment #2665

“your post was a tangent I didn’t need to address.”

should read…

“your post had points that cannot be refuted and so i am going to play dead.”

You Democrats do this to me all the time. The minute I torpedo your arguments with facts you cant handle it and refuse to comment on them.
Anybody else?

Posted by: pete at September 19, 2003 10:30 PM
Comment #2668

Pete,

You didn’t torpedo our arguments with facts. You brought up facts that didn’t address the issue at hand, so I (we?) found it most useful to ignore you. It would be like me saying “Richard, you conservatives are all idiots, because I can prove that 2 + 2 = 4.” It was irrelevant and combatative, so I, for one, ignored it.

You seem to have a very high opinion of your debating skills, but I’ve found you to rely more on argument, broad generalizations, and insults than true debate. Maybe I’ve only read the wrong selection of your posts, but it’s what I’ve seen.

I’m still waiting for a further reply from Richard, but I’m guessing he’s been too busy with work / family / life / whatever to get back to me. Or maybe he just finds the debate boring by now. Whatever. I’m not going to claim that I’ve beaten him, or that he’s afraid of me, or that he’s “playing dead”, or that conservatives are all wimps. It’s a debate and I respect my fellow debators not to treat them the way you treat anyone to the left of you.

Maybe that’s why no one responded to you - there’s nothing to be gained from debating who won’t admit to a single point and quickly resorts to insult.

Just my opinion.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 19, 2003 11:53 PM
Comment #2669
You didn’t torpedo our arguments with facts. You brought up facts that didn’t address the issue at hand, so I (we?) found it most useful to ignore you. It would be like me saying “Richard, you conservatives are all idiots, because I can prove that 2 + 2 = 4.” It was irrelevant and combatative, so I, for one, ignored it.

Noone called anyone an “idiot”, I am merely illustrating absurdity here.

I’m not going to claim that I’ve beaten him, or that he’s afraid of me, or that he’s “playing dead”, or that conservatives are all wimps.

Well lets just take YOUR insults and distortions point-by-point, using your language….mmmmmK?

1)“I’m not going to claim that I’ve beaten him”

Again…never said any of that.

2)“or that he’s afraid of me”

what are you talking about, this is getting nutty isn’t it? Sounds like a Freudian projection to me…, you know….where you liberals just slip up and claim that I said something that you are thinking and feeling? Classic!

3) or that conservatives (liberals) are all wimps.

Yet another thing that I did NOT say, and another projection. So where were you going with this comment again?

Why don’t you stop putting words into my mouth?

Maybe that’s why no one responded to you - there’s nothing to be gained from debating who won’t admit to a single point and quickly resorts to insult.

More projection from the you I think. Paging Doctor freud…..?

http://dictionary.reference.com/searchq=freudian%20slip
pro•jec•tion:
The attribution of one’s own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

You are once again trying to paint me in a different light from reality. Very nice try but it will not fly.

The point is that you libs are trying to say that Saddam had no terrorist connections. That is the CORE issue here and not the semantics of what Bush said.
How am I wrong? Please just step up to the plate and stop these claims that I have said something that I have not.

Posted by: pete at September 20, 2003 01:08 AM
Comment #2671

screw impeaching Bush. He’s gonna be gone in a little over a yer now anyway.

let’s impeach those bastards on the Supreme Court who selected this bald-faced liar as our president!

Posted by: Hank at September 20, 2003 08:48 AM
Comment #2674

First things first: Bush never spoke in any one of his speeches about a direct link between iraq and the tragedy of 9/11. He did, however, make baseless claims regarding the existence of WMD’s and the urgency and swiftnes needed in removing saddam. When it comes to iraq 9/11 and the war on terrorism was the perfect excuse and the newsmedia the propaganda machine. After the decision to wage war against iraq, the majority of americans didnt even think twice before putting saddam on the forefront of their 9/11 fed vengeance. There was no objective reason whatsoever to invade/free iraq. And forget about the iraqi people. I agree, iraq is now in deep shit, but with time and patience and shitloads of money, the country will eventually stand on its two feet again and the general population will know more freedom than they ever knew. But it’s not the american right to freely interfere with world politics without others consent or imediate urgency due to perhaps an impending attack against its forces.

Posted by: scheme_419 at September 20, 2003 10:06 AM
Comment #2675

Pete,

“The point is that you libs are trying to say that Saddam had no terrorist connections. That is the CORE issue here and not the semantics of what Bush said.
How am I wrong? Please just step up to the plate and stop these claims that I have said something that I have not.”

You are wrong in that we weren’t claiming that Saddam had no terrorist connections, so the whole thing was irrelevant.

This is at least the third time you’ve been told this. Please let it drop, or (perhaps) put it in context so your post is relevant.

I’m sorry that you were so offended when I tried to explain to you how your statements sound to others.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2003 10:44 AM
Comment #2676

Pete:

I won’t ignore you. So:

1) I won’t dispute that Hussein supported the Palestinian terror machine. The amount of money you suggest is up for debate (there have been varying reports ranging from $4,000 to the number you cited) - but not that he didn’t support it. And while I’m sure he was “in favor” of terrorism against the US, there’s no evidence he financially supported any in any way. Only against Israel. Which is bad, yes - I’m no fan of Hamas and the Jumpin’ Jihad Revue, but it’s different than suggesting he was involved in some sort of support (outside of “moral” support) for terrorism directed at the US.

2) Well, those are just ridiculous points. Just because someone LIVES somewhere doesn’t mean anything. Unless Abbas and al-Salahat were living in the Royal Mansion or collecting a pension from the Baath party, there’s nothing to link them to Hussein. Theodore Kaczynski was “found living” in the United States. Come to think of it, so was Zacarias Moussaui.

3) Whoa - they met some officials in Baghdad and FIVE MONTHS LATER something BLEW UP! Holy conspiracies, Batman! They MUST be connected!

Let me point out that senior members of the bin Laden family have, at various points in history, met with senior members of both Bush and Cheney’s oil interests. Things that make you go “Hmm…” (And just so you don’t think I’m singling out Republicans - let’s not forget that Arafat met with President Clinton, and then later, Palestinian suicide bombers BLEW PEOPLE UP! Clinton MUST have been involved!)

…so, your three points have been responded to. Of course, none of the above points have anything to do with whether or not Bush lied. One of your “points” is ex post facto, for that matter (those “found living” in Iraq)

Myself, I think Bush was very careful NOT to lie. Not to say there wasn’t any spin to his statements leading up to the war but no, to my knowledge, he hasn’t lied. Misled, spun, twisted - perhaps. But lied? Like an “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” kind of lie? No.

As to your bit about “Those who scream for evidence of WMDs RIGHT NOW will only say that we planted them when we do find them….” - uh, dude can we wait until they’re found / not found before jumping the gun on that? You don’t really KNOW how people will react. Oh I’m sure the Nader-ites and Chomsky-heads will scream “conspiracy”, but they don’t represent the vast majority of Democrats, even if you think they do.

Posted by: Turkey Crack MF Co-Existing Sky Jive at September 20, 2003 12:26 PM
Comment #2682

Turkey Crack MF Co-Existing Sky Jive-


Just because someone LIVES somewhere doesn’t mean anything. Unless Abbas and al-Salahat were living in the Royal Mansion or collecting a pension from the Baath party, there’s nothing to link them to Hussein.

Well at least your points are well thought out and logical considering all the rhetoric on this side of the fence.
Consider this…

When WELL KNOWN and WANTED INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS live in the capital city of a country that is widely known to support terrorists and is a police state that tracks the movements of everybody in the country and holds files on each person. When that country has a Stalin-style “political block watch officer” on every block and tortures people over something their neighbor heard them say in a conversation that sounded sort of anti-Hussein…well…

It becomes a matter of common sense to assume there presence is known in said country’s capital city, and welcomed there.
See: Qadafi, Stalin and Cuba.

The core problem with your argument is this…
You are comparing the U.S. to Iraq. They are so dramatically dissimilar that it seems a ridiculous argument at best.
See: Timothy Mcviegh.

Let me point out that senior members of the bin Laden family have, at various points in history, met with senior members of both Bush and Cheney’s oil interests.
That is because they have oil interests and are heavily involved in the oil futures trading market and investments. Osama is the “black-sheep of the family. So what? If I were to go out and commit crimes against humanity and my parents were to then meet with the a corporation to discuss business development with a guy who happens to know someone connected with someone who knows some guy that knows a presidential candidate, does that make it some kind of conspiracy? I am assuming that by “Bush and Cheney’s oil interests.” You mean the companies that they invest in, and their shareholders, which would include anyone with sizeable shares in said company. FO SHIZZLE! See: American investors…like me and you.

There are “senior members” of the Bin Laden family living in the U.S. in the State of Texas. What is strange about that? Oil companies have heavy business in Texas (insert the term “obvious” here)
Bin Ladens family is not a part of his terror network and it is assumed that they are harmless oil barons who want to make some coin. This has to be assumed unless you wish to paint them all with the same brush. The Bin Laden family is also enormous as are the members of the Saudi Royal families (some of whom support terrorists as well).
Consider this…
Days after Zubaydah’s capture and interrogation/confessions 3 Saudi Princes died within days of each other and a Pakistani who was implicated. Progress is being made.

On July 22, 2002, Prince Ahmed suffered from a heart attack, one day later, Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud was killed in a car crash, while Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir “died of thirst”. Seven months later, Mushaf Ali Mir, the Pakistani Air Marshal who was also implicated, died in a plane crash.

Our country is not Iraq and it is not a police state. It must be therefore assumed that because we have a population of almost 300 million people and live in a FREE society (regardless of Democrats insistance to the contrary) it is literally impossible to know who is living here and who is plotting against us.

As for Arafat, I have said it before and I am saying it again. The U.N. loves Arafat. Bill Clinton loved to give Arafat a mic and an audience.
I can say this with certainty. Arafat will not step foot on U.S. soil while Bush is in office.
Bush has proven that he does not negotiate with known terrorists.

The U.N., Madeleine Albright (Korean nuclear reactors) as well as Jimmy Carter who “enjoys the company” of Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega (Sandinista) love to “negotiate” with those who would destroy our way of life.

The U.N. has Libya as head of the human rights commission as well as Sudan. We were kicked off of it this year.
Iraq was head of the U.N. disarmament committee this year, right before the invasion. Clinton sees the U.N. as a friend and trusted ally even though virtually everything they do is counter to American mainstream views and even HIS foreign policy.

Oh I’m sure the Nader-ites and Chomsky-heads will scream “conspiracy”, but they don’t represent the vast majority of Democrats, even if you think they do.

You are correct, but in the cotext of the Democrat side of watchblog you are incorrect. You haven’t been reading this site long, have you?

Hey Lawnboy-
I was not offended by your statements, I was too busy laughing, thanks for being polite to such an evil man as myself though :>

-pete
(the name “pete” is always in lowercase because I am a humble and compassionate conservative with a love of misguided liberals.)

Posted by: pete at September 21, 2003 02:04 AM
Comment #2683

Hey, where the hell has Dave Remer been all this time?

Posted by: pete at September 21, 2003 02:07 AM
Comment #2696

pete,

FYI, on September 18, 2003 05:40 PM, September 19, 2003 04:42 PM, and September 19, 2003 05:20 PM in this thread, your name was capitalized.

Did you mistype? Did someone try to steal your identity and mess up? Have you changed your spelling?

I don’t really care, but I think it’s indicative that you say something in your posts, but then scream at liberals who point it out or repeat it back to you.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2003 09:53 AM
Comment #2699

Jeez Lawnboy…it was just a sarcastic joke. Gawd you are starting to scare me. You aren’t serious are you?

Do you have ANY sense of “humour”?????

(Note that I used the european spelling of “humor” to show my superiority and sophistication that is coupled with a tremendous sense of “gravitas” and inclusive compassion towards liberals)

GAWD! I AM SUCH A SUPER-GENIUS with a perfect smile!!!
**pats self on the back**

Posted by: pete at September 21, 2003 04:12 PM
Comment #2700

Well, pete, I guess you have me too well trained. I said you claimed to have beaten us when you said “Still noone answers my comments. I guess that says it all.” and you whined about my misquoting you. You say change my statement to “…and so i am going to play dead.” then get pissed when I paraphrased to say you called liberals wimps. I don’t know why I would think that you expect others to take you literally when you’re that sensitive about everything.

You take what others say out of context and blow it up, then whine like a victim when you’re paraphrased.

I have a sense of humor. It’s just that you’re not funny.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2003 06:11 PM
Comment #2701

“You take what others say out of context and blow it up, then whine like a victim when you’re paraphrased.”

Must I say it again? This is too funny!
IT WAS A SARCASTIC JOKE!, Dont you get it?

Oh man this is too funny!

Posted by: pete at September 22, 2003 01:28 AM
Comment #2703

Well, I’m done with this argument. I stepped back and realized that I got carried away and did the opposite of what I wanted. When pete interjected with three irrelevant facts, I ignored them because I found the debate about the deceptive tactics of the president useful. Then pete baited liberals and insulted us until I felt sorry for him, and I tried to explain that his argument and demeanor were useless for this debate, and that was my mistake, because we didn’t get back to useful conversation at all.

I inadvertently helped pete quash a useful debate about the lies of George Bush by turning this forum into a pssing contest between us of whether he’s a bully or a misunderstood comedian.

I hope to hear from Richard again how he thinks I lied when I said it was a bad thing that Americans died in Iraq (I’m sure he has a point, so we must just be misunderstanding each other somewhere), but I doubt he’ll even bother. I don’t blame him.

So, pete, please continue with your act, lying, bullying and berating people, and pleading humor whenever you’re caught. Enjoy.

Posted by: LanwBoy at September 22, 2003 08:46 AM
Comment #2704

Lawnboy-

As I follow on in the conversation I can’t help but be impressed with your restraint. Obviuosly, someone with your keen intellect shouldn’t debate with someone such as pete. You have chosen the right path by heading back to your perceived moral high ground.

May you you stay in the safety of you own thoughts and ideas. Fore, the world of reality is a dangerous and difficult place.

Changing The World ONe Blog Post at a TIme!

Posted by: Deth Frmafar at September 22, 2003 11:06 AM
Comment #2705

OMG! LOL!
Well I just want to make another statement to you lawnboy…
I am sorry, I am ashamed at my behavior on this Blog and I just hope that I can restrain myself from any and all comedic transgressions in the future. I want to pledge something to you folks right now.
From this day forward, I will cease and desist all forms of sarcasm and always remember the feelings of others on watchblog who might not be able to understand irony or sarcasm. Since I am a compassionate conservative with a perfect smile and a really nice set of “Ta-Tas”…this is my mission.
I have never been more ashamed in my life.
(except for the incident with Pez Dispenser and the resulting explosion at the Handi-Mart)
I am so sorry.

Posted by: Pete at September 22, 2003 11:29 AM
Comment #2707

Crack the safe, Swifty. The evidence is right behind the door. Once you begin, it will all be downhill. Never let them forget. When the results come, never let the pro-Bush people forget they were in support of the travesty.

Nothing good comes in GOP clothing.

Save America, Swifty. It is time to vote out all incumbents.

No WMD. No 9/11 links. No small pox. Many dead people, innocents, American, British and Iraqi. Swifty, the dead were killed in vain. It was all a lie in Iraq.

Halliburton, Halliburton, rah, rah, rah.

We’ve been screwed Swifty. Vote all incumbents out.

It was all a lie in Iraq. A lie. Our sons and daughters, killed and killers, all in the name of a lie.

Travesty, Swifty. Pray for our sons and daughters. They are innocents. The soldiers are inoocents.

Vote the leaders out, Swifty.

Posted by: Repugnant at September 22, 2003 03:04 PM
Comment #2708

Uh, I am not sure what to say to that….
Is there a law on the books that says that you should at least have to make sense when commenting?
Ok, that was just wierd.

Posted by: Pete at September 22, 2003 03:51 PM
Comment #2709

Just a brief refreshment…
Man… looking back a couple years back…
Boy… we really dig a big hole in there :P

Posted by: Kevin at September 22, 2003 08:42 PM
Comment #9007

To all of you out there, both democrats and republicans: remember that 50 years ago our fathers fought together for this great country, side by side, democrats and republicans as we continue to. Please try to keep an open mind, because a closed mind is a larger enemy then any dictator in this world.

We are doing a great and noble thing in Iraq, however both us and our kids will be paying for it for the rest of our lives. Also we were led into the war for all the wrong reasons and the people benefiting will be the people that are sitting on the sidelines such as france, germany and china. Not to say osama bin laden who was given a reprieve as we have been concentrating our efforts in iraq. But now that its election time were doing what we should of done over 2 years ago. Keep in mind that while were paying for this war the whole world is benefiting. And remember that our President is a person, that has feelings and opinions. He may be using our military to accomplish his personal agenda, that is what scares the hek out of me.

Posted by: Rich at March 5, 2004 07:36 PM