Kucinich Introduces Single Article of Impeachment for President Bush

**Rochardrik** · 07-15-2008, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

over 500 metric TONS...

And the necessary delivery equipment, it simply wasn't put together... I don't think the intel was NEARLY as bad as we were led to believe. He could have had a full scale Nuclear program within a month or two.

Obviously a Fox News watcher!

**jonboy79** · 07-15-2008, 04:56 PM

What part do you disagree with? DO you think they planted 550 metric tons of Uranium and then secretly delivered it to Canada, and THEN made a story about it, LONG after the war began to clear the name of a Pres on his way out ina few months?

**HoustonRaven** · 07-15-2008, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

What part do you disagree with? DO you think they planted 550 metric tons of Uranium and then secretly delivered it to Canada, and THEN made a story about it, LONG after the war began to clear the name of a Pres on his way out ina few months?

Yes, they actually DO believe that.

In one breath, W and is ilk are supreme idiots and the next, they have the ability to plant 500 tons of nuke material and have the clout to cover it up. They cant get their theories straight. Michelle Malkin so aptly labeled it -- Bush Derangement Syndrome.

If they just kept quiet and pointed towards pesky things like facts, they'd see that W puts his own head in the noose on his own most of the time.

**Galen Sevinne** · 07-15-2008, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

What part do you disagree with? DO you think they planted 550 metric tons of Uranium and then secretly delivered it to Canada, and THEN made a story about it, LONG after the war began to clear the name of a Pres on his way out ina few months?

The 550 tons of yellow cake was there during the 1991 gulf war. The u.n. inspectors knew about it...the world knew about it and several agencies were watching it. It is not like this stuff just showed up last year. Everyone has known about it since before 1991 - that is over 17 years. If we went to war over this stuff, Bush would have said, "hey this guy has 550 metric tons of yeller-cake uranium and we need to take him out" The weapons of mass destruction (which this stuff was not even close to that nor a reason to be bogged down in a 5+ year war) would have meant something else.

Here is a quote from the fair and balanced guys at Faux News"

"Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."

The link for the complete story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376747,00.html

Always read closely into the stories when it comes from an obviously partisan source. This report is in no way the smoking gun of Bush's legacy...he is still the bumbling idiot that has changed the meaning of what it means to be an American. Of course the right will slant this story ever so slightly to just "seed" the idea that maybe this is the WMD's. Then the Hannitys, Coulters and Oreillys of the world will take it to the house and people will think it si something that it really is not.

**jonboy79** · 07-15-2008, 11:43 PM

I understand it is 17 years old, but if it can be processed and turned into weapons, then all it takes is intel to let someone know that process may have been in the short term future and...

No it's not a smoking gun, but then again it's something, it's certainly no tnothing...

**Rochardrik** · 07-16-2008, 11:07 AM

"FAUX" news... now why didn't I think of that!... That's seriously funny... seriously! (catch the double entendre?)... the seriously funny part. What's serious is that so many people listen and gobble it up, like it was Real, not Faux

**Galen Sevinne** · 07-16-2008, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Rochardrik

"FAUX" news... now why didn't I think of that!... That's seriously funny... seriously! (catch the double entendre?)... the seriously funny part. What's serious is that so many people listen and gobble it up, like it was Real, not Faux

Well, I will warn you ahead of time there are not too many people on this board who see through that money-making propaganda machine at Faux. I hear Karl Rove is now on their staff...boy he will surely be fair and balanced! It won't be long until he releases his string of New York Times best sellers. That is the crazy part that all of those folks there sell a shit load of books. Since when in the history of time did newscasters become best selling writiers? I worry about this country for sure.

**Rochardrik** · 07-16-2008, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

Well, I will warn you ahead of time there are not too many people on this board who see through that money-making propaganda machine at Faux. I hear Karl Rove is now on their staff...boy he will surely be fair and balanced! It won't be long until he releases his string of New York Times best sellers. That is the crazy part that all of those folks there sell a shit load of books. Since when in the history of time did newscasters become best selling writiers? I worry about this country for sure.

To those people of whom you speak, who get their info from O'Reilly and Rush, Cheney proclaimed at the end of Gulf War 1 that the reason we did not continue to Baghdad and capture Saddam was that such a move would create a civil war, and cause the entire region to de-stabilize, creating problems both for us and our allies. What's changed?. Rush said on the air in 1988, I think,..... So, Saddam gassed a few Kurds, and now we get all this liberal Hate speak as if Saddam was a monster fit to be removed from power..... (paraphrased, of course) .And these " fair" pundents count on their audiences to have short memories. The wind of public opinion shifts and they go right with it! I try to listen to all sides to form my opinion, but, even when a member of their "ilk" is completely and totally proved to be wrong, they cannot admit it , but choose rather to "spin" the story into a defamation of the source of the information or otherwise excuse the blatant lies (Karl Rove, Scooter Libby)... and the "Liberal media" has an agenda?, but they don't? UGHHHHH!!!!

**Galen Sevinne** · 07-16-2008, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Rochardrik

To those people of whom you speak, who get their info from O'Reilly and Rush, Cheney proclaimed at the end of Gulf War 1 that the reason we did not continue to Baghdad and capture Saddam was that such a move would create a civil war, and cause the entire region to de-stabilize, creating problems both for us and our allies. What's changed?. Rush said on the air in 1988, I think,..... So, Saddam gassed a few Kurds, and now we get all this liberal Hate speak as if Saddam was a monster fit to be removed from power..... (paraphrased, of course) .And these " fair" pundents count on their audiences to have short memories. The wind of public opinion shifts and they go right with it! I try to listen to all sides to form my opinion, but, even when a member of their "ilk" is completely and totally proved to be wrong, they cannot admit it , but choose rather to "spin" the story into a defamation of the source of the information or otherwise excuse the blatant lies (Karl Rove, Scooter Libby)... and the "Liberal media" has an agenda?, but they don't? UGHHHHH!!!!

I seem to remember part of the rational of not continuing in G.W. I was that the administration also thought it would be suicide to send marines into a urban warfare scenario with an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform and has been conditioned since day one that dying is an honor and a reward. Back then that made a lot of sense to me and was one of the first things I questioned at the onset of G.W. II. What changed? Haven't heard much about that during this war. It will be interesting to read more about this stuff in 20 years.

**HoustonRaven** · 07-16-2008, 09:07 PM

Once again, the liberals shoot the messenger and not the message.

Galen, ever hear of Walter Kronkite? Or Maybe Dan Rather? How about Peter Jennings? the late and great Tim Russert? Give you a hint .... they all wrote books!

And go ahead and slam Fox News all you want. They have been on top of the news race for about 10 years now. Even Hillary Clinton, someone who has every reason in the world to loathe Fox, came out and admitted they are the fairest of the coverage.

Conservatives LOOOOOOVE seeing liberals so worked up over Fox News -- no more can the left lay claim to the media and what gets reported.

Please, keep it up! :)

**Galen Sevinne** · 07-16-2008, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Once again, the liberals shoot the messenger and not the message.

Galen, ever hear of Walter Kronkite? Or Maybe Dan Rather? How about Peter Jennings? the late and great Tim Russert? Give you a hint .... they all wrote books!

Thanks for the hint! It is actually spelled Cronkite though. You're right they wrote books...some of them were more as memoirs after their time as anchors but none the less they did write books. None that were as self serving as the covers of Oreilly, hannity or coulter who love to see their narcissistic selves on the front covers...but that is good journalism, I guess.

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

And go ahead and slam Fox News all you want. They have been on top of the news race for about 10 years now. Even Hillary Clinton, someone who has every reason in the world to loathe Fox, came out and admitted they are the fairest of the coverage.

Conservatives LOOOOOOVE seeing liberals so worked up over Fox News -- no more can the left lay claim to the media and what gets reported.

Please, keep it up! :)

Well don't worry about me as I will continue to get worked up over Fox news...I won't let your boys (and cheerleaders) down. Let the real truth be known that if you rely on cable news whether it is Faux or MSNBC you're an individual who probably lacks any serious desire to look deeper than the surface.

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Once again, the liberals shoot the messenger and not the message.

I think you rely on this argument a bit too much HR. The same can be said about the rightys especially Rove. Anyway, if your "messengers" weren't such idiots, I wouldn't need to attack them. I could just then attack the even greater idiotic messages

**HoustonRaven** · 07-17-2008, 07:58 AM

Who's the one relying on one source?

Fox News is but one source I go to in the morning when I am enjoying my coffee -- Fox, Drudge, Politico, Real Clear Politics, The Hill, Huffington Post -- I spend a good hour every morning getting my political education THEN formulate my own opinion.

To say I am in lock step with any one party simply tells me you either havnt been reading my posts or you choose to ignore some of the things I have said here.

Oh, and by calling my messengers "idiots" you prove my point -- ad hominim attacks on a person simply means you cant debate them on facts. Instead, you pull a 3rd Grade move and stoop to name calling.