Are you SICK of Bush bashing, Yes or No?

[renaissanceman]

PLEASE read this article before you respond.

"Call them what they are -- TRAITORS...
Mark Alexander
From Patriot Post Vol. 05 No. 46; Published 18 November 2005 | Print Email PDF

(Publisher's Note: There are occasional Demo-Gogue updates at the end of this essay.)

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill

Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution notes: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

The Left is at it again.

Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy have accused President George W. Bush of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, insisting that he "lied us into war." Some Demo wing nuts are even floating the idea of impeachment. Their charges have no substance, of course; they're merely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections. In other words, Democrat Party leaders are using the gravely serious matter of the Iraq War for trivial political fodder -- and their politicization of our mission there has put our Armed Forces in the region in greater peril.

Let's be clear: There is nothing wrong with honest criticism of an American president; to the contrary, we have written extensively about President Bush's policy failures. The dishonest and politically motivated accusations of Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and their ilk, however, are nothing short of -- and we don't use this term lightly -- treasonous.

Here are their accusations:

Reid: "We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq ... the Vice President is behind that." (Reid, you may recall, recently called the President "a loser" while speaking to a high-school civics class.)

Durbin: "I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." (Durbin, you may recall, recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.)

Kennedy: "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." (Kennedy, you may recall, got kicked out of Harvard for cheating. In addition, you may recall, he drunk-drove his car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while he went back to his hotel, called his lawyer, concocted an alibi and went to sleep.)

Naturally, the Democrats' media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these and other Demo-gogues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington.

Leading the bogus "Bush lied" charge, Ted Kennedy proclaimed last week, "What was said before does matter. The President's words matter." Indeed they do, as do the words of Kennedy and his fellow revisionists. What follows, then, is a collection of words that will shine a bright light on their treachery. We'll begin with an important piece of Clinton-era legislation.

The Iraq Liberation Act: Passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1998, the Act stated, "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." This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition. Here's what Democrats were saying before the 2000 election of George W. Bush:

President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Clinton on Operation Desert Fox: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right -- it was a "baby formula" factory.

Vice President Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk 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."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."

Nancy Pelosi: "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."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We 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."

[renaissanceman]

After the 2000 election:

When President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years' worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- years of appeasement, when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden were refused, and when the 9/11 terrorists were free to get drivers licenses and take flying lessons. Notably, Mr. Bush retained Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, who was the arbiter of Bush administration's position on Iraq's WMD.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear in their concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Here's what Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qa'ida 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. ... There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. ... Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."

In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."

These assessments were echoed by intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and 2000.

On 22 July 2003, four months after the launch of OIF, Bill Clinton said in a nationally-televised interview, "It is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons [in Iraq]." That's "incontestable" as in irrefutable, unquestionable, incontrovertible, undeniable and indisputable.

So, Harry and Nan, Ted and Dick, what's your real agenda?

Clearly this Democrat "leadership" is willing to turn our national-security interests into political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of lying us into a war. Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office: that of defending our liberty against all threats.

Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their perfidy -- and they've placed America's uniformed Patriots in the crossfire.

For his part, President Bush has finally responded: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war ... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."

"Deeply irresponsible"? He is much too kind.

In the end, American Patriots must call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, et al., for what they are: TRAITORS. How else to describe political leaders who so eagerly embolden our Jihadi enemies and erode the morale of our fighting forces in Iraq and around the world?

Perhaps the most distressing conclusion about this treachery, though, is that so many Democrats don't seem to care about the truth. For them, the end justifies any means.

One of only a few sane Democrat voices:

"I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution, which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national-security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. ... The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there." --Senator (and Gore's 2000 VP candidate) Joseph Lieberman on the Senate floor Tuesday (Kudos to you for taking the high road, Senator Lieberman.)

[renaissanceman]

UPDATE: 2006 -- The Demos surrender, retreat and defeat plan:

"The idea that we're going to win this war ... is just plain wrong." --DNC chairman Howard Dean

"There is no reason that young american soldiers need to be going into Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, uh, uh, uh, women...." --John Kerry

"Everyone knows there is no military solution to the difficulties we face in Iraq. ... Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today. ... The answer for this is, let's elect more Democrats in 2008. That will help solve the problem." --Hillary Clinton

More sanity from Mr. Lieberman: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

UPDATE: 2007

April 07 -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid adopts Newsweek's surrender line and declares the United States has lost the war in Iraq. "This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday."

Ted Kennedy defended Mr. Reid's assertion: "Who are we surrendering to? This is an unconventional war and it has to be dealt with in unconventional ways. ... What is failure is this bankrupt policy, this ineffective no-win policy of the administration?"

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner called on Mr. Reid to retract the statement: "He is telling our enemies they have won. While Mr. Reid may be willing to throw in the towel and declare this a lost cause, I am certain that American troops are not. ... Mr. Reid's comments are demoralizing to our troops, and just plain wrong."

July 07 -- John Kerry, arguing for American defeat in Iraq, claimed, "We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn't happen".

Well, here's a summary of what what happened after America abandoned Vietnam: Some one million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials; 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's "re-education" camps; Tens of thousands were abused or tortured; Prisoners were incarcerated for as long as 17 years, according to the U.S. Department of State, with most terms ranging from three to ten years.

In Laos, tens of thousands were sent to "re-education" camps and an unknown number died. In Cambodia, more than 1.7 million of Cambodia's 8 million inhabitants perished from disease, starvation, overwork, or outright execution in a notorious genocide" perpetrated by the infamous Khmer Rouge. John Kerry claims to have supplied weapons to the Khmer Rouge during his four-month tour in Vietnam.

Next time he's asked if he told the truth about post-war Vietnam, Kerry should reply, "It didn't happen."

"Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism have...revealed our lack of preparation for defensive and stability operations. ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. ... We're not going to baby sit a civil war. ... [OIF] is proven to be a foreign policy disaster." -- Barack Obama

August 07 -- There is a confluence of analysis from the warfront in Iraq that OIF has turned a corner. Clearly, good news is bad news for those Leftists who have staked their political fortunes on America's failure, surrender and retreat from Iraq. Asked about the political implications should commanding Gen. David Petraeus report significant progress in Iraq, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) replied, "Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that."

Good news out of Iraq is "a real big problem"? Guess that depends upon whose side you're on.

This can be seen in one article here http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=342

We need to start having HONEST debate about politics in America.

There are some who want to keep you riled up about the "Big Bad Wolves" in the GOP.

Maybe they want to keep you from thinking about how utterly ineffective Democrat (ic) "Leadership" has been these last few years?

PLEASE folks, dont get me wrong.

There is PLENTY to be upset with the Bush administartion about.

We are NEVER going to really address those issues if we are too busy rehashing slander and innuendo.

[Vee030473]

Yes I am sick of the bashing and complaining because it gets us nowhere. Negativity only makes more negativity. Finding a solution to it all, that seems to be a novel and trivial idea nowadays.

[dangerousfem]

yes I am

[Bahet]

There is PLENTY to be upset with the Bush administartion about.

We are NEVER going to really address those issues if we are too busy rehashing slander and innuendo.

Says the guy who went back a decade to find old quotes for the sole purpose of rehashing slander and innuendo.

Personally I am sick of Bush bashing, liberal bashing, Democrat bashing, etc. However, you can't demand people stop one in the same breath as you bash the other. This post wasn't about being sick of Bush bashing. It was about liberal and Democrat bashing.

And yes, I know I bash Bush. I don't like him and think he's incompetent. But I don't make posts bashing him while under the guise of singing Kumbya and wondering why we can't all just get along either. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am just as entitled to dislike Bush as anyone else is to dislike Obama. I also have to wonder if those who demand we respect Bush because of his job title will give that same respect to Obama if he is elected. Somehow I doubt it.

[mesue]

The facts speak for themselves, IMO and many other folks I know, Bush and Cheney lied and committed treason when they lied to the American people and sent over 4000 of our young people to their deaths and also lets not forget the over 40,000 wounded troops.

I want this war ended now. I support the troops, I want them home safe and I want them to have what was promised to them when they joined the military and I don't want them to have to fight for their benefits or be denied benefits. It is sad what is done to some of our veterans once they come home.

[Mom2Shaun]

Am I sick of Bush bashing? Nope! Not at all!

[YNKYH8R]

Am I sick of Bush bashing? Nope! Not at all!
LMAO!

[fjp999]

Am I sick of Bush bashing? Nope! Not at all!

AMEN.

If he cant stand the heat he should have never stolen two elections!!!

[Heidi]

Yes I am!

[renaissanceman]

The facts speak for themselves, IMO and many other folks I know, Bush and Cheney lied and committed treason when they lied to the American people and sent over 4000 of our young people to their deaths and also lets not forget the over 40,000 wounded troops.

I want this war ended now. I support the troops, I want them home safe and I want them to have what was promised to them when they joined the military and I don't want them to have to fight for their benefits or be denied benefits. It is sad what is done to some of our veterans once they come home.

"In My opinion" seems to be the only thing that matters to ALOT of people today.

WHY can't we have an actual debate on policy and politics in America?

Their MAY have been some misinformation and overselling on the parts of certain people in the Administration, that is NOT the same as deliberate bold faced lying.

IF they had REALLY lied us into this war, I don't think ANYONE would be saying that we should stay as long as needed now.

How many times does the "Bush lied" accusation have to be PROVEN false before you can accept it.

Do I think that Iraq should have been dealt with? YES! Do I also think that the timing was a little fishy? Sure, that does NOT detract from the fact that they WERE a legitimate future threat.

We just helped them (the Iraqis) dispose of a huge amount of yellow cake uranium!

What do you think Saddam was saving THAT for? I realize that it wasn't weapons grade, but in the future when inspections had lapsed, do we REALLY believe that it would sit idle?

[freeby4me]

IF they had REALLY lied us into this war, I don't think ANYONE would be saying that we should stay as long as needed now.

They did lie us into this war, and many politicians are saying we need to leave in a timely fashion, that we cannot stay "as long as needed" especially because Iraqi's arent taking over their end in a timely fashion.

[YNKYH8R]

I think the Bush lied accusations have to be proven false first. We went in on the premise of WMDs....there were none.


Next.

[renaissanceman]

I think the Bush lied accusations have to be proven false first. We went in on the premise of WMDs....there were none.


Next.

OK, but EVERYONE thought they had WMD's. Congress authorized the war.

WHY do people insist on calling the Bush administration liars?

There are MANY in the intelligence community who have speculated that what unauthorized or illegal materials they had, had been moved.

Where is the lie?

You also don't seem to understand justice here in America.

If President Bush is accused of being a Liar, he doesn't have to prove he's not.

The people doing the accusing have a responsibility to PROVE the accusation.

Apparently an accusation is enough for many American's today.

Besides, if we get enough people to repeat the unsubstantiated allegation, it becomes FACT by virtue of SO many believing it?

[YNKYH8R]

Wasn't Bush the one who said, "He has them, we know where they are."? That's lie.

Next.

[renaissanceman]

Says the guy who went back a decade to find old quotes for the sole purpose of rehashing slander and innuendo.

Personally I am sick of Bush bashing, liberal bashing, Democrat bashing, etc. However, you can't demand people stop one in the same breath as you bash the other. This post wasn't about being sick of Bush bashing. It was about liberal and Democrat bashing.

And yes, I know I bash Bush. I don't like him and think he's incompetent. But I don't make posts bashing him while under the guise of singing Kumbya and wondering why we can't all just get along either. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am just as entitled to dislike Bush as anyone else is to dislike Obama. I also have to wonder if those who demand we respect Bush because of his job title will give that same respect to Obama if he is elected. Somehow I doubt it.


OK, but how about a little honesty?

1. This article was written in 2005! I did not go back "a decade to find old quotes for the sole purpose of rehashing slander and innuendo."

2. Seems that YOU are the only person who thinks this post is about Liberal bashing. All I want is for BOTH sides to be honest.

3. While you certainly are entitled to your opinions about Bush, they will be FAR more relevant and convincing to others if they are rationally communicated and based on FACTS.

4. I give the office of President respect EVEN if I LOATHE the President. I know that not ALL conservatives do.

5. For the record, I don't hate Obama. I don't even think he's incompetent. I DO think that he will ruin us financially and place us in danger with our enemies.

I also have to point out one more thing.

What the he double hockey sticks does the dates of the statements in the article have to do with ANYTHING?

Can you prove any of them false?

There are people today who act like they NEVER supported the War in Irag, when they not only voted for it, they said many of the same things that the Bush administration did!

Truth is truth, no matter WHO says it or when it was uttered.

AMAZING how so many in America are completely willing to let ANY Democrat who saupported the war off the hook, or stand by and let them LIE about it.

That was ONE thing that I actually respected about Hillary, she NEVER apologized for her support of the war and she never lied about it.

Shocking that you also don't seem concerned with Obama's rocket propelled move to the center on a HOST of issues......

INCLUDING the time table in Iraq. Just wait, he will scrap his old time table.

Obama is just another politician.

[renaissanceman]

Wasn't Bush the one who said, "He has them, we know where they are."? That's lie.

Next.

Your posts are devolving into juvenilia.

You post your opinion with NOTHING to support and then act like you've spiked the ball into my court?

RUMSFELD said that he knew where WMD's were, then later he tried to say they knew suspected locations or some such.

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060526_rumsfeld_wmd_statement/

[YNKYH8R]

Your posts are devolving into juvenilia.

You post your opinion with NOTHING to support and then act like you've spiked the ball into my court?

RUMSFELD said that he knew where WMD's were, then later he tried to say they knew suspected locations or some such.

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060526_rumsfeld_wmd_statement/


YOU are absolutely correct. BUSH did not say that.

Iraq: No WMDs
"We Know Where The Weapons Are"


October 14 2004
Counterbias.com
Scott C. Smith






At a June 10th press conference following the G8 summit, President George W. Bush was asked by a reporter about the hunt for WMDs in Iraq:

I wonder if you can share with the American people your conclusions, based on what you've learned over the past 15 months, sir, as to whether those weapons were -- existed and they were hidden, were they destroyed, were they somehow spirited out of the country, or perhaps they weren't there before the war, and whether you had a chance to share this with your G8 partners?

Bush:
Right, no -- Bob, it's a good question. I don't know -- I haven't reached a final conclusion yet because the inspectors -- inspection teams aren't back yet. I do know that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to make weapons. I do know he's a dangerous person. I know he used weapons against his own people and against the neighborhood. But we'll wait until Charlie gets back with the final report, and then I'll be glad to report.

The Charlie in question is Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq.

Charlie is back, and the WMD report has been released.

There were no WMDs in Iraq.

None.

George W. Bush and his incompetent administration have killed 1,080 brave American soldiers and left thousands more injured for life, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been killed, in a hunt for weapons that never existed. In fact, contrary to conservative claims, 12 years of sanctions in Iraq diminished Saddam Hussein's ability to produce weapons. The sanctions were working. We didn't need to go to war. There was no threat by Saddam Hussein.

And now, young men and women have paid the price for the mistakes of the Bush administration. Paid with blood and limbs torn from bodies and paralysis and brain damage, young lives destroyed because Bush and his team were so anxious to take us to war that they would do anything to dream up an excuse to use military force.

How is it possible that one president could be impeached for lying about his affair with an intern, while another is not even held accountable for decisions he made, based on bad intelligence, that resulted in the loss of so much life?

Bush and his team were so certain about Iraq’s weapons. They laid out their case to the entire world, no doubts in their minds about which weapons Saddam Hussein possessed and their quantities. On October 7, 2002, Bush spoke in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he told the audience, “Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations... we've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.”

None of it true.

In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Bush again told the world that Saddam Hussein was a threat because of the weapons he possessed: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Not true. “Evidence from intelligence sources…reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.” Still not true, as there were no “hidden” weapons.

Bush then sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to the U.N. Security Council on February 5, 2003, to spell out in great detail the scores of weapons in Saddam’s arsenal and his willingness to use those weapons, or to provide those weapons to terrorists. Powell said, of our claims about Iraq weapons, “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.” No, Mr. Powell, what you told the world were assertions, and not facts.

With faulty intelligence as the basis for our invasion, we attacked Iraq the next month. Weeks passed with no weapons found, although we were certain we would find the weapons. On March 30, 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appeared on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos and said, “We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

Well, as we now know, there were no weapons in Tikrit or north somewhat of Baghdad.

What an incredible betrayal of our trust. And instead of admitting any wrongdoing, the Bush administration simply changed the reason we went to war: we were hunting terrorists.

Now, in military hospitals, thousands of young men and women are paying for Bush’s mistake, as they learn to use prosthetic limbs or wheelchairs from being paralyzed, while enduring hours of painful rehabilitation.

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,” Bill Clinton said on January 26, 1998, and that statement nearly brought about the end of Clinton’s presidency. Yet a lie that has been paid for in blood has met with little criticism by Republicans, who are eager to prolong the bloody conflict in Iraq as long as possible. The Bush administration so far has refused to take any responsibility for the colossal failures in intelligence that sent young men and women off to war. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk when he was president: “The Buck Stops Here.” Bush has replaced the sign with a new one: “There is no buck.” Or maybe it should read “Blame Clinton.”

Next.

[renaissanceman]

YOU are absolutely correct. BUSH did not say that.

Iraq: No WMDs
"We Know Where The Weapons Are"


October 14 2004
Counterbias.com
Scott C. Smith






At a June 10th press conference following the G8 summit, President George W. Bush was asked by a reporter about the hunt for WMDs in Iraq:

I wonder if you can share with the American people your conclusions, based on what you've learned over the past 15 months, sir, as to whether those weapons were -- existed and they were hidden, were they destroyed, were they somehow spirited out of the country, or perhaps they weren't there before the war, and whether you had a chance to share this with your G8 partners?

Bush:
Right, no -- Bob, it's a good question. I don't know -- I haven't reached a final conclusion yet because the inspectors -- inspection teams aren't back yet. I do know that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to make weapons. I do know he's a dangerous person. I know he used weapons against his own people and against the neighborhood. But we'll wait until Charlie gets back with the final report, and then I'll be glad to report.

The Charlie in question is Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq.

Charlie is back, and the WMD report has been released.

There were no WMDs in Iraq.

None.

George W. Bush and his incompetent administration have killed 1,080 brave American soldiers and left thousands more injured for life, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been killed, in a hunt for weapons that never existed. In fact, contrary to conservative claims, 12 years of sanctions in Iraq diminished Saddam Hussein's ability to produce weapons. The sanctions were working. We didn't need to go to war. There was no threat by Saddam Hussein.

And now, young men and women have paid the price for the mistakes of the Bush administration. Paid with blood and limbs torn from bodies and paralysis and brain damage, young lives destroyed because Bush and his team were so anxious to take us to war that they would do anything to dream up an excuse to use military force.

How is it possible that one president could be impeached for lying about his affair with an intern, while another is not even held accountable for decisions he made, based on bad intelligence, that resulted in the loss of so much life?

Bush and his team were so certain about Iraq’s weapons. They laid out their case to the entire world, no doubts in their minds about which weapons Saddam Hussein possessed and their quantities. On October 7, 2002, Bush spoke in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he told the audience, “Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations... we've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.”

None of it true.

In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Bush again told the world that Saddam Hussein was a threat because of the weapons he possessed: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Not true. “Evidence from intelligence sources…reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.” Still not true, as there were no “hidden” weapons.

Bush then sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to the U.N. Security Council on February 5, 2003, to spell out in great detail the scores of weapons in Saddam’s arsenal and his willingness to use those weapons, or to provide those weapons to terrorists. Powell said, of our claims about Iraq weapons, “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.” No, Mr. Powell, what you told the world were assertions, and not facts.

With faulty intelligence as the basis for our invasion, we attacked Iraq the next month. Weeks passed with no weapons found, although we were certain we would find the weapons. On March 30, 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appeared on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos and said, “We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

Well, as we now know, there were no weapons in Tikrit or north somewhat of Baghdad.

What an incredible betrayal of our trust. And instead of admitting any wrongdoing, the Bush administration simply changed the reason we went to war: we were hunting terrorists.

Now, in military hospitals, thousands of young men and women are paying for Bush’s mistake, as they learn to use prosthetic limbs or wheelchairs from being paralyzed, while enduring hours of painful rehabilitation.

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,” Bill Clinton said on January 26, 1998, and that statement nearly brought about the end of Clinton’s presidency. Yet a lie that has been paid for in blood has met with little criticism by Republicans, who are eager to prolong the bloody conflict in Iraq as long as possible. The Bush administration so far has refused to take any responsibility for the colossal failures in intelligence that sent young men and women off to war. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk when he was president: “The Buck Stops Here.” Bush has replaced the sign with a new one: “There is no buck.” Or maybe it should read “Blame Clinton.”

Next.

Thank you for the acknowledgement. EVEN if it was meant to be sarcastic.

Here's my thing. WHETHER or not Iraq had WMD's at THIS point should no longer be an issue.

In fairness, we should have taken his Ass out back in the FIRST Gulf War. The job isn't done when you make an invader leave a neighboring country, if you leave the lunatic who did it in control.

For many reasons (like friendship with King Hussein of Jordan) it was NOT a good move for us politically to remove him from power.

This guy was a loose canon in a position to help our enemies. Politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle had access to the Intel.

What we need to do now, is stop whining about a war that we are already embroiled in.

How about we ALL start focussing on how we can get out of there with a victory in a reasonable time frame?


BTW giving us an article that has things like


"George W. Bush and his incompetent administration have killed 1,080 brave American soldiers and left thousands more injured for life, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been killed, in a hunt for weapons that never existed."

Doesn't really help your claims. This article is SO biased. EVEN if Bush DID lie, which has NEVER been proven, to say that HE and his administartion have KILLED x amount of people...in a hunt for WMD's that NEVER existed?

COME on!!!

HOW the hell does that guy know that these WMD's NEVER existed? I thought journalist were supposed to be fair and balanced?

Its one thing if he had said, "Bush and the current administration have gotten us into a war that has cost 1,080 American Servicemen and Womens lives along with many civilians, based on intel about WMD's that were never found."

Notice how I didn't call the administration "incompetent" which is a statement of political OPINION.

NOTICE how I didn't say the WMD's NEVER existed? There is NO way to prove either way.

ALL intel reports at the time said that he DID have wmd's OR the means to make them.

Bush is the President, WE elected him TWICE. The decision to go to war was NOT his alone.

BTW, that counterbias site isn't exactly very reputable.

They have links where ANYONE can sign up to be a writer!!

They are NOT associated with any major news outlet that I could decipher. either.

Reputable news and media sources will be better accepted by most people.

[Bahet]

YOU are complaining about a biased article??? YOU, of ALL people have absolutely NO place complaining about biased sources.

Oh, and we are NEVER going to win in Iraq. I don't care if we are there for 6 more months or 6 more years, when we do eventually pull out there will be a civil war within the year.

[YNKYH8R]

Thank you for the acknowledgement. EVEN if it was meant to be sarcastic.Actually it wasn't...it was sincere. You're a sinic.


Here's my thing. WHETHER or not Iraq had WMD's at THIS point should no longer be an issue.Why? This is the very heart of the matter as to why we went to this country in the first place. The problem is when no WMDs were found the Bush administration had to come up with another (what they felt) was a good enough excuse for our presence to fill the void. If WMD not being in Iraq is no longer an issue we can stop this conversation now.


In fairness, we should have taken his Ass out back in the FIRST Gulf War. The job isn't done when you make an invader leave a neighboring country, if you leave the lunatic who did it in control.

For many reasons (like friendship with King Hussein of Jordan) it was NOT a good move for us politically to remove him from power.

This guy was a loose canon in a position to help our enemies. Politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle had access to the Intel.. You contradicted yourself. We should have "taken his as out" yet "it was NOT a good move for us politically to remove him from power"?


What we need to do now, is stop whining about a war that we are already embroiled in.

How about we ALL start focussing on how we can get out of there with a victory in a reasonable time frame?..Okay so now we've gone from having a discussion to "whining". I didn't start this thread you did. I'm just contributing.



BTW giving us an article that has things like


"George W. Bush and his incompetent administration have killed 1,080 brave American soldiers and left thousands more injured for life, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been killed, in a hunt for weapons that never existed."

Doesn't really help your claims. This article is SO biased. EVEN if Bush DID lie, which has NEVER been proven, to say that HE and his administartion have KILLED x amount of people...in a hunt for WMD's that NEVER existed?

COME on!!!Well it is an op-ed piece. I was looking for the quote about "we know where they are". I found this. I read the article and the topic is in line with this conversation so I used it.
Well to say they NEVER existed is a long stretch. I mean he did used chemical warefare against inhabitants of his country. What the comment is pointing at is "would the American public stand for a war that lasts 5+ years and claims the lives of 5,000+ servicemembers and yet never finds evidence of an ACTIVE WMD facility?"


HOW the hell does that guy know that these WMD's NEVER existed? I thought journalist were supposed to be fair and balanced?.Like FoxNews? (Sorry had to jab there):)


Its one thing if he had said, "Bush and the current administration have gotten us into a war that has cost 1,080 American Servicemen and Womens lives along with many civilians, based on intel about WMD's that were never found."

Notice how I didn't call the administration "incompetent" which is a statement of political OPINION.

NOTICE how I didn't say the WMD's NEVER existed? There is NO way to prove either way.?.Like I said it is an op-ed piece. You never set any ground rules as to what could be posted and what couldn't. The level of Bush incompetence can be debated later for now we stay on task.


ALL intel reports at the time said that he DID have wmd's OR the means to make them.But didn't the inspectors come back with a report saying they found nothing; the very fact that we didn't either should say something.


Bush is the President, WE elected him TWICE. The decision to go to war was NOT his alone. I didn't vote for him either times.


BTW, that counterbias site isn't exactly very reputable.

They have links where ANYONE can sign up to be a writer!!

They are NOT associated with any major news outlet that I could decipher. either.

Reputable news and media sources will be better accepted by most people.I had never heard of the site before. I was simply looking for a quote.

I agree that we need to find a way to leave the country that works in everyone favor. We should have had some kind of exit strategy in place BEFORE we even invaded. Because of the way 9/11 unfolded and the time proximity of the beginning of the war does not help. Why? Because basic fear that still permeated after 9/11 and a sense of justice required us to act. The administration decided to go after Iraq. There is a flaw right there. To be able to effectively look at this first you have to understand why we didn't go after Saddam during the first American lead gulf war. Considering where we are now how would this have looked in the American publics eyes about Bush senior if he had invaded Iraq only to be embroiled in a guerilla war that lasted the rest of his term and in to Clinton's?
If you read about the Iran/Iraq war and America's involvement. Then read about the events that led to the invasion of Kuwait it's pretty easy ot follow the bread crumbs to where we are now. Except....the timing cannot be accounted for.
After 9/11 the President should have put Iraq to the side and concentrated on Afghanistan. If he done that and had been successful there then he aproval rate would have dwarfed Clinton's. But Iraq wasn't test firing missles, nor were they advertising the ownership of nuclear weapons like other countries. The Korea incedent would have unfolded 3 years after the Afghanistan (if he soely went that route) and America would have been in better standing to takle Iran and Korea. Instead he bargained on a speculation. I know I know. The intel.

But if you have two conflicting pieces of information doesn't it make sense to err on the side of caution before sinking a country into an invasion and occupation process? I mean what if you are wrong? And they were. But (maybe) in the admins eyes it didn't matter? Like Cheney said earlier this year when asked to respond to a report that a majority of Americans saw the Iraq war as not worth fight (adlib) he said "So?". Which punctuates the admins apathy. We're already there. So whatevre vehicle the admin drive to get us there doesn't matter. The vehicle was WMDs, the road was fear, the destination was Iraq. Along the way we hit a deer (5,000+). But who cares? We got to Iraq; except there was nothing there. Nothing to see.

Next.

[mesue]

"In My opinion" seems to be the only thing that matters to ALOT of people today.

WHY can't we have an actual debate on policy and politics in America?

Their MAY have been some misinformation and overselling on the parts of certain people in the Administration, that is NOT the same as deliberate bold faced lying.

IF they had REALLY lied us into this war, I don't think ANYONE would be saying that we should stay as long as needed now.

How many times does the "Bush lied" accusation have to be PROVEN false before you can accept it.

Do I think that Iraq should have been dealt with? YES! Do I also think that the timing was a little fishy? Sure, that does NOT detract from the fact that they WERE a legitimate future threat.

We just helped them (the Iraqis) dispose of a huge amount of yellow cake uranium!

What do you think Saddam was saving THAT for? I realize that it wasn't weapons grade, but in the future when inspections had lapsed, do we REALLY believe that it would sit idle?

Here watch this, one of the best short videos ever made, if you want to see some of the lies told by the Bush Administration, this is a funny/sad video, it shows them telling lies then being caught in the lie and then lying again in tv interviews over a period of time. It is a must see. Be warned though there is a small amount of cursing in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKyCpCrH3cY

I put IMO basically because there have been cases of people being sued, bloggers shut down, freedom of speech is constantly being attacked by the current people in power, so basically to protect my butt I put IMO, but except for the few who have had their heads in the sand or just republicans who forget that bottom line we are all American citizen first, no matter what political affilitation one has, a lie is a lie no matter who tells it.

Have you ever heard of a memo called the downing street memo? It is the British equivalent of a white house memo. The memo was simply about a meeting, the gist of what was talked about and the minutes. It was not meant to ever be seen by the public. It was essentially secret, but it got out and to show you how controlled our mainstream media is, it was news all over the world for six weeks before American press ever mentioned it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

The memo was first published in The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005, during the last days of the UK general election campaign.[2]

It went largely unremarked in the US press at first, but was heavily covered in leftist blogs such as those on Daily Kos, because of a remark attributed to Richard Dearlove ](then head of British foreign intelligence service MI6) that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed [by the US] around the policy" of removing Saddam Hussein from power, which was taken to show that US intelligence on Iraq prior to the war was deliberately falsified, rather than simply mistaken.[3]

As this issue began to be covered by American media (Los Angeles Times on page 3 May 12, 2005, Washington Post on page 18 May 13, 2005[4]), two other main allegations stemming from the memo arose: that the UN weapons inspection process was manipulated to provide a legal pretext for the war, and that pre-war air strikes were deliberately ramped up in order to soften Iraqi infrastructure in preparation for war, prior to the October U.S. Senate vote permitting the invasion.[5]

Although some elements of the US media have portrayed the document as faked or fraudulent, no official sources have questioned its accuracy or disputed its authenticity, despite being questioned directly about it on numerous occasions.[citation needed] Both UK and US officials have since either refused to affirm or deny its content, or else have tacitly validated its authenticity (as when Tony Blair replied to a press conference question by saying "That memo was written before we went to the UN.")







http://www.truthout.org/article/jason-leopold-dod-report-appears-confirm-downing-street-memo

Patrick Lang, a former director of Middle East analysis at the Defense Intelligence Agency, said in an interview with the New Yorker in May 2003 that the Office of Special Plans "started picking out things that supported their thesis and stringing them into arguments that they could use with the president. It's not intelligence. It's political propaganda."

Lang said the CIA and the OSP often clashed on the accuracy of intelligence information provided to the White House by Paul Wolfowitz.

By the fall of 2002, the White House had virtually dismissed all of the intelligence on Iraq provided by the CIA, in favor of the more critical information provided to the Bush administration by the Office of Special Plans. The CIA had failed to find any evidence of Iraq's weapons programs.

In a rare Pentagon briefing four years ago, Douglas Feith said the Office of Special Plans was not an "intelligence project," but rather a group of eighteen people who looked at intelligence information from a different point of view. Feith now teaches a seminar on Iraq War planning at Georgetown University.




Have you ever heard of PNAC? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

[YNKYH8R]

Thanks 'sue. I sometimes forget about Downing Street.

[heartlvrs]

YES GOSH DANG I AM!!!!!!! He did what noone else (Clinton) had the balls to do!

[renaissanceman]

YOU are complaining about a biased article??? YOU, of ALL people have absolutely NO place complaining about biased sources.

Oh, and we are NEVER going to win in Iraq. I don't care if we are there for 6 more months or 6 more years, when we do eventually pull out there will be a civil war within the year.

WTH is wrong with you?

If you look above I provided information to suport my contentions that WAS not from a conservative source.

I DO watch Fox news and I DO use the patriot post, they are NOT all I use for evidence though.

The article in question as YankeeH8R? Pointed out was an OP-ED piece.

NOT real news.

The website it was culled from is NOTHING but liberal spin politics, with no emphsis on actual news.

All I did was point it out, I hardly think that is complaining.

Guess what BTW? You were probably saying last year that we would NEVER make progress in Iraq.

We ARE winning.

You MAY be right about a civil war after we leave though.....

Certainly you WILL be right if we leave before the job is done and the Iraqis can stand on their own.

The Iraqi people want us to leave as well. I believe that they are FAR more interested in helping themselves to independence now.

[renaissanceman]

Actually it wasn't...it was sincere. You're a sinic.

Sorry if I come across cynical, some people are so venomous that its hard to tell anymore.

Why? This is the very heart of the matter as to why we went to this country in the first place. The problem is when no WMDs were found the Bush administration had to come up with another (what they felt) was a good enough excuse for our presence to fill the void. If WMD not being in Iraq is no longer an issue we can stop this conversation now.

My point is that EVEN if it were to be proven that we ARE in this war on false pretenses. It was a job that needed done, and the region COULD be made safer thereby. Also Bush is nearly out of office, the surge is getting results, should we just scrap the whole process because some American's are sick of the war, or because we went for the wrong reasons?

You contradicted yourself. We should have "taken his as out" yet "it was NOT a good move for us politically to remove him from power"?

How did I contradict myself. As a soldier, I KNEW that we had to take him out. POLITICIANS are thinking of the "big" picture diplomatically. IF we had killed him ( a likely scenario) or if we humiliated him through a public trial. It would have had political consequences for us through Opec. Especially from Saudi and Jordan.

Okay so now we've gone from having a discussion to "whining". I didn't start this thread you did. I'm just contributing.

I'm afraid you misunderstand, that was a generalization towards ALL the complaining over the war. It wasn't necessarily meant for you.


Well it is an op-ed piece. I was looking for the quote about "we know where they are". I found this. I read the article and the topic is in line with this conversation so I used it.
Well to say they NEVER existed is a long stretch. I mean he did used chemical warefare against inhabitants of his country. What the comment is pointing at is "would the American public stand for a war that lasts 5+ years and claims the lives of 5,000+ servicemembers and yet never finds evidence of an ACTIVE WMD facility?"

I would. Do you know how many deaths Husseins regime was responsible for? The 5000 you quote is statistically insignificant in comparison.

Like FoxNews? (Sorry had to jab there):)

Thats cool, though I have to say since Fox news has some of the HIGHEST rated news shows on television, I find it hard to believe that they could be as biased as some imply. I personally have not experienced any obvious bias on the occasions that I watched. On the few occasions I have watched the major networks, I have seen political bias on parade!


Like I said it is an op-ed piece. You never set any ground rules as to what could be posted and what couldn't. The level of Bush incompetence can be debated later for now we stay on task.

But didn't the inspectors come back with a report saying they found nothing; the very fact that we didn't either should say something.

I didn't vote for him either times.

I had never heard of the site before. I was simply looking for a quote.

I agree that we need to find a way to leave the country that works in everyone favor. We should have had some kind of exit strategy in place BEFORE we even invaded. Because of the way 9/11 unfolded and the time proximity of the beginning of the war does not help. Why? Because basic fear that still permeated after 9/11 and a sense of justice required us to act. The administration decided to go after Iraq. There is a flaw right there. To be able to effectively look at this first you have to understand why we didn't go after Saddam during the first American lead gulf war. Considering where we are now how would this have looked in the American publics eyes about Bush senior if he had invaded Iraq only to be embroiled in a guerilla war that lasted the rest of his term and in to Clinton's?
If you read about the Iran/Iraq war and America's involvement. Then read about the events that led to the invasion of Kuwait it's pretty easy ot follow the bread crumbs to where we are now. Except....the timing cannot be accounted for.
After 9/11 the President should have put Iraq to the side and concentrated on Afghanistan. If he done that and had been successful there then he aproval rate would have dwarfed Clinton's. But Iraq wasn't test firing missles, nor were they advertising the ownership of nuclear weapons like other countries. The Korea incedent would have unfolded 3 years after the Afghanistan (if he soely went that route) and America would have been in better standing to takle Iran and Korea. Instead he bargained on a speculation. I know I know. The intel.

The quote above, I can find no fault with. Congrats, this was fairly presented. THIS is what I mean. If we can actually share opinions without attacking each other we could get ALOT further.

But if you have two conflicting pieces of information doesn't it make sense to err on the side of caution before sinking a country into an invasion and occupation process? I mean what if you are wrong? And they were. But (maybe) in the admins eyes it didn't matter? Like Cheney said earlier this year when asked to respond to a report that a majority of Americans saw the Iraq war as not worth fight (adlib) he said "So?". Which punctuates the admins apathy. We're already there. So whatevre vehicle the admin drive to get us there doesn't matter. The vehicle was WMDs, the road was fear, the destination was Iraq. Along the way we hit a deer (5,000+). But who cares? We got to Iraq; except there was nothing there. Nothing to see.

I DO agree that there seems to be an arrogance to this administrations handling of the matter. We do need an exit strategy, but I don't think an immediate pull out or a short term unrealistic time table is in ANYONES best interests.


Next.

I think that if we can get past Liberal VS Conservative, we might actually have some common ground.

[renaissanceman]

Here watch this, one of the best short videos ever made, if you want to see some of the lies told by the Bush Administration, this is a funny/sad video, it shows them telling lies then being caught in the lie and then lying again in tv interviews over a period of time. It is a must see. Be warned though there is a small amount of cursing in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKyCpCrH3cY

VERY interesting video. Thanks for sharing it with us all. I LOATHE Sean Penn, but I have to admit, he looked sincerely grieved by what he believed.

Sadly, I think that we are sort of forced to see this thing through, even IF it was started on false premises.

I put IMO basically because there have been cases of people being sued, bloggers shut down, freedom of speech is constantly being attacked by the current people in power, so basically to protect my butt I put IMO, but except for the few who have had their heads in the sand or just republicans who forget that bottom line we are all American citizen first, no matter what political affilitation one has, a lie is a lie no matter who tells it.

Have you ever heard of a memo called the downing street memo? It is the British equivalent of a white house memo. The memo was simply about a meeting, the gist of what was talked about and the minutes. It was not meant to ever be seen by the public. It was essentially secret, but it got out and to show you how controlled our mainstream media is, it was news all over the world for six weeks before American press ever mentioned it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

"Whilst its authenticity has never been seriously challenged, the British and American governments have stated that the contents do not accurately reflect their official policy positions at the time."

HUH? Supposedly this is a document from a meeting between these governments but its NOT what they actually said?

The whole thing IS a little fishy.

No different from many of the things that the Dems have pulled on the hill though.

WE should ALL be sick to death of business and politics as usual, both sides have agendas and BOTH sides are desperately trying to maintain the status quo. None of them REALLY want to help the little guy, no matter WHAT they say. Thats why I tend to vote for whomever I think will actually preserve the Constitution and keep America safe.

Until we overhaul the current political monster, its all we can hope for. NOONE that runs for president is an outsider. The current system won't allow it.

As to the bottom? I have no problem with organizations like PNAC, Reagan had a wonderful vision of the world. Ideals are wonderful, all TOO often people pervert and twist someones views, or try to FORCE that view on others. Democracy IS best for people, but you can't force a nation to adopt it.



Have you ever heard of PNAC? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century


I appreciate your ability to discuss this issue intelligently and rationally.

[mesue]

I love Sean Penn, he has a lot of courage to come out and speak as fervently as he has against this war and the Bush Administration. He has basically put his career on the line to do so, many people in the entertainment business are afraid to speak out.

When a man who has nothing to gain and everything to lose, speaks out it is because he totally believes in what he is saying.

What do you think of Bush commuting Scooter Libby's sentence?

Ever wondered why he didn't pardon him? Maybe because if he gave him a pardon, then if he (Libby) was called in front of Congress to testify he could not take the fifth, because once given a pardon he could not incriminate himself.

As to PNAC it is not just any organziation , their plan was written up in the nineties, and it is all been set into motion by the Bush Administraiton. Most of the people involved in PNAC are now in power and are, or have been a part of the Bush Administration, look at the people involved.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

Also look at their letter to Clinton, recognize anyone who signed it.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5527.htm

[renaissanceman]

I love Sean Penn, he has a lot of courage to come out and speak as fervently as he has against this war and the Bush Administration. He has basically put his career on the line to do so, many people in the entertainment business are afraid to speak out.

When a man who has nothing to gain and everything to lose, speaks out it is because he totally believes in what he is saying.

What do you think of Bush commuting Scooter Libby's sentence?

Ever wondered why he didn't pardon him? Maybe because if he gave him a pardon, then if he (Libby) was called in front of Congress to testify he could not take the fifth, because once given a pardon he could not incriminate himself.

As to PNAC it is not just any organziation , their plan was written up in the nineties, and it is all been set into motion by the Bush Administraiton. Most of the people involved in PNAC are now in power and are, or have been a part of the Bush Administration, look at the people involved.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

Also look at their letter to Clinton, recognize anyone who signed it.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5527.htm

I can understand your opinion on Penn's war statements and actions. I have SOME respect for that, but he has come out SO angrily and mean spirited on quite a few issues. In fairness Penn's career hasn't been hot for a LONG time, so I don't think he really has very much to lose.

In general, I have REAL issues with Hollywood types who want to tell everyone else how we should live. Or pretending to care so much for every thing. When a celebrity actually stops spending THOUSANDS of dollars a day on pampering and trys to live like an average American, I MIGHT believe they have some real understanding and concern for the rest of us.

Moving on though, I would like your input on something.

I will accept ANY help, just please clarify if something is just your take on it or if you have some info to support it.

OKAY, I definitely see some problems with the build up to this war.

What I would like to know is if you have ANY idea WHY we pursued this?

We sit by and watch Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad build up, they are BOTH clearly bigger actual threats to our security.

WHY would America or Israel want this? What would we gain?

Once again, I thank you. It is obvious that we will not agree on everything, yet we have thus far been respectful and hopefully helpful to one another.

We need more of these kinds of conversations.

America has a horrible tendency to level Ad Hominem attacks, and cheap broadsides, that keep us from actually discussing anything constructively.

[YNKYH8R]

I can understand your opinion on Penn's war statements and actions. I have SOME respect for that, but he has come out SO angrily and mean spirited on quite a few issues. In fairness Penn's career hasn't been hot for a LONG time, so I don't think he really has very much to lose.

In general, I have REAL issues with Hollywood types who want to tell everyone else how we should live. Or pretending to care so much for every thing. When a celebrity actually stops spending THOUSANDS of dollars a day on pampering and trys to live like an average American, I MIGHT believe they have some real understanding and concern for the rest of us.

Moving on though, I would like your input on something.

I will accept ANY help, just please clarify if something is just your take on it or if you have some info to support it.

OKAY, I definitely see some problems with the build up to this war.

What I would like to know is if you have ANY idea WHY we pursued this?

We sit by and watch Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad build up, they are BOTH clearly bigger actual threats to our security.

WHY would America or Israel want this? What would we gain?

Once again, I thank you. It is obvious that we will not agree on everything, yet we have thus far been respectful and hopefully helpful to one another.

We need more of these kinds of conversations.

America has a horrible tendency to level Ad Hominem attacks, and cheap broadsides, that keep us from actually discussing anything constructively.There are a few theories out there ranging from Bush's desire to either live up to his father's image regarding the middle east, his desire to do something his fathe rdidn't do the first time (like thumbing his nose at him and going after Saddham and Iraq) there is the oil factor and the strategic location factor. Or all of the above.
There are just too many things that don't make sense for "liberation of Iaq" to be the only reason we're there. Especially since the WMD story was a piece of crap. Once they had the support of congress and the general support of the public it didn't matter what story was sold.
So this is why Bush bashing happens. Not always for his mannerisims, or his vocabulary, energy policy, tax policy, imigration policy, but because we are in a situation that has now left us vulnerable.
My boss is a retired Navy Captain. He served 23 years retired last year.

Hates Bush.

He agrees with me in saying that Saddham (for bad or for worse) was keeping Iran at bay. Now we have to deal with them directly. Saddham used to be our allie. We could have stopped Iran together na dthen worked to make Iraq better as a country or worked covertly to overthrough his governement from the inside. Whatever. Now Iraq wants us out...read about it on MSNBC. What if the democratic country we tried to build democratically decides it would be in their best interest to side with Iran? We already know that Iraq stated already that we couldn't use it's bases as a spring board to enter Iran.

Everything is piling up and piling up.

"Thats cool, though I have to say since Fox news has some of the HIGHEST rated news shows on television, I find it hard to believe that they could be as biased as some imply. I personally have not experienced any obvious bias on the occasions that I watched. On the few occasions I have watched the major networks, I have seen political bias on parade!"
IMO Fox News is the most egotistical and obnoxious news program around. I watch it at work some days just to see how bad they can be.
I've noticed that (for example) they will talk to the Nth degree about Obama, what he's doing wrong, who is say what about him, picking apart what he says, and usually to an angle of loathing. While they hardly discuss McCain except to tell the viewers where he is or who he's talking to. It's blatantly one sided. Thier problem is that they keep with their mantra "Fair and Balanced" when it's obviously not true. If you keep repeating the same lie over and over agian eventually you'll think your own lie is true.

[mesue]

OKAY, I definitely see some problems with the build up to this war.

What I would like to know is if you have ANY idea WHY we pursued this?

We sit by and watch Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad build up, they are BOTH clearly bigger actual threats to our security.

I already gave you part of the answer to that, read about PNAC, what is happening right now is and was part of the plan laid out by PNAC, (read the letter they sent to Clinton asking him to act on Iraq).

When the cold war was finally over, most of us breathed a sigh of relief and thought finally we can pay less money on war machinery and pay less taxes and still spend a little more on education and fixing the ills of society, like other countries do. Not the guys of PNAC who eventually held key positions in the Bush Administration.

Then there is the oil found in the Caspian sea, how to get to it, a pipeline needed to be built, where to put the pipeline, what countries would allow the pipeline? Afghanistan run by the Taliban refused permission, lo and behold we invade Afghanistan, next on the list of pipeline properties is Iraq, all of the bases being built in Iraq and Afghanistan are along the route of the proposed pipeline. Read this, it is not too long and is stating the case fairly well.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis114.html

Also watch this movie, this is probably one of the best documentary films ever made about why we are in the position we are now. It is called, "The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror". Ex-military personnel explain what is going on in detail. It is not as boring as I make it sound. LOL

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243

You and I agree on a lot of things believe it or not. I see the democrats and the Republicans as being one in the same and corrupt as well . IMO There is no two party system anymore, they are all owned by the corporations that bought them or the guy pulling the blackmail strings behind the scenes on their puppets.

If you want to understand the blackmail thing watch, "Conspiracy of Silence". It is a shocker and a documentary that was stopped from being shown in the US, but one copy got sent out due to the someone recognized the value of this and wanted it shown. Anway the video is scratchy and not good quality, but there are some copies that have been fixed to show better so just keep looking at them until you find one that is better quality. You can find this also on google video.

Several things to understand, you are very seldom going to find someone knocking a conservative on a conservative website, we all like listening to what we want to hear, that is why Fox news is so popular with conservatives, they give the news with a slant and than have the gall to call it fair and balanced. LOL

Then someone come up with the so called liberal media, there is no liberal media, I would gladly watch it. Because Fox is ahead in the ratings many of the mainstream media try to emulate it to gain ratings. What once was news is now played along with stuff about hollywood, hollywood gets ten minutes and the news gets five.

We essentially have no real news programs, nothing is given to us in full details, just bits and pieces, and a real journalist will not ever give their opinion like the current so called journalists do when reporting on the news.

I don't know how old you are but when I was growing up I was forced to watch the news, due to we had only one station to watch, LOL and the news journalist presented the news without snurling their noses or making snide comments about the story they were reporting. There were seldom any animal stories about a kitten being rescued or a cute dog story, or a story on a hollywood celebrity.

Did you know the Bush Administration has actually been caught paying journalists to have their policy promoted on their shows? That is called propaganda, but the current administration had no problem doing it.

I think we all conservatives and liberals want the same things, a safe place to live, a job with goodbenefits, a good school for our children to go to, good medical care in our areas and for it to be accessible.

Have you ever looked at other industrialized countries, what they have for their citizens and wondered why we are all struggling so hard for so little here? If you are going to tell me we are #1 and have it really good, then you've been drinking the kool-aid. LOL

Most all of these countries have free medical care for their citizens, many offer free college education for anyone wanting it, many have free daycare programs, some have helpers (France) that come into the homes and help when a baby is born, some like Sweden pay a salary to a parent to stay home for the first eighteen months of their child's life, some parent split it up and spend nine months each or one takes the whole eighteen months. Many send out an amount of money to each child until they are a certain age. In some of these countries a typical work week is 28 hrs a week.

While we here in America struggle to pay our medical bills and insurance, over 43 million without insurance and that number has probably grown since I last looked. There is proof that thousands die here in America from lack of medical care due to no insurance.

[candygirl]

No,I'm not sick of the Bush bashing, he deserves it:thumpdown:

[ElleGee]

The whole reason Dubya went after Sadam was b/c he took a pop shot at his daddy so he's holding a 'Texas Grudge'

"My name is George Dubya, you tried to kill my father. Prepare to die"

Oh and this is MHO :)

[mesue]

"My name is George Dubya, you tried to kill my father. Prepare to die"

Oh and this is MHO :)

LOL I see I am not the only one that is a big fan of the movie, "The Princess Bride". I culdn't help but laugh thinking about Dubya in that costume with that long hair and the sword, too funny.

[Jolie Rouge]

Are you SICK of Bush bashing, Yes or No?

YES !

Most of the "ABB" crowd have no sense of proportion, logic, or at time - a rational outlook.

That being said :



"My name is George Dubya, you tried to kill my father. Prepare to die"

Oh and this is MHO

LOL I see I am not the only one that is a big fan of the movie, "The Princess Bride". I culdn't help but laugh thinking about Dubya in that costume with that long hair and the sword, too funny.

I have to agree - THAT was funny.

[YNKYH8R]

Are you SICK of Bush bashing, Yes or No?

YES !

Most of the "ABB" crowd have no sense of proportion, logic, or at time - a rational outlook.

That being said :



I have to agree - THAT was funny.So what our conversation over the last few days have been crap? I don't see the problem with criticizing a President that has fowled this whole thing up from the start.

At least DP will come in here and actually discuss it.

On the othe rhand. Are we talking about stopping the bashing of his character and his manerisisms. Or criticiaing how he ran the war...into the ground?

[renaissanceman]

So what our conversation over the last few days have been crap? I don't see the problem with criticizing a President that has fowled this whole thing up from the start.

At least DP will come in here and actually discuss it.

On the othe rhand. Are we talking about stopping the bashing of his character and his manerisisms. Or criticiaing how he ran the war...into the ground?

Thanks again for the acknowledgement! I must be doing SOMETHING right, usually anyone who is not a Christian or a Conservative has NOTHING good to say to me OR about me! ROTFL!

THough, I would like to point out that NOT everyhting this administration has done is an abyssmal failure.

Somehow, we have not seen another major terror attack on American soil.

Terror attacks are also down WORLDWIDE by over 40%.

So when people start saying how terrible this administartion is and how they are INCOMPETENT and what have you, I really have to sort of look at the hanging scales if you know what I mean.

I am TOTALLY willing to hear honest and thoughtful arguments against ANY of my views, I will adjust my thinking accordingly.

Folks on BOTH sides (Liberal and Conservative) tend to become VERY dogmatic and often times just can't seem to see the truth.

[YNKYH8R]

Thanks again for the acknowledgement! I must be doing SOMETHING right, usually anyone who is not a Christian or a Conservative has NOTHING good to say to me OR about me! ROTFL!

THough, I would like to point out that NOT everyhting this administration has done is an abyssmal failure.

Somehow, we have not seen another major terror attack on American soil.

Terror attacks are also down WORLDWIDE by over 40%.

So when people start saying how terrible this administartion is and how they are INCOMPETENT and what have you, I really have to sort of look at the hanging scales if you know what I mean.

I am TOTALLY willing to hear honest and thoughtful arguments against ANY of my views, I will adjust my thinking accordingly.

Folks on BOTH sides (Liberal and Conservative) tend to become VERY dogmatic and often times just can't seem to see the truth.Well Bush hasn't COMPLETELY mucked every thing up. But I do believe that because of due dilligence on the part of local and federal law enforcment we've seen a drop. I can't see myself directly relating that to Bush. This is what these peoples jobs are anyway.

[renaissanceman]

There are a few theories out there ranging from Bush's desire to either live up to his father's image regarding the middle east, his desire to do something his fathe rdidn't do the first time (like thumbing his nose at him and going after Saddham and Iraq) there is the oil factor and the strategic location factor. Or all of the above.
There are just too many things that don't make sense for "liberation of Iaq" to be the only reason we're there. Especially since the WMD story was a piece of crap. Once they had the support of congress and the general support of the public it didn't matter what story was sold.
So this is why Bush bashing happens. Not always for his mannerisims, or his vocabulary, energy policy, tax policy, imigration policy, but because we are in a situation that has now left us vulnerable.
My boss is a retired Navy Captain. He served 23 years retired last year.

Hates Bush.

He agrees with me in saying that Saddham (for bad or for worse) was keeping Iran at bay. Now we have to deal with them directly. Saddham used to be our allie. We could have stopped Iran together na dthen worked to make Iraq better as a country or worked covertly to overthrough his governement from the inside. Whatever. Now Iraq wants us out...read about it on MSNBC. What if the democratic country we tried to build democratically decides it would be in their best interest to side with Iran? We already know that Iraq stated already that we couldn't use it's bases as a spring board to enter Iran.

Everything is piling up and piling up.

"Thats cool, though I have to say since Fox news has some of the HIGHEST rated news shows on television, I find it hard to believe that they could be as biased as some imply. I personally have not experienced any obvious bias on the occasions that I watched. On the few occasions I have watched the major networks, I have seen political bias on parade!"
IMO Fox News is the most egotistical and obnoxious news program around. I watch it at work some days just to see how bad they can be.
I've noticed that (for example) they will talk to the Nth degree about Obama, what he's doing wrong, who is say what about him, picking apart what he says, and usually to an angle of loathing. While they hardly discuss McCain except to tell the viewers where he is or who he's talking to. It's blatantly one sided. Thier problem is that they keep with their mantra "Fair and Balanced" when it's obviously not true. If you keep repeating the same lie over and over agian eventually you'll think your own lie is true.

The same things you say about Fox news are true of MOST of the major networks! Listen to the way folks like Katie Kouric handle, guns, immigration, gay rights, Intelligent Design (just as a few examples) and THEN tell me there is NO Liberal Media.

Listen to the way Chris Mathews waxes homoerotic about the thrill he gets from listening to Obama.

I also have a MASSIVELY hard time believing that Journalist are coerced or paid into spreading propaganda. Not because I think they can't be coopted, rather because IF that were true, I think we might see slightly LESS of the Bush Bashing, slightly MORE coverage of the success of the surge and slightly MORE fair and balnced political coverage of the 2 candidates.

Once again, there seems to be a lack of honesty at the core of politics in America.

Just like how some call McCain McBush or McSame etc. McCain is NOT Bush. They are differnet people and even different types of politicians. Its rather to simplistic to say "they are both Republicans, they both think we should stay in Iraq" as if that sums up all this election is about.

Its FAR bigger than Iraq. Look at the last 2 big Supreme Court Rulings.

5-4 win for an individual right to bear arms. (WT HELL were the other justices reading? It couldn't have been the US Constitution)

4-5 LOSS for the Death Penalty for child molesters. They said that America doesn't feel that Death is appropriate for the rape of a child.

There are some who claim (Obama included) that our Supreme Court is TOO Conservative!

MOST Americans favor individual LAWFUL gun ownership.

Most American's that I ever speak to think that those who abuse the mentally challenged, the elderly and the young should die.

What happens when we get a Liberal minded President, who has already promised to nominate LIBERAL Justices?

Bact to the point, I also FAIL to see how the Bush administration has left us MORE vulnerable?

Have we perhaps made a few more enemies out there? Quite possibly.

Are we currently in MORE or less danger than we were before? I think the FACT that we have yet to see any major terror attacks here says that we are at least moderately safer than before.

As to the whole Saddam was keeping Iran in check thing?

Seems like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other to me.

MAYBE Saddam was holding back Iran. Do you REALLY believe that Saddam wouldn't form alliances with our enemies if it meant he had a REAL shot of revenge at us?

Saddam was a madman who tortured and killed his OWN people by the thousands!!!

WHY are we to believe that he would have been content to just sit and do nothing?

He was biding his time.

[Jolie Rouge]

So what our conversation over the last few days have been crap? I don't see the problem with criticizing a President that has fowled this whole thing up from the start.

At least DP will come in here and actually discuss it.

I haven't been here or on line in three days because my mother has been in the hospital. I didn't read the entire thread - I came in to answer the question as posted - and made a comment that I appreciated the joke that ElleGee & Mesue made about "Princess Bride".



On the othe rhand. Are we talking about stopping the bashing of his character and his manerisisms.

In my opinion - yes.



Or criticiaing how he ran the war...into the ground?

THAT is fair game.

[mesue]

renaissanceman;95945358]

I also have a MASSIVELY hard time believing that Journalist are coerced or paid into spreading propaganda. Not because I think they can't be coopted, rather because IF that were true, I think we might see slightly LESS of the Bush Bashing, slightly MORE coverage of the success of the surge and slightly MORE fair and balnced political coverage of the 2 candidates.


Bact to the point, I also FAIL to see how the Bush administration has left us MORE vulnerable?

Have we perhaps made a few more enemies out there? Quite possibly.

Are we currently in MORE or less danger than we were before? I think the FACT that we have yet to see any major terror attacks here says that we are at least moderately safer than before.



Well by your estimation that we have no more terrorist attacks in America since 911, and so Bush has a score of 1, but so does Clinton, there was only one foreign terrorist attack in America during his Presidency also. But if you go by the court of law that awarded the guy who owned the WTC two awards because both towers were attacked they called it two terroist attacks, then there was the pentagon and the shankville downed plane that was headed for somewhere in DC so now we have four terrorist attacks, gee thanks George. so by your estimation Clinoton 1, Bush 4, then Clinton defintiely was the better president on keeping us safe. LOL

Something most people don't know and that is just a few months before 911 occured, Bush put Cheney in charge of Norad.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010508.html

In the year before 911 (we sent jets up sucessfully 67 times) anytime a plane did not respond by radio or veered off course we sent up jets immediately, no one had to get orders from a VP to do it, there were no planes flying off course for over an hour that was not investigated. The only time that Norad was not successful in its mission was on 911.

Now to the propaganda issue, You really think I would say something like the Bush administration had paid journalists to promote their agenda without knowing it for a fact and being able to support that statement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/23/washington/23williams.html

And here is where they report on the third journalist being found out that was paid to promote Bush policies.

http://www.reopen911.org/ReOpen911_2007Archive/Third%20Journalist%20Paid.htm

Now those three were found out, I can't help, but wonder how many there were that was not found out? BTW these journalists being paid to spout propaganda was paid for with our tax dollars.

As I have already said our mainstream media news is crap, not just Fox though in my opinion the worst of the worst is by far Fox news, none of the MM is going to tell you enough to know very much about anything, some of the stuff they report is reported long after it has been reported everywhere else and they have to tell you. I watch Democracy Now a one hour news show on Free speech Tv totally funded by the viewers and they will report a lot of things long before the MM does, and they do this on a shoestring budget.

[Jolie Rouge]

Poll: What phrase best describes your opinion of President Bush?

1) Strong leader
2) Miserable failure
3) Honest straight-talker
4) Arrogant liar
5) Christian patriot
6) Clueless moron
7) Disastrous decider

http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2008/07/11/bush-goodbye-from-the-worlds-biggest-polluter.htm

[freeby4me]

Poll: What phrase best describes your opinion of President Bush?

1) Strong leader
2) Miserable failure
3) Honest straight-talker
4) Arrogant liar
5) Christian patriot
6) Clueless moron
7) Disastrous decider

http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2008/07/11/bush-goodbye-from-the-worlds-biggest-polluter.htm

Can we pick more than one.....lol

[ahippiechic]

Poll: What phrase best describes your opinion of President Bush?

1) Strong leader
2) Miserable failure
3) Honest straight-talker
4) Arrogant liar
5) Christian patriot
6) Clueless moron
7) Disastrous decider

http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2008/07/11/bush-goodbye-from-the-worlds-biggest-polluter.htm

Is this multiple choice?? :D

[Jolie Rouge]

Is this multiple choice?? :D

Sure ... why not... Needed to add a #8 : None of the Above

While I do not agree with all of the actions and policies of the current administration, I do not believe that they deserve all the abuse that has been heaped upon them. If Obama is this upset about the New Yorker's cover, then he is in for a long four years IF he gets elected.

[mesue]

Actually Jolie they deserve that and more. They started a war that was based on nothing but greed, lied to the American people to start the war and now over 4000 of our sodiers are dead, over 40,000 wounded and maimed and over 135,000(probably more, old estimate) Iraqi civilians are dead.

The red cross just came out and said they could be guilty of war crimes for supporting and promoting torture.

President Bush when a governor held the biggest kill record for capital punishment, never commuted a sentence or gave a pardon to anyone on death row, but yet when his good buddy Scooter Libby got a prison sentence (a light one at that) Bush commutes his sentence. This is the law and order guy who stood by the courts decisions suddenly changing his mind when it was his friend and lets not forget his friend might know more about who really chose to out Plame or gave the order to do so, who might get real talkative if he was going to prison and had nothing to lose by talking.

Bush has basically wiped his butt on our constitution and the bill of rights and you think the criticism the Bush Administration is not all warranted.

I am totally angry at the democratic leaders for not impeaching Bush and in not impeaching Bush they proved themselves guilty of allowing all of this to continue.

I don't understand Jolie what does the Bush administration have to do before you see all of the criticism as being warranted. Oh I know have a sexual encounter with an intern in the oval office. See I find it amazing that Clinton got impeached for what he did and the same group of people who were all for his impeachment are now backing off on impeaching Bush.

[YNKYH8R]

Poll: What phrase best describes your opinion of President Bush?

1) Strong leader
2) Miserable failure
3) Honest straight-talker
4) Arrogant liar
5) Christian patriot
6) Clueless moron
7) Disastrous decider

http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2008/07/11/bush-goodbye-from-the-worlds-biggest-polluter.htmI had to punt on this one and say "Misfortunate Puppet". And I'll tell you why.

Years ago..I supported the war.

I was working in a Bank, as a teller, and I was knee deep in my militay service. My manager served also. We felt that enough was enough, Saddham was snub his thumb at us, was hiding something and had "fair warning about cooperating". So, when the "shock and awe" was going on we'd watch it at night on our own tv's and disuss the explosions during work. It was kind of comical in our eyes. The one day, an exec VP who had an office in our branch and was close to retiring (he didn't like have an office in city. He made his money by being close to the workinng man and making himself available to them to do business rather than chase down white collar money..he was rather successfull....everybodoy loved him and respected his opinion. He must have been 78 or older.) happen to over hear our conversations about Saddham, and Iraq, the war, and WMDs. He came over and looked at us behind wise eyes, who'd lived through a couple of wars and conflicts, smiled slyly and said "what if they don't find any of weapons of mass destruction?".
I kind of flinched. Not hearing anyone utter that before. I had no answer for him. I couldn't fathom the back lash from that.
And then, later, the report came out.

They found no weapons of mass destruction.

And then the conversation turned to "liberating Iraq", "outsing a horrible dictator", and "well he killed thousands of his own countrymen for no reason anyway". I even heard things like...he moved them, they're in Syria, we'll find them eventually.

And even as horrible a person Saddham was, and his offspring, I couldn't help but think..."what was the point?" I mean, is being a ruthless dictator enough of a reason for a country to land 140,000+ troops, invade, overthrough, and occupy a country?

The atrocities of Iraq under his bloody hand happened....in the late 80's. We were marching across Iraq soil in '03, that's a big discontinuity.

There are other dictators in other parts of the world (*cough*Africa) that deserve our attention.

Does it seem like a little more than sour grapes and back peddling when the GOAL of an invsion is shifted to a far more "suitable" and "morally appropriate" goal when the very back bone of your reason to invade is quashed?

Think about it. Colin Powell sat up there for a really good length of time, showed slides and video, gave speech, and paraded "expert testimony" about this agenda that was a complete fabrication. People were killed, lands and homes destroyed, lives ruined, and service members lives lost because of a mistake.

At least we got Saddham.


That's not good enough for me.

That's like saying that at anytime anywhere leaders of soverign lands and nations can expect US service men to give their lives and camp out on your front door when "evidence supports it" and the war is "just". We can't do that.

If Bush or Powell or anyone went before congress and said (especially after 9/11) "I would like permission to put American soldiers in Iraq to remove Saddham from power and liberate the Iraqi people because he has a bad track record with human rights and may or may not be a threat to surrounding countries" I don't think it would have taken place.

A threat to who? His military was antiquated, demoralized, and hardly a threat. (See First American lead gulf war to jog your memory)

Was he a threat to Syria, Jordan, Iran, or Lebannon? Were these coutries asking for our help? What great attrocity since the invasion of Kuwait had Saddham done?

Now I'm not defending a despot. I'm saying that Iraq was for another time, down the road. Later....

So I see Bush as the Misfortunate Puppet. Someone else's agenda channeled through the President. Because he was a Christian, he had nothing to lose, and 9/11 was the best back drop for any type of military action because of a nation crippled, hurt, and wanting justice.

Who is the "Puppet Master" Karl Rove, Paul Wolowitz, Scooter, Cheney, or the NeoCons? Dunno....

[tngirl]

You know Adam, I would have to actually agree with you on the "puppet".

[Jolie Rouge]

As you know, Barack Obama is still trotting across the globe, sinking three pointers, ignoring military counsel and healing the occasional leper. Amidst all the hullabaloo, these Obama comments regarding Israel and terrorism have been sadly overlooked:


“Um, let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.”


Hah! Truly eloquent, and still more evidence of what Marc Ambinder refers to as Obama’s “talented, incredible gift of a mind.” But that comment hasn’t been overlooked, and really isn’t important. But these comments have been overlooked and are a lot more important than the typical Obama gaffe:


“What I think can change is the ability of the United States government and a United States president to be actively engaged with the peace process and to be concerned and to recognize the legitimate difficulties that the Palestinian people are experiencing right now and recognize that it is not only in the interest of the Palestinian people that their situation improves - I believe that it is in the interest of the Israeli people…That’s why terrorism is so counterproductive as well as being immoral because it makes I believe the Israelis want to dig in and simply think about their own security regardless of what’s going on beyond their borders.”


This is the conventional lefty trope about Israel, and it is completely contrary to all the facts. Then again, we all know by now that Obama has the ugly habit of repeating lefty tropes, blithely unconcerned about their accuracy or lack thereof.

The Israel government has responded to the many terrorist provocations of the past 15 years by pursuing an increasingly desperate search for peace. Israel spent the Clinton years trying to broker a deal with the since-deceased mass murdering capo of the Palestinian regime. That misguided Israeli effort to give away the store mercifully failed when Yasser Arafat spurned Israel’s way-too-generous peace proposals.

Okay, that’s ancient history and took place when Obama was still consumed with trying to organize communities and teach a Con Law class at the University of Chicago. But more recently, just last week as a matter of fact, Israel exchanged a terrorist prisoner infamous for shattering the skull of a four year-old for the corpses of two Israeli soldiers. Israel made this deal with the decidedly non-peaceful terror organization, Hezbollah.

The point is that Israel, as recently as last week, has consistently scrambled for peace and has willingly engaged terrorist organizations to do so. Far from driving Israel into “digging in,” Hezbollah’s terrorist activities have often had their desired effect. And yet Barack Obama yesterday peddled the risible notion that Arab terrorism had somehow squelched the Israeli desire for peace and forced Israel into a protective shell.

How can Obama, he of the “talented, incredible gift of a mind,” be unaware of such basic facts? Then again, in Obama-world, perhaps such a deal would be called “tough and principled diplomacy.” Regardless, Obama’s assertion that terrorism has made Israel "dig in" is ludicrously counterfactual. I understand that on the Obama campaign bus they only watch ESPN, but it’s still surprising that the news of last week’s prisoner swap escaped the presumptive nominee’s notice.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_ignorance_watch_a_very_s.asp

[Bahet]

I had to punt on this one and say "Misfortunate Puppet". And I'll tell you why.

Years ago..I supported the war.

I was working in a Bank, as a teller, and I was knee deep in my militay service. My manager served also. We felt that enough was enough, Saddham was snub his thumb at us, was hiding something and had "fair warning about cooperating". So, when the "shock and awe" was going on we'd watch it at night on our own tv's and disuss the explosions during work. It was kind of comical in our eyes. The one day, an exec VP who had an office in our branch and was close to retiring (he didn't like have an office in city. He made his money by being close to the workinng man and making himself available to them to do business rather than chase down white collar money..he was rather successfull....everybodoy loved him and respected his opinion. He must have been 78 or older.) happen to over hear our conversations about Saddham, and Iraq, the war, and WMDs. He came over and looked at us behind wise eyes, who'd lived through a couple of wars and conflicts, smiled slyly and said "what if they don't find any of weapons of mass destruction?".
I kind of flinched. Not hearing anyone utter that before. I had no answer for him. I couldn't fathom the back lash from that.
And then, later, the report came out.

They found no weapons of mass destruction.

And then the conversation turned to "liberating Iraq", "outsing a horrible dictator", and "well he killed thousands of his own countrymen for no reason anyway". I even heard things like...he moved them, they're in Syria, we'll find them eventually.

And even as horrible a person Saddham was, and his offspring, I couldn't help but think..."what was the point?" I mean, is being a ruthless dictator enough of a reason for a country to land 140,000+ troops, invade, overthrough, and occupy a country?

The atrocities of Iraq under his bloody hand happened....in the late 80's. We were marching across Iraq soil in '03, that's a big discontinuity.

There are other dictators in other parts of the world (*cough*Africa) that deserve our attention.

Does it seem like a little more than sour grapes and back peddling when the GOAL of an invsion is shifted to a far more "suitable" and "morally appropriate" goal when the very back bone of your reason to invade is quashed?

Think about it. Colin Powell sat up there for a really good length of time, showed slides and video, gave speech, and paraded "expert testimony" about this agenda that was a complete fabrication. People were killed, lands and homes destroyed, lives ruined, and service members lives lost because of a mistake.

At least we got Saddham.


That's not good enough for me.

That's like saying that at anytime anywhere leaders of soverign lands and nations can expect US service men to give their lives and camp out on your front door when "evidence supports it" and the war is "just". We can't do that.

If Bush or Powell or anyone went before congress and said (especially after 9/11) "I would like permission to put American soldiers in Iraq to remove Saddham from power and liberate the Iraqi people because he has a bad track record with human rights and may or may not be a threat to surrounding countries" I don't think it would have taken place.

A threat to who? His military was antiquated, demoralized, and hardly a threat. (See First American lead gulf war to jog your memory)

Was he a threat to Syria, Jordan, Iran, or Lebannon? Were these coutries asking for our help? What great attrocity since the invasion of Kuwait had Saddham done?

Now I'm not defending a despot. I'm saying that Iraq was for another time, down the road. Later....

So I see Bush as the Misfortunate Puppet. Someone else's agenda channeled through the President. Because he was a Christian, he had nothing to lose, and 9/11 was the best back drop for any type of military action because of a nation crippled, hurt, and wanting justice.

Who is the "Puppet Master" Karl Rove, Paul Wolowitz, Scooter, Cheney, or the NeoCons? Dunno....

Brilliant post! Except I don't think Bush was so much a puppet. He wanted revenge against Saddam. Rove, Scooter, etc thought up the ways to sell it to the American people but did so because they needed to find some excuse to do what Bush wanted which was to invade Iraq. 9/11 was just the 1st excuse. I read somewhere that in his State of the Union after 9/11 Bush mentioned Saddam something like 30 times and 9/11 about 40 times, often in the same sentence but he didn't mention Osama Bin Laden even once. I found that very telling of their sales tactics to mislead the American people.

[Bahet]

Oh Jolie, I know Obama has said some stupid things. Some REALLY stupid things. But do you REALLY want to go there in a thread about Bush?? Only Dan Quayle provided more stupid quotes. Bush has said some incredibly stupid things. Obama may no know how many states there are but Bush doesn't know Africa is not a country. "We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease." —Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001 He doesn't know that other countries have black people. "Do you have blacks, too?" —to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001 He doesn't know that the US has WMDs. "See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." —Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003 Aw heck, here's the top 50. Read them for yourself. I highly suggest not drinking or eating while reading them and you might want to take a headache pill 1st. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushdumbquotes2.htm

[Bahet]

http://www.lifeisajoke.com/politics23_html.htm

These are broken down by category and have a few other good ones:
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/dubyas-wisdom-his-top-50-stupid-quotes/

[candygirl]

Thanks for the link ,this is really funny, as only Bush can say it:)

Even if Jolie saw these types of political humors / stupid quotes about anybody else besides Obama ,you'll never know :)




Oh Jolie, I know Obama has said some stupid things. Some REALLY stupid things. But do you REALLY want to go there in a thread about Bush?? Only Dan Quayle provided more stupid quotes. Bush has said some incredibly stupid things. Obama may no know how many states there are but Bush doesn't know Africa is not a country. "We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease." —Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001 He doesn't know that other countries have black people. "Do you have blacks, too?" —to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001 He doesn't know that the US has WMDs. "See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." —Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003 Aw heck, here's the top 50. Read them for yourself. I highly suggest not drinking or eating while reading them and you might want to take a headache pill 1st. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushdumbquotes2.htm

[renaissanceman]

I think Jolie was trying to emphasize a disconnect.

When Obama says something stupid. MOST in the Media ignore it and pretend it NEVER happened.

He IS the "annointed one" after all, we can't let people know he's fallible.

If Bush says something stupid, they talk about it forever!

You will read about it in Doonesbury for years!

[Jolie Rouge]

I think Jolie was trying to emphasize a disconnect.

When Obama says something stupid. MOST in the Media ignore it and pretend it NEVER happened.

He IS the "annointed one" after all, we can't let people know he's fallible.


That and to show how when a major polictical figure actually says something, it is documented and cross referenced ( oh, and it is on YouTube as well.... I'll look for the link. )


If Bush says something stupid, they talk about it forever!

If I was having to give speech every day, have every word I utter 24/7 over the last 8+ years analyzed, broken down and examined, I am positive - absolutely positive - that I would have my share of slips, flubs, mistakes, and misquotes.

[Gunshooter]

Oh **** off, I'm getting so sick of it. Bush tried, and unfortunately, he failed, and pretty soon America will be dirty.

[Jolie Rouge]

Oh **** off, I'm getting so sick of it. Bush tried, and unfortunately, he failed, and pretty soon America will be dirty.

You created an account and bumped up a six month old thread for *that* ?




:rolleyes:

:dontfeed:


:troll


:rules

[atprm]

LOL

:rolling

[Jolie Rouge]

Bushisms over the years
The Associated Press
Sat Jan 3, 11:06 am ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090103/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bushisms

President George W. Bush will leave behind a legacy of Bushisms, the label stamped on the commander in chief's original speaking style. Some of the president's more notable malaprops and mangled statements:

___

• "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." — September 2000, explaining his energy policies at an event in Michigan.

• "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?" — January 2000, during a campaign event in South Carolina.

• "They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the commander in chief, too." — Sept. 26, 2001, in Langley, Va. Bush was referring to the terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks.

• "There's no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind, that we will fail." — Oct. 4, 2001, in Washington. Bush was remarking on a back-to-work plan after the terrorist attacks.

• "It would be a mistake for the United States Senate to allow any kind of human cloning to come out of that chamber." — April 10, 2002, at the White House, as Bush urged Senate passage of a broad ban on cloning.

• "I want to thank the dozens of welfare-to-work stories, the actual examples of people who made the firm and solemn commitment to work hard to embetter themselves." — April 18, 2002, at the White House.

• "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." — Sept. 17, 2002, in Nashville, Tenn.

• "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." — Aug. 5, 2004, at the signing ceremony for a defense spending bill.

• "Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." — Sept. 6, 2004, at a rally in Poplar Bluff, Mo.

• "Our most abundant energy source is coal. We have enough coal to last for 250 years, yet coal also prevents an environmental challenge." — April 20, 2005, in Washington.

• "We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job." — Sept. 20, 2005, in Gulfport, Miss.

• "I can't wait to join you in the joy of welcoming neighbors back into neighborhoods, and small businesses up and running, and cutting those ribbons that somebody is creating new jobs." — Sept. 5, 2005, when Bush met with residents of Poplarville, Miss., in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

• "It was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship. After all, 60 years we were at war 60 years ago we were at war." — June 29, 2006, at the White House, where Bush met with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

• "Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." — Dec. 7, 2006, in a joint appearance with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

• "These are big achievements for this country, and the people of Bulgaria ought to be proud of the achievements that they have achieved." — June 11, 2007, in Sofia, Bulgaria.

• "Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your introduction. Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit." — September 2007, in Sydney, Australia, where Bush was attending an APEC summit.

• "Thank you, Your Holiness. Awesome speech." April 16, 2008, at a ceremony welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to the White House.

• "The fact that they purchased the machine meant somebody had to make the machine. And when somebody makes a machine, it means there's jobs at the machine-making place." — May 27, 2008, in Mesa, Ariz.

• "And they have no disregard for human life." — July 15, 2008, at the White House. Bush was referring to enemy fighters in Afghanistan.

• "I remember meeting a mother of a child who was abducted by the North Koreans right here in the Oval Office." — June 26, 2008, during a Rose Garden news briefing.

• "Throughout our history, the words of the Declaration have inspired immigrants from around the world to set sail to our shores. These immigrants have helped transform 13 small colonies into a great and growing nation of more than 300 people." — July 4, 2008 in Virginia.

• "The people in Louisiana must know that all across our country there's a lot of prayer — prayer for those whose lives have been turned upside down. And I'm one of them. It's good to come down here." — Sept. 3, 2008, at an emergency operations center in Baton Rouge, La., after Hurricane Gustav hit the Gulf Coast.

• "This thaw — took a while to thaw, it's going to take a while to unthaw." Oct. 20, 2008, in Alexandria, La., as he discussed the economy and frozen credit markets.

:rolling

[pepperpot]

• "This thaw — took a while to thaw, it's going to take a while to unthaw." Oct. 20, 2008, in Alexandria, La., as he discussed the economy and frozen credit markets.



I get tho thaw just reading about it! :lol

[atprm]

:rolling

[whatever]

I wondered why this was bumped. I thought it was an OLD post. Cause I was almost sure everyone here is pretty tired of talking about bush. AM I wrong?

[Jolie Rouge]

I wondered why this was bumped. I thought it was an OLD post. Cause I was almost sure everyone here is pretty tired of talking about bush. AM I wrong?

A troll bumped it up for some obscure reason ... then when I found the "Bushism's" article I thought this was a good place to post it. :P ;) :)

[Jolie Rouge]

Why doesn't Bush get more credit?
John Hughes – Thu Jan 8, 3:00 am ET

Provo, Utah – President Bush is moving reflectively through his final days in office, in various interviews putting the best face on a presidency that has garnered some of the worst presidential approval ratings from Americans in history. The reviews from non-Americans, from Venezuela to Vladivostok, are not much better.

Whether Mr. Bush, like Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan, will in time come to be more favorably regarded than he was during his presidency, only history will reveal.

Much depends on whether Iraq – currently enjoying a new and boisterous kind of democracy – courtesy of American arms and diplomacy, sinks back into a dysfunctional state, or encourages larger freedom throughout the Arab world.

Sadly, Bush currently seems to get little credit for ridding the world of Saddam Hussein, surely one of the world's most fearsome despots since Adolf Hitler.

Nor is there much praise for his oft-voiced calls for democracy among the presently unfree peoples around the world, a campaign that he made the centerpiece of his foreign policy. One might have hoped that such calls would receive widespread acclaim and action except from a few dictatorial rulers such as those of North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, Burma (Myanmar), Zimbabwe, and a few Arab states.

Such was not the case and the reasons for this are several.

First, there was resentment at the manner of the demands. They were interpreted as an imperious diktat from a powerful America. Richard Nixon may not have been everyone's favorite president but he did understand the art of international politics when he warned against "the condescending policies of paternalism."

Second, although the invasion of Iraq was of noble intent for many, it was succeeded by a slew of post-war political and economic blunders that made it a poor example of American nation-building.

Third, the Bush administration sanctioned wartime measures seen as a contradiction of the ideals President Bush preached abroad. The names "Abu Ghraib" and "Guantánamo" became a tragic indictment of what was perceived to be inhumane American treatment of human beings.

No matter that the disgusting handling of Arab prisoners at the Baghdad prison of Abu Ghraib, captured in photos that went around the world, was the shameful work of a handful of badly-supervised soldiers. Their actions, as one distinguished retired US general told me, "left a stain on the US military which will last long."

No matter that the Guantánamo prison on Cuba housed some of the most vicious Al Qaeda prisoners responsible for gruesome actions against American and other innocent civilians and military personnel. No matter that some of them had critical information about Al Qaeda's future plans. Their torture, including waterboarding, that took place at a variety of locations, was branded unworthy of the US, even by such patriotic Americans as John McCain, himself the victim of torture at North Vietnamese hands.

How will President-elect Obama seek to change the sometimes negative image of America he has inherited? He has pledged to do so "by deed and by example." He has said he will close the Guantánamo prison. In a Foreign Affairs magazine article, he promised to end shipping prisoners "to be tortured in far-off countries" or detained without charge or trial. "To build a better, freer world," he wrote, "we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people."

He has said he will try to "reboot America's image" among the world's Muslims and give a major speech in a Muslim capital. Combating the terrorists' "prophets of fear" will require "more than lectures on democracy," he wrote. America, he urged, "must make every effort to export opportunity," while giving "steady support for political reformers and civil society."

Freedom requires at least three essentials – free elections, a free judiciary, and a free press. Mr. Obama can cite such with pride as he invites the world to look at the American example.

In his own recent election as an African-American minority, many millions voted without chaos, violence, or fraud. :hmmmm:

The courts operate without fear or favor, pursuing even senators and governors perceived of wrongdoing. High office does not shield them from punishment.

Then there is the press, peppering the president-elect with every question from what kind of dog he is bringing, to how he will end the recession, and deal with a nuclearizing Iran.

It is an amazing nation. It will take some explaining. He'll be glad he has a dog.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090108/cm_csm/yhughes08;_ylt=Askl0D82JTcj5C6jPR6s4n6s0NUE

[pepperpot]

He has said he will try to "reboot America's image" among the world's Muslims and give a major speech in a Muslim capital. Combating the terrorists' "prophets of fear" will require "more than lectures on democracy," he wrote. America, he urged, "must make every effort to export opportunity," while giving "steady support for political reformers and civil society."

:headshake: scary

[atprm]

ok, everyone get in a straight line... turn to your right, drop your pants and bend over and kiss the butt in front of you ....because you won't see it ever again.

[Jolie Rouge]

February 09, 2009
Ferrell's Freudian Slip

When we were just a rosy cheeked little Editorial Staff and ran crying to our mother over some childhood slight, she wisely counseled that the petty torments of those who revel in the pain or humiliation of their fellow humans reveal more about the character of the tormentor than they do about the supposed flaws of their victims.

Her words were the first thing which sprang to mind when we read this story:


Last night, I wrote about how BDS was alive and well in NYC and on prominent display in a show that has been running on Broadway since the inauguration that makes fun of our 43rd president using, among other things, a picture of a male part of the anatomy being commented on by an “actor” who resembles a male part of the anatomy.

Anyway, if you think that was bad, make sure you read the write-up the NY Post has on the show. It doesn’t just bash Bush; it bashes our troops, too (via Don Surber):


Pointless? Pretty much, but near the end of the show things turn tasteless as well. Ferrell/Bush asks the audience for a moment of silence to honor our troops who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the performance I saw, most of the audience members went silent but a few tittered nervously. Who can blame them? This is a comedy show. They were expecting a gag, and they soon got one.

After a few seconds of silence a phone on the stage rings, and everyone laughs. The relief is palpable. Hurrah! That thing about honoring our war dead? It really was just the setup to a joke!

Ferrell/Bush is startled by the noise too, because he’s already told us that the phone is just a prop that isn’t connected to anything. He picks up the phone, listens for a second and says, “I didn’t know ‘Annie Get Your Gun’ is playing! I love Tom Wopat too!”

Then he tells the audience that he was afraid God was calling him on the phone. “Swear to God - I thought I was having a heart attack in my butt hole!”

The problem is, during what turned out to be merely a pause to set up the punchline, I actually was thinking about our war dead, and so were a lot of others. Left and right, we all believe, or supposedly do, in honoring the sacrifice of our servicemen and women.

Here, Hollywood is letting its mask slip. Ferrell and his director Adam McKay are so confident that everyone shares their contempt for Bush that they slosh over into contempt for all things associated with Bush: the show includes cracks about Texas, Christianity, and finally the military.

The military is the military. It isn’t going to whine. It isn’t going to organize a team of protesters to cause a ruckus in front of the Cort Theatre. It is just going to keep its head down and drive on.


A moment of truth here: we, too, have had our moments of discomfort with veneration of all things military. Though at first blush it's comforting to see the decline and fall of the John Forgainst Kerryesque narrative in which American soldiers are either helpless victims or deranged postal workers in training, it's hard to see unconditional support for the military as any more healthy for this country in the long run.

This is why we've been so critical, on occasion, of the creeping sense of entitlement sometimes encountered on military forums. That this mentality represents understandable pushback against over the top attacks from some on the anti-war left may make behavior that violates our values easier to sympathize with; but it does not and cannot excuse it. The last thing the military needs is to become a mob of next generation Jesse Jacksons constantly holding the civilian community hostage to some idealized alternative reality, in which every service member along with their spouses and children (heh... she said "member") is automagically anointed with the mantle of heroism simply because we served.... and they didn't.

Let's face it peoples: civilian or military, we all put on our Hanes ultrasheers one leg at a time and there are many ways to serve this country. The military does not hold a monopoly on civic virtue or patriotism.

That said, it speaks volumes when a man chooses to perform what has been pretty uniformly deemed a one man show that "really isn't about Bush. It's about us" in front of a giant penis.

Exactly what it says, I leave it to you to decide.

Posted by Cassandra at February 9, 2009 05:54 AM

Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2675

[NCgranny]

Yes, i am.....

[atprm]

Yes, i am.....

huh??

[janelle]

Bottom line---

Democrats cannot let it go. It's the perfect ploy to distract from the current bumbling going on in Washington and those who are in power.

[Jolie Rouge]

Diagnosis: Advanced stage of BDS

File under “People with waaaay too much time on their hands.” But I guess it’s a lot more fun for these people to chase after Bush than it is to watch the Obama-culpo Cliff Diver currently occupying the White House.


Patriot or crackpot? Seattle man's mission to prosecute Bush
By Mark Rahner - Seattle Times staff reporter
March 16, 2009

Ask Bob Alexander how often he's heard the word "quixotic" recently. The approximate answer: all the time.

Of all the people who read Charles Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's best-selling "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," this 57-year-old Seattle coffee merchant is the only one jolted to act on it in a substantial way. The SuperBeans proprietor has become a super-activist.

With the help of a handful of volunteers and donations, Alexander has sent 2,200 copies of Bugliosi's hardcover to prosecutors around the country.

Now he and his volunteers are following up with each one of them by phone and e-mail, as well as gathering signatures for petitions urging the prosecutors to indict the former president.

Two other things Alexander hears: that he's courageous and principle-driven, and that he's an obsessed crackpot.

"Absolutely," he said with a kind of rueful joviality. He hears he's "a Bush-hater, an America-hater." He wouldn't disagree with the former, but Alexander argues that it's only hatred for what's been done in America's name that spurred him to act.

He had already achieved a degree of recognition for his anti-Bush essays that incendiary liberal talk-radio host Mike Malloy regularly reads on his syndicated show as a "Moment with Bob."

But Alexander was inspired by Bugliosi's premise: Bush lied to make a case for invading Iraq, so he's responsible for each of the more than 4,000 American lives lost there, and prosecutors in counties that had Iraq war casualties have the jurisdiction to file murder charges against Bush.

Not every lawyer and legal scholar agrees with the premise, and it's the possibility of war-crimes investigations — for torture — that's gained the most mainstream traction so far. But Alexander locked in. "After I read the book, it was the first time in eight years I had seen anyone lay out a clear blueprint of what we could do because of what Bush has done," Alexander said.

Calling all prosecutors

Reached at his Pasadena, Calif., home, Bugliosi recalled, "[Alexander] sent me a letter and said he was telling people, 'Instead of buying my coffee, spend the money on Vincent Bugliosi's book.' I wrote back to him and said, 'I'm very honored you feel so strongly about this, but I feel extremely uncomfortable that you're losing business. Can't you just recommend that people buy the book?' "

Nope. A thought percolated after Alexander attended a Seattle appearance by Bugliosi in September and he listened to the author's argument about the jurisdiction of district attorneys (DA). "The next day I was walking to school to pick up my little boy and I just thought, Why don't we send a book to all of them? It didn't seem at that second a very patriotic thought, or a very courageous thought."

In fact, he said, "One of the grimmest things you can do is look up the names of all the soldiers who died, in each county, and then match them up with a DA."

But in September, Alexander and his wife, Arminda, set up a Web site for the project (http://prosecutegeorgebush.com) and began raising donations chiefly through Malloy's radio listeners. With a substantial cost break from publisher Vanguard Press and nearly $18,000 raised, Alexander had enough books by January. "I didn't quite completely grasp what it was like having 4,000 pounds of books in your house," he said.

With 10 volunteers, some pizza and no doubt plenty of his coffee, Alexander packed the books with a cover letter from Bugliosi, and sent them off Jan. 31. Now they're following up. "He really took the bull by the horns," Bugliosi said. "Bob's the only one that really took it to the next level."

Question of resources

No takers so far, though, particularly in King County.

Ian Goodhew, deputy chief of staff in the King County Prosecutor's Office, said he's answered about 500 e-mails from people who want charges filed against Bush. "Mr. Bugliosi has some legal theories that he suggests, but none of which have any legal merit," he said.

Goodhew explained, "The statutes of Washington state only give us jurisdiction for crimes that occur in Washington state. We can't prosecute someone for a murder that occurs in California under Washington state law, so how can we prosecute for someone that was killed in Iraq?"

Also, Goodhew said, "Even if there was jurisdiction, we don't have the resources."

Other prosecutors in nearby counties asked for reaction to receiving the book didn't return calls from The Times.

University of Washington professor Peter Arenella, a nationally recognized expert in criminal law, agrees with Goodhew. Further, Arenella said, "Regardless of whether Bugliosi offers a tenable legal theory for criminal prosecution of Bush for some of his decisions and policies in conducting the Iraq war, one thing is clear: There is a complete absence of any political will to pursue a criminal prosecution against Mr. Bush."

For the latter reason, Bugliosi says, no federal prosecutor who answers to the U.S. attorney general will touch the matter.

Beyond that, he claims those who disagree with him about jurisdiction simply don't understand the law he cites: the Effects Doctrine, which allows prosecution for effects suffered within a jurisdiction for acts committed outside it.

Meanwhile, even though Alexander has his supporters, some others don't quite see things his way.

An Army vet e-mailed him, "Alas my wish that you would be dragged out in the street and shot in public then put on display for 3 days like they used to do to people like you in Iraq will never come true. And to think I actually went through hell to defend this crap."

Another wrote him, "It's liberal facists [sic] like yourself who will destroy this country ... not George Bush."

Yet another wrote, "One day you will be arrested and killed by the government and when that day comes I will celebrate."

Again, quixotic, to say the least.

Realistically, Alexander said, "I think there's a very good chance of getting an indictment" if not a murder conviction against a former president.

"I think there's some DA out there who believes in the law more than he believes in partisan politics. At least with an indictment we can show the rest of the world that we know what happened and we're trying to clean it up."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/books/2008865622_bobalexander16m.html


There are 248 "comments" on the site ... some are .... [i]interesting[/]i] ... :bangputer:

[SHELBYDOG]

OK, but EVERYONE thought they had WMD's. Congress authorized the war.

WHY do people insist on calling the Bush administration liars?

There are MANY in the intelligence community who have speculated that what unauthorized or illegal materials they had, had been moved.

Where is the lie?

You also don't seem to understand justice here in America.

If President Bush is accused of being a Liar, he doesn't have to prove he's not.

The people doing the accusing have a responsibility to PROVE the accusation.

Apparently an accusation is enough for many American's today.

Besides, if we get enough people to repeat the unsubstantiated allegation, it becomes FACT by virtue of SO many believing it?

What ever happened to "Mission Accomplished?"
I understand justice in America & I'd like to see some justice served for all the 9/11 Fallen Victims & all of soldiers who lost their lives. For us to so rudely invade Iraq this wasn't justice for 9/11 it's was more lost American lives! :getyou

[Jolie Rouge]

I understand justice in America & I'd like to see some justice served for all the 9/11 Fallen Victims & all of soldiers who lost their lives. For us to so rudely invade Iraq this wasn't justice for 9/11 it's was more lost American lives!

Suggestions ??

[Jolie Rouge]

The stalling economy: Obama's fault, or Bush's?
Thu Jun 9, 11:09 am ET

New York – The Obama White House is still trying to push some of the blame for the lousy economy onto the previous administration. Is it too late for that?

As grim financial news mounts, President Obama keeps defending his handling of the economy. It's "very important for folks to remember how close we came to complete disaster," the president said Tuesday. Obama also blamed "policy decisions that had been made and challenges that had been unaddressed over the course of the previous decade." But Americans aren't buying it. A new Washington Post-ABC poll finds they increasingly fault Obama for the country's economic woes, with 59 percent saying he's doing a poor job on that front, up from 55 percent last month. Is it too late for Obama to pin the blame on George W. Bush?

This is Obama's economy: Whatever Obama says about Bush, says Victor Davis Hanson at National Review, it's his own economic miscues that have us mired in this mess. "The administration’s massive borrowing, new regulations, promised higher taxes, opposition to new oil leases and pipelines, takeovers (from GM and Chrysler to health care), and rhetorical assault on the successful in private enterprise have turned a bottoming-out recession into a near-permanent slump."

"Bush did it! Bush didn't do it!"

Nonsense. Bush shares some of the blame: "Republicans who blame our current economic crisis on Obama either have short memories or no shame," says Joe Scarborough at Politico. After all, Obama "inherited a broken financial system, a housing market in free fall, and a debt that doubled during the Bush years." Unfortunately, the current president's "unfocused policies and spendthrift ways" have made things worse. If he wants to turn things around, Obama "had better get moving soon. Time is running out."

"Obama's biggest deficit is time"

It doesn't matter. Americans will blame Obama: As a country, we "have an incredibly short memory," says Chris Cillizza at The Washington Post. And "elections are almost always about the future, not the past." So as Obama gets closer to November 2012, the electorate "will see the economy as either his problem or his accomplishment." He should stop referencing Bush.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/theweek/20110609/cm_theweek/216127

comments

There is no recovery for the middle class without real jobs. Despite the improvements in the Wall Street and business stats, we may tread water for a long time. Presidents Obama and Bush probably did get a handle on the financial(liquidity) meltdown. Where the Dems (and Reps too) got it wrong is that they assumed that fixing the fiscal crisis would automatically lead to an improvement in employment.

• The fiscal meltdown didn't just contribute to the current employment crisis, but worse, it compounded and accelerated the jobs issue which has been an on and off struggle; a struggle that has been gaining momentum for the last 30+ years due to the REAL ECONOMIC GAME CHANGERS, largely technical.

•There have been several recessions since the 80s and each time the middle class came back smaller and the path back was harder and slower. Increased productivity = fewer MIDDLE class jobs, and meanwhile the population grows; it is like trying to run uphill through sand. Companies aren't hiring because they don't need to; they can just invest in technology (hardware or software). Think of all the jobs that have just disappeared over the years. It looks like it is even possible that the long term continued contraction of the middle class jobs will undermine the fiscal recovery. That would be a catastrophic loss to everyone as we have taken our best shot and are out of ammo.
Be on the lookout for a politician who starts with the basic premise: Who is going to be the taxpayer and who is going to be the consumer without a working middle class?

---

Are our politicians perverse or what? Has any politician asked who is going to be the taxpayer and who is going to be the consumer without a working middle class? Underemployment and unemployment have cost our economy tens of billions of lost tax revenue (at every level) and lost FICA revenue. Revenues that are lost forever; revenues that may have been committed to significant or critical infrastructure projects or for the purpose of enhancing our competitiveness. Every government entity is in a Catch22 between having to maintain its infrastructure and still attract business, investment, and taxpayers. It is a race to the bottom. It parallels the phenomenon that occurred when businesses and taxpayers migrated to the Sunbelt but now in the global free for all, it is WRIT LARGE.

I don't get it, President Obama could have been the hero if he had cleared the decks and focused on jobs and then the Republicans, in turn, after the last election. Fix the broken jobs machine and a lot of problems go away or at least become manageable. But once the downward spiral gains momentum it becomes self- perpetuating, just look at Amtrak or Detroit.

---

If you are bleeding money and your income is cut what do you do. STOP THE BLEEDING STUPID!!! This mess did not start with Bush or Bam, It is the cumulative effect of many years of congressional stupidity tacked onto fiscal irresponsibility. That big crises we went through at the end of Bush and beginning of Bam was caused by policies written back in the days of Carter. The housing mess will continue for years to come due to the fixes that were put in by Bam and his congress. Lest we forget lets' put THE FED. right on top of the list of idiots. Printing money to float your economy has always and will always have the same longterm effect, Inflation, So we the people will continue to pay because we the people are stupid enough to keep on sending the same people or their clones to DC to represent us. I think it's time to elect a bunch of carpenters electricians housewives nurses etc toss all lawyers and economists as they have already shown us that they mostly skipped school and had a standin take their final exams.

---

Obama had two years of unfettered control over both houses of Congress to do whatever he thought was best to aid the economy. No one expected him to pull off a miracle cure in two years, but as he hasn't shown any particular improvement, the voters are right to question whether we're going down the wrong path.

There was a story up yesterday that Obama was blaming, Bush, investors, consumers and the media for a poor recovery. The only jobs Obama is responsible for creating are SNOW JOBS.

----

This mess was decades in the making and both parties are equally to blame

[Jolie Rouge]

‘Die b*tch!’: George W. Bush’s heart surgery brings out death wishes, nastygrams

http://twitchy.com/2013/08/06/die-btch-george-w-bushs-heart-surgery-brings-out-death-wishes-nastygrams/

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p240x240/1150899_10153076294380084_1469963743_n.jpg


Hardly an isolated incident - See also :

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/515355-abusing-kids-art.html

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/561335-show-my-non-partisan-sense-humor.html

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/515063-nobel-peace-prize-winner-wants-kill-bush.html

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/544377-amnesty-internationals-bizarre-bds-poll.html

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/529132-laura-bush-derangement-syndrome.html

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/522121-mark-your-calendars-nationl-bush-derangement-syndrome-day.html

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/522008-bds-primary-schools.html

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/519983-staging-bush-assassination.html

[Jolie Rouge]

10 images mocking George W. Bush that were far worse than a harmless rodeo clown
By Michelle Malkin • August 14, 2013 04:53 PM

Over the years, I’ve meticulously chronicled progressive haters and their rank hypocrisy. It’s time for yet another refresher course as the libs go nuts over a rodeo clown. http://twitchy.com/2013/08/14/nails-it-drudge-headlines-c-s-lewis-quote-put-rodeo-clown-flap-in-snarky-nutshell-pic/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BRol3EKCMAAo6qR.png

Without further ado, drawn from my blog archives, here are 10 images/signs/agitprop items mocking George W. Bush that were far, far worse than any of the silly Obama gags causing prog conniptions.

http://michellemalkin.com/2013/08/14/10-images-mocking-george-w-bush-that-were-far-worse-than-a-harmless-rodeo-clown/

Without further ado, drawn from my blog archives, here are 10 images/signs/agitprop items mocking George W. Bush that were far, far worse than any of the silly Obama gags causing prog conniptions.

[Jolie Rouge]

10 images mocking George W. Bush that were far worse than a harmless rodeo clown
By Michelle Malkin • August 14, 2013 04:53 PM

Over the years, I’ve meticulously chronicled progressive haters and their rank hypocrisy. It’s time for yet another refresher course as the libs go nuts over a rodeo clown. http://twitchy.com/2013/08/14/nails-it-drudge-headlines-c-s-lewis-quote-put-rodeo-clown-flap-in-snarky-nutshell-pic/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BRol3EKCMAAo6qR.png

Without further ado, drawn from my blog archives, here are 10 images/signs/agitprop items mocking George W. Bush that were far, far worse than any of the silly Obama gags causing prog conniptions.

http://michellemalkin.com/2013/08/14/10-images-mocking-george-w-bush-that-were-far-worse-than-a-harmless-rodeo-clown/

Without further ado, drawn from my blog archives, here are 10 images/signs/agitprop items mocking George W. Bush that were far, far worse than any of the silly Obama gags causing prog conniptions.

[Jolie Rouge]

https://sphotos-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/s403x403/1148934_545176708869832_721228466_n.jpg


An EPIC Apology Letter to Obama Goes Viral Around the Web
Posted by: Matt Liponoga Posted date: August 14, 2013

This has to be one of the best I’ve seen in a while. Matt Walsh who runs blog, http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/08/13/an-apology-letter-to-mr-obama/ wrote this letter to Barack Hussein Obama yesterday in response mainly to the rodeo clown in Missouri and how he is very sorry that it must have hurt his feelings. Hope you find it as amusing as we did here at The Free Patriot:


Dear President Obama,

I’m reaching out to you as a friend. I know you must be deeply hurting after what happened at the Missouri State Fair. Sure, you probably try to avoid watching the news while you’re on vacation, but I’m sure the pilot who airlifted your dog to your rental mansion in Martha’s Vineyard probably caught you up to speed (that guy is such a chatterbox). Your jaw must have hit the floor when you heard the news: A rodeo clown in Missouri poked fun at you. Yeah, I know, almost impossible to believe. The gall! The gumption! The racism! Don’t worry, the entire country erupted in outrage, Democrats and Republicans issued statements of condemnation, and now the offending clown has been banned for life from the Missouri State Fair. There will likely be “action taken” against the Missouri Rodeo Clown Association, and I do hope justice is visited upon them swiftly. I think we’re all a little sick of the Missouri Rodeo Clown Association causing trouble. It’s something new every week with those freakin’ guys.

But all of this is of no consolation. The fact is, a rodeo clown in Missouri made fun of you. Nothing can ever ease the pain he has caused. This sort of crass lampooning of public officials has never happened at a rodeo until now, and I know that because a bunch of people who have never been within 150 miles of a rodeo said so. And then — worse still — the crowd erupted in applause at the spectacle of a guy in an Obama mask being chased by a rampaging bull. Racists, the lot of ‘em! I mean, Bush never got this sort of treatment. Nobody ever mocked or satirized him. No crude jokes were told about him. Nobody ever wished violence or death upon him. Ever. You know why? Because he’s white. White presidents always get treated nicely, especially white Republicans. Just ask Lincoln. The whole country agreed for over two centuries that we don’t ever insult presidents, then you get into office and all of a sudden every day is Pick on the President Day. Outrageous!

Besides, you are due some respect. You’ve earned it. You’ve done nothing but serve these people and make their lives better, and this is how they treat you? Ungrateful brats. You should drone bomb these haters. Just kidding. But seriously, you should. You’re the first president in history to actually order the assassination of American citizens, and I say why stop with some Muslim propagandist and his completely innocent son who never committed any crime at all?

I’m especially sick of these punks in the middle class who won’t stop complaining about you. What’s their issue? OK, you haven’t done anything about the unemployment rate your whole time in office, median household incomes have dropped, less businesses are opening, the number of people in poverty has increased while the number of high paying jobs has decreased, all of this while taxes go up and Obamacare looms, threatening to strangle small business owners and put thousands more out of work, but so what? I’ve got two words: Food stamps. Or is it foodstamps? I don’t know, I can’t spell it, I can just use it to get my Lucky Charms and Dr. Pepper. You’ve made all of this “work” crap obsolete by increasing the entitlement state more than any president ever in history! You’re adding more than 11 thousand Americans a day to SNAP. You’ve got millions relying on the government for rent, cable, phone, even birth control. I guess this horrible economy stuff would be kind of a bummer if not for all the delicious welfare. Who needs an economy anymore? We’ve got you, baby.

So how could anyone be upset at you? How could they delight at the degradation and mockery of Barack Obama? What’s wrong with these right wing rednecks? Are they still sore about the whole thing where you sent the IRS after your political opponents to harass and hinder them during an election cycle? Or the stuff about spying on the phone records of every American? What about all this business about you arming and funding Islamic Militants overseas and then orchestrating a coverup when a bunch of them murdered your ambassador? Are folks STILL mad that you funneled weapons to drug cartels and then threatened whistleblowers into silence? Or is it all this fuss over your Justice Department spying on and attempting to prosecute journalists? Is it the wildly unpopular two thousand page health care law? The regulation mandating that religious employers provide abortifacients to their employees? The millions of tax dollars you’ve given to the abortion industry and the blessings you wished upon a group of wealthy abortionists? The bailouts? The green energy scams? The massive expansion of government? The out of control deficit spending? The lies? The broken promises? The betrayals? The corruption? The attacks on our fundamental liberties?

I can’t imagine why anyone would get too worked about any of that. Like you said, that stuff didn’t happen. Or it did, but it’s not a big deal. Or it’s not a big deal because it didn’t. I can’t remember, I just know that you treat anyone who raises any of these concerns with utter contempt and disregard, which clearly proves that they are wrong.

Mr. Obama, IF you WERE actually guilty of being a deceitful despot who murders, conspires, and steals, then obviously all true Americans would have no choice but to giggle with glee at the sight of your likeness being gouged by an angry bull. Fortunately, that isn’t the case, which is why I’d like to apologize on for the entire state of Missouri, for everyone who has ever attended a state fair, and for everyone in the rodeo clown community.

You are still special, and I still love you.

Yours eternally,

Matt Walsh

http://freepatriot.org/2013/08/14/an-epic-apology-letter-to-obama-goes-viral-around-the-web/

[Jolie Rouge]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/p320x320/1185216_580354955361888_828819480_n.jpg

https://sphotos-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/p480x480/1209272_10151652113783473_608151065_n.jpg

https://sphotos-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1176395_524302727638054_1252444394_n.jpg

[pepperpot]

I've also seen much outrage regarding the violence upon women for the slap Hilary game. *eyeroll*

[Jolie Rouge]

I've also seen much outrage regarding the violence upon women for the slap Hilary game. *eyeroll*

But NONE regarding the "Slap Palin" game ... four years later...

[Eddie]

Former U.S. President George W. Bush recently dedicated his Presidential Library in Dallas. The ceremony included speeches by President Obama, ex-President Bush, and every other living ex-president. But none of the speeches so much as mentioned to Iraq war — the undertaking that dominated George W. Bush’s presidency, and will define his historic legacy.

This omission might be due, at least in part, to the fact that Mr. Bush is now a convicted war criminal who dares not travel abroad out of fear of being arrested.

In February 2011, Bush was forced to cancel a scheduled appearance in Geneva, Switzerland after human rights groups filed a criminal complaint charging him with violating international treaties against torture.

His trouble increased dramatically a year ago when Bush — along with former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and several other top Bush administration officials — were convicted of war crimes in absentia by a special war crimes tribunal in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal was convened and conducted according to internationally recognized procedures and rules of evidence, and the week-long hearing ended with the five-member panel unanimously delivering guilty verdicts.

What is the significance of that tribunal? Is its verdict legally binding? Are there troublesome aspects to the idea that a foreign tribunal can sit in judgment of a U.S. President — whatever we may think of his actions? We will discuss these vitally important questions with Dr. Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He served as a prosecutor at the tribunal.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mmpAVOvMf94

http://www.globalresearch.ca/bush-adminstration-convicted-of-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity/5336860
and
http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimes-against-peace-historic-class-action-law-suit-against-george-w-bush/5378507

[Jolie Rouge]

Malaysia ???

:snort:


Malaysia: End Police Abuses Excessive Use of Force, Shootings, Deaths in Custody ‘A Major Problem’
April 2, 2014

Malaysia’s police are not accountable to anyone but themselves, and ordinary people across the country too often pay the price with broken bodies and tragically shortened lives. The Malaysian government needs to put in place effective oversight of the police to end the wrongful deaths, preventable abuse in custody, and excessive use of force on the streets.

(Kuala Lumpur) – The Malaysian government should urgently adopt reforms to ensure accountability for deaths in custody and unjustified police shootings, Human Rights Watch said today in a new report. Independent, external oversight of the Royal Malaysia Police is needed to end police cover-ups, excessive secrecy, and obstruction of investigation into abuses.

The 102-page report, “‘No Answers, No Apology’: Police Abuses and Accountability in Malaysia,” http://hrw.org/node/124289 examines cases of alleged police abuse in Malaysia since 2009, drawing on first-hand interviews and complaints by victims and their families. Human Rights Watch found that investigations into police abuse are conducted primarily by the police themselves, lack transparency, and officers implicated in abuses are almost never prosecuted.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/04/01/malaysia-end-police-abuses

Malaysia’s press freedom ranking falls below Myanmar’s
12 Feb, 2014

Malaysia fell to 147th spot (down from 145th in 2013) and now lies two spots below Myanmar, which is just emerging from military rule. Myanmar climbed six spots from 151st place last year.

In contrast, both nations are well behind tiny East Timor, which is in 77th place, a leap of 13 places from last year.

Even the reporting of the RSF ranking in a local radio station’s news bulletin was slanted. I heard a noon bulletin announcing the top three countries on the list and the bottom three. But not a squeak about where Malaysia stood, even though that is what the average Malaysian would want to know.

Incidentally, our press freedom ranking resembles our current Fifa football world ranking. Myanmar is in 129th spot while Malaysia is in 154th place!

http://anilnetto.com/democracy/human-rights/malaysias-press-freedom-ranking-falls-myanmars/


Wither Human Rights?
By Usman Hamid – 8 May 2014

The Indonesian Electoral Commission will soon announce the results of April’s legislative elections. Parties will most likely announce their candidates for the July 9 presidential elections after that. Human rights is likely to be a major part of the debate. On the eve of a presidential election where Joko Widodo and Prabowo Subianto will face off as major contenders, let’s examine the record of both.

The record of Prabowo Subianto has been the most subject to politicization, but also critical debate. As former commander of the army special forces (Kopassus), he was implicated in the kidnapping of pro-democracy activists in 1997/98 when the New Order was on its last legs.

While 9 were found alive, 1 was found dead, 13 have never been found and are considered “disappeared.” The disappeared are categorized in three groups. First, student activists from the Indonesian Student Solidarity for Democracy (SMID) including Petrus B. Anugerah, Herman Hendrawan, Suyat, Wiji Thukul. Second, pro-Megawati activists including Yani Afri, Sonny, M. Yusuf, Noval Al Katiri, Dedi Hamdun and his driver Ismail. Third, persons witnessing the May 1998 riot such as Hendra Hambali and Yadin Muhidin.

Two years ago, speaking in exclusive interview with TV anchor Dalton Tanonaka, Prabowo denied that he ordered the kidnapping and torture of the activists. “I (would) never order torture (because it’s) completely against my policy. I never ordered the so-called “kidnapping” or detention.”

This statement has been refracted in different ways by other members of the Prabowo camp. This month, retired former chief of staff of the Army Strategic Command (Kostrad) Major General Kivlan Zen insists that Prabowo only “secured” nine activists who were subsequently returned alive. Kivlan accused a Prabowo “rival” of conducting a side operation, disappearing activists who are still missing. Last month in April, Fadli Zon, Deputy Chairman of the Great Indonesia Movement (Gerindra) denied Prabowo’s responsibility in the disappearances. Fadli admitted that a special unit called “Rose Team” run by Prabowo had arrested nine activists and returned them—but he said that the other missing activists were abducted by an “unknown perpetrator”.

Both Kivlan and Fadli’s statements accept that Prabowo kidnapped activists. They simply place Prabowo in a higher moral category compared to his rival, who they imply is Prabowo’s fellow contender, Chief of Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) General Wiranto. Wiranto, they argue was the real mastermind of the disappearance of the other 13 activists.

Moving away from the hubub of the campaign let’s track back to the results of the official investigation. In early 1998, the disappearance of activists generated intense public pressure demanding the government return the missing activists and punish the perpetrators. Meanwhile, the Indonesian Armed Forces (ABRI) was forced to establish a Council for Officers Honour (DKP) on August 3, 1998 to investigate implicated officers.

Two weeks later, Chair of DKP Gen. Subagyo Hadisiswoyo recommended to the chief of Indonesian Armed Forces (ABRI) Gen. Wiranto that Prabowo, Major General Muchdi Purwopranjono, and Colonel Chairawan, should be brought before a military trial (See Kompas, “DKP: Bring Prabowo etc to Military Trial,” 15 August 1998 page 1).

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2014/05/08/wither-human-rights/

[Jolie Rouge]

BECAUSE THE DEMS *NEVER* SECOND GUESSED BUSH .... RIGHT ?? Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) defends Obama over Bowe Bergdahl scandal: “We should not be second-guessing the administration when they have intelligence available to them and military advice. And the last best opportunity, as we are actually winding down our involvement in Afghanistan, the bottom line is we don’t leave our soldiers behind. We deal with the situation behind his finding himself captive later and we bring him home,” she said.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/06/05/wasserman-schultz-slams-nitpicking-gop-we-should-not-be-second-guessing-the-administration/



Wasserman Schultz Slams ‘Nitpicking’ GOP: ‘We Should Not be Second-Guessing the Administration’
by Bridget Johnson June 5, 2014 - 8:49 am

The chairman of the Democratic National Committee accused Republicans of “grasping at straws” in their criticism of the Bowe Bergdahl case and “nitpicking” over the number of Taliban exchanged for his release.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) accused GOP senators, specifically Susan Collins (R-Maine), of saying “we should leave a member of our armed forces who was in the midst of an armed conflict, regardless of the circumstances that he will likely be tried for and considered innocent until proven guilty later.”





“That she would leave a soldier in an armed conflict behind when we had intelligence from everything that I understand that he was — this was our last best opportunity. That he was potentially on death’s door. You know, looking at grainy video is not a way for us to determine that. But from everything I understand, this was our last best opportunity. And throughout the entirety of our military history, we do not leave our military behind,” she told CNN.

“When we have captives we do everything we can to bring them home and we had the highest levels of our military serving now who also said, you know, General Dempsey said we don’t leave anyone behind, regardless of the circumstances. We should all be unified around that.”

Wasserman Schultz argued that “we have throughout the tenure of many Republican and Democratic presidents, including George W. Bush, including President Nixon, President George W. Bush released 500 detainees from Guantanamo.”

“So we should not be second-guessing the administration when they have intelligence available to them and military advice. And the last best opportunity, as we are actually winding down our involvement in Afghanistan, the bottom line is we don’t leave our soldiers behind. We deal with the situation behind his finding himself captive later and we bring him home,” she said.

“I think we are really putting the details under a microscope that are — that pale in comparison in terms of their importance than the fact that we brought one of our own home… to suggest that we’re going to nitpick the president of the United States as commander in chief, bringing one of our own home and standing with his parents to celebrate that fact that we were successful and to celebrate our soldiers to help bring him home is really utterly ridiculous. It’s offensive.”