Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
The only intelligence failure was inside Bush's brain where no intelligence exists vast amounts.
When scouring the net to debate another blogger on another site, I came across this website that has a listing of Time articles both pre and during the Iraq war.
The hypothesis is that the United States is at war with Iraq because Sadaam threatened to only accept Euros instead of Dollars for payment from oil purchasers worldwide. Also, Iran and Venezuela with their regimes were going to follow suit.
So, in order to protect the US currency from being massively dumped and possible devaluation by banks worldwide by every bank who held Dollars, we invaded to install a regime who would promise to continue to support US dollar for oil purchases.
Perhaps I'm behind the curve on this, but I found it interesting nonetheless.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/iraq_reason.htm
"um I hate to rain on the Bush-bashing parade, but everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, thought he had WMD at the time. Including his own generals, Iran, and Europe. We can argue about whether it was right to go to war even if he had had them, but to claim that it was wrong to go to war because in fact there were no WMD is using our hindsight 20/20 vision." -- rocket999
That is not true. It is the opposite of true. To recapture the mood back then, simply recall The Daily Show on the eve of the invasion and John Stewart pointing out that the only way to stop Bush-Cheney's splendid little war was for Saddam to quickly acquire some WMD over the weekend so that he could then surrender them before the U.S. deadline.
Many of us actually listened to Powell's presentation at the U.N. on 02/05/2003 and saw that the Bush-Cheney case for war amounted to nothing. (We've since learned it was a complete fraud, as well.) Those naive souls who in March 2003 "also believed there were WMD" did so because they made the mistake of trusting Junior Bush.
When you're right you're right
I don't care whose feathers it ruffles
Of makes uncomfortably uptight
Breathless admiration
Is the foolish fawning path
To blind self anihilation
Well, I didn't believe there were WMDs, so it's not 'everyone, I mean everyone.'
I also think those who believed it & supported the war share responsibility for the lives lost. Slavishly following someone egged on by stupid notions of patriotism makes those same followers guilty.
John Anderson: "I'm all for explaining the Republican policy failures to anyone who will listen...but it's dangerous to make everything about Bush."
Who is making everything about Bush? Joan Walsh's editorial is a response to an interview with Bush, so he is the subject of the thread. I don't think it means people consider him solely responsible for things. Far from it. That said, remember: He's the decider!
Someone owes an apology to the French, don't you think?
So George W. Bush is finally facing the court of public opinion. Somewhat anti-climactic, you'd have to agree. Will he, or his cohorts, ever face charges? After bringing the entire planet to war, against most peoples' wishes? For what is widely understood as their own personal financial gain? These men (do we need to name them again? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, et al.) have made personal - and apparently untraceable - millions from this Iraq war, and its endless thousands of deaths, and Blackwater contracts, and the entire world knows it. And they will never admit it.
These same men successfully manoeuvred Clinton's bl*wjob into calling into question his entire presidency. In the end, who wins?
He sold it to Cheney, who securitized it to Corporates.
As the man who never acknowledges his mistakes or errors of judgmement, he looks more like Hitler than the Truman he projects himself to be.
Being "unprepared" for war is something criminal.
Will the SCOTUS pull up Bush on charges of Voluntary Manslaughter by his acknowledgment that he was unprepared for war when he took a oath to defend the constitution?
Violating an oath almost led to Clinton's impeachment. In Bush's case it led to the deaths of thousands of thousands of innocents.
The best parting gift to the people of USA would be an arrest, indictment and conviction of Bush on manslaughter charges exactly one day before he remits office.
That way he is denied pension and the wastage of tax payers money on protecting so worthless an individual.
Thanks for your comment on my earlier post. I agree that Obama should be given a chance to show what he can do before critiquing his performance. But my post was mostly about the character of the American nation, not Obama. He may have been elected, but I think that the American people remain largely stodgy, dull and unimaginative. They may have voted for change, but they're idea of change is along the lines of a dieter who builds their weight-loss plan around getting the small order of french fries with their value meals instead of the medium or large order of fries.
Don't you feel it, the vibe of the nation? Even now, can't you feel the great inertial mob mind hoping to go back to sleep as quickly as possible? Obama could be a great leader, but I think he's greatly misunderestimating (to borrow Bush's term) the electorate's tendency toward complete lethargic apathy. "Oh, you mean we have to stay informed and work for change on a local level? Fuck it. Let's just keep things as they are."
When Bush spoke with Charles Gibson, I was, as I have been for years, completely baffled that this hollow shell of a human being, this nothing, this prevaricating, smug, self-congratulatory moron, could have convinced people to vote for him over and over.
In the last election, even after eight years of disastrous governance, it still wasn't enough to keep, what, 46, 47? percent of Americans from wanting basically the same sort of governance to continue. Sarah Palin pops up on the scene with her snark, and her wardrobe, and her 'You Betchas! And suddenly the only thing wrong with America to them is that crybaby liberals were standing in the way of 'Drill, baby, drill'ing our way out of all of our problems.
Obama should have his chance to show his stuff, but we are still the nation who stood by stupidly as Bush lied us, not even skillfully, into a war that has taken hundreds of thousands of lies, voted him back into office in spite of his proven criminality and incompetence, with the death toll continuing at a sickening rate — but insists that we are a moral nation because we remain steadfast in denying gays the right to get married. If only we could summon that kind of moral outrage for dropping bombs on people, but no. That just doesn't seem to bother us much somehow.
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
