Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Groenhagen: "I provided sources that show Horseface lied. And now, he you add additional lies. The case against Iraq was not based on forged documents.
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html"
Okay, first, what sources showed that Walsh "lied"? What EXPLICITLY was the lie? You didn't answer the question. GIVE A QUOTE AND SHOW HOW IT IS AN ACTUAL LIE.
Second, when you say "forged documents," do you even know what is being referred to? I am not talking about the forged Italian documents regarding yellowcake from Niger. I am talking about THIS:
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1008766.html
Third, you gave a link to a Factcheck article from 2004. Factcheck was hardly a paragon of credibility at that point, and it's not the last word on these matters. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the CIA knew full well that the uranium/yellowcake claim was doubtful at best prior to Bush's speech in 2003.
Groenhagen: ""Cherry-picked" evidence? As I showed above, both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards admitted that the evidence was consistent from Clinton to Bush. Therefore, are you saying that Clinton also cherry-picked the evidence?"
Your point is lost here. Clinton and Edwards were not bucking to start a war. They were bucking to save their own butts politically in case of war. I don't have much respect for either of them. To me they're as bad as Britney Spears when she said, "I think we should all just trust the president."
You keep referring back to Clinton/Edwards as if it somehow absolves Bush of everything. How so? Did Clinton/Edwards have full access to all the information about WMD? I mean, besides the NIE? I don't think so.
Groenhagen: "If so, I assume that you disagree with Horseface's contention that Hillary was an excellent choice for SoS."
I don't recall anybody saying anything about Hillary Clinton in this current column. The entire column is about Bush. You have a great big hard-on to change the subject, don't you? It seems you just can't be bothered to stick to one topic at a time. Divert, divert, divert.
This is my impression of you: "Bush did something that didn't work? B-b-b-b-but what about Bill Clinton???? And b-b-b-b-b-but what about Hillary? And b-b-b-b-but what about Saddam gassing Kurds in 1989? That was b-b-b-b-bad!"
Lame wingnut.
It isn't just Bush that refuses to own their own mistakes. I saw the interview which was positively miserable to watch and I voted for him the second time. I can also see that he pretty much believes what he is saying and isn't planning on taking any ownership for all the missteps. He will go down as the worst president but the truth is we can and probably will fall further. Greenspan doesn't feel he was wrong. Powell doesn't think he was wrong. Rubin doesn't think he was wrong. Franks doesn't think he was wrong. Dodd doesn't think he was wrong.
Keep in mind that our new Sec of State, Hillary Clinton, lied with passion about being attacked in Bosnia knowing full well that others would be able to tell a different story. She lied. She meant to and she did and yet now she will be expected to always tell the truth with regards to foreign policy negotiations. She never said she actually embellished the story to make her look good, but instead just deflected her guilt knowing the press would shortly give it up.
You can hammer Bush all you want - he deserves it, but I will guarantee you that the lies, omissions, refusal to own mistakes will continue into this administration because the media and the people of this country accept despicable behavior when it comes to our elected officials. It isn't just Bush's low approval rating, but look at how the public viewed the 110th congress. They hated them even more and yet continue to vote them in.
of being just as culpable as Bush and not a peep in response.
is this because I am correct?
or is it because you people somehow think you are invulnerable to charges of conspiracy?
I know what YOU are, but I still need to know exactly how out of control ARROGANT you people are so I begin to protect myself from more of this criminality.
Groenhagen: "Bin Laden in 1997 said he would send Clinton "messages with no words" in response to Clinton's policies vis-a-vis Iraq."
Xrandadu Hutman: "Way to cherry-pick, there. Bin Laden had a laundry list of reasons, with that being just one small aspect. Bin Laden's justifcation involved the U.S.'s entire history of meddling in the Middle East and other Islamic regions."
Xrandadu Hutman: "Thanks for the history lesson, professor. You forgot to mention the bombing in Saudi Arabia, though. You're a little off your game here."
First, if you're referring to the Khobar Towers bombing, that occurred in 1996, which, obviously was before bin Laden's 1997 declaration. You see, our number system goes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and so on.
I guess I can forgive you for being ignorant concerning bin Laden's 1997 interview with CNN. That was perhaps his most important interview with Western media and, surprisingly, CNN removed it from its web site. The original URL for the CNN interview is www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/impact/9705/09/feature/transcript.ladin.html.
Fortunately, that URL can be retrieved using the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org. It's also available at http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/binladen/binladenintvw-cnn.pdf
See the last page of the PDF. Bin Laden's "laundry list" had essentially three items:
1. Sanctions against Iraq, which he the UN FAO said contributed to the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children under five.
2. U.S. troops on Saudi soil. Those troops were there to enforce sanctions on and the containment of Iraq. Note that there were just 950 U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in 1993. By 2000, there were 7,053 (see chart at www.sinsofthehusband.com).
3. Israel.
Contrary to your claim that Iraq was just one small aspect that motivate bin Laden to send Clinton "messages with no words," it made up two-thirds of his case.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
