Larry King to Bush: ‘You Took The Lead on Iraq, the U.N. Went Along’
By on Jul 6th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Larry King to Bush: ‘You Took The Lead on Iraq, the U.N. Went Along’
CNN’s Larry King started his interview with President Bush by asking him about North Korea: “You’re into taking the lead on these things. You took the lead on Iraq, the U.N. went along, you got other countries to go along, why not take the lead here?”
Actually, the U.N. did not “go along” with the invasion of Iraq. President Bush promised to take the issue to the U.N. Security Council “no matter what the whip count,” but never did. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan described the invasion of Iraq as “not in conformity with the UN charter…from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Larry King is an idiot. Unbelievable.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:51 pmJust another photo op for the Chimp and Pickles. Bush has nothing of substance to say and Larry King is an idiot. Isn’t it about time for Larry King to retire and spend time with his young wife and toddler?
July 6th, 2006 at 9:55 pmLarry did a pretty good job reading the questions Karl Rove gave him.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:57 pm#3 - I’m impressed. I couldn’t bring myself to watch Bush. In fact, my stomach turns every time I hear his voice. The best I can do is read what he said. I admire your fortitude.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:05 pmLarry “the frog” lost all credibilty way back when he said he was best friends with Sandy Koufax and that they grew up together,………Sandy never met him.
…and speaking of BB, throw me one of your parabola balls Larry….said W
July 6th, 2006 at 10:05 pmWay to go, Larry. Thanks to you, we’re that much closer to waging yet another unwinnable war. Jackass.
With this latest kowtowing to the P.T.B., you’ve exhausted what little respectability you had left. You are dead to me, Larry.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:07 pm#6 - Did Larry King propose that the US use pre-emptive force with Korea?
July 6th, 2006 at 10:10 pmThere goes that damned liberal Larry and the librul media again.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:15 pmCan King get any dumber? The UN opposed Bush’s clarion to war, it did NOT “go along” with it. Kofi Annan denounced the US invasion as a violation of the UN charter and the US did not get approval from the Security Council for war.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:20 pmI tried to watch it, I really did, but I couldn’t get past the Happy Birthday shit.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:27 pmThose of you who managed to watch, I have mailed each of you a personal check in the amount of $1,000,000, you deserve it, really. :)
Why is anyone interviewing this wooden-head and his zombie bride?
Neither one has anything of value to say of the world.
Unless, of course, they care to apologize and surrender themselves to the World Court.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:28 pmReply to #10:
Props for making the attempt. My wife and I decided we’d rather keep our dinners down tonight, so we gave it a pass.
Not that it matters…in the opening question, it was already clear where Larry stood. The administration has declared war upon the press, and Larry has made it quite clear that he stands in the camp of the collaborators.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:34 pmLarry King is an idiot. Unbelievable.
Comment by Linda — July 6, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
Can it get any worse? Larry is and has always been a shill for the rich and famous. ” i am not worthy”.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:48 pmI do believe Mr. King was referring to resolution 1483. I do believe I’m probably the only one commenting here that has actually read resolution 1483.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:53 pmsooo… i’m guessing he didn’t ask laura about staying at that washington hotel because of the fight she and george had after finding out he and condi were having an affair… eh?
July 6th, 2006 at 10:55 pmvicious rumor…
i do believe sEiXXON always thinks he’s superior to everyone. i do believe he goes out of his way to attempt to prove it every opportunity he gets.
self-aggrandize much, sEiXXON?
July 6th, 2006 at 10:58 pm#17
yes, whenever i see his name it reminds me of being out to a nice dinner and having one of the waiters walking over and taking a dump on the centerpiece…
*ignore him and he may go away and look at his reflection in a mirror*
July 6th, 2006 at 11:03 pmMike Wallace can do a better job than King. He never throws a softball question at anybody and doesn’t need KKKarl Rove to tell him how to ask questions.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:07 pmYeah, Mr. King is up on resolution 1483, emmhmm,right after he researches the particulars of the Nick and Jessica divorce. pfffft
July 6th, 2006 at 11:08 pmHeckuva job, Larry!
July 6th, 2006 at 11:08 pmi do believe the supreme court has recently judged that the bush administration has made a mockery of resolution 1483, which calls upon all concerned to comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the geneva conventions of 1949 and the hague regulations of 1907…
i do believe bush issued eo 13303, which contradicts un resolution 1483 and validates iraq as an unabashed oil grab…
July 6th, 2006 at 11:15 pmSexion 1483 was after we invaded, the UN WAS not for the invasion. Only a few of American puppet countries went along. The UN realized they should try to get involved to perhaps maybe keep what is happening now in the country, a power grab, civil wars, and another puppet government installed. Find me a resolution that authorized the invasion?
July 6th, 2006 at 11:17 pmReply to #14:
I do believe you are once again attempting to distort the issue.
Resolution 1483 was enacted after the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and the ‘coalition of the willing’. In short, it was enacted to clean up our mess.
Insinuating that Larry was referring to Resolution 1483 is just plain idiotic. I’d expect these sort of shenanigans from moonbat patrol or mighty aphrodite, but we expect something at least halfway coherent from you, Seixon.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:25 pm“we expect something at least halfway coherent from you, Seixon”
i don’t!
July 6th, 2006 at 11:27 pmLaura knows Linda Lay but hasn’t written a letter. George hopes Ken’s heart was right with Jesus. Amazing empathy for Kenny Boy and family. I was excited to hear speculation of what Bush would do when he’s out of office and the 8 year night of the long knives is over (we hope and pray). If I’m not mistaken 1483 is the number of days in the year of a Bush presidentcy. Also, Bush says there’s no excuse for not excercising. He likes to break up his work day with a little work out session (with Condi).
July 6th, 2006 at 11:33 pmWhat is so bizzare is that the ENTIRE Iraq odyssey began with the statement by April Glasby to Sadam 16 years ago, that Iraq-kuwait problems where no concern to the USA. Along with the false intelligence information that Iraqi troops were near the Saudi Arabia border after invading Kuwait.
Then years later, false intelligence information about IRAQ having nuclear weapons or being involved with the World Trade Center Terrorists
July 6th, 2006 at 11:41 pmCAPTION CONTEST!!!
July 6th, 2006 at 11:41 pmKING: Take this invisible rod and shove it up your ass.
KING: hey george, remember when we used to milk the bulls together? yea, laura thought that was real funny.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:46 pm“You’re into taking the lead on these things. You took the lead on Iraq, the U.N. went along, you got other countries to go along, why not take the lead here?â€
That has to be the dumbest question of his career. Or if he really is THAT bad then one of his dumbest moments.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:51 pmCHIMPY: …and that’s how i crushed the will of americans, by goading them into fear over 9/11 and making them think saddam was responsible.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:51 pmKING: like this?
CHIMPY: no, it’s a bit more subtle than that. what you’re doing there is the ‘iron fist’. that’s more like stalin — an admirable man, but much too direct for modern times. karl’s really the expert on these things…
KING: How have you managed, Mr. President, to have american people´s balls in a firm grip?
BUSH: Well, he he, thats easy, it just take 2 towers and a missile in the Pentagon.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:01 amWhat is so bizzare is that the ENTIRE Iraq odyssey began with the statement by April Glasby to Sadam 16 years ago, that Iraq-kuwait problems where no concern to the USA.
Comment by Search Engine WEB — July 6, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
you are only the 2nd person i’ve heard talk about this…
July 7th, 2006 at 12:03 amrandi rhodes has explained all that many times…
not surprising that it is not common knowledge…
can you supply a good link for that story? thanks…
Yup, he took the lead alright, and other people are taking the lead.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:05 amheh juan, good one…
July 7th, 2006 at 12:09 amyou forgot,
BUSH: Well, he he, thats easy, it just takes 2 towers and a missile in the Pentagon. and of course i like gripping balls.
I do believe Mr. King was referring to resolution 1483.
Comment by Seixon — July 6, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
Resolution 1483 was passed in May 2003, after the invasion.
I do believe Mr. King could not possibly have been referring to that resolution in the context of North Korea, their nuclear program, and “taking the lead on Iraq”.
I do believe I’m probably the only one commenting here that has actually read resolution 1483.
I do believe you have not read it either.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:13 amI am now 20 minutes into the replaying of this and seeing it for the first time. I can already justify some of the frustration I see here in the comments. Larry King has already missed a handfull of chances to call out Bush on huge policy problems. I am so tired of hearing Bush say that he “believes” in what he is doing and doesn’t care about the polls. Katrina showed us how much he doesn’t care about Poor people too. He cares about rich people and oil. He and his administration and his “war on terror” are a disgrace and the loser is our own living document known as “The Constitution”.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:22 am“KING: So there is no doubt, if you had it to do over again, knowing the WMDs weren’t there, you’d still go in?
G. BUSH: Yes. This is — we removed a tyrant, who was a weapon — he was an enemy of the United States who harbored terrorists and who had the capacity, at the very minimum, to make weapons of mass destruction. And he was a true threat. And yes, I would have done the same thing.”
Way to go Larry, let the lies continue unchallenged, why bother trying to expose the truth? it’s so damn messy after all.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:30 amPOSTED A VIDEO MASHUP PER SOME OF BUSH’S COMMENTS TONIGHT ON LARRY KING:
http://www.hotpotatomash.com/2006/07/bush_thinks_abo.html
July 7th, 2006 at 12:43 amA few questions Larry could have asked (but would never dare):
Why did you deliberately lie to the American people in order to start a war? Who really makes the decisions in your Administration, anyway? What do you think about the calls for your impeachment for lying to the American people about Iraq and for illegal domestic spying? Do you think you can break the law with impunity? Enron was your #1 campaign contributor - do you have regrets about your relationship with Ken Lay?
July 7th, 2006 at 1:17 amI read someone today say that short of violence he would condone anything to wake up the sheep in this country who still cannot or will not see what a criminal scumbag this president is. I think we may be at the point where only violence will open peoples eyes. I myself do not condone this, but id love to see the reprecussions.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:23 am#26…….(Larry) So Laura, you take this many pills an hour?
July 7th, 2006 at 1:24 amThose of you who managed to watch, I have mailed each of you a personal check in the amount of $1,000,000, you deserve it, really. :)
Comment by Zooey aka Zookeeper — July 6, 2006 @ 10:27 pm
Damn.
I knew I should’ve watched it. Could’ve been rich.
I’ve just had my fill of propoganda for the month.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:36 amDid anyone catch Bush saying, “I want the people to know I think about the war every day! Every day! (as though this is unusual and he should reap enormous praise for it). But then he said, “I GET INTEL BRIEFS EVERY DAY….EXCEPT SUNDAY”. What?! So intelligence matters aren’t relevant or important on a Sunday ?!?! Good lord.
Bush has so severely destroyed the good will other countries had towards the United States that those countries, by in large, don’t just dislike Bush immensely…they dislike our country and ALL of us. I get upset when Presidents or anyone for that matter says indistinguishable remarks like, ‘Iran is a bad country’ …instead of saying that the country’s leader or it’s government is bad but the people who live in that country are good, decent people. I am only using Iran as an example. Those blanket generalizations have always bothered me when Presidents/leaders/politicians, etc…make those types of remarks about any country they want to put on their proverbial shit list. NOW, it’s happening to us on an even larger scale. The world is not looking at America as having bad leadership right now, they see us ALL as being bad (as evidenced by the recent poll in England). They no longer distinguish between the Bush Administration and we, the American people.
I realize that many have NEVER liked Americans but the level of hatred and disgust that people around the world have towards us right now really bothers me. Bush has destroyed any Diplomacy countries would otherwise want to engage in with us. Bush has put us in an extremely dangerous position.
Because too many Americans refuse to hold Bush accountable for all he’s done to destroy our country and democracy, people assume that we all must like the job Bush is doing. I HATE THAT! I cannot stand being associated with such an enormously dishonest, criminal, corrupt, failed, incompetent, enormously unpopular, ineffective Dictator/wannabe King! I am soooo angry at what this man has done to our country and our position in the world, I could spit nails. Even if we manage to get a Democrat in power, he/she will have to spend all their time getting our country back to normal..pre Bush-destruction Era. It will take an extraordinary amount of time to move beyond repairs and towards excelling once again. Their time will be consumed by fixing the extraordinary mess Bush has made. I’ll take it though. As long as we can get someone to reverse the course Bush has taken us on, I’ll be satisfied.
It’s not just other countries that judge us so harshly, it’s how history will regard us throughout time. You and I will be remembered as those who tried diligently to stop him but overall, we will be looked at as oppressed people who could not overcome this destructive President and Administration. Just think of what Bush has taught our children: Lying is good and there will be no consequences. Corruption is good because it gives you power. Failure is okay because you can hope for a good ‘legacy’ after your dead. Crime is acceptable because there will be no punishment. Bush has done so much damage to this country and the people in it that it’s almost immeasureable. I was so offended that he decided to celebrate his birthday, on of all days, the 4th of July when that wasn’t even his REAL birthday. Yet, the Washington Post had a special sappy article about the ‘twin’ birthdays called, “Bush celebrates 60 and 230. It’s just like when he took last Veteran’s Day to make a rabidly partisan political speech. The man has no shame, whatsoever. He’s a vile human being and I will not rest until he, along with his followers, are out of power.
WHY IS THIS MAN STILL IN OFFICE? WHY WILL HE STILL BE THERE TOMORROW? WHY WAS HE STILL THERE YESTERDAY? HOW DID HE GET THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE (THAT, I know the answer to!) I, ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD, WOULD REALLY LIKE TO KNOW! MORE THAN THAT, I WANT SO BADLY FOR IT TO CHANGE!! I CANNOT BEAR 2+ YEARS MORE OF THIS, NOR CAN THIS COUNTRY, NOR CAN THIS WORLD. HE HAS TO GO.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:40 amSometimes I get so depressed I think, why bother? Larry King is pathetic. I never thought in my life that I would see the United States of America sink to such a low level of integrity and intellect and the people become so inept at protecting the basic tenets that it was founded on. It really makes my stomach turn sometimes. We are enduring everything that is happening today and since this administration was appointed because of the ridiculous, cockamamie, convoluted ideals of the Project for the New American Century, http://www.newamericancentury.org/.
George Bush and Dick(head) Cheney belong in jail, plain and simple. Cheney is the sinister mastermind while chimpy George is the amiable, likeable dummy front-man for this insane cabal. If we allow these neo-con nitwits to remain in power and eviscerate our freedoms we will soon be a part of history not unlike the old Soviet Union. Bankrupt and forever broken.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:49 amBankrupt yes, but I don’t think it will be broken unless we all give up.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:53 amStranger things have happened in politics, once in a blue moon the people get their day.
Hope is the thing with feathers…
Bush was making monkey faces on the Larry King show > proved he is a chimp > lol. America is sliding down a steep slope into a ditch under the Bush Regime > pray somehow we survive him!
July 7th, 2006 at 2:32 amabove…I meant ‘while’.
Anyway, funny how Laura never seems to feel used by her husband. He only brings her out in public when he’s in especially deep shit. I often wonder how she puts up with him. I think it is because she was a teacher and teachers are there to teach the uneducated. She may find it rewarding to be in that role with her husband. Someone explained that Bush likes to explain things to people as though they were all stupid because that’s how things were explained to him. Remember when Bush was campaigning and even into his first year in office, his defenders would say to those who called him an idiot, ‘No, really…he’s very, very intelligent. You are all wrong about him.” Funny you never hear that from them anymore. Listening to Bush and watching him think literally makes my brain hurt. It really disturbs me that as many people voted for him as they did. Twice. Do that many people really find him capable whatsoever of being President of the United States? That’s frightening. Where do they draw the line?
July 7th, 2006 at 3:03 amI hope it isn’t NEWS that Larry King is a glad-handing moron. He gets controversial guests on his show and then avoids talking in depth and he never knows much about them and is never confrontational…even a little but. He’s been that way since he started on CNN. Who really thoguht he’d change now?
July 7th, 2006 at 3:23 amthis man is an idiot,he rambled yesterday at a press conference,equated hiv to terrorism,too many oohs and ahs,no sentece structure,he`s a lunatic,yet he has his hands on nuke weapons,damn we can`t 2 more years of this shit.
July 7th, 2006 at 5:14 amKing is a genius.
Democrats have set the new standard.
If you don’t openly protest something you are for it.
July 7th, 2006 at 8:01 amWrite to CNN and complain that there was no reason to give Bush a birthday gift of softball slobber by Larry King. An interviewer with four functioning brain cells would have asked about the claims that Iraq was threat despite no evidence, while NK has produced multiple nuclear weapons and is trying to test delivery systems. We had to use military force in Iraq, rattle the sabre at Iran, but now preach diplomacy about NK? Gosh, could it really be about oil after all?
July 7th, 2006 at 8:25 amBush did more than just “take the lead on Iraq”, he created it!
He decided to invade Iraq, for what reason we do not yet know. He had Cheyney go to the CIA and generate the intelligence he needed. He ignored the intelligence that did not support his scheme.
He then started is boutique war. The little wooden head president Pinocchio is a liar and an enemy of the America people, especially the ones who died in Iraq and the ones who have not recovered from Katrina.
July 7th, 2006 at 8:26 amHe, He, He,
July 7th, 2006 at 8:45 amI’m not really 60 today. Look at me!
I can ride a bike, sometimes I don’t even
run into anybody. I actually just turned
14, but this make up makes me look more
presidential.
Hey Laura, wanna go ride bike? Hey Larry,
when’s this interview over? I don’t like
answering all the tough questions.
Hey, Lou Dobbs just walked by. Lou! Why
do you always disagree with me? He, He, He.
Gosh, we have fun, don’t we?
“If” this were a real interview by a real jourmalist, I am quite certain we would have witnessed at least ONE question about how Bush, back in March of 2001 upon taking office, immediately cancelled the program of the US giving N.K. oil, in exchange for allowing UN IAEA inspectors to monitor the North Korea’s nuclear programs.
Wouldn’t ya??
Just ONE???
This “missile crisis” is EXACTLY the harvesting of what the idiot Bush sowed, and not ONE bit of accountability asked for by MSM.
Too bad he didn’t blow Jung-Il, maybe then we would hear all about it.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:12 amWhat gets me, is it is fairly common knowledge that the UN did not sanction the war on Iraq. I mean, shit if this was in South Africa most 9 year olds would be calling King an idiot for that one, yet no one at CNN, which is apparently supposed to be a news station, had the balls to point out that Larry King was talking out of his ass?
July 7th, 2006 at 9:17 amTripMaster et al,
The UN did “go along” with the invasion once it was over, giving the multinational force a UN mandate to be there. You guys can pretend all you want that’s not the case, but that’s the truth. The UN gave the invasion a rubber stamp approval after the fact.
As for EO 13303 vs. resolution 1483, I think some of you need to get your head out of the media’s ass and actually do some reading on your own. EO 13303 simply passes parts of resolution 1483 into American law. Here’s a comparison…
R1483:
EO 13303:
Helps to actually read instead of just relying on the media to tell you what the “truth” is.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:28 amLarry King usually isn’t too hard on the people he interviews. Larry King Live is the opposite of BBC’s Hard Talk. He will try to let the person speak his mind on certain issues. I think he said
because that’s how he thinks Bush sees it.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:28 amTypical soft-ball interview by King with the chimp-in-chief and his Stepford wife.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:31 amC-Span round table with journalists at this hour: journalists are not giving last night’s interview much coverage because they recognize it as spoon-fed news and not of much value. King’s interviews with celebrities and others in the news are usually seen as venues to sell something or to effect damage control.
Seixon
Which does not actually say that the UN followed Bush’s lead on Iraq, or even approved of Iraq. Hence, Larry king is wrong.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:33 amDidn’t see it, by I feel sure not a single question was about PNAC.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:37 amOh, so thats what Larry was saying. I couldn’t
July 7th, 2006 at 9:42 amunderstand him with the Prez’s dick so squarely
inserted into his jaw.
Bruce,
He’s only wrong if you desparately want him to be. The UN gave the MNF a mandate to be there after the invasion was done and even set up shop there (until Zarqawi blew them up…). If that’s not what Larry meant, then fine he’s wrong, but it’s easy to see that’s what he meant.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:42 am#58:
Why would you ask President Bush about the PNAC?
et al - Also, let’s be careful criticizing Larry King for not being hard-hitting. He’s an ego-stroker, is and always has been. You didn’t expect him, of all people, to jump down a sitting President’s throat, did you?
July 7th, 2006 at 9:43 amFor anybody that wants to read the whole thing, I suggest you do.
http://daccessdds.un.org/ doc/ UNDOC/ GEN/ N03/ 368/ 53/ PDF/ N0336853.pdf?OpenElement
That’s the whole document. What it does is it recognises that the US and Britain are occupying powers, it does not actually state any support for the US and Britain as occupying powers. Hence, while the UN is pro cleaning the mess America and Saddam made, it does not actually state any support for the invasion.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:59 amSexion..
Despreate if you want it to be.. The UN did not go along with the invasion. The UN was forced to become involved, seeings how the invasion happened two months before your “1483″ you love to quote. The UN Security council was against the invasion despite months of the US trying to convince them otherwise.
Even the most simple minded person with COMMON SENSE realized the UN became involved AFTER because they had/have a responsibilty to.
This whole scripted bullshit interview was nothing but propganda, and a PR stunt.
Sexion is simply here to spread bullshit, and hoepfully attract people to his “google ad supported” web blog..
July 7th, 2006 at 10:04 amReply to #54:
The UN did “go along†with the invasion once it was over, giving the multinational force a UN mandate to be there.
Seixon, your misinterpretation of Resolution 1483 is, sadly, typical of folks like you who look to justify our administration’s criminal activities at every turn.
If you dispute this, you have only to point out the relevant phrase in Resolution 1483 that explicitly approves of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. You may find this difficult, however, as no such phrase exists.
The resolution does refer to the United States and United Kingdom as occupying powers, but does not “go along” with the rationale cited, nor does it give them “rubber stamp approval after the fact”. What it does do is enumerate the duties of the occupying powers, and affirmed that the duties of an occupying power exist whether or not it was lawful to use the armed force that resulted in the occupation.
I’m not spelling all this out for your benefit, Seixon, as I’m quite sure you already know this. I’m spelling it out for the benefit of the other ThinkProgress readers, who might otherwise be taken in by your glib lies.
As for your comparison between Resolution 1483 and EO 13303, let’s look a little closer, shall we?
Terms Resolution 1483 and EO 13303 share:
- attachment
- garnishment
- execution
Terms Unique to EO 13303:
- judgement
- decree
- lien
- other judicial process
Looks like EO 13303 is quite a bit broader in scope, doesn’t it? In fact, some might argue that it is overbroad.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:07 amHere is the damned resolution.
http://daccessdds.un.org/ doc/ UNDOC/ GEN/ N03/ 368/ 53/ PDF/ N0336853.pdf
Nowhere in it is the UN “going along” with anything. It’s making damned sure that we were sincere about “liberating” Iraq and not carrying out a prolonged occupation. Obviously, like most UN Resolutions, it really has no teeth with powerful countries willing to overlook them.
Basically this resolution is sayingthat other countries can help out in the reconstruction if they want. And that the US should work toward reconstruction and nation building. In the end it’s trying to look out for the people of Iraq.
Tell me where any of it is “going along” with the invasion.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:08 am[moderated by admin.]
July 7th, 2006 at 10:09 amAs a visual person, I was only able to watch about 5 minutes. The visuals were just too graphic…
Shrub and Laura were not even sitting next to one another. His chair was pushed forward from hers, so that with the camera angle, she was less visible than he was.
Every time Laura answered a question, it was clear that Bushie didn’t like her answers with the crinkle of his brow, and kept trying to interrupt her. But she seemed unwilling to allow him to do so. It was as if she were there very reluctantly and with a bit of a grudge.
Larry King was leabning so far forward in his chair that he looked like an adoring fan who is just hanging on every word Bush utters.
And considering how he usually stutters when he gets an unrehersed question, the whole thing reeked of a bad soap opera dialog. Ugh!
July 7th, 2006 at 10:11 amSexion is simply here to spread bullshit, and hoepfully attract people to his “google ad supported†web blog..
Comment by DenverDem — July 7, 2006 @ 10:04 am
Yep. Why I boycott him…
July 7th, 2006 at 10:14 amWhew, I haven’t had to send out any $1,000,000 checks…no stomach for the Chimp & Pickles, even on his birthday. :P
July 7th, 2006 at 10:19 am#14 - Why ask about the cover story that Laura is pissed the Bush-child is banging Condi, when the proverbial meaty story is that Bush is bi-sexual and Gannon-Guckert-Gosch was/is his real concubine!?!?!?
I think the Condi story is purely a cover for the base, who will maintain their adoration of Bush if he’s an adulterer, but maybe not if they found out he is a homosexual.
Repressed sexuality might be a valid trigger for some of the psychoses Bush exhibits, but it obviously is not the SOLE trigger. The guy is a GODDAM MESS and should be in a straitjacket, not in the White House!!
IMPEACH, TRY, SENTENCE, HANG…four easy steps to a better world!!
July 7th, 2006 at 10:22 amSince when does “go along with” mean “approve”? You guys are illiterate. Seriously. In fact, the phrase “go along with” has a negative connotation as if the person who did this didn’t actually want to do so.
As far as a mandate, I erred. It was resolution 1511 that gave the multinational force a mandate to be in Iraq:
unbelievable,
You’re full of it. The only way I make something off the Google ads is if you click on them. The only reason you boycott me is because you don’t agree with me and can’t be bothered with actually having a debate. You’d rather live in your little protected bubble. Unfortunately I don’t have a sugar daddy like George Soros, as Think Progress does.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:36 am70 Seixon
July 7th, 2006 at 10:44 amOk, so Resolution 1511 comes numerically after Resolution 1483 and references Resolution 1483. Therefore, Resolution 1511 had to come after Resolution 1483. And since Res 1483 came after our invasion of Iraq, Res 1511 had to come after our invasion also. Still don’t see, then, how the UN supported our invasion but only wanted to insure that the UN forces could be in Iraq as well afterward. Maybe because the UN (the world) doesn’t trust US?
@ #60:
July 7th, 2006 at 10:51 amBecause PNAC is the US foreign policy. PNAC is still a little known cabal who have hijacked the conservative votes.
No, I don’t expect Larry King to actually become a real journalist, but a man can dream can’t he?
PLC,
I never said the UN supported the invasion. As Larry King said, the UN went along with it after the fact. Try reading what I say instead of all the Think Progress snipers trying to put words in my mouth next time.
R1511 was about giving the multinational force a mandate to be in Iraq to help Iraq get on their feet, and asked for other UN member states to help out with the effort.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:52 amThis is why King is considered to be such a puff-ball. A really “safe” interview. He won’t try anything hard-hitting, and even the easy soft-balls, he muffs.
Cheers,
July 7th, 2006 at 10:54 amWar against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.
– George Orwell
Seixon do you spend your day, all day, every day, it seems, trolling American political blogs?
Or do you also spew your nonsense across the norwegian skinhead political blogs all day as well?
July 7th, 2006 at 10:56 amPLC. Dont waste your time with Seixon. He is always right and we are always wrong.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:59 amHe has a boycott upon him since he harrassed one of the posters here.
Cool Breeze,
Seixon do you spend your day, all day, every day, it seems, trolling American political blogs?
When I have some downtime I enjoy sparring with people who I know will disagree with me. It sure is more thrilling than going somewhere to have a circlejerk - like you guys want to have by tossing me out of here.
Or do you also spew your nonsense across the norwegian skinhead political blogs all day as well?
Ah, and another smear against me is born. Thanks guys! You guys are swell.
Juan C,
He is always right and we are always wrong.
On the issues I go after here, yes. You guys are too busy gulping down Think Progress BS 24/7 instead of actually doing research yourself. I take great care to make sure what I say is supported by the facts, which it doesn’t seem many people here do since they just rely on Think Progress.
He has a boycott upon him since he harrassed one of the posters here.
LOL. Oh man, that was a good one. I needed a laugh. I harassed “one” commenter here? Who? How about the dozens of commenters here that harass, smear, and slander me every single day? Just like Mr. Cool Breeze just did? You guys are so self-righteous and hypocritical that it boggles the mind.
You’ll smear me as a skinhead because I debated against a neo-Nazi in a newspaper opinions section, and then claim I harass you guys. You guys are too precious for words.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:09 amSexion
“I do believe Mr. King was referring to resolution 1483. I do believe I’m probably the only one commenting here that has actually read resolution 1483.”
Believe… big word there… Did King specifically mention this resolution? IF NO, then DO NOT PASS GO… he is lying about the UN going along, sadly this fools people into thinking there was a global supprot of it. You’ve tried to twist it around that 1483 was support of the invasion, not lay down some rules after the fact. (And since when has the US followed UN resolutions that were not in it’s interest).
Believe.. some people believe in Santa, some people believe in aliens, some people believe we were dropped on this planet 8-10,000 years ago by some superior being.. Beliefs are only that.. beliefs..
The FACT is… the UN did not approve of the US led invasion, no matter how you, king, or bush try and twist this shit.
God you’re a moron.
If I was to agree with you, that means I would “go along with you”. They are synonymous, perhaps you’ve been overseas too long you’ve forgot.
As for your ad supported website.. who cares, if you truely were in this for the love of politics, you would do it for free, and not to make money off someones accidental or purposeful clicks. You’re no better than the crooks you defend.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:11 am73 Seixon
July 7th, 2006 at 11:13 amSo, you agree that Bush invaded Iraq without prior approval of the UN.
You stated, “The UN gave the invasion a rubber stamp approval after the fact.” Approval for the invasion? Where does the Resolution even suggest that? I read what you said and, correct me if I’m wrong, it seems that you are strongly implying that the UN backed Bush at some point in time. And if I am correct in what you are implying, the what exactly in the Bush “war plan” has the UN supported or “gone along with” prior to or after the invasion?
DenverDem,
The FACT is… the UN did not approve of the US led invasion, no matter how you, king, or bush try and twist this shit.
I never said they did, the only one twisting things here is you.
If I was to agree with you, that means I would “go along with youâ€. They are synonymous, perhaps you’ve been overseas too long you’ve forgot.
Oh boy. To “go along with”, as I already said, implies a negative connotation, that you were doing it just for the hell of it, doing it to be nice, doing it to settle the matter. If the aim was to claim “agreement”, then you would just say that. I guess subtlety in language is something you never figured out in school.
As for your ad supported website.. who cares, if you truely were in this for the love of politics, you would do it for free, and not to make money off someones accidental or purposeful clicks. You’re no better than the crooks you defend.
Ah, so when will you get around to telling DailyKos and the other thousands of liberal blogs to take down their ads? I got bills to pay, and I don’t have George Soros picking up the tab. So unless you can point me to a moneytree in my vicinity, I will have to try and offset the cost of having a blog by having ads.
PLC,
So, you agree that Bush invaded Iraq without prior approval of the UN.
Yes?
You stated, “The UN gave the invasion a rubber stamp approval after the fact.†Approval for the invasion? Where does the Resolution even suggest that? I read what you said and, correct me if I’m wrong, it seems that you are strongly implying that the UN backed Bush at some point in time.
Giving the US a UN mandate to be in Iraq with resolution 1511 can be seen as a rubber stamp approval of the invasion, after the fact. That doesn’t mean the UN approved of the actual invasion, but they went along with approving the presence of the Coalition in Iraq after it was done.
And if I am correct in what you are implying, the what exactly in the Bush “war plan†has the UN supported or “gone along with†prior to or after the invasion?
After the invasion the US has largely gotten what they wanted from the UN. They disbanded the sanctions. They got a mandate to be in Iraq. The UN asked member states to chip in. The UN stood behind the elections in Iraq.
The war was (as far as I can tell) illegal according to the UN Charter. Yet the UN gave the US a mandate to be there after the fact, much like the UN gave approval for the intervention in Kosovo after Clinton and NATO violated the UN Charter by bombing the place.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:25 amSeixon
It still doesn’t say that America was right to invade. In fact it doesn’t contain anything even resembling support for the invasion. Having permission to fix something and getting approval for having broken it in the first place aren’t the same thing.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ security/ issues/ iraq/ document/ 2003/ 1016resolution.htm
For anybody who wants to read the rest of 1511.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:46 amwhats all the static on this channel? Skip Sexion, and his distorted BS. I do, automatically, like an advertisement.The guy is just a warped NEONAZI masquerading as a quasi-reasonable right wing propagandist.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
July 7th, 2006 at 11:52 amOMFG.
Seixon get his a$$ handed to him over his misinterpretation of Resolution 1483 and EO 13303, and with only the barest concession to fact, switches over to Resolution 1511 as his justification. Getting Seixon to admit he’s wrong is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.
This time, support for his absurd argument that the U.N. gave the occupying forces “rubber stamp approvl after the fact” rests upon one word: “mandate”. Here’s the text of Resolution 1511 Seixon cites as support:
By now, it should be obvious that Seixon is remarkably adroit at cherry-picking information that supports his position, while disregarding other information that contradicts it (much like our administration, n’est pas?).
Here’s the full text of Resolution 1511…I urge you all to read it, so you can perceive Seixon’s disingenuousness for yourselves.
In particular, Seixon fails to mention section 15, which spells out rather unambiguously that the ‘mandate’ the occupying forces enjoy will expire upon completion of a political process that restores sovereignty to Iraqis.
In short, we have our ‘mandate’ for as long as it takes to clean up our mess…no longer.
Trying to twist these resolutions into an ad hoc justification for the invasion and occupation of a soverign nation is beyond reprehensible. I thought you were better than this, Seixon, but it appears that my earlier judgement of you was rather too charitable.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:23 pmI never said [the UN] did [approve of the US led invasion], the only one twisting things here is you.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 11:25 am
Yes, you did:
The UN gave the invasion a rubber stamp approval after the fact.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 9:28 am
Now tell me how “stamp of approval” does not mean “to approve”.
The UN did “go along†with the invasion once it was over, giving the multinational force a UN mandate to be there.
“Once it was over”. That was not what Mr. King and Pres Bush were talking about. The topic was how to resolve the situation with N. Korea when Mr. King dropped his “you took the lead on Iraq, the UN went along”. Fact remains, as you have already pointed out, that the UN did not “go along” with the invasion before it happened.
According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, “to go along” means “to act in cooperation or express agreement”. The UN did not agree or cooperate with the invasion. As a matter of fact, the Bush adminsitration had to assemble a “coalition of the willing” precisely due to the UN’s unwillingness to “go along”.
The war was (as far as I can tell) illegal according to the UN Charter.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 11:25 am
We are in aggreement on this.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:27 pm# 83.Seixon:
#85.suckson=unbelievable.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:34 pmIt’s her.
Larry King is a butt kisser to a simpleton…and Laura Bush may be worse than her idiot husband.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:42 pmLaura Bush is a non-person.
Larry King is a republican shill.
The Chimp is nekked as a … chimp.
Spend the time that King wastes on the airwaves doing something more interesting!
July 7th, 2006 at 1:16 pmYou could pick lint from your navel and accomplish that.
Tripmaster,
Seixon get his a$$ handed to him over his misinterpretation of Resolution 1483 and EO 13303, and with only the barest concession to fact, switches over to Resolution 1511 as his justification.
What? No, EO 13303 passes section 22 of 1483 into US law, while 1511 was about an entirely different issue altogether. Someone claimed that EO 13303 breached resolution 1483, when it in fact passed part of it into US law. Nobody has refuted that since that’s the facts. I erred in saying that 1483 gave the US a mandate to be in Iraq, something which I admitted and pointed out myself, and then corrected it by pointing out that I was thinking of 1511.
Getting Seixon to admit he’s wrong is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.
Ah yes, so what about my admission that I mistakenly referred to 1483 when I was thinking of 1511? I guess you didn’t catch that since you are too busy trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.
In short, we have our ‘mandate’ for as long as it takes to clean up our mess…no longer.
Where does 1511 talk about a “mess”? It doesn’t, you are just reading it the way you want to, which is exactly what you accused me of doing. When it all comes down to it, the only thing I said is that the resolution gives us a mandate to be there, which is 100% true. You come back with this “mess” nonsense which isn’t anywhere in the resolution.
Trying to twist these resolutions into an ad hoc justification for the invasion and occupation of a soverign nation is beyond reprehensible. I thought you were better than this, Seixon, but it appears that my earlier judgement of you was rather too charitable.
Oh please, you hate me and always have. I stated quite correctly that the UN gave the US a mandate to be in Iraq, which can be seen as a rubber stamp approval of the invasion after the fact. The UN could have pursued a resolution to have the US leave Iraq immediately but never did.
Brainwashed people such as yourself often forget that nearly half of the Security Council was actually on board with the USA.
Gregor,
Now tell me how “stamp of approval†does not mean “to approveâ€.
You removed the “after the fact” part. Quit trying to take what I said out of context.
Fact remains, as you have already pointed out, that the UN did not “go along†with the invasion before it happened.
Bush took the lead, ergo invaded, and the UN went along with it, ergo a mandate for the MNF to be there.
According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, “to go along†means “to act in cooperation or express agreementâ€. The UN did not agree or cooperate with the invasion.
To “go along with” also means to acquiesce, which means to consent or comply passively or without protest. That’s exactly what happened once Saddam Hussein was evicted from his throne. The UN did not protest the US presence in Iraq, and in fact caved into the demands of the US such as the elimination of sanctions, asking for help with the MNF, and everything else spelled out in 1483 and 1511.
suckson (aka unbelievable),
whats all the static on this channel? Skip Sexion, and his distorted BS. I do, automatically, like an advertisement.The guy is just a warped NEONAZI masquerading as a quasi-reasonable right wing propagandist.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I’m a neo-Nazi? Since when? Oh right, since you guys labeled me as one to avoid having to actually debate me. The only ones acting anything like Nazis here are the ones who keep labeling those who disagree with them Nazis and trying to stifle debate by having them ignored and suppressed.
Go burn some books and you’ll probably feel better.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:21 pm# 91.Seixon:
She,unbelievable,will never,ever,admit to posting under another name,but she does it all the time.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:36 pmI’m just glad you see the similarity to ’suckson’,and have called her on her phoniness.
That’s where it says that once Iraq has a fully operational government the mandate expires. Once the mess is cleaned up, you have to go.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:38 pmYou removed the “after the fact†part. Quit trying to take what I said out of context.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
“You removed”? I didn’t remove anything. Go back and re-read my post. I quoted your full sentence, “after the fact” included. I expect a retraction.
Also, it’s rich of you to complaing about context, when you clearly have taken Mr. King’s statements out of context.
As I said before, the context of the conversation was how to solve the stand-off with N Korea, and comparing the current situation to the approach used with Iraq before the invasion, which is indicated by Mr. King’s statement: “You got other countries to go along”, i.e., Pres. Bush’s “coalition of the willing” -prior to the invasion.
Bush took the lead, ergo invaded, and the UN went along with it, ergo a mandate for the MNF to be there.
Again, that is not what Mr. King and Pres Bush were talking about.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:38 pmOh and another thing: Sybil, stop projecting your own behaviour onto others. You know you are suckson. Stop trying to pretend you aren’t.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:40 pm#95.Bruce:
You are full of sh!t.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:54 pmLarry King needs the money so he spreads the propaganda that Bush requested. The world knows we lied and illegally invaded Iraq for oil while saying we’ll go it alone. Now North Korea is standing up to Bush and put egg in his face while President Putin is taking the same leadership John Fitzgerald Kennedy took. Now we see true leadership in President Putin and a weak, sorry, drunken puppet President Bush. The North Korean President played Bush for the fool he is and showed the world, now the Iran President is laughing and will do the same. Notice how all these wars are taken place now that Bush has started hatred around the world. The new world leader will be President Putin because the United States let a dumb, weak, stealing, lying uneducated idiot steal the Presidential election twice.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:54 pmSybil
Yep, you are definitely suckson. No doubt about it.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:58 pmBruce,
That’s where it says that once Iraq has a fully operational government the mandate expires. Once the mess is cleaned up, you have to go.
Is there any way that it could be formulated where you would not extract your biased opinion on it? Nope.
Gregor,
You did take me out of context when you said:
Now tell me how “stamp of approval†does not mean “to approveâ€.
I said stamp of approval after the fact.
Again, that is not what Mr. King and Pres Bush were talking about.
Why not? We all know that the UN did not approve of the invasion, and thus in that context we must see King’s statement as talking about how Bush went in, and then the UN went along with what happened after he had taken the lead. It’s not as if the UN went against Bush after he took the lead.
Jackie,
You’re pushing up Putin? Putin? Oh boy.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:03 pmReply to 91:
EO 13303 passes section 22 of 1483 into US law
Like most of what you say, this statement is disingenuous. The fact of the matter is that under Article 25 of the U.N. Charter, the U.S. is obligated to support and implement the decisions of the Security Council.
Someone claimed that EO 13303 breached resolution 1483, when it in fact passed part of it into US law.
Really? Who claimed the EO 13303 ‘breached Resolution 1483′? Whoever did, they didn’t do it on this thread.
Seixon, it’s bad enough having to correct your misinterpretations and distortions without you resorting to the pathetic Fox News ’some people say’ tactic. It’s emminently dishonest, but somehow, that doesn’t surprise me.
What was said (by me) was that the language used in the implementing document (EO 13303) was substantially and significantly broader than the language used in the original resolution (UNSC 1483), calling into question the legality of said implementing document.
Nobody has refuted that since that’s the facts.
Nobody except you, that is, with your specious ’some people say’ tactic. Go build your straw men elsewhere.
Well, that about sews up UNSC 1483 and EO13303…now on to UNSC 1511.
Where does 1511 talk about a “mess� It doesn’t, you are just reading it the way you want to, which is exactly what you accused me of doing.
Sophistry. Let’s look at the actual text again (since it seems you didn’t have the good sense to take advantage of the link I provided):
Is it clear to you yet? We’re there until we fix what we broke with our illegal invasion.
I stated quite correctly that the UN gave the US a mandate to be in Iraq, which can be seen as a rubber stamp approval of the invasion after the fact. The UN could have pursued a resolution to have the US leave Iraq immediately but never did.
Let me try to construct a simple analogy for you, to try to make this clearer:
Your child (if you’re childless, just pretend), expresses a desire to look at your model ship. He asks you, but you say no. He then does what he wants anyway, and winds up damaging it. Now, you might order the child to his room, but that still leaves you with a broken ship. So you instead order the child to fetch the glue and fix what he broke.
Now tell me. Does your requiring the child to put right what he broke mean that you ‘went along’ with his breaking it? Does this mean that your requiring the child to repair the damage he inflicted mean that you’ve given him a ‘rubber stamp of approval after the fact’?
Yes, it’s true that ‘mess’ isn’t in the resolution per se, but then again, neither is ‘approval’, is it?
I sincerely hope that clears things up for you, sinc you’re the only person here now who still seems to be having problems with these concepts.
Oh please, you hate me and always have.
You know, if I actually gave you any thought, I just might.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:05 pmSeixon
Well, the facts do seem to have this terrible liberal bias going.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:13 pmYou did take me out of context when you said:
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
You said you never claimed the UN had approved the invasion, without further qualifiers. Re-read my post. Your quotes are in it.
We all know that the UN did not approve of the invasion, and thus in that context we must see King’s statement as talking about how Bush went in(…)
That is exactly the problem with your interpretation. Again, Mr. King was referring to the current situation with N Korea and compared it with the way Pres Bush “solved” the situation with Iraq, “coalition of the willing” included -before the invasion.
In that context, to say the UN “went along” is seriously misleading because (as you correctly point out) the UN did not approve the invasion.
(…)and then the UN went along with what happened after he had taken the lead. It’s not as if the UN went against Bush after he took the lead.
Mr. King didn’t say “after” -he said the UN “went along” with Pres Bush’s lead. Read the transcript here.
Again, to say the to say the UN “went along” with Pres Bush’s lead (before the invasion since that is what they were talking about) is seriously misleading.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:20 pmTripmaster,
Like most of what you say, this statement is disingenuous. The fact of the matter is that under Article 25 of the U.N. Charter, the U.S. is obligated to support and implement the decisions of the Security Council.
What the bloody hell do you think EO 13303 was doing?!?!?
Really? Who claimed the EO 13303 ‘breached Resolution 1483′? Whoever did, they didn’t do it on this thread.
Ehm, Progressaurus said earlier in this thread:
Seixon, it’s bad enough having to correct your misinterpretations and distortions without you resorting to the pathetic Fox News ’some people say’ tactic. It’s emminently dishonest, but somehow, that doesn’t surprise me.
Eh, but that’s what Progressaurus actually said, and someone put up a news article that claimed the same thing. So go take your FOX News anecdotes back to the pawn shop you bought them from, mk?
Nobody except you, that is, with your specious ’some people say’ tactic. Go build your straw men elsewhere.
Aside from Progressaurus saying it, and someone linking to an Australian news article saying it. You’re a fool. A lazy fool.
What was said (by me) was that the language used in the implementing document (EO 13303) was substantially and significantly broader than the language used in the original resolution (UNSC 1483), calling into question the legality of said implementing document.
That’s because you left out 1483 saying “legal proceedings” where EO 13303 used a similar word, although not the same one. You’re playing semantics and there is no reason to believe that EO 13303 is illegal in any way.
Is it clear to you yet? We’re there until we fix what we broke with our illegal invasion.
I read it as we’re there until we set up a representative, democratically elected government in Iraq which has never really existed there before in the history of the country. Me and my factual and historical perspective on things, such a travesty.
Yes, it’s true that ‘mess’ isn’t in the resolution per se, but then again, neither is ‘approval’, is it?
I don’t see giving Iraq something they’ve never had as fixing a “mess” but rather establishing a completely new form of government for a country that was a direct result of the removal of Saddam Hussein. Approval is implicit in the resolution, as everything in it is being approved by the Security Council.
You see the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq as “cleaning up a mess”. I wonder what Germany and Japan would think of your rhetoric.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:20 pmGregor,
You said you never claimed the UN had approved the invasion, without further qualifiers. Re-read my post. Your quotes are in it.
I didn’t. I said that they gave a rubber stamp approval after the fact. All you did was pull a bait and switch, first posting my quote, and then alleging I had said something entirely different.
That is exactly the problem with your interpretation. Again, Mr. King was referring to the current situation with N Korea and compared it with the way Pres Bush “solved†the situation with Iraq, “coalition of the willing†included -before the invasion.
In other words, Bush could “go it alone” with North Korea just as he did with Iraq, and the UN would “go along” with his decision afterwards.
In that context, to say the UN “went along†is seriously misleading because (as you correctly point out) the UN did not approve the invasion.
It would only be misleading if you had lived in a cave for the past 3 years and never knew that the UN didn’t approve of the invasion.
Mr. King didn’t say “after†-he said the UN “went along†with Pres Bush’s lead. Read the transcript here.
By saying “went along” you are in effect saying that they came aboard afterwards.
Again, to say the to say the UN “went along†with Pres Bush’s lead (before the invasion since that is what they were talking about) is seriously misleading.
Where did he say “before”? He didn’t, just as he didn’t say “after”.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:24 pmAll you did was pull a bait and switch, first posting my quote, and then alleging I had said something entirely different.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
::sigh::
Here is your quote, once again:
The FACT is… the UN did not approve of the US led invasion, no matter how you, king, or bush try and twist this shit.
I never said they did, the only one twisting things here is you.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 11:25 am
No qualifiers, no time frame, no “after the fact”. How did I take anything out of context?
It would only be misleading if you had lived in a cave for the past 3 years and never knew that the UN didn’t approve of the invasion.
Regardless of whether or not you are a well-informed person, the statement as it stands is an attempt at re-writing history and so it is misleading.
Not to mention we have had several consertive visitors to this site swearing the UN did approve the invasion. They are further misinformed by statements like that.
By saying “went along†you are in effect saying that they came aboard afterwards.
Countries in the “coalition of the willing” did not go into Iraq after the US invaded, but right along -Mr. King did say “you got other countries to go along”. Along, not after.
Where did he say “beforeâ€? He didn’t, just as he didn’t say “afterâ€.
Again, the context you are ignoring is the current situation with N Korea, compared to the way the “Iraqi problem” was solved by Pres Bush “taking the lead”.
Mr. King did not say the word “before”, but the time frame becomes clear when he said “other countries went along” -referring to the “coalition of the willing” that was assembled before the invasion. Read the transcript.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:50 pmGregor,
No qualifiers, no time frame, no “after the factâ€. How did I take anything out of context?
You implied that I had said that the UN approved the invasion - without qualifiers. I did not.
Regardless of whether or not you are a well-informed person, the statement as it stands is an attempt at re-writing history and so it is misleading.
It’s only an attempt at rewriting history if you’re hell-bent on understanding it that way. I can see that Larry’s statement might be confusing, but I find it laughable that people here actually think he is attempting to rewrite history.
Not to mention we have had several consertive visitors to this site swearing the UN did approve the invasion. They are further misinformed by statements like that.
Well if we do, shame on them. I can’t recall any though, but there will always be people who don’t know what’s going on, as I said.
Mr. King did not say the word “beforeâ€, but the time frame becomes clear when he said “other countries went along†-referring to the “coalition of the willing†that was assembled before the invasion. Read the transcript.
I thought it was the UN that “went along”?
OK, I think this will clear this up:
“You’re into taking the lead on these things. You took the lead on Iraq, the U.N. went along, you got other countries to go along, why not take the lead here?â€
Read again, you can see that King was essentially correcting himself mid-sentence. He said the UN went along, but then changed it to “other countries” in order to make it less confusing.
Of course, Think Progress won’t have any of that. Making corrections mid-sentence doesn’t matter when you’re only chopping off the parts of the sentence you need to create a controversy where there is none, which is TP’s specialty.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:59 pmYou implied that I had said that the UN approved the invasion - without qualifiers. I did not.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
I never implied such a thing. I pointed out a stark contradiction between a blanket denial you issued and a prior statement of yours.
You could have said “you misunderstood me”, or “let me clarify”. Instead, you chose to accuse me of taking statements out of context (??) when the contradiction between the two posts is obvious.
I thought it was the UN that “went along�
Wha?? Yes, in Mr. King’s version of the facts. the UN as well as other countries “went along”. There is no contradiction in what I said.
Read again, you can see that King was essentially correcting himself mid-sentence. He said the UN went along, but then changed it to “other countries†in order to make it less confusing.
Mr. King did not correct himself mid-sentence. Again, read the full transcript.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:21 pmGregor,
I never implied such a thing. I pointed out a stark contradiction between a blanket denial you issued and a prior statement of yours.
The blanket denial was in response to your out of context phrasing of my previous stance.
Mr. King did not correct himself mid-sentence. Again, read the full transcript.
Uh, yeah he did. He said the UN first, then switched to “other countries”. I read it. It’s right there in the transcript. He didn’t say “and” in between them.
Why doesn’t TP seek comment from King about what he meant to say? Oh no, that would be no good, then TP couldn’t create a controversy about King supposedly rewriting history to help Bush.
See, that’s why I don’t like places like TP. They can take any little misunderstanding, unclarity, anything and turn it into some ridiculous “problem”. It’s so unnecessary and worthless. Instead of debating about real issues, we’re here debating what Larry King meant when he said this or that.
For that reason, I’m done with this topic, and think I’ll make better use of my time watching American Dreamz.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:36 pmIs it me or does laura bush look like a wax figure
July 7th, 2006 at 3:39 pmI have just verified that Jello can be nailed to a wall. You have to make it in a Pyrex bowl, submerge same into liquid nitrogen, drill a hole into the resulting solid and drive a nail through the hole and into the wall. Unfortunately, the effect is not permanent! Does anyone know how to remove Grape Jello stains from a white wool rug? My spouse is getting testy.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:40 pm#109 - BFATZ,
July 7th, 2006 at 3:53 pmBoy are you sharp - it was a loaner from Madame Tussauds’. Disney did the animation.
The blanket denial was in response to your out of context phrasing of my previous stance.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
Er, no…. your blanket denial was “I never said the UN approved the invasion”, when, in fact, you had said they did (after or before is irrelevant, fact remains you did). It was in response to someone else, not me. Re-read my post at 12:27pm, your post at 11:25am, and your post at 9:28am.
Uh, yeah he did. He said the UN first, then switched to “other countriesâ€. I read it. It’s right there in the transcript. He didn’t say “and†in between them.
Let’s try this once again: Read CNN’s full transcript here. These are two sentences, with Pres Bush interjecting between them. Mr. King did not correct himself, he was adding to what he had already said.
Why doesn’t TP seek comment from King about what he meant to say?
Ask Judd or whoever -I cannot answer that question.
See, that’s why I don’t like places like TP.
And yet, you keep coming back for more.
Instead of debating about real issues, we’re here debating what Larry King meant when he said this or that.
And instead of acknowledging you misspoke, you keep faulting others, claiming they are dishonestly taking things out of context, and coming up with rationalizations as to why Mr. King’s statement is correct. If it is such a waste of time, why keep at it?
For that reason, I’m done with this topic, and think I’ll make better use of my time watching American Dreamz.
I thought you didn’t like Think Progress…. maybe you meant “I am done with Think Progress and I will never come back”?
July 7th, 2006 at 4:03 pmDoes anyone know how to remove Grape Jello stains from a white wool rug?
Mmmm… Grape Jello….
July 7th, 2006 at 4:04 pmGregor,
My “blanket denial” was in response to someone mischaracterizing my statement, maybe it wasn’t you, it’s not important. My stance is that the UN eventually gave the invasion a rubber stamp of approval by giving a mandate to be there and asking for other member states to help out. That does not mean I am implying that the UN approved of the actual invasion. In fact, as I have stated, the invasion was illegal per the UN Charter and a little under half the Security Council at the time supported the US invasion.
As for King, to me it seems like he meant that the UN went along with the Iraq adventure eventually, not that they approved of the invasion. Maybe that’s because I know better, and I agree that King’s statement can be seen as confusing.
However, Think Progress turns this into some kind of “problem”, at makes it out as if King was helping Bush rewrite history. Instead of trying to get King to clarify what he was saying, TP just goes on the attack.
In the end, I agree with TP’s reference to Kofi Annan who said that the invasion was illegal per the UN Charter. It’s funny that not a single person on this thread has taken notice of my saying that, since it doesn’t exactly help the image of a right-wing Bush-lover they have molded for me.
But seriously, now I am definitely going to go watch that movie. I don’t like Think Progress and what they do, and that’s why I’m here to counteract them. I seek out dissent, I seek out disagreement, I seek out those who disagree with me because it enables me to find out where I am wrong, or to see where my stance on some issues might have weaknesses and that allows me to fine tune them so that I have everything right according to the facts. That’s what critical thinkers do, they seek out a challenge. Most of the people here are doing exactly the opposite. Ciao!
July 7th, 2006 at 4:16 pmMy “blanket denialâ€