The Observation Deck

Bret Callentine wrote:And as for WMD. What would you call 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium?

550 metric tons of NOT A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

or perhaps

A 550 metric ton pile of crap.

It would take a considerable amount of expertise as well as a considerably large scare enriching compound to create weapon grade fuel out of the byproduct of mining uranium. Both things I think the Iraq's pre-invasion did not have.

Just a thought.

Okay, as long as we're all cool with the concept of thinking a gun isn't a threat until after the trigger is pulled, I guess I'd go along with your rationale. Especially given what a model citizen Sadaam was, but if it will speed things up, I'll concede the point. I'll concede all your points... Iraq was no threat whatsoever. There were no WMD. There was no link to terrorism. etc.

But once again this has no real bearing on the issue at hand.

You can keep shouting allegations until you're blue in the face, I'm still waiting for someone to direct me to something that can confirm Bush's evil intent. Of course, if you have that, then I would suggest you skip the impeachment and go straight to the Hague.

You can go to any major news source and find that Bush stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Or haven't you read anything?

Bret Callentine wrote:...the considerable gap between BEING WRONG and DELIBERATELY MISLEADING congress.

Sharon - Did you miss this??

I think Brett was looking for proof that he actually KNEW one thing and said another.

O wait, I forgot it is Bush's job to prove he DIDN'T lie.

Now you get it Ryan.

That's why there is an impeachment process. He will have to prove he didn't lie, they will have to prove he lied.

Hmmm.

yes you can, but once again....

being wrong is much different than lying.

It goes to the same old question: What did he know and WHEN did he know it?

Having bad intel might make him a poor president, but it doesn't automatically equate to an impeachable offense. If that were the case, then why aren't we going after the members of congress as well?

More troubling to me is this: Why do you insist on thinking that because I have a different opinion, it's because I'm uninformed? Have I said anything that calls into question my education? If so, please correct me where I'm wrong.

Here's the argument in a nutshell

1. In this country you are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY
2. There is a criminal destinction between being wrong and lying
3. Kucinich has yet to suggest that there is tangable evidence that can prove Bush lied, and I seriously doubt that even IF Bush lied that any evidence exists.
4. Unless there is reason to believe that physical evidence will be uncovered, I believe that going forth with a hearing would be a waste of time and money.

I'm pretty sure point number 1 is correct, however, I'm willing to entertain arguments as to points 2 and 3, which would then change my opinion as to point 4.

Is that asking too much?

If you're concerned with what I read, then why don't you suggest some material that might help me out.

And if you're interested, I just finished a wonderful book called "the Physics of Superheros."

WOW

Life makes more sense when you realize most people don't get it.

I'll make it easier for you Sharon.

Here's exactly what I need:

Point me to a credible source that can show Bush, or a Bush advisor was briefed on the fact that his Iraq intel was wrong.

Then give me transcripts of a Bush speech or press release that happened AFTER THAT DATE in which he still professed the old intel as fact.

Show me THAT, and I'll be on board with whatever hearings you want to have.

I don't need you to be on board with me Bret.

Whether he made the statement because he thought it was true or he made the statement even though he knew it was true, he is the President and he attacked another country.

There is no plausible deniabilty. Oh he didn't know the gun was loaded?

Try that one in court.

Is there a gene that gets transferred to republicans that makes you think that whatever the President does is okay even if he professes not to know any better?

Isn't that his job?

Even when the CIA has told him there were no WMD's.

No, buddy, you prove me wrong.

We've suffered enough because of this crap if you think I'm going to spend one minute doing your homework, think again.

Watch something besides faux news. Read something that isn't owned by republican mouth pieces and then come back and talk.

Untiil then, brick wall.

he is the President and he attacked another country

Is that alone an impeachable offense?

Is there a gene that gets transferred to republicans that makes you think that whatever the President does is okay even if he professes not to know any better?

I don't know, perhaps you should ask a republican. Is there a gene in your family that confuses the difference between allegation and fact?

No, buddy, you prove me wrong.

We've suffered enough because of this crap if you think I'm going to spend one minute doing your homework, think again.

actually, it's not my homework it's yours. You are the one making the charges, so the burden of proof lies with you.

Watch something besides faux news. Read something that isn't owned by republican mouth pieces and then come back and talk.

First of all, please point out which news sources you recommend. Second, how can you possibly assume that I don't already get my news from various sources? I can actually tell you that I would be more than interested in trying to expand my base of knowledge, can you honestly say the same?

your attitude saddens me.

The July 25 hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. in room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Additional information, including witness participation, will be announced next week.

Alright everybody lets be nice.

Ok lets say that bush honestly belived before the war that Iraq had WMD's Fine do not impeach him for that. He is a moron but he thought they were there so there you go.

Here's the thing though. During the last eight years him and his cronies have blown their noses on the constitution so many times there should be ample reason to impeach him for that.

All against the law.

Warrant less wire tapping.

Blatant lack of oversight allowing cronies to strike it rich with war contracts.

The "nothing constitutional about it" git-mo

Just to name a couple.

My point is that the guy has broken more laws than.. (fill in crime family name here)
A proper impeachment should have no trouble convicting that loser. In fact we almost have to, otherwise the door will be left wide open to drive over the constitution with a lawn mower.

There that last i'll say on this topic. Lets all be happy. Grab a beer or soda or whatever and just enjoy that fact that the last eight years of poor judgment that has just about ruined this country, Is almost over. (we hope )

Jim DeVito wrote:There that last i'll say on this topic. Lets all be happy. Grab a beer or soda or whatever and just enjoy that fact that the last eight years of poor judgment that has just about ruined this country, Is almost over. (we hope )

No matter what you say, I'm still glad the last terrorist plane turned away from Cleveland to be downed over Pennsylvania - even though it was at great human loss and heroism for the passengers. You see, Bush was there to pull this country together in a way I can't imagine a whimpy guy like Gore ever could have. Not at that time, with the enemy watching...no way. Bush scared us as much as Kennedy or Truman (Both Democrats and both with Nukes), but Bush REALLY scared the enemy.

And oh by the way, don't let selective memory get in the way of history. Bill Clinton, his wife and Democrat leaders all agreed right up to --and after 9-11 that Saddam was a threat. I remember it well. Here's Bill in one segment 4 years before we went in. http://youtube.com/watch?v=BnceSIxxOYg
There are many more if you care to unpack the reality of history. It's not about Bush. It's about the time we live in and decisions that are not sound bite obvious. Obama will be in it soon enough - and he will not have any more of a clue.

Change this.

Fine.

You can hate Bush, but I'm counting 7 years now without a strike on our soil. Thank God....and yes, grab a beer. Remember the ten planes targeted to blow over the Atlantic? Thwarted by Warrant-less wiretapping. Pick a priority....or pick a town you'd like to see go...other than Cleveland of course.

.

Don't forget his changing or outright ignoring legislative directives through his "signing statements" which completely subverts the authority of Congress.

The President does not have the authority to change legislative intent or to not enforce laws passed by Congress simply because he doesn't agree. That's the point of the separation of powers.

While I doubt the man will be impeached, I think the court of history will judge him quite harshly. which for a President and a man with an ego the size of Dubya's is probably a far worse punishment.

Hi,
I'm shocked to read some still linking Saddam with 9/11.

There was no link to Saddam and 9/11 except for a White House ordered forged letter. Please watch: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26079601#26079601

What happened on 9/11 was awful. When will we focus on determining who is responsible and holding them accountable in a court of law?

When will our Congress do their job and hold those that pushed our country into a senseless and unjustified war with Iraq accountable?