If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   On this very special episode of Dumbass the Movie, Cindy Sheehan files to take on Pelosi and move to Washington DC. (Bonus: already endorsed by Ted McGinley)   (sfgate.com) divider line 247
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

5395 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2008 at 2:15 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



247 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-04-26 02:59:01 AM  
War crimes. Interesting. What war crimes has Bush commited? Oh, another liberal myth?
 
2008-04-26 03:00:03 AM  
Robobuu: That kind of logic makes you as bad as you say Bush is. Any congressional action taken again him just for the sake of punishing him does nothing good for the country. It is nothing but a personal vendetta which wastes time and resources which could be spent on much more crucial legislation. The proper thing to do is work to fix what he farked up, which will be much easier with the republicans on your side.

Do you think that jail, fines, and all forms of punitive action (and I would argue the former has at least a partially punitive purpose) are immoral?
 
2008-04-26 03:00:29 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: The intelligence that Saddam Hussein was still working on WMDs was very credible and infact correct

No it wasn't. They were lying since the start about WMD's. They knew from very early on that Saddam had no WMD capacity. The farked thing is everyone who was in the loop knew it (including Democrats) but it was a way to keep the inspectors in Iraq so they could snoop and to keep the pressure on Saddam with the sanctions. The whole point of the first Gulf War and all that followed was to remove Saddam as he wasn't cooperating in letting the oil companies have unfettered access to Iraqi oil fields.
 
2008-04-26 03:03:41 AM  
InferiousX: From what I heard two years ago, the newly elected Democratic Congress was supposed to be the cure-all for the Bush Administrations screw ups. I'm still waiting for that promise to go through.

Because they're liars, too.

Pelosi, as the speaker of the house, was NEVER going to enact impeachment proceedings on Bush and Cheney because it would have been seen as a thinly veiled back-door into the presidency that woudl have destroyed all the goodwill the Dems had with the non-party people.

Honestly, I don't think they have a plan. I think they ran on the "we're not him" platform to win the House back. After that, business as usual.
 
2008-04-26 03:05:19 AM  
Thunderpipes: What war crimes has Bush commited?

So what crime did Saddam commit in invading Kuwait that justified UN intervention to kick him out? We did the same thing he did. We invaded then occupied a sovereign nation that was no threat to us.
 
2008-04-26 03:05:46 AM  
CygnusDarius: My name is Pelosi, and this is Dumbass.

What the hell do I have to do with any of this???
 
2008-04-26 03:06:23 AM  
I love democrats calling for impeachment, takes me back to when we had a president who committed perjury in front of the entire nation and we gave him a pass. Impeachment is not used when you don't like someone, Andrew Johnson aside. Oh and the whole "republicans are the villain" thing is the most childish view on American politics a person can have. By portraying the opposition as evil you force yourself into a position where you can no longer work with them to accomplish important things.

/if you really wanted Gore to be president...
 
2008-04-26 03:06:28 AM  
Befuddled: No it wasn't. They were lying since the start about WMD's. They knew from very early on that Saddam had no WMD capacity. The farked thing is everyone who was in the loop knew it (including Democrats) but it was a way to keep the inspectors in Iraq so they could snoop and to keep the pressure on Saddam with the sanctions. The whole point of the first Gulf War and all that followed was to remove Saddam as he wasn't cooperating in letting the oil companies have unfettered access to Iraqi oil fields.

Your evidence? Any no, you're wrong. Saddam Hussein WAS in fact building WMDs in the 90s and we had zero new intelligence leading us to believe otherwise. The intelligence was also confirmed by about half the U.N. security council. You just repeated the leftist talking points I explained were bullshiat. Go look up "lie" in the dictionary, either you don't know what you're talking about or you don't know what a "lie" is.
 
2008-04-26 03:06:45 AM  
Xeronite: Do you think that jail, fines, and all forms of punitive action (and I would argue the former has at least a partially punitive purpose) are immoral?

No, I think putting off essential national legislation in order to enact those is stupid.
 
2008-04-26 03:08:49 AM  
Robobuu:

My point is that some kind of repricussions are needed.

That kind of logic makes you as bad as you say Bush is. Any congressional action taken again him just for the sake of punishing him does nothing good for the country. It is nothing but a personal vendetta which wastes time and resources which could be spent on much more crucial legislation. The proper thing to do is work to fix what he farked up, which will be much easier with the republicans on your side.

So there should be no reprocussions at all? We just let him live off of the retired presidential perk package and spend the rest of his days on his laurels? Where's the accountability?
 
2008-04-26 03:10:55 AM  
"War crimes. Interesting. What war crimes has Bush committed? Oh, another liberal myth?"

1) Dragging the USA into a war under false pretenses .... the intelligence reports that it gave to congress had intentional lies and misinformation

2) Almost one million Iraqi dead and many more wounded. But that's OK because they're kinda brown and not USA dead. (sarcasm alert)

3) Torture

4) Billions mis-spent and unaccounted for

5) Repeatedly extending and re-extending tours of duty. Destroying states' national guards by putting them into heavy duty combat

6) Not rebuilding New Orleans OR Iraq.

7) Lies and secrecy that impeachment could have uncovered via investigation

8) Outing a CIA agent as revenge for her husband debunking the lies about the yellowcake in Niger in the run-up to the lies to get us into a war
 
2008-04-26 03:11:24 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: InferiousX: Thunderpipes

And don't be a classic lib douche, if you say Bush lied, show evidence for cryin out loud.

WMDs in Iraq.

End of argument.

No, that's really not the end of the argument.


OK, how about his Constitutional record, to include the following:

* a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech-and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;
* a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;
* a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror- in other words, perhaps forever; and
* a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.*

Even if history gives this administration a pass on the Iraq War (unlikely), these guys are still to blame for the whole "unitary executive" (read: proto-fascist state) thing, and the neutering of the Constitution.


*Power Surge: the Constitutional Record of George W. Bush
 
2008-04-26 03:11:28 AM  
Sheehan moved to the Mission in SF? Wow, they deserve each other.

The Mission is a great example of what the entire world would be like with radical liberals in charge. A big fat dump.
 
2008-04-26 03:11:35 AM  
InferiousX: Too me, that fact that the Democrats will not impeach this administration is an absolute travesty. They are basically saying "It will be a lot of work that we don't really feel like doing." To me, this is the equivalent of finding out that someone in your household was murdered and the cops and detectives saying "Man, it will take forever to find out who did this. And we'd have to stop issuing as many traffic tickets. Sorry but this is a no go."

Here's the issue.

It doesn't even matter if they got convicted. Thanks to the Clenis trial, there would be massive outcry on the right, and the Republicans would sweep the next election. Democrats would have less reason to show up to vote, and Republicans would have much, much more.

And suddenly, those policies that they fought so hard to overturn would be enforced and expanded upon by people who could not be impeached, because their own party would control Congress and the White House.

They would win the battle, but lose the war.

/Oh, and fark Sheehan. She was once a really sympathetic protester, but she seems to have confused her ability to make people care with her ability to represent people in elected office (she had the former but lost it by thinking she could ever have the latter).
 
2008-04-26 03:15:45 AM  
Robobuu: No, I think putting off essential national legislation in order to enact those is stupid.

Oh?

Truly, National Cushing's Syndrome Awareness Day and a resolution designating April 2008 as "Financial Literacy Month." cannot be postponed.

I have legislative experience; I'm aware of how quickly "unanimous consent" motions can be resolved. But the fact is, I think our politicians could spare a day a week, if they thought it necessary.

This is not to say that impeachment is the wisest course; just that doing so would not have the negative impact you think it would.
 
2008-04-26 03:16:08 AM  
Kevin72: "War crimes. Interesting. What war crimes has Bush committed? Oh, another liberal myth?"

1) Dragging the USA into a war under false pretenses .... the intelligence reports that it gave to congress had intentional lies and misinformation

2) Almost one million Iraqi dead and many more wounded. But that's OK because they're kinda brown and not USA dead. (sarcasm alert)

3) Torture

4) Billions mis-spent and unaccounted for

5) Repeatedly extending and re-extending tours of duty. Destroying states' national guards by putting them into heavy duty combat

6) Not rebuilding New Orleans OR Iraq.

7) Lies and secrecy that impeachment could have uncovered via investigation

8) Outing a CIA agent as revenge for her husband debunking the lies about the yellowcake in Niger in the run-up to the lies to get us into a war


Those are literally the moveon.org talking points. Oh and conclusively statements made by a left wing wacko go a long way to proving your point. If the democrats truly thought they could prove these things about Bush and the administration they would have already tried to, but putting them in bold prove that you're right.
 
2008-04-26 03:17:36 AM  
Pelosi couldn't impeach Bush if she wanted to. Since the Patriot Act, everything the president does is legal by definition.
 
2008-04-26 03:17:43 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: Befuddled: No it wasn't. They were lying since the start about WMD's. They knew from very early on that Saddam had no WMD capacity. The farked thing is everyone who was in the loop knew it (including Democrats) but it was a way to keep the inspectors in Iraq so they could snoop and to keep the pressure on Saddam with the sanctions. The whole point of the first Gulf War and all that followed was to remove Saddam as he wasn't cooperating in letting the oil companies have unfettered access to Iraqi oil fields.

Your evidence? Any no, you're wrong. Saddam Hussein WAS in fact building WMDs in the 90s and we had zero new intelligence leading us to believe otherwise. The intelligence was also confirmed by about half the U.N. security council. You just repeated the leftist talking points I explained were bullshiat. Go look up "lie" in the dictionary, either you don't know what you're talking about or you don't know what a "lie" is.


Inspectors were pulled out of Iraq in 1998 for Operation Desert Fox. At that time, it had pretty much been surmised that most of Iraq's WMDs were either destroyed, or un-useable. Operation Desert Fox itself was somewhat of a hoax in that William Arkin of the U.S. Army Intelligence had stated afterwards that the attack wasn't really about WMDs but more about destabalizing Iraq. British Intelligence also had very little confidence that the places they were bombing were actually producing any kind of WMDs.

The arugment for moving into Iraq was shaky at best. And even though I'll bite and say Bush may have not directly lied about it, you can't say the the claims of how much of a danger Iraq actually was were not grossly exaggerated.
 
2008-04-26 03:18:00 AM  
Plug_Nickel: Your arguments are overblown, but I won't deny that this administration has been harsh on constitutional matters. I am simply saying that the Iraq War is not what the leftist meme-machines think it is.
 
2008-04-26 03:22:53 AM  
I wonder what the split is in that district, If Sheehan can get enough votes from Pelosi it would be amazing if a republican got elected. How awesomely farktastic would that be.
Also, god how I wish this woman had not disgraced the memory of her son. I only hope that she finally got him a tombstone, it was just a little marker for his gave for the longest time.


The Republicans in San Francisco is a not a "minority" party, but a "splinter" party, let's say 15%. A lot of pissed off Democrats and certainly the kooks parties like the Greenies will all vote for Sheehan. The GOP will get their 15%, but Sheehan might actually exceed that.
 
2008-04-26 03:23:49 AM  
Remove all Republicans: Dear Rest of the Left,

If you are not one of us, you are one of them.

Regards,
The True Liberals


Dear The True Liberals,

Your choice of argument makes it clear that you are in league with the Republicans.

Regards,
A Libertarian
 
2008-04-26 03:24:22 AM  
Republicans on Sheehan 2006 when she disagreed with them: "Dumbass attention whore."
Democrats on Sheehan 2006 when she agreed with them: "Absolute moral authority."
Republicans on Sheehan 2008 when she still disagrees with them: "Dumbass attention whore."
Democrats on Sheehan 2008 when she now disagrees with them: "Dumbass attention whore."

See, Bush is a uniter!
 
2008-04-26 03:25:28 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: Plug_Nickel: Your arguments are overblown, but I won't deny that this administration has been harsh on constitutional matters. I am simply saying that the Iraq War is not what the leftist meme-machines think it is.

Yeah, I did go a little over the top with that conclusion.

I think the war is just so high-profile as to be a lightning rod. I think it was a mistake, and we're only just now even figuring out what the hell is going on over there, but it's not what we really need to be worried about.

You seem to downplay the importance of our government's new interpretation of our rights. They've been weakened considerably, and that is nigh impossible to undo.
 
2008-04-26 03:25:37 AM  
Surely the only reason Pelosi hasn't brought impeachment articles up against the Bush administration is because she's in league with him, I'm sure the democrats would pass up pretty much unlimited political capital because they're such good friends with W, it couldn't be because they don't have sufficient evidence, because Pelosi would never do anything to harm the Union.
 
2008-04-26 03:27:50 AM  
www.rightwinged.com
Good for her! We needed some America-hating far-left moran to make Obama look bad by association; lord knows he doesn't have enough already!
 
2008-04-26 03:29:39 AM  
McJudo: Kevin72: "War crimes. Interesting. What war crimes has Bush committed? Oh, another liberal myth?"

1) Dragging the USA into a war under false pretenses .... the intelligence reports that it gave to congress had intentional lies and misinformation

2) Almost one million Iraqi dead and many more wounded. But that's OK because they're kinda brown and not USA dead. (sarcasm alert)

3) Torture

4) Billions mis-spent and unaccounted for

5) Repeatedly extending and re-extending tours of duty. Destroying states' national guards by putting them into heavy duty combat

6) Not rebuilding New Orleans OR Iraq.

7) Lies and secrecy that impeachment could have uncovered via investigation

8) Outing a CIA agent as revenge for her husband debunking the lies about the yellowcake in Niger in the run-up to the lies to get us into a war

Those are literally the moveon.org talking points. Oh and conclusively statements made by a left wing wacko go a long way to proving your point. If the democrats truly thought they could prove these things about Bush and the administration they would have already tried to, but putting them in bold prove that you're right.


This is a perfect example of why you should never try to educate the right wing tards. Facts confuse, frighten and anger them. They only want to hear what their idiot emperor spoon feeds them.
i236.photobucket.com
 
2008-04-26 03:29:40 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: Befuddled: No it wasn't. They were lying since the start about WMD's. They knew from very early on that Saddam had no WMD capacity. The farked thing is everyone who was in the loop knew it (including Democrats) but it was a way to keep the inspectors in Iraq so they could snoop and to keep the pressure on Saddam with the sanctions. The whole point of the first Gulf War and all that followed was to remove Saddam as he wasn't cooperating in letting the oil companies have unfettered access to Iraqi oil fields.

Your evidence? Any no, you're wrong. Saddam Hussein WAS in fact building WMDs in the 90s and we had zero new intelligence leading us to believe otherwise. The intelligence was also confirmed by about half the U.N. security council. You just repeated the leftist talking points I explained were bullshiat. Go look up "lie" in the dictionary, either you don't know what you're talking about or you don't know what a "lie" is.


Wow...denial is a river in Egypt. You're so damn dumb it hurts. Get over it, Saddam Hussein was absolutely no threat...and Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with AL QAIDA's attack on the US. Is that half of the UN Security Council the same half of the UN Security Council that helped us INVADE Iraq?

FOR INVASION : US-Duh, UK-Duh-, Spain-huh?.

AGAINST INVASION: France-Freedom Fries anyone?, Germany, China, Syria, Pakistan, Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico.
Syria-Duh
 
2008-04-26 03:29:52 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: Saddam Hussein WAS in fact building WMDs in the 90s and we had zero new intelligence leading us to believe otherwise.

Go look up what Scott Ritter (aka chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998) has to say on all this.
 
2008-04-26 03:30:23 AM  
An impeachment effort, he said, "would be divisive, we couldn't get the votes, and we would have to spend all our time on it."

THIS.

This is why I was majorly pissed that the Republicans impeached Clinton.

They knew that they didn't have the votes, and so they wound up sending a message to the country that perjury is OK.
 
2008-04-26 03:30:35 AM  
that_boy_Al_Bundy: it couldn't be because they don't have sufficient evidence, because Pelosi would never do anything to harm the Union.

There is plenty of evidence, but why stoke the partisan fires when they can take the centrist position? The majority of Americans don't think Bushy should be impeached. It's pandering on a massive scale.
 
2008-04-26 03:31:48 AM  
Those are literally the moveon.org talking points. Oh and conclusively statements made by a left wing wacko go a long way to proving your point. If the democrats truly thought they could prove these things about Bush and the administration they would have already tried to, but putting them in bold prove that you're right.


Oh REALLY? You mean you think that moveon.org has implanted a chip in my head and literally dictated those words into my brain? No, I wrote them myself. I don't know any talking points. I just know the crimes done in the USA's name.

The bold doesn't prove that I'm right, I'll leave that to the readers. The bold is to differentiate my reply in bold from the right wing wacko's thoughts in italics.
 
2008-04-26 03:34:05 AM  
InferiousX:
Inspectors were pulled out of Iraq in 1998 for Operation Desert Fox. At that time, it had pretty much been surmised that most of Iraq's WMDs were either destroyed, or un-useable. Operation Desert Fox itself was somewhat of a hoax in that William Arkin of the U.S. Army Intelligence had stated afterwards that the attack wasn't really about WMDs but more about destabalizing Iraq. British Intelligence also had very little confidence that the places they were bombing were actually producing any kind of WMDs.

The arugment for moving into Iraq was shaky at best. And even though I'll bite and say Bush may have not directly lied about it, you can't say the the claims of how much of a danger Iraq actually was were not grossly exaggerated.


You realize Saddam Hussein tried to cut a deal with the U.S. via the Spanish embassy that Saddam Hussein would leave the country provided he could have a pile of cash and keep, specifically, his WMD secrets, right?

And are you freaking serious? WILLIAM ARKIN? William Arkin served as an intelligence specialist in the Army from 1974-1978. An intelligence specialist, particularly one who only does one term as an enlisted man, is a coffee fetcher and floor sweeper. Since then he has been a political activist denouncing the military at every chance he can get. So he was not stating some kind of "insider information" on Desert Fox, he was just giving his opinion and referring back to is four years as a non-infantry Private scrubbing toilets in peace time as though it gives him some kind of status.

The reason inspectors were pulled out is because Saddam Hussein was doing the same thing he did in 2003 that made us so suspicious: he wouldn't let the weapons inspectors into the facilities. We didn't pull them out because they couldn't find anything, we pulled them out because Saddam Hussein wouldn't let them go to any of his facilities.

And no, the UK had no reservations about bombing Iraq in Desert Fox. In fact, they HELPED. The only controversy within the UK intelligence community was that politicians wanted them to play up the results of the bombing as a complete success. However the Ministry of Defense believed that that was premature, as they believed that not everything had been destroyed.
 
2008-04-26 03:34:14 AM  
Kevin72: Oh REALLY? You mean you think that moveon.org has implanted a chip in my head and literally dictated those words into my brain? No, I wrote them myself. I don't know any talking points. I just know the crimes done in the USA's name.

If you use extremist rhetoric, don't be surprised to be labeled an extremist. I mean, hell: Not rebuilding New Orleans OR Iraq. To the unaccustomed ear that sounds like lunacy. Calm down. Rationality FTW.
 
2008-04-26 03:35:33 AM  
andrewagill: Dear The True Liberals,

Your choice of argument makes it clear that you are in league with the Republicans.

Regards,
A Libertarian


Dear Libertarians,

Celebrate your grand wizard's 1% national polling and leave the actual governing to the rest of us.

Regards,
The Improved Liberals
 
2008-04-26 03:35:40 AM  
Shaggy_C: that_boy_Al_Bundy: it couldn't be because they don't have sufficient evidence, because Pelosi would never do anything to harm the Union.

There is plenty of evidence, but why stoke the partisan fires when they can take the centrist position? The majority of Americans don't think Bushy should be impeached. It's pandering on a massive scale.


Wait, Bushy has approval ratings lower than any president in decades and a majority of Americans would be adverse to prosecuting him. Damn Bushy is a bad dude.
 
2008-04-26 03:36:06 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: The reason inspectors were pulled out is because Saddam Hussein was doing the same thing he did in 2003 that made us so suspicious: he wouldn't let the weapons inspectors into the facilities. We didn't pull them out because they couldn't find anything, we pulled them out because Saddam Hussein wouldn't let them go to any of his facilities.

They were pulled out in 2003 so that we could start bombing. It was at the behest of the Bush administration even though they were essentially screaming that there were no WMD.
 
2008-04-26 03:37:08 AM  
lajimi: McJudo: Kevin72: "War crimes. Interesting. What war crimes has Bush committed? Oh, another liberal myth?"

1) Dragging the USA into a war under false pretenses .... the intelligence reports that it gave to congress had intentional lies and misinformation

2) Almost one million Iraqi dead and many more wounded. But that's OK because they're kinda brown and not USA dead. (sarcasm alert)

3) Torture

4) Billions mis-spent and unaccounted for

5) Repeatedly extending and re-extending tours of duty. Destroying states' national guards by putting them into heavy duty combat

6) Not rebuilding New Orleans OR Iraq.

7) Lies and secrecy that impeachment could have uncovered via investigation

8) Outing a CIA agent as revenge for her husband debunking the lies about the yellowcake in Niger in the run-up to the lies to get us into a war

Those are literally the moveon.org talking points. Oh and conclusively statements made by a left wing wacko go a long way to proving your point. If the democrats truly thought they could prove these things about Bush and the administration they would have already tried to, but putting them in bold prove that you're right.

This is a perfect example of why you should never try to educate the right wing tards. Facts confuse, frighten and anger them. They only want to hear what their idiot emperor spoon feeds them.


I guess it was time to call the "political cartoon posting to prove a point that he can't prove but none the less give validity to his foolish and elitist ideas about the county guy" guy. Guess who you are?
 
2008-04-26 03:37:51 AM  
Kevin72: I wonder what the split is in that district, If Sheehan can get enough votes from Pelosi it would be amazing if a republican got elected. How awesomely farktastic would that be.
Also, god how I wish this woman had not disgraced the memory of her son. I only hope that she finally got him a tombstone, it was just a little marker for his gave for the longest time.

The Republicans in San Francisco is a not a "minority" party, but a "splinter" party, let's say 15%. A lot of pissed off Democrats and certainly the kooks parties like the Greenies will all vote for Sheehan. The GOP will get their 15%, but Sheehan might actually exceed that.


Interesting, thanks for the info.
 
2008-04-26 03:38:30 AM  
Thunderpipes: Bush has not done anything illegal.

Authorizing the use of torture and tapping the phones of American citizens without getting the required approval from the judicial branch. Neither are legal.

Remove all Republicans:

The True Liberals

Nobody retarded enough to actually want neo-con lite elected to the White House can be considered a liberal.

/Sincerely,
//someone who not only knows what the word means, but is also a member

Alien Robot: Democrats on Sheehan 2006 when she agreed with them: "Absolute moral authority."

Daily Kos != Democrats as a whole. Hell, it doesn't even represent a strong minority.
 
2008-04-26 03:38:51 AM  
Befuddled: SemperLieSuckah: Saddam Hussein WAS in fact building WMDs in the 90s and we had zero new intelligence leading us to believe otherwise.

Go look up what Scott Ritter (aka chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998) has to say on all this.


Let's ignore the logic of asking to prove that someone was NOT doing something. We had barely any intelligence that he was building it and no evidence that he wasn't. Man, why do the Iranian nuclear weapon discussions so familiar?
 
2008-04-26 03:38:52 AM  
Thunderpipes: What war crimes has Bush commited?

Kevin72: 6) Not rebuilding New Orleans OR Iraq.

McJudo: Those are literally the moveon.org talking points.

lajimi: This is a perfect example of why you should never try to educate the right wing tards.

You just proved that the left are "the tards." In no way, under any system of jurisprudence in existence today at the national or international level, could "not rebuilding New Orleans" be considered a "war crime." LOL!
 
2008-04-26 03:39:21 AM  
that_boy_Al_Bundy: Wait, Bushy has approval ratings lower than any president in decades and a majority of Americans would be adverse to prosecuting him. Damn Bushy is a bad dude.

Yeah, most people dislike him. But what percentage of people think he should be impeached? I'll tell you: 39% according to an InsiderAdvantage poll in 2007. 55% oppose. I guarantee you the vast majority of the people who cry for impeachment are already liberals, so they'll vote for Obama regardless. Now answer me this: why piss off the other 55% more than necessary? The unaffiliated win elections.
 
2008-04-26 03:40:25 AM  
Befuddled: Scott Ritter

I suggest you go look and see what Scott Ritter resigned from the UN Weapons Inspection Program for in 1998.
 
2008-04-26 03:40:25 AM  
And all of you bashing Sheehan, she's a much better american than most of you for standing up to the corrupt both parties. But most of you criticizing her just wait for Obama the hoax to save the situation, which he won't.
 
2008-04-26 03:41:16 AM  
Shaggy_C: SemperLieSuckah: The reason inspectors were pulled out is because Saddam Hussein was doing the same thing he did in 2003 that made us so suspicious: he wouldn't let the weapons inspectors into the facilities. We didn't pull them out because they couldn't find anything, we pulled them out because Saddam Hussein wouldn't let them go to any of his facilities.

They were pulled out in 2003 so that we could start bombing. It was at the behest of the Bush administration even though they were essentially screaming that there were no WMD.


I'm talking about 1998, but since you brought it up, no they weren't If you recall, they couldn't GO anywhere. Saddam Hussein wouldn't let them see anything
 
2008-04-26 03:41:58 AM  
Murkanen: Nobody retarded enough to actually want neo-con lite elected to the White House can be considered a liberal.

Look, you can keep playing the "Hillary is really a Republican" crap if you guys want, but that hurts your guy in the general. It makes you look as dumb as the "McCain is no difference than the Democrats" crap that the lunatic right-wingers play. Hillary votes almost exactly like Obama and their policies are amazingly similar. The fact that she isn't 100% with him doesn't make her a Republican and if you idiots actually want him to win, making him look like a lunatic isn't the way to go.
 
2008-04-26 03:42:19 AM  
Just what the Democrats need . . . two more candidates who will evenly split the constituency.
 
2008-04-26 03:43:34 AM  
Can you believe all these evil conspirators who lied about Iraqi WMDs?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
 
2008-04-26 03:44:07 AM  
Alright---back to Ted McGinley because, seriously, fark Cindy Sheehan.---------why in the hell has he not been on Scrubs?....it seems so damn obvious.
 
2008-04-26 03:44:51 AM  
SemperLieSuckah:

Semper, so here's a question, do you believe Iran is doing something and we need to invade?

We have less evidence that Iran is actually doing anything, more evidence that they aren't doing anything, and more horsecrap from this administration that the evidence that they aren't doing anything PROVES that they doing something just in secret now.
 
Displayed 50 of 247 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report