A cloud over the Vice President.
By on Mar 8th, 2007 at 10:06 am
A cloud over the Vice President.
Time magazine’s cover article portrays “Dick Cheney in twilight” within the White House. “Cheney has become the Administration’s enemy within,” writes reporter Michael Duffy, “the man whose single-minded pursuit of ideological goals, creaking political instincts and love of secrecy produced an independent operation inside the White House that has done more harm than good.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
" . . . produced an independent operation inside the White House that has done more harm than good." No need to single out Cheney's independent operation. This entire White House has done by far more harm than good.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:09 am“Cheney has become the Administration’s enemy within,†writes reporter Michael Duffy, “the man whose single-minded pursuit of ideological goals, creaking political instincts and love of secrecy produced an independent operation inside the White House that has done more harm than good.â€
No.
This passage leads you to the idea that Cheney is the bad apple in an otherwise morally upright administration.
Nothing could be further from the truth. This administration is rotten clear through.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:10 amIf Darth Cheney is the "cloud over the White House", then GDumbya is that gleaming little fresh turd that the cloud is preparing to rain all over.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:10 amThe cloud doesn't just hang over Cheney, it also hangs over Bush.
I think one of the lessons that George W. Bush took away from the loss his father suffered at the polls in 1992 was that you control the message and never give in. Wilson was rocking that boat big time. What to do? Whatever it takes.
I also liked your comment about how Chris Matthews sputters on and on. That is so apt. Most of the time his sputtering is nothing more than that. Once in awhile Matthews gets something right, law of averages or something.
I also think it is time for fresh reminders about things like the IAEA completely debunking the yellowcake story before the invasion started and that Kofi Annon has said repeatedly that the invasion of Iraq is not supported by UN Resolution, i.e., from the standpoint of the UN the war is illegal. While Bush did push for a UN resolution to invade Iraq he never let it come up for a vote because the head count showed that the votes weren't there. Likewise, the Congressional resolution specifically limits Bush's war making for enforcing UN Resolutions, specifically, forcing Saddam to accept UN inspections on UN terms. I, frankly, see no authorization on the books to enable an invasion of Iraq.
In fact, legality is the issue that has caused Bush to say repeatedly that "Saddam wouldn't let the inspector in". And nobody has ever questioned that contention. Bush, after all, kicked the inspectors out in order to start the invasion.
Sometimes I don't think the Democrats have still read the resolution they passed in 2002. If they would bother to read it they would be challenging Bush on the legal aspects of the war rather than sputtering about "if they knew then what they know now they would not have voted for it". That is pure bull. The vote was necessary to put teeth into the unamimous UN Resolution putting weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq. By March 2003 the Congressional Resolution was nullified by the actions on the ground in Iraq. The war was illegal then and the war is illegal now. Get some balls Democrats and make a direct challenge to the legality of the war and stop the pathetic sputtering.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:11 amLOL a cloud of smelly gas is around VP Cheney. He must either resign or be impeached ASAP!
March 8th, 2007 at 10:12 amthe man needs to be held responsible for EVERY action he's made since the current administration came into power.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:14 amCheney can buy offsets for that cloud of evil for $16 in Australia.
They might charge him more...
March 8th, 2007 at 10:15 amI am pretty sure you can call the entire Bush/Cheney administration a pretty solid faliure at this point. I know the left will try to paint them as morally wrong, but that is once again a stretch. I will agree that they haven't done a good job. They went to war with Iraq wrongly, they mismanaged the war and still are, they increased government spending across the board, they signed the prescription drug benefit that no one likes and cost us over $11 trillion in debt we can't afford, and they have done an outright horrible thing to our schools with this abstinence only programs.
With that said, this makes them an administration that did a poor job and we have proof of that. Tying emotions to it and calling saying they did a bad job intentially is purely an assumption backed by nothing. It would truly make me sick to my stomoach if someone could provide evidence that they knew the intel was faulty yet used it anyways or they intentially mismanage this war. They should burn in hell if that is true. I currently don't pass judgement like that without evidence as it would be one of the largest crimes in world history. So, they did a poor job. Do some investigation if you want to apply moral assumptions to their actions however.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:17 amThis is the same Time Magazine that not long ago ran a cover story about how George W. Bush would go along with the ISG recommendations. Time is an embarrassing rag, and if their conventional wisdom suggests that Cheney is in trouble, it means he's not in any trouble at all.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:19 amWhen Kucinich takes over in 2008, boy the exterminators will be working overtime. Boy, the stench from that 8 year old vermin will be pretty bad...
March 8th, 2007 at 10:20 amThe first two posts really say it all. This administration is rotten to the core, everything they do does more harm than good, that goes far beyond Darth Cheney, even if he may be the biggest criminal of the bunch. That is, however, not to diminish the other crooks Bush, Rumsfeld, et al.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:21 amPlease, someone at ThinkProgress offer a bold and very public challenge to the most prominent right wing talk show hosts to debate, on-line, the issue of whether or not the White House lied us into this war. Challenge them openly by name. Challenge Limbaugh, Prager, Medved, Hannity, Hewitt, Bennet, Ingraham, Jed Babbit. All of these propagandists are lying everyday about the facts of the Libby case, Wilson, WMD, etc. They should not be allowed to get away with it. The best way to fight these lies is to call these spinmeisters to the carpet and publicly embarrass them in front of their listeners.
Who's with me?
Phylo out
March 8th, 2007 at 10:22 amTime magazine is jumping on the band wagon for Cheney to retire, but in a way Cheney may want to leave before he gets indicted for war crimes. Rumsfeld has escaped from the mess he helped cause in Iraq, so Cheney might decide it's in his best interests to exit as well. He can claim health problems for leaving. Unfortunately Condi Rice would most likely replace him, which would be a protection device to prevent the Congress from impeaching Bush, because Democrats would not want a President Rice before 2008 election.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:23 amRR going to war wrongly is an imorral act in and of itsself. Point to what makes the Bush administration moral...other than their own rhetoric telling us how moral they are. Nuff said there.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:25 amI'm sure we've all noticed that every appointment Shrub has made has been a total disaster. Whether it's judges, Homeland Security, or the office of VP, it's one disaster after the other. Incopentents as far as the eye can see. The only way to fix this muck is to get rid of the whole bunch of worthless losers. Rethugs cannot govern, period.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:26 amWhere's Bush? Where's Rove? Libby's trial showed that Rove asked and had faxed to him Novak's article three days before it was published. Rove works for Bush. And yet all this attention on Cheney, little or none on Bush. Is the media that much of a one trick pony that they cannot hold more than one thought in their mind? Also, Libby worked directly with and for Bush, I believe.
This story is bigger than Cheney or Libby, no matter whether or not what they did rises to a crime or treason. Yet the media insists on making it all about Cheney. No Bush, no Rove, despite facts. This was an organized effort, not a one man show. They're letting Bush and Rov off the hook.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:26 amPlease, someone at ThinkProgress offer a bold and very public challenge to the most prominent right wing talk show hosts to debate, on-line, the issue of whether or not the White House lied us into this war. Challenge them openly by name. Challenge Limbaugh, Prager, Medved, Hannity, Hewitt, Bennet, Ingraham, Jed Babbit. All of these propagandists are lying everyday about the facts of the Libby case, Wilson, WMD, etc. They should not be allowed to get away with it. The best way to fight these lies is to call these spinmeisters to the carpet and publicly embarrass them in front of their listeners.
Who’s with me?
Phylo out
March 8th, 2007 at 10:27 amPetraeus: Force will not solve Iraq
Head of US forces in Iraq says deals must be made with armed groups to end crisis.
2.5 per cent of the population, have been killed as a result of the invasion,
Get out NOW........
March 8th, 2007 at 10:34 am#8 Roger_Roger
It would truly make me sick to my stomoach if someone could provide evidence that they knew the intel was faulty yet used it anyways or they intentially mismanage this war. They should burn in hell if that is true. I currently don’t pass judgement like that without evidence as it would be one of the largest crimes in world history. So, they did a poor job. Do some investigation if you want to apply moral assumptions to their actions however.
I can live with that, Roger. The fact that you would be sickened if you saw the evidence is encouraging. There are plenty of trolls who come around here who don't care how bad it is, they'll defend Bush and Cheney no matter what. I think I've seen enough evidence already, but I hope it comes out so that everyone gets a chance to see it. It's not that I want these guys to be the biggest crooks ever to set foot in the White House. I'd rather they weren't. But, I think they are and I'd like to see them dealt with as soon as possible, because thousands of people's lives are being destroyed as we speak. The indifference of this administration to the suffering of others is brutal, bordering on demonic.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:36 amFor those who believe the Democrats would block confirmation of Condi Rice to replace VP Cheney: She just needs 51 votes in the Senate to get confirmed as new VP. Traitor Joe Lieberman would vote to confirm her and Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Dem turncoat, would vote yes. Plus even Obama would vote yes, because as a black man he could not vote against a black woman. Therefore Condi would get at least 53 votes in the Senate to confirm her. Negropointe would replace her to become the new Secretary of State. This would also position Rice to knock Sen. McCain out of the race for president in 2008. Condi would probably chose Guiliani to be her running mate to counter Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Obama running together.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:37 amYes, unfortunately Incompetent Condi would probably replace the Dickster should he leave early, the really scary part is the person who has already been moved into position to replace Condi as Secretary of State: Bloody John Negroponte
March 8th, 2007 at 10:37 amChina hits back at US over rights
China has told the US to get its own house in order before accusing other countries of human rights abuses.
In its annual response to Washington's criticism of Beijing's rights record, China accused the US of hypocrisy.
"As in previous years, the [US] State Department pointed the finger at human rights conditions in more than 190 countries and regions, including China, but avoided touching on the human rights situation in the United States," said a report, carried by the official Xinhua news agency.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:37 am#14 You are correct that if anyone knew the intel was faulty before going to war, they performed an immoral act. To date, no one has shown that the Administration or the Congress knew the intel was faulty before going to war. It was only found out later when no WMD's were found. So in hindsight, going to war was wrong. Some here I see are asking TP to offer a challenge on this issue. Hell, I have been asking everyone here for weeks to offer the solid proof that they knew all the intel was faulty before going to war and yet no one has provided this evidence. How do you expect TP to argue this if they don't have evidence. Do you expect them to argue simply using their assumptions and opinions?
So far I have seem that the intel showing Iraq was looking for more yellow cake in Africa may have been proved wrong before the war. I have yet to see the proof that the intel showing Iraq had WMD's was faulty before the war. I have seen evidence showing that even Saddam may have thought he had WMD's. If Saddam even thought he had some, how would we be able to discredit that intel before the war? Anyways, please please with a cherry on top, link to me this proof you have showing Bush knew Iraq had no WMD's before the war.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:38 amOver a million Iraqi's have fled the country to neighboring states...
March 8th, 2007 at 10:38 amPlus President Rice would pardon Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld of all crimes. This is Dubya's secret plan.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:39 am#22 The USA has a problem with humans rights because we still have the Death penalty. It is time we stop this evil practice just like most of the EU has done. Our human's rights record wouldn't look so bad then. The only thing left would be our mistreatment of terrorists which most Americans can accept as part of the global war on terror.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:42 amThe only thing left would be our mistreatment of terrorists which most Americans can accept as part of the global war on terror.
Comment by Roger_Roger
No, Rodger, torture is never morally acceptable. When we torture we become as evil as those we are supposedly fighting against.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:47 amComment by Roger_Roger — March 8, 2007 @ 10:38 am
I can definitely see your point. While much has been proven since the war began, it is hard to find solid, tangible, you can hold it up in a court evidence that they knew Iraq didn't have WMD. Personally, I have seen some of the amazing hardware and personnel that our intelligence community has and for that reason, I believe they knew before hand. Can I prove it? No, just like I cannot prove that I have not been sleeping with your wife. However, these criminals in the White House are just that .... criminals. They follow a pattern, and just when they think they have gotten away with everything, that is when they get caught!
March 8th, 2007 at 10:52 am#27 Maybe you didn't get me there. I agree that torture is always wrong and always unacceptable. I was just pointing out that the American public at large generally wouldn't get to worked up about our government mistreating terrorists, but I certainly agree it is wrong and shouldn't happen. I was speaking from a politcal standpoint not from my personal viewpoint. I personally sese no reason for torture nor is it ok ever.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:54 amThe only thing left would be our mistreatment of terrorists which most Americans can accept as part of the global war on terror.
Comment by Roger_Roger
IF we could trust our leaders to ONLY "mistreat" people when it was absolutely neccessary to stop something like an imminent nuclear detonation in NY.
However our leaders are HUMANS. Which is why our founding fathers setup the type of government they did. HUMANS can NOT be trusted. TRUST BUT VERIFY. CHECKS AND BALANCES.
When it becomes "ok" to mistreat people then the HUMAN factor will come in and mistreatment will happen even when it is only to let off steam or to watch those stupid arabs squirm or just for a "funny" YEEHAAA! photo shot.... give humans an inch and they WILL take a mile. That is why we are supposed to be a nation of LAWS and NOT MEN... because men are animals and have proven themselves to not be capable of restricting themselves all on their own.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:56 am#23
What did Hans Blix say before Bush kicked him out of Iraq?
Let me refresh your memory. Blix said that Saddam had no WMD and that the nuclear material was still secured under UN lock and key. US forces busted those locks after the invasion and looting of nuclear material then took place.
So, not all of the intel was bad. Only the intel Bush was pushing was bad. Period.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:59 am#28 Thank you for at least acknowledging there is no evidence. You are free to call someone a criminal and all the other nasty things said here but they amount to nothing. I would never convict someone in the court of public opinion of a crime of this magnitude without solid evidence. We are talking about a crime on the level of Hitler afterall. It seems like this crowd is almost hoping this is true which I don't understand. Why would anyone hope that our leader did in fact knowingly go to war over faulty intel? I would think that we would want to investigate the matter and also hope to God it isn't true. Convicting someone of this crime simply because we have fancy hardware and personnel is creepy and wrong.
What boggles my mind is the fact that many Dems on congress talk like this. If they truly believe this, how the hell could they possible vote yes to the Iraq War spending bill? They would basically be saying they believe the war is a crime and they support the crime. I have to assume the Dems agree with me here and don't have this secret evidence proving Bush knew the intel was faulty before the war ot how could Pelosi possibly vote to extend a crime?
March 8th, 2007 at 11:01 am#30 Please see #29 to answer your point.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:02 amThis is where the apologists for Commander Codpiece (and Karl Rove) hedge their bets if Uncle Dick goes down.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:03 am#31 What Hans Blix said publicly was taken into consideration by not only the president, but Congress and the American people. This wasn't a secret. I am sure Congress weighed what he said along with all the other evidence. How can you put all blame on Bush for not believing Hans when Congress had the very same opportunity? If that is your evidence that the war is a crime, then every member of congress that voted yes would also be a criminal equal to Bush. I don't believe this adds up. How and why would the Dems incriminate themselves by saying they should have listened to Hans but didn't?
March 8th, 2007 at 11:06 amYeah, there's a cloud all right. It's the methane gas from George Bush's farts, drifting out of the oval office and hovering in the air.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:18 amDick Cheney will most assuredly go down in history as one of the darkest political figures of all time. He's more than merely corrupt; he is downright pathological and sociopathic, a sinister combination.
"How and why would the Democrats incriminate themselves by saying they should have listened to Han's but they didn't"
Acknowledging mistakes and errors is the first step towards finding a solution for actions and policy which are not working.
Denial and refusal to change or depart from actions and policy only serve to exacerbate the problem.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:22 amEveryone knows Cheney is the real President. Bush is a front man, and a bad one too. It's well past the time to toss both of them out on their ears.
Vermont has the right idea, impeachment of both Cheney and Bush for crimes and treason. Start in your state now and maybe the congress will get the idea.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:23 amRoger_Roger
March 8th, 2007 at 11:27 amI'd like to think your just back pedaling but we know you are TP's Spin Master Troll. That's your troll job isn't it to cherry pick the evidence that supports your argument.
We could tattoo the truth on your arm and you would still not read the words that don't fit.
You like Bush and Cheney are all just misunderstood...yeah right(wingnut).
Patrick Fitzgerald said in his post-verdict press conference that a cloud remained over both the Vice-President and the White House. That means Bush, too.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:29 amThey would basically be saying they believe the war is a crime and they support the crime. I have to assume the Dems agree with me here and don’t have this secret evidence proving Bush knew the intel was faulty before the war ot how could Pelosi possibly vote to extend a crime?
Comment by Roger_Roger
WE the people knew... how could bush NOT know? Phil Donahue was kicked off the air by MSNBC when he was asking people about the forged yellow cake documents on TV.
We saw on TV over and over as the UN inspectors said time and again that they did their job and that there was no threat of WMDs from Iraq BEFORE THE INVASION.
It was a war crime. Do we WANT it to be? Hell no.... now we look like the god damn nazis....
IF the yellow cake documents were authentic and they were shown to be authentic and IF the UN inspectors said they thought that there were WMDs and Saddam was keeping them from proving it THEN bush would have had the right to use the 2002 resolution by congress to invade. Those two IFs did not occur. Not only did they NOT occur, but the EXACT OPPOSITE OCCURED. The documents given to us (as pointed out by Pat Buchannan last night on MSNBC) were FORGERIES... a FRAUD. And the UN inspectors said that saddam did NOT have WMDs.
It was a war crime. Do we WANT it to be? Hell no.... now we look like the god damn nazis....
March 8th, 2007 at 11:31 am#35 what Hans Blix saiid was irrelevant at thatpoint. If you belive in any way shape or form that we would not have invaded Iraq, even with 100% proof of no 911 connections and 100% proof of no WMD then you are extremely gullible. The wheels were set in motion and wouldnto be stopped. Once the AUMF went thorough there was no stopping iit. Heck the president has said on many occasions that even iif he had the knowlede that he has today hhe woudl still invade. What in that sentiment makes you think that we would not have invaded Iraq. We were going in regardless of anything Blix or anyone else in the world had to say about it. Even dirty dick has said that he stands by his early 90's quagmire statement. These people knew what they wanted to do and were going to do it come hell or high water.
Regarding torture. it is never ok to torture, or at least the America I grew up in believed that. Also when the statement is made that Americans accept torture of terrorists, I diisagree, but...these are pretty much suspected terrorists. No trials, no proof. SOme have been sold into captivity others have been swept up on "the battle field" NNone have been actually tried and proven to be terrorists, they have merely been accused by an administration whose every utterance should be held up to the light and examined closely to ensure it's validity.
Also we have tortured people who were not terrorists. In Abu Grhaib we were holdign and tortureing people to who apparently were innocents who may know where a suspect might be or might be afamily member of a suspect. Those people are terrorists? It woudl be the same as holdign Timothy Mc Veighs family hostage and torturing them for what little information they had on McVeigh. Just plain stupid. and just plain un American.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:33 amIf that is your evidence that the war is a crime, then every member of congress that voted yes would also be a criminal equal to Bush. I don’t believe this adds up. How and why would the Dems incriminate themselves by saying they should have listened to Hans but didn’t?
Comment by Roger_Roger
Have you EVER read the 2002 authorization? It did NOT give the right to invade Iraq for any reason what so ever.... it came with preconditions. Those preconditions were NOT met. They were NOT met. That means that Bush commited murder and an act of war of aggression against Iraq. And the republican congress had the power to stop him but instead cheered him on. And so did you Roger_Roger... so did you...
March 8th, 2007 at 11:35 amScooter was convicted of Obstruction of Justice.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:41 amWhat Roger_Roger doesn't understand is that obstruction is a crime because it hinders investigations. Well the first guy accused is overwhelmingly guilty of obstruction. What we know about is what happened to Plame/Wilson. What we don't know about is who else might have had info that was intimidated into not speaking. Could be Plame/Wilson was the example set so others would fall in line. Fact is we have been unable to get to the truth because of the mafia-style conspiracy of obfuscation.
And Roger_Roger, are you still down in Cheney's Bunker?
Bush used Military Force, but he was never required to by Congress.
Got that? Many Democrats who voted for the Authorization to Use Military Force (NOT a declaration of war) did so with that in mind. I believe that distinction was legitimate, if naïve. Such Democrats who used that reasoning trusted Bush not to abuse the position of the office of the President.
Would those on the right rather have had such Democrats defer to the authority of the President who, despite evidence to the contrary, kept saying there were WMDs in Iraq, or defer to Hans Blix? Either way, as significantly more people have now come to realize, such Democrats were too busy worrying about impressing their opposition. But people of the neoconservative bent or who defend Bush despite the truth are going to attack Democrats no matter what Democrats do, right or wrong.
A number of people on the left *are* trying to oust (via primary challenges) those Democrats who won't admit to being wrong. In other words, such people are not as angry at those Democratic congresspeople who voted for the AUMF (again, it's NOT a war, it's Military Force) as at the fewer Democrats unwilling to own up to it and try to fix it.
Bush was the one with the ultimate power, though, to invade Iraq, not Democrats. Isn't that what the Bush Administration and most Republicans (those who haven't been kicked out, that is) have been arguing all along? Why shy away from that argument and try to put the responsibility (prior to 2007) on Democrats?
March 8th, 2007 at 11:44 am#41 By your rationale, most of the Dems are war criminals with Bush. They "knew" all these things as well and voted yes to war. If you for one minute believe that the evidence Phil Donahue had was the only evidence provided to Bush and Congress, your very jmistaken. Bush and Congress viewed hours and hours of evidence that hasn't ever been shown to the American people. Through hours and hours of evidence, Congress and our President concluded Saddam had WMD's. You have not proved that Congress or Bush knew that evidence was faulty before the war. I know you wish you could prove you, but you have failed thus far.
Proving that Iraq did not go to Afirca looking for yellowcake certainly doesn't prove they didn't have WMD's. It only proves Iraq wasn't in Afirca looking for Yellow cake. They easily could have had stockpiles of WMD's already and were simply looking for more.
Again, you would have to square how most of the Dems found the evidence legit enough to vote yes to this war just like Bush did. Just because we found no WMD's in Iraq does not mean we knew that before invading. Just because Blix hadn't found any didn't mean there wasn't any. Your Dems in congress heard what Blix said as well and still voted for war. Obviously Bush and Congress had much more compelling evidence that we aren't privy to. We would have to prove that Bush knew this evidence was faulty before the war. This would be tough for TP and this crowd since you have never seen this evidence as its classified.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:44 am34. This is where the apologists for Commander Codpiece (and Karl Rove) hedge their bets if Uncle Dick goes down.
Comment by TSop
You mean apologists like Roger_Roger?
March 8th, 2007 at 11:45 am#43 So you again use your conspiracy theory approach to answer your assumptions? Good for you. I wish I could do that sort of thing willy nilly like that. "What we don't know about is who else might have had info that was intimidated blah blah". It is certainly fasinating to watch how you can develope a story out of thin air and then somehow verify it with thin air. Lastly, you want to take a story made out of thin air verified out of thin air and impeach someone with it. Isn't made up evidence like that not only wrong but a crime in a court of law?
March 8th, 2007 at 11:48 am#41 By your rationale, most of the Dems are war criminals with Bush. They “knew†all these things as well and voted yes to war.
Comment by Roger_Roger
No one in Congress voted for war. Not one republican and not one democrat in Congress voted for war. They voted to ALLOW the president to use military force IF IF IF IF the UN inspectors found that there was a threat of WMDs from Iraq. And IF IF IF IF it was proven that Iraq had something to do with 911.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:49 amProving the administration lied isn't really that difficult. But it's not in one single piece of evidence; it's in the aggragate of information.
They lied about the uranium from Niger:
If you read the SIC report about the Niger stuff, it's clear that the CIA warned the White House repeatedly that the reporting was weak and that it was highly doubtful that Iraq could've gotten any uranium.
What the White House did was tell a half truth. They said that Iraq tried to buy uranium (a dubious but reasonable claim) but they intentionally left out the part about how it was highly doubtful that a uranium transaction ever could have occurred.
To understand how big of a lie this is all you have to do is read the famous sixteen words followed by the rest of the truth which is that it was highly doubtful that a transaction ever could've occurred. It sounds utterly ridiculous.
They lied about ties between Iraq and al Queda. There was never any solid evidence for this claim. And the CIA and Richard Clark were telling the White House that there were no ties, yet they made this claim over and over again.
They lied about the mobile weapons labs. A top CIA guy named Drumheller repeatedly warned the White House that the mobile weapons labs info was wrong because the source (curveball) was a known drunk and fabricator.
They also lied about the aluminum tubes. There was a great article in the NY Times that came out in the fall of '04 that explains that 99% of the intelligence community had serious doubts about the claims that the tubes were for centrifuging uranium. There was one guy who said that they could only be used for centrifuging uranium. The one guy, when he made his case at the UN was openly laughed at and ridiculed. And by the way, it turns out the one guy was wrong. the tubes were for rockets that Iraq was allowed to have.
The case can't be won on any of the above charges alone, but taken together, I don't see how anyone can argue that the White House didn't lie us into this war.
And remember, they were telling us that this intelligence was certain. They said there was "no doubt". To say that there is no doubt, when there are so many doubts, is, in and of itself a lie.
Phylo out.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:49 amThe devil is an angry lookin' old guy with a bad ticker.
Who'd a' thunk it?
March 8th, 2007 at 11:51 amThrough hours and hours of evidence, Congress and our President concluded Saddam had WMD’s. You have not proved that Congress or Bush knew that evidence was faulty before the war. I know you wish you could prove you, but you have failed thus far.
Comment by Roger_Roger
This is OUR country not theirs. They have to prove to US that there was a threat... we dont have to prove that there was no threat. They have provided NO evidence that saddam was a threat. We have evidence that their evidence was a FORGERY.
We have Condi, Cheney, and Powell on FILM prior to 911 saying with their own mouths that saddam was disarmed and no longer a threat.
Again we do not have to prove a negative. That is not logic. That is not justice. That is not how you start a god damn WAR.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:52 amRoger_Roger
March 8th, 2007 at 11:54 amIf you're so worried about being compared to Nazis then why is it you are so adept at Hitler's tactic. You know the one that if you keep telling people the same lie over and over they will start to believe. Or is it you just watch too much Fox News.
And RR since you troll here all day every day just exactly who is handing you your talking points.
#44 Yet Clinton is still leading in the polls. Are you going to nominate someone who voted yes to the war and stands behind it? Furthermore, Clinton even stands behind the military option for Iran if talks fail. Then again, so does Obama and most others. This is a crisis. Who are you going to nominate that won't attack Iran and who didn't vote for the Iraq war?
I still feel for these folks. They looked at the same evidence Bush did and came to the same conclusion that Iraq had WMD's. Your evidence that Bush and Congress knew it was faulty evidence was Hans and a story that Iraq didn't look for yellowcake? Honestly, that is your evidence? That's it? A weapons inspector that was thrown out of the country by Saddam and evidence Iraq wasn't looking for more WMD materials? That is enough evidence to discredit the hours of evidence you have never seen that Congress used and the President used to base their decisions on? WOW. Basically, if one weapons inspector that wasn't allowed access to most of a country and was thrown out eventually says there are no WMD's, we simply stop all concern and believe him!!! Sir, that isn't evidence at all. Our government would actually be wrong and failing us if they would back away simply because of evidence like that. A 2nd grader wouldn't base a decision on that evidence.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:55 amWhat the White House did was tell a half truth.
Comment by Phylo Se Fiser
When I grew up in church as a kid I was taught that a "half-truth" is a lie someone is trying to cover up.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:55 amI don't agree that there is no evidence that the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public into supporting this war (or, to be closer to Roger's original post, intentionally used faulty intelligence). Wolfowitz admitted publicly in 2003 that the fear of nuclear weapons was the easiest way to get the public on board. Cheney made numerous statements (550 weapons sites) that we know were outright contradicted by the contemporary intelligence. Reports have surfaced about how the Office of Special Plans conducted it's business. I used to say they were incompetent rather than outright dishonest, but I can't say that in good faith anymore.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:57 amAnything hatching yet, Phylo?
March 8th, 2007 at 11:57 amIt's beyond time for impeachment of these b*****ds!
Headlines from around the blogosphere and nation wide press:
Vermont: 36 Towns Call For Impeachment Probe of President
So FIVE of the top 7 spots on the Reddit front page right now are Impeach Bush themed articles. Why aren't the Democrats and groups like Move On pushing nonstop for it right now?
It's Time to Create a Little Shock and Awe in the Streets
If a President can be impeached for lying about a blow job then by God a Vice President should be impeached for setting in motion the forces that destroyed an intelligence network during a time of war.
Vermont Votes to Impeach Bush & Cheney
Do I smell Impeachment?
ITMFA!!!
March 8th, 2007 at 11:59 am#52 What lie do I tell over and over? Just curious.
#51 You and many others here keep saying you have "evidence" proving they knew all their intel was faulty beforehand. My GOD, please let me see it for once so I can stop harping on this and get on your side. Why tell me you have evidence and then not provide it? How are you privy to the intel congress and Bush say before the war anyways? Much of it is classified and much of it is from out governments. Good for you for not only getting access to it all but also proving Bush knew it was all faulty before the war. Seeing as though Congress and other investigation have turned up nothing, it certainly is impressive you got it figured out!
March 8th, 2007 at 12:00 pm"Are you going to nominate someone who voted yes to the war and stands behind it?"
Probably not.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:00 pmI mean to say, Roger_Roger, your continued phrasing "voted yes to the war" is 100% false.
AND that I think Democrats will not nominate Clinton.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:02 pmThrough hours and hours of evidence, Congress and our President concluded Saddam had WMD’s. You have not proved that Congress or Bush knew that evidence was faulty before the war. I know you wish you could prove you, but you have failed thus far.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Roger Roger,
You need to read the book Fiasco. This will clear up to points of confusion for you. One, that the congress saw the same intel as the White House. The NIE that congress saw had all of the doubts and caveats placed in the footnote sections where only the most diligent person would've seen them. So to say the congress saw the same intel is a lie.
Also, it should be pointed out that Paul Pillar, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, was shocked at the fact that the White House never asked for an NIE. Congress had to do that. I'll give you one guess as to why. (Hint Downing St Memo.)
The book Fiasco will also help you to understand that, yes, the White House lied. On page 50 of the hardcover book you'll read about how Gen Zinni was sitting behind Cheney when he first said that there was "no doubt" that Saddam has WMD. Zinni almost fell off his chair when he heard this because he had top secret clearance and was consulting with the CIA on Iraq's WMD and he said "In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence and never––not once–– did it say 'He has WMD'"
How's that for evidence bucko?
Phylo out.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:07 pmThe sad truth is most Dems went along because they were afraid of being branded soft on terrorism. In the hysteria created by the media propaganda campaign before the war any questioning of the obviously flimsy evidence of WMD was dissmissed and the questioner villified. There was no special "compelling evidence", only heresay and bluster. Any evidence that compelling would have ended up to be true. Read the Downing Street Memo. They had nothing on Saddam so they fixed the intelligence to further their politcal objectives.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pmThe cloud:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/26/MNG62FDUGL1.DTL
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/23/60-minutes-cia-official-reveals-bush-cheney-rice-were-personally-told-iraq-had-no-wmd-in-fall-2002
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/12/18/suskind_empiricism.html
Even David Brooks seems to be validating the perspective:
http://politikaerotika.blogspot.com/2007/03/david-brooks-yes-those-were-days.html
March 8th, 2007 at 12:15 pmRoger Rabbit - I'm on my treo today so long discussion is impossible. I simply can't leave 2 of your canards to stand unchallenged:
1. Saddam did not 'throw' Blix out - Bush gave Blix 48 hours to leave Iraq before 'shock and awe'. Bush shut down the weapons inspections not Saddam.
2. Congress and Bush did not see the same intelligence - you need to read into the use of the 'Office of Special Plans' and one Douglas Feith to figure it out. Two names you should add to your sources: Karen Kwiatkowski and Senator Rockefeller.
And finally another poster had it correct when they note that the Congressional vote on Iraq was highly political: the 2002 election was fought on a 'weak on terra' platform by the GOP and since Bush did everything he could to link Al Qaeda and Saddam - the gutless Dems were compelled to vote for his resolution - the biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam was all about domestic US politics.
Some of you posters help Rog with the links, please.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:16 pmRoger_Roger, I seem to have missed your response to #50.
Also, as 5 to 10 additional people may find the energy to state, if you don't know by now that the UN, at the urging of the US/Bush, kicked the UN inspectors out, not Hussein (USA Today, 2003-03-17), then allow us to correct you, and please don't continue to claim it.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:18 pmrogrog has become waaaayyyyy tooooo teeeee-dious for me, especially now that he's modified all kinds of positions to curry favor amongst those he loathes - is he really a campaign researcher for chuck hagel???
March 8th, 2007 at 12:19 pmWhat a load of crap.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:21 pmBush asked Cheney to find him a Veep.
When Cheney found himself to be the most qualified person, chymp should have kicked his ass to the curb.
By choosing Dick to choose Dick, Bush has tied himself at the scrotum to this vile piece of crap.
Bush has welcomed and embraced his policy, politics and piracy.
Poultroons, one and all.
Roger_Roger
March 8th, 2007 at 12:25 pmThe intent of our justice system, innocent until proven guilty, was established so that no innocent person would end up behind bars. These rules never were established to control the "Court of Public Opinion" you refer to. Opinions don't need to meet the litmus test of "beyond a reasonable doubt." You're cronies would like to us to believe we can't even express our opinions. But no matter how much you beat this dead horse its still going to run.
We have a RIGHT AND AN OBLIGATION to communicate with other Americans to make this country a better place for all of us. This country has had a long history of not discussing politics with friends because it created hard feelings. But the rest of the world has alway had these conversations and is better for it.
Americans for too long have been manipulated by the media. Most don't even realize that Ronald Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine that required the media to represent both side equally.
So you can continue to mislead and spin the issues to meet you're sometimes hidden agenda but you cannot and will not stop the rest of us from informing, commenting, and venting about all the injustices that we see. Bush to you is a "moral" guy. Well I don't believe it is moral to steal an election. And yes, Gore legitimately won the electoral and popular votes. Now spin away little troll.
Roger_Roger
What about your response to #50?
We're waiting...never thought I'd say that!
March 8th, 2007 at 12:31 pmNo, the Democrats are complicit and have made lots of profits off of this illegal war, just as the Republicans have done. Hillary Clinton is part of the Carlyle Group, just like George H W Bush, George W Bush and Bill Clinton.
These people are all in bed together and need to be stopped.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pmBush can get more money for Iraq IF the troops are withdrawn by the fall of 2008. That's before the elections. I like it but would prefer the fall of 2007.
In addition, more money for fighting the real terrorists, the Taliban.
In addition, more money for veteran's health care.
In addition, more money for health care for low-income children.
If they can get this to pass, it puts pressure squarely on Bush with Congress finally making him accountable.
I doubt, however, if this will be enough for certain trolls that pretend to be disgusted with Bush. Oh well, screw them.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:33 pmSorry, I screwed up adding the link. It works at any rate.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:37 pmThey almost got him the other day.
I can't wait to see both Cheney and the Chimp assassinated! That will be the best day of our lives.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:51 pm#74 - Can't agree with that or condone it. TP - you need to clean that post up - pronto.
If that happens you can say 'bye-bye' to the Republic.
March 8th, 2007 at 1:00 pmgoogle this:
Really, it's all the link you need.
March 8th, 2007 at 1:00 pmCheney is the epitome of what has become the word that says everything about anyone who is in favor of American Neoconservatism : knowledge-intolerant.
March 8th, 2007 at 1:09 pmi really do not think its gonna be very long before Tony Snow tries to tell us that Bush & Cheney "didnt really know each other"
March 8th, 2007 at 1:10 pmThis article by Duffy is pretty good, but I find fault with this statement:
"He (Cheney) was convinced he was right about grave matters — that Saddam Hussein was a threat that had to be removed, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was intent on using them, that critics of Administration policy were at best misguided and at worst traitorous."
I'm not buying this.
Bush and Cheney knew Saddam was not a threat which is why they went so far out of their way to LIE.
They called dissenters traitors to distract everyone from their LIES!
Duffy, stop chasing the goddamn ball!
March 8th, 2007 at 1:26 pm#62 Holy crap that is scary if your right. Are you telling me that all the intel and information congress needed was in footnotes they failed to read? Your telling me that the people we elected truly had all the same evidence Bush had like I assumed but congress failed to read the footnotes? You can't be serious. These people voted to allow the president to go to war and didn't read all the evidence provided to them? Now that should be a crime. It isn't proper to let them off by saying only the most "diligent person" reads all the evidence giving to them. Honestly, anyone who claims this should be thrown out of congress and into jail. Is there evidence that Bush didn't read all the evidence as well? Man our leaders really need to get a bit more focused on their jobs. I had no idea that congress didn't read all the evidence Bush gave them. I guess I assumed a vote of this importance would automatically warrent that each person read all the evidence. Now tell me why after you said they got the same intel, you then say they didn't? Are you allowing them to get off the hook because the format was different? They still used words, right? You know, the readible kind that anyone who knew english could read? That simply is not an excuse at all. You prove congress got all the same intel Bush did.
Furthermore, Cheney said there was "No Doubt" Iraq had WMD's because that is what he believed. I truly hope each and every person who voted to allow us to go to war believed that very same thing. Are you telling me that some in congress believed the intel was wrong and still voted yes? Talk about a crime. I actually hope all our leaders believed there was "No Doubt" when it came to WMD's. If they didn't believe that, they should not have voted for war.
You have shown me no evidence that Bush and Cheney knew the intel was wrong before the war. You showed me that they believed the evidence and you showed my congress got that same evidence in a slightly different format. This is more proof no crime was committed.
March 8th, 2007 at 1:29 pmComment by Death2CheneyBush
Assassinations and military coups are the greatest dangers to a democracy.
March 8th, 2007 at 1:30 pmFurthermore, Cheney said there was “No Doubt†Iraq had WMD’s because that is what he believed. I truly hope each and every person who voted to allow us to go to war believed that very same thing. Are you telling me that some in congress believed the intel was wrong and still voted yes? Talk about a crime. I actually hope all our leaders believed there was “No Doubt†when it came to WMD’s. If they didn’t believe that, they should not have voted for war.
Comment by Roger_Roger
The white house came to Congress asking for an authorization to go to war with the entire middle east according to Dick Lugar (R-Senate).
They not only refused they put preconditions on the use of force against Iraq. Those preconditions did not occur and the White House attacked anyway.... real simple isnt it?
March 8th, 2007 at 1:33 pmAw shoot. Misformatted my comment at #76, which should read:
do a Google search on this:
"roger_roger wmd site:thinkprogress.org"
Really, it's all the link you need.
March 8th, 2007 at 1:37 pmggibson, you are kicking ass.
March 8th, 2007 at 1:58 pmggibson, you are kicking ass.
Comment by Juan C
The American soldiers are kicking ass... I am just doing my duty as a citizen that depends on their ass kicking to look out for THEIR asses back here at home. The soldiers fight in the field... and our duty is to make sure they are never abused by our elected leaders and to make our elected leaders pay when they do abuse the willingness to sacrifice that the soldiers have demonstrated for over 200 years.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:14 pmRoger Roger:
Phylo: Does it not bother you that he had no evidence to back it up? Are you telling me that it's okay to go to war if the VP concocts fictional stories in his mind about WMD? Where is your evidence that Cheney had any any evidence on which to base this "no doubt" assesment?
And why don't you respond to my specific charges in comment #50?
And why do you think that the White House never bothered to ask for an NIE?
Phylo out.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:15 pmThat's right, roger roger, the members of congress who voted for this war did not do their due diligence and they should be held responsible for this mess too. Apparently only five of six members of congress got past the executive summary. Though I think you have to admit that they were probably inclined to take the White House (and Collin Powell) at their word. Hey, they f'd up. They trusted Bush and Cheney. Shame on them for not knowing better.
Phylo out.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:29 pmPlus even Obama would vote yes, because as a black man he could not vote against a black woman.
Comment by Jay Randal #20
Whoa Jay!
...first of all...
...Condti's not Black...
...second...
...please provide a link to remarks proving that Senator Obama supports Rice as VP...
...otherwise, Progressive Liberals shouldn't jump the gun...
...the right wing Bushite racists are already attempting to bring Obama down...
...are you helping THEM?
March 8th, 2007 at 2:34 pmI don't have time to read the posts, so this might have been said already:
Not only did Cheney orchestrate the outing of a covert CIA operative, but he outed the whole WMD unit operating under the brass-plate cover company Brewster Jennings. How many of our operatives were tortured and/or killed because of Cheney?
March 8th, 2007 at 2:38 pmCHENEY, BUSH et al...
...have committed TREASON and mass murder...
...what are the american people going to do about it?
March 8th, 2007 at 2:41 pmThe American soldiers are kicking ass…
Comment by ggibson
American soldiers, just like any country´s soldiers are being used since day one for the benefit of the few powerful people in the country. Wars are made by the ruling class to hold more power and they have to convince their soldiers that there is an evil enemy waiting to attack that country, thats what Hitler´s junta and propaganda did to convince german soldiers about jews, polish, russians, etc. Now, the only wars for justice are fought by the people: Viet-cong and russian people, for example. The vietcong werent soldiers in the usual sense, russian people were repairing tanks while the fight raged on in Stalingrad. So, soldiers are toys, sadly. Organized people are unstoppable.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:42 pmDick(and I mean dick)Cheney is the anchor that will drown this Republican regime. Vermont has the right idea. Impeach this puppet Bush and his handler Cheney now. Twenty- one more months of this treason is unacceptable. Chuck Hagel is stating the obvious: gutting human rights, nullifying the Constitution seems to be at least as serious as Clinton's impeachment for perjury for personal behavior. One bad call for impeachment by the same thugs guilty of REAL crimes and hubris of power should not stop a REAL case for impeachment. No doubt 70% ofthe public would agree. Bush-Cheney have to go together. Cheney knows where the bodies are buried. They should pay the price for their treachery.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:40 pm#82 Refresh my memory on what those preconditions were again.
March 8th, 2007 at 4:13 pmI see that you still haven't responded to #50 roger roger.
Hmmmm, that's a little curious.
Phylo out
March 8th, 2007 at 4:40 pm#35 - you have to pay attention to the time line.
Congress voted to allow the use of force in October 2002 in case Saddam refused to allow the UN inspector into Iraq with full access, as defined by the UN inspectors.
The UN inspectors arrived in Iraq about December 2002. It was in February 2003 that Blix reported back to the UN that inspections had failed to uncover any WMD in Iraq or that Saddam had restarted a nuclear program. One month later, Bush kicked the UN inspectors out and we invaded.
A lot happened in the 5 months between when Congress passed the resolution on use of force should Saddam not comply with UN resolutions and when the invasion started. It was not concurrent action by a long shot.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:23 pmhttp://www.peace-action.org/
———————————-
We give ordinary people
the tools to change the world.
About Peace Action
Peace Action, the merger of SANE and The Nuclear Freeze, has effectively mobilized for peace and disarmament for nearly fifty years.
As the nation’s largest grassroots peace group we get results: from the 1963 treaty to ban above ground nuclear testing, to the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, from ending the war in Vietnam, to blocking weapons sales to human rights abusing countries, and eliminating funding for new nuclear weapons, Peace Action and its 100,000 members have been, and continue to be, at the forefront of the international movement for peace.
At Peace Action we believe…
…that war is not a suitable response to conflict.
For nearly 50 years Peace Action has worked for an environment where all are free from violence and war. We understand that long standing global conflicts require long-term solutions, and that US foreign policy has a lasting effect on the world. We are working to promote a new US foreign policy that is based on peaceful support for human rights and democracy, reducing the threat from weapons of mass destruction, and cooperation with the world community. We are against pre-emptive war, and call for a full withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
…that every person has the right to live without the threat from nuclear weapons.
There are still over 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world. The US and Russia still have thousands of nuclear weapons, on hair trigger alert—ready to launch in minutes. While the Cold War may have ended, the nuclear threat has not. The only way to ensure that nuclear weapons will never be used - whether purposefully, or accidentally - is global abolition. The U.S. must lead the way to a safer world by taking our weapons off hair trigger alert, halting our research and development of new nuclear weapons and disarming and demilitarizing our warhead stockpile of over 10,000 nuclear warheads. We can reduce the threat to the world posed by nuclear weapons, but we must start by getting serious about getting rid of our own weapons of mass destruction.
…that America has the resources to both protect and provide for its citizens.
As the Pentagon’s budget soars to $400 billion, 17% of American children live in poverty. Basic infrastructure is crumbling, school are using outdated textbooks, and millions of Americans are without basic health insurance.
For what the US will spend on the War in Iraq, 26,701,621 children could have attended a year of Head Start, we could have built 1,815,194 additional housing units for the poor, we could have hired 3,493,706 additional public school teachers for one year, and we could have provided 9,772,998 students four-year scholarships at public universities(source – National Priorities Project). We believe that these are priorities that should come before war.
What we do at Peace Action…
We are the nation’s largest grassroots Peace network, with over 28 state affiliates, and over 100 local chapters. We organize our grassroots network to place pressure on Congress and the Administration through write-in campaigns, internet actions, citizens lobbying and direct action. Through a close relationship with progressive members of Congress, we play a key role in devising strategies to move forward peace legislation, and, as a leading organizing member of United for Peace and Justice and the Win Without War coalition, we lend our expertise and large network to achieving common goals.
Through our Peace Voter awareness campaigns, we inform citizens about their choices for both local and national campaigns, by highlighting different candidates’ stances on issues relating to peace. Our annual Congressional Voter Guide gives credit to those in Congress who voted for a peaceful future, while holding accountable those who voted for larger Pentagon budgets, spending tax dollars on nuclear weapons, and voted for wars of aggression and occupation.
Given the right tools, ordinary people can change the world.
At Peace Action, we recognize that real change comes from the bottom up and we are committed to educating and organizing at the grassroots level.
When you join Peace Action you become part of an effective citizen movement. We work hard to keep you informed through our quarterly newsletter and publications about the most important news and issues in the peace movement. As a member you can join our Action Alert Network which allows citizens throughout the country to rapidly respond to important legislation online. As a member, you can become an important part of a fast growing national movement, and help us change the direction of our country and the world towards a more sustainable, peaceful future.
Together, we have the power to change the world.
Support Peace.
http://www.peace-action.org/
March 8th, 2007 at 5:39 pmI have not read the book 'Fiasco', yet, but I have read 'Worse than Watergate' by John Dean. Roger, all the proof you need is contained there in. All the evidence is covered and footnoted by Dean. That is, if you truly are looking for the truth.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:38 pmTIME(tm)FORGOT TO SHOW THE BLOT OF LIGHTNING STRIKING Torticola FRANKEN-Cheney's NECK-BOLTS!!!!!
March 8th, 2007 at 10:46 pm#81 you're right ...but I've never seen the state of democracy so endangered as it is now. NeoCon rats devour our constitutional rights very quickly. Under the Bush tenure democracy has been ripped and torn to shreds!!!
#74 I can understand your frustration ... but, be careful with what you ask! you might get it!
March 9th, 2007 at 1:38 amRachel, that's great; I think peaceful solutions to world issues are woefully under-discussed.
I recommend, however, that you avoid posting the same comment on different blog entries. If you want to directly engage the topic being discussed in the comments sections (I phrase this because sometimes the comment threads are off-topic, or not discussing their blog entry's given topic), and then bring up Peace Action as it relates, great, but your cut-and-paste comments are tantamount to spam.
March 9th, 2007 at 11:59 am