|
|
|
|
|
| When Johnny comes marching home..
Posted: 3/25/2008 12:18:32 AM | """...Wonder what kind of jail time one gets for the use of weapons of mass destruction.. """
Choice of weapons though...death or poison: Take your pic. Infections or infectious water.
-------------
"""...Acinetobacter baumannii from Iraq is no MYSTERY!
Why do the Pentagon and the Centers for Disease Control refuse to discuss this public health threat publicly?
Leishmaniasis from Iraq and Afghanistan
Why did the Department of Defense ignore the CDC's warning before going into war?
The Iraq Infections ~The Irresponsibility Did Not Begin at Walter Reed. It started all the way at the top. The US Military and the Civilian Contractors were sent into war unwarned, under manned,under equipped, and grossly mismanaged. The consequences have come home.
Now you won't have to go to Iraq to die for 'freedom'
Field Hospitals the source of XDR Acinetobacter baumannii infections in US Soldiers
The Baghdad Boil-WARNING-
THE IRAQ INFECTION COMING SOON...TO A HOSPITAL NEAR YOU
This bacteria is currently infecting nearly every soldier with an open wound that enters the military evacuation system.
North Texas Leish Outbreak
Numerous cases of the disease, called leishmaniasis, have been reported in troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. But for the first time, cases of this dangerous infection are appearing in North Texas in patients who have not traveled to endemic areas...
http://www.americancontractorsiniraq.com/Home.html
-----------------------
Welcome to the Iraq Infections
In the lead up to the Iraq War the US Government took plenty of time to propagate the lies it needed to justify the war and to award no bid contracts but the potential needs of the troops was never adequately addressed. When these inadequacies became apparent the Government put more effort into covering them up than they did into providing our troops with what they needed to fight this war or to survive this war.
Inadequately preparing for the casualties of this war has enabled the bacteria Acinetobacter Baumannii and others to become extremely to completely drug resistant and has spread these bugs throughout the military health sytem, the VA health system, and on to civilian hospitals all across our country. The UK, Australia, and the other Coalition Countries are suffering from the same. The third world wounded contractors are carrying these bacteria with them to their home countries.
The CDC warned the DoD about Leishmaniasis in December of 2002. Due to the time of year we were invading, sandfly's, and thus leishmaniasis was to be much more prevelant than in the first gulf war. Despite this troops were sent into war without proper precautions in place to prevent sandfly bites. Civilian contractors were not warned at all until many of them became infected. Many contractors are still not warned even today. Many are just now figuring out that they have it after being home for months and/or years.
http://www.iraqinfections.org/
----------------------------------
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/home.html
..."""hearing on KBR's Iraq water contamination
"Everyone knows that drinking, or washing with poop is bad for you," Jeffrey K. Griffiths, MD, Professor of Public Health and Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, told the committee. "The reasons are so obvious we consider them common sense," he said.
But "common sense" is not always a virtue at Halliburton, if whistleblowers and military personnel in Iraq are to be believed.
Capt. Michelle Callahan, MD, a U.S. army surgeon in Iraq with the 101st Sustainment Brigade, told the committee in an email that water containing human fecal matter and other human waste was being re-circulated by Halliburton back into the non-potable water supply used by the troops for showering, brushing teeth, shaving, washing clothes, and preparing food and coffee. According to Callahan, "concentrate reject was being used to fill the water tanks."
After finding coliform bacteria and e-coli in the the water, Callahan said a Halliburton official informed employees that, "there's not a problem with it." Callahan also stated that, after discovering KBR was filling the water with waste water concentrate, the same official informed employees that, "This was the way KBR always treated the water."
"I had a sudden increase in soldiers with bacterial infections presenting to me for treatment," Callahan told the committee in her email. "All of these soldiers live in the same living area (PAD 103) and use the same water to shower. I had 4 cases of skin abcesses, 1 case of cellulitis, and one case of bacterial conjunctivitis," she said.
...An internal Halliburton report leaked to the committee and authored by the company's Iraq water quality manager admitted that, "No disinfection to non-potable water was occurring [at Camp Ar Ramadi] for water designated for showering purposes. This caused an unknown population to be exposed to potentially harmful water for an undetermined amount of time."
After reviewing Halliburton's internal water report, Dr. Griffiths told the committee that the source water used at Ar Ramadi was "highly polluted" and "highly likely to make [the troops] sick." He said the troops "would have been better off with water [taken] directly out of the Euphrates River," which the doctor described as an "open sewer." That's because Halliburton's non-potable water was not chlorinated or filtered to remove parasites, amoebas and viruses that cause various illnesses including dysentery, an inflammatory disorder of the lower intestinal tract that causes fever, severe diarrhea, vomiting and often "pooping of blood." Dr. Griffiths pointed out that "in many if not most wars, dysentery has killed more soldiers than has combat."
KBR instructs the troops not to drink the non-potable water, but claims it is safe for showering. But Dr. Griffiths said showering with KBR's untreated water is still dangerous because ingestion of diseases can occur through the mouth and skin.
Anticipating that Dorgan's criticism could create a public relations problem, Halliburton attempted to deter the senator by sending a second internal report to his office the night before the hearing, which contradicted the first internal on-site report and purportedly "exonerates" (as Dorgan put it) the company. But this second report admits that, "KBR (Halliburton) lacked an organizational structure to ensure that water was being treated in accordance with Army standards in its contractual requirements."
This admission that Halliburton failed to ensure that its work met contract specifications is just the latest in a long list of violations that members of Congress say should lead to the company's suspension and debarment.
Nevertheless, both Halliburton and the Pentagon have denied that a serious problem exists. "This is really pretty unbelievable to me," Dorgan said in response to denials by Halliburton and the Pentagon. "I understand no one wants to take responsibility. No one ever wants to be accountable for anything," he said. "We now know that those denials were wrong and Halliburton and the Pentagon would have known them to be wrong."
Thanks to Dorgan's efforts, after initially resisting calls for an investigation into the matter, the Pentagon in March announced that it will conduct a formal inquiry. But, like most of the federal investigations into Halliburton's alleged wrongdoing, the Pentagon's inquiry will likely be stalled or swept under the rug..."""
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/dpc_hearing.html
--------------------------
 | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 3/25/2008 12:44:10 AM | | These peole are nuts to even think that Bush will be indicted for a crime. Especially crash who is a left wing liberal and still upset about the 2000 election. All politicians are corrupt and I don't know why people don't understand that. crash as far as indicting Bush on the invasion of Iraq, it would never stand because if you remember from the cease fire in 1991 there were resoloutions formed and saddam didn't obide by these resoloutions paving the way for the U.S to attack iraq again. that is why that will never stand. As far as wietapping phone lines, All administrations have done this going back to the days of Kennedy. So, if you indict Bush on this you also must include Carter, and Clinton. Our constituion has been being wiped away for years by all other Presidents even before Bush so, are we going to indict them to? the left has to stop being so upset about the 2000 election and looking for reasons to get Bush out of office. His time to leave is coming and after that, we will just have another idiot in office that will be taking away more of our rights. | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 3/25/2008 10:31:31 AM | I just hope that should g-Dub or Cheney drive thru those towns that someone has a video camera when they try to arrest them around the Secret Service... The Youtube of that would have to be landmark comedy rivaling the best thing we ever saw on 'Cops'.
I fail to believe that the powers that sent us into Iraq did not forsee that there are no Thomas Jeffersons nor Ben Franklins in Iraq to expect any kind of Democracy take root. What we are seeing is what should have been expected with a plan to address it before going in. I do think that G-Dub may actually have believed he was doing something right and noble while being a pawn of some background Iago who considers what is occurring as collateral damage necessary to achieve something personal.
Bush didn't want to be President when it first was suggested to him. He came out of nowhere although we knew most about him as co-owner of a MLB baseball team. Then he rose to the candidacy from nowhere. Then he kinda-sorta won the Presidency. I would not be surprised that if we re-examine film from his campaign in 99-00 if we look closely, we can see the strings. | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 3/26/2008 9:28:15 PM | once again designing woman tries in desperation to spread untruths.
george w. is a hero because he did what had to be done in iraq. and continues to do so.
he was not awol from the national guard. dan rather was fired for reporting that falsity. | |
|
| |
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 3/26/2008 10:45:19 PM | .
george w. is a hero because he did what had to be done in iraq. and continues to do so.
he was not awol from the national guard. dan rather was fired for reporting that falsity.
______________________
What has HE done in Iraq.
HE has done nothing..... pictures taken with a PLASTIC Turkey ????
make it easy...if his father were not ambassador to the United Nations "W's" a$$ would have been in S/E asia...
When this crew is out of office they will have to be very careful where they travel.
They will be subject to War Crimes....By there own admissions..
=======================================================
May 24, 1972: Bush, who has moved to Alabama to work on a US Senate race, gets permission to serve with a reserve unit in Alabama. But headquarters decided Bush must serve with a more active unit.
Sept. 5, 1972: Bush is granted permission to do his Guard duty at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery. But Bush's record shows no evidence he did the duty, and the unit commander says he never showed up.
November 1972 to April 30, 1973: Bush returns to Houston, but apparently not to his Air Force unit.
May 2, 1973: The two lieutenant colonels in charge of Bush's unit in Houston cannot rate him for the prior 12 months, saying he has not been at the unit in that period.
Under Air National Guard rules at the time, guardsmen who missed duty could be reported to their Selective Service Board and inducted into the Army as draftees." --Boston Globe, 5/23/00
======================================================= | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 3/28/2008 2:17:09 PM | Dan Rather was fired for fighting for the truth==Bushboy is an AWOL coward who should never have been allowed anywhere NEAR the White House. That thing should have been locked up at Leavenworth Prison for going AWOL.
Thank you BobOColo for your reply to the poster who claimed that Bushboy isn't an AWOL coward. I agree that its arse should have been sent to Southeast Asia even if its father was an ambassador! | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 3/28/2008 2:36:48 PM | What was that science that promotes jetliners evaporating into steel again?
Another OOOPS!
Timothy J. (Tim) Roemer is the current president of the Center for National Policy (CNP), a national security think-tank located in Washington, D.C.
You can hear Tim tell the world that a missle pryed open the pentagon..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA5AmFpQlJA
Gooooo.. Tim & Rummy!
His and Rumsfeld's handlers can't be too happy with these two..
*Excerpt*
... Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building...
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3845 | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 3/29/2008 5:25:20 PM | george Bush destroyed the Justice department.
the day that the next President appoints his cabinet, Investigations will begin, and jail time is a given.
read the hearings, we have enough information to Impeach and Imprison, we don't however have a Justice department to Investigate or bring charges.
but that will happen immediately.
why do you think scooter hasn't been pardoned? because if they pardon him, he can no longer plead the 5th, he has to tell the truth under oath, and that is trouble for Bush, and especially Cheney. | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 3/29/2008 5:32:45 PM | Chevelle,
you are historically deluded. after watergate, the federal Government created an entire court to give permission for wiretapping, and Bush ignored it. He still broke the law even after the Patriot act suspended habeas corpus , He ignored Fisa Laws, and the Fisa courts.
I suggest before you spread misinformation, you might want to read the hearings and find outr what your friends have done. they are about to make you look like a complete idiot.
try reading ANDY CARDS testimony regarding Gonzales' behavior to then Atty Ashcroft who was what he believed to be his death bed. and
since you are so fond of your party lines, I will point out to you, that Ashcroft is a BIG time republican.
so your bipartisan crap, is crap. they don't care, they are making a killing off of private contracts, killing our military,
ask a soldier what they are doing to our military, our cooks sit while contractors do their jobs.
Blackwater burns their escalades rather than fixing them because tyhey just get another contract, at 200,000.00 a truck. while our soldiers go out on the dangerous Iraqi highways to fix our old equipment.
wake up dude, the truth is out there. go to Henry waxmans website and read away, the testimony is under oath, and completely disgusting.
how about the state department being on blackwaters payroll? Is that ok with you too? | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 3/30/2008 11:37:35 AM | Round and round we go?
The National Security Archive:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/
Washington, D.C., January 26, 2006 - A secret Pentagon "roadmap" on war propaganda, personally approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in October 2003, calls for "boundaries" between information operations abroad and the news media at home, but provides for no such limits and claims that as long as the American public is not "targeted," any leakage of PSYOP to the American public does not matter.
Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive at George Washington University and posted on the Web today, the 74-page "Information Operations Roadmap" admits that "information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa," but argues that "the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of USG [U.S. government] intent rather than information dissemination practices."
In light of recent media coverage of alleged propaganda activities by the military in Iraq, the Roadmap gives as one of its recommendations the need to "Clarify Lanes in the Road for PSYOP, Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy.
" The U.S. government is legally prohibited from conflating these operations by targeting PSYOP activities--intended for foreign audiences--at the American public. 22 U.S.C. § 1461 (Smith-Mundt Act), which created the United States Information Agency (USIA) in 1948, directs that information about the United States and its policies intended for foreign audiences "shall not be disseminated within the United States, its territories, or possessions."
Amendments to the Smith-Mundt Act in 1972 and 1998 further clarified the legal obligations of the government's public diplomacy apparatus and several presidential directives, including
Reagan's NSD-77 in 1983,
Clinton's PDD-68 in 1999,
Bush's NSPD-16 in July 2002
the latter two still classified
have set up specific structures and procedures, as well as further legal restrictions, regarding U.S. public diplomacy and information operations..
Hmmm..
The National Security Archive:
An independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University
or... a PSYOP vehicle?
you decide.
 | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 3/30/2008 11:57:14 AM | Bush is a Lying crook. his yellow a$$ never set foot in Vietnam he was too busy coking it up. I suppose his rehab stint is a lie too?
and his brother thieving from the S and Ls
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1509%20
try reading some testimony for yourself. you are clearly uninformed | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 3/30/2008 11:59:47 AM | Ummmm the world is flat is a BOOK genius, see they have a front and a back cover and pages in between and there are words written on the pages that when strung together convey thought.
I wish I could say I am surprised you didn't know that | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 3/31/2008 9:29:03 PM | The Brits make some very good points.. those who pay fed taxes.. are we accessories to the crimes?
• genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and conduct ancillary to these crimes under Sections 51 and 52 of The International Criminal Court Act 2001.
• a crime against peace and complicity in a crime against peace under Articles 6 and 7 of The Nuremburg Principles.
• murder, incitement to murder and conspiracy to murder under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• conspiracy to commit genocide, a crime against humanity and war crimes under the Criminal Law Act 1977.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwZt6bvyMqI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKBXdHn5gXg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XA_qLD7rxE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyQlQLMHafE&feature=related | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/10/2008 2:16:08 PM | We may have our hearings after all .
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0708/Pelosi_says_House_Judiciary_may_hold_hearings_on_Kucinich_impeachment_resolution.html
July 10, 2008
Categories: Bad behavior
Pelosi says House Judiciary may hold hearings on Kucinich impeachment resolution
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this morning that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings on an impeachment resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).
Kucinich is expected to offer a "privileged resolution" this afternoon calling on the House to look at whether President Bush should be removed from office for lying to Congress and the American public when he sought congressional approval back in 2002 for taking military action to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Pelosi has said previously that impeachment "was off the table," so her comments this morning were surprising, and clearly signaled a new willingness to entertain the idea of ousting Bush, although no one in the Democratic leadership believes that is likely since the president has only six months left in this term.
"This is a Judiciary Committee matter, and I believe we will see some attention being paid to it by the Judiciary Committee," Pelosi told reporters. "Not necessarily taking up the articles of impeachment because that would have to be approved on the floor, but to have some hearings on the subject."
Pelosi added: "My expectation is that there will be some review of that in the committee."
A spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee had no immediate comment when asked whether Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the panel's chairman, planned hearings on Kucinich's impeachment resolutions.
Update: Conyers said he had just gotten Kucinich's new impeachment resolution, and he was not sure of when hearings would occur, or what kind of hearings be held. Democratic aides said they would examine "abuses of power" by the Bush administration, although it is unclear why or how that is different from what has taken place already throughout the 110th Congress.
One thing is clear, however — there will be no move to remove Bush from office, despite Pelosi's comments this morning, or Kucinich's resolution.
| |
|
| |
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/12/2008 12:03:12 AM | | Yah, I don't know why Kucinich doesn't get more support from other Democrats.. Pelosi and the Democrat House Leadership basically ignored Kucinich when he said that Congress had the power of the purse to end the War in Iraq.. so what did the Democratic Leadership do? they created the hugest supplement budget imaginable for a supposedly "illegal war" so they are just as guilty and should be hauled into the arrest warrant as well with Bush. Poor Dennis is out there all by his lonesome trying to impeach Bush when his colleagues are totally ignoring his efforts. What does that say for party unity? hmmm | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/12/2008 1:51:32 AM | | ^^^ cool.. well at least there is reality in your posts as you've bee proporting the word dennys done yet now in this post you'll stab him in the front?....... | |
|
| |
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/12/2008 4:10:56 AM |
what did the Democratic Leadership do? they created the hugest supplement budget imaginable for a supposedly "illegal war" so they are just as guilty and should be hauled into the arrest warrant as well with Bush. Poor Dennis is out there all by his lonesome trying to impeach Bush when his colleagues are totally ignoring his efforts. What does that say for party unity? hmmm
Bush created the budget for congress to approve, and handed them false intel to justify it.
Timing is everything here to insure Bush can't pardon anyone for being convicted if they haven't been charged.
Let the indictments start around the middle of Jan 2009 when Obama is President.
Heck, I say when they are charged, charge them under the RICO laws for being in organized crime and confiscate all their assets as proceeds of the criminal activity. | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/12/2008 5:59:48 AM | A question to the Bush haters...Why is it when Bush went after Saddam he is called a war monger? When Billy went after Saddam he was just doint his job?
Here's a little speech from from Our Lil Billy....
{quote] Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.
In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.
They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.
If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.
That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.
So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.
We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.
But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.
In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.
Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America
Seems to me to be a double standard? If the Dems go to war or attack another country it's justified, Iraq Bosnia and so on....If the Republicans go to war their War Mongers?
Now all the little Bush bashers have the right to their opinion, but your arguement is always Saddam was not a threat and had no WMD...yet even Clinton knew different and clearly talked of his threat not only now but that he would always be a threat to the US and neighbors, Clinton also knew Saddam had gotten better at hidding his WMD and stalling until he could remove the traces of them...So if Clinton knew he had WMD and records show Saddam clearly used them on his neighbors and his own people, then why should Bush his administration and Congress think otherwise? Bush haters already blame Bush for 911, of course they don't blame Clinton for the first attack in 1993, Bush was wrong for going after Saddam but Billy wasn't???????? | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/12/2008 6:25:33 AM |
A question to the Bush haters...Why is it when Bush went after Saddam he is called a war monger? When Billy went after Saddam he was just doint his job? So you are a bushie lover and want to expose any one that might answer your diatribes as a bushie hater simply by answering. I believe that's called baiting. When Clinton went after Saddam's threat he was not attempting regime change and destroying a country. Now all the little Bush bashers have the right to their opinion, but your arguement is always Saddam was not a threat and had no WMD...yet even Clinton knew different and clearly talked of his threat not only now but that he would always be a threat to the US and neighbors, Clinton also knew Saddam had gotten better at hidding his WMD and stalling until he could remove the traces of them...So if Clinton knew he had WMD and records show Saddam clearly used them on his neighbors and his own people, then why should Bush his administration and Congress think otherwise? Bush haters already blame Bush for 911, of course they don't blame Clinton for the first attack in 1993, Bush was wrong for going after Saddam but Billy wasn't???????? No I'm not a little bushie basher but I am a BIG BUSHIE POLICY basher. Clinton's actions caused Saddam to let the IAEA inspectors go in and start proving Saddam had no WMDs but bushie scared them out just as they were preparing a report saying Saddam had none. Your condecending statements about 'little bush bashers" mostly speaks of your condescending attitudes over people you don't like. | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/12/2008 9:10:37 PM | Bill Clinton used air strikes to make a point and not to start a crazy war based on BS. I'll take effective air strikes over the craziness that has been going on in Iraq. We had no business being there--The Iraqis had NOTHING to do with 9/11. None of the attackers were from Iraq. They were from Saudi Arabia, where Bush and its family has strong ties, and instead of going after the people involved, Bush sidestepped and basically used Iraq as a scapegoat.
Bush on the other hand, IS a warmonger, starting a war to suit its purposes. | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/13/2008 10:55:12 AM |
Let's just change the Constitution and not give people a fair trial.. just throw them in jail. this is basically what this thread is suggesting..
Wrong again.
This thread is about following the constitution and holding those responsible for breaking laws accountable.
Impeaching him just stops him from doing more damage Putting him and his cronies on trial makes him pay for his crimes. | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/13/2008 11:41:42 AM |
Let's just change the constitution and not give people a fair trial..just throw them in jail.this is basically what this thread is suggesting
interesting to note that the current administration has done exactly that, effectively ammended the constitution by not following it .It state sthat Habeus Corpus should be suspended only in the case of invasion.How about the 2006 military commissions act
which effectively takes away any right to be heard(that's any suspected terrorist) makes no distintinction
if U.S. citizen or not to be held without trial indefinitley.How about the tel com wiretapping immunity bill passed by both houses of congress and signed by bush into law to cover up the records of illegal activities committed by the current administration.Notice right after this bill was passed Pelosi stated now maybe they will hold hearings.HHHmmmmm.
how about Guantanomo Bay residents sure they probably all are foreigners to the U.S.
but are they all war criminals and why are they being housed outside the states in a no man's land so it is extremely difficult to try them in a court.Why?
Why does congress keep passing military appropriations bills to fund the occupation
of Iraq and there are now resolutions to form a naval blockade of Iran and increase sanctions against Iran. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
