Caught on Tape: Bush Admits WMD Were Irrelevant
Caught on Tape: Bush Admits WMD Were Irrelevant
On day that the United States invaded Iraq, President Bush said that we were doing so “reluctantly” but that “our purpose was clear” — to get rid of Saddam’s “weapons of mass murder.” (Note: Bush did not say “purposes.” According to Bush, there was only one purpose.)
Yesterday on Brit Hume, he said he would have invaded even if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. Would have been nice if he’d mentioned this earlier.
We’ve got the video evidence:
Full Transcript:
12/14/05:
BUSH: I said I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision.
HUME: So, if you had had this — if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?
BUSH: Absolutely.
3/19/03:
Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Check the date on the last quote? Looks like you’re a couple of years out…
December 15th, 2005 at 12:07 pmHe didn’t give the people the right to decide if they wanted war based on reasons other than WMDs. He’s a liar and a 2-bit criminal.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:07 pmOh. My. F*cking. God.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:08 pmWill he be impeached now? There is his admission that his letter to Congress of 3/19/03 was a pack of lies.
How many times a week does KKKarl tell Bush “Don’t worry. The public has a short memory.”???
December 15th, 2005 at 12:09 pmThanks Nick, I fixed it.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:11 pmIf you don’t understand the complexity of a man who wants to reluctantly plow through Iraq in a gung-ho fashion, well, I’d say fool me once, shame on you fool me twice we don’t get fooled again.
(Good one, Mr. President. Good one.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:12 pmAWARD FOR BEST DESCRIPTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH.
TO: LEON HADAR FOR - “A PARROT ON CRACK”
“It assumes that if the administration was so successful in convincing Joe Blow in Peoria that Saddam was behind 9/11 and was planning to nuke Cincinnati, there is no reason that the administration can’t also make Ahab the Arab believe that the Bushies want to bring freedom to the Middle East and peace to the Holy Land. All you need is not to deviate from a consistent message that you repeat several times a day like a parrot on crack: Democracy! Democracy! Democracy! Eventually those guys in the Middle East will come to their senses and figure out that American intentions are good and that the country’s commitment to spreading democracy is not merely a hypocritical justification for getting rid of regimes that President Bush and The Weekly Standard dislike. ”
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_12_19/article2.html
December 15th, 2005 at 12:14 pmIsn’t this the same sort of elitist nonsense that drove our founding fathers to revolution? So why are we tolerating it?
December 15th, 2005 at 12:14 pmEven if George W Bush would have invaded Iraq if he knew there was no threat of WMDs, Congress and the American people would not have. But that probably escaped him.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:16 pmI guess he should express gratitude that the intelligence was wrong. If he had good intelligence, he would not have gotten what he wanted.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:17 pmBush should be impeached for lying to Congress and the American people.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:18 pmIn the same announcement he said, “I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm.” Evidently 30,000 innocent civilian deaths “more or less” is an acceptible figure to this president. This was an unnecessary war of choice, with horrible consequences.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:19 pmMotive leads me to believe that the faulty intelligence was manufactured to get Bush what he wanted… after all he started calling himself the Wartime President. Not us.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:20 pmTreason? War crimes? Naw, of course not. We’re just politicizing death, we should be cheering it on like the neo-conmen. Maybe it is time for another revolution…
December 15th, 2005 at 12:20 pmThe sad facts are, that the GOP was overly aggressive to impeach Clinton for telling a lie about his intimate relationship with an intern.
Now, the same GOP is obstructing justice and providing safe-harbor for GWB, who lied about the justification for going to WAR, and, by his own admission, caused the deaths of 30K Iraqis and over 2K us soldiers. Not to mention the tens of thousands who were injured and their families who’s lives have been ruined. The debate is not over yet about the number of Iraqis he had killed!
But this Congress is complicit in the crime. There must be a way to stop this corruption. Keep these posts coming.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:24 pmHe and the other warmongers in his administration are war criminals who, if this were a just world, should be in jail now.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:26 pm30,000 innocent civilian deaths
That number (Bush was quoted as saying 30,000) includes the terrorists (that we killed), the civilians (that the terrorists killed), and the civilians (that we killed) … not just “innocent civilians”.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:26 pmMotive leads me to believe that the faulty intelligence was manufactured to get Bush what he wanted
Is this another one of those, “I know” he lied moments unbelievable (like yesterday).
I’m not acribing this to you unbelievable … I’m always confused as to why people can’t be honest and say, “I believe with every fiber of my being that he’s evil and he lied” and not “I know” (which you, unless you’re God, couldn’t possibly “know”). Is it because the argument is stronger if one “knows”?
December 15th, 2005 at 12:30 pmBook ‘em Danno.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:31 pmThe cork is just about to come out of the bottle. This seems like a big, well calculated
December 15th, 2005 at 12:32 pmcover story for what? The CIA about have a few people retire and get a chance to set a few stories straight before the next election. They’ve had enough of the scape goat / whipping boy m.o.What about Sen. Pat Roberts and Phase 2/ What about AbleDanger?
What did Joe Wilson know and can’t prove it in public yet? Oh, so while we wait for our for our Budget Surplus to evaporate along with the stamina of our Boots on the ground tell us what we have to show for it. Give me an Iraqi stipend like they do in Alaska. Kick back, peace dividend, call it what you want, I want a check! issue me some Iraqi IPO for our new U. S. Citizens Oil company. We paid for that Army why can’t we get some of it back. Directly. Let them be welocomed to Democracy with an Impact Fee on the National level. We have subsidized their safety with our resources, cant we get a tangible return on our investment?
The Shell Game
December 14, 2005
The article “Iraq war need nears $100 billion†by Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press demonstrate the failure of our government and the mainstream media to come to terms of the true facts of why we invaded Iraq and still requesting billions more to support that Big Fat Lie known as the Iraq war. The failure of the Republican and Democrat Parties to clarify and justify why we’re still in Iraq will cost this country more billions down the road as well as human lives, both Iraqi and American. The recent speeches of President Bush continue to deceive the American public why we’re in Iraq to the point that any word that comes out of his mouth is a non seqiutur, just like the recent and present demands to keep funding this deliberate and fabricated war. I’m sure you have heard of me numerous of times referring the Iraq war as The Big Fat Lie and even Bush will supported me in this: during the 2004 election debate with John Kerry, President Bush admitted publicly that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any connection with al-Qaeda, as the bipartisan 9/11 Commission reported. Yet the general media continuingly refuse to call him on that. Why? And why should we continue to shell out? The answer couldn’t be what the president had stated: The administration long has contended that it can’t put a price tag on future cost because of the unpredictable nature of war. The statement’s error is two-fold: we are putting a price on this war and it’s unlimited. As for its unpredictability the news on the war front has been a disaster on a day-to-day basis with no end on sight, further justifying the bogus cost of this bogus war. The one question President Bush won’t ever answer: “Why with every failed and fabricated assertions you have made and continue to make about this costly and disastrous war you have yet to step down from office?â€
December 15th, 2005 at 12:41 pm17- but that number is probably far short of the actual total. But then again, we don’t do body counts. Just like in Vietnam.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:43 pmThis administration can’t defend what it has done, it’s transparent and no effort to obfuscate and spin meaningless propaganda can put this cat back in its bag. Every lie has been debunked and many of the citizens that gave these criminals the benefit of the doubt now realize that they’ve been duped. Their only hope is to continue with big, brazen lies using a complicit mainstream media to push their version of the story. Americans need only ignore their words and observe their deeds to understand how bad things really are since the Bushies took office.
Let’s hope Fitzgerald indicts Rove before the end of the year, throwing Bush further into his tailspin. His jaw will progress from jumpy to downright unglued. Would make for such a merry Christmas. Let’s go Fitz!
December 15th, 2005 at 12:43 pmAs Paul Wolfowitz admitted, WMDs just served as something they could sell to the public to gain support for the war. What the president needs to do, if he wishes to fulfill his campaign promise to “restore honesty and integrity to the White House”, is to fully reveal to the American public the role that PNAC (The Project for a New American Century) and the people from that group that made it into the administration had in the decision to invade Iraq.
I recommend David Ray Griffin’s excellent book “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.” It lays out many things that most people are unaware of that cast doubt on the official explanation for what happened that day and also shows why the claims for invading Iraq should have been greeted with much suspicion. One good tidbit to start you off: Did you know that six of the nineteen alleged hijackers turned up alive several days later?
The War in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, WMDs or lilberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:44 pmGiacomo - How many “I know’s” did Bush shout at us during his run-up speeches? It was a mantra - “I know Saddam hussein has weapons of mass destruction,” (etc. etc., etc….).
December 15th, 2005 at 12:47 pmand now those “I know” speeches are debunked by his own admission. Why did he declare, repeatedly, that it WAS an absolute beyond doubt (which is what he did)? Did Bush lie to Congress and the Public? Is that impeachable?
He didn’t even mention the National Gaurdsmen that will be there for three or four tours.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:48 pm#17, Please check your facts. Do you have supporting evidence for you breakdown? Even the White House was unwilling to endorse Bush’s figure as an official count. What would be an acceptable number of innocent civilian deaths in a unilateral war of choice?
December 15th, 2005 at 12:52 pmGiacomo, it seems to me, has fooled himself into believing whatever lies he’s being told by the right-wing machine. There is simply no excuse at this stage in the game, if you are a thoughtful and honest person, not to be outraged by this most criminal administration. They have rendered this country unrecognizable and I’m ashamed and angered by what it has become.
All we can do is keep telling the truth, keep fighting.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:53 pmSo the argument goes, with UN sanctions against you, and as long as you don’t have the A bomb, we can unilatterally, invade your country in OUR own national interest.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:53 pmIs this business extortion or Board of directors Foreign Policy? Talk about bait and switch.
Can someone please tell me why the Liberal Media has yet to pick up on the blockbuster revelations made by Mickey Herskowitz, the fired Bush biographer who disclosed the fact that Bush wanted to invade Iraq way before he was ever elected so that he could be seen as a strong leader and use the political capital to ram his unwanted domestic policies down our throats?
When a murder is committed, one of the first things the D. A. does is try to confirm if the crime was premeditated. Well, thanks to Mickey Herskowitz, we know that invading Iraq was a premeditated act by Bush and his motives were not so virtuous.
I think Americans deserve to know this and Bush deserves to questioned about it, and not by some presstitute flack either, but by the Congress.
Here is the story about Mickey Herskowitz:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm
December 15th, 2005 at 12:54 pm“”Who could have possibly envisioned an erection — an election in Iraq at this point in history?”
—George W. Bush, at the white House, Washington, D.C., Jan. 10, 2005
December 15th, 2005 at 12:55 pmBut that number is probably far short of the actual total.
Perhaps …
How many “I know’s†did Bush shout at us during his run-up speeches? It was a mantra - “I know Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction,†(etc. etc., etc….).
and now those “I know†speeches are debunked by his own admission.
I agree … if you’re going to say somethings certain, it better be. As a conservative, this is something that Bush must atone for.
Why did he declare, repeatedly, that it WAS an absolute beyond doubt (which is what he did)?
Because, I think, he really did think it was a “slam dunk”. Our national “intelligence” weren’t the only agencies to say so …
Did Bush lie to Congress and the Public? Is that impeachable?
IF he lied, it should be no different than when Clinton lied (or mislead, whatever). It definitely would be impeachable. With all the TV coverage, a press that doesn’t exactly lean his direction, other nations at odds with him … I find it very hard to say that it was all a big ruse … way too many downsides for limited upside to simply be explained as a “lie over oil”.
I agree they wanted to use Iraq as a stepping stone, I agree that they allowed themselves to be led by intelligence that turned out to be horrible (given the level of intelligence we had for 9/11, I’m not sure why they were so confident on those same agencies) … now that we’re there though, we need to finish.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:56 pmOxyCon,
I can’t decide who’s been more derelict in their duty, the media or the so-called opposition party. It’s a disgrace that the “leaders” in the minority party can’t muster the courage (with a few exceptions like Boxer, Murtha, Conyers and Reid) to stand up and fight for truth and justice. Aren’t they the American way?
December 15th, 2005 at 12:57 pm#18
Motive leads me to believe that the faulty intelligence was manufactured to get Bush what he wanted
Is this another one of those, “I know†he lied moments unbelievable (like yesterday).
I didn’t use the words “I know” in that sentance Giacomo… I said “believe” (though I don’t believe in a god).
Some people do “know” things. You can keep banging your head against that wall, or come to reaize the issue isn’t with semantics (whether the correct usage is ‘believe’ or ‘know’), but with the subject posted at the opening of the forum. We think you’re focusing on the wrong issue.
By the way, did O’Reilly retract the Christmas song story? No way I was watching to find out.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:58 pm#18 who cares what you think. You creep around here and give your opinion of others’ posts. You should do a little more introspection. What kind of person has something to say about every stranger they come across? I remember your gossipy type in high school. Didn’t like your type talking about others then either. Again, who cares what you think.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:59 pm1. Bush, shortly after 9/11, decides he want to take Saddam out. (”F’ Saddam, we’re taking him out”)
2. Rumsfeld tells him they must take care of most of Afghanistan first and position forces in Kuwait so early 2003 is the earliest they can invade (need to do it prior warm weather).
3. Since there is no outright justification for invading Iraq and toppling a sovereign government, they decide on WMDs as the main selling point - distorting intelligence, cherry picking it, exaggerations, and fear. The “librul media” goes for it hook, line, and sinker.
4 As a side benefit, Bush/Rove plan votes regarding the invasion just prior to the 2002 elections, unlike what his father did, so we can use War for political gain.
5. They assume Saddam will do something stupid or we’ll at least find some WMDs, so even if #3 is found to be a fabrication, the Administration will be forgiven so it won’t be an issue.
Of course, the problem is Saddam didn’t do anything really stupid and no WMDs were found.
6. Come up with a new justification for the Invasion and Occupation.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:59 pm#31
Thanks for posting that - hilarious!!!
December 15th, 2005 at 1:00 pmGiacomo,
They didn’t “allow themselves to be led by intelligence that turned out to be horrible” at all. They created an infrastructure to parallel the established intelligence agencies. This is a fact. Do your homework on the WHIG group, the Office of Special Plans, the PNAC signatories and “stovepiping”. They created the intelligence that justified their ends, no debate about it.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:01 pmRead: as of 12/14/05 we have no defensible objection to Nation X invading Nation Y on the basis that Nation X has stovepipe intelligence demonstrating Nation Y has WMD and besides, Nation Y is run by a bad man.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:02 pm#32 I think that just shows Bush’s incompetence and stunning inexperience with governance. And who is to blame? Everyone who voted for him. Time to admit you were wrong and the liberals were right. Or you can wait for the next disaster on his watch.
And the intelligence before 9/11 showed bin Laden wanted to attack with commercial airplanes. It was Bush who did not think it was important enough to address. But as you said, if we accept his assertion that the intelligence system was “broken” then he is also culpable for either not recognizing it (after all his missaves towards Clinton) or recognizing it and doing nothing.
Clinton lied and admitted it. But he lied in a civil lawsuit. That is VERY different from lying in a rush to war.
I think Bush simply was not aware of the many downsides to starting a war in Iraq. He just doesn’t know that much history. He probably thought he could get away with lying once the war went well. He thought the war would go well.
That is incompetence defined.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:02 pm#35
Thanks… I ‘know’ that you’re right :)!
December 15th, 2005 at 1:03 pm#17, Please check your facts. Do you have supporting evidence for you breakdown?
REPORTER: Since the inception of the Iraqi war, I’d like to know the approximate total of Iraqis who have been killed. And by Iraqis I include civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators.
THE PRESIDENT: How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We’ve lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq.
No one actually knows how many have died … I was responding to comment #12 who inlcuded the number but left out the rest of what Bush said …
December 15th, 2005 at 1:04 pmOf course they were irrelevant; they didn’t exist in the first place.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:05 pmGiacomo,
That is not true. The French, Germans and Italians all told the US that the intellegence was bad.
Not to mention the “intelligence” was obtained through torture. Torture is not a reliable way to obtain information, especially if the information will be used to take a country to war.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:06 pmGiacomo,
I find it interesting that you take issue with the reference to the “30,000 innocent civilians” because you believe that they are all not “innocent”. I believe that you are wholly wrong. Here is why:
The USA declared war on Iraq. The US’s actions were not in retaliation for anything that the Iraqis did to it. The reasoning for the invasion - WMDs, 9/11 link - have proved to be false so, in fact, the Iraqis ARE innocent of the accusations that the invasion is based on.
So, any Iraqi civilians who have been killed in this moral and ethical attrocity are innocent regardless of whether they were resisting or just “collateral damage”. To argue semantics about the deaths of people who perpetrated no harm unto you whatsoever is a farce and morally reprehensible.
In fact, the only accurate definition of the cause of deaths for the Iraqis who have been killed, whether civilian or insurgent, is “murder”. Those who have caused the deaths are murderers, and those who support the perpetrators of these heinous crimes are accomplices to murder. These are the facts, they are indisputable.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:07 pm#45, Pessimist-
Exactly.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:10 pmKabuki by Bush
December 13, 2005
In “Bush says war killed 30,000 Iraqis†by Nedra Pickler present President Bush as a character in a Japanese movie called Rashomon: Bush wants to be seen in a positive light while everyone else sees differently. Desperate to reverse his sinking approval rating, Bush attempts an unscripted presentation Kabuki-style, trying to come “clean†about the true estimation of Iraqi casualties. That the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia Bush pops up the minimum body count of 30,000, hoping that public will be content with. Unfortunately, no one brought up The Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal, who estimated that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed in Iraq since it was invaded by a United States-led coalition in March 2003. It’s no surprise that Bush’s figures are way off since he had appointed Karen Hughes, undersecretary of state, to dispel anti-American sentiment around the world; she’s good company with Condi Rice. His Iraqi government progress has also come into question: the Pentagon’s paid journalists and news reports. For his last Kabuki pass, Bush stated that if he knew what he knows now he would have still made the same decision to invade Iraq. Where’s the trapdoor lever?
December 15th, 2005 at 1:13 pmIt just amazing to me that Bushworld could get away with this Iraq disaster. It just shows the total weakness of the opposition party and the “liberal” media. This is mass murder and they are getting off scott-free.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:13 pmI didn’t use the words “I know†in that sentance Giacomo… I said “believe†(though I don’t believe in a god).
I know … that’s why I was asking … it was more of a joke really.
By the way, did O’Reilly retract the Christmas song story? No way I was watching to find out.
I did Tivo it, but haven’t watched it yet … I’ll get back to you.
#18 who cares what you think. You creep around here and give your opinion of others’ posts. You should do a little more introspection. What kind of person has something to say about every stranger they come across?
I’m not asking or expecting you to “care” … and God forbid I make a comment on another’s post … because no one ever comments, right. Maybe I mistakenly assumed that this was a forum, and not, as you put it, a conversation of sorts between only those who agree. The statement about “strangers” is just silly.
I remember your gossipy type in high school. Didn’t like your type talking about others then either.
Uhmm … asking questions and making comments in a public comments section is “gossipy” how? Look, you don’t have to agree or even like me, but don’t attack my presence here by rationalizing in strange ways.
They created the intelligence that justified their ends, no debate about it.
I know all about the PNAC issue … I’m not debating that Bush wanted to oust Saddam as part of some larger plan, he did. If “they” created the intelligence, then “they” also includes the intelligence agencies of Britain, France, Australia, Italy, Spain, Israel, etc. You’d be better of saying, “they chose to ignore the intelligence that didn’t support what they thought”.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:15 pmGiacamo, the citations to those foreign intelligence services have never been verified. Britain specifically said Iraq’s WMD capabilities were less than Iran, NK, and Libya.
You may be referring to the forged documents from Italy, but they did not actually come from Italian intelligence agents.
Spain, as you know, booted their government out for its complicity in the invasion.
This is the first I’ve heard of Israel supporting W’s conclusions. Can you cite anything specific?
The real culprits are the WHIG people. They edited reports and bypassed the CIA to get the results they wanted, for whatever “larger plan” they had in mind. That larger plan is now inoperative and they are scrambling to save their asses.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:21 pm#45 Precisely. Unfortunately, all Americans (whether for or against the admin) are also culpable. We, as a nation, have this blood on our hands (and that is each of us, individually), and the Administration (and its apologists) are simply looking for more blood - criminals drunk on their own horrible natures. We are all guilty of these crimes, and until they end, the rap sheet against us grows. Sad, but true.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:23 pm36- I think #4 is far more than a side benefit: if anything, it was raison d’etre for the invasion of Iraq. The timing of the authorization vote was brazenly, obviously, politically motivated. In my opinion, this has been for domestic political purposes. It surely wasn’t for national security reasons.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:25 pmGiacomo,
You admit that the war on Iraq was about “some larger plan”, but my question to you is: do you recognize that they lied to the country and the Congress in order to achieve their premeditated goals?
“They” are the groups that I mentioned, including WHIG and OSP. These were secretive groups created by THIS ADMINISTRATION by the neocon elements appointed power. Their were certainly elements of foreign intelligence agencies that also provided information that justified a case for deposing Hussein, but those same agencies also provided dissenting information (as our CIA did). The Bush administration acknowledged none of that dissent. That is unacceptable in matters of war and peace. As was said earlier, anyone that supports this administration at this point (especially someone that obviously follows these matters of serious political consequence), is now complicit if they are not calling for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and the rest of the cabal’s heads.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:26 pmIn refernce to #47 - Republicans take note: if the actions of America, in the world and within its own borders, were ‘right’, ‘just’, and ‘moral’, then we would not NEED to send out people to improve the US image and assuage “anti-American” sentiment (that is, “Spread propoganda”).
December 15th, 2005 at 1:28 pmHello.
If the world is shaking its finger at you while saying, “Naughty, naughty”, you ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG. Get off the Christian holier than thou, our religion is it and you better get used to it soapbox, and join reality. The world is aghast at what America has become. Wake the F&** up, people!
#45 - Not a very Christian attitude is it? WWJD? Yeah right.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:29 pmComment 45
The USA declared war on Iraq.
No, we didn’t. We did invade them though.
The US’s actions were not in retaliation for anything that the Iraqis did to it.
If by Iraqis you mean the Iraqi people, I agree. If you mean Saddam, then you are incorrect. Our “justification” was that he had failed to comply with 20+ UN resolutions. While I agree that he deserved to go, I would’ve preferred an International force that more resembled the 1st Gulf “war”.
The reasoning for the invasion - WMDs, 9/11 link - have proved to be false so, in fact, the Iraqis ARE innocent of the accusations that the invasion is based on.
WMDs certainly aren’t there. No 9/11 link as well. I agree. Those weren’t the only reasons we invaded (refer to the aforementioned UN resolutions). The Iraqi people are innocent … Saddam certainly was not.
So, any Iraqi civilians who have been killed in this moral and ethical attrocity are innocent regardless of whether they were resisting or just “collateral damageâ€.
I could agree with your progressional logic up until here. To say that a jihadist who enters the country specifically to do battle is innocent is faulty. If you said that a) we invaded illegally and b) Saddam’s army had no choice but to fight back … then maybe. Saddam’s gone now (and has been for 2 years). The rest of the civilians (the vast majority) want to set up a new democracy … those that continue to resist are not just resisiting us but a plurality of their own people. Do we consider those who fought for the British during our own Revolutionary War to be “innocent” … no.
To argue semantics about the deaths of people who perpetrated no harm unto you whatsoever is a farce and morally reprehensible.
It was a semantic argument, but often misquotes and exagerated comments are stated as factualy accurate. 30,000 dead anyone is horrible … to say our forces solely did that is incorrect (the terrorists have killed far more Iraqi civilians than we have). The Bush administration has enough legitimate gaffs and mistakes to attack without aggrandizing smaller ones.
In fact, the only accurate definition of the cause of deaths for the Iraqis who have been killed, whether civilian or insurgent, is “murderâ€. Those who have caused the deaths are murderers, and those who support the perpetrators of these heinous crimes are accomplices to murder.
War is indeed hell. Are you calling our troops who are ordered to be there murderers? This is a tad morally relativistic isn’t it. Have you called those bombing restaurants murderers? Maybe you have.
These are the facts, they are indisputable.
Perhaps to you. (The “murderer” label is no fact, it’s opinion.)
December 15th, 2005 at 1:30 pmIsn’t there another revelation here… that Bush still regards the Contitution as toilet paper?
Surely the question is not whether, knowing what he knows today, Bush would have made the same decision about going to war - the question is whether Congress would have authorized the war.
Surely…
December 15th, 2005 at 1:30 pm#49 That is not how I put it. You are merely confused as you have stated before.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:30 pmmysticagent #51,
Hmmmm, I have a bit of trouble accepting responsibility for something that I so vehemently opposed, but I do understand what you’re saying. Look, nothing short of a full-scale, bloody revolt on the Bush administration would have stopped this illegal, immoral, criminal war. I may have blood on my hands, but it’s from trying to stop the crime rather than being accomplice to it.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:32 pmMysticagent,
Yes, the USA and ALL of its citizens are technically guilty of the crimes that are at the foundation of this conflict, murder, manslaughter, assault, etc…
What disturbs me greatly is that the populace of the US takes such a cavalier and removed position about all of this, all the while ignoring the blood on their collective hands.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:34 pmGia, I find your psuedo intelligence, or at least your attempt to make sure we all “think” you are, is a drain. You post ad nauseum here and I feel people like you, those who have so much time to troll the internet, should spend more of it, or any of it, helping others. You know, like Jesus would do.
The amount of time you spend here is sad - sad for the many people who need that Christian charity of yours. Shame on you for wasting your time. What are you a student?
December 15th, 2005 at 1:35 pmThis happens everytime I post. I make one comment (in this case it was to correct the 30,000 comment to what was actually said by Bush) and everyone automatically assumes I’m pro-war and in love with Bush.
What I am constantly amazed by is the level of vitriol over Bush … it’s not enough that the Iraq war is ill-advised and poorly planned. No … it’s “illegal, immoral, based upon a lie, a part of a grander scheme, etc.”. All these MAY be so … but they don’t need to be so for one to protest the war (or disagree with it). There’s a difference between dissent and demonization … I see constant demonization, and to me, it cheapens the argument. When I try to point out a statement that’s less about dissent and more about demonizing … then I’m demonized. It’s a weird phenomenon.
Why must people be “evil, Nazi, fascist” if they disagree … I know many of you firmly believe this … it’s very odd. It’s the “I’m right and you’re wrong” taken to the moral level “I’m right and you’re evil for disagreeing”. Heck, someone basically just called me complicit in murder … do I respond by calling that person evil. No … misinformed, angry, having a propensity for outlandish ideas, maybe.
To review
December 15th, 2005 at 1:46 pm1) I can be conservative and still disagree with some conservative policy … for you not to understand this is juvenile and myopic.
2) I can be conservative and not adhere to all the talking points that you assume conservatives agree with.
3) I can disagree with your opinions and not be any less moral than you … for a bunch of “progressives” you’re talking on a level that Christian fundamentalists often use. “She’s a Witch, Burn Her”
I am sure that TP and other sites have researchers and archivists who are quite up to the task of setting Bush&Co lies in chronological order, so that when his impeachment trial comes before Congress, the case against him and his lies can be clearly laid out.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:47 pmI doubt that the MSM can or will do it.
His contradictions (flip-flops) are becoming legendary now — they are hugely important in illstrating Bush&Co duplicity in taking us to war. His war of choice.
The amount of time you spend here is sad - sad for the many people who need that Christian charity of yours. Shame on you for wasting your time. What are you a student?
Nah … I just work 11 hours a day and take breaks to respond as I feel.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:49 pmDah! Wolfowitz already said this - “it was a matter of emphasis.”
Besides anyone that can joke about WMD, can NOT and WAS NOT serious. Who in their right mind makes fun of WMD; ever! Oh my God!
http://www.cnn.com/ 2004/ ALLPOLITICS/ 03/ 26/ bush.wmd.jokes/
What is odd, is these guys were marketed to us as macho, yet they didn’t have the balls or the belief in their own conviction of what they were doing was right, to be straight with us about why we were going to war. And why did they have to create the PR “Shock and Awe” and the lies about Tillman and Lynch. And what about all that stuff Cheney and Rumsfeld were saying about how we would be greated, the cost in money and lives, the use of Iraq oil to pay for things, and the length of time. If there was one time in these guys lives that they should have been straight shooters, they failed.
Let’s not forget that Bush campaigned against nation building in 2000. But then appointed all these guys from PNAC that wanted to control the middle east.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:49 pmGiacomo,
You’re confused. The vitriol is less about Bush and more about the fact that the current leadership is in the process of destroying the country that we love and hope to raise our children in (at least that goes for me). It’s about lying to the people that you serve (and who entrust you to do what’s right) for a war that serves Big Oil and war-profiteering interests, it’s about stealing from our treasury to fatten the wallets of your cronies and your campaign contributors. It’s about mind-boggling hypocrisy, and quashing dissent. It’s about propaganda, and the destruction of our system of checks and balances. It’s about knocking down the walls between church and state and ripping apart the environment and social justice to consolidate wealth further upward. It’s about dividing the American people for political gain and stealing elections.
You don’t seem to understand what’s at stake here. We are talking about a group of people that are actively pursuing goals that turn the clock back 150 years. These people are destructive and they’re making our world a much more violent and
December 15th, 2005 at 2:04 pmdangerous place. They think it’s okay to erode our civil liberties and privatize everything that they can get their grubby paws on even if (especially if) it’s at the expense of the less fortunate. This is not about a simple disagreement on some small details, it’s about fighting to preserve a once great country and the ideals that it’s forefathers imagined and it’s historic leaders had the courage to improve upon. This is a pivotal and critical moment in American history and I hate to tell you that you are arguing on the side of evil, whether you realize it or not.
The reason the military is having a problem with its recruiting has EVERYTHING to do with a lack of credibility with respect to the reasons behind the war…
Both the active Army and Army National Guard continued reversing a springtime recruiting slump, exceeding their November goals at 105 and 110 percent, respectively, defense officials announced today.
http://www.vnis.com/story.cfm?textnewsid=1776
“The active Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force also exceeded their November goals, reporting rates of 102, 105 and 101 percent, respectively. The Marine Corps Reserve and Air Force Reserve achieved 100 percent of their November recruiting goals as well, officials reported.”
December 15th, 2005 at 2:06 pmContractions are a bitch :0
December 15th, 2005 at 2:08 pmGiacomo,
I appreciate your response in post #56.
Now, you attempt to group “jihadists” in with Iraqi civilians, not me. When I reference Iraqi civilians, that is precisely what I mean. And to compare the Iraqi situation with the US’s own revolutionary war is so incredibly inaccurate that it is almost laughable considering that to make such a comparison would be placing the US in the role of the British. Is that the assertion that you are making?
The point that you make that the US is not to blame for all of the Iraqi civilian deaths because “insurgents” and “terrorists” have caused some is ludicrous. The US is solely responsible for the event, and is therefore responsible for the results of the event. You do not place the blame of the effects of the explosion of a grenade on each of the fragments, nor do you blame the grenade, but it is the one who threw the grenade who is wholly responsible.
Although I find fault with the technicalities that you try to use to explain away responsibility on these attrocities, I take particular issue with your last assertion in that “War is indeed hell”. It is ironic that you begin your post challenging my assertion that the US declared war on Iraq because you feel that it was just an “invasion”, and then you dismiss the casualties of the action by saying “War is indeed hell”. Regardless of your choice of words the action itself is illegal and wrong, regardless of whether it is a “war” or an “invasion”.
And finally, to purposefully kill another human in an act other than defense is MURDER (look up the definition). Therefore, those who perform the actual act are, in fact, murderers. I do not support murder in any form, regardless of who perpetrates it.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:08 pmGeoMetro is wrong again - surprised anyone?
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2005/ 11/ 18/ national/ 18recruit.html?ex=1289970000&en=a480710e8beb5e94&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
You really need to get out more, you seem ridiculously stupid on every topic you post.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:09 pmThis is not about a simple disagreement on some small details, it’s about fighting to preserve a once great country and the ideals that it’s forefathers imagined and it’s historic leaders had the courage to improve upon.
I’ve heard conservatives say the exact same line … everyone is trying to “save” the country from everyone else. If you go on right wing sites, they’re spewing the opposite form of venom.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:11 pmRyan’s article - dated November 18, 2005
My article - dated December 12, 2005
Here’s one from the Washington Times Ryan … are they wrong too.
http://washingtontimes.com/ national/ 20051212-110459-3810r.htm
December 15th, 2005 at 2:13 pm62- It would seem almost everyone, yourself included, is guilty of hyperbole at some point on this site. If opposition to Bush’s policies is vitiolic, try going to Red Stooge, LGF, or Freeperville- that’s vitriolic. And if you think you have been demonized, try being an anti-war progressive/liberal. The is an entire cable news network devoted to demonizing us. Hey, I think the war was illegal, and apparently so did the AG-equivalent minister of the UK. Is he being shrill, too? I have yet to find any compelling reason for the invasion. Those given could be applied to a slew of “dictators,” many that are still in the good graces of the US government. Why the one sitting atop huge oil reserves that did not attack the US, or have WMD(program related activities)? And don’t even get me started on ignored UN mandates…
December 15th, 2005 at 2:16 pmGiacomo,
The conservatives don’t tell the truth, that’s the difference. Just look around man, believe your eyes.
Simple question. Do you think that this preident was honest when he made his case for invading Iraq?
December 15th, 2005 at 2:16 pmSo, in less than a month the military has gone from not having enough people to having plenty of people. Seems a little fishy to me.
Can anybody say propaganda? I knew you could.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:17 pmWhy doesn’t Hume ask the appropriate follow-up question?
“But then why did you say in 2003 that the purpose was weapons of mass murder?”
December 15th, 2005 at 2:21 pmHere’s one from the Washington Times Ryan … are they wrong too.
That is a little too easy. Couldn’t find a quote from Rush?
December 15th, 2005 at 2:24 pmto compare the Iraqi situation with the US’s own revolutionary war is so incredibly inaccurate that it is almost laughable considering that to make such a comparison would be placing the US in the role of the British
I knew you’d say this … but no, Saddam would be in roll of the British … the current US forces would be more akin to France. That’s not the point though … the majority of Iraqis want this to work and those Iraqis that don’t (and join in the terrorism) are the equivalent to our “Benedict Arnolds” … maybe it was a dumb point.
The point that you make that the US is not to blame for all of the Iraqi civilian deaths because “insurgents†and “terrorists†have caused some is ludicrous.
While I understand your concept (that, if the US isn’t there, then the terrorists aren’t fighting) it does fall somwhat given that Saddam killed his own people (and others) prior to our presence. I would place at least as much, if not more, blame on Saddam for our presence there … whether or not we should’ve gone it alone, his continual failure to comply with numerous UN resolutions left him open.
It is ironic that you begin your post challenging my assertion that the US declared war on Iraq because you feel that it was just an “invasionâ€, and then you dismiss the casualties of the action by saying “War is indeed hellâ€.
My point number one is that war is declared by Congress … since it wasn’t, we’re not, technically, at war. I could understand you believing my comments were dismissive if I said “war is hell” which has degenerated into a causal excuse of a statement. What I did say was “war is indeed hell” trying to use the statement in a less dissmissive way … it didn’t work. I’ll say this, loss of any life (even terrorists is sad and regretable). While I think there are those that may deserve to die (for their actions, perhaps) I don’t adhere to the idea that we should be the ones to get them there. Casualties and innocents are always swept into a war … sometimes the inevitability of that fact makes people say, “oh well”. That’s not what I was saying.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
December 15th, 2005 at 2:27 pm#11 - “Bush should be impeached for lying to Congress and the American people.”
December 15th, 2005 at 2:28 pmComment by Andrew C. White — December 15, 2005 @ 12:18 pm
*****Andrew C., I will support the impeachment of President Bush for “lying” when you support the impeachment of Senators Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards, and EVERY one of those phonies who supported the enforcement of UN resolutions - you progs must have a terrible case of acid reflux from regurgitating the same tired falsehood.
Ennnnnnn, worng.
It doesn’t matter what Donald Rumsfeld wants people to call them, we are fighting insurgents that want their country back from the occupying forces. It really is that simple. Then there are a handleful of terrorists that have joined in for the hell of it. We are fighting the the disbanded Republican Guard. If you don’t think that Saddam had thousands and thousands of loyal followers, you are fooling yourself.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:31 pmSo this is Christmas
And what have you done
Another year over
And a new one just begun
And so this is Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear ones
The old and the young
A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let’s hope it’s a good one
Without any fear
And so this is Christmas
For weak and for strong
For rich and the poor ones
The road is so long
And so happy Christmas
For black and for white
For yellow and red ones
Let’s stop all the fight
And so this is Christmas
And what have we done
Another year over
And a new one just begun
And so happy Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear one
The old and the young
War is over if you want it
War is over now now
John Lennon
That would be so nice…
December 15th, 2005 at 2:32 pmWow, mighty aphrodite, your first post in ages and you mention Clinton. I guess you haven’t done anymore reading or learning or anything to improve and expand your knowledge. Still stating the same old tired stuff. Yawn.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:32 pmSimple question. Do you think that this preident was honest when he made his case for invading Iraq?
I think he thought he was doing the right thing … much like I think Murtha feels he’s doing the right thing (even though I disagree with him).
Put yourself in Bush’s shoes. As president, your country was just attacked (9/11). It’s your job to see that it doesn’t happen again. Should it happen again, you will be remembered as a President that was attacked once and then did nothing. You steamroll through afghanistan … you are given problematic evidence on Iraq … some of the evidence isn’t conclusive … some is. You ask your intelligence … they say, slam dunk. You ask you closest ally … they say they agree. You ask your political opponents (who look at the same intelligence) … they say they tenatively agree. You go before the people and bring to them the thing that seems most damning about Iraq (and the one that they’ll most agree could effect them) - WMDs. You invade … you’re wrong. Sucks to be you.
I can see the scenario I just described (with a dash of PNAC convenience added in) occurring.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:34 pmaphrodite,
Deal, I support impeaching Clinton, Kerry, Biden and the rest of the complicit Democrats if the Bushies go. So lets get the hearings underway. Absolutely no debate about it. I’m almost as disgusted with the D’s as I am the R’s for playing along. Remove em all!
December 15th, 2005 at 2:37 pmGiacomo,
You are hopelessly misguided. I give up, best of luck.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:38 pmMy neighbor threw his dog turds into my yard so I went down to the coffee shop and beat the mortal crap out of the server behind the counter. I didn’t like the looks of him and I’d heard he served someone decaf once.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:38 pmDodgeball,
Did you also threaten the other coffee shop employees for cheering him on as you beat the snot out of him? I’d seriously consider kicking their asses too, that way they could all be liberated from their jobs. Don’t forget to grab all the coffee as you leave.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:44 pmYou are hopelessly misguided. I give up, best of luck.
Wouldn’t be the first time someone thought that … thanks for trying.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:44 pmGiacomo,
One last thing before I write you off. In the name of hearing both sides of the story, go out and get yourself a copy of Al Franken’s new book or borrow it from one of your many liberal friends. It’s really brilliant, factual and loaded with reams of important information. Funny too. A good read for anyone that loves this country.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:47 pmWhat if the coffee shop owner supported turd throwing, refused to pay his employees, had served overly hot coffee to his patrons, a couple times poisoned customers, and refused to allow others to stay on site to make sure he didn’t poison others. What then?
December 15th, 2005 at 2:47 pmI liken Al Franken to Michael Savage … both of them are wingnut hacks if you asked me.
That said, maybe I’ll pick up the book.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:49 pmWhile they claimed to have boxed him in … secretly they had deals with him for cheap coffee. Knowing this, you assumed they had their onw interests at heart. (I like this reparte much better, actually).
December 15th, 2005 at 2:52 pmSpudgeMAN - With the lefts’ ENDLESS references to Hitler and Nazi’s, what are you guys still doing here??? I would have thought the secret police would have rounded you up by now.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:52 pmGiacomo,
You’ve never really paid attention to Al Franken’s politics or read his books.
I promise you, with every ounce of my soul that there is NOTHING extremist or fringe about his views. Well researched, well footnoted, well-argued. Honest.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:52 pmWell, to keep my poll numbers up I would get Osama bin Laden “Dead or alive” I wouldn’t attack a non-involved country and I would listen to the minority party.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:53 pmOK … I’ll read it. I saw him on the daily show not long ago … he kinda annoyed me.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:54 pmWell, to keep my poll numbers up I would get Osama bin Laden “Dead or alive†I wouldn’t attack a non-involved country and I would listen to the minority party.
You may be surprised, but I tend to agree with you Spudge … I just don’t think his motives were as evil as some assume.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:55 pmWhat if the coffee shop owner had dog turd related program activities… This getting too silly.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:56 pmGiacomo asks: “What if the coffee shop owner supported turd throwing, refused to pay his employees, had served overly hot coffee to his patrons, a couple times poisoned customers, and refused to allow others to stay on site to make sure he didn’t poison others. What then?”
Why, I would do what any self-respecting neocon would do–I’d go over to the car wash and trip the girl who washes the windows.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:56 pm#85 - “I guess you haven’t done anymore reading or learning or anything to improve and expand your knowledge. Still stating the same old tired stuff. Yawn.”
December 15th, 2005 at 2:58 pmComment by Spudge_Boy
******Spudge - After hearing you whine for the zillionth time about lying to the American people, I’ve reached a conclusion: “I guess you haven’t done anymore reading or learning or anything to improve and expand your knowledge. Still stating the same old tired stuff. Yawn.” ZZZzzzzz
What if the coffee shop owner had tried to poison your father, had attacked the store next door for their coffee, had been taken to court 26 times and not once been put in jail for repeatedly failing to comply with his probation … What if the court seemed bent on ignoring his infractions and were later found out to be getting kickbacks from his coffee sales … and the real clincher, what if you really, really like coffee and need it to survive.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:00 pm“dog turd related program activities”…..LOL!
Mmmmmm…..cognitive dissonance (in my best Homer Simpson voice).
Reality is too much to bare for some. I understand, but you can’t be allowed to make decisions in the reality-based world. Sorry.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:00 pmWait a sec…Giacomo asked a trick question. I happen to know that Ronald Dumsfeld sold the coffee shop waiter some dog turds back in the 1980s. Seems like there’s always a market out there for tossable dog turds and some of “our” industries are only too happy to supply them.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:02 pmBut you can’t be allowed to make decisions in the reality-based world. Sorry.
You’d probably like my decisions much more than Bush’s actually.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:02 pmI happen to know that Ronald Dumsfeld sold the coffee shop waiter some dog turds back in the 1980s. Seems like there’s always a market out there for tossable dog turds and some of “our†industries are only too happy to supply them.
What if you sold those turds to him so he could throw them at someone worse … now, of course, you want your turds back.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:03 pmThe path ultimatly leads back to George Tenent.
He understood what the President wanted, and he gave it to him.
Then he got out of Dodge and started erasing his tracks.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:17 pmSo in post 105 you are saying, that because saddam wasn;t behaving, 30,000 people had to die?
And 30,000 is low. Red Cross estimates more like 3 times that number.
You don’t go to war unless there is NO other choice genius.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:20 pmSo now its ok for the President to lie to Americans, Congress and UN because he wants to remove a bad leader. Who’s next and what lie will he make up to do it again. What if other countries followed this new US policy? Lets think, what if a country thinks George W. Bush is a bad leader does that country have the right to come on US soil and remove Bush? We have a dictator in office and the play book is the old Russia. We make Saddam look like a nice guy. I wonder what other world leaders think of the new US policy of invasding a country based on removing a leader. We are now the axis of evil and the UN has to step in to stop this. The American people are sitting by watching our children die everyday based on lies. What would the 2000 plus soldiers that died already think of the Presidents statements as they were told by their Commander-in-Chief that they were there for WMD. I guess for some parents its better to believe the old lie then to deal with the fact that the President lied and their child lied based on that lie. God save America from Bush.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:21 pm#81, THAT’s what I want for Christmas!! For all of us.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:25 pmIf I ask Santa really nice, and bake some really good cookies, do you think he”ll bring it?
Let me give you an example.
Suppose I am walking down the street and I see you on the opposite side of the street.
I know you don’t like me, and lets say you have threatened to beat me up in the past.
So I cross the street, and belt you right in the mouth, knocking you out.
When the police arrive, I tell them that I just launched a “pre-emptive strike”.
What do you think the police are going to do next?
In the US, a citizen is expected to be brave enough to wait until there is no other choice before using force.
If that laws good enough for 400 million of us to have to abide by every day of our lives, then its good enough for the one of us sitting in the White House.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:25 pmLOL — Dodgeball and Giacomo.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:30 pmWe’re gonna be really busy, getting rid of turd hurlers on the one hand but continuing to sell the turds on the other. I guess as long as we keep propping up some of the turd hurlers while destroying others, our turd industry will be in fine shape (too bad the industry leaders move their headquarters offshore so as to avoid paying taxes for the turd destinkifying services provided by our gubbmint).
December 15th, 2005 at 3:46 pmthis page got messed up, the right hand menu should be at the very top…
December 15th, 2005 at 4:02 pmCome on!
Everyone seems surprised that the WMD’s story was a lie. The rest of the world knew that the invasion was for one reasons only. TO PRIVATISE THE OIL INDUSTRY!!!
Iraq had a nationalized oil program that they wanted to get there hands on. The only thing that was protected and secured on invasion was the oil infrastructure. Not the boarders, not stopping the looting, blah, blah, blah.
Wake up and realize this is the reason that every other developed country in the world didn’t support the invasion. The only reason the Brits came along for the ride was so BP could get their greasy palms in there as well.
Just wait, Iran and Venezula’s Nationalized Oil programs are next. You can already read the Tea leaves on that one.
December 15th, 2005 at 4:23 pmmighty aphrodite,
Actually, just today I learned that Bush has:
New york Times
December 15, 2005
Bush Requests Additional $1.5 Billion for New Orleans
Wow, a whole $1.5 billion!
At the same time, Bush will asked for another $100 billion for the illegal Iraq war.
Boston Globe
December 15, 2005
War funding request may hit $100 billion
See, learning new stuff about that bastard Bush all the time.
December 15th, 2005 at 4:43 pmHere we go Again, oh no something good has happened and as allways the libs are looking for something, admitt it Democracy is a good thing, taking your family to vote for the first time i n your countries history is a good thing, Holy shit Bush may know what he is doing and even if he doesn’t he does show some back bone. Unlike all you jelly libs. Ge a life no matter what you say you still lost, witch makes you a bunch of loosers, just like Mike in the booth at the republican convention when he put the L on his head and labeled himself you are all loosers and I wiish you would just shut the hell up.
December 15th, 2005 at 5:02 pmDecember 15th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
December 15th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
I hate to say this but perhaps the problems in Iraq are a blessing in disguise. If Bush and co had an easy victory in Iraq as they expected to who knows what other outlaw acts of agrassion they would have gone on to commit. At least this way thay have come to realise that invading another country is always going to be a bloody costly buisness.
December 15th, 2005 at 5:07 pmNo, George W. Bush is not a leader, not of anything. He’s an aberration, a misfit, a completely incompetent fool who has only been selected and then barely voted in office by an ignorant majority who seem to care more about the bargains of Wal*Mart and the price of gasoline than what this unseasonal fruitcake has been doing to the country, the world, and nature.
Disgusting.
December 15th, 2005 at 5:16 pmget rid of bush hes actually the biggest mass murderer the century…join the kyoto aggreement on climate change this world is not yours its on loan from your children….Put the word united back in United states cause at the moment its a right mess and i will not be buying your products for the forseeable future
December 15th, 2005 at 5:16 pmDoes Dimas/Danny/Tommy really a) think anyone cares or b) think that everyone doesn’t know they’re all the same person?
December 15th, 2005 at 5:19 pmHere we go with the sex obsessed trolls. What is the malfunction?
December 15th, 2005 at 5:22 pmGia - you are in school aren’t you? Not a dig, really, but it is obvious that you are here merely as an exercise and could care less about how this country is regressing.
December 15th, 2005 at 5:33 pmBUSH: I said I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision.
HUME: So, if you had had this — if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?
BUSH: Absolutely.
George will go down in American history as the man responsible for saving the Western World from Islamofascism. Bill Clinton will remind every one that he once shot a missile at them.
December 15th, 2005 at 5:46 pmNO I COULD CARE LESS IF YOU KNOW I AM THE SAME PERSON, BUT I WILL SAY THIS GOD BLESS THIS COUNTRY AND GOD BLESS THIS PRESIDENT AND GOD BLESS THE COUNTRY OF IRAQ, AND GOD BLESS YOU,…..whine all you want you still lost.
December 15th, 2005 at 5:51 pmSpudgeMAN - Well add the $1.5 BILLION to the $249 Million the esteemed Governor Blanko is requesting and you have some real $$$$. Sadly, I don’t hear your OUTRAGE that 1100 people died due to the neglect of Mayor Noggin and asute Governor Blanko. If that many soldiers were killed in a three day period - oh… that’s right - **Correction** if 1100 Iraqi’s were killed in a three day period…)
Unfortunately, I don’t see NO making a large scale return. But I do hear progs whining about charter schools. (That’s what happen when you’re care more for the NEA than you do “the children”.) The sad fact is nothing Bush could do would make you happy - except resign - and that ain’t happening.
Well looks like Dems aren’t floating any new ideas for ‘06 mid-term elections -their battle plan is “Bash & Trash”. PLEASE keep trotting out Howard DEAN and Dennis KUCUNICH - where’s that rugged Al GORE been???
December 15th, 2005 at 5:55 pmI have to say, the two tapes = compelling television commercial. The DNC should start working on it. I have a couple of ideas. How about “So he would have made the decision to go to war even if there were no WMDs? Would you? (fade cut to pictures of our soldiers looking rugged and down) Would you?” Here’s another; Open with a picture of bush staring right at the screen in black and white and start to slowly go from a close up to extreme close up as a narrator asks “So he thinks he made the right decision and admits that WMDs really were never the reason we went to war… you still want him to have unchecked power?” At this moment you cut to a graphic that comes in red white and blue that says, “This year vote for checks and balances… vote democratic”.
December 15th, 2005 at 5:56 pmWHAT DO YOU CALL A PERSON WHO CAN NOT EXCEPT FACTS AND ALWAYS COMPLAINS AND IS HAPPY WHEN OUR COUNTRY IS IN TROUBLE, LIVES IT WHEN NOTHING WORKS OUT AND HOPES WE LOOSE THE WAR.
A DEMOCRATE, WHY BECAUSE THEY ONLY SURVIVE IF THIS COUNTRY IS IN A HOLE. IF ALL GOES WELL THEY ARE EXPOSED AS THE PATHETIC LOOSERS THEY ARE. lolololololololololololol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 15th, 2005 at 5:57 pmHOW ABOUT THIS,
OPEN WITH A SHOT OF AN IRAQ FAMILY IN A VOTING BOTH WAVING THIER PURPLE FINGERS, THEN FADE TO BUSH “IT WOULD HAVE MADE THE SAME DECISION” THEN HAVE THE PICTURE A A DEMOCRATE DRASTICALLY LOOKING FOR SOME THING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT…
VOTE REPUBLICAN OR JUST VOTE FOR A MAN WHO STICKS TO HIS DECISSIONS.
YOU WILL NEVER HAVE THE WHITE HOUSE AGAIN……..FADE TO A DEMOCRATE CRIING..AND A REPUBLICAN SAING i TOLD YOU SO..
hEY DON’T BE MAD I AM JUST MESSING WITH YOU ALL.
December 15th, 2005 at 6:03 pmGood God, what a lying cocksucker.
I’m back, with a savage, longish take on Bush’s “Fourth time’s The Charm” speech of last night to announce my return.
Again, what a lying cocksucker. I wish that people would stop charitably and affectionately calling him “the President.”
December 15th, 2005 at 6:10 pmi HAVE TO SAY mighty aphrodite, HIT THA NAIL SQUARE ON THE HEAD, (OF THE DUMOCRAP PARTY) JUST STICK TO THE SAME OLD GAME PLAN, YOU KNOW IF YOU ACTUALLY HAD SOME SOLUTIONS TO THE ISSUES AND MAYBE ACTUALLY HAD A PLAN PEOPLE WOULD BE COMPELLED TO VOTE FOR YOU.
BUT I LIKE IT BETTER THIS WAY..JUST KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK. YOU GUYS ARE KILLING ME:)…..
December 15th, 2005 at 6:11 pm[…] Link. […]
December 15th, 2005 at 6:12 pmi LIKE I LOVE IT I WANT SOME MORE OF IT,
THE GREAT AND KNOBLE PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, MY PRSIDENT AND YOURS, WEATHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.
COME ON…YOU KNOW YOU LOVE HIM TO……..
December 15th, 2005 at 6:20 pmTrolls - just google “army recruiter” and your zip code, get a gun and go. You’re so up for spreading freedom, have fun! By the way, Take Jenna and Barb with you.
December 15th, 2005 at 6:22 pmmighty aphrodite,
You got that right.
I don’t care if Bush had fireworks shotting out of has ass while he handed me a check for $1 million dollars. He is a crook and a moron.