 |
||||
|
|
November 14, 2005Bush Rewrites HistoryI posted this in my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com today. If you've seen it, please scroll and check out other items. In a Veterans Day speech on Friday, delivered to troops and others at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania, George W. Bush veered from the usual commemoration of sacrifice to strike at critics who have questioned whether he steered the country into war by using false information. This has become a tough and troubling issue for his presidency. A poll taken before his speech found that 57 percent of the respondents now believe that Bush "deliberately misled" the nation into war. That is astounding and, I assume, without precedent in history. Has there been another wartime period during which a majority of Americans believed the president had purposefully bamboozled them about the reasons for that war? Addressing this charge is tough for Bush because it calls more attention to it, and the on-ground-realities in Iraq only cause more popular unease with the war. But Bush and his aides calculated that it was better to punch back than ignore the criticism, and that's a sign that they're worried that Bush is coming to be defined as a president who conned the nation into an ugly war. So Bush tried. Let's break down his effort: Our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. Conservative who claim raising questions about the war does a disservice to the troops and is anti-American might want to keep these words in mind. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. Actually, Congress did not approve Bush's decision to remove Saddam. In October 2002, the House and Senate approved a resolution that gave Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq if he deemed that appropriate. At the time, Bush and his aides were claiming it was their goal to force Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction and his WMD programs (which, we know now, did not exist). When the resolution passed---and in the weeks after---the White House insisted that Bush was not bent on "regime change" and that he was willing to work within the UN to force Saddam to accept UN inspectors (which Saddam did) in pursuit of the goal of disarming Iraq. Is Bush now saying that he had already resolved to invade Iraq at this point and all his talk about achieving disarmament through the UN process was bunk? Is he rewriting history--or telling us the real truth? In any event, when Bush did order the invasion of Iraq months later in March 2003, he did not ask Congress to vote on his decision to remove Saddam. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision. Bush might accept "the responsibilities and criticisms," but has yet to acknowledge the mistakes he and his aides made before and after the invasion about planning for a post-invasion Iraq. He also has not insisted on any accountability for these mistakes. For instance, he gave a spiffy medal to former CIA chief George Tenet, who was responsible for the prewar intelligence failure. While it's 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. When was the last time Bush talked about how the war began--that is, when did he mention that his primary reason for war (protecting the American public from the supposed WMD threat posed by Saddam Hussein) was discredited by reality? Is ignoring history the same as rewriting it? Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. This is not the full and accurate explanation of the controversy at hand. The issue of whether the Bush administration misled the nation in the run-up to the war has two components. The first is the production of the intelligence related to WMDs and the supposed al Qaeda-Sadam connection. The second is how the Bush crowd represented the intelligence to the public when trying to make the case for war. As for the first, the Senate intelligence committee report did say the committee had found no evidence of political pressure. But Democratic members of the committee and others challenged this finding. Several committee Democrats pointed to a CIA independent review on the prewar intelligence, conducted by a panel led by Richard Kerr, former deputy director of the CIA, which said, Requests for reporting and analysis of [Iraq's links to al Qaeda] were steady and heavy in the period leading up to the war, creating significant pressure on the Intelligence Community to find evidence that supported a connection. More to the point, Kerr told Vanity Fair that intelligence analysts did feel pressured by the go-to-war gang. The magazine in May 2004 reported, "There was a lot of pressure, no question," says Kerr. "The White House, State, Defense were raising questions, heavily on W.M.D. and the issue of terrorism. Why did you select this information rather than that? Why have you downplayed this particular thing?...Sure, I heard that some of the analysts felt pressure. We heard about it from friends. There are always some people in the agency who will say, 'We've been pushed to hard.' Analysts will say, 'You're trying to politicize it.' There were people who felt there was too much pressure. Not that they were being asked to change their judgments, but there were being asked again and again to restate their judgments--do another paper on this, repetitive pressures. Do it again." Was it a case, then, of officials repeatedly asking for another paper until they got the answer they wanted? "There may have been some of that," Kerr concedes. The requests came from "primarily people outside asking for the same paper again and again. There was a lot of repetitive tasking. Some of the analysts felt this was unnecessary pressure. The repetitive requests, Kerr made clear, came from the C.I.A.'s "senior customers," including "the White House, the vice president, State, Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff." Despite Bush's assertion, the question remains whether undue pressure was applied by the White House. And in his Veterans Day speech, Bush ducked the second issue: how he and his aides depicted the intelligence. This is the source of the dispute over the so-called Phase II investigation of the Senate intelligence committee. The allegation is that Bush and administration officials overstated and hyped the flawed intelligence and claimed it was definitive when they had reason to know it was not. For example, in his final speech to the nation before launching the war, Bush claimed that US intelligence left "no doubt" about Iraq's supposed WMDs. But there was plenty of doubt on critical issues. Intelligence analysts at the Energy Department and State Department disagreed with those at the CIA about the evidence that purportedly showed Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program: its importation of aluminum tubes and the allegation that Iraq had been uranium-shopping in Niger. (In 2002, Dick Cheney said the tubes were "irrefutable evidence," and Condoleezza Rice said they were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." But a year earlier, as The New York Times reported in 2004, "Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear expert seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons.") The CIA believed Iraq had chemical weapons. But the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that there was no evidence such stockpiles existed. Some intelligence analysts concluded that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could deliver chemical or biological weapons. The experts on UAVs at the Air Force thought this was not so. Was Bush speaking accurately when he told the public--and the world--there was "no doubt"? Also, did Bush make specific claims unsupported by the intelligence? The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced in October 2002, maintained that Iraq had an active biological research and development program. Bush publicly said Iraq had "stockpiles" of biological weapons. There is a difference between an R&D program (which Iraq did not have) and warehouses loaded with ready-to-go weapons (which Bush implied existed). How did an R&D program become stockpiles? This is as intriguing a question as how those sixteen words about Iraq's alleged pursuit of uranium in Africa became embedded in the State of the Union speech Bush delivered in early 2003. On the key issue of Saddam Hussein's alleged connection to al Qaeda, Bush also made statements that went beyond the intelligence. This link was crucial to the case for war, for Bush and other hawks were arguing that Saddam Hussein could slip his WMDs to his pal Osama bin Laden. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was "dealing with" al Qaeda. But his intelligence agencies had not reached that conclusion. (And the 9/11 Commission later said there was no evidence of collusion between al Qaeda and Saddam.) So how did Bush come to make such a statement? Recently, Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat, released formerly classified material showing that before the war when Bush, Cheney, Colin Powell and other administration officials cited evidence that Iraq had been training al Qaeda operatives in the use of bombs and other weapons, Bush and these officials were relying on the statements of a captured al Qaeda member whose claims had been discounted by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Once more, how had Bush and his senior aides come to disseminate specific and provocative information deemed unreliable by the intelligence community? Bush's Veterans Days comments addressed none of this. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. The people with the most hands-on information regarding WMDs in Iraq did not. The International Atomic Energy Agency, led by recent Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, concluded weeks before the war (after their inspectors had returned to Iraq) that Saddam Hussein had not revived the nuclear weapons program that the IAEA had dismantled in the mid-1990s. And Hans Blix, head of the UN inspectors in Iraq, repeatedly said that his team was not finding evidence of chemical or biological weapons stockpiles. ...And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate--who had access to the same intelligence--voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. As noted above, the Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to use force when he thought he should--but only after Bush had promised to go to the United Nations in an effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, who, it turned out, was telling the truth when he denied his government possessed WMDs. Even the John Kerry quote that Bush cites contains the to-disarm condition. And several Democratic members of Congress have claimed that they did not see all the intelligence that was available to the White House. The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. It's hard to argue with that. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. Who said that "it's perfectly legitimate to criticize" the "decision [to go to war in Iraq] or the conduct of the war"? That was Bush, moments earlier, in the same speech. So which is it? Is it okay to criticize the conduct of the war or not? By the way, while accusing his critics of falsifying history, Bush never conceded that he launched the war on a false premise--that Saddam Hussein was up to his neck in WMDs--and, thus, as he paid tribute to veterans of this war and others, he did not accept responsibility for sending American troops into battle for a cause that did not exist. Posted by David Corn at November 14, 2005 11:54 AM |
|
|
"HUBRIS is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." --Tom Brokaw |
Comments
The Dems voted to authorize the war not only for WMD but also for regime change. It is on record. What a bunch of hippocrits.
Posted by: baf at November 14, 2005 12:11 PM
Americans Confidence In Direction of U.S. Plunges; 21 Points Lower Than Iraqis Confidence In Iraq
A new poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal found that just 26 percent of Americans believe that the country is "headed in the right direction."
Itճ an astoundingly low number. Iraqis Рwho are battling a deadly insurgency and live in a country on the brink of a civil war Рare far more content with the direction of their country:
A recent poll by the International Republican Institute, a conservative group that promotes democracy, showed that only 47 percent of Iraqis surveyed in early October said the country was moving in the right direction.
Note: 47 percent confidence was considered "low."
*****end of clip*****
I have a copy of the PDF results from the most recent poll and cannot find the word "torture" in the document anywhere?
Maybe you could provide a link to the 55% claim?
capt
Posted by: capt at November 14, 2005 12:23 PM
capt
It was a unreported poll sighted by Andrea Mitchell of NBC yesterday on Meet The Press. She quoted the poll as a 2-1 (55%) margin stating that the American public supports getting info from prisoners with whatever it takes and do not want to know the details of how they got it. Don't ask-don't tell.
Posted by: baf at November 14, 2005 12:54 PM
Assessing the President
There are generals and church people who say that George W. Bush was chosen to be president by God. I cannot prove or disprove what people are saying. So, I offer you my assessment with some trepidation.
George W. Bush and his regime have been an experiment in mendacity with the American people. His disciples claim that he is the messianic messenger but his message has obfuscated the American people. His character lacks the probity to be a leader and his actions are more reflective of a nefarious person. George W. Bush expects Americans and the media to obsequious to what he says because he says it.
Before I accept the hyperbole that George W. Bush was chosen by God to be president and that God speaks to him, he must possess the virtues of my God which are humility, love, mercy, and patience. Personally, Mr. Bush does not possess any of these virtues. I see him more as a controlling, punitive, and vengeful person, totally lacking in compassion.
George W. Bush displays a depraved indifference toward the killing of living human beings.
Posted by: Gerald at November 14, 2005 01:26 PM
Baf,
You scare me. Get a clue.
As I remember the run up to the war, Saddam Hussien was as cooperative as I'd ever seen him. He was willing to let inspectors in. He was willing to comply with demands. He knew he couldn't wage a battle. His military had been made so weak. He feared for his country and his ability to remain in power. There are so mnay tragedies to this war. That was just one of them. Saddam was willing to cooperate and Bush started the war despite that fact.
Posted by: Jeanne at November 14, 2005 02:33 PM
Doug Thompson
Mr. Thompson, founder and publisher of Capitol Hill Blue, wrote a very penetrating and powerful article on bunnypants, more commonly known as the smirking chimp or Bush. Mr. Thompson used many of my words that I have been saying about our illustrious murderer and war criminal since 2000.
Make no mistake, I loathe Bush, but I do fall short of wishing anyone to burn in hell. In fact on a daily basis I say the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. The Chaplet is the prayer and words given to St. Faustina by Jesus. The Chaplet is offered to anyone who may be dying and even the most harden sinner will be saved. Jesus will stand before the Father with the sinner asking for God's mercy on the sinner.
Everyday I ask Jesus through the Chaplet to help the dying sinner. Let us say that Bush was to die like from a heart attack or over use of drugs. The Chaplet of Divine Mercy that I offer on a daily basis for my family, for me, and for any one in need of the Chaplet may save even Bush should he die
Many souls are lost because there is no one to pray for them. Please pray to God to reveal His everlasting mercy for all souls, living, dying, and dead.
Posted by: Gerald at November 14, 2005 02:59 PM
War Supporter Repents
Please read this great article on antiwar.com!
antiwar.com still needs some donations to keep the website alive. Than you for any help!
Posted by: Gerald at November 14, 2005 03:12 PM
You make a cogent point that many of us have missed - the point about "disarm" versus "regime change." As we all know, "regime change" was the real goal, dating to the 1998 P.N.A.C. letter to Clinton and the later September 20, 2001 P.N.A.C. letter to Bush. This is the strongest of points to make - the imperceptible and undiscussed slide from "disarm" to "regime change." Thanks for reiterating it!
Posted by: Mickey at November 14, 2005 03:13 PM
Brothers and Sisters Awake
Posted by: Gerald at November 14, 2005 03:45 PM
Thanks for putting it all in a coherent and well informed response to the insulting attacks on Democrats on Veterans Day. That took alot of gall. Bush knows our military cannot respond to his statements. I guess he thought it was a safe crowd to spew his venum but I do believe it has and will continue to be a backlash for his presidency. I will forever remember the 2005 Veterens Day as the day the president forgot about our veterens and played politics. Now that's history.
Posted by: marie at November 14, 2005 05:01 PM
By politicizing his speech in the form of throwing darts at his opponents, George Bush dishoners all veterans. Veteran's Day is about honoring veterans, and they come in all political stripes, not about you Mr. Bush.
Posted by: Andrea at November 14, 2005 06:14 PM
To #1 - I don't give a fat-rat's-ass if 99.9% of the Dems gave whatever "authority" to do whatever bush wanted - IT WAS WRONG! It's STILL wrong! And it will be wrong tomorrow as it will be a year from now.
Keep focused on this FACT - bush let those know only what he WANTED to them to know. So all this "everyone had the same intelligence" shit, is just that - bullshit.
If anyone spent any time at all going past the MSM to hear the truths that are now coming to light and causing bush to implode, they'd know like 15,000,000 that marched against this war before it stared, that we were punked.
So you can keep being a fool if you choose, but as for me I won't be happy to see this whole group of war-mongering cowards found quilty of the war-crimes they ARE quilty of.
Posted by: Gonnuts at November 14, 2005 06:37 PM
baf seems to have a profound memory lapse. This selective amnesia sounds like the strategem d'jour employed by Republicans as of late.
Posted by: Angel at November 14, 2005 07:00 PM
gonnuts
Its called a democracy- idiot. Majority rules and the majority voted to go to war, rather you like it or not.
Posted by: baf at November 14, 2005 07:55 PM
andrea and marie
Tell that to the mothers and fathers that have barried there sons or daughters and have had the protesters at there funerals protesting. How low can you get?
Posted by: baf at November 14, 2005 07:59 PM
David,
I could be mistaken, but reading your article jogged a memory of another claim on WMD that seems to have vanished or not panned out but I can't seem to find the references to it. Didn't president Bush make a claim about finding a huge stockpile of mustard gas (or something similar) in someones backyard? Can't remember exactly, but it seems like it may have been at the same evening White House press conference where a reporter "stumped" Bush when asked if he had made any mistakes. I know this was not in the build up to the war you were talking about, but I remember hearing htat claiming and thinking it was oddly specific compared to the other intel that had been reported to us. Then it seems that the claim just vaporized.
Posted by: dailyapple at November 14, 2005 08:27 PM
OK, I was able to find the link on Google (it helps if you spel your keywords correctly)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/politics/main612036.shtml
And it looks like I recalled the gist of the item correctly, but it was in Libya and was used as a rationale for finding more WMD in Iraq and that his actions had helped in other parts of the middle East. So I cleared that up for myself. I just remembered how odd that comment sounded at the time and had completely forgotton about it since. I guess I'm not suprised that it was quickly debunked and corrected.
Posted by: dailyapple at November 14, 2005 08:33 PM
Tell them what Baf? That it's ok to have their president use a day to honor vets as a political platform to justify his lead-up to the war and throw stones at the opposing political party? To make their special day about himself?
The protests you speak of don't have a damn thing to do with your prez's speech. His speech should have been soley about honoring veterans, with not one iota of politics involved.
My father was a WWII vet and my husband a Nam vet. Combat vets. And your man can't allow them one day without political bullshit to be introduced into a speech honoring vets? F**k him!
Posted by: Andrea at November 14, 2005 10:03 PM
Let us not forget that Bush was in uniform during the Vietnam war. He spent his time during the war quivering like a scurvy rat in a corner of a bar.
Posted by: Gerald at November 14, 2005 11:22 PM
baf, you apparently can't read all that well. As our host noted in his column, the vote in october, 2002, was not a vote to go to war (although it was used that way by the bush administration).
nor was it a vote about regime change at all: it was a vote about wmds. go read it, and go read the bush 3/03 letter to congress asserting that the conditions for war had been fulfilled.
and if you are, perchance referencing the iraq liberation act, go read that: it specifically forbids military action.
specifically.
Posted by: howard at November 14, 2005 11:28 PM
Andrea-I am sure you meant to say you won't be happy (until) you see the whole group of war-mongering cowards found guilty of war crimes.... And I couldn't agree more. They are just so guilty. I can't believe they haven't been arrested by the ICC already. (Even though Bushy Boy unsigned the treaty in advance of his War.)I say that shouldn't matter because this war was premeditated before the unsigning. All who read about this cabal know that.I won't be happy until every last one of them are hanging from a rope ,and sorry Colin ,that includes your wimpy lying ass too.
Posted by: W.A.R.P.ed at November 15, 2005 12:04 AM
Yes, the Democrats did a terrible and unforgivable thing: they believed Bush.
Posted by: John Bonanno at November 15, 2005 12:18 AM
I agree with Gerald and we do have to pray for the sinners.
I do pray for Bush to be saved. Even God moans when a soul has deliberately chosen to go to hell. He has given us a choice and we must make best use of the divine grace and power that has been bestowed on us.
Once a person dies, there is no turning back. Hell and heaven is real. For eternity they will burn in hell for all the blasphemy against God and for the lack of faith.
It would be a dreadful day to stand in judgment before the Lord.
May God have mercy on Bush's soul.
Posted by: ez at November 15, 2005 01:09 AM
Hey baf, does that stand for being against facts? I would like for you to know that the only protestors showing up at the funerals of our fallen soldiers are led by the psychotic Rev. Fred Phelps himself. You know of him,right? He's the one who likes to show up with his flock of sheeple waving those "God Hates Fags" signs. So don't be trying to smear legitimate war protestors, who would never do something as disrespectful as use a funeral to make their point. No, it's the pious "christians" who do that. Just like Bush on Veteran's Day, using his speech to lash out at his detractors, rather than honor our veterans. Sheesh you can't even slander truthfully.
Posted by: Cyra Brown at November 15, 2005 02:32 AM
Condo Rice couldn't tell the difference between aluminum tubes and DIDO!
Posted by: steve Michaels at November 15, 2005 03:02 AM
"is this all you've got?" bush to tenet. Read Tenet's briefings to the Senate beginning in 1999.. no wonder that was bush's response. Saddam was NOT a threat.
Posted by: Monica at November 15, 2005 06:04 AM
When Bush talks about how the Congress "Approved" his going to war, I would like to point out that the vote was to allow him to use force as a LAST RESORT, not the first.
When you give the police the authority to use lethal force you donմ give them the right to blow someoneճ head off first and then try less lethal solutions. Well perhaps some right wing nut jobs think that way but most sane people understand the concept of an escalating continuum of force.
I have heard this president rewrite history so often I canմ keep up. Once he even asked why Saddam wouldnմ let the inspectors in, I suppose he wasnմ informed by ҂ig DickӠCheney that they were in.
Ultimately the Congress was relying on the intel that the Executive branch was providing.
Like a Prosecutor presenting only one side of the evidence to a grand jury the president and his merry group of draft dodgers, chicken hawks and paper warriors gave the Congress only what they wanted them to see.
There is an old saying that you can indict a ham sandwich, in this case Saddam was the ham sandwich
Posted by: Hubble at November 15, 2005 07:59 AM
I don't understand why Democrats don't remind people that they voted to give Bush the authority to go to war in order to pressure Saddam to allow in inspectors. Without that threat, there is no way he would have cooperated.
I have heard commentators say that this is too obscure a point for people to get. This is ludicrous the public is perfectly capable of understanding the need for a credible threat of force to get Saddam to cooperate.
That Democrats think people can't grasp this is insulting. They are pathetic.
Posted by: LizB at November 15, 2005 08:51 AM
Yes, the president and his people lied........but
which one????????????
Consider:::
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq
the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction
and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom
line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose is clear We want to seriously diminish the
threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there
matters a great deal here. For the risks that the
leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical
or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face." -Madeline Albright,
Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again,
as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger,
Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take
necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and
missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's
refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by
Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John
Kerry (D-MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of
weapons of mass destruction technology which is a
threat to countries in the region and he has made a
mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep.
Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building
weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his
cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of
State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has
invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.
In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery
systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit
missile program to develop longer-range missiles that
will threaten the United States and our allies." -
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham
(D, FL,) and others, December 5,2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein
is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of
the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United
Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin
(D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his
country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has
proven impossible to deter and we should assume that
it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is
seeking and developing weapons of massdestruction." -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October
of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains
some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons,
and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare
capabilities Intelligence reports indicate that he is
seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United
States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to
disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands
is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen.
John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is
working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and
will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five
years .. We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay
Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of
the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution
that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear
capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry
Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to
wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary
Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling
evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a
number of years, a developing capacity for the
production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.
He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation . And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So
the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA),
Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT
BUSH LIED saying THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF
MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!
The mistake president Bush made was believing the
Democrats.
Of course, Carear Bush-haters, Democrats, Communists
and others will not notice the Democrat's lies as that
doesn't fit their template.
By the way, I took a poll and did better than you did.
I asked your questions of some Democrats, The New York
Times and The St. Petersburg Times and I got 100%
beliving that Bush lied. Not bad for a 'No Ideas Of
our own Party' that is morphed into a Hate-Bush Party.
Keep helping the Democrats and other enemies of our
country and maybe you can get Hillary elected
president. We can beat our arms into plowshares and
study war no more. HILLARY will create a worker's
paradice where everyone will will be supported by the
government from the 'erection to the reserection'.
In case you haven't noticed we are at war started by
the Arab Muslims long before pres. Jimmy Carter
allowed our people to be held by Iran for 444 days.
Bush is not your enemy. Your enemies are the ones
who practice 'the religion of peace', you know,
cutting off heads, blowing up woman and children etc.
Stop giving them comfort.
Posted by: dean johnson at November 15, 2005 09:44 AM
I hope Mr. AWOL Bush does burn in hell. He let 9-11 happen. He lied and took us to war againt the UN's wishes. In the process he has murdered over 100,000 innocent people. The traitor outed a CIA member and has completly betrayed his country over and over again.
Bush is a war criminal and those that fight in Iraq do not deserve our support or respect as they have agree to fight for a war criminal.
Deal with it.
Posted by: The Profit at November 15, 2005 10:10 AM
One of the key ploys used by the Bush Administration when caught in lies is to create a sense, whether real or contrived, that their critics are being partisan. This ploy allows them to escape having to reply to their actions since they disavow the 'realities' or 'truths' as politics.
In this bizarre world, actual truth is divided into two separate truths depending on one's ideology. No nation can remain totally free and strong, when the country's parties choose not to separate their views and acknowledge it from reality. The advent of spin whether left or right is harmful since it gives the impression that both sides can be correct just by adding
more words.
Unless our political parties come together for the good of our nation and began to again agree on the meanings of America and not pander to platforms, America will slowly cease to exist.
The Founding Fathers would be dismayed to learn that the nation that they so cherished has become a pit of festering bickering and insults and totally incapable of living up to its very own standards unless it is first agreed that someone must be right and someone must be wrong.
Posted by: Vince1157 at November 15, 2005 10:24 AM
You know how easy it is to manipulate intelligence for Congress without putting pressure on the people who produce that intelligence? It's simple. The files you like go to Congress. The ones you don't like go to the very bottom of a basement, with a million other things stacked on top of it..
Posted by: George A. Wojtowycz at November 15, 2005 10:33 AM
David, when the Bushites insist everybody -- France, Canada, UNSCOM, Dems, etc. -- mistakenly thought Saddam had WMD, I wish the media would ask a couple simple questions:
1. Did Canada and Russia say Saddam had aerial drones that could disperse anthrax on NYC in 45 minutes: Yes or no? Did Russia say Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons and had amassed a stockpile of the most lethal weapons mankind has ever devised? Did Germany say that Iraq posed a unique and urgent threat to world security? Yes or no??
And;
2. We had Saddam under aerial surveillance for a decade. Presumably we suspected he could still be a danger. There were weapons inspectors on the ground, and America had total air superiority over Iraq. In 1962 we got real photos of Cuban missile bases. Four decades later and the best we can get are Powerpoint cartoons. What happened to our technology? Are we expected to believe that surveillance technology has actually gone backwards in 40 years?
Posted by: Aldebaran at November 15, 2005 10:55 AM
The singel most important problem that I have with this presidency is that they are Godless. To say that he is led by God is ridiculous. I am a "true" Christain and I emphazie "true" which simply means I see spirit of christ in all of God's creations.First of all, Bush like most so called Christains do not even know or ignore Christ's fundamental principles. "Love thy brother as you would love thyself". "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I sure people will argue that war at times is necessary and to this I leave to debate but to balantly kill your brother for what God has blessed him with is wrong. We would not have been so hastly or eager to invade Iraq if we viewed them as our brothers. They are apart of the human family are'nt they? Is there another human family?We need to be more appreciative of what God has blessed us with. We live in the most beautiful, free society on the planet yet we do not care about anyone but ourselves. Think about your love for your family members, the history of you family,the generations of love and happiness, the children. Would you desire what's going on in Iraq to take place here? This is the underlying answer to the question of an "unjust" war. We need to face the man in the mirror and be true to what we see. To love unconditionally is a characteristic of Christ yet to excite hatry through falsehoods and greed is a charactistic of Satan. You decide what is in your heart. Would we be in this war if Jesus was our leader? Than who are we following?
Posted by: Angel of God at November 15, 2005 11:22 AM
BUSH IS A PIECE OF TRASH AND AS USUAL NEVER TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS SO HE IS NOW USING THIS LAME DEFENSE THAT THE DEMOCRATS MADE HIM DO IT?
IS BUSH THE FRIGGIN PREZ OR NOT? DOES HE MAKE THE FINAL DECISION OR NOT?
WE KNOW BUSH AND HIS NEOCONS SET IT ALL UP WITH LIES AND THEN SET UP CONGRESS USING 911 PROPAGANDA SINCE ISRAEL AND ALL THOSE IN AMERICA WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIPS IN AMERICA AND ISRAEL WANTED SADDAM TAKE OUT.
BOTTOMLINE FOR THIS SILVER SPOON COKEHEAD DRUNK WHO LOOKS LIKE A CHIMP IS BUSH IS THE PRESIDENT AND HE MADE THE FINAL DECISION NOT THE CONGRESS AND NOT THE DEMOCRATS HE IS TRYING TO LIE AND BLAME.
DID DADDY BUSH BLAME CONGRESS FOR IRAQ WAR I?
DID CLINTON BLAME CONGRESS FOR GOING INTO KOSOVO?
DID REAGAN BLAME CONGRESS FOR GOING INTO GRENADA?
DID CARTER BLAME CONGRESS FOR GOING INTO IRAN?
DID FORD BLAME CONGRESS FOR BEING STUPID?
DID NIXON BLAME CONGRESS FOR GOING INTO VIETNAM?
DID JOHNSON BLAME CONGRESS FOR GOING INTO VIETNAM?
DID JFK BLAME CONGRESS FOR THE BAY OF PIGS?
DID IKE BLAME CONGRESS FOR KOREA?
DID TRUMAN BLAME CONGRESS FOR NUKING JAPAN?
DID FDR BLAME CONGRESS FOR PEARL HARBOR OR WW2?
ETC ETC ETC
BUSH IS TRASH............ SCARED PASS THE BUCK TRASH........
Posted by: BILLDEAL at November 15, 2005 11:35 AM
As a conservative american it is good to see such a reply as the one from Dean.. NOT.. First lets qualify in context.. all the statements used by the Clinton Adminstration, probably were closer to true.. due to the nature of the recent war( desert storm). But HE did not use it to invade Iraq. He punished Iraq with sanctions and other means approved by the UN. Secondly Congress does not have their own intelligence agency. the trust the Executive branch to provide them with true and factual intelligence. This did not occur. I am as saddened and dissappointed by the Bush adminstration failures, but as a conservative american , i will not give them a blank check. Truth is the cornerstone of a free society. remember that Dean
Posted by: michael at November 15, 2005 11:45 AM
IMPEACHMENT!!!!!!!
It's our right to demand an impeachment.
After all, Clinton just lied about his affairs which didn't really harm the nation in anyway. BUT BUSH's LIES caused over 2000 deaths of our soldiers and 10's of thousands more injured soldiers, hundred thousands plus Iraqi casualties, Billions of American Tax dollars wasted, and not to mention more Terrorists created, and a plunging American credibility!
LET'S GET RID OF HIM!!! It's our right and duty as set forth by the founding fathers in the Constitution(the supreme law of this land).
Posted by: ZZZ at November 15, 2005 12:44 PM
Did anyone find Saddams 'people shredder' yet? I remember that being a key factor in removing this awful man from power. :)
Posted by: Mike of the Great White North at November 15, 2005 01:40 PM
To David Corn: What a boring post about the fascists in the White House. Instead of writing bull, pick up the nearest available Kalashnikov and start to make a difference. There is plenty to be achieved in your crappy country.
Posted by: Pavel at November 15, 2005 01:45 PM
Among many pieces of intelligence Bush never
told the Amercian people about was the fact that our satellite and aircraft based MASINT remote sensors analyzed 1060 "WMD sites" in Iraq in the two years before the war and found absolutely no trace of any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Like all the negative evidence this data was suppressed and continues to be ignored by news media.
We are currently expanding our MASINT remote sensing capability around the world since this technique proved completely accurate, although was inconvenient in contradicting the case for war. All of the "bad intelligence" came from human sources not technical intelligence as we are supposed to believe. People lie, remote sensors don't.
Posted by: roger at November 15, 2005 01:54 PM
Stupid people can only see their own side to a question: they cannot even imagine any other side possible. So, as a rule, stupid people are Conservative.
Charles Grant Allen
Wesnninster Gazette
1894
Posted by: Richard H. White at November 15, 2005 02:09 PM
American Soldiers
2,313 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bushճ evil lies.
Our military men and women are used as cannon fodder for a terrorist American government.
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. George W. Bush, August 5, 2005
THE GLORY OF BUSH IS MAN FULLY DEAD!!!
This war in Iraq really pisses me off!!!!!
Rigged elections doom American democracy. American soldiers are being killed and maimed TO PROMOTE AN AMERICAN NAZI STATE.
THE GLORY OF GOD IS MAN FULLY ALIVE. St. Irenaeus
I shall pass this way but once. Any good that I can do let me do it now for I shall not pass this way again. St. Ambrose
We must work tirelessly for man to be fully alive. Gerald
Posted by: Gerald at November 15, 2005 03:41 PM
anybody seen bushs "people shredder" lately. bush should have his own trial for killing innocent iraqi civilians.
Posted by: bud at November 15, 2005 04:58 PM
Fear-driven American people accepted the notion that
while we were busy building nuclear weapons for
ourselves, we were justified evidently in slapping
Iraq around, killing thousands of innocent people
who lived there; for the purpose, so we were assured, of preventing Iraq from building nuclear
weapons. We should never have been stampeded into
allowing our government to sally forth on such
premise. Discussion of whether or not the premise
was a lie is actually irrelevant, for even had the
premise been true, morally competent people should
never have been suckered in by such scare tactics.
Paul Sperry's Saturday Oct 29 review of the Libby indictment, at antiwar.com, discusses at length whether or not Saddam Hussein was or was not really trying to crank up a nuclear weapons program; implying that such question is at the bottom of things. It is not.
Dr. Prather's Nov 1, antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7854">Clumsy Forgeries, Italian Style at antiwar.com, contains a hint--alluding
to soccer moms--of the fundamental principle
being ignored: If it is legitimate for me to be
armed, then it is legitimate for you to be armed.
It is quite irrelevant whether "you" refers to
China, India, Israel, Iran, Iraq, France, Germany,
Russia, what you will!
Because comprehension of such fundamental of
justice evidently escaped them, the soccer moms
and soccer dads of America are now implicated in
the crime that is the invasion of Iraq. We as a
people must replace fear with alertness and we
must assert ourselves.
As clearly demonstrated yet again by our
undeclared war on Iraq, a politician's promise
to uphold the Constitution is often an oath
given to the wind. We can change that. We do have
the means. It's called an election.
Grab your Congressman by the scruff of the neck
and let him know that you know that because the
war on Iraq was never declared by Congress, the
war is illegal and must be stopped. If your
Congressman demurs, let him know that you will
actively campaign to assure his defeat in the
next election. Keep an eye on your Congressman
and communicate with him frequently in words
clearly revealing to him--and to his staff--that
you are keeping an eye on him.
Congress is capable of correcting the mistakes
that got us into this mess. Yet for that to
happen it is essential that your Congressman
learn to pay you some mind. Like the mule-trainer
said as he picked up a stout length of two-by-four
and smacked the critter squarely between the eyes,
"the first thing you have to do is get its
attention."
Posted by: Jack Dennon at November 15, 2005 05:30 PM
Memo to the webmaster:
Please see if you can correct my link to
Dr. Prather's antiwar.com article. I've taken
two cuts at it and neither seems to correct it.
Please see what you can do.
Posted by: Jack Dennon at November 15, 2005 05:36 PM
W.A.R.Ped, I agree with everything you said.
Posted by: Andrea at November 15, 2005 06:59 PM
bud: I couldn't agree with you more. In the runup to the Iraq war, I couldn't understand why the mainstream media never questioned the whole premise for war: that it was necessary to remove WMD's from Iraq before they could be used on America. Remember the "Nuclear Deterrent"? The idea is that since we have nuclear weapons, no country will attack us becauce we then will retaliate. Also, the threat of an American invasion and occupation of Iraq would be a substantial deterrent to Saddam attacking the USA. If we invade BEFORE they attack us, what deterrent do we have left? Sure, we could still nuke the place, but that would make stealing all their oil very difficult. So even if Saddam DID have all those WMD's, we still had the nukes AND the threat of invasion AND continued sanctions to hit them with if they decided to use the weapons against us! If there's anyone out there reading this who still believes that we invaded Iraq because "Saddam was a threat" then they need to have their head examined.
Posted by: Dan at November 15, 2005 07:50 PM
Face it folks. Bush is nuts. He thinks he only has to answer to Jesus. Since Bush is doing the Lord's work, he can interpret events in whatever manner he wishes.
Posted by: John Smith at November 16, 2005 01:44 AM
"John Smith"--sounds just like your typical asskissing, bootlicking,nerdy,pc,lets talk before you cut my head off,know it all bleeding heart liberal. LMAO
Posted by: jhow66 at November 16, 2005 03:51 PM
Subject: President Bush is wining the War on Terror
President Bush, my beloved president, my hero
For your information.
GOP
I was struck the other day 9/15/05 how President Putin of Russia said that the united nations must shift its focus from settling disputes to coordinating the world's fight against terrorism. This seems like Bush light, don't it? Bush's assertion of UN irrelevance in failing to act against Saddam, is now being echoed, in slightly different language, in the halls of the UN. It seems then there has been a shift in global opinion, that is, to a more assertive roll by the UN to activity affront arrant dictators genocide and assasinations as in Lebanon, the ultimate act of terror, and the islamo fascist terrorists per se. I do not draw distinction between the war on terror and the ousting of Saddam. I view the action in Afghanistan as the Battle for Afghanistan and the action in Iraq as the Battle for Iraq, both in the war on terror, and the war on terror will never be won until democracies are stood up for rights to express grievances to governments that will sit on the crazies. Bush, the bold leader of the free world, struck hard at the heart of militant Islam, a just cause, to defeat, in reality, the islamo fascist mentality. The action against Saddam in the war on terror was a necessary move. The butcher of Baghdad had to go for many good reasons, only one of which, was the possession of WMD. While Bush may have used it to gain popular support, one pistol shot at an F15 over a no-fly zone would have been sufficient justification. President Bush, sitting as the juror, reasonably concluded, from all available evidence, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, with the conclusions of other world leaders, that in fact Saddam had WMD, and President Bush responsibly acted accordingly. Not to go into Iraq would have been in dereliction of duty, for sure. With the Russians smarting from their defeat in Afghanistan and extremely presently anti-war, President Bush had no chance whatsoever to bring the Russian to put a crack army division in Baghdad, even if they had one. This demand for Russian to actively militarily support the battle for Iraq was either a failure of intelligence analysis of Russian culture, or mere bravado by Bush for US political consumption. I suppose President Bush had to go on the record to at least request Russia's support for the war, prior to launching. The concern over the absents of WMD, at this stage, is a political three-ringed circus and completely misses the ultimate goal of defeating militant Islam. With respect to 9/11, the CIA messed up from a lack of resources, and Mr. Tennant was the fall guy. End of story on that one.
However, the global unified move towards defeating terrorism is, in my estimation, a great political victory by Bush, though he had to bring many kicking and screaming along the trail.
There are two fundamental aspects to the war on terror for long term ultimate victory, the first is getting the global consensus, which Bush has achieved, for unified actions. The second is standing up democracies that will sit on the crazies, and two major countries, Afghanistan and Iraq are now in the democracy camp, thanks to Hero Bush's bold actions, notwithstanding all the nay-sayers. Syria will become a none issue, as the UN pressures them into civility in view of the assassination charges. Iran will remain the odd man out, but economic and political isolation will eventually bring them to bay, as well. Its all looking good to me.
I hope at the state of the union address in January 06, President Bush heralds these two great accomplishments, to wit, the global consensus to fight terrorism and the democracy victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, and just stick it to all the nay sayers. Bush is hero, no doubt about it.
Derrick Michael Reid
Laguna Beach CA
Posted by: Derrick Michael Reid at November 16, 2005 03:56 PM
The Butcher of Baghdad had to be taken down. One pistol at an F15 over a no-fly zone would have been justification enough for regime change. There were many good reasons to take Saddam down, and dwelling on only the CIA lapse on WMD misses the real point, as, the war of terror will never be won until democracies are stood up with right of expression of grievances to governments that will sit on the crazies. Get it? The democratic leadership is so devoid of good alternative ideas to solve the issues of the day, they go back to "Bush lied, Soldiers Die" slogan, that feed any disenfrancish soul, but what is so new about that? This statement is not only false, as a lie require knowledge of the falsehood, but show how cowardly are the democrats to face the real issues, but the dem know it to be false, and thereby lie to the US people, slander our president, and disrespect of the office of the presidency. But most far left dems like it that way, throw up a smoke screen, spew the hate, and hope to wed all the rumpt rangers. The republicans are not prefect, of course, but the democratic leadership is generally despicable.
Derrick Michael Reid
(no relation to that dick head in NV)
Posted by: Derrick Michael Reid at November 16, 2005 04:11 PM
Dan,
The actual possession of WMD was a good tried-and-true, old fashion MONO V MONO appeal. Bush had to take Saddam down, now that the war of terror was on in earnest, because the war on terror will never be won until democracies are stood up with right to express greivences to governments that will sit on the crazies islamo-facist. WE REALLY DID NOT CARE WHY, 14 UN resolutions, 1000000 dead muslims, 3 wars, prior use of WMD, BELIEF IN ACTUAL POSSESSION, just pick anyone you want, and take saddam down. WHO IS REALLY GOING TO OBJECT ANYWAY? (only after the fact political pandering democrats, of course trying to score points with the neanderthals in our society)
There was insufficient WMD actual verification, brough on by Saddam's stuborness, and he paid for it. Everyone was on board, and no one REALLY CARED if possession was 100 provable. There was sufficient supporting evidence, and that was enough for the whole senate to buy into it. There was nothing wrong in taking saddam down, and there is mere political pandersing demoralizing in its tone, that is effective treason now claiming "Bush Lied".
Just one man's opinion, I could be right.
Derrick Michael Reid
Laguna Beach CA
Posted by: Derrick Michael Reid at November 16, 2005 04:21 PM
Dan,
I think you are way off base, and here is why. If you wait until a robber had a gun to your head, perhaps you waited too long to buy that guard dog? In this day of nuclear proliferation, waiting until there is an immenant is suicidal.
Preemptive strikes after existence of imminent threats is too risky these days with nuclear materials being proliferated. However, preemptive strikes in advance of imminent threats must be justified, such as by Saddam's ruthlessness and UN obstinance. I trust PROTECTOR-Bush to strike Iran in advance of Iranian nuke development as is now justified by Iran's support of terrorists, their denial of human rights that sow the seeds of more terrorism while wanting to wipe Isreal off the map. The justification is there. ACCOMMODATING-Democrats would only strike with France's permission after NY had been leveled. Is not this a clear difference in mentality. Dan, I go with the protector. I heard this day that Iran is requesting more talks, and I think President Putin of Russia is pushing this, and he should be thanked and he will force Iran into UN compliance. We need UN security arrangements with transparency, or, we must take out the nuke facilities, even if Iran does not yet have the bomb, and Isreal could be used for political cover with all those bunker-busters, if need be.
You see Dan, for you to understand the appropriateness of a presesnt day action, you must first understand history and then be able to project into the future given the present day state of affairs. Are you a futurist, or a neanderthal?
Had the present pacifists been in power in 1861, rather than Lincoln, the 5000 casualties at first Bull Run would have caused a divided union, or later EMPEROR Hitler.
650,000 dead in the civil war (was it noble?)
125,000 dead in WWI (was it noble?)
250,000 dead in WWII (was it noble?)
35,000 dead in Korea (was it noble?)
55,000 dead in Vietnam (was it noble?)
2,000 dead in war on terror (3000 civies dead in world trade center)
First war in our history, civilian dead outnumber military dead, hmmmmmmm, not much of a real sacrafice, in relative terms.
Bottom line, you cant stop the war on terror until democracies are stood up to give all an outlet for greivences with Governement that will sit on their crazies, and Saddam had to go as part of that war. I suppose the pacifists just want us to take the terror in perpetuity, and let the progress of humanity stop dead in its tracks. The pacifists have NO VISION, NO REALITY, NO REALIZATION OF THE THREAT POSED, NO GUTS TO DO THE NOBLE DEED, they just want to sit back and take it. OK, have it there way, lets just go back to cave man days, and coward in our caves and await those damn homosapiens, and be the Neanderthals awaiting extinction.
Bush did not lie. The actual absence of WMD (believed by some to now be in tunnels in Syria), is meaningless. Facts supporting possession were put to good use to make the case for war. Saddam was already perceived as a menance, and had to go, the only problem was getting concensus, and bush used ALL THE FACTS he had to sell that noble and necessary war.
Derrick Michael Reid
Posted by: Derrick Michael Reid at November 16, 2005 04:36 PM
John Smith, I think I understand why you think Bush is nuts, ... because you have no vision to project 5 10 or 20 years out. Bush had vision, and guess what, the battle for Aghanistan, the battle for Iraq, and war on terror are already a done deal, but then I live future through projection, whily you can only count to 2000.
Posted by: Derrick Michael Reid at November 16, 2005 04:43 PM
If saddam did not kill 1000000, did not start 3 wars, did not violate UN sanctions, did not torture and rape the people, did not use WMD on his own people, well then, I might have regrets going into Iraq based ONLY ON THE BEST EVIDENCE that turn out to be unture. But as that is not the case, the Butcher had to go because he was simply bad, and I really dont care if Bush got one of his fact wrong. I am happy Saddam is gone, the war on terror is virtually a done deal.
And any president who liberates 50,000,000 from tyranny and oppression should be a WORLD CLASS HERO is everyone's book.
Posted by: Derrick Michael Reid at November 16, 2005 04:49 PM