Their Are No WMD'S There Never Will Be WMD'S. So What The

[DEM FAN]

FU** Are We Waiting For. IMPEACH BUSH NOW. If Going To War On A LIE
Is NOT An Impeachable Offense Then WHAT THE HELL IS. It's Time For
Washington DEMOCRATS To Get A F-ing SPINE.errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
:-( :-( :-(

[Webster Green]

1. It would take a few Republicans to get spines as well....

Thats why it won't happen.

[earthside]

2. Bush credibility on war is in shambles!

Commentary on www.Earthside.com:
Bush regime's credibility on reasons for war is in shambles!
Remember, there were UN weapons inspectors on the ground before Bush ordered the unprovoked attack on Iraq. The ability to discover the truth about Saddam's alleged WMD was inside Iraq; the UN Security Council wanted to give Hans Blix and his team more time to complete their work ... but Bush was in a hurry to have his war. Let's make this clear -- whether or not US intelligence was right, no matter what former president Clinton may have thought, no matter what the Israeli government may have claimed -- having the UN inspectors in Iraq meant that we could have known the truth without killing thousands of human beings! So now, even David Kay has concluded that the illegal weapons were mostly gone after the 1991 Gulf War ... actually just what Saddam had been saying. It is a tragic truth -- if Bush and Blair, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, the news media, and the warmongering radical Republicans had listened to the rest of the world and those of us who use our brains ... over 500 American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis might be alive to be with their families today.

[Cat Atomic]

3. And toss out the "Bush Doctrine" of preventive war.

The Iraq invasion wasn't just about controlling resources or putting troops in a strategically valuable spot. It was a test run for the doctrine of "preemption". They set out to establish the validity of their assinine doctrine by immediately using it.

Whether Bush is impeached or not, the option of preventive war has to go NOW.

[Moderator]

4. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

3. The subject line of a discussion thread may not include profanity or swear words, even if words or letters are replaced by asterisks, dashes, or abbreviations.

4. The subject line and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation.

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

6. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator