Posted on 05/20/2005 1:26:39 PM PDT by KidGlock
CHRONICLES EXTRA | EVENTS | HOME
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
A Reputation in Tatters
George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America’s reputation. It is likely to stay destroyed, because at this point the only way to restore America’s reputation would be to impeach and convict President Bush for intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people in order to start a war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to the United States.
America can redeem itself only by holding Bush accountable.
As intent as Republicans were to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual affair, they have a blind eye for President Bush’s far more serious lies. Bush’s lies have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, injured and maimed tens of thousands more, devastated a country, destroyed America’s reputation, caused 1 billion Muslims to hate America, ruined our alliances with Europe, created a police state at home, and squandered $300 billion dollars and counting.
America’s reputation is so damaged that not even our puppets can stand the heat. Anti-American riots, which have left Afghan cities and towns in flames and hospitals overflowing with casualties, have forced Bush’s Afghan puppet, “President” Hamid Karzai, to assert his independence from his U.S. overlords. In a belated act of sovereignty, Karzai asserted authority over heavy-handed U.S. troops whose brutal and stupid ways sparked the devastating riots. Karzai demanded control of U.S. military activities in Afghanistan and called for the return of the Afghan detainees who are being held at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Abundant evidence now exists in the public domain to convict George W. Bush of the crime of the century. The secret British government memo (dated July 23, 2002, and available here), leaked to the Sunday Times (which printed it on May 1, 2005), reports that Bush wanted “to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. . . . The (United Kingdom) attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC (U.N. Security Council) authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.”
This memo is the mother of all smoking guns. Why isn’t Bush in the dock?
Has American democracy failed at home?
COPYRIGHT 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
I tried to read this, really I did... but this guy is smokin' crack! Really looney tunes....
His mommy made the wrong "choice"?
9 posted on 05/20/2005 1:32:17 PM PDT by clintonh8r (So....Is means testing now a conservative value? Apparently 40% of FReepers think it is.)
You are corect. Normally I am against abortion but in his case I will make an exception.
Another explanation would be that the nurse put the diaper on the wrong turd.
He's just a commentator these days, neither respected nor Conservative.
LOL...reminds me of all those traveling salesmen and the farmer's daughter jokes.. guess these are the offspring!!!!
Bush took off after Iraq because:
1. Security agencies of many countries (including ours) thought he had WMD.
2. Sadam had declared himself an enemy of the USA, and had sent assassins to get Bush 41.
3. Iraq was harboring terrorists.
5. There was fairly good intelligence that Iraq had funded terorists.
6. Iraq was the Middle Eastern equivalent of the Third Reich, and were torturing and killing people in mass quantities.
All of this was discussed at the UN in the run-up to the war.
Simple. He does not say that everyone is not a conservative, just Bush-bots like you.
The Blame America First Party of Noam Chomsky, George Soros, Michael Moore, Pat Buchanan, and new initiate Paul Craig Roberts are not.
To gather these names is one silly diatribe, are you simple minded, ignorant, irrationally angry?
I like and respect you Miss Marple but you embarrass yourself with this persistent denial. Not even the administration continues to defend this drivel.
Get it right, Paul! Bill Clinton lied under oath in a legal depostion about a lawsuit that he was trying to get quashed. They call that....ummm, errr...PERJURY.
The ironic part about it was that the lawsuit stemmed from Clinton's thoughtless extension of a Sexual Harrassment statute that specifically allowed this type of court case to go forward. A political decision involving the Law that liberals like you undoubtedly agreed with.
Welcome to FR... Hope you stick around long enough to learn there are many varieties of conservatives (sic), and not all of them believe that deceit is a virtue. ;-)
While I think PCR's commentary has some big flaws (e.g., referring to Clinton's misleading of a Grand Jury to avoid prosecution as "sex" scandal), I don't think he sounds like any of the liberals you mention. He's actually more conservative than 99% of FReepers, I daresay...though the term "conservative" has been changing a lot to mean "Big-Nanny Government, as long as it intrudes in ways that I want" and the like. But I don't have to agree with PCR to recognize he's a real conservative...and admit that I am perhaps not as conservative and isolationist as he.
Sarcastic and condescending comments do not make your point. Show me an example of where the administration disavowed any of these points.
Pray for W and Our Troops
At that point, it will be for me too bad you're dead, because you will thus be unaware of how fluidly perfect the world goes on without you.
Kiss your ass? Right. LOL
How sad for you to only now find out that you do not command the universe!
LOL
You don't understand why we liberated Iraq? The Senate Intelligence Committee Report detailed the following:
#1. We had 78 reports from different sources that provided information that Hussein's regime was actively training Iraqi intelligence soldiers for terrorist attacks against America and American interests.
#2. Iraq provided Al Qaeda with bomb making, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear training.
#3. Direct meetings betwen senior Iraqi military officers and top Al Qaeda operatives took place betwen the early 90's and 2003.
#4. The truth about yellowcake uranium was exactly the opposite of what Joe Wilson said it was. The Report reveals that Wilson lied to Congress and the press and that Iraq was indeed trying to purchase yellowcake uranium from Africa.
Russian intelligence warned Washington several times in the days immediately following 9/11 that Hussein was planning to attack the US. Putin was opposed to the war and had little reason to provide that information.
On July 21, 2001, the state-run Iraqi newspaper Al Nasiriya carried an article titled "America, an Obsession called Osama Bin Laden". Baath party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that OBL would attacked the US and he "will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."
The article said that OBL "will strike America on the arm that is already hurting" and that the US "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs" which is a reference to the Sinatra song "New York, New York".
Saddam was on the official list of state sponsored terrorism for 20 years.
His list of working with Al Qaeda is a long one and in the 90's the media wrote extensively about the world's alarm at the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam.
Links here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts
Now if stating the facts and supporting the war makes me a Bush-bot, so be it.
You mention that Roberts spews hatred, yet what I see from many on FR is terribly hateful. Do you doubt that if 1 billion Muslims were bloodthirstily after us, they couldn't do a heck of a lot more than what they do now? Of course, they could...but not all Muslims are bloodthirsty militants. Can't tell that from the hate-filled posts here, though, can you?
So elitism just takes many forms, and I worry about the downfall that is coming when the Bush-bots can't be bullies, as they line up more control in our lives for Hillary & Co when they get power. You know, the 'bots who don't care about what the government does, just because it's not happening to them, today.
No tinfoil for me, though. :-)
This guy's definitely been smoking too much dope.
It does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax spores to create havoc. The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.
The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.
The first case of anthrax after 9-11 (Bob Stevens) showed up within miles of where several hijackers stayed JUST BEFORE 9/11, a very unlikely coincidence considering that they could have stayed anywhere in the country.
The last previous case of anthrax in a human in the United States prior to 9-11 had been about 30 years prior to that.
There are other coincidences. For instance, the wife of the editor of the sun (where Stevens worked) also had contact with the hijackers in that she rented them the place they stayed.
Atta and the hijackers flew planes out of an airport in the vicinity and asked about crop dusters on more than one occasion. Indeed, Atta sought a loan to try and modify a crop duster.
Atta and several of the hijackers in this group also sought medical aid just prior to 9/11 for skin lesions that the doctors who saw them now say looked like anthrax lesions.
Basically, you either believe in the laws of probability or you don't. Anybody claiming that all these things were coincidences is either totally in denial or does not believe in modern mathematics and probability theory.
While the anthrax in question originally came from a US strain, it isn't too surprising that Iraq might have that strain since that strain was mailed to laboratories around the world years earlier.
Basically, the anthrax attack which followed 9/11 had Saddam Hussein's fingerprints all over it. It was particalized so finely it went right through envelop paper and yet was not weaponized (not hardened against antibiotics). It was basically a warning, saying as much as:
"Hey, fools, some of my friends just knocked your two towers down and if you try to do anything about it, this is what could happen. F*** you, and have a nice day!!"
There is no way an American who had had anything to do with that would not be behind bars by now. In fact the one American they originally suspected told investigators that if he'd had anything to do with that stuff, he would either have anthrax or have the antibodies from the preventive medicine in his blood and offered to take a blood test on the spot. That of course was unanswerable.
The basic American notion of a presumption of innocence is not meaningful or useful in cases like that of Saddam Hussein. Even the Japanese had the decency to have their own markings on their aircraft at Pearl Harbor; Nobody had to guess who did it. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is like the kid in school who was always standing around snickering when things went bad, but who could never be shown to have had a hand in anything directly. At some point, guys would start to kick that guy's ass periodically on general principles. Likewise, in the case of Saddam Hussein, the reasonable assumption is that he's guilty unless he somehow or other manages to prove himself innocent and, obviously, that did not happen.
At the time, the US military was in such disarray from the eight years of the Clinton regime that there was nothing we could do about it. Even such basic items as machinegun barrels, which we should have warehouses full of, were simply not there. Nonetheless, nobody should think they would get away with such a thing and, apparently, Hussein and his baathists didn't. Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" documents some of this:
'Cheney?s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, quickly questions the wisdom of mentioning state sponsorship. Tenet, sensitive to the politics of Capitol Hill and the news media, terminates any discussion of state sponsorship with the clear statement:
"I'm not going to talk about a state sponsor."'Vice President Cheney further drives the point home:
"It's good that we don't, because we're not ready to do anything about it."
Even simple things like body armor, ammunition, and machinegun barrels which we should have warehouses full of simply weren't there, i.e. they'd been sold off at 40 cents on the dollar for DNC money. A friend of mine called up one of the nation's premier barrel makers about a barrel for a target rifle in early 02 and was told that they were working 24/7 making machinegun barrels and didn't have time for any sort of civilian firearm business.
Now, a president in W's position taking over after the 8 years of total mismanagement and abuse of this perverted Klintler administration had about two choices after 9/11: He could do what he actually did, or he could do what many Americans probably have done, which would be to nuke Mecca, Medina, Rihyad, Falluja, and every other den of slammite terrorism on the planet and ban the practice of I-slam throughout the world.
A reasonable person would probably like to at least try what W. has first.
I know elitists are threatend by new media as a concept. All of a suddent intelectual discourse is no longer the perview of the titled and diplomaed.
It must be much like the aristocracy at the time of the american revolution.
Great post. And don't forget that several doctors came forward in October 2001 and said that they recognized the hijackers and treated them for what they thought at the time was a burn or spider bite but later recognized as anthrax.
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.