SERIAL LIAR BUSH FINALLY GETS CAUGHT

"Many of these politicians have put exclamation marks where we put question marks." -- Former Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix.

DETROIT -- That astute remark came in an interview in which Dr. Blix also offered his belief that President Bush's re-election campaign would contort and distort his reports on Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons to justify the brutal and unnecessary war in Iraq. Asked if the Bush crowd would attempt to alter the meaning of his findings, Dr. Blix said flat-out, "I'm sure they will."

People in the Bush administration belittled and vilified Blix and his work in Iraq. Time has shown the value of his efforts, and his assessments of Iraq's capabilities were honest and forthright and far more accurate than anything that the Bush administration claimed with dramatic exclamation marks.

The simplicity of Blix's political punctuation insight is intriguing and most instructive when applied to just about anything that comes out of the Bush administration. Whatever the president and his minions declare with a great exclamation mark, just apply a question mark and you'll be much closer to the truth.

Last May, Bush told Polish reporters, "We found the weapons of mass destruction!"

Those phantom weapons, of course, were the primary justification for the war, and each day more Americans and Iraqis die because of the bogus claims. His cockiness went even farther when he assured the Polish journalists that "we'll find more weapons as time goes on!"

The evidence Bush pointed to at the time was "mobile labs to build biological weapons."

He dismissed critics who questioned his assertions and said, "For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We have found them!"

Eight months after George W. made those bold claims, the world now knows they were simply not true. The evidence Bush was so certain about turned out to be trailers used to store helium for weather balloons.

The ploy now is to blame intelligence agencies and lying Iraqi defectors for the bad information, but let's never forget the words Bush and his cadre of warmongers used to convince the American people war was imperative for our national survival.

The words and arguments were loaded with exclamation marks, never a question mark. There was no doubt, only certainty, about Saddam Hussein's weapons arsenal and his evil intentions toward the United States. The threat from Iraq was "immediate," "significant," the "most dangerous threat of our time," "real and dangerous" and, yes, "imminent."

CIA Director George Tenet made a belated attempt to distance his agency from the notion that Iraq posed an "imminent threat." Remember the use of the word "imminent" came right out of the White House communications office and the flacks there used it several times. It was deliberate and calculated and had the desired effect of scaring the hell out of people. It was also a monumental lie!

On NBC's "Meet the Press," Bush told Tim Russert, "I got an honorable discharge and I did show up in Alabama!" Is that so? Bush also claimed his military records had been released and scrutinized during the 2000 campaign. Six days later, the White House released the records the president said had already been reviewed four years ago.

The more than 300 pages of records provide no more documentation about why Bush skipped months of required drills in Alabama and Houston between May 1972 and May 1973 and how he got away with it. Bush's superior in Alabama says he never saw him. The White House claims payroll records and evidence that he might have had his teeth cleaned once in Alabama prove he fulfilled his military duties.

But another pilot who was stationed at Dannery Air National Guard in Montgomery says he never saw Bush there and he was actually looking for him. Bob Mintz told the Memphis Flyer he was looking forward to meeting the young pilot from Texas who got a transfer to Alabama so he could work on the U.S. Senate race of one of his daddy's pals.

Mintz said he assumed that Bush "changed his mind and went somewhere else." The folksy Mintz, now a FedEx pilot, said the Texan would have stood out. "There's no way we wouldn't have noticed a strange rooster in the hen house, since we were looking for him," Mintz insists. He notes that pilots and their crews were tight. "If he did any flying at all, on whatever kind of craft, that would have involved a great number of supportive personnel. It takes a lot of people to get a plane into the air. But nobody I can think of remembers him."

There were only about 25 pilots at the Alabama base. Mintz said, "I talked to one of my buddies the other day and asked if he could remember Bush at drill at any time and he said, 'Naw, ol' George wasn't at the Pit, either.'"

The "Pit" was The Snake Pit, a favorite local watering hole for the squadron's pilots, who gathered there after hours. Imagine, if you possibly can, George W., in his admitted wild drinking days, skipping cocktails with the guys!

After years of searching, the Republicans finally produced some retired National Guard lieutenant colonel who claims he did see Bush on the base. The problem is, the old officer placed Bush in Alabama when he was assigned to a base in Texas. Nice try!

Far more significant than Bush's absence from drills is his failure to undergo a physical examination required for pilots. The records state that "failing to accomplish annual medical examination 1st Lt. George W. Bush is suspended from flying status."

Why has he never explained why he skipped his physical? Bush's records show he thought of "making flying a lifetime pursuit," but after the taxpayers spent $1 million training him to fly, he gets himself grounded. Explain that.

Two retired National Guard generals told the Boston Globe that "it was unheard of for a military aviator to miss an annual flight physical" and that regulations would have required an investigation of Bush's failure to show up for his physical.

"I did my duty. I was honorably discharged!" Bush proclaimed, as though that proves anything. Keep this in mind. Convicted D.C. sniper and serial killer John Muhammad served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978 to 1985. He was twice court-martialed, once for striking an officer, another time for stealing. He was AWOL and spent time in the jail. Muhammad left the National Guard with an honorable discharge.

George W. brought this on himself with that shameless (and expensive for the taxpayers) aircraft landing stunt. He drew attention to his military record and deserves all the heat he's now feeling. It is refreshing to see many in the big, corporate media who were literally gushing over Bush's flight suit photo op finally asking the tough questions and giving George W.'s murky military service the attention it richly merited long ago.

George W. Bush was eager to send young men and women to die in Iraq for a war of choice. When he had a chance to fight, he chose to serve in the National Guard. He was lax, at best, in fulfilling his obligations there. His entire life reflects a pattern of privilege and protection from responsibility.

"We continue to build prosperity and economic security for our people!" We often hear that glowing exclamation from the president. What about the millions of jobs we've lost during his term? How's it feel to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs during your term of office?

What about the record $500 billion deficit and fiscal trainwreck conductor Bush has us on? What about his reckless spending and refusal to include the cost of war in his budget?

When he spoke about "economic security," Bush must have missed the fact that the U.S. trade deficit reached a record $490 billion, and that translates directly into the loss of more jobs.

Robert Scott, a trade scholar at the Economic Policy Institute, tells The New York Times, "As a consequence of the trade deficit people are being pushed out of well-paying jobs with benefits in manufacturing and into poor-paying service jobs often with no benefits."

But that's a good thing, according to Bush's top economic adviser. Sending U.S. jobs to Mexico, China and India is positive for our economy, according to Gregory Mankiw, who chairs George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.

Mankiw trumpeted the value of the exodus of U.S. jobs, saying, "Outsourcing is a growing phenomenon, but it's something that we should realize is probably a plus for the economy in the long run."

Tell that to the 2.8 million people who've lost manufacturing jobs since Bush took office. Mankiw quickly back-peddled, whining that his comments were "misinterpreted." That pitiful, lie-spewing automaton, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, defended Mankiw and blew off calls for his resignation. "That's kind of laughable," McClellan said. "Our economic team is doing a great job helping the president work to strengthen the economy even more. The president is committed to creating jobs here at home!" The only thing laughable in all this is the Bush administration's disgraceful record in creating jobs.

George W. Bush has made the world a far more dangerous place, we are stuck in a bloody mess in Iraq and our nation is less secure! George W. Bush's tax cuts benefit the richest Americans at the expense of the middle class and corporations are paying the lowest taxes since the 1930s! George W. Bush should be run out of office on a rail!

I was looking at the history channel website when I found a speech delivered by Winston Churchill in 1934. It would be five years before Germany invaded Poland and yet he still saw the writing on the wall and it reminded me of our own times.
Churchill was discussing how people in England felt, that the best way to avoid war was to dwell on its horrors and its cost. Meanwhile, in Germany, the glory of fighting and dying in battle was being actively promoted by the Nazi regime. Churchill joked that if the Germans invaded England perhaps they could just sit them down and explain why war was such a bad idea and they might be persuaded to go back home.
But he had second thoughts about doing even that. “They might say, it seems to me, ‘you are rich and we are poor, you seem well fed and we are hungry, you have been victorious, we have been defeated, you have valuable colonies and we have none, you have your navy, where is ours? You have had the past, let us have the future. Above all I fear they would say; ‘You are weak and we are strong.’”
What made Winston Churchill so far ahead of his countrymen and much of world? Was he clairvoyant? No, he simply listened carefully to his enemy, understood what he was saying, and was courageous enough to face the harsh reality that it presented. Are we doing the same?
Do we not hear a similar mantra in Middle East today? Doesn’t Bin Ladden use the same arguments? Does he not say the United States is rich while the Middle East is poor, that the United States has too much power and wealth and that we are responsible for the suffering in the world? And does he not also say that we have grown fat and lack the will that he and his followers have? Does he not count on us being soft, indecisive, and weak? Did Saddam Hussein not say many of the same things?
Do we understand that when Osama Bin Ladden named our sanctions against Iraq during the 1990’s as his top reason to attack us, he was doing so because support of Hussein’s Iraq fit into his plans? Do we understand that as a second reason for attacking us he mentioned our troops in Saudi Arabia (there for no other reason than to contain Iraq) and that he did so to push us out of the Middle East and leave himself free to work his will without threat of reprisal? Listening to the debate here at home I fear we do not.
It is bad enough when Osama Bin Ladden and Saddam Hussein say that we invaded Iraq merely to exploit its oil, it is far worse to hear John Kerry and Howard Dean thoughtlessly parroting that slanderous rhetoric. In his victory speech the other night in Wisconsin Kerry said that we must put this nation on the road to energy independence “ – so that young Americans in uniform will never have to fight or die for Mideast oil.” It is not that I am against energy independence, but the slander of our forces in Iraq is far beyond the bounds of what a politician should say in order to win office. For this reason if no other, John Kerry should never be President of the United States.
But what if he did gain the Presidency by this line of attack? What would he then have to say to the people of the Middle East and especially the people of Iraq? When our enemies, determined to destroy us and all we represent have no doubt, confront a President Kerry with his own clear statement of our nations’ guilt and demand our immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq and perhaps the region, what response would he make to them? “We invaded for oil, but that’s all in the past now?” Or, “I was only speaking hypothetically?” Clearly his only choices would be between utter defeat or boldfaced hypocrisy, neither of which would further American security or that of the region as a whole, or that of the world.
It is easy to forget that the struggle in which we are engaged is mortal, the smoke from the fires that burned the world trade center have long since died out and life seems more or less to have returned to normal. Plainly some do not even believe we are at war at all. The pictures from Afghanistan and Iraq seem very far away and it is easy to loose ourselves in the lawyerly details of whether or not the President lied or not or whether our war in Iraq was just or unjust.
Only one man will ever really know if he lied to us or not, but the undisputed fact is that our enemies lie all the time, both to the world and their own people. I do not believe our President lied, but even if he did from what I know now there is no question in my mind that our war with Iraq was just. If it had not been there would even now be armies of petitioners asking for the release Saddam Hussein and there are not. There would be those demanding his re-instatement as head of the Iraqi state but there are not. There would be people arguing that the world was better off with him in power, but no one does or would for fear of being laughed at and scorned. So clear is it that Iraq, the world, and we are better off without him that not even Howard Dean dares to dissent. Yet the hand wringing goes on to the delight and advantage of our enemies and at the expense of more American blood. You would think that the removal of Saddam was a happy coincidence of the war and not it’s central purpose, so much have the opponents of the war conceded its chief benefits.
I hear voices talk of the casualties in Iraq and though any price always seems too high, 530 dead in 11 months is roughly one sixth of those killed in New York one clear September morning. If we had six such years in Iraq, and we will not, it would not equal the toll taken by 19 individuals on our home soil. There are those who persist in seeing no connection between terrorists and terrorist states but such hairsplitting is folly in war. There are those who need a direct connection, as if terrorists and their state sponsors play by the same rules and Saddam Hussein, not the President of the United States has earned the benefit of the doubt. The mere presence of terrorists in Iraq, the clear expressions of common cause against us, and the obvious effort in the aftermath of the war by foreign terrorists in Iraq are plainly not enough to convince the opponents of war that they are wrong. But if these facts are not enough than no set of facts ever will be enough.
Senator Kerry may believe that his slander is only against the President but it is not. The Congress voted for the war, including Senator Kerry himself, the American people approved of the decision in poll after poll, and our military zealously and skillfully carried out our wishes. The stain, if there is any, is on us all no matter what the Jr. Senator from Massachusetts may wish to think. And the world, our enemies most especially, will undoubtedly see it that way.
Not far from here by airplane there is place were schools teach hatred of Americans and Jews, where all dissent is brutally and violently repressed, where suicide attacks are glorified and where Bin Ladden’s participation in September 11th is considered propaganda. There are millions of people in that place in partial or total sympathy with the idea that killing Americans is a holy duty. To that place our words travel by satellite, translated for all to hear and by hearing decide which side of this conflict they are to be on.
The Democratic party has chosen to tell these people that the United States can not be trusted, that our only motives are selfishness and greed, and that we are weak In this election, make no mistake, we will either correct that misconception or confirm it. The kind of world that we live in from now on will be determined by that choice and that choice alone.
Churchill’s words of 1934 went un-headed and by the time war finally did come between Germany and England those who believed they were saving lives had cost the lives of many millions. We have had a much more vivid warning and yet some still cling to the notion that we are in a police action and not a war. For the sake of untold millions I can only hope this notion is quickly and decisively rejected.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.