Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Kimbah: "Just get over your BDS. You've got way bigger problems on your hands with the marxist you just helped push into the presidency. Obama can't even take a stand on the auto bailout. He's a fake and a man-child. BTW, how's all the CHANGE working for you? Such a stupid woman. Go back to your kitchen."
Excellent satire of the typical American idiot's mind-set! You were born in the wrong era -- you could have been a head writer for the Archie Bunker show!
that's probably his level of competence. or maybe he could handle a mcdonalds.
the political process put him in command of the worlds biggest war machine.
a rational person would now be thinking, "we need to change that process."
not many rational people in the us of a, is there.
gpsman: "He obviously had possessed WMDs, and was willing to use them."
No duh. That would be because the U.S. sold them to him, or gave him the money to buy them. Where do you think Saddam Hussein got the helicopters he used to drop ricin (I believe) on Kurds? Uncle Sam. What was the U.S.'s response? A slap on the wrist. This would be back in Reagan's and Bush Sr.'s days.
gpsman: "Whether he still had them, I think, was and remains a moot point."
It's not a moot point if it was the primary justification for a war, invasion and occupation. Most of the chemical agents Saddam Hussein had were procured in the late 1980s and would have been past their usage point (due to deterioration) by the mid 1990s. But who cares, right?
gpsman: "Without assurance of their destruction he could reasonably be assumed to still possess them and pose a serious risk to the region and the world."
See above. The shelf-life of his known chemical agents was well-known, and was considered by experts to be non-weaponizable. Even the Bush administration didn't use that as a justification. Instead, they tried to claim Hussein was attempting to obtain new materials.
Then there's Britian's "dodgy dossier." (Look it up.) They helped us with our deceptive marketing scheme. Anybody who does their homework cannot conclude anything other than that there was a concerted effort to mislead the public. Paul Wolfowitz admitted as much in his June 2003 interview in Vanity Fair. (Look it up.)
gpsman: "I hold Clinton responsible for not smoking his ass long before Cheney and Rumsfeld et al. got the chance to use W as their dummy."
B-b-b-b-but Clinton! It's always about blaming Clinton, isn't it? "Smoking his ass," huh? How exactly? Clinton did bomb Baghdad in response to an early-stages plan to assassinate Bush Sr. Then he set up a rigorous containment plan, which cost U.S. taxpayers maybe $4 billion per year, during which time Saddam stewed in his juices manipulating the oil-for-food program like a standard-issue mafia don. I don't know about you, but $4 billion a year is much better than $4 billion every week or two. The oil-for-food program could have been cleaned up, the CIA could have staged a coup or some other guerilla assassination or whatever, and it would have sucked but it wouldn't have sucked the entire U.S. economy down a bottomless drain.
road warrior: "The liberal illuminati have bashed him left and right and in some ways, rightfully so but i think it's time to move on and let Bush move on."
#1: What is the "liberal illuminati"? Why no mention of the "conservative illuminati"? They seem to be behind more machinations...
#2: Time to let Bush move on? Really? Do you usually just let people "move on" after they've caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people? Are you all, like, "get over it, dude, it's just a huge pile of needlessly dead people, but who cares, whatever"?
They manufactured the evidence to get us into Iraq, to dump mountains of cash on the oil and war industries. Period.
That was after there was no WMD and after he was obviously "unprepared for war" yet he had this man murdered by a mob under his watch and jurisdiction.
Just because he pretends to be stupid doesn't absolve him of guilt. As governor of Texas he administered lethal "justice" to those far more "mentally changed" than himself.
He deserves a dose of justice. So do his victims.
Bush is not delusional. Those who apologize or make excuses for him are delusional.
There was no failure - they lied, looted, killed and murdered quite successfully and no one calls it treason.
The man is a criminal genius.
He ratted out Palme too. How many died from that bit of treason?
The man deserves what he did to others.
I think, henceforth, I shall refer to "the conservative benighteds" as a counterpoint.
That was after there was no WMD and after he was obviously "unprepared for war" yet he had this man murdered by a mob under his watch and jurisdiction.
Just because he pretends to be stupid doesn't absolve him of guilt. As governor of Texas he administered lethal "justice" to those far more "mentally challenged" than himself.
He deserves a dose of justice. So do his victims.
Bush is not delusional. Those who apologize or make excuses for him are delusional.
There was no failure - they lied, looted, killed and murdered quite successfully and no one calls it treason.
The man is a criminal genius.
He ratted out Palme too. How many died from that bit of treason?
The man deserves what he did to others.
Joan, he isn't the delusional one, you are.
In your understandable desire to stomp on Bush, I think you're letting an awful lot of other politicians off easy. There's a kernel of truth to Bush's whining that he was one of many people fooled by the intelligence (or in some cases joining in on the fraud). The leaders who strongly denounced the evidence for Hussein's WMD programs were mostly on the fringes. The ones that counted found at least some elements of Powell's U.N. presentation credible. Recall the brouhaha over Chirac saying he didn't find Powell "indisputable" (as opposed to actually disputing Powell's claims) and the ongoing chorus of ex-Clinton-ites (and Clinton) saying until fairly recently that they thought Saddam had weapons programs and ambitions, just not very effective ones.
Also, it's not the case that Hans Blix said in late 2002 and early 2003 that Iraq had no weapons programs; in fact his reports prior to the invasion said that Iraq was out of compliance with the U.N. resolutions and had failed to account for numerous weapons, sites, materials, etc. I distinctly remember him refusing to state directly whether he thought there were active, productive weapons programs in Iraq until AFTER the invasion revealed that there were none.
All in all, a very large portion of major political figures around the world believed that Iraq had WMD programs. What separated the willing from the unwilling was the view that invasion was the wrong course of action for controlling Saddam's WMD-lust. Bush is a fraud and a criminal, but one with many, many accomplices.
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
