WE Blog

I just heard on NPR that Bush would have no comment on this book; at least until Cliff’s Notes offers an illustrated version in big print!

I hear John McCain is looking for a new spokesman for the “Straight Talk Express.” Maybe he can hire McClellan.

:)

“Down playing the major reason for going to war . . . ” Someone, please, tell me what that “major reason” might have been.

None of the reasons I have heard makes sense. Certainly the claim that we’re there to “nation build” a democratic state rings hollow. Our major allies(Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) are monarchies and Egypt is a military dictatorship.

“War on Terror” also makes no sense. Al Qaeda dared not step foot in Iraq before Bush’s Misbegotten War.

So John McSame wants to stay in Iraq why? For how long? At what expense?

One of McClelland’s saddest arguments is that media were such easy and willing dupes. I can still see David Gregory dancing with Karl Rove at the White House Correspondents dinner.

We now know that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby lied to McClelland. And we’re to believe that Bush didn’t know?

Bush lied us into a Misbegotten War.

Everything is “the Jews” to Ed.

WSClark
Posted May 28, 2008 at 1:46 pm | Permalink
Everything is “the Jews” to Ed

I smell what he is steppin’ in, and it is rank!

In his book McCellen faults the “liberal press for failing to live up to their reputation”.
If you have ever watched “Buying the war” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5Kngf803dQ
You learned that there were many whom at least questioned and some actually show the information coming out of the Government about the build-up. But at the time whom heard them? Novak and Buchanan both wrote about how the Administration was deceiving in their selling of the invasion to the public. But did anyone read or even hear about their articles?

My point is maybe McCellen DID speak out and no one heard him at the time!

gster
Posted May 28, 2008 at 1:14 pm | Permalink
I just heard on NPR that Bush would have no comment on this book; at least until Cliff’s Notes offers an illustrated version in big print!
——-
You know this how?
As to your other point, all “Scotts” are liars and cowards…it’s science :)

“APAC was instrumental in this country invading Iraq and the power of the Neoconservatives.”

Don’t know about all of that, however APAC has paved a mass of highways in this country.

AIPAC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC

Sorry I dropped the “I”

Nice catch ANTI

All in good fun writerdog. I knew what you meant, it just struck me funny!

Of course I have not read his book yet and to be honest I may not from what I have heard this is all old news and has been shown to be the case by many over the last four years. But then perhaps the rest are still needing to play catch up on the subject.

Hey they had to have some way to get to the meetings! LOL And I wish to express right now my gratitude to the “Asphalt and Concrete Paving company” for the smooth, fine highway I traveled last Monday.

He says in my link that this was an act of contrition, in trying to be a good Christian. Surely Nathan can relate to that. After you’ve worked for the Satan, contrition is due and needed.

Bartlett rips McClellan, calls allegation ‘total crap’

“Bartlett asserted that McClellan did not play a major role in key events, noting that the former aide was serving as deputy press secretary for domestic issues during the run-up to the war in Iraq, raising questions about how McClellan could claim the President used “propaganda” to sell the war.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/28/bartlett-rips-mcclellan-calls-allegation-total-crap/

I remember when the press corp would jump on McClellan he would say something to the effect of: “hey, you guys know me, you can trust me.” In other words he was using his reputation as a way to sell the Bush agenda. I think Clark has it right. Now he is trying to regain some of his reputation by telling the truth.

Any wagers on who gets a job sooner: McClellan the traitor; or Gonzales the loyal servant? I know who I’d put my money on…

They could have asked rove, do you remember that improptu meeting with libby you called? How many meetings did you initiate with libby that you don’t remember this particular one? Did you coordinate your Plame story line at that time?

Would this be a good time for me to remind
ya I told you so more than five years ago?

don’t you know jed, we’re just really that darn brilliant that we knew the future! Superpower we have!

It couldn’t be all the signs that were flashing great big in front of our faces could it?

Amen. Reminds me of Dateline last night and the FLDS.

Now that it’s payday time, most obliging of ‘lil Scottie to vindicate EVERYTHING we liberals were saying at the time.

You’d think the mainstream / corporate media would be GRATEFUL to liberals for having been RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING ALL ALONG. Some gratitude for you!

From the lead in:

“top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president’s advantage.”

————–

Ummm… Yeah. Anything new about that?

Selling a nation on war is not easy. Except for the Congress. They were easy. Sorry a$$ backtracking Democrats included. They all wanted a piece of it.

The bushbots NEVER cease to amaze me.

bush could murder a live puppy on national TV and they’d find a way that it was ok and he was entirely justified.

Senator Obama?

Obamaniacs?

We don’t want to work with these people.

We want to make them build their own gallows!

“outlander” trots out the old CONservative meme –

“They all wanted a piece of it.”

Oh, yeah.

The ol’ “They did it, too!” defense.

Guess that means you’ve retired the BushCo lie that “Congress had the same intelligence” lie that seemed to work so well while Shrub was lying us into war.

Frankly, it seems a bit déclassé for all us “Libs” to repeatedly remind you Cons that we told ya so.

But we told ya so.

Monkeyhawk,

“Frankly, it seems a bit déclassé for all us “Libs” to repeatedly remind you Cons that we told ya so.

But we told ya so.”

Indeed. I’m certainly not above rubbing their sorry noses in the fact that we’ve been as right about everything as they’ve been wrong. It’s the benefit of that whole “reality-based community” thing we liberals have so unfashionably clung to.

This bit from Ron Susskind has yet to go out of style.

“”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

Wingnuts: how’s that working out for you?

Oh, and outlander? Don’t try to rewrite the history of the Democratic response to the Iraq War by lying that “they all wanted a piece of it.”

That’s bullshit. Plenty of Democrats didn’t. And when they stood up and called bullshit, the media cut off their oxygen. As was done to Senator Kennedy.

What follows are substantial pieces from this piece on “Media Matters.”

“This year, the press has treated Kennedy as a singularly powerful figure in the Democratic Party and a commanding spokesman for the American left.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t always been the case. Just a few years ago, when Republicans were riding high on Iraq war fever and Democrats were seen as on the retreat politically, the press cavalierly snubbed Kennedy.

Specifically, back in September 2002, with the Bush administration and much of the Beltway media rushing to embrace war with Iraq, Kennedy delivered a passionate, provocative, and newsworthy speech raising all sorts of doubts about a possible invasion. Unlike today, the political press wasn’t very interested in Kennedy or what he had to say about the most pressing issue facing the nation. Back in that media environment, being the voice of American liberals didn’t mean much.

[snip]

For the network pundits, Kennedy’s anti-war speech did not exist. It was irrelevant to the around-the-clock media chatter about a looming war.

The Kennedy coverage in the major newspapers wasn’t much better. At The Washington Post, Kennedy’s newsworthy speech, a clarion call against Bush’s pre-emptive war, garnered exactly one sentence — 36 words total in coverage. Keep in mind, during 2002, the Post published more than 1,000 articles and columns about Iraq, nearly 1 million words. But the Post set aside just 36 words for Kennedy’s farsighted war speech.

What was so remarkable was that Kennedy delivered his address at the time when there was already a media narrative unfolding about how Democrats, anxious about the political ramifications of not supporting a then-popular president, were not voicing stiff opposition to the planned invasion.

[snip]

Some key passages from the Kennedy speech:

“[T]he Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary.”

“[T]he Administration has not explicitly acknowledged, let alone explained to the American people, the immense post-war commitment that will be required to create a stable Iraq.”

“A largely unilateral American war that is widely perceived in the Muslim world as untimely or unjust could worsen not lessen the threat of terrorism.”

“War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, or without genuine international support — could swell the ranks of Al Qaeda sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts.”

“[I]nformation from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.”

“[T]here is no clear and convincing pattern of Iraqi relations with either Al Qaeda or the Taliban.”

Talk about a greatest-hits performance. Kennedy nailed virtually every major problem and shortfall that emerged in the wake of the invasion. Yet in real time, the press, which was producing voluminous reports and commentary about the possible war, showed only superficial interest in Kennedy’s prophetic comments.

[snip]

Note: I mentioned earlier that it’s instructive to go back and actually read the articles and transcripts from 2002 and 2003 to get a sense of just how dreadful the prewar coverage was. But that kind of research is not for the faint of heart, because what you’ll find is often just gruesome.

That’s my way of prefacing how MSNBC’s Hardball dealt with Kennedy’s speech on September 27, 2002. I kid you not, host Chris Matthews took the news of Kennedy’s smart, provocative speech, which represented the most sweeping and prominent indictment of Bush’s war plan delivered by an in-office Democrat, and the MSNBC host packaged it with war pronouncements made that same week by Hollywood stars:

MATTHEWS: Tonight on Hardball, Barbra Streisand, Senator Ted Kennedy, and Tom Cruise speak out as debate picks up in Washington and in Hollywood over whether this country should attack Iraq.

Don’t you love how Babs got top billing over Kennedy? And yes, the program’s guests spent nearly as much time discussing (in a serious manner) what celebrities thought about the war as they did debating Kennedy’s thoughts about launching an unprecedented pre-emptive war against Iraq. (FYI: Cruise supported the war; Streisand, not so much.)

Not gruesome enough? Note this teaser that Matthews read at the top of the program that night, which perfectly captured the tone and tenor of the times: “Tonight, do the radical protesters shutting down Washington have a legitimate cause or do they simply hate America?”

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200805280002

The media playing field was, and is, anything but level. That the press blackout extended to include the senior liberal voice in the United States merely underscores that fact.

Therefore, outlander, don’t try to revise the history of what Democrats did and didn’t do in response to Bush’s drive to attack Iraq. Seems to me that your version of events isn’t any more trustworthy now than Bush’s was at the time.

“CF2K” reminds of Condoleezza’s lies, including –

“We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/

A long time ago I posted how Condi, after appearing on the Sunday morning bobblehead shows, had this verbal tic that reeked of lying.

Poor gal, she simply isn’t as good a liar as the Dumbya Administration needed.

She always demonstrates that little hesitation in her voice before she plows headlong into the lies Shrub needed.

Why is it every time someone writes a book about the Bush/Cheney Administration, they call them a liar, when we all know that it is the Bush/Cheney Administration that is the liars.

Again, if the Bush administration lied about the War in the beginning,let’s start the impeachment hearings now.

Not a chirp or even a feigned move from the Democratic House of Representatives and Senate.

Wagging fingers and flapping lips, all talk - no action - “They ain’t got nothing - so they make it up.”

“Regular” whines, yet again, with –

“…Media Matters, like that is an unbiased source.”

Hmmm.

Seems like you guys really believed everything that David Brock (founder and CEO of Media Matters) wrote in, “The Real Anita Hill” and the “Troopergate” story.

Do you think he was telling the truth then, or is telling the truth now?

Brock himself admits he sold out in the 90s to the largesse of Richard Mellon Scaife’s right-wing noise machine. His later books, a confession worthy of deep Christian repentance, spell out just how easy you Cons were and are duped.

And you’re left, “Regular,” with trying to divert the discussion from the facts at hand to attacking the messenger.

LOL Franklin must be a new tool. No credibility, well you sure were buying every word when he was up in front of the mic now weren’t you?

Reads Franklin’s and Regular’s post, shakes head in disbelief and disgust.

“Regular” –

You allege “Media Matters is a biased source.”

Nothing more.

No evidence. No proof. Nothing but attacking the messenger.

Hell, we could shut down the whole WE Blog process if “[fill in the blank] is a biased source” were some kind of valid argument.

But if that’s all you’ve got, that’s all you’ve got.

And that’s all you’ve got.

Franklin
Posted May 28, 2008 at 6:31 pm | Permalink
The History Channel is running a “Lifetime” series.
The show about President Harry Truman (Democrat) made a huge point of how Truman used propaganda to “sell” the Korean War.
In fact, keeping with the leftword slant of the History Channel, a commentator kinda tried to make a point that Truman’s “Red Scare” tactics were over the top and invited excessive responses from the Joseph McCarthy wing, in Congress.
A President is SUPPOSED to get the country behind huge foreign policy decisions.
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that.
—

Aren’t you supposed to be Catholic? Have the Jesuits dropped their famous insistence on rationality, or have you?

NOTHING?!? There’s “NOTHING” wrong with it? It’s therefore perfect?!? No downsides at all? (think carefully now)

:lol:

No biggie then that Augustus Stupidus lied to America to ‘force’ war with Iraq?

After all, Truman did it. And if lying to convince Americans to dive off the commie cliff was good enough for Truman (communism is/was an economic system the totalitararian underpinnings for which were destined to lag just barely its economic collapse — due to the oil and water reaction of human nature and totalarianism — just as will any totalarianism supporting the human spiritual collapse represented by ‘Islamofascism’), then lying to American to dive off the even more obvious cliff represented by Muslim extremism is just as good, right?

If Augustus Stupidus and his friends pissed on an electric fence, then I suppose you’d do it too?

Wait…

:lol:

PS I hope you’re better at foreign policy than you are at economics, because you suck at economics, dude. And I ain’t holdin’ my breath here, either. :D

Gene Raston,

Insightful and nuanced as usual, I see.

What I’M asserting is that George Bush was shown a report by the CIA confirming that no WMD existed in Iraq, and that he squelched the report.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/print.html

“Sep. 06, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

On April 23, 2006, CBS’s “60 Minutes” interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. “We continued to validate him the whole way through,” said Drumheller. “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”

Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller’s account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri’s intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.”

The Senate never saw the evidence refuting George Bush’s claims because George Bush never let them see it. Those who voted to go to war did so on the basis of a NIE that Bush knew was discredited.

Them’s the facts, Gene Raston. Let’s see what bluster and piffle will come squirting out of you.

Salon, is a progressive online magazine. - Wikipedia

Another Liberal Progressive biased source that CF2K uses.

Franklin
Posted May 28, 2008 at 6:31 pm | Permalink
A President is SUPPOSED to get the country behind huge foreign policy decisions.
–

FALSE.

A president is supposed to get the country behind huge foreign policy decions that are CORRECT.

The distinction is fairly significant. /tongue in cheek so far it hurts

CF2K, so thats it? NO dems looked over anything? NO dems ever agreed with Britains assessment?

When Billary said to Code Pink that she personally did not look over the report but people she trusted did and that was why she voted for it, that was it? A Senator of this country, just took some lackey’s word for it and voted to send this country into war?

So her and her husband stating that Iraq had WMD’s. Had had them and used them that had nothing to do with it?
That Willie would go into Iraq and blow up some things simply because of a plot that was foiled to assassinate bush 41. That was reason enough kill Iraqi’s who had been under sanctions for what, 15 years. According to you all the Saudi’s and Kuwaitis loved Bush 41, because of the Oil and the plot was foiled, so why react?

We were attacked 3 times by Al Quida, why did we not react to that???

Neville Chamberlain said hey we got this piece of paper that we got from hitler himself saying that he will NOT invade any more countries. Lets consider that as an NIE for the time.

So I suppose you’d be REALLY pissed had we gone into Iraq after Saddam HIMSELF had told us he had NO WMD’s, instead of one of HIS lackeys???

Oh well guys, we weren’t able to bring down the twin towers, a couple of our leaders got arrested, this will never work, we should just pack up and go home.

Gene Raston,

Ah, where to begin. This is as good a place as any, I suppose.

“Darn don’t you just hate a president that will at least do something to try and bring peace and freedom to the Iraqi people.”

Yeah–and kill hundreds of thousands of them, and displace millions upon millions as refugees. Oh, and Gene Raston? It was the oil, dude. The OIL.

“NO dems looked over anything? NO dems ever agreed with Britains assessment?”

Which assessment was that, Gene Raston? The Downing Street Memo, which said that “the facts were fixed in support of the policy?”

The rest of your post, frankly, makes no sense. Not much of a surprise coming from a follower like you.

I see many are still being duped, following the marching orders they received years ago. Partisanship is one of the weapons that those that pulled the string has to control the “unwashed masses”. Blaming each other rather than those that played you like some buffoon. It Regulars fault, its Bluejays fault, I told you so, the same crap that has allowed this country to fall in to the clutches of these delusional fools!

Yes many followed in lockstep but what is the loyal Americans suppose to do? Love your country so much that they believe blindly in their country, their President and their cause. Patriotism is another tool to be used by the delusional fools. They also see a believe in God as a “popular myth” to be promoted because it instills in the believer a drive to obey this too a tool.

The Media, acting all self-righteous not because this country was fooled, but because they were accused of being duplicitous in it by being lazy! Now the reporters and talking heads are crying foul that they did they jobs. They asked the questions and got the answers, but nothing more, even though the evidence of the intent was hidden in plain sight! The principals in the planning and activation of those plans went on interviews oversea admitting their plans and guilt. Yet not a word in the United States about it, Pearle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kristol all of them submitted to being interviewed and spoke freely about their plans to use military force to instill Democracy in the Middle East. Not just in Iraq but all the countries of the middle east. I am not a seasoned reporter and yet I found it in 2004 in PLAN sight not hidden, not secreted but plan sight! ME this little ole high school grad whom until the invasion could not have cared less and sat fat and stupid in my hobble. I found it and tried to pass it on because the media with their “Liberal slant” was not saying one word about the conservative administration that lied this nation into acting like a world thug! That allowed the escape and continued welfare of the people that attacked and killed over three thousand in this country. The evidence of what McCellan has said was in plain sight for all that would simply take a look. But then why should they have hidden it? they believe you and I are mindless dolts, too busy watching mindless reality shows and fighting with each other to pay attention. But then they seem to have a point do they not?

The day after the bombings in 94 was:

The CIA’s budget doubled?
The FBI’s terrorism unit doubled or tripled?
The borders close?
Surveillance doubled?
Wiretapping doubled?

What was the limits of our capabilities that the ACLU or CAIR would allow? Oh that’s right, if someone bought a ticket with cash and no luggage, one way, we were allowed to make them be the last one to get on the plane?

Crap.

Should read: How about we find a way to bring the entire world to our understanding of the justice behind bringing to judgment everybody behind our 9/11?

Do you REALLY think that declaring war on an unrelated party, Iraq, is the best way to accomplish that?

Does anybody?

Franklin
Posted May 28, 2008 at 7:32 pm | Permalink
George W. Bush never lied.

Bush believed everything that Bush said, and he had good reason to believe it.
—

:lol:

I, too, have wondered whether Bush might be a Sybil.

You ever notice that Augustus Stupidus and open press conferences never appear in the same place?

:lol:

Wow pendant, must be nice to have such a tiny little box to live in and see in?

Of course had we captured OBL nothing more would happen right? We’d have been just as safe as before hijackings started back in the 60’s and 70’s.

OBL IS DEAD AND ALL TERRORISM DIES WITH HIM!!!

UH HUH?

Of course you are right CF2K, it was 1993, forgive me and of course as a lib I would expect you to then disregard my entire arguement because of that error in year.

So you agree then Pendant? If we just kill OBL all is good? We disband the TSA, disband Homeland security? All of that stuff.

The thought that the terrorist hijacked planes, killed 3000 Americans, brought down the towers, hit the Pentagon for what??

We support Israel.
We had a base in a muslim country who invited us in.

Yep, no way they overeacted, I wonder if that might have been because we UNDEREACTED in 93 and the Cole attack and the embassy bombings. Yep, Willie undereacting did us LOADS of good.

Bush and his entire team should be tried for war crimes.

In what way is it trying to get a foothold in the 21st Century???

Iran still declares there are no homosexuals in the country. That they are still being hunted down and killed. They are using children as suicide bombers. And yet you applaud a man who says he’ll go and taalllkk to them. Get to know their fffeeelllings.

What can Obamanation say to them, how will he placate them? If THAT questions doesn’t scare the hell out of you, I don’t know what will.

How many news reports did YOU see after 9-11 of how many countries in the middle east dancing for joy at the attacks on 9-11. You think it was limited to Afghanistan.

Oh Yeah, I’m sure Saddam was just sick about it.

Gene Raston,

I didn’t “disregard your argument.” Did you even read my post? I conceded that Bill Clinton underreacted in response to the threat posed by Al Qaeda.

However, it ALSO is the case that when the cruise missiles were launched to get Bin Laden in Afghanistan, lots of Repukes publicly questioned whether Clinton’s motive wasn’t to “wag the dog” and to defuse Republican attacks over the Lewinsky farce.

Like this:

“”Look at the movie ‘Wag the Dog.’ I think this has all the elements of that movie,” Rep. Jim Gibbons said. “Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.”

http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000193.html

And this:

“It is obvious that he is doing this for political reasons” (Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.).

And this:

“We have had either hostilities or threatened hostilities at interesting times throughout the last year” (incoming House Speaker Bob Livingston).

And this:

“While I have been assured by administration officials that there is no connection with the impeachment process … [b]oth the timing and the policy are subject to question” (Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott).

And this:

“It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment” (Wall Street Journal editorial).

http://www.slate.com/id/11384/

And so on. So don’t try to pretend, Gene Raston, that Repukes were above playing anti-Clinton politics with national security.

Clinton surely deserves a good portion of whatever blame is to be assigned for underperforming relative to the growing threat of Al Qaeda in the 1990’s. But given the hostility and political obstruction put up by a renegade Republican Congress, intellectual honesty–and I’m going out on a limb here by expecting this of you–demands that you acknowledge what all of us remember about Republican obstructionism in the 90’s to anything with the name “Clinton” on it.

And that doesn’t touch, Gene Raston, George Bush’s gross malfeasance for allowing 9/11. He simply couldn’t be bothered, and he wasn’t going to listen to the outgoing Clinton staff anyway: he knew better. Except he didn’t know shit, and allowed 3,000 Americans to be murdered.

And then he used this to justify his pre-planned invasion and occupation of Iraq.

By the way, Gene, what did Bush II do when the CIA confirmed that it was al Qaeda behind the attack on the USS Cole?

What did your hero, George WMD Bush do?

Eh?

The answer is below………………

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

So RF2K, the night of the report, had President Bush, (7 years later, he STILL, stole the election) had come on television and radio and announced to the entire country that he has in his hand a report that Al Quida is determined to strike in the US (which they had already done and a couple of other bombings) using aircraft. And that he, as the President was calling upon all members of congress to get behind him and do EVERYTHING in their power to protect this country.

That he was immediately doubling all airport security.
ALL passengers would be screened.
NOTHING would be allowed to be carried on a plane.
ALL checked baggage must be unpacked and repacked in front of a federal officer.
All plane travelers would be required to make their reservations no less than 14 days prior to travel.
NO cross continent travel is allowed. A flight can be no more than 40 minutes to prevent having fully loaded fuel cells.
All airports within 200 miles of New York and Washington and Los Angeles would be immediately closed and a no fly zone imposed over those cities.
ALL men of middle eastern heritage would be stripped search prior to boarding a flight.
ALL muslim men and women would be subject to extreme scrutiny.

I as the president do this because I have a piece of paper here that says this might happen at some time and date in the future.

Good night.

So you’d have had no problem with this??
Wonder what the ol ACLU would have had to say about it?
I’m sure our economy wouldn’t have been affected.

Gene Raston,

Spare us the “appeasement” buzzword. Your attempt to whip up folks into an anti-Iranian frenzy by hyping the false translation of Ahmadinejad’s statement isn’t going to work here.

A smart Administration would have done something other than take out the strategic counterweight to Iranian power in the Middle East. George Bush’s elevation of Iran by taking out Iraq has left us many fewer strategic options.

To characterize the Persians in the way you have is ignorant and irresponsible on its face. These are smart folks, Supreme Leader Khamenei in particular. They have 4,000 years experience in living in a tough neighborhood; they are survivors. If we attack them, as your rhetoric appears to hope, we shoot ourselves in the foot.

Your Islamophobia, Gene Raston, if taken to its logical conclusion, will be the undoing of us all. Here is some reading for you to do, in the hopes that you’ll think a bit more about how to approach the problem with Iran strategically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

Guess you can’t answer, Mr. Raston.

No that speech was what I can only assume what you now feel the president SHOULD have done at the time of the report.

Would you have been okay with those measures to stop the 9-11 attacks?

Would the ACLU?

According to you Bush did nothing. Would what I described in his speech, been the response you think he should have done, now in your Monday morning quarterbacking???

generaston
Posted May 28, 2008 at 8:48 pm | Permalink
…Why can’t we stop the dancing in the street in all middle eastern countries every time an American or Israeli gets killed in a terrorist attack.
—

This seems to dominate your ideas about foreign policy, gene. FP ain’t a popularity contest, it’s an exercise in maximizing US power at the minimum cost.

Or was, before Augustus Stupidus.

That said, your fear of wearing of US FP humiliation on your sleeve explains a lot. I guess it’s the other shoe, or the other side to, those Americans who worry foolishly about what the French or the British think about them personally (citizens of both countries look down their noses at Americans in general).

They worry about what our friends will think of us, you worry about what our enemies think about us. It’s all dysfunctional.

Gene Raston,

False dilemma: the choice is not “either you accept all of these conditions or you accept none of them.” Some of them I would have accepted; others not. Duh.

There are varying levels of risk, and varying levels of inconvenience that one accepts based on those risks. To present the issue as you have is misleading and, frankly, unserious.

outlander,

Still trying to re-write history, I see: the vote was 77-23. Here is the tally. Oh, and ONE Republican voted against the resolution: Lincoln Chaffee (RI-R), who was unseated in 2006. The rest of the Republicans were lockstep behind George Bush.

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

I’ll spare you the House list; the totals were as follows

Yea:
D-81
R-215
I-0

Nay:
D-126
R-6
I-1

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

As for who does and doesn’t have an “immense understanding of international affairs,” remind me again, outlander: HOW many times has John McCain confused Sunni and Shia Muslims?

“Experience” only matters if you’ve actually LEARNED something. Fly Boy has yet to prove he has.

As is evidenced by this blog, those Bush supporters will never be convinced that Bush lied to the American people about the Iraq War.

Of course, if my guy was at the lowest approval rating and I was still defending him, I don’t know if I would have the guts to admit I had been duped either.

But, really, what does it change now for McClellan to tell the truth? We are still in the mess of Iraq and John McCain is perfectly content with our troops being in Iraq for the next 100 years, if that is what it takes. (Yes, McCain did say this).

But I don’t worry just about Iraq, I am also concerned about Iran. Bush and Cheney seem intent on provoking Iran into a war before they leave office.

What military are we going to use to fight the Iran War? How many billions, that we don’t have, will that war cost us?

While we all sit and fight over who said what and when - our country is facing some major issues. Whoever gets in the presidency, God help them.

Saw Rove’s spot on fox talking about Scott, put me in mind of porky pig, the way he was stammering!

Sounds like Scott may get a trip to testify before congres, should make for more interesting questions for rovester.

P.S. I see a total of 7 Republican ‘nays’. Wanna see that percentage?

outlander
Posted May 28, 2008 at 9:40 pm | Permalink
OK OK, I stand corrected again. I should have said “60% of the sorry-a$$ed backtracking Democrats”… voted for the war. All of whom who are trying to pretend they didn’t.

My apologies.
—

Can Christians do sarcasm without fear of lightning? Because for some reason I doubt the sincerity of your apology, outlander. :D

More responsibly, please let me ask you. Do you believe that Bush is absolved completely of his responsibility in Iraq by our perception of Democrats abdication of power that should be constitutionally shared by both branches?

In other words: if it was Bush’s idea, the Democrats voted to give Bush power to conduct basic operations in Iraq as he saw fit, Bush’s ideas about the war changed drastically and Iraq became a target for more than invasion (regime change) — and the Democrats began to make loud noises like they weren’t on board — then the Democrats are ____ complicit?

Is it really your position that the Democrats are 100% complicit here?

Please take into account in your answer that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, could predict just how utterly and profoundly stupidus Augustus Bush is….

Fill in the blank, bro, ok? :D

Are the Dems really to blame as much as the GOP here?

Bush man of conviction, and according to McClellan, one of his strongest convictions was that only a war president could achieve greatness.
Didn’t bush say he was a war president?

I see where little Scottie’s book is debuting at #1. That’s fortunate for him. But he would have no reason to proffer critical opinions that he didn’t really mean. Just for money.

Besides, I have yet to hear any of the released quotes, (which will be, of course, the most critical in the book)that sound that scathing.

I wonder how much play those quotes about how he respects and likes Bush will get?

Never mind answering that gang, we all know.

outlander
Posted May 28, 2008 at 10:36 pm | Permalink
I see where little Scottie’s book is debuting at #1. That’s fortunate for him. But he would have no reason to proffer critical opinions that he didn’t really mean. Just for money.

Besides, I have yet to hear any of the released quotes, (which will be, of course, the most critical in the book)that sound that scathing.

I wonder how much play those quotes about how he respects and likes Bush will get?
—

:lol:

The best part of WEblog is how fast it turns out the apologist in some Stupidus sycophants.

No matter how bad the news, NOTHING WILL BECOME BETWEEN OUR FORMER KNOWLEDGE AND OUR CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF FEARLESS LEADER. :D

And that’s admirable, in a sort of weirdly sycophant way.

But you, outlander, surely your standards are higher?!?

G’night, all. It’s been real, it’s been fun, etc…

It is amusing that Bush’s apologists use the fact that some democrats were foolish enough to believe their boy’s lies as some sort of justification for those lies.

To the idiot that relates “Jews” with filthy Zionists: You are the reason NOTHING will change and keep getting worse in this soon-dead country and world. Get a clue, read a little REAL history (the kind that you actually have to study), quit hiding in your box and get some light shone in you. Nevermind, that’d take too much time away from FOX NEws huh?

Condi says today ” War, it’s the Right Thing To Do.”

If Fitz. learns that libby colluded with rove in setting up their story line, can he re-open the investigation and bring new charges on his own?

All this noise about McClellan’s book and I have yet to hear anyone stating he was incorrect or lied. It appears he’s being dumped on for saying these things, not that he was incorrect about them.

Heh Steven. AGAG must have been having one looooong party over at the dept of injustice since he cant seem to remember a goddamned thing that happened while he was gonzo the super lawyer.

And I think the inability of the regent’s law school twits, cant think of their names now, must mean they were at the DOJ party too.

Liars. They should all be, as Rachel Maddow says, “in the crowbar hotel”.

“It appears he’s being dumped on for saying these things”

Uh, gster?

I guess you didnt get the talking points. Bartlett, Perino, Rove and the preznit are all “puzzled” and “saddened” and saying “this isnt the snotty mcclelland we all knew”.

Not that they had a defensive play all set to roll out or anything. I mean, what are the odds they’d all choose the same words?

Puzzling, no?

I wonder if Bush is going to write a book to explain his activities over the last 8 years?

I wonder what the title might be?

“Perspecticles”-?

Naw gster. Just the usual endless repetition of the talking points of the day.

melting optional :)

Gener Aston writes:

“Of course you are right CF2K, it was 1993, forgive me and of course as a lib I would expect you to then disregard my entire arguement because of that error in year.”

I noticed how quiet it got when the Libs pointed out that if one blames Clinton for the 9-11 attack which occured 8 months after BUSH took office, then one would have to blame GHWBush even more for the ‘93 attack which occured a scant one month after Clinton took the oath of office.

the group that would later become Al Qaeda wrote

They were given that name by the CIA when they trained them to fight the Soviets. Translates to “The Database” roughly.