Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
One could never adequately ridicule George W. Bush, but that should not stop us from trying.
George W. Bush is first and foremost, and in all ways a coward. He is a man who evaded serving in Viet Nam and then went on to leave his post while on a cushy active reserve state side assignment. He is a man who qualmlessly sent men and women to die and be maimed on assignments he would have moved heaven and earth to escape and evade himself. He is a man who orders others to physically and psychologically abuse defenseless men in US custody. He is a man who will use the great force of our nation to wrecklessly kill, maim, capture, detain and otherwise destroy fellow human beings.
George W. Bush has presided over some of the worst disasters in our nation's history and through omission and commission has either materially exasserbated the damage, or one could argue was participatorily and contributorily negligent in many of them, including 9/11 and Katrina.
Joan is right to point out the psychological evidence that demonstrates and confirms what we already know about this coward. Just as former patriots cried "Remember the Alamo" to stir the hearts and focus the minds of fellow citizens, so must we now and for the lifetime of our generation repeat "Remember Bush".
For those of you who don't work for the government the issue may have been a slam dunk, we have to go to war with Iraq, even though they did not attack us. However the evidence presented by the government did not show the entire intelligence that was presented to guys like Dick Cheney.
Do you remember when those so-called tubes that were supposed to be for nuclear reactors were shown on TV and the Government presented this as evidence Iraqi's were dabbling with WMD again?
I hope you all remember that, those tubes are a huge issue. The Department of Energy at that time said those tubes were not and could not be used for nuclear weapons. THEY WERE TOO SMALL. Any one who knows anything about reactors knows this, the big guys at the Whitehouse, knew, they knew it, the Dept of Energy Scientists informed them, the Navy scientists knew as well, because you know they work around and in reactors all the time. That information was never released far and wide and the press because they have no real background in science, particularly in nuclear reactors, they never really presented the information that was out there. I work with these scientists every single day, they never believed what the government was saying, they knew it was a lie.
Other facts:
at the same time we were ready to go to war in Iraq over so-called WMD there were radioactive plumes that we detected coming off the shores of NKorea. None of that was happening in Iraq. It isn't easy to hide these reactors, additionally, why weren't we worried about NKorea? Hmm those are things that make you think, only if you know what you are supposed to be thinking about!
The information and the evidence was out there, people didn't want to listen did they, they just wanted revenge, revenge against anyone. Bush and his enablers convinced an already scared electorate of so-called facts, that weren't facts but twisted information. This population does not have the scientific background to analyze the situation and they believed what they were told. That does not absolve Bush and his cronies from what they did, they did make up shit to take us to war. I don't blame the public, how the hell would they know. I do blame Bush who ought to be in jail for lying to the country. He should have been impeached. I do blame the democrats for not doing their job.
"Also, almost every country except our few puppets were against our invasion. One cannot say that the administration had overwhelming support or facts or figures to justify. Bush was hell-bent to go months before Powell convinced him to at least try to go to the UN (where Powell lost all his integrity and respect by following the wishes of his self-serving Commander-In-Chief)." -- curiousdwk
This is a falsehood. The coalition of nations during Operation Iraqi Freedom was larger than the coalition during Operation Desert Storm.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm225.cfm
Powell lost all integrity and respect? How do you explain the mainstream media assigning integrity and respect to his endorsement of the Messiah?
i could not watch. i knew i would just be disgusted.
panbozz
"George W. Bush is first and foremost, and in all ways a coward. He is a man who evaded serving in Viet Nam and then went on to leave his post while on a cushy active reserve state side assignment. He is a man who qualmlessly sent men and women to die and be maimed on assignments he would have moved heaven and earth to escape and evade himself. He is a man who orders others to physically and psychologically abuse defenseless men in US custody. He is a man who will use the great force of our nation to wrecklessly kill, maim, capture, detain and otherwise destroy fellow human beings."
I assume you feel the same way about Bill Clinton, who received a draft induction notice, worked out a deal with Colonel Eugene Holmes to serve instead in the ROTC, and then reneged on his commitment after the lottery system was changed later that year. That didn't stop Clinton from deployment our military more than 40 times. I also assume you would have a problem with the Messiah deploying troops since he never spent a day in uniform.
Groenhagen: "Of course, the WMD debate concerning Iraq began long before Bush became president. The Clinton administration left office claiming that Saddam still had WMD and, thus, was a clear and present danger at all times."
Again, what is your point in continually bringing up Clinton? How does Clinton's stance in 2000 have any bearing on what actions Bush decided to take in 2003? Or on the judgment of Bush's success in the undertaking?
There was some reason to think that Saddam had WMD during the Clinton era: We knew he had them before, and we had no evidence he'd gotten rid of them. There's a reason for this: Hussein didn't want to publically declare that he didn't have such weapons, as it would only serve to make his military seem less powerful. Hussein's entire game was to make himself look as formidable as possible within the confines of his hemmed-in, isolated dictatorship.
But we also knew that the kinds of chemical agents he had were procured in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and these materials were known to deteriorate to the point of uselessness after just a few years.
We further knew that, unless he had established channels previously unknown, Hussein had not procured any new WMD. It's not like we didn't have spies and bugs and wiretaps throughout his palaces. The uranium yellow-cake story was never taken very seriously by real intelligence experts, and if it did show anything (which it didn't) it was merely that of Hussein putting out feelers to get materials (which, again, he didn't actually do) rather than obtaining them.
The history of the WMD story is pretty clear, and it involves Dick Cheney making personal trips to CIA headquarters and Pentagon to pressure officials to find evidence for WMD, as well as a strong will to downplay evidence showing otherwise. Pick up some of Bob Woodward's books -- that's just a start, of course.
There's also the "new evidence" displayed by Colin Powell. We had weather-balloon trailers that were supposed to be bio-terror labs (but weren't), metal tubes that were supposed to be for building chemical-agent-delivering rockets (but weren't), and assorted factory rooftops where stuff was supposed to be hidden (but wasn't, and our guys in the field knew damn well it wasn't). Powell himself famously exclaimed "This is bullshit!" at some of the stuff he was given to present. He still cites that as the worst day of his life.
Look also at the ugly back-stories of how we used dillweeds like Chalabi or "Curveball" as the sole basis for our conclusions, even though they were known to be unreliable sources with vested interests in telling us what we wanted to hear, or what we pressured them to make up. Anybody remember Cheney claiming that there was an Iraq/9-11 link, based on some Iraqi defense guy who traveled to Europe once? Anybody remember Bush saying, "We found the WMD" when he was talking to the Polish media?
Groenhagen: "
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/Albright-1-8-2001.pdf
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/Holbrooke-1-11-2001.pdf
"
I see you're getting your information from a web site called "Sins of the Husband." Real convincing! Be sure to link to some National Journal articles while you're at it. Or maybe the New York Post.
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
