June 21, 2005
Bush Administration coincidences
Dick Cheney and KBR are profitting from Iraq invasion. Phillip Cooney,who was caught doctoring Global Warming stats, just happens to get oil lobbying position. John Bolton,who helped G.W. doctor intellingence on Iraqi WMDs happens to be the guy G.W. wants to place in the U.N. Katherine Harris who was the Attorney General in charge of recounting votes during 2000 election is a Republican party hero who has been rewarded with a seat in Congress. George Tenet the director of the C.I.A who helped Bush push us into a war based on lies gets a medal.
Please tell me how the Republican voters don't see that the Bush administration is one of the most corrupt,hypocritical and immoral governments in our history.
Condoleeza Rice telling Middle Eastern governments to be more transparent. This administration has broken all records for classifying documents and keeping more secrets from the American people.
The U.S. speaks up about human rights violations in Uzbekistan, while the Bush administration attacks a country unprovoked and tortures Muslims(NOT ALL ARE WAR PRISONERS)in Guantanamo and Abu Graib.
The U.s. denounce places like N.Korea and China for their control of the media while the Bush administration uses it's power to promote propaganda ex.Swift Boat, Heritage Foundation to spread nonsense and lies. Republican made news sent to T.V. stations to promote their agendas.
I agree that the bush administration is hypocritical and corrupt but, sadly I do not thimk the democrats were much better when they controlled the white house and congress.
Posted by: Voice of Reason at June 21, 2005 10:17 AMAt least the Democrats weren’t quite so blatent about their corporate cronyism and blind to the needs of the real working AMERICANS!
Posted by: Qat at June 21, 2005 10:27 AMYes, Voice of Reason I agree but i think it took the Democrats 40 years to reach the level of corruption that the Republicans have reached in 9.
Posted by: Bleeding Heart Liberal at June 21, 2005 10:33 AMso you admit the dems are corrupt!!!!
wow thats a big sirst step
now admit your brainwashed and your on the road to recovery
Posted by: bleeding brain liberal at June 21, 2005 10:48 AMBleeding Brain Liberal I think that the democrats were corrupt when they were in power, but now that the republicans are in power they are the corrupt ones(tom delay, downing street memo etc….). The only reason I am a democrat is I agree with their political beliefs.
Posted by: Bleeding Heart Liberal at June 21, 2005 10:58 AMBleeding Heart Liberal i disagree i think both parties are corrupt whether or not they are in power!!!
Posted by: Voice of Reason at June 21, 2005 11:01 AMThis is hilarious!!!!
Dems are over on the torture blogs screaming about Repubs comparing the levels of torture techniques. While over here they are fighting the corruption levels!!
Thank you for a hearty laugh!
Posted by: Traci at June 21, 2005 11:14 AMDidn’t FactCheck.org kill the “Cheney profited” stuff last year? I guess not…..
Posted by: George in SC at June 21, 2005 11:20 AMThe best part about this debate is that we are not debating WHETHER there is corruption, but more about which party is slipping further down the rabbit hole…no one can claim that any politician, regardless of party, is entirely free of corruption. Our legislative body is built upon corruption, has been corrupt since day one, and I don’t see any end in sight.
There is a limit, however, to how much of said corruption can and should be tolerated. Democrats exist on a level of corruption that is the norm in US politics. Republicans have taken corruption to new levels, and, much worse, they have gotten so comfortable in their place of power, they have become complacent about their positions, that they don’t even seek to hide their corruption anymore…they don’t even deny these things…The corruption machine needs to stop! If that means shooting Karl Rove as a sacrifice, so be it.
Posted by: Scott M at June 21, 2005 11:24 AMQat said:
No, they are equally as blatent about their Special Interest Group cronyism and being blind to the needs of the real working AMERICANS.
One great treatise recounted how in a Democrat Senate strategy meeting, the first question about a propsed law was ‘how will the GROUPS react?’, meaning the special interest groups.
Not ‘how will the american people react’ or ‘is this the best thing for americans?’, they wanted to know how the PACs would respond.
Just gotta love that *2* party system, all you have to do is paint your opponent as a more corrupt and worse politician than you are!
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 21, 2005 11:34 AMAll of you are throwing out arguments with nothing behind them. How is he torturing Muslims. Where is the proof of him behind swift boat and all the others. And so Katherin Harris was elected to office, yah some corruption. I don’t see Bush Fucking interns in the oval office, or dealing with corrupt nations for personal political gain(oil for food), or going to war for personal gain(kosovo). What personal gain has come out of Iraq. You just can’t except a man with true principal. Your desperate. We’re winning. Compare us to Nazi’s some more, see where that gets you and see how many americans die because of it.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 11:42 AMThe biggest shame with the Bush administration is, the war . How can anyone sleep at night who has caused all these deaths . All the lies for the money and no problem killing and maiming the soldiers .
The brave troops that come home crippled from Iraq are doing an outstanding job but how can Bush sleep at night .
Anyone who supports this should be on the front line or there children, then let them talk .
If hell is out there it’s gates will be overflowing from this administration . Truely brave soldiers giving there all for the chicken hawks .
I seriously doubt that are very many (if any at all) people in positions of responsibility and power who do not wish to surround themselves with people they can rely on and trust.
It is natural to reward someone who has helped you along the way. Some would consider this loyalty rather than corruption.
Said anyway you like politics is a profession in the case of an individual and big business as the groups broaden. The sad thing about government be it controlled by Democrats or Republicans is that they are making decisions and proposing action on issues that don’t even apply to them.
I read somewhere recently that Congressmen/women
Senators and, I think every politician above them participate in a “golden parachute” plan that would make those of us “commoners” grimace in pain.
Since when has your party been one to defend our soldiers. They don’t agree with you. They volunteer for this and their giving their lives for something you will never understand. Freedom. The people over there had nothing. You’ve seen the mass graves. Their free. Thats worth dieing for and our soldiers understand that. Go ahead ask them.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 11:51 AMI think that the Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans if not more so. Its just that the media is Liberal so it doesn’t talk about it as much as it does about the Republicans.
Posted by: Pearls Before Swine at June 21, 2005 11:51 AMAndre started this post with a nice piece on what really isn’t coincedence, but blatant cronyism and the republican way of promoting from within. It soon turned into stone throwing and I lost interest about the 4th comment. The fact remains our so called democracy is being turned upside down by the fascist tendancies of what the repulican party is now. I don’t remember the democratic party ever being so facist. It is certain that the democrates didn’t assisinate Kennedy, so be sure the republicans will stop at nothing to have their way.
Posted by: Dane at June 21, 2005 11:53 AM“Special Interest Groups”, or at least the term, have fallen into a bad light in recent years. This, I believe, is a political ploy by either party (depending on who is in power) to squelch the voices of organized Americans. Here in California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, our governor, complains about the special interest groups making noise, and that we shouldn’t give into them.
Who are the SIGs making the noise in California these days? Nurses, teachers, health care workers. All underpaid, all overworked, all vital to California. I don’t see how supporting these special interest groups can be bad.
I agree that politics have a good deal of corruption - payoffs, kickbacks, appointments of friends…and this detracts from the system, but is in effect, THE system. It is how the government finds compromises at times, because deals are made by people.
In a progressive’s view (and I don’t speak for everyone who deems themselves progressive), the Bush Administration has overstepped alot of the boundaries of acceptable corruption - it’s no longer a matter of “SNAFU” (Situation Normal: All Fouled Up). My biggest beefs with Bush at the moment:
- Iraq: Deceiving the world into believing Iraq was a direct threat to the U.S. and disregarding all input from the United Nations, America attacked a sovereign nation, killing thousands of innocent people.
- Kyoto Protocol: No, it wasn’t perfect, but it would have been a show of good faith by the largest polluter in the world.
- Taxes: I don’t believe that the wealthy should prop up the nation. At the same time, showing favoritism towards the top 1% is asinine. Respect should go to all Americans - bring people UP, don’t make the income divide larger.
- Guantanamo Bay: As discussed in other threads, this situation remains the second largest crime against humanity committed by the U.S. in recent history. By holding prisoners of war captive indefinitely (When is a “war on terror” over?), torturing them, we are forgetting what it means to be American.
Gitmo seems to keep coming up as the greatest and most recent issue of corruption. There are three types of prisoners.
-domestic, held in our courts and our prisons and are protected under the Bill of Rights.
-POW’s, these fall under the protection of the geneva convention.
-International criminals, these ar those who do not fight for a specific nation and specifically target civilians. They are not protected, and these are those who are held at Gitmo. At any other time in history much worse would have been done to them. I’d say a little temperature change is worth some valuable information.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 12:06 PMThomas_R, “”Special Interest Groups”, or at least the term, have fallen into a bad light in recent years” “I don’t see how supporting these special interest groups can be bad.” While special intrest groups are not inhertily bad there is so much room for them to be come corrupt that i can see why people complain about them
Posted by: Voice of Reason at June 21, 2005 12:08 PMThe rich shoudln’t get priority. I think all americans should pay the same percentage of taxes, equality. So does president Bush. Where’s the problem?
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 12:09 PMTony, “I’d say a little temperature change is worth some valuable information.” but not all the the prisoners are guilty and they are being held there indefinitely
Posted by: Bleeding Heart Liberal at June 21, 2005 12:11 PMThat is why they are there to find out if they are guilty. 200 have been let go due to innocence. The percentage left is minimal. Without rights this is their court. They were brought there because of suspicion, which means all of them were involved in the fight. The Gitmo system must exist. If not there, then somewhere else.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 12:15 PMTony,”That is why they are there to find out if they are guilty. 200 have been let go due to inocents. The percentage left is minimal.” If the percentage left is “minimal” that shows we are aresting and torturing more innocents then people who actually are guilty
Posted by: Bleeding Heart Liberal at June 21, 2005 12:29 PMThere are 550 left. The percentage of innocents left among those is minimal. Therfore many more are guilty rather than innocent.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 12:35 PMI always liked the Draft. It will be fun watching Young Republicans fleeing to Canada. Let’s face it. There is a Recruiting shortage of 50,000 people. There are 61,000,000 Republicans. The reason why we have a shortage is because Republicans aren’t volunteering anymore.
Sad.
Posted by: Aldous at June 21, 2005 12:38 PMTony:
So you admit the US is torturing innocent people? Or is it your position innocent people don’t matter?
Posted by: Aldous at June 21, 2005 12:41 PMWhat I’m saying is knowone at Gitmo is completly innocent. And second I would hardly consider it torture. Certanly nothing compared to what the Nazi’s or Soviets. I don’t think they has air conditioning.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 12:44 PMThomas_R,
Labelling yourself as a progressive explains much, but putting that aside let’s look at your complaints in detail, shall we?
- Iraq: Deceiving the world into believing Iraq was a direct threat to the U.S. and disregarding all input from the United Nations, America attacked a sovereign nation, killing thousands of innocent people.
Iraq was a threat. Saying it wasn’t doesn’t change anything. Some details that people forget when trying to rewrite history:
* The buildup to war in 2002/2003 was the 5th such buildup in the area to counter Iraq since the first gulf war. Clinton himself ordered 3, the last one in 1999 brought US forces in the Gulf to 7 times their normal level and cost taxpayers more than $1 billion, in response to escalating Iraqi attacks against US/UK pilots protecting the no-fly zones. Which didn’t work, in the first seven months of 1999 alone, US Pilots reported that they had faced Iraqi antiaircraft fire from Iraqi ground forces 91 times, been targetted by enemy radar another 54 times and been shot at by surface-to-air missles 24 times, while Saddam upped the reward he was offering to any Iraqi soldier who could take down a US warplane and pilot.
* “What to do about Iraq” was a theme of the 2000 election, at which time GWB said that he would deal more forcefully with Iraq and use military force if needed to resolve the issue.
* Saddam supported terrorist groups, some of them responsible for American deaths, making it on the list of the top 5 terrorist states. The list I’ve been able to compile is:
• Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) – Killed 407 (10 Americans) and Wounded 788 (58 Americans) • Ansar Al-Islam – Killed 114 (1 American) and Wounded 16 • Arab Liberation Front – Killed 4 and Wounded 6 • Hamas – Killed 224 (17 Americans) and Wounded 1,445 (30 Americans) • Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) – Killed 44 and Wounded 327 (2 Americans) • Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) – Killed 17 (7 Americans) and Wounded 43 (1 American) • Palestine Liberation Front – Killed 1 (1 American) and Wounded 42
* 10 years of daily flights over the no-fly zones had resulted in over 216,000 sorties costing around $1bil a year.
* Periodic cruise-missle attacks, like Desert Thunder, had little if no effect.
* The Clinton administration up to the end were bent on removing Saddam from power and fought against any attempt to relax economic sanctions. However, those sanctions were killing thousands upon thousands of the poorest Iraqis, a much larger number than the war has ever caused.
* The attacks on US pilots had gotten so bad that in Feb 16, 2001, Bush issued his first military order: permitting US warplanes to attack Iraqi surveillance radar and commnications sites in retaliation to threats.
* Iraq had failed to meets its requirements, after 12 years, to detail the disposition of it’s inventoried and known WMD stockpile. We have since found out that they were nearly all were destroyed (we have found some WMD in Iraq, but not in as large a quantity as we had previously thought) out of sight of the UN weapons inspectors in direct violation of the sanctions in place to prevent the unkown state of those weapons. This was done precisely to make us think he still had them, or more importantly that his neighbors still thought he had them.
- Kyoto Protocol: No, it wasn’t perfect, but it would have been a show of good faith by the largest polluter in the world.
Wasn’t perfect? It was a way to siphon millions of dollars away from the US and pass it on to other countries under the guise of ‘helping protect the environment’ which we all can admit it had no ability to do since it ignored the project leading polluters China and India. The US Senate, unanimously, as well as President Clinton who originally supported it, all agreed it was something we couldn’t sign as it was stated.
- Taxes: I don’t believe that the wealthy should prop up the nation. At the same time, showing favoritism towards the top 1% is asinine. Respect should go to all Americans - bring people UP, don’t make the income divide larger.
The wealthy, top 1% as you list them, do prop up the nation now. The majority of taxes collected are paid by this group. The tax cuts that Bush made helped everyone, as it was spread across all income brackets. I know that I’m not in the top 1% and I certainly received some relief from it, I hope that in the future it can be even more.
(of course, I support HR 25, so you can imagine how much moreI think it should be reduced…)
- Guantanamo Bay: As discussed in other threads, this situation remains the second largest crime against humanity committed by the U.S. in recent history. By holding prisoners of war captive indefinitely (When is a “war on terror” over?), torturing them, we are forgetting what it means to be American.
The designation of ‘enemy combantant’ and what can legally be done to them was determined in the early 1940’s by Roosevelt’s laywers. In that case, they were mostly executed after getting military trials, we haven’t gotten to that point yet and I doubt we will. We’ve come a long way IMO.
Forgetting what it is to be american? Please, that’s rhetoric we can all do without… I must have missed the discussions in the ‘other threads’ because if The Bay is the 2nd worse ‘human rights violation by the US in recent history’ then I think we are doing pretty good.
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 21, 2005 12:47 PMdon’t worry democrats…
the reps are doing their part to screw everything up for themselves..they’re out of touch with the issues that matter most to americans right now..
the economy..
the war..
health care..
outsourcing american jobs..
reps aren’t as united as they think they are…
conservative reps are trying to save their seats for 2006 so they’re playing the fence now..dubya is losing support…he can’t run in 2008 so he’ll keep pushing his agenda…senate reps have to remain popular now within their own state so they are jumping off the bandwagon while dubya’s approval ratings flounder..
we’ll take the whitehouse again in 2008 and repair the economy and world peace all over again..just like we did when clinton took over..
tell the right wingers to keep talking about how many bj’s bubba got…it just shows they have nothing really to say about his job as president..
what?
he pulled us out of recession that HW left us with and left his son W with 200 billion dollars surplus..which w spent already and then some..
Clinton also created more jobs than any other president in the history of this country..
Way to long and your point were only repeated. In 1940 these were criminals of war. They fought for a nation. Yes they did target civilians but this was a different charge only mentioned in the high court. Most of them did not specifically target civilians and were fighting for a nation. If they were tried now they would arguably fall under the geneva convention. They enemy combatents at Gitmo do not.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 12:53 PMI don’t know how we got away from the subject of bush’s coincidences and onto the subject of gitmo. back to the article i think the point is that bush needs to lower the level of corruption in his administration if he want to get his approval rating up.
Posted by: Voice of Reason at June 21, 2005 01:03 PMJerry,
It must be nice to live in such blind optimism. The democratic party is severly out of touch with most americans, which is why they have been steadily losing power for the past 10+ years.
Of course, you failed to mention the recession that Clinton left for his successor, but it seems that you aren’t the kind of person to identify the good and bad of anyone you support… and vice-versa for those you oppose.
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 21, 2005 01:05 PMWHAT CORRUPTION. I still have yet to see any proof of corruption. I only hear talking points. That’s all democrats posses angry talking points.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 01:08 PMVoice of Reason you said “i think the point is that bush needs to lower the level of corruption in his administration if he want to get his approval rating up.” Bush has made it quite clear that does not govern by polls. Besides once people see the war in Iraq was succesful then the polls will go up.
Posted by: Pearls Before Swine at June 21, 2005 01:12 PMThe difference between Democrats and Republicans seems to be that it’s okay for Republicans to be corrupt. When specific examples are brought up about Republicans being corrupt, Republicans respond with their belief that’s it’s okay because of some vague charge about the democrats. When specific examples are brought up about Democrats being corrupt, Democrats become outraged, and then the problems are dealt with and solved.
Hold on, what’s the definition of corrupt again? Doesn’t it have something to do with getting away with things? If Janet Reno appointed Ken Starr to investigate anything Clinton did wrong, how did his accusations prove Clinton was corrupt? Wouldn’t they prove that Clinton wasn’t corrupt, especially since Starr tuned over every pebble and STILL didn’t find anything?
Remember those lies that Gore told during the 2000 campaign? (That’s a trick question, since they weren’t actually lies.) Democrats were outraged anyway? And the Republican response when I brought this up during the 2004 election was that I couldn’t prove that Karl Rove made these allegations. First of all, who cares whether or not Karl Rove began these false allegations, and secondly, why would republicans need to brag about my inability to link them to Karl Rove? Is it a miracle that someone other than Karl Rove could pull off such a smear?
Is any Republican outraged that (contrary to his pledge in the 2000 debates) less than half of Bush’s tax cuts went to people in the bottom half of the income brackets? Is any Republican outraged about any of Bush’s broken promises? Is any Republican going to “support the troops” by becoming one of them? Democrats need to prove that they’re better than Republicans, Republicans just need to prove that they’re not worse than Democrats. Except that Republicans don’t need to prove it, just say it, and repeat it ad nauseum.
Posted by: Mike at June 21, 2005 01:14 PMPearls before Swine “once people see the war in Iraq was succesful then the polls will go up.” That is IF the war in Iraq is succesful.
Posted by: Bleeding Heart Liberal at June 21, 2005 01:15 PMWell I am a republican and will most likely support our troops by becoming one when I graduate college. And please name a broken promise. I have yet to see one that isn’t made up.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 01:17 PMI’ll (painfully) have to agree with Tony on the corruption charge. I don’t think we can charge Bush43 with RICO just yet. It will take the next few years to unravel the trail of deceipt and obfuscation left by the administration of the Great Chimp. The lack of transparency by this president excedes that of the Great Tricky Dick himself. Without evidence, we’re screwed. Fortunately he expended all his political capital and with dropping polls the GOP rats are scattering.
Posted by: Dave at June 21, 2005 01:18 PMWell, Tony, I suppose it all depends on what your definition of “corruption” is. If you believe that accepting campaign donations in exchange for political favors isn’t corrupt, then in your mind there probably isn’t that much corruption.
Posted by: Zeek at June 21, 2005 01:18 PMTony,
Thanks for your good intentions in signing up. But now is not really a good time. The troops over there are still lacking in armour and other equipment. They need relief, but a different kind.
“WHAT CORRUPTION. I still have yet to see any proof of corruption. I only hear talking points. That’s all democrats posses angry talking points.” There is Tom Delay, phillip cooney changing global warming data, ect…. There is a huge list about it inthe origial post. Or maybre those were just “Coincidences”
Posted by: Voice of Reason at June 21, 2005 01:21 PMYour right they do need relief. They need relief in the form of support. You may disagree with things and thats ok but be careful. When you compare our troops to soviets and Nazis that has a direct effect on the attitude of the enemy. So please be careful when you debate, I welcome it, but know the facts. We are at war and leaving would mean our men died for nothing. Be supportive now in finishing the job.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 01:25 PMVoice,
What is obvious and logical does not always meet leagal burdens of truth requirements. Patience, patience…
Changing global warming data. Once again no proof and no significants. Come on changing global warming data. WOW
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 01:28 PMTony,
I never compared our troops to Soviets and Nazis. Be careful of extending over-the-top comments onto everyone. An appology would be accepted.
As far as the “died for nothing” statement. If the war was pointless (for arguments sake only) would you support more deaths of our soldiers or would you prefer to stop now?
Counterpoints, in brief, to Rhinehold’s counterpoints to my post:
IRAQ
I said: Bush deceived the American people into believing Iraq was a direct threat to the U.S. (WMDs)
Rhinehold said: Iraq WAS a direct threat, with WMDs, terrorist organizations, attacking American fighters.
I say: There are lots of threatening countries, more so than Iraq, despite Sadaam’s hyped reputation. I’m happy, in one sense, that America seems to be playing the hero and freeing the Iraqi people and stopping Sadaam’s reign of terror (which his sons would likely perpetuate). But my issue was more towards corruption - Bush lied to get his way, changed his story once the first one was seen through, and continues to befuddle historians. My take, as a progressive, is that situations can be very bad - sanctions against a country hurt the people more than the government sometimes - but attacking a country which does not pose a threat to us is worse. It’s a bad precedent for a tense world.
Kyoto Protocol:
I said: It had its issues, but we should have signed it.
Rhinehold said: It was a money sink. China and India are both bigger polluters and not involved in the Protocol.
I say:
A) Per person, the US emits 5.5 times more co2 than China or India, carbon dioxide noted as the main gas contributing to the enhanced greenhouse effect. China and India are future problems, but our inclusion in this protocol would likely push them to meet the next one.
B) In a future where we address climate change, if we get ahead of the curve, we wil be able to sell our tech to other countries.
C) If we had stayed involved, we could have negotiated better terms for ourselves.
Taxes:
I said: The inequity of incomes is growing because the rich are being supported by the Administration while the poor are being marginalized (see cuts in welfare/healthcare/education)
Rhinehold said: The rich pay taxes too.
I say: Same as above.
Guantanamo:
I said: It’s a human rights disaster and an awful precedent for the U.S. to set.
Rhinehold said: It’s better than it was.
I say: Again, it’s a bad example to set. As the world’s most powerful country, I expect higher standards. Yes, it’s more difficult to hold ourselves to those standards. But what we do, because of our greatness (humility aside), affects the entire world. We disrespect the United Nations, flaunt human rights issues, attack foreign countries without cause.
This is new. This wasn’t happening 5 years ago, or 15 years ago. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter. Perhaps the information age is too much for us - it’s too difficult to hide our flaws.
Posted by: Thomas_R at June 21, 2005 01:29 PMOh and I don’t think Tom Delay is a member of the Bush administration.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 01:31 PMWhether you agreed with the reasons for going to war or not you can’t call this war pointless. If you don’t think the world is better without saddam your an idiot. We went to war and you didn’t like it, ok. Thats over. We finish and we can still acomplish something great together. Don’t be stubborn. Make something good come out of it. Don’t root for failure.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 01:35 PMNice, I knew I would have a hard time getting an intelligent response.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 01:46 PM“I always liked the Draft. It will be fun watching Young Republicans fleeing to Canada. Let’s face it. There is a Recruiting shortage of 50,000 people. There are 61,000,000 Republicans. The reason why we have a shortage is because Republicans aren’t volunteering anymore.”
So, more of the same old lies and crap, Aldous. Can’t think of any other lies to spread? This one is getting old.
Posted by: Chi Chi at June 21, 2005 01:48 PMThanks for joining in but if you would read up you would see that I am a Repulican joining the military and there are plenty like me. In fact most of the military voted for Bush. And thanks for proving all of my points. Oh and I would challenge you to grow some balls and join me.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 01:52 PMAnd if that was not your qoute I apologize I was responding to that.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 01:53 PMYou GO Tony! Aldous is a ‘broken record’ that most of us try - try - to ignore. It doesn’t seem to matter what the topic is, it’s the same old comment.
Posted by: Dawn at June 21, 2005 01:56 PMThanks, yah I was bored at work and decided to play political chess with some libs.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 01:58 PMAs far as republicans not joining military:
I think the military voted 81% for Bush and 19% for Kerry.
Let me guess, you went to public school right?
Ok, let me help you….81 is much more than 19
Posted by: James at June 21, 2005 02:01 PMWell now that I have all of your attention - I started a blog and would like to recieve some comments. http://tcap.blogspot.com/
Thanks
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 02:05 PMthomas_R
your math doesn’t add up, better make up some new numbers. India, only has roughly 3 times as many people as us. So, if they pollute more than us but we pollute 5.5 times more per person. that doesn’t add up. India would have to have more than 1.5 billiuon people for those numbers to work. China, i think has about 4 times the population as us, so same thing there.
Posted by: james at June 21, 2005 02:07 PMMSNBC stats: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5964655
Can you get more liberal than MSNBC ?
A poll conducted late last year by the Military Times found that 57 percent of those surveyed consider themselves Republican, while 13 percent identified with the Democrats. Among the officer corps the numbers were different. Nearly 66 percent of officers considered themselves Republican compared with 9 percent Democratic. Nearly 30 percent of those surveyed by the Military Times declined to answer the questions or said they were independent.
it’s roughly 60/10 but the independents usually split the same way, so the other 30 percent would normally split 26/4 conclusion 86/14
Why would you suspect anything differnet? The way kerry tried to help Gore to throw out all those military absentee votes during the 2000 election
Posted by: james at June 21, 2005 02:14 PMAh crap, we’ve been invaded by the trolls. Figures it was too good to last…
Posted by: Dave at June 21, 2005 02:27 PMDon’t want to scare you libs too much…but,
When looking at the MSNBC quoted stats on military voting
If you consider that the military is 30 African American and adding that some of those voting Democrat were White.
Conclusion: 1/3 - 1/2 of African American military voted republican.
The military is usually 1 generation ahead general population, so, in about 20 years, republicans should have 75-80 percent of the vote.
Posted by: james at June 21, 2005 02:33 PMWe had the libs out of hear for a while. Your right damn trolls.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 02:37 PMThe question of loyalties is an important one. Should one be loyal to one’s supporters? Sure. But there’s one problem here: The people who are elected to our government swear an oath of loyalty to the constitution, the nation, and the people of America. Those are to be their first loyalties. Pleasing their special interests can come later, when their duty is done, and it cannot come at the expense of our nation’s interests.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 21, 2005 02:45 PMOkay, let me see if I’ve got this. If you put out a post and no one replies to it, then it’s considered a fact? Is that what the “political chess” and “check mate” crap is all about?
Is there like a time limit to correct what you say, or does it last a number of posts? Or is it just that your facts need to be correct? Well, it definitely has nothing to do with whether or not you have the facts right.
Do personal insults to your “opponent” help to make your point correct, or is it just personal attacks on Democratic politicians? How about working the words “moral,” Christian,” and “God” into your sentences? What about if you can make the unverified claim that “You can’t get more liberally biased than (insert source x here)?” and then misrepresent something that your source said?
I’m trying to figure out the rules of “political chess.” You see, I was never very good at regular chess, but if I can learn the rules of “Political Chess,” I can probably win all kinds of matches against people who have no idea that we’re playing against one another. How cool would I be then? Since these discussions obviously have nothing to do with the posted topic, can I at least get something out of going onto this site? It seems like all of the “Knowledgeable Republicans” will be at boot camp in a few weeks. I think that one of them needs to teach me the rules of “political chess” soon.
Posted by: Mike at June 21, 2005 02:54 PMOh the was a couple of responses. Typical uniformed liberal ones. They were who I was talking to. Would you like to counter with anything or simply prove my points again.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 03:01 PMI believe political chess is like general politics. There are rules, which you can ignore as the situation merits, and you can declare yourself victor at any time with the worst outcome being questioned. During the questioning, you still retain your title of victor, of course.
Posted by: Thomas_R at June 21, 2005 03:10 PMAll I am asking asking for is credible evidence on remarks made and aligations charged. None of aligations of the Bush adim being corrupt hold up to any logical or credible standard. When you make charges you have to back them up and you made the charges not me.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 03:13 PMI should say your side made the charges not mine
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 03:15 PMRepublicans who love the war in Iraq and brag about their phony military records on Democratic blogs should report to the Triangle of Death immediately..
Posted by: Jerry at June 21, 2005 03:17 PMBriefly … I recently had a talk with poo contractor from California at the local American Embassy around here.
He talked about Standard Operating Procedure - things like putting in a pool SIGNIFICANTLY below cost for legislators, and how this kind of thing was standard practice. Note the State Sen from Ci who recently sold his house to a lobbyist for $700K more than it was worth …
The problem is by NO means limited to one party, although some politicians ARE much better than others. (For example, while Clinton appointed Cooney, Bush made him the chairman.)
This kind of graft is the source of a fntastic amount of government waste - far more than mere ‘pork barrel’ stuff.
For example - EPA regulations. I am strongly in favor of env. regs, BUT many of them are pretty silly. For example - regulating the use of a aprticulr smokestack scrubber instead of regulating the amount of emmissions. More expensive for the company, more emmissions in total (the business will find a better way to do it, and tech improves far faster than the regulations allow!) HOWEVER - the smokestack cleaner company WINS BIG! A bit of palm greasing here, some lobbying there, pretty soon you have a Frankenstien regulation that started off with good intentions but ended up hurting everyone.
Clean up politics? Not gonna happen. Politicians are personally benefitting from the status quo. They personally benefit from lobbyists, and being able to change the laws to benefit/harm particular groups.
Of course, it is a can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em kind of situation. Without a direct democracy, Reps and Sens and their ilk are necessary.
This kind of thing is THE BIGGEST REASON why government is so bloated and large. ANYONE in favor of small government who isn’t an anarchist (I’m a bit of a Libretarian myself) has to support independant / public review of information and decisions.
The ONLY thing I can think of to facillitate this is rock solid transprancy laws by each and every policy-making public servant, AND THIER FAMILIES! up to, at least, their cousins (and their spouses cousins)
Dane:
“Andre started this post with a nice piece on what really isn’t coincedence, but blatant cronyism and the republican way of promoting from within.”
Yes.
BRAVO, ANDRE M. HERNANDEZ!!!
This is the post I’ve been wanting to see on this blog for a very long time!
It is my fervent belief that Republican’s must save their party, and in doing so, save the entire country from the blatant corruption and obvious dishonesty of the Neocon leaders currently at the helm of our government.
We need so desperately for those of you on the right to wake up and realize that the reins of power aren’t currently being held by people who represent the best interests of We the People collectively. Andre’s article touches on just some of the problems being created by our leaders — but there are so many others we could just as easily point to.
My wish is that for a few moments some of you could just let go of the “we won - so there!” mentality, and take time to reflect on what those in power are doing to yourselves and to this entire country.
“The fact remains our so called democracy is being turned upside down by the fascist tendancies of what the repulican party is now. I don’t remember the democratic party ever being so facist.”
I agree entirely. As I recently said in another thread, I’d despise any president from the Left just as much if they did what this administration is doing/has done.
Re: Special Interest Groups:
“This, I believe, is a political ploy by either party (depending on who is in power) to squelch the voices of organized Americans.”
Yes, and with this administration forcing protestors into cages, and holding town meetings filled with docile, cherry-picked attendees, even American’s who are very well organized are being kept hidden. And the entire media machine knows this, but has yet to fully expose it as an issue, or condemn it as a danger to freedom and democracy, as they should be doing.
“Here in California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, our governor, complains about the special interest groups making noise, and that we shouldn’t give into them.
Who are the SIGs making the noise in California these days? Nurses, teachers, health care workers. All underpaid, all overworked, all vital to California.”
Yes, while he rakes in huge amounts of money from real special interests. Now he wants to hold a special election for himself that is going to cost our beleaguered state (which was courtesy of the president’s buddies at Enron) an enormous amount of taxpayer money, and force yet more cutbacks on public services that have already been carved to bare bones in our state.
It is more than obvious that he doesn’t give a sh*t about his constituents, but is more concerned with wielding his power over all of us.
“In a progressive’s view (and I don’t speak for everyone who deems themselves progressive), the Bush Administration has overstepped alot of the boundaries of acceptable corruption - it’s no longer a matter of “SNAFU” (Situation Normal: All Fouled Up).”
Yeah, indeed it no longer seems as though there are any boundaries that will henceforth be considered un-crossable.
Seems to me, the minute these Neocon’s stepped into office they’ve considered it “Clear Skies” to line their friends pockets with money, and to do whatever else they’ve always wanted to do.
“Iraq: Deceiving the world into believing Iraq was a direct threat to the U.S. and disregarding all input from the United Nations, America attacked a sovereign nation, killing thousands of innocent people.”
Yes, no longer any doubt about their deception, thanks to some annonymous Brit who finally found the courage needed to blow the whistle on these liars because of the enormity of the crime. Lying to Congress and the American people is Un-American, and so, Bush and Co should be impeached and charges filed against them. This should be demanded by everyone Left, Right and Center. Then, a new Republican government should be installed in the White House for the next three years.
We did this when Nixon broke the public trust as president (though at least he had the sense to step aside), and we can do it again.
“Kyoto Protocol: No, it wasn’t perfect, but it would have been a show of good faith by the largest polluter in the world.”
We didn’t even need to sign on to the agreement entirely. But no, our current leader chose to just walk away in a shameless display of arrogance and contempt for the World.
“Taxes: I don’t believe that the wealthy should prop up the nation.”
I do. Because it is their best interest to prop it up whenever it seems on the verge of falling apart. Our country’s best leaders have realized this. For instance, Teddy Roosevelt knew this (Anti-Trust Laws), and so did Franklin Roosevelt (The New Deal).
“At the same time, showing favoritism towards the top 1% is asinine. Respect should go to all Americans - bring people UP, don’t make the income divide larger.”
I couldn’t agree more.
“Guantanamo Bay: As discussed in other threads, this situation remains the second largest crime against humanity committed by the U.S. in recent history. By holding prisoners of war captive indefinitely (When is a “war on terror” over?), torturing them, we are forgetting what it means to be American.”
Very well said, and again, I agree completely. And I would add that it has become more than obvious to many of us that we must not allow the military to conduct investigations on themselves. Because as might be expected, the top brass are clearly not going to be held accountable, while those at the bottom are being forced to take the fall for their superiors.
I’m putting this at the bottom since it’s actually an entirely separate issue:
“It soon turned into stone throwing and I lost interest about the 4th comment.”
Yes. I feel Watchblog has taken a very poor turn of late, and I’m losing interest as well. Does anyone else feel the same way, I wonder?
I’m not seeing nearly as much interesting and intelligent discussion as I used to. Rather, what I’m noticing is a whole lot of opinions being thrown out with no facts to back them up (and tragically, seldom accompanied with wit or humor), a generalized lack of respect and/or a poor education.
I’m aware that I myself have never been one to hold with being overly polite when it comes to expressing my political views, but I do feel a very ugly change in tone is cropping up with increasing frequency here.
If this continues, I think I may feel the need to stop reading and commenting upon the threads entirely, though I will still read the posts in all three columns because of my admiration for the talents and opinions of many of the folks who write articles here.
Sorry I’ve gone on so long, (and yes I do realize that this post is also sadly lacking in wit), but I just felt the need to say all that.
Posted by: Adrienne at June 21, 2005 03:25 PMAldous wrote :
“I always liked the Draft. It will be fun watching Young Republicans fleeing to Canada. Let’s face it. There is a Recruiting shortage of 50,000 people. There are 61,000,000 Republicans. The reason why we have a shortage is because Republicans aren’t volunteering anymore.”
Now you finally get why we lied and started the war. It was so we could go to Canada and purchase cheap prescription drugs. Please send some of the bleeding heart liberal ACLU people to protect our rights in doing so. We will try not to offend any same sex marriage couples and, of course we will carry “Free the GITMO POW’s” signs until we get to the border.
Posted by: steve smith at June 21, 2005 03:54 PMTony,
Since you’ve been strutting around this topic like you’ve actually won an argument that was never started, I had to jump in. I remember what it’s like to be in college, and so I’ll accept that fact as an excuse for your need to be spoon-fed rather than doing your own research. People have already posted examples in their posts, even if they haven’t provided you with a direct link so you don’t have to Google for it yourself. But here you go:
Well I am a republican and will most likely support our troops by becoming one when I graduate college. And please name a broken promise. I have yet to see one that isn’t made up.
Here’s a list of “broken promises” for Bush’s first term. I’m not claiming here that any president can or should be able to meet all their promises, but Bush’s record is poor compared to most, even though he had Congress largely feeding from his hand. Since you claim that ALL claims of broken promises are made up, please demonstrate your sources by refuting all the claims made in this article:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9969749.htm
Of course, that article is only dealing with campaign promises…not the promises he made while actually in office—but it’s a start.
All I am asking asking for is credible evidence on remarks made and aligations charged. None of aligations of the Bush adim being corrupt hold up to any logical or credible standard. When you make charges you have to back them up and you made the charges not me.
Take this whole website an an example, and I look forward to your rationalizations about how the Downing Street memos have been debunked:
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
Since you’re so big on examples, please provide some clearcut evidence about why these memos should be discounted. I have yet to hear one argument that holds any water…
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 21, 2005 04:08 PMTony, did you ever see Farenheit 9/11? My sister showed it for free in her neighborhood to expose how the military targets African American neighborhoods in recruiting. By the way, how can you be “bored at work” if you’re supposedly “ready to graduate” and subsequently enlisted in the military? I suppose that it’s theoretically possible, its just that with the low regard that you have for the truth, I thought that it was worth busting you on.
By the way, which branch are you going into? My brother just got accepted into the U.S. Air Force. He’ll be sitting in front of a desk all day. He decided to join because he felt they had a low casualty rate. He wanted help paying for college. He told me that the Army and Marines had huge recruiting problems, as they bear the brunt of the casualties, but the Air Force was doing fine. Again, with all of the lies that you tell, I’m just curious about this one. I suppose that since you’re willing to lie I won’t get a straight answer anyway, but I’m intrigued by the hypothetical scenerio that you’ve created.
Also, in the 2000 debates Bush promised that more than half of his tax cuts would go to people in the bottom 50% of wage earners. That promise was broken. Your “political chess” savy will no doubt find some way to rationalize both making the promise and subsequently breaking it, but it doesn’t make it any less of a broken promise.
Oh yeah, and you have yet to respond to either of my previous posts, so I think that according to your scorekeeping system, I’m up 2-0.
Posted by: Mike at June 21, 2005 04:12 PMAdrienne-
I think this thread is suffering from a bad case of the spam. Andre needs to clean house here and recommend some people for banning. That, or the editors up here.
Let’s address the fallacies about Iraq in Rhinehold’s long post, shall we?
Iraq was a threat. Saying it wasn’t doesn’t change anything.Iraq wasn’t a threat. Saying it was, without any realistic evidence, is ridiculous. IMO, the “threat” argument has been shown to be completely without basis. Furthermore, it’s an unfortunate equivalent to Germany’s excuse for invading Poland - namely that Polish troops shot at German troops massed on the border.
The buildup to war in 2002/2003 was the 5th such buildup…This whole paragraph only reinforces the point that the no fly zone, the various troop buildups and the UN inspections were doing exactly what they were designed to do: to prevent Saddam from re-acquiring WMD and becoming a threat to the US.
“What to do about Iraq” was a theme of the 2000 election…Really???? Show me the quotes. I followed the 2000 election pretty closely and I don’t recall Bush mentioning Iraq at all except to say that he was very opposed to nation-building, which is exactly what he’s trying to do now.
Saddam supported terrorist groupsAccording to your own numbers, these organizations killed fewer than 100 Americans. If the number of Americans killed is the standard for danger, I propose that extreme right wingers like Timothy McVeigh, who’ve killed over 300 Americans, pose a MUCH greater threat to this country.
The Clinton administration up to the end were bent on removing Saddam from power…But the Clinton Administration didn’t invade Iraq, nor did they propose to.
Iraq had failed to meets its requirements…So that makes it OK for our country to ignore the UN and invade Iraq, because Iraq ignored the UN?
Rhinehold, you need to do better than that.
Posted by: ElliottBay at June 21, 2005 04:14 PMAbsolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
I find it interesting that a Republican/Conservative gentleman felt it necessary to attack an attendee of a public school. Perhaps someone could take the time to explain to him that it is our current legislative initiatives that have driven the public schools to this current state of being.
An old mentor of mine once explained to me the rationale behind voting for Republicans while in the military. He’s a retired Air Force sergeant and now a public school teacher. He explained that it was easiest to vote Republican while in the military for two reasons: First reason being that there was a bigger emphasis on “supporting the troops” in the party. Second reason being, and largely more influential…they gave him raises.
He was most troubled after leaving the military and realizing that, outside of military life, things seemed to be falling to pieces. The “financially challenged” individuals (educated by the public schools you disrespect…despite your poor grammar) who were forced to join the military to attain any type of higher education were suffering most when Republicans were in office.
But he became an even stronger Democrat after reading a lengthy dissertation in regards to service records. More Democrats fulfilled their duties and did so with respectable behavior than Republican officials in office at the time. Since then, he’s always researched any candidate’s military history thoroughly. It is a seldom occurence that he votes for a Republican now.
I might also add that, our educators (in elementary schools, high schools and universities) are more inclined to vote liberally or Democratically than in the opposition. The most intelligent, well-educated men and women of the country are inclined to vote that way…personally that weighs heavily in the Democrats favor. I mean no offense to the fine men and women of the military, of course. But the need to “fight for freedom” has long since dissipated. We are fortunate to live in an age where alternatives exist if the right men seek them out. Force is a last resort, not one to be rushed before the end of a term.
I am a moderate liberal, and not a Democrat. For some of you on this particular post, that will mean very little. But I thought an explanation of where I lie on the political spectrum might be beneficial to those with the intellect to understand where I’m coming from. I may be more likely to vote for a Democrat, but it is in fact not an outrageous imbalance.
Had I truly had the option last election…I’d have voted for Dave Barry.
-Azamiel
Posted by: Azamiel at June 21, 2005 04:23 PMCharles,
Have you even read the broken promises one ?
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9969749.htm
It doesn’t back your viewpoint. By your source basically, Bush did a pretty good job. Every promise that he could effect directly was done. The rest, he tried to get done but they either fell through when recession, and 9/11 ate the “projected” surplus or he was shot down by congress. There is an explaination for each NO. Did you read it ?
Sorta sounds like what is going on exactly at this moment. All polls suggest the American people have no faith in the UN and are fed up with the UN, but congress won’t allow us to send in a pragmatist and get a few things done.
Posted by: James at June 21, 2005 04:23 PMI made the joke about public schools.
here’s another
Air Force ? Ha, that’s not the military.
It was a joke or at least meant jokingly
Obviously any broadstroke comment about virtually anything will not be 100% accurate.
Are all public schools broken - NO
But
Should we throw more money at the ones that are broken - NO
Posted by: James at June 21, 2005 04:32 PMJames,
Have you even read the broken promises one? It doesn’t back your viewpoint. By your source basically, Bush did a pretty good job. Every promise that he could effect directly was done. The rest, he tried to get done but they either fell through when recession, and 9/11 ate the “projected” surplus or he was shot down by congress. There is an explaination for each NO. Did you read it ?
Of course I read it. How does it not support my viewpoint? My only viewpoint here is that Bush had broken promises (as do all presidents), and that compared to other presidents his record on promises are poor. Tony claimed that NO promised have been broken, and that’s all I’m refuting. I made no attempt to claim that Bush had no excuses for his broken promises (all presidents do), but it is telling that Bush has had a much easier time pushing things through Congress than other presidents have (I’m trying not to say the dreaded “C” word here) and yet his success record (based on his own promises) is still poorer…this doesn’t prove that he’s a less effective president, but it does suggest that perhaps he was promising more than he could deliver…? A cynic would say if he couldn’t affect the outcome directly, what was he doing “promising” these things in the first place? Not to mention that a lot of his “excuses” were of his own making…
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 21, 2005 04:40 PMOk, then let’s really talk.
Almost every single thing Andre states in his original thread is either completely false (lie) or so far from the original truth that is near lying.
Posted by: James at June 21, 2005 04:49 PMAlmost every single thing Andre states in his original thread is either completely false (lie) or so far from the original truth that is near lying.
Okay, I agree, let’s really talk. Let me start out by pulling a “Tony” here… Please specify which of Andre’s statements are completely false or highly distorted, and provide a link to the sources that back up your claim. If you want to refute Andre’s claims then please do the research to back up yours (and Andre, feel free to jump in with sources that back up your initial claims so that I don’t have to research them for you).
Theres a lot of Tony bashing going on here and I will address it in my next post.
Oh and by the way I have a summer job.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 05:06 PMCharles Wager-
Dick Cheney profited from the Iraq war.
Posted by: George in SC at June 21, 2005 05:09 PMMy rebuttal to Thomas_R,
I said: Bush deceived the American people into believing Iraq was a direct threat to the U.S. (WMDs)
Rhinehold said: Iraq WAS a direct threat, with WMDs, terrorist organizations, attacking American fighters.
I say: There are lots of threatening countries, more so than Iraq, despite Sadaam’s hyped reputation. I’m happy, in one sense, that America seems to be playing the hero and freeing the Iraqi people and stopping Sadaam’s reign of terror (which his sons would likely perpetuate).
You keep making the assertion that Iraq was no threat to us. It most definately was, as I pointed out, being responsible for many American deaths, putting a price on the heads of American pilots and supporting international terrorist groups that we are fighting against in our ‘war on terror’. And until AFTER the invasion, no one knew for sure what kind of WMD situation was on the ground, even Hans Blix stated when the invasion started the he would not be suprised if we found large caches of WMD once we got in there. No one knew for sure, and combining that with the myriad of other issues made Iraq the #1 threat to the US at the time.
But my issue was more towards corruption - Bush lied to get his way, changed his story once the first one was seen through, and continues to befuddle historians. My take, as a progressive, is that situations can be very bad - sanctions against a country hurt the people more than the government sometimes - but attacking a country which does not pose a threat to us is worse. It’s a bad precedent for a tense world.
And your proof that Bush lied? Despite all of the beliefs and theories, there is no proof of such a thing, even from the ‘Downing Street Memo’ that is repeatedly touted, which does nothing more than show that Jack Straw agreed with many others who had that opinion at the time. Opinion != reality without any proof to back it up.
Kyoto Protocol: I said: It had its issues, but we should have signed it. Rhinehold said: It was a money sink. China and India are both bigger polluters and not involved in the Protocol. I say: A) Per person, the US emits 5.5 times more co2 than China or India, carbon dioxide noted as the main gas contributing to the enhanced greenhouse effect. China and India are future problems, but our inclusion in this protocol would likely push them to meet the next one. B) In a future where we address climate change, if we get ahead of the curve, we wil be able to sell our tech to other countries. C) If we had stayed involved, we could have negotiated better terms for ourselves.Emitting c02 is only half of the story. You forgot to mention that on the whole the US is a net CO2 sink, we actually convert to oxygen more CO2 than we create.
Faye Yates, Director of External Relations at Columbia University wrote in a press release:“The mean atmospheric CO2 concentration on the East Coast has been observed to be lower than that over the Pacific coast. This means that more CO2 is taken up by land ecosystems over the United States than is released by industrial activities.” [1] (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/96_99/19406.html)
The United States government does not want to participate in emissions trading for either of three reasons:Ideological objections to the very idea
Emissions quotas likely to be assigned to the US would damage the US economy; or,
Its “eastern forests are so efficient [an] absorber of carbon dioxide that they more than make up for all the emissions from America”, according to “Crisis Magazine” in February 2004 (http://www.crisismagazine.com/february2004/feature1.htm), reporting on a paper published in Science in 1998.
Moving on…
Guantanamo: I said: It’s a human rights disaster and an awful precedent for the U.S. to set. Rhinehold said: It’s better than it was. I say: Again, it’s a bad example to set. As the world’s most powerful country, I expect higher standards. Yes, it’s more difficult to hold ourselves to those standards. But what we do, because of our greatness (humility aside), affects the entire world. We disrespect the United Nations, flaunt human rights issues, attack foreign countries without cause.This is new. This wasn’t happening 5 years ago, or 15 years ago. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter. Perhaps the information age is too much for us - it’s too difficult to hide our flaws.
Wow, this isn’t what I said at all.
What I did say, and still say, is that the definition of an ‘enemy combantant’ was created in the early 1940’s by the Roosevelt administration to deal with people who committed violence against the US who did not belong to a government. Because of this designation they do not fall under the Geneva convention, since that time the US has kept that designation open for just such an instance. This is the deisignation that those at Guantanamo fall under. It is nothing sinister, we are treating these people well. We are using torture techniques that we have used for decades, under all administrations. I have yet to hear anything done to anyone at Guantanamo that would be a deviation from these practices, even those listed by Dick Durban. Sleep deprevation, heat and cold discomfort and using ‘obnoxious’ music are actually minor forms of torture. I’m not sure why people don’t think this type of torture has been used by the US in the last 20 years, to me it seems a reasonable method to attempt to assertain information from people who have it and could help us save US lives…
Of course, I am against any type of thumbscrews, iron maidens, shock, etc, torture. I am also against the acts taken at Abu Grahib, which I think most sane Americans were. And I am glad those responsible are being punished for it.
Beyond that, the people at Guantanamo are being treated very well, their specific religious customs are being catered to as well as possible, the cells were built facing Mecca, the ‘prayer bell’ rings every day as it should be, etc. Their meals are quite good and the customs on how to threat the Koran are followed to the best of our ability, no one is perfect and some mistreatments are bound to happen from time to time. The listing of those incidents we found under investigation bore that out I believe.
What I do find is that some people are trying to MAKE the situation there fit into what they believe beforehand to be a deplorable human rights violation, but this is founded on nothing remotely resembling reality. Even former President Carter lashed at the Red Cross for their recent statements regarding the compound.
In fact, I daresay that the detainees at Guantanamo are being treated better that US Citizens in our own prisons who are guilty of nothing more than putting a plant growing in the ground into their mouths and lighting it…
But I digress.
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 21, 2005 05:10 PMWell in response to your site showing Bush’s campaign promises broken they have not been broken just not yet acomplished and there is a reason.
For example, one of the NO or promises broken had to do with the budget.
In sept of 2001 3000 people died and we went to war. You can’t balance a budget in a time of war.
All of those “broken promises” just haven’t been given a chance. Give me an example of a promise broken not just not yet fulfilled do to a situation knowone could prevent. Not Clinton, not Bush.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 05:16 PMSo that makes it OK for our country to ignore the UN and invade Iraq, because Iraq ignored the UN?
Rhinehold, you need to do better than that.
So, you’re suggesting that if the UN was against the war, we shouldn’t have went?
Are you doing the same railing against Clinton for our actions in the Balkins that did not have UN backing, nor did they violate any UN Chapter 7 resolutions as Iraq did? Btw, when are our troops going to come home from THAT war?
Seriously, stick your head in the sand all you want, it isn’t going to change history one bit.
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 21, 2005 05:18 PMI hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I doubt the linking of sources will do anything but turn this discussion into anything but a different type of name-calling/bashing session. The conservatives will undoubtedly blame a liberally-skewed media for exaggerating instances and go back to a more reliable source. The liberals will view that source as a corrupted conservative-influenced organization (or perhaps corrupted conservative legislator) and insist that their sources are impartial and report only the facts.
Personally…I lean to the liberals’ point of view. The problem with political discussions today is that there is, unfortunately, no source of information that is trusted by both parties.
-Azamiel
Posted by: Azamiel at June 21, 2005 05:23 PMI’m not saying his source is bad just misunderstood. In this case the info was a have to give the guy credit.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 05:26 PMWell in response to your site showing Bush’s campaign promises broken they have not been broken just not yet acomplished and there is a reason.
Nice try. These were first term campaign promises and the first term is over… Bush should have stated when he made his promises that there was no expiration date!
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 21, 2005 05:26 PMIraq wasn’t a threat. Saying it was, without any realistic evidence, is ridiculous. IMO, the “threat” argument has been shown to be completely without basis. Furthermore, it’s an unfortunate equivalent to Germany’s excuse for invading Poland - namely that Polish troops shot at German troops massed on the border.
Oh dear lord, what an inane comparison that completely misses the point AND used Godwin’s Law all in the same sentance.
Let’s go down the list AGAIN, shall we?
Iraq, invaded Kuwait, was repelled and agreed to terms to not be dismantled on the spot. Spent 12 years avoiding meeting those committements it agreed to meet in 3 months time. Attempted to assassinate a former US president. Had a price on the head of American pilots, gave money to the family for any suicide bomber, supported several international terrorist groups, planned to rebuild it’s WMD program as soon as the sanctions were lifted (the sanctions that were helping him stay rich while killing millions of his own citizens), out right killed and tortured hundreds of thousands more of his own citizens, some while the US looked the other way (we are paying for that mistake now). Cheered the attack of 9/11, erected monuments to the attack, and planned afterwards to attempt to attack the US with one if’s own terrorist groups. Played political hide and go seek to make everyone believed he still had a larger quantity of WMD than he ended up having. Was on the top 5 terrorist countries. Still had a declaration of war in effect against the US and tried to harm us as often as it could.
Yes, we had so far kept him in check, but at what cost? Over $1bil a year, the deaths of thousands of Iraqi’s each year because of the sanctions and we still were unable to ensure with 100% accuracy that we could stop him from arming a terrorist group of choice with WMD and infiltrating the US to harm us, which we found out before we invaded he planned to do.
Yeah, no threat at all.
Btw, can you name one country in the world that was a greater threat to the US at this point and time? N. Korea has made no realistic attempts to attack us and does not involve itself with international terrorist groups to attack it’s enemies. Anyone else?
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 21, 2005 05:28 PMI believe sept 11th, 2001 was in his first term.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 05:28 PMAdrienne:
“We need so desperately for those of you on the right to wake up and realize that the reins of power aren’t currently being held by people who represent the best interests of We the People collectively.”
Many of us already have. I am not impressed by Bush, and frankly, have been very disappointed. I have been at least a fiscal conservative all my life. I don’t see any evidence of fiscal conservancy in the White House.
“”Kyoto Protocol: No, it wasn’t perfect, but it would have been a show of good faith by the largest polluter in the world.”
We didn’t even need to sign on to the agreement entirely. But no, our current leader chose to just walk away in a shameless display of arrogance and contempt for the World.”
Funny, but Clinton had the same opportunity and ignored Kyoto altogether until the very end of his term.
“Yes, and with this administration forcing protestors into cages, and holding town meetings filled with docile, cherry-picked attendees…”
Same way the Dems have done in the Midwest for decades. Nothing new here, just a different party.
“Yes. I feel Watchblog has taken a very poor turn of late, and I’m losing interest as well. Does anyone else feel the same way, I wonder?”
Absolutely. The messages are getting lost in the rhetoric. Intelligent, linear thought is being replaced by rankor, name calling and total lack of fact from fiction logic.
I don’t often agree with you, but I have always enjoyed your wit and intelligent discussion. Are the editors paying attention to the crap being tossed around here?
Posted by: Chi Chi at June 21, 2005 05:33 PMGeorge,
Dick Cheney profited from the Iraq war.
I assume you’re answering for James. I’ll give you that one (I was expecting it to be jumped on first) because I agree—there’s no solid evidence that he profited. Now, please go on and refute all the other claims that Andre made…
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 21, 2005 05:41 PMIraq Liberation Act of 1998’
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait’s oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.
(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.’.
Charles,
I just wanted to give some credit. You gave me evidence. Now I strongly disagree with the evidences relevance, but I appreciate. I do this to educate myself so thanx.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 05:45 PMTony,
I believe sept 11th, 2001 was in his first term.
You’re correct, it was in his first term. ;-)
My only point about the “broken promises” was that ALL presidents make promises, and NO president will keep them all. We can get into excuses, but that discussion will never end (I’m not about to get into the many excuses people can make for Clinton’s broken promises…)
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 21, 2005 05:53 PM1. Cheney Profits, the pres and VP have to put all their stock holdings in a trust. I’m not sure if they have to sell them off, but there is no profiteering.
2. Bush has nothing to do with “who” gets a lobbying job
3. Bolton doctored Intel, that’s BS, plus, we know he had them; we gave him some of them.
4. Catherine Harris was elected by her people. Evidently the people of Florida approved of her performance.
5. George Tenet was fired; he got his end of career award, common in government and military.
6. The Republican voter thing, is all personal opinion = crap
7. What Rice meant about being transparent is completely different to what we have as classified info. Plus “broken all records†unverified stats = BS
8. Country attacked unprovoked? We flagged Kuwaiti ships that mean attacking Kuwait is the same as attacking US. They never verified destruction and they were obstructing inspectors which was against the cease fire agreement from gulf 1. In essence there is no gulf 2, gulf 1 just started again when they failed to meet the cease fire agreement.
9. Torture, worse things happen in the common US household. Standing naked on a milk crate is pretty mild torture. (my dad was a POW for 2 years he can verify that last comment).
10. Bush has no ties with swift boat men…and he publicly asked that all negative ads go away.
11. Republican news agenda? Whoever is in power sets the agenda…that’s the way it is.
No examples given though, so not sure what you are talking about there.
The thing is I truely believe this president is one of the few that we have had that completly stands on principle and whats in the best interests of this country. Sometimes those come into conflict, but I refused to believe that anything in regards to broken promises was anywhere close to intentional. Therefore he will do the best he can to accomplish them. Corruption involves intent and I would give my life in the trust that there is none. Thousands of troops already have.
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 06:01 PMTony,
Corruption involves intent and I would give my life in the trust that there is none.
Corruption is a whole different issue from simple broken promises. From my perspective you don’t value your life much. I believe that ALL presidents fall prey to some form of corruption—it’s just a matter of degree. The biggest indication that this administration is hiding something is it’s lack of transparency. Just answer the questions, Mr Bush! You should pray that the Republicans maintain their hold on Congress in 2006, because if they don’t a LOT of new evidence will suddenly reach daylight, and you will then have to come to terms with it.
Thousands of troops already have.
And there are also thousands of troops that are doing their jobs in spite of the obvious signs of corruption, and in spite of the fact that they do not approve of the war.
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 21, 2005 06:16 PMYeh I was just helping James out Charles Wager. Looks like he did his own list, so I’ll let his anwers stand..
But must connect a lot of dots to get to conclusions like Bush got Harris a seat in Congress.
Posted by: George in SC at June 21, 2005 06:18 PMIraq, depending on what you read, I suppose, determines how much of a threat it was. A pre-emptive strike continues to be poor diplomacy. And remember all the talk about WMDs…the reason we’re going into Iraq? Because they gave us a 10,000 page incomplete list, and we KNOW, because we have convincing satellite photos that we showed the U.N., they have WMDs, and they’re not afraid to use them. We’ll go in, and we’ll show the world.
So no WMDs (the satellite photos the world saw, and laughed at, as you recall). But Sadaam was an evil dictator who needed to be removed because he’s been a genocide and his sons are worse and the Iraqi people are suffering!
Iraqis are now having democratic elections and peace is settling through the Middle East and compared to Vietnam we’re doing pretty well American casualty-wise. We’re not so sure about Iran though…we have no plans on attacking them, but all options remain on the table. And remember, “They started this.” - Condoleeza Rice, NPR.
My opinion: if Bush had instead pushed the freedom of the Iraqi people as his first claim to attacking Sadaam, it’s very likely he wouldn’t have had enough public support to move in. Too many other places to randomly push freedom into and perhaps more in need of peace-keeping. But doing it the way he did, he got into Iraq, his original goal, has a strong American force in the middle east, and has some of the hearts of the American people as he “frees” Iraq.
KYOTO
Rhinehold, that article had an obvious caveat within its text:
” Team members emphasized that while the North American sink may prove important in worldwide management of atmospheric carbon absorption, their results should not be interpreted as justification for claiming that pre- existing carbon sinks in a given region act to offset that region’s combustion- produced carbon dioxide.”
Couple that with the fact it’s only talking about a differential between the two coasts, not about the net amount of gas, and it’s sort of “big deal”. Add to that the fact that what happens between the two coasts isn’t all that is considered American contribution to Greenhouse problem - we have 2% of the world’s store of oil, but use some 25% of it.
Posted by: Thomas_R at June 21, 2005 06:31 PMStephen:
“Adrienne-
I think this thread is suffering from a bad case of the spam. Andre needs to clean house here and recommend some people for banning. That, or the editors up here.”
:^) Yeah. My favorite was the “Adrienne - stick it” post. That one was really priceless. I mean, WOW, what brilliant repartee.
I’ve always considered it hilarious how pathetically proud these kiddies seem when furiously engaged in competing for the tallest dunce cap of all!
Adrienne, those folks just got the boot. Taking advantage of their loss of posting privileges to get in your last digs, will get you the boot, too, if it happens again. Save your insults to posters for other web sites. If you don’t, you won’t be posting here anymore!
WatchBlog Manager
If you don’t mind me asking what questions has the president not answered?
Posted by: Tony at June 21, 2005 06:41 PMWatchblog…
I felt my comments were relevant to the post…
Censorship reigns supreme…
James,
1. Cheney Profits, the pres and VP have to put all their stock holdings in a trust. I’m not sure if they have to sell them off, but there is no profiteering.
I already responded to this by agreeing that there is no direct evidence.
2. Bush has nothing to do with “who” gets a lobbying job
I see part of the confusion here… Andre was making claims about the entire Administration, and I suspect to the greater Republican machine. He was not putting the sole responsibility for all of this on Bush directly.
3. Bolton doctored Intel, that’s BS, plus, we know he had them; we gave him some of them.Why is it bullshit? Why don’t they release all the records that have been requested then? I already asked you to provide sources, which you haven’t done.
4. Catherine Harris was elected by her people. Evidently the people of Florida approved of her performance.
I’ll give you this one too—no solid evidence here (of course, Andre was only talking about coincidences…not claiming he had evidence for everything). It will be interesting to see how she does in 2006.
5. George Tenet was fired; he got his end of career award, common in government and military.
Are you claiming that our nation’s highest civil award is equivalent to a “common end of career award”?
6. The Republican voter thing, is all personal opinion = crap
What??? Andre never claimed this was not an opinion, in fact he wasn’t making a claim here at all…
7. What Rice meant about being transparent is completely different to what we have as classified info. Plus “broken all records†unverified stats = BS
How is it different? Are you trying to claim that this administration IS transparent? Why doesn’t Bush or friends refute the authenticity of the Downing street memos, if he’s so transparent? If they’re not true I don’t see what he has to lose by answering the few simple questions that have been posed to him. Just answer the questions, Mr Bush!
8. Country attacked unprovoked? We flagged Kuwaiti ships that mean attacking Kuwait is the same as attacking US. They never verified destruction and they were obstructing inspectors which was against the cease fire agreement from gulf 1. In essence there is no gulf 2, gulf 1 just started again when they failed to meet the cease fire agreement.
This is opinion = crap. Please provide a source to support what you’re saying.
9. Torture, worse things happen in the common US household. Standing naked on a milk crate is pretty mild torture. (my dad was a POW for 2 years he can verify that last comment).
Standing naked on a milk crate not mild torture in an Islamic culture! And I agree…torture does go on in some US households…but that doesn’t give the government the right to torture!
10. Bush has no ties with swift boat men…and he publicly asked that all negative ads go away.
But he did not directly refer to the swift boat ad, and did nothing to stop his own negative ads. Here is a map of his ties to the swift boat men: http://www.retrovsmetro.org/images/swiftboat_graphic.gif
11. Republican news agenda? Whoever is in power sets the agenda…that’s the way it is. No examples given though, so not sure what you are talking about there.
I think he was referring to this:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E16FD3A5D0C748CDDA80894DD404482
Or possibly also to “Gannon-Gate”
This took too much of my time to write. Please provide your own sources if you expect me to respond further… Remember, unverified stats = BS!
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 21, 2005 07:09 PMTony,
If you don’t mind me asking what questions has the president not answered?
These five, for starters:
- 1)Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
- 2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain’s commitment to invade prior to this time?
- 3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
- 4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
- 5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to “fix” the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?
Watchblog manager:
“Adrienne, those folks just got the boot. Taking advantage of their loss of posting privileges to get in your last digs, will get you the boot, too, if it happens again. Save your insults to posters for other web sites. If you don’t, you won’t be posting here anymore!”
:^/
I guess now I’m supposed to feel contrite, however, if I said I was, that would be insincere.
While I will concede I was indeed critiquing the messengers as well as their messages, I honestly don’t think that I deserve this level of sterness — nor the warning. Especially that final exclamation point — which I’m certain you added, dammit, simply to pull my chain!
I wrote:
“We need so desperately for those of you on the right to wake up and realize that the reins of power aren’t currently being held by people who represent the best interests of We the People collectively.”
Chi Chi:
“Many of us already have. I am not impressed by Bush, and frankly, have been very disappointed. I have been at least a fiscal conservative all my life. I don’t see any evidence of fiscal conservancy in the White House.”
Then, do you agree with my assertion that true conservative Republican’s need to take back their party from the Neocon’s?
Kyoto Protocol:
“Funny, but Clinton had the same opportunity and ignored Kyoto altogether until the very end of his term.”
You’re absolutely right. I’ve always felt that Clinton did very poorly with his environmental policies.
I wrote:
“Yes, and with this administration forcing protestors into cages, and holding town meetings filled with docile, cherry-picked attendees…”
Chi Chi:
“Same way the Dems have done in the Midwest for decades.”
Really? I’ve never seen this before now, and I live in an extremely populated area. Where have the Dems done this? During the run up to the primary?
“Nothing new here, just a different party.”
I think the town-meeting thing seems new. And I have trouble understanding how the media can let them get away with calling them that if all they doing is having a political rally for their party!
“The messages are getting lost in the rhetoric. Intelligent, linear thought is being replaced by rankor, name calling and total lack of fact from fiction logic.”
Yes. It’s a terrible shame, because for almost a year I’ve thought WB was the best political blog of all. Still, I’m hoping this fall in the quality of the posts isn’t going to remain permanent.
“I don’t often agree with you, but I have always enjoyed your wit and intelligent discussion.”
Thank you, Chi Chi! And let me return that nice compliment by saying that I enjoy reading your posts very much too, despite the fact that our opinions differ. In fact, I truly wish there were a whole lot more Republican’s like yourself here in Watchblog!
Posted by: Adrienne at June 21, 2005 08:05 PMNeither the Clinton nor the Bush Administration nor any American Administration at least since the time of Warren Harding is/was particularly corrupt.
Cheney earns no money from anything he does today except his VP salary. His compensation from Halliburton was determined the day he entered office, as the FactCheck article indicated.
Most people who work in government are good and honest people, trying to do what they think is right. They often forgo larger salaries to take work in government. Cheney is a good example.
I know that people will say that I am naive to believe this. I can tell you that you are naive to believe otherwise. People who work in government are probably on average a little more honest than average. Are they perfect? Certainly not. Can you find dishonest people? Easily. Is this different where you live?
hackerx
I know people in politics. I suspect you don’t.
Posted by: Jack at June 21, 2005 09:42 PMTony,
“In sept of 2001 3000 people died and we went to war. You can’t balance a budget in a time of war.”
No, but it seems we can give large tax cuts in a time of war. Where is the sacrifice there? Everyone likes to put the “Support our troops” magnets on their automobiles, but how many would be willing to accept a higher tax rate to support our troops? People, We want our cake and eat it too.
I understand his reasoning for the initial tax cut, especially since GWB is a “trickle down” economic believer. However, after the economy began to turn and the adminsistration insisted on maintaining the tax breaks during a war I COMPLETELY lost faith. Raising taxes too much is not good for the economy. The same can be said for lowering taxes too much. No one wants to pay higher taxes. If we knew it would help us out in Iraq we should accept it though. It’s called sacrifice in a time of war.
Posted by: Tom at June 21, 2005 10:11 PMRhinehold
you said:
So, you’re suggesting that if the UN was against the war, we shouldn’t have went?
I’m suggesting that the US is showing a double standard by claiming that we can ignore the UN, but Iraq can’t.
BTW, our presence in the Balkans was a result of a request from NATO. Perhaps you’ve heard of them? Next time you try to denigrate something because it wasn’t backed by the UN, try giving the WHOLE truth.
You also said:
Iraq, invaded Kuwait, was repelled and agreed to terms to not be dismantled on the spot.That’s what Gulf War I was all about. have you forgotten? And by the way, if Saddam was such a threat at the time, why didn’t Bush I invade? He said why in his biography - it’s because he feared that we’d have to occupy it for years, and it would provoke other arab nations into hostility.
Spent 12 years avoiding meeting those committements it agreed to meet in 3 months time.Yep, it ignored the UN - just like we did.
Attempted to assassinate a former US president.Agreed. I think this was the real reason for the war - dubya wanted revenge.
Had a price on the head of American pilots, gave money to the family for any suicide bomber,
Nobobody disagrees with the fact that Saddam was evil.
planned to rebuild it’s WMD program as soon as the sanctions were liftedSo? The sanctions were working and there was NO support here for lifting them.
(the sanctions that were helping him stay rich while killing millions of his own citizens), out right killed and tortured hundreds of thousands more of his own citizens, some while the US looked the other way (we are paying for that mistake now).
Again, nobody disagrees with the fact that Saddam was evil.
Cheered the attack of 9/11, erected monuments to the attack,So did MOST of the arab world. Are you saying we should kill ‘em all?
planned afterwards to attempt to attack the US with one if’s