This is cute. When challenged on another blog about why Bush should be impeached, AsWayOpens couldn't come up with much. Now, it looks like the answer is "Because Babwa says so..."

Hussein violated the cease fire, used Chinese equipment to bolster his defenses illegally, thwarted sanctions, paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers, and on, and on. We didn't need WMDs to invade, and anyone who thinks so after all these years of debate is an ignorant ass.

Babwa and people like her are traitors, spreading misinformation and propaganda against their nation in a time of war, and don't deserve citizenship anymore, period.

"there was no lies or fact twisting. "

Oh really...

Q Mr. President, in his speech to Congress, the Prime Minister opened the door to the possibility that you may be proved wrong about the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

Q Do you agree, and does it matter whether or not you find these weapons?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you might ask the Prime Minister that. We won't be proven wrong --

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: No.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I believe that we will find the truth. And the truth is, he was developing a program for weapons of mass destruction.

Now, you say, why didn't it happen all of a sudden? Well, there was a lot of chaos in the country, one. Two, Saddam Hussein has spent over a decade hiding weapons and hiding materials. Three, we're getting -- we're just beginning to get some cooperation from some of the high-level officials in that administration or that regime.

But we will bring the weapons and, of course -- we will bring the information forward on the weapons when they find them. And that will end up -- end all this speculation. I understand there has been a lot of speculation over in Great Britain, we've got a little bit of it here, about whether or not the -- whether or not the actions were based upon valid information. We can debate that all day long, until the truth shows up. And that's what's going to happen.

And we based our decisions on good, sound intelligence. And the -- our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind.

THE PRIME MINISTER: If I can just correct you on one thing. I certainly did not say that I would be proved wrong. On the contrary; I said with every fiber of instinct and conviction I believe that we are right. And let me just say this one other thing to you, because sometimes, again, in the debate in the past few weeks, it's as if, prior to the early part of this year, the issue of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction were some sort of unknown quantity, and on the basis of some speculative intelligence, we go off and take action.

July 17, 2003

QUOTE, BUSH: "the truth is, he was developing a program for weapons of mass destruction." This is false, the opposite of telling the truth is lying. He did lie.

QUOTE, BUSH: "the truth is, he was developing a program for weapons of mass destruction." This is false, the opposite of telling the truth is lying. He did lie.

No, that is your opinion.  That is not a fact. Learn to tell the difference.

#17 by The Dr is a Quack (Anonymous user) Tuesday, November 08, 2005

I really would like to know how we were ever supposed to find out if he was developing a WMD program without invading Iraq. Sadam proved time and time again he wasn't going to open his doors and let us right in.

He was a menace to his own people and the rest of the world. WMD's or not ... I'm happy he is behind bars.

"No, that is your opinion. "

The opposite of truth is a lie? How can that be described as a personal opinion. Learn to tell the difference.

""the truth is, he was developing a program for weapons of mass destruction."

"We won't be proven wrong --

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: No."

The whole thing stinks.

"I really would like to know how we were ever supposed to find out if he was developing a WMD program without invading Iraq. "

Well how do I know you're not making counterfeit money unless I kick down your door and sock you in the face?

You only go in if the intelligence is credible. It clearly wasn't, i.e. Blair's 45 minute claim from a decade old PhD thesis lifted from the net and the Africa uraniam claim Bush was told was not true but still included in his State of the Union. The intelligence was fixed around the drive for war, clearly the first resort not the last.

The opposite of truth is a lie? How can that be described as a personal opinion. Learn to tell the difference.

No, that Bush lied.  Dont play stupid, unless you are.

Again, people spread Wilson's lies. Wilson reported that while there was no evidence that an agreement had been reached, it was credible and iraq had in reality made overtures to purchase Uranium. The intelligence committee report noted that Wilson's report even HELPED convince some analysts that there was a threat.

Then he goes to the press and lies, gets caught in those lies, and becomes a part of the Kerry camaign, and writes material for idiot puppets like "Dr is a Quack".

Kerry camaign, and writes material for idiot puppets like "Dr is a Quack".

Aren't all kerry puppets quacks?

The only hard justification Congress could muster at this point for impeachment is...revenge. And that's a piss poor reason to impeach.

My personal opinion is that Bush is inept and unfit for the job...but I can think of a few of his predecessors who fit that bill as well. The constitutional standard for impeachment is that they have to commit "high crimes and misdemeanors", and I have yet to have one anti-Bushite show me compelling evidence that he has done so.

If we set the bar for impeachment THIS low, we've effectively neutered the presidency for generations to come.

"My personal opinion is that Bush is inept and unfit for the job..."

I don't see how anyone could make the point of Bush being "inept". He's done just about everything he's set out to do. Perhaps his PR people are inept, and perhaps he has gone in directions people disagree with, but the only failures I see are totally subjective. Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and a host of other "beloved" Presidents had many, many for failures and setbacks and aren't considered "inept".

Someone who was inept wouldn't have caused all this anger, frankly. An inept President couldn't have enacted all these things that make people angry. He's been very, very effective, but people just don't like what he's effected much. Bush hasn't had his "Bay of Pigs" that i have seen.

Well how do I know you're not making counterfeit money unless I kick down your door and sock you in the face?

That statement is as lame as your cowardess. I'll bet behind that anon user there is a former banished looser. But, how would I know that?

Let’s assume I was making counterfeit money. I had the whole deal set up in my basement. There would be some sort of evidence that stuff was either coming in or going out. Right? Now under US law, with probable cause, a judge could issue a search warrant. The police come in legally and search though my whole house and basement to find instead of counterfeit money I was making cookies for the starving children. I have no problem with them coming in to search because I wasn't doing anything wrong.

Sadam was hiding something or at least he was acting as any other criminal would if they didn't want you to know what they were up to. You can debate WMD's all day long. Fine, they weren't there. But if Sadam was only baking cookies ... Why wouldn't he let us in to see?

I don't see how anyone could make the point of Bush being "inept". He's done just about everything he's set out to do.

I DID state it was my personal opinion, Baker, and it remains so (and yes, it is a VERY subjective opinion. I won't deny that). I'm not going to argue it as it was clearly stated as such. BUT the fact remains, he WAS elected through the democratic process and there's no grounds for impeachment.

I believe now, as I did one year ago, that last year's presidential election was a winnable one for the dems...but they fouled it up by nominating a candidate that was COMPLETELY unappealing to just about everyone to the right of the Kennedy, Boxer, and Clinton contingent.

What about sending our troops into battle without the proper equipment, with too few forces to accomplish the mission properly

Not his purview! Properly equipping the army is NOT the presidents job.