Col Gene: Let me make sure I have this straight. Your..."logic" escapes me I guess.

You blame Bush because we invaded Iraq and therefore weapons that the IAEA had tagged in January 2003 were no longer there in April of 2003 (or May 2003 depending on whom you believe) because they were either used by Saddam, moved by Saddam, or somehow (unlikely) picked up by "terrorists" in dozens of trucks and hauled off under the nose of US troops.

And therefore we should impeach Bush.  Because, in your estimation, it would be better to have those explosives guarded by Saddam than Bush.  Therefore, Saddam in charge of those weapons, where he can give them out any time he chooses to anyone he wants, is something you feel more comfortable with than having US troops go in to capture the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of tons of such explosives.

First, the explosives in question are not WMD. They are conventional weapons which did not in any way pose a danger to the United States prior to the Iraq War even in the hands of Saddam. China, Russia, Iran, et al all have such weapons. We did not attack them.

When we deposed Saddam, we failed to establish control in Iraq to prevent the explosives that were all over the country from falling into the hands of the terrorists and these expolsives have been used to kill both Americans and the people of Iraq. We did not secure the borders to prevent foreign terrorists from entering Iraq and they too are now killing Americans. We did not clean out the festering areas that are full of former Saddam supporters and they are killing our troops. The simple truth is that Bush did not send enough troops to properly secure Iraq and Americans have died because of his failure to prevent the violence the we see every day!

Reply #17 By: COL Gene - 10/28/2004 11:24:14 AM First, the explosives in question are not WMD.

No they were a WMD component! Get you facts straight! The missing explosives are used in nuclear weapons as detonating charges.

Reply #11 By: T_Bone4Justice - 10/28/2004 8:21:25 AM drmiler, "Your gonna get called on this dude. As far as some on this site are concerned Fox is biased to the right." You are right. I am going to call him on it. And it isn't just me or a few people on the left that thinks FOX is not only biased, it is a stretch of the imagination to call it news when 80% of its content is right-wing commentary instead of ojective reporting. As I have said over and over again...there are many people on the right and moderates who realize that FOX is nothing but a propaganda machine for the GOP. Rupert Murdoch (spelling?) who owns FOX has even admitted as much as well as his disdain for the media in general. FOX was designed to get out the Republican propaganda. Now that is ok, if you are at least HONEST about it. But to tout your network as "fair and balanced" while you are intentionally promulgating propoganda for the right is outrageous. Did you know that the "reporters" for FOX are TOLD WHAT to report, they are told HOW to report it and what SPIN to give it by the FOX executives who set up the network to present right-wing opinions as news. There is plenty of documentation on this fact and it was proven by numerous former news people/employees from within FOX itself and not some crazy lefty. There were actual and numerous memos from the higher ups at FOX to their reporters/employees telling them what to report and what spin to put on it. In most legitimate news agencies, there is some editorial and content control but that is usually in the form of production/time/ratings concerns. Reporters from mainstream media are not consistently and methodically TOLD what to report, HOW to report a story and what spin to put on it. If you really want to see an example of what FOX news is all about, I can provide you with a link (if you have real player on your computer) where you can watch a 30 minute documentary on the subject

And 90% of what you are spouting can be reversely applied to the big 3. NBC, ABC, CBS.

While I realize that Republicans have set a very slimy precedent in impeaching a president for nothing, I think that we on the left should perhaps hold ourselves to a higher standard. That won't be hard to do.

drmiller

I am a former Nuclear Weapons Officer. The explosives in question are NOT WMD. If fact most gas is not really a WMD becasuse to create mass casualities requires high concerntrations. They have a very limited area. The true WMD is Bio and Nuclear.

Reply #21 By: COL Gene - 10/28/2004 3:24:43 PM drmiller I am a former Nuclear Weapons Officer. The explosives in question are NOT WMD. If fact most gas is not really a WMD becasuse to create mass casualities requires high concerntrations. They have a very limited area. The true WMD is Bio and Nuclear.

You *obviously* didn't read what I posted! I never said they were WMD's by themselves now did I? What I said was that they were a "component" of WMD's They ARE used as part of a dentonation device. And I'm not that impressed that you were a Nuclear weapons officer as I was a GMT (Gunners Mate Tecnician) and dealt directly with the weapons themselves.

Spetnaz!!

PLINKO!!

While I realize that Republicans have set a very slimy precedent in impeaching a president for nothing, I think that we on the left should perhaps hold ourselves to a higher standard. That won't be hard to do.

You know, Myrrander, you exist on this site on your second life. If you want to revert to your JesusAscrunchy mode you know where the door is. I don't want this site filled with zealots. Feel free to go to http://www.democraticunderground.org.  I have no particular care who is on this site or not (left wing or right wing) but the zealotry is really getting old.

For the record, Clinton wasn't impeached for "nothing". He was impeached because the chief law enforcement official of the country (Clinton) lied under oath and obstructed justice.  Very much the same reasoning why Nixon would have been impeached had he not resigned (Nixon's "crime" was obstructing justice on the investigation of some low level operatives breaking into a Democratic campaign HQ).

As for Col Gene: I didn't claim they were WMDs.  But the fact is, Saddam could just as easily been supplying weapons of that nature to enemy forces that were operating in nearby Afghanistan to use against US troops. I feel much more comfortable with Saddam out of the picture than with him in charge of those weapons. You apparently disagree.

Draginol wrote

You might be comfortable that 100,000 lives have been lost just to remove one man who theoretically was some big threat to the US, but I'm not. That's some God-awful planning my friend.



Sure and I could be Queen of England. Unless you have some evidence that Saddam was supplying weapons to Afghanistan...you're rumor-mongering. Isn't that behavior more suitable among the Lacy Peterson crowd?

Reply #25 By: dewey (Anonymous) - 10/29/2004 8:11:23 AM Draginol wrote You might be comfortable that 100,000 lives have been lost just to remove one man who theoretically was some big threat to the US, but I'm not. That's some God-awful planning my friend. Sure and I could be Queen of England. Unless you have some evidence that Saddam was supplying weapons to Afghanistan...

Do you have any evidence to show that he wasn't?

drmiler

I read waht you said. Wood is a part of a forest fire. That does make wood a forest fire.Explosives from the nuerous Amo dumps are missing and have been used to kill our troops. Yesterday a tape from taken after we entered Iraq show that the explosives were in that site. They are now missing. I wonder how many were used to kill Americans because Bush did not provide the number of troops to deny those explosives to our enimies.

That is the Commanfer-in-Chief you want in charge of our troops? No me!

Snce when were 100,000 lives lost in Iraq?

And since we know as public knowledge that Saddam was aiding Palestinian terrorists (he was very open on that point) I don't think it's exactly a stretch to consider that he might provide weapons and material to Afghanistan, especially since it's geographically closer than Israel is.

I would rather have US troops in control of all those weapons caches than Saddam. You left wingers apparently disagree.

Reply #27 By: COL Gene - 10/29/2004 10:16:56 AM drmiler I read waht you said. Wood is a part of a forest fire. That does make wood a forest fire.

This is BS! By *your* reasoning, if I had *wood* in my fireplace I then have a forest fire? I may have a fire, but it'll be a far cry from a forest fire.

. They are now missing. I wonder how many were used to kill Americans because Bush did not provide the number of troops to deny those explosives to our enimies.

Are you trying to tell me that elements of the 101st airborne were not enough to secure that site? I'll be sure to pass that along.

They are now missing. I wonder how many were used to kill Americans because Bush did not provide the number of troops to deny those explosives to our enimies.

Well since we've lost less than 1200 soldiers total, of which most were lost either before these events or due to accidents, it would appear not many troops have been affected by this hysterical event.

This is such a great discussion because it outlines the really basic difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals operate on emotion. No perspective is considered. No rational consideration. Just pure raw gut emotion.