It is my contention that Washington is now more corrupt that at any point in modern history. The Republican Senate and Congress needs to be voted out. Bush should be investigated and impeached.
True or False?
Well since you are making a thesis, could you provide some reasons for your contention?
While I agree the mainly Republican congress and senate is ineffective, the malaise of our citizenship will not rise up and make the necessary changes. The impotency and unfocused mission of the democrats only contributes to this lack of a call to action. They're a 10 headed monster with no clear leadership or vision.
I have no problem with Bush being investigated, as long as it does not put our country at risk, which should always be our #1 priority and concern. I don't see enough evidence for impeachment, but i would welcome an investigation to come to a reasonable conclusion.
While I am not a huge fan of the current administration, and far from a Bush supporter, I would argue that the Nixon's administration was more corrupt.
The Nixon administration had bugged the Democratic Headquarters.
Nixon authorized payment to those scheduled to testify on Watergate, and to cover other criminal activities.
He had people break into psychiatrist Daniel Ellsberg's office. Ellsberg was a former government official who leaked the "Pentagon Papers," a top-secret study on the causes of the Vietnam War.
Nixon's White House had also created a list of political enemies that included Bill Cosby, Jane Fonda, Paul Newman, African-American Representative John Conyers of Michigan and Daniel Schorr of CBS news.
Nixon denied everything, and were it not for "secret" White House tape recordings, might have cleanly escaped.
He misused the FBI, the IRS, the Secret Service, maintained an illegal investigative service, interfered with the Watergate investigation, and failed to prosecute his subordinates for criminal actions.
I know what Nixon did,
and I am saying that Bush is more corrupt....
and I didn't say that the Republicans in the House and Senate are inneffective,
I said they were corrupt.
Can you cite some reasons?
I'll start with Bush lying our nation into war.
There is growing reasons to believe that Bush knew that there were no WMD, and no ties to to terrorism in Iraq. He lied about the reasons for going to war.
Because the war was based on lies, Bush had to make it a palatable lie.
and so.....
the cost was understated,
and the manpower needed was understated.
Men are dying because of this.
Nearly everyone in the world believed Iraq had WMD. Bush is the only one who didn't but lied as a reason to go to war?
However how does this lead to the cost and manpower being understated? I think this is more a problem of a uneducated administration that miscalculated, not a logical conclusion on your part from bush 'lying about WMD'
"everyone in the world believed Iraq had WMD" is a rediculous comment. Everyone may have believed he had some weapons, but there was a HUGE debate over what weapons he had, and what threat he posed. Our traditional allies are on record telling us that they believed we were wrong in our estimates, and the war was unfounded. Bush knew world opinion was going against him, as he had bugged the UN.... This is why he never called for the "up or down" vote he promised us he would take.
The scare of mustard and serin gasses was NOT motivating our nation to see Saddam as a threat that mandated war.. hence the phony stories about Saddam's nuclear threat.
Additionally, we had inspectors on the ground....
and we were finding out that he had NOTHING. Bush's justifications for war were crumbling, and that is when he began to provoke Saddam, hoping that he would get a response to justify his war.
Because the grounds for war were so sketchy, Bush was reluctant to ask the nation to sacrifice...
that is why the cost of the war was low balled.
that is why the manpower was low balled.
That is why he made an unprecedented move in the history of the world, and gave a tax cut during a time of war.
Let's make a list of those who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction:
Russian intelligence
French intelligence
British intelligence
Tony Blair
the CIA
Hillary Clinton
Bill Clinton
John Kerry
The disagreement about going to war between say us and the French was not whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, it was what the appropriate strategy for dealing with that would be.
I've already said, I thought finishing what we started in Afghanistan was a more effective use of military force.
However, I disagree with people who like to play monday morning quarterback and have buyers remorse that despite the fact that nearly everyone felt Iraq had WMD they want to blame Bush and ignore the fact we were all of the same opinion prior to going to war.
I think we did rush to war, and i think Bush had his own agenda for going to war, but I think saying he 'lied' is a stretch, because if he lied, he was in a minority of people who knew that Iraq DIDN'T have WMD.
stop using the term WMD.....
instead lets discuss specific weapons WE claimed he had, vs weapons that our allies claimed he had.
"WMD" is a term used to blur the threat level.
Keyser Soze Wrote:However, I disagree with people who like to play monday morning quarterback and have buyers remorse that despite the fact that nearly everyone felt Iraq had WMD they want to blame Bush and ignore the fact we were all of the same opinion prior to going to war.
This is the load of Horse shit that Republicans are reguratating.
1. EVERYTHING I am saying I was saying while bush was rushing into war. So it is NOT monday morning quarterbacking.
2. Buyers remorse suggests I (and others) wanted war at the time, this is false.
3. again, you are blurring reality by using "WMD", maybe everyone agreed he had mustard gas, but who agreed with Condi and Cheney about the mushroom cloud smoking gun?
4. Again, it is YOUR assertion that we were all of the same opinion prior to the war, trust me... many people were against it.
Bush lied, flat out.....
he even lied to get the war powers....
He went to Congress and claimed he needed the Authority to go to War in order to keep the peace. He claimed war was the last resort. He made a lot of promises of the steps he would take PRIOR to war....
but as soon as the ink was dry on the resolution, the promises were forgotten, and bush had his war.
Didn't the US (CIA) supply Saddam with biological weapons in his war against Iran?
"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
"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
"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 have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"[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
"(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
"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
"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
"Keyser Soze Wrote:"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
So what?
Post 9-11 Kerry saw a threat and wanted to deal with it.
Use of force IF NECESSARY is a huge phrase....
many of these quotes were based on the dressed up intel bush was feeding them....
Bottom line, Saddam WAS complying, but Bush wanted to invade,
and nothing was gonna stop him from doing it....
That is why he started to try to goad Saddam into retaliating...
Are you familiar with the leaked Downing Street memos, which disclose meetings between Blair and the Bush administration. those memos make it clear that Bush knew the justification was weak, and that the intel was being "fixed" around the war plan....
furthermore Bush admits to believing the inspectors would come up empty.
Look at the massive PR campaign being waged by the Bush Administration for the war. The Iraq group was working hard to leak intel to the media to swing popular support, additionaly any voice that spoke out agains the war was being squashed.
Quote:Bottom line, Saddam WAS complying
Quote:"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
and i don't need to repeat the same statements made by numerous others who agreed that Saddam was NOT complying and was playing a shell game with weapons that threatened our national security.
the statements i provided here show that most thought Iraq had far more than serin and mustard gas.
i wont disagree with you that Bush had a bloodlust for Iraq, but your premise that he lied, again would mean he is the only person who knew Iraq DIDNT have WMD. i would welcome a full investigation to try and prove otherwise.
Quote:many of these quotes were based on the dressed up intel bush was feeding them....
clinton had the same intel, and came to the same conclusions, and then 9/11 changed everything and people were emboldened to act.....and yes, perhaps too emotionally motivated.
Keyser.....
I don't want to get bogged down in this nonsense with you.....
you must be pulling crap from a right wing site, probably under the heading, "how to win a fight with your lib friends" but you are posting nonsense.
don't put up a quote as to what was happening in 1998 to justify what happened in 2002
again
"clinton had the same intel, and came to the same conclusions"
again
BULLSHIT...
The bush administration was discussing nuclear weapons, Suitcase nuclear bombs, unmanned drones and threats to the US....
don't you DARE say Clinton came to the same conclusion.....
If you step back and look at the Bush administration you will see that war with Iraq is something that the Bushies wanted from the start.
War with Iraq was advocated for by the Project for the New American Century, MANY of whom had positions of power in the Bush cabinet.
Bush went into office with an understanding of the "Political Capital" a war president would have. And his biographer documented Bush's savy in knowing that his aggressive domestic policies would have better chance to pass if he was a leader during war time.
Bush laid out groudwork for war with his statments about "swatting at flies" suggesting his response to a terrorist attack would be significantly larger in scope than by pervious administrations... I believe Bush turned a blind eye to the threat of 9-11 underestimating the potential devistation, but WANTING to be struck to justify his plans.
Quote:Keyser.....
I don't want to get bogged down in this nonsense with you.....
you must be pulling crap from a right wing site, probably under the heading, "how to win a fight with your lib friends" but you are posting nonsense.
again, you retire back to your crutch of instead of trying to refute me point by point, attack the person.
i actually have substance to my arguement so i'll continue to attack your arguements, and not you.....
Quote:The bush administration was discussing nuclear weapons, Suitcase nuclear bombs, unmanned drones and threats to the US....
don't you DARE say Clinton came to the same conclusion.....
how can you sit there and continue to promote a case that all of these people didn't think saddam had REAL WMD, not serin, not mustard gas.....weapons that threaten our national security.
riddle me this, batman. why was it ok in 98 for Clinton to attack Iraq but its wrong for Bush to do the same? Bush made an even more signifigant case and had the backing of numerous party leaders on all sides before, their statement right here in this thread. Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy....etc... etc...
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/">http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/</a><!-- m -->
i particularly like this quote by clinton....
Quote:"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, <b>diplomacy</b> or warning,"