Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Gee, binkley, this is the second time in a week you’ve reblogged something I posted on this blog, the first being the campaign finance report about the millionaire Democrats.

Is there something you’re trying to tell me, or are you just too busy to read the blog before posting?

Interesting.

And can we get a report on the years the Bush and Bin Laden families have been in bed with each other?

Robbie: About as long as the Bush and Hussein families have been in bed together.

Oh, and the Bushes are still in bed with the Bin Ladens, through the Carlyle Group.

You wouldn’t think republicans would be that quick to point out connections between Saddam and Bin Laden as they’d surely realize people would counter with all of the connections between Bush’s and Bin Ladens.

Now, I’m truly curious about both connections. I’d like to know more about the Bin Ladens overall. I’m sure they’re very well connected throughout the world, mainly for profit, some for terrorism. But the fact remains that our ex-president Bush and current president Bush have some strong ties as well. And that is perhaps more concerting as a conflict of interest than the saddam connection was as an excuse for war.

Darrel,

A quick google search for connections between the Bushies, Saddam & bin Laden is here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22George+Bush%22+business+deals+%22bin+laden%22+%22Hussein%22

Lots of fodder for you. Of course, this should not come as any surprise on the Bush clan whose initial forture was built by Grandpappy Prescott Bush trading with Hitler during World War II. A Bush lies, American soldiers die. Seems to be a family theme…

Uh huh. InstaPundit ranks right up there with Bush for credibliity.

wow, instapundit broke this story before CNN, FOX, NBC, etc even got a chance to report it. boy, the CEO’s of those networks must be pretty mad that a relatively unknown website got their hands on these 100% verifiable facts before anyone else. well done, instapundit, well done.

Instipunant is a liar and a propagandist

wow i am the ONLY conservative on this ENTIRE site! it is an honor and Jake listen…anyone who is a pundit is a propagandist. Any information skewed to only show one side is propaganda. Which makes all political blogs propaganda as well as the major news services to include FOX CNN BBC etc…they are ALL the same.

Why dont you folks wake up and realize that the hypocracy has got to stop. BOTH parties have thier share of money scandals…Clintons impeachment wasnt about a bl8w j8b it was about 73 House and Senate witnesses who
have pled the 5th Amendment, 17 witnesses who have fled the country to avoid testifying about Democratic campaign fund raising, 19 charges, 8 convictions, and 4 imprisonments from the Whitewater “mess” and the 55
criminal charges and 32 criminal convictions (so far)in the other “Clinton” scandals. The only thing they could make stick to the man himself was the purgery charge which he lost his license to practice law because of. As far as the 16 words in which he supposedly lied about the plutonium issue. Look up what clinton said…wait i already di that for you….sound familiar?
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

The US government is actually paying the sudanese for the aspirin factory we destroyed. Saddam was still in power when he left office.

Did Bill Clinton mislead the American people when he said the aspirin factory was a biological weapons facility? Was it bad intel? Who was in charge of the CIA then? Thats right. Tenet was appointed by Clinton and is STILL in charge. What did he know and when did he know it? HMMMMM?

Clinton on regime change…
“The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people,” Clinton said. HMMPH. NEXT!

Pete:

Repeat after me: Clinton is not the President any more.

Why did you lie, GWB? Because Clinton did, too!

Great, are second graders running the show now?

Clinton had intel. from 1998. Guess what? GWB has intel. from 1998. Hmmmph. NEXT!

(Yes, that’s right, there is a next. There is a long list of problems with GWB reasons for war. Actually, the great majority of his reason have problems. It doesn’t really matter whose to blame — the intel. community or GWB. The point is we need to find out. Blind faith in anyone is just stupid. We have more than enough info. for an inquiry. Let’s have it. If GWB is telling the truth, he has nothing to fear, and America will be the better for it. We will have found a *major* weaknes in our intel. gathering ability).

Well i never said we shouldnt have an inquiry. I just think that there wont be anything to find. My point that Clinton had the same intel as Bush so you made my point for me. I dont think Clinton lied and i dont think Bush did either. The difference between your point and mine is that i think Saddam DID have a weapons program. So did Hanz Blix, Bill Clinton, Muhammed Elbaradai and the entirety of the UN that is why 1441 was passed. To say now that it didnt exist is really ridiculous. That is what i am pointing out so how am i wrong? Remember that Saddam bought 270 tons of Yellow cake from Niger in the eighties and the Israelis blew up his reactor. Do you honestly think he didnt have bad intentions? What was he planning to do with that stuff? I am just illustrating the hipocracy of this position that Bush is a liar. Where were the protesters when Clinton had bad intel and destroyed that aspirin factory? If its your guy its ok, he gets a pass right? Sheesh. I linked to his speech on Feb 18 1998. How is it different than what bush said?

Actually, the last time I heard much from the UN folks it was saying that we may have to start thinking that Saddam no longer had any weapons. Some are saying he may have destroyed them in the mid 90s, and was simply arrogant, or afraid to tell the West. With every passing month that we don’t find anything, we are going to have to starting thinking about that, too. The complete lack of urgency (Wolfowitz called the WMD ‘history’ yesterday) by the GWB admin. is telling. If we are 100% sure Saddam had WMD before we invaded, why do we seem so unconcerned about where they are? Wasn’t this about National Security? Because if they were really there, we are now *less* secure from them.

I have heard enough 100% contradictory statements from the admin. about the Niger Uranaium (the CIA didn’t believe it, but it is techically accurate; it was premised on Niger, it was not premised on Niger; we should not have said it, but we stand by what we said, it is true, but based on false information), that GWB’s admin. is either really confused or making this up as they go along. I have also read enough from the intelligence folks that saying they were not in favor of this viewpoint of Saddam that I have doubts. Add to that smearing reporters that inverview troops saying dissenting things, outing a covert CIA agent who happens to be the wife of an Amb. critical of the intel, and we really need to start looking.

Your point about 1998 is very telling. That was 5 years ago. If we haven’t learned anything new since then, which the GWB admin. has all but stated publicly, then their claims of certainty were a total farse. Remember what we were claimgin 1998: we did say we *knew* he currently had weapons, we said we knew he *once* had weapons and he had not accounted for them. That is not the same thing as saying ‘yes, he has WMD x, y, and z at location a, b and c.’

Purchasing yellowcake is a big so what. Yeah, Saddam wanted the bomb. It does not prove bad intention, esp. non in the eighties (back then he war our little dictator). It proves a desire to get the bomb. The French have the bomb, does that prove bad intentions? Purchasing it now is doubly stupid, as he already had it, and he had absolutely no way to refine it.

When Clinton bombed the Aspirin factory and the Chinese emabassy, we tried to find out what went wrong. In this post 9/11 world of preemptive US action, our intel. is much more critical. We need an investigation to find out what went wrong.

and how is this quote a “lie”
“the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
It is not a lie. Is it? How?

Well you have just made the statement…you dont think iraq had bad intentions??!! i rest my case. This is a TOTAL waste of my time.

pete,

That qoute is a lie because we had no idea if the British had learned anything. We had not seen their intel. More to the point, the CIA had told us that their intel. was probably bunk. If it used the word ‘said’ instead of ‘learned’ it would be technically correct. As it stands, it is not.

What do you mean you rest your case? What, is the debate done by fiat? I said you had not proved that Saddam had bad intentions, not by an attempt to buy yellowcake in the 80s. My dad owns a couple of guns, that does nothing to prove his bad intentions. Saddam wanted nukes, that does nothing to prove his bad intentions. If Saddam was going to harm us or his neighbors, prove it. Don’t just say ‘he was a bad man.’

But you may be right, this could be a total waste of time.

OK how about when he invaded Kuwait? Hello? He threatened to use wmd against us numerous times.
So you think we should have let Saddam obtain nukes? I am really not hearing this. This is crazy. You want me to prove he had bad intentions! Amazing.

You cant prove that Bush is a liar because if you could he would be impeached. It is a red herring and that is all. End of story. The fact is that this will lead nowhere and he is not lying. Besides that Saddam already bought 270 tons of Uranium and the IAEA has stated point blank that he was in fact pursuing a nuke program.

this defending Saddam is really unbelievable. I dont need to prove he has bad intentions. This man and his now dead sons are pure evil. It is almost comical just HOW evil they are. Sheesh. The burden of PROOF lies on you to prove Bush is lying my friend. Not me. I am not alleging. So lets see the PROOF. If you cant prove it and the rest of the libs cant prove it then it is moot. OK?

pete:

What is unbelievable is how you are completely ignoring what I am telling you. I am not defending Saddam at all.

Kukwait was 12 years ago. To invade today, you are going to have to prove that he was a threat today. I have not seen any evidence to that effect.

When did the IAEA say that Saddam had a Nuke program? They did 10 years ago, they are not sayig it about today. As for today, there is not one shred of credible evidence that Saddam was pursuing a nuke today. Period. End of story.

Nobody denies Saddam was a bad man. But guess what, that is not why we went to war. We went to war over WMD, and a threat to US national security, and a farsical notion of a link between Saddam and al Qaeda. All three of these counts are on shaky ground.

We could have gone to war to liberate the Iraqis, but we didn’t, that just turned out to be a nice side effect. It had little to do with the publicly stated reason for going to war (if it had been our reason, we would have planned for the aftermath better). Or we could have gone to war to enfoce UN resolution, but that idea falls apart when we do so without the approval of the UN.

I was not asking you to prove that Bush was lying, I was asking you to prove that Saddam intended to harm the US or our interests. Yes, that is still something that has to be done, no matter how much we dislike him. Sure, Saddam didn’t like us. But neither do a lot of people. That is not a reason to invade, not even for someone who has become such a boogey man to the West as Saddam. Note carefully the difference between Saddam wanting to harm the US, and *intending* to harm the US. We would have to prove the latter. Saddam could desire us harm all he wants, but he was not going to risk being toppled by actually trying to harm us. And even if he wanted to, he would have had a damn hard time. We had him in a cage, and we had him disamred. He was a toothless tiger all locked up.

Bush may not be lying about it all, but there are most certianly inconsistencies in the rationale for going to war. They may be the result of bad intel but there are so many that I kind of doubt it. As for the SOTU, we have all the evidence we need to see that someone on GWB staff knew the Africa Uranium claim was bunk, but put it in anyway.

We will not know the answers to all of these question without an investigation. Yet, because of so many with blinders, we probably won’t get one. History won’t speak kindly of our generation for that.

Bush will be impeached if Congress wants to impeach him. That is politics — it would be quite possible for Bush to be a liar and not be impeached. As a matter of fact, that is what I suspect will happen. The lack of impeachment speaks more to the Repub Senate and House, more than anything else. It is certainly no stamp of innocence. That is begging the question, really. Note that I am not saying Bush should be impeached — to know if he should we would need an investigation. What I am saying is that there is more than enough evidence now to show that one possible explanation is deceit. And the GWB admin has not given any convincing logic to counter that. That is why we need an investigation.

Not anywhere am I saying we should let Saddam get Nukes. I am saying that Saddam had made no current effort to get nukes. If you think he did, you misunderstand badly what it takes to build a nuclear bomb. Saddam had no serious nuke program since we dismantled it after the first Gulf War. The fact of the matter is that sanctions, inspections, and occasional air raids seem to have been fulfilling their purpose of keeping Saddam disarmed quite well. Which leads me back to the point that we went to war, to disarm Saddam. Doh! What if he was already disarmed? The what did we just do?

you are all pundits.
One sentence…
Show me the proof.
All else is invective B.S. I want to see the proof. If you cannot produce proof then continue to make accusations but it wont matter. See i will not get into the morality of war with you people because you will never and have never seen war. None of you have ever been soldiers. You are all armchair neophites when it comes to the subject. How did know that? Because you are idealogues with no sense of right and wrong. It is really typical of the over educated liberal elitist. No life experience to back it up.
I am getting off topic but i want proof and less fluff. After all you are the ones making allegations not me. This really isnt going anywhere and it never will because it is a false allegation. Where are you going with this except to spout news articles and links to commentary? What is the point?

Well pete,

You could start at the Washington Post, the New Republic, the LA Times, Newsweek, Fox News, you name it. Look up Niger yellowcake, aluminum tubes for centrifuges, 6 months away from a Saddam nuke, the unmanned arial vehicles that can strike the US from Iraq, the mobile bio-weapons labs, the bio-chem weapons that we knew they had and knew where they were, case for 45 minute deployment of Iraqi weapons, the statements that the occupation would be easy and we’d be out in 30 to 60 days, I could go on. All of this stuff has proven wrong. Some of it is hard to explain away without admitting that their might have been deception on the part of GWB’s admin. But who am I kidding, you are not going to look any of this up. You made up your mind long ago.

I was trying to have a discussion with you pete, in a civil way. But you’ve suddenly become a major jerk. You’re spouting nonsense about invective BS and calling me an idealogue with no sense of right and wrong.

Guess what? You don’t have any clue who I am. So go piss off. Your post did not respond to anything I brought up in my last post, either. That is very telling, Pete.

Oh, and btw, the point of all this is that we live in a democratic republic. It is our job to debate the merits of our government’s actions.

Signing off Pete, your just another windbag, I guess. Too bad.

windbag? wow i havent heard that one yet. My whole point was that you have NO proof. If you are going to make accusations then back them up. Furthermore What i said was my opinion and i am entitled to it after reading your comments.

“Guess what? You don’t have any clue who I am. So go piss off. “
Well i can tell you one thing. You sure havent ever been in the military. And you havent been able to prove anything you have said while the burden of proof lies on top of you like an 800 pound gorrilla.

This is my point mr armchair military commander. Occasional airstrikes didnt work. Saddam needed to be removed from power and the concept of regime change was put forth by Bill Clinton on Dec 17th 1998. The policy of regime change was not a Bush doctrine but it was continued on by Bush. You dont know history.
The reason i said you didnt have any sense of right and wrong is because of your statement…
“We had him in a cage, and we had him disamred. He was a toothless tiger all locked up.” and the fact that you basicly said so what if he had nukes he wouldnt use them.
From a moral standpoint (which is where right and wrong comes from in case you didnt know) it was a good thing to carry out this war. Tell the political prisoners (now free) and the jailed kids and the 30,000 unmarked corpses that Saddam was a toothless tiger. That is where you get into trouble.
when you said…”We will not know the answers to all of these question without an investigation. Yet, because of so many with blinders, we probably won’t get one. History won’t speak kindly of our generation for that.” That qualifies you as an idealogue to be certain. (The rest of the world is crazy i am the sane one)attitude where you think you are the one who sees the truth and conservatives have blinders on. So i stand buy my statements.
You can “piss off” too by the way.

Oh, it is just your opinion that I don’t know right from wrong? That I am spouting invective BS? So it is fine to say such things in reasoned discourse?

You behave like a child, pete.

Have you been in the military?

Even better, has GWB, Rummsfield, Wolfowitz, etc? They sure seem to be able to make miilitary opinions without having been in the military. But I guess I don’t get that privelage.

Do you know what an idealogue is, pete? Because you have absolutely no basis for calling me one, so I am wondering if you are confused.

I have given you lots of ‘proof’ to go look up, but you won’t. You also have a really good knack for completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I have said. It’s folks like you that turn places like this into a sewer.

Yes i have been in the military or i wouldnt have said that. In fact i am currently in the reserves and i am a cavalry scout but am soon to be a member of the coast guards counter-terrorist M.S.S.T. unit. I just wanted to take this time though to expose who is really making this a sewer. Here is a quote from you over at the democrat blog.

“What we need to do is relegate Ann Coulter’s free speech to the dust bin of America where it belongs.”
Guess what Tim. That makes you a fascist. I just want people to know that. It is in the post on Treason so go check it out folks.
Then he says this in his defense…

“I didn’t say anything about taking away. Learn to read, Pete. To relegate, to assign to a lower position.”

Which only digs the hole deeper. To lower someone elses right to speak out. That is why you are a fascist Tim. How am i wrong? You said it not me. I always think it is funny when liberals slip up and thier true meanings just come pouring out. I know how to read tim and i read a fascist statement that you wrote. Simple as that.

Pete,

To relegate to a lower position is not anywhere near the same universe as ‘take away.’ And pete, you love it when liberals ‘slip-up’, well I am not a liberal, I did not slip up. If what I said makes you think I want to take away free speeh, you misunderstood, or I misspoke.

The main thing, Pete, is that I disagree with you. And you really seem incapable of dealing with that without resorting to name-calling, and argument from emotion.

“To relegate to a lower position is not anywhere near the same universe as ‘take away.’”

Well tell that to Mr John Ashcroft then Tim. I guess there is a little leeway when it comes to freedom of speech. I think to say that is nuts. I am an American fundamentalist. I belive there is no room for argument on the Amendments. Especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments. You should not be able to lower or “relegate” someones freedom of speech if you disagree with them. It is as simple as that. That is what the patriot act is doing. It is relegating (chipping away) at a number of amendments to include the 1st 3rd and 4th. I am in bitter opposition to it. I think you need to check yourself.

pete’s posts are nothin’ but flame bait. And poorly written flame bait at that.

Like many on the right he seems to think that if you slander someone and shout loud enough you win the argument.

Pete, you’re in way over your head arguing politics and policy with this bunch.

yo pete, since you are a fundamentalist, therefore an extremist, doesnt that put you in the same league as islamic fundamentalists? I think extremists are all the same. you would die and kill to defend your country. so would they. food for thought.

ps. im in the military, and i served in OIF, and I helped kill thousands of iraqi men, women and children in the laser guided bombing campaigns. it makes me sick to my stomach.

Interesting post between Pete and Tim. I am just surfing around so I thought I would give my 2 cents worth. The both of you are in agreement and don’t even know it. Neither of you believe that one’s freedom should be taken away. I am sure that the both of you think that the Patriot Act is actually un-patriotic. I personally think Ashcroft should be fired for his loyalty to the Patriot Act. Our Government had the powers to do any investigating, research, arresting and snooping post Sept 11th. It is a damn shame that the ones in power didn’t use those resources. The Government has done things in secret all of its existence - why would simple laws keep it from protecting the public? Wouldn’t the Americans praise the Government for saving lives even if they did a little illegal snooping? But we need the laws to protect the AMERICAN CITIZENS. There must be some level of control on the governing powers. By simply allowing the government to have its new laws (the Patriot Act) takes away that protection the American citizens have. As far as reasons for a war – one must always follow the money. Who has the money, who is losing the money and who is benefiting from all this? Liberation of the Iraqi people is not the reason for this war. The reason for this war was to find and get rid of the Weapons of Mass Destruction in which has never been found (up to this point in time). This war was against the wishes of the United Nations. This war went into action with a weary public view. This war is expensive. So one should ask the simple question – How does Bush know that Saddam has WMD? You have to dig in the past to understand it. The bible has a wonderful quote: ‘you reap what you sow’ and I think that is what happened to the USA. Back in the late 80’s our dearest Rummsfield was over in Iraq being ‘good ol’ boys’ with Saddam. The United States gave Iraq the Weapons of Mass destruction. That is why Bush is so sure that Saddam has them. Saddam used them against the Kurds and killed thousands. I took this quote from a website “Before attacking Kuwait, however, Saddam consulted George H.W. Bush’s administration. First, the U.S. State Department informed Saddam that Washington had “no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.” Then, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, “we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” afterwards, we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait even though we told him we didn’t have any interest in Kuwait. Good ol’ Bush Sr. told the Iraqi people they need to rise up against their dictator. The Iraqi’s did try to revolt with the FALSE IMPRESSION that the United States would assist. Saddam’s Baathist party slaughtered thousands of Iraqi while the US military sat and watched in Kuwait. With that bit of history one can see why the Iraqi people hate the United States.
ANYHOW that is my little 2 cents worth. I’ll check back to see what anyone says later. Oh and the website that I took that little tid bit from is at this link: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/022703a.html And being the critic of news that I am, I researched this information and found that it is all true.