FINALLY! Our whorish mainstream media reports on the memo

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Rex, May 6, 2005.

  1. Rex

    Rex Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,971
    Likes Received:
    521
    that should be grounds for immediate impeachment proceedings against George Bush.

    The London Times featured this story almost a week ago, and it was a big factor in this week's elections there.

    Liberal media in this country, my ass.

    A gay prostitute made 200 trips to the White House in 2 years. If this were Clinton you'd hear about it 24/7 on TV and see it every day in newspapers.

    Now this memo which shows that Bush had made up his mind long before the war to invade no matter what, and to fit the intelligence around that decision, just as Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill and others have stated, while he was spouting off in the news that he had no plans to invade.

    Now the memo seals the deal. But where was American media? Republican whores are what they are.

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto.../ts_krwashbureau/_bc_usiraq_intelligence_wa_1
     
  2. tirk

    tirk im the lyrical jessie james

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    46,241
    Likes Received:
    20,147
    you're such a dork.
     
  3. Mystikalilusion

    Mystikalilusion Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1
    America doesn't care.

    This was proven last year when America knew all this and voted for the man and his cabinet and Congress and his Supreme Court (when it's all said and done).

    We've too concerned about Brittney and Cletus's potential moron child and putting an end to sexy cheerleading.

    Hell, Blair just won his election and while he lost clout in their legislative body, so i guess the UK doesn't care either come to think of it.
     
  4. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    you can literally "have plans" in the sense that you have literal plans or blueprints for a house without building it.

    i have a plan for if i ever get in a fight. it is quite specific as to techniques i will use and such. so i literally "have plans". but that doesnt mean i intend to fight unlesss it becomes necessary.

    if you ask me, "do you have plans for a fight", the answer is yes in a literal sense. but no i do not actually have a date on my calendar when i will fight. plans do not necessarily mean actual intent to enact the plan. i bet my building has plans for efficient fire exit, but that doesnt mean they are going to burn the place down.

    besides, you cant tell a person what his intent is, you just cant do it. only they know. for all we know, bush never wanted to attack iraq, but as a leader it is his responsibility to make sure we have a plan in case we needed to.
     
  5. Rex

    Rex Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,971
    Likes Received:
    521
    Read the article.
     
  6. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    i did. read my post.

    people plan for things they dont necessarily want to do.

    i have a plan for a fight. if a dude punched me in the face i would want to put my plan into action, even though i really dont want to fight at all. get it? fighting is stupid, i dont want to do it. nevertheless i would want to and would fight if felt like i had to.

    read my post again if you need to.
     
  7. Rex

    Rex Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,971
    Likes Received:
    521
    Impeachment is a trial. This memo by a reputable foreign dignitary should be used as evidence, along with the testimonies of reputable American dignitaries like Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill.

    Is Iraq better off now? Certainly not for the 30,000+ who have died. Their economy is in tatters, their utilities disrupted, a whole city (Fallujah) almost wiped out.

    Will Iraq be better off in the long run? That's an open question. Probably yes... But that doesn't excuse George Bush's lies.
     
  8. Rex

    Rex Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,971
    Likes Received:
    521
    The article specifically states that "Bush WANTED to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD" and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

    In the meantime, on the news his agents were telling us he had NO PLANS for war. And in May, 2002, Bush himself declared quite publicly while in Europe that there were no plans on his desk for an invasion.

    And now, I'm sure, you're going to tell us how that's OK because the plans were actually inside a desk drawer.
     
  9. tirk

    tirk im the lyrical jessie james

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    46,241
    Likes Received:
    20,147

    I disagree. I think they're better off.
     
  10. Contained Chaos

    Contained Chaos Don't we all?

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    9,467
    Likes Received:
    2,127
    oh ok, so then the backers don't find it odd in the least bit that our 'intelligence' was thoroughly and unequivocally dead wrong...wrong like they have never even come close to being prior? it's doesn't seem fishy that damn near every single item they reported turned up to have absolutely zero validity? must be nice not to care...
     

Share This Page