home

Fast Times at Bush Cheney High

By Jeralyn, Section Judiciary
Posted on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:10:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Dave at See the Forest writes:

...we are entering a new phase of American history. These are not normal times, the pendulum is not swinging back, and historical trends of American politics no longer apply. American democracy was built on a system of checks and balances, and mechanisms of oversight and accountability. But the checks and balances and oversight and accountability are being removed. There is no Congressional oversight of this administration, the Justice Department does not investigate its crimes, the Federalist Society judges block all attempts to enforce the laws and the new media is no longer functional. The military acts as an arm of The Party and The Party is firmly in control of the State.

The system of controls and protections that was carefully built over the last two centuries was put in place for reasons, by people who learned the lessons of history. I can not think of a time in history when a society left itself so wide open to tyranny from its leadership without it occurring.

Prime example: Republican attempts to eliminate the Democrats' ability to filibuster over Bush's extremist judicial picks. People for American Way reports that the move to install the "nuclear option" is refuted by it's own briefing book. Sen. Bill Frist intends to push this within the next four to eight weeks.

The nuclear option being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Frist and his allies is without historical precedent, and would in fact undermine the special deliberative role played by the Senate throughout our nation’s history and damage a central element of our constitutional system of checks and balances. That is why a number of Republican senators have expressed doubts about, or direct opposition to, the nuclear option, as have some conservative commentators. Frist should abandon his destructive plans to undermine the role and working of the Senate, and refocus his energies on encouraging President Bush to engage in consultation and cooperation that would result in judicial nominees capable of receiving genuine bipartisan support.

Don't let Bush succeed. Protect the filibuster.

[Comments now closed, over 100, thanks.]

< Alabama Sex Toy Ban Will Remain | HST: Sending Lawyers, Guns and Money >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Fast Times at Bush Cheney High | 98 comments (98 topical)
    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:29:36 PM EST
    Who's you big brother! who's your big daddy now. Beware the right wing onslaught. The Rabid elephant has no friends!

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:42:54 PM EST
    yeah, right on! power to the people! fight the man! It'll be just like during the Civil War when the Republican controlled the government! It'll be just like the late 60's when the democrats started controlling the government for several decades! God help us all! Chicken little! -C

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    Any time you want to stop embarrassing yourself, Cliff, we're ready. You clown while innocent people and good soldiers die. 1,475 dead GIs, not one gram of WMD. One hundred thousand civilians killed; and no legal basis for the invasion. NONE. Bush/Rumsfeld's "on the cheap" invasion was undermanned, allowing 280 tons of high explosives, 4,000 shoulder-fired missiles, 650,000 lbs. of ammunition, and unknown amounts of cesium and strontium to be transferred to hostiles. That fact on the ground is not going to go away; it is criminal negligence. $500 billion in defense taxes, and not even one fighter jet in the air on 911, after 50 ignored warnings. After one of the longest vacations in history, not even one fighter. No warnings to the airlines, either. Now they want to attack Iran and Syria, to continue their undemocratic mission to remake the ME for their corporate profit. How many more hundreds of thousands of civilians will Bush the Racist kill this time out? The Bush coup has committed several impeachable offenses. But as a result of massive vote fraud for five years, Congress has been stuffed with co-conspirators. The Justice Dept. refuses to investigate. Those are facts, and while I don't go so far as to say that history has changed, we are in a Constitutional crisis and a grave emergency.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:19:29 PM EST
    While these are valid issues in regard to the future of this nation, the way they are raised, and the tenor of it, is beginning to border on hysteria. The republic has not been commandeered, it is being led by those chosen by the people to lead it. If the Democrats want to lead again, they have to show everyone in this country, not just the hard-core partisan types, that they are capable of doing that and that they have a plan that most of us will agree with. The claim about the judicial nominations is particularly rich in ridiculousness. There is no right within the Constitution to filibuster. This is a practice, and all that is being discussed is a change to the operating procedures of the Senate to avoid having the government tied up in knots over partisan lies and smear campaigns. If any of the Bush judicial nominees is really as bad as this author wants us to believe, you should have no problem voting them down on the floor of the Senate. The mere fact that so many Democrats are afraid to even try to do so makes it clear that they know they can't win that argument. These people are not as bad as they have been made out to be by those with a partisan axe to grind. You might also consider that, if we accept the Democratic argument that anytime 40 Senators are willing to "filibuster" a nominee (and I put that in quotation marks because as of yet not one has been asked to really filibuster a nomination due to the lackluster leadership of Bill Frist), there should be no way to work around them, Hillary Clinton or whoever the next Democratic president is will not get a single identifiably liberal nominee through the Senate. The Republicans have just as many hardcore jackass Senators who will stand in the way of any nomination for pure partisan bloodsport as the Democrats do, and their supporters are just as capable of making arguments about why those nominees are "bad for the country" as this author is. None of this serves the country.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:56:18 PM EST
    "Posted by justpaul: "The republic has not been commandeered, it is being led by those chosen by the people to lead it." That is a LIE Bush did not win Ohio. We have not had a recount of Ohio YET. These are stolen elections, going on for five years now. NEVER before in the history of the United States have people had their right to recount taken away in such numbers. TWENTY-EIGHT states have no paper trail, and no right of recount. That's ~80% of the population, disenfranchized. More stolen elections will not cover up the blood. Since you care so much about the Nation, jp, why don't you join us in calling for impeachment? Surely you have nothing to fear from an impeachment trial, or any investigation, for that matter, of any of the stonewalled issues. Crimes have been committed, plenty of them, including grave war crimes -- but you don't care. So take your fake concern for the Republic, and shove it.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:16:21 PM EST
    Paul- Stop hyperventilating. "1,475 dead GIs, not one gram of WMD. One hundred thousand civilians killed; and no legal basis for the invasion. NONE" -Violated Cease fire agreement based on the umpteen violated UN resolutions is and was the legal reason. WMD was hyped, quite wrongly, in retrospect, but in as of itself could not and was not the legal (or only) justification for war. You are in error. "Bush/Rumsfeld's "on the cheap" invasion was undermanned,..BLAH BLAH" Perhaps you should blame the Turks, whose intransigence shorted the invasion force by over a third. "$500 billion in defense taxes, and not even one fighter jet in the air on 911, after 50 ignored warnings. After one of the longest vacations in history, not even one fighter. No warnings to the airlines, either" If they had put fighters up every time we had fifty warnings of anything you would be whining over the militarization of America and scare tactics. There was nothing new or specific. They found the crease and exploited it, and at some point they will do it again, unless our intel gets better or we get them first. "Now they want to attack Iran and Syria, to continue their undemocratic mission to remake the ME for their corporate profit." People voting is undemocratic? Corporate profits? Ridiculous in the face. Iraq was a hellhole, Iran and Syria are only better around the edges. Both are working with groups killing americans and innocent Iraqis (you remember, the ones who voted?). I guess that's okay in your world, but not in the sane half over here. No one is packing up the heat just yet, but if they persist we can, and should.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:16:57 PM EST
    We need to start writing some Common Sense for the new America we're all walking into. It doesn't look good, and I, for one, refuse to go silently into this 1984 that has been created for us by four years of complacency from both parties. The New Democrat

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:36:59 PM EST
    $500 billion in defense taxes, and not even one fighter jet in the air on 911 FYI, Interceptors were scrambled from Otis AFB in Falmouth, Mass, on the morning of 911. They missed the second jet to hit the WTC by about 5 minutes. Paul, stick to what you know; hyperbole, falsehoods, and grand exaggerations.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:48:47 PM EST
    Max, Here here. I've been searching for the next John Locke for some time.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:04:44 PM EST
    Cliff - You may be right, we may be over-reacting. For all of our sakes, I hope you are. But I believe that the only judge will be history, and I, for one, would rather be on the side of those who spoke out about the abuses of power at the time, rather than being the ones 30 years from now looking back and wishing they hadn't been so blind to what was being done in their name. We are not naive, we are not ignorant, and your patronising tone may one day come back to haunt you. Ignoring the will and belittling the opinions of those who don't agree is what has brought us to this "War on Terror", where America stands over the world, isolated and arrogant, like a child in the throes of a temper tantrum. If you don't believe that we are in a different, more dangerous political space at this point in history than at any in recent years then you are ignoring the evidence of your eyes and ears. That is your prerogative. But please don't belittle those who disagree - and those who are working to speak out and fight against the wrongs that they believe are being done in the name of "Freedom". Never forget that every dictatorship and tyranny in history started with dreams of making the world "better". The people of Germany in 1935 did not believe that they were embarking on one of the greatest crimes against humanity in history - they believed they were creating a better world. And you are a fool (and an arrogant one at that) if you believe that such mistakes cannot happen again. If we manage to avoid such mistakes, and to make it through these times without major catastrophe, it will only be thanks to those who have stood against the march of unrestrained state power, not thanks to those like you, who have unquestioningly supported it. Open your eyes.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:27:24 PM EST
    "Posted by Gerry Owen: "1,475 dead GIs, not one gram of WMD. One hundred thousand civilians killed; and no legal basis for the invasion. NONE" "-Violated Cease fire agreement based on the umpteen violated UN resolutions is and was the legal reason." That's asinine. So you are for getting 1,485 GIs killed because of violated UN Resolutions? When do we attack Israel? "WMD was hyped, quite wrongly, in retrospect, but in as of itself could not and was not the legal (or only) justification for war." The hyping of the WMD is an impeachable offense, otherwise known as LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, a violation of the oath of office. "Bush/Rumsfeld's "on the cheap" invasion was undermanned,..BLAH BLAH" Perhaps you should blame the Turks, whose intransigence shorted the invasion force by over a third." Blaming the Turks for Rumsfeld/Bush's decision to do the invasion "on the cheap"? That's hilarious. TWO PERCENT of the vehicles during the invasion were armored. 40,000 US GIs had no Kevlar. And that's the Turks' fault? The missing four tank divisions weren't going to be deployed through Turkey, numbnuts. They weren't going to be deployed because Rumsfeld/Bush said they weren't needed. They will toss flowers at us, right? A lot of dead GIs trying to be tanks, on your conscience, if you have one. "$500 billion in defense taxes, and not even one fighter jet in the air on 911, after 50 ignored warnings. After one of the longest vacations in history, not even one fighter. No warnings to the airlines, either" "If they had put fighters up every time we had fifty warnings of anything you would be whining over the militarization of America and scare tactics." And there you're wrong. I expect that ANY air emergency in the US is met with IMMEDIATE response from the military. But instead we have Cheney saying first that there were NO fighters protecting the homeland, and then saying that there were SIX. $500 Billion buys six fighters to protect the heaviest civilian air traffic on earth. Wow, what a bargain. " There was nothing new or specific.:' Hilarious: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States." And 49 other warnings. " They found the crease and exploited it, and at some point they will do it again, unless our intel gets better or we get them first." What part of 'getting them first' was letting ObL escape from Tora Bora? What part was attacking Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 911? "Now they want to attack Iran and Syria, to continue their undemocratic mission to remake the ME for their corporate profit." "People voting is undemocratic? Corporate profits? Ridiculous in the face. Iraq was a hellhole, Iran and Syria are only better around the edges." People forced to accept the rule of a foreign power that slaughters civilians at will is not democracy. Nor is having CIA agent Allawi, who killed six untried detainees at point-blank range with his own pistol, democracy. Nor is having a fake election in the middle of a bloodbath that puts, ta-da, Chalabi on the throne. "Both are working with groups killing americans and innocent Iraqis (you remember, the ones who voted?). I guess that's okay in your world, but not in the sane half over here. No one is packing up the heat just yet, but if they persist we can, and should." Releasing the munitions I mentioned to hostiles was and is a grave warcrime, a crime against American security. 280 TONS of high-explosives are making MINCEMEAT of our soldiers, and the civilians, who to a one want us out of there. Outing Valerie Plame and much of our WMD spies' cover company; outing the Al Qaeda mole turned by the British (to the NYT, by Rice); these are crimes against our national security. But you keep blowing smoke. Those soldiers' deaths and maimings are on your heads. These are impeachment offenses, and treason. YOU are defending traitors.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:32:20 PM EST
    So while the Republicans somehow turn American into a dictatorship, the real news just slides on by.... The dhimmicrats play into the hands of our enemies Top House Democrat Charlie Rangel said Tuesday that it was an act of discrimination to label groups like Hezbollah "Islamic terrorists." Now, that is imbecilic statement of the year, so far.... but say tuned, I am sure Howard Dean will compete vagariously for this title.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:39:23 PM EST
    Dear Paul in LA aka Seattle south. Nobody held President Clinton accountable when he lied... or when he committed his numerous other violations of the oath of office.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#15)
    by Darryl Pearce on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:46:20 PM EST
    is beginning to border on hysteria Having lived with a psychotic person, I firmly hold to the opinion that over-reacting is okay. After all, if you've called the crisis line, maybe there's a problem!

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:49:33 PM EST
    OK, well, is this more lefty paranoia? "I don’t think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them —hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind. They could be propelled into power by a populace ever more frustrated that the imperialist war it has supported—generally for the most banal of patriotic reasons—cannot possibly end in victory. And so scapegoats are sought, and if we can’t bomb Arabs into submission, or the French, domestic critics of Bush will serve." What would you say if I told you the above quote came from the pages of American Conservative Magazine ? I need to hear something more reassuring in response than "Liberals said it, therefore it must be nonsense." I don't think this is a partisan issue -- it's about good governance, checks and balances, and the lack thereof.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:02:30 PM EST
    Not surprising webmacher... The American Conservative is hostile to the Bush administration in particular and the idea of the war on terror in general.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:31:19 PM EST
    Something I've noticed a lot lately... somebody complains about something the Bush administration does, and the complainer gets dismissed as "oh, they're just against the Bush administration." Like that explains anything. What's missing is the "Why". Yeah, DUH, they're against the Bush administration. That seems pretty clear from this and other articles. My question, then, is why that is. Why would a group of conservatives -- both by their own description and by their biographies and work experience -- be against the Bush administration? Is it just possible that these are true-blue, old-school conservatives who don't feel that the Bush administration embodies their conservative values?

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:45:44 PM EST
    Nobody held President Clinton accountable when he lied...
    You're kidding right

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#20)
    by ras on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:45:52 PM EST
    Webmacher, Secondhand quotes are not impressive, regardless of the source. Pls return to first principles and orig evidence while remaining open to counter-args. I know you can; I've seen you do it before. There is indeed a lot of chicken little syndrome amongst the left at present, as they try to turn the people against Bush. And there are indeed valid criticisms that could instead be made, as well as valid praise for the many successes. But running around yelling "open your eyes," as one commenter did above, puts the left in the same class as the guy who wanders around downtown shouting out the same thing every so often. With the same credibility. If the left truly believes in its cause, it will adjust both its substance and style to enhance its credibility. Continuing on the current path - a proven failure - would be selfish in the extreme, as it would mean knowingly sacrificing effectiveness in favor of gratuitism.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:50:46 PM EST
    BurgerBoy - what you wrote is just a lie. I know you got it from Scaife's NewsMax. The report is a complete distortion of what Rangel said. Of course, it fits into the current RW narrative, with the post above talks about.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:54:18 PM EST
    Paul In LA - Try to undersyand this. If every provisonal vote that had not been counted, was counted. And if every vote had been for Kerry. Bush still would have won. Now I know that is pretty basic, but try real hard. Meanwhile, back in the state of Washington's Governor's race, 11,300 provisional ballots were not counted when the Democrats declared a victory based on an 87 vote lead. This was on the second recount, and included thousands of "discovered" votes. Still want to complain? The rest of your comment is your usual inaccurate rant.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:55:52 PM EST
    PaulLA I am impressed. Your rambles can put Ted Kaczynski to shame.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:16:05 PM EST
    Dave If you read webmacher post, he agrees with me. No name @ 5:45pm No im not. Lets see, there was the Paula Jones scandal, travel-gate, white-water and Monica, did I miss any? Yes I did, their was also, Vince Foster, James Mcdougal, Danny Ferguson, Ron Brown... and the list goes on and on....

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:23:22 PM EST
    "Posted by Jim: "If every provisonal vote that had not been counted, was counted. And if every vote had been for Kerry. Bush still would have won." That's flat-out nonsense. We have the affidavits that Triad, the primary electronic voting company in Ohio, changed out boards and altered the computers that collected the vote BEFORE the recount could be held. That's a felony. The Triad employees also supplied FAKE numbers to be reported, regardless of what the computers said. THAT'S a felony. So you can blather the fake results all you want; we have the affidavits, we have the eye witnesses. What we don't have is a legal recount; what we don't have is the Justice Dept.'s legal responsibility to investigate carried out. That doesn't even address the MASSIVE voter disenfranchizement at the polls, the twelve-to-twenty hour waits in line to vote. Thirty percent of Cleveland's vote didn't get recorded. Stolen elections, fool us once, shame on you. Stolen elections, won't get fooled again. Tell some more lies, Jim. That's what you're good for. Revote WA. Eliminate electronic fake voting, and revote the entire country. I'm on the side of fair elections, across the board. But it is shocking that you worry over WA, while you ignore the massive vote fraud nationwide, with $R dirty hands EXPOSED. Where are the convictions for the GOPUSA voter disenfranchizement efforts? They were caught in NV, tearing up Dem reg.s. That's a felony. Where are the Justice Dept. court cases? Nevermind. Ken Lay is out walking around. Robert Novak is out walking around. IOKIYAR. And Jim? Lying, as usual.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:24:12 PM EST
    "Posted by Boquisucio: "I am impressed. Your rambles can put Ted Kaczynski to shame." Ad hominem is all you've got.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:36:16 PM EST
    Daryll, I'm familiar with the idea that "The fact that you are paranoid does mean they are not really out to get you". But it doesn't mean they are, either. And the little boy that cries wolf 24-7? He gets ignored after the third day. And when the wolf comes along for real? Oops, we're sorry, but the town guard got tired of all the hysteria and is no longer responding; you are are on your own. I'd rather we pay attention to the real problems and not blow every little thing out of all proportion.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:39:12 PM EST
    "Secondhand quotes are not impressive, regardless of the source. Pls return to first principles and orig evidence while remaining open to counter-args. I know you can; I've seen you do it before." Um... again we seem to have a problem defining terms. "Secondhand"? I gave you a quote from an essay in American Conservative magazine, and provided a link to said article on their site. You don't have to take my word for it. That's why I provide citations whenever possible. Yes, it's not an impartial news story. The author has concerns about the current administration. Unlike in many news stories, he makes his "biases" obvious. Now to get back to my point. Conservative writers at American Conservative Magazine are critical of the Bush administration. Now why would conservatives have a problem with a supposedly conservative administration? They don't seem to be found of Bush's policies. Why is that?. If liberals critize Bush, this can be explained away on partisan grounds. But when the criticizer and the critized belong to the same party, couldn't there be more to it? And I don't remember agreeing with a previous post on here, sorry. Just wanted to raise an issue that seemed significant to me. So if you want to answer my question, cite and link, cite and link...

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:42:24 PM EST
    "And the little boy that cries wolf 24-7? He gets ignored after the third day. And when the wolf comes along for real? Oops, we're sorry, but the town guard got tired of all the hysteria and is no longer responding; you are are on your own." Bingo. That's why the war on terror has been so problematic so far -- all those vague alerts and weirdly-timed warnings from Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft and the rest left the American public confused and skeptical. Better to pipe down and focus on solving the problems, like tightening security at the ports, and maybe it would be worth paying to install anti-missile systems on our planes.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:47:53 PM EST
    What nobody seems to address about the election is that Bush doesn't have any proof that the people of America voted for him. The majority of his votes came from machines with no paper trail, so in a recount, he can't prove he won. On paper, punch cards and lever systems, Kerry won within 0.5% of what the exit polls reported. In counties with Electronic (no paper) and optical scan voting, the discrepancy between exit polls and 'reality' was a rather consistent 5% swing. In an election won by 3%, that's an important swing. If everyone voted by electronic tally, the election would probably have been won by this consistent 5%. This isn't conspiracy, its a fact; google it and find out. Soooo, this mandate is a sham. When it comes to reality and living in the real world, the real votes that you can hold in your hands say a much different story than what we saw on Inauguration day. I propose this: If you believe Bush won the election, send out a verification of EVERY vote made for him to the people, in paper, that they can sign and account for. Otherwise, all you have is a bunch of vapor-votes. We have the votes in our hands to prove we won; Bush does not. I'm tired of giving this whiny ruling class the benefit of the doubt; every time we do that it blows up in our faces. Haven't we learned that if something can be misused, if something can be corrupted, if something can go wrong with this Party, that it almost always does? And if you want to get into name-calling, go for it; that's all you have. Its just too bad that in today's up-is-down world, words DO break bones.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:53:33 PM EST
    That 5% I spoke of earlier, that's the swing, so I was mistaken in saying that Bush would win by 5%; that 5% should be taken off of the exit polls, making a 2% win for Kerry nationwide. That qualifies for a 'mandate' in GOP terms, doesn't it? Taking into account all the other irregularities that seem to plague nearly exclusively heavy democrat counties, I'd say that's a pretty resounding rejection of the GOP. I like the idea of calling the GOP 'Murphy's Party', after the famous law. That's one law they don't seem to be able to break.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:57:09 PM EST
    Paul In LA - If your claims were true, do you think CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc., wouldn't be all over the story? Man, they hate Bush, and vote 80% Demo. You have less logic than 6 year olds. webmacher - Are you talking about social conservatives, financial conservatives... I mean there are many variations. (Just as there used to be many flavors of Democrats.) I don't think Bush is a conservative. My guess he is a liberal Repub. So some of his "base" don't like his actions. Problem is, the Demos were too dumb to do anything but nominate a NE Senator who was weak on defense and had a high negative reaction outside the blue states.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 07:11:48 PM EST
    Paul LA Ad Hominem, nah. Its that your hyperbolical prone statements, leaves any student of the Philosophical Discipline of Logic scratching its head. I just love your how you can leap to a concatenation of conclussions based on unmatured trains of thought. Lets take one bitty example: The hyping of the WMD is an impeachable offense, otherwise known as LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, a violation of the oath of office. Art II Sect 2 states: The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Contrary to your statement, hyping the WMD during the lawful prosecution of the Global War on Terror is not grounds for impeachment. It doesn't infringe any of the above offenses. It definitely isn't Treason, devenged out of Bribery, and not a High Crime nor Misdemeanor. If you find any of the above please provide apropriate cite from the USPenal Code. I will be waiting. The Presidential Oath of Office states: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Where on the above did our President failed? He hasn't violated any provisions set fourth on Art II of the Constitution. Thus, has always been faithfull in executing the Office of the Presidency, and done his outmost to protect and defend said Constitution. If you disagree, please cite any offended to Sections and Articles of our Constitution. Otherwise I stand by my prior statement. Your unmatured thought process, leads you to hyperbolic and unsubstatiated statements.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 07:59:21 PM EST
    Nominated for best quote in a tin hat non-Nazi themed liberal embarassment: "We may be a bit irrational." Say it ain't so! Ohio! Florida! 911 Conspiracy! Area 51! WMD! Lies! Neo Con Jews! God, I may start taking odds on three senate seats and four house in the mid-terms. -C

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#35)
    by ras on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 08:13:04 PM EST
    Cliff, "I may start taking odds on three senate seats and four house in the mid-terms." What kinda odds? Oh, wait a minute. You're the guy who cleaned up on Howard Dean. Now I remember you! Cancel my bet, please. [Actually, IIRC, given the seats that'll be up for grabs in '06, the Dems better make gains or Howie'll look like the The Flash on his way out the door. Pressure's on, Dr. Dean!] Webmacher, By "secondhand" I was indeed referring to your referencing an opinion article, rather than citing firsthand evidence. Sorry if I wasn't clear. As for a conservative mag opposing the pres., happens all the time, and should be taken as a sign of an open mind and a healthy disagreement. Similarly, when liberals, such as Soccerdad and Jondee on this group, find reason to support certain Bush policies and to praise his successes, they then display the same qualities. Happens all the time. (If it didn't that would be a sign of a closed mind.)

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 09:01:30 PM EST
    Paul in LA-LA-Land " So you are for getting 1,485 GIs killed because of violated UN Resolutions? When do we attack Israel?" I'm for committing US forces when it serves our interest to do so. As for Israel, they haven't violated any cease fire agreement with us (besides the blatantly obvious fact they are AN ALLY). As you are obviously confused about our legal justifications and standing in Iraq, please read the Resolution that authorized it. "The hyping of the WMD is an impeachable offense, otherwise known as LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, a violation of the oath of office." When your CIA head tells you WMD is a "slam dunk", you run with it. That is acting on the best available intelligence, nothing less. "TWO PERCENT of the vehicles during the invasion were armored. 40,000 US GIs had no Kevlar. And that's the Turks' fault?" No, actually it would be the fault of whomever had crafted the past ten or twelve Appropriations bills that kept calling for ignorant "Peace Dividends". It would be the fault of Pentagon planners who were unable to accurately read the future on what they think we need. We didn't have everything we needed in Desert Storm, either. You never do, and they never will. Maybe we should dig up FDR and hang the corpse for the Torpedo fiasco of the early days of WWII, or the tragic,yet heroic waste of life by the boys of Pointe du Hoc who scaled cliffs to take out gun emplacements that weren't there? "The missing four tank divisions weren't going to be deployed through Turkey, numbnuts." It was two Divisions, the 4th Inf and the 1st Cav, and they were supposed to come down through the north (which IS Turkey) toward Mosul and Tikrit. I will refrain from calling you a dunbass, as I prefer to rise above childlike name calling. "They weren't going to be deployed because Rumsfeld/Bush said they weren't needed." They weren't deployed because the Turks wouldn't let us through. Gen Franks had to compensate for the loss of that second front and the Forty thousand less troops. "I expect that ANY air emergency in the US is met with IMMEDIATE response from the military." Sooooo....every unverified unspecific threat means military response? and you claim to be OPPOSE to intervention in Syria and Iran? For the record, MOST US cities have historically not been very hospitable to US military fighters using their airspace. Too noisy was usually the complaint, along with the inevitable freaked out old ladies burning up the phone lines wondering why they were there. "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States." That is not a credible threat. You can't take a country of 250 million to dirt because some freak in cave who thinks he's Mohammed incarnate want to hit us here. You need specific evidence of A) capability B) planning, and C)operational activity. "280 TONS of high-explosives are making MINCEMEAT of our soldiers, and the civilians, who to a one want us out of there." I'm assuming you are referring to the story that broke the week before the election about the ammo dump. First, there has been NO attacks on our forces using those types of specialty explosives,(I will refrain from calling you a liar, I'm sure your Intelligence is merely poor) and there is absolutely no way the insurgents loaded up a 200+ vehicle convoy to move anything of that nature out of there. The military EOD guys claim they destroyed it. That is probably the case (RDX requires a lot of special handling, equipment, and detonators to use properly- It wouldn't be their first choice anyway, IMHO.)

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 09:10:58 PM EST
    Tonight I was made aware that Iran bombing in June is a possibility. With Iraq still in limbo, bush is contemplates another war. Is that why he went to Europe, because he cannot do it alone, or is he nuts? The Scott Ritter prediction is that bush plan to bomb Iran in June! This is scary but there is no surprise. In 4 years, he started 2 wars without exit strategy. Why not 2 more as he did called himself the war president! Maybe that will wake up this country! ....And than again, News From Inside Iraq by Dahr Jamail’s. Weary of the overall failure of the US media to accurately report on the realities of the war in Iraq for the Iraqi people and US soldiers, Dahr Jamail went to Iraq to report on the war himself. His pictures can be found in here as well as Scott Ritter. The Scott Ritter prediction is that bush plan to bomb Iran in June!

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:39:20 PM EST
    Whoever controls the voting machines now controls the government. If you voted in '96 you may well have participated in not only the last free national election but the last for perhaps decades to come. Democracy has become just another word in a schoolchilds vocabulary.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:01:05 AM EST
    All this war talk makes me wonder what the democrats think about Iraq. Lets ask a few "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002. It looks like Bush wasn’t the only one ballyhooing WMD’s. The idea behind it was to remove and or deny Iraq WMD’s. Mission accomplished!

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#41)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:15:37 AM EST
    Burgerbrain (son of PPJ) PPJ haspushed this line of crap for over a year and hasn;t made any sense whenhe said it. First quotes from the 90's are nonsense since they are before the final round of inspections. Just before the invasion the dems and anyone else had to depend on the admin for its info. We know they cooked the books on the WMD. They knew there where no WMDs as they )CIA, MI6, etc' and ackowledgedby Bush) had been told by Saddam's son in law in 95. The inspectors were finding nothing on the ground and were forced to leave by the impending invasion.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:12:49 AM EST
    Gerry Owen, I wouldn't get too exorcized over the rantings of the LA Looney. The main constituancy of the democrats is now the looney left. They have been off their feed ever since Reagan kicked their beloved Soviet Unions ass and Gingrich engineered their loss of control in the house and senate. They just need to get used to being the loyal opposition for 5 or 6 decades and they will come around.Be patient. Mark W........still the PRESIDENT Reagan on Rushmore08

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:38:18 AM EST
    Paul LooLoo First of all, sorry for not posting my name on my previous post: February 22, 2005 08:11 PM Let the frothing of your key-strokes, denote the unmatured thoughts which cascade from your mind. I stand by my words: Ted Kaczynski's random concatenation of thoghts pale in comparison to yours. That post of yours at: 11:49 PM was surely a whopper. Where shall we start in disentangling that knotted brain of yours? Let's take: "Lying to the people and executing an illegal invasion in violation of treaties that have the weight of law is not 'for the people.' It is tyranny." There was no lying to the "people". We along with 33 other nations intervened in Iraq, only after continous and persistent violations to 16 subsequent UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR 678, 686-688, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284 & 1441). Our actions in that country came about, as enforcement of the above stated resolutions. Let's tackle your statement about Treaties. Treaty: A formal agreement, league or contract between two or more nations. Iraq, as a signatory member to the Charter of the UN, was obliged to comply with the above resolutions. Thus, it was violating its treaty and obligations with said body. The violator of treaties was not the US as you blather, but Iraq. You are right about: violation of treaties that have the weight of law. Its just that the violator said treaties was not your country - the one that you so much bespite - but Iraq itself. Finally, let us disect Tyranny. Tyranny: a) Oppressive and unjust government, despot. b) Very cruel and unjust use of power or authority. If we can agree on the above, the Iraqi ancient regime met that definition of tyranny, not the US. Mabey you have forgotten your 4th grade Social Science civic lessons; but in our republican form of government, we have three equal branches of government. None have power over the other, and very much in effect in our republic. I cousel you to brush up on your Descartes, and Locke, before you around debasing our good language.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:42:21 AM EST
    BurgerBoy - You are wasting your time quoting things to SD. He is a Bush Hater At Work (BHAW), so everything is Bush's fault. Period. That the world's major countries had the same intelligence, and believed the same thing means absolutely nothing. SD - The question always comes down to this. If you were President, and if you believed that Iran was in the process of completing their nuclear weapons, would you take whatever actions necessary to insure that they do not? Remember, this is not a test, nor is it trick question. A wrong move can let terrorists kill millions of your fellow citizens. If you are the least bit honest with yourself, you will know that what you are doing is playing God. Iran isn't going to stop, just as Saddam didn't, because Iran believes, just as Saddam did, that the UN and "old Europe" will stop you from doing anything about their actions. So the real decision is, do you take military action against Iran, killing thousands, or do you gamble that Iran won't give the nuclear weapons to Syria and the witches brew of terrorist groups in the ME?

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:29:55 AM EST
    PPJ- when you can't refute the argument call me a Bush hater. Pathetic as usual. You continue to make statements that we have debunked over and over and over. But since you are a hack it doesn't matter to you. The intelligence was cooked, we've been through how that happened, etc etc but you don't listen and have admitted as much. Your question as posed is crap and contains many straw men. you state "Iran isn't going to stop, just as Saddam". In fact Saddam had stopped. There is no evidence supporting WMD activity after 1995 when the US was told the WMD's had been destroyed. Secondly, the inspectors on the ground were finding nothing despite being told where to look by the US and left only because of the impending invasion. WRT to Iran, once again we have inspectors on the ground, once again we have no evidence of nuke weapons, yet we continue to refuse to join the talks, we refuse to try to find a solution, other than bombing them because that has been the plan all along. to quote John Bolton "We don't do carrots". Your characterization of "old Europe" is once again just neocon BS. if the US was really interested in stoppong the spread of Nukes it would go after Pakistan and look to decrease the number of nukes in the region, no matter who had them. But since the neocon vision is to establish US proxy governments in as many ME countries as possible, making sure they are weak militarily so they can easily be contolled. Then once we have substantial political control, we will then be assured of access to the oil.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:47:54 AM EST
    BB - The Clinton administration chose a policy of containment and surgical strikes as opposed to war which of course cost billions and in excess of 1000 american lives. Yes the dems were concerned with the same reports that Bush was reading, and responded with appropriate measures. The president and his staff used "mushroom clouds" and wmd as the casus beli for the war and therefore should be held accountable, perhaps not to impeachment though. If you are going to cite the UN resoltion violations you must then accept that the US ignored the UN with regard to appropriate action, thereby committing an illegal act no different than Iraq ignoring the resolutions. And you cannot exempt Israel because they are ally, it is highly hypocritical to endorse violating a resolution for an ally and decry war against an enemy for doing the same. I will say that I am encouraged by Dubya's trip to Europe most especially with the humility he has displayed whilst meeting with "old Europe". But that does not alleviate mistake made attacking Iraq whilst N. Korea made a nuclear bomb during his watch. His stance on Iran has been calculated and dead on as well, let Europe play good cop, US bad cop, don't engage in a costly war if we do not have to. We cannot judge the "new democracies" of Iraq and Afghanistan 2 years after the wars, it will take a decade or so to see if it was a waste of money or a significantly prudent investment. I think we grossly overestimated the ME ability to accept and indoctrinate democracy and I could be dead wrong, but for either party to claim success or failure is ridiculous. We should be seeking "progress" which is a far more accurate indicator of prognosis or outcome as opposed to flailing words that indicate accomplishment...

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:52:33 AM EST
    troll comment deleted.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:55:43 AM EST
    truthful comment deleted.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:55:50 AM EST
    Dagma, if this site were irrelevant, you wouldn't be here. Kinda like the Danny Bonaduce fan club, not much debate in the public eye about that so I guess it would be safe to say it is "irrelevant". We have our "quacks" that argue conspiracy and oil and you have your quacks that argue conspiracy and jesus, the extremists are good for both sides as they push issues center and we will always have extremists because they will never be fully satisfied. The country was not split so evenly with Reagan or Clinton as it is with Bush, does that mean the country swings wildly left and right every ten years, or does it mean that Reagan and Clinton were simply unparallelled (sp) in their ability to communicate? Kerry put the nation to sleep and ran the same platform as Bush with the exception of a HC argument every now and again. He spent 60-70 percent of his time talking about "war on terror" and Bush had already proved he would attack if he felt so inclined, Kerry could not win that argument and thus lost the election.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:05:24 AM EST
    SD writes - "In fact Saddam had stopped. There is no evidence supporting WMD activity after 1995 when the US was told the WMD's had been destroyed." Nonsense. Just as you choose to ignore the comments made by Demos, Repubs and other countries, you ignore the Kay Report, except for what you want to believe. Read the Kay report. It provides great details on what Saddam was doing to get back into the WMD business. "Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs ...Several of ..officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons. In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but undeclared, on-going activities that .....would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine procurement program ... In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service...." Kay Report Tell us SD, what would Saddam have done with these weapons? Oh, I know! He would declared them to the UN and destroyed them! Sure. No doubt. BTW - We now know that the OFF program was not only being ripped off by high UN officals, Saddam was using it to fund these programs. And we have this great leap of logic by you. "First quotes from the 90's are nonsense since they are before the final round of inspections...They knew there where no WMDs as they )CIA, MI6, etc' and ackowledgedby Bush) had been told by Saddam's son in law in 95." So why was Clinton bombing in '98? Let me see. I have all kinds of intelligence saying he has WMD's, he has used WMD's.... but wait! I have the word of Saddam's son-in-law that he doesn't! Now who should I believe... and if the son-in-law is wrong we have a lot of dead American's... hmmm. Clinton did the right thing. Just not enough. SD, your world view is so impacted by your political beliefs that is frightening to think you are typical of the Kennedy wing of the Demo party. Reality means nothing. Only feelings count.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:18:37 AM EST
    Paul- As your understanding of things military appears to be limited, let me correct you again. The Northern front was to be opened by only two heavy divisions, the 1st Cav and the 4th ID. The 101st and elements of the 82nd Airborne were also going to be in support. Since the Turks wouldn't let us through, the 4th ID had to redivert to the Gulf (to arrive for the occupation) and the Cav was sent home (the 101st and 82nd are light and airliftable, they were redeployed into theatre). The explosives you are rightfully concerned about from Tuwaitha is some specialty stuff- but HMX, RDX and PETN all take a bit of know how, require special handling (and detonators, for a couple of them) plus would leave a recognizable signature. Shaped charges can be ANY explosive. The facility WAS monitored (rather poorly by aerial platform), since the radiation levels there were considered a bit high. An EOD unit that moved through the facility DID claim to have destroyed the stuff. Having worked with EOD guys in Desert Storm, I find the poor recordkeeping excuse plausible. It is easier to believe than that a group of insurgents managed to engineer a 200+ truck convoy across open monitored, desert, load up 280 TONS of Explosives, Leave the facility, still unnoticed, go back across the same open monitored, desert to some facility or group of facilities to unload and store the materials (some of which can degrade rapidly), etc etc. THAT Defies logic and reason, although I have yet to see those play much a factor in your hysterics so far. "Attacking an innocent disarmed country was not in our interest" Iraq was innocent??? Disarmed??? Your ravings do not even square with the points you present. First you whine about shoulder fired missiles, tons of explosives, mounds of strontium and cesium, and now you say disarmed? And I cannot contemplate how vile or misguided and/or off base one would have to be to actually consider Saddam's Iraq as "innocent".

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#52)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:28:32 AM EST
    PPJ - you continue to distort, lie and everything else.
    Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
    The Kay report said he never gave up the intent. So now we invade on intent?
    has WMD's, he has used WMD's.... but wait! I have the word of Saddam's son-in-law that he doesn't! Now who should I believe... and if the son-in-law is wrong we have a lot of dead American's...
    Of course the son-in-law was killed when he went back. But the important fact that you always forget to deal with is that the inspectors on the ground were finding nothing? So this backed up the son-in-law, gives you up to date info making previous comments ( in the 90's) irrelevant. So he had intentions, but you have no evidence of ongoing programs and you feel this is enough to invade, kill over 100k of their people, have 10's of thousnads of out soldiers killed or maimed. Most of the intelligence used to justify the invasion was debunked before the invasion, remember the aluminum tubes. WRT to cooked intelligence remember the OSP in the Pentegon run by Feith, remember Chalabi? We've been through this many times and you choose to ignore it and refuse to acknowledge the evidence and when previously given links you have choosen to ignore those. Lastly, we have been there 2 years, where are the WMDs? This is my last post to you about this. In the end you can't counter my assertions without resorting to personal attacks, purposeful distortion of the evidence, and ignoring the main questions. So keep throwing the bait out, I'm not biting anymore. Everyone here with the exception of the wingnuts know you for who you are and realize you have no credibility. There's no sense rehasing what we have rehased over and over.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:55:40 AM EST
    ignorance is bliss
    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:17:33 AM EST
    I would listen to the people posting here who are squarely on the Right side of the political spectrum if it wasn't for the fact that the snippet of the article on the Talk Left site came from a CONSERVATIVE magazine. Yep, a magazine that has the likes of William F. Buckley, Pat Buchanan, Pete Peterson and others writing for it who are very concerned that the lack of intelligence that is displayed by the majority of socalled "conservatives" plays right into the hands of the fascists who are now in control of our government. Hey if you want to argue this is an overreaction that is fine, but understand that this opinion is coming from the Right side of the political spectrum. Go to www.amconmag.com and read what REAL conservatives think about the Shrub junta.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#55)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:42:28 AM EST
    Now the left sees the problem of centralized power? Well, not centralized power per se; rather centralized power in the hands of others. Please. Gerry Owen- Reasoning with PinLA is as fruitful as would be reasoning with Jerry Falwell or Sean Hannity. Or even a brick for that matter. Burger Boy- “Nobody held President Clinton accountable when he lied...” Perhaps you missed it; President Clinton was the only modern president to be impeached, only the second in the history of the office. Remember the Starr Report ? SD- “We know they cooked the books on the WMD.” You are a broken record; lets see the proof. Really, put up or shut up. “The Kay report said he never gave up the intent. So now we invade on intent?” Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with UNSCR 1441 .

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:59:48 AM EST
    Soccerdad writes:
    "But the important fact that you always forget to deal with is that the inspectors on the ground were finding nothing?"
    Ahhhh, duh? Thats because The UN Weapons Inspectors' were never tasked with finding anything in Iraq. Not one UN inspector ever attempted to find anything, was ever asked to find anything, and consequentially never found anything. But you knew that, right, Soccerdad. After all its a common myth (even though just as commonly debunked) that the weapons inspectors were in Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction. They were not. Their only mission in Iraq was to supervise the destruction or other disposition of weapons that Saddam had declared possession of in 1991. I think its you Soccerdad, who needs to forget the false point that your trying to mislead with.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#57)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:09:56 AM EST
    Dagma Now you are resorting to outright lies and slander, then again what do you have left. They went anywhere they wanted, even to sites that the US instructed them to go to and still found nothing of importance. You guys get more pathetic by the day Pig - go review the OSP, the aluminum tubes, the role of Chalabi, etc God we've been through this months ago. start paying attention or you shut up. Go through the archives, I don't have to reconstruct 6 months of arguments in detail everytime some new moron comes around. The UN resolution never authorized the US to invade on its own although you would like to interpret it that way. And if the UN process is so important why did the US, in effect, force the inspectors out?

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:34:33 AM EST
    Soccerdad- Iraq was a terror supporting regime, Iraq WAS violating the UN Resolutions they agreed to comply with in their cease fire with us after Desert Storm, and Iraq was a corrupting a destabilizing factor in the Mideast. The UN didn't have standing to authorize or not authorize us to do anything, as the cease fire we signed was being violated, it was our planes being shot at every day in the No fly zones, and the UN itself turns out to have been complicit in the whole Oil for food scandal. Frankly, I have very little use for the UN at this point. It is a worthless institution more intent on protecting squalid corrupt dictatorships and maintaining a long dead status quo than advancing even the most basic of human rights.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:41:43 AM EST
    Sherman- Pat Buchanan is the old isolationist who is still pissed he can't pronounce the name on his TV set and conveniently forgets the free trade principles that made it affordable in the first place. Isolationism as a bedrock of Foriegn Policy died with the Arizona at Pearl Harbor. It is fascinating to watch the far left now align themselves with dinosaurs who still can't figure out why "Happy Days" went off the air.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:05:40 AM EST
    Soccerfad We know they cooked the books on the WMD Apparently the democrats started the fire! Did you read any of the quotes? Everyone of these democrats statements claim that Iraq has WMD’s. Is it your contention then that democrats are in capable of finding their own facts, and can only except facts found by republicans? And to suggest that Saddam would sat on his hands while UN inspectors looked for WMD’s where ever they please, proves how unhinged you are. You believe what Saddam says when it fits your pigeonholes. pigwiggle Yes, he was impeached, but not removed. So I conclude, he was not held accountable! The democrats blocked the republicans from holding him accountable. “Bush stole the election again” “Bush has turned America into a dictatorship” These type of statements, prove that the one making them hasn’t a clue how America or our government works. They make these outlandish statements in the hope of shocking people into believing a lie and use a typical method of manipulation, if we repeat the lie long enough maybe it will become a fact!

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:09:15 AM EST
    Gerry Owen, Did you even bother to read the opinion written in the American Conservative? No? Didn't think so, and obviously you just saw one name amongst the others I mentioned who have been regular contributors to a magazine that has helped to construct a coherent message to the conservative movement. To downplay the contributions that Buchanan and others made to creating the Right wing in this country is showing your lack of knowledge and understanding to what these folks are saying. And why have all the postings devolved into a rehashing of the non-existent WMD's? I think it's funny how many armchair weapons inspectors there are on this site. Don't you guys have something better to do like tell those with a better grasp of some situation than you how to do their jobs? I believe the purpose of having a segment of the aforementioned op/ed in the American Conservative on this site was to let the Uber Patriots who seem to populate this site that they are considered by the people they support to be nothing but a bunch of reactionary thugs who don't understand the first thing about Democracy. And judging by the myopic stance JustPaul, BB, PPJ, et al. take on anyone who dares to question the mighty Shrub and his cronies I don't think the view conservative intellectuals have of them is off base.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#62)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:14:52 AM EST
    SD- “start paying attention or you shut up. Go through the archives, I don't have to reconstruct 6 months of arguments in detail everytime some new moron comes around.” Six months? If it is as certain and simple as you maintain I think an argument constructed over six months is excessive. One piece of evidence, just one; it should be simple. I’ve seen a couple months of repetition; assertions that the executives lied, however no conclusive evidence. Like I have said before, if it was as cut and dried as you present there should be no problem convening an independent counsel. One piece of evidence that the executives provided false intelligence to congress, one piece of evidence that the executives conspired with the intelligence agencies to provide false intelligence to congress, one piece of evidence that the executives reiterated intelligence they knew to be false. Save the insults, it makes you look shrill and your arguments weak by association. “The UN resolution never authorized the US to invade on its own although you would like to interpret it that way.” I don’t interpret it that way. UNSCR 678 authorized the use of any “necessary means” and UNSCR 687 set forth conditions for the cease-fire. UNSCR 1441 found Iraq in material breach of UNSCR 687 removing the conditions of the cease-fire set forth in UNSCR 687, reinstating the authorizations of UNSCR 678. So, my naive interpretation is that UNSCR 678 authorized the invasion, not UNSCR 1441. As I understand it there is some contention about 1441, 687, and 678 justifying the invasion; however I don’t see that the matter is being litigated “And if the UN process is so important why did the US, in effect, force the inspectors out?” The UN process is unimportant; however I know it is important to you. You claimed that intent, in reference to how it was used in the Kay report, was not sufficient for the invasion. I mention UNSCR 1441 (and all relevant resolutions referenced in 1441) because dissolution of intellectual capital is one stipulation.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:17:06 AM EST
    And for more clarification for BurgerBoy, pigwiggle and others the op/ed is from a CONSERVATIVE not someone who leans to the Left. I am astounded by the lack of critical thinking, and by the lack of thought in general, by you guys. Small people like yourselves can't stand it when the people on your side start to see the hypocrisy and dangerous anti-democratic tendencies of the Shrubites. I know, why don't the people most offended by the sentiments expressed in this op/ed head on over to the American Conservative and debate your intellectual betters there and see just how long your tired and lame arguements last.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:56:23 AM EST
    Soccerdad, Just in case you dont believe any of the other people telling you that you are dead wrong, let me pile on. The weapons inspectors never went on any surpise visits any where in Iraq. Every site they visited was a scheduled event, and they never went any where in the country without Saddams minders. Yes the US requested they check out certain sites and after months of planning and notification to Saddam they did visit the USs requested sites.......And lo and behold, they looked around and found nothing. Now, I realize that your really getting pounded with the facts here today, Soccerdad, but hey we couldn't just let you spend the rest of your life in that haze like cloud you pretend is reality.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 11:00:02 AM EST
    Sherminator- I singled out Buchanan because he is the central figure in the aptly called Paleo-conservative movement. There are differences of opinion on both sides of the aisle. Personally, I thought the whole WMD is way overplayed.It is made out to be more central to the rationale for war than it ever was, and is mischaracterized as a cause (if anyone understands logic and can follow a legal argument, the Resolution uses the issue as supporting evidence of Iraq's refusal to comply). The whole crux of the matter seems to be missed- Saddam's Iraq had a history of development and usage of these weapons, and a history of dealing with terrorists. Whether he had stockpiles or not does not eliminate the possibility of this technology and know how being passed to the wrong hands. The whole matter presented us with the opportunity to cause a seimic shift in the political structure of the MidEast, or to cut and run (our position in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the MidEast was becoming increasingly untenable). I think we made the right call, and most everything has trended in that direction. We are having to undo and resolve problems resulting from 100 years of quick fixes, unintended consequences, and ignoring issues in that god forsaken region. I speak from experience, I spent the better part of the nineties in duty stations from Morocco to Somalia, with plenty of time staring across several borders trying to figure out what the hell was going on in Iraq. Saddam was a thorn in our side as well as an impediment to positive change. Our percieved inability to remove him was percieved as weakness by the Arab world, and he served as something of an inspiration to those who hated us and as a benchmark for our alleged inherent weakness (which the Left here at home are striving to make a reality, whether they realize it or not).

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 11:41:28 AM EST
    The mischaracterization came from the Bush administration. As for the technology being in place for WMD programs maybe you should show the ISG just where they were located, Gerry, since you know so much about them. And while you are at it you really need to let the rest of us know just exactly what terrorist groups, other than the ones started by Husseins regime to control the dissidents within his country, the Iraqi government supported since there to date has been no evidence as to any working relationship with Al-Qaeda. So just exactly what groups are you speaking of? Where is the seismic shift? Egypt and Saudi Arabia are still as totalitarian as they were before this last war against Iraq, Pakistan still has handed A.Q. Khan, a person we know has helped procur nuclear technology for North Korea and other countries(possibly Iran and definitely Lybia), has yet to face any real punishment from his government, Afghanistan has become the biggest heroin exporting nation, and public sentiment towards our occupation of Iraq hasn't "trended" upwards. So where is the seismic shift? Yes, the Iraqis got a chance to really vote and not just check a box "re-electing" Saddam, but other than that where are all the positive dividends of our recent involvement in the Middle East? The rationale for war against Iraq was never sold to the American citizenry as a war of liberation purely for the fact that a majority of the population would not have been for it. Please don't try and change history, the rationales for this military action were never communicated to the citizenry honestly and forthrightly. I know that questioning our military adventures are tantamount to treason for the more reactionary of you, but I really couldn't care less. Thankfully none of you have any influence on this or any other administration, but you do play your roles as pawns well. Oh yeah, Gerry, please refrain from the cutesy little nicknames for me as I reserve those for people whose opinions I respect. Sorry for the terse tone at the end, but I would like a response, though, with facts as to how there has been a seismic shift in the Middle East and not just supposition or obfuscation.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#67)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:11:43 PM EST
    Sherman- “Afghanistan has become the biggest heroin exporting nation,” I have read similar sentiment numerous times, yet am still surprised. What do you think heroin exports are a measure of? I for one am glad to see Afghani farmers making a few bucks. “I would like a response, though, with facts as to how there has been a seismic shift in the Middle East and not just supposition or obfuscation.” Suppose there were a shift; is this justification enough for you? If it is please take your seat next to Wolfowitz et al. “And for more clarification for BurgerBoy, pigwiggle and others the op/ed is from a CONSERVATIVE not someone who leans to the Left. I am astounded by the lack of critical thinking, and by the lack of thought in general, by you guys.” No clarification needed; the politics of the author is irrelevant. Rather than simply claiming a lack of critical evaluation you would be better served pointing out specific arguments and what you consider their flaws. Or is it safe to assume you are more interested in ad homonym attacks and rhetoric? BurgerBoy- “Yes, he was impeached, but not removed. So I conclude, he was not held accountable!” I’m not convinced lying to a grand jury and sexual harassment justifies removing a sitting president. Article 2, section 4, requires that the President, Vice President, and all civil officers, must be removed from office if they are impeached, and then convicted of, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Here is a good discussion of what the framers may have meant by the phrase high crimes … The gist is those crimes which are unique to the power vested in the office. Perjury and sexual harassment are hardly unique to the office of the president.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#68)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:55 PM EST
    Dagma - you are flat out wrong, if not provide independent sources. Getting piled on by a bunch of stupid wingers doesn't bother me. I'm used to the constant distortions, lies, slanders etc. Pig - we know these things for sure and I'm assuming you know how to go back in the archives or use google 1. Bush was aware of the report by Saddam's son in law and in fact quoted it regarding the amoubt of WMDs in Iraq (which in reality pertained to those around 1991) 2. We know that Feith set up the OSP specifically to gather "intel" which could then be passed directly to the wh without being vetted by the CIA, much of that came from Chalabi. 3. We know that Bush, Rice, Cheney etc overstated the risk in Iraq and continued to talk about specifics that had already been shown to be irrelevant (eg aluminum tubes). They talked about the threat of Nukes in the near future despite no evidence to their existance. 4. We know that the evidence presented by Powel to the UN was exaggaerated and in some places outright wrong. so theres a couple of items. But since you are not interested in the truth you won't bother to check it out or if you do it will be some right wing lie factory. Only the right wing agrees with your interpretation of the UN as granting unilateral rights to the US. In addition as I said if UN procedure is so important then why did Bush force the inspectors out.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    Pigwiggle I was trying to make the point that if Bush is guilty of deceiving the American public so are all the democrats that I quoted above plus a few more. If Bush is to be impeached then so should all those democrats. President Bush’s lies are the same lies the democrats told the American public. "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". “and misdemeanors” is the key. Misdemeanor : 1. a crime less serious than a felony 2. MISDEED

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:50:37 PM EST
    Dear Sherman The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:16:08 PM EST
    SD writes - "The Kay report said he never gave up the intent. So now we invade on intent?" In some cases, yes. The object is to protect the US. Early intervention is the key. I refer you to any Doctor. Or for that matter, to the English and the French who have ample time to nip Hitler in the bud at almost no cost, but instead, listened to people such as yourself. As to the son-in-law. You are looking backwards. Why would anyone believe him without some back up? Oh, I know. You would have. And I would have bought Microsoft at $26. ..... if I had but known... And personal attacks? Huh? A little sarcasm, but attacks? I'm LOL. At least I haven't called you Soccerbrain, or son of DA... Your problem is that as a BHAW, you cannot accept the facts because they prove you wrong. How does that go? Ready! Fire! Aim! Dagma writes - "Every site they visited was a scheduled event, and they never went any where in the country without Saddams minders." Good point. Do you remember during Powell's presentation to the UN, hearing the two Iraqi officers talk about the impending visit, etc.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#72)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:30:21 PM EST
    SD- “1. Bush was aware of the report by Saddam's son in law and in fact quoted it regarding the amoubt of WMDs in Iraq” All involved, including UN inspectors were critical of the information provided by Kamal; why should they believe him? This by itself is irrelevant, but more interesting is your claim that President Bush used information directly from Kamal and then misrepresented the time frame. I couldn't clear this up, can you point me to anything that verifies this? “2. We know that Feith set up the OSP specifically to gather "intel" which could then be passed directly to the wh without being vetted by the CIA, much of that came from Chalabi.” Why would you place any more confidence in vetting through the CIA? It seems there was bad intel all around. I suppose it would have prevented the yellow cake statement from getting into the SOTU and its subsequent retraction, but is this evidence the executives intentionally lied? Dubious. “3. We know that Bush, Rice, Cheney etc overstated the risk in Iraq and continued to talk about specifics that had already been shown to be irrelevant” Of course we know this, now. The question is, were they lying. What specifics did they continue to talk about and how have they been show to be irrelevant? Skip the tubes, they were banned from importing these because of the potential use for enrichment (hardly irrelevant). “They talked about the threat of Nukes in the near future despite no evidence to their existance.” This only brings to mind Dr. Rice’s smoking gun as a mushroom cloud comment. Possibly irresponsible but certainly not a lie. “4. We know that the evidence presented by Powel to the UN was exaggaerated and in some places outright wrong.” What evidence do you have that Secretary Powell knew the intelligence was wrong at the time of presentation? I’ve read much about the intelligence presented to the UN in Secretary Powell’s now infamous speech; all criticisms lay with the interpretation. I have yet to read anything substantial that shows Secretary Powell intentionally misrepresented or knowingly disseminated false intelligence. Granted, Secretary Powell’s reasoning for his interpretations could be aptly described as weak. “Only the right wing agrees with your interpretation of the UN as granting unilateral rights to the US.” The US has the ‘right’ to do whatever is in its interests limited only by the constitution. However, the invasion was not unilateral and the point stands; if the invasion was not in line with the pertinent UNSCRs why is it not being litigated? Also, there is no need to be uncivil.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:50:14 PM EST
    Sherminator- I LOVED American Pie! Abu Abbas, PHLP, PLO-GC, Al Aqsa, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Ansar, and various other organizations all were recipients of Saddam's largesse. There is also evidence of Iraqi support and intrigues as far flung as Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines and a series of bombings and murders in S. America. For the record, Al Qaeda does most of its work (and used to do nearly ALL of its recruiting) through surrogates. Al Ansar was one of those affiliated groups. So was the sudanese based group that did WTC I, and also shared some degree of support from both Iraq and Al Qaeda. No, I doubt Saddam and Obl were pen pals, but I don't discount the likelihood that lower level operatives probably did share some resources and information. Iraqi Intel representatives were present at the terrorist powwows in Maylaysia and Indonesia in the late nineties. " As for the technology being in place for WMD programs maybe you should show the ISG just where they were located, Gerry, since you know so much about them." That's just stupid. Do you think that Iraqi knowhow and capabilities just....went...away? Are you aware there was a Ricin factory operated by Al Ansar? that it's wares were employed in Europe? No active programs does not mean their scientists collectively got Amnesia. The Iraq War raised the bar for any regime that is willing to condone terrorism or allow groups using those type tactics to operate within their borders. It eliminated a source of funds and support for the suicide bombers in Israel. It completed the enciclement of Iran. It removed a vocal opponent to the Palestinian Peace process from the scene. Gaddafi has been convinced to come somewhat to the side of the angels. It also has brought the idea of Democracy to the forefront in a region that sorely needs it. All for starters. I would argue that a lot more than just spasmodic repitition of WMD!WMD! was brought to the table prior to the invasion, and simply reading the president's speeches bears that out. What the press in their attempt to scare old ladies and sell adspace pick up on and run with is usually what is remembered. Perceptions today of the realities just a scant three years ago have been altered quite a bit.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:01:26 PM EST
    I don't understand why the Republicans are so up in arms about the Democrats' use of the filibuster in regards to judicial nominees. They own the Senate, and have been way more successful in getting Bush's judicial nominees approved than the Clinton administration ever was. What's the beef? I think one of the main reasons people are so up in arms about this is the fact that the Republicans already hold the upper hand, and are trying to tear down something that has been available to congressman for every year in our history. Maybe the people who are arguing for the Republicans could shed some light on this? I think the thread should at least mention the filibuster, since that was what the post was about, not how many planes were in the air on 9/11.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:33:53 PM EST
    "Posted by Gerry Owen: "Since the Turks wouldn't let us through, the 4th ID had to redivert to the Gulf (to arrive for the occupation) and the Cav was sent home (the 101st and 82nd are light and airliftable, they were redeployed into theatre)." There was ONE division, cobbled together with Kuwaiti tanks. You can try blaming the Turks, but in fact the decision to deploy one tank division instead of five was Rumsfeld/Bush's decision, which they described as "on the cheap." You cannot blame the Turks for the lack of personnel, for the lack of materiel, for the lack of planning, and for the lack of ANY guarding of the ammo/materiel dumps. Those are all command decisions made by the felons in charge. "The explosives you are rightfully concerned about from Tuwaitha is some specialty stuff" You are confusing the nuclear dump materiel for that at Al Qaaqaa. That doesn't go very far for your argument that you are so advanced over me in military knowledge, bub. "- but HMX, RDX and PETN all take a bit of know how, require special handling (and detonators, for a couple of them) plus would leave a recognizable signature. Shaped charges can be ANY explosive." IEDs have been shells wired together. They aren't any more. You do the math. That big bomb explosion in Lebanon also looks like the same materiel. "The facility WAS monitored (rather poorly by aerial platform), since the radiation levels there were considered a bit high." Hilarious. There was no radiation issue at Al QaaQaa. DoD dug up a satellite photo -- of the wrong bunker. Tuwaitha wasn't 'monitored,' it wasn't guarded at all. "An EOD unit that moved through the facility DID claim to have destroyed the stuff." No, the unit that moved through had no orders to do anything. So they did nothing. "Iraq was innocent??? Disarmed???" As has now been proven. All WMD had been destroyed. Not ONE GRAM of WMD found in Iraq, except for the WMD that Bush/Rumsfeld released to hostiles, from secured stock. "And I cannot contemplate how vile or misguided and/or off base one would have to be to actually consider Saddam's Iraq as "innocent". The 100,000 civilians killed had no role in 911, yet they are now dead. Not one single WMD found. No country has the right to invade another, killing massive numbers of civilians in the process, and come up EMPTY. These are war crimes, and it is genocide as well. The US aided and abetted the looting of the national museum (under Chalabi's gang), the destruction of the Koran/Torah repository (irreplaceable), the burning to the ground of the national library (luckily, mullahs 'stole' the books before they were destroyed), and destroyed Fallujah, an act of war crime so heinous it is going down in history as one of America's great war crimes. Donald and George should resign. They are criminals, and they are directly responsible for 1,485 GI deaths.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:48:56 PM EST
    "Posted by pigwiggle: "All involved, including UN inspectors were critical of the information provided by Kamal;" Which turned out to be the truth. "Why would you place any more confidence in vetting through the CIA? It seems there was bad intel all around." The bad intel was selectively gathered in order to foist the invasion, and you know it. "I suppose it would have prevented the yellow cake statement from getting into the SOTU and its subsequent retraction, but is this evidence the executives intentionally lied? Dubious." Hiliarious. They lied so much they had to hold their jaws on with wire. “3. We know that Bush, Rice, Cheney etc overstated the risk in Iraq and continued to talk about specifics that had already been shown to be irrelevant” "Of course we know this, now. We knew that THEN. They lied constantly. They LIE constantly. " The question is, were they lying. What specifics did they continue to talk about and how have they been show to be irrelevant? Skip the tubes, they were banned from importing these because of the potential use for enrichment (hardly irrelevant)." Untrue. The tubes were just like the previous tubes they had imported, legally, for short-range missiles. "This only brings to mind Dr. Rice’s smoking gun as a mushroom cloud comment. Possibly irresponsible but certainly not a lie." An UTTER lie. Iraq had NO nuclear program. So where were they going to get the nuke, and how were they going to deliver it? That statement by Rice was in itself the most outrageous cause for immediate impeachment in her arsenal of causes (not least of which are her lies over 911, which have been legion). "What evidence do you have that Secretary Powell knew the intelligence was wrong at the time of presentation?: Gee, you think when he said, "I'm not reading this sh*t,: and threw the papers into the air, that might be a clue? "Granted, Secretary Powell’s reasoning for his interpretations could be aptly described as weak." Powell embarassed himself and the nation. He should have immediately resigned, except he was too busy betraying the country. "The US has the ‘right’ to do whatever is in its interests limited only by the constitution." AND ALL TREATIES. But that's the US, and Bush isn't the US. Our foreign policy is supposed to be made IN THE SENATE. We do not have a king or prince who decides, on his own, trust him, when to go to war. Bush had repeatedly claimed that kind of power, and each time it has been an offense to his oath and to the Constitution. He is an unelected fraud. He didn't win Ohio; he didn't win Florida in 2000. In neither case have we gotten the REQUIRED BY LAW investigations by the Justice Dept. Gee, I wonder why that is?

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#77)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:18:39 PM EST
    “The bad intel was selectively gathered in order to foist the invasion, and you know it.” No, I find it suspect. However, in the absence of significant evidence I withhold judgment. “Untrue. The tubes were just like the previous tubes they had imported, legally, for short-range missiles.” They had previously used aluminum tubes for short-range and multi-stage missiles. These same tubes were sanctioned as dual use items and the importation was prevented on a handful of occasions. The particular grade of aluminum required clearance through the UN, which Iraq initially sought to avoid. “An UTTER lie. Iraq had NO nuclear program.” I’m sure you are familiar with the quote, but perhaps you need a reminder. "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." It is true that there will always be uncertainty, and equally true, at least for most, that we do not want to be convinced by a mushroom cloud. This is a statement on the precision of intelligence and expression of sentiment. Again, possibly irresponsible, hardly a lie. “They lied constantly. They LIE constantly… He is an unelected fraud. He didn't win Ohio … We do not have a king or prince” You border on reason and rhetoric, likely the last time I respond to your posts.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:25:48 PM EST
    Jim, I love your "doctor" theory of international relations - for it allows me to use your very own analogy to show you why you are wrong regarding America's "right" to pre-emptive violence. Any doctor who treated a patient without their consent merely because they believed (on WHATEVER evidence) that the patient had an illness would clearly be guilty of assault. I assume you understand the meaning of the phrase, "hoist by one's own petard"?

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:51:44 PM EST
    Yep, The sun has cast down, its shadows grown long, and PaulLooLoo is back from his cave.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#81)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:30:28 PM EST
    Ian - I assume you understand that what we are discussing has real life and death issues, so when I find some wanting to act like they are in Middle School debating class, I just shape my head in sorrow. I trust you understand that the "someone" is you. So I will ask. Do you disagree that France and England could have stopped WWII from happening? Paul In LA - Where do I begin? No nuclear program? Do you remember the Iraqi scientist who was told to bury his instruments in his backyard, and dug them up and turned them in? And then this: "INVO's extensive inspection activities in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 resulted in a technically coherent picture of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme. The programme was very well funded and was aimed at the indigenous development and exploitation of technologies for the production of weapons Link As for missiles. "With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War. Detainees and co-operative sources indicate that beginning in 2000 Saddam ordered the development of ballistic missiles with ranges of at least 400km and up to 1000km and that measures to conceal these projects from UNMOVIC were initiated in late-2002, ahead of the arrival of inspectors. Work was also underway for a clustered engine liquid propellant missile, and it appears the work had progressed to a point to support initial prototype production of some parts and assemblies. Kay Report

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#82)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:42:31 PM EST
    Ian, You beat me to it. Now he's a frikkin medical expert. However there is a medical analogy to Iraq. If we starve a patient for 12 years and then operate on them, you can bet the odds for success are very low. "The operation was a success but the patient died."

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#83)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:50:02 PM EST
    Paul, If these individuals knew anything at all about nuclear physics they might understand that you cannot hide a uranium enrichment program. You need hundreds of square acres of land and huge buildings to house the equipment. But if you want to keep debating these ostriches, go ahead.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:11:35 PM EST
    These wingers are all at bottom cowed little pavlovian-trained order followers who need a neighborhood bully to hide behind. Theyve got a lot of blood on thier hands,but they'll go kicking and screaming to thier graves before they take moral responsibility for any of it - witness PPJ's "the left was responsible for millions of dead in Nam." This monumental type of denial would be funny if it werent so pathetic. Might makes right. Racist,sadistic,stupid and ultimately,unpatriotic - but,as long as theres some chance they'll get some smigden of the pie and thier d*cks get hard watching the U.S steamroll another virtually defenseless country,they dont care - cheaper than viagra.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:25:17 PM EST
    Btw ras - Still waiting for the follow up to your late breaking "we now know the Russians moved the wmds" credibility enhancer. Well,who cares if its true? It OUGHTA be true! Cause yer either with us or agin us..

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#86)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:13:34 PM EST
    Comrade Che- “If these individuals knew anything at all about nuclear physics they might understand that you cannot hide a uranium enrichment program.” Odds are I know vastly more than you about nuclear physics. However, it is entirely irrelevant; both the DPRK and Iran stand as examples, as both had clandestine enrichment programs, the DPRK under the nose of the IAEA.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#88)
    by ras on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:15:38 PM EST
    Jondee, You are misquoting. I noted that the Russians appeared to have "removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad." [Well, actually, I was merely quoting John Shaw, the US undersecretary of defense, but we'll keep it simple for now. However, I will also mention that further context allows that it was really only some of the material, but I think you knew that] Anyway ... the Al-Qaqaa weapons were conventional high-explosives, not WMDs. I guess you weren't aware of that. To repeat: High-explosives are NOT classified as WMDs. Never have been. I see no reason to change my view that some of the material was spirited off to Russia, either. You have contrary evidence? Cheers. And thanks for the easy workout, buddy.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#89)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 01:07:36 AM EST
    "Lying to the people and executing an illegal invasion in violation of treaties that have the weight of law is not 'for the people.' It is tyranny." Bosquicio: "There was no lying to the "people"." They lied about the cost of the war; they lied about the length of the deployment; they lied about the need for troops; they lied about the need for invasion itself; they lied about the causes of war; they lied about nuclear weapons; they lied about the cause of 911; they lied about the yellowcake; they lied about the aluminum tubes; they lied about the ricin and the sarin. They lied about the materiel stolen from Tuwaitha and Al QaaQaa. They lied about the looting. They lied about the targeting of journalists. They lied about the UN-building bombers being Al Qaeda, and having captured 21 who confessed the crime (none were ever in custody). They lied about the responsiblity of Valerie Plame for her husband's trip. They lied about the nature of our treaties; they lied about the legality of their actions; AND then, that not being an exclusive list, then they committed a range of warcrimes, all of which are quite specifically banned by the Geneva Conventions and international treaties. So, your statement is a flat-out lie to add to the rest.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#90)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 01:18:59 AM EST
    ras: "Anyway ... the Al-Qaqaa weapons were conventional high-explosives, not WMDs. I guess you weren't aware of that. To repeat: High-explosives are NOT classified as WMDs. Never have been." Another lie from ras. This HMX is a dual-use explosive used in nuclear weapons. It is quite certainly a WMD, as it is proving around the ME now that Bush and Rumsfeld have put so much into circulation. It is an excellent carbomb material, and a carbomb made with high-explosives is a WMD just as much as Sarin is. I take it, ras, that you don't consider the Oklahoma City bomb a WMD? Do you consider an airliner used as a missile a WMD? Is an airliner flown into a nuclear reactor a WMD? How about a Mexican truck full of HMX blowing up in downtown Tucson? Is that a WMD? It's not exactly a legal term. But there is certainly a reason why this materiel was under UN inspection (i.e. CONTROL). Now it isn't under control. It has been proliferated. Bush's invasion plan intentionally leaked WMD like a sieve, because promoting chaos is how Bush's company's make those big profits.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#91)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 05:27:30 AM EST
    Dearest No Name - A car bomb can certainly kill many people. But WMD is a generic term, recognized by 99.9% of the people as weapons, such as nukes or SARIN. BTW - You had my attention until your last paragraph. At that point I just shook my head and realized who you were. Paul In LA - Re Plame. Read this link. It will frost your unmentionables so bad you won't need air conditioning for three years.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#92)
    by soccerdad on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 05:49:01 AM EST
    wrt Plame Her interpretation will need to be verified in court. As to why no one like Tenet called Novak, well Duh, they were involeved in outing her as punishment for her husbands work in Niger. The admin was part of the plan, Novak was the conduit. Newsmax also fails to tell everyone that she isa founder of "foundations for defense of democracises" a right wing "think" tank and a frequent contributor to NRO. So unbiased she is not. so Newsmax is crap again. gee I'm surprised.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#93)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 05:49:22 AM EST
    PaulieLooLoo Blahblah Lies, BlahblahLies, BlahblahLies. Is that the best you can come back to my post of February 23, 2005 06:38 AM? Yer ranting again. I am still waiting for something substantial to come from you, from my prior post of February 22, 2005 08:11 PM. There I stated: If you disagree, please cite any offended to Sections and Articles of our Constitution. Otherwise I stand by my prior statement. Your unmatured thought process, leads you to hyperbolic and unsubstatiated statements.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#94)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 05:54:30 AM EST
    Paul in LA- They are also lying when they say "Don't drive into the water" out there in sunny southern CA. Don't listen to them. Up the establishment!

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#95)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 06:53:20 AM EST
    Paul- You forgot RACIST liars; or have you just worn out those keys?

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#96)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 07:30:09 AM EST
    i see this is a blissful thread!!!
    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#97)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:24:00 AM EST
    All this arguing can be summed up in simple terms. Bush sold the war in Iraq to America, exactly the way every president before him sold wars to past generations. Did he lie? Depends on your perspective. But he definately gave a sales pitch. To act like he didn't get a little creative with truth is not accurate. Just the same way that saying he lied about everything is not accurate. Nobody asked for bad intelligence, or quick intelligence. That doesn't even make sense. Presidents always want the truth, the facts, first, and then decide what the American public needs to know. Usually they decide what the public needs to know at least in part based on what serves their needs. Every president that has ever served and ever will serve, will act in this manner, democrats, republicans and independents alike. So, it seems pointless to get caught up in this debate about WMDs. The question we should all be asking is, was going into Iraq in the best interests of the nation? I guess the answer to that question is debatable, and only time will tell for sure. In my humble opinion, In the end, Bush will have successfully done more than anyone before him to steer this world in a hard right hand turn, away from groups using terror successfully as a means to manipulating large populations of people.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#98)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:53:45 AM EST
    Dagma- Extremely sensible post, and I think you successfully cut to the chase on where the debate should be. I gather we disagree on the "was it worth it?" question (i would say it is), but I appreciate the civility and reasoned approach.

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#99)
    by soccerdad on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 09:15:32 AM EST
    So, it seems pointless to get caught up in this debate about WMDs
    of course it is, given the lies. you would rather just forget all about it. What a surprise, so now you want to change the argument. Well why did he go in? That is the the question. I'll give you a hint, it had absolutely nothing to do with WMDs, democracy, liberty or that other BS he constantly spews. (its BS because he doesn't mean it) You guys are just pathetic

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#100)
    by ras on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 09:24:18 AM EST
    Anon, "HMX is a dual-use explosive used in nuclear weapons" No, HMX is not a WMD. By the def'n you give, the steel used in a casing is by itself a WMD, too, as is every single microchip in the world. But it doesn't work that way. Carbombs are not WMDs either, luv. Since some HMX was also recovered by the US, I would also disagree with your implied conclusion that WMDs have now been found in Iraq. I do think a "strong case" (to repeat the phrase I used back in Nov.) can be made that WMDs were shipped out of Iraq pre-war. But no case can be made, nor need be made, that they have been found within Iraq post-war. They have not. You're sounding pretty desperate to justify your previous anti-Bush position: i.e. you're suddenly redefining WMDs to include car bombs, and claiming that Bush must be deliberately arming the terrorists etc. Wouldn't it just be easier to say oops?

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#87)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 10:24:32 AM EST
    insult to another commenter deleted

    Re: Fast Times at Bush Cheney High (none / 0) (#11)
    by marty on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:12:33 AM EST
    deleted

    Fast Times at Bush Cheney High | 98 comments (98 topical)