The origin of Bush's plan to remove Saddam

[SpeedRacer 1]

Why George Went To War

Russ Baker

June 20, 2005









Investigative reporter and essayist Russ Baker (www.russbaker.com )is a longtime contributor to TomPaine.com.  He is currently involved with launching a nonprofit organization dedicated to revitalizing investigative journalism. He can be reached at russ@russbaker.com.

The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.

Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.

In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"

Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.

Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.

Conversations With Bush The Candidate

Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.

The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.

I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."

Debating The Timeline For War

But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.

The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.

On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.

Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.

Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"

Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."

Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.

Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Zenister 0]

Quote

'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it.

unfortunately this one should have been added to the 'duh headlines'

waits for the Bush supporters to scream about how it was all about (non-existent) WMDs, or how he was ' misled' by 'bad intel'

when you make a decision BEFORE you have the facts it is rather easy to read only the ones you wish to see..... piss poor leadership from the start...and I'm sick of losing friends because of it...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Ron 10]

Quote

unfortunately this one should have been added to the 'duh headlines'

waits for the Bush supporters to scream about how it was all about (non-existent) WMDs, or how he was ' misled' by 'bad intel'

when you make a decision BEFORE you have the facts it is rather easy to read only the ones you wish to see..... piss poor leadership from the start...and I'm sick of losing friends because of it...

No, what we have here is you taking a quote and using in the way you want.

Quote

'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it.

Compare that to:

"If I have a chance to draw my weapon..., I am not going to miss."

Same thing.

You of course see the anti Bush spin, I see the other side.

That does not mean you are right.

Now here comes all the shit about WMD's not being found, how the "intel" was good and ignored, and the required calling people sheep.

For fun you could ramble about how "Intel" is not the right word. Further just trying to avoid the fact you have no proof of any illegal activity on the part of the President...See if you did, we have this thing called "Impeachment".

Like I have said before, if you have PROOF he did something illegal, present it. Hell if its good enough to prove to me he is guilty, I'll even join you to Impeach him....Until then he is innocent till you prove otherwise.

Edit to add:

Here is the name of who I think is your Congressman :

Rick Renzi
418 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-2315 (office)
202-226-9739 (fax)

Please send any proof you have right along to him...In fact if you do get some proof, I'll even send it to my Rep as well.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[ViperPilot 0]

Very well said Ron. It'd be nice if we could all be objective and only make arguments based on FACT and PROOF. It is my opinion that we will probably never find WMDs there, but I still feel we made the overall right move because of the lives we save. It is FACT that Saddam had been slaughtering Iraqis for years, isn't stopping a mad man like that worth it? Or would it just be better to sip coffee in the morning and say "oh that's terrible" to the TV and then go about your daily life while innocent people are killed. To me, it's clear that I need to help those people, no matter how bad the situation.

[Alias 0]

Quote

Like I have said before, if you have PROOF he did something illegal, present it. ...Until then he is innocent till you prove otherwise.

Lets hope no one uses "proof" as valid as "intel" used to "prove" there were wmd.

Bush "we have proof"
then
Bush "our proof was based on bad intel"

Lets hope the same level of "proof" doesnt surface against Bush - then we can all say later "aw - it was bad intel"

ranting today - sorry

Carpe Diem

[Ron 10]

Quote

Lets hope no one uses "proof" as valid as "intel" used to "prove" there were wmd.

Hopefully the Impeachment process would prove one way or another the criminal intent.

I would LOVE to see the truth presented. However, a memo from a Brit is not proof anymore than A.A. Milne's books are proof of a talking teddy bear and a 100 acre woods.

Quote

ranting today - sorry

S'OK

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Gen Clark wrote in his book that a war with Iraq was being planned pre 9/11. He claims it was common knowledge in the Pentagon.

Drawing a weapon if you have the chance and not missing is not the issue. The issue is looking for a reason to draw the weapon and using fear to give us one without proof. Why should we have to prove that Bush lied to us when he failed to give a good enough reason to go to war. If you want to rely upon the common excuses this administration uses then you have to wonder why nothing is being done about a very active act of genocide happening right now.

Speaking of the fear campaign. Anyone else notice the 100% total lack of any threat level changes since the election ended? Even Ridge has spoken out and said most of the ones used before 2004 were unnecessary.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[rushmc 23]

Thanks for the laugh!!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ViperPilot 0]

Hell, we should have been planning to go to war with Saddam pre-911. The guy's been a monster since the 70's. So you didn't like the "WMD" reason, well how bout the "save innocent lives" reason? Is that a good enough one? Perhaps Bush should have used the latter as the basis for invasion, but people make mistakes. Either way, we're helping people by doing what we're doing. WMD's may have been "bad intel," but it is fact that we have saved lives and continue to save lives over there. So, where's the problem?

[rushmc 23]

Research what he said. WMD's were only one part.

Also, have you been reading the latest reports from the inspectors and other groups?

Materials have been moved (maybe WMD supplies maybe not) and it is now a theory that many weapons (maybe WMDS) were moved to Syria.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,997]

>Also, have you been reading the latest reports from the inspectors
>and other groups?

Yep. Still no WMD's. A lot of stuff went missing, though, after we opened the storage facilities and then left them open. I recall a lot of high explosives and some uranium (that had been under a UN seal) that walked once we opened them up to the public.

But of course that must be Saddam's fault. Heck, I hear he's still torturing and killing prisoners in Iraq!

[billvon 2,997]

Good take on this from Crooked Timber:

---------------------------------------
In many countries (including my home country, Ireland), police have a reputation for stitching people up; they seem prepared in some instances to commit perjury in order to get people convicted for crimes. Now in some cases, this is a completely cynical exercise – the police have no idea of whether the accused is guilty or not, but need to get a conviction for political or other reasons. But in others, it’s because the police think that they know who committed a crime, but don’t have the necessary evidence to get the person convicted in court. Therefore, they perjure themselves and lie about the evidence in order to get the conviction.

This, it seems to me, is what happened in the lead-up to Iraq. The Bush administration, like others, probably did genuinely believe that Iraq had an active nuclear program. But it didn’t have the necessary evidence to prove this, either to its allies or to its own people. It therefore cooked the evidence that it did have in order to make its claims more convincing. It didn’t deceive the public about its basic belief that there were WMDs in Iraq. But it did deceive the public about the evidence that was there to support this belief, in order to convince them that there was a real problem. In other words, it did “consciously mislead” the American people (and its allies). When the police are caught perjuring themselves to get convictions, they should (and frequently do) suffer serious consequences, even if they believe that they’re perjuring themselves in order to get the guilty convicted. That’s not what the police should be doing; they haven’t been appointed as judges, and for good reason. If the police persistently lie in order to get convictions, the system of criminal law is liable to break down. Similarly, when the administration lies about a major matter in order to get public support, it shouldn’t be excused on the basis that it thought that it was lying in a good cause. It’s still betraying its basic democratic responsibilities.
---------------------------------------

[Ron 10]

Quote

Yep. Still no WMD's. A lot of stuff went missing, though, after we opened the storage facilities and then left them open. I recall a lot of high explosives and some uranium (that had been under a UN seal) that walked once we opened them up to the public.

This is the logic I love....What 360 TONS of high explosives were found to be "missing" after we knew where there were right?

Where did they go? I mean 360 TONS just does not dissapear does it?

Now how hard could 10-20 tons of Anthrax be to hide if 360 TONS of stuff can dissapear? How hard would it be to get it across a few borders?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,997]

>Where did they go? I mean 360 TONS just does not dissapear does it?

People probably stole them.

>Now how hard could 10-20 tons of Anthrax be to hide if 360 TONS of
>stuff can dissapear? How hard would it be to get it across a few
>borders?

Too bad cops can't use that sort of logic with criminals! "We have no evidence you committed that murder, but how hard would it have been to throw away the gun and wash your hands? You're going away for life!" Then we'd have a justice system to rival, say, Saudi Arabia's. We can only hope that right-wingers succeed with their mission to convince americans that absence of evidence is proof of wrongdoing.

[Ron 10]

Quote

>Where did they go? I mean 360 TONS just does not dissapear does it?

People probably stole them.

>Now how hard could 10-20 tons of Anthrax be to hide if 360 TONS of
>stuff can dissapear? How hard would it be to get it across a few
>borders?

Too bad cops can't use that sort of logic with criminals! "We have no evidence you committed that murder, but how hard would it have been to throw away the gun and wash your hands? You're going away for life!" Then we'd have a justice system to rival, say, Saudi Arabia's. We can only hope that right-wingers succeed with their mission to convince americans that absence of evidence is proof of wrongdoing

I can't believe you think 360 Tons can just go away but a few Tons could not have.

Un-believable.

Never forget he had them and he never complied.

But the fact you can admit...Hell you even tout that the toops let 360 tons dissapear....But you can't admit that a few tons of WMD could.

WOW!

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,997]

>Un-believable.

Again, most people in the reality-based world realize that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. Yes, many things might have happened. Maybe Saddam got rid of the WMD's. Maybe Bush got it all wrong. Maybe the CIA actually killed all the Kurds and the Iranians. But people in the reality-based community go on what you can prove, not what conspiracy theorists can dream up.

>But you can't admit that a few tons of WMD could.

Of course it could. In fact, it most probably did back in the 1990's, back when we told him to destroy them.

Your assertion seems to be that it must have happened between the time we first attacked Baghdad and the time we got control of his bases. Prove it.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Police: Open up the door. We have a warrant to search the premises. This is your last chance!

Criminal: O.K. just give me a minute. I'm on the phone. (flushing sounds...)

Police: Open the door NOW!! We have a warrant. This is your last chance.

Criminal "Just a minute, I'm in the shower. I'll be right there".

Police: We've been waiting for an hour. Now open that door, PLEEEEZ..... This is your last chance and this time we mean it!!

Criminal: Just one more minute, I'm drying my hair. I'll be right there. (more flushing sounds)

Police: We aren't going to wait much longer. Now open the door or we will kick it in. This time we really mean it when we say this is your last chance.

Criminal: What are you looking for anyway? (more flushing sounds)

Police: We are looking for drugs and stolen property. We suspect you have them and a judge issued a warrant. We aren't going to give you many more chances to open the door.

Criminal: We'll I don't know where you are getting your info, but there's nothing like that in here. Now go away and leave me alone. (window opening sounds)

Police: We are only going to give you one more last chance to open the door and then we are coming in by force. We mean it this time.

Criminal: OK, tell you what. I'll let you in but only if you agree to tell me what room you are going to search with a 30 minute advance notice. (more flushing sounds and windows opening)

Police: OK, we called the Captian and he said he would go along witht that. You have 30 minutes.

30 minutes later........

Criminal: See, I told you I didn't have anything illegal here.....

[billvon 2,997]

Police: Open the door. This is your last chance.
Arab: OK. Just give me a second.
Police: Last chance!
Arab: OK, door's open.
Police: Where's the coke?
Arab: No coke.
Police: Prove it!
Arab: You can search the house. There's no coke here.
(police search)
Police: We found a gun! Show me your permit.
Arab: I don't need a permit!
Police: Then show me the recepit.
Arab: Here it is. (Cop reads receipt.)
Police: You bought more guns than this. This is a lie.
Arab: When did it get to be about guns? Did you find any coke?
Police: OK, so there's no coke. Big deal. How do we know you didn't give it to your neighbors?
Arab: So ask them.
Police: We did. They said you didn't. But we know you have it. Or you had it. Or something.
Arab: So what are you going to do about it?
Police: Well . . .

(Cop sees his two sons and shoots them dead.)

Police: How about that? Now where's the coke?
Arab: There is no coke! Why the fuck did you kill my sons?
Police: That's it, you're going in. Now you're cursing. Only guilty people curse.

We can only hope that someday you have such good cops in your neighborhood, willing to do what must be done to preserve your security. After all, what's a little liberty when security is at stake?

[Gravitymaster 0]

We can only hope that some day, people will stop admiring Dick Durbin.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Again, most people in the reality-based world realize that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused

The accused is supposed to follow the rules that are placed on them..Saddam didn't. The UN didn't do their job either.

Quote

But people in the reality-based community go on what you can prove, not what conspiracy theorists can dream up.

Saddam used WMD's on the Kurds and the Iranians....Do you doubt that?

Quote

Your assertion seems to be that it must have happened between the time we first attacked Baghdad and the time we got control of his bases

Actually thats not my assertation...But thanks for assuming you know what I think. If you were right it would save more time. However, you are wrong. But thanks anyway.

I think that he had been hiding them and sneaking them out of the Country for years.

People do that all the time. They hide things not on their property since they know they are being watched, and their property could be searched.

Still if you want to look at who is at fault:

1. Saddam for not complying with the UN resolutions...Say what you want, he never complied. If he had there would have been no reason to invade.

2. The UN for not doing the job they claim to be able to do. They should have made Saddam comply

3. Bush 1 for not finishing the job he started. He caved to World pressure and stopped short of removing Saddam in 91.

4. Clinton for at best sending a few missles, and destroying our intel community. He likes the UN, but not enought ot make it do the job it claims to be made for. Clinton getting rid of HUMIT in favor of high tech toys left a gigantic hole in our ability to gather intel.

5. Bush and the current Admin....For not doing a better job of reading the intel. You can claim that they only went after sources that said what they wanted...But if you have proof, go ahead and Impeach him, if not quit making claims you can't back up with proof.....BTW some Brit memo is not proof.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,027]

Bush lied to the American people to further his political goals. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. I can't begin to imagine why you continue to defend the sleazebag.

You demand "proof" over and over like a cracked record, but Bush went to war and wasted thousands of lives without proof of his supposedly "bad intel".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Bush lied to the American people to further his political goals. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. I can't begin to imagine why you continue to defend the sleazebag.

I know you are a brit, but ever heard of "innocent till proven guilty?"

I can't understand how you keep making statements you can't back with any evidence...Thats not very scientific. I expect this kinda crap from some low life or someone with political ambitions, but not a Professor.

Quote

You demand "proof" over and over like a cracked record

Well, thats because you have not been able to provide any, but keep lying anyway.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Zenister 0]

what is really sad is you and the warhawks like you were not so vehement about PROOF, when it came to invading in the first place... but WTF! i mean it only the lives of American soldiers, why not risk them on the flimsiest of 'evidence' to fulfill a preestablished intent for regime change....(i suppose you never read the PNAC manifesto from before the first election either...)

but again what the hell, its not like its your sweat and blood, it certainly isnt Bush's and after all they are only soldiers, its their job to die for their leaders mistakes and preconceptions........ maybe your tune will change when a few more of your friends and relatives (who could have easily lived out their lives and died of old age, at home in bed, with their wives and families, while we continued to contain a non-existent threat) have spilled their blood in the desert because BUSH SIMPLY WOULD NOT WAIT.....


but please Ron, in all your frantic internet searches for more feeble excuses to invade, why dont you find one that justifies the Bush's "urgent need' and "imminent threat" ? why was it necessary to go in when we did? .... oh yea.. perhaps that is because (as is very clear now and was likely very clear to Bush from the start) if we'd waited for the investigation to finish, there would have been no MWD justification at all, and "I want to remove Saddam in my presidential term" simply would not have sold as well....

and of course there is no glory to be gained in the eyes of presidential history by being the man who "waited them out". It is to bad presidents are not judged on the number of American soldiers they DIDNT get killed.........

there will never be an impeachment. Fortunately, our standard of proof for criminal action (if not criminal intent) is higher than that required for Bush to invade, and honestly there is nothing criminal about a politician manipulating the data to gain public support... morally bankrupt perhaps, when the goal you are creating support for costs American lives, but criminal? not at all...it is simply 'business as usual' for career politicians...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Ron 10]

Quote

what is really sad is you and the warhawks like you were not so vehement about PROOF, when it came to invading in the first place... but WTF! i mean it only the lives of American soldiers

Actually, Im not a warhawk. I was a soldier. I would MUCH rather the UN had done its job. But it did not.

Quote

but again what the hell, its not like its your sweat and blood, it certainly isnt Bush's and after all they are only soldiers, its their job to die for their leaders mistakes and preconceptions........ maybe your tune will change when a few more of your friends and relatives (who could have easily lived out their lives and died of old age, at home in bed, with their wives and families, while we continued to contain a non-existent threat) have spilled their blood in the desert because BUSH SIMPLY WOULD NOT WAIT.....

This is nothing more than an over emotional reaction.

Two Fallicies come to mind from your rant:

1. Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy. "its their job to die for their leaders mistakes and preconceptions"

2. Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author. "maybe your tune will change when a few more of your friends and relatives".

You still refuse to admit that Saddam never complied with the UN resolutions.

Fine, but don't expect your over emotional bable to mean anything to me.

Quote

why was it necessary to go in when we did?

Off the top of my head the UN resolutions seem to come to mind.

Quote

there will never be an impeachment. Fortunately, our standard of proof for criminal action (if not criminal intent) is higher than that required for Bush to invade

Well at least you finaly admit you have no proof...Then why do you lie so much and so often?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Ron, can the proof needed for Impeachment be held to the same standards as the proof that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq and subsequent death of thousands?