Bush Administration made 985 false statements about iraq before war started. why?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_o鈥?/a>





its still not too late to impeach Bush. He has over 11 months in office.





why don't they impeach him now?Bush Administration made 985 false statements about iraq before war started. why?
The Bush Administration couldnt even get to 1000 false statements





they are failures in many ways.Bush Administration made 985 false statements about iraq before war started. why?
his dad taught him how to lie while acting dumb and his mom taught him disregard and inconsideration of fellow humans
The right wingnuts think it is ok.


It doesn't bother them.
Impeaching Bush at this stage of his Presidency SHOULD be done. However, the cost is tax $$$ wasted--and haven't there been enough of that with the Iraq war already? Sure, we could fire Bush now--but that won't magically repair the economic damage and pending recession his lies have put upon us.





Call it a hunch, but I suspect Bush and pal Dick Cheney (and perhaps a ';cast'; of other corrupted baddies) WILL face Justice soon enough. I wouldn't be surprised if they're bulking up legal eagles right now, preparing for the inevitable.





Bush and Cheney basically are war profiteers. It's not like they're the first in our history.





Vietnam: We didn't fight there to help the poor South Vietnamese against Communist aggressions. We fought to protect South Vietnamese import markets--of which some Washington D.C. VIP heavies had major stocks in. And Vietnam was a cash cow for profiteers, too.





The $$$$ during Vietnam was so good, a President who sought to end the war got whacked in broad daylight. Guess who THAT was???





Needless to say, it isn't like Bush had a gun to his head--he siezed opportunities for himself, Cheney and others. Now, he must answer for it. Here's hoping he does.
';One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to


develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That


is our bottom line.';


- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998





';If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We


want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass


destruction program.';


- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998





';Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal


here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,


chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest


security


threat we face.';


- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998





';He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times


since 1983.'; S


- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998





';[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.


Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,


air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to


the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction


programs.';


- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John


Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998





';Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass


destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he


has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.';


- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998





';Hussein has . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass


destruction and palaces for his cronies.';


- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of St ate, Nov. 10, 1999





';There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons


programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs


continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam


continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a


licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten


the United


States and our allies.';


- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,


December 5, 2001





';We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a


threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the


mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction


and the means of delivering them.';


- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002





';We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical


weapons throughout his country.';


- Al Gore, Sept.. 23, 2002





';Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to


deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in


power.';


- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002





';We have known for many years that Saddam H ussein is seeking and developing


weapons of mass destruction.';


- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002





';The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are


confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and


biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to


build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence


reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...';


- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002





';I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority


to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe


that a deadly arsenal o f weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real


and


grave threat to our security.';


- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002





';There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively


to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the


next five y ears ... We also should remember we have always underestimated


the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.';


- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002





';He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every


significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his


chemical and biologica l weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has


refused to do'; Rep.


- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002





';In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that


Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons


stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has


also


given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members


. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will


continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,


and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.';


- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002





';We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam


Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for


the pr oduction and storage of weapons of mass destruction.';


- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002





';Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,


murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a


particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to


miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his


continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction


.. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real


..';


- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003





Will you be impeaching these folks too? or do liberals not count...?
Were these alleged statements under oath? Your impeachment dream is the fantasy of the pouting liberals and whining Democrats. Isn't going to happen since nothing he did rises to the level of ';high crimes and treason.'; Ticking off liberals and Democrats does not count as such.
because Cheney and Addington litigated their positions and manipulated their way into positions where by law, (according to the new laws brought into effect by them) their is no legal standing to impeach!!





at the top, we have the smartest corporate lawyers in the business, dividing up powers and treasures, and they are changing the rules in their favor to protect themselves from the little people like us!!!





that is if we continue to do it the civilized way, and if not.......


well, their is always those FEMA compuonds!!!





go figure!!!
Let him stay ! He's the best thing the Dems have going for them right now ! His continued presence in the WHite House and in headlines ASSURES a Dem victory !
A pesky little thing called an impeachable offense





The statements were false because the intelligence was faulty








If the dems could impeach him they would, the fact they have not tried tells you all you need to know