Republicus

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)

Name:
Location: Arlington, Virginia, United States

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

FYI: What the Democrats Said

President Bill Clinton: If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

President Bill Clinton: One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
President Bill Clinton: The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.

President Bill Clinton: Their (i.e. the United States military in Operation Desert Fox) mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons...I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again...The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government.

Vice President and 2000 presidential aspirant Al Gore: Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger: (Saddam Hussein) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983.

Massachusetts Senator and 2004 presidential aspirant John Kerry: All U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons.

North Carolina Senator and 2004 vice-presidential aspirant John Edwards: I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.

Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

West Virginia Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (WVA): There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.

Nevada Senator Harry Reid: Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think the president is approaching this in the right fashion.

California Senator Dianne Feinstein: If one believes Iraq is a real threat, and I do, and if the United Nations fails to act, then the only alternative is military action led by the United States.

Michigan Senator Carl Levin: The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam is in power.

Delaware Senator Joe Biden: This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.

Fast Forward...

Former-President Bill Clinton: (Removing Saddam)...was a big mistake.

Senator John Kerry: The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth.

Senator Edward Kennedy: Instead of providing open and honest answers about how we will achieve success in Iraq and allow our troops to begin to come home, the president reverted to the same manipulation of facts to justify a war we never should have fought.

Senator Carl Levin: There's a lot of evidence that the administration went way beyond the intelligence that was provided for them.

President Bush:
I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials
didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it.


As president and commander in chief, I accept the responsibilities and the criticisms and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

26 Comments:

Anonymous Jeff said...

Freakin hypocritter. Clinton in your eyes is the devil himself, yet how convenient of you and your criminal President to invoke his name as justification for lying to the American people, leaking classified info and excusing Cheney/bush for being the most corrupt America hating pussies they truly are. You are pathetic in your complicity.Honestly John, get a grip on life please, I'm begging you.........

12:04 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Wake up calls have been issued and are being received
very warmly!!!!!!!!!!

Bushies disapproval ratings..........

Poll Date Approve Disapprove Gap

Fox 11/9 36 53 -17
AP 11/9 37 61 -24
NBC 11/7 38 57 -19
Pew 11/6 36 55 -19
ABC 11/2 39 60 -21
Zogby 11/2 39 61 -22
CBS 11/1 35 57 -22
Mean ---- 37.1 57.7 -20.6

12:07 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Like you, I've been disgusted by the chronic
revelations of torture in the name of "freedom," the
"war on terror" and [insert bogus White House talking
point here]. You and I are helping to pay for these
atrocities that are ripping to shreds our moral
standing in the world.

Well, today I read an editorial by Leonard Pitts of
the Miami Herald that knocked my socks off. Everyone
should read it. It wastes not a single word, and it
starts like this:

Well, I guess that settles that.
"We do not torture,'' President Bush said on
Monday.
Never mind all those torture pictures from Abu
Ghraib.
Never mind all those torture stories from
Guantánamo Bay.
Never mind the 2002 Justice Department memo that
sought to justify torture.
Never mind reports of U.S. officials sending
detainees to other countries for torture.
Never mind Dick Cheney lobbying to exempt the CIA
from rules prohibiting torture.
''We do not torture,'' said the president. And
that's that, right? I mean, if you can't believe the
Bush administration, who can you believe? No torture.
Period, end of sentence.
But . . .
What does it say to you that the claim even has to
be made?


In the name of fighting terror, we have
terrorized, and in the name of defending our values,
we have betrayed them. We have imprisoned Muslims in
America and refused to say if we had them, why we had
them or even to provide them attorneys. We have passed
laws making it easier for government to snoop into
what you read, who you talk to, where you go. We have
equated dissent with lack of patriotism, disagreement
with treason.
And we have tortured.

-

"We do not torture," says the president.

I can remember when that went without saying.

-

Take your blood pressure medication and read the rest
by clicking here.
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20051112/1041927.asp

Thanks, Leonard Pitts, for distilling the crime of the
millennium into such eloquence.

12:09 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

I think that the recent statements of Stephen
Hadley are really all we need to put the final nail in
the coffin of the Bush adminsitration's credibility on
anything. These people are just quite literally
loathsome.

Hadley argues that Democrats had the same
intelligence because "parts of" the NIE "had been made
public."

Right, and the parts of the NIE which weren't made
public were the parts which suggested that the parts
which were made public were full of shit.

Any talking head who overlooks this fact to try to
claim that "democrats had the same intelligence as
Republicans" is just completely full of shit. They
only the had the bits that made their case, not the
bits which took away from it.



The President is a liar. The Democrats did not
have the same intelligence as the White House did.

And that's all any Democrat has to say. Don't try
to explain it. Don't let the Republicans misdirect you
into the details or distract you in any way. Just keep
hammering the same line over and over and over because
the public already knows it's true: The President is
again LYING his failed ass off to the American people.

12:10 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same
tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts
when his back is against the wall: he claims that
questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal
of the troops in battle today.

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance.
But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole
thing, the only problem is that none of it has been
true.

Mr. Bush says everyone had the same intelligence he
had--Mr. Clinton and his advisers, foreign
governments, and members of Congress--and that all of
them reached the same conclusions. The only part that
is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same
intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not
reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons
were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was
fresher than about five years, except reports that
later proved to be fanciful.

Congress had nothing close to the president's access
to intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate
presented to Congress a few days before the vote on
war was sanitized to remove dissent and make
conjecture seem like fact.

It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says
everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed
a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and
biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data
and concluded that inspections and pressure were
working--a view we now know was accurate. . . .

The administration had little company in saying that
Iraq was actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. .
. .

The Bush administration was also alone in making the
absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and
somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. . . .


Mr. Bush has said in recent days that the first phase
of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation
on Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to
change the intelligence. . . . Richard Kerr, a former
deputy director of central intelligence, said in 2003
that there was "significant pressure on the
intelligence community to find evidence that supported
a connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The C.I.A.
ombudsman told the Senate Intelligence Committee that
the administration's "hammering" on Iraq intelligence
was harder than he had seen in his 32 years at the
agency. . . .

The administration has still not acknowledged that
tales of Iraq coaching Al Qaeda on chemical warfare
were considered false, even at the time they were
circulated. . . .

Remember Condoleezza Rice's infamous "mushroom cloud"
comment? And Secretary of State Colin Powell in
January 2003, when the rich and powerful met in Davos,
Switzerland, and he said, "Why is Iraq still trying to
procure uranium and the special equipment needed to
transform it into material for nuclear weapons?" Mr.
Powell ought to have known the report on "special
equipment"' - the aluminum tubes - was false. And the
uranium story was four years old. . . .

The president and his top advisers may very well have
sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction. But they did not allow the American
people, or even Congress, to have the information
necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own.
It's obvious that the Bush administration misled
Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his
terrorist connections. We need to know how that
happened and why.

Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate,
even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply
irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war
began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who
are rewriting history.

Of course, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Mehlman, and on and on,
will continue to hurl charges of treason at everyone
who challenges their ever-more-encompassing lies. What
choice do they have? At long last, our country is
facing the truth about this Administration, and the
truth is no friend to these people.

12:19 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

A hardcore-Republican source is pushing a very unflattering portrait of Bush. The Washington Times' Insight says Bush "feels betrayed by several of his most senior aides and advisors and has severely restricted access to the Oval Office", according to their sources within the administration.


The sources said Mr. Bush maintains daily contact with only four people: first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes. The sources also say that Mr. Bush has stopped talking with his father, except on family occasions.

This is a president who even in the best of times is insular, out of touch, and completely unwilling to have alternative points of view brought to him. Now, according to administration sources he's kicked out everyone else in his Oval Treehouse except for his mom, and three people who remind him of his mom? Shudder.

For the president, what triggered the break with his father was the interview given to the New Yorker magazine in October by Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security advisor in the first Bush presidency. In the interview, Mr. Scowcroft criticized the administration's handling of Iraq. The sources said the president is convinced that Mr. Scowcroft consulted with Mr. Bush's father prior to delivering the devastating critique of the president's Iraq policy. [...]

Relations between Mr. Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, had also become tense in the build-up to the indictment of Mr. Libby and the growing likelyhood of his own coming indictment. This is due to the fact the president believed his chief aide when Mr. Rove said that he had nothing to do with the leak of Mrs. Plame's identity. The prospect that Mr. Libby will turn state evidence in the Plame case is even more alarming for the White House.

Here's the next thing about this, which was definitely touched on but which I want to stick a big ol' flashing light on top of. These stories -- and there have been a series of them -- have been coming from very reliably Republican sources. The leakproof administration is, unless these newspaper reports are all simply lying, leaking at an alarming rate when it comes to giving stories about Bush's erratic/petulant/belligerent/drinky-drinky/reclusive behavior. The Washington Times would generally rather print their papers on the desiccated skins of puppies than say something bad about a Republican, but they'll print a scoop when they see one. In order to print something like this, it would have to come from an administration source "deep enough" for them to trust and run with.

So to have these stories out there points to at least some (fairly core, we can presume) members of Bush's administration being alarmed at his own behavior. Or it just proves that the Washington Times is full of it, or that there's multiple "administration sources" out there intent on making Bush look like an unhinged, adrift brat. (Let it go, Harriet...) Hey, I'm not sure which I'm rooting for at this point, but I can't say I'm taking much glee in the thought that our president may or may not be having his own personal toga party, with nobody else invited.

Is there anyone out there selling nuclear holocaust insurance? Because I've got this nagging itch like I should be stocking up on duct tape. Seriously, I hope one of the Joint Chiefs has hidden the key to the liquor cabinet at this point.

12:26 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was the senior administration official who leaked to Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA officer, attorneys close to the investigation and intelligence officials tell.

Piece By Piece

1:37 PM  
Blogger John said...

Booo! Hissss! Sit down, Lee Harvey, and get a hold of yourself. This ain't no schoolbook depository.

Behold the temperament of the "peacenik."

That right there, ladies and gentleman, is a Bush-Hater par-excellence. Republicus would bet he is a loud and proud social liberal, an economic socialist, a radical environmentalist, and a man who thinks the United States should be subservient to the mandates of the UN.

I would further wager that he came to Washington on September 24 and participated in that pathetic Impeachment March.

Care to admit to all of the above, "Jeff," so people know where you're coming from?

2:08 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Once again you are as wrong as you could be. Radical environmentalist, hardly. Care about sound decision making and protecting the air we breathe and water we drink, you bet. Pretty horrible heh?. In D.C. the 24th, only in spirit, was in New Orleans helping Katrina Victims abandoned by this administration. Bush Hater, mother fucking right. I hate anyone who has a radical insane policy that lies, cheats , steals and murders people and our democracy. I can't stand you freakin fascists that can't think for themselves, can only spew what you hear on fox and GOP.com. Luckily you radical fascists are no longer an accepted ideology anymore. Every poll has turned, every stone is now beginning to be uncovered and the stench of these neocant's are on the way out, permanently. The only people that need to defend themself are lemmings like you who support torture, pre emptive war and the dismantling of democracy in the name of freedom. You wouldn't know freedom and truth if it jumped up and bit you on the ass.

4:36 PM  
Blogger Jess said...

In response to your first comment, Jeff, John wasn't trying to make excuses for Bush. He's trying to point out the inconsistancies of the Democratic party. Maybe you need to get a grip.

6:12 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

If you think that's John's motivation, then you do not know John very well Jess.

7:45 PM  
Blogger John said...

Don't presume to know me very well either, "Jeff." If you did, you'd realize that I can dissect your words like a pickled frog in a high school biology class and reveal YOUR insidious motivations.

Jess is right. I simply presented the Democrats'--particularly your hero's, Bill Clinton's--own words on Saddam's presumed possessions of WMD, and their attitudes on the regime (i.e. it should changed).

That blows a fuse and you come barging in here like a raving lunatic MAKING YOUR OWN EXCUSES for Clinton and the Dems because of what they said when Bush was just a state governor, or when the political winds compelled them to.

Hold the same standard. Stay consistent. I respect the TRUE pacifists who properly put a pox on both houses. But you are NOT a true pacifist, and so are NOT consistent. You're just a belligerent, knife-tongued, partisan hitman who--while accusing me of considering Clinton the devil--yourself reveal that it is YOU who is guilty of such insane, obsessive demonizations because you clearly--albeit unwittingly, to be sure--demonstrate that you think Bush is the Devil Incarnate (e.g. "Criminal of the Millennium?" LOL! Let's just take the last century: Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler? You're historically illiterate. And unhinged).

Don't you see the "hypocrittering" on your part? That's psychological projection in its perfected form.

Thank you for providing me with a nice specimen of the Bush-Hating mind to dissect at my leisure. :)

Meanwhile, while insinuating that I blasphemed by "invoking" the hallowed Name of your Lord and Savior Bill Clinton, you doubly-damn your own credibility by the the outrageous double-standard which deserves to be rejected outright and thrown out with the trash.

One more time:

Bill Clinton: "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program...One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line...The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today (i.e, imminent threat?), Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow...Their (i.e. the United States military in Operation Desert Fox) mission is to attack Iraq's NUCLEAR, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with NUCLEAR arms, poison gas, or biological weapons...I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again (i.e. imminent threat)...The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government."

Well? Any questions?

I have a few questions for you, "Jeff":

Do you consider yourself a liberal? Yes or no?

Republicus does not consider himself a liberal. Republicus is registered Independent, votes Republican when inspired or feels compelled to vote, has strong streaks of Libertarian sensibilities and sympathies with a conservative outlook.

You? Out with it. Liberal, yes or no?

Are you a radical "environmentalist?" i.e. do you think (1) Bush's rejection of the Kyoti Treaty was a crime against Nature and the world, and (2) is responsible for the alleged uptick in hurricane ferocity and activity? Yes or no.

Republicus would answer "No" to both.

Do you believe the United States should be subservient to the mandates of the UN? Yes or No.

Repoublicus says NO.

Were you in Washington for the Impeachment March on September 24? Yes or no.

Republicus was, but stayed home with the shades drawn and the front door locked.

So?

Out with it. Show your cards. Don't mislead "The People" about your true colors.

10:36 PM  
Blogger John said...

Jeff sneered:

"Once again you are as wrong as you could be. Radical environmentalist, hardly. Care about sound decision making and protecting the air we breathe and water we drink, you bet."

Gee, not me. I don't care about that stuff. And neither does anyone who thought Kyoto was not in the best interests of the United States, particularly during a time of Recession, and based on Global Warming data that can only blame a percentile or two of greenhouse gases on man-made emissions.

"Pretty horrible heh?"

Well, if you supported the Kyoto Treaty and Blast Bush for "destroying the environment" because he didn't, yes. That's horrible.

"In D.C. the 24th, only in spirit."

No wonder it resembled a ghost town.

"...was in New Orleans helping Katrina Victims abandoned by this administration."

Oh, gawd. The champion of thieves, rapists, released prisoners, welfare queens, and other assorted riff-raff.

"Bush Hater, mother fucking right. I hate anyone who has a radical insane policy that lies, cheats , steals and murders people and our democracy. I can't stand you freakin fascists that can't think for themselves, can only spew what you hear on fox and GOP.com."

Yes. That's right. Keep talking. Go on. Tell me more.

"Luckily you radical fascists are no longer an accepted ideology anymore."

Tell it to the Jihadists.


"Every poll has turned, every stone is now beginning to be uncovered and the stench of these neocant's are on the way out, permanently."

Yes. Proletariats unite. Power to "The People."

And Allah Akbar.

"The only people that need to defend themself are lemmings like you..."

Right. I'm a lemming who takes comfort and finds validation when my approval or disapproval is reflected in poll numbers that bandwagons herds of anonymous strangers.

"...who support torture..."

Yeah. Sure I do. We should saw their friggin' heads with a serrated knife and videotape it to scare the Bejeezus into them.

"...pre emptive war..."

That falls under the category of intervensionism which reasonable people can argue about in earnest as to the necessity and extent of it.

Operation Desert Fox--a five-day bombing campaign that undoubtedly killed scores of civilians in Iraq--was a pre-emptive strike (if not an unnecessary and over-extended wag-the-dog distraction which did nothing to alter the status quo and indeed contributed to Bin Laden's characterization of the United States as being a "paper-tiger").

And yet, you forgive Clinton for that preemptive strike. Against Iraq. Justified on his possession of WMD. Including hispursuit and development of nuclear missile capability.

Ergo, you're unreasonable and venting out of some overriding personal issue with Bush that has nothing to do with attacking Iraq preemptively, and therefore are disqualified from having your arguments taken seriously.

Sorry Lee Harvey. There's no arguing with a brainwashed member of the cult of Bush-Haters who rants and raves and distributes leaflets on streetcorners calling for violent overthrow of the federal government.

And don't deny it. You're an anarchist.

"...and the dismantling of democracy in the name of freedom."

Puh-lease. If this was half the fascist state you hallucinate it as being, you'd be in shackles and horsewhipped and sharing a bunkbed and playing badminton with a Jihadist homosexual in Club GITMO long ago, with all the slanderous and subversive invective you spew.

"...You wouldn't know freedom and truth if it jumped up and bit you on the ass."

Come on. Your crowd isn't about "Freedom" and "Truth."

It's about control. Everything you accuse the adminstration of doing is a projection.

For example, you guys recycle your favorite philosopher's (i.e. Marx) line that stated (to paraphrase): "If something is repeated enough times, people will eventually believe it," to insinuate that that was what the administration was engaging in when presenting the information that Iraq was in possession of forbidden WMD.

Meanwhile: "He LIED! HE'S A LIAR! LIAR-LIAR-PANTS-ON-FIRE! HE LIED-HE LIED-HE-LIED! HE'S THE MIS-LEADER! HE'S THE LIAR-IN-CHIEF! THEY'RE LYING LIARS WHO TELL LIES!" etc.

Such an incessant, childish barrage serves three purposes: (1) It's petty, vindictive revenge for the irremovable pasting of the scarlet letter "L" on your hero Clinton (who was Impeached for perjury, and had his law license yanked). (2) It's an aggressive attack on one of President Bush's strengths: his character, his honesty. (3) For 1 & 2 to stick, you have to repeat it over and over again *ad nauseum.*

While doing so, you accuse the adminstration of engaging in that very same sort of persistent endeavor.

Voila: Projection.

And you try to preach to me about "Truth."

You accuse the administration of cooking up threats posed by dangers that weren't there to justify regime change in Iraq.

Meanwhile, you guys cook up a litany of grievances warning of the massively-destructive imminent threats to everything from the environment to the economy to, yes, nuclear recklessness, for in your own hysterical words, "Is there anyone out there selling nuclear holocaust insurance?"

LOL You could've filled in for Colin Powell when he was making his case before the Senate to remove Saddam, only instead arguing about the dangers that Bush--not Saddam-- poses to this country and therefore warranting decisive action to be taken for regime change here.

And yet, you're blind to the astonishing "hypocrittering" you yourself are engaging in.

It's pathetic. It's disgraceful. You guys are basket-cases posing as serious statesmen and saavy analysts.

You're unconsciously projecting. You invert. You see things upside-down.

Syrian terrorists in Iraq are "Freedom Fighters," and the American liberating forces are "terrorists."

You live in a country where you can spew the kind of treasoness garbage you do and undermine the war effort--AUTHORIZED BY A BI-PARTISAN MAJORITY IN U.S. SENATE--and aid and abet terrorists by your despicable attacks on the Commander in Chief in the thick of a global war and your shamelessly intentional attempts to lower national morale with the sole purpose of making Bush fail with no fear of retribution. Indeed, with the president's blessing (however grudgingly, I'm sure).

Meanwhile, if you spoke out this way in like fashion in Iraq as an Iraqi against Saddam, his boys would pull your tongue out with pliers.

And you try to preach to me about "Freedom," and the loss of it here.

You're a fool.

12:03 AM  
Blogger John said...

"Bush Hater, mother fucking right. I hate anyone who has a radical insane policy that lies, cheats , steals and murders people and our democracy. I can't stand you freakin fascists that can't think for themselves, can only spew what you hear on fox and GOP.com."

Ah. I lahv it. The literary equivalent of Munsch's *The Scream.*

Here's what Bush and the administration means when he says that the opposition is trying to "rewrite history""

"It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says
everyone reached the same conclusion."

What's so hard about it? See my post. It's strictly quotes from the top dogs of the Democratic Party.

"There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons."

Right, that's what he meant when he said that "everyone reached the same conclusion."

But you left out the widespread belief that the bastard (i.e. Saddam) also wanted to stoke uranium:

John Kerry: All U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons.

John D. Rockefeller IV: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.

And, of course:

Carl Levin: The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam is in power.

John Edwards: I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country

"But Mr. Clinton looked at the data
and concluded that inspections and pressure were working--a view we now know was accurate. . ."

What are you talking about? He ordered a multi-billion dollar five-day air-strike against Iraq that was similar in the number of sorties and the amount of ordnance dumped as in Operation Desert Storm.

"The administration had little company in saying that
Iraq was actively trying to build a nuclear weapon."

Hello?

John Kerry: All U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons.

John D. Rockefeller IV: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.

"The Bush administration was also alone in making the
absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and
somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks..."

You're clueless to the events on the ground and the hardcore Jihadist organizations involved there (ever hear of Zarqawi? Bin Laden's disciple? How about Al Qaeda in Iraq?).

I refer you to my June 22 post "Saddam Had To Go," which reproduces text that discusses Al Qaeda's activity in Iraq before the first bomb was dropped.

As for the accusation that Bush "somehow connected" 9/11 to Baathist mischief, what the administration was doing--before both Foreign Policy Advisor Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney, and President Bush came out with the conclusion that there was apparently no collusion between Iraq and Al Qaeda's 9/11 plot-- was viewing the big picture and actual--and now self-evident--networks and strands which knits the Jihadist world from Spain to Indonesia and recognized Iraq as Grand Central Station.

You can agree or disagree with that assessment depending on whether you would have preferred a vindictive, "fly-swatting" manhunt for Bin Laden, or whether you support a bold, intervensionist effort at cultural transformation on a regional scale (which may or may not work; Republicus can't be certain, but believes it's possible well beyond unlikilihood).

Now check this out:

"The President is a liar. The Democrats did not have the same intelligence as the White House did. And that's all any Democrat has to say. Don't try to explain it."

M-hm. That's this at work:

"If something is repeated enough times, people will eventually believe it." K. Marx

And listen to this:

"Don't let the Republicans misdirect you into the details or distract you in any way."

Of course. Details are unimportant.

"Just keep hammering the same line over and over and over because
the public already knows it's true: The President is
again LYING his failed ass off to the American people."

Right. In other words:

"He LIED! HE'S A LIAR! LIAR-LIAR-PANTS-ON-FIRE! HE LIED-HE LIED-HE-LIED! HE'S THE MIS-LEADER! HE'S THE LIAR-IN-CHIEF! THEY'RE LYING LIARS WHO TELL LIES!" etc.

And what's this, "his 'failed' ass off?"

Persident Bush had an across-the-board undefeated winning track record in the first term (which REALLY angered the Bush-haters). Let's leave aside the missteps and pitfalls of this year and the undetermined status of both the Westernizing of Iraq and the proposal to privatize Social Security accounts. That crowd has been lambasting Bush as a "failure" since 2001.

Has anyone seen the "Bush Resume" that was making its rounds on the Web since 2002? Bush was a failure at everything. All fifty states simultaneously had gone bankrupt. We were isolated from the rest of the civilized world and roundly hated, and *et cetera* acroos-the-board.

Meanwhile, however, the economy was recovering briskly after suffering a quick succession of recession-friendly traumas both in the loss of capital, jobs, and consumer-confidence, and America was taking the lead in battling global terrorism, reforming the World Bank and the United Nations, and leading the world in disaster-relief and international charity.

So they misrepresented. They simply cannot stomache anything that could reflect well on presidential stewardship, and most certainly could never, ever call the Bush presidency a "success" in its presiding over any sector of the republic.

Indeed, self-evident successes are not only not to be acknowledged, but are to be inverted and presented in the worst light possible.

Hence, the repeated mantras: "Bush is a failure. Bush 'failed his ass off.' Bush is the very worst president in American history," etc.

Yes, don't believe your eyes or your comfort level and the dearth of misery. Bush has failed and the country is in shambles, and it's time you realized it.

Everyone agrees! Look at the polls!

That--the belittling of an economy that has expanded well and is expaning faster than our "superior" European counterparts-- provides another opportunity to point out the Left's chronic tendency to psychologically project:

In the 2000 campaign, Bush accurately warned of a looming Recession. The Democrats screamed bloody murder. How dare he "talk down" the stupendous and fantabulous "Clinton Economy?"

Well, it was easy. Fed Chairman Greenspan himself saw it coming, having discerned that it was pumped with as much hot air as Clinton's big, fat head was and could not sustain itself on the back of worthless dot.com stock, compelling to put on the breaks by successive interest rate-hikes.

But the Democrats did indeed accuse Bush of unconscionably "talking down" the economy for the express purpose of sowing uncertainty, lowering consumer confidence, and taking away the only thing Al Gore could brag about: a robust economy.

It was wrong for Bush to do that, right? It was unethical. It was putting his own political interests in front of the country's well-being.

But they wre projecting, because that's what they do, and have been doing for you to see:

What is the persistent characterizing of a very nice--if not booming-- recovery, under the circumstances, as "The Worst Economy Since The Great Depression" if not "talking down" the recovery?

Anyway, let's move on and examine this defensive and duplicitous assertion:

"The President is a liar. The Democrats did not have the same intelligence as the White House did."

This us brings us back to the beginning of "Jeff's" tirade and the "invoking" of Clinton that triggered it, and it should be plain by now that "Jeff's" counter-attack to Republicus' provocative posting of the Democrats' own words has done absolutely nothing to contradict the proof of the contradictions:

"The Democrats did not have the same intelligence as the White House did?"

Which White House? This one?

President Bill Clinton: If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program...One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line...The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow...Their (i.e. the United States military in Operation Desert Fox) mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons...I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again...The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government.

Vice President and 2000 presidential aspirant Al Gore: Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger: (Saddam Hussein) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983.


So? And Clinton saw fit to bomb Iraq with the stated mission goal of "degrading WMD capabilities" less than five years before his sucessor launched Operation Iraqi Freedom and on the heels of 9/11 when weapons proliferation was cited as the number one issue of concern by both President Bush and Senator Kerry in last year's election.

And yet "Jeff" thinks everything would have been open and transparent in Saddam's Iraq--that richly rewarded Palestinian Jihadists-- if Hans Blix was allowed to run around the country in a wild-goose chase for WMD's based on leads from intelligence agencies that couldn't even crack the codes to a plot that targeted--with American commercial airlines--the Pentagon and Capital Building in the Nation's Capital and the World Trade Center in the Big Apple.

Saddam had to go, ladies and gentleman. And good riddance.

2:38 AM  
Blogger John said...

Look at this disgusting, sadistic schadenfreude, the shameless glee and gloating because the envied and despised BMOC is losing popularity:

"Wake up calls have been issued and are being received
very warmly!!!!!!!!!!" (regarding Bush's poll numbers)

That gives you pleasure, huh? Because it means it might pressure the administration to alter a policy you disagree with into something agreeable, or because the President's past popularity was personally injurious to you and now you're relishing some sordid sense of revenge?

Hmmm... I wonder which one...

Listen to this:

"A hardcore-Republican source is pushing a very unflattering portrait of Bush. The Washington Times' Insight says Bush "feels betrayed by several of his most senior aides and advisors and has severely restricted access to the Oval Office", according to their sources within the administration."

What's the point of that? What does that have to do with the Democrat's flip-flopping and playing the ignorant victims who were manipulated by the Executive Branch (yeah, I'm sure their consituents just LOVE that shtick)?

Do you think it's worse than what Bill Clinton underwent when it was revealed that he lied to his cabinet and friends, and he barricaded himself in the White House, and Hillary said something like "Only Buddy the dog hung out with him?" (it was about this time that Clinton decided to break the ice by putting on the tri-cornered of the Commander-in-Chief and bomb the hell out of two sovereign countries).

No, it's not worse than that, and although it does appear that political pressures have created rifts among a team that was as tight as musketeers, open a friggin' history book. We're witnessing the normal unraveling prior to reforming that most all president's undergo in the second term.

By historical standards, I would hardly call this the typical cabinet shake-up. In fact, since January of 2001, the adminstration has demonstrated remarkable constancy.

Meanwhile, throughout this "crisis," the President got Roberts into the Supreme Court and will get Alito in, too.

I'm really sorry about that. That's a devastating blow to your politics, I'm afraid.

Wolfie's at the World Bank,and Bolton's laying down the law at the UN.

Ouch. Welcome to your nightmare.

Karl Rove ain't frogmarching, and Fitzgerald said this ain't about the war, guy. Sorry.

And it looks like no law was broken regarding the outing of a CIA spook. :( I know. You were so looking forward to Fitzmas. Maybe next time. :)

Bush makes a beautiful speech on Veteran's Day, Rummy and Cheney are making the rounds setting the record straight, and the President himself is in Mongolia talking democracy on China's doorstep.

The Impeachment March was a dismal, tamborine-beating failure, the recovery of New Orleans is proceeeding splendidly, and Bin Laden is biting his nails.

And all you can do is relish low poll numbers (that you don't understand, anyway) well after Bush's second--and last-- election and pleasure yourself with the speculation that Bush is isolated, alone, bitter, despondent, and ineffectual.

Yeah. Just keep reassuring yourself of that.

See ya at the midterm elections, bozo.

4:40 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

John in your upside down world where black is white, true is false, right is wrong and so on and so on- you make no sense, you rant and rave like the complete right wing anglofascist you are. Everytime you open your mouth you dig yourself further into this ideological black hole of shame. You and your view points are not acceptable, not in a democracy. Laugh as you will at that obvious double standard, but you aren't shouting fire in a theatre, you are throwing in gasoline, locking the doors, lighting the match and then yelling fire as you watch everyone burn. You are irresponsible, and disgusting in your moral and reasoning capabilities. Something is wrong, this is not the person I've known for 20+ years. I'm trying to be a friend here man, this ain't right, and somewhere inside you've got to know that.

5:34 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

"...was in New Orleans helping Katrina Victims abandoned by this administration."

Oh, gawd. The champion of thieves, rapists, released prisoners, welfare queens, and other assorted riff-raff.

So the Bush admin good, the people of America devastated by this disaster bad. I see. Why do you hate America so much John?? Once again spewing your hatred and complete ignorance of the facts. Pathetic.

6:32 AM  
Anonymous jeff said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519.html

6:36 AM  
Anonymous jeff said...

The Danger of the 'Post-9/11' Mindset

Think back to 2001, get into a pre-9/11 perspective. Much of the time the Bush administration and the GOP likes to warn against the dangers of slipping back into this mindset because it ignores the threat terrorism poses. But, think back anyway and imagine if you could envision any of these headlines:

UN expert urges Iraq torture probe into US detention centers.

Spain probes CIA's `torture flights'

House Dems planning to force vote on torture

Former Iraqi Detainees Allege Torture by US Troops

US refuses unconditional access of UN personnel to Guantanamo

CIA allegedly concealed evidence of detainee torture

White House will not rule out torture


You can't, nobody in their right mind would. But today, those are the headlines.




In May of 2001, largely in response to pre-9/11 Bush policies in the Middle East, Kyoto, and Missile Defense the United States for the first time since the commissions's inception was not represented on the UN Human Rights Commission. We took the high ground and claimed the UN was undermining the commission by allowing countries with questionable human-rights records like Libya, Syria, and Sudan onto the commission. James Cunningham, the acting U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called the move "very disappointing." He said the decision "won't affect our commitment to human rights."

Today, could you believe such a statement out of John Bolton if he decided to make it? I couldn't, we've managed by following the Bush post 9/11 mindset to lower ourselves to the level of a country with a "questionable human-rights record." That's appalling, yet we've managed to do it so completely that it can be revealed we're running secret prisons in former eastern bloc countries and many people don't even seem to be surprised. It's as if this type of activity is expected out of us now, the White House didn't even bother to try to deny it. Nor has congress the revelation that we're running secret prisons overseas isn't even challenged, it's a fact.

In our not so secret prisons, like Guantanamo, we've had dozens of suicide attempts and around half the prisoners participating in ongoing hunger strikes since July to protest conditions and their lack of legal counsel. Prisoners, in American custody, after years still being denied legal counsel or any kind of formal charges.

The administrations inability and worse unwillingness to correct these polices have finally lead a GOP controlled Congress to act on the matter. In doing so and voting 90-9 to ban "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of prisoners they faced opposition from the White House. Think about that, the White House by extension supports the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of prisoners. That's outrageous. Yet, for the most part nobody is that surprised - it's almost expected out of this Administration now - they've managed to lower standards that much.

McCain's bill is a start, but doesn't go nearly far enough to start to correct the damage this Administration has done. There needs to be a legal process setup for the guilt or innocence of all detainees and an appropriate punishment and sentences given when warranted. A supposedly fair and just country can do no less. To think doing so will require an act of Congress is sad. What's worse is Congress recently on the heels of the anti-torture amendment has been working to undermine the setup of any kind of legal process and strip prisoners of what few rights they may have.

Overall while a pre-9/11 mindset might be dangerous, a post-9/11 mindset has been far more damaging. It has managed to do what the terrorists never would have been able to accomplish on their own - decimate American creditability abroad, strip us of any kind of "moral high-ground" on human rights, and give terrorist organizations a clear and obvious example that we're exactly what they've been claiming we were all along - the bad guys.

It's easier to destroy something then it is to build it, and credability and reputation are the hardest things to build. Too much damage has already been done and the post 9/11 mindset is too costly to allow to continue. Congress and the American people need to act and stop standing by watching this like it's a bad car wreak on the side of the road.

What amazes me is how fragile America turned out to be.

One terrorist attack on our own soil and suddenly we're tossing 200 years of progress out the window.

Pure hysteria. Even in 2001 you had a greater chance of getting killed in so many odd ways than you did of dying in a terrorist attack.

Sure, 9/11 sucked, but to literally toss everything great about this country out the window in the name of "fighting terrorism?"

The whole country was punked and doesn't even know it yet.

I really really thought America was stronger than that.

6:58 AM  
Blogger John said...

"John in your upside down world where black is white, true is false, right is wrong and so on and so on- you make no sense."

Copycat. Republicus said that first: "You invert. You see things upside-down."

"You rant and rave like the complete right wing anglofascist you are. Everytime you open your mouth you dig yourself further into this ideological black hole of shame. You and your view points are not acceptable, not in a democracy."

Really? Kinda like...THIS:

"Bush Hater, mother fucking right. I hate anyone who has a radical insane policy that lies, cheats , steals and murders people and our democracy. I can't stand you freakin fascists that can't think for themselves, can only spew what you hear on fox and GOP.com...The only people that need to defend themself are lemmings like you who support torture, pre emptive war and the dismantling of democracy in the name of freedom. You wouldn't know freedom and truth if it jumped up and bit you on the ass."

Wow! Two points for an inverted projection!

"Laugh as you will at that obvious double standard..."

LOL Yes.

"...but you aren't shouting fire in a theatre, you are throwing in gasoline, locking the doors, lighting the match and then yelling fire as you watch everyone burn. You are irresponsible, and disgusting in your moral and reasoning capabilities."

You mean, like...THIS:

"Is there anyone out there selling nuclear holocaust insurance? Because I've got this nagging itch like I should be stocking up on duct tape."

"Something is wrong, this is not the person I've known for 20+ years."

Ho-ho! Ever the manipulator, eh, Jeffy? Nice try shifting to concerned long-lost friend and victim of abusive fascism after re-establishing contact NOT via phone or email like normal friends do, but by tactlessly barging onto this public blog without so much as a "hey, buddy!" or even polite but tacit--if grudging--support but instead hurl an opening salutation of "Freakin hypocritter (sic)" and rants of "you're pathetic" and "complicit" in supporting a "criminal, corrupt, America-hating pussy" president before down-shifting into rave-mode and calling Republicus a "freakin fascist" and a "radical fascist" and a "ranting and raving (projection!) right-wing anglofascist."

Good Lord. Has a racial epithet just been hurled at Republicus by a liberal?

Of course.

But THEN you say: "I'm trying to be a friend here man, this ain't right, and somewhere inside you've got to know that."

Sure do. Trust Republicus. He knows this ain't right. Get a hold of yourself, and stop trying to play the "old friend" card on here after exploiting that very relation as an opportunity to publicly insult me.

Go ahead and dish out your garbage, but take the retaliation like a man.

This isn't a saloon for fraternity alumni. Go to Gotham for that. This is an arena where Republicus can orate to his people (and, uh, meet chicks). And should you so decide to tamper with the temper of Republicus in matters of Church and State, and War and Peace, and try to unsettle the well-being of the republic in rabble-rousing ways attempting to undermine the mission by sowing dissent in the body politic and slandering the Commander-in-Chief to the benefit of the vile Jihadists, Republicus will treat you as a seditious scoundrel accordingly.

Satis. Now off with you, and go read your Paul Krugmans and David Corns.

Strength and Honor. Long Live the Republic.

(P.S. Nothing personal, Jeff. Just, you know, chill).

7:30 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

You are too far gone for rational thought anymore, I'm so sorry thats happend to you.

8:18 AM  
Blogger John said...

Jeff, this whole post consisted of me simply quoting the words of prominent Democrats who had--not too long ago-- harumphed their opinions and stomped their collective foot to authorize war (when it was politically-correct to do so) but now shirk responsibility for their own involvement (because they think its's politically-correct to do so) and act as if they're hapless victims, having been tricked by the devious meanie President Bush (who is also a moron and utter failure).

What does all that imply? You--along with Rove and the rest of the Republicans-- know exactly what that implies, and that's why Rove & Co. is smiling, and you freaked out.

9:18 AM  
Blogger John said...

"...was in New Orleans helping Katrina Victims abandoned by this administration."

'Oh, gawd. The champion of thieves, rapists, released prisoners, welfare queens, and other assorted riff-raff.'

"So the Bush admin good, the people of America devastated by this disaster bad."

No. The Bush Administratuion good, and the people of America devastated by this unforeseen natural disaster now swimming in aid money. :)

"I see. Why do you hate America so much John??

Huh? Who, Republicus?!?

"Once again spewing your hatred and complete ignorance of the facts."

The thing most responsible for the natural catastrophe was not Hurricane Katrina?

The people most responsible for the social mayhem was not the governor, mayor, thieves, rapists, released prisoners, welfare queens, and other assorted riff-raff?

"Pathetic."

What? No?

"The Danger of the 'Post-9/11' Mindset":

'Think back to 2001, get into a pre-9/11 perspective. Much of the time the Bush administration and the GOP likes to warn against the dangers of slipping back into this mindset because it ignores the threat terrorism poses. But, think back anyway and imagine if you could envision any of these headlines:

UN expert urges Iraq torture probe into US detention centers.

Spain probes CIA's `torture flights'

House Dems planning to force vote on torture

Former Iraqi Detainees Allege Torture by US Troops

US refuses unconditional access of UN personnel to Guantanamo

CIA allegedly concealed evidence of detainee torture

White House will not rule out torture'

Oh yeah? Well check out these pre-9/11 headlines (these are for real):

"Marine Barracks in Beirut bombed, killing hundreds of sleeping U.S. marines; America bolts"..."Saddam Hussein Invades Kuwait"..."Saddam Hussein Gasses Kurds"..."Al Qaeda Chases Out Somalian Humanitarian Mission; Blackhawk Down, American Soldiers dragged Through The Street Of Mogadishu"..."World Trade Center Parking Garage Bombed With Intent To Topple Tower"..."Saddam Hussein Behind Assassination Attempt of Former President Bush"..."Bin Laden Declares War on the United States, Calls America 'Paper Tiger'"..."Saddam Hussein Not Cooperating With UN Weapons Inpectors"..."Saddam Hussein Shoots at U.S. Planes In No-Fly-Zone"..."American Embassy in Africa Bombed" ...Another American Embassy in Africa Bombed"..."Hillary Clinton Embraces And Kisses Mrs. Arafat... "Guided Missile Destroyer U.S.S. Cole Bombed"..."President Bill Clinton Lets The Good Times Roll..."

9:53 AM  
Blogger John said...

Republicus said:

"Were you in Washington for the Impeachment March on September 24? Yes or no.

Republicus was, but stayed home with the shades drawn and the front door locked."

Correction: Republicus was not in Washington on September 24.

11:54 PM  
Blogger John said...

John said:

"That right there, ladies and gentleman, is a Bush-Hater par-excellence. Republicus would bet he is a loud and proud social liberal, an economic socialist, a radical environmentalist, and a man who thinks the United States should be subservient to the mandates of the UN.

I would further wager that he came to Washington on September 24 and participated in that pathetic Impeachment March.

Care to admit to all of the above, "Jeff," so people know where you're coming from?"

Jeff said...

"Once again you are as wrong as you could be. Radical environmentalist, hardly. Care about sound decision making and protecting the air we breathe and water we drink, you bet. Pretty horrible heh?. In D.C. the 24th, only in spirit, was in New Orleans helping Katrina Victims abandoned by this administration. Bush Hater, mother fucking right."

Well, did you or did you not support the Kyoto Treaty and blast Bush for "destroying the environment"--and for being personally responsible for hurricane ferocity-- because he didn't?

And would you consider yourself a liberal, an economic socialist, and a man who thinks the United States should be subservient to the mandates of the UN?

I showed my cards. Show yours.

Hello? Helloooooo?

3:51 AM  
Blogger John said...

"Run away, run away, run away and save your life..."

Real McCoy

2:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home