home

Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Comment

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 10:26:20 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Raw Story, the following exchange is contained in an upcoming Rolling Stone interview with Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid:

RS: You've called Bush a loser.

HR: And a liar.

RS: You apologized for the loser comment.

HR: But never for the liar, have I?

Sen. Reid is getting back in our good graces, although we still dislike the oligarchic nuclear compromise that gave away the store and predict it won't last.

Update: Nancy Goldstein at Raw Story Q rails against the compromise and Patricia Owen in particular.

< Deep Throat's Lawyer - Not a Criminal Defense Lawyer | Indonesian Letter Harmless, Did not Mention Schapelle Corby >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Comment | 32 comments (32 topical)
    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#1)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    Apparently TL and Harry Reid slept through the 1990's. Republicans tried this name-calling game against Clinton all through the late 90's, and it didn't achieve much for them - they lost seats in 96 and again in 98. What they learned then (and the Dems apparently haven't learned yet) is that name-calling and gainsaying aren't a platform. While it riles the base up, it irritates everyone else.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    They lost seats in '98 for trying to change the '96 elections and impeach a President for nothing (as even most Republican Senators stated when they voted "Hell No" on impeachment), and they lost seats in '96 for whatever reason... They won back the White House after Cheney introduced the world to "Fozad." So what's your meaningless point, JR? And who shot ya? Who's your 'Daddy?

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    There's definitely a pattern. Our fearless leaders speak or act dishonestly, but g*d forbid anyone should actually say so! Then the conversation turns to the outrageousness of the comment, and conveniently ignores the behavior being described. I don't know what else to call it. President Bush may have the best intentions in the world, but he uttered some mistruths along the way. What they learned then (and the Dems apparently haven't learned yet) is that name-calling and gainsaying aren't a platform. While it riles the base up, it irritates everyone else. Excuse me while I go roll on the floor laughing. There was plenty of name-calling in the last election, and I do believe the Republicans did their fair share. But that's not why they lost elections. They lost because they overreached and acted like they had a mandate they didn't have. And the Republican party has not learned their lesson, because they are doing it all over again, and the American public is getting tired of it.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#4)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    Well, go ahead -so long as you guys operate this way, I'll be as pleased as punch. Go look up the fund raising diff between the RNC and the DNC, and figure out which approach works better - Dean's, or Mehlman's.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    Now back to our topic: Remeber when the best defense was the truth? Now, with the complicity of the MSM, the best defense appears to be character assassination. Bush has lied over and over about iraq, but watch rw echo machine turn the story to "Reid said our prezedent is a liar, he should be sent to gitmo for daring to criticize fearless leader!"

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    LOL James. So you're pointing to FUNDRAISING differences to indicate why name-calling doesn't work???? First of all, lying is a fact, not an insult. If the emperor has no clothes on, it is now a crime to point that out??

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#7)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    mfox: circa 1933, many Republicans decided that they would rather be "right" than effective in opposing FDR. That worked out well for the republicans and their agenda, didn't it? It's working about that well for Dems now.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#8)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    A big problem in this country is that Bush's performance is framed by Bush's people. If the worst people can do is feel sorry for him is because his job is "hard work" and the press let's him get away with myriad deceptions, then maybe we deserve what we get. We are the losers when the loser press lets the president lie unchallenged. So really, calling the lying loser president a loser and a liar might just change the perception of the masses. If the Republicans teach us anything, when you repeat something over and over and over again, people start to believe it, even when what is said is not true. Um. Repeating something over and over and over when it is true just might have a chance. It takes a little courage to say something the first time. Somebody has to do it.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    I appreciate JR's concern for the health of the Democratic Party. I'm sure it has nothing whatsoever to do with trying to change the subject from the question of Bush's honesty or the lack thereof. Do you think President Bush has been an honest person? Do you think that we're in Iraq because they posed an immediate threat? Is the war going as well as Bush Administration officials say? Seriously. Frankly, if this keeps up, how well the Democratic Party raises money or communicates with the public is going to be a moot point, because the last several years of Republican rule is about as much as the American people can stomach.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    circa 1933, many Republicans decided that they would rather be "right" than effective in opposing FDR.
    News flash...the Republicans presided over the worst economic crisis in the nation's history at that time...so if "being right" meant doing nothing while people were destitute...then it's not surprising it took them 20 years to get back to the White House. I do agree with you however, that the Democratic Party needs to focus on more than the fact that Bush is a liar. This isn't news any more. They need to come up with a detailed economic policy plan and sell it the way Newt Gingrich et al did theirs back in 1994. And they need to point out the differences in who they stand for versus who the Republican policies are benefitting. But before they do that, they need to get off the corporate teat so they can stop being Republican Lite and further fading into obscurity.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#11)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    Bush is not a loser because the big boys pick-him from many.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#12)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    "That worked out well for the republicans and their agenda, didn't it? It's working about that well for Dems now." How's that social security privitization coming along, James? Also, when is calling someone a traitor who looks french not name calling? When he's John Kerry and you're a Republican.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    Ernesto, you're totally right. It's just not a zero-sum game. The Republicans' bad behavior and poor performance does not let the Democratic Party off the hook -- they need to present themselves as a worthy alternative. And the Democratic Party's fundraising or campaigning flaws are NOT a justification for the Republican Party's appalling recent track record. (Though, no doubt, gloating over Dem faults is a sweeter activity for Republicans than gloomily contemplating their own wreckage...)

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    "(Though, no doubt, gloating over Dem faults is a sweeter activity for Republicans than gloomily contemplating their own wreckage...)" Thanks Webmacher. That pretty much says it all. And thanks for the rest of you for at least trying to interpret and relate James Robertsons comments to the discussion... I read them three times and admit to being totally lost. But here's a thought on a better note. The Democratic Party has what I feel is a BRAND IDENTITY problem. I feel like a good person and cool (when in fact I'm an idiot living beyond my budget spending hundreds of dollars on Decaff for Chrissake!) walking down the streets with my Starbucks cup boasting its instantly recognizable logo. People smile at me with their cups in their hands, it becomes a cute power accessory at meetings and interviews and we cackle amiably about how we hate how much we spend and how long our order is...blah blah while standing in line for the next Mocha half-caf latte. So, one and all... I ask you.... what would it take for YOU to feel proud about saying you're a Democrat! Do we have to water down? Meet halfway? Scream more? Spend more. Ultimately I think the battle will be fought between capitalists (corporations) and progressives. There are no good old days where things were really better except for the aristocracy class and lower and middle class conservatives will have to fight with the people or lose everything. But what do you need to say Hell Yeah I'm a Democrat. To mean it and have the people around you smile in recognition because they're carrying that cup of Java too... Do you need Sexy? Do you need Macho? Do you need Socialism? What do you need? Personally, I've come back to the fold because of Howard Dean...lured by the scent of victory from the Green Party, in hopes that we really could turn this tide. I would like the war to have been the issue that turned the tide, but that would have involved wresting the issue from Repubs. in a custody battle that only would have hurt the victims and their loved ones. But I'm thinking about this and REALLY want to start a dialog about this. maf

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    Will no one challenge this equivocation? Webster defines 'lie' as "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive". Now, what has Bush lied about? WMD in Iraq you say? Let's grant that he made false statements...did he do so with intent to deceive? Or was he perhaps just mistaken? Remember, Bush drew his conclusions from intelligence reports, and the Senate Intelligence Committee drew the same conclusions from that same intelligence. Other than matters of personal experience, it's difficult to know conclusively that someone is lying as opposed to making a mistake. Clinton, for example, lied - he knew what he had done with Monica, and he denied it (under oath, in front of a grand jury) to deceive the nation. Therefore Clinton was a liar. In fact, a lie under those circumstances is a felony for which the average US citizen would go to jail. I won't go into what the consequences of that incident were regarding the principle of 'equality under the law' for your democracy - that is a debate for another day. As for Bush, there are those who think he knew more than the Senate and lied about it. Michael Moore, for example. But this is merely a theory with no factual basis. One final note: to accuse a man of lying without factual evidence is a low and ignoble act. Only one who has little honor himself is so ready to impugn the honor of another. The pious tone of those calling Bush a liar without knowing what his intentions were, and then pretending that they are being honest or courageous is nauseating.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    Bush didn't so much lie about WMD, though, hello: 1) aluminum tubes 2) uranium from Niger 3) drones 4) mushroom clouds 5) castor bean toxin 6) connection to 9il 7) "case was weak and US would fix facts around policy" (and rest of DS memo/minutes). And he didn't so much LIE about the actual invasion: 1) lied about the cost 2) lied about the length 3) lied about the Iraqi response 4) lied about the legality 5) lied about the bombing campaign already underway But what Bush FOR SURE did was LIE about the purpose of the invasion. It was not WMD, it was not 'demockery,' it was not to protect America from a madman (Islam Karamov, Saud princes, Moamar Kadafi are Bush's allies, among other maniacs and thugs). The purpose of the invasion was to install airbases in a dismantled IraqM/b>. That is genocide, about which Henry F* Kissinger said (unaware he was being recorded): "There is no more Iraq. There will be three territories." (early 2004) Lie to yourself all you want -- you lot are DONE lying to us.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    The Downing Street memos prove Monkey Boy was lying when he said in the fall of 2002 that war was the last resort. It was not. It was the plan all along.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    The pious tone of those calling Bush a liar without knowing what his intentions were, and then pretending that they are being honest or courageous is nauseating.
    Oh, I'm not claiming I'm being courageous, and I don't think anyone else in this thread is making that claim either. If anyone's couragous, it's those Americans who have joined the military and are currently stationed in Iraq or Afganistan. Whatever I think of the politicians who sent them there, the troops are by and large doing the best they can. I think everyone here is honestly expressing their opinions, though. (People on a left-leaning blog criticizing the administration? How annoying for you. I'm sorry you have to put up with it.) So back to Bush. O.K., fine. Say his intentions were good and he wasn't intentionally being dishonest. Doesn't change the fact that he had enough information to know that the information he had wasn't reliable. Yet he still chose to jump in with both feet, and to keep on going even when Colin Powell and others expressed their reservations. He just didn't want to hear it. And when it turned out that things were going badly, instead of firing the people responsible, he rewarded them. So, fine. IF he's not a liar, what do you call somebody who does this poor of a job?

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    One final note: to accuse a man of lying without factual evidence is a low and ignoble act. Only one who has little honor himself is so ready to impugn the honor of another. Well said. I applaud that statement, and I'm sure John Kerry, Max Cleland, and Howard Dean all would too.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    What do you need?
    I need a bunch more Paul Wellstones and a bunch fewer Joe Liebermans.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#22)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    webmacher -
    So back to Bush. O.K., fine. Say his intentions were good and he wasn't intentionally being dishonest. Doesn't change the fact that he had enough information to know that the information he had wasn't reliable. Yet he still chose to jump in with both feet,
    Well, you are halfway there. The question then becomes, how much of a gamble are you willing to take on the terrorists not getting WMD's from Saddam, or for Saddam himself not launching an attack? Remember. If you are wrong, hundreds of thousands of Maericans may die.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    I see no difference between 100k Americans or 100k Iraqis. 100K dead human beings over lies. We were the agressors, not Iraq.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    "The question then becomes, how much of a gamble are you willing to take on the terrorists not getting WMD's from Saddam, or for Saddam himself not launching an attack?" Saddam "launching an attack" on America was outside the realm of technical feasibility, and counter intuitive if you try and see Saddam's prewar position. Iraq was not equipped, technologically, to launch any formal attack on America. He did not have ICBMs, and an invasion on American soil (by Saddam's regime) is ludicrous. It's not an option from Saddam's stance, because he knew war with America would lead to his being ousted, and his goal was to remain in power. He would not have willingly provided America with a good pretense for invasion via formal acts of war, direct terrorist acts, or illegal arms dealing with enemies of America. Now, "terrorists getting weapons from Saddam." Saddam's regime was a secular dictatorship. The "terrorists" you speak of are, I assume, radical Islamic extremists. Now, from the standpoint of a terrorist of this sort, a secular regime, not beholden to Sharia, in Mesopotamia is a sacrilege and a disgrace. Saddam and these terrorists were not ideologically compatible. If Israel were not alligned with America, would one fear Israel selling arms to terrorists? No, the idealogical gap is too wide to bridge, regardless of shared convictions. Saddam was despot and unfit for leadership, this is not in dispute. These terrorists you fear are hopping mad, and are willing to kill, fight, and die, for the transgressions they see as being leveled against them by America (regardless of the truth of these transgressions). Neither of these arguments are in dispute, and neither of these arguments provide any pretense for the illegal invasion of Iraq. And most importantly, these two points are not intrinsically related. I know that the argument "Saddam hates America, Terrorists hate America, Saddam and the Terrorists will team up to attack America" is succinct, easy to grasp, and seams intuitive on the surface, but critical thought and in depth analysis of the facts are required to weight in on situations such as these.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    That's the problem, kdog- The 'cons do see a difference between 100K Americans and 100K Iraqi's... 100K Americans gets them lynched... 100K Iraqis gets them re-elected...

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    And in PPJ's last statement, folks, you get the conservative racist genocidal "Fozad" to all who don't share their views... "It's better that 100K Iraqis die so we can look for something that isn't there, than to risk the already discredited theory of allowing Saddam to potentially develop them, and to potentially be stupid enough to arm terrorists with them...No, it's better that 100K Iraqis die than we take that hypothetical risk..." "And if some country attacks us pre-emptively, we'll blow up the world..."

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    The question then becomes, how much of a gamble are you willing to take on the terrorists not getting WMD's from Saddam, or for Saddam himself not launching an attack?
    Oddly enough, "gambling" is a good description of this administration's policymaking process. At the same time, though, they are ignoring clear threats from elsewhere, and have been slow to act. There are a lot of "loose nukes" out there. You'd think we'd make securing them a priority, no? Sadly, the war in Iraq has really taken our eye off the ball. Oh, we're finally getting around to it, but it's taken years! And remember, "you forgot Poland"? Well, somebody forgot Pakistan, too! There are lots of terrorist training camps there, apparently. And what about their little nuclear proliferation habit? Even Front Page thinks we got a problem, Houston. So hypothetical threat versus proven threat. Throw the dice. And no, invading Pakistan won't help. But I think we just may have proven invading countries is no panacea, and indeed may have made our problems worse.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    I'm glad to see the beginnings of dialogue here, but the responses largely miss the point. The point: a false statement is often a mistake rather than a lie. An honorable man assumes the former when there is no factual evidence of the latter. Your responses have largely been to list false statements made by the administration. Making a longer list does not argue to Bush's intent...think the logic through please. To Cheeze Lounge, it is clear that Bush tried other options prior to attacking, and it is also clear to anyone with an understanding of logistics that preparation must be made for war well prior to the decision to wage it. Whether there were unexplored alternatives is a matter for debate, but does not address Bush's intent. To webmacher: 'Heretik' made the 'courageous' claim that I was referring to. And to those who responded by arguing over whether the Iraq war was a good decision, that's not the issue either. I also opposed the Iraq war and believe to this day that it was a bad call. But I don't believe Bush lied about it, and no one here has presented an argument to that effect. You throw the 'liar' accusation around quite a bit, but your only justification for it seems to be blurry thinking. I wonder whether Reid is also subject to blurry thinking, or whether he is launching ad hominem attacks for political gain. And to Blaghdaddy, you should pay less attention to the CBC's portrayal of conservatives and spend more time discussing issues with actual conservatives. I think it would open your mind a little. Reading some of the thoughts of Lincoln and the Federalists would help too. Your insinuation that conservatives are (ipso facto) racists is not even worth answering. Cheers, all.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:40 PM EST
    Hilarious. "If only the Fuhrer knew" that Donald Rumsfeld was LYING when he said: "We know where the WMD are -- they are in Tikrit, and to the north, west, south, and east of there." If only the Fuhrer knew that when he was barking about uranium from Niger in his SOTU address, he was repeated what the CIA had TOLD him was a lie. If only the Fuhrer knew that O'Neill would write in his book that Bush was planning on invading Iraq from the very start of his stolen election term in office! If only the Fuhrer knew that he was a goddamned liar. We have the facts -- the facts are OBVIOUS. So go pull your own wool, 'grad,' because no amount of 'education' will save a fool or a liar.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#30)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:40 PM EST
    Grad Student, I hope that someday you wake up. A bad call? Spare me the apologies. People were murdered. Thousands of innocent babies murdered in our name. And you have the gall to say it was a bad call. Why do I feel like Ellen Ripley in "Aliens"?

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#31)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:40 PM EST
    ZylogZ80 - The issue is why did Reid call Bush a liar. Some of you seem to think that he did so because of the Iraqi invasion. Others think he did it for political gain. I think he did it for both reasons. Grad Student made some nice points, and I agree with him. But, evidently, he's a new cowpoke in these here parts. My comment was that Bush had to make the choice he made, or else put a lot of American lives at risk. The responses to that comment have been: You claim that he couldn't attack because he didn't have ICBM's and/or an army capable of invading the US. I assume by this that you have never heard of suitcase nukes, and bio-weapons capable of being distributed from small aircraft. webmacher - You bring up the fact that other countries may also have had weapons. Fair enough, but that didn't mean Iraqi did not. Here again, a judgment call. PIL - You are your usual sweet, rational self. kdog - You see no difference between Iraqis and Americans? Blag - You also jump in with accusations you can't cover, and I really resent being called a conservative racist. But I realize that you are only trying to make a point and know no other way besides making false claims. How long that trick will last, I do not know. But it is obvious. I invite you to read my 6/5 8:49PM comment and respond when we have an open thread. So, the answer is simple. Reid did it because he enjoys playing to the base of the party, and you enjoy it because you can't make an argument without making outlandish charges. What you have forgotten is that just because you claim something, it is not necessarily true, or believed by others.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#32)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:40 PM EST
    Reid called Bush a liar because Bush is. Its that simple. PPJ has his usual dismisve post with no evidence of anything. Bush know that the Iraqi weapons had been destroyed. The CIA and MI6 both debriefed Saddam's son in law who had been head of the weapons programs. He had told them that the weapons had been destroyed ofter GW1. The motivation for destroying the weapons was to get the sanctions lifted. When combined with the lack of findings by the inspectors who were searching at sites suggested by the US confirms the debriefing. You had Bush telling the world that he would do everything to avoid war even though US and British war planes were attacking Iraq months before Congress gave its approval. Its also clear that the Bush adnin went way out of its way to gather and diseminate bad intelligence. Lets not forget the Office of Special Plans whose purpose was to obtain evidence consistent with justifying the upcoming war and then passing that info directly to the white house. The info gathered such as that about the mobile labs was obtained from single source paid Chalabi toadies. Its also clear thet the administration continued to use bad evidence to support its claims long after they had been told the info was bad, e.g. the aluminum tubes. For people to be still repeating the "bad intelligence" meme as an excuse at this point in time is beyodn rediculous. Yes it was bad intel. Thats what they wanted thats what they paid for, and thats what they hyped.

    Re: Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Com (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:40 PM EST
    Agree wholeheartedly with Paul & Che's comments circa 7:00 PM, Talk Left time. The Neocons, PNAC, the Bush Admin, the media, the apologists, religious bigots, et.al. told half-truths and lies to start an immoral and illegal war. While I agree the goal was to install semi-permanent military bases in the region, I believe those military bases are the foundation for the regional interests of War Corporatists. Without those interests, there wouldn't be a need for those bases -- and the government wouldn't have spent 160 Billion Dollars to protect Israel from something it is in no danger from (Israel is quite capable of defending itself from a military assault without U.S. bases in Iraq). Yet Harry Reid voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. Yet another Democrat whose principles are not mine.

    Harry Reid Won't Retract 'Bush is a Liar' Comment | 32 comments (32 topical)