Will Bush ever be punished?

Just happen to have posted this in another thread -- about how (two members of) the media are treating Bush/WMD issue -- and if it's still in my mousie here, I'll post it.... http://observer.com/pages/frontpage6.asp

Tend to agree with Violet Lake's personal judgment. Polite is nice if it's really seriously polite. Sometimes polite is the lipstick and mascara on passive aggression.

Only if it's arm wrassle, and you have to be asleep. c.i.

CI - Violet is right. The latest Zogby polls (and they're not exactly tilted left) show Bush at 56 or 58% as of June 12, down from 63% 2 weeks before. And that's only in the war thing (which is slipping). On the domestic front (the economy, jobs, healthcare, education) he ranks between 34% and 48%, which, as John Zogby points out, is not the greatest place to be if you've just won a war as a sitting incumbent. They also show him winning over ANY democratic candidate by 7%. And that's not including the 3% plus or minus. So, a generic democratic candidate - that's before a particular one has been chosen. The WH puts out all these little niceties about how popular georgie is - but how many actual polls have you seen to that effect lately? And what the Zogby shows is no certainty.

In answer to the question - I think he should be punished. But just like Watergate, I think others should go down too. This is a rotten administration, and it is beginning to show in the Iraqi affair.

max, as I stated earlier, I prefer "Violent 'The Savage' Lake", but "Violent 'The Savage" Flake" would be just fine.

So you don't like how I'm treating steissd? Why not? I think he's full of crap, and despite his polite veneer, I believe that he's a dangerous man. The nonsense he spews is dangerous to freedom, and goes against my country's interests. What do you expect me to do, coddle him? Should I indulge him in another brutal session of misinformation?

I think I should just kick his ass and be done with him. I thought you conservatives would understand...

VL, I know of exactly what you speak; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Sweet talk with razor blades. His kill first and ask questions later philosophy scares the sh*t out of me. c.i.

Ouch -- my kick has gotten weak and painful, but I add it to yours gladly Violet!

From the Concise George W. Bush Dictionary:

Diplomacy - works only from the end of a gun barrel.
Friendship - only as long as our interests coincide.
Honesty - is for children and deluded liberals. Grow the f*ck up!
Love - is nothing but self-interest dressed in girly clothes.

Please refrain from personal attacks against other members regardless of what you think of their opinions.

That's a good policy, Moderator. I think I'll go back now to being the nice Violet, which agrees more with my true nature.

sorry. c.i.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/931304.asp?0cm=c10

PUNISHED?!?!? No.
PRAISED?!?! Probably.

max, That is 'old' news. What Saddam had during the first Gulf War is not material to why this administration got us into Gulf War II. c.i.

Max, don't even try it. It wouldn't matter if they uncovered a dozen nuclear bombs with clocks ticking down on them. People have there minds made up and that is that.

Posted also in the "US, UN..." discussion:


It's interesting that all these Bushies are pressing to verify what was probably a lie: that Iraq was an "imminent threat" due to available WMD's which it planned to use.

Meanwhile, they don't question or even attempt to explain why an administration which had so much "intelligence" about imminent threat did nothing to beef up the internal protections within the nation which would have prevented terrorism.

No -- when the alleged Al Qaeda attacks occurred on 9/11, our security systems were a mess, EVEN THOUGH THE ADMINISTRATION WAS ALREADY CLAIMING IRAQ WAS A THREAT, THAT THE US WAS THREATENED, AND EVEN THOUGH THE ADMINISTRATION WAS ALREADY PLANNING TO INVADE THAT NATION...

I truly believe that George is already being deeply and profoundly punished by himself. He knows, every time his mother looks at him, that he's not fit, that this is pretense. He has always known he is inferior of mind - the sort of loud arrogance he sports is defensive protection, but it's a lie, and he knows it.

Only they haven't, McG, and therein lies the rub. One side (yours) believes in something that hasn't been proven. The other wants evidence.

So why did the guy have a piece of a uranium enrichment device buried in his back yard? Please feel free to expound on that.

What if they took things apart, buried them all over the place, with a master map to go back at some point and retrieve/rebuild? Isnt' that a fairly obvious scenario?

Are you guys awake?

Do you really think so, McG?

I don't.

I'd love to find out though.

In fact, they don't even have to find a dozen -- one will do. And the clocks don't have to be ticking -- or even working.

I'd like to see what "they" would do if anything resembling a significant stock of WMD were found.

Do you think they ever will be found?

IF not -- do you think that perhaps it is your side that "have made up its mind and that's that?"

An "obvious scenario" cjhsa? Not really.

If Saddam had these dangerous weapons at his disposal, why didn't he use them when his country was being invaded by a superior army? Why would he keep components hidden? When were they going to be used?

Do these seem like illogical questions, Bush fans?

I think he hid them long before, from the inspectors, not from an army he thought would never actually invade.