Atleast I'm not the only one looking for the lies

I was making that point alot a few weeks ago. That was one of the biggest issues that got me to entertain, and finally, reluctantly, agree with the conspiracy theory that they always knew there wouldn't be anything there, that they aren't surprised. I could go on and on about how they didn't secure the nuclear site, and how they pulled out 2 of the 4 teams, and all that stuff. But at this point, you're either still asleep or you're awake.

 

Well, Clinton gets impeached after $40M and 6 years of special prosecution was spent to find that he had oral sex with an intern and then lies to Congress about it. OK, fine.

Bush is considered a great war leader (by some) for sending Americans to their death under the false pretense that the Iraqis were an immediate threat. Bush's cronies are making money from the various "clean-up" activities.

The right-wingers should really be calling for Bush's impeachment. They believed his story and now realize they've been lied to. The left-wingers never believed him in the first place, so the sense of betrayal is not so intense.

How does a Bush supporter rationalize this, at this time?

 

Because at least Bush doesn't entertain the thought of letting gays into the military. Gotta have your priorities straight, y'know.

Anyway - isn't it a big shame that we don't have special prosecuters anymore? Democrats were dumb to imagine that Bush would not do something as stupid as Clinton did.

 

Actually, no fingers need to be pointed.

Instead, what did Beckenbaur say of the world cup team that beat the US? "You could put them all in a sack, punch away, and they would equally deserve it" or something like that?

That applies here too - Powell, Rice, all of 'em for not waving the bulls**t flag.

 

I want to be dumfounded by this. I want to ask why the American people aren't demanding an investigation. Why aren't they expecting accountability?

But in truth it's perfectly understandable why they aren't. To uncover the administration's deception is to admit that our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, etc. died and killed for no good reason. And that's a very painful reality to face. The desire to hold leaders accountable is not more powerful than the aversion to that pain.

 

Y'know - I am usually pretty outraged about this. But other times I'm like ah, what the hell - I can't do anything about it except vote next time (or is that redundant?)

On other days I get depressed and think that the US has more history of ignoring the lies that start wars - than it does about getting involved in rightous wars.

Just think back to our war with Spain over Cuba and the Phillipines. The Maine explosion - probably BS, but the media wanted a war anyway. Not too many casualties, but we got Cuba (well, not legally - then we'd have taken over their debt), Puerto Rico, and even the Phillipines.

Can you spot any similarities?

The American press, however, had no doubts about who was responsible for sinking the Maine. It was the cowardly Spanish, they cried. William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal even published pictures. They showed how Spanish saboteurs had fastened an underwater mine to the Maine and had detonated it from shore.

As one of the few sources of public information, newspapers had reached unprecedented influence and importance. Journalistic giants, such as Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer of the World, viciously competed for the reader's attention. They were determined to reach a daily circulation of a million people, and they didn't mind fabricating stories in order to reach their goal....


Few Americans knew what and where the Philippines were, but the press assured them that the islands were a welcome possession.

Aguinaldo led his bitter troops into the jungles, and for three years they fought a brutal war against the military government. In the end the overwhelming power of the American forces defeated them. The Americans confined many Filipinos in concentration camps like the ones the Spanish had used in Cuba. William Howard Taft was appointed head of the Philippine Commission, charged with replacing the military government with a civilian legislature. Despite the plan to prepare the Philippines for independence, however, Americans continued to rule the islands until after World War II.

The war in the Philippines claimed four times as many American lives as the war with Spain did. Few Americans, however, rejoiced at the victory. There were no heroes. No parades greeted the returning troops. For many, this war seemed to contradict some basic American values.

"I have been criticized a good deal about the Philippines," McKinley said, "but I don't deserve it. The truth is . . . they came to us as a gift from the gods."

"Congratulations," Andrew Carnegie wrote to a leading expansionist. "You seem to have about finished your work of civilizing the Filipinos. It is thought that about eight thousand of them have been completely civilized and sent to heaven. I hope you like it."

hmmmm

 

I think you blue state lefties and euro-pinkos are underestimating just how pissed off "Middle America" is after 9/11. Yes, I know there were no Iraqi's on those planes and that Hussein's involvement probably consisted of "go get 'em", but that event left a lot of us with the desire to see some serious Arab butt-kicking, and a certain asshole who's been waggling his privates at Western Civilization for the last dozen years was a good start.

As for the WMD's, don't you guys like to trot out 17 year old pictures of Rummy and Saddam shalking hands and say we provided all of Hussein's nasty toys, anyway (like that's any reason to not take the clown to task now)? Shouldn't we be the ones to clean up that mess?

What's a shame about no WMD's being found yet is that that whole rationale wasn't necessary anyway, IMO, because much of the American public was still gung-ho about redefining the world in our image anyway. It's just gives Arab-agression apologists a reason to strap themselves to their crosses.

The question I'd like to ask is when are people going to admit the only Jewish state in the Middle East the Muslim world wants is at the bottom of the Mediterranean, but that's another thread...

 

The Iraq Military Action thread isn't getting my traffic lately, so I'll feel free to re-post this link here.

Bush is convinced - oh hell, who am I kidding. Karl Rove is convinced that the smoking gun is still out there, or that it's still politically prudent to pretend it is. What needs to happen now is for Democratic senators and congressmen - the ones who so cowardly and callously gave Bush a blank check last year - to say "We trusted you, we relied on your intelligence reports, we gave you the authority you needed and wanted to oust Saddam Hussein without interference. Now show us that intelligence, and show us your line of reasoning. It is time to be held accountable."

Byrd can't do it alone, god bless him. Someone else has got to step up to the plate and call him out, or the lies will continue.

 

Don't you see what is going on? It's the same people going to the area again and again. They aren't fixing anything - they have an agenda in Iraq and have absolutly no morals about who they deal with or what actions they take to get it done.

 

The same people on our side, or the same locals? Because I think the people we're pushing to run Iraq are a little different thean the thugs we used to snuggle up with out of Cold War necessity or our loathing of a common enemy.

 

God is it hard to support a fmr klansman who's emboldened only because he's leaving the Senate soon, but he's the only one speaking the unabated, honest truth. I'm sure he used that same S.Baptist hellfire in his speeches defending segregation in the 60's too. he's the only one that has equated a "deskbound" prez posing for relection photos in flight garb and has painfully illustrated that our loved ones died to advance a political objective(spoils, paxamericana, reelection).

incase anyone missed it, CNN rcvd info on an October DIA report that said the status of Iraqi WMD was inconclusive. link

there are lies, and & damn lies.

note how this coincided w/ bush making definitive statements about the clear and present danger to American strategic interest Iraq's program was.

I'll openly admit to being duped too. I always maintained up until the past wk, that iraq had a small & mobile offensive nonconventional weapons program that could be used to slow an American invasion and cover a retreat and also serve as a strategic deterrent 2 keep isreal from launching a 1st strike 4 fear of retribution against popualtion centers. A small amt may eventually surface, and we know it'll be viewed w/ much skepticism, but boy was I wrong.

 

Ex-fucking-scuse me???

This blue-state leftie walked out of his apartment a few minutes after 9 on September 11 to look across the Hudson and see the explosion of the second plane hitting the WTC. Then he kept going on the bus down to the PATH station, and was confronted by people who were exiting, still in shock from having been in the buildings when they were hit....and so on and so forth. You have heard more than enough of the stories by now....and I, unlike so many, was lucky enough to not have lost anyone directly in the attacks.


Still....I, too noticed that the further away I got from NYC, the more I felt 'rage' registering among people instead of 'shock' and 'sadness'...but make no mistake, us 'blue-staters' were pretty pissed off about the whole three thousand of our friends family and co-workers dead, too. Still are.

Personally, I get a few degrees more pissed off when I think about whose going to get hit in the retaliatory terrorist attacks following this inane fiasco - whether they come 6 months, 2 years, or 10 years from now. I've got the feeling it isn't going to be a freedom-fry serving, Axis of Weasel-hatin' burg somewhere out in Middle America - do you?

 

I wasn't implying NYers in general would only be pissed or not due to their politcal leanings. Sorry, if it came off as such. It was more of a jab at the anti-war crowd of this board.

That rage you spoke of outside of NY is what I'm talking about. "Middle America" is pissed off and wants this shit in the Middle East stopped, and they aren't afraid of what the Muslim world's reaction will be. Not doing anything about it, or even worse, caving in to Arab pressure because you're worried about terrorist attacks, is not what "Middle America" wants, hence their tolerance of Op: Iraqi Freedom.

 

wake up!

neocons retreating on all fronts
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=iraq

the crack about blue america is pathetic, like all of us didn't feel rage after 9/11.

I supported using tactical nukes on the afghan mountain range and using the NSA 2 pick up any communications to locate survivng Al-qaeda. As it were, nearly 17-40k trained terrorist were allowed to escape depending on whose estimates you buy.

However, there is no difinitive link b/w Saddam and Al-qaeda when in fact he tried to buy them off and failed and was highly inhumane towards any arab extremists movement other than pan-arab nationalism. Not to mention OBL on several occassions called him a socialist and rebuked his regime. The neocons(woosley,pearle, libby, wolfowitz and many more) used the tragedy to promote their 10yr old plan to establish iraq as a paxamericana to project our strategic interest in the region and promote democratization of restrictive regimes like Iran, Syria & Saudi Arabia.

the fact that the majority of americans are ignorant of the alleged subversion, is a reflection of mainstream press not paying enough attention. But if you do your homework, there's ample enough evidence to conclude that the hawkish civilian influence in the pentagon pushed for an Iraqi war, more so than Afghanistan, because the wanted to accomplish thier long standing objective. WMD, is just another modern day Gulf of Tonken or USS Maine.

 

That crack about the anti-war crowd is also crap. Eric B is back-pedaling about as fast as the Bush crowd.

Like Wu-TangBeez, I supported the Afghan war. Once the pretext for the Iraq was getting set-up, it was such an obvious sham, that I not only participated in the anti-war movement, I help organize a variety of activities. These activities have helped to radicalize a number of young people against Bush. Yeah, only in America!

If Bush issued a proclamation that he knew as a fact that the sun rises in the east, I will turn and look to the west tomorrow morning.

 

That CNN article by John Dean is terrific. Bush must be held accountable.

Notice he hasn't fired anyone. That means, everyone was doing their jobs correctly.

 

Exactly. And really, there aren't any sacrificial lambs on the horizon right now, either.

 

I'm sorry, but any thread related to a former robe-wearing, tar-and-feathering, lynching, crotchety old KKKook is a non-starter and deserves no semblance of a rational discussion. If you're going to start a thread on this topic, you'd be best served by not quoting a freaking Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan as your starting point.

 

You are absolutely right in many ways. As a resident of lower manhattan who was not allowed to go home for many days, I think I see a difference between new yorkers and middle america

The main distinction is simple. New Yorkers were able to fight "terrorism" by little things - going to work, living their lives, etc. As much as I disliked Guiliani before 9/11, he did an excellent job of getting new yorkers back to life. Our statement of defiance and triumph was going to work the next day, the day after, and the week after. That was an active proof that we were still strong and unbeatable.

But the rest of america could not get the same feeling. While new yorkers were content in showing that we would persevere, the rest of america had to do something - and that's why afghanistan and Iraq were OK to them - that was their way of doing something and striking back, and making themselves feel empowered. And they didn't really care who we hit or why -as long as we did something.

But hopefully the bloodlust has abated somewhat and people can think clearly soon.

Ah, who am I kidding..

 

If you read all the links provided in this thread, you will see that there is developing a strong case against Bush. It appears that he sent Americans into battle under false pretext. He did this by invading another country. He did this, essentially by misleading the USA.

 

Yes and he used France as a ridiculous pretext to do it without UN approval.
Rumsfeld and Bush lies are far more serious than Nixon's at the time of Watergate. I am curious to see if Bush Junior will go through the same punishment.

 

Once again the liberals are setting themselves up for the biggest fall. How stoopid can these people be? Evidence of WMDs will be uncovered, whether it takes a month, 3 months, 6 months, a year, whatever. Bush is playing you guys for a fool AGAIN. You stick your neck out, he chops it off...just like he did when you whined before the war that we'd take huge casualties. Taliban ousted in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein and his butcherous boys ousted, peace pending in the Israeli-Palestine conflict...you've got no hope...you're better off running Al Sharpton in 2004 and regrouping with Hillary (bwahahahaha!) in 2008.

 

It only depends on how much time it will take to bring them from the US to Irak really.