| TheTip.org |
| Polls | Members | Refer | Forums | Write for TheTip! | Home | Impeach Bush |
Impeach George Bush
If they had'em, they'd use 'em?
Colin Powell insisted in front of the UN that Iraq was in posession of weapons of mass destruction, that the threat to the world was immediate, and that he was dangerous. Is that so?
Source: TheTip, 2003-03-21
Candidate: President George Bush
After a few days of fighting, no sign of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons from the Iraqis.
That means:
1) They don't think the US is a serious threat to them militarily and so they're not going to use them.
This one's a little hard to believe as we watch the tanks roll up the euphrates and after hearing rumors of Saddam's injury.
2) They think they can beat us back using traditional means.
Again, a little hard to believe in light of recent surrenders by parts of their military and the impending bombing runs.
3) They just don't want to use them.
A distinct possibility - maybe they really are humanitarians, not interested in killing large numbers of people. But then, if they didn't want to use them to defend themselves in case of war, when were they going to use them?
4) They don't have them.
This seems like the most likely option even though it makes Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and George Bush liars and treasonous.
There may be some fifth explanation, we'd be interesting in hearing from the Administration why THEY think Saddam hasn't used his weapons of mass destruction.
And if the answer is to make George Bush look bad, it's sure working.If George Bush's war doesn't turn up any evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, will he be tried in the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity?
How deep will it go? Will Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft also be tried for this vicious attack on a peaceful people?
Will we allow fear to justify carpet-bombing?
And will we stop allowing the euphemism "Shock and ..." and start calling it what it is - CARPET BOBMING CIVILIANS.
Add a comment to this Message in our Forums.
While you're at it, check out our forums too!
User Originated Comments:
From: IGNORANT, IGNORANT, IGNORANT
2004-09-27 16:28:49
wow. my country is full of ignorant morons.
quote #1 "i think einstein was a m-ss murdering
traitor, and worse than adolf hitler to mankind!"
unbelievable. quote #2 "america is the cause of
terror!" you are the traitors. please leave my
great country- this great country in which you
were privileged to be born. oh, no privilege, you
say? okay, great. well then get the hell out,
now. go join your terrorist friends, you dirty
rotten sympathizers. you ignorant fools. you
will be the first ones to die when the war makes
it onto our homeland. you will be the ones with
your eyes and ears turned off but your mouth still
yapping off thoughtless nonsense when the bomb
blows up in your face. you would never have the
opportunity to say or even think the blasphemous
things you say about your god-given country were
you born elsewhere. you people make me sick and
you make conservatives even more determined to
dominate washington. i will do everything to keep
this great country from being put into the hands
of some war-sensitive, mindless, purple-heart
cheating kerry in the white house. if that only
means my one vote, great, because it's one less
for kerry and one more for bush. get your minds
out of the gutter.
From: WAKE UP and GROW UP!
2004-08-24 18:24:59
hope this
might give you a longer term
perspective that fewer and fewer of my
generation are left to speak to. to be sure
you understand that this
is not politically
flavored, i will tell you that since franklin d.
roosevelt, who led us through pre and wwii
(1933 - 1945) up to and
including our
present president, i have without exception,
supported
our presidents on all matters of
international conflict. this would
include
just naming a few in addition to president
roosevelt - wwii:
president truman - korean
war 1950; president kennedy - bay of pigs
(1961); president kennedy - vietnam (1961);
[1] eight presidents (5
republican & 4
democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991);
president
clinton's strikes on bosnia (1995)
and on iraq (1998). [2] so be sure
you read
this as completely non-political or otherwise you
will miss
the point.
our country
is now facing the most serious threat to its
existence,
as we know it, that we have faced
in your lifetime and mine (which
includes
wwii). the deadly seriousness is greatly
compounded by the
fact that there are very
few of us who think we can possibly lose this
war and even fewer who realize what losing
really means.
first, let's examine a
few basics:
1. when did the threat to us
start?
many will say september 11th,
2001. the answer as far as the united
states
is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to september
2001, with the
following attacks on us:
iran emb-ssy hostages, 1979; beirut,
lebanon
emb-ssy 1983; beirut, lebanon marine barracks
1983;
lockerbie, scotland pan-am flight to
new york 1988; first new york
world trade
center attack 1993; dhahran, saudi arabia khobar
towers
military complex 1996; nairobi, kenya
us emb-ssy 1998; dar es salaam,
tanzania us
emb-ssy 1998; aden, yemen uss cole 2000; new
york world
trade center 2001; pentagon 2001.
(note that during the period from
1981 to
2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks
worldwide). [3]
2. why were we attacked?
envy of our position, our success, and
our freedoms. the attacks
happened during
the administrations of presidents carter, reagan,
bush
1, clinton and bush 2. we can not fault
either the republicans or
democrats as there
were no provocations by any of the presidents or
their immediate predecessors, presidents ford
or carter.
4. who were the
attackers?
in each case of attacks on
us they were muslims.
5. what is the
muslim population of the world?
25%
6.. isn't the muslim religion
peaceful?
hopefully, but that is really not
material. there is no doubt that
the
predominately christian population of germany was
peaceful, but
under the dictatorial
leadership of hitler (who was also christian),
that made no difference. you either went
along with the administration
or you were
eliminated. there were 5 to 6 million christians
killed by
the nazis for political reasons
(including 7,000 polish priests). (
http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm ).
thus, almost the same
number of christians
were killed by the nazis, as the 6 million
holocaust jews who were killed by them, and
we seldom heard of anything
other than the
jewish atrocities. although hitler kept the world
focused on the jews, he had no hesitancy
about killing anyone who got
in his way of
exterminating the jews or of taking over the world
-
german, christian or any others. same with
the muslim terrorists.
they focus the world
on the us, but kill all in the way - their own
people or the spanish, french or anyone
else.. [5] the point here is
that just like
the peaceful germans were of no protection to
anyone
from the nazis, no matter how many
peaceful muslims there may be, they
are no
protection for us from the terrorist muslim
leaders and what
they are fanatically bent on
doing - by their own pronouncements -
killing
all of us infidels. i don't blame the peaceful
muslims. what
would you do if the choice was
shut up or die?
6. so who are we at
war with?
there is no way we can honestly
respond that it is anyone other
than the
muslim terrorists. trying to be politically
correct and avoid
verbalizing this conclusion
can well be fatal. there is no way to win
if
you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you
are fighting.
so with that background,
now to the two major questions:
1. can we
lose this war?
2. what does losing
really mean?
if we are to win, we
must clearly answer these two pivotal
questions.
we can definitely lose this war,
and as anomalous as it may sound,
the major
reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do
not fathom
the answer to the second question
- 'what does losing mean?'. it would
appear
that a great many of us think that losing the war
means hanging
our heads, bringing the troops
home and going on about our business,
like
post vietnam. this is as far from the truth as
one can get.
what losing really means
is:
· we would no longer be the premier
country in the world.
· the attacks will
not subside, but rather will steadily increase.
remember, they want us dead, not just quiet..
if they had just wanted
us quiet, they would
not have produced an increasing series of attacks
against us over the past 18 years. the plan
was clearly to terrorist
attack us until we
were neutered and submissive to them.
·
we would of course have no future support from
other nations for fear
of reprisals and for
the reason that they would see we are impotent and
can not help them.
· they will pick
off the other non muslim nations, one at a time.
it
will be increasingly easier for them.
they already hold spain
hostage. it doesn't
matter whether it was right or wrong for spain to
withdraw its troops from iraq. spain did it
because the muslim
terrorists bombed their
train and told them to withdraw the troops.
anything else they want spain to do, will be
done. spain is finished.
· the next
will probably be france. our one hope on france
is that
they might see the light and realize
that if we don't win, they are
finished too,
in that they can't resist the muslim terrorists
without
us. however, it may already be too
late for france. france is already
20%
muslim and fading fast. see the attached article
on the french
condition by tom segel.
[6]
· if we lose the war, our
production, income, exports and way of life
will all vanish as we know it. after losing,
who would trade or deal
with us if they were
threatened by the muslims. if we can't stop the
muslims, how could anyone else? the muslims
fully know what is riding
on this war and
therefore are completely committed to winning at
any
cost. we better know it too and be
likewise committed to winning at
any
cost.
why do i go on at such lengths
about the results of losing?
simple.
until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot
unite and
really put 100% of our thoughts and
efforts into winning. and it is
going to
take that 100% effort to win.
so, how can
we lose the war?
again, the answer is
simple. we can lose the war by imploding.
that is, defeating ourselves by refusing to
recognize the enemy and
their purpose and
really digging in and lending full support to the
war
effort. if we are united, there is no
way that we can lose. if we
continue to be
divided, there is no way that we can
win.
let me give you a few examples of
how we simply don't comprehend the
life and
death seriousness of this situation.
·
president bush selects norman mineta as secretary
of transportation.
although all of the
terrorist attacks were committed by muslim men
between 17 and 40 years of age, secretary
mineta refuses to allow
profiling. does that
sound like we are taking this thing seriously?
this is war. for the duration we are going
to have to give up some of
the civil rights
we have become accustomed to. we had better be
prepared to lose some of our civil rights
temporarily or we will most
certainly lose
all of them permanently. and don't worry that it
is a
slippery slope. we gave up plenty of
civil rights during wwii and
immediately
restored them after the victory and in fact added
many
more since then. do i blame president
bush or president clinton before
him? no, i
blame us for blithely -ssuming we can maintain all
of our
political correctness and all of our
civil rights during this conflict
and have a
clean, lawful, honorable war. none of those words
apply to
war. get them out of your
head.
· some of us have gone so far out
in our criticism of the war and/or
our
administration that it almost seems they would
literally like to
see us lose. i hasten to
add that this isn't because they are
disloyal. it is because they just don't
recognize what losing means.
nevertheless,
that conduct gives the impression to the enemy
that we
are divided and weakening, it
concerns our friends, and it does great
damage to our cause.
· of more
recent vintage, the uproar fuelled by the
politicians and
media, regarding the
treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps
exemplifies best what i am saying. we have
recently had an issue
involving the
treatment of a few muslim prisoners of war by a
small
group of our military police. these
are the type prisoners who just a
few months
ago were throwing their own people off buildings,
cutting
off their hands, cutting out their
tongues and otherwise murdering
their own
people just for disagreeing with saddam hussein.
and just a
few years ago these same type
prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of
their
own people for the same reason. they are also the
same type
enemy fighters who recently were
burning americans and dragging their
charred
corpses through the streets of iraq. and still
more recently
the same type enemy that was
and is providing videos to all news
sources
internationally, of the beheading of an american
prisoner they
held. compare this with some
of our press and politicians who for
several
days have thought and talked about nothing else
but the
"humiliating" of some muslim
prisoners - not burning them, not dragging
their charred corpses through the streets,
not beheading them, but
"humiliating" them.
can this be for real? the politicians and pundits
have even talked of impeachment of the
secretary of defense. if this
doesn't show
the complete lack of comprehension and
understanding of
the seriousness of the enemy
we are fighting, the life and death
struggle
we are in and the disastrous results of losing
this war,
nothing can.
to bring
our country to a virtual political standstill over
this
prisoner issue makes us look like nero
playing his fiddle as rome
burned - totally
oblivious to what is going on in the real world.
neither we, nor any other country, can
survive this internal strife.
again i say,
this does not mean that some of our politicians or
media
people are disloyal. it simply means
that they absolutely oblivious to
the
magnitude of the situation we are in and into
which the muslim
terrorists have been pushing
us for many years. remember, the muslim
terrorists stated goal is to kill all
infidels. that translates into
all
non-muslims - not just in the united states, but
throughout the
world. we are the last
bastion of defense.
we have been
criticized for many years as being 'arrogant'.
that
charge is valid in at least one respect.
we are arrogant in that we
believe that we
are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win
the
hearts and minds of all those who attack
us, and that with both hands
tied behind our
back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. we
can't. if we don't recognize this, our
nation as we know it will not
survive, and no
other free country in the world will survive if we
are
defeated. and finally, name any muslim
countries throughout the world
that allow
freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of
religion,
freedom of the press, equal rights
for anyone - let alone everyone,
equal status
or any status for women, or that have been
productive in
one single way that contributes
to the good of the world.
this has
been a long way of saying that we must be united
on this
war or we will be equated in the
history books to the self inflicted
fall of
the roman empire. if, that is, the muslim leaders
will allow
history books to be written or
read.
if we don't win this war right
now, keep a close eye on how the
muslims take
over france in the next 5 years or less. they
will
continue to increase the muslim
population of france and continue to
encroach
little by little on the established french
traditions. the
french will be fighting
among themselves over what should or should not
be done, which will continue to weaken them
and keep them from any
united resolve.
doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
democracies don't have their freedoms taken away
from them by some
external military force.
instead, they give their freedoms away,
politically correct piece by politically
correct piece. and they are
giving those
freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide,
that
they abhor freedom and will not apply it
to you or even to themselves,
once they are
in power. they have universally shown that when
they
have taken over, they then start
brutally killing each other over who
will be
the few who control the m-sses. will we ever
stop hearing
from the politically correct,
about the "peaceful muslims"?
i close
on a hopeful note, by repeating what i said above.
if we
are united, there is no way that we
can lose. i believe that after the
election,
the factions in our country will begin to focus on
the
critical situation we are in and will
unite to save our country. it is
your future
we are talking about. do whatever you can to
preserve it.
love,
dad
[1]
by the way on vietnam, the emotions are still so
high that it is
really not possible to
discuss it. however, i think president kennedy
was correct. he felt there was a communist
threat from china, russia
and north vietnam
to take over that whole area. also remember that
we
were in a 'cold war' with russia. i
frankly think kennedy's plan
worked and kept
that total communist control out, but try telling
that
to anyone now. it just isn't
politically correct to say so.
historians
will answer this after cool headed research, when
the
people closest to it are all
gone.
[2] as you know, i am a strong
president bush supporter and will vote
for
him. however, if senator kerry is elected, i will
fully support
him on all matters of
international conflict, just as i have supported
all presidents in the past.
[3]
source for statistics in par. 1 is
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/a0001454.html
.
[4] the institute of islamic
information and education.
http://www.iiie.net/intl/popstats.html
<
br>[5] note the attached article by tom segel
referred to in foot note 6
infra, the
terrorist muslim have already begun the havoc in
france.
(the note was not attached to the
e-mail i received. gene)
[6] i checked
this article with two sources - hoax busters and
urban
myths. it does not come up as a hoax
on either. i also then e-mailed
mr. segel
and he confirmed the article was his.
[7]
"i don't think the army or any branch of service
runs any type of
war any more. it's done by
senators and congressmen. there are too
many
civilians involved." returning iraq veteran, sgt.
1st cl-ss greg
klees as quoted in the cedar
rapids, ia gazette on may13th, 2004.
[8]
there are 64 muslim countries. this does not
count countries like
spain that are
controlled by the muslim
terrorists.
-------------------
--------------------------------------------------
-----------
From: WAKE UP and GROW UP!
2004-08-24 18:24:46
hope this
might give you a longer term
perspective that fewer and fewer of my
generation are left to speak to. to be sure
you understand that this
is not politically
flavored, i will tell you that since franklin d.
roosevelt, who led us through pre and wwii
(1933 - 1945) up to and
including our
present president, i have without exception,
supported
our presidents on all matters of
international conflict. this would
include
just naming a few in addition to president
roosevelt - wwii:
president truman - korean
war 1950; president kennedy - bay of pigs
(1961); president kennedy - vietnam (1961);
[1] eight presidents (5
republican & 4
democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991);
president
clinton's strikes on bosnia (1995)
and on iraq (1998). [2] so be sure
you read
this as completely non-political or otherwise you
will miss
the point.
our country
is now facing the most serious threat to its
existence,
as we know it, that we have faced
in your lifetime and mine (which
includes
wwii). the deadly seriousness is greatly
compounded by the
fact that there are very
few of us who think we can possibly lose this
war and even fewer who realize what losing
really means.
first, let's examine a
few basics:
1. when did the threat to us
start?
many will say september 11th,
2001. the answer as far as the united
states
is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to september
2001, with the
following attacks on us:
iran emb-ssy hostages, 1979; beirut,
lebanon
emb-ssy 1983; beirut, lebanon marine barracks
1983;
lockerbie, scotland pan-am flight to
new york 1988; first new york
world trade
center attack 1993; dhahran, saudi arabia khobar
towers
military complex 1996; nairobi, kenya
us emb-ssy 1998; dar es salaam,
tanzania us
emb-ssy 1998; aden, yemen uss cole 2000; new
york world
trade center 2001; pentagon 2001.
(note that during the period from
1981 to
2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks
worldwide). [3]
2. why were we attacked?
envy of our position, our success, and
our freedoms. the attacks
happened during
the administrations of presidents carter, reagan,
bush
1, clinton and bush 2. we can not fault
either the republicans or
democrats as there
were no provocations by any of the presidents or
their immediate predecessors, presidents ford
or carter.
4. who were the
attackers?
in each case of attacks on
us they were muslims.
5. what is the
muslim population of the world?
25%
6.. isn't the muslim religion
peaceful?
hopefully, but that is really not
material. there is no doubt that
the
predominately christian population of germany was
peaceful, but
under the dictatorial
leadership of hitler (who was also christian),
that made no difference. you either went
along with the administration
or you were
eliminated. there were 5 to 6 million christians
killed by
the nazis for political reasons
(including 7,000 polish priests). (
http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm ).
thus, almost the same
number of christians
were killed by the nazis, as the 6 million
holocaust jews who were killed by them, and
we seldom heard of anything
other than the
jewish atrocities. although hitler kept the world
focused on the jews, he had no hesitancy
about killing anyone who got
in his way of
exterminating the jews or of taking over the world
-
german, christian or any others. same with
the muslim terrorists.
they focus the world
on the us, but kill all in the way - their own
people or the spanish, french or anyone
else.. [5] the point here is
that just like
the peaceful germans were of no protection to
anyone
from the nazis, no matter how many
peaceful muslims there may be, they
are no
protection for us from the terrorist muslim
leaders and what
they are fanatically bent on
doing - by their own pronouncements -
killing
all of us infidels. i don't blame the peaceful
muslims. what
would you do if the choice was
shut up or die?
6. so who are we at
war with?
there is no way we can honestly
respond that it is anyone other
than the
muslim terrorists. trying to be politically
correct and avoid
verbalizing this conclusion
can well be fatal. there is no way to win
if
you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you
are fighting.
so with that background,
now to the two major questions:
1. can we
lose this war?
2. what does losing
really mean?
if we are to win, we
must clearly answer these two pivotal
questions.
we can definitely lose this war,
and as anomalous as it may sound,
the major
reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do
not fathom
the answer to the second question
- 'what does losing mean?'. it would
appear
that a great many of us think that losing the war
means hanging
our heads, bringing the troops
home and going on about our business,
like
post vietnam. this is as far from the truth as
one can get.
what losing really means
is:
· we would no longer be the premier
country in the world.
· the attacks will
not subside, but rather will steadily increase.
remember, they want us dead, not just quiet..
if they had just wanted
us quiet, they would
not have produced an increasing series of attacks
against us over the past 18 years. the plan
was clearly to terrorist
attack us until we
were neutered and submissive to them.
·
we would of course have no future support from
other nations for fear
of reprisals and for
the reason that they would see we are impotent and
can not help them.
· they will pick
off the other non muslim nations, one at a time.
it
will be increasingly easier for them.
they already hold spain
hostage. it doesn't
matter whether it was right or wrong for spain to
withdraw its troops from iraq. spain did it
because the muslim
terrorists bombed their
train and told them to withdraw the troops.
anything else they want spain to do, will be
done. spain is finished.
· the next
will probably be france. our one hope on france
is that
they might see the light and realize
that if we don't win, they are
finished too,
in that they can't resist the muslim terrorists
without
us. however, it may already be too
late for france. france is already
20%
muslim and fading fast. see the attached article
on the french
condition by tom segel.
[6]
· if we lose the war, our
production, income, exports and way of life
will all vanish as we know it. after losing,
who would trade or deal
with us if they were
threatened by the muslims. if we can't stop the
muslims, how could anyone else? the muslims
fully know what is riding
on this war and
therefore are completely committed to winning at
any
cost. we better know it too and be
likewise committed to winning at
any
cost.
why do i go on at such lengths
about the results of losing?
simple.
until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot
unite and
really put 100% of our thoughts and
efforts into winning. and it is
going to
take that
From: Dominic Jermano
1999-11-30 00:00:00
if he had them, why didn't we know where they
were? and if he doesn't have them why doesn't
america plant them there and say hey there they
are! i mean if bush is such a liar i think he is
planning to do this come near election. he wants
to -ssure that he is in power and keep the troops
in iraq for another 4 years. he doesn't want what
happened to poppy when he loss the election after
ousting saddam from kuwait!
better
watch out the american mafia or skull and bones is
on the loose world watchers.!
they have
kay walking out soon.(the wmd head in
iraq)
so what do we do when sharon says
arafat has some biological weapons that suicide
bombers are strapping on? is that another witch
hunt too? or syria is making fusion hydrogen
bombs! is that another witch hunt?
if
he had em he should use em! yeah! we got em and we
use em. look what america did to japan in wwii. we
dropped 2 fatboy atomic bombs and killed hundreds
of thousands of innocent civilians. and you know
what? the little secret is japan never had nuclear
capability of wmd!
hummmm> you think
bush really cares if he finds any wmd in iraq?
hardly!
face it america has caused all
these problems in the world by scientists we
applaud as being great! i think einstein was a
m-ss murdering traitor, and worse than adolf
hitler to mankind!
america is the cause
of terror! no one else! we sell weapons, and
presidents with brain diseases like regan sell gas
to saddam to use on iraqi iranian militants that
we later call saddam's own people to justify shock
and awe carpet m-ssacres!
my question
is why do we vote into power men like reagan who
have brain diseases, and his vice president who
becomes president with his son that are as dumb as
rock salt. yet those same geniuses orchestrate the
nationally televised -ss-ssination of a very
intelligent and healthy brain that is shot and
plastered all over dallas texas in
1963.
so i'm excited when do we arrest
bush? when do we arrest ashcroft,cheney, powell
for mai lai,and daddy bush the main man? when do
we abolish the cia, and homeland security which is
really a cia front, and when do we close down the
carlyle group? when do we abolish the skull and
bones at yale? and when do we impeach the supreme
court and make those turkey black robe dictators
run for election like a democracy should? when do
we abolish the electorial college and make the
peoples popular vote count? seems to me if this
was in the 60's kennedy would still be alive
because he would have loss the election, and nixon
would not have sent us into vietnam, or have the
watergate scandal and his resignation. marilyn
monroe would still be alive because she sure
wouldn't like nixons tricky!
come on you
american dreamers! guess that is why we'er in iraq
because we have leaders like bush who don't have
dreams but nighmares!
From: Tony B
1999-11-30 00:00:00
answer me this. how many people here believe that
george w. bush is by far the worst economist, the
worst defender of our nation, and the best liar
who has ever been dubbed president?
Related News