Iraqi WMD clouds Bush credibility

[Evanauto]

The question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction has left a cloud over the Bush administration's credibility that won't be removed until Americans know whether the administration was straightforward with them, a Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday.

The committee began last week an inquiry into the administration's use of intelligence to justify the invasion, specifically assertions that President Saddam Hussein had thriving programs to develop chemical and biological weapons and had tried to obtain material for nuclear arms.

Until recently, Bush and his aides had maintained prohibited weapons would be found. In his radio address Saturday, Bush made no such promise and said instead that documents and suspected weapons sites were looted and burned "in the regime's final days."

This looks really, really bad for Bush and all that he has accomplished so far. And please, PLEASE, realize that im not against the soldiers im against the war.

the chant is slowly getting louder... impeachment...IMPeachMENT...

[mrpopenfresh]

Yeah well, that cloud youv'e been talking about, it was bound to happen and has been happening for quite some time now.

[MarijuanaLock]

hahah, i was listening to NPR, and i heard that the Prez knew he was lying during the state of the union address before the war. that the "proof" for the wmd was outta some little european newspaper or something like that and was totally unconfirmed. apparently his advisors even told him outright that he would be lying if he called it proof.

don't quote me. this is just what i heard.

[D2Kvirus]

Would that be the part about no evidence, because the looters took it?

I'd be terrified to go rob some Iraqi's home, they all have al-Samoud IIs in their houses for home defence. Still, you have to admire the fact they know how to diffuse, dismantle, and dospose of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons with no after effects to themselves, others, or the environment.

[damndifwedordont]

not only do they say he used this as false evidence but some people think he helped plan the 9/11 terrorist attacks GASP but whos to say this is true? whos to say it isnt true. i had web site link to this news story covering the whole thing but i forgot it...sorry...ok well it was an interview with pres bush and he was saying he was watching TV and he say a airplane hit a tower and he thought it was a really bad flyer. but it turns out that no cameras were filming the WTC during the first "attack" except his. it was a reliable web site and it was about a interview with the prez on one of the famous "american" news channles i think it was msnbc but im not sure

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/22/03 08:52 PM, Evanauto wrote:

This looks really, really bad for Bush and all that he has accomplished so far. And please, PLEASE, realize that im not against the soldiers im against the war.

yeah, I've gotten sick of people thinking just because we disagree with the war...we don't respect the soldiers risk...it simply isn't true.

the chant is slowly getting louder... impeachment...IMPeachMENT...

I dunno about that...I don't see it happening...Bush is still QUITE popular...so sad as it is to say...most Americans don't seem to care...and that's very sad and frightening to me. I just hope that this causes some kind of backlash though when he's up for re-election.

[Jimsween]

I dont think many of you know how the American government works, he can't be impeached unless he did something illegal and impeachemnt doesnt remove him from office, it only starts an investigation.

[Jiperly]

At 6/23/03 08:54 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 6/22/03 08:52 PM, Evanauto wrote:

I dunno about that...I don't see it happening...Bush is still QUITE popular...so sad as it is to say...most Americans don't seem to care...and that's very sad and frightening to me. I just hope that this causes some kind of backlash though when he's up for re-election.

i saw on CNN that Nixon and co. were charaged with misuse of FBI/CIA for his impeachment. whose to say they won't use the same?

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/23/03 09:05 PM, Jimsween wrote: I dont think many of you know how the American government works, he can't be impeached unless he did something illegal and impeachemnt doesnt remove him from office, it only starts an investigation.

I realize that, I think it would be extremely hard...if not impossible, to call the war in Iraq an illegal action within the US (but we did manage to turn Clinton lying about a blow job into a huge scandal...so maybe, if we try hard enough).

Furthermore, most people do not care seem to care about what Bush did...rationalizing that "well, if he didn't have it now...who's to say he wouldn't have in ten years?" That's what I've honest to god heard people say. The fact is the intellectual thinking people who realize how bad Bush fucked up...and will vote him out of office seem to be in the minority (his popularity polls still swing pretty heavily in his favor last I checked). So I think trying to get him Impeached wouldn't be very favorable for Congress (hell, they gotta think re-election too) and getting it to trial and throwing him out of office isn't gonna happen...we're about a year from an election...so I guess the best people who don't like Bush can do, is hope that he does something to really turn the country against him, and he get's voted out next fall.

[TheTio]

Bah, I nearly pissed myself when I heard this

Just the image of some Iraqi coming home carrying a big sack

"Honey, look what I looted today, a T.V., a lil something for you" *flash jewelerry* "& even something for the kids" *pulls huge nuke outta small sack cartoon style*

Bush really doesnt think much of the intelligence of the average american voter....sadly, they are in fact that stupid

4 years far too long for bush to be in power, cant he just get cancer or something, maybe the handshake of death like in 24

he better not make those 4 years 8

[Jiperly]

uhhh..Tio......he cannot make that choice....only the American people can.....

[D2Kvirus]

At 6/24/03 06:54 AM, TheTio wrote:
4 years far too long for bush to be in power, cant he just get cancer or something, maybe the handshake of death like in 24

Thanks for the spoiler, motherfucker...

Damn you, BBC, can't you air it alongside the US, rather than delay it by a month, then start it a week earlier on the diigital channels so you can whore them out to justify the latest license fee hike?!?

[D2Kvirus]

Oh yeah, nearly forgot:

After months of dictating that we're high on the al-Qu'eda/Iraqi/whoever hitlist, the International Guide To Terrorism (as in "I forgot the name of the actual group as soon as I started typing") published the list of nations most likely to be hit by terrorists. And where is Tony's Utopian Vision? Number Nine, mainly as a result of the IRA splinter groups than anything else. We're behind Algeria, for Christ's sake, and they aren't exactly Pro-US, are they?

Always good when Blair is undone by hard fact, isn't it?

[Ted-Easton]

Odd that when a US president recieves oral sex from another woman, he's nearly impeached, but another invades and conquers an entire country on fabricated evidence, and people hardly blink.

*blink*

[bumcheekcity]

At 6/24/03 03:58 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Odd that when a US president recieves oral sex from another woman, he's nearly impeached, but another invades and conquers an entire country on fabricated evidence, and people hardly blink.

Its quite amazing that for 3 years, all I knew about US politics was that this guy had an affair. They really didn't let up on that story.

[DrxFeelgood]

Okay, how about have you'd ever thought of that douche, Saddam destroying everything before we got there to make us look bad? Bacause that is a very good possibility. But instead, everyone bitchin' that, "Bush was wrong".

[D2Kvirus]

At 6/25/03 03:16 AM, 70TA wrote: Okay, how about have you'd ever thought of that douche, Saddam destroying everything before we got there to make us look bad? Bacause that is a very good possibility. But instead, everyone bitchin' that, "Bush was wrong".

When the official line went from "having weapons of mass destruction" to "having a program that would make weapons of mass destruction", I think anybody that believed a syllable that came from any White House (or the one with the black door) representitives needed to be slapped into consciousness.

How can they have such a swagger that they change their story to suit the circumstances, after blood had been spilt, cities flattened, and intelligence insulted? I'd rather be liberated by Mugabe, at least he'd have the decency to be honest about what he was doing.

A bottle of Jose Cuervo Gold to whoever has a clue who Mugabe is, what country he leads, and why Blair can be sincere about the plight his people suffer (while sending the cricket team over), while cold blooded resigning the Iraqi people to the statistics on the same day.