Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
So the lefty liars are still doing what they do best: lying. All together now, gang--EVERY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE MONITORING IRAQ CONCLUDED THAT SADDAM RETAINED WMD.
Got it?
The left's Big Lie has been exposed. Anyone who tries to pretend that Bush chose to trash his own poll numbers by promising to find weapons he knew weren't there is peddling snake oil.
I don't believe GWB ever intended to serve for the good of the country. In fact, I believe he set out to destroy the foundations of the United States in any way possible, and he's still doing it. He puts on a good act, but he's just a front for the few wealthy and powerful who seek nothing less than world domination. They are skilled at destroying smaller countries; why not US?
I do not understand the perversely large egos so many Americans on the left have, thinking they are superior or in some way special.
Third world countries are overthrown by the wealthy every year.
Why do American liberals feel they are somehow better or above this?
"Bush is old news, he's been a lame duck for over 2 years, so why hasn't the Democrat controlled Congress brought home the troops?"
Because the Democrats are really Republicans.
you are up to your ignorant eyes
in pomeroo doo-doo...
Just how much Mark Denney really cares
About us poor suffering ay-rabs
And how he wanted to free us of the yoke
As Saddam held us all by the throat
What a fantastic fucking joke!
o li o sidi!
Well
All you ay-rabs know the rest...
The comparison between Clinton and Bush is reasonable in the sense that they both rather brutally dealt with Iraq on relatively weak premises.
It is absolutely correct that it is logically invalid to use the premise of Clinton's cavalier foreign policiy to reach the conclusion that Bush's cowboy foreign policy is somehow justified. This much is obvious to anyone who knows how to contstuct an argument.
I was just pointing out that Groenhagen's crucifying of Clinton is not the blow to the left that he seems to think it is.
It was unbelievable that Bush managed to manipulate the Americans people on his campaign. But honestly speaking, John Kerry was not able to convince the voters that he would be better than Bush. For his adventure in Iraq, he should face the internatinal tribunal at The Hague.
Yet they all turned out to be wrong and we who opposed the war from the start turned out to be right. Got that? Now, are you or are you not ever going to take responsibility for that? While your contemplating that answer, you can also explain why Bush hired most of his cabinet from a "think" tank dedicated to the overthrow of Saddam even before Bush took office thus discrediting the argument that Saddam posed an "immediate" threat.
Mark Denney: "You see a war that never should have been. ... In your view this was a crime from top to bottom and Bush, as the commander in chief, should bear the brunt of the responsibility for this crime and be punished accordingly. Is that right?"
That about sums it up, but it also just scratches the surface. I am not anti-war. I am against the level of lies that surrounded this war, the incompetence of the entire operation, the excessive marketing used, the over-control of information (and misinformatin), the manipulation of the public and of the public's fear, the corruption of how contracts were awarded, the outrageously unchecked raiding of public coffers, the utter and depraved indifference of our approach to the citizens of Iraq, and the subsequent high-level cover up and denial of every single thing that was revealed to be wrong.
And that doesn't even really cover it...
Mark Denney: "For me, saddam had flouted international law for over a decade including the use of illegal weapons while he murdered and tortured his own people."
Sorry, but this really is an incredibly simplistic and willfully one-sided interpretation of events. Your base statement is true. Your avoidance of context is the problem.
The idea that Saddam Hussein "flouted international law for over a decade" is pretty funny when you consider all the other countries that have flouted international law. Chief among them is the United States. Undoubtedly Hussein was a massive thorn in the side of everybody, and undoubtedly he deserved a demise. But he was a tin-pot dictator, a nothing. We wiped out his military in the first Gulf War and he never regained that level of power -- he was completely hemmed in.
Hussein's use of illegal weapons occurred in the early 1990s. Most of his most vile actions happened before and after the first Gulf War. We didn't invade Iraq because of stuff he did a decade earlier, and it is silly to keep using that as a justification.
No doubt Saddam's continued gaming of the system was a problem. But there were any number of possible solutions. War was not the only option. Attacking, invading and occupying Iraq was the equivalent of using a baseball bat to kill a cockroach that's sitting on a cupboard full of dishware.
And again, there's no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. None. Not even a policy change can justify a magical connection. Iraq was something that the Neocons were licking their chops about long, long before 9/11. 9/11 was used as an excuse -- it wasn't the result of some sort of political soul-searching. It was considered an opportunity, not a necessity. "How can we convince the public that we should invade Iraq?" was the long-standing question. 9/11 became the answer.
Another famous quote, said by Goring during his trial in Nuremberg, follows:
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
--Hermann Goring, Nuremberg trials
Mark Denney: "They used specious hard intelligence and fear mongering to sell this war and carried it out in the face of international objections."
Glad to see you admit this much. The intelligence WAS specious, and many, many people knew it before the invasion. This is not a "hindsight" conclusion -- people were speaking out against the rationale AT THE TIME.
And yes, the war was conducted in the face of international objections, which is a very important factor to consider. Bush decided, essentially, to "go it alone," and the inclusion of Britain and the "Coalition of the Bought Off" doesn't mitigate that.
Now, if you take a country and dictator whose been a problem for the entire international community, and you decide to solve the problem once and for all, do you find a solution that makes sure the international community is on board, or do you tell most of the international community to go screw themselves and jump in headlong with minimal preparation or planning, just because you see a springtime window of opportunity that's about to close, and you don't want to wait until fall?
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"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
