"What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" --John Conyers on the Obama heathcare bill
Where's your concerns about all this fairness now? You have got to be THE biggest lying dumb ass in the worst sense possible. You're like listening to all three perverts rolled into one. The RETARD Barney the Pedophile Frank, the pervert Nancy Pelosi, and the criminal pervert Barry Soetoro, with your own special retarded version of Daffy Duck's speech sghghghlhur added in for comical purposes I'm sure. Why don't you go join your diaper wearing crap eating friends at some ABDL site of Pelosi's.
Wow. Sounds like someone forgot to take their meds today. Thanks for the critique and the suggestion. Now here's one for you: If you really want to tear someone to shreds, it's usually a good idea to spend at least a few minutes gathering some information (like perhaps reading my channel info, which reveals that I am not a Democrat) before you go off on some clueless, juvenile, belligerent rant. But hey, maybe you were just looking to get a laugh. In that case, misson accomplished. Good job!
congressman conyers thought he was big and bad trying to have carl rove arrested for not testifying before congress.
FOXNEWS found out that congressman conyers wife (monica conyers) was investigated by the FBI, convicted for taking bribes and is now serving 5 years in prison.
FOXNEWS busted cngressman conyers up on there cable network for trying to have carl rove arrested! lmfao! congressman conyers got his shit pushed in hard!!!!!!!
I could not agree more. To think that I supported Bush for his first term now makes me believe that America is so psychoanalyzed that we are their people-pets powerless to stop any Hitleristic leader.
Thanks for the feedback. Hope you'll share the vid with your friends. People need to understand that even now, there is PLENTY of time to impeach these criminals and remove them from office. There's no argument about the administration ignoring subpoenas. They could be impeached for that alone. Bush has also publicly admitted to his illegal wiretapping of innocent Americans, and signing off on torture. No investigation necessary. They can just put the evidence into the record and have a vote.
Why were the Democrats elected to Congress in the midterm, and why is their approval rating even lower than Bush's?
The Dems were elected to get us out of Iraq.
They have so far failed to do so.
The Dems were elected to hold the Bush Administration accountable.
They have so far failed to do so.
Impeaching Bush, if they made any good case at all (and they could) would actually IMPROVE their rating. The American people would feel that AT LAST they are doing what we elected them to do.
Nader for President ..read his issues ..he is just like KUCINICH ! Nader is America's LAST and FINAL HOPE ! Obama and Clinton are LOOSERS and the Biggest Liars I ever heard before ...study them and you will see
Turn your outrage into actions go to these sites: houseDOTgov SenateDOTgov Tell Conyers and your representative IMPEACH! ALL the judiciary must hear from all of us: judiciaryDOThouseDOTgov Send a FREE fax at faxzeroDOTcom to them and email and call them Contact media at: fairDOTorg check out afterdowningstreetDOTorg Watch the vid on here called "the prosecution of george bush for murder" and show it to people plus go here: freewaybloggerDOTcom and do what you see SPEAK UP OR BE COMPLICIT !
Isn't it amazing we have all these lawyers in the white house and they cannot find a way to Impeach him. Kinda tells you that they are just throwing a bone to use and they are not for the common people at all.
Accept the very few that are. Ron Paul, Kucinich, Gravel, Tancredo in my opinion.
wow! thanks for posting this! it was truly embrassing how congress acted. unfortunately,most democrats are getting kick back or to scared to do the right thing!!!
YES. What the hell does WAR have to do with that? Afghanistan and Iraq didn't attack us.
You go after terrorists the same way you go after terrorists in this country. The FBI didn't start dropping bombs on upstate New York (or any state) because of Timothy McVeigh's terrorism. Bush used 9/11 as a pretext for wars. BUSH DIDN'T EVEN GET BIN LADEN WITH ALL THE WAR SHIT ANYWAY.
How did they get Khalid Sheikh Mohamed? NOT WITH WAR! With police work.
Representative press, I just want to ask you your opinion about the Obama plan to invade Pakistan? What do you think of that? Does Bama want to invade any other "stans? Also, when the hell do we get to bitch slap Saudi Arabia, and its little emirates? We haven't written each other in a while, and I thought you would enjoy this.
You talk about timing of this email to Conyers. Well, I'd been writing a letter to the President for the past month or so. I finally dashed it off on the day that Kucinich stood up and read the articles. Maybe it is some form of cosmic alignment? IDK, just an idea. My letter to the pres was like the little pictures that you see of a mouse shooting the bird at the eagle as it is getting scooped into its talons. I have no power, but I'll be damned if I will go down without letting him know..
some of these high officials are involved in dark things friends. We're talking sexual abuse of men and women. There are people who come forth, but few know. They have sold their souls to the satanic people who run the world bank.
How about we follow Oklahoma and declare each of our own state as sovereign and independent from Federal Govt. Dennis kucinich, ron paul, mike gravel are true leaders of people who cherish freedom. God bless them.
71,repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit. 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges. 8 have been arrested for shoplifting. 21 currently are defendants in lawsuits, and 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year.
Can you guess which organization this is?
It's the 435 members of the United States Congress
36 have been accused of spousal abuse. 7 have been arrested for fraud. 19 have been accused of writing bad check. 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses. 3 have done time for assault.
Called in, secretary answered and took the note... so she said. I highly suggest everyone doing it, ring that phone none stop and email too, he needs to be GONE BEFORE HE BOMBS IRAN AND CANCELS ELECTION
Are you off your meds or something? Originally, you appeared at least somewhat coherent. I don't think America is evil. Great job shoving words in my mouth, genius. I actually love my country enough to be real about the problems we face and the work we need to do to get back on the right track for ourselves and in the eyes of the rest of the world. All you want to do is play politics and attack the messengers of the ugly Bushco reality, because you can't handle it. Sucks to be you, I guess.
Sorry about the headache. Reality usually does that to hopeless Bushies, because they spend so much time being led around like sheep by the likes of Fox News, Rush, Hannity and all the other right wing propaganda shills. There is NO chance of stability in Iraq as long as we stay. We are the magnet for the violence, the vast majority of which (as our own Pentagon has admitted) comes from Iraqi citizens who see themselves as defending their country against an illegal occupation.
See Jp? Its not just me that thinks this way. Solomon too, and you know he is a wise fellow. The people are angry right now. It is time to focus on priorities.
Democrats are avoiding John Conyers efforts to bring REPARATIONS to the table for black Americans whose ancestors were once former slaves!
But, at the same time, I am NOT for impeaching BUSH. Bush has succeeded in protecting America. The war in Iraq is credible, proof 4 Al Qaeda & WMDs, even tho its origins had its beginning s during the Clinton Administration.
Torture? Democrats R in favor of waterboarding! This has proven successful on terrorists like Sheikh Khalid Muhammed.
Reparations! Haha! All that would do is make Cadillac the #1 selling car in America! It wouldn't help anyone. Especially if we were to deduct all the things tax-paying Americans have done to benefit blacks: pell grants, welfare, food stamps, affirmative action, and medicaid to name a few. That's not even counting how much money it's cost us to keep blacks in PRISON, or the amount of money required to clean up all the graffiti.
The war in Iraq is credible? Are you familiar with the Downing Street Memo? The Manning Memo? The 935 lies? Or the senate intel report that just came out, which documents the pre-invasion Bushco fraud?
Please send us a postcard from whatever planet you're on. Because you're sure as hell not on this one.
jperryam said,"which documents the pre-invasion Bushco fraud?"
Never heard of them. Propaganda No doubt. Bush wasnT in office when we were attckd in 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000 & 2 embassies in Africa. Bill sent 2 missiles. Saddam violatd 19 U.N. resolutions, violatd 1991 Gulf War Truce, kckd out weapons inspctrs. Gore/Clntn sent "Iraqi Liberation Act" bill 2 congress 1998. 9/11 happnd. Bush went after Al Qaeda. Congress passd bill 2002 by majority giving Bush authrty to remove Saddam.
Give it up. The Iraq invasion is based entirely on lies and everybody knows it. The evidence is all there for anyone who wants to take an honest look. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we went in. Congress gave Bush no such authority. They cannot legally transfer their war making power to the president with a simple majority vote. It would require a Constitutional Amendment, which I'm pretty sure didn't happen.
jperryam said,"Congress gave Bush no such authority"
Authorization of use of force bill passed by majority of both parties in both houses is the legal basis for the Presidents war. Yet, these Democrats are betraying their own words, actions and our troops by their slanders. The bill has 23 "whereas" clauses justifying the war. Two of these clauses refer to WMDs and 12 refer to U.N. Resolutions Violations.
March 17th, 2 days before the invasion, Bush issued an 11th hour ultimatum to Saddam
jefeisdguard, the resolution was conditional. It didn't say, go start a war. It said enforcing UN resolutions, there was no resolution to attack Iraq. Inspectors were in Iraq in spite of what Bush claims. Violating the UN resolutions and the UN Charter is not "enforcing it." President Bush did NOT "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." HE VIOLATED THEM by the simply fact that none of them authorized war! Inspectors were in Iraq Bush, LIES ABOUT IT!
representativepress said,"Inspectors were in Iraq in spite of what Bush claims."
BUSH had NOTHING to do with the inspectors. I remember, During the Clinton Administration, how the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq! Bill, the spineless one, didn't force the issue! I remember all this. The lead inspector did NOT get the support he needed from BILL. So, in a sense he said,"f--k it!" America wasn't there to back him up, so why go on?
"I remember, During the Clinton Administration, how the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq!"
The media is at fault for this because they lied to you, that is why you remember something that is false. And what happened was the US undermined the integrity of the inspections by putting spies in and using it to spy (not looking for weapons)
Saddam's offer to allow the UN inspectors to return to Iraq coincided with Bush's appearance at the UN in September 2002.
As a result of Bush's appeal, the UN Security Council voted unanimously to present Saddam with an ultimatum, and a 30-day deadline to expire on December 7, 2002. By that date he was to honor the truce and destroy his illegal weapons programs or "serious consequences would follow." The ultimatum was UN Resolution 1441
jefeisdguard, you do know that 1441 does not authorize the US or any other member state to attack Iraq don't you? the media has misled you into thinking Bush's war was legitimate.
1441 was intentionally written with any reference to "all necessary means" removed and replaced it with a much softer line that Iraq will "face serious consequences" after the Security Council has met to "consider the situation". It was clear to those writing the 1441 Resolution that it does not authorize war.
You are arguing something which 1441 was specifically written not to include. And the Bush Administration knew it, that is why they talked about going back for another resolution.
At the time when Resolution 1441 was being written,
Colin Powell explained the process:
"I can assure you if he doesn't comply this time, we are going to ask the U.N. to give authorization for all necessary means"
What Powell assured us of the Bush Administration didn't do.
seneca67, I explained in detail. Member states cannot just decide to "enforce" a resolution AND the point is he VIOLATED the resolution. Saddam DID let the inspectors in REGARDLESS of the multiple times Bush lies about it. (don't you feel disgusted that Bush lies about the very reason he attacked? Come on, what the hell does it take? Why do you keep making excuses for this guy?) AND HE DOES LIE: see video"A Warmongering War President Catapulting the Propaganda"to see him give an excuse for lying
Bush was sincere, regarding his concerns about Iraq. So were both parties who agreed with him. So were the 15 nations that ratified 1441. Bush characterized Saddam as an imminent threat based on Saddam's behavior which we all witnessed. See article 51 of the UN charter for authorization to defend from imminent threat. I understand you disagree with the judgment, but it was a judgment both parties agreed with at the time.
seneca67, what Congress voted on was not a "start the war now" resolution, it was authorization to start the war CONDITIONAL on specific things. It did not say, "forget the UN Charter treaty obligations." And I explained 1441 was written so as to NOT include "all necessary means" (the diplomatic language for using force). Those writing 1441 intentionally removed "all necessary means" and replaced it with "face serious consequences." The media didn't explain the significance of that to you?
1441 found saddam in material breach of disarmament. Saddam did not cooperate with unscum inspectors, he routinely shot at coalition aircraft, and openly bragged about how close he was to having nuclear warheads. Given his recent history of launching missiles, and gassing villages, and invading Kuwait, article 51 was invoked.
No, you read it like it was a reaction to 9-11. Iraq, and 9-11 were not related, and not presented as such. And the fact that they were having meetings about Iraq months prior should not be a surprise since Saddam was a serious issue going back through two administrations. Clinton also had meetings about Iraq. So did Bush Sr. Please understand, sometimes more than one thing happens at any given time.
"Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." - Bush
UN Resolution 1441 -- the seventeenth attempt to enforce a truce in the Gulf War of 1991. The deadline came and went without Saddam's compliance. Saddam knew that his military suppliers and political allies -- Russia and France -- would never authorize its enforcement by arms. This is the reason the United States and Britain went to war without UN approval, not because George Bush preferred unilateral measures,
"The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime." - Bush
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September." - Powell
"[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged." - Condoleezza Rice
seneca67, I did not say that "The entire world media Lied," I didn't even say the entire US media lied. But most of the MSM played along with the lies. You do know it has been reported by some outlets, many foreign outlets and some rare exceptions in the US or small news outlets. Where did you get the idea that all the media outlets around the world agree with the falsehoods you believe? You think I am making the Powell quite up? You can't believe that the government is not on the level?
You do know that inspectors wre in Iraq in 2003 YET Bush has said at least three times that Saddam didn't let the inspectors in.
And in 1998: "The inspectors, led by Richard Butler, actually left voluntarily, knowing that a U.S. bombing campaign was imminent. This was reported accurately throughout the U.S. press at the time: "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night" -FAIR
representativepress said,"actually left voluntarily"
The only reason Saddam allowed the UN inspectors to return to Iraq in the fall of 2002 was because Bush placed 200,000 U.S. troops on its border. It would have been irresponsible of Bush to put those troops on the border of a country which was violating international law unless he meant to enforce the law.
In 1998, Saddam expelled the UN inspectors from Iraq. Intentions of mischief? WMDs?
jefeisdguard, in 1998 Saddam did NOT expel the inspectors, this is what I am trying to tell you, the MSM has made a fool our of you. AT THE TIME, in 1998, the media actually reported it correctly but in the build up to the Iraq War, the media lied to the public. GOOGLE: "What a Difference Four Years Makes
Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now"
jefeisdguard, please look at the web page by FAIR, you have been duped. THIS IS WHAT MSM DOES.
representativepress said,"1998 Saddam did NOT expel the inspectors"
From F.A.I.R.;
"To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago."
-John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02
"As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago."
jefeisdguard, yes, those are the false statements leading up to the Iraq war, you see that Fair compared them to what those same media outlets reported at the time, in 1998: "The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them."
- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98
"the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning"-Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98
Notice the dates of your info to mine. Did this purposely to show you that...four years after the fact, up-dated info is a little bit more credible. Especially after much investigation.
jefeisdguard, what does the UN say is why the inspectors left in 1998? I think you know the answer already. You must break through the "cognizant dissonance" and work to help fellow Americans defeat the domestic enemies who lie to us and tick us into these wars. And what does the UN say? "16 Dec 1998 The Special Commission withdraws its staff from Iraq."
jefeisdguard, you could be on the edge of having an epiphany if you think about what FAIR is saying on that page. Comparing the quotes, you see that the media when reporting when the Iraq war was being sold to the American people, HELPED SELL IT by reporting falsehoods. This is just one example. But you seem stubborn about seeing it.
jefeisdguard, AT THE TIME, in 1998, the media reported it correctly. In 2002, when the media was working overtime to sell the war to the American public, they reported it falsely.
I believe this is called "cognizant dissonance" on your part.
We are not in a movie, this isn't 1984, this is called "playing the game" and this is how MSM works.
Unscom was forced out of Iraq in 1992, when mobs attacked the weapons inspectrs. They did return, but were denied access 2 various buildings & in 1997 Iraq expelled all US inspectrs. A compromise negotiated, the inspectors returned & were again barred from certain sites.
President Bill Clinton, warned he would carry out a military attack on Iraq. Iraq was holding information back from the UN & allegations backed by Unscom scientists that it had weaponised VX nerve gas.
jefeisdguard, why the attempt at obfuscation? In both cases, all those media quotes were talking about 1998.
Clinton committed a war crime by bombing Iraq. GOOGLE "Iraq And Arms Inspectors: The big Lie" CIA spies operating with arms inspectors had used information gathered to target Iraq during Desert Fox. The role of the CIA in corrupting the arms inspection regime was one of the main reasons for Ritter's resignation in 1998.
representativepress said,"attempt at obfuscation?"
No confusion here... at least on my part. You, if not confused are attempting to speak for the media with your opinions. I see what I see & am aware of our disagreements. Just do NOT appreciate your willing me to see it your way by overstepping your authority by becoming a media spokesperson. In your narcissistic mind, you are THE AUTHORITY, THEREFORE correct.
"The basic conclusions are clear: Iraq cooperated in the "fundamental disarmament" of 90-95% of its weapons of mass destruction. The United States nevertheless manufactured a conflict for cynical reasons in December 1998. Inspectors were then not kicked out, as claimed, but were withdrawn by Butler to protect them from bombing. The Iraqis subsequently refused to allow arms inspectors - accurately described by them as "spies" who had participated in the bombing of their country - to return."
How do you ascertain truth and falsehood? It appears to me that you have to claim a lot of world reported commonly accepted facts as falsehood to support your agenda. If you can not produce factual support for your assertions, then by what means do you maintain your views?
seneca67, on what basis do you claim "a lot of world reports" are what you think the are?
I do research I look at what has been reported, what is not being reported. And I have confronted journalists about what they are up to. I asked NJ Burket why he doesn't report that the settlements in the occupied territories are illegal. He played it off as "everyone knows" (so that's his excuse for not reporting it, helps him keep his job too) YET the rest of the world reports the illegal status.
jperryam said,"The Iraq invasion is based entirely on lies and everybody knows it." In short, the Clinton/Gore response was limp-wristed & supine. But what is worse is that Al Gore refused to concede a lost Presidential Election, thereby breaking a hundred year tradition. Gore delayed the transition by two months. Bush had a comprehensive Anti-terror Plan (Clinton/Gore had none) ordered on taking office & did not arrive on his desk until the day before 9/11.
jefeisdguard, that is not what happened. the Clinton plan was created and presented to the Bush Administration. Bush rejected it and instead on creating hsi own (or running out the clock, however you want to look at it) and it took many months before it was ready. But Clinton did hell of a lot wrong, he should have insisted on abiding by international law, we would not have even been attacked if he had.
More ridiculous partisan tit for tat. Jeezus, will any of you fools ever get it? These people have committed major violations of U.S. and international law. You will never change this reality no matter how long you spew the "Clinton was just as bad" crap. Any complicit members of government, regardless of party affiliation, should be held equally responsible. Accountability is not a partisan issue. It's a constitutional one. For as long as you ignore this fact, you will be part of the problem.
no disrespect for this BUT Dennis Kucinich even voted against his own impeachment legislation and it was tabled, Ms. Conyer doesn't give a flying crap and will never move to impeach so a movement toremove congress with a clean slate wipe
Kucinich voted to send it to the Judiciary, where the impeachment process starts. If they do not act on it within 30 days, he will introduce more articles (25 more, from what I understand). He's one of the few in Congress who actually cares about honoring the oath to support and defend the Constitution, which has been so callously shredded by the Bush administration. For most in DC it's all just ignorant, shuck and jive politics, and trying to one-up the opposition with worthless rhetoric.
Haha! You are so pathetic. 2min about how OFFENDED you were that people don't give a shit about Kuchinich's radical crap. Priceless! Kudos for using Code Pink as a credible group! hahaha! Nobody likes leftists except stupid 18-yo kids that won't vote anyway, so I don't even care to waste my time on your white trash, anti-American, homosexual, baby-killing bullshit. I hope you catch on fire and die.
Hey, I'm not fan of neo-cons. I'm a die-hard conservative because conservatism is what works. Neo-conservatism is a sick perversion of the conservatives... kind of how nazism is of liberalism.
Look, this video is a joke. You know it, and I know it. I honestly can't believe that a white adult male is saying such cliché stuff. That's why I'm laughing at you.
Honestly, the whole thing is just boring to me. There have been people like you since the beginning of time, and, well, you're boring
This video is no joke, I assure you. You're laughing at me and calling it a joke because that's what people do when they cannot comprehend what it means to actually honor the oath to support and defend the Constitution. And they can't fathom that there are actually citizens and public servants who take their responsibilities seriously.
But you, just like so many others, just can't get past the ignorant politics and juvenile put downs. Jeezus, talk about cliché stuff.
Neo-ons are simply a young generation of people who recognize the value of conservative principles. If JFK were alive today, he would be a Neocon. (or at the very least a blue dog Democrat)
Not really. A neo-con is a liberal that has embraced parts of conservatism while still maintaining their liberal agenda. Bill Kristol is a great example. He's a jewish guy that disliked the democrat's policy of cut and run, so he went republican. The problem is that he arbitrarily picks and chooses which parts of conservatism and liberalism he'll support, and that's bad news for both sides.
I didn't know that about Billy Kristal. Interesting. Well i am not sure about what the excepted definition is for neocon. It seems everyone is using the term to label who ever they do not like. I was a conservative Democrat back in teh day, so mayby i am a neocon, i am not sure.
Conservative democrats are not necessarily neo-cons. The neo-con phenomenon is based closely on the rantings of Leon Trotsky and those types. Conservatism is being hijacked by neo-cons in the same way leftists are hijacking liberalism. True liberals can't stand morons like Obama and Kucinich, and true Conservatives can't stand idiots like McCain. The best bet is to vote for the candidate that best represents your values, and not necessarily the party's.
Are you kidding? Trotsky? I think it is very safe to say that we have no set definition for neo-con at all. Are you thinking of neo com? maybe neo socialists? Whatever.
I am a guy who feels labor has value, and taxes should be minimal. For some reason, I have to choose between a party that wants minimal taxes, or a party that pretends to give a damn about labor. I guess the minimal tax party still wins,,,,lol Mainly because the pretenders have acquired a nasty habit of hating their own country. That is a big no no in my political play book.
If you spend 2-min researching neo-conservatism on the web you'll see that it is most definitely linked to Trotsky. There's a really good video by one of the Kennedy's that outline just what a neo-con is. Now, if we could dispose of the neo-cons and the leftists, our nation would be even better than it already is. I know liberals don't want the US to succeed, but liberalism is dying.
Crack, I have just checked, and found deeply passionate feelings of hate expressed towards neo-cons by a wide diversity of groups each with their own definitions. The Trotsky, thing to me is a complete stretch. The best def I could find was "people who were mugged by reality". In other words: delusional liberals who finally saw the light. That is good enough for me, and if the antecedents turn out to be Trotski et al, fine. Clearly though, neo-cons are conservative.
Comparing neo-cons to conservatives is akin to comparing liberals with communists or marxists. Yes, there are some similarities, but they are not one in the same. Neo-conservatism is a perversion of conservatism, and is not accepted by the base. Nobody seems to like these people, so why are there so many of them? Blah. Check out Ron Paul's speech on youtube where he names all the neo-cons that are destroying the country.
Ron Paul is an idiot. I am sorry. After listening to his interviews I had to conclude that he can not think logically or determine cause and effect from a sequence of events. Actually, he is not able to recall a simple sequence of events.
That's got nothing to do with the speech where he pointed out butthole neo-cons. I agree that Ron Paul has some issues, but whatever. Not like he's got a shot at the presidency. Alan Keyes, now that's a conservative leader. Him and Pat Buchanan.
crack6662, politicians are supposed to uphold the Constitution. Do you not know that? You should like you don't understand our form of government. And from the rest of your comment, that isn't your only problem.
Do you even know HOW we go to war??? Do you think the POTUS arbitrarily chooses where and when he wants a war, and it happens?!?! Both democrats and republicans have to VOTE for it. The dems voted right along side of republicans on this one. Trying to pin the war in iraq on any one person is laughable and bears so merit.
Take a class on Government some time... maybe when you drop out of middle school and get your GED. lol! LOSERS!
Hey Perry, now come on seriously, is this really how you want the Democrat party toss its scant remaining credibility out the window? Why not just have another sex scandal? Those are entertaining.
Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency.
Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change.
Reality check from the Washington Post of all sources, wow!
"Kucinich is decidedly in the minority in the House on this issue. Though all Democrats voted this week to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee, very few members actually want hearings (it's likely there won't be any) and only three have signed on as cosponsors. "
No, he stated his case before the UN, and Congress. Nothing secret, you just weren't paying attention at the time. BTW, where was your concern during the many deployments during the Clinton years? Where you happy with US and UK imposing no fly zones in Iraq? How long that should have been maintained?
the output of the campaign was not a secret of course! The organization of the people who pushed the propaganda was the secret. No the no-fly zones were unlawful, the US and UK and a third country I believe at first, had no right to impose them. The US media deceived the public into thinking the UN authorized them. Think about that. What you think you know is very off because mainstream media has not told you the truth.
Secret, and deceptive, you believe what you what, but when press conferences and public statements are reviewed you will find that accusation in the circular file(trash can). OK, Representative press. So you take issue with the No fly zones as well. It is a decade+ later. Why no outrage then? How would you articulate such dissent?
"Stop the no fly zones, Let Saddam gas his people "? How about: "stop no fly zones in Iraq so we can have suicidal rules of engagement".
Conyers is playing warped political games with billions of innocent lives at stake to deliberately run out his clock. Unforgivably disgusting. I would not waste energy on that schmuck anymore but I am doing everything in my power to inform the global community about what we're dealing with here.
Lieberman is in your District? How in the world did that happen and what must we do to correct it?
Are you actually saying America does not want us out of Iraq? Are you suggesting that we LIKE the idea of wasting 12 billion per month over there, driving our country at light speed toward bankruptcy and getting our soldiers and innocent civilians needlessly killed in the process? And Code Pink is guilty of treason? For what? Trying to establish accountabilty? You Bushco water carriers are amazing. Do you NOT realize you're kissing the ass of the least popular president the U.S. has ever seen?
I am saying that you are in fantasy land if you think a minority of people in congress have the right to expect that bill to pass. Additionally, both parties, and 15 nations agreed that Saddam was a threat. Where were you when he launched Scud Missiles into Saudi, Jordan, and Israel? Were you asleep when he gassed whole villages? Can you recall his bragging about a nuclear program? Perhaps we should have allowed him to take Saudi, and Kuwait.
Whose ass? Grover Cleveland? Polk? Btw, Perry, i have my own complaints about Bush, and they are on my profile. I am a pro labor old school conservative ex-democrat. Guess why I can not bring myself to vote for the party of fringe lunatics?
Fair enough, seneca. I have just read your profile. If you will do the same for me, you'll realize that we are far more alike than not so. I see Washington as being full of "fringe lunatics," with the only real difference between the two major parties being perhaps the colors they choose to associate themselves with. I love a good argument, but if we're ever going to bring the wholesale political change this country desperately needs, I think we have to seek and expand on the common ground.
seneca67, the US supported him, aided and abetted him when he gassed people. Some of the very same politicians from the 80's joined Bush in his crimes today. Do you realize how crazy this is? Bush doesn't even know why he attacked Iraq! He said at least 3 times that Saddam didn't let the inspectors in! FALSE. And the attack was a violation of law which the US is obligated to uphold according to our own Constitution. You think we should be as pirates and thugs? And Saddam was NOT a threat.
The US was a partner in gassing villages? Do you have any evidence to support that? Regarding threat,: He invaded Kuwait, launched missiles at neighboring countries and committed genocide. Topping it off he spoke publically of his nuclear program. He interfered with the inspectors, kicked them out, and denied them return to verify his disarmament obligations. In spite of your unsupported assertions, you have at least acknowledged that he had chem Weapons. And yes, he did use them.
The US was a partner in war crimes with Saddam yet you have an unshakable belief that the US government is run my noble people!
If the US didn't want Saddam to go after Kuwait or part of Kuwait, the US should have made it clear. Why didn't they?
And what threat? Notice that the history shows Saddam to be very conservative - he let the mob boss (the US) know he intended to go after Kuwait. Notice he refrained from using chemical weapons during the Gulf War.
You repeat the "partner in war crimes" statement as though it were an accepted fact, yet for evidence you simply write that we failed to tell him not to invade? Must we provide of list of potential actions we deplore to every nation on earth? How about we just advise everyone to behave nicely? Will that suffice? There is no way that administration would have left him with the impression to go ahead and invade Kuwait.. You should know why.
The intelligence about his supposed troop flank against Saudi Arabia was another FRAUD (in the build up to the first Gulf War)! The media let you down again.
The intelligence report? Just one? We had ongoing surveillance, and daily updates, for months. We also have Saddam's own threats, and the fact that he lunched missiles into Saudi. Did you see what happened in the neutral zone? I would like iot believe you simply have a memory problem, but I think you really riding this false cause for partisan gain. Clearly the Democrats do not give a damn about integrity or accountability. We can see that just form the DNC primary process.
It must be a tough time to be a Democrat these days, with all the scandal over the primary process. I understand that Obama reflects the feelings of a lot of wingnuts out there who oppose the Iraq mission, but have they noticed obama's stated intentions for Pakistan? You morons want to trade a security detail for a nuclear war? Has" code pink" been consulted on this? I sure they're just delighted.
I agree. The dems are obviously going insane. They're letting a bunch of traitors and war criminals skate because they think it will somehow serve them in the upcoming election. Everything's all just politics for them, just like it is for all you hopeless righties. It's all just black/white, left/right, liberal/conservative. Accountability? Who needs it, right? How about justice? Too "old school," perhaps? And honoring the oath of office? Let me guess: "Waste of time," right?
The dems are insane, yes. They can not even manage a primary, but they think they can demonstrate competence in the executive branch? Oh my, that makes me giddy. NO, I think the grown ups will have to handle things for another 4 years. Accountability? Did you forget that Congress voted for the deployment? Hmm? A tip for Dems, stop worrying about your beloved terrorist friends and start worrying about labor. Remember labor? -The people you sold out during the Clinton years.
Jperryam, I am totally opposed to "code pink", "9-11 truthers", and people who defend those who commit violent jihad. What happened to the democrat party that cared about labor? Do you think this bill will help the Democrat party win switch voters in November, or will it just further polarize an already bitterly divided electorate? The priority issues should be: health care, gas, free trade, outsourcing, terrorism, immigration. Not global warming, not gay rights, not conspiracy theories.
This video is not about global warming, gay rights or conspiracy theories. It's about impeachment. Righties who look at it solely as a politcal issue and not one of accountability should remember that we could have a democratic president come January, with carte blanche to do whetever the hell he wants, because of the precedent set by the failure to hold Bushco accountable for their crimes. The partisan blindness (on both sides of the aisle) in this country is really stunning.
The 35 articles read like list of the most ridiculous baseless assertions that have come form the Left wing. You speak of accountability, yet within the articles we find Global warming, Katrina, Medicare, secret agendas? Since when has it become a matter of Federal law to hold political views? So GW doesn't agree with Kucinich. That is not a violation of law. You spoke of common ground, so I gave you my best centrist advice for the Democrats. Priorities!
Apparently you have not read my profile yet. I am not a democrat.
There is plenty to hold Bushco accountable for without touching the issues you mention.
What bigger priority is there than upholding the Constituiton that forms the basis of our system of government? If it's no big deal, why does every elected official swear an oath to support it?
Logically, can you find any hope at all of providing a case for breach of public trust based on the 35 articles listed? It is a list of opinions, speculations on intent, and objections to GW political views. Is Kucinich a mind reader? You know it is not illegal to disagree with things like Global Warming rhetoric don't you? What is GW's accountability for not buying into Al's "inconvenient errors in fact"?
It is not speculation that GWB ordered an illegal warrantless wiretapping program. Not only did he admit it publicly after the NYT (which had the story before the 2004 election but sat on it for over a year at the request of Bushco - some "liberal media" outfit they are) revealed it. He's on tape in April of 2004 claiming that warrants were necessary, even while chasing down terrorists, "because we value the Constitution." He should have been impeached on the spot for this offense alone.
What does illegal warrantless wiretapping have to do with saving American LIVES?
Of course we need these to protect our citizens PLUS we need waterboarding which, so far, has been very successful in getting the terrorists to divulge their terror cell operatives here & abroad!
Let me ask you something.
Would u rather have ur privacy or would u rather save your life?
Further, health issues, oil, gas prices R important, BUT NOT IF UR DEAD!
Your post reads like you took it directly from a Fox News teleprompter. Way to pile on with the hysterical fear mongering. Here's a newsflash: Nobody with a clue is buying that tired crap. It was Bush himself who claimed in 2004 that warrants were being used, even in the search for terrorists, "because we value the Constitution." He KNEW this was a lie, because he had aproved the warrantless program three years before. You're carrying the water for a man with ZERO credibility. Way to go.
Bushco's warrantless wiretapping is not about protecing peoples' lives. It's about the intimidation and control that are their neocon trademarks. This entire administration is a fraud from the word go. And yes, they have plenty of help from people masquerading as "opposition" democrats.
Ah, the old hypothetical scenario, designed to evoke an emotionally charged, "correct," neocon-friendly response. Great job!
Not so great job trying to make waterboarding sound nice, though. You can parse and twist the words all you want. It will still be torture. Japanese soldiers were prosecuted for doing it to Americans in WWII. In addition to the fact that any seasoned interrogator who is not bought and paid for will tell you it doesn't work, you don't fight terrorism with terrorism.
jperryam said,"you don't fight terrorism with terrorism."
So,uv just let ur child die & uv committed suicide by letting the terrorist have its way!
Combine that with your quote(!)...what do you think will happen next?
Our brave soldiers who have died for your freedom with their blood, will have died for naught. Your liberal complacent do-gooder political correctness attitudes is exactly what the terrorists want from us! Ur NOT the solution to our freedom here but one of its problems.
Wow, jefeisdguard, you show remarkable ignorance. You DON'T fight terrorism with terrorism. You fight the use of terrorism through education, utilization of intelligence assets, and infiltration, eventually leading to the destruction of those who would commit an act of violent terrorism.
The soldiers haven't died for nothing, they've died to raise the price of oil through instability in the Middle East.
Our country should be better than a torturing fascist dictatorship. Or would you disagree?
mexcurmudgeon said,"You DON'T fight terrorism with terrorism."
If that's what you would call ignorance remarkable, then thanks!
But it is a sad day for sure, when I see your comments & those of 'jperryam' indicate that our boys deaths have caused instability in the middle east & oil prices to go up. I was talking about our boys in the past, but these'll do.
Bush has done what you've stated since 9/11. Education, freezing foreign assets, infiltration & more! BUT, it also includes waterboarding
Give me a break with your whiny rhetoric. Our soldiers in Iraq are not dying for our freedom. They're dying for Halliburton, Exxon Mobil and Bushco's imperial fascist fantasies. Any of us would do anything and everything humanly possible to save our kids. The ONLY thing you're trying to do is justify torture, which is not just illegal no matter how you look at it, but also completely unreliable as a source of good information. Which, again, any legitimate, seasoned interrogator will tell you.
Halliburton? You kidding? Michael Moore has financial interests in Halliburton. So do most members of Congress!
No, you're giving an excuse for your & your childs deaths! You are also giving the terrorists American rights. Giving them our pensions, S.S. & retirements bennys.
You sir, definitely would NOT ever be in charge of people. You'd let ur own be killed to save a terrorist!
You're assuming I'm a fan of Michael Moore and most of the current Congress, neither of which is true. That's the biggest problem with you Bushco apologists. Your idiotic assumptions. You automatically think everyone who disagrees with you is a flaming anti-American liberal and every detainee is a terrorist. You also use HIGHLY improbable, emotionally charged, hypothetical scenarios with no point of reference to justify Bushco torture, and you ignore any reality that doesn't fit your rhetoric.
We sure did learn a lot ... about you didn't we? Hopefully you don't have kids because if they read this... they know they are ... well, no need to repeat. You said it all, haven't you?
jefeisdguard said: "You said it all, haven't you?"
Pretty much, including: "Any of us would do anything and everything humanly possible to save our kids."
But you either missed it or purposely ignored it, because it's not compatible with your emotional fear mongering propaganda schtick. I'm going with the latter. You have nothing to say about the fact that torture is a notoriously unreliable information source...
After U.S. and Pakistani authorities captured KSM in 2003, he stayed mum for months. Interrogators eventually waterboarded him — for just 90 seconds. KSM "didn't resist," one CIA veteran said in the Aug. 13 New Yorker. "He sang right away."
ht tp: //w ww. ventura county star. com /news /2007 /nov /05 /three- cheers- for- water boarding- al-qaida- leaders/
jefeisdguard, you dishonor America when you insist we reduce ourselves to Nazis. You have no respect for this country, we are supposed to be a nation of laws. The ugliness you gleefully endorse is illegal. After Nat Turner's terrorism, whites gleefully beheaded blacks and stuck the heads on spikes.
jefeisdguard, it's clear you don't even know what the motive for 9/11. Have you watched my videos? You should. They could open your eyes.
"What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" --John Conyers on the Obama heathcare bill
hookalakah 1 year ago
Why id Detroit such a big mess? ... because of people like John and Monica Conyers.
Listen to John Conyers talk, he must be brain dead.
New York is The Big Apple; Detroit is The Big Mess !!!
DONGOE 1 year ago
America fails which is true and will always be.
People are smart as rock. Lazy as fuck and being proud from their country
thinking they can rule world.
pkpkpk91 1 year ago
congressman conyers is as useless as his wife.......both thugs and grossly unqualified.
more of obama's buddies.
newyorkeastside 2 years ago
Where's your concerns about all this fairness now? You have got to be THE biggest lying dumb ass in the worst sense possible. You're like listening to all three perverts rolled into one. The RETARD Barney the Pedophile Frank, the pervert Nancy Pelosi, and the criminal pervert Barry Soetoro, with your own special retarded version of Daffy Duck's speech sghghghlhur added in for comical purposes I'm sure. Why don't you go join your diaper wearing crap eating friends at some ABDL site of Pelosi's.
lookingforamoraldem 2 years ago
Wow. Sounds like someone forgot to take their meds today. Thanks for the critique and the suggestion. Now here's one for you: If you really want to tear someone to shreds, it's usually a good idea to spend at least a few minutes gathering some information (like perhaps reading my channel info, which reveals that I am not a Democrat) before you go off on some clueless, juvenile, belligerent rant. But hey, maybe you were just looking to get a laugh. In that case, misson accomplished. Good job!
jperryam 2 years ago
congressman conyers thought he was big and bad trying to have carl rove arrested for not testifying before congress.
FOXNEWS found out that congressman conyers wife (monica conyers) was investigated by the FBI, convicted for taking bribes and is now serving 5 years in prison.
FOXNEWS busted cngressman conyers up on there cable network for trying to have carl rove arrested! lmfao! congressman conyers got his shit pushed in hard!!!!!!!
out with ghetto scum...obama on down!
newyorkeastside 2 years ago
this is attie pollard and in 2012 i am running for Congress if Conyers is there i well bet him
attie3 3 years ago
I could not agree more. To think that I supported Bush for his first term now makes me believe that America is so psychoanalyzed that we are their people-pets powerless to stop any Hitleristic leader.
slek84 3 years ago
wow...very good vid..i commend you sir...that is the best synopsis of what should happen...that i have heard...once again...good job...
jerseybing 3 years ago
Thanks for the feedback. Hope you'll share the vid with your friends. People need to understand that even now, there is PLENTY of time to impeach these criminals and remove them from office. There's no argument about the administration ignoring subpoenas. They could be impeached for that alone. Bush has also publicly admitted to his illegal wiretapping of innocent Americans, and signing off on torture. No investigation necessary. They can just put the evidence into the record and have a vote.
jperryam 3 years ago
Da hell with Obama....Bush is a nut case...
evette808 3 years ago
I say we the citizen don't vote for any of these losers..get em all out of Congress...
evette808 3 years ago
Why were the Democrats elected to Congress in the midterm, and why is their approval rating even lower than Bush's?
The Dems were elected to get us out of Iraq.
They have so far failed to do so.
The Dems were elected to hold the Bush Administration accountable.
They have so far failed to do so.
Impeaching Bush, if they made any good case at all (and they could) would actually IMPROVE their rating. The American people would feel that AT LAST they are doing what we elected them to do.
SailorBarsoom 3 years ago
"We the People of the United States" must now "Clean House" and get people that will represent us and represent the Constitution. NOW!
stevethul1 3 years ago 3
Thanks for this post, You are awesome!
christinagomez 3 years ago
John Conyers is one of 304,625,070 pieces of shit in the toilet bowl called the United States of America.
morrisgcat 3 years ago
there too busy stuffing hush money in their pockets....pathetic !
MzSiddiqui 3 years ago
Nader for President ..read his issues ..he is just like KUCINICH ! Nader is America's LAST and FINAL HOPE ! Obama and Clinton are LOOSERS and the Biggest Liars I ever heard before ...study them and you will see
nohealthcare62 3 years ago
*DO IT YESTERYEAR ALREADY!*
Steadno 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
cabivo 3 years ago
Isn't it amazing we have all these lawyers in the white house and they cannot find a way to Impeach him. Kinda tells you that they are just throwing a bone to use and they are not for the common people at all.
Accept the very few that are. Ron Paul, Kucinich, Gravel, Tancredo in my opinion.
countrybob2 3 years ago
wow! thanks for posting this! it was truly embrassing how congress acted. unfortunately,most democrats are getting kick back or to scared to do the right thing!!!
mysticman07 3 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
If we don't DEMAND Impeachment it's our fault.
go to
houseDOTgov
SenateDOTgov
Tell Conyers and the judiciary commitee to impeach NOW.
judiciaryDOThouseDOTgov
you can send a free fax at faxzeroDOTcom
check out Bugliosi's vid on here "the prosecution of george bush for murder" and tell people about it.
Contact Media and MAKE them report the truth: fairDOTorg
duhakub 3 years ago
"going after the perpetrators(Al Qaeda)"-jefei
YES. What the hell does WAR have to do with that? Afghanistan and Iraq didn't attack us.
You go after terrorists the same way you go after terrorists in this country. The FBI didn't start dropping bombs on upstate New York (or any state) because of Timothy McVeigh's terrorism. Bush used 9/11 as a pretext for wars. BUSH DIDN'T EVEN GET BIN LADEN WITH ALL THE WAR SHIT ANYWAY.
How did they get Khalid Sheikh Mohamed? NOT WITH WAR! With police work.
representativepress 3 years ago
Representative press, I just want to ask you your opinion about the Obama plan to invade Pakistan? What do you think of that? Does Bama want to invade any other "stans? Also, when the hell do we get to bitch slap Saudi Arabia, and its little emirates? We haven't written each other in a while, and I thought you would enjoy this.
seneca67 3 years ago
You are right, there is no respect by government towards the people. If they imperil your life...you need to respond
minstral2 3 years ago
Kucinich is an idiot every day of the week.
He never takes a day off.
Bush has done nothing to warrant impeachment.
SeekerNLife 3 years ago
WOW-I certainly wouldn't post my ignorance!
jpurry 3 years ago
Exactly what I was thinking myself. I'm also ashamed -- but for them. They all need to be slapped ...
polidic 3 years ago
You talk about timing of this email to Conyers. Well, I'd been writing a letter to the President for the past month or so. I finally dashed it off on the day that Kucinich stood up and read the articles. Maybe it is some form of cosmic alignment? IDK, just an idea. My letter to the pres was like the little pictures that you see of a mouse shooting the bird at the eagle as it is getting scooped into its talons. I have no power, but I'll be damned if I will go down without letting him know..
NinthWardNewOrleans 3 years ago
yes, the american people need to see the evidence. They deserve to know the hiddeous crimes committed. The new world order needs to be demolished.
angelbe88 3 years ago
some of these high officials are involved in dark things friends. We're talking sexual abuse of men and women. There are people who come forth, but few know. They have sold their souls to the satanic people who run the world bank.
angelbe88 3 years ago
How about we follow Oklahoma and declare each of our own state as sovereign and independent from Federal Govt. Dennis kucinich, ron paul, mike gravel are true leaders of people who cherish freedom. God bless them.
angelbe88 3 years ago
I love Kucinich!!!! Have you seen Gravel's latest Democracynow interview? I have it posted in my favorites. He supports Kucinich too.
Freedomlover911 3 years ago
71,repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit. 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges. 8 have been arrested for shoplifting. 21 currently are defendants in lawsuits, and 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year.
Can you guess which organization this is?
It's the 435 members of the United States Congress
Mairinohailche 3 years ago
36 have been accused of spousal abuse. 7 have been arrested for fraud. 19 have been accused of writing bad check. 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses. 3 have done time for assault.
Mairinohailche 3 years ago
Called in, secretary answered and took the note... so she said. I highly suggest everyone doing it, ring that phone none stop and email too, he needs to be GONE BEFORE HE BOMBS IRAN AND CANCELS ELECTION
jorsher123 3 years ago
kucinich is a kook.
MadShogun1981 3 years ago
Jerry, what exactly are your proud of about America for? Can you volunteer a thing or two?
seneca67 3 years ago
Are you off your meds or something? Originally, you appeared at least somewhat coherent. I don't think America is evil. Great job shoving words in my mouth, genius. I actually love my country enough to be real about the problems we face and the work we need to do to get back on the right track for ourselves and in the eyes of the rest of the world. All you want to do is play politics and attack the messengers of the ugly Bushco reality, because you can't handle it. Sucks to be you, I guess.
jperryam 3 years ago
Jerry, what exactly are your proud of about America for? Can you volunteer a thing or two?
seneca67 3 years ago
Sorry about the headache. Reality usually does that to hopeless Bushies, because they spend so much time being led around like sheep by the likes of Fox News, Rush, Hannity and all the other right wing propaganda shills. There is NO chance of stability in Iraq as long as we stay. We are the magnet for the violence, the vast majority of which (as our own Pentagon has admitted) comes from Iraqi citizens who see themselves as defending their country against an illegal occupation.
jperryam 3 years ago
See Jp? Its not just me that thinks this way. Solomon too, and you know he is a wise fellow. The people are angry right now. It is time to focus on priorities.
seneca67 3 years ago
Democrats are avoiding John Conyers efforts to bring REPARATIONS to the table for black Americans whose ancestors were once former slaves!
But, at the same time, I am NOT for impeaching BUSH. Bush has succeeded in protecting America. The war in Iraq is credible, proof 4 Al Qaeda & WMDs, even tho its origins had its beginning s during the Clinton Administration.
Torture? Democrats R in favor of waterboarding! This has proven successful on terrorists like Sheikh Khalid Muhammed.
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
Reparations! Haha! All that would do is make Cadillac the #1 selling car in America! It wouldn't help anyone. Especially if we were to deduct all the things tax-paying Americans have done to benefit blacks: pell grants, welfare, food stamps, affirmative action, and medicaid to name a few. That's not even counting how much money it's cost us to keep blacks in PRISON, or the amount of money required to clean up all the graffiti.
crack6662 3 years ago
The war in Iraq is credible? Are you familiar with the Downing Street Memo? The Manning Memo? The 935 lies? Or the senate intel report that just came out, which documents the pre-invasion Bushco fraud?
Please send us a postcard from whatever planet you're on. Because you're sure as hell not on this one.
jperryam 3 years ago
jperryam said,"which documents the pre-invasion Bushco fraud?"
Never heard of them. Propaganda No doubt. Bush wasnT in office when we were attckd in 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000 & 2 embassies in Africa. Bill sent 2 missiles. Saddam violatd 19 U.N. resolutions, violatd 1991 Gulf War Truce, kckd out weapons inspctrs. Gore/Clntn sent "Iraqi Liberation Act" bill 2 congress 1998. 9/11 happnd. Bush went after Al Qaeda. Congress passd bill 2002 by majority giving Bush authrty to remove Saddam.
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
Give it up. The Iraq invasion is based entirely on lies and everybody knows it. The evidence is all there for anyone who wants to take an honest look. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we went in. Congress gave Bush no such authority. They cannot legally transfer their war making power to the president with a simple majority vote. It would require a Constitutional Amendment, which I'm pretty sure didn't happen.
jperryam 3 years ago
jperryam said,"Congress gave Bush no such authority"
Authorization of use of force bill passed by majority of both parties in both houses is the legal basis for the Presidents war. Yet, these Democrats are betraying their own words, actions and our troops by their slanders. The bill has 23 "whereas" clauses justifying the war. Two of these clauses refer to WMDs and 12 refer to U.N. Resolutions Violations.
March 17th, 2 days before the invasion, Bush issued an 11th hour ultimatum to Saddam
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
jefeisdguard, the resolution was conditional. It didn't say, go start a war. It said enforcing UN resolutions, there was no resolution to attack Iraq. Inspectors were in Iraq in spite of what Bush claims. Violating the UN resolutions and the UN Charter is not "enforcing it." President Bush did NOT "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." HE VIOLATED THEM by the simply fact that none of them authorized war! Inspectors were in Iraq Bush, LIES ABOUT IT!
representativepress 3 years ago
representativepress said,"Inspectors were in Iraq in spite of what Bush claims."
BUSH had NOTHING to do with the inspectors. I remember, During the Clinton Administration, how the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq! Bill, the spineless one, didn't force the issue! I remember all this. The lead inspector did NOT get the support he needed from BILL. So, in a sense he said,"f--k it!" America wasn't there to back him up, so why go on?
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
"I remember, During the Clinton Administration, how the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq!"
The media is at fault for this because they lied to you, that is why you remember something that is false. And what happened was the US undermined the integrity of the inspections by putting spies in and using it to spy (not looking for weapons)
representativepress 3 years ago
representativepress said,"they lied to you,"
Saddam's offer to allow the UN inspectors to return to Iraq coincided with Bush's appearance at the UN in September 2002.
As a result of Bush's appeal, the UN Security Council voted unanimously to present Saddam with an ultimatum, and a 30-day deadline to expire on December 7, 2002. By that date he was to honor the truce and destroy his illegal weapons programs or "serious consequences would follow." The ultimatum was UN Resolution 1441
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
jefeisdguard, you do know that 1441 does not authorize the US or any other member state to attack Iraq don't you? the media has misled you into thinking Bush's war was legitimate.
1441 was intentionally written with any reference to "all necessary means" removed and replaced it with a much softer line that Iraq will "face serious consequences" after the Security Council has met to "consider the situation". It was clear to those writing the 1441 Resolution that it does not authorize war.
representativepress 3 years ago
You are arguing something which 1441 was specifically written not to include. And the Bush Administration knew it, that is why they talked about going back for another resolution.
At the time when Resolution 1441 was being written,
Colin Powell explained the process:
"I can assure you if he doesn't comply this time, we are going to ask the U.N. to give authorization for all necessary means"
What Powell assured us of the Bush Administration didn't do.
representativepress 3 years ago
1441 found saddam in material breach. Congress agreed wit Bush that a the threat of saddam to the region was not acceptable.
seneca67 3 years ago
seneca67, I explained in detail. Member states cannot just decide to "enforce" a resolution AND the point is he VIOLATED the resolution. Saddam DID let the inspectors in REGARDLESS of the multiple times Bush lies about it. (don't you feel disgusted that Bush lies about the very reason he attacked? Come on, what the hell does it take? Why do you keep making excuses for this guy?) AND HE DOES LIE: see video"A Warmongering War President Catapulting the Propaganda"to see him give an excuse for lying
representativepress 3 years ago
Bush was sincere, regarding his concerns about Iraq. So were both parties who agreed with him. So were the 15 nations that ratified 1441. Bush characterized Saddam as an imminent threat based on Saddam's behavior which we all witnessed. See article 51 of the UN charter for authorization to defend from imminent threat. I understand you disagree with the judgment, but it was a judgment both parties agreed with at the time.
seneca67 3 years ago
seneca67, what Congress voted on was not a "start the war now" resolution, it was authorization to start the war CONDITIONAL on specific things. It did not say, "forget the UN Charter treaty obligations." And I explained 1441 was written so as to NOT include "all necessary means" (the diplomatic language for using force). Those writing 1441 intentionally removed "all necessary means" and replaced it with "face serious consequences." The media didn't explain the significance of that to you?
representativepress 3 years ago
1441 found saddam in material breach of disarmament. Saddam did not cooperate with unscum inspectors, he routinely shot at coalition aircraft, and openly bragged about how close he was to having nuclear warheads. Given his recent history of launching missiles, and gassing villages, and invading Kuwait, article 51 was invoked.
seneca67 3 years ago
Just wondering, if you have to insert a nail into a piece of wood, do you apply minimal force to try to press it in? Or, do you hammer it?
seneca67 3 years ago
"Bush was sincere"
See my video "A Warmongering War President Catapulting the Propaganda" and you can see him giving an excuse for why he told a lie.
Bush played it like the Iraq War was a reaction to 9/11 yet his Administration was having meetings about attacking Iraq months before 9/11.
SI that fair to the American people? To con the public into thinking attacking Iraq is in any way responding to an unrelated attack by terrorists?
representativepress 3 years ago
No, you read it like it was a reaction to 9-11. Iraq, and 9-11 were not related, and not presented as such. And the fact that they were having meetings about Iraq months prior should not be a surprise since Saddam was a serious issue going back through two administrations. Clinton also had meetings about Iraq. So did Bush Sr. Please understand, sometimes more than one thing happens at any given time.
seneca67 3 years ago
"Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." - Bush
representativepress 3 years ago
representativepress,
UN Resolution 1441 -- the seventeenth attempt to enforce a truce in the Gulf War of 1991. The deadline came and went without Saddam's compliance. Saddam knew that his military suppliers and political allies -- Russia and France -- would never authorize its enforcement by arms. This is the reason the United States and Britain went to war without UN approval, not because George Bush preferred unilateral measures,
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
"The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime." - Bush
representativepress 3 years ago
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September." - Powell
"[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged." - Condoleezza Rice
representativepress 3 years ago
The entire world media Lied? C'mon representative press. be real.
seneca67 3 years ago
seneca67, I did not say that "The entire world media Lied," I didn't even say the entire US media lied. But most of the MSM played along with the lies. You do know it has been reported by some outlets, many foreign outlets and some rare exceptions in the US or small news outlets. Where did you get the idea that all the media outlets around the world agree with the falsehoods you believe? You think I am making the Powell quite up? You can't believe that the government is not on the level?
representativepress 3 years ago
You do know that inspectors wre in Iraq in 2003 YET Bush has said at least three times that Saddam didn't let the inspectors in.
And in 1998: "The inspectors, led by Richard Butler, actually left voluntarily, knowing that a U.S. bombing campaign was imminent. This was reported accurately throughout the U.S. press at the time: "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night" -FAIR
representativepress 3 years ago
representativepress said,"actually left voluntarily"
The only reason Saddam allowed the UN inspectors to return to Iraq in the fall of 2002 was because Bush placed 200,000 U.S. troops on its border. It would have been irresponsible of Bush to put those troops on the border of a country which was violating international law unless he meant to enforce the law.
In 1998, Saddam expelled the UN inspectors from Iraq. Intentions of mischief? WMDs?
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
jefeisdguard, in 1998 Saddam did NOT expel the inspectors, this is what I am trying to tell you, the MSM has made a fool our of you. AT THE TIME, in 1998, the media actually reported it correctly but in the build up to the Iraq War, the media lied to the public. GOOGLE: "What a Difference Four Years Makes
Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now"
jefeisdguard, please look at the web page by FAIR, you have been duped. THIS IS WHAT MSM DOES.
representativepress 3 years ago
representativepress said,"1998 Saddam did NOT expel the inspectors"
From F.A.I.R.;
"To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago."
-John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02
"As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago."
Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
jefeisdguard, yes, those are the false statements leading up to the Iraq war, you see that Fair compared them to what those same media outlets reported at the time, in 1998: "The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them."
- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98
"the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning"-Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98
representativepress 3 years ago
representativepress said,"12/16/98"
Notice the dates of your info to mine. Did this purposely to show you that...four years after the fact, up-dated info is a little bit more credible. Especially after much investigation.
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
jefeisdguard, what does the UN say is why the inspectors left in 1998? I think you know the answer already. You must break through the "cognizant dissonance" and work to help fellow Americans defeat the domestic enemies who lie to us and tick us into these wars. And what does the UN say? "16 Dec 1998 The Special Commission withdraws its staff from Iraq."
representativepress 3 years ago
jefeisdguard, you could be on the edge of having an epiphany if you think about what FAIR is saying on that page. Comparing the quotes, you see that the media when reporting when the Iraq war was being sold to the American people, HELPED SELL IT by reporting falsehoods. This is just one example. But you seem stubborn about seeing it.
representativepress 3 years ago
representativepress,
Just so we're straight.
You said,"in 1998 Saddam did NOT expel the inspectors"
You said, FAIR posted comments by reporters IN 1998 THAT reported that THE U.N. had the inspectors leave.
BUT in that same FAIR posting I found other reporters posting that Saddam had in fact expelled the inspectors...four years after the fact.
Are we done yet?
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
jefeisdguard, AT THE TIME, in 1998, the media reported it correctly. In 2002, when the media was working overtime to sell the war to the American public, they reported it falsely.
I believe this is called "cognizant dissonance" on your part.
We are not in a movie, this isn't 1984, this is called "playing the game" and this is how MSM works.
representativepress 3 years ago
representativepress,
Unscom was forced out of Iraq in 1992, when mobs attacked the weapons inspectrs. They did return, but were denied access 2 various buildings & in 1997 Iraq expelled all US inspectrs. A compromise negotiated, the inspectors returned & were again barred from certain sites.
President Bill Clinton, warned he would carry out a military attack on Iraq. Iraq was holding information back from the UN & allegations backed by Unscom scientists that it had weaponised VX nerve gas.
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
jefeisdguard, why the attempt at obfuscation? In both cases, all those media quotes were talking about 1998.
Clinton committed a war crime by bombing Iraq. GOOGLE "Iraq And Arms Inspectors: The big Lie" CIA spies operating with arms inspectors had used information gathered to target Iraq during Desert Fox. The role of the CIA in corrupting the arms inspection regime was one of the main reasons for Ritter's resignation in 1998.
representativepress 3 years ago
representativepress said,"attempt at obfuscation?"
No confusion here... at least on my part. You, if not confused are attempting to speak for the media with your opinions. I see what I see & am aware of our disagreements. Just do NOT appreciate your willing me to see it your way by overstepping your authority by becoming a media spokesperson. In your narcissistic mind, you are THE AUTHORITY, THEREFORE correct.
This is unacceptable. WHO ARE YOU?
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
"The basic conclusions are clear: Iraq cooperated in the "fundamental disarmament" of 90-95% of its weapons of mass destruction. The United States nevertheless manufactured a conflict for cynical reasons in December 1998. Inspectors were then not kicked out, as claimed, but were withdrawn by Butler to protect them from bombing. The Iraqis subsequently refused to allow arms inspectors - accurately described by them as "spies" who had participated in the bombing of their country - to return."
representativepress 3 years ago
How do you ascertain truth and falsehood? It appears to me that you have to claim a lot of world reported commonly accepted facts as falsehood to support your agenda. If you can not produce factual support for your assertions, then by what means do you maintain your views?
seneca67 3 years ago
seneca67, on what basis do you claim "a lot of world reports" are what you think the are?
I do research I look at what has been reported, what is not being reported. And I have confronted journalists about what they are up to. I asked NJ Burket why he doesn't report that the settlements in the occupied territories are illegal. He played it off as "everyone knows" (so that's his excuse for not reporting it, helps him keep his job too) YET the rest of the world reports the illegal status.
representativepress 3 years ago
jperryam said,"The Iraq invasion is based entirely on lies and everybody knows it." In short, the Clinton/Gore response was limp-wristed & supine. But what is worse is that Al Gore refused to concede a lost Presidential Election, thereby breaking a hundred year tradition. Gore delayed the transition by two months. Bush had a comprehensive Anti-terror Plan (Clinton/Gore had none) ordered on taking office & did not arrive on his desk until the day before 9/11.
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
jefeisdguard, that is not what happened. the Clinton plan was created and presented to the Bush Administration. Bush rejected it and instead on creating hsi own (or running out the clock, however you want to look at it) and it took many months before it was ready. But Clinton did hell of a lot wrong, he should have insisted on abiding by international law, we would not have even been attacked if he had.
representativepress 3 years ago
More ridiculous partisan tit for tat. Jeezus, will any of you fools ever get it? These people have committed major violations of U.S. and international law. You will never change this reality no matter how long you spew the "Clinton was just as bad" crap. Any complicit members of government, regardless of party affiliation, should be held equally responsible. Accountability is not a partisan issue. It's a constitutional one. For as long as you ignore this fact, you will be part of the problem.
jperryam 3 years ago
no disrespect for this BUT Dennis Kucinich even voted against his own impeachment legislation and it was tabled, Ms. Conyer doesn't give a flying crap and will never move to impeach so a movement toremove congress with a clean slate wipe
CitizenPatriot 3 years ago
Kucinich voted to send it to the Judiciary, where the impeachment process starts. If they do not act on it within 30 days, he will introduce more articles (25 more, from what I understand). He's one of the few in Congress who actually cares about honoring the oath to support and defend the Constitution, which has been so callously shredded by the Bush administration. For most in DC it's all just ignorant, shuck and jive politics, and trying to one-up the opposition with worthless rhetoric.
jperryam 3 years ago
LOL,what a desperate idiot!
gunnyranger2 3 years ago
i think if true american started moving these people out of office as they did in emperor years all would change very fast in washington
danielstwin 3 years ago
I don't know what High School you went to, but in my High School, when the teacher or any adult told you to shut up, we did, or we got wacked!
muffin1559 3 years ago
Haha! You are so pathetic. 2min about how OFFENDED you were that people don't give a shit about Kuchinich's radical crap. Priceless! Kudos for using Code Pink as a credible group! hahaha! Nobody likes leftists except stupid 18-yo kids that won't vote anyway, so I don't even care to waste my time on your white trash, anti-American, homosexual, baby-killing bullshit. I hope you catch on fire and die.
crack6662 3 years ago
Are these ad hominem arguments of the most primitive kind all you got?
You didn't address a single point he makes.
Well, I guess that's probably the best you can do with your primitive mind.
DeletedDelusion 3 years ago
a) there's no point in arguing with stupid people: they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
b) this guy is a total joke. 400-word rebuttals aren't enough to straighten out
this loser.
c) google: rocco dipippo @ the american thinker and read his post. He sums up why all you pink panty wearing queers act like such douche bags.
crack6662 3 years ago
Great analysis of the neocon propaganda crowd! Couldn't have said it beter myself!
Since when does demanding accountability of the people we elect to serve us make someone a douche bag?
Listen crack, if all you can do is trash the messenger without coming anywhere near legitimately refuting the message, you have zero credibility.
jperryam 3 years ago
Hey, I'm not fan of neo-cons. I'm a die-hard conservative because conservatism is what works. Neo-conservatism is a sick perversion of the conservatives... kind of how nazism is of liberalism.
Look, this video is a joke. You know it, and I know it. I honestly can't believe that a white adult male is saying such cliché stuff. That's why I'm laughing at you.
Honestly, the whole thing is just boring to me. There have been people like you since the beginning of time, and, well, you're boring
crack6662 3 years ago
This video is no joke, I assure you. You're laughing at me and calling it a joke because that's what people do when they cannot comprehend what it means to actually honor the oath to support and defend the Constitution. And they can't fathom that there are actually citizens and public servants who take their responsibilities seriously.
But you, just like so many others, just can't get past the ignorant politics and juvenile put downs. Jeezus, talk about cliché stuff.
Good luck with that.
jperryam 3 years ago
Neo-ons are simply a young generation of people who recognize the value of conservative principles. If JFK were alive today, he would be a Neocon. (or at the very least a blue dog Democrat)
seneca67 3 years ago
Not really. A neo-con is a liberal that has embraced parts of conservatism while still maintaining their liberal agenda. Bill Kristol is a great example. He's a jewish guy that disliked the democrat's policy of cut and run, so he went republican. The problem is that he arbitrarily picks and chooses which parts of conservatism and liberalism he'll support, and that's bad news for both sides.
crack6662 3 years ago
I didn't know that about Billy Kristal. Interesting. Well i am not sure about what the excepted definition is for neocon. It seems everyone is using the term to label who ever they do not like. I was a conservative Democrat back in teh day, so mayby i am a neocon, i am not sure.
seneca67 3 years ago
Conservative democrats are not necessarily neo-cons. The neo-con phenomenon is based closely on the rantings of Leon Trotsky and those types. Conservatism is being hijacked by neo-cons in the same way leftists are hijacking liberalism. True liberals can't stand morons like Obama and Kucinich, and true Conservatives can't stand idiots like McCain. The best bet is to vote for the candidate that best represents your values, and not necessarily the party's.
crack6662 3 years ago
crack6662, why do you say Kucinich is a moron?
representativepress 3 years ago
Are you kidding? Trotsky? I think it is very safe to say that we have no set definition for neo-con at all. Are you thinking of neo com? maybe neo socialists? Whatever.
seneca67 3 years ago
I am a guy who feels labor has value, and taxes should be minimal. For some reason, I have to choose between a party that wants minimal taxes, or a party that pretends to give a damn about labor. I guess the minimal tax party still wins,,,,lol Mainly because the pretenders have acquired a nasty habit of hating their own country. That is a big no no in my political play book.
seneca67 3 years ago
If you spend 2-min researching neo-conservatism on the web you'll see that it is most definitely linked to Trotsky. There's a really good video by one of the Kennedy's that outline just what a neo-con is. Now, if we could dispose of the neo-cons and the leftists, our nation would be even better than it already is. I know liberals don't want the US to succeed, but liberalism is dying.
crack6662 3 years ago
Crack, I have just checked, and found deeply passionate feelings of hate expressed towards neo-cons by a wide diversity of groups each with their own definitions. The Trotsky, thing to me is a complete stretch. The best def I could find was "people who were mugged by reality". In other words: delusional liberals who finally saw the light. That is good enough for me, and if the antecedents turn out to be Trotski et al, fine. Clearly though, neo-cons are conservative.
seneca67 3 years ago
Comparing neo-cons to conservatives is akin to comparing liberals with communists or marxists. Yes, there are some similarities, but they are not one in the same. Neo-conservatism is a perversion of conservatism, and is not accepted by the base. Nobody seems to like these people, so why are there so many of them? Blah. Check out Ron Paul's speech on youtube where he names all the neo-cons that are destroying the country.
crack6662 3 years ago 2
Ron Paul is an idiot. I am sorry. After listening to his interviews I had to conclude that he can not think logically or determine cause and effect from a sequence of events. Actually, he is not able to recall a simple sequence of events.
seneca67 3 years ago
That's got nothing to do with the speech where he pointed out butthole neo-cons. I agree that Ron Paul has some issues, but whatever. Not like he's got a shot at the presidency. Alan Keyes, now that's a conservative leader. Him and Pat Buchanan.
crack6662 3 years ago
crack6662, politicians are supposed to uphold the Constitution. Do you not know that? You should like you don't understand our form of government. And from the rest of your comment, that isn't your only problem.
representativepress 3 years ago
Do you even know HOW we go to war??? Do you think the POTUS arbitrarily chooses where and when he wants a war, and it happens?!?! Both democrats and republicans have to VOTE for it. The dems voted right along side of republicans on this one. Trying to pin the war in iraq on any one person is laughable and bears so merit.
Take a class on Government some time... maybe when you drop out of middle school and get your GED. lol! LOSERS!
crack6662 3 years ago
Hey Perry, now come on seriously, is this really how you want the Democrat party toss its scant remaining credibility out the window? Why not just have another sex scandal? Those are entertaining.
Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency.
Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change.
seneca67 3 years ago
Another gem from the "articles to impeach" which very few members of congress will sign on too:
Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare.
What the hell? Has Kucinich been eating kitty litter again?
seneca67 3 years ago
Reality check from the Washington Post of all sources, wow!
"Kucinich is decidedly in the minority in the House on this issue. Though all Democrats voted this week to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee, very few members actually want hearings (it's likely there won't be any) and only three have signed on as cosponsors. "
seneca67 3 years ago
From the 35 articles of impeachment proposed by Kucinich:
Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
What is Secret propaganda ? How did Kucinich find out about this secret propaganda? He must be one of those" illuminati" folks.. :D
seneca67 3 years ago
the campaign to wage it was the secret AT THE TIME.
representativepress 3 years ago
No, he stated his case before the UN, and Congress. Nothing secret, you just weren't paying attention at the time. BTW, where was your concern during the many deployments during the Clinton years? Where you happy with US and UK imposing no fly zones in Iraq? How long that should have been maintained?
seneca67 3 years ago
the output of the campaign was not a secret of course! The organization of the people who pushed the propaganda was the secret. No the no-fly zones were unlawful, the US and UK and a third country I believe at first, had no right to impose them. The US media deceived the public into thinking the UN authorized them. Think about that. What you think you know is very off because mainstream media has not told you the truth.
representativepress 3 years ago
Secret, and deceptive, you believe what you what, but when press conferences and public statements are reviewed you will find that accusation in the circular file(trash can). OK, Representative press. So you take issue with the No fly zones as well. It is a decade+ later. Why no outrage then? How would you articulate such dissent?
"Stop the no fly zones, Let Saddam gas his people "? How about: "stop no fly zones in Iraq so we can have suicidal rules of engagement".
seneca67 3 years ago
Conyers is playing warped political games with billions of innocent lives at stake to deliberately run out his clock. Unforgivably disgusting. I would not waste energy on that schmuck anymore but I am doing everything in my power to inform the global community about what we're dealing with here.
Lieberman is in your District? How in the world did that happen and what must we do to correct it?
apparition2 3 years ago
Are you actually saying America does not want us out of Iraq? Are you suggesting that we LIKE the idea of wasting 12 billion per month over there, driving our country at light speed toward bankruptcy and getting our soldiers and innocent civilians needlessly killed in the process? And Code Pink is guilty of treason? For what? Trying to establish accountabilty? You Bushco water carriers are amazing. Do you NOT realize you're kissing the ass of the least popular president the U.S. has ever seen?
jperryam 3 years ago
I am saying that you are in fantasy land if you think a minority of people in congress have the right to expect that bill to pass. Additionally, both parties, and 15 nations agreed that Saddam was a threat. Where were you when he launched Scud Missiles into Saudi, Jordan, and Israel? Were you asleep when he gassed whole villages? Can you recall his bragging about a nuclear program? Perhaps we should have allowed him to take Saudi, and Kuwait.
seneca67 3 years ago
Whose ass? Grover Cleveland? Polk? Btw, Perry, i have my own complaints about Bush, and they are on my profile. I am a pro labor old school conservative ex-democrat. Guess why I can not bring myself to vote for the party of fringe lunatics?
seneca67 3 years ago
Fair enough, seneca. I have just read your profile. If you will do the same for me, you'll realize that we are far more alike than not so. I see Washington as being full of "fringe lunatics," with the only real difference between the two major parties being perhaps the colors they choose to associate themselves with. I love a good argument, but if we're ever going to bring the wholesale political change this country desperately needs, I think we have to seek and expand on the common ground.
jperryam 3 years ago
seneca67, the US supported him, aided and abetted him when he gassed people. Some of the very same politicians from the 80's joined Bush in his crimes today. Do you realize how crazy this is? Bush doesn't even know why he attacked Iraq! He said at least 3 times that Saddam didn't let the inspectors in! FALSE. And the attack was a violation of law which the US is obligated to uphold according to our own Constitution. You think we should be as pirates and thugs? And Saddam was NOT a threat.
representativepress 3 years ago
The US was a partner in gassing villages? Do you have any evidence to support that? Regarding threat,: He invaded Kuwait, launched missiles at neighboring countries and committed genocide. Topping it off he spoke publically of his nuclear program. He interfered with the inspectors, kicked them out, and denied them return to verify his disarmament obligations. In spite of your unsupported assertions, you have at least acknowledged that he had chem Weapons. And yes, he did use them.
seneca67 3 years ago
The US was a partner in war crimes with Saddam yet you have an unshakable belief that the US government is run my noble people!
If the US didn't want Saddam to go after Kuwait or part of Kuwait, the US should have made it clear. Why didn't they?
And what threat? Notice that the history shows Saddam to be very conservative - he let the mob boss (the US) know he intended to go after Kuwait. Notice he refrained from using chemical weapons during the Gulf War.
representativepress 3 years ago
You repeat the "partner in war crimes" statement as though it were an accepted fact, yet for evidence you simply write that we failed to tell him not to invade? Must we provide of list of potential actions we deplore to every nation on earth? How about we just advise everyone to behave nicely? Will that suffice? There is no way that administration would have left him with the impression to go ahead and invade Kuwait.. You should know why.
seneca67 3 years ago
The intelligence about his supposed troop flank against Saudi Arabia was another FRAUD (in the build up to the first Gulf War)! The media let you down again.
representativepress 3 years ago
The intelligence report? Just one? We had ongoing surveillance, and daily updates, for months. We also have Saddam's own threats, and the fact that he lunched missiles into Saudi. Did you see what happened in the neutral zone? I would like iot believe you simply have a memory problem, but I think you really riding this false cause for partisan gain. Clearly the Democrats do not give a damn about integrity or accountability. We can see that just form the DNC primary process.
seneca67 3 years ago
Oh yes, i almost overlooked the obvious, Saddam invaded Kuwait.
seneca67 3 years ago
It must be a tough time to be a Democrat these days, with all the scandal over the primary process. I understand that Obama reflects the feelings of a lot of wingnuts out there who oppose the Iraq mission, but have they noticed obama's stated intentions for Pakistan? You morons want to trade a security detail for a nuclear war? Has" code pink" been consulted on this? I sure they're just delighted.
seneca67 3 years ago
I agree. The dems are obviously going insane. They're letting a bunch of traitors and war criminals skate because they think it will somehow serve them in the upcoming election. Everything's all just politics for them, just like it is for all you hopeless righties. It's all just black/white, left/right, liberal/conservative. Accountability? Who needs it, right? How about justice? Too "old school," perhaps? And honoring the oath of office? Let me guess: "Waste of time," right?
Jeezus. Wake up.
jperryam 3 years ago
The dems are insane, yes. They can not even manage a primary, but they think they can demonstrate competence in the executive branch? Oh my, that makes me giddy. NO, I think the grown ups will have to handle things for another 4 years. Accountability? Did you forget that Congress voted for the deployment? Hmm? A tip for Dems, stop worrying about your beloved terrorist friends and start worrying about labor. Remember labor? -The people you sold out during the Clinton years.
seneca67 3 years ago
Jperryam, I am totally opposed to "code pink", "9-11 truthers", and people who defend those who commit violent jihad. What happened to the democrat party that cared about labor? Do you think this bill will help the Democrat party win switch voters in November, or will it just further polarize an already bitterly divided electorate? The priority issues should be: health care, gas, free trade, outsourcing, terrorism, immigration. Not global warming, not gay rights, not conspiracy theories.
seneca67 3 years ago
This video is not about global warming, gay rights or conspiracy theories. It's about impeachment. Righties who look at it solely as a politcal issue and not one of accountability should remember that we could have a democratic president come January, with carte blanche to do whetever the hell he wants, because of the precedent set by the failure to hold Bushco accountable for their crimes. The partisan blindness (on both sides of the aisle) in this country is really stunning.
jperryam 3 years ago
The 35 articles read like list of the most ridiculous baseless assertions that have come form the Left wing. You speak of accountability, yet within the articles we find Global warming, Katrina, Medicare, secret agendas? Since when has it become a matter of Federal law to hold political views? So GW doesn't agree with Kucinich. That is not a violation of law. You spoke of common ground, so I gave you my best centrist advice for the Democrats. Priorities!
seneca67 3 years ago
Apparently you have not read my profile yet. I am not a democrat.
There is plenty to hold Bushco accountable for without touching the issues you mention.
What bigger priority is there than upholding the Constituiton that forms the basis of our system of government? If it's no big deal, why does every elected official swear an oath to support it?
jperryam 3 years ago
Logically, can you find any hope at all of providing a case for breach of public trust based on the 35 articles listed? It is a list of opinions, speculations on intent, and objections to GW political views. Is Kucinich a mind reader? You know it is not illegal to disagree with things like Global Warming rhetoric don't you? What is GW's accountability for not buying into Al's "inconvenient errors in fact"?
seneca67 3 years ago
It is not speculation that GWB ordered an illegal warrantless wiretapping program. Not only did he admit it publicly after the NYT (which had the story before the 2004 election but sat on it for over a year at the request of Bushco - some "liberal media" outfit they are) revealed it. He's on tape in April of 2004 claiming that warrants were necessary, even while chasing down terrorists, "because we value the Constitution." He should have been impeached on the spot for this offense alone.
jperryam 3 years ago
jperryam said,"illegal warrantless wiretapping program."
What does illegal warrantless wiretapping have to do with saving American LIVES?
Of course we need these to protect our citizens PLUS we need waterboarding which, so far, has been very successful in getting the terrorists to divulge their terror cell operatives here & abroad!
Let me ask you something.
Would u rather have ur privacy or would u rather save your life?
Further, health issues, oil, gas prices R important, BUT NOT IF UR DEAD!
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
Your post reads like you took it directly from a Fox News teleprompter. Way to pile on with the hysterical fear mongering. Here's a newsflash: Nobody with a clue is buying that tired crap. It was Bush himself who claimed in 2004 that warrants were being used, even in the search for terrorists, "because we value the Constitution." He KNEW this was a lie, because he had aproved the warrantless program three years before. You're carrying the water for a man with ZERO credibility. Way to go.
jperryam 3 years ago
jperryam said,"hysterical fear mongering."
Ahhh, yes, but you never answered my question, now did you?
Privacy or your life... what's more important to you. Try to answer w/o blathering please.
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
No need to answer disingenuous questions.
Bushco's warrantless wiretapping is not about protecing peoples' lives. It's about the intimidation and control that are their neocon trademarks. This entire administration is a fraud from the word go. And yes, they have plenty of help from people masquerading as "opposition" democrats.
jperryam 3 years ago
NO, its about finding terror cells.
seneca67 3 years ago
If beliving that lie makes you feel better, I say more power to you. But the truth will still exist no matter how much time you spend in fantasyland.
jperryam 3 years ago
On what basis would you conclude that otherwise? It all boils down to intent doesn't it? How do you make a case to prove intent?
seneca67 3 years ago
jperryam said,"No need to answer disingenuous questions"
ok, no problem, ur not the only one afraid to answer. How about this one then? SCENARIO;
Ur child's been kidnapped, by a terrorist.
Terrorist has been captured. Ur child is still missing.
Terrorist is known for torture & murder.
Time is of the essence. Information is needed now! Terrorist is there for questioning ...
WOULD YOU WATERBOARD THE TERRORIST?
Remember, no bruising but act of drowning w/o drowning or dying. If not u ur child?
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
Ah, the old hypothetical scenario, designed to evoke an emotionally charged, "correct," neocon-friendly response. Great job!
Not so great job trying to make waterboarding sound nice, though. You can parse and twist the words all you want. It will still be torture. Japanese soldiers were prosecuted for doing it to Americans in WWII. In addition to the fact that any seasoned interrogator who is not bought and paid for will tell you it doesn't work, you don't fight terrorism with terrorism.
jperryam 3 years ago
jperryam said,"you don't fight terrorism with terrorism."
So,uv just let ur child die & uv committed suicide by letting the terrorist have its way!
Combine that with your quote(!)...what do you think will happen next?
Our brave soldiers who have died for your freedom with their blood, will have died for naught. Your liberal complacent do-gooder political correctness attitudes is exactly what the terrorists want from us! Ur NOT the solution to our freedom here but one of its problems.
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
Wow, jefeisdguard, you show remarkable ignorance. You DON'T fight terrorism with terrorism. You fight the use of terrorism through education, utilization of intelligence assets, and infiltration, eventually leading to the destruction of those who would commit an act of violent terrorism.
The soldiers haven't died for nothing, they've died to raise the price of oil through instability in the Middle East.
Our country should be better than a torturing fascist dictatorship. Or would you disagree?
mexcurmudgeon 3 years ago
mexcurmudgeon said,"You DON'T fight terrorism with terrorism."
If that's what you would call ignorance remarkable, then thanks!
But it is a sad day for sure, when I see your comments & those of 'jperryam' indicate that our boys deaths have caused instability in the middle east & oil prices to go up. I was talking about our boys in the past, but these'll do.
Bush has done what you've stated since 9/11. Education, freezing foreign assets, infiltration & more! BUT, it also includes waterboarding
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
Give me a break with your whiny rhetoric. Our soldiers in Iraq are not dying for our freedom. They're dying for Halliburton, Exxon Mobil and Bushco's imperial fascist fantasies. Any of us would do anything and everything humanly possible to save our kids. The ONLY thing you're trying to do is justify torture, which is not just illegal no matter how you look at it, but also completely unreliable as a source of good information. Which, again, any legitimate, seasoned interrogator will tell you.
jperryam 3 years ago
jperryam said,"dying for Halliburton"
Halliburton? You kidding? Michael Moore has financial interests in Halliburton. So do most members of Congress!
No, you're giving an excuse for your & your childs deaths! You are also giving the terrorists American rights. Giving them our pensions, S.S. & retirements bennys.
You sir, definitely would NOT ever be in charge of people. You'd let ur own be killed to save a terrorist!
Are you even an American?
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
You're assuming I'm a fan of Michael Moore and most of the current Congress, neither of which is true. That's the biggest problem with you Bushco apologists. Your idiotic assumptions. You automatically think everyone who disagrees with you is a flaming anti-American liberal and every detainee is a terrorist. You also use HIGHLY improbable, emotionally charged, hypothetical scenarios with no point of reference to justify Bushco torture, and you ignore any reality that doesn't fit your rhetoric.
jperryam 3 years ago
jperryam said,"hypothetical scenarios"
We sure did learn a lot ... about you didn't we? Hopefully you don't have kids because if they read this... they know they are ... well, no need to repeat. You said it all, haven't you?
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
jefeisdguard said: "You said it all, haven't you?"
Pretty much, including: "Any of us would do anything and everything humanly possible to save our kids."
But you either missed it or purposely ignored it, because it's not compatible with your emotional fear mongering propaganda schtick. I'm going with the latter. You have nothing to say about the fact that torture is a notoriously unreliable information source...
jperryam 3 years ago
jperryam said,"torture...source"
Ohhh really!
Three cheers for waterboarding al-Qaida leaders!
By Deroy Murdock
Monday, November 5, 2007
After U.S. and Pakistani authorities captured KSM in 2003, he stayed mum for months. Interrogators eventually waterboarded him — for just 90 seconds. KSM "didn't resist," one CIA veteran said in the Aug. 13 New Yorker. "He sang right away."
ht tp: //w ww. ventura county star. com /news /2007 /nov /05 /three- cheers- for- water boarding- al-qaida- leaders/
jefeisdguard 3 years ago
jefeisdguard, you dishonor America when you insist we reduce ourselves to Nazis. You have no respect for this country, we are supposed to be a nation of laws. The ugliness you gleefully endorse is illegal. After Nat Turner's terrorism, whites gleefully beheaded blacks and stuck the heads on spikes.
jefeisdguard, it's clear you don't even know what the motive for 9/11. Have you watched my videos? You should. They could open your eyes.
representativepress 3 years ago