Bush Insists ‘I Didn’t Want War,’ Overwhelming Evidence Suggests Otherwise
Bush Insists ‘I Didn’t Want War,’ Overwhelming Evidence Suggests Otherwise
In his press conference this morning, President Bush claimed he had not made up his mind to go to war before the start of the military invasion:
On Iraq, Bush bristled at a suggestion that he had wanted to wage war against that country since early in his presidency. “I didn’t want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong … with all due respect,” he told a reporter. “No president wants war.” To those who say otherwise, “it’s simply not true,” Bush said.
Bush appears to be the only person left who believes his own myth that he went to war with Iraq as a last resort. The evidence is overwhelming to the contrary:
British Memo — Bush, Blair Agreed to Invade In Late Jan. 2003:
A memo of a two-hour meeting between [Bush and Blair] at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme. [Guardian, 2/3/06]
British Memo — Bush Had Made Up His In July 2002:
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. [Downing Street Minutes, 7/23/02]
Bush Suggested War Against Iraq Nine Days After 9/11:
President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001. [The Observer, 4/4/04]
Richard Clarke Said Bush Pushed Him To Make Case for Iraq War:
Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism director: “Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq. And we all said … no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. … The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, ‘I want you to find whether Iraq did this.’ Now he never said, ‘Make it up.’ But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. [CBS 60 Minutes, 3/21/04]
Rumsfeld Suggested War Against Iraq on 9/11:
Rumsfeld’s instruction to General Myers on 9/11: Find the “[b]est info fast …judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time - not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]” [Rumsfeld’s notes, 9/11/01]
Former Bush Treasury Secretary Said Bush Wanted To Go To War:
In a CBS “60 Minutes†interview, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill said, “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.†O’Neill says in The Price of Loyalty: “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying, ‘Go find me a way to do this.’†[CBS, 1/11/04]
Gen. Tommy Franks — Military and Equipment Moved to Iraq In Feb. 2002:
Former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham related a conversation he had with General Tommy Franks in February 2002, 14 months before the initiation of the Iraq war. Franks said, “Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan… Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq… We can finish this job in Afghanistan if we are allowed to do so.†[Bob Graham, Intelligence Matters, p. 125-126]
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
228 Responses to “Bush Insists ‘I Didn’t Want War,’ Overwhelming Evidence Suggests Otherwise”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What the writer Mary McCarthy said about the playwright Lillian Hellman is quite relevant to what the Bush Administration says these days: "Every word that comes out of her [their] mouth[s] is a lie, and that includes the words "the" and "and".
March 21st, 2006 at 1:59 pmMurdering liar.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:04 pmIs bush trying to rewrite the run up to the war? Given the flood of evidence to the contrary, he has been saying he didn't say things, that he did for the last couple of days. Does he think the American public will buy this crap?
March 21st, 2006 at 2:04 pmTruth has no refuge in this administration.
-GSD
March 21st, 2006 at 2:05 pmI don't think Mr. Bush wanted to go to war either. You guys are just listening to the liberal news media spread lies. He never suggested for one minute he wanted to invade Iraq. It was the democrats that wanted to invade Irag. As usual the liberals try to blame President Bush for all of the things they do like, invading Iraq, Katrina, Nsa spying, warrantless searches and anything else that when wrong. It's Bill Clinton's fault that we invaded Iraq, he led us to war based on lies. It's not his fault, I swear to God, he is always the victim of liberals, and disloyal republicans.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:05 pman interesting working paper was just released by a university of chicago and a harvard professor. it adds further proof--as if it was required--that regime change and invasion of iraq was job number one.
a brief excerpt:
fuck bush
March 21st, 2006 at 2:08 pmBush's lies are at the pathological level. Is he sane?
March 21st, 2006 at 2:10 pm#5: Unbelievable Bullshit. How much do they pay you write this crap? Why do you hate America?
March 21st, 2006 at 2:10 pmthe drunk is a dry drunk and he believes his own lies and will keep repeating until his base believes them again, its a war on Americans also for our minds .Once bush cabals breaks down the general population ,its Smack down Time on what little freedom we have.
The bastard needs to be in a straight jacket and placed in a round room with an attack dog staring him in his beady little eyes....
March 21st, 2006 at 2:11 pmTime magazine, March 31st, 2003, described how we got to war in Iraq, the back-stabbing from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and on the other hand Powell in front of the UN. As Bush was saying we were doing everything possible to prevent war, they were already planning for war. The magazine article said diplomacy was suspiciously lacking.
If Bush didn't want war from the start, he shouldn't have created an administration full of PNAC. From what I've read, the administration wanted to fight from day 1, and they had to find reasons to convince the American public.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:11 pmThis president is suffering from dimentia or is in denial , i believe in the former and should be impeach . He is a threat to the Country. Please congress , come to your senses.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:11 pmSo, Bush is a pathological liar, what's new?
Z.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:12 pmwatch this
March 21st, 2006 at 2:13 pmOf course he didn't. Then he kicked out the weapons inspectors and started a war. His credibility gauge is on "E."
March 21st, 2006 at 2:13 pm"With all due respect," Bush said to Helen Thomas, while his face said, "Shut the f*ck up!! Don't you know who I am? I'm the king, I mean president, and I don't answer to anyone!"
I thought he was going over the podium after her. It was great!
March 21st, 2006 at 2:14 pmThis pResident seems to think we were all asleep when he cooked up this war. He seems to thank we didn't read Downing Street. (Sigh)
Sometimes, ya just gotta sing.
50 Ways To Dump The Dubya
March 21st, 2006 at 2:14 pmwow...is #5 the best troll they have....DUH.......next the'll tell us the saddam attacked us....well kinda,maybe, technically, could have,might have, ..pack it in bushe,IT'S OVER.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:16 pmPlease include the words of Bush biographer Mickey Herskowitz in this posting.
I seriously do not understand why the MSM has not picked up this story. To me it is a major blockbuster:
Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer
by Russ Baker
HOUSTON -- Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade·.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm
March 21st, 2006 at 2:18 pmI think #5 was being sarcastic
March 21st, 2006 at 2:19 pmEverything thats Good overall Bush does not want
Anything thats not good bush wants
anybody else noticed this trait ??
March 21st, 2006 at 2:19 pmyeah ... "Bush didn't want to go to war" the same way Cheney was "drafted" to serve as Veep ...
gah.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:21 pmIs George precipating his rapture ?
March 21st, 2006 at 2:23 pm#19- Maybe it's getting to the point where people are too pissed off to be joked with.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:24 pmI went in to work late today so I could watch the monkey until my stomach couldn't take it any more. For the 30 minutes I watched, he did not answer one question directly - he can barely wait for the question to be posed before he jokes, cajoles, distracts and then falls back on his old tried and trite phraseology of misleading declarations and lies.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:24 pmWhen will we rid ourselves of this cretin, this miscreant?
Yes, I agree that some of us are so damn frustrated and angry with the situation as it is that the red flags of anger obscure the sarcasm of some of the comments. I had to read #5 twice to be certain.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:28 pm#13 Thank you. Reality never lies.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:28 pmMore evidence the Bush administration ignored accurate information about Iraq in their rush for war. From MSNBC:
"In the period before the Iraq war, the CIA and the Bush administration erroneously believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding major programs for weapons of mass destruction. Now NBC News has learned that for a short time the CIA had contact with a secret source at the highest levels within Saddam Hussein’s government, who gave them information far more accurate than what they believed. It is a spy story that has never been told before, and raises new questions about prewar intelligence."
March 21st, 2006 at 2:28 pmIraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details - Saddam’s foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didn’t agency listen?
Lying to cover a thirst for war...
From a recap of President Bush's press conference today:On Iraq, Bush bristled at a suggestion that he had wanted to wage war against that country since early in his presidency. "I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is...
March 21st, 2006 at 2:29 pmIn early Feb 2001 Bush called Rumsfeld and others into his office and told them that he wanted plans, and he wanted them soon, to INVADE IRAQ.
The man has long had a fixation with Iraq, ever since his father went to war against Saddam, and drove him out of Kuwait.
He has told many people over and over again that his father should have marched into Baghdad, and done away with Hussein.
Mostly though, the man is an accomplished liar, an accomplished drunk, an accomplished cocaine sniffer.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:31 pm#5 you really need to shove your face farther up bush's a----ho its not brown enough and eat his shyt! Because we don't .we got the proof that the sob's preplanned the invasion of Iraq for the Natural Resources ,then the so call march is into Iran for their OIL.. Your such a little bugger!
March 21st, 2006 at 2:33 pm#24 - Marie, you are stronger than I. I couldn't wait to get out the door and away from the Idiot King. His "good ole boy" thing has definitely worn out.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:34 pmThe next thing out of his mouth is goig to be "We aren't at war"
March 21st, 2006 at 2:34 pm#29 - #5 was sarcasm
March 21st, 2006 at 2:35 pmI think he has set the lowest possible level of expectations domestically and brought new clarity to the term; international cluster *!%^ . Why is a man of faith so hopeless? I have a bumper sticker on my car that reads F in big type and The President in small type under neath it. I think the F really means forgive. That's what he will ask for next. That's why he doesn't care, he'll just ask to be forgiven. Hopeless.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:35 pmour 'esteemed' president seems to be faultering more and more lately, at least more blatently...would it be hard to prove that he has lost his little mind to the point he can no longer lead our nation?
March 21st, 2006 at 2:36 pmMy bumper sticker reads - So you believe that Clinton's actions justified impeachment and Bush's don't?
It is unbelieveable what this man is allowed to get away with!
March 21st, 2006 at 2:37 pmI also think #5 is being sarcastic. But unfortunately, there's a lot of trolls with the same shtick...
March 21st, 2006 at 2:38 pmPaul O'Neil pointed out the drive for war with Iraq in his book.
The Price of Loyalty
Main article: The Price of Loyalty
The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill (ISBN 0743255453), a 2004 book, described the Bush administration during O'Neill's tenure. Written by former Wall Street Journal reporter and Pulitzer Prize-winning jouranlist Ron Suskind, the book says Bush's economic policies were irresponsible, Bush was unquestioning and uncurious, and the war in Iraq was planned from the first National Security Council meeting, soon after the administration took office.
O'Neill was criticised for his claims that Bush had wanted an invasion of Iraq so early in his term, but the current Downing Street Memo - if proven accurate - supports the position of O'Neill and Richard A. Clarke, both former members and now critics of Bush's administration, that indeed such planning was taking place.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:42 pmEvery one of us has a right to be angry. The whole country should be angry. As evidenced by the speech in Cleveland and the press conference today, George Bush is mentally unbalanced. This man would lie even if the truth was acceptable. His arrogant treatment of Helen Thomas was appalling. He is a national disgrace.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:45 pmMaybe this is the final lead up to the collapse of the Bush admin. these statements he is making are not only untrue, but can be verified as untrue. I am unsure what he is hoping to gain, unless he is trying to pull a superman, and spin so hard he can turn back the clock to save his neck.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:55 pmThis imposter puppet couldn't manage a lemonaid stand.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:58 pmPut him to work at a fast food joint where he belongs.
Stinking thug.
A liar and a moron! I hope the Repubs lose big in November. That's the only way Bush will get impeached, that is if the Dems grow some balls.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:58 pm#38
March 21st, 2006 at 3:06 pmNo, its about time that she and every other liberal reporter be put in their place. Contrary to your opinion, Bush did not rush to war. If he wanted to rush to war, why even bother with a UN vote at all? Your anger and hatred for a man with courage and conviction and your political thirst for power is blinding you. Helen had every right to ask the question she did because this is a free country and I certainly don't want to change that, but its high time the President's message be heard by the American public.
I LOVE IT
I haven't yet had the chance to read the transcript of the news conference, but I don't doubt ThinkProgress getting the quote right, not one bit.
For the President to say what this item quotes him as having said, is not only an insult to the intelligence of the vast majority of the American People who know better, but it also undermines whatever credibility this guy might have with that slim (and growing slimmer by the day) minority of the American People who would say they "approve" of this guy.
I LOVE IT
March 21st, 2006 at 3:07 pmKeep in mind. During the opening of the Iraq war Bush referred to himself as the "WAR PRESIDENT". This is also coming from a man who claimed, during the presidential debates, that he didn't know of any mistakes he had ever made and told the person who asked the question that " I wish I that one on paper first, so I could have come up with something. We all have every reason to be distrustful and scared of him and his administration.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:10 pm#42
exactly what courage and conviction are you refereing too? The courage for him to get his daddy to put him in the Texas national guard instead of fighting in vietnam? The courage to send other peoples children to die in an unneeded war? The conviction to stick to his talking points when its obvious that the shit aint working? Unless your posting from Iraq, I suggest you get yourself down to the recruiting center and sign up. Or do you have the same courage and conviction as bush, cheney, rumsfeld, and wolfowitz? You know the guys who skipped vietnam.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:11 pmI don't think he went to war with Iraq as a "Last resort" but I definitely don't think he specifically wanted to get into the situation he is in now.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:16 pmIt has been reported, that a reporter named Micky Herskowitz(?), a friend of the Bush family, in 1999 published an interview in the Houston newspaper that he had had with G.W.B. In the published interview W. is reported to have told the reporter something to the affect, " that a great president needs to have a war to be a great commander in cheif. I intend to be a great commander in cheif and finish what my father was too chicken s-it to do". Anybody care to search the Houston newpaper archives?
March 21st, 2006 at 3:17 pm#19 thanks for pointing that out to me and #5 Sorry I went back and reread your post . Just am really pissed that bush thinks we're stupid and he is jerking on his bases strings trying for his polls to bounce back.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:17 pmpet lover,
that bush did not want to be in his current position I am positive. I think in his mind he thought he would go down as a great war time president, like Lincoln, or Roosevelt. Instead he is heading more for a Jimmy Carter ending, except unlike Jimmy he won't be nearly as well liked.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:17 pmas long as you're quoting the Downing St. Lie, I know to disregard this post. I am proud of our President.
Liberals would have left Stalin in power - even if they knew the atrocities he committed. Liberals are evil, soul-less people.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:18 pmAnd it's worth noting again: It's not a "war"; anybody who thinks it is should then say who it's a "war" against; say it and try to make sense, and then defend against the argument made in response.
It's not a "war", it's an 'invasion' and 'occupation' of Iraq.
And the above quote of the President (if he were in any way truthful on the matter) should read: "I didn't want to invade Iraq."
Which would be answered by "Well then why did you?"
And any foolish nonsense he could say about national security and the continued threat posed by Iraq would be just invoking the lies they told in the first place to convince the American People and their Congress to invade and occupy Iraq.
And if he were to add "And I don't want to occupy Iraq."
He would be answered by "Well then why are you?"
March 21st, 2006 at 3:22 pm"No, its about time that she and every other liberal reporter be put in their place. Contrary to your opinion, Bush did not rush to war. If he wanted to rush to war, why even bother with a UN vote at all? Your anger and hatred for a man with courage and conviction and your political thirst for power is blinding you. Helen had every right to ask the question she did because this is a free country and I certainly don’t want to change that, but its high time the President’s message be heard by the American public. Comment by Hawkeye "
Oh sweetie, the president's message is heard daily through Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, Scarborough, Carlson and virtually every talking head. How do you think YOU hear it anyway pumpkin - if it isn't being heard?
What ISN'T being heard, is how the president rushed to war, didn't have an occupation plan, violated the UN resolution, and basically betrayed our nation. As for the reporters being 'put in their place', I agree with you. Their place is protecting our democracy, and reporting the news accurately, as opposed to being presidential lapdogs. Go helen, go!
And sweetie, I forgive you for being unamerican, and anti-free press. I know it must be hard living in a free society when you're so insecure and fearful. I forgive you for your cowardice pumpkin.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:22 pm#51
time to wake up and smell the horsedung sweatheart. Even discounting the Downing street memo, there is plenty of evidence of intent to invade Iraq dating back to before the 2000 election. Discounting everything because of one item is illogical, and silly.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:23 pm#48 - Houston Chronicle - 31st October, 2004.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:23 pmI am reminded of George Costanza's advice to Jerry. "It isn't a lie if you believe it." At times watching this administration, I really think that they believe what they say. It isn't inconceivable for Bush, after all. He has surrounded himself with people who don't challenge him. He doesn't read the papers. He didn't know the depth of the Katrina disaster until Bartlett made him a dvd of the news coverage, right?
BTW, Hawkeye, it is clear from what record we have that he only went to the Security Council because his father begged him to. Do you really think that all of the people are lying who swear that he (and Cheney) were champing at the bit to invade Iraq as soon as they took office?
March 21st, 2006 at 3:24 pmJesus the trolls are on FIRE today. What's up with that? Not a full moon.
Must be a new shipment of THE GOOD SHIT. Psssst, wanna get some of the new Red Elephant KoolAide? It's REALLY GOOD!
March 21st, 2006 at 3:27 pmThe way I see it the problem that liberals seem to have with Bush is that he commands the position of the presidency. He is a manly president. He does not make decisions by taking polls first. Liberals are too feminized to make the hard choices a president has to make and that is why no liberal will be elected president in the post 9/11 era for quite some time. You can't govern properly by consensus, you just have to take charge and that is exactly what Bush has done.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:27 pmKindness I think it would be better for it to be yellow elephant kool aid.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:28 pmSUCH a liar! this was a guy who ignored international pleas to let inspectors do their jobs... we now know sanctions were working against Saddam... but since our guys were already overseas, he rushed to redeployment...
March 21st, 2006 at 3:30 pmAnyone recall the glee with which Bush pronounced himself the "war president?" Tell me he didn't want war. He was giddy at the thought of being able to define himself as a "war president."
March 21st, 2006 at 3:31 pmNice argument Hawkeye. We are too feminized? Do you even listen to the stuff that comes out of your mouth, or are you a troll as well. Even if I disagreed with his policies, I think I could respect him if he was a competent leader--but he isn't. Katrina showed that. Yes, yes, it also showed incompetence at the local and state level--fine. But none of that excuses Bush. Same with the torture problem. Assertiveness isn't leadership. It has to be backed up with competence and intelligence. I really would like some evidence of either.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:31 pmHawkeye your a stupid twit, but what should I expect from a person who names themselves after a comic book character. Bush had the support of the American public and the world at large to invade Afganistan, capture bin laden, and fight global fundamentalism. instead he decided to invade Iraq.
Like I said ealier you chicken shit bastard get down to the recruiting station if you have the courage and conviction to do so.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:31 pmand as keith oblermann says: "Who does the President think he's F'n kidding?"
March 21st, 2006 at 3:36 pmdo the math
March 21st, 2006 at 3:36 pmBush=Sharon
That is what I do not understand. These "people" will defend this idiot they call a president to the hilt, but they wouldn't even think about going over to Iraq to "defend" the US.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:37 pm"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," he said.
This link is lighter fare
But then add that quote to this one and factor in the Iran sabre-rattling and it reads more than one way now:
March 21st, 2006 at 3:39 pm
whatever AIPAC[spys] and AEI [pro-sharon ideocentrists] along with the "Lobby" want....
George 'Likud' Sharon does.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:39 pmWell Jules, dying in a war is for other (poor) people and their children. I am sure Hawkeye, Mighty Aprodite, Moderate Mary, IrightI, and the others who post here all have very good reasons for not joining the army. Much like the college republicans who need to keep our campuses free from liberal treachery.
/sarcasm off
March 21st, 2006 at 3:40 pm1) Is this a rush to war? Not at all. We're working on the 19th UN Resolution since the Gulf War related to Iraqi disarmament. Furthermore, Bush has been talking about Iraq for more than a year. You could even go back to Bush's speech nine days after 9/11 in which he said,
"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
Given that, there's no way anyone can credibly claim we're "rushing to war".
2) Is it a war for oil? No, this is no more a war for oil than WW2 was a war for cheap electronics from Japan. We're not going to gain anything economically by invading Iraq that we couldn't just as easily gain by simply lifting the sanctions. Even if Iraq had no oil, they'd still be our target. You can get more info on this subject by reading editorials here and here.
3) Could Bush be trying to get revenge for Saddam's attempted assassination of his father? There's nothing Bush has said that would indicate that this is simply about revenge. Furthermore, the fact that the majority of Americans and more than 80% of the GOP support the invasion would seem to clearly indicate that there are a lot of reasons to support this war that go beyond a desire for payback on the President's part.
4) Why haven't we gotten more support from our allies since 9/11? There are a lot of theories about this, but Machiavelli accurately summed it up almost 500 years ago when he said,
"One can make this generalization about men they are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours. They would shed their blood for you, risk their property, their lives, their children, so long, as I said above, as danger is remote; but when you are in danger they turn against you."
Our "allies" in Europe have been for the most part with us as long as WE were liberating them from the Nazis, protecting them from the Soviets, or helping them to clean up problems in their backyard. However, now we're asking for help and many of our "allies" have made themselves rather scarce. What Bush has done or hasn't done isn't the issue, the issue is that we're asking them for help this time instead of the reverse.
5) Why Iraq and not North Korea? First and foremost, there appears to be little chance that we can peacefully convince Iraq to disarm, while many people believe North Korea's recent saber rattling is primarily designed to help them get a good deal with the US in negotiations. There are other factors as well; the almost certain devastation of Seoul in the event of a war, the fact that a war with N. Korea would be far bloodier than a war with Iraq, North Korea's minimal contact with terrorist groups, the significant chance that a war with North Korea could go nuclear, and that we believe we have enough leverage with the other nations in the region to severely cripple North Korea with sanctions (if necessary) in a way that we never could with Iraq. Also, don't think that we're not going to deal with North Korea one way or the other -- we are, Iraq just happens to be next in line. You can get more info on this subject here.
6) Iran also has WMD and is building nukes and they're the world's premier sponsor of terrorism. Why aren't we hitting them now instead of Iraq? Two reasons. First off, because of Iraq's defiance of the UN since the Gulf War, we can get much more worldwide support for an invasion of Iraq. There would be almost no worldwide support for an invasion of Iran. Secondly, the mullahs in Iran are holding on by their fingertips. It's entirely possible that the Iranian people may be able to overthrow their government without the US military having to get involved. Last but not least, do keep in mind that one way or the other, we're going to have to deal with Iran. Just because they're not next, doesn't mean they're off the agenda.
7) Why are we going to invade Iraq? Nine days after 9/11, George Bush said,
"(W)e will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
That definition fits Iraq and since they happened to be the easiest nation to make a case against at the UN and in the court of World Opinion, they were our next logical target after Afghanistan -- although they're not our last target.
8) If we're going to war with Iraq for humanitarian reasons, why aren't we going to war with other nations that also abuse their people? We're not going to Iraq to liberate the Iraqis and help them build a Democracy any more than we went to Japan in WW2 to free the Japanese from their Emperor. While freeing the Iraqi people is certainly a noble thing to do, it's a secondary benefit of the invasion, not the primary purpose of it.
9) Are we being unilateral? Currently our "unilateral" attack is supported by Australia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom. By the time it's all over, there will likely be more nations that will publicly agree to support out attack and there are probably a good 6-10 Middle-Eastern nations that are helping us out privately while they condemn us publicly (to keep their people happy). Since simply having one country with us would mean that we were no longer being "unilateral" or "going it alone," I'd say having 22 nations with us means that we can we safely say that this will be a "multilateral" invasion.
10) What are some of the strategic advantages of invading Iraq? We could remove a source of funding & training from the terrorist groups in the area as well as prevent Saddam from giving them WMD in the future. Furthermore, we would have a base capable of being used for attacks against Iran and Syria if necessary, we could move our troops out of Saudi Arabia, we'd have another reliable source of oil that would make us more able to put financial pressure on the Saudis, and any threats of force that we made towards Syria, North Korea, & Iran (all of which need to be dealt with) would become much more credible after an Iraqi invasion.
11) Was Iraq involved in 9/11? The Bush administration has never claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11, however there is one piece of evidence that will bear watching. Richard Perle claimed that Al Qaeda trained at Salman Pak, an Iraqi terrorist training camp where terrorists learned to take over an airplane using nothing but knives and barehands. That could just be coincidence, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of the hijackers were trained there. However, that's pure speculation at this point and there is no concrete evidence that Iraq had a 9/11 connection.
12) Can Iraq be linked to Al Qaeda or other terrorists? Yes. Iraq has been on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsoring nations for more than a decade. They've also long been the home to the terrorist organization run by Abu Nidal, the notorious terrorist who perished under mysterious circumstances in Iraq last year. Then there's Saddam's generous payments to the families of Palestinian martyrs, the now infamous Salman Pak terrorist training camp, and Al Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi who the administration claims was treated in Iraq after being wounded in Afghanistan. Without a doubt, Iraq is a terrorist supporting state.
13) Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? To come to the conclusion that Hussein doesn't have WMD, you have to believe that after the inspectors left in 98, Saddam Hussein destroyed all of his WMD and then decided that he'd lose billions of dollars in oil revenue because of the sanctions rather than tell anyone about it. Furthermore, Saddam has refused to let his scientists and their families leave the country, defectors have talked about Hussein's WMD, rockets with empty chemical warheads have been found, and the inspectors have actually found artillery shells tipped with mustard gas. So yes, Saddam does have WMD, and to be honest, that has been patently obvious since the Gulf War.
14) What's the harm of giving the inspectors a few more months of inspections? There is no point to giving the inspectors any more time. They can't possibly disarm Saddam in that amount of time and we have absolutely no reason to think that giving the inspectors more time will bring anyone else over to our side. After all, if 12 years of demanding Iraq disarm hasn't convinced anyone, another few months is unlikely to help on that front, but it will give the anti-war protestors and French diplomats another few months to try to sap the public's will.
15) Should we have hit Iraq already? Yes, ideally we would have hit Iraq months ago, but instead Bush chose to get an another Congressional Resolution and go to the UN. Politically, Bush probably benefited in the 2002 elections and we may have gained a bit more support by waiting. However, we also gave Iran and North Korea more time to work on their nuclear programs and the momentum for war slowed down as we got further from 9/11. Had we moved six months ago, Saddam would probably already be gone and we could be having this same fight about whether to topple the mullahs in Iran, instead of still debating Iraq. However, in the Bush administration's defense, we did have to replenish our depleted missile supplies and get massive amounts of equipment and manpower into position to strike. That means the delay may not have been avoidable.
16) Is Iraq violating UN Resolution 1441? Without question. Iraq had 30 days to give a complete account of all their WMD and delivery systems and yet they didn't do so. We're months past the drop-dead date and the inspectors are still finding drones, missiles, and chemical warheads that Iraq said no longer existed. Furthermore, Iraq's firing on planes patrolling the no-fly zone and refusal to allow scientists and their families to leave the country and be interviewed by the inspectors are also clearly violations of the Resolution as well.
17) Can the US attack Iraq without UN approval? Absolutely. While there are political and diplomatic benefits to getting UN approval, it's certainly not necessary. President Bush didn't get permission to invade Afghanistan, President Clinton didn't get permission to bomb Kosovo, President Reagan didn't ask about invading Grenada, etc, etc. This isn't just an American thing either. France hasn't asked for permission to fight with rebels on the Ivory Coast, China didn't ask for permission to swallow Tibet, Russia didn't ask permission to blast Chechnya, and on and on it goes. Nations regularly ignore the opinion of the UN when they find it inconvenient and we will do so as well if it comes to that.
18) Will the Iraqi people welcome US troops? Everything we've seen leads us to believe that the Iraqi people strongly support the invasion and will be thrilled to be rid of Saddam Hussein. In fact, many people have predicted that the Iraqis will be "cheering in the street" when we arrive. If you want to hear what some Iraqis in Syria have to say about the upcoming invasion, click here.
19) Why won't inspections work? UN inspectors spent seven years in Iraq and the only thing they were able to determine for sure was that they hadn't disarmed Saddam by the time they left. Furthermore, trying to take a smaller number of inspectors and turn them loose in a nation the size of France with the entire apparatus of a police state working against them is futile. Last but not least, only the threat of an invasion has gotten Saddam to give the most limited amounts of cooperation. If Saddam were to believe that an invasion was no longer likely (and we can't keep all of our men poised to strike indefinitely) he'd simply cease cooperating with the inspectors at all or simply kick them out.
20) Why won't containment work with Iraq? Containment in and of itself doesn't work against terrorist states. That's because not only is it very easy for nations to hide their involvement in particular terrorist plots (ex: who was responsible for sending out the anthrax laced letters?), but the terrorist groups themselves are difficult to control. So simply threatening to retaliate for terrorist attacks sponsored by other nations is not an effective strategy. As an illustration of that, keep in mind that Afghanistan was completely "contained" on 9/11/2001.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:40 pm#55 TerrytheTurtle....ARE YOU A TURTLE? How did you know about the Houston article? Can you post it here for all to see?
March 21st, 2006 at 3:43 pmWow hawkeye I am so glad you can cut and paste from the national review. Now get your scrawny chicken shit ass down to the recruiter dickhead
March 21st, 2006 at 3:45 pmHawkeye you have still not answered why you are not "serving" your country.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:46 pm#71, nope I went looking for it today and it has gone from the Chronicle site. This is the best I can do
#70 I'm impressed, someone learned to cut-and-paste. Can you make an argument by yourself, dude, or is cntrl-c and cntrl-v all you can manage?
March 21st, 2006 at 3:48 pm#73 - 101st Fighting Keyboards, except cntrl-c and contrl-v are all that's working for him.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:49 pmLeave him alone, he is just trying to wate space. Kind of like he does on a daily basis.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:50 pmwaste - sorry - see Georgie it isn't difficult to admit when you have made a mistake
March 21st, 2006 at 3:51 pm#70 - Wow! Now that's some good old school Right Wing propoganda. The only thing you're missing is the part where the war will run the national debt up to 9 trillion. Oops, I mean that the Iraqi oil will pay for the war and won't cost us a dime.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:52 pmWhat a damn shame that we're even discussing whether the President wanted war or not. According to the Constitution war is a matter for Congress to decide, so whatever the President thinks and whenever he thinks it should be irrelevant. Initiating war should not be a personal decision , but of course it's too much to expect the Supreme Court to jump into such a huge issue--better that they confine themselves to stopping election recounts.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:53 pmAs to the is-it-really-a-war question, it was clearly a short war (US vs. Iraq) followed by a long resisted occupation (US vs, Iraqis).
trolls - f'n trolls - are you calling me a bitch hawkeye?
this cowardly president, and the cowardly neocons that pull his strings, sent our brave soliders into unjust battle and you are calling us cowards when we bring this up...you sit and agree with your president, regardless of reality (real brave) - why don't you try and think for yourself....liberals like to weigh odds and make HUMANITARIAN decisions! what good has this president's decisions done for this country, bitch? how courageous to sell out the helpless people to the greed hungry power lusting corporate whores...
IRI (cough) i mean Hawkeye, in your honor, tomorrow will be official punch a fukin republican day, its long over do
March 21st, 2006 at 3:53 pm"[. . .] As an illustration of that, keep in mind that Afghanistan was completely “contained†on 9/11/2001."
Comment by Hawkeye — March 21, 2006 @ 3:40
And Saudia Arabia?
This is the Ironic Blinder Syndrome. In which the wearer is so unaware of what occurs around him, that when he purports to speak with authority, he only exposes his ironic (self-imposed) blindspots.
Try again, sonny.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:53 pm8) If we’re going to war with Iraq for humanitarian reasons, why aren’t we going to war with other nations that also abuse their people? We’re not going to Iraq to liberate the Iraqis and help them build a Democracy any more than we went to Japan in WW2 to free the Japanese from their Emperor. While freeing the Iraqi people is certainly a noble thing to do, it’s a secondary benefit of the invasion, not the primary purpose of it.
I think this is why we went to war now isn't it?
March 21st, 2006 at 4:02 pm#80
March 21st, 2006 at 4:04 pmSo you are saying that liberating 25 million people from a tyrant was a bad thing and that you would rather have Sadaam in charge? Liberals are cowards, why do most of our troops who volunteer for service vote Republican? Because they love our country and our freedoms much more than you fricken liberals. Thats why. True liberals care about human rights don't they? Apparently, you don't since you would rather punch a Republican tomorrow. Real classly.
How President Bush made his decision to invade Iraq
March 21st, 2006 at 4:04 pm"Rumsfeld’s notes" is an incorrect citation. They were notes made by DoD staffer Stephen Cambone (as described at the linked page
March 21st, 2006 at 4:05 pmAgain - Hawkeye - why aren't you serving our country.
Also - learn your shit buddy, most srvice people don't vote. That is why this administration is not afraid of reaming them when it comes to benefits.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:06 pmHey Hawkeye AKA MizzWrong,
You forgot to get orders from the 'collective hive mind'. Michael Leedon, one of your NeoNazi masters finally admits that your propaganda is WRONG, and that invading Iraq was a dunderhead move. Looks like you're out on a limb without a chute again.
Leedon says Iran, not Iraq is the 'terrorist state', and that Reichwingers were morons for invading. It's one of the few times I have to agree with this NeoNazi moron.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:07 pmNot only did King George want and need this war, Saddam knew Bush was lying about what Iraq had. Face that! ReichWingNuts!!!
Exasperated, besieged by global pressure, Saddam Hussein and top aides searched for ways in the 1990s to prove to the world they'd given up banned weapons.
"We don't have anything hidden!" the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show.
At another, in 1996, Saddam wondered whether U.N. inspectors would "roam Iraq for 50 years" in a pointless hunt for weapons of mass destruction. "When is this going to end?" he asked.
It ended in 2004, when U.S. experts, after an exhaustive investigation, confirmed what the men in those meetings were saying: that Iraq had eliminated its weapons of mass destruction long ago, a finding that discredited the Bush administration's stated rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 — to locate WMD...
[from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_wmd_tapes ]
March 21st, 2006 at 4:07 pm#83 you are the coward not me. the article you posted has been discredited. No WMD's, no links to terrorists. The best you can do to defend this war is to say we liberated the people of Iraq. However if you check the article you posted it says we are not their to liberate Iraq.
go sign up coward and stop wasting my time.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:09 pmI have a list of people who served in the US military here
March 21st, 2006 at 4:09 pmHawkeye: Ptewy! I have spit in your face!
March 21st, 2006 at 4:09 pmMy God! My God! My (god)! ........
March 21st, 2006 at 4:10 pmhawkeye sez....."19) Why won’t inspections work? UN inspectors spent seven years in Iraq and the only thing they were able to determine for sure was that they hadn’t disarmed Saddam by the time they left"
seems like a "basically accurate" statement would be that the inspections did work
March 21st, 2006 at 4:11 pm"So you are saying that liberating 25 million people from a tyrant was a bad thing and that you would rather have Sadaam in charge? Comment by Hawkeye"
When did that happen, invading and occupying another country is not 'liberating' them. How much of the country does the Iraq government control? What laws trump, american military law or the Iraqi laws? Can the Iraqi government arrest an American soldier?
Liberation - bahaha, now THAT'S funny.
And by the way, the majority of those 20+ million Iraqis say they have it worse now than under saddam - nice liberation, moron.
"Liberals are cowards, why do most of our troops who volunteer for service vote Republican? Hawkeye"
A better question is why so many former soldiers become democratic politicians, and so few republicans. Or even more telling, why does over 70% of the troops in Iraq say we should leave?
And had you ever thought that Liberals don't want to die for a Nazi in wars they don't agree with? Duhhh - were you always this stupid?
"Because they love our country and our freedoms much more than you fricken liberals. Hawkeye"
Or because they are poor working stiffs who were deluded into believing the propaganda lies you post.
"Thats why. True liberals care about human rights don’t they? Apparently, you don’t since you would rather punch a Republican tomorrow. Real classly. Hawkeye"
Punch a Republican? You're an idiot. You consider free speech 'punching', while defending torture? Wow, you're a fool.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:13 pmIraq Intel: The Spy Who Failed Me
March 21st, 2006 at 4:16 pmhawkeye, i don't know where you get your interpretation of liberals as cowards and i am sick of being called a coward (i really cannot wait to wake up tomorrow!)
as for freeing the iraqi's from a tyrant - if it could have been done with out turning this wonderful country into a facist state, then cool, but we have to many problems within our borders that go ignored
March 21st, 2006 at 4:21 pmSome liberation
March 21st, 2006 at 4:25 pmHer is the article I wrote about in post #55. Thank you TerrytheTurtle for the pointing me in the right direction. I did see it on GNN. This should be the last words on this blog, on this subject.
Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000
Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:59:47 -0700
_NEWS IMAGE_
War on my mind
By Russ Baker
Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer
Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,†said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.â€
Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. “Suddenly, he’s at 91 percent in the polls, and he’d barely crawled out of the bunker.â€
That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work – and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war – has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush’s unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters – well before he became president.
In 1999, Herskowitz struck a deal with the campaign of George W. Bush about a ghost-written autobiography, which was ultimately titled A Charge to Keep : My Journey to the White House, and he and Bush signed a contract in which the two would split the proceeds. The publisher was William Morrow. Herskowitz was given unimpeded access to Bush, and the two met approximately 20 times so Bush could share his thoughts. Herskowitz began working on the book in May, 1999, and says that within two months he had completed and submitted some 10 chapters, with a remaining 4-6 chapters still on his computer. Herskowitz was replaced as Bush’s ghostwriter after Bush’s handlers concluded that the candidate’s views and life experiences were not being cast in a sufficiently positive light.
According to Herskowitz, who has authored more than 30 books, many of them jointly written autobiographies of famous Americans in politics, sports and media (including that of Reagan adviser Michael Deaver), Bush and his advisers were sold on the idea that it was difficult for a president to accomplish an electoral agenda without the record-high approval numbers that accompany successful if modest wars.
The revelations on Bush’s attitude toward Iraq emerged recently during two taped interviews of Herskowitz, which included a discussion of a variety of matters, including his continued closeness with the Bush family, indicated by his subsequent selection to pen an authorized biography of Bush’s grandfather, written and published last year with the assistance and blessing of the Bush family.
Herskowitz also revealed the following:
-In 2003, Bush’s father indicated to him that he disagreed with his son’s invasion of Iraq.
-Bush admitted that he failed to fulfill his Vietnam-era domestic National Guard service obligation, but claimed that he had been “excused.â€
-Bush revealed that after he left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972 under murky circumstances, he never piloted a plane again. That casts doubt on the carefully-choreographed moment of Bush emerging in pilot’s garb from a jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to celebrate “Mission Accomplished†in Iraq. The image, instantly telegraphed around the globe, and subsequent hazy White House statements about his capacity in the cockpit, created the impression that a heroic Bush had played a role in landing the craft.
-Bush described his own business ventures as “floundering†before campaign officials insisted on recasting them in a positive light.
Throughout the interviews for this article and in subsequent conversations, Herskowitz indicated he was conflicted over revealing information provided by a family with which he has longtime connections, and by how his candor could comport with the undefined operating principles of the as-told-to genre. Well after the interviews—in which he expressed consternation that Bush’s true views, experience and basic essence had eluded the American people —Herskowitz communicated growing concern about the consequences for himself of the publication of his remarks, and said that he had been under the impression he would not be quoted by name. However, when conversations began, it was made clear to him that the material was intended for publication and attribution. A tape recorder was present and visible at all times.
Several people who know Herskowitz well addressed his character and the veracity of his recollections. “I don’t know anybody that’s ever said a bad word about Mickey,†said Barry Silverman, a well-known Houston executive and civic figure who worked with him on another book project. An informal survey of Texas journalists turned up uniform confidence that Herskowitz’s account as contained in this article could be considered accurate.
One noted Texas journalist who spoke with Herskowitz about the book in 1999 recalls how the author mentioned to him at the time that Bush had revealed things the campaign found embarrassing and did not want in print. He requested anonymity because of the political climate in the state. “I can’t go near this,†he said.
According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush’s beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House – ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. “Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.â€
Bush’s circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: “They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches.â€
Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter’s political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush’s father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents – Grenada and Panama – and gained politically. But there were successful small wars, and then there were quagmires, and apparently George H.W. Bush and his son did not see eye to eye.
“I know [Bush senior] would not admit this now, but he was opposed to it. I asked him if he had talked to W about invading Iraq. “He said, ‘No I haven’t, and I won’t, but Brent [Scowcroft] has.’ Brent would not have talked to him without the old man’s okaying it.†Scowcroft, national security adviser in the elder Bush’s administration, penned a highly publicized warning to George W. Bush about the perils of an invasion.
Herskowitz’s revelations are not the sole indicator of Bush’s pre-election thinking on Iraq. In December 1999, some six months after his talks with Herskowitz, Bush surprised veteran political chroniclers, including the Boston Globe’s David Nyhan, with his blunt pronouncements about Saddam at a six-way New Hampshire primary event that got little notice: “It was a gaffe-free evening for the rookie front-runner, till he was asked about Saddam’s weapons stash,†wrote Nyhan. ‘I’d take ‘em out,’ [Bush] grinned cavalierly, ‘take out the weapons of mass destruction…I’m surprised he’s still there,†said Bush of the despot who remains in power after losing the Gulf War to Bush Jr.’s father…It remains to be seen if that offhand declaration of war was just Texas talk, a sort of locker room braggadocio, or whether it was Bush’s first big clinker. â€
The notion that President Bush held unrealistic or naïve views about the consequences of war was further advanced recently by a Bush supporter, the evangelist Pat Robertson, who revealed that Bush had told him the Iraq invasion would yield no casualties. In addition, in recent days, high-ranking US military officials have complained that the White House did not provide them with adequate resources for the task at hand.
Herskowitz considers himself a friend of the Bush family, and has been a guest at the family vacation home in Kennebunkport. In the late 1960s, Herskowitz, a longtime Houston Chronicle sports columnist designated President Bush’s father, then-Congressman George HW Bush, to replace him as a guest columnist, and the two have remained close since then. (Herskowitz was suspended briefly in April without pay for reusing material from one of his own columns, about legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden.)
In 1999, when Herskowitz turned in his chapters for Charge to Keep, Bush’s staff expressed displeasure —often over Herskowitz’s use of language provided by Bush himself. In a chapter on the oil business, Herskowitz included Bush’s own words to describe the Texan’s unprofitable business ventures, writing: “the companies were flounderingâ€. “I got a call from one of the campaign lawyers, he was kind of angry, and he said, ‘You’ve got some wrong information.’ I didn’t bother to say, ‘Well you know where it came from.’ [The lawyer] said, ‘We do not consider that the governor struggled or floundered in the oil business. We consider him a successful oilman who started up at least two new businesses.’ â€
In the end, campaign officials decided not to go with Herskowitz’s account, and, moreover, demanded everything back. “The lawyer called me and said, ‘Delete it. Shred it. Just do it.’ â€
“They took it and [communications director] Karen [Hughes] rewrote it,†he said. A campaign official arrived at his home at seven a.m. on a Monday morning and took his notes and computer files. However, Herskowitz, who is known for his memory of anecdotes from his long history in journalism and book publishing, says he is confident about his recollections.
According to Herskowitz, Bush was reluctant to discuss his time in the Texas Air National Guard – and inconsistent when he did so. Bush, he said, provided conflicting explanations of how he came to bypass a waiting list and obtain a coveted Guard slot as a domestic alternative to being sent to Vietnam. Herskowitz also said that Bush told him that after transferring from his Texas Guard unit two-thirds through his six-year military obligation to work on an Alabama political campaign, he did not attend any Alabama National Guard drills at all, because he was “excused.†This directly contradicts his public statements that he participated in obligatory training with the Alabama National Guard. Bush’s claim to have fulfilled his military duty has been subject to intense scrutiny; he has insisted in the past that he did show up for monthly drills in Alabama – though commanding officers say they never saw him, and no Guardsmen have come forward to accept substantial “rewards†for anyone who can claim to have seen Bush on base.
Herskowitz said he asked Bush if he ever flew a plane again after leaving the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 – which was two years prior to his contractual obligation to fly jets was due to expire. He said Bush told him he never flew any plane – military or civilian – again. That would contradict published accounts in which Bush talks about his days in 1973 working with inner-city children, when he claimed to have taken some of the children up in a plane.
In 2002, three years after he had been pulled off the George W. Bush biography, Herskowitz was asked by Bush’s father to write a book about the current president’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, after getting a message that the senior Bush wanted to see him. “Former President Bush just handed it to me. We were sitting there one day, and I was visiting him there in his office…He said, ‘I wish somebody would do a book about my dad.’ â€
“He said to me, ‘I know this has been a disappointing time for you, but it’s amazing how many times something good will come out of it.’ I passed it on to my agent, he jumped all over it. I asked [Bush senior], ‘Would you support it and would you give me access to the rest of family?’ He said yes.â€
That book, Duty, Honor, Country: The Life and Legacy of Prescott Bush, was published in 2003 by Routledge. If anything, the book has been criticized for its over-reliance on the Bush family’s perspective and rosy interpretation of events. Herskowitz himself is considered the ultimate “as-told-to†author, lending credibility to his account of what George W. Bush told him. Herskowitz’s other books run the gamut of public figures, and include the memoirs of Reagan aide Deaver, former Texas Governor and Nixon Treasury Secretary John Connally, newsman Dan Rather, astronaut Walter Cunningham, and baseball greats Mickey Mantle and Nolan Ryan.
After Herskowitz was pulled from the Bush book project, the biographer learned that a scenario was being prepared to explain his departure. “I got a phone call from someone in the Bush campaign, confidentially, saying ‘Watch your back.’ â€
Reporters covering Bush say that when they inquired as to why Herskowitz was no longer on the project, Hughes intimated that Herskowitz had personal habits that interfered with his writing – a claim Herskowitz said is unfounded. Later, the campaign put out the word that Herskowitz had been removed for missing a deadline. Hughes subsequently finished the book herself – it received largely critical reviews for its self-serving qualities and lack of spontaneity or introspection.
So, said Herskowitz, the best material was left on the cutting room floor, including Bush’s true feelings.
“He told me that as a leader, you can never admit to a mistake,†Herskowitz said. “That was one of the keys to being a leader.â€
Research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute.
Russ Baker is an award-winning independent journalist who has been published in The New York Times, The Nation, Washington Post, The Telegraph (UK), Sydney Morning-Herald, and Der Spiegel, among many others.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:34 pmIt's exhausting to keep track of someone who consistently tries to spin out of situations. Thank God we have websites like this that collect and organize data so we can verify comments as true or not. The other part is as this continues and we keep hearing what appear to be lies or whatever, totally creditability is already or will be shortly lost. With relationships, after you loose creditability, you’ve lost any and all ability to defend yourself.
However, since this appears to be the normal way we are to be lied to, then maybe someone ought to start looking deeper into the reasons WHY? You would only constantly lie like this for a reason! Maybe we need to learn the reason behind all of this?
March 21st, 2006 at 4:35 pm#99: Here you go.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:41 pm"99: sorry link didn't post
March 21st, 2006 at 4:42 pm\
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/bush.html
When did that happen, invading and occupying another country is not ‘liberating’ them. How much of the country does the Iraq government control? What laws trump, american military law or the Iraqi laws? Can the Iraqi government arrest an American soldier?
Iraq is still in the process of forming their own government. It took us thirteen years after we declared our independence to radify our constitution. Yes, like it or not, my guess is that you won't, there will be a free and democratic Iraq.
And by the way, the majority of those 20+ million Iraqis say they have it worse now than under saddam - nice liberation, moron.
Then why do 60% of Iraqis feel optimistic about the future? (Today show 3/20) Where did you see those numbers? I've never seen anything like that and if it were true, why the f*ck did 70% vote in the December elections?
A better question is why so many former soldiers become democratic politicians, and so few republicans. Or even more telling, why does over 70% of the troops in Iraq say we should leave?
Not sure about the dem politician thing. I think you are not telling the whole story, 70% feel we should leave within the next year. Guess what? Thats part of the plan, we will draw down our troops as more and more divisions of the Iraqi army are trained and become active for duty. If the troops feel so disgusted by the war, then why are dissertions at an all-time low during a wartime period?
March 21st, 2006 at 4:45 pmHawkeye - still avoiding the question - why aren't you serving?
March 21st, 2006 at 4:47 pmDissertions are at an all time low, because there is no where to run, and the military has recently started to catch deserters from vietnam. Iraq's feeling optimistic about the future, and wanting us to leave are two different things.
and again why is your ass not in Iraq? where is your conviction and courage?
March 21st, 2006 at 4:50 pmI grieve for the bandwidth lost to Hawkey.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:57 pm#102 - "Thats part of the plan, we will draw down our troops as more and more divisions of the Iraqi army are trained and become active for duty. If the troops feel so disgusted by the war, then why are dissertions at an all-time low during a wartime period? "
You don't pay much attention to the words coming out of Pres. Bush's mouth, do you?
NO timetable for bringing out troops home. NONE!
"With resolve, victory will be achieved, although not by a date certain.
No war has ever been won on a timetable and neither will this one."
"Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete."
"We expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience."
"Although we are confident of victory in Iraq, we will not put a date certain on when each stage of success will be reached -- because the timing of success depends upon meeting certain conditions, not arbitrary timetables."
NO numbers as to Iraqi troops "standing up" and the US troops being "drawn down". NONE. Probably because if he says "We're never going to leave Iraq while I'm President" then he WOULS be impeached by every Republican in congress.
As for desertions being at an all-time low: read your history. During wartime, desertions are capital offenses. Now, go read about the record breaking number of soldiers committing suicide in Iraq and Afghanistan. Go read about the record breaking number of soldiers filing for "conscientious objector" status.
Your parroting the talking points of the ultra-radical right wing-nuts shows that you’ve never spent a day in the military.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:08 pmMy bad! I forgot to include the link for my references in post #106.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
March 21st, 2006 at 5:10 pmThe Bush Doctrine is floundering in the waters of incompetence, ineptness and ignorance. This meaningless war which was to cost a pittance without casualties and last a few weeks is now in its fourth(4th)year, with tremendous loss of life, driving the nation toward bankruptcy. Bush championed himself as the "war president" today in a press conference all but abandoned the title by claiming he does not want war and never did. What a blatant lie. He appears to be caught up in a neurotic syndrome trying to defend the indefensible position he has created. The lies and excuses that led the nation to war haunt his every action and appearance. The majority of Americans now know they have been deceived and duped and want clear answers from the dolt caught up in his own fog.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:12 pm14) What’s the harm of giving the inspectors a few more months of inspections?
Let's see. Over 2,300 dead Americans, over 16,000 injured Americans, billions of dollars gone, international scorn, no end to the occupation in sight, more terrorism around the world, a brewing civil war, etc.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:17 pm" why do most of our troops who volunteer for service vote Republican?
Comment by Hawkeye — March 21, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
They don't. Post a link that proves it or apologize for lying.
Polls don't count, chickenhawk; I've checked this out before, and the best you'll find is a poll. But be my guest.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:26 pmHawkeye is tied to mighty aphrodite, (s)he posted the same nonsense yesterday about the 13 years to form the US government.
Yet more 'coordinated' propaganda from the pentagon is my guess.
And by the way MoronEye, during those 13 years we already had 13 functioning state governments. They banded together in 1777 under the Articles of Confederation - which in effect was their first constitution, and it was completed less than a year after the declaration of independence was signed - and this was the FIRST DEMOCRACY.
The war that then lasted through 1783 was a war of independence from an occupying power - much like what the Iraqis are doing to us right now.
Your 'analysis' of the situation is as brilliant as Bush's comments - very amusingly retarded.
"Yes, like it or not, my guess is that you won’t, there will be a free and democratic Iraq. Hawkeye/MightyAphrodite"
I'd love it, but unfortunately democracies rarely happen when a population feels underfoot from an occupying army that is unwelcomed and brutalizes the population (a result of the poor planing of this administration for the postwar).
"Then why do 60% of Iraqis feel optimistic about the future? (Today show 3/20) Where did you see those numbers? I’ve never seen anything like that and if it were true, why the f*ck did 70% vote in the December elections? Hawkeye/MightyAphrodite"
Maybe because they think they can kick our asses until we leave? Or because 'hope' isn't the same thing about 'conditions'. You might also check the Zogby poll from feb28.2006
"Not sure about the dem politician thing. I think you are not telling the whole story, 70% feel we should leave within the next year. Guess what? Thats part of the plan, Hawkeye"
Actually you meant DEMOCRATIC SOLDIER, once again you disregarded SOLDIER, and only wrote POLITICIAN. The point is that many soldiers go to Iraq Republicans, and come back Democrats - geez, wonder why that is?
Really, because you clearly missed the other thread where Bush says we'll be there at least through 2009. What part of the 'plan' again are you referring to?
"we will draw down our troops as more and more divisions of the Iraqi army are trained and become active for duty. If the troops feel so disgusted by the war, then why are dissertions at an all-time low during a wartime period? Comment by Hawkeye "
Really, is that why we've already had 8,000+ troops desert since the beginning of the war? Where are you getting your 'misinformation' from, faux news?
You know just because faux is retarded, doesn't mean you have to be. Wakeup sunshine!
March 21st, 2006 at 5:31 pmI thought polls meant nothing to trolls?? Now they cite them as fast as possible - no credibility whatsoever, just like bossman.
And riddle me this Hawkeye (troll), why is it that nearly every single vet coming back to run for office is dem?
March 21st, 2006 at 5:32 pmHawkeye, you ask why there aren't more AWOL, let me see, soldiers are good people and wouldn't do that to their country? I guess you wouldn't understand that feeling. Or any feeling other than hate, for that matter. Damn it must be a headache for you.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:36 pmAnd Hawkeye,
I hate (well actually I don't) to correct you YET AGAIN, but only about 1/3 of the military is Republican, and about 1/3 of the military are Democrats, and the rest of the 1/3 left are 'Independent' swing voters (much like the population). Considering that Rush Limbaugh is about the only 'news' they ever hear, no wonder these swing voters swing more to the right, than the left.
A little 'free press' on military radio, and I bet that would change quickly though. Care to open up the military spectrum to air america and see how many 'republicans' vote from the military in the next election?
And you'll conveniently note that the 70% of soldiers who want us to leave Iraq quickly mirror the Democrat+Independent voters in the military quite nicely. It's obvious that the Republicans are losing those independent voters - to everyone but the republicans it's obvious.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:38 pmForget Hawkeye he's stupid . For everyone who can't figure out how democracy works , soldiers don't make american policy , the citizens do , now do you get it .
March 21st, 2006 at 5:39 pmAnd riddle me this Hawkeye (troll), why is it that nearly every single vet coming back to run for office is dem?
Comment by progressive and proud
That's assuming facts not in evidence Riddler.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:40 pmHawkeye - still avoiding the question - why aren’t you serving?
Comment by Jules
Why aren't you?
March 21st, 2006 at 5:43 pmIt goes back much further:
From the 2nd Presidential Debate in 2000:
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html
Bush: "(Somalia) Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either."
March 21st, 2006 at 5:44 pmI did - 6 years Air Force. My husband spent 4 years Navy. My sister 8 years Air Force, my brother 4 years Air Force.....now you asshole!
March 21st, 2006 at 5:44 pmThe Bush Doctrine is floundering in the waters of incompetence, ineptness and ignorance.
Comment by Nova16
Translation: "Shit, no quagmire, no civil war and they keep killing our terrorist allies. The Iraqis have voted overwhelmingly for a democracy, hate Saddam and think the Europeans are scum for supporting him. Bush screwed us again."
March 21st, 2006 at 5:46 pmHey Jules , very nice , except it's like picking on a retarded kid , you feel sorta guilty.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:47 pmI did - 6 years Air Force. My husband spent 4 years Navy. My sister 8 years Air Force, my brother 4 years Air Force…..now you asshole!
Comment by Jules
They wouldn't let me near automatic weapons and high explosives so instead I went to school and later helped design one of the weapons systems that makes us invincible on the field of battle.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:49 pmAnd riddle me this Hawkeye (troll), why is it that nearly every single vet coming back to run for office is dem?
Comment by progressive and proud
That’s assuming facts not in evidence Riddler.-iris
"WASHINGTON – They call themselves the Band of Brothers, about 50 men - and a few women - all Democrats, all opposed to the Bush administration's handling of Iraq, and all military veterans.
One more thing: They're all running for Congress this year..."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0222/p01s03-uspo.html
"Eight of the nine are running as Democrats. At least three are lawyers. Most went to the front lines from the Reserves or the National Guard. Some have been recruited for office by party leaders; others say they are trying to get the national parties to pay attention to them."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/us_house/articles/2005/11/27/veterans_take_on_new_battle_run_for_office?mode=PF
more at: http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/
March 21st, 2006 at 5:50 pmDidn't want war? HORSESHIT. Anyone who has read or even knows about the Downing Street Memos knows that Chimp McFlightsuit wanted to bomb Iraq from the start.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:51 pmJules,
I-RIGHT-I/AKA MizzWrong is a famous chickenhawk. I always believed he was too afraid of joining the military because of don't ask, don't tell, but in reality it's probably because he's just a born coward.
The poor retard is too stupid to tell the difference from an insurgency and a terrorist organization - what an idiot!
Hehehe, oh well, reichwing tendencies predisposes stupidity doesn't it?
March 21st, 2006 at 5:51 pm#121 - Actually I don't. I am tired of being accused of hating my country. I love my country and I served. I hate the republicans who are destroying it.
#122 - very convenient - sounds a little like a Cheney excuse though!
March 21st, 2006 at 5:52 pm"They wouldn’t let me near automatic weapons and high explosives so instead I went to school and later helped design one of the weapons systems that makes us invincible on the field of battle. Comment by I-RIGHT-I "
Invincible? Tell that to the families of the 2300 dead and 30000 injured. That's an idiotic word, typed by an idiotic moron. No army is invincible, and all empires fall. Grow up moron.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:53 pmJules,
MizzWrong makes Cheney look brave ;)
March 21st, 2006 at 5:54 pmBush never stops lying, does he? I very well remember the period during the buildup to this immoral war. He was acting like a spoiled brat who was crying "I want my war". The b*st*rd" wouldn't listen to any counter arguments. His father had a war so he had to have one too. What a lying s.o.b.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:56 pm#129 - that's funny - I can almost hear him say that - what a maroon!!!
March 21st, 2006 at 5:59 pm#122 - very convenient - sounds a little like a Cheney excuse though!
Comment by Jules
Let's put it this way. I knew in 1984 we'd be fighting a war in the Middle East because of what we were building.
I'll tell you losers one more time; when it comes to the BIG PICTURE, fighting wars and forming a global real politik there is little difference between the two parties. That's just the way it is. All this anti-Bush crap on this "blog" is just fluff and misdirection. Americans rule this rock and have since WWII. The Donks want it that way just as much as the Republicans.
March 21st, 2006 at 6:00 pmNo army is invincible, and all empires fall. Grow up moron.
Comment by Ryan "I hate America" Neat
Invincible; adj. impossible to defeat or prevent from doing what is intended
The US Military is invincible.
March 21st, 2006 at 6:05 pm#131 - now I see that the others are right. Honey you have got to get yourself some help.
Americans rule America. This does not give us the right to invade a country who is not a threat to us.
March 21st, 2006 at 6:06 pmI right I sez......."They wouldn’t let me near automatic weapons and high explosives so instead I went to school and later helped design one of the weapons systems that makes us invincible on the field of battle."
haven't you people ever seen the movie "The Incredibles" Yup, that was I-R-I that made their suits
March 21st, 2006 at 6:07 pmYou all are right. I am attempting to debate a witless foe. I thought I could do it but now I must admit defeat. That just shows the incredible lengths we liberals will go to give someone a chance to express some small sense of logic.
sigh!
March 21st, 2006 at 6:08 pmAmericans rule America. This does not give us the right to invade a country who is not a threat to us.
Comment by Jules
Your opinion of who or what represents a threat is irrelevant. Ditto the opinions of those in our country that are proven traitors working toward our defeat.
March 21st, 2006 at 6:09 pm"Invincible; adj. impossible to defeat or prevent from doing what is intended
The US Military is invincible.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I"
Where's Osama?
Where's PEACE in Iraq?
Where's the WMDs?
Those were all the 'intentions', yet years later, they were all prevented.
Invincibility is an 'illusion', just as fake as you, your personna, your political and religious beliefs, and your whacko childlike view of the world. The difference between you and an "Idiot Savant" is that you don't have any "Savant".
March 21st, 2006 at 6:11 pmI R I , I'm very impressed with this weapons design thingy , I think I know you . Weren't you the kid that told me in seventh grade that you got laid when you stayed at your grandmas house over the summer .
March 21st, 2006 at 6:12 pmTimeForAChange - what you are posting IS NOTHING BUT A DIRTY, ROTTEN LIE.
BUSH....AND BUSH ALONE is at fault for the Iraqi War. Don't you GOP's try to blame it on Clinton.
Stupid BUSH was president and he pushed the trigger. He was just pissed that his weak FATHER didn't do the job when he was president.
It makes me laugh when you RePIGlicans try to re-write history. It won't work. The American people know you are yellow bellied coward liars.
March 21st, 2006 at 6:14 pm"Your opinion of who or what represents a threat is irrelevant. Ditto the opinions of those in our country that are proven traitors working toward our defeat. Comment by I-RIGHT-I, MIZZWrong"
Funny coming from the 'Queen' of irrelevant. And considering that you're a Fascist, by your definition your opinion is irrelevant - YOU RETARDED MORON.
The only thing I want defeated are the retarded fascist reichwingers in the next election, assuming you don't keep up those anti-democratic/anti-american vote stealing practices you're so famous for now...
March 21st, 2006 at 6:15 pmWhat does Bush have to do to lose his hardcore support? Sodomize a puppy on the white house lawn? Or would fox explain it away as the puppy needed to be sodomized to show the steely resolve of our president in dealing with terrorists?
March 21st, 2006 at 6:25 pm#141 - That is what is so amazing to me. If Bush had sex in the oval office they would have an explanation the the lemmings would pass down as their talking point on the subject and that would be it.
I wish I had no brain so I could be a lemming!
March 21st, 2006 at 6:29 pm...I could always try the kool aid. Nah, my family loves me so much they would have me deprogammed!!
March 21st, 2006 at 6:31 pm9 trillion dollars in debt.
No knucklehead, it isn't going to be a gun, a bomb or a plane or missle that takes out America.
I hate it when Osama is honest. he actually said it was his plan to bankrupt America. And he's right. Afganistan was the dying embers of the USSR. It died in bankrupcy.
Iraq is gonna be ours if we don't watch out for our children & grandchildrens future.
9 trillion dollars in debt. that works out to $36,000 for each and every one of us. You sendin' in your check first, right irighti?
March 21st, 2006 at 6:39 pmPoor I-Right-I. He's gone as crazy as his hero Boy George.
March 21st, 2006 at 6:45 pmwhat do YOU think? “quickvoteâ€
March 21st, 2006 at 6:45 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/ CNN/ Programs/ lou.dobbs.tonight/
They have wanted war for a long time:
March 21st, 2006 at 6:56 pmhttp://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=centralAsia
Lots more to be found on that page..
#132, hmm so what about that Vietnam thing Adolf? The US can't fight an insurgency, it's not geared up to do it. I remember another Adolf thought his military was invincible right to the gates of Stalingrad.
The sun never sets of the American Empire...yeah right. The sun sets on all the empires, especially when they get into imperial overstretch, spend massively on guns etc, lose their moral compass, go into major economic decline and especially financial decay. Sun set on the British, Spanish, French and most like today's American Empire, the Roman.
March 21st, 2006 at 7:04 pmBush and Cheney plotted the war and occupation of Iraq even before they were appointed by the Supreme Court to rule America in 2000! They just needed an excuse to attack Iraq and 9/11 gave them cover to do it! They wanted to seize Iraq's Oil Fields and control the flow of petroleum as a cartelized monopoly!
March 21st, 2006 at 7:04 pmThey wouldn’t let me near automatic weapons and high explosives so instead I went to school and later helped design one of the weapons systems that makes us invincible on the field of battle.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — March 21, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
Janitorial School? You helped by sweeping the floors of those hard-working Aeronautical Engineers? You should feel very proud you made those floors nice and clean for those really smart men (a friend of mine was a designer at Lockheed on the F22. He once told me how much he appreciated the people who kept his workspace nice and tidy. :)
March 21st, 2006 at 7:12 pm"The Bush Doctrine is floundering in the waters of incompetence, ineptness and ignorance.
Comment by Nova16
Translation: “Shit, no quagmire, no civil war and they keep killing our terrorist allies. The Iraqis have voted overwhelmingly for a democracy, hate Saddam and think the Europeans are scum for supporting him. Bush screwed us again.â€
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — March 21, 2006 @ 5:46 pm"
Perfect! Thanks for providing that insight into your psyche. Your interpretation speaks volumes about you.
March 21st, 2006 at 7:18 pmIRI, I'm going to ask you the same question that was asked of hawkeye. "why are't YOU serving?" Maybe the two of you can enlist together. Stop watching those Rambo movies and go to war for real. You keep saying how big a body count that you will rack up. Talk is cheap asshole, action speaks louder than words. You think that your such a bad ass-PROVE IT!!!! No dancing around the edges, no quibbling, NO EXCUSES!!!! A straight up yes or no to enlisting, it's not THAT hard, even without a draft. If you don't enlist, you should be bitch-slapped into the next decade.
March 21st, 2006 at 7:19 pmHey Ho, what do you think about this:
You are probably qualifed to comment here...
March 21st, 2006 at 7:21 pm#5, Bush & co cooked up this site, they should boil in it, then tried and hanged for the war criminals they are Ala Nuremberg style.
March 21st, 2006 at 7:22 pmRemember the reply GWB once gave to a reporter asking about war with Iraq, "I don't know why you said that. I'm the one who gets to decide that, not you." Whoa there,Tiger. No need to get all worked up. It was just a question. Why was he so touchy? When GWB seems to be regretting his actions, he needs to be reminded that it WAS his decision.
March 21st, 2006 at 7:32 pmPost 152 > I-Right-I is so fat that not even the Navy would want him > lol. He likes others to fight and die for his fascism, just like Bushy!
March 21st, 2006 at 7:34 pmTerry, obviously, IRI's ideas of war comes from watching Rambo waaaay too many times. If he wants to watch war movies, Platoon is closer to reality. Otherwise, he's never heard of Vietnam. Basically, Iraq IS Vietnam, minus all those trees and rice paddies. As to qualification, I was 18 and drafted right out of high school, with a SSS classification of 1-A, meaning, I was USDA prime cannon-fodder for Vietnam. So yea, I've seen this crap before, and it REALLY BITES BIG TIME. And if that shit-for-brains calls me a coward and/or traitor for being antiwar, I will rip his fucking head CLEAN OFF AND SHIT DOWN HIS NECK.
March 21st, 2006 at 7:35 pmThe US Military is invincible.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — March 21, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
There is a country called Vietnam that might beg to differ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
March 21st, 2006 at 7:35 pm“They wouldn’t let me near automatic weapons and high explosives so instead I went to school and later helped design one of the weapons systems that makes us invincible on the field of battle. Comment by I-RIGHT-I â€
Translation: IRI was judged too dangerous to permit him having a gun, he would have hurt his fellow soldiers, and nowadays works painting Hummers.
March 21st, 2006 at 7:48 pm#159, Maybe they should rethink letting IRI loose with even a paint spray-gun
March 21st, 2006 at 7:58 pm#159 IRI actually means the canteen cup since you can not be deployed without it. It is a required item of the feild equipment that every soldier in combat is issues so that makes it a requiered part of a soldiers battlefeild gear thus IRI is not technically wrong...............
March 21st, 2006 at 8:01 pmJust in case I haven't made myself clear, I am a veteran. I'm also antiwar, the reason is; I've seen it up close and personal and it really sucks. I've seen the dead, the mangled bodies, and the messed up heads. "I've seen the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness"--- Alan Ginsberg.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:19 pmThere is a country called Vietnam that might beg to differ…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Comment by Clif
The Filthy Left began to dictate our strategy, fed the news with their spin on the war and eventually caused Americans to lose heart. You'd have to be a total fucktard to believe we were beaten on the field of battle; we were not. We were beaten psychologically by America's Fifth Column precisely as Lenin said we would be.
Why do you think we've built all those "re-education" camps in W. Texas and why I've put a shit load of money in ACME Hemp & RazorWire, LTD.? Because it's not going to happen again. We will not stand for traitors in this country working along side our enemies. That is the lesson of Vietnam.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:26 pmThat's just nuts, almost as bad as 'who does the President think he's F'n Kidding?' CLASSIC quote by Olbermann.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:29 pm#161 Tinkering with portable urinals qualify as "design weapons systems that makes us invincible on the field of battle."? I guess yes in the case of IRI. A soldier fights far better after a good pee in a clean toilet.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:35 pmcalls me a coward and/or traitor for being antiwar, I will rip his fucking head CLEAN OFF AND SHIT DOWN HIS NECK.
Comment by Ho Chi Minh
You don't have to be a coward or a traitor at heart to be an ignorant fucktard. But tell me in the grand scheme of things, what's the difference?
By the way, Uncle Ho was a homosexual pederast. Just thought you'd like to know.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:35 pm#166 As usually, you know the life of every sexual pervert in detail. How so? Maybe you admire them? Sure you do.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:39 pm#161 Tinkering with portable urinals qualify as “design weapons systems that makes us invincible on the field of battle.� I guess yes in the case of IRI. A soldier fights far better after a good pee in a clean toilet.
Comment by Evil Spaniard
Hello Dhimmi...
How does it feel to be a loser from the only country Al-Qaeda
March 21st, 2006 at 8:41 pmwhipped into submission?
IRI, you still did NOT answer the question; WHY AREN'T YOU SERVING? Is that so difficult, or maybe you don't understand any words longer than one syllable.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:43 pm#168 Check the number of countries in the "Coalition of the Willing". How many are now? More or less than in March '03? And the money promised by other countries to help the war effort? Where is? Is the "Mission Accomplished" yet? Wow, your country knows how to fight a good war, for sure.
And BTW, the neocon estrategy doesn't work very well to contain terrorists. Ask Tony.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:48 pmAdolf here is confirming that America is still fighting the Vietnam War, vicariously of course, since most of the Administration who have engineered this repeat of the Vietnam War in Iraq never served to begin with and have no intention of doing anything other than put someone elses son in harm's way.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:50 pmIRI, you still did NOT answer the question; WHY AREN’T YOU SERVING? Is that so difficult, or maybe you don’t understand any words longer than one syllable.
Comment by Ho Chi Minh
I am serving Uncle Ho.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:54 pmIRI, reading your recent rantings I'd swear that you were once in a past life, a member of the camp guards at Auschwitz. Are your really a card-carrying member of the Nazi party today? If so, that WOULD explain a lot. Or do you secretly wear your stormtrooper outfit only at home at night?
March 21st, 2006 at 9:00 pmIRI, specify HOW you are serving, no doubt by cleaning the latrines. My guess is that is the ONLY way you are qualified to serve.
March 21st, 2006 at 9:04 pmThe phenomenon of the Vietnam 'Fifth Column' (a term from your history Evil S), is very similar to the 'stab-in-the-back' myth of the German right, after the defeat in 1918.
Here's a quote:
Now compare to Adolf:
When you add to the list, homosexuals, Jews, socialists, immigrants, you get the idea, I think.
Of course the 'stab-in-the-back' myth was what got the National Socialists their start in post-war Germany. Just like the Nazis, Adolf's xenophobia here is similarly driven...
March 21st, 2006 at 9:05 pmThe Filthy Left began to dictate our strategy,
Nixon, Kissinger, Laird, Abrarms, yes you might call them that......
fed the news with their spin on the war and eventually caused Americans to lose heart.
No spin too many "imbedded reporters telling it as they do today......
You’d have to be a total fucktard to believe we were beaten on the field of battle;
Didn't say tactically beatan but stragetically beaten just as the soviets were stragetically beaten in Afghanistan.................
we were not. We were beaten psychologically by America’s Fifth Column( the IRI boy(girly man ) scout troop?) precisely as Lenin said we would be.
IRI has never read the pentagon papers either, but it is not on the third grade primer he is struggling through at this decade...........
March 21st, 2006 at 9:15 pmTerry, in short, ANYONE who doesn't follow the fuhrer(Bush) is a member of the"filthy left" and a traitor in IRIs view, is be put in his re-education camps. Has IRI started to stockpile Zyklon B as well as the barbed wire?
March 21st, 2006 at 9:17 pmDidn’t say tactically beatan but stragetically beaten just as the soviets were stragetically beaten in Afghanistan……………..
Comment by Clif —
Read a book will 'ya? The Soviets were beating by the CIA and Stingers. End of story.
March 21st, 2006 at 9:18 pmIRI it's time to drop that toilet brush you use in serving and pick up REAL MAN'S weapon in service to his country; the M-16. You're the one posting on how much a bad ass you are---PROVE IT ASSHOLE!!! Join the army, NO EXCUSES!!!!!!!
March 21st, 2006 at 9:27 pmIRI the soviets were beaten by individuals that had something you lack the testicular fortitude to go straight into the teeth of the enemy knowing they were going to die and but they attacked anyway. The took on the soviet Army for 8 years and wore them down, the stingers would help but the jihadists were the ground troops, and they won the war not the CIA not the back door deals for weapons but the troops who were fighting for their country something some other soldiers did in this country did in the last quarter of the 1700's. Funny the same Idea the vietnamese fought for in the 50's and 60's in their country......Freedom fighters fight to total death and occupation armies are just not that committed. That is a historical fact.
March 21st, 2006 at 10:40 pmIRI and Clif,
You are both right. The CIA supported the Afgans, particularly bin Laden wth finance, intell and arms. The Afgans then took these prize posessions and fought back.
Then, after the Afgan war and the fall of the U.S.S.R, the CIA used O.B.L. as a "terrorist leader" who would then go about recruiting those who wanted to follow his "cause." When in reality, he (O.B.L.) was and still is taking his orders from the CIA (actually, The Secret Team, not the actual CIA as we you know it). This created, and continues to maintain a "terrorist threat" to pose as our constant enemy, since communism and the U.S.S.R. had been contained or eliminated.
You see, the military industrial complex runs this county. As Eisenhower stated. Continual conflict is what they are after. Its what they had with "the communists" and its what they have now with "terrorists."
"States are not moral agents" - Chomsky
March 21st, 2006 at 11:24 pm[...] Think Progress has debunked this lie. [...]
March 21st, 2006 at 11:57 pmElvis you are still on those drugs you took too much of in the 70's. OLB as you call him is not on the pay roll of the CIA since at least the end of the Afghan war. According to your delusional thinking his Hard line Jihadist vs the west is just a cover. That might make a good hollywood movie but in real life he has a cause. That of reestablishing the islamic caliphate, and that is definitately not on the CIA's list of things to doi this century. OBL is dedicated to the old rule of a Islamic law over the Muslim nation that existed at the turn of the 20th century before WW1. The CIA is following the orders of the neo-con cabal that has directed the foriegn policy of this country since they assumed power in the Reagan- Bush administration. Both OBLK and the CIA had reasons to want a defear of the USSR in Afghanistan but the ends beyond that were diametrically opposed. Thus we have both competing for the Saudi's to accept their service in pushing back on Iraq in 1990, and OBL came in second place, his venomous hatred of US began at that point where we blocked his attempt to play the role of salidin and protect the Holy sites from the infidel Saddam. We became the main focus when we kept our military in the Saudi Kingdom, and the only remaining power able to block his goals. At this time we are locked in a battle to see which will be in control of the region. we made a stragetic mistake in moving into Iraq because we toppled Saddam something OBLK could not do on his own, and then opened up Iraq for sectarian violence and insurgency, something OBL could take advantage of by bleeding US the same way he bleed the Soviets in Afghanistan.
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:03 amThe only thing we could do that might be even stupider is to attack Iran which is the only opposition in the Muslim world for OBL in the extreme jihadist movement OBL being sunni and Iran being Shiite. However the clown patrol that passes for stragetic leadership in DC now days doesn't seem to have a clue as to how the sunni Jihadists plan to fight stragetically, since they keep focussing on their vietnam problems not the soviet Afghan problems.
But do keep believing in your favorite fairytail as toi the OBL-CIA connection if it helps you pass the minutes of your life away.
He wanted war real bad. No question about it. He lied then and he lied again today. Shame on anybody who believes anything this man says.
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:11 am"I am serving Uncle Ho. Comment by I-RIGHT-I"
If you aren't in Iraq, you aren't serving - you're 'posing', like most frauds - including Mr. 'Mission Accomplished'. You're a fake, an idiot, a fool, and a retard.
"Read a book will ‘ya? The Soviets were beating by the CIA and Stingers. End of story. Comment by I-RIGHT-I"
Bahaha, OH PUHLEASE, that's such a sack of crap. The soviets collapsed because
of corruption, cronyism, mismanagent and failures of leadership - which are much the same problem that the current republicans have. They over extended themselves in Afghanistan in an expensive war (sound familiar), and in their arrogance they mismanaged natural and manmade disasters (sound familiar).
Your 'delusional' comments about the soviets is consistent with your numerous retarded and failed 'logic' you post daily. You can't be out of primary school, because you sound like a naive and moronic little child!
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:53 am#173 - "IRI, reading your recent rantings I’d swear that you were once in a past life, a member of the camp guards at Auschwitz..." Chairman Mao's little cousin, Ho
*****No, Ho - forgive me, that sounds like a garbage filled rap/hip-hop "song", I-R-I is a good friend to Israel, supports her right to exist and appreciates the bravery and alliance of the Israeli people. You might be confusing AuschNAZI's with some in the prog movement who are unabashedly anti-Jewish. (I know this is confusing when the favourite insult of the left is "Nazi".) That's almost as boring and tired as chauvinist and racist - both overdone to the point of meaning .... nothing....
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:26 amBack on thread - if President Clinton and other "security minded" Dems (ha!!) had gone after Saddam when he was busy violating the cease fire agreement, progs would have to find something else to whine about. Let Dems debate the NSA terrorist surveillance program - Americans are interested in where Dems "stand" on wiretapping suspected terrorists. Democrats are the "gift that keeps on giving".
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:31 am"*****No, Ho - forgive me, that sounds like a garbage filled rap/hip-hop “songâ€, I-R-I is a good friend to Israel, supports her right to exist and appreciates the bravery and alliance of the Israeli people. Mighty Moron"
Is that the same IRI who rants about 'secular jews', and sounds just like a Nazi doing it?
"You might be confusing AuschNAZI’s with some in the prog movement who are unabashedly anti-Jewish. (I know this is confusing when the favourite insult of the left is “Naziâ€.) That’s almost as boring and tired as chauvinist and racist - both overdone to the point of meaning …. nothing…. Comment by mighty aphrodite "
Or maybe the republican party, which now harbors vast number of David Duke's Nazi members - who are just thrilled with current republican parties.
And yet, you make 'chauvinistic' attacks on me constantly, by accusing me of being 'feminine', and therefore 'weak' - a classic chauvanistic comment.
And where did you learn punctuation and grammar - did you 'skip' grammar school on your way to 'law school'? Or did your mother 'cheap out' and home school you, while pretending it was a 'private' school?
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:36 amOf course Dems and progs wish Saddam were still in charge of Iraq - they'd have more money for never-ending "entitlement" programs. Progs should answer this question before typing - if more $$$$ is the answer to levelling the playing field in education - why are the public schools in DC (average expenditure: $12K+/year/student) so $h*ttY??
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:39 am"Back on thread - if President Clinton and other “security minded†Dems (ha!!) had gone after Saddam when he was busy violating the cease fire agreement, progs would have to find something else to whine about. Mighty Moron"
The problem with your 'assumption' is that Clinton would have screwed up as badly as bush had, or acted unilaterally or pre-emptively. That's as 'retarded' as all of your assumptions - no surprise. You're just making the same old 'boring' arguments that Clinton would do it to.
"Let Dems debate the NSA terrorist surveillance program - Americans are interested in where Dems “stand†on wiretapping suspected terrorists. Democrats are the “gift that keeps on givingâ€. Comment by mighty aphrodite "
We could, or we could instead discuss the 'warrantless wiretapping' of american citizens and the direct violation of the constitution. You are right, democrats are the gift that keep on giving to this country, whereas the republicans have become the thieves, liars, torturers, murders, crooks and idiots that keep on stealing and destroying.
I'd rather be a 'gift' than a 'curse' Nazi Boy. You share a lot of history with hitler you know. He was of austrian decent and had one jewish grandparent as well, and he was also a 'rightwing' christian. All of those similarities might explain why you sound like such a Nazi.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:41 amFalling back on the "blame Clinton" defense again huh? Newsflash, Clinton isn't the President, Bush, the biggest lying shitbag in the world is the President. What do you do when so much overwhelming evidence shows your Fuhrer lies and lies, and lies?
Are you dumbfucks still going to support this clown when he's led from the white house in handcuffs? Just look at all the Repubs. distancing themselves from the disaster called Bush before the midterms. IrightI and Mighty Afro, you and your ilk will stay behind Bush even if he was caught giving Osama Bin Laden a handjob in the Oval Office. Speaking of Bin Laden, where the hell is he? How come cowboy chimp hasn't brought him to justice, he's so tough on terror, isn't he? Oh wait, I forgot, Bin Laden has a cozy home in Pakistan, our "ally" in the "war on terror". Our ally that pardons people, (Khan), for being a real spreader of WMD. Tough on terror my ass.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:50 am"Of course Dems and progs wish Saddam were still in charge of Iraq - they’d have more money for never-ending “entitlement†programs. Mighty Moron"
Wow, so you'd have rather wasted money on a useless war, than spend it on fighting poverty, improving education, and protecting the environment. Sounds like my charge of 'Nazi' was too kind, you're a PERVERTED NAZI.
And just so you know, Michael Leedon - one of the foremost NeoNazi/NeoCons (you know, the guys who write most of the tripe you post here) disagrees with you. In an interview published this week, he says he would have preferred that the Reichwing leave Saddam in power as well. He says Iran was the real threat, and the Morons in the whitehouse squandered the real opportunity.
"Progs should answer this question before typing - if more $$$$ is the answer to levelling the playing field in education - why are the public schools in DC (average expenditure: $12K+/year/student) so $h*ttY?? Comment by mighty aphrodite"
Ah, that would be a question related to economics - and that's probably why you're so retarded and incapable of answering it. Republicans always seem unfit to discuss money issues - their wallets are too close to their brains. To understand DC, one must first understand the difference in urban vs. rural cost structures don't you? Most states have vast rural areas where the cost of land, construction, labor and teachers is much cheaper. DC is ENTIRELY urban, and one of the most expensive land and labor cost structures in the country. The result is that the cost per capita is higher for basic infrastructure.
An example of this is where you might say why is an apartment in NYC so shitty when it costs 1 million dollars. The problem isn't that money doesn't solve the problem, but MORE money is required in high cost zones to deliver equivalent services. So the problem is that DC would require more money than average to provide 'equivalent' services. It's a 'red' versus' blue' thing, so it must be hard for you to understand fixed costs, base salary differentials and regional overheads. But then, what isn't difficult for you to understand?
Like I said, it requires understanding money, and your 'simpleton' childish view of the world will surely prevent you from having any reason or intelligence to discuss the issue. Come on Mighty Moron - I've answered your question, and solved this 'simple' mystery that a CHILD would know for you. Are you just going to 'attack' me I know, because you're too stupid to think for yourself - but give it your best shot moron. Clicking you off is like hitting the fat mechanical duck at the carnival! Easy pickings!
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:50 am[...] What is that sound I hear, the shrill whining of right-wing nuts up a notch this week. Their president’s poll numbers are in the tank, likely to stay there and put a few Congressional seats in the Democratic column. The post debacle, the domestic spying scandal, the torture in our name. The foundations of the current economy are rickety, riding on enormous debt, both personal and federal. A minority of zealots in South Dakota have managed to pass a bill forcing women into maternity. Iraq, whatever it is, civil war or middle-east alleyway of perpetual violence is most assuredly the Bush cabal’s fault, a mess that they micro-managed from the safety of their Washington bunkers. Despite the doubletalk, Bush was hell bent on war and now even he has tried to distance himself from being the war president. British Memo — Bush, Blair Agreed to Invade In Late Jan. 2003: [...]
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:04 am"Back on thread - if President Clinton and other “security minded†Dems (ha!!) had gone after Saddam when he was busy violating the cease fire agreement, progs would have to find something else to whine about."
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 22, 2006 @ 1:31 am
And if that pussy George Bush senior had finished the job in the first place, all you'd have to bitch about is a blow job.
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:38 am"They wouldn’t let me near automatic weapons and high explosives so instead I went to school and later helped design one of the weapons systems that makes us invincible on the field of battle."
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — March 21, 2006 @ 5:49
Now I know why the missile defense system's never worked.
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:42 amThe Marines are animals
The Marines' explanation is that they heard the sound of a Kalashnikov being readied to shoot and had then fired their weapons. The Marines say they were fired at from a second house, where they broke down a door, threw in a grenade and opened fire. The eight who died in the second house included the owner, his wife, the owner's sister, a two-year-old son and three young daughters.
In a third house the Marines searched four young men were shot dead. A military investigation decided these were insurgent fighters, along with four others killed in the street.
The Marines later delivered 24 bodies to a hospital in Haditha, claiming they had been killed by shrapnel from a bomb. Dr Wahid, the director of the hospital, said: "It was obvious to us there were no organs slashed by shrapnel. The bullet wounds were very apparent. Most of the victims were shot in the head and chest - from close range."
An US military investigation decided the deaths were "collateral damage". Relatives were paid $2,500 (£1,400) for each of the dead.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article352819.ece
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:03 amWhat's Become of Americans?
The neocons have yet to tell us the real reason for their assault on Iraq, which has so far produced 20,000 dead, maimed, and wounded U.S. soldiers, between 30,000 and 180,000 (and rising) Iraqi civilians, and demoralized U.S. Marines to the point that they commit atrocities on women and children.
Would real Americans accept these blows for the sake of an undeclared agenda? Perhaps it is true that Americans don't live here any longer.
READ THIS
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:15 amGeorge W Bush and the Republican Party invaded Iraq
for:
Tax cuts for the wealthy
oil
destruction of medicare
destruction of social security
Join the campaign for progressive legislation.
http://www.boycott-republicans.com
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:09 amMighty moron, obviously you are a shyster of a "lawyer". Feel perfectly free to join IRI into the army.
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:09 am#195 - And if that pussy George Bush senior had finished the job in the first place, all you’d have to bitch about is a blow job."
Comment by Dano347
*****"Finishing the job" - you mean capturing Saddam?? And violating our agreement with our international, and specifically Arab, Allies that progressives love to tout??? Regarding former Presidents Clinton's "morals". I could care less what he does and who he does it with. But the "concerned" Dems showed their lack of concern for women when they APPROVED of his lies under oath re: a sexual harassment suit. SUPPOSEDLY Dems are interested in fairness and equity for women - but only SOME womem. Dems have NEVER been the party of "liberated, independent women". They only glommed on to the "women's movement" to garner another block of voters. But you knew that....
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:43 am#197, put Colin Powell in charge of the investigation - he'll clear it all up...
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:49 am#198, "What’s Become of Americans?"
Some of them have always been this way. Evolution is a slow process.
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:51 amEr, this thread is about BUsh and the war, not about Clinton and where he takes his trousers off. There are more important things in life than Bill Clinton's penis.
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:57 am206, "There are more important things in life than Bill Clinton’s penis."
It'd be nice if the world was like that. Unfortunately, most of the possessors of penises (including honorary owners like Ann Coulter) are fundamentally, ha, concerned with not only keeping these organs crowned and in control of the world's resources -- including that most treacherous of resources, the army of vagina-possessors -- and as part of that program, the behavior of said penes (an alternate plural) and penis-possessors must be rigidly monitored and kept SECRET, dammit. Nothing is so divisive as sex, particularly when it is someone else having the sex.
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:03 amBushiva's unnecessary illegal Iraqi invasion...$500,000,000,000
Bushiva's corporate Pharmaceutical giveaway (Medicare)...$900,000,000,000
Accountability...Priceless
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:25 pmWhat people need to understand is that when congress authorized the use of force after 9/11, it included the authority to sodomize puppies. Those who would criticize the sodomy of the puppy do not understand what is at stake, as they still have a pre-9/11 mindset.
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:48 pmWhat was the puppy doing? Dropping a 'dirty' bomb on the lawn? Why does the puppy hate America?
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:55 pm[...] Today’s press conference, like yesterday’s speech, also included Bush contradicting his previous actions and statements: In his press conference this morning, President Bush claimed he had not made up his mind to go to war before the start of the military invasion. … Bush appears to be the only person left who believes his own myth that he went to war with Iraq as a last resort. The evidence is overwhelming to the contrary. [...]
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:37 pmIf people would simply look at the evidence for government complicity in 911, it would all be over - - it would blow Shrubby out of the water. See David Ray Griffin, "The 911 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" as well as his first book, "The New Pearl Harbor." It is all there in black and white. Let he who has ears, hear.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:59 pmCarol,
"If people would simply look," they would miss something on /American Idol/.
Sad but true.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:45 pmWas #5 written by Dick Cheney? If that fellow was serious, then he ought to go back to school to learn to read various pieces such as the Downing Street memos. I forget, he has already been told that. What WE must do is to put vast amounts of pressure on our Democratic Party to start acting like jackasses do, and that is to work like crazy and to kick the daylights out of anyone with ideas that do not reflect democracy.
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:33 pmI have a hard time spotting the difference between an American presidential election and American Idol, Glenn - although I think you could use Simon Cowell to sort out the crap.
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:30 pmIf people would simply look at the evidence for government complicity in 911, it would all be over - - it would blow Shrubby out of the water. See David Ray Griffin, “The 911 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions†as well as his first book, “The New Pearl Harbor.†It is all there in black and white. Let he who has ears, hear.
Comment by Carol
Fruitcake
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:49 pmIRI: The Bush doctrine applies to those countries that are easily invaded, defeated and controlled. It does not apply to any country of military strength. This doctrine or what the hell you want to call it is the biggest boondoogle in the history of American foreign policy. Your translation of my analysis is not in line with the current majority of the American public who know that the war is a disaster to this country's foreign policy, domestic tranquillity and economic future. Whether the tribes and religious factions in Iraq arrive at a democracy is their business. My concern is for the number of dead and the number of deaths yet to occur, the squandering of our national treasury and the fact that the dolt in the white house and his corrupt congress has (3)more years of mischief to further their aims. There are justifiable wars. I had three brothers in WW2, one at Omaha Beach and two in the Pacific theater. I served in the US Army. I do have some appreciation for the sacrifice made by our soldiers in Iraq. It is unfortunate they are dying for the "Bush Doctrine".
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:38 pmAmericans rule this rock and have since WWII. The Donks want it that way just as much as the Republicans.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I —
I-WRONG-I,
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:41 pmThis is a most interesting confession from you. So if you believe that "the Donks (liberals/progressives) want it that way just as much as the Republicans," why are you usually accusing us of being traitors, Al-Qaeda sympathizers, and whatever rubbish your angry mind can concoct?
some people kill birds for sport.
some people kill deer for sport.
still other people kill fish for sport.
Dick cheney tries to kill his allies for sport.
Bush tries to take down nations for sport.
moral of the story?
March 23rd, 2006 at 12:18 pmyou need a license to kill birds,
you need a license to kill deer,
you need a license to kill fish,
but to kill people, all you have to be is
elected, or a friend of the President.
Has anyone checked out this 9/11 conspiracy theory film, Loose Change? Fascinating stuff.
Part One:
http://media.thetruthseeker.org/mirrors/question911.com/Loose%20Change%202E%201of3.wmv
Part Two:
http://media.thetruthseeker.org/mirrors/question911.com/Loose%20Change%202E%202of3.wmv
Part Three:
March 24th, 2006 at 7:26 pmhttp://media.thetruthseeker.org/mirrors/question911.com/Loose%20Change%202E%203of3.wmv
I had three brothers in WW2, one at Omaha Beach and two in the Pacific theater. I served in the US Army. I do have some appreciation for the sacrifice made by our soldiers in Iraq. It is unfortunate they are dying for the “Bush Doctrineâ€.
Comment by Nova16
Thank you for your service and your family's service to our country. I suggest you research other sides to the question of what we should or should not be doing in the Middle East. I can suggest Ralph Peters as a place to start. We are at war and it has nothing at all to do with one man's personal goals or entanglements. We are fighting for our lives just like we were in WWII. Be a Churchill not a Chamberlain.
March 25th, 2006 at 10:48 ambut to kill people, all you have to be is
elected, or a friend of the President.
Comment by Margie tyrrell
....or a left wing headchopper appeasing fucktard. The side you've chosen has presided over the deaths of over 60 million people in the last 100 years. More killed in all of the wars in recorded history combined. I bet you didn't know that is the legacy of the Filthy Left.
March 25th, 2006 at 10:51 amBe a Churchill not a Chamberlain.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — March 25, 2006 @ 10:48 am
Seriously, you need to read some current history. Churchill was a liberal by your definition. Don't bother to quote this:
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." It's not his... "There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35!?"
Here are some he did say:
Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities... because it is the quality which guarantees all others.
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.
March 25th, 2006 at 10:01 pmSeriously, you need to read some current history. Churchill was a liberal by your definition.
Comment by unbelievable
I doubt very much Churchill was a liberal by anyone's definition but that was not the point. Churchill single handedly saved England from the Nazis while Chamberlain and his crew nearly SURRENDERED. That was my point in saying to the man he should be a Churchill. I have no problem with classical liberals anyway, it's new treasonous anti-American fuckweasels I love to hate.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:04 pmBush was talking about wanting to invade Iraq before he was elected:
Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer
Bush saw invading as a crucial element of partisan political success before he was elected.
March 27th, 2006 at 10:57 am"Leave him alone, he is just trying to wate space. Kind of like he does on a daily basis." - Jules, #76
Bwahahahah. Now, when will this logic carry into the current administration from the populace?
March 28th, 2006 at 2:35 pm[...] I’m surprised, but I’m not that some Bush supporters are still using the “UN” argument to justify invading Iraq. We know from various sources including three Bitish memos that the UN was just a prop in a play. It didn’t work out completely like Bush wanted it to since ultimately Iraq allowed inspectors in, but since Saddam didn’t shower the inspectors with roses and kisses Bush decided that Saddam wasn’t being cooperative enough and kicked them out. “A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law Officers advice, none currently exists.” [...]
April 18th, 2006 at 3:04 am[...] 1) To rebut the “myth†that “The president misled Americans to convince them to go to war,†Wehner claims, “Important assumptions turned out wrong; but mistakenly relying on faulty intelligence is a world apart from lying about it.†FACT: Administration Created Stovepipes To Feed Politicized Intelligence. In his nomination hearing last week, Gen. Michael Hayden admitted that he “wasn’t comfortable†with the administration’s approach to Iraq intelligence. Hayden’s comments reveal that intelligence experts like himself were sidelined in the run-up to the war while political leaders like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Doug Feith set up intelligence stovepipes to “get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership.†FACT: Administration Had Its Sights Set on War Regardless of Intelligence. Despite Bush’s insistence that he didn’t want war, there is overwhelming evidence he made up his mind to go to war well before the intelligence community rendered its judgments. [...]
May 23rd, 2006 at 1:28 pm[...] Sure the Bushies would have liked to have had some real evidence, but evidence didn’t really matter, British Memo — Bush, Blair Agreed to Invade In Late Jan. 2003: A memo of a two-hour meeting between [Bush and Blair] at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme. [Guardian, 2/3/06] [...]
May 24th, 2006 at 2:14 am[...] All I want to do is build a fence. But George Bush wanted to be a “war President”. [...]
August 15th, 2006 at 8:15 amThis lie is just the tip of an iceberg.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:02 pm