Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (433131)	7/24/2003 10:05:23 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I bet you secretly idolize the man... GZ

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (433131)	7/24/2003 10:08:58 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

<< BUSH IS SUCH A LOSER......... >> Apparently Bush is not as bad a loser as any of the Dems, any of whom who would lose to him if the election were held today .. tsk, tsk .. Lieberman, Gephardt in front in national poll of Democrats By Associated Press, 7/24/2003 09:46 Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman had the most support from Democratic voters in a national poll released Thursday, followed closely by Dick Gephardt, John Kerry and Howard Dean. Lieberman, a Connecticut senator, was at 21 percent and Gephardt, a Missouri representative, was at 16 percent just within the error margin of plus or minus 5 percentage points in the Quinnipiac University poll. Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, was at 13 percent and Dean, a former governor of Vermont was at 10 percent. Other candidates in the nine-member field were at 6 percent or lower. More than a fifth, 21 percent, were undecided. In several recent national polls, Lieberman, Kerry and Gephardt were grouped close together at the top. Lieberman led early national polls, at least partially because of his higher name recognition. Recent polls have shown that if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is added to the field, she outpaces all Democrats. That was true in this survey as well; she had 48 percent to 11 percent for Lieberman, with others in single digits. When President Bush is matched head-to-head against top Democrats in the poll, he leads by margins ranging from 7 points over Clinton to 16 points over Dean. Bush's lead against Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman was about 10 points. The poll of 1,055 registered voters was taken July 17-22, including 372 Democrats. The error margin for the overall sample was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (433131)	7/24/2003 10:18:41 PM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

If no weapons of mass destruction turn up in Iraq, then President Bush’s case for war falls apart on the very grounds he laid out for it. Moreover, it will then be unambiguously clear that Bush and his administration consistently lied to the American people to gain their support for an invasion of another country. If this is not grounds for impeachment, I don’t know what is. ...go back to President Bush’s State of the Union address itself. Bush did not merely cite Saddam’s potential for developing or acquiring weapons of mass destruction: Bush claimed, repeatedly, that Saddam already had them. To prove this, let me excerpt relevant passages from Bush’s address: Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country. * Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world. * It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened. * The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. * Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack. * And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. * The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's – Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups. We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. Whatever Saul Singer or other proponents of American military intervention may think of the decision, President Bush unequivocally based his case for war on Saddam’s alleged possession (and yes, further development of) weapons of mass destruction.** You can’t demand that someone disarm to avert war, if the tyrant in question has no weapons on him. Since the Bush defenders are fond of using word counts – Clifford May had originally asked, "Why would even the most dyspeptic Bush-basher see in those 16 accurate words of President’s Bush’s 5,492-word SOTU an opportunity to persuade Americans that there’s a scandal in the White House?" – I went through the State of the Union and tried to tally up some numbers. (These may not be perfect, since there are "(APPLAUSE)"s inserted in the transcript.) Starting from, "Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect…" and ending with, "If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm…we will lead a coalition to disarm him," President Bush devotes 1,195 words to discussing the proposed invasion of Iraq. By my count, in the quotations above I’ve placed in bold 142 words from this section, in which Bush is clearly claiming that Saddam currently possessed WMD. Therefore, if it turns out that Iraq really had no WMD, then that means almost 12% of his SOTU case against Iraq was fraudulent; does this qualify as grounds for impeachment, or does a president need to lie 15% of the time? lewrockwell.com