It never ceases to amaze me of the fark retards who still think they can accomplish something by biatching about Bush all day long.

Look, love him, hate him, or realize that for every head of state poosition there's an asshole wating to fill it. There's as much irrational hate for Bush as there was Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter...

You know how you accomplish something? Get out in your community and help out, or just improve somthing in your own life, so you don't have to rely on the government and they don't have to rely on you.

Since this is a republic, not a democracy, the majority does not rule; the powerful elite rule. We should minimize that to every extent by not giving them our hard earned dollars so easily. Government is way too huge. It can get away with shiat like secret meetings, because we keep feeding it.

If I meet anyone who disagrees with tax cuts, or says that they're only for the rich, they obviously like the current size of government or want it to be bigger. They are socialists and anti-individualists. "If I can't have power, then no one should" is their insane idealistic reasoning. You have the power and the freedom to go out and change something about your life and those around you, jackass. Grow up. The government is not your mommy.

Sign this petition if you have half a brain (if you dislike bush).

http://www.petitiononline.com/UKMemo/petition.html

-bb...you were 'jar jar' in the run up to the war.

it was people like you who gave bush his power base in the first place.

i was here before you...and remember everything you posted.

do not try to deny it now...or make out like you hate gwb.

-you float with the 'weather'.

and to the rest of you all...


make your time.

if you lied down with the snakes...your deeds have been noted.

christ knows all of your little secrets.

time to pray like you mean it.

-i hope you do...for your own souls sake.

Thank you Ladies an Gentlemen for coming to our show, Im sure a good time will be had by all, I now would like to take this time to say that George Bush is a piece of shiat, and if you voted for him suck a fat one. Thank you and enjoy the show.

MisterE- Dick cheney will make a fine president....WTF dude please do all of mankind a favor by planning a hunting trip with your entire family that consists of alot alcohol and gunplay.

I knew that Bush was an opportunist, but I was hoping he wasn't a traitor.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if the conspiracy theorists were more right than everyone else was all along?

vegasj:

2005-05-09 09:21:05 AM vegasj [TotalFark]

themeaningoflifeisnot:

I'm happy to be part of "liberal group-think," though I'm surprised that someone would still use that label given how conservatives love labeling liberals as fractured.

it's funny all of you fail to mention your liberal leader lead the way to invade and remove Saddam.

Actually, it's sad so many forget the little signature Clinton laid down.

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.


Which led to TWO adventures to disarm Saddam under Clinton (which obviously worked) called DESERT STRIKE and DESERT FOX.

December 16, 1998 Clinton ordered a strong sustained series of strikes against Iraq.

Anymore farts of wisdom, TARDBOY?!?
You're obviously too ignorant to remember HISTORY THAT YOU LIVED THROUGH so stop trying to defend your WEASELS OF CRASS CORRUPTIONS. Damned BUSHTARD Republican DEATHCULT WHORESLAVES.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155740,00.html

Interesting special on Fox last night about the evils of Iran. I'm waiting for it.

Scrotar
Wouldn't it be a hoot if the conspiracy theorists were more right than everyone else was all along?

If this story ends up having legs it will likely destroy the Main Stream Media as we know it in favor of Blogs. Not sure yet if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

These folks get paid to write this tripe? No wonder the gullible Fark-O-crats are always so badly misinformed.

Cargrll82- STFU you know it all windbag- if that 82 is your year of birth it explains alot, a 22 year old schmuck who thinks she knows about cars along with everything else.

bbcrackmonkey:

Sometimes I feel that it is the US' responsibility to bring freedom and liberty to the world, even if it means forcibly.


War is peace.

Maybe I missed the CSPAN coverage of the vote on this Treaty between the United States and Britain to invade Iraq or maybe it's one of those pesky Secret Treaties that never made it to the Senate.

Oh wait, I'm pretty sure there has to be a public vote to ratify treaties, which didn't happen.

And no, you can't classify this as an Agreement, not when it involved putting troops into a hostile country.

Matrix29- I like the cut of your chin....tell these repugnants how it is!

Everybody worried about President Dick Cheney if Bush gets brought up for impeachment should not really worry that much. In an investigation like this one there will be some pretty broad strokes taken through the administration. Because of that we will likely see Dennis Hastert sworn in to serve the remainder of the term.

What if, and this is purely a hypothetical, we went in to get rid of saddam, and free the people.

And if, as seems most likely, the end result of this "freedom" is a long and bloody civil war, which might destabilize its neighbors, is that still a victory? Freeing the people to have them slaughter each other isn't really a good thing.

we can only hope, code.

there would be much shame and humility from the 'right' for years to come.

-people forget, though.

this is nixon/watergate/vietnam all over again.

god help us if they ever get it right.

-i'm kidding.


if the truth of it ever 'really' comes out...it will shake the world...hopefully in a positive way.

the united states, under bush, needs a big dose of humility, imo.

it would help the world, as a whole...maybe.

-change is always painful.

at least from my own perspective...it has been.

Sum Dum Gai

Not evereyone believes that one should tremble in fear at all things scarry.

Oh shut up already Hippies.


/sheesh

william clinton is not the god of the left. the real left in this country wants to see him hang right next to a certain someone else.

Zoultan
Not evereyone believes that one should tremble in fear at all things scarry.

I'm not trembling in fear at all; rather I think both the potential benefits and potential perils should be weighed and evaluated.

A democratic, stable Iraq (the optimistic scenario) was always a long shot, and it's only getting longer with each passing day. The civil war (the pessimistic scenario) has always been the most probable outcome and it's only looking more and more likely.

Zoultan
Not evereyone believes that one should tremble in fear at all things scarry.

But most of us do believe that we do not deserve to be lied to by our government. If the reason was to spread freedom... then he should have said that from the begining... its too late to claim that as the reason now.

I voted for Bush, mostly because he's not a farking socialist.

Um, have you been paying attention? Bush has increased government spending across the board. It's just that he's matched that with huge tax cuts that ballooned the deficit. One or the other, sheesh... bush is more of a socialist then clinton, he just talks diffrent.

Idiot voters can't be bothered to learn the diffrence, and vote based on things bush has no control over (gay marrage and abortion)

Sum Dum Gai
The civil war (the pessimistic scenario) has always been the most probable outcome and it's only looking more and more likely.

Some live in fear.

Code_Archeologist

But most of us do believe that we do not deserve to be lied to by our government.

Youd be wise to hold out for a bit more information before you draw an absolute conclusion that said meeting took place for said purpose.

2005-05-09 02:04:07 PM Andrael
Oh shut up already Hippies.


/sheeshv

Yeah! Enough of that Freedom of Speech for you! This is America, best country in the world, and if you don't love it you have no right to express your thoughts or opinions on it!

[/sarcasm]

Listen up, and listen good: This is a non-political issue. If the President is, in fact, guilty of this clandestine dealing, it is a crime. In fact, it is a high crime. I'm assuming you're a conservative, right? You know, someone who prides himself on his traditional views, and his desire for small government, as outlined in that great document, the Constitution of the United States of America? You're one of those, right?

Well, that's the document that outlines what happens to Presidents when they commit high crimes. The fact that you agree with his policies and opinions doesn't matter. The fact that you support his ideology doesn't matter. The fact that he's President doesn't matter; He broke the law in a big way if this article is true.

You guys went after Clinton because he lied, an impeachable offense. If that was enough to impeach Clinton, you guys should be slavering at the mouths to go after Bush for this.

But you can't. You won't. To admit that someone you agree with is capable of an illegal act is apparently impossible for you. (Not for me; I happily admit Clinton lied - or at the very least twisted the truth - under oath. I just disagree that it was an impeachable offense.)

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
-Bob Dylan
Masters of War

2005-05-09 10:41:59 AM themeaningoflifeisnot [TotalFark]


Give it up, skipjack. I have said numerous times that Bush followed the line of countless other American and world leaders when he condemned Saddam's human rights violations. But he went into Iraq on the WMD premise, which was the only argument he had to get the people stirred up to supporting an immediate invasion. He couldn't argue the urgent need for an attack on human rights grounds because he had sat on that issue for years without doing anything.

The WMD threat was by far the primary Administration argument for immediate war, and it has been disproven to the extent that the Administration has admitted they got it wrong. But what does that admission mean in the face of information that the Bush Administration knew they were wrong right from the beginning, but chose to promote the pretext anyway? Pretty scary, in my view.

Going to the doctor sucks big ones. At least i had a book to read. heh.

I've never denied that WMD was a reason for going. The oil for food program proves that for me nicely. However, WMD wasn't the only reason told to us for invading iraq. It's right there in his speeches leading up to the war. If you want to ignore that, so be it. I figured out a long time ago that it does me no good to ignore the obvious, and it's quite obvious that there were several reasons for invasion.

The intelligence was wrong in several areas, however, none of the reports have said that saddam wasn't on his way (through france, germany and russia's financing) to getting sanctions lifted in order to complete what he wanted. Also, in the reports, if his scientist hadn't stolen from saddam, were would we be? hindsight is 20/20, but we can't apply what we know today, to what we thought we knew yesterday. that is quite disingenuous.

Skip

Wouldn't it be cool if a single one of you mattered?

This argument didn't make a differnece two years ago, it doesn't now. Picking your noses is more relevant.

Can someone post the John-Paul II "nubian please" picture?

2005-05-09 10:29:47 AM unexplained bacon

I brought it up to prove a point. w doesn't care about freeing people that's just the bait you ate.

And in bringing it up and not following through shows that you don't care about freeing people either. Something you and bush have in common then. Good for you.

I on the other hand would love to see all of those sites you listed be given the chance at democracy. That's the difference between you and i. You can talk it well, i just don't see the walk.

2005-05-09 10:29:47 AM unexplained bacon

not off hand. do you?
I know friends of mine in the reserves have been called up twice since the war in iraq started. they seem pretty busy.

I do.

2005-05-09 10:29:47 AM unexplained bacon

are you sure we aren't?
why would such a heavy burden be placed on our reserve units if we were operating with so much slack?

I'm sure that you can figure that out. I hear google is a good resource for looking up things like this.

2005-05-09 10:29:47 AM unexplained bacon

I think you have me confused with someone else, in any case good point. skeet skeet skeet.

Nope, i don't.

Skip

how heroic for the iraqi history books when they are a democracy in the future for it to read "we were too chicken to take out our own bad leader so the big americans had to come and do it for us and tell us what kind of government that we should have." oh what pride those little iraqi children will be able to have in the heroic actions of their forefathers.

/won't somebody think of the children

GoodDamon
But you can't. You won't. To admit that someone you agree with is capable of an illegal act is apparently impossible for you.

Impressive.

You read an article published by Raw (What credibility has Raw earned to have its word taken at face value?), and you concluded that Bush lied. If you bothered to RTFA youd notice that it references the London (paragon of truth that it is)Times and a partisan congressmans letter. The letter, in turn, references the London Times and two nutjob partisans. Then, the references are of unconfirmed documents and recordings of what certain Brits say about the American guberment.

Your discernment is lacking.

Zoultan
Youd be wise to hold out for a bit more information before you draw an absolute conclusion that said meeting took place for said purpose.

The validity of the leaked document is not in question, it has already been confirmed as real by the British government. And the document is pretty clear in the purpose of the meeting. The Congressmen are in essence giving the President the opportunity to answer the questions raised by this before they nail him. Giving him the chance to come clean... or give him rope to hang himself with, how ever he chooses to handle this.

Taunches

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155740,00.html

Interesting special on Fox last night about the evils of Iran. I'm waiting for it.

Erm, no thanks

Code_Archeologist

The validity of the leaked document is not in question

Neither of us yet know if the referenced documents and recordings are real. However, from the congressmans summary, all I see is what British officials say about their own strategy, that Britian thinks that Britain and America had to create conditions to justify a war, and that Britian thinks the Americans had a perceptible shift in attitude.

I dont see anything smelling like Bush lying in that. Look before you jump.

It's nice to see that the m00nbats here fear and hate gay people.



KEEP IT UP, BIGOTS!!

skipjack

And in bringing it up and not following through shows that you don't care about freeing people either. Something you and bush have in common then. Good for you.

I think you're drifting. I've made my point, my point requires no 'follow through'. you're arguing points you imagined I made, I think.

I on the other hand would love to see all of those sites you listed be given the chance at democracy.

the real world tends to be more complicated. Since we're being as vague as possible I'll just say I think stuff would make stuff more something.

That's the difference between you and i. You can talk it well, i just don't see the walk.

so you're saying I talk the talk but I don't walk the walk.
skip, that's not really an argument. at best that's a one liner from a B 80's flick...at best.

not off hand. do you?
I know friends of mine in the reserves have been called up twice since the war in iraq started. they seem pretty busy.
---------
I do.

.........at least I threw in a half-assed anticdote. you got nothin'. nothin'.

are you sure we aren't?
why would such a heavy burden be placed on our reserve units if we were operating with so much slack?
------------------------------
I'm sure that you can figure that out. I hear google is a good resource for looking up things like this.


again you got nothin'. how old are you?

I don't really feel like you know what you say you know. In fact I'm pretty sure I'll learn nothing from you, and that more than usual I've completely wasted several minutes here on fark. thanks for the chat. someday with much googling my intellect may match yours, but for now I bow to your vastly supieror yet super secret well of knowledge.

/i enjoy a good debate on fark. often I find myself shifting position slightly after someone hands me my ass on one issue or another. in this case, however, I feel like I just finished a debate on the level with
nuh uh
uh huh
nuh uh
uh huh.....
you get me?

I_C_Weener:

If they are that smart, I want them in charge. If not, then those conspiracies are probably full of shiat.


God, you are a tool.

It wasn't a "memo" that was leaked, it was "minutes" of a meeting.

I'll believe something is being done when I see it. That is all. Everything is corrupt, we are slaves. They hold secrect technology and culture changing psychadelics. They want to halt our planet's evolution and I suspect they aren't even human. fark the elite. Secrecy has no place in a free government. We're taking this planet back.

At this point we're relying on a website called Rawstory for information. There's shiat else out there. While the pdf of the memo Conyers sent looks nice and all its still not being reported anywhere else (even Michael Moore site links back to this Rawstory site). How did Rawstory get it? I can understand other news companies being cautious or even reluctant (if their publishers are neocons) to report this but 88 members of Congress allegedly signed this. Its now safe to report on it.

You dont have to rely on Rawstory for the information. It is provided here:
http://www.house.gov/judiciary%5Fdemocrats/letters/bushsecretmemoltr5505.pdf

I'd like more people to submit this "news tip" to CNN. So much for the media being liberal-biased.

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form11.html?1

Here's the thing, people. Bush, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney- none of them lied!
Twist the truth until it screamed? Oh yes. Wholly invent fantastic, unverified postulations and suggest that they may be possible? Indeed. Fearmonger? Rampantly. But never did they say anything that they knew was explicitly not true.

So, they can't be got in a court or any other forum of law.

Instead, we have to massacre the Republicans in the 2006 elections. Bush-backers, by definition, are not zealots: They have been tricked (by the aforementioned fearmongering) into being pro-Bush, because he is, apparently, the enemy of their enemies (the terrorists). Thus, I think their minds could be turned by ruthlessly counter-attacking the Republicans' tactics, which the elected Democrats have completely failed to do (those pansies were afraid of appearing "un-patriotic" if they voted against the war, for example)

This administration uses classic mass-brainwashing and propaganda techniques. For example, anything which could be construed as being anti-war is censored. When was the last time you saw any coffins of KIA US soldiers on the MSM? Or, for that matter, anything more graphic than some barely-recognizable wreckage? (of course, the images of blasted and bloody Iraqi corpses are plastered everywhere like trophies)

So, we, the opposition, the resistance to the fascists' murder and pluder, must relentlessly show people the truth. For those of you whose relatives ignore logic (such as JoeKnows): Use logic! We are right, and they are brainwashed. Show them that their points are indefensible. Just as long as you (carefully) don't embarrass them in the process, they'll come around.

Remember: Our truth is stronger than their lies!

The secret Downing Street memo

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.


(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.

General Zang: "Why weren't there any phone calls from the plane that hit the pentagon?

Cell calls from planes reveal horror

On board the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, former federal prosecutor and conservative political commentator Barbara Olson called her husband, U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, on a cell phone twice. She said the plane had been hijacked by attackers using knives and sharp instruments. She also said armed hijackers had forced passengers to the rear of the jet.

Can you believe this ... we are being hijacked, a friend quoted her as saying. Then, the phone went dead. American Airlines Flight 77, bound from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles with 64 passengers and crew, flew low to the ground and then crashed into the Pentagon going 600 mph and loaded with 30,000 pounds of fuel.

Zoultan
Some live in fear.

Some live in the real world. How many instances in all of human history are there of ethnic groups with serious ethnic hatred between them learning to work together?

In all reality, I can only think of a very small number of cases. Britons/Saxons/Welsh/Scots being one, and that was only after centuries of long and bitter warfare. Blacks and Whites in the US is another, and that issue took over two centuries to eventually become (mostly) resolved.

Apart from those relatively rare cases, most ethnic confrontations have ended in long, bloody wars.

Overall, there is no progress that has been made on the real challenge -- that of getting three groups to abandon mutual hatred and work on cooperation. The groups are no more unified now than the day Saddam was toppled, and the daily terrorist attacks aren't helping to build an atmosphere of mutual respect and tolerance.

Fragzav's images were good enough to take the time to do a quick overlay.

RanDomino:

Here's the thing, people. Bush, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney- none of them lied!
Twist the truth until it screamed? Oh yes. Wholly invent fantastic, unverified postulations and suggest that they may be possible? Indeed. Fearmonger? Rampantly. But never did they say anything that they knew was explicitly not true.

So, they can't be got in a court or any other forum of law.

Laws cover all sorts of things beyond "lying."