HULK SMASH!!!
why is everyone so upset? it's not like thye lied about getting a blow job...on to restoring honor and dignity to the white house (pass the bourbon while you're at it Dick)
Saddam WAS the weapon of mass destruction!
If we had some weapons
We could have some weapons of mass destruction
If we had some destruction
--Dubya
...ventura county, ca
"Well, ya see, the term 'a gathering storm' doesn't mean that your basement will flood. Uh, Ugly Scott, I'll let you take it from there..."
Well, the US has WMD, presumably only a few nations see that as an imminent threat.
This one is worse:
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
What terrible liar said that?
...the current administration looked at the same beaten, contained enemy that had been under the US heel for 14 years, and got scared.
Scared people should be protected rather than protecting.
...ventura county, ca
Here's another good one from the search:
Office of the Press Secretary
January 23, 2003
Q -- saying is that it's up to Saddam Hussein to show that he's disarmed, and then you're saying, he's not to be trusted, he hasn't disarmed -- what options does he have left to actually change course --
MR. FLEISCHER: Disarm. Disarm. Show the world where he is hiding his weapons and disarm them.
Q How could you possibly know that if you don't trust what he says or what he does?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because we know he has weapons of mass destruction.
am, did that terrible liar invade Iraq and kill 10,000+ Iraqis, kill 500+ Americans and wound thousands more, and commit us to spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a hopeless nation building project?
Because I only know one terrible liar who did that.
Oooh, this is fun!
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld - Thursday, November 21, 2002
Q: Mr. Secretary, in July in press conference you commented that weapons inspectors would be ineffective. Do you still hold to that position and if so why is the United States going through with this if you feel that they would be ineffective?
Rumsfeld: I think what I said, or what I hope I said, was that inspectors tend to be successful when there is a voluntary compliance on the part of the country that they are inspecting, that is to say, a country that invites in inspectors, opening up their country to prove to the international community that in fact what they are saying is true, then inspections can work. My view of the past - with respect to Saddam Hussein - is that he spent all of his time trying to deceive inspectors and trying to prevent them from having knowledge of exactly what he has. And we know he has weapons of mass destruction, and thus far he denies it. So that situation suggests that he is not in a position of inviting in inspectors for the purpose of proving to the world that he doesn't have those weapons.
Well, seriously, they can't be a threat if they're not close by and they don't have a delivery system. So I suppose theoretically someone could have a nuke, but it's sitting on a redflyer wagon in the middle of the Gobi desert... that would only be a threat to some mongolians or something.
That's probably not the answer you were looking for- you know, little red nukulier wagons of mass destruction. Basically GW was full of shit on both questions:
(a) did he have lethal weapons (NO)
and
(b) could he actually lob them at someone far away. (HELL NO, Balsa planes can't carry that kind of payload)
Chimpus unelectapus just didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.
That answer you already knew.
grytpype: the point (and you know this) is that these assessments of Iraq's capabilities and intentions were widespread, and were sensible and cautious, based upon what the other world governments knew.
The fact that they were mistaken, not lies, but mistaken is now being exploited by domestic partisans for domestic partisan reasons.
Everyone knows this, even the partisans. It is boring.
Whoa. Nothing like fact-checked asses in the evening.
Everyone knows this, even the partisans. It is boring.
What is boring is that you guys continue to think that we're as stupid as the rethugs who swallowed this fairy tale and continue to spout it with the earnestness of a child contemplating santy claus.
THERE IS NO FUCKING SANTA CLAUS AND NO FUCKING WMD.
If I could figure it out a year ago, why can't they?
While it's clear that 6 million Jews were killed in the camps, it is rather amazing how little press other atrocities of the 20th century get by comparison. Maybe Mel should have made a movie about one of those (armenians? cambodians? one of the stalin purges? bangladesh? the congo?) The only one that comes close in terms of number of movies is the cultural revolution in china.
Some otherwise rational people say stupid things out of a childish reaction to what they see as whining by a particular group. On the other hand, Mel's dad is the head of a bizzare hypercatholic cult.
Whoa. Nothing like fact-checked asses in the evening.
It's a beautiful thing, ain't it? too bad they'll just stick their fat chimpy fingers in their ears and chant "lalalalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you"
am, that is the "talking point." The real point is that Bush invaded when no reasonable president would.
Weapons of mass dittohead-distraction is all it is. Cnn, Fox, CNBC are all an f-in joke. WEAPONS, DEATH, I-RACK-EES PADDLIN' OVER HERE IN A BOAT THIS VERY INSTANT TO ENSLAVE US!! That's all we heard on these jokes of "news" networks. However, now, strangely, this was my headline, when I got my paper yesterday, yet when I turned on the computer and checked cnn's website, it was all Martha, all the time. Go figure.
Too bad for the Shrub they fucked up and captured Sadaam. He was getting a lot of mileage out of that guy...
The fact that they were mistaken, not lies, but mistaken is now being exploited by domestic partisans for domestic partisan reasons.
Everyone knows this, even the partisans. It is boring.
Where did you guys get this rhetorical technique? "Everyone knows this." The hell we do. The evidence was there all along, for anyone who cared to do a little reading.
am, that is the "talking point."
la la la la la la la la, he can't hear you!! anyway, why are you talking about our dear leader that way?
LOL 
Let's not forget Bush had the advantage of the UN inspectors having gone in and found absolutely nothing like WMD or WMD programs.
Any competent president would not have invaded Iraq knowing what Bush knew or had reason to know.
knumb knutz - Good point about capturing Saddam.
I mentioned this on another thread, but did anyone else see on Jon Stewart last night when they ran the video of Kay giving his report to Congress - "blah blah the president was deceived by the intelligence blah blah blah CIA blah blah," - the camera went to Ted Kennedy's face? I have never seen anyone so angry. I think it took every bit of his strength to keep from jumping up and running over and pummeling Kay about the head. God, it's so obvious how much Kennedy loathes this administration.
But. . .but. . .Saddam didn't let them in. Everyone knows this. Why, I just heard it on television.
Anyway. Did you hear that Kerry uses Botox?
grptype: Both Clintons supported, and as far as I know, continue to support the Iraq invasion.
Like Stephen Colbert said last night (more or less):
"Saddam didn't present any evidence of weapons he didn't have. If we hadn't invaded, who knows what else he might not have done?"
...the current administration looked at the same beaten, contained enemy that had been under the US heel for 14 years, and got scared.
Scared people should be protected rather than protecting.
Fucking A. Fucking fucking A.
I am amazed these days at how the wingnuts are twisting and contorting themselves to now say that WMD weren't the issue all along (they were), and/or that it doesn't matter, because we've brought down a despicable tyrant and regime, and democracy will soon bloom in the Middle East.
Don't they know how dangerous pretzels are to this preznit?
um, er, uh..., is "fucking a" an agreement or an argument?
...ventura county, ca
grytpype: the point (and you know this) is that these assessments of Iraq's capabilities and intentions were widespread, and were sensible and cautious, based upon what the other world governments knew.
Which is why the UN voted to back our invasion. And why the NATO countries stood shoulder to shoulder with us. And why we built an international coalition to rival the coalition that fought Gulf War I.
Wait. I'm mistaken? Then I must be exploiting this for domestic partisan reasons.
Sorry to be boring you all.
grptype: Both Clintons supported, and as far as I know, continue to support the Iraq invasion.
And here I was against the invasion!
Well, this information changes my mind. What a fool I've been!
Thanks. Both Clintons approved. How can I keep my anti-war position against authority and reasoning like that?
The Google Search to End All Google Searches
Don't you mean the Mother of All Google Searches? Or has that one been trademarked already...
am, I don't think that ANYONE on the upper end of the bell curve genuinely believes invading Iraq was a good idea, especially knowing what we know now.
But. . .but. . .Saddam didn't let them in. Everyone knows this. Why, I just heard it on television.
Oh yeah, this is the real good one. First Dear Leader says exactly this back in July -- with Kofi Fucking Annan sitting right beside him! -- then he repeats it in the past week. Now the Rethug who will head up the committee lookng into possible intel failures prior to the Glorious Cakewalk (don't recall his name offhand) repeats the same damn lie!
In another two or three months, who wants to bet that a majority of Americans (especially the Faux News viewers) will believe that we went to war because "Saddam would not let the weapons inspectors in"?
And besides, we had to bomb the shit out of Iraq as payback for 9/11.
Robert: please don't engage in deliberate misunderstanding.
My point is that the Clintons' position directly and simply falsifies the claims which grptype and others are making.
Unless the partisans can account for this, and the similar positions taken by many others outside the US administration, they simply have no case.
gulf war one was a joke...there was little if any opposition with the republican guard in total retreat and in hiding and with kids sitting in foxholes with a jug of water and a rifle. iraq's airforce was mostly destroyed while many of its planes were flown to iran where saddam had the gall to ask the iranians to take care of them for him and of course they never got the planes back. but we made a big deal out of what a smashing victory we achieved in a joke of a war. then we come to gulf war two..and again we're told what a smashing victory we achieved...
now I know that it wasn't entirely a cakewalk and that American lives were lost and that the iraqis invaded kuwait...yes it's so and credit to our troops...but there was no major battle no major confrontation...it was mostly hype. and let us not forget april glaspie that state department genius who actually indicated to saddam that the u.s. had NO OPINION on whether he should invade kuwait. where is she these days? huh? I bet they found a spider hole for her to hide in these days. what a joke. I can't see how bush can possible get around this...but then again with the crap democrats we have these days the repubs will probably get away with it again.
only remember this folks...IF the republs win again, and that's a big if...they'll have one hell of a mess to clean up...not the least of which will be that gaping hole called the deficit. stop the world I want to get off.
"Now the Rethug who will head up the committee lookng into possible intel failures prior to the Glorious Cakewalk (don't recall his name offhand) repeats the same damn lie!"
Uh, I think they can stop now. We've found the intelligence failure.
Thank you. Nothing else to see here. Move along.
We'll call you if we need you.
The BIG problem is: how the "New Iraq" will be less dangerous for USA than the old rascal hidden in a hole, with piny conventional weapons(that he is afraid to use)?
The new Iraqi rulers have good chances to be with the same anti-American attitude, and with the better capabilities to start hidden(or not hidden) WMD programs - there will be no reason for UN-inspection mandates against them.
The Iraq offansive showed that USA is strong, but stupid. And this is the second time (9/11 being the first).
"...Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush
(-: Everyone knew that Iraq had WMD - the same way as everyone knows that the media is liberal. 
Hussein: beaten for 14 years, contained, able to spend a $1 on a military share
Dubya: swaggering, cock-sure superpower, able to spend $371 on a military share
--it wouldn't be the first time 250 years of world history had been put into motion because of family feud.
That's not partisanship, it's bad blood pure and simple. Bush was "blood simple" and there was no way to stop him or the rogues he rode with.
...ventura county, ca
am, let me be clear about the claims I am making, because I don't think you get it.
Claim 1: During the time the invasion could have been called off, Bush knew or had reason to know there were no WMD stockpiles or WMD programs that could reasonably be considered a threat requiring an immediate invasion.
Claim 2: He invaded anyway.
Claim 3: Any president who knew shit from shinola would not have invaded.
Those are my claims.
Hey, #13 on the google list is none other than...Zell Miller's home page.
You can't prove evolution in Georgia, but they know their stuff. Man, what is in the drinking water down there?
"By grave, and gathering threat, I meant that we was threatenin' to gather up Saddam's ass and put him in a grave."
My point is that the Clintons' position directly and simply falsifies the claims which grptype and others are making.
Unless the partisans can account for this, and the similar positions taken by many others outside the US administration, they simply have no case.
I didn't deliberately misunderstand, because you deliberately said no such thing.
You said the Clintons approved of the invasion. So what? They were wrong.
France, Germany, and most of Europe, disapproved of the invasion. The UN Security Council refused to approve the invasion. They were not wrong.
Bush was. Face it. Admit it. Accept it. Rumsfeld, Bush, Rice, and Cheney (who continues to say it) said: "We know Iraq has WMD." They knew no such thing. They knew it the way the knew Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium. They knew it the way Tony Blair knew Iraq could attack Britain withint 45 minutes (a statement he explicitly distanced himself from when he stood in Parliament this week to claim vindication via the Hutton report).
They didn't know it. They wanted to know it. They wanted to believe it. They were wrong then. They are wrong now.
"Intelligence" doesn't mean just data, information, stories and rumors. It means the analysis of such things, to determine what is credible, what is not. This is a massive intelligence failure, the biggest I've ever seen. Nothing less than that.
To deny that, in any way, is to deny reality. You might as well claim the moon is made of green cheese, or the earth is flat.
First we had holocaust denial,
now we have WMD-lie denial.
Funny how Saddam and the government of Iraq, who reported to the UN in Dec. 2002 that they had no WMD, no programs either, were the only ones who were telling the truth.
Or try googling the inspectors were kicked out
Your Honor, I never said I was going to murder him!!
What I said was "I'm gonna kill you!"
Unless the partisans can account for this, and the similar positions taken by many others outside the US administration, they simply have no case.
The Clintons believed it, so case closed? that's just retarded.
Ummm, just because a whole bunch of people were fucking wrong as well, still doesn't mean it was a good idea.
Sorry, but we do have a case.
It's very simple, by know they actually meant think and, more importantly, they meant the word has to be tense-less, that is, they were using the unusual indefinite past-present future.
So that it could mean
"We know he had weapons of mass destruction."
or
"We think he has weapons of mass destruction."
or
"We think he will have weapons of mass destruction [related program activities/kids' with crayons]."
You just have to understand the semantics, and all, you know. That's how it works.
only boring people get bored.
Their arguement is that they never said that Iraq was an imminent threat to us BUT we have the record of them saying " we know he has weapons of mass destruction." so its okay to attack.
Well then, I know North Korea has them, and India and Pakistan, etc. Shall we mosey over there with our Shock and Awe?
Robert: actually, I do believe that the invasion shuld not have occurred. On balance. For fairly elaborate reasons.
Funny how people here think that anyone who criticises or contradicts them is himself an extreme partisan.
I can hold that opinion while deploring the dishonesty and evasiveness of extreme partisans, and deploring the way in which they distort and exploit serious issues for their own trivial reasons.
Any president who knew shit from shinola would not have invaded.
Well we know who that excludes now don't we?
Chimpus in Chief
um, er, uh..., is "fucking a" an agreement or an argument?
Strong agreement.
Excuse please - where does it say anywhere that Bill or Hillary Clinton sent soldiers into Iraq to invade the country? I don't recall Clinton invading. In fact, I pretty much am convinced that the president who did invade Iraq, after lying to everyone about a whole lot of weapons of mass destruction, is George W. Bush, Jr.
Robert: actually, I do believe that the invasion shuld not have occurred. On balance. For fairly elaborate reasons.
Funny how people here think that anyone who criticises or contradicts them is himself an extreme partisan.
No offense intended, but you completely failed to make that clear.
Perhaps you should consider taking more responsibility for what you say and how you say it, and be less inclined to blame others for your miscommunication.
Wait, I'm confused, Clinton agreed with this invasion? If so, why didn't he invade? Oh yeah, he didn't twist the intel by having it stove-piped through his administration. In other words, he knew there was no just cause to invade Iraq. As to the WMD's, Clinton knew what Saddam may have had based on the receipts from Reagan's sale of arms and chemicals during the 80's.
I can hold that opinion while deploring the dishonesty and evasiveness of extreme partisans, and deploring the way in which they distort and exploit serious issues for their own trivial reasons.
You mean like saying "the Clintons were in favor of the invasion, so all of you people who identify yourselves as liberals should just shut up about how you disagreed with it in the first place and are now harping about how the whole thing was founded on a pack of lies"? That kind of distortion?
dumass: 9/11
Generik: no. The point is that had Clinton, or (insert generic president here) been in the White House in 2000-2004 they would likely have done the same thing. All this noise is driven by silly partisanship.
Oh I'm sure a lot of you would be critical if it had been Clinton who was the president who made these decisions, but it would be reasoned criticism, not all this unhinged silliness.
Senator Pat Roberts is the idiot who is parroting the "Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in" line. Thanks to Pat in the Mel Gibson comments for that info.
Bush was. Face it. Admit it. Accept it. Rumsfeld, Bush, Rice, and Cheney (who continues to say it) said: "We know Iraq has WMD." They knew no such thing. They knew it the way the knew Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium. They knew it the way Tony Blair knew Iraq could attack Britain withint 45 minutes (a statement he explicitly distanced himself from when he stood in Parliament this week to claim vindication via the Hutton report).
They didn't know it. They wanted to know it. They wanted to believe it. They were wrong then. They are wrong now."
Robert M. Jeffers
Robert,
Respectfully, I'm going to disagree with you, sir. Just slightly, though.
They said they "knew" that he had weapons. It's true that they knew no such thing. But that doesn't make them wrong, sir. It makes them liars.
A man can be incorrect and still be honest. These people were incorrect, and they knew it. They told us that they knew for a fact that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction when they did not. They suspected that he had weapons. They were confident that he had weapons. But that's not what we were told. We were told that "we know he has weapons." That was a lie. A lie, a lie, a lie.
And now folks from the White House are backtracking, saying "I guess we were wrong"
No, motherfuckers. You weren't wrong. You were lying.
"Well then, I know North Korea has them, and India and Pakistan, etc. Shall we mosey over there with our Shock and Awe?
For Heavan's sake"
Lemme at 'em!
The point is that had Clinton, or (insert generic president here) been in the White House in 2000-2004 they would likely have done the same thing.
Thank you, Miss Cleo.
Lest we forget:
http://www.multiverse.org/phpnuk...viewtopic&
t=222
Bets on how long it will be before these documents are wiped off the Internet, & this particular Google search turns up 0 hits? Jes' wonderin'.
The point is that had Clinton, or (insert generic president here) been in the White House in 2000-2004 they would likely have done the same thing. All this noise is driven by silly partisanship.
I have to strongly disagree with you here, and this is the crux of the argument that most of us are making. Almost ANY president who wasn't a complete idiot and under the control of the bloodthirsty chickenhawk neocons would NOT have "done the same thing," simply because it made absolutely no sense to invade Iraq! What part of "no threat to the US" do you not understand? What part of containment, of inspectors finding no evidence of WMD, of the CIA and Generals Zinni and Shinseki and plenty of other people who were in position to know questioning the wisdom of an invasion do you think "Clinton or(insert generic president here)" [and thank you for the presidential plug, btw] do you think would have somehow led to that man making the same misguided decision to go to war as the Chimperor did?
Your argument is ridiculous. It holds no water. Any sane person in the White House would have realized that spending money and lives on a threat that didn't exist was not only foolish, but downright evil.
Sorry, pal, you lose.
Seraphiel - Damn damn damn - you totally beat me to it.
Here's the new meme - watch it develop. "He was misinformed, but honestly so."
Please spare us - you will get exactly nowhere with that argument here. And I very much doubt that that argument is going anywhere with non-partisans, either. Furthermore, I think that harder it is pushed, the more likely it is that someone in intelligence will push back. And the Bushcos will have to eat yet more of their words. Eating lies should eventually kill them.
Senator Pat Roberts is the idiot who is parroting the "Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in" line. Thanks to Pat in the Mel Gibson comments for that info.
Sorry -- thanks to Alex.
Look, all I want to know is when the new Six Flags Over Baghdad is opening.
The point is that had Clinton, or (insert generic president here) been in the White House in 2000-2004 they would likely have done the same thing. All this noise is driven by silly partisanship.
Oh I'm sure a lot of you would be critical if it had been Clinton who was the president who made these decisions, but it would be reasoned criticism, not all this unhinged silliness.
am
I call bullshit.
First off, NO president with an ounce of common sense would have approved a full-scale invasion of Iraq without a shitload more proof than doctored intelligence. Hell, Nixon probably wouldn't even have pulled off what Bush did here.
And you're talking about "unhinged silliness"? "Unhinged silliness"???!? The fact that Bush hasn't been FUCKING IMPEACHED for this major breach of international and national law, and hasn't been shipped to The Hague for a war crimes tribunal, disgusts me. Don't talk to me about unhinged silliness; how the majority of above posters have stayed rational over such a major story mystifies me.
Shit. That above Anon post was me.
"Hi, my name is John Kerry/Howard Dean/John Edwards/Wesley Clark. I am running for President of the United States of America because I want to restore honesty and integrity to the White House."
"You can't trust George W. Bush."
How's that? Or the longer version:
"You can't trust George W. Bush to tell you the truth or make correct decisions."
Had Gore been in the White House, there would have been no Dick Cheney and his personal disintelligence operation, no Pompey Wolfowitz or Perle, no Wormtongue Rove, no Stepin Fetchit Powell, and there would have been actual dissenting voices heard instead of just a nest of sycophantry. We would have finished in Afghanistan, and been having useful and open dialogues with other nations. Bush is a coward, a bully, and a failure.
Perhaps you should consider taking more responsibility for what you say and how you say it
Maybe he changed his mind halfway through the thread.
I have a feeling that "invade Iraq" is going to become like "impeach Clinton". In other words, given enough time, you're not going to be able to find a single Republican who supported the idea. It's magic! See? No one really supported those terrible Republican policies. It's always safe to vote Republican, they never freak out and take shit too far.
Moniker - that's what I've been saying for awhile - Bush's entire platform in the last election was based on two things: that he would bring integrity back to the WH; and that he was a "uniter, not a divider."
I want everyone of the front runners to throw those words back in his face. Repeatedly.
Shut up, shut up, shut up. All you liberals. You are biased and hate Bush. Your statements all mean nothing. Nobody ever said imminenent. Any "proof" you have comes from fabricated liberal websites and dummied up documents. I will never believe any of your disloyal, traitorous crap. Ever!
Demetrios - I think you may be right, horrible as it could turn out to be.
I'd like to add something, but I got a nosebleed writing this:
http://
bottleofblog.blogspot.com...550989661002285
Tena: shut up. Bush is the best president ever. You jealous liberals should get over it, you lost. He has brought dignity to the WH, more than the Klintoons. He has united our country agaist terror. And the economy is booming, with opportunity for anyone who's not butt-lazy. So shut up. America does not want to hear it. Shut up. SHut up.
WMD? Who cares? Did Saddam have Botox...Look it's Martha Stewart! It's all the CIA's fault! Damn liberal media! At least the UK was involved, so maybe we'll get some good reporting on it...oh wait, the BBC has been de-clawed by the Hutton Report. What we need is for the National Enquire to pick up the story, then most of the country will finally get it.
I want everyone of the front runners to throw those words back in his face. Repeatedly.
I think we should turn that into a fun game and write the words on a banana creme pie.
Chimps like bananas you know, he might just pay attention.
"The point is that had Clinton, or (insert generic president here) been in the White House in 2000-2004 they would likely have done the same thing. All this noise is driven by silly partisanship.
Oh I'm sure a lot of you would be critical if it had been Clinton who was the president who made these decisions, but it would be reasoned criticism, not all this unhinged silliness.
am"
I'm curious, am, on what do you base your "would likely have done the same thing" theory?
I think it's well known that the PNAC people in a letter to Clinton had urged him to invade Iraq when Clinton was president. He didn't do it. Why do you suppose that was? What happened to make George W. Bush decide that invading Iraq was the correct action in 2002 when it wasn't correct when the neocons proposed it during Clinton's administration?
Oh, and "silly partisanship" and "unhinged silliness" be damned.
You're misdirected on that characterization. That would be more aptly applied to the $70 million investigation into Whitewater that produced nothing. Actually, that was "unhinged partisanship" on acid.
Oh shit - is IRAQ really paddling over here in a boat to invade us.
Hey, speaking of Bush and coverup, aren't you glad they caught the antrhax killer. Ummm, anyone still give a shit about WMD deployed in the U.S. in the current decade?
You should have heard Woolsey sticking it to Tenet tonight. I kept thinking when is the CIA going to start fighting back.
It's unbelievable to see this. This "Oh, intelligence is often wrong, and this is just another example".
They've been staying up nights for months and months coming up with their battle plan.
And they smile when they say it.
Even if you think Saddam deserved to be ousted, the real issues is the opportunity cost of doing it. We had to pull assets away from the hunt for bin Laden...get it. Bush made a very poor choice in going after Saddam at that time EVEN IF THERE WERE WMD!!! With Inspectors back in Iraq and finding nothing, it was foolish. When the CIA and others told them there was no threat, invading was just fucking reckless. History will not be kind to Bush regardless of how many flags Sean Hannity wraps himself in.
Shaw Kenawe - I bow down to your brilliance - "unhinged partisanship on acid."
Oh lordy, that was beautiful. (she wipes the incipient tears from her eyes...)
Hey, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if there'd been another president in the White House we wouldn't be talking about any of this. There wouldn't have been a 9/11 cause Gore would have actually read the freaking intelligence report, and he wouldn't have gone to take a nap, or cut firewood, or off to pick his nose.
And no, neither Gore, nor Clinton would have invaded Iraq.
A banana creme pie for you too.
You're misdirected on that characterization. That would be more aptly applied to the $70 million investigation into Whitewater that produced nothing. Actually, that was "unhinged partisanship" on acid.
Shaw, thanks for pointing that out.
Hey pie, yes ribs are delicious!! (and good for the economy too I hear)
See, four legs, everyone has something that will lead them to the dark side.
If the intelligence was so thoroughly botched that it tricked President Bring 'Em On into a war, then:
WHY HASN'T ANYONE BEEN FIRED FOR IT?
Any truth to the rumor that Bush is looking for WMD like OJ is looking for his wifes killer?
The point is that had Clinton, or --
ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
four legs good - Hear hear! I believe you could be right - though of course, we don't know it. But there's evidence to back up your statement, at least. Since the information was available, I believe Gore would have paid attention. He probably already had seen what Clinton so desperately tried to show George, anyway. And thus, 9/11 might not have happened. Because as we know, George couldn't be bothered with things that might distract him from clearing that brush of mass destruction down in Crawford while he was on yet another vacation, bringing the total days he spent on vacation to 42 that year.
For me, being liberal means never having to apologize for Bill Clinton. He's just a reference point for a time when the US executive branch had at least on foot in reality. In recent years, Bush I, Reagan, and Nixon (for chrissakes) are commonly referenced in this manner.
God, the right is so lame!
Guys - get a real president to support, please. Not this sock monkey.
Holy COW! Check out the first link on that search:
http://tinyurl.com/33weg
This letter written by the head of the Michigan Republicans is such a example of pure idiocy as to boggle the mind. Simply being from Michigan is enough to earn him the hatred of me and my fellow Buckeyes.
Let us examine this marvel of education?
The bozo makes the following statement:
"The President of the United States has made a sound decision in sending our troops to war. Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator that must be stopped. I firmly believe those he posses chemical and biological weapons that he is both hiding and ready to use. How did I come to believe this you ask? The answer is simple from the facts."
Get that? He said it was simple, from the 'facts'. This gets good where it shows where he gets his 'facts' from.
"According to FOX News, United States Troops in Southern Iraq have come across a site that has barrels full of what is believed to be chemical agents. These barrels were fenced in and camouflaged in order to prevent them from being seen from the air. Wow what a surprise, he has chemical weapons. I guess the French must be really shocked right now."
For starters, he actually admits to using the word "..barrels..believed to be chemical agents."
1. Fox News
2. 'Believed to be'
3. Attacks the French
He says he has 'facts' but then admist the barrels are 'believed to be' chemical agents. He got this off Fox News, which pretty much aired any discovery, including spit seen on sidewalks, as proof of chemical weapons.
Then attacks the French? As if they somehow had a fucking thing to do with this?
..More...
.
In my old house, my next-door neighbor - I didn't like him. He always watched me over the fence. Really creepy. I got tired of it. I made it my policy that I was gonna kick his ass. Well, I moved out the house before that happened. I let the guy who was moving in know that the neighbor was creepy and that I had thought of punching him. Well, a couple years later, the new homeowner beat the snot out of the creepy neighbor. He blamed it on me, but the police arrested him anyway. Imagine that.
Sock monkey! That's funny. Though the funniest one I've read is BartCop calling Bush "Disaster Monkey".
Speaking of monkeys, could this be why Dennis Miller has a monkey on his show? You know, to show his support for Bush?
..Continued...
"Saddam Hussein has murdered his own people."
..And Bush didn't? What about innocent people caught in the crosshairs?
"He gassed Kurds in northern Iraq for there opposition to him."
..as compared to the way this administration treats protestors who oppose him? And by the way, Reagan/Bush never let this get in their way before? Plus the Turks have been going at it with the Kurds for centuries. What Saddam did was nothing.
"He takes death row inmates, subjects them to chemical tests just to see how quickly they die or just the effects of the poison."
Um. They call this capital punishment after all. Seems they should be applauding Saddam on this. They aren't a whole lot better. I also seem to remember exposing Americans, both black & white, to radiation and other dangerous substences just to test how they'd react?
"He hides weapons of mass destruction from United Nations Authorities.."
All this from just a few barrels they 'believe' are chemicals weapons? They hid the out in the open for crying out loud!
"..in a public square in Baghdad, he cut out the tongue of an Iraq dissident and left the man to die."
Like conservative war-supporters trying to run protestors over by swerving their vehicles onto the pavement?
"I can only imagine how much Iraq's will love protected speech."
Not if Bush & Cheney are in charge. They sure don't love it here.
This letter simply demands a full fledged response. I'm thinking of writing this bozo and pointing out his complete fuckups and demanding he send written apologies to both the French and German embassies.
MYOB'
.
I suggest we all write Jared Maynard and point out the B.S in his letter.
Then demand he write letters of apology to just about everyone simply for living?
I'd also like to send one to his mother demanding she apologise for unleashing this satan-spawn on the human race.
Jared Maynard
commentary@southend.wayne.edu
Why can't these people stand around grassy knolls? WHY? Where are the sharpshooters when we need them? WHY?
Why aren't there more book depositories in every town in America? WHY?
It simply boggles the mind.
MYOB'
.
Ricky - Disaster monkey - LOL. A rib eatin disaster monkey.
Why do Bush apologists, such as am, cite Bill Clinton from 1998, when Operation Desert Fox was still ongoing? Are they just being dishonest or merely demonstrating their ignorance? The very idea behind Desert Fox was to strike WMD-related sites in Iraq. Hence, any quotation of Clinton re Iraq from before or during Operation Desert Fox is completely unrelated to the issue of WMD in the build up to this war.
And this aside from the salient points that others have brought up -- that am is using a stupid, genetic fallacy, and that many on the left were opposed to the war before the invasion, regardless of what Clinton thought or said.
Oh I'm sure a lot of you would be critical if it had been Clinton who was the president who made these decisions, but it would be reasoned criticism, not all this unhinged silliness.
Nothing pisses me off more than when wingnuts try to legitimize the current regime by making these lame comparisons to Clinton: "Oh, if Clinton would have done this or didn't to that..blah, blah, blan". Listen up: CLINTON HAS BEEN OUT OF OFFICE FOR THREE YEARS. EVERYTHING GOING WRONG NOW IS ALL ON YOUR BOY, GEORGE!! GOT IT?? Or do we have to break out the crayons and draw you a fucking picture?
Speaking of monkeys, could this be why Dennis Miller has a monkey on his show? You know, to show his support for Bush?
I assumed it was because Dennis Miller is an unfunny, desperate hack pandering for laughs in a painfully obvious manner. I'm just waiting for the nightly prat fall segment; or for him to do the entire show wearing Grouchy Marx novelty glasses. I mean -- is it possible for a show to jump the shark before it even airs? Is it possible for a person to jump the shark?
Previous post in response to Am is mine.
Grouchy? Er. Groucho.
i cin typ rel gud!!
Tena, sure he eats ribs. Remember, this is a "president" who believe in going with his "gut". He's a big fan of the gut.
Though, after the intelligence meltdown, we're not hearing too much about his "gut" feeling anymore, are we?
No more adoring articles about his "instincts".
No, now he's concerned about the methodology of intelligence gathering.
What a joke.
Regarding Dennis Miller: I guess the honchos at CNBC decided that ole Dennis needed some sort of gimmick to help him with the ratings. Every talk show host has a sort of sidekick: Carson had Ed McMahon, Letterman has Paul Shaeffer. At least they hooked Dennis Miller up with a partner who is his intellectual equal.
I don't know if a person can jump the shark, but I do know it's possible for a commedian stop telling jokes and become one.
Not only is he no longer funny, but he's become infantile in his statements.
Listening to him is like listening to a ten year old talk--if those ants got on my ice cream I'd drop the atom bomb on them! Yeah, that's what I'd do.
Just stupid. Idiotic. Unstable. Do you think he's suffering from serious "back pain" too?
gene214 - maybe we should all run a pool on how long it will take Dennis to get canned this time.
......both clintons supported it....
um, not speaking for hillary, as she did "support" it, bill clinton was a guest speaker at my school in april. when directly confronted about the iraq war, he was AT MOST ambivalent about it, IE he had tact and didn't call bush a jackass. He could actually act presidential, which is more than we could ever hope for GW.
Dennis Miller's biggest problem is that he does not appeal in any way to the conservative demographic he now espouses. You can fake stupid, but you can't fake Rush Limbaugh stupid.
Hey, given the chance, Bill Clinton might have invaded Iraq. The Big Dog was no softee.
I mean, no one could spray grafiti in the mid east without Bill sending a cruise missile their way.
But no one can honestly say that Clinton would have taken us into this war under a blanket of lies and without the United Nations.
Under Bill Clinton, the United States was respected and admired around the world.
You don't believe me? Ask George Bush. He completely got the shits of riding down "William Clinton" highways in Africa, Europe, Australia, Asia...
In fact, now that I think about it, just about the only country in the world which doesn't have a Bill Clinton highway is...this one.
Tena, I'm betting this guy's gone after 2 months (and I'm being extremely generous here).
You guys betting on how fast Miller goes are basing your guesses on market forces.
You forget, Republicans only believe in the free market when it comes to the other guy.
They'll lose money to have keep their message on the air.
You folks are overlooking a very important detail.
Saddam was "evil." The president said so. So that makes it okay.
That should say, "to keep" without the have.
Ricky - ya think? Even if it's bombing so bad it's beginning to be a negative for the message?
when directly confronted about the iraq war, he was AT MOST ambivalent about it, IE he had tact and didn't call bush a jackass.
He was both presidential and respectful of the president.
Thanks for providing your take on this event.
,i>Under Bill Clinton, the United States was respected and admired around the world.
You don't believe me? Ask George Bush. He completely got the shits of riding down "William Clinton" highways in Africa, Europe, Australia, Asia...
He didn't live up to his potential, but Clinton was actually a pretty good president. Granted, he's an idiot when it comes to women, but most men are, one way or another. Give me a tech bubble over Iraq any day, thanks.
Is Bush actually looking chimpier and chimpier - or are the newspapers just choosing to use less flattering photos?
Someday I will submit a post that does not contain a typ o.
"We value Senator Kerry's honorable and heroic service in Vietnam. But we question his judgment in consistently voting to cut defense and intelligence funding critical to national security," said Ken Mehlman, Bush's campaign manager, speaking at the Republican National Committee's winter meeting.
Mehlman charged that Kerry tried to cut $8 billion from intelligence budgets during the 1990s, and that his proposals "were so reckless" that he couldn't find any co-sponsors in the Senate.
Tena, who can say?
Saddam was a pain in the butt, with a couple of sociopathic kids.
How long could the U.S. and England keep a No Fly Zone over Iraq?
Maybe forever, maybe not.
I have no idea. I'm purely speculating, and, while doing so, saying Clinton was NOT soft or opposed to flexing a little American muscle.
But Clinton WAS opposed to alienating world opinion. And, his personal life aside, he was opposed to lying to the country and the world.
I can not imagine Clinton or Albright going before the United Nations, an organisation they both believed in, and lying to them in such an insulting and obvious way.
I can imagine Clinton putting the screws to Saddam, enough maybe even to push him out of power.
But this farce? No, I could not see Clinton doing this.
Clinton was infintely too smart to invade Iraq. It was a dumb idea, it really was, as you can see quite clearly from the aftermath.
Bill Clinton was an excellent president, and history will treat him right.
Hey, Grytpype, don't forget to add "Disaster Monkey" to the blasphemous names!
Re The Bush Administration:
If morality was skin it would be a pustule.
If truth was air it would be carbon monoxide.
If accountability was 20/20 vision, it would be without eyes.
If God existed, and God was just, it would not exist.
The Bush Administration is not a "they" or a "them"--it is an IT.
***
Well, I know two things - I really miss Bill Clinton, and for some reason, despite the weight problems, the nose looking bad some days, I found the guy sexy. Still do. No wonder he's had trouble with women.
The trouble with Women! What a joke. I mean, we won't even go into the almost all inclusive list of Presidents who've had trouble with women--the exceptions being Buchanan, who lived with his "niece", but was probably gay, and Reagan, who was pre-viagra--but, puh-leeeze.
I want a president who is getting laid! I want a president who longs to get laid!
The president has his finger on The Button. I want a guy who's got his finger on The Button to be thinking about next Friday night.
I do not want some sexually disfunctional guy who has a sincere belief in Armegedon to have the power to end the world.
Horn dogs are optimists. Optimists believe in tomorrow.
How many americans learned that there was still that little problem here in the USA of disposing of our Chemical Weapons in Alabama.
It was fun watching americans learn that in america we will be burning our Chemical Weapons stockpiles over the course of the next seven years.
Now would you consider Alabama an Imminent Threat merely because they are one of few states with Chemical Weapons left in the USA. I mean it's not like Alabama has a lot of Spare ICBMs, Or SLCM's or ALCM's or other nuclear tipped tactically deployable counter measure systems.....
8-)
for the conceptually impared.
um, er, uh..., is "fucking a" an agreement or an argument?
Strong agreement.
...COOL!
--ventura county, ca
And when I say The Button, I, of course, mean nukular weapons.
It's not a Clinton sexual reference.
Is Bush actually looking chimpier and chimpier - or are the newspapers just choosing to use less flattering photos?
Well, judge for yourself
what do you think?
I say, why yes!
Well guys, I sadly just saw the first congressional ad for my district here in the merry old state of tx. Some young creepo telling me that he was 'the most conservative guy EVER.' he's gonna cut taxes another 25%, protect the unborn, help the preznit with the war on terra, and..... (drumroll) he's gonna send THE LIBERALS A MESSAGE THEY WON'T FORGET!! (all said with his finger jabbing at the camera)
Unfortunately, he failed to notice he's in Austin, Tx, and after we get through smokin' a big old doobie, we'll probably beat the crap out of him for that kind of nonsense.
Ribs or no ribs.
You go Jimmy Carter!
"There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith."
Oh, breaking news. TERRA ALERT!!!! on CNN. Avoid airplanes or some such crap.
Also, more interestingly, Thielman is gonna be on Newsnight with Aaron Brown, and he's gonna trash Bush. Brown described the interview as "devastating."
I hate this stupid debate, but here is some more White House on imminence right from their National Security Strategy brief:
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.
It seems pretty clear who they are calling an imminent threat (albeit under their new definition of an imminent threat.)
Bush chimpification:
Exhibit #1
Exhibit #2
Go to CNN main page for special Bush/Cheney double
I'm tired of this argument too. They're never going to get a clue. I'm convinced they're just to stupid or too deluded.
Unfortunately, he failed to notice he's in Austin, Tx, and after we get through smokin' a big old doobie, we'll probably beat the crap out of him for that kind of nonsense.
Ribs or no ribs.
preznit no giv four legs good ribs
Hey, the asshole is going into the bullying mode. Loser.
Actually pie, the more I think about it, I'd like to take that rack of ribs and beat him about the head and shoulder with it.
Afterwards I'll order barbeque chicken.
I am amazed these days at how the wingnuts are twisting and contorting themselves to now say that WMD weren't the issue all along (they were), and/or that it doesn't matter, because we've brought down a despicable tyrant and regime, and democracy will soon bloom in the Middle East.
Don't they know how dangerous pretzels are to this preznit?
Generik
This has to be one of the more clever things I've read all day ... Kudos!!
Hey pie or tena, what's the deal?
haloscan no giv mee smilee faces no more..
:-(
Masters of obfuscation at work. No way David Kay came out of the closet without Karl Rove's approval.
Kay admits once and for all there are no WMD. Buuuut at the same time he shifts the blame on the Intelligence Community.
The Chimp was misled, not his fault.
Anyone who reads blogs knows the CIA kept saying there had serious doubts there were any WMD's. It was in the NIE. That's why Rummy formed his own CIA in the Pentagon basement.
I can't believe Dean brought up Cheney's visits to Langley. You go boy! Brokaw almost pulled a Peter Jennings on that one "that's a pretty serious charge..."
Bring back the faith-based intelligence meme!
Boo hoo.
I know why.
Why?
preznit no giv Greg Thielmann turkee or anything else for that matter.
'cause the troll from hell abused the smileys.
Well that completely sucks ass. I know the smileys are kind of lame, but I really liked them.
Atrios giv us smilees please!
The preznit sure does seem to like food service. First turkey, now ribs. Guess he missed his calling.
Someone is in a pissy mood.
Tsk. Tsk.
TROLLLLLLLLL!!!!!
IN THE DUNGEON!!!!!!!!!!!
I thought you might want to know....
(faints dead away)
-Professor Querrel
That's not Old Hat.
While I don't think Clinton would have ever done anything as boneheaded as this Iraq war (at the very least, he understood the importance of not having the entire world hate you), his Iraq policy was not anything to write home about. Whether out of an overcommitment to triangulation, wagging the dog, or actually buying the PNAC b.s., Clinton made regime change the official policy of the U.S. toward Iraq. And that was pretty stupid, even if it was less stupid.
(And no president who passed GATT and NAFTA, destroyed the welfare safety net, won his party's nomination by executing a retarded man, vastly expanded the federal death penalty, and proposed much of what ended up in the USA PATRIOT Act after the OKC bombing will ever deserve to be called "excellent," no matter how much worse his successor turned out to be.)
four legs good sez: "Well guys, I sadly just saw the first congressional ad for my district here in the merry old state of tx. Some young creepo telling me that he was 'the most conservative guy EVER.' he's gonna cut taxes another 25%, protect the unborn, help the preznit with the war on terra, and..... (drumroll) he's gonna send THE LIBERALS A MESSAGE THEY WON'T FORGET!! (all said with his finger jabbing at the camera)
Unfortunately, he failed to notice he's in Austin, Tx, and after we get through smokin' a big old doobie, we'll probably beat the crap out of him for that kind of nonsense."
Ya know, I can't even imagine that playing well in Lubbock.
Frankly, sounds like somebody made a parody.
The troll from hell waits for someone to acknowledge him and then he slithers in.
That reminds me--need to go buy something nice for Steve Gilliard out of his Wish List...
Wrong, you silly boy.
You're wrong quite often.
Where do all these ratfuck journalists come from?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/3...ign/
31DONA.html
Oh, that's great. Just pass over Bush and his beyond-absurd entanglement with "special interests" (as they say, he's a corporation masquerading as a human being) and talk about the peanuts the Dem candidates are getting?
Typical crap, courtesy of the SCLM flagship.
I saw Mr. Tierney has also written fine pieces to tell us all why recycling is a bad thing to do.
Is it just plain meanness that makes these people like this?
Scooter for prez.
Wackie boy, good night. Please take your meds.
Later.
"Wrong, you silly boy.
You're wrong quite often."
It helps if people know what you're referring to. Little hint for ya.
Scooter, the guy was serious as a fucking heart attack. I just saw another ad half an hour ago for some other bozo. Again saying how 'conservative' he is. Crazy. People here have GregPalast.com signs in their yards for crying out loud.
It did kind of look like a parody, but hell... that's what the rethug party looks like after redistricting. All the masks are off.
Clinton was an opportunist who got himself elected but left the Democratic party hobbled and disoriented. The Dems could have bounced back with decent leadership, but Daschle and Gephardt don't have enough vertebrae between them to make a full spine.
four legs good sez: "Scooter, the guy was serious as a fucking heart attack. I just saw another ad half an hour ago for some other bozo. Again saying how 'conservative' he is. Crazy. People here have GregPalast.com signs in their yards for crying out loud."
That's just nuts. See, it'd be one thing for a Republican in Lubbock to run an ad saying he was a strong conservative, 'cause the whole area's conservative, so it's fairly expected. But for a GOPer to run an ad in Austin saying he's gonna be SuperRepubloFascistMan is (A) putting way too much faith in DeLay's redistricting, (B) putting way too much faith in Shrub's waning "popularity", and (C) just being dumb as a stick off the stupid tree.
if george had played nice with the CIA they copuld have planted some but NOoooo george had to be a asshole.
I just have to say that Atrios should do more to get rid of these moronic trolls.
After the Carolina debate, from someone sitting near the press section:
"The word around the press is that Kerry and Edwards are the front runners."
OK, in Carolina that makes sense, but it still smells like the media is deciding for us who they want to be the candidate.
I too think it is pretty close to Edwards/Kerry Pick 'em right now in SC.
Speaking of Greg Palast. I got a call from "A Conservative Running for Congress", unfortunately I missed his name (it was a recording).
He said that as a Fiscal Conservative he is going to stand up to the irresponsible spending of the Bush Administration. He is going to protect our Civil Liberties.
I think I finally found 1 honorable (at least from first impression) Republican.
Shocking, I know.
I apologize for being such a douchebag. Sorry, I am currently under indictment for a pedophila charge and I take my anger out this way. Maybe I should commit suicide.
prezit plese giv me back my regular old hat.
Looks like someones addy ban needs to be reinstituted...
It's still the same thing. The rabid right,who accused the Clinton's of everything up to and including devil worship, suddenly hold their opinions dear. I mean if Bill and Hillary support something it must be right, right? This after 8 plus years of name calling, threats, hate, and villifying. What a difference an incompetent Repub in the WH makes.
OT, but if you haven't been there recently, check out CJR's Campaign Desk.
They're almost out-Horsing the Horse (and they don't take those annoying five-day sabbaticals every other week)!
So Dean needs Kerry to lose SC almost as much as Edwards does, no?
I'm sure am is gone by now, but I've got to tackle something I read upthread.
am: dumass: 9/11
Generik: no. The point is that had Clinton, or (insert generic president here) been in the White House in 2000-2004 they would likely have done the same thing. All this noise is driven by silly partisanship.
9/11? Am I to take this to mean that at this point you're a half-dozen or more talking points behind the WH? Cheney's the only one still running that dog-and-pony show. Now we went into Iraq because the CIA said they had WMDs. Well, they didn't say it, exactly, but the WH asked them to. A lot. In fact, Rumsfed went ahead and opened up his own personal CIA, the OSP I believe it was called, so THEY would tell him the Iraq had WMDs. Plus, Al Qeada was there. Or maybe not, we're not really clear on that one. No one seems to think that was true.
But Saddam was a bad guy, although he was our buddy for a long time, and we bombed him all through the Clinton years ... BUT we're bringing Democracy to the Middle East. Well, not democracy exactly. That's why Sistani has 100,000 people marching in the street -- they thought by democracy we meant, you know, votes.
So it wasn't 9/11. Or Al Qeada. Or WMDs. Or because Saddam was a bad guy. Or to bring democracy.
Darn it if I can't remember why the heck we're there, toppling a government in one of the most unstable areas of the world, with our soldiers getting blown up and shot at every day, while a religious civil war brews all around them and terrorists stream across the border.
But Clinton woulda done it.
Hold on to this one. In all the obsfucation and distortion, let's keep our eyes on what this clown actually said as he addressed the nation a day before we started bombing the shit out of a nation of 25 million people.
http://tinyurl.com/7ob3
Seems pretty clear what we were told the "reasons" for the war were.
four legs good, what did you think of Aaron Brown asking Thielman if the WMD mattered since the preznit said 'what's the difference?' Was it only on my TV that Thielman's head exploded?
Lets say hypothetically that they start an independent investigation stat, and beacuse of leaks and whatnot, the RNC decides they can't run with the Shrub, and decide to nominate someone else. I have for a long time felt that any of our Dems could easily beat Bush in November. So I almost worry about them nominating someone else, because I am not so sure they can all beat McCain.
But Kerry, Dean or McCain, now really, what's the difference.
They're going to nominate Bush. Slam-dunk. With the cow-towed american media, why shouldn't they?
Yeah, they're pretty likely to nominate Bush, but the moment the media realize he is unelectable they will all turn on him right quick and ingratiate themselves with the new king.
the google search for "he has no weapons of mass destruction" yielded more hits. I guess sending Kay in was a waste of time then, eh?
I'm hoping that the SCLM are starting to smell blood in the water with this admin. They deserve nothing less than a war crimes trial.
But, but, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
I guess that's just one of those things that we didn't know we didn't know.
I dunno Juan, he sounded awfully specific.
Hold on to this one. In all the obsfucation and distortion, let's keep our eyes on what this clown actually said as he addressed the nation a day before we started bombing the shit out of a nation of 25 million people.
http://tinyurl.com/7ob3
Seems pretty clear what we were told the "reasons" for the war were.
Travis | Email | Homepage | 01.31.04 - 12:22 am | #
Great speech. Seriously. Here's hoping that this phrase becomes one of the most ironic things that Junior has ever said:
War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."
OT: CNN has an update article on the Texas cyanide bomber case. One line from the story caught my eye:
Most curious were handwritten notes that listed "meeting places," including hospitals or Wal-Marts
I seem to remember something about "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who
committed these acts and those who harbor them". So when does the Walton family get shipped off to Gitmo?
Shorter Mother of All Google Searches:
1. A lot of people in high office claimed to know more than we did about Saddam's weapons.
2. Taken together, it's obvious that they are referring to official documents and presentations/conversations about Iraqi weapons that are, apparently, not part of the public record.
Dennis Miller: The official comedian of the Fourth Reich.
...just being dumb as a stick off the stupid tree.
That sounds about right.
Hey satiRic, well, I thought for a second he was going to take Aaron Brown by the neck and shake him like a dead rat. I quite enjoyed that, I must say. I especially like the way he skewered Powell. And Brown, what a goofball, Thielman spends 5 minutes explaining what he knows about the intelligence, then Brown says, how do you know that Powell wasn't truthful? Ummm, because I gave him the intelligence reports and I know what was in them (you fucking dunce).
The worst thing was that Brown looked surprised... doesn't he read? anything except the teleprompter that is? Anyway the Bushies will produce photos of Thielmann in a compromising position with a goat any moment now I'm sure.
Anyway, anytime the actual truth gets put on the air is a good day for our side.
The following has to be one of the best posts about Bill Clinton that I've ever read. Thank you Ricky
The trouble with Women! What a joke. I mean, we won't even go into the almost all inclusive list of Presidents who've had trouble with women--the exceptions being Buchanan, who lived with his "niece", but was probably gay, and Reagan, who was pre-viagra--but, puh-leeeze.
I want a president who is getting laid! I want a president who longs to get laid!
The president has his finger on The Button. I want a guy who's got his finger on The Button to be thinking about next Friday night.
I do not want some sexually disfunctional guy who has a sincere belief in Armegedon to have the power to end the world.
Horn dogs are optimists. Optimists believe in tomorrow.
Hey David in TX, you're getting phone calls already? next time tell them that Bush is a drunken draft dodger. Bet they won't bother you anymore.
I'm sure that business about the budget is just a scam. Honestly I don't know what the one guy is babbling on about. Maybe that was for a primary audience, it was pretty fascist though. He's running in district 10, which is Doggett's old district. I can't figure out which district I'm in, but I'm pretty sure it's one of the new ones, which means I'm gonna be represented either by some creep from Round Rock, or an equally worse creep from San Antonio.
It completely sucks ass.
This story is a couple weeks old, but it pretty much undermines any claim from Bush that he tried to avoid war:
Just days after the Iraq war officially ended, The Age reported (May 10) that Australian troops had fought the first battles, killing and capturing Iraqi soldiers a day before US President George Bush declared the invasion had begun.
The force, previously secretly inserted into Iraq, attacked Iraqi positions in the first hours of darkness, 16 hours after Bush's 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam to cede power.
I think this might take some wind out of their sails, too.
http://tinyurl.com/26khn
OT -- but thanks a lot Joe.
http://tinyurl.com/2lthv
This tells me everything ever needed to know about either of these guys. And I really liked McCain too -- but this is pathetic.
January? Why not drop the pretense and just make the deadline 2020?
At least maybe we'll get to the bottom of this. And look on the bright side, maybe someone will leak something really, really damaging. Okay, so the report won't come out in July, but we'll still have this nice investigation going all through the fall campaign season, as well as the Plame thing.
Plus, I had friends die on 9/11, I really want to know. And I don't care how long it takes.
And am I the only one who thinks it is just a bit of a coincidence that after 9/11, which was used to jusitfy the Iraq invasion, that we got attacked by anthrax? Anthrax being the most famous Iraqi bio-WMD. I just can't help but think the anthrax attacks in October 2001 were all part of the selling of the Iraq war. Sure would be nice if they caught the anthrax mailer and solved the mystery for us.
And when the fuck is the CIA gonna come out and defend themselves about their WMD intelligence? We're only hearing one side of the story here.
Anyway, this quote from the CJR review of yesterday's NYTimes "news analysis" is quite amusing:
"Noting that Bush himself, along with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have already begun backing away from assertions that they repeated for months that Iraq posed a credible pre-war threat, Sanger concludes: "Only Mr. Cheney, the man who made the most extensive claims about Iraq's readiness to strike out, has failed to back down publicly. Last Friday he was on the air again, talking about Mr. Hussein's mobile biological weapons units, which now appear, Dr. Kay says, to have had no such purpose."
And he then quotes one White House official who dryly remarks: "We'll have to get Cheney the new memo. As soon as we write it.""
four legs, I'm sorry to hear that. I don't mean to imply that I'd rather not find out -- America needs to know what a real investigation will found out.
I just can't believe that a CURRENT Dem candidate would co-auther a bill that could let Bush end up getting away with any number of things.
I can picture a quasi-nightmare scenario where something nasty happens in Oct (like a coup in the top millitary of Pakistan by a trained cadre of Islmaofascists) and 'dear Leader' is the only one who can protect us from the threat. He wins, or calls off elections, or steals it.
And buries anything the commission would have found out in a flurry of war fever.
That's what I'm afraid of.
Slightly OT, but Sarek has an interesting post up about how all this discussion of intelligence misses the real point, which is that preemption is being proven wrong here no matter who's to blame for the bad intel.
And I really liked McCain too -- but this is pathetic.
I have less respect for McCain every time I see him. To be sure, part of it was how he was slimed in 2000; I think that glossed over a few of the glaring problems with McCain, leaving a story more attractive than the man: fiscally conservative, straight-talking hero badly mistreated by supposedly moral competition. Seeing his decidedly dishonest, transparently self-serving "yes or no" question ploy with David Kay on C-SPAN the other day cinched it. McCain deserves more respect than a lot of his peers, but that's still not saying much.
"The world has answered Saddam's invasion with 12 United Nations
resolutions, starting with a demand for Iraq's immediate and unconditional
withdrawal, and backed up by forces from 28 countries of six continents,"
President George H.W. Bush said in his January 1991 State of the Union
address. "With few exceptions, the world now stands as one."
Bit of a difference between father and son. How many resolutions did junior get passed? How many nations joined the coalition?
If Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were such a huge threat, why didn't Poppy go to Baghdad while he had a large coalition as well as Japan and Saudi Arabia footing most of the bill?
Fifteen years later...
On Aug. 2, 1990, Iraqi military forces, on orders from President Saddam Hussein, invaded and occupied the small country of Kuwait. The Persian Gulf War of 1991--from January 16 to February 28--was fought to expel Iraq and restore Kuwaiti independence.
The war introduced several technologically advanced weapon systems. As well,the United States forged a broad-based international coalition that confronted Iraq militarily strategy.
The military coalition consisted of: [See the Contribution list]
Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark,Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, The United Kingdom, and the United States.
The war also was financed by countries that were unable to send in troops. More than billion were pledged and received. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were the largest donors. Switzerland also contributed to the allies, this after being neutral during both World War I and World War II.
The attack on Kuwait by Iraq caused the United Nations Security Council to pass several resolution to close Iraq from International trade. The Security Council wanted President Saddam Hussein removed his troops from Kuwait and to distroy nonconventional weapons. Read about two of the most importaint ones: Resolution 660, first resolution after the attack, and 678, to use all necessary means to free Kuwait.
Also:
President Bush waited two days after the UN deadline for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait before ordering the Coalition to begin action against Iraqi forces.
Compare and contrast to the article posted way upthread:
Just days after the Iraq war officially ended, The Age reported (May 10) that Australian troops had fought the first battles, killing and capturing Iraqi soldiers a day before US President George Bush declared the invasion had begun.
I think this might take some wind out of their sails, too.
http://tinyurl.com/26khn
Travis | Email | Homepage | 01.31.04 - 2:06 am | #
Sure could, they have never been able to explain what was so urgent they needed to bust in at the so-called ballyhooed Time of their Choosing, what was so special exactly, what was achieved by busting through without proper rations for the troops and without getting everyone on board.
Sure the CIA does have to keep telling their side, this first foray that they did not buckle to pressure only moots the issue that pressure was exerted.
We also know there was pressure when they initially demurred but ultimately acquiesced into letting the cutesy SOTU claim through.
Most of all, after busting right in and dissing everybody including the Dems, how come they are now playing kissy face with everyone on the planet, trying to fix the trajectory.
.....
I could never understand why Bush never fired George Tenet after 9/11. But with no WMD in Iraq I understand now. Bush must have known before 9/11 that the CIA had been poorly run under the Clinton administration and Tenet was a symptom of that incompetence. The mistakes the CIA made concerning al Qaeda is staggering. But Bush wanted to hear about Iraq’s WMD that’s why there wasn’t a cleanout of the CIA.
But for a GOPer to run an ad in Austin saying he's gonna be SuperRepubloFascistMan is (A) putting way too much faith in DeLay's redistricting, (B) putting way too much faith in Shrub's waning "popularity"...
(A) This is not a question of "faith". There is a firm that markets an actual computer program, which has been used extensively by these people, to implement redistricting by the hard numbers. This is not 19th century gerrymandering. We are talking lines of demarcation that pass by houses on a street. It's sort of like a Right-Wing Passover.
For all practical purposes, you are picking and choosing your specific voters. Which of course makes this not really "redistricting", so much as legalized mathematical voter fraud. But to say that it may or may not work, is not to comprehend what's actually being done, here.
Now given the fact that moderates and Lefties have an uphill climb in any election where both sides of the political spectrum would theoretically turn out in roughly equitable numbers, the job of that GOP candidate is to throw out the reddest meat he can possibly conjure up. Those commercials (which remind me of an old Phil Hartman bit on SNL, where he's doing a political commercial in a ten-gallon hat, and bragging about how much more ruthlessly he will torture and kill condemned prisoners) WORK.
If you create a "district" that carries more weight, your final job is to make sure the neanderthals you've selected to be in it actually get up offa that thing and vote. Say it with me: "energize the base". Doesn't even matter if 3/4 of Austin (am I being conservative? Yeah, I usta live there, too!) is watching these things and going, "WHA--??" Just get the morons the hell out of the house, and they will dominate, by virtue of the weighting.
Oh, and (B)? The year is 1972. Watergate and most of its attendant scandals were a well-known factor, to those curious enough to follow it all. Any decent anti-war protestor knew what a war criminal Richard Milhaus was. None of this was unavailable to Beer-Guzzling Amurica.
Need I remind you: re-elected in a landslide. My point being, it takes literally years of the outrage of good and decent people to the travesties of its leaders, before a glimmer of fact even begins to trickle down to Beer-Guzzling Amurica. It slowly fades-in, like a Polaroid print. We listen to our own echo chamber, in blogs like these; we read The Nation and think, whoa, it's all over for those pricks NOW!
Hell, when I was 20, I didn't know one soul who didn't know hands-down that Tricky Dick was one. I believed the hype about the Baby Boom and its crushing numbers, and figured the old folks would all stay home, in November of '72. And I truly believe you can log the beginning of widespread apathy, cynicism, and the Me Generation, from Election Day of that year.
The citizens bury their heads in the sand, as the country burns down around them.
Is history being repeated here? Absolutely!
Shut up, liberals. Things are going great. My stocks are up, and the economy is booming. Lazy liberal whiners should get a job instead of attacking our president as traitors. We will show you liberals. Just you wait.
It's amazing. 10 Million of us marched in the streets trying to tell Chimpy McCokespoon that invading Iraq was a stupid idea, and we were dismissed as a "focus group". Somehow, just by paying attention to what the UN weapons inspectors and the European news reports were telling us, I and many of my friends and acquaintances were able to figure out that Iraq had DIDDLY SHIT for WMDs, and even less to do with the terrorist attacks against our country. Yet somehow, we are now supposed to believe that the POTUS, despite all his NSA briefings and dedicated cabinetry, is as ill-informed as the average Fox news viewer.
"Oh, pooor president bush, he got confused with all those big reports he doesn't like to read. It wasn't his fault that all those brown people had to die. It was all those naughty intelligence analysts, blame them and Bill Clinton."
That's what we're supposed to say now?
It was obvious to anyone with more than half a brain that the administration was lying its ass off to start a war, and figured Saddam would probably have some leftover sarin stowed in a bunker somewhere to justify it all later.
How obvious was it? Well, if Iraq's weapons systems were of the sort described in the propaganda, WE NEVER WOULD HAVE INVADED! It would have been an effective deterrant; you won't see us invading Pakistan or North Korea, both of them despotic regimes known to have nuclear weapons, because they could kill hundreds of thousands of people very quickly. If Saddam had serious chemical weapons with a "45 minute" readiness and intercontinental capability, as was claimed, you can bet we'd have treated him with more respect. We attacked fearlessly because there was nothing to fear.
And now, 10 months later, after demolishing Iraq's secular totalitarian government, we're ushering in a new era of ethnic bloodbaths and civil wars for Iraq in the name of benevolent democracy. Al Qaeda may or may not have been active in Iraq during Saddam's rule, but they are sure as hell at work there now. Thanks, Dubya, you're a real "mission accomplished" kind of hero.
OT here.....
But can we castrate David Brooks now?
The AMerican people know the internet is one of those.... reading things, and can't be trusted. Doesn't mean a thing.
Simon at 5:21--
Right. That makes PERFECT sense.
Get a grip, dude.
Simon at 5:21--
Right. That makes PERFECT sense.
Get a grip, dude.
Atrios - ever think that requiring an email address MAY stop the trolls...also is it possible to verify such email address before allowing the post?!?
I mean I know they can go and setup hotmail accounts; but I do believe there are methods of finding out who they are with those accounts...
I don't really mind the trolls; but sometimes you cannot help but lash out against such ignorance/arrogance.
People,
Go read the SOTU of 2003 (last quarter), read it carefully, and tell me that Bush didn't know that Saddam had no weapons.
They knew Saddam had no weapons.
But they won't be able to squirm out of it like the imminent-threat thing, because of this Mother of All Google Searches.
Organism
>Yet somehow, we are now supposed to believe that the POTUS, despite all his NSA briefings and dedicated cabinetry, is as ill-informed as the average Fox news viewer.<
--------------------------------
Average Faux viewer
http://www.dunckleystreet.com/im...ages/
morans.jpg
By the way, has O'Reilly apologized yet?
Bell, um, some people are chary of putting in a mailto in plain sight of spammers, I know I am...
bah, well done Magnum, you pre-empted me on the 'Mother of All Google Searches'...
No, Bill hasn't apologised because FU[KING Condi Rice told him he didn't have to.
Because, what Bill said was, "The Bush administration says that Saddam has WMD, and if it turns out that Saddam has no WMD I will apologise to the Bush administration."
NOT
TheaLogie,
Someone else came up with it further upstream.
BTW BOHICA, sign this petition to get O'Reilly to apologise.
I don't think the petiton goes far enough, because O'Reilly also said he would never trust the Bush administration again. The petition should demand that O'Reilly apologise, AND whenever the Bush administration claims something, O'Reilly should say "That's bullshit."
It's all the CIA's fault! Bush should fire Tenet's sorry ass. Then this thing'll blow over. Heh.
Whew, just have to comment on that "am" troll. What a patronizing troll! Suggesting that people are angry because they're partisans, when millions of protestors marched all around the world. I guess "am" was suggesting they were all secretly Democrats who had clandestinely gone to those countries to express their anger and disapproval.
Where's w00t with the patronizing troll boobies?
In w00t's honor:
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/
trol...mommytroll.html
From Bush's night before war speech via Travis's link http://tinyurl.com/7ob3:
In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.
He must have meant Reagan.
Not troll boobies, but booble for trolls.
Perhaps they were using a different sense of "know".
Dude, you're gettin' a Zell!
http://tinyurl.com/33weg
MYOB -
I sent the little shit a nice long letter. Besides pointing out other dictators and other crimes that we seem not to care about unless it was Iraq that committed them, I suggested he look at other news sources besides FOX.
Ha!
Here's what I don't get. I knew there weren't any WMD's. My colleagues and friends knew there weren't any WMD's. We all marched against the war in New York a year ago under strict police escort. We told the world there weren't any WMD's. And a collection of idiots -- unfortunately many of them in the Congress -- but most ordinary American citizens, got hoodwinked into thinking there were WMD's. How can we keep such idiots from killing more of our soldiers (not to mention citizens of other countries) in future idiotic wars? Must say I am all the more distressed by just having seen "Fog of War," showing how another macho Texan managed to kill thousands of American soldies and countless Vietnamese for no very good reason. What did Marx say ? -- history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce?
Moniker - that's what I've been saying for awhile - Bush's entire platform in the last election was based on two things: that he would bring integrity back to the WH; and that he was a "uniter, not a divider."
I want everyone of the front runners to throw those words back in his face. Repeatedly.
Actually, He is a Uniter, He has united 80% of the Worlds population against the US, and he has united the Democratic Party like no other leader has ever succeeded in doing and that's no mean feat.
No updates all weekend? No explanation? Atrios is dead.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
