Hello!!! What are you talking about? There were no terrorists in Iraq. Afghanistan, our allies Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, maybe Iran. But there were no terrorists in Iraq. That's another part of Bush's propaganda based on pure fiction. Whether you call it a lie, deception, distortion, manipulation or a valid PR strategy is entirely up to you. But certainly not by a military invasion and endless bloody occupation. Just because the objective was the same does not mean that every dumb way to achieve it is legitimate and justified.
again, you are either willfully or ignorantly failing to understand the bush doctrine. the bush doctrine was that terrorists, their enablers/supporters etc. would be taken out -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Hello!!! What are you talking about? There were no terrorists in Iraq. Afghanistan, our allies Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, maybe Iran. But there were no terrorists in Iraq. That's another part of Bush's propaganda based on pure fiction." here we go again. let me repeat - terrorists, their **ENABLERS/SUPPORTERS** note the asterixed part. also. i think if u spoke to the kurds, they would tell you there was a terrorist in Iraq. he was called Saddam (and uday and qusay) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from whitster: well, aside from the fact that regime change as official policy dated back to the clinton admin... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "But certainly not by a military invasion and endless occupation. Just because the objective was the same does not mean that every dumb way to achieve it is legitimate and justified" and that is where intelligent and honest people can disagree. you never answered the question. is chris hitchens illinformed, brainwashed? expost 911, given the bush doctrine, and given the totality of circumstances leading up to the invasion, many agreed that the invasion was justified. given perfect knowledge of SH's subterfuge, would it be justified knowing then what we know now? that is an entirely different question. but again, my issue was not "was the invasion justified"? my issue was that people who disagree with you are not just uninformed, brainwashed, ignorant, etc. see my first post. is chris hitchen? Alan Dershowitz? Bill Kristol? Hillary ClintoN? etc.
Hello!!! What are you talking about now? There were no Al-Qaeda enablers/ supporters in Iraq either. Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iran but not in Iraq. And yeah I know Saddam supported Hamas and I am all pro-Israel but what did it have to do with this country, Al-Qaeda, Osama and 9/11? (hint - nothing) I said before that I was talking about regular folks. Politicians and some of the media bozos like this alcoholic Hitchens are not brainwashed, they are the ones doing the brainwashing. In most cases I do agree with you but not in this one. The evidence against Bush regarding the war in Iraq is just too overwhelming. You failed to come up with a single fact about Iraq that Bush got right. People who ignore this overwhelming evidence are either brainwashed and blindly repeating this administration's talking points or are doing the brainwashing.
It is really a riot when you stand back and think about it. The neocons and Bush apologists are to expect that Bush told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Iraq. The expect that there need be absolute proof to conclude that he lied. Well, are we really to believe that Bush is the first politician/president who has done nothing but tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Insane, absolutely insane that someone would review all the evidence and conclude anything but that this administration decided to go to war (allowing Al Quaeda's leader to remain at large, recruiting new members) first, then built a case on shaky facts and innuendo to mislead, yes, mislead the American people into thinking that Saddam needed to be removed preemptively, without the support of all of our allies, with no direct evidence that he was a threat, no direct evidence that he was connected to 9/11, no direct evidence that he had or sincerely was angling to get nuclear weapons to use against the US.....all on a false premise. Then, we saw the reason change almost daily from WMD to liberation, to nation building, to fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here at home....blah, blah, blah. One big scam, and the American people, and the weak-ass democrats bought it hook, line and sinker, and now are not man enough to sack up and admit they were misled.
Bush Wanted War By Richard Cohen Thursday, March 30, 2006; 12:00 AM It is my firm belief that if, say, a few dozen people simultaneously did an Internet search for the words "Bush lied," computers all over the country would crash and the energy grid would buckle, producing a rolling blackout that would begin somewhere around Terre Haute, Ind., and end in Barnstable, Mass. So common is the statement "Bush lied" that it seems sometimes that I am the only blue-state person who does not think it is true. Then, last week, the indomitable Helen Thomas changed all that with a single question. She asked George Bush why he wanted "to go to war" from the moment he "stepped into the White House," and the president said, "You know, I didn't want war." With that, the last blue-state skeptic folded. I would not go so far as to say that Bush wanted war from Day One in the White House, but there was plenty of evidence he had Saddam on his mind and in his sights from the very moment he got the news of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We have it from Richard Clarke, formerly the White House's chief anti-terrorism official, that within a day of the attacks Bush was inquiring if Saddam might have had a hand in them. When told no -- "But, Mr. President, al-Qaeda did this," Clarke told him -- it became instantly clear that this was not the answer Bush wanted. "'Look into Iraq, Saddam,' the president said testily," Clarke writes in his book, "Against All Enemies." Similarly, Bob Woodward says in his book, "Plan of Attack," that not only was Bush fixated on Iraq, but by Thanksgiving of 2001, he already had told Don Rumsfeld to prepare a plan for the invasion of that country. "Let's get started on this," the president said, cautioning the defense secretary not to tell anyone. Rumsfeld said that eventually he would have to take CIA Director George Tenet into his confidence. "'Fine."' Woodward quotes Bush as saying -- "but not now." As for myself, I was told by a European intelligence official that after flying to Washington right after the 9/11 attacks, he was stunned to discover that talk had already turned to Iraq. This was particularly true at the Pentagon, where Paul Wolfowitz was obsessed with Iraq, and that seems to have been true of the White House as well. And now we know from various British accounts that close aides to Prime Minister Tony Blair recognized early on that Bush was going to go to war -- and that Blair, his poodle at obedient heel, would follow along. More recently we learned -- again from British sources -- that even though Bush went back to the United Nations for yet another resolution condemning Iraq, he was determined to make war almost no matter what. None of this necessarily means that Bush doctored U.S. intelligence to make a purposely false case that Iraq was seething with weapons of mass destruction. There is plenty of evidence that others in the administration -- Dick Cheney, in particular -- exaggerated such that their pants must have caught fire, but nothing so far proved that Bush knew he was making a false case. Indeed, foreign intelligence sources were in agreement with Bush on Iraq's WMD and so were Clinton administration officials who had seen some of the same intelligence. Even within the Bush administration, critics of the war -- and there were some -- were just as convinced that Saddam had WMD. Colin Powell, you may recall, soiled his stellar reputation with a United Nations speech that is now just plain sad to read. Almost none of it is true. There remains, though, the little matter of what was in Bush's gut -- not his head, mind you, but that elusive place where emotion resides. It was there, in the moments after 9/11, that Bush truly decided on war, maybe because Saddam had once tried to kill George H.W. Bush, maybe because the neocons had convinced him that a brief war in Iraq would have long-term salutary consequences for the entire Middle East, maybe because he could not abide the thought that a monster like Saddam might die in his sleep -- and maybe because he heard destiny calling. Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got.
Rep cynthia mckinney wont' apologize for punching the cop and here is Nancy Pelosi's response. "Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday labeled it "a mistake, an unfortunate lack of recognition of a member of Congress." She added that the police officer was not at fault. "I would not make a big deal of this," said Pelosi, D-Calif. -I wonder if she would feel the same way if I punched her.