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.
LOL
good one
This guy thinks we're Bushbots or something. Bet he thinks a disgruntled middle-aged white male with access to an advanced bioweapons laboratory did the anthrax attack too.
Then there are the John Warners of this world ~ he's not a Conservative.
"W" has to work within the real world.
LOL.
He's one of the unappeasables and when he can't answer comments made to him, he just gets ugly.
Can't debate the facts so resorts to personal attacks. We've all seen the "type".
Crap is crap.
That does seem to be the case. I found this on the History Guy website:
The roots of this conflict are quite simple to trace: the inconclusive and vague cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War of 1990-1991. This agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq. The original intent of these zones was to protect the rebellious Iraqi minorities (Kurds and Shiite Muslims) in northern and southern Iraq, respectively. The Coalition was permitted to fly warplanes over these zones to prevent Saddam Hussein's government from using military aircraft to attack these minorities. As time progressed though, the No-Fly Zones became a means for the Allies to force Iraq to comply with UN and Coalition demands, often related to the status of the weapons inspectors.
So what spending is Bush doing today to ease the Baby Boomer Retirement Burden? (Am I understanding you correctly?)
More importantly, since the days of Jimmy Carter, 1 billion Muslims have held America in contempt!
If America's reputation is so destroyed, then why do all the Mexicans keep coming here?
In fact, the Ottomans were among the first nations to recognize the United States.
Don't mention it too loudly, though, or you'll be pounced upon by the faux-conservatives who are too new to this to recall back when conservatism meant playing a fair and honest game, not needing to resort to lies and coverups. :-(
We used to have the conviction and confidence to know we were right and didn't need to lie or mislead or distort. I've been asking lately, "when did 'ends justify the means' become a so-called conservative principle!?" :-(
Don't bitch to me about Bush, who else you going to vote for, some tax raising demoRAT ?
Sorry it took so long for a reply to your gracious post. You are, of course, entirely wrong about this as about so many, many other things. But let's stick to the topic. What I posted is precisely the truth and you have done not one thing to refute a single item of it but bluster.
So let's hear it, and I don't want a bunch of self-serving crap about "neocons" and how great and independent you are. Refute it or concede it.
The story is that one day Mohammad was in a cave in Mecca and an angel appeared who told him to reach down and pick up a script to read, and he did so.
Since none of us were there we have only Mohammad's word on the matter.
At the same time there's absolutely no cooborative evidence outside of the Meccan traders that Mohammad ever existed. The current view (non Islamic) is that Mohammad was, at best, a minor reformer of traditional Arab religious practices and beliefs. Once the Arabs had taken Damascus they simply padded the story with other sources.
*Think alliteratively to find what I'd have said in impolite company.
That's a real toughie!
Why haven't you moved o Mexico?
Peach, your well researched and referenced facts leave Iconoclast's already clearly juvenile argument shattered in pieces on the floor. He will reply with snide quips, denials, and will undoubtedly try and change the subject.
CPR and himself both must impugn Bush's intent with ridiculous claims of "empire", without providing anything even resembling a salient fact or even a plausible speculation as to what possible reason Bush could have to want to "conquer the world"... save descending into Buchanan's antisemitism.
The sudden amnesia both the UN-left and the Paleo-right seem to suffer from regarding years of investigation and revelation of the connections of Hussein's Iraq and the rise of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda, came on when it became clear that it was up to Bush to stand against the perpetrators of 9/11. Anything to bring down Bush, even sacrificing the security of one's own country... is a very dubious trait to share with the anti-american left, don't you think?
And to many that is political Valhalla.
Look at it this way, every dollar the govenment takes in in taxes they spend a dollar twenty five. More tax cuts !
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.