 |
||||
|
|
November 16, 2005Rumsfeld for the Defense (of Bush)So now Donald Rumsfeld is getting into the act. At a routine press briefing on Tuesday, Rumsfeld opened with a defense of his boss. Rather than discuss what the Pentagon was doing to win the war in Iraq, he began by saying: A few days ago, President Bush noted that some critics seem to want to rewrite the history of the coalition's involvement in Iraq. It might be useful to take a moment to retrace the actual history. He then went on to quote former Clinton officials stating that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He noted that "in October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force, if necessary, to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein." (Actually, Bush was authorized to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein. And, it turns out, Saddam, as evil as he was, posed not much of a threat to the United States or his neighbors at that time.) Rumsfeld resorted to insisting that the CIA's postwar WMD hunters David Kay and Charles Duelfer each concluded that Saddam had been interested in someday resuming his WMD programs. (Now that's a far cry from Rumsfeld's prewar clams that Iraq was loaded with WMDs and that he knew exactly where those WMDs were.) "This is the history that brought us to where to we are today," Rumsfeld declared. Once again, another Bush official was ducking the issue: did Bush and his crew--Rumsfeld included--overstate the prewar intelligence and ignore the ambiguities within the intelligence in order to whip up public support for a war? Whatever Bill Clinton and his aides thought about Iraq, they did not believe the intelligence warranted invasion and occupation. That was Bush's call. Why can't he and Rumsfeld take responsibility for basing a war on bum and hyped intelligence? Well, at least one reporter in the press room was not going to let Rumsfeld get away with this. This was the first exchange of the day: Mr. Secretary, you've listed a list of facts here, and I don't think anyone would argue with most of them, including the fact that former President Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Al Gore and others warned that Iraq was a threat to possibly use weapons of mass destruction, in fact had done it. You don't mention that the Bush administration or President Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which it didn't. So how is this straightening out history? SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, Charlie, it seems to me that what we're seeing is, we've got men and women serving in Iraq, risking their lives, and--on the one hand, and on the other hand, we have people suggesting that the reason we're there was because this president decided to go in based on information that was unique to him. And it wasn't unique to him. The information that he based his decision on was the same information that President Clinton and the previous administration had. It's the same information members of the House and Senate had. It's the same information that the other intelligence services have. And it seems to me that people who are willing to risk their lives need to know the truth. They need to understand that they are there based on decisions that were made in good faith by responsible people, and that this world is going to be a lot better off with Saddam Hussein gone and with that country on a path towards democracy. Clinton left office in January 2001. Let's hope that Bush had more up-to-date information in 2003. Moreover, members of Congress--mainly Democrats--do not say that they had the same intelligence that Bush had. I spoke to one House Democrat on Tuesday who told me that when he attended the prewar intelligence briefings, CIA, State Department, and Pentagon officials provided vague and general material and usually would not provide information about the reliability of the sources they were citing. (These sources, we now know, were all full of it; and the Senate intelligence committee's report on the prewar intelligence and the Robb-Silberman commission's report both disclose several instances when intelligence analysts doubted these sources but their information was still used by the administration to peddle the war.) And when Bush declared before the war that Iraq had biological weapons stockpiles and was in operational cahoots with al Qaeda, he was making assertions that were not supported by the flawed intelligence. Those statements and others were "unique" to him. Were they made in good faith? Were they the product of due diligence on Bush's part? If not, then aren't the GIs risking their lives in Iraq entitled to know that? Rumsfeld was trying to play the don't-undermine-the-troops card. This might be read as a sign of desperation. (Speaking of which, today's USA Today poll noted that only 9 percent--that's no typo--would support a Republican candidate with ideas similar to those of Bush. Ouch.) Rumsfeld, as did Bush in his Veterans Day speech, was attempting to define what is legitimate debate and what is anti-troops speech--and to the administration's advantage. But if they have nothing to fear, why worry about unfounded criticism. It's not a parallel, but I'm reminded of a wicked good line from HBO's latest installment of Rome. When Caesar and Brutus are staring each other down, Brutus says sharply to him, "Only a tyrant needs to fear a tyrant-killer." Rumsfeld does want to have it both ways. He declared certain talk dangerous. But then at the briefing he also said," It's only in free systems that we have these kind of open, public debates and discussions." In another exchange, Rumsfeld was asked about the prewar intelligence: Mr. Secretary, could I ask you, in retrospect, do you feel that you were let down by the intelligence community on the intelligence on Iraq, or were people making honest mistakes based on the best information available, or how do you look at it? SEC. RUMSFELD: There's no doubt in my mind that people made honest mistakes in that set of -- the pieces of that intelligence that were presented at the United Nations. They certainly were not intentional, and they were clearly honest mistakes. And--now, do you feel let down because something is inaccurate and imperfect? You'd be let down every day by intelligence, because by its nature, it's hard to do, it's tough. Before the war, Rumsfeld, Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and other administration officials were not so wary of intelligence. Again and again, they proclaimed that it was solid, it was without doubt, that there was, as Bush said, "no doubt." Now Rumsfeld says that, hey, intelligence is like a bad boyfriend; it lets you down every day, but you carry on. Well, if intelligence lets you down so much, how can government leaders responsibly base an elected war and poorly run occupation upon it? Then Rumsfeld was asked, Do you think that the WMD just wasn't there? Or what's happened? His answer: "Time will tell. We'll learn." Excuse me, hasn't time already told? Hasn't he already learned? Both Kay and Duelfer reported that there were no WMDs in Iraq before the war. Does Rumsfeld not accept that? The Robb-Silberman commission said the intelligence on WMDs was "dead wrong." Does he not accept that? Time is over. There were no WMDs, according to the US government's own experts. And that's why Bush and Rumsfeld have to defend their decision to go to war. With Iraq still a mess that is costing the United States hundreds of billions of dollars and a continuing loss of American lives, a disenchanted public looks back at the invasion and wonders why the primary reason for the war didn't really exist. Americans would not be wrong to expect a measure of accountability. Look at Jordan; on Tuesday 11 government officials, including the nation's security chief, resigned in response to the recent suicide bombings there. Bush invaded a country on a false (if not misleading) premise, and no one has been taken to the woodshed. CIA director George Tenet even got a lovely medal. One more reporter took a stab at forcing Rumsfeld to confront this issue: Mr. Secretary, given what you said in response to Rick's question about the erroneous intelligence, if you had known what the correct intelligence would have been, would you have made the same recommendations to go to war? SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I'm not going to get in to that. Q. I mean, and this is absent everything that's happened in Iraq since-- SEC. RUMSFELD: Yeah, I'm not going to get into that. Rumsfeld may say there's no point in second-guessing. But there is a point in accountability and owning up to one's mistakes. As long as Bush and his aides refuse to do so--and as long as their war does not turn around--they will likely be dogged by criticism that cannot be easily chased away by selective spin. Posted by David Corn at November 16, 2005 01:45 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
Mr. David Corn,
I am sure there are a few that think it really is Clinton's fault.
I think they have really been messing up.
Thanks for the update
Kirk
Posted by: capt at November 16, 2005 01:58 AM
One can hope that this is where Americans start getting awake and mature in their thinking and we can soon see Rummy, Cheney and Bushie get picked up by Uncle Sam under his arm like little kids trying to use their illogical and childish argument techniques once too much and being finally taken to the woodshed.
Posted by: yelnats at November 16, 2005 02:48 AM
Bush risks alienating GOP over Iraq war
By TOM RAUM
If Bush castigates Democrats for changing their minds on the war, he might wind up alienating Republicans who have done so, too.
The administration has been engaging in a rhetorical high-wire act in its efforts to defend its use of prewar intelligence - so much that some analysts have likened it to President Clinton's remark in his deposition on the Monica Lewinsky case: "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
Bush and his advisers have conceded that the administration was wrong in its assessment of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion. So the debate centers on whether they misled members of Congress and the American people.
"The fact is this was a truly major failure in intelligence and analysis," said Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert and former Pentagon intelligence official. "But that does not mean that information was not manipulated or used to create a case for war that was much stronger than the assessments made before the conflict."
Well, maybe it depends on what the definition of "manipulated" is.
*****end of clip*****
I do not think the effort to portray those who have soured on his hobby war was a smart move. Pretty boneheaded if you ask me. I still say Bush does not care about the poll numbers and high or low the polls do not dictate what is right and wrong.
Time will tell but it looks bad for commander codpiece.
capt
Posted by: capt at November 16, 2005 02:52 AM
The correct link is:
Bush risks alienating GOP over Iraq war
Posted by: capt at November 16, 2005 02:54 AM
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
When the walls start falling in... we start seeing other things collaspe. Wasn't this oil energy policy like one of the first tell tale signs of a "Whitehouse, Inc" mentality. I very much thought that Sierra Club was on mark with this one, they had to go all the way to the supreme court to fight for the right to know not the content of these discussions but simply who was there and when they were there in relation to the formation of the policy. But here it was an early sign that this whitehouse was not going to be accountable to the people and instead act like they were a private corporation unto themselves. The legal appeal used by the WH admin baffled legal scholars at the time for it was somewhat obscure and improper procedure, and was leapfrogging other courts. This is the one where Scalia refused to recuse himself due to his connections with Cheney, and of course Sierra club lost.
Well the truth is coming out, the oil companies were there (and who is really surprised???), and even last week the executives of the oil companies denied being involved BUT REMEMBER how Senator Ted Stevens gave them an out by not making them take an oath so they wouldn't perjure themselves.
How can a decent hard-working, enterprising GOPer stand behind this slimy, greasy, undemocratic administration and the greediest of corporations. It is high time that states start controlling the charters to these greeding corporations and revert our plutocracy back to a democracy, these corporations do not have equal rights as humans... it is a failed idealogy that is clever but unwise. These corporations are souless, and have no altruistic relationship with humanity but only see people as 'resources' or buying units. As the movie "The Corporation" points out, the psychlogical profile of a corporation that runs according to the mandate of law and also top business schools practices would be considered a psychopath if they were a human in our community.
Posted by: yelnats at November 16, 2005 03:07 AM
Excellent post, Mr. Corn. You are tenacious and dedicated, a real badger. I have been noticing lately people who at one point believed the president and his pack of lies, but are now vehemently opposed to the war. I must wonder, do they remember themselves supporting the war? It seems the short-lived memories of the American public is a ubiquitous sickness - even members of the administration are affected! I'm glad I wasn't hoodwinked like all the others, but it is truly a small consolation to see folks FINALLY waking up to the reality that the administration willfully fed them a bunch of lies. Better late than never I suppose.
Posted by: goob at November 16, 2005 03:18 AM
Yelnats,
They lied to a congressional hearing. I think that is a crime even if not under oath. I think the no-oath avoids a perjury charge (I am no lawyer so this is speculative and asking if).
At this point that really only matters if the oil executives were to be charged. The big news (no real shocker) is that big oil was the thing Cheney was trying like hell to hide.
I think Bunnypants has managed to piss of the wrong people (for him) on the hill and maybe even some that are very close to the action. They are very clever waiting until after the oil guys commit to the lie then Oop's here is the leak.
I think the more current leaks from the WH are the first leaks not organized and engineered by the capo's. The recent leaks seem to be rocking the boat and the rats a scurrying and in chaos.
Not really fun to watch but like a train wreck I cannot look away either.
capt
Posted by: capt at November 16, 2005 03:30 AM
Republicans Cut and Run from Iraq and Bush
by Jim Lobe
Although he dislikes foreign travel and formal summits, U.S. President George W. Bush must be relieved to be spending this week as an honored guest in several Asian capitals. According to the stereotype, Asians are unfailingly polite.
The same can no longer be said even of the president's fellow Republicans in Washington Рnot to mention the mainstream media and Democrats who, sensing a failed presidency, are on the attack as never before.
*****end of clip*****
This is feeling more and more like the Nixonian dog days.
I would not write an obit for Bush yet, if poppy has been the real force behind the power, this whole thing might just be a spanking and it is all of us that will end up with a sore backside.
The republicans jumping ship can cause all kinds of hurt feelings and we know what that means. If Bush holds on by his eye teeth, there will be hell to pay the likes of Saddams "cleaning house" on his "pals."
capt
Posted by: capt at November 16, 2005 03:36 AM
Is Bush asking for a stronger War Powers Resolution to be made into a constitutional amendment?
I think people are ready to finally hear others frame the arguments besides the WH admin. Bush and team has no credibility to frame arguments anymore, he wants to lay down without debate the following two main premises as to why senators must accept the decision to go to war with Iraq:
a) the intelligence on Iraq and the conclusion of others (namely preceding democrats in WH admin) has considered Saddam a WMD threat and implying a conclusion that Clinton and others would have done the same thing after 9/11
b) pro-war votes of senators was based on the same intelligence that he gave and they made their own independent decision implying a conclusion that this is "their war" too and are equally to blame for mistaken assumptions.
But what is Bush implying about the role of the executive branch, obviously without his own realization that he is doing so? By his not taking fuller responsibility, isn't his logic abdicating some of the executive authority to congress? The real issue that should be brought up and can even be done so using the Bush administration's current poor reasoning, is not that congress should be more passively accepting of their role in this war decision, but that they need to become more activist in the decision making phase Because if one is going to be held responsible, then they naturally will insist on having a matching amount of authority and that would come out of the executive branch and into congress. This is why I brought up the War Powers resolution, because it appears that Bush is unwittingly arguing in favor of more restrictions to be placed on his office by congress and to do so would probably require a constitutional amendment because the War Powers resolution hasnմ held up well constitutionally . I believe no war since WWII has gone through the official declaration of war via the Senate, and past presidents including the present one have deemed it their right as president to commit troops without congressional approval, but have carried out the courteous practice of seeking congressional consent via a more informal vote without the rigors of declaring war. In other words this implies that the president is responsible but does a 'gut check' with congress, but it is the president who is ultimately entrusted to have done his job in good faith as part of the requirements of his office (not congress's).
What Bush is allowing us to now do as Americans is to call into question the use of power and the extension of trust given to the presidential office in particular when it comes to the war decision making process, and to put it more into the hands of congress, or at least the Senate.
Bush has abdicated responsibility for providing wise leadership and the maintaining a trust and confidence that he will appropriately hold people accountable within his administration. He is now 'sharing' the woes of his administration and the results of failed leadership with those who aren't supposed to be doing such tasks, especially in detail... otherwise they would be rightly accused of micro-managing and second-guessing the trustworthiness of the presidentճ's administration and its role.
In other words, if the senators are going to get blamed for this war disaster, then why will these senators (who need to get reelected, too) then allow this administration to take future actions without far more direct accountability. Bush needs to be challenged on this... is he handing over the keys to the presidency to congress, is he abdicating the role of executive leadership which comes with both the authority to make the decision and also the full responsibility for that decision. He can't spread the blame as widely and thickly as he likes without some cost.
It was up to Bush and not congress to overcome the biases and prejudices and even outright battles of ideologies in making policies and planning on how to fight terrorism. It was up to his administration and senior staff to set the tone, and to personally arbitrate and make sure that no one view prevailed without rigorous validation. This is not unique to governmental leadership but many situations including the running of companies.
Did Bush ask for a rigorous debate in Congress or is he now saying that they should have? Bush is now asking congress to second guess every administration action that he does, because with his "sharing the responsibility" he is now asking for congress to "take more charge with authority"?
Maybe a reporter should ask the president whether he is suggesting that we broaden the powers of congress via a constitutional amendment to give the senate the AUTHORITY and RESPONSIBILITY to determine through debate and due process the need to commit military personnel into action for future situations that would include scenarios like Iraq.
Posted by: yelnats at November 16, 2005 04:31 AM
a diligent reader wishes to alert youall that talkingpointsmemo.com is compiling a list of their lies and thought this crowd could help
Posted by: chip at November 16, 2005 07:31 AM
Amazing how the rats are deserting this bozo when he needs them the most. The repugs are afraid of their day job, they will get kicked out of the candy store. And well they should, the intelligence was just that intelligence, this administration cherry picked the pieces that they wanted. set up their own office of intelligence and then put out papers with essential elements either missing or embellished, to go to war. Well, they wanted a war, now they have one, and guess what it isn't easy to turn one of these things off when it gets going. It will damage the US mightily and might even bring down our economy in the long run. Good job republicans, remember if you want to live like a republican vote democrat and get screwed in a different direction. All politicians are politicians first, party members second and americans last. Can't trust them, never could. But not to worry the first of January is coming and then some of the interesting laws take effect, like the doubling of the minimum payment on credit cards, that should flush out a few marginal people, after that the slow decline into the state of third world ism. Enjoy the new lifestyle. OF course, our factories are running full tilt, only they are in China. Great planning, wonder who thought this one up?
Posted by: What the F**k at November 16, 2005 08:20 AM
Just read Mr. Pandemoniac's response in the previous thread. That is absolutely the best response and defense of the Left's position on the war in Iraq I have ever read, including the professional journalists. He cites facts and occurrences to bolster his arguments.
I just have one question - with that good brain, good heart and great logic, why aren't you a conservative? Well, hope springs eternal.
Posted by: Bill at November 16, 2005 08:35 AM
Just read Mr. Pandemoniac's response in the previous thread. That is absolutely the best response and defense of the Left's position on the war in Iraq I have ever read, including the professional journalists. He cites facts and occurrences to bolster his arguments.
I just have one question - with that good brain, good heart and great logic, why aren't you a conservative? Well, hope springs eternal.
Posted by: Bill at November 16, 2005 08:35 AM
Quit pestering Rummy and stop trying to re-write history.
Posted by: Prof. B G D'Gre at November 16, 2005 09:34 AM
I'm from Canada, and looking at your situation with little boy playing president i see two sides. First you have a leader who lies cheats and does anything to get money, war for oil, you know. But on the otherhand So Damn Insane there was still akin to Hitler with the whole genocide thing over a decade ago. The son has also finished what the dad should have done in the first place. Now just because the U.N. kept a leash on him doesn't mean he should be kept in power. So don't tread on Iraq so much. You take the good with the bad and next time don't vote idiots into power.
Posted by: Raoul at November 16, 2005 09:39 AM
Chip, go to the following link for a most excellent timeline of refusal to listen. It is from the Center for American Profgress and was linked by the Evil GOP Bastards website. For all the bushbots that claim bush didn't lie and was simply misled, I DARE you to read this timeline, but I won't hold my breath.
Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings. A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak
Posted by: Saladin at November 16, 2005 09:54 AM
Wonderful
Is it not WONDERFUL how America is spreading her democracy across Iraq and the Middle East? Bush went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein had WMDs and he was not a very nice person. Bush had to bring him down! So what if 2,000+ American soldiers are killed; over 16,000+ soldiers are maimed; over 40,000+ soldiers suffer from PTSD; and over 100,000 Iraqis are killed. Bush is bringing down an evil person.
But, who is the evil person in this disastrous war? Saddam Bush is the answer. Yes, Bush is spreading our form of democracy. American democracy spreads hatred, murders, torture, and wars.
We knew that the Iraqis were killing their people and now we know that the Iraqis have warehouses where they torture Iraqis. Is it not WONDERFUL how quickly the Iraqis learn the flow into the American way of spreading her democracy?
Posted by: Gerald at November 16, 2005 09:56 AM
Ah, Raoul, if it were that easy.
Once again, David, you do not disappoint. Rumsfeld is one of those neocons who believed in going into Iraq for quite some time. Many people don't remember but Clinton was approached about invading Iraq. Clinton did not go for it. Bush is an easier puppet for the neocons.
Posted by: Joe Tully at November 16, 2005 09:57 AM
Joe, clinton had other priorities. Right now he and the wife are busy hanging out with sharon and pledging Americas undying loyalty to Israel. 2000 is just a drop in the bucket of how many will die in the middle east. hillary is pushing for more troops and wants to "disarm", whatever that means, Syria and Iran. Guess she is ignorant of the fact that China and Russia are in disagreement with her, and they DO have WMD's, LOTS of them!
Posted by: Saladin at November 16, 2005 10:04 AM
Joe, clinton had other priorities. Right now he and the wife are busy hanging out with sharon and pledging Americas undying loyalty to Israel. 2000 is just a drop in the bucket of how many will die in the middle east. hillary is pushing for more troops and wants to "disarm", whatever that means, Syria and Iran. Guess she is ignorant of the fact that China and Russia are in disagreement with her, and they DO have WMD's, LOTS of them!
Posted by: Saladin at November 16, 2005 10:04 AM
What should we call him?
Bush officials keep defending Saddam Bush but to his closest friends he is called Hitler.
I just want to say that even to the people who are not close to Bush we also call him Hitler.
Posted by: Gerald at November 16, 2005 10:24 AM
David, concerning the evil saddam, I am curious as to why his trial has become such a stonewalling clusterf**k. If he was as evil as they claim, committing genocide and such, I would think they would be stumbling over each other in their eagerness to get him on the stand and throw all his crimes out there for the world to see. But instead they don't seem to care for the idea of him testifying. I wonder why that is? I, for one, would LOVE to hear what he has to say. The more trouble they go to in their efforts to demonize him, the more I think something is not quite right.
Posted by: Saladin at November 16, 2005 10:28 AM
When Bill Clinton was in Israel marking the 10th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, he:
(1) urged Israel to return to negotiations with the Palestinians and not to rely on unilateral measures to try to impose a solution to their conflict.
(2) called on the prime minister, Ariel Sharon, to revive the peace process begun by Rabin.
(3) praised Sharon for Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, but urged negotiations toward a comprehensive deal.
(4) said "As a strategy for the long term, the idea that Israel can proceed unilaterally forever without a cooperative relationship with a successful Palestinian state, seems to me highly premature."
(5) said he "expected to be missing Yitzhak Rabin for the rest of my life."
(6) said, If Rabin had a single message for his supporters it would be "for goodness sakes, take up my work and see it through to the end."
*************************
...just another POV, with back-up info
Posted by: micki at November 16, 2005 10:34 AM
Prominent Conservative Leader: Government in Hands of Psychopaths
May stage terror attacks
Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson | November 15 2005
Former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Dr. Paul Craig Roberts expressed his dire warning that the US government has fallen into the hands of psychopaths and that the Neo-Cons in the Bush administration may be set to stage another terror attack in the US as part of a black operation to demolish growing dissent and coerce the public to rally behind the government once again.
During an interview with the Alex Jones Show, Roberts cited a Capitol Hill Blue article concerning a leaked memo circulating between top Republican leaders.
The memo outlines potential strategies to bring their agenda back online, including the capture of Osama bin Laden, a drastic turnaround in the economy or a resolution of the war in Iraq.
The most alarming option includes a terrorist attack that would validate the President's war on terror and "restore his image as leader of he American people."
This document adds to the mountainous pile of smoking gun evidence of government complicity in staged terror attacks and other false flag operations. It has now been declassified, as we already knew, that the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. It was staged to get us into Vietnam. Operation Northwoods was the official US government plan to carry out 9/11 style attacks against the American people and blame it on foreign enemies as a pretext for war.
Publicly published PNAC documents before 9/11 had saliva stains all over them as Dick Cheney and others talked about helpful Pearl Harbor attacks.
Roberts went further than he has ever gone before in stating that the Neo-Cons were worse than Hitler and Stalin because they publicly embrace torture and pre-emptive war, something that past despots at least tried to hide.
Paul Craig Roberts said that the US government is in the hands of dangerous psychopaths who are a disgrace to the human race and who should be arrested as war criminals and turned over the the Hague.
Roberts outlined his conviction that the torture program was not set up to gain any kind of real information from accused detainees because torture is renowned for extracting useless and false information. The real reason for the torture is to make the terrorists implicate themselves and thus create the perception of a real terrorist threat.
This is exactly the process in Uzbekistan, where the government was caught torturing innocent people into confession and then using the confessions as evidence that the government needed to crack down on terror.
-----------
Lets see, capture Osama? Not unless you locate the grave. Drastic turnaround in the economy? Too late, the economy is toast. End the war in Iraq? Not going to happen, they intend to be in the middle east forever. So what does that leave? Oh yeh, TERRORIST ATTACK! Who was it that mentioned that a cornered rat was the most dangerous?
Posted by: Saladin at November 16, 2005 10:35 AM
Antoine/Bill @ 12/13. You were a lot more entertaining (hilarious, actually) when you brought your pseudo-intellectual/vaudeville I'm-an-expert-on-foreign-languages-and-other-arcane-subjects act here. Now you're just boring, redundant and irrelevant. Check the Rude Pundit site, where they bothered to get the true context of some of the selective quotes about Iraq that Bush embedded in the crap he keeps truying to shovel - "Thusly."
On even a superficial level, doesn't it bother any of the Bushbots at all the degree of contempt and condescension shown them by the neo-cons. I mean, they refer cynically Dobson, Reed and their ilk as "wackos" to be manipulated and those folks don't flinch. They are like horribly abused dogs who will still approach their cruel owner wagging their tail, because they have no other "pack" and know no other possible life.
Posted by: Riff at November 16, 2005 10:38 AM
Bill,
what IS a conservative? I always thought that I was one, but going by todays examples I'm not so sure - what happened to fiscal responsibility? what happened to a smaller, less intrusive federal govt.? - or does conservativism only apply to the issues of abortion and gay marriage? - Nixon, I think, might've been a conservative, but he was a pinko commie compared to THIS govt.- what do you call a govt. that panders to the corporate will even to the detriment of the people? what do you call a govt. that not only raids the coffers, but raids the coffers of future generations as well? how do you refer to a govt. that villifies an entire religious faith, and even manufactures evidence against the same? and what kind of govt. has such a hold over the media that the people learn only what that govt. wants them to learn? and what do you call a govt. that divides it's people into factions in order to promote civil unrest? and finally, what kind of govt. would pass such an orwellian piece of legislation as the patriot act? - do you call such a govt. conservative? because I can think of an entirely more appropriate term for that style of governance -
Posted by: James Ha at November 16, 2005 10:38 AM
On a cheerier note, I just wanted to comment to poster "Kathleen" what an inspiration your energy and activities are.
Cheers, folks.
Posted by: Riff at November 16, 2005 10:39 AM
American Soldiers
2,324 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bush's evil lies.
16,000+ American soldiers have been maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bush's 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 16, 2005 10:40 AM
Bush's con job
By MARTIN SCHRAM
Nov 16, 2005, 06:21
The conning of America goes on.
It may not rise to the level of high crime, nor even misdemeanor. But make no mistake: America has endured a low-level governance-by-deception that has droned too long just below our radar of impeachable offenses. It has left behind a vapor trail that shows a clear pattern of official deceptions, foreign and domestic.
We are talking here about deceits, distortions and disingenuous look-the-other-ways perpetrated by the administration of President Bush that are contemptible if not impeachable.
But we are talking also (albeit to a lesser degree) of the revisionist responses and sound-bright sound bites of a leader-lite Democratic opposition that has failed to galvanize, let alone offer, any semblance or even sense of alternative plans to lead America and the world out of the mess that has been made at home and abroad, on issues global and local.
We will get to the long and growing list that of course begins with the international cons _ distortions about Saddam Hussein's purported ties to al Qaeda in the rush to invade Iraq and the disastrous bungling of the never-planned postwar that has given al Qaeda a harbor in Iraq that it never had before.
*****end of clip*****
Lies, lies and even more lies. Let the forensic polygraph machine run the course.
capt
Posted by: capt at November 16, 2005 10:41 AM
micki, I loved the part about the wall.
Posted by: Saladin at November 16, 2005 10:41 AM
who indeed? - must've been the resident wacko! -
thanx, Sali, I thought maybe I was being paranoid before! ha.
Posted by: James Ha at November 16, 2005 10:44 AM
oh ya...CLICK MY NAME to order a FREE DVD entitled "CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE: Reopen 911" shipping/handling fees are included in the price.
Posted by: James Ha at November 16, 2005 10:47 AM
#24 Saladin, what is truly amazing? These comments by Roberts are coming from a conservative Republican. When, oh when will the American people and the religious leaders wake up to the fact that our government is being operated by psychopaths?
Posted by: Gerald at November 16, 2005 10:50 AM
Woodwardgate
by Evan Derkacz
November 16, 2005.
The reporter becoming the story in this 'gate'.
Well, it turns out Bob Woodward hasn't lost his secret-keeping touch. After having kept the identity of Deep Throat a secret for so long, it was a cinch to keep his involvement in Leakgate a secret -- even as he commented on it in public.
Josh Marshall writes: "From the Post account it appears that Woodward was told of Valerie Plame's identity before any other journalist by an as-yet-unnamed senior administration official who is not Karl Rove or Scooter Libby."
Yet he kept it secret from his editors and traipsed around as a critic of the investigation. Shameful. He only told his editors when he received a subpoena himself. Woodward's statement is [HERE]. (TPM)
*****end of clip*****
Sure seems like Bob is more Baghdad Bob then reporter Bob.
capt
Posted by: capt at November 16, 2005 10:51 AM
A look back in time...Aviano Air Base, Italy, Feb 7, 2003, RUMSFELD TELLING EARLY LIES TO THE TROOPS
"We don't talk about deployments in the specific, but we have brought a good many Guard and Reserve on active duty. Fortunately, a great many of them were volunteers. We have been able to have relatively few stop losses. There are some currently, particularly in the Army, but relatively few in the Navy and the Air Force. And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
Posted by: micki at November 16, 2005 10:53 AM
Brothers and Sisters Awake
Posted by: Gerald at November 16, 2005 10:55 AM
Gerald, Roberts IS a true republican conservative whose ideas and policies I do not always agree with. But at least he is faithful to the creed. bush and his henchman are NOT any kind of conservative at all, they are just lying, thieving, traitorous murderers.
Posted by: Saladin at November 16, 2005 10:56 AM
I'd sure like to hear Saddam testify as well, about the rise of the Ba'ath Party to power, his role as an assasin of Communists at the behest of certain western interests, the role of foreign interests in the Iran-Iraq war, his obtaining WMD materials and targeting information from foreign interests, the records of foreign corporations doing business in Iraq during the sanctions, and on and on some more.
But, in this trail he has only been charged with one specific incident. No testimoney not related to this incident can be offered, and they can execute him on conviction for this one incident - on top of that, his laywers keep getting shot at.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 16, 2005 11:04 AM
What's eating Bush?
Posted by: Gerald at November 16, 2005 11:06 AM
Mad Wars
Bush is really a psycho!!!
Posted by: Gerald at November 16, 2005 11:09 AM
#25
Yeah, Bill
If you're going to be here go back to being Antoine. I love that character. So funny.
Posted by: Jeanne at November 16, 2005 11:14 AM
God is punishing America because God is depriving her leaders with wisdom!!! No one can be as stupid as Bush!!!
Posted by: Gerald at November 16, 2005 11:14 AM
Gulf Coast Slaves
By Roberto Lovato
Salon.com
Halliburton and its subcontractors hired hundreds of undocumented Latino workers to clean up after Katrina - only to mistreat them and throw them out without pay.
Arnulfo Martinez recalls seeing lots of hombres del ejercito standing at attention. Though he was living on the Belle Chasse Naval Base near New Orleans when President Bush spoke there on Oct. 11, he didn't understand anything the ruddy man in the rolled-up sleeves was saying to the troops.
Martinez, 16, speaks no English; his mother tongue is Zapotec. He had left the cornfields of Oaxaca, Mexico, four weeks earlier for the promise that he would make $8 an hour, plus room and board, while working for a subcontractor of KBR, a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton that was awarded a major contract by the Bush administration for disaster relief work. The job was helping to clean up a Gulf Coast naval base in the region devastated by Hurricane Katrina. "I was cleaning up the base, picking up branches and doing other work," Martinez said, speaking to me in broken Spanish.
Even if the Oaxacan teenager had understood Bush when he urged Americans that day to "help somebody find shelter or help somebody find food," he couldn't have known that he'd soon need similar help himself. But three weeks after arriving at the naval base from Texas, Martinez's boss, Karen Tovar, a job broker from North Carolina who hired workers for a KBR subcontractor called United Disaster Relief, booted him from the base and left him homeless, hungry and without money.
"They gave us two meals a day and sometimes only one," Martinez said.
He says that Tovar "kicked us off the base," forcing him and other cleanup workers - many of them Mexican and undocumented - to sleep on the streets of New Orleans. According to Martinez, they were not paid for three weeks of work. An immigrant rights group recently filed complaints with the Department of Labor on behalf of Martinez and 73 other workers allegedly owed more than $56,000 by Tovar. Tovar claims that she let the workers go because she was not paid by her own bosses at United Disaster Relief. In turn, UDR manager Zachary Johnson, who declined to be interviewed for this story, told the Washington Post on Nov. 4 that his company had not been paid by KBR for two months. [...] More.
****************
I'm shocked! shocked!
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 16, 2005 11:17 AM
Profit at ANY cost.
Posted by: capt at November 16, 2005 11:21 AM
Remember me! Please remember me this Thanksgiving week! My wife invited her sister and husband to spend Thanksgiving with us. They will be sleeping in the room where I have my computer and I will be away from posting. The visitors are NEOCONS. How can I be at my best behavior? I will try and offer the week up for the souls in purgatory. Maybe thousands of souls will be released and enter heaven?
Posted by: Gerald at November 16, 2005 11:24 AM
actually, that's profit at almost NO cost
Posted by: James Ha at November 16, 2005 11:26 AM
#43 RS, there is a sickness and an evil that is spreading over America! We are a soulless nation. Where is the outrage? Not just for this inhumane treatment but in not hiring Americans and treating them fairly.
America will rue the day for her worship of Bush.
Posted by: Gerald at November 16, 2005 11:31 AM
Gerald,
here's a sneaky underhanded thought .... have it all set so that when sis and bro in law arrive, you're looking at this report by BYU Prof. Steven Jones calling to account the govts. obvious lie regarding the fall of the 3 WTC towers .... whether or not you believe the govts. story yourself, it's bound to make anyone who actually reads it think long and hard about our govt. and the depths to which they are willing to stoop to achieve their own ends .... HERE IS THE REPORT. ha. another shameless plug to promote my beliefs. oh ya .... click my name to order a FREE DVD coverring the same topic!
Posted by: James Ha at November 16, 2005 11:41 AM
There was only ONE rationale for this war..
That Saddam Hussein was an "imminent threat" to the USA.
It has since been discovered that he was not an imminent threat in the first place, and he has been captured.
So...why are we still there? Why are our soldiers still dying? I say that we declare MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, and bring them home. Our continued presence in the area is only making things worse.
Bob in North Dakota
Posted by: Bob in North Dakota at November 16, 2005 11:50 AM
The intelligence reports that were available to the Sen Dems in the intelligence committee had reg flag warnings about Saddams nuclear capabilities. The Dems choose to vote for the use of force anyway. So to say that they did not have the same intel as the Pres does'nt really matter. A majority of the Dems choose not to even read the reports before voting. Hey Saladin #20 -your right Clinton did have other priorities- he was busy getting his nob polished.
Posted by: baf at November 16, 2005 11:54 AM
What's interesting is that all the previous RNC
"taking points", putdowns and insults to the anti war activists, liberals and democrats on Iraq are starting to fall by the wayside in their weakness and are creeping into Republican rhetoric as even they question the legitimacy & wisdon of President Bush's Iraqi War.
The Republican led Senate is now demanding periodic "updates" from President Bush even thought it rejected Democratic demands for a
projected "pullout-withdrawal schedule.
With the majority of american public increasingly turning against President Bush on the Iraqi War,
and with his popularity at a all time low for his
tenure in office, nervous congression republicans up for midterm 2006 elections ae increasingly distancing themselves from their president.
Pro-war conservative pundits are becoming increasingly shrill in their assessements of the situation:
witness these two:
"An Incontinent Congress"
by Tony Blankley-Washington Times
www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20051115-093244-2178r.htm
"Democrats Hurt America's Image"
by David Limbaugh-NEWSMAX
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/11/
142612.shtml
"Democrats
Posted by: Left Angle at November 16, 2005 11:56 AM
#48 James Ha, great idea! The brother-in-law is a retired military engineer.
#49 Bob in ND, you have too much brainpower to make the bushcos happy. They are interested in reaching the uninformed and uneducated to pass along their lame policies.
Posted by: Gerald at November 16, 2005 12:01 PM
Washington Times Article Nov 16th
173 Sunnis Freed from secret Shi'ite tortue chamber. The American and Iraqi forces freed 173 Sunnis being torured with electric shock and drills. Wow!! I thought we were the only torturers.
Posted by: baf at November 16, 2005 12:23 PM
baf,
congress had the same intelligence that bush let them have -
and better to get your "nob polished" as you so eloquently put it, than to polish someone else's nob.
Posted by: James Ha at November 16, 2005 12:35 PM
Bush's "Christian" Blood Cult
Make no mistake Bush is a blood thirsty vampire!!!
Posted by: Gerald at November 16, 2005 12:35 PM
barf once again shows his deep intellect! Blow jobs were the very LEAST of clinton's sins.
James, hammer away!!
This is for Gerald. God is not punishing anyone, why should he? We are so good at maschochistic behavior we don't need any heavenly help!
Posted by: Saladin at November 16, 2005 12:41 PM
According to the Weekly Standard,
Sen. Dem. Jay Rockefeller admitted to treason on Foxnews Sunday. Rockefeller stated that he had met with the Pres of Syria (a sponsor state of terrorism) to warn him that Bush was going to go to war with Iraq. This violates the Logan Act which is punishable to 3 years in prison if enforced. I wonder how many of the 2000+ dead American troops Mr. Rockefeller is responsible for? The peacenicks on this web site should be outraged that he put the troops in harms way.
Posted by: baf at November 16, 2005 12:46 PM
james ha #54
If the congress only had the intel the Pres let them have then why didn't they object to the red flags that were in the report and why didn't all the members take the time to even read it. I would think sending our kids to war would require a little more responsablity on there part. Hey saladin - I thought you weren't going to respond to me?
Posted by: baf at November 16, 2005 12:51 PM
saladin #56
Blow jobs were the least of his sins - I guess selling our national security secrets to China for campaign donations, who has now used that intel to build missles that can reach our west coast with nuclear warheads isn't as serious. I guess not capturing Osma Bin Laden when he was offered to us on a silver platter by Sudan is not as serious. After all, he couldn't be bothered, he was busy getting serviced. He could of at least gotten serviced by someone good looking -maybe he had low self esteem issues like most libs.
Posted by: baf at November 16, 2005 01:01 PM
#59 baf:
What national security secrets did Bill Clinton sell to the Chinese?
Exactly when & who in Sudan offered Osama Bin Laden to the U.S. for arrest, while Clinton was president?
Posted by: Left Angle at November 16, 2005 01:19 PM
Tomlinson
Posted by: Gerald at November 16, 2005 01:22 PM
irregardless of who offered osama on a plate... who was it that vowed to get osama no matter what and then allowed him to escape, and then said "osama? I'm not concerned with him"
Posted by: James Ha at November 16, 2005 01:27 PM
#56 Saladin, we are very much into masochistic behavior. Saladin, who is this barf that you are referring to? I know there is a baf. Is baf short for barf?
Posted by: Gerald at November 16, 2005 01:30 PM
#60 Left Angle, in Gordon Thomas' book, "Seeds of Fire" he says that Reagan and Bush, elder, gave away highly secretive information on nuclear weapons. Reagan wanted China to be a power to stand in Russia's way and we would have China as a buffer against Russia. Now we also have China to contend with in our world.
Historically, American foreign policies have been a disaster. Maybe money has always been our primary objective?
Posted by: Gerald at November 16, 2005 01:51 PM
left angle #60
Try reading a newspaper once in awhile and you might learn something.
Posted by: baf at November 16, 2005 01:52 PM
james ha #62
Osama is a has been, the most he can do if he is even alive is write a few letters from his cave. Sending a missle through a tent to blow up a camel didn't work for Clinton - we got 9/11 because of it. Zarquawi is by far a bigger threat than Osama ever was and we are fighting him right now. Clinton would still be thinking about it while getting a nob job.
Posted by: baf at November 16, 2005 01:57 PM
The two following statements by BOb Woodward in regard to the Plame leak show Woodward is no longer the journalist he MAY(?) have once been . Woodward stated "When the story comes out, I'm quite confident we're going to find out that it started kind of as as gossip, as chatter". "When I think all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great".
Woodwards obvious inability to comprehend the seriousness of these crimes is alarming, and dangerous.
Valerie Plame served the country by endangering her own life and others by following the path of WMD's around the world. This leak has endangered her life (this leak could endanger her children's lives) and the life of her colleagues around the world. (some say agents have been killed or people who co-operated with agents have been killed) This leak has (according to many) has jeopardized our national securtiy.
Woodward calls this "laughable, chatter, gossip".
Woodward demonstrates a cold, calculated and seriously irresponsible attitude to the real dangers present in this leak.
Woodwards obvious disdain and disregard for Fitzgerald and the process demonstrates he must have far more at stake or someone to protect.
Woodwards arrogant and disdainful statements along with his attitude towards the failure of the press to investigate the claims being made by the Bush administration prior to the invasion. He called this failure of the media "group think" (he knows better).
These comments are all indications of a journalist who has become a ...patsy ...an accomplice to the crimes,part of the pre-war team.
Robert Schwartz..I will send you that email
Posted by: kathleen at November 16, 2005 02:00 PM
The pre-war intelligence was false, the Bush administration knew it, and they need to be held accountble.
This is the very least that we can demand (whether we are Republicans, Democrats, or Independent) of our representatives. That all responsible for knowingly passing this false intelligence on...NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
WE MUST MAKE SURE THIS HAPPENS.......
Posted by: kathleen at November 16, 2005 02:04 PM
All you "WMD/Bush Lied" folks should take a look at this: http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv Have fun ignoring the truth folks! Fred
Posted by: Fred at November 19, 2005 02:10 PM