fun with nitwits.

From: "Doc Martian" <docmartian@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.cia,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.org.nsa,alt.politics.bush,alt.journalism
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:43 AM
Subject: what the iraq war means to a republic.
> Krulag: i'm sure that stuff is classified. congress had access to it. most> of them voted for war. we as members of a republic have to respect that our> representatives have the ability to discern truth from fiction, we ALSO have> to accept that as humans, sometimes they DO make mistakes. accept for> bruised egos and sour grapes there are no signs that bush attempted to> mislead the american people.... the moment there is... he stands a good> chance of being impeached. until then? pblblblblblblbllltt!> >
From: <rhooker123@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.cia,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.org.nsa,alt.politics.bush,alt.journalism
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: what the iraq war means to a republic.
> Well the problem with Bush is he is using the Reagan defense which> states that the leader of the United States is, unlike the rest of the> nations executives in business and private life, not liable for any> errors he makes because he is so stupid he could not have known better.> > It has been well established that information reducing the confidence> of Bush's assertions were well known to the White House and that if> Bush wanted to get a fuller picture and hear some doubts both on the> WMD claims and the length of the war effort he could have done so with> a few phone calls. But he only seems to have heard what he wanted to.> If that was because he was only told what he wanted to be told, he> heard different points and agreed with what he wanted to agree with, or> he was told the truth and ignored it we will never known.> > You see there is a good chance Bush will be impeached, and it will be> for Iraq, but the articles of impeachment will not concern Iraq. Since> so little was precisely known about Iraq at the time it is impossible> to prove that the President was not convinced that what he said was> true. The fact that experts around the world doubted his claims does> not establish a case that he lied. Its rather hard to establish such a> case when the evidence is so hidden. Anyways lying to the public is> not a crime, one would have to find evidence that he must have known A> with certainty and then told a court of law that he did not know A or A> was false, the kind of knowledge that did not exist in pre-war Iraq.> > But he still could be impeached for something else. He has done enough> stuff to get articles together and the GOP under Clinton set the> standard for impeachment so low a Democratic House would have no> problem creating them. Remember that one of the articles of> impeachment against Clinton was difference between him and Monica on if> she had ever cum with him or not (go look it up) another concerned the> date they were both introduced. Certainly domestic spying, torture,> neglect to perform duties and various other factors, along with ties to> DeLay and the developing scandal, will allow Congress to form some good> articles, and a nation sick of a weak economy (the fact the stock> market has taken 6 years to simply recover is seen as some kind of> great news in the GOP), high energy bills, failure in Iraq, survival of> Al Qaeda, collapse of new governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran> ability to make nuclear weapons, North Korea making nuclear weapons,> the Home Land Security diaster, the terrible response to Katrina, the> massive corruption problems, the failure to remove Rumsfield , and I> would add in the case of Rice and Myers the appointment of unqualified> people to the highest post because of personal friendship, have all> gone to poison the climate enough the public may back his impeachment> as it revolted against the impeachment of Clinton.> > And what do the democrats have to lose? They saw how the GOP gained> power after a failed impeachement of Clinton, perhaps this is the new> way to unite your base. I would go as far as to say that a democratic> House must impeach Bush to establish a baseline that both parties can> later reject. It would be wrong to have the GOP use this feature to> gain power and then when it's President had failed so utterly to be off> the hook.> > Summing up Bush sucks so bad that it would be possible to impeach him> and have public support. Will he be removed? No, probably not. But> he has become so unpopular the political gain for the Democrats would> be great.>

From: "Doc Martian" <docmartian@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.cia,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.org.nsa,alt.politics.bush,alt.journalism
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: what the iraq war means to a republic.
> then, the rest of the american government is just as stupid. with the> exception of our estimable court system. congress, the military, and> american journalists all believed given existing intelligence that saddam> had wmd's. as did our first-line intelligence sources israel and the united> kingdom.> > all your mindless yada yada yada does is echo the sentiments of the> post-iraq anti-war contigent, that we should have known better; as you> recall, saddam's scientific community were stalling hans blix at each> weapons inspection stop for 2-3 hours. enough time to squirrel away weapons> caches. we went with best possible intelligence. had saddam's sites been> more open, had we had better intelligence, had congress appointed cindy> sheehan to use her meditiational psychic aura to SEE THROUGH SADDAM'S> WEAPONS SITES WALLS TO THE PEACE-LOVE RAINBOW GATHERING THAT WAS GOING ON> INSIDE. then perhaps the need for the war would have been obviated. it> wasn't. where were you then? maybe you could have yakked your into saddam's> weapons sites. maybe you could have spurred hans blix's guys into faster> entrance to get away from your dumb ass. If only Bill Clinton had been> president; he'd have known what to do. Have sex with one of his interns.> That could have stopped the war! Abuse of public trust (by having sex with> your employees.), not war! That could be the cry for a whole new generation.> > Bush Sucks? who are you? al gore? that's been the dems rallying cry since> november 2000. Bush Sucks! He's Mean! We hate you! go away! let us smoke pot> and have sex with interns and pardon tax defrauders again. Well, you'll have> your chance again someday. That is the way of things. First the just people> with ethics have their day in the sun, then the idiots bask on the rocks.> The rocks are getting warm.> > Cheers!> Doc