Monday, June 09, 2008
Bush misstatements on prewar Iraq? No sh-t!
"There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
Yeah, it's called lying.
Read the press release from the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Read the committee report (pdf).
--ER
Yeah, it's called lying.
Read the press release from the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Read the committee report (pdf).
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003
"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 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 of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people." -- Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." -- Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." --Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict." -- Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so." -- Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
March 17, 2003
"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause." -- Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts), March 20, 2003
"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 biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Congressman Henry "Nostrilitis" Waxman (Democrat, California), October 10, 2002
--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003
"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 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 of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people." -- Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." -- Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." --Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict." -- Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so." -- Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
March 17, 2003
"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause." -- Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts), March 20, 2003
"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 biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Congressman Henry "Nostrilitis" Waxman (Democrat, California), October 10, 2002
Allow me to repeat Sen. Rockefeller's comment, which includes admission that "(they) all" relied on flawed intelligence:
"There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
It's that second sentence that "we all" should think about.
So, what's yer point?
"There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
It's that second sentence that "we all" should think about.
So, what's yer point?
Boys and girls, it is too late.
Stash some gasoline for the "emergency", and buy extra food and some candles.
Can you say $500 a barrel oil?
We will do this again with Iran.
It is well on its way. At least it will provide us with an excuse to stay in Iraq.
The law and presidential directives are in place to give the President the ability to declare a National Emergency without informing (much less asking) Congress to approve, and appoint a National Continuity Coordinator without the advise and consent of the Senate to control all government functions down to the State and tribal levels without any declaration except that of the President.
The two directives are:
The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, and a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20.
The Law is:
H.R. 5122 [109th]: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
Most of NSPD-51 and HSPD 20 are secret, as well they should be except, they are not available to anyone in Congress.
Most citizens don't know how to read this shit, so they don't really understand what they say and how far gone it all is.
I am sure if I tried to explain what is here, there are those, not knowing me at all, who would attack my arrogance at assuming that I could "possibly" understand them. So instead go find out for yourselves how you've already been b... f..... and charged a fee for it.
Our only hope is GW will not use them. Right, then why bother to construct them in the first place?
I was thinking today about Bob Dylan's song, The Answer is Blowing in theWind. At the time I was driving past a feed lot and got a long smell of the cattle there. The phrase I was thinking of was this:
"Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind."
Yep, the answer is blowing in the wind as stench from the White House: not soon.
I found my flint lock. But I have had to order some new flints from e-Bay.
Can we hold up going to the barricades till they get here?
Stash some gasoline for the "emergency", and buy extra food and some candles.
Can you say $500 a barrel oil?
We will do this again with Iran.
It is well on its way. At least it will provide us with an excuse to stay in Iraq.
The law and presidential directives are in place to give the President the ability to declare a National Emergency without informing (much less asking) Congress to approve, and appoint a National Continuity Coordinator without the advise and consent of the Senate to control all government functions down to the State and tribal levels without any declaration except that of the President.
The two directives are:
The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, and a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20.
The Law is:
H.R. 5122 [109th]: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
Most of NSPD-51 and HSPD 20 are secret, as well they should be except, they are not available to anyone in Congress.
Most citizens don't know how to read this shit, so they don't really understand what they say and how far gone it all is.
I am sure if I tried to explain what is here, there are those, not knowing me at all, who would attack my arrogance at assuming that I could "possibly" understand them. So instead go find out for yourselves how you've already been b... f..... and charged a fee for it.
Our only hope is GW will not use them. Right, then why bother to construct them in the first place?
I was thinking today about Bob Dylan's song, The Answer is Blowing in theWind. At the time I was driving past a feed lot and got a long smell of the cattle there. The phrase I was thinking of was this:
"Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind."
Yep, the answer is blowing in the wind as stench from the White House: not soon.
I found my flint lock. But I have had to order some new flints from e-Bay.
Can we hold up going to the barricades till they get here?
I have a question...
Whatever happened to "To the Victor belong the spoils"?
Right or wrong, haven't we spent National Treasure, and committed American lives to the project of taking over Iraq?
Aren't we about to do the same thing in Iran?
And if the oil in Iran and Iraq belongs to the citizens of Iran and Iraq, no matter how much it costs the citizens of the United States to take it away from Hussein and Ahminajihad and give it to them to sell back to us, then why doesn't the oil in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico and Wyoming and Colorado and Texas and Oklahoma belong to the Citizens of the United States for our enrichment and enjoyment?
Why are any of us putting up with the situation that our elected doofusses (from BOTH sides) have constructed here?
Whatever happened to "To the Victor belong the spoils"?
Right or wrong, haven't we spent National Treasure, and committed American lives to the project of taking over Iraq?
Aren't we about to do the same thing in Iran?
And if the oil in Iran and Iraq belongs to the citizens of Iran and Iraq, no matter how much it costs the citizens of the United States to take it away from Hussein and Ahminajihad and give it to them to sell back to us, then why doesn't the oil in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico and Wyoming and Colorado and Texas and Oklahoma belong to the Citizens of the United States for our enrichment and enjoyment?
Why are any of us putting up with the situation that our elected doofusses (from BOTH sides) have constructed here?
And my point, ER, was that if Bush lied about the reasons and need for War in Iraq, then so did a hell of a lot of other people.
To look back now and try to say that Bush LIED!!, but the democrats , well, you know, we all, you know, relied on faulty intelligence, you know, back then...
That's disingenuous.
And the "faulty intelligence" that those Dems I quoted relied upon when they were making their decisions about whether or not to support the War were Opinion Polls, not Security Briefings and CIA Reports.
And when you lead by public Opinion Poll, then this is what you get.
And it's good enough for you.
To look back now and try to say that Bush LIED!!, but the democrats , well, you know, we all, you know, relied on faulty intelligence, you know, back then...
That's disingenuous.
And the "faulty intelligence" that those Dems I quoted relied upon when they were making their decisions about whether or not to support the War were Opinion Polls, not Security Briefings and CIA Reports.
And when you lead by public Opinion Poll, then this is what you get.
And it's good enough for you.
Dang, Tug. You went reasonable there for a second, then took it back before I could get to you.
If you think that all sides in this country don't lead by opinion poll, then go look in the damn mirror for an answer to this:
"Why are any of us putting up with the situation that our elected doofusses (from BOTH sides) have constructed here?"
Look in the morror, Tug. You'd rather win that be right. You'd rather blame everyone than swallow your own share of what's gone wrong these past eight years.
I read where you're going to vote for Obama to hasten doom. We'll take it.
There's a tiny chance that we can avoid the nightmare scenario DrLobo is talking about. And I am fool enough to think it rests in getting Bush and the GOP out of the WH, and Congress firmly out of the hands of the GOP.
But I full expect that son-of-a-bitch Bush to bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran this fall. Hell, man, at least all the Clinton kids did was trash the WH as they were leaving. Your man's going to try to burn down the whole damn Middle East as he goes.
Hope yer proud, Tug. Of one asinine war. Of one bogged-down war. Of everything else this clown and his bad-comedy writers have foisted on us and the rest of the world. Of the megalomania. Of being duped, and being a stooge int he duping of the so-called Christian Right! Oh, yes! GAY MARRIAGE is the real crisis in the country! This made-up "Culture War"! Happy, Tug? Is the idiocy of any of it hitting you where it counts yet?
Jesus. (A prayer, but probably in vain).
If you think that all sides in this country don't lead by opinion poll, then go look in the damn mirror for an answer to this:
"Why are any of us putting up with the situation that our elected doofusses (from BOTH sides) have constructed here?"
Look in the morror, Tug. You'd rather win that be right. You'd rather blame everyone than swallow your own share of what's gone wrong these past eight years.
I read where you're going to vote for Obama to hasten doom. We'll take it.
There's a tiny chance that we can avoid the nightmare scenario DrLobo is talking about. And I am fool enough to think it rests in getting Bush and the GOP out of the WH, and Congress firmly out of the hands of the GOP.
But I full expect that son-of-a-bitch Bush to bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran this fall. Hell, man, at least all the Clinton kids did was trash the WH as they were leaving. Your man's going to try to burn down the whole damn Middle East as he goes.
Hope yer proud, Tug. Of one asinine war. Of one bogged-down war. Of everything else this clown and his bad-comedy writers have foisted on us and the rest of the world. Of the megalomania. Of being duped, and being a stooge int he duping of the so-called Christian Right! Oh, yes! GAY MARRIAGE is the real crisis in the country! This made-up "Culture War"! Happy, Tug? Is the idiocy of any of it hitting you where it counts yet?
Jesus. (A prayer, but probably in vain).
Oh, BTW, no, Tug. All politicians lie some. Bush and his crowd are in a class by themselves.
They even lied to you, didn't they? About being conservatives, I mean.
It's OK to admit you've been b--- f----- like the rest of us. You'll feel better.
They even lied to you, didn't they? About being conservatives, I mean.
It's OK to admit you've been b--- f----- like the rest of us. You'll feel better.
tug: Any excuse that begins "Well they did it too!" isn't worthy of anyone older than about 8 years old.
The intelligence came from the Bush administration. If Democrats were stupid enough to believe them, then they share in the blame as well. If the media was complicit in allowing this crap to go through unquestioned, then they're to blame too. But in the end, the intelligence (such as it was) came from the administration.
What ever happened to conservatives believing in personal responsibility and accountability?
The intelligence came from the Bush administration. If Democrats were stupid enough to believe them, then they share in the blame as well. If the media was complicit in allowing this crap to go through unquestioned, then they're to blame too. But in the end, the intelligence (such as it was) came from the administration.
What ever happened to conservatives believing in personal responsibility and accountability?
Ole Tug will be one of the first people to be "conformed to continuity". He is a truck driver, and if he has an ICC ticket he will be Federalized as an individual under the ICC's Emergency Plan which will then be controlled by the National Continuity Coordinator and will be sent where and when the ICC sees fit to provide for the needs on continuity. Welcome Mr. Tug to Federal indentured servitude. All transport employees will likewise be treated.
Just thought I would mention one specific result of the directives.
Now even if GW doesn't have the balls to pull the trigger, this loaded weapon is still there for the next President to use. Basically I don't trust anybody to have that much power without checks and balances. Not Obama Not McCain not my mama (especially not my mama, she wanted to nuke Cuba back in 1960).
By the way don't you just love these Federal Phrases:
"Conformed to Continuity"?
How about "sanction-able actions"?
Now don't forget to stash that 10 gallons or so of gas. I was told yesterday by a potato farmer here in the San Luis Valley that he was topping off his diesel tanks even at $4.80 a gallon, because he could remember back in the 1970's when you couldn't buy fuel at any cost and he had to miss a whole crop. After he topped off his fuel tanks on the equipment and then his two 500 gallon storage tanks he had spent, $38,000 and didn't feel too bad about it if it let him keep his place going.
By the way ER, as just a report on what I see. Interstate traffic is down by about a third. All of the trucks are traveling at 60-65 MPH rather than the standard 75-80 MPH on I-40 and I-25. The recreational trailers and such are down by half on the roads. This is all a comparison of all the same places at the same dates as last year.
Off to ride a train powered by coal.Bye.
Just thought I would mention one specific result of the directives.
Now even if GW doesn't have the balls to pull the trigger, this loaded weapon is still there for the next President to use. Basically I don't trust anybody to have that much power without checks and balances. Not Obama Not McCain not my mama (especially not my mama, she wanted to nuke Cuba back in 1960).
By the way don't you just love these Federal Phrases:
"Conformed to Continuity"?
How about "sanction-able actions"?
Now don't forget to stash that 10 gallons or so of gas. I was told yesterday by a potato farmer here in the San Luis Valley that he was topping off his diesel tanks even at $4.80 a gallon, because he could remember back in the 1970's when you couldn't buy fuel at any cost and he had to miss a whole crop. After he topped off his fuel tanks on the equipment and then his two 500 gallon storage tanks he had spent, $38,000 and didn't feel too bad about it if it let him keep his place going.
By the way ER, as just a report on what I see. Interstate traffic is down by about a third. All of the trucks are traveling at 60-65 MPH rather than the standard 75-80 MPH on I-40 and I-25. The recreational trailers and such are down by half on the roads. This is all a comparison of all the same places at the same dates as last year.
Off to ride a train powered by coal.Bye.
I agree!
"I don't trust anybody to have that much power without checks and balances. Not Obama Not McCain not my mama (especially not my mama, she wanted to nuke Cuba back in 1960)."
"I don't trust anybody to have that much power without checks and balances. Not Obama Not McCain not my mama (especially not my mama, she wanted to nuke Cuba back in 1960)."
"All of the trucks are traveling at 60-65 MPH rather than the standard 75-80 MPH on I-40 and I-25."
I've noticed this as well. Here in Michigan, where the name of the road usually tells you how fast to drive (ie. you drive 94mph on I-94. I-696 is especially fun) the trucks seem to have have slowed down considerably.
I've noticed this as well. Here in Michigan, where the name of the road usually tells you how fast to drive (ie. you drive 94mph on I-94. I-696 is especially fun) the trucks seem to have have slowed down considerably.
From the Report:
Regarding Prewar intel on Nukes:
"Conclusion 1: Statement made by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, and the National Security Advisor, regarding a possible nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community evidence, but did not convey the substantiative disagreements in the intelligence community."
Regarding Prewar intel on biological weapons:
"Conclusion 2: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of biological agent, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information."
Regarding Prewar intel on chemical weapons:
"Conclusion 3: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information."
The report concludes in similar fashion regarding WMD's underground facilities, etc. which I will not present in full, lest I get blog-banned!
The press release you have linked is only one of two (the democrat release). There is a "rebuttal" release (if you will) posted on the same web page.
The linked press release is very slanted in presenting only conclusions that denote significant disagreement. It doesn't present the prewar conclusions, all of which noted that the Bush Administration statement were consistent with the current intelligence. Furthermore it rewords and summarizes some of the conclusions, to present further bias.
None of this, in my opinion, excuses Bush from what has been a crappy job in "selling" and running the war. The President owes it to the people to try to convince them as the logic and vision of any military action, and I feel he has failed there mightily. I do not, though, find this report to be damning proof that Bush, or the rest of the politicians were "deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate." to use ER's words. Should he pull out? not have gone? further checked? Did he not have the full picture? All fine questions, to raise reading this. Do I think he has committed treasonous lies? Not on the basis of this report.
Regarding Prewar intel on Nukes:
"Conclusion 1: Statement made by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, and the National Security Advisor, regarding a possible nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community evidence, but did not convey the substantiative disagreements in the intelligence community."
Regarding Prewar intel on biological weapons:
"Conclusion 2: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of biological agent, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information."
Regarding Prewar intel on chemical weapons:
"Conclusion 3: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information."
The report concludes in similar fashion regarding WMD's underground facilities, etc. which I will not present in full, lest I get blog-banned!
The press release you have linked is only one of two (the democrat release). There is a "rebuttal" release (if you will) posted on the same web page.
The linked press release is very slanted in presenting only conclusions that denote significant disagreement. It doesn't present the prewar conclusions, all of which noted that the Bush Administration statement were consistent with the current intelligence. Furthermore it rewords and summarizes some of the conclusions, to present further bias.
None of this, in my opinion, excuses Bush from what has been a crappy job in "selling" and running the war. The President owes it to the people to try to convince them as the logic and vision of any military action, and I feel he has failed there mightily. I do not, though, find this report to be damning proof that Bush, or the rest of the politicians were "deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate." to use ER's words. Should he pull out? not have gone? further checked? Did he not have the full picture? All fine questions, to raise reading this. Do I think he has committed treasonous lies? Not on the basis of this report.
Those were Sen. Rockefeller's words.
I never called the president traitorous. I have said he should be impeached. Impeachment is not an act of law; it's an act of politics. Politics, dirty word it might be, is the only remedy for a situation like this. Yet the Dems wouldn't even try.
"The press release you have linked is only one of two (the democrat release). There is a "rebuttal" release (if you will) posted on the same web page."
Of course there is. The Judiciary Committees in the Senate and the House both are the most partisan of all. Any report from either, on any subject, is partisan by definition. That's one of the spoils that come with controlling Congress.
Heyl I was impressed that the Committee Web site even linked to the minority report. Senate rules, probably, or decorum, is probably why. I was surprised -- but glad, too. Glad you found it. Others can, too. :-)
I never called the president traitorous. I have said he should be impeached. Impeachment is not an act of law; it's an act of politics. Politics, dirty word it might be, is the only remedy for a situation like this. Yet the Dems wouldn't even try.
"The press release you have linked is only one of two (the democrat release). There is a "rebuttal" release (if you will) posted on the same web page."
Of course there is. The Judiciary Committees in the Senate and the House both are the most partisan of all. Any report from either, on any subject, is partisan by definition. That's one of the spoils that come with controlling Congress.
Heyl I was impressed that the Committee Web site even linked to the minority report. Senate rules, probably, or decorum, is probably why. I was surprised -- but glad, too. Glad you found it. Others can, too. :-)
While ER, Alan, and others have done the work of dismissing tugboatcaptain's comments, I would highlight the most important reason why the quotes he posts are irrelevant. After January 1, 2001, then January 20, 2001, the Republicans were firmly in control of both the legislative and executive branches of government (despite Jim Jeffords defection in the summer of that year over Bush's petty snub, giving the Senate, for two brief years, back to the Democrats). None of the people mentioned in the quotes had any real power or authority. Couples with evidence from other sources that the decision to attack Iraq happened in the days just following the September terrorist attacks, the manipulation and falsification of evidence is pretty clear-cut. It's that simple.
When the Vice-President of the United States continually uses a false anecdote - one of the conspirators met with Iraqi intelligence - long after it has been thoroughly debunked; when the Secretary of State and National Security Director continue to cite the presence of aluminum tubes that were conclusively proved to be artillery barrels as uranium centrifuges; when the Vice President sets up an "independent clearing house" (the "Office of Special Plans") within his office because he doesn't like the way the CIA is dealing with intelligence information; when the Secretary of Defense tells the nation and world that "we know where they [WMD's] are" even as the IAEA has concluded that Iraq dismantled its construction program and destroyed its limited stockpiles the previous decade; when the Director of National Security dismisses questions concerning any links between Iraq and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 with fear-mongering nonsense about "smoking guns" being "mushroom clouds"; with all that (and ever so much more), there is but one conclusion to which any person with a lick of sense can come. They lied to us, and because of those lies, tens of thousands are dead who might not otherwise be so; Osama bin Laden is still out there, somewhere; our economy, our politics, our public discourse are all distorted out of any sense of proportion; and getting out from under this particular weighty mess is made even more difficult than it should be because the logistics both political and physical are so complex.
Thank you, George W. Bush for showing how easy it is to eff up a good country in just seven short years.
When the Vice-President of the United States continually uses a false anecdote - one of the conspirators met with Iraqi intelligence - long after it has been thoroughly debunked; when the Secretary of State and National Security Director continue to cite the presence of aluminum tubes that were conclusively proved to be artillery barrels as uranium centrifuges; when the Vice President sets up an "independent clearing house" (the "Office of Special Plans") within his office because he doesn't like the way the CIA is dealing with intelligence information; when the Secretary of Defense tells the nation and world that "we know where they [WMD's] are" even as the IAEA has concluded that Iraq dismantled its construction program and destroyed its limited stockpiles the previous decade; when the Director of National Security dismisses questions concerning any links between Iraq and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 with fear-mongering nonsense about "smoking guns" being "mushroom clouds"; with all that (and ever so much more), there is but one conclusion to which any person with a lick of sense can come. They lied to us, and because of those lies, tens of thousands are dead who might not otherwise be so; Osama bin Laden is still out there, somewhere; our economy, our politics, our public discourse are all distorted out of any sense of proportion; and getting out from under this particular weighty mess is made even more difficult than it should be because the logistics both political and physical are so complex.
Thank you, George W. Bush for showing how easy it is to eff up a good country in just seven short years.
Ok, I get it.
They ALL lie... It's just that our's lie just a little, and then, it's usually just repeating a lie that one of your guys told them...
But THE OTHER side, well THEY lie ALOT!
ALL THE TIME!!
ABOUT EVERYTHING
Why, they lie so much, and so good, that everybody believes them!
Now we should all embrace Marxism and Communism because George W. Bush is a lying poopy-pants!
And your argument is childish, Tug!
Got it.
Pathetic.
They ALL lie... It's just that our's lie just a little, and then, it's usually just repeating a lie that one of your guys told them...
But THE OTHER side, well THEY lie ALOT!
ALL THE TIME!!
ABOUT EVERYTHING
Why, they lie so much, and so good, that everybody believes them!
Now we should all embrace Marxism and Communism because George W. Bush is a lying poopy-pants!
And your argument is childish, Tug!
Got it.
Pathetic.
As a matter of fact, tug, they do lie all the time. Even when they don't have to. That's the definition of being pathological.
The Democrats do share a measure of responsibility for our current mess, through their political weakness. I don't know too many liberals who would say otherwise.
Yet, blame - not responsibility, but blame, and yes there is a difference - rests squarely on the shoulders of George W. Bush. Since most of the country would tend to agree, and since the evidence is overwhelming that members of his Administration, for which he bears a certain responsibility, have been catalogued in close to 1,000 unique and distinctive misstatements of fact (lies), it seems to me pretty clear that calling him and the members of his Administration liars, and their "misstatements" lies is not only fair, it is accurate.
Your response was the verbal equivalent of a five year old stomping his foot. Get over it. He lied, thousands died, and as far as I'm concerned the whole lot of them need to be in the dock at The Hague at our earliest possible convenience, like January 21, 2009.
The Democrats do share a measure of responsibility for our current mess, through their political weakness. I don't know too many liberals who would say otherwise.
Yet, blame - not responsibility, but blame, and yes there is a difference - rests squarely on the shoulders of George W. Bush. Since most of the country would tend to agree, and since the evidence is overwhelming that members of his Administration, for which he bears a certain responsibility, have been catalogued in close to 1,000 unique and distinctive misstatements of fact (lies), it seems to me pretty clear that calling him and the members of his Administration liars, and their "misstatements" lies is not only fair, it is accurate.
Your response was the verbal equivalent of a five year old stomping his foot. Get over it. He lied, thousands died, and as far as I'm concerned the whole lot of them need to be in the dock at The Hague at our earliest possible convenience, like January 21, 2009.
And this was great, too...
"If you think that all sides in this country don't lead by opinion poll, then go look in the damn mirror... "
"Any excuse that begins "Well they did it too!" isn't worthy of anyone older than about 8 years old...
You guys are a trip!
"If you think that all sides in this country don't lead by opinion poll, then go look in the damn mirror... "
"Any excuse that begins "Well they did it too!" isn't worthy of anyone older than about 8 years old...
You guys are a trip!
Tug reminds us that someone has to make up that 20%.
Of course GW lied. He lied to himself, and that is the highest crime of all.
I prefer to think of GW as bullheadly stupid. Now for that you can not be impeached. If you believe your own lies you are not in intent misleading the people. That the majority of the people followed is the peoples' fault. If you impeach GW then you will have to impeach the people who elected him.
Say, there might be something to that.
Now, after the Chimp enforces his illegal directives, then he is impeachable assuming of course that there is anyone left to do so.
By the way, has anyone noticed that most of these people writing nasty tell all books are Republicans? Hell, they're acting just like Democrats.
Tug said: then why doesn't the oil in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico and Wyoming and Colorado and Texas and Oklahoma belong to the Citizens of the United States for our enrichment and enjoyment?"
It does Tug, it does belong to Americans. Hell, I own .006563% of one oil well, and my wife owns nine such percentages of producing wells and mineral rights on several dormant ones. And Tug it is actually enriching (enriching is a little overblown, how about giving us revenue at long last) us and we are enjoying it.
Oh yes and if we tried to take their oil in Iraq or Iran by force, the oil fires of Kuwait would look like a marshmallow roast.
And one other point:
Start a war with Iran and when they sink just one tanker in the straits to the Persian Gulf, not only will it be block for a time but no shipping firm on earth will be able to afford the insurance to operate.
Of course GW lied. He lied to himself, and that is the highest crime of all.
I prefer to think of GW as bullheadly stupid. Now for that you can not be impeached. If you believe your own lies you are not in intent misleading the people. That the majority of the people followed is the peoples' fault. If you impeach GW then you will have to impeach the people who elected him.
Say, there might be something to that.
Now, after the Chimp enforces his illegal directives, then he is impeachable assuming of course that there is anyone left to do so.
By the way, has anyone noticed that most of these people writing nasty tell all books are Republicans? Hell, they're acting just like Democrats.
Tug said: then why doesn't the oil in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico and Wyoming and Colorado and Texas and Oklahoma belong to the Citizens of the United States for our enrichment and enjoyment?"
It does Tug, it does belong to Americans. Hell, I own .006563% of one oil well, and my wife owns nine such percentages of producing wells and mineral rights on several dormant ones. And Tug it is actually enriching (enriching is a little overblown, how about giving us revenue at long last) us and we are enjoying it.
Oh yes and if we tried to take their oil in Iraq or Iran by force, the oil fires of Kuwait would look like a marshmallow roast.
And one other point:
Start a war with Iran and when they sink just one tanker in the straits to the Persian Gulf, not only will it be block for a time but no shipping firm on earth will be able to afford the insurance to operate.
Listen guys...
Believe what you want, blame who you want, call me childish all you want...
You guys over here have been banging your sippy-cups on your high-chairs for years now.
You have never thought that GWB was legitimate since ALGORE lost in 2000, and you have (most of you have) pouted and thrown an extended tantrum ever since then because you did not get your way.
It would not matter what GWB did, or did not do, you would still hate him.
Your entire world view is colored by hatred for one man.
And while hatred and bile are your guides, don't expect me to join you in your causes.
Believe what you want, blame who you want, call me childish all you want...
You guys over here have been banging your sippy-cups on your high-chairs for years now.
You have never thought that GWB was legitimate since ALGORE lost in 2000, and you have (most of you have) pouted and thrown an extended tantrum ever since then because you did not get your way.
It would not matter what GWB did, or did not do, you would still hate him.
Your entire world view is colored by hatred for one man.
And while hatred and bile are your guides, don't expect me to join you in your causes.
Re, "THEY lie ALOT! ALL THE TIME!! ABOUT EVERYTHING"
No. They lied about rhe single most important thing they could lie about: War. Just like LBJ.
Re, "He can just take away profits from businesses whenever he wants, give money to the poor and the middle class whether they want it or not ..."
Dude. You need an updated script. I mean, really. I don't know where else you could get this stuff:
"he can soften the heart of the most evil and insane dictator, and defend this country without weapons of any type."
Excuse me, but where the THE hell do you get THAT?
Re, "Aparently the reason that this country is in the shape it is ..."
I'll tell you: Because a freelancer used Big Money and an innattentive electorate to get elected; then, he and his psycho-phants and others even more evil than that took advantage of HIS ignorance even as HE took advantage of the electorate's ignorance, plus the emotional windfall following 9/11 to be both ignorant AND decisively stupid AND suddenly PIOUS and attune to the Will of God -- and ... sorry, I am about to burst a blood vein.
Tuggie, I wish that you'd admit that you think Dubwa is as much a loser as I do. You'll feel better, really. You know I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a long time.
Then I had to admit that he, and all those who supported him -- including myself -- had been eff-ups.
Come on, man. Come clean. Gt a new start.
And vote for Obama. Out of spite.
We'll take it.
No. They lied about rhe single most important thing they could lie about: War. Just like LBJ.
Re, "He can just take away profits from businesses whenever he wants, give money to the poor and the middle class whether they want it or not ..."
Dude. You need an updated script. I mean, really. I don't know where else you could get this stuff:
"he can soften the heart of the most evil and insane dictator, and defend this country without weapons of any type."
Excuse me, but where the THE hell do you get THAT?
Re, "Aparently the reason that this country is in the shape it is ..."
I'll tell you: Because a freelancer used Big Money and an innattentive electorate to get elected; then, he and his psycho-phants and others even more evil than that took advantage of HIS ignorance even as HE took advantage of the electorate's ignorance, plus the emotional windfall following 9/11 to be both ignorant AND decisively stupid AND suddenly PIOUS and attune to the Will of God -- and ... sorry, I am about to burst a blood vein.
Tuggie, I wish that you'd admit that you think Dubwa is as much a loser as I do. You'll feel better, really. You know I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a long time.
Then I had to admit that he, and all those who supported him -- including myself -- had been eff-ups.
Come on, man. Come clean. Gt a new start.
And vote for Obama. Out of spite.
We'll take it.
I know it must be hard, Tug. I remember being so dissapointed in Bubba, when he veered rightward.
But hey. I have never been such a fool that I thought voting for the man, or the woman, was the thing to do. LOL~! We're stuck with the two-party system for awhile yet.
I'll keep holding my nose and voting for the party closest to my experience, my hope, my dreams and my sense of right and wrong.
And it ain't the Gangrenous Old Party.
But hey. I have never been such a fool that I thought voting for the man, or the woman, was the thing to do. LOL~! We're stuck with the two-party system for awhile yet.
I'll keep holding my nose and voting for the party closest to my experience, my hope, my dreams and my sense of right and wrong.
And it ain't the Gangrenous Old Party.
bgamblDrlobo, I have always liked you...
But you've got me all wrong.
I probably don't like GWB any more than anyone else here...
But I'm sick of hearing one man attacked and savaged at every turn for doing what (at the time) seemed to be the right thing.
Everybody thought so.
Think about what is being said here for a moment...
George W. Bush had neither the time, nor the patience, nor the intelligence, nor the number of accomplices, nor the motive, nor the means to fabricate the Iraq War all by himself.
And we have no way of knowing at this point in time whether it was a good idea or a bad one. We do not know how this will effect the course of Geopolitics, as such things move by the Century, not by the minute.
On Economic Policy, GWB is the WORST President since Jimmy Carter, but that is because he was too focused on the "New Tone" nonsense, instead of going to Washington and representing the people who sent him there.
He is not a strong leader, nor is he a Conservative.
But neither is he a blood-thirsty savage, nor a monster, nor a war-monger, nor a War Profiteer.
These past seven years have probably been the most difficult time to be President since the Civil War, and No-one -- NO ONE in Washington has consistently backed him, nor supported him, nor even given him the benifit of the doubt... not consistently.
And his one main priority during his campaign was to try to work with Democrats, to return civility to public discourse.
Well, we see where that got him.
Democrats have wanted his head on a platter since day one.
It isn't right, and these guys know it. (That's why they get so angry, and descend like a pack of jackyls upon anyone who shows up here and doesn't join in on the Bush-Bash-Fest.)
That's the reason that I stopped commenting here the last time.
I'm not a "20 percenter"...
But what goes on here ain't right.
But you've got me all wrong.
I probably don't like GWB any more than anyone else here...
But I'm sick of hearing one man attacked and savaged at every turn for doing what (at the time) seemed to be the right thing.
Everybody thought so.
Think about what is being said here for a moment...
George W. Bush had neither the time, nor the patience, nor the intelligence, nor the number of accomplices, nor the motive, nor the means to fabricate the Iraq War all by himself.
And we have no way of knowing at this point in time whether it was a good idea or a bad one. We do not know how this will effect the course of Geopolitics, as such things move by the Century, not by the minute.
On Economic Policy, GWB is the WORST President since Jimmy Carter, but that is because he was too focused on the "New Tone" nonsense, instead of going to Washington and representing the people who sent him there.
He is not a strong leader, nor is he a Conservative.
But neither is he a blood-thirsty savage, nor a monster, nor a war-monger, nor a War Profiteer.
These past seven years have probably been the most difficult time to be President since the Civil War, and No-one -- NO ONE in Washington has consistently backed him, nor supported him, nor even given him the benifit of the doubt... not consistently.
And his one main priority during his campaign was to try to work with Democrats, to return civility to public discourse.
Well, we see where that got him.
Democrats have wanted his head on a platter since day one.
It isn't right, and these guys know it. (That's why they get so angry, and descend like a pack of jackyls upon anyone who shows up here and doesn't join in on the Bush-Bash-Fest.)
That's the reason that I stopped commenting here the last time.
I'm not a "20 percenter"...
But what goes on here ain't right.
And ER, I might vote for Black Jesus...
Or I might write in Hulk Hogan.
The one thing I know for sure is that I will not vote for McCain.
I have no dog in the upcoming Presidential fight, so I plan to stand on the sidelines and just throw rocks into the arena.
Or I might write in Hulk Hogan.
The one thing I know for sure is that I will not vote for McCain.
I have no dog in the upcoming Presidential fight, so I plan to stand on the sidelines and just throw rocks into the arena.
Re, "Your entire world view is colored by hatred for one man."
This is where you are now, and have always been, wrong.
The view I have of my country is shaped by my utter diregard, and dismay, of the GOP during my lifetime, which started in 1964. Dubya just makes it easier.
I'd be saying the same things, Tug, no matter who the GOP candidate for president was; and you'd be saying the same things no matter who the Democratic candidate was.
Y'all had turn to change the damn world with Reagan -- and the world changed! Its our turn, and we'll change it some more!
This is where you are now, and have always been, wrong.
The view I have of my country is shaped by my utter diregard, and dismay, of the GOP during my lifetime, which started in 1964. Dubya just makes it easier.
I'd be saying the same things, Tug, no matter who the GOP candidate for president was; and you'd be saying the same things no matter who the Democratic candidate was.
Y'all had turn to change the damn world with Reagan -- and the world changed! Its our turn, and we'll change it some more!
Already won the election, have ya?
I think you over-estimate Black Jesus, and your fellow Dems...
But that's my opinion...
And change away.
After all, Freedom, Responsibility, and the U.S. Constitution were a bad deal anyway, I guess.
Like I have said before... It shouldn't take long for Americans to get a belly-full of the horse-hockey that Black Jesus is spewing.
When inflation, unemployment, and interest rates are in the double-digits again, and college graduates can't read (but they all recycle!), and gas lines are around the block for eight dollar per gallon gas, the pendulum will swing.
It only took Carter four years, and then came Reagan.
Go, Obama!!
I think you over-estimate Black Jesus, and your fellow Dems...
But that's my opinion...
And change away.
After all, Freedom, Responsibility, and the U.S. Constitution were a bad deal anyway, I guess.
Like I have said before... It shouldn't take long for Americans to get a belly-full of the horse-hockey that Black Jesus is spewing.
When inflation, unemployment, and interest rates are in the double-digits again, and college graduates can't read (but they all recycle!), and gas lines are around the block for eight dollar per gallon gas, the pendulum will swing.
It only took Carter four years, and then came Reagan.
Go, Obama!!
On having won, "???" Win or lose, the landscape of presidential pollyticks has changed for the better.
On Tony Whathis: Good luck makin' something like that stick. It's just garden-variety pollytickin' compared to yer man's ... wait. He's not yer man! Not Bush. Not McCain. Tell me why you give a rat's again.
Note to the Green Party, and the Reform Party: Please scoot over and give the GOP room to sit.
On Tony Whathis: Good luck makin' something like that stick. It's just garden-variety pollytickin' compared to yer man's ... wait. He's not yer man! Not Bush. Not McCain. Tell me why you give a rat's again.
Note to the Green Party, and the Reform Party: Please scoot over and give the GOP room to sit.
Your opinion, my friend.
We will see.
And I don't give a rat's ass.
The GOP has chosen for me to sit this round out.
But we are not gone, and you guys will hang yourselves in good time.
We will see.
And I don't give a rat's ass.
The GOP has chosen for me to sit this round out.
But we are not gone, and you guys will hang yourselves in good time.
I don't have time for this.
I have to get up at 2:30 tomorrow AM and go to continue my "indentured servitude."
Enjoy this while you got it, ER.
The plans and policies that Black Jesus and the rest of the Neo-Comms are promising will not work, and will lead to National Misery.
And in a few years, you will realize (whether you admit it or not) that I have been right.
About ALL of this.
When that happens, (if any of us can still afford internet access...) I will be around to accept your apology.
You are wrong to put so much faith in Black Jesus, and his Marxism.
You will someday realize that you would have been better off to have trusted in yourself, and to have let the rest of us do the same.
Later.
I have to get up at 2:30 tomorrow AM and go to continue my "indentured servitude."
Enjoy this while you got it, ER.
The plans and policies that Black Jesus and the rest of the Neo-Comms are promising will not work, and will lead to National Misery.
And in a few years, you will realize (whether you admit it or not) that I have been right.
About ALL of this.
When that happens, (if any of us can still afford internet access...) I will be around to accept your apology.
You are wrong to put so much faith in Black Jesus, and his Marxism.
You will someday realize that you would have been better off to have trusted in yourself, and to have let the rest of us do the same.
Later.
Tug said: "...don't expect me to join you in your causes."
Nope I don't expect it.
Tug also said:
"George W. Bush had neither the time, nor the patience, nor the intelligence, nor the number of accomplices, nor the motive, nor the means to fabricate the Iraq War all by himself."
Actually I think he did all of those.
I mean most of the nation was behind him at first. The Neo-cons wanted Iraq. GW and Cheney truly believed they had something to do with 9-11. Fabricate they didn't need to do, just needed to "text-proof" the evidence in hand to what they "knew" to be true.
Finally the only single individual in the world that CAN do such shit BY HIMSELF is the President of the United States. I hope we change that.
Bush is just following a long list of American Presidents who have done similar things. He is not the first and he will not be the last.
I don't hate Bush, I despise him.
Now Nixon I hated, I mean deep down real visceral hate. He made the war in Nam continue two years past when we could have left, all for political reasons. All that died during that time were effectively murdered by Nixon and Kissinger. Strangely that is still tied into what is happening today with GW.
ER said: "Re, "Black Jesus" is redundant, dang near."
Golldangit ER, you know that Jesus is 900 feet tall, alabaster white, and will come back to earth in either Tulsa, Oklahoma or Kirkwood, Missouri.
You know, in 1976 everything was so shitty that even the guy who won the election lost it. I kinda think we are in that same shape today. God help any or all of them.
Nope I don't expect it.
Tug also said:
"George W. Bush had neither the time, nor the patience, nor the intelligence, nor the number of accomplices, nor the motive, nor the means to fabricate the Iraq War all by himself."
Actually I think he did all of those.
I mean most of the nation was behind him at first. The Neo-cons wanted Iraq. GW and Cheney truly believed they had something to do with 9-11. Fabricate they didn't need to do, just needed to "text-proof" the evidence in hand to what they "knew" to be true.
Finally the only single individual in the world that CAN do such shit BY HIMSELF is the President of the United States. I hope we change that.
Bush is just following a long list of American Presidents who have done similar things. He is not the first and he will not be the last.
I don't hate Bush, I despise him.
Now Nixon I hated, I mean deep down real visceral hate. He made the war in Nam continue two years past when we could have left, all for political reasons. All that died during that time were effectively murdered by Nixon and Kissinger. Strangely that is still tied into what is happening today with GW.
ER said: "Re, "Black Jesus" is redundant, dang near."
Golldangit ER, you know that Jesus is 900 feet tall, alabaster white, and will come back to earth in either Tulsa, Oklahoma or Kirkwood, Missouri.
You know, in 1976 everything was so shitty that even the guy who won the election lost it. I kinda think we are in that same shape today. God help any or all of them.
"But I'm sick of hearing one man attacked and savaged at every turn for doing what (at the time) seemed to be the right thing. Everybody thought so."
Speak for yourself. Plenty of people did not think so.
Oh and for the record, I don't "hate" GWB because he stole the election. I don't hate him at at. I am however disgusted by his devil-may-care attitude about this war (Support the war by going to Disney World!) and our troops. His "Bring it on" comment should have landed him in the well of the House.
But, as I said earlier and you may have missed due to your tantrum, plenty of people bear responsibility (Republicans, Democrats, & the press) for this mess. However, when it comes to military action, Bush is, in fact, the Commander-in-Chief and the buck stops there. (A little fact those who defend him seem to forget again and again.)
"And I don't give a rat's ass."
Well, clearly you do. You're here throwing tantrums. People usually don't throw tantrums about things they're not concerned about.
Speak for yourself. Plenty of people did not think so.
Oh and for the record, I don't "hate" GWB because he stole the election. I don't hate him at at. I am however disgusted by his devil-may-care attitude about this war (Support the war by going to Disney World!) and our troops. His "Bring it on" comment should have landed him in the well of the House.
But, as I said earlier and you may have missed due to your tantrum, plenty of people bear responsibility (Republicans, Democrats, & the press) for this mess. However, when it comes to military action, Bush is, in fact, the Commander-in-Chief and the buck stops there. (A little fact those who defend him seem to forget again and again.)
"And I don't give a rat's ass."
Well, clearly you do. You're here throwing tantrums. People usually don't throw tantrums about things they're not concerned about.
But I'm sick of hearing one man attacked and savaged at every turn for doing what (at the time) seemed to be the right thing.
Everybody thought so.
Ummm... no? I'll remind you that never in the history of the world has one invasion been so thoroughly opposed globally as this one. MILLIONS of people took to the streets in the US, and tens of millions took to the streets worldwide.
NONE of us thought the evidence supported the allegations and the plan. To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality.
I think you have a messiah complex on behalf of Bush (whom you apparently don't even like). The tens of millions of us who have protested his policies did so for one simple and easily-comprehended reason: We opposed those policies.
To try to suggest that there's this vast conspiracy of millions of people who are childish and stupid enough to go around, investing our precious time and money, merely because we "hate" someone is to strain credibility beyond the breaking point.
Don't be goofy.
Everybody thought so.
Ummm... no? I'll remind you that never in the history of the world has one invasion been so thoroughly opposed globally as this one. MILLIONS of people took to the streets in the US, and tens of millions took to the streets worldwide.
NONE of us thought the evidence supported the allegations and the plan. To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality.
I think you have a messiah complex on behalf of Bush (whom you apparently don't even like). The tens of millions of us who have protested his policies did so for one simple and easily-comprehended reason: We opposed those policies.
To try to suggest that there's this vast conspiracy of millions of people who are childish and stupid enough to go around, investing our precious time and money, merely because we "hate" someone is to strain credibility beyond the breaking point.
Don't be goofy.
I'll accept EL's offering of Fred Hiatt's opinion piece, and point out that his selective use of WaPo is about the same as the administration's selective use of any evidence that justified the intention George W. Bush had to go to war with Iraq from the minute he took office.
Collosal failure of intelligence? OK. Yes. I'll but that. Made even worse by an administration hellbent on war with Iraq? Hell yes.
Collosal failure of intelligence? OK. Yes. I'll but that. Made even worse by an administration hellbent on war with Iraq? Hell yes.
Re, "I never called the president traitorous. I have said he should be impeached. Impeachment is not an act of law; it's an act of politics."
I would state that you are calling him at least "criminal", when asking for impeachment.
Impeachment is not a recall vote or vote of no confidence as seen in parliamentary government. Those are "acts of politics". Impeachment is a finding of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," per the constitution. Are you saying that he should be convicted upon his impeachment trial? If so, then you are stating that he's guilty of these high (treasonous) crimes. A president is first impeached and then stands trial, in which a vote of guilty (or not guilty) to convict the impeached president of his purported crimes.
The degree of severity regarding these crimes is (in my opinion) why Clinton would, and should, have never been found guilty in impeachment.
Now, if you want to say that impeachment (not conviction) has been used inappropriately for political usage, I'd have to agree.
My point was that I do not feel the Bush has been criminal in his actions regarding Iraq. Stupid, as Drlobo recommends, is closer to the mark.
I would state that you are calling him at least "criminal", when asking for impeachment.
Impeachment is not a recall vote or vote of no confidence as seen in parliamentary government. Those are "acts of politics". Impeachment is a finding of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," per the constitution. Are you saying that he should be convicted upon his impeachment trial? If so, then you are stating that he's guilty of these high (treasonous) crimes. A president is first impeached and then stands trial, in which a vote of guilty (or not guilty) to convict the impeached president of his purported crimes.
The degree of severity regarding these crimes is (in my opinion) why Clinton would, and should, have never been found guilty in impeachment.
Now, if you want to say that impeachment (not conviction) has been used inappropriately for political usage, I'd have to agree.
My point was that I do not feel the Bush has been criminal in his actions regarding Iraq. Stupid, as Drlobo recommends, is closer to the mark.
Well, impeachment and conviction are "political" by definition since they come at the hands of political bodies, the House and the Senate -- and in practice, by the fact that, when it comes to presidents, each impeachment *was* political.
I'd say that President Bush should have been impeached for a high crime, and convicted of a high misdemeanor. And I'd say I'm being fairly generous, since others left of center, sadly, and wrongly, want him to be tried in an international judiciary "system" that doesn't actually exist.
Clinton's impeachment sucked. As a partisan I hated it; as a journalist I was able to dig because 1., the paper where I was put out an extra, and 2., I personally hawked them on the street. But I did not think it was totally out of line, thinking what I think about impeachment, which is based on the history of the other presidential impeachment. Likewise, I was glad Clinton was not convicted, mainly because it would have set a terrible standard for something so tawdry and human.
War is the supreme act of a representative government. War is not a blowjob. And even FUDGING the truth -- spin -- directly to We, the People, specifically to conjure the support of We, the People, is a high fricking misdemeanor, at least in my book. Save that kind of fundamental spin for diplomacy.
Alas. The constitutional water is under the separation-of-powers bridge now. Hey, people wanted to impeach FDR, too. And Reagan. And probably LBJ (although I'm not actually sure of that).
I'd say that President Bush should have been impeached for a high crime, and convicted of a high misdemeanor. And I'd say I'm being fairly generous, since others left of center, sadly, and wrongly, want him to be tried in an international judiciary "system" that doesn't actually exist.
Clinton's impeachment sucked. As a partisan I hated it; as a journalist I was able to dig because 1., the paper where I was put out an extra, and 2., I personally hawked them on the street. But I did not think it was totally out of line, thinking what I think about impeachment, which is based on the history of the other presidential impeachment. Likewise, I was glad Clinton was not convicted, mainly because it would have set a terrible standard for something so tawdry and human.
War is the supreme act of a representative government. War is not a blowjob. And even FUDGING the truth -- spin -- directly to We, the People, specifically to conjure the support of We, the People, is a high fricking misdemeanor, at least in my book. Save that kind of fundamental spin for diplomacy.
Alas. The constitutional water is under the separation-of-powers bridge now. Hey, people wanted to impeach FDR, too. And Reagan. And probably LBJ (although I'm not actually sure of that).
On the other hand, the biggest reason the Dem-led House didn't impeach the president is because the complicity, or sheer rolling-over-and-showing-of-the-pink-peepee, of the Dem leadership would have come out in the Senate trial.
Hey, I can be partisan. But I'm no idgit.
Post a Comment
Hey, I can be partisan. But I'm no idgit.
<< Home
