It is everyone's duty to make this a credibility issue in the current US gov't in order to force a change in the PCG.

___________________
This is what you came for.

The time is NOW!

Powell, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, Blair, Aznar.. and everyone else.. yall screwed!

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

Izzy..Yoepus.....why are you not replying to these posts?

I recal that you beleived Powells presentation infront of the UN was "proof" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

The U.K. and the U.S. just got

___________________

It has to start somewhere,
It has to start sometime,
What better place then here?
What better time than now?
--Rage Against the Machine

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 The U.K. and the U.S. just got

Nah nah, more like

But seriously, this is another reason why the U.S. government can't be trusted.

So,what else is new?

___________________
"Wenn du dich zum Untergrund zählst, reicht es nicht, es nur zu sagen. Du musst auch viel graben, um es zu werden."

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper So,what else is new?

___________________

It has to start somewhere,
It has to start sometime,
What better place then here?
What better time than now?
--Rage Against the Machine

Before you go laying all of the blame on a single administration:

quote:

By Alex Keto A Dow Jones Newswires Analysis WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Faced with a potential threat from Iraq, U.S. President George W. Bush launched a preemptive strike, and he is now using the same approach with Democrats who question his assertion that the then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the war began. Perhaps with one eye on the travails of embattled U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is facing sharp questions at home about whether he misled the public about Iraq's weapons programs, Bush and White House officials have shifted their tactics from simply asserting that Saddam had the weapons to a much more aggressive approach. For the second day in a row Tuesday, Bush said that anyone who seeks to make political hay out of the failure to uncover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so far would be well advised to exercise caution, and is engaged in nothing less than "revisionist history." "We made it clear to the dictator of Iraq that he must disarm. We asked other nations to join us in seeing to it that he would disarm, and he chose not to do so, so we disarmed him. And I know there's a lot of revisionist history now going on, but one thing is certain, he is no longer a threat to the free world, and the people of Iraq are free," Bush said. On Monday, Bush said that Iraq posed a clear threat to the security of the U.S. in 1991, 1998 and 2003, and in all cases, the U.S. acted. The dates correspond to the first Persian Gulf War, the military strikes launched by former President Bill Clinton after Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors and the most recent war against Iraq. The point, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, is that U.S. concerns over Iraq's weapons programs didn't begin with the current administration and haven't been solely a Republican concern. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have been highly worried about Saddam's weapons programs for over a decade. In fact, during the Clinton administration, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen held up a five-pound bag of sugar during a television interview and said that a similar amount of anthrax could devastate a U.S. city. Cohen made the remarks when the Clinton administration was trying to build support for military action against Iraq in 1998. While Cohen and other Clinton administration officials may be out of office, a number of potential critics in the House and the Senate are not. However, Fleischer indicated the administration is not worried about it. "I would suggest to you, go back and read any number of speeches given by members of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, in 1998 when the Congress passed, wisely passed, the Regime Change Act for Iraq, and you'll find floor speech after floor speech that talks about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction," Fleischer said. Any lawmakers who want to criticize the current administration's reading of the intelligence material should first make sure they didn't claim in 1998 that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, Fleischer said. "Members of Congress said it was certainty then. The previous administration said it was certainty then. And unless somebody thinks again that Saddam Hussein threw out the weapons inspectors, and after he threw out the weapons inspectors he got rid of his weapons of mass destruction and didn't tell anybody... Saddam Hussein did, indeed, have weapons of mass destruction leading up to the war," Fleischer said. The fact that such weapons have proven elusive in the two months since the war ended proves nothing, Fleischer said, adding the president has confidence the weapons not only exist but also they will be found at some point. "Nothing's changed. You heard the president say it many, many times. Yes, that's what the president said then. It's what he believes now, of course," Fleischer said. Despite the aggressive stance of the White House, Fleischer insisted the administration has no objection to congressional hearings into what administration officials knew about Saddam's weapons. "The president has welcomed these hearings," Fleischer said.

That article is such a piece of crap. Yes, the Clinton administration was worried because Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction. Notice the past tense here. WMDs are not very stable substances and can't be kept functional for long, at least not in Iraqi conditions. Regardless of that, the worry of the american government about Iraqi possessed WMDs is not the issue at all. The real issue is the fact US attacked a sovereign country for no direct reason, at the same time lied to the public and presented people with false information, and destroyed any hope for a truly united and multilatteral world. It destroyed 50 years of attempts of global cooperation and reduced the UN to what League of Nations has become during Hitler. Are you forgetting Iraq agreed to allow the UN inspectors unlimited access to all of its facilities? Are you forgetting Hans Blix graded Iraqi cooperation as 4/5? Are you forgetting that the US refused franco-german proposal that called for tripling the number of the UN inspectors? It is normal for the US to worry about weapons possessed by countries that are not in favor of America, but what the US has done surpasses that by far. If the WMDs were the real concern, the US could simply have sent its inspectors through the UN, as Clinton has done, and it could send as much inspectors as it wanted. Saddam Hussein did agree to those conditions. It became obvious then that the WMDs were not a concern at all. It was clear then that the US knew Saddam didn't have any real weapons, and that he was selected because he was an easy target. His regime already suffered much damage from sanctions and his military and technology development was controlled by the US and Britain. On the other hand, his country had vast natural resources combined with an excellent strategical position in the very heart of the middle east. You have to be blind not to see what the real intentions of the US were.

___________________
1+1=10

Well, don't know about you, but I'm already turning to www.votetoimpeach.org

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa This is indeed a valuable piece of news because it now looks like Bush, Powell and Blair don't have any evidence of Saddam's acute WMD threat.

Wait, they NEVER had evidence.....

___________________

It has to start somewhere,
It has to start sometime,
What better place then here?
What better time than now?
--Rage Against the Machine