You've got to read this account of the intelligence that led to the Iraq war.
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.
Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He was told that the source that claimed there were was not credible, and he was told that the information coming from a source close to Hussein had been validated.
Bush lied to drag us into a pointless, unjust war.
Bush must be impeached. It doesn't matter how impractical the process seems to be, or how timid the Democrats are. This is an issue of the rule of law: are we to be governed by criminals? Is there to be no punishment for such hideous acts that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people? These men are monsters.
All I'm asking is that Bush and Cheney be thrown out of office in disgrace. If justice were served, there'd also be a subsequent act of extraordinary rendition that delivered them into the hands of the government of Iraq.
- Log in to post comments
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swin…
According to the article above the war in Iraq is a money making scam. It describes how various private organizations are getting rich off tax payer dollars and the lives of US soldiers. Pretty disgusting really.
That they knew there were no WMDs was obvious from the outset.
Consider: Gulf 1, Saddam had WMDs. On the public record, not denied by anyone. He didn't use them, even when it was clear he was getting hammered. Add to this the often crticised decision by the allied forces not to go after him. Why?
Saddam hit Israel with Scuds, without the WMD payloads they were capable of carrying. He was sending what is, in war-time diplomacy, a blindingly clear message: come after me and I will start wiping out Isreali civilians. It was an obvious, blatant move. There's no secret there. He was preserving himself - reliably the driving motive of almost any dictator. His WMDs were insurance - we couldn't hit him as long as he had them. Similarly, though, he couldn't use them because he knew he'd be a dead man if he did.
So what could we have been thinking to go directly after him several years later? We would have been embarcking on the single course of action that would be guaranteed to provike the very reponse we'd so carefully avoided that last time. How can this possibly make any sense? What had changed?
Because we knew he had nothing left. We hit him at the time we could be most sure that he had no WMDs left. We couldn't hit him if he had them! Our only opportunity came when we were sure he didn't.
Now, it's true that if he'd re-acquired WMDs, we'd have been back where we started, with Saddam largely immune. If that was the reason they'd given, fine. But they chose an obvious lie even before day 1.
This is the obvious, logical conclusion from open sources from before the attack was even launched.
If Saddam had had WMDs, and we knew he had them, then the invasion would have been one of the most stunningly stupid plans in history. Yes, even stupider than the one we had...
Yes, they should indeed be impeached. I have thought so for some time. I have sent letters and pissed people off making a big deal about it, but before it happens we need some spine in congress. The BushCos are criminals and should:
1) Be impeached
2) Sent to The Hague for war criminal trial
This Bush is continuing the family project of undermining democracy. His grandfather Prescott Bush was in on a fascist coup attempt ( see for example http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ernest_s_070830_where_s_smedley… ). Bush and Cheney deserve to die in prison. Seriously: how is it that we will send away a child molester but salute a child napalmer?
Old news, years old. A bigger deal, there are a lot of credible rumors on the net that we are going to bomb Iran before end 2008. Bush and Cheney have absolutely nothing to lose, why not.
IMO, this will be a bigger disaster than Iraq. We don't have the military to invade and occupy 70 million Iranian fanatics. Not anymore.
Not saying that the Iranians aren't our opponents and wish us ill. But if we bombed everyone we didn't like, half the world would be gone by now.
I never for a second thought he didn't know, but it is nice to have some proof.
The interview on Fresh Air this morning was really something. I'm now afraid that Bush will figure out a way to invalidate every single blue-state's vote in the 2008 election, and will use that as a way to continue to hold the office. I am seriously afraid he's going to hold on to power, even if there's a Democrat landslide. It's a very scary thing he's doing with the office of White House Counsel.
The book is by Charles Savage.
The broadcast.
Methinks this (the blog entry) is not going to be well received by your e-mailing audience.
While I agree that impeachment, conviction, and removal from office, followed by rendition to a court where their crimes can be brought before a judge and jury is desirable; it is not going to happen. We're simply not going to establish that precedent. It would mean future presidents and politicians would be required to act honorably and with integrity. No one in Washington wants that to happen.
The rational/ skeptical/ &c commentators here saw thru the charade that kas killed 4K+ soldiers and banko'd the treasury. No wonder that the "true believers" are furious with disbelief in the authoritarian prescription that pays them off.
I love how the same people who say Bush is the stupidest person who ever lived also think he's a diabolical genius behind the scenes who can somehow overcome the 22nd Amendment and stay in power beyond his term. Come on, you can't have it both ways!
Even if somehow Bush managed to rig it such that there was no election in 2008, or that the results were in turmoil, or whatever, Bush STILL would not remain as President! As of January 20, 2009, Bush will be constitutionally ineligible to be President, so even if a replacement had not validly been chosen, Bush would no longer hold the office. Unfortunately for those who despise the whole ticket, the next eligible Officer in the line of succession would take over, so we would have President Cheney.
The only way Bush can stay in power beyond his term is to actually abolish the constitutional government and take over by force. I'm pretty sure that isn't going to happen. My bet: A peaceful transition of power following a normal election between two non-incumbents in November 2008. Any takers?
Unfortunately for those who wish to depose the Republicans, the Democrats are actually going to be stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton, who, no matter how much people will her to power, is simply unelectable on a national basis. There are about 25 million people in the country (and I know, because I grew up among them) who see her, not as simply unqualified or bad or misguided, but as actually EVIL. These people seriously, LITERALLY think she is the antichrist, an agent of satan on earth, and thus they will show up to vote against her NO MATTER who is on the other side. You can't be elected President in this country with negatives like that.
So unless the Democrats get smart and pick a candidate who can win, we're in for at least another four years of Republican rule.
P.S. You won't see Bush/Cheney impeached (or at least not removed) because the Democrats in Congress are not at all eager to explain to a dumbed-down and lied-to populace how they fell for the lies and voted to give Bush the power to use force in Iraq.
This treachery hits even harder than readily appears. Reading PZ's post, I immediately thought of an interview with a US Army commander who led troops in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The interviewer pointed out they rolled right over huge arms & ammunition dumps, and those munitions are now being used against the US military and Iraqi civilians by various combatants in Iraq.
So why, the interviewer wanted to know, didn't the commander guard those munitions? Not enough troops, he answered.
Why, then, didn't you destroy the munitions, the interviewer asked. The commander answered, "I didn't want to be the commander who blew up an ammunition dump and released poison gas, killing tens of thousands of civilians."
So the Bush administration's lie about WMDs (to US commanders) continues to pay its fetid, bloody dividends to this day.
i'm puzzled as to why there's a question at the end of the title to this post.
Now, now, we all know impeachment is reserved for serious crimes, like blowjobs.
Sending our nation's youth off to Iraq as cannon fodder under false pretenses and triggering the deaths of 100,000 plus Iraqis, Americans and allies *hardly* warrants impeachment.
Get a grip PZ!
My question is; what exactly can we do to promote this impeachment process?
I have wanted him impeached for so long; so many of my neighbors and co-workers have also wanted this: what exactly can we do to implement this process?
(Not voiceless, as I have contacted Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, and Ray LaHood on this issue.)
But feeling powerless, as my voiced opinion on this matter has resulted in no action by these politicos.
Shouting for an answer: WHAT CAN WE DO TO INITIATE IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH?
I guess it shouldn't be so surprising that the gullible majority fell for the Bush lies from the start. What is disgusting is that impeachment flew off the table when the Dems made gains in 06. I'm loathing politicians more and more and am wishing I could retreat to the superior position of anarchism once again. Instead, I will continue to vote if only to defend myself from the politicians.
Of course Emperor Fratboy the Mad knew there were no WMD's. WMD's would have given Iraq a realistic capability for self-defense. Can you imagine a drugstore cowboy like
GWB attacking people who could defend themselves? Cureholder (#9) is right, though. Impeachment ain't gonna happen. In whatever crimes GWB is guilty of, the Democrats are complicit right up to the eyebrows.
Why do only the good presidents get assassinated?
harold meyerson makes an argument worth considering that just because impeachment is warranted doesn't mean it's a good idea.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_trouble_with_impeachment
In 2003, a coworker dropped by my office and said, "Steve, I can't believe it, but you were right."
I said, "right about what?"
He said, "Back in 2000, you said you didn't like Bush. You said you were afraid he'd get us into a war with Iraq. I thought you were crazy. You were *right*."
If I, dumbass that I am, could foresee in 2000 that Bush would get us into a war with Iraq, why is it a surprise that diphshit-in-chief did whatever possible, including the banal, simple-minded, easy act of lying to the American public to do so. Of course he fucking lied. Surprised? Yeah, surprised it takes this long for people to figure it out. OF COURSE he lied.
Saddam tried to kill his daddy. The whole fucking thing is a giant fucking adolescent Bible-fueled revenge fantasy. That's what this whole Iraq war is about. Doubtless goaded on by the cadre of war profiteers that Bush has surrounded himself with.
Bush should be indicted for treason, tried, and if convicted, given the usual punishment, which for such acts, if I'm not mistaken, is death by firing squad.
The more interesting question is whether it is provable Bush knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11. As the administration used the blanket AUMF as its putative "declaration" of war against Iraq, et al., a knowingly inapplicable AUMF presumably means the war was never authorized by Congress.
...
...
PZ, I agree, and thank you for saying it out loud. If Congress doesn't at least MAKE THE ATTEMPT to hold Bush and Cheney (and the rest of the White House crew) accountable via impeachment and prosecution proceedings, America is OVER -- truth and justice are a total myth ... and even the myth will no longer exist.
That's my sense of Justice talking. Now, my sense of HUMOR says we could go a long way toward healing the breach with the rest of the world (and incidentally our trade deficit too) if we remove Bush and Cheney from office and then sell them to the higest nation-bidder afterwards.
Speaking strictly for myself, I'll vote for Democrats in upcoming elections only as long as they fulfill the tacit promise to prosecute and jail these bastards. If Obama or Clinton or whoever gets to the White House and says "We need to put this all behind us and move on," and then pardons this crew, they will instantly become traitors to every American ideal.
The only way to "put this all behind us" and still have a nation left is to put it behind us by investigating in full public view, spotlighting every single criminal act, and prosecuting all those responsible. Every person involved, from Bush on down, should be imprisoned and financially beggared upon conviction.
If it takes ten years to get it done, if it costs a billion dollars, I'm willing to bear the wait, and pay my share of the cost.
...
...
Come on, you can't have it both ways!
yes, you can. just ask Karl Rove.
Bush IS a dumbass (all you have to do is watch unscripted press conferences). that doesn't mean his pupeteers are.
Harold Meyerson is a moral coward making excuses to avoid doing what is right.
cyan said: WHAT CAN WE DO TO INITIATE IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH?. A few posts above yours, Robert S. said: "we all know impeachment is reserved for serious crimes, like blowjobs". So, cyan, your mission should you choose to accept it...
I wonder if we could coax him into a Minneapolis airport mens room.
Yikes, must scrub brain.
That isn't all. As detailed by Keith Olbermann on Tuesday, Bush says, in his forthcoming authorized biography, that he plans to play out Iraq as long as he can in order to force the GOP candidates for 2008 to climb into bed with his "I refuse to withdraw" policy.
He's declared, openly and without any shame, that he intends to force Iraq as an issue onto his successor. He's playing it for political capital, and has said so.
Treason is about the right word for this.
Uh, no. Cheney's term in office also expires on Jan. 20, so it would fall to the Speaker of the House. (Congress's term in office begins on Jan. 3, and I don't picture the House taking three weeks to choose a Speaker--this isn't the 1840s.)
I disagree with PZ here. The problem is Bush knew there *were* WMD in Iraq. After all, Jesus told him. It didn't matter what "intelligence" says, what with their "facts" and all. This is a war of faith.
The problem with democracy is that humans are idiots.
The problem with your democracy is that, by enforcing a two party system, you eliminate the protest vote. People are afraid to vote for the people they might like to because they think their vote won't count - which is largely true if they vote outside of the big two. In civilised countries (ok, Australia) our vote stays in play, so if your first choice can't win, it goes to the second, and so on.
You can't vote Hilary because you're worried others won't vote for her. You can't vote Nader becuase you know it takes a vote away from voting *against* the Republicans. With a preferential voting system you could vote Nader -> Hilary -> Obama, and when the masses reject the first two your vote still goes to the third.
You know it makes sense.
How is it democracy if you can't vote for the people you want to vote for? Or, at least, you can't make it count...
I'm trying to reconcile this with the report on Think Progress this morning that Bush "still believed Saddam possessed WMD" in 1996.
Either he gets more ignorant with time, or he's one of those happy individuals able to hold two contradictory beliefs in his head simultaneously.
It has always seemed to me that the deciding point for Dubya was when Saddam claimed to have won the previous war, based on the fact he was still in power and George H.W. was not. After that it was just a matter of waiting for the first opportunity, regardless of the consequences.
Since I wouldn't expect Dubya to admit this, even in an autobiography, I probably will never know for sure if I'm right.
Not saying that the Iranians aren't our opponents and wish us ill.
And you know this based on ... what actual evidence?
Here's another way to look at it: who hurt America more, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, or George W. Bush and Dick Cheney?
The Rosenbergs were convicted of passing nuke secrets to the Soviet Union, though it's now known that Ethel may have been innocent and what the Soviets got from them was far less valuable than the bomb design info they got from Klaus Fuchs, who only got 14 years jail in England. The judge blamed the Rosenbergs for the Korean War (bullcrap, sez me).
Punishment: the electric chair at Sing Sing.
Bush and Cheney stole two elections, maxed out the treasury, drowned New Orleans, took habeas corpus away from us, instituted torture, started a war the U.N. considered illegal, eliminated most of the Bill of Rights, and outed a CIA agent for political gain. That last thing, all by itself, is comparable to what the Rosenbergs were fried for. Oh, by the way: the oil meters in Basra have not been working since 2003, so, according to bartcop.com , these guys may be stealing $100 million a day.
Punishment: riches beyond imagining.
I'll ask it again, cause nobody answered the first guy-- WHAT CAN YOU DO TO GET THE IMPEACHMENT BALL ROLLING?
[quote]But if we bombed everyone we didn't like, half the world would be gone by now.[/quote]
And likewise if you bombed everyone who didn't like you, the USA would be alone.
The US has alienated EVERY ally's people. They still have the 'support' of various governments, but almost every voter in every other country wants to see Bush punished. Just a shame the US voters are still retards.
It is pretty telling that I am the first to highlight the previous post--- "Why do only the good presidents get assassinated?
Posted by: Your plastic pal who's fun to be with | September 5, 2007 10:46 PM
"
I know that most of you on the left will tolerate such thoughts. Hell you couldn't even get yourselves to have Randi Rhodes thrown off talk radio for her gun "joke".
That is sickening even in your end justifies the means world. Hopefully the Secret Service makes note and goes after "plastic pal". Bush is such a Nazi I am sure they are already on his door step.
Of course the intel that supported WMDS is ignored. Hmm seems the lot of you have your own little power grab. You know it. You would rather destroy this president and give the enemy hope then support them. That is a fact.
It seems if I remember correctly old Sidney worked for President Clinton. I would not exactly call him unbiased. As for the CIA officer I have not noticed a one of you question their motives nor the validity of their contentions. Seems to me many of you are just as driven to meet your ends as you charge President Bush.
You do have to love that as noted "...the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "
It is beautiful to see that Saddam's own representative is deserving of your trust. Again, quite telling.
WMDs or not. Keep fooling yourselves. There WAS more than one reason for war but like children you hold onto the one thing that makes you believe you can wield power. Read Bush's speech for God's sake.
When are the Dems going to pull the troops? When will they cut the funding? You have the power. Again very telling.
Impeachment? Now that would be interesting but again even with power you won't make it happen. I see more spin on the Clinton impeachment as if it was over a blow job. Again the fact that those that visit here let that slide is again proof that you will tolerate misinformation at best and lies at worst.
Enjoy
Dave, the House of Reps has that power. Ask your local member.
...which is why it won't happen. There are more votes to lose in action than there is to be lost through inaction. All the people wanting impeachment are going to vote for the impeachers anyway. Why give their opponents a weapon?
See also my earlier post re: two party system. When people know they are the only viable option for one side, they have no motivation to push any boundaries.
Impeachment isn't enough. Bush/Cheney etc. need to be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail (as seen in Oh Brother, Where Art Thou<?/i> by Americans willing to stick around and warn Congress that the Constitution is something they've also been sworn to uphold and protect.
And when they're out of tar and feathers, Cheney should be shown the horseshoe magnets.
Oh the big surprise! Anyone who watched Colin Powell's ridiculous performance at the UN knows damn well this was all faked. Evidence he showed was:
1. A flask full of pseudo-anthrax that could have killed oh so many Americans.
2. A square in the Iraqi desert that demonstrated once and for all that WMD's were hidden there.
3. A jet plane contrail that supposedly showed Iraqi ability to spray deadly chemicals on innocent christians in the US of A
4. A truck that was obviously a field factory of nerve gas or worse
And our goddam lawmakers bought this crap! We can only blame ourselves for swallowing this con job. Shame on all of us! Bush is a consummate liar all right. But why did we as a people buy this shit? Don't blame him, blame us!
Hey Eric---thanks much for the factual correction on the Cheney v. Speaker of the House thing. Something in the back of my mind was saying that I didn't have it quite right, but I was doing three things at once and just didn't listen to that voice. (When will I learn---ALWAYS listen to the voices in my head!)
So yes, if Bush somehow managed to foil the 2008 election, on January 20, 2009, Nancy Pelosi would become President (assuming she was re-elected by her district and retained as Speaker by her colleagues).
And Cyan, the only way to start impeachment is to get articles of impeachment passed in the House of Representatives, so basically your method would be to contact representatives (and maybe persuade others to do the same) to get the ball rolling.
Bah humbug! We knew perfectly well that the Iraquis were working on weapons of mass destruction because we sold the wherewithal to them -- and we have the receipts to prove it.
Wuffencucoo
But why did we as a people buy this shit?
It was on TV. Nobody'd lie on TV, would they? That'd be wrong.
You guys can have him back anytime you like. Sydney is like a bit prison cell from what I see in the media.
Wow, PZ - are you way behind the curve on this one.
*yawn*
I find it interesting that the Republicans wanted to go after Clinton at all costs regardless of consequences and now we find that PZ and friends want to go after Bush at all costs regardless of consequences. Please - we knew there were no WNDs and that this was just a revenge deal when it happened ... and now this is news to anyone????? Impeaching Bush will do -nothing- ... give it up ... its time to look forward to the next admin ... but its doubtful that you will ...
wow... this just bloody amazes me....
Impeaching Bush will do -nothing-
trying and convicting a murderer does nothing.
putting a car thief in jail does nothing.
shall i go on, or are you ready to concede that your statement might not be all that well thought out?
...OTOH, I rather think that much of Congress has come to the same erroneous conclusion you have, with just as much thought put into it.
I guess we should just give up on the idea of a nation of law, eh?
hell, we violate our own laws all the time anyway.
I agree with the above stated Bush and Chaney et al are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors that are too numerous to list here but I am sure that a list could be drawn up in short order. The question of impeachment may not be acceptable to enough of the Washington Politicians to be on the table not that it should not be. I think it was a big mistake not to have Impeached Nixon I think it would have been good for the country then and now. The question I have is this do we as a country have the courage to stand up when it becomes clear that the election has been stolen again? Can we have an Orange Revolution of our own or will we just go along and make some feeble protest and go home and bitch to our friends and families.
Can we have an Orange Revolution of our own or will we just go along and make some feeble protest and go home and bitch to our friends and families.
I'll bet a case of scotch on the latter.
doomed I tells ya.
I think that PZ might be using the word "knew" in the wrong sense, i.e., the sense in which most normal people understand it.
For most of us, "was informed of a fact, backed by evidence and expert opinion" = "knew", or "accepted the body of evidence and expert opinion as the best available approximation to the truth". A true ideologue doesn't use that sort of thought process.
I can think of another national leader who, when he was provided with a detailed report based on the best available intelligence, which showed that a nation he was at war with was recovering from the economic damage inflicted by that war more rapidly than had been expected, simply scribbled "this cannot be" on the cover page and thought no more about it.
The ability of the True Believer to ignore all evidence which contradicts his chosen beliefs should never be misunderestimated.
In fact, I really wich Ambrose Bierce were still around, because I've got a new entry for the Devil's Dictionary:
IDEOLOGY: n. A type of vaccination which confers complete immunity against empirical evidence.
Ah, the Orange Revolution... gee, I wonder who we could get to sponsor one here? Viktor Yushchenko has his hands full at the moment, and so cannot return the favor.
Whatever happens to BushCo, the last word on the subject will undoubtedly be "Pardon", and in fifteen years he'll show up as an Elder Statesman and start arbitrating between Major League Baseball and the Umpires Union.
That sounds like a kind of prayer to me.
There's no deity or messiah or brash young upstart Senator who could come down and impeach Bush or make everything all right in 2009. Bringing these criminals to justice and safeguarding against a recurrence like this would require lots of people to get out of their comfort zones, forgoing their favorite TV episodes or blogs in favor of writing letters and making calls, meeting and organizing, protesting, maybe risking arrest in civil disobedience, etc. We can also give money and otherwise support candidates who-
sorry, gotta go, Battlestar Galactica just came on!
Dishonesty aside, Dubya's "possession of WMDs = dangerous" conclusion was a non-sequitur to begin with.
Even if Saddam DID have WMDs, that wouldn't necessarily make him a threat. We have WMDs, and we're not a threat (I hope). Besides, Saddam would have known from his experience in the Gulf War that if he was going to attack another country with whatever means, the US would fly in there and kick his ass. You think Dubya, as the son of the Commander in Chief during that earlier war, would have figured that out.
In addition to the obvious (the loss of both American and Iraqi lives, there is a real tragedy in the war: it has not made the US, or the world in general, any safer. If anything, it has handed the terrorists a rallying point to recruit new followers and get more funding.
Post-9/11, the US had the sympathy of the world (well, most of it), and there was a true willingness to join together to diminish the threat of terrorism. Through its total disregard for the importance of "soft power", the Bush administration squandered its greatest asset. (Anybody remember "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists"?)
The result? Thousands dead, stronger terrorists, a weaker USA with fewer degrees of freedom in international policy and a more insecure world for us all.
Right, and so the fatal flaw of neoconservative foreign policy is revealed: Militaristic solutions pressed upon unwilling populations yields (at best) Pax Romana.
Regarding the topic of the post, US could do regain measures of respect and perhaps get what US citizens here wants by pushing for US joining the International Criminal Court (ICC).
There are more where that comes from. US could regulate laws so another president can't temporarily circumvent the Geneva conventions. It could also remove the reservation in the 4th convention which circumvent local law for civilians in occupied nations to be able to summarily e_x_e_c_u_t_e them. Et cetera.
Those exceptions were somewhat acceptable as long as a democratic nation as US behaved responsibly. Now they are scaring people - or at least, they should scare us.
[It could also help if US spam filters didn't block e_x_e_c_u_t_e or k_i_l_l. :-P]
"There WAS more than one reason for war but like children you hold onto the one thing that makes you believe you can wield power."
My irony meter just exploded.
But that's what you gotta love about people like "J". No matter how many times they are discredited and disgraced they stick to their guns. No WMD's? No problem. Exaggerated or outright fraudulent ties to Al Queida? You bet your ass. But the war was worth it! Sadaam, terrorists.....erp....THE SURGE IS WORKING!
Impeachment is necessary and urgently needed -- before this administration has the time to try to hold off or prevent impeachment proceedings by starting a disasterous war with Iran.
I'm glad you've brought this up, and I hope some people in the government are listening. I wrote about the need for impeachment myself here: Where have all the checks and balances gone?
According to Robert Draper, Bush *knew* until at least 2006 that Saddam had WMD.
J - #34
I don't know you so I won't speak ill of you. I will make some observations:
* Left is a political term. People Left and Right politically can have a Right Wing Authoritian (RWA) bent - a phychological not a political designation. RWA's distort and/or ignore facts to suit their mental models of things. People Left and Right can NOT be RWAers too.
* Bush is a RWA in my opinion AND he is a RWA Leader who also is a true believer in "higher powers." Doesn't get any more dangerous. You may disagree but that is your opinion -- I have mine -- it comes from the waste, death, disruption, and other actions I see.
* Liberals (people not RWA's - NOT meant Left or Right politically) have been shown in many studies to be MUCH more even-handed than RWA's.... they judge and punish pretty much on the facts and regardless of association with those they judge. This is what I understand from studies, but it is said by me so my opinion.
* I suspect people here are blowing off steam and exaggerating their statements for effect. I personally cring at statements like the one you referenced -- but I also feel the hyberbole intended to make a point.
* Bush and this war and his actions and results and management and faith-based decisions etc. have FACTUALLY been a disaster for us and sadly for many many innocents elsewhere. You may not see it ... but frankly it is so obvious to me.
* I think Bill Clinton was an asshole in many many ways.. frankly he made me want to vomit at times.. BUT he held the post and did the job for us orders of magnitude better than Bush has. To compare the transgressions of the personally flawed political Clinton to Bush's and equate them evenly is mindboggling to me.
* The Intel on WMD was heavily toward "doesn't have" ... the inspectors per se were singing "doubt it.. wait .. no don't do it" Only a criminal and/or insane person would gamble lives and treasure on iffy evidence for NO immediate good reason like Bush did. No sane and reasonable person would allow a mistake to get so out of hand like Bush did. You may feel differently but agaion it boggles my mind.
* Bush now has the percent of the population behind him that is strongly RWA. Let's hope the saner heads among us prevail over them.
Again - I am an equal opportunity critic and judge. I would bet most of the readers of this blog are also when the rubber meets the road. I don't like unworthy (in civilized discussions) statements. However that does not alter the fact that Bush is a VERY dangerous person who has done damage to us on a number of fronts and to repair his damge will take more will, time, patience, understyanding, treasure, rightgeousness, integrity, and ability than perhaps we can muster up in W DC. It is sad and scarey to those of us that can see reality. My opinion ..
Yes I am am serious need of using spell check --OK .. even I say "WOW -- you ever go to school!?" Pardon me good people.
Confirmed by the hearsay account of an unnamed source from an agency with an ax to grind.
I believe it.
I don't think so. Fearless Flightsuit goes to church a lot less often than one might think.
Do you really believe he lies to everyone except the Religious Wrong? Don't you think he considers them useful idiots?
After all, he said he had stopped drinking, too. Remember the show he pulled on his birthday last year? He couldn't walk straight anymore.
In 1996. That's when he still had some. He got rid of them between 1998 and 2002.
For the record, I won't. I want to hear from Captain Unelected's own mouth what he knew and when he knew it.
Yeah, like the overwhelming evidence for Intelligent Design.
"The enemy", eh?
Well, who has done greater damage to the USA? The Busheviki or Saddam?
Ever got the idea that there might be such a thing as a monumental fight of evil against evil?
Re: #23
Tim Kreider had the plan ready in 2004.
"impeachment will do nothing"
Maybe yes, maybe no... but, if Bush is guilty of lying this country into a war and causing the needless deaths of over 3,000 US soldiers and over 150,00 Iraqis, then he should be held accountable.
You seem to forget that there is a sacred trust between the government and its' citizens that allows the government to call/ask its citizens to defend, fight and perhaps die for this country. The cause, however, have to be valid and noble.
How can any US citizen not be skeptical of any future Presidents reason to go to war?
How is future Presidents going to be able to honestly ask US citizens to fight and die for this country in light of this?
That sacred trust has been broken by the Bush administration for his own personal agenda.
Bush et al. have to be held accountable so something like this can never again be perpetrated on the American people.
This is not Democrat vs. Republican issue...It's a Right vs. Wrong issue.
Following on from ConcernedJoe's comment about Right Wing Authoritarianism, this book is the most comprehensive study of RWA psychology. It's enlightening.
I spent some time over at Project Censored (www.projectcensored.org). In addition to some pretty alarming content about how the corporate media has been taken in by the bushies, someone wrote an article about impeachment. They claim that if Bush/Cheney were impeached, the resulting evidence disclosures would bring down the government, since it is so complicitous. That's why the Dems aren't interested in impeachment. More alarming is the Blackwater/Haliburton connection. This mercenary army is being funded by Cheney's old group (perhaps by some of that Basra oil money?), and has essentially free rein in Iraq, the best weapons, armor, etc. They even have their own satellites. One wonders if we're being set up for a coup, since an army of this type isn't subject to civilian (Congressional) control.
SG
At this point I'd settle for punitive damages of $1 Trillion to cover the cost of his little pet war. I know he could never pay it, but it would be nice to sell his estate and garnish his wages all the way down to minimum wage.
How is future Presidents going to be able to honestly ask US citizens to fight and die for this country in light of this?
You're perhaps forgetting that the people who are actually doing the fighting and dying...well, we don't get a choice.
By taking the oath to safeguard your 'freedom,' we give up a few things for the duration that we're in uniform. One of those is the right to argue about where, when, and against whom we get deployed (yes yes...presuming the order to go kill people is lawful....different, although tangentially relevant, discussion). George doesn't ask...he orders...we go. The question of whether or not Joe Snuffy soldier gets to make the call about whether a given deployment order, issued from on high, is lawful or unlawful hasn't been decided. Until it is decided, the situation in which we currently live is: he orders...we go.
So, as it stands right now, that's our job...to kick in the doors.
Your job (the non-military populace) is to make sure we're kicking in doors you can live with. That is to say, it is your job to determine the lawfulness of the deployment orders (or, as is much more common, to make up your minds as to whether or not you want us to be killing this particular group of poor people versus some other group of poor people). Contrary to what most Republicans will tell you, it is not unpatriotic to question conflicts. It is your job to do so. Questioning the war doesn't mean you're not supporting the troops, whatever the Hell that actually means on the ground (for me, it has very little to do with fucking little yellow ribbon magnets). If a soldier tells you you're not being patriotic because you question the war, he or she is misunderstanding your job...and is, in my opinion, flat out wrong. Our morale is our fucking problem. The 'right or wrong' of the conflict is yours. Questioning means sitting down and making a decision, hopefully based on reasoned analysis, as to whether or not you are for or against said conflict (I personally hope most of age citizens would engage in this exercise). And one would of course hope the analysis would be based on something other than just CNN or Faux News...but I would also hope college freshman could do math...so whatever.
I also don't think that, if you decide your against a conflict, putting yourself through the amazing sacrifice of attending a couple of hour-long war protests a day or two before we start the door-kicking is really going to do much. People turn a bit of a baleful eye toward Cindy Sheehan, but you cannot really say she didn't put her money where her mouth was.
More alarming is the Blackwater/Haliburton connection. ...One wonders if we're being set up for a coup, since an army of this type isn't subject to civilian (Congressional) control.
We kicked this one around over on Dispatches from the Culture Wars. I strongly maintain that Blackwater is not and could never be powerful enough to succeed in a coup attempt. There's too many current and former military personnel who take their oaths "to protect and defend the Constitution" very, very seriously. Blackwater could, perhaps, sow terror for awhile, which could result in anarchy. To govern, though, they have to come out in the open. Even if the plotters tried to get the real military involved, it wouldn't work. It doesn't take very many patriots in each unit to make the unit unreliable for supporting treason, and that would make the commanders very leery of getting involved in the first place.
This is all nonsense. I happen to enjoy our standard of living in the US and I know it depends on a steady cheap source of energy, mostly in the form of oil. It's our leader's jobs to go get resources. That's what leaders do, and have done throughout human history. That's what Bush/Cheney did.
Yes, they fit the WMD data to fit the policy of invasion and put on a show at the UN to skirt nonaggression treaties that prevent us from doing what we did. I don't hear a lot of complaint from the rest of the world. Saddam had gone off his rocker and was threatening the stability of the world's economy. 9/11 provided perfect cover to act.
David Frum makes the point that the success of the western global economy has depended on America's steady hand since (at least) 1945. That steady hand has enriched the top 1 billion people on the planet. That steady hand can extend that wealth to the rest of the world. But we simply cannot hand over control of the Middle East to fanatics that would pull us all down.
BobApril,
There will be no military coup. Say what you will about our current government (if it's obscene, you're probably right) but the military will not be used to take over the US. I served in the Marines not that long ago, and I can assure you that while you MIGHT be able to find 10 or 15 per cent of them willing to buy into some trumped up argument that a coup would be necessary to save the union or some other bullshit, it takes alot more that than paltry number, even if there were generals involved. If you think you could get the armed forces to follow orders to take over this country, you don't understand the military or the people serving in it very well. There are plenty of other things to worry about relating to our country and world, but this thankfully isn't one of them.
TW,
"I happen to enjoy our standard of living in the US and I know it depends on a steady cheap source of energy, mostly in the form of oil. It's our leader's jobs to go get resources. That's what leaders do"
Well, you certainly lack any kind of imagination don't you? Let me explain.
A truly great leader at the time of 9/11 would have used the worldwide and national compassion and backing to set into play a way for us (the world, not just the United States) to come up with new solutions to energy that would make fossil fuels irrelevant. It would have been extremely expensive, perhaps a couple trillion dollars, but think of the power change in the Middle East, etc. Take away the astronomical money being made by a relative few there, and a lot of the violence goes away too. Except for the religious type.
Now a truly terrible leader would have done exactly what Bush did, lie to his people, spend a trillion or more dollars on a war (not to mention the troops and civilians lost) all for resources which everyone knows won't last forever by any means. Add into that the alienating most of the world and creating more terrorists, and you have a magnificently botched job.
You see, you have to be able to think a little deeper than that. You aren't expecting enough from your leaders.
The interesting thing isn't the knowledge of the lack of WMD. That has been known for years, at least since the British pre-war intelligence reports were leaked. What was that, 2003?
What is interesting is that the balance of power among the elite has shifted. Where before we got pure Pravda from the mainstream press (exepting Knight-Ridder to some extent), some group or groups with ownership interests has decided it's time to start revealing this information to the population at large.
To those who say that impeachment "will do nothing". Well, we got into this mess because the country wasn't aggressive enough with Nixon. We didn't eliminate his subordinates from the political process. We forgave the lackeys, including Cheney and Rumsfeld. If we don't impeach, these same bastards (through younger lackeys today) will come back to bite us again in ten to twenty years. And just as they're goals have expanded since Nixon, next time they'll be even worse, even more authoritarian and anti-constitutionalist.
Do you want that for your later years? Do you want that for your kids?
TW:
Nice to know you don't give a damn how you feed your mouth. You don't care about the consequences. The long-term destabilization of global politics. The delay in developing the needed technologies to cope with the oil shortages in the fairly near future. Or the effects on global warming of delaying our switch over to alternate fuels.
It's nice that you put your comfort so far above the 1/2 million civilians who have died because of this war. Or the 4000 American soldiers. Or the 25-50,0000 American soldiers who will be permanently cognitively damaged, and who other people (not you!) will have to care for, for the next 60 years.
It's nice that you don't give a damn about the living standards of the next generation, who will have to pay off the massive debt due to this war. And who will have to deal with a much more independent Europe, a revitalized Russia, and a China who holds our economic stability in T-Bonds. It's nice to know that you don't give a damn either about the rise in crime rates that are going to inevitably come from a certain percentage of soldiers coming home without jobs, without support and with psychological damage from fighting for years on end while their families fell apart.
Nice to know that you're an amoral creep. Maybe you're right and you're in good company. Maybe our entire nation is primarily made up of amoral, narcissistic monsters who say, "Damn the consequences! I want mine now!" like the Athenians did in the fourth century.
But then, maybe, we deserve exactly what's coming down the pike at us. Maybe...
Dahan: "A truly great leader at the time of 9/11 would have used the worldwide and national compassion and backing to set into play a way for us (the world, not just the United States) to come up with new solutions to energy that would make fossil fuels irrelevant."
Uh huh, and what is this magical way "to come up with new solutions to energy"? A lot of people are already trying to do that. Fuel cells, solar, wind...none can presently run a large industrialized nation. Fusion remains too far out in the future. Meanwhile, our economy operates on a three month cycle. Energy independence is a very tough problem that won't yield to wishful thinking.
BTW, the 'world' started using 9/11 to their own advantage the very same day. Remember the Brit who said it would be a good time to release any bad news since it would get covered up in 9/11 coverage? Their leaders will act to their own nation's best advantage, as they should. So I would never depend on the kindness of strangers to solve our problems.
TW,
You might have missed something there. I didn't mention anything about magic. I admitted freely that it would be VERY expensive. I could also have added that it would take years. I figured you would already understand that. I also did not say anything about "relying on the kindness of strangers". I'm sure you are aware that there was an outpouring of goodwill from most of the rest of the world at that time that was squandered. I referred to that. I also mentioned how our nation was ready and willing to undertake a herculean task like developing new energy resources. Guess you missed that part too.
You say that a lot of people are already trying to come up with ways to overcome our reliance on fossil fuels. Yes, your right. How does that play into your argument? Lots of people were interested and working on space flight when Kennedy challenged the nation to put a man on the moon. We did it, and in under 10 years, because we spent unheard of amounts of resources, both financial and mental on the process. Nothing was held back. because of this, we achieved that goal probably 30 years earlier than it would have happened otherwise. The Manhattan project was much the same way.
Your defeatist attitude is very sad. Yes, we would need to continue to use fossil fuels as we worked on alternatives. Again, I don't see your point. It's not like there was any real threat to our oil shipments from Saddam. He was a paper tiger, which, as this blog pointed out, Bush knew.
I have two uncles who have spent the vast majority of their working life as engineers for the oil companies (one of whom has spent all his time working on fuel cells). They are also convinced that if you really want to change the equation as far as energy is concerned, you need to have an all out effort sold to the people by the government, and that we missed our best chance when Bush decided war was a better answer. They are both lifetime Republicans BTW, not the sort of pie-in-the-sky sort you appear to think me.
It's a good thing people like you weren't in charge during the cold war (We can't take down the USSR by beating it financially! We have to attack them!) or the War of Independence (We just don't have the resources to fight this war! Don't upset my easy life by fighting the British!) Your arguments are pretty pathetic.
Bush lied? Now I suppose you're going to tell me that professional athletes use steroids.
I'm also someone who was boldly saying there were no WMD before the war. And it was not just a guess. In August 2002, I attended my 20 year college reunion. One of my classmates who works at the State Department happened to be in town and was there. We got into a conversation about Iraq. Me and another classmate (from northern Europe) were arguing that it didn't matter whether there were weapons or not, an invasion was a stupid idea.
Then the guy from the State Department interupted us and adamantly said, "You're not listening! There are no weapons of mass destruction!" Wow, he convinced me with his certainty (and with his possible access to inside information).
So, ever since when I've heard Democrats or Republicans say that "Everyone thought there were weapons", I know that that this was not true, even in the ranks of the State Department.
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.
Bush, awarding Tenet his Preznitial Meduhl of Freedumb:
"The Presidential Medal of Freedom is our nation's highest civil award given to men and women of exceptional merit, integrity and achievement. Today this honor goes to three men who have played pivotal roles in great events, and whose efforts have made our country more secure and advanced the cause of human liberty."
I think this song sums up things quite nicely, don't you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAoC90iMhMg
--Raynfala
frog: Your outrage is duly noted. But this:
As a tribe, the US has evolved the most successful success strategy on the planet to date. Are you saying that evolution is amoral? And that that amorality is bad? And because it is bad, we 'deserve' something for it?
those were old lies.
The new lies are now :
1. the surge is working
2. Iran is fueling Al Qaeda
7 out of 8 republican candidates kept repeating them last night on Fox News.
"As a tribe, the US has evolved the most successful success strategy on the planet to date. "
For less than 250 years, to date, China, Egypt, and Rome among others have had empires which lasted more than a thousand years. I think the jury's still out on exactly how successful our current system is.
"Follow the money."
Josh (#67):
1. Thank you for your service to our country.
2. Keep your head down and come home safe to your family.
3. Thanks for sharing your views with us. It is up to us (the non-military) to take our government to task when they are wrong. The main problem is that most of us have no burden in this war, no taxes, no draft; only a few even know anyone who is affected personally by this war. So we go about our lives, wishing that something could be / would be done (preferably by someone else).
I have believed that those criminals should be impeached for the last two years. If there is ONE major reason I have broken my life-long affiliation with the Dems, it is over this issue, which they somehow just can't bring themselves to follow through on. It disgusts me.
There is nothing I can add to that statement.
::::KBS
Wouldn't really surprise me.
That, on the other hand, would surprise me.
Firstly, you don't need to stage a coup when you can simply steal an election. People who make a coup can't sell an oiligarchy and MORONARCHY as freedumb and demockracy anymore, not even on TV.
Secondly, Darth Cheney (Richard the Lying-Hearted) is not Dr Evil, he is Number Two. Having privatized democracy (private corporations make and maintain the voting machines, whose software is proprietary and closed-source), the Busheviki have partially privatized the military, too.
Which world? I mean, which planet are you living on?
Please explain.
If that was perfect cover, I am the Kangxi Emperor of China. It was transparent and had holes in it large enough to drive a truck through -- and that was the state of affairs ever since 9/11.
Inside information! [lips protruded and rounded for mocking voice]
For crying out loud, the UN inspections led by Hans Blix didn't find any WMD!!!
From the very beginning, I was amazed at how many Americans did believe that. Did the UN inspections not get into TV in the USA, or what?!?
Why do you call that evolution?
Huh? Of course. It's neither moral nor immoral, so it's amoral. Evolution is not a person. ~:-|
TW: Energy independence won't be achieved by ignoring the problem, or pie-in-the-sky nonsense about hydrogen cars either. Conservation and efficiency are the first and cheapest steps-- of course they've been dismissed by the present administration, which likes to pretend we can go on driving SUVs and etc. forever. Like it or not, a big shake-up in energy is coming, and the faster we go in the wrong direction, the harder we'll hit the wall. Maybe you expect to be dead before then-- me, I have a daughter (and my circle of concern extends a long way beyond my immediate family, anyway).
J@#34
"That is sickening even in your end justifies the means world"
Just once I would like to meet a conservative who didn't project his own vices on to the other side in a debate.
Sir, the central position of the movement you claim allegiance to has been nothing but the end justify the means because the end is "Good". What part of we have listing to your conservatives say anything to anybody for so long that what you people say has no validity to us anymore don't you understand? Seriously, after all those lies why do think anybody who is not a fellow conservative is really going to listing to anything you say?
Anyone in tune with real history (Zinn and Loewen) has known from the start:
This war was all about politicians and their pals making money, it was a replay of so many other military actions over the centuries, and it's no surprise at all that the people at the top have been lying to us the whole time.
They're paid to lie. What kind of system do we have if these are the people who we trust to take care of us?
I don't know what happened to ideals and morals, but the ultra-rich are clearly lacking. We're cannon fodder to them.
See also the 'business plot' and Smedley Butler, who at the time of his death was "the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.", who later turned into a huge anti-war protester- in the 1930's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
Bryson - I agree that we need to make a change away from fossil fuels, and that conservation and renewable energy are good starting points. (I also think we should be building more fission nukes, but that's a whole nother argument.) I also think our nation has some very smart people running the business end of things, and that they still see oil as the best option while new technologies are developed.
Yes I care, I have children too. And I don't want them to live in a world held hostage by stone age cretins who were just lucky enough to stake a tent over the largest oilfields on the planet. Before this war it's doubtful people in the US would buy in to a large expenditure and sacrifice to get beyond oil. Because of this war, that attitude is changing. That's evolution - of thought.
Until the Secret Service decides to protect America over protecting a War Criminal and delivers Bush to the ICC for his war crimes tribunal, this will not end. Much as I like some of the Democratic Party's platform (and it's much better than the Rethugs'), actually protecting democracy in the face of the gibbering rants of the insane is not one of their strong points. Hell, it's their weakest link.
Look, you worthless Congresscritters. I can wait until 2009 for your sweeping reforms, because I know you can't get them signed into law right now. So stop wasting time trying to raise the minimum wage and start building the gallows*. And don't be afraid to task the sergeant at arms with physically enforcing your subpoenas and dragging in a kicking and screaming Rove/Miers/Gonzo/etc. That's his job.
*metaphorical gallows - the evidence and framework to end this presidency. And there's enough to build a space elevator to Mars, so get cracking.
ShrubCo don't need to stage a coup, they've already suborned both parties, and made a start on the Supreme Court. My bet is that their clique will finish up with some version of "take the money and run". Massive transfers to offshore locations, that sort of thing. The less tainted might buy up a and fortify a county or so out West (maybe a "sold-off" Army base?), others will go someplace without extradition treaties.
Damn straight. Impeach the bastards.
Impeachment isn't going to happen.
1) The Democrats do have enough votes to impeach, but they don't have enough votes in the senate to convict/remove from office.
2) The Democrats, upon trying to implement such a strategy, would be shredded by the Republicans (especially scream radio and faux news) for treason during wartime, etc. In fact, in a paranoid world, one could literally see a coup sparked by such a move leading to a suspension of the Constitution for "the duration of the emergency." [no, I don't see this happening, but I wouldn't rule it out completely either]
3) If the Democrats do go through with such a policy, they would, as has been mentioned previously, have to go through the problem of explaining how they were duped by, honestly, really crappy evidence. I know there were only 22% of us who opposed the war from the very beginning of the saber rattling, but c'mon.
I see the Democrats continuing to investigate and point out the corruption and incompetence of the Bush administration, but I don't see them "rocking the boat" by impeaching him. Though I agree, he deserves impeachment. I also wrote a letter to a number of members of the House and Senate about a year-18 months ago, calling for his (and Cheney's) resignation. I received supportive, but bland responses from the Democrats and obnoxious, truly moronic responses from the Republicans. In fact I lost the tiny, miniscule bit of respect I still had for McCain after his office tried to educate me about the "very serious" grounds for impeachment (which I said resignation, never said impeachment) and how such a measure should only be implemented in the most serious cases. Almost made me gag considering the jackass voted to convict Clinton during his impeachment.
Impeaching Bush/Cheney is not only the right thing to do from a legal point of view (afterall they lied to the american people, and I am sure a real investigation as part of the impeachment process would show this), it is also the best thing America can do to "save face" to the rest of the world and stop the nightmare that they have created.
Bush and Cheney delivered to the Government of Iraq? Why, to be supported in luxury for the rest of their lives? After all, Bush and Cheney made those men!
TW Says
A European Joke :
"America is this country where it seems to be a higher offense for its president to receive a blowjob than to have caused the unjustified death of thousands"
TW:
Although I consider your view to be fairly shortsighted, and we need to think about longer term energy stability, I do understand what you are saying. Currently, our American way of life is heavily dependent on oil and gas, and so it is in our interests, until we have adequately developed alternative sources of energy, to protect those interests and cheap oil.
That all being said, here's the problem: is it helping? Jeez, oil prices have gone through the roof since, and currently our gas inventories are at an all-time low. So it seems to me that this approach of invading Iraq has not been all that successful in protecting the availability of cheap oil.
In fact, Bush has been an absolute failure in this regard. Remember, HE CAMPAIGNED on his connections to the oil industry, and how he would use them to convince OPEC to "open the taps." This was supposed to be a strong point! Yet now we have gas prices that are near the all-time high, even after accounting for inflation. Apparently, Bush's oil policies have not worked. Even given 9/11, things have been a disaster.
TW Says
But we simply cannot hand over control of the Middle East to fanatics that would pull us all down.
I think you give these fanatics far too much credit.
Islamist fundamentalists took over power in Iran 30 years ago. And now, they are going to pull America down.
Just leave these countries deal in their own way with their own history, and you'll see, nobody will pull you down.
The alternative is continue the same policy all the way, get rid of all "axes of evil" in the whole world, hope that none will reproduce, and wish us all good luck.
TW:
This is the kind of naive cynicism I've come to expect from the right, and too many of my fellow countrymen in general. First, of course, is the fact that we are not a tribe, or anything like a gene pool that would undergo Darwinian evolution. We don't know very much yet about the laws of cultural evolution, that need not be Darwinian in any sense.
And then the nonsense about our "strategy" being the most successful for 250 years. Well, New Guinea had a succesful strategy for 40k years - a hell of a lot of good it does them today.
Why do you even think that our success is in any way associated with any "strategy"? It would take a band of imbeciles to not succeed wildly when faced with a massively resource rich continent that had not been fully exploited, and a native population that was technologically more primitive by 10k years, which was additionally sitting on a major new trade route between Europe and China, and had a multitude of internal routes (compare to the Andes splitting S. America). Even the Soviets would have made a go of North America.
And still, we were an underdeveloped and impoverished nation until the 20th century. Can't say that our "strategy" was too successful for most Americans until we lucked out by being able to be the pivot for two world wars due to our geographical isolation.
My God, the arrogance! The simple minded "evolutionism"! The sophomoric cynicism! It's mind-boggling that people think this is "clever" or "realistic". It's a simple lack of morality, of any kind. This is the kind of thinking that vulgar Marxists would try to pass of back in the days of the Cold War. Funny how it's hard to tell the right from Stalinists now-a-days. Morality matters because it's the defining characteristic of our social organization - and those who dismiss that reveal their lack of intellectual depth (Condi Rice, anyone?)
A full, real analysis of historical trends shows how ephemeral all these "strategies" and short-term goals are. How social, moral and intellectual issues always end up trumping "strategic resources" in the long term, for good or ill. My Bertrand Russell will beat your Henry Kissinger in the history books of the future, just like Socrates beats Septimius in today's.
Bruce #84. Thanks...head will be kept down, although the way the game is currently set up it seems that chance plays a bigger role in getting popped over there right now than how good or bad the shooters are. Lovely...
In the middle of reading the comments, I sent my polite request to my Democratic Representative to impeach Bush and Cheney. It's the very least one can do.
But often I have to remind myself of the futility of demanding that others do something. One can argue until one is blue in the face, and present all sorts of evidence, but still not persuade someone to act. So my question is, what can one of us do ourselves? What act can we do ourselves?
Here are two prior examples of action taken that changes the course of the history: First, when the subject of effective encryption in communications arose, it was debated whether effective encryption should be done with a back door allowing government investigators to view the communication. Phil Zimmerman wrote his own program PGP ("Pretty Good Privacy") that provided effective encryption for the masses.
Second, in 1998 when Chile's former president Pinochet went to Britain for medical treatment, he stumbled across an international warrant from Spain for his arrest for the torture and murder that occurred from his military takeover. A Spanish judge had issued the warrant, and probably altered history in Chile. It became acceptable and routine to discuss the torture, murder, and disappearances in Chile. Now, Chile has a president who was jailed and tortured under Pinochet, and whose father was murdered by Pinochet's forces.
One might think of issuing a warrant as saying something to persuade someone else to act, but there's a world of difference between a judge issuing a warrant and a random person simply saying that Pinochet should be arrested.
So the question is: what can one of us do?
David Blumenthal has some similar reporting over at Salon.
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Salon_Former_CIA_officers_report_Bush_09…
The CIA isn't letting it go.
I don't know how Bush isn't being attacked week in and week out on just the pure lack of management of funds going into Iraq. It's a boondoggle. We're probably funding the IEDs there just from the fact we don't know where the money goes when it's pumped into Iraq.
I heard one story of how the head of interior security for iraq was so distracted by cartoons on his brand new 50 inch flat panel tv in his office that it frustrated visiting members of congress.
frog:
That's a laugh. I'm pretty far from the right on more issues than not. One place I'm not is national security and American exceptionalism. I think it's a luxury to sit back and throw barbs at our leadership, a luxury several billion people on the planet do not enjoy. (Throwing barbs at -their own- leadership, not ours. But we can take that too.)
Stop feeling guilty about living well. It's not (significantly) our fault that other nations flush themselves down the toilet every day. We don't have to follow. People deserve the government they are willing to tolerate. We -are- a tribe and we have created a society and economic system that recognizes (and then tempers) the basic selfishness of survival. Heck, we've turned selfishness into a virtue.
There was another clue that Bush knew that hasn't been mentioned yet. Remember the infamous 16 words Bush read in his State of the Union address?
After this was exposed as clearly false, the entire media discussion was about whether Bush knew it was false before or after he delivered his speech.
All I could think was, "Why isn't anyone asking if, after Bush learned this key piece of intelligence was false, he re-evaluated his policy on Iraq?"
The answer is too obvious -- the media knew that the policy came first and that the evidence was being cooked up to suit the policy. And the media was complicit in this.
TW,
living in the country which threw out its government for having joined the US in the Iraq war, I can tell you we feel much better for our national security now.
As far as "American exceptionalism" it is unfortunately a very tarnished concept since Bush took over power. You may view it differently, but I invite you over to Europe to get an idea. You be the judge.
Kind regards
John,
You can't link the Spanish arrest warrant with the election of Bachelet. Chile has been under a leftist coalition (Christian Democrat/Socialist) since Pinochet left office, which had been slowly working on reversing all the constitutional hooks that Pinochet left to protect himself. Bachelet is just the culmination of an internal process that has put a protege of Allende in office. The Chileans themselves
And, strangely enough, the Chilean economy has been as successful if not more successful under the left than it was under the right wing junta and the gentle ministration of the Chicago Boys. Without having to pay the moral price of torturing and killing teenage kids.
The idea that the Bush administration knew there were no WMDs in Iraq and lied to get us into the war was, I thought, old news. It was the topic of a few "Frontline" episode on PBS a couple of years ago. IMO, "The Dark Side" was the best of these. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
If you want more outrage, check out the "Frontline" about how things were mishandled once Baghdad fell. It's called "The Lost Year in Iraq" and it can be watched here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/view/
I totally agree with what Dahan (#75) said. It's just silly to whine "but it's way too HARD and it takes soooo LONG!" to come up with alternatives while grudgingly allotting only a comparative pittance to the associated research, not to mention the required education. (Which, BTW requires a solid foundation in REAL science.)
I think this mindset has a lot to do with the fact that there is still too much money to be made in fossil fuels. Also in agreement with (#87) Bryson Brown, I furthermore think it's at least partly because people might have to give up their precious gas-guzzling trucks & SUVs in the meantime. They might have to drive slower, consolidate trips, carpool more, etc. In other words *gasp* inconvenience themselves.
TM:
That is exactly naive cynicism. I don't feel "guilty" about living well, but I have the brains not to think that I live well because I'm such a god-damn genius to have happened to be born in the dominant power of the day, or the foolishness to believe that historical contingencies are somehow correlated with wise governance or cultural superiority. Or that poverty is a simple function of efficiency.
That right-wing, self-congratulatory meme that somehow we've been successful because of our awesome system of governance is that most a-historical bone-headed idea I've ever heard. It's the kind of bone-headedness that lead much of the right to believe that by transplanting American culture into Iraq, that country could become some sort of utopia. As if history doesn't constrain our actions, as if geopolitics was a game won by the best strategist. As every general knows, that battle plan never survives the first engagement, and God prefers the army with the most artillery.
American exceptional is just as cretinous an idea as Russian exceptionalism, and as monstrous as German exceptionalism. They've also had their day in the sun, and we know exactly where that kind of "exceptionalism" leads. Brain death and suicide (of course, taking out some collaterals simultaneously). Now, I believe in frog exceptionalism, which I guess means that you would agree that if I, frog, found it in my interest to put a bullet hole in your (TW's) head, I should. At least if I thought I could get away with it. Damn the systemic interactions! Ignore what it would do to me internally (squishy stuff), what the consequences for others down the road would be, and the long-term probability of backsplash. Yup, that would be real smart. Having half a brain is often worse than just being a plain ol' idjit.
Why did we beat the Soviets? Well one reason was that we didn't focus narrowly on controlling "resources", but actually looked long-term on developing some of our allies. Not just on narrow "national security" but actually advancing our propaganda by putting schools on the ground. As I said, naive cynicism is a disease - it sounds clever, but is actually a way of handing your enemy a weapon. Altruism is often the best self-interested strategy. Biology knows it, why can't the ass-hats in our country get it?
Now that I'm reading more about Bush's executive order #51, I'm not so sure he can't retain power past 1/20/2009.
It sounds to me as though if we suffer a significant enough terror attack anywhere in the world, Bush can immediately take over the government. Perhaps Bush was secretly hoping the guys they just caught in Germany hadn't been caught.
I see impeachment as a problem in the long term. If GW is impeached, then the Republicans can say next year that they've already cleaned house, and now they're respectable, and there's enough time for people to forgive and warm back up to Republicans right before the next presidential election. I'd rather keep him in, hoping that he finally alienates the last 26% of the country that still supports him, so that the Democrats win in a landslide. Then he can be charged with the actual crimes he committed, and no one can complain that it's upsetting the activity of public office to do so because he'll already be out.
frog, that's just dumb. It's okay to advance the cause of your own team. It's not just okay, it's -expected-. That's why spies get such special nasty treatment.
BTW, 'we' didn't -beat- the Soviets. Their own system rotted and collapsed from within. Why? Because communism (with a small 'c') as an idea is totally inconsistent with selfish human nature. It also didn't help that that famous human nature exhibited itself in the propensity of their leadership to treat themselves as being more equal than the rest of the population. After a while the hypocrisy stank so high that even Gorbachov and Yeltsin (leaders) couldn't stand the stench.
Carlie,
articles of impeachment were not put in the constitution in order to define electoral tactics.
The questions one has to ask are :
1. did or did not GW /DC voluntarily misrepresent intelligence information to the american people AND congress in order to launch a war ?
2. can GW / DC still cause harm in the 16 months they have left in office
The dems should only worry about their electorability if the American people do not want to start the impeachment procedure. But if they do (and the only way to tell them is writing them letters and blogging), they shouldn't be afraid of their electorability.
In the end, doing the right thing for your country isn't a bad strategy.
TW, you're a numbskull. The Soviet system didn't simply collapse. It existed in a context, a context where the Soviets couldn't keep up economically. If no US existed, if no Western Europe existed, in comparison to the Soviets, they probably could have gone on for a very long time. The Incas had a similar system which was wildly successful for centuries (and I'm sure they believed in Inca exceptionalism as well).
And this is just sub-moronic:
We're not playing a sport. It's not just about sides, and there is no finish line. For example, in the early 18th century the British specifically avoided putting themselves in a dominant position over Europe (which was an option after the fall of Napoleon). They understood that a continental balance of power was more in their long term interest. They helped rebuild France, instead of crushing that nation, and instead focused on expanding their naval advantage.
When the British abandoned that strategy of focusing on system integrity, and instead celebrated Eternal Victory over The German Menace, they promptly found London bombed to the ground and came very close to being conquered.
Tell me, when is the post-game party? When are the play-offs over? When is the off-season?
In point of fact, spies are often not treated terribly. Under some conditions (such as the Cold War), spies are accepted as a preferable means of competition, with almost gentlemenly set of rules. If you're committed to a certain trans-national system (the Congress of Europe, the Balance of Terror), it's more important that the system stay stable than just whether you "win or lose" today.
Naive cynicism. It sucks. But you're in good company with our current administration. As Condi said, I don't believe in that squishy culture stuff - if we build institutions, the people will follow. And her mentor, HK, thought that Stalin was the greatest political genius of the 20th century, explaining why he thought that murdering several millions of people in Indonesia was just a smart move.
I hope that you're not one of those whiners who says that the Nazi's were terrible for demanding Lebensraum, but that we are just smart dudes for fire-bombing villages and collapsing societies. All that matters is winning, right?
Well, to the comment on #80. Our surge probably is. There seems to be suggestions direct from Iraqi sources I read that it is. The problem is, the government isn't. It was formed from numerous groups that all had the delusional thinking that they could get power, then **force** the rest to conform to what ever sectarian BS they wanted, instead of a real desire or interest in finding even halfway sane mutual solutions. Its falling apart, and its not entirely clear if its saner members have the courage to outlast the collapse, or take to task the lunatics that are undermining the process. If they do, it could still work, if they don't, then the low level infighting and the actions of some groups like Sadr's (I think that is the name..) to keep the streets fighting, could mean that the moderates, who have the capacity to find compromises, will have an even harder time holding on, in the face of what will make the so called "civil war" going on look like comparing our civil war to the Boston tea party. Right now, the nuts are keeping the boat unstable, undermining the process, but are not **actively** involved in all out war yet.
As for Iran's involvement... What? Is everyone that blind. They, not the US press, but ***IRAN*** itself, has said things that make it damn obvious they would love to kick several people's asses, including bloodying out noses, while daring us to do anything back. Their leaders are just like Bush. They can't imagine losing to infidels. The only real question is if they are funding their own fighters in Iraq, or funding Al Queda. I don't discount the possibility, since they have to be getting money and support from some place, and Iraqi's for the most part hate them for attacking every sectarian side indiscriminately, based solely on who they wanted to blame for the latest attack, or how much they could upset the US. Only true lunatics would fund them, or someone from outside, who see an advantage in doing so. Iran is as least a good candidate for that, since they have had both thumbs in the pie since day one, including as some inside sources speculate, possibly even supporting some of the marginally pro-Iran groups elected into the government. If you can't *openly* act in an area, you fund someone else that can. If you want the scrap of land for yourself, you fund every side you can, then just make sure the people that know you are doing that disappear before they have a chance to point out that the winner and the loser where both getting the same help, from the same source. In other words, if you are Iran, you make sure **your** win, by making sure than the only people not getting your help is the one you really want to get rid of. In this case, that is the US, the Iraqi government (or at least the parts that are not possibly marginally connected to Iran in the first place), and any allies to those that wouldn't let Iran get what it wants.
I mean, if you are arguing to argue that we have a stupid mess, at least argue realistically about what sort of mess we have. Don't arbitrarily discount things as impossible, just because you don't want to accept that it may be true. At this point I am not going to give Iran one bit of credit towards them *not* funding anyone. The only lie may be if or by how much they are funding the one Bush and Co. keep babbling incoherently about. Besides, in Iraq, we may at this point be dealing with the organization in name only. Too much of its immediate purposes, leadership and funding structure has been either wiped out or shifted to handle growing local hostility, from people that at this point know damn well, from Al Queda's actions, that the group doesn't have Iraq's best interests in mind at all.
But, this is just my take on things. It does still indicate that our idiots (uh, leaders/reporters) are ignoring the stuff that isn't working still, and they *may* still be exaggerating facts, while failing to mention other things. I mean, why pick Al Queda? Why not point out Iran's support from day one of Sadr's group? Why not every other group they are feeding funds to? Well, because you need a buzz word, and the people using those words don't seem to comprehend that, at this point, its like constantly harping about the neighbors dog getting lose in their yard and digging holes, while an entire herd of cattle are trampling their tomatoes. Who the frack cares **only** about the dog at that point, except someone who don't know how to mention the cattle, or doesn't want to admit that they are in the yard?
And, as an added bonus, if Bush and Cheney were removed from office, Nancy Pelosi would become President. And the entire Republican Party would shit their pants. That would be hilarious.
Kagehi,
the big problem is trust. I have no way to know the truth about whether the surge is working and about Iran sponsoring Al Qaeda. Afterall, this is intelligence information and I do not work for the CIA.
The question is, why would I trust this government to tell the truth when this same government has a clear track record of having systematically misrepresented and engineered intelligence information, against all expert advice whether from their own services or from the IAEA ?
This is a government that has systematically preferred gut feel and ideology over expertise and reason.
So no, I don't believe them. They say now, the surge is working and Iran is sponsoring Al Qaeda, I clearly see where they are heading and I do not even give them the benefit of the doubt. The agenda of the neocons (I won't say republicans because republicans used to be decent people) is clear. And as long as I am allowed to read write or speak I will not stop saying it.
Even Gorbatchev said it recently in an interview with the daily telegraph, GW has been the most destabilizing factor for the whole world since WW2.
So why, why, why should I now believe them ?
As a tribe, the US has evolved the most successful success strategy on the planet to date.
There are countries which are far older than yours, and your country is manifestly rotting from the inside. Indeed, I can provide an argument that you reached your apogee in 1998.
I do not expect that US to be around, in the current composition, by 2100. California and Texas, for example, might find themselves better off as independent countries...
Kagehi,
There is no reason to doubt that Iran is funding Shia militias. It's the rational thing to do when you have an occupied nation next door, and someday the occupiers will leave. It's surprising rational, given their history of religious commitment. We funded Greek militias in the Greek civil war, French partisans in WWII, the Contras in Nicaragua, etc, etc. Why get so hot and heavy about that simple inevitability? It's just a strategic issue about overcoming or not their opposition, not some world-circling conspiracy to destroy us. It's best of course to find some settlement with the Iranians - they're not going anywhere and neither are we, in the short term.
On the other hand, any statement suggesting that they are funding Al-Qaeda-like entities I dismiss out of hand. They almost invaded Afghanistan back in '99 because of the Taliban, and they have their own ethnic issues tied to religious identity! The Sunni-Shia conflict will long outlive any US geopolitical issues, and that feeds both into rational self-interest and religious insanity. Being that we get such absurd statements being fed to the press, we can assume that the feeders are lying to us. And if they're basing policies on that (in other words, they've managed to fool themselves), we are in shit-pile of trouble.
So I say that the entire "Evil Iranian Mullah" meme is probably more for internal consumption, to keep the nut-cases all worked up and keep political control. An old, old strategy which always leads to mistakes, since you inevitably end up believing your own hype. See "American Exceptionalism" up thread.
Wow. PIATOR that's really kind of depressing...
The U.S. has been through worse times. We'll survive.
Just like England and France and... Yugosla... oh wait.
Texas isn't going anywhere, unfortunately.
Some states tried secession a while back. It didn't go very well.
frog,
well said, and I can tell you, we Europeans are much more scared of the growing power of the "Evil American Christian fundies" than of the "Evil Iranian Mullahs". Afterall, America is way more important for us than Iran.
Steve_C,
you could be right, but if I look at a map of the world of just 50 years ago, the divisions in countries look very different to that of today.
So, how will the world look like in terms of its divisions in countries in 50 years ? My guess is, again, very different. I don't know which way.
But my guess is that if I look at how polarised the USA is in this election, how different the core values seem to be between a conservatist and progressive america, I don't see such a strong division in any other major country in the world. And the problem is that these divisions are not on issues that may be solved as a federation. They are issues about War, international geopolitics, care for the environment, global warming, SUVs, social wellfare, taxes, importance of science, bioethics, abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, etc... And on each one they seem to oppose each over.
In France, they had a presidential election a few months ago, and people kept saying how there was not much difference between the two competing programs.
What will come out of this division, history will tell and will depend very much on how firm the grip of "value politics" started by the neocons will hold in America...
Wow.
Ya gotta hand it to BushCo. Six years raping the hell out of their own nation and there are STILL putzes out there willing to speak up for them, or too dammned chicken$#!7 to impeach. They must be doing something right, eh?
And in your rush to wash your hands for anyone's justification for making war on Iraq, tell me this - how the hell were the Iraqis supposed to impeach Saddam?
WMD were a casus belli, none of which, throughout history, have ever reflected a nation's true motivations for going to war. Bush is no different from anyone else, and should not be treated as a special case. To me it doesn't matter that not a single weapon of mass destruction was found. What does matter is that a military dictatorship which demonstrated the capacity to develop and manufacture that capability (and sell the methods, if not the materials, to others) was removed.
It's the flip side of the "give a man a fish" argument. In this case, it didn't matter if Saddam didn't have weapons to pass on; what he did have was the potential to help others develop them. And in giving the families of suicide bombers $50,000, he was indeed supporting terrorism, even if it wasn't 9/11.
Iraq was a just and necessary war. You will never convince me otherwise, nor the Iraqi expatriate with whom I share my office, and who will be cheering as Chemical Ali takes the long drop sometime soon. I don't deny that the aftermath was bungled horribly. If you're going to have at Bush for anything to do with the war, let it be that.
The polarization isn't regional really. If anything it's more urban versus rural.
The rural states won't seceed because the richer more urban states actually fund the social programs in the rural states. There is no real regional divisions, there's some cultural divisions.
The divisive politics of the conservatives only works with a hardcore 20-30% of the population. Most of the country is in the middle 40%. And right now a good 70-80% of the country want out of Iraq, if not tomorrow, yesterday.
I think maybe foreigners give the neocons and cons way to much weight. Whatever power they had is steadily slipping away. They had their chance and they proved what shams they were.
They only thing they're good at is getting arrested.
Cureholder #9 says, "I love how the same people who say Bush is the stupidest person who ever lived also think he's a diabolical genius behind the scenes who can somehow overcome the 22nd Amendment and stay in power beyond his term. Come on, you can't have it both ways!"
You "love" that? Can't have what you purport both ways?
Do you understand the concept of a "puppet"? A "marionette"? You know, with all them strings?
How about "influence"? Know anything at all about that?
Surely even you can accept the possibility that such a situation is easily consistent with having it "both ways."
All of which magnifies in clearer-than-ever relief precisely what PZ is talking about...and that most commenters here second.
It matters not a whit that the American people have been presided over by a monumentally stupid and incompetent person who formally sits in that position. What matters is that they were bamboozled from Day One of the Bush Campaign into having been given a fraud as a presidential candidate to vote for.
All the rest and subsequent is simply further indication of the highest treason this land has ever been subjected to. If no other single issue is considered, perhaps the marvelous state of the economy and the budget is sufficient motivation for those who see nothing other than "bottom lines" to persuade them of the disasterous results of having allowed the most sinister clandestine force this country has ever seen take the reigns of power against the interests of the citizens of this country, and the constitutional tenets which their founding fathers bequeathed to them in order to preserve more than a cartoon semblance of democracy, a democracy they rely on by an AUTHENTIC VOTE.
Those guys AND their puppet must be held to account in the highest court of the land. Nothing less will satisfy the people. Yes, believe it or not, EVEN IN OUR PRETEND DEMOCRACY, THEY - THE PEOPLE - have (or SHOULD HAVE - remember???) the final say. Corporations are NOT the citizens of this country, no matter HOW much money they can piss around to get their way.
...pleaaaase impeach GW/DC
Don't forget that the neocons with their sacred family values mounted this whole Monica drama only 8 years ago and didn't seem to have any problems going after bill because of... a blowjob.
Now we got a guy who caused the unjust deaths of thousands of brave soldiers for a totally unjustified reason, and he gets away with it ?
So is america this country where the life of bill's spermatozoïds is more important than that of its soldiers ?
Anybody knows if there are pills that can cause early demencia ?
Someone gave GW one of those pills and has been playing the pupeteer ever since. Now let me think, who could that be ? One guy, a small group of guys ? The Neocons.
Moretti:
We removed his capacity to do so in the first Gulf war. The greatest danger of proliferation wasn't Iraq, but Pakistan (who gave a nice house arrest to a known seller of nuclear plans and declared him a national hero), and ex-Soviet engineers who had hands-on expertise with every kind of weapon.
No one argues that Chemical Ali isn't getting what he deserves. Few shed a tear when Saddam died. But now half a million or more Iraqis have died, 10s of thousands of Americans are permanently disabled, the economic infrastructure of Iraq has collapsed, and we have sold the next generation into debt slavery with the Chinese.
If that's a just war for you, I've got a multitude of offers on the table. We can do this forever. Start with central asia, move on to byelorussia, there's a few in east asia... And the Sudan has always been a nice staging ground.
And what about the big boys of nuclear proliferation? We'll take down Russia and the US (like a wrestling match - in the left corner, the USA and in the right - the USA!). At least S. Africa is no longer in the mix, but somehow when they were, we never managed to get around to knocking out a country that was a known proliferator and even more oppressive than Iraq at it's height.
What a load of nonsense. The Kool-Aid goes around, and we can ignore the real effects, on the ground, and replace them with Rah-Rah feel good nonsense righteousness.
No one can convince anyone of anything once they've stopped thinking.
Metro #125 says, "They must be doing something right, eh?"
Consult the history of the rise of Nazi Germany on that question. If competence in deception has any significance or relevance, credulity obviously must also. As well as any cultural force that cultivates it as if its the latest fashionable rage. (Think: "religion"...consult the late "MegaDoctor Kennedy" for more insight on that score).
Moretti said:
And in your rush to wash your hands for anyone's justification for making war on Iraq, tell me this - how the hell were the Iraqis supposed to impeach Saddam?
That didn't seem to be a concern in '91 when daddy dubya declared the war over and totally screwed over the Kurds.
WMD were a casus belli, none of which, throughout history, have ever reflected a nation's true motivations for going to war. Bush is no different from anyone else, and should not be treated as a special case. To me it doesn't matter that not a single weapon of mass destruction was found. What does matter is that a military dictatorship which demonstrated the capacity to develop and manufacture that capability (and sell the methods, if not the materials, to others) was removed.
Riiiiight. It isn't as if those weapons were sold to Iraq by oh, say, the United States? It wasn't as if that country that sold them to such a wonderful country had a problem with them using those weapons on another country .... oh, say, Iran? Nope, it was just that he was this bad guy who suddenly popped up on the scene. I just love historical revisionism.
It's the flip side of the "give a man a fish" argument. In this case, it didn't matter if Saddam didn't have weapons to pass on; what he did have was the potential to help others develop them. And in giving the families of suicide bombers $50,000, he was indeed supporting terrorism, even if it wasn't 9/11.
No, this is what is referred to as the flip side of a male bovine flop. In other words, complete and utter bullshit.
Iraq was a just and necessary war. You will never convince me otherwise, nor the Iraqi expatriate with whom I share my office, and who will be cheering as Chemical Ali takes the long drop sometime soon. I don't deny that the aftermath was bungled horribly. If you're going to have at Bush for anything to do with the war, let it be that.
Let me guess, now that Bush is a lame duck with only a year and a half left, he's no longer "your guy."
Let me explain this to you carefully. The war in Iraq was a complete and utter cluster fuck. While there were two legitimate threats to the United States (Iran and N. Korea), who actually did have WMDs, and while we were still involved in a "war" on terror (with troops on the ground in Afghanistan that have been almost completely forgotten), he launched an unnecessary, unjustified war against a country that was militarily crippled and neutralized. Bush lied to Congress and the American people to launch this unnecessary war that has not only killed and maimed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and our allies, it has:
1)Tied up our military making us LESS safe
2)Made it impossible for us to actually deal with legitimate threats (IE Iran and North Korea)
3)Destabilized the entire region
4)Aided radical anti-American organizations in recruiting, funding, and reducing our defensive capabilities
5)Created an incredible drain on our economy as his criminal mishandling of the post war "reconstruction" has led to a feeding frenzy of illegal (and immoral) contractor gluttony
Bush has also tarnished our reputation as a country, perhaps beyond all hope of repair. It may be, in 500 years, or 1000 years, the Bush administration will be noted in history as the beginning of the end of the United States as a great power.
Stop feeling guilty about living well. It's not (significantly) our fault that other nations flush themselves down the toilet every day. We don't have to follow. People deserve the government they are willing to tolerate. We -are- a tribe and we have created a society and economic system that recognizes (and then tempers) the basic selfishness of survival. Heck, we've turned selfishness into a virtue.
TW,
This statement is truly ironic. Our governmental policies are flushing the US down the toilet, as you put it, faster than just about any other country in the world. The only reason you don't notice it is because we started out far wealthier and far more stable in the first place. We have resource policies that make us desperately dependent upon overseas trade partners. At the same time we have outsourced just about every job possible which is not only a stupid thing to do economically, it makes us even more vulnerable strategically. We've kicked just about every ant hill in the world and, while doing so kicked nearly every friend, ally, and foe in the face, repeatedly. The arrogance of the Bush administration's unilateral policies and their obnoxious "diplomacy" methods have left us with few allies, and even fewer friends. If we were to suffer another attack like the one we underwent six years ago, odds are good far more people would celebrate than did back then, far fewer would come to our aid, and far, far more, would (while mourning the actual deaths) feel that we deserved it.
Well done dubya, you took the support of the entire world and flushed it down the toilet.
"Iraq was a just and necessary war. You will never convince me otherwise.."
Folks, don't bother debating Moretti. He's tipped his hand right here in outright proclaiming that he will never be convinced that the war was not just or necessary. To him, as with the rest of the war boosting crowd, support for this war is an inextricable dogma. Much like communists during the late phases of the Soviet Union, when it became obvious that their program was a failure, they've buckled down intellectually. Spare yourselves the effort.
Tyler, Moretti is just another living proof that the typically fascist tactic of desinformation does seem to work, even nowadays. It worked very well in Germany a while ago, and is working very well in America right now.
Just need to check the quantity of lies that have been propagated recently by the neo cons and their favourite journalists. Each one of them is clearly explained and documented on mediamatters, but people don't seem to care.
The US is now not very far from where Nazi Germany was in the mid 30s. Just wait until they attack Iran. Doesn't take much for that, if one bomb kills innocent victims in the US and this bomb is deemed to have been manufactured in Iran and there we go... Oh, they won't send troops, they are all in Iraq, but what about planes ?
A lot can happen in 16 months.
There are about 6 billion people on the planet. There are about 300 million people in the US. Which side of the line between those two groups is most likely to allow you and your children to succeed? If you claim that you want to be outside the US, then why are so many people trying to get into the US?
frog - I think a sports analogy is appropriate. Look at the Superbowl. Red, White (okay, silver) and Blue logo colors. And huge ROMAN numerals. A blood sport game about the conquest of real estate. It's ritualized warfare that speaks to deep-seated Jungian motifs.
Heck, we've turned selfishness into a virtue.
close but not quite right.
what we've actually done is delude ourselves into thinking selfishness is a virtue; that "greed is good".
what has resulted from that is endless, un-evidenced based, rationalizations that masquerade as "economic growth plans".
hence, voodoo economics.
some of us just have been able to see through the delusions.
Hmmm TW, you seem to have a strange vision of the world, do we live on the same planet ?
So, according to your understanding of the world, there are 300 million americans who can allow their children to succeed, and then a line (fence?) separating it from the rest of us 5.7 billion others that won't.
My dear friend, you need to travel a bit.
If Americans claim that they want to be inside the US, why are so many of them in Iraq?
If you claim that you want to be outside the US, then why are so many people trying to get into the US?
So totally true man.
Hey wait! If you claim that so many people want to get into the US, then how come so many people want to get into Canada, Argentina, South Africa, Germany and Thailand?
That's some serious deep thinking, man.
I think a sports analogy is appropriate.
somehow, it wouldn't surprise me if you often believe sports to be an accurate model of how the world works.
deep-seated Jungian motifs.
LOL
like?
oh, and which of Carl Jung's theses would you be drawing these themes of the collective subconscious from, eh?
Huh, if we'd depended on this lot to stand up and evolve into something useful we'd have died out a long time ago. Get a clue. We didn't evolve from the sad bunch that didn't put up a good fight.
Oh look, there's some bluegreen algae that's actually a bacteria, how clever. Let's go join them.
Feh.
We didn't evolve from the sad bunch that didn't put up a good fight.
wtf does that even mean?
you're losin' it, Jim.
Thank goodness I'm Chinese!
TW,
Ahhh, still you froth and foam...and still haven't answered my questions to you from almost a hundred posts ago. You state:
"There are about 6 billion people on the planet. There are about 300 million people in the US. Which side of the line between those two groups is most likely to allow you and your children to succeed?"
What kind of a twisted, weird question is this? Again, your lack of imagination comes to view. Why are you drawing lines? Why must it be the "us or them" bullshit that is so inherent to the far right (yes, I know you don't identify with them, but you are taking most of their positions here). You seem to be stuck in the nineteenth century idealism of manifest destiny. What is your definition of "success"? Are you actually unaware that some other countries (hard as it may be to believe) are happier with their lives than Americans. Also, are you either unaware, or uncaring that our actions do indeed hurt other individuals? I wonder, what have you ever done to shore up this country you seem to be so proud of. Have you served in the military? I did, US Marine vet here, many others here have as well. Have you decided to try to give back to your society by teaching? I have, as probably the majority of the people here also chose. Do you pay your taxes gladly, knowing that this is the price we pay to have such amazing benefits. I do, although I of course abhor waste (current war) and egregious welfare abuse (Halliburton) as much as anyone else. Or, are you just yet another of the new "wastrel heir" types we see so often. Tell us friend, what are you willing to give up so that your beloved America can continue? I haven't heard you speak of sacrifice yet. What are you willing to give to our society and the world? If the answer is "nothing really" which can be deduced from your comments up till this point, perhaps you should just slink away and let the grown-ups talk.
I realize I have come into this discussion way too late. But I can must disagree with PZ on his point. We know the Bushies religiosity. Why would we willingly make martyrs of them? I want vengeance and "justice" as much as the next atheist. But I do not want to empower the idiots even more...
This whole thread looks like people baying for blood because Naji Sabri passed documents to a CIA source. Yet the documents could have been disinformation or they could have been wrong because the program was secret to the producers of those documents.
One intelligence source is found to have said there were no WMD and you conclude "Bush knew!" That looks like confirmation bias on your part (PZ and commentators), not weighing the facts. Intelligence had many sources. They weigh up and compare them. There's no way a single intelligence source will give you (PZ, Democrats) enough evidence to impeach - an argument of doing his best in the presence of uncertainty will prevail. I think Bush & co. had confirmation bias making them believe the sources indicating there were WMD and reject those that said there weren't. They were wrong (although the nuclear program had equipment and plans hidden on private property around the country so it could help reconsititute the program once inspections were over).
Overall this thread has reduced my respect for the commentators on Pharangula.
Obviously impeaching Bush is a good idea, but it's not enough. Letting Bush take power by judicial fiat and merely kick him from office now is like handing a shotgun to a nine-year-old and taking it away after he shoots several people. At minimum, Bush and Cheney along with everyone else in their regime, should be sent to The Hague/Nuremberg for war crimes trials.
More importantly, any and all contracts for the war effort should be declared null and void, and any money paid to fight the war (except for the salaries of soldiers, which have to be paid anyway) should be recovered; that way, we may at least be able to care for those who were injured. If Halliburton or other such companies try to sue, simply point out that the war was illegal and that a contract for an illegal act can't be enforced. (Try getting a judge to order a hitman to return your money if he doesn't do the job!) Since none of the contracts can be enforced, all of the money obtained from them was done so illegally.
Obviously impeaching Bush is a good idea, but it's not enough. Letting Bush take power by judicial fiat and merely kick him from office now is like handing a shotgun to a nine-year-old and taking it away after he shoots several people. At minimum, Bush and Cheney along with everyone else in their regime, should be sent to The Hague/Nuremberg for war crimes trials.
More importantly, any and all contracts for the war effort should be declared null and void, and any money paid to fight the war (except for the salaries of soldiers, which have to be paid anyway) should be recovered; that way, we may at least be able to care for those who were injured. If Halliburton or other such companies try to sue, simply point out that the war was illegal and that a contract for an illegal act can't be enforced. (Try getting a judge to order a hitman to return your money if he doesn't do the job!) Since none of the contracts can be enforced, all of the money obtained from them was done so illegally.
Intelligence had many sources.
and if you actually had been following what all the sources were saying, they essentially agreed with one another, long before even the war in Afghanistan started.
this idea that bush was somehow ignorant of all of that is blind stupidity at best.
davidp
After four years of increasing evidence that the Bush administration distorted, misrepresented, and suppressed intelligence information, exaggerated the threat, and attacked anyone who questioned their argument, you can honestly say that their actions were simple misinterpretation of the intelligence data? You then trot out the tired old story of centrifuge parts buried in a guy's back yard for a decade plus as evidence, and you talk about respecting others?
You have the French, German, Russian, and UN intelligence analysis. You have multiple, not just one, multiple accusations coming from former members of the Bush administration. You have the resignation of Colin Powell.
But really, he's a good guy ... it was just an accidental misinterpretation of the intelligence data. Confirmation bias. Georgie can just say, "Whoops, my bad" and you're willing to accept that? Unbelievable.
As I said earlier in the thread, they aren't going to impeach Bush. Not because they don't have the evidence (this is just one of his many utterly incompetent disasters), not because he shouldn't be removed, but because Republicans aren't going to vote in favor of it. The guy could be killing little old ladies by launching babies at them with rubber bands made of kitten and puppy skins and Republicans would just argue that it was just an undeserved attack sparked by media bias and a lack of support for the troops ... If you stopped him from killing those little old ladies, babies, kittens, and puppies, the terrorists win!
TW:
Oh, man. Oh, man, oh man, oh man. How is it that liberals lose to this level of thinking?
And I love how the fascism finally comes out. These guys are usually too cowardly to state their views up front - they try to claim some sort of rationality.
But here we see what it's all really about. Geopolitics as psychoanalytic catharsis. Letting all those repressed daily desires for rape and murder come out.
Oh man, oh man, oh man. TW, I guess you would then agree that the best finale, the last touchdown after the clock ran out, would have to be all out thermonuclear war? I mean, the deep-seated Jungian motifs that would take corporeal form - it would be better than human sacrifice!
We should then build Giant Warriors that would burn cities down with giant lances, while spewing noxious fumes. That's the ticket!
I remember how Gregory Bateson was requested by the US government to give an analysis of German war propaganda. After locking himself in a theater for 24 hours staring at that nonsense, he came out with a simple analysis: they were asking to be purified by fire. Nothing short of that would satisfy their dreams of purity and bloodlust.
It looks like we've given birth to another suicidal contingent.
frog - Very clever, except for one thing. I -despise- the superbowl and football in general. Never watch it. But I -understand- the attraction.
Nothing to contribute except my thanks to PZ, and my thanks to thanks and respect to Josh (#67), we want you home in one piece.
As summarized at Wikipedia ..the justification for war...
"Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. -
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. "
Yep keep sticking on the WMD issue as the tactic does work.
The silliness by those espousing "RWA" only exhibits the lunacy in this country. Yes you pick and choose your "facts" and then try to paint those that disagree with you as having an issue psychologically. Nice tactic. Yes it is a fact that WMDs were only part of the argument. The fact that you pretend it is not is evidence of your denial
I have never said Bush was perfect nor do I agree with many things that he has had a hand in such as NCLB, Open Borders, and Excessive Spending. The war could have been better planned undoubtedly but I am far too smart not to see the power grab going on here with your game.
Hmm when will the Dems end this war? Are they afflicted with RWA too? Gee when will that impeachment happen?
Hmm enjoy .... from the king of the RWA Support Group.
J
Don't. I agree with you in principle, the problems are two fold however: 1. Its not possible, even for Bush's supporters, to lie 100% of the time. If they did, there wouldn't be so many people who otherwise seem to be on our side who admit that leaving would be more stupid than staying. I only trust what is supported from other sources as well. And no, those other sources don't say that the neocon are 100% right. They say that Bush and Co. continue to ignore the obvious, continue to screw up by not listening, continue to overestimate how much success *some* types of actions by our troops undertake actually have, continue to fail to recognize options and avenues that would help, instead opting for ideological BS goals, which ignore the reality of how the people we are dealing with think. And a whole host of other stupidities. They do say, that despite this, any failures are as much a result of the idiocy *inside* Iraq's political groups than it is Bush, and that, in general, if they stopped stabbing themselves in the back, we wouldn't keep having to come back to put out the same stupid fires over and over again. In other words, its working when we get support, its failing when we are being intentionally undermined, and the rest of the time is sort of a crap shoot, but the general trend "seems" at least marginally positive. That is hardly the ringing endorsement that Bush wants, or our press tries to keep shoveling. It does imply that Bush and the press are trying to exaggerate the success, not that there isn't any at all.
We need a) new people in charge here, and b) people in Iraq to get their heads out of their asses long enough to realize that division, to the extent that some factions are even having meeting with Iran, without real sanction or agreement from the rest of the government, is going to screw them all over. The people get that. The government is a perfect copy of the *modern* US government though, where too few give a frack about the nation as a whole, or what the people think, just their special interests, pet religious movements or petty inter-party gripes. Its like looking in a mirror over their, and seeing what the US would have been had "religion" truly been the driving force in government politics from day one.
It could end very badly, in a number of ways, and the only thing we may be able to do is make sure one of numerous factions wins, which we are willing to live with, and not one of the myriad worse ones. It may also actually stabilize enough for parties that are moderate to force compromises, but that isn't going to happen while some of those parties, like Sadr's group, are running private armies, or kissing the asses of one insurgent group or another, while everyone else pretends its not happening (or can't prove it sufficiently to stop it).
So, yeah, I am mostly in agreement here about the believability of the fools in charge and their pet mouth pieces. But, as I said, the question isn't if they are lying, just how much. And they can't be both this incompetent, and simultaneously able to lie about "everything", so it has to be at least "partly" true. The only question is if this is true as in, "accurate" or true as in the sort of, "We polled 50 people from a Bible college to ask them what they think about religion in politics.", type of truth. As much as I suspect the later, it becomes a question of scope. It may be true to the areas they *do* talk about, but patently false about many others. All I do know is that some areas are now secure enough for buses to not only be running, but those buses to stop between destinations, without fear of attacks, in an area that a mere months ago, according to what I read on an Iraqi blog, you would be caught alive driving you own car on the road, never mind taking a bus.
Its quite possible though, as I said, that some other area(s) have since gotten worse too. In that respect, we are both in the dark. :(
Georgie can just say, "Whoops, my bad"
the shocking thing is that he never has, nor will he.
so.. much... ego...
blows the mind when you consider his track record in business, especially.
This adminstration has been to government what pedophiles are to the Catholic church. They ahve used to position of authority to gain not only our trust, but also DEmand our alliegance. For he (they) are Commander in Chief. His (their) actions have caused irreparable damage to our economy, reputation, and has left not only us but our children (at least)in debt- to who China- great !
they have ignored and repelled laws that protect our food safety, job safety and environmental safety, national security in emergencies. They have 'tweeked', or are in the process of, every right worth having- the key stones to our Democracy - privacy, due process...
This administration not only coerced US into an unnecessary but corporate profitable war. They have left our troops ill equiped and ill cared for. they have bank rolled our grandchildrens future on the crap table.
WHY- because those two OIL Czars have been screwing this country for years- Dick had the real political insider know how and the meglomaniac attitude. W is simple- will I look cool ?? Sure, yeah.
Why did we not start this 'alternative ' fuel conversation in the '70's and the increasing middle eastern hatred of the US (you remember- hostages, dead body thrown on tarmack shit). ACTUALLY WE DID- we were under the impression that these were areas to be addressed immediately. But then Reagan came & oil got cheap & the big 3 start building the lead sleds again ( Japan kicked our car design & efficiency asses then). Deju vu. They've been screwing US and they plan to continue screwing US - and then they'll slip off in the night to Dubia or Kuwait or Saudia Arabia where they have their retirement homes
Hey J,
Members of Iraq were known to be in the US and Europe too... hmmm should we invade ourselves?
You're an idiot. You've actually listened to Cheney. He's a liar and a disgustiing excuse of an american. I wish his heart would finally explode.
Quit hobbing the knob of the neocons. They're the worst thing to happen to this country in the modern era.
I wish his heart would finally explode.
his heart being essentially a dry, empty husk, wouldn't it by necessity have to impode?
"But now half a million or more Iraqis have died, 10s of thousands of Americans are permanently disabled, the economic infrastructure of Iraq has collapsed, and we have sold the next generation into debt slavery with the Chinese."
Wow, math challenged too. No 500,000 Iraqis have not died. That number was a total fabrication that has been throughly debunked.
Back to your economic ignorance. No the war is not the reason we have the trade deficit with China, and no it is not going to end in debt slavery, merely inflation. It certainly contributes but it's actually a minor factor.
That debt ball got rolling with the around 10-15% annual monetary inflation started in the early Clinton years. You know the monetary inflation that by economic theory should predictably result in a stock market bubble, like that internet bubble. Monetary inflation that by theory should result in a trade deficit and weakening currency. Monetary inflation that by theory should result in first increased commodity prices and then later increased consumer prices. Yes, it's that specific in that it predicts that those items farthest in the chain of production from consumption will swing most wildly in price. Monetary inflation that is predicted to result in a recession.
Now of course economic theory cannot predict the actions of politicians so it couldn't predict what Greenspan would do or whether Bush would fire him but once Greenspan choose to inflate his way out of the recession it was predictable that the bubble would be enlarged to encompass more industries, mostly those farther away from consumption. And what can be farther away from present consumption than taking out a loan to buy a big house to live in over the next forty years. So of course the bubble spread into the housing market when lowering interest rate was the method of choice used to inflate the currency (there are other ways to do so that have other effects). All predictable.
You see all these things predicted by theory are indeed happening just as predicted by the economic science. The next stage is either deflation or inflation depending on the choices made by the political class in charge. You see it depends on human action so you can't just make a killing in the markets without risking some politician might just do something that causes things (if only in the short term) to head in an unexpected direction.
Sure I can predict that it is likely that the politicians will try to inflate their way out of this quite predictable and predicted subprime crisis. However then again they might not and that would be deflationary. What is clear however is that social engineering of the money supply has yet one more time lead to worse consequences than if the market were left alone. The Great Depression being a prime example of just how screwed up the economy gets when politicians interfer.
There are plenty of writers out their writing from an Austrian perspective that predicted that this housing market was going to be a bubble long before it was apparent to the Fed. Just like they predicted the existence of stagflation. Just take a look at Bill Fleckensteins complains about the housing market well back in time, when most others were praising Greenspan. He's got good advice now too. This housing market is on the verge of collapsing and there really is nothing the FED can do. They can't break economic law it's as airtight as the laws of physics.
I know Frogs don't listen to good advice but this is for everyone else. If you have a variable rate loan and are not in the financial position to maintain it should interest rates rise then you had better consider selling now, taking your loss, and renting because when you are forced to sell later because you can't meet your bills your losses are going to be much worse. That is if you have any equity in your house at all. If you don't have equity then just ride as your creditor is going to have to eat the whole loss himself, stupid creditor. If you have a fixed rate loan and a stable job that will be there for you through a severe recession it's best to hang on because money is going to be worth a lot less in the future and you will be paying back the loan with cheap money.
So no the present economic situation is not due to the war, nor the present price levels on gas, etc. That was all a predictable outcome of the actions of Greenspan with or without a war. A war doesn't help but it is hardly the root cause.
We are truly in a screwed up position right now because the FED failed to recognize that the freeing of world markets was extremely deflationary. That is, freeing up all those people chained into poverty by socialism is going to cause a explosion of goods production relative to the amount of money in circulation. By trying to artificially stablize prices what the FED did is to distort the world economy towards overproduction of goods that are far away from consumption in the economic pipeline. This error will be exposed but like all matters economic it takes time. In this case decades. Once the error is apparent our currency is going to resemble toilet paper.
We have essentially followed policies that have dammed up enormous reserves of cash overseas to hide the actual inflation that was occuring in the monetary system. This is worse than the 1970s because all that cash will come flowing back to us when the consumer inflation becomes apparent. No one overseas will want dollars and they will have lots of dollars to dump exacerbating already rising prices. You are screwed if you don't or can't prepare for this.
Thanks Greenspan, and thanks Bush and Clinton. Thanks Congress, thanks just about everybody including you for being a bunch of economic ignoramouses.
BTW, there are very few avenues for you to escape this mess. One of the few was to convert your IRA into hard assets like gold and silver. I did just that several years ago and I am quite happy. Unfortunately my 401K does not have such an option despite my best efforts to convince my company. So I my choices are evaporating dollars, collapsing bonds, or sliding stocks.
The "Bush economy" like the "Clinton economy" before it is build on a foundation of mud.
I hate to think of a world in 2050 in which schoolchildren look at their history books and find that Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were the only presidents impeached. By any measure, Bush deserves impeachment.
Regarding the topic of the post, US could do regain measures of respect and perhaps get what US citizens here wants by pushing for US joining the International Criminal Court (ICC).
There are more where that comes from. US could regulate laws so another president can't temporarily circumvent the Geneva conventions. It could also remove the reservation in the 4th convention which circumvent local law for civilians in occupied nations to be able to summarily e_x_e_c_u_t_e them. Et cetera.
Those exceptions were somewhat acceptable as long as a democratic nation as US behaved responsibly. Now they are scaring people - or at least, they should scare us.
[It could also help if US spam filters didn't block e_x_e_c_u_t_e or k_i_l_l. :-P]
I don't think so. Fearless Flightsuit goes to church a lot less often than one might think.
Do you really believe he lies to everyone except the Religious Wrong? Don't you think he considers them useful idiots?
After all, he said he had stopped drinking, too. Remember the show he pulled on his birthday last year? He couldn't walk straight anymore.
In 1996. That's when he still had some. He got rid of them between 1998 and 2002.
For the record, I won't. I want to hear from Captain Unelected's own mouth what he knew and when he knew it.
Yeah, like the overwhelming evidence for Intelligent Design.
"The enemy", eh?
Well, who has done greater damage to the USA? The Busheviki or Saddam?
Ever got the idea that there might be such a thing as a monumental fight of evil against evil?
Wouldn't really surprise me.
That, on the other hand, would surprise me.
Firstly, you don't need to stage a coup when you can simply steal an election. People who make a coup can't sell an oiligarchy and MORONARCHY as freedumb and demockracy anymore, not even on TV.
Secondly, Darth Cheney (Richard the Lying-Hearted) is not Dr Evil, he is Number Two. Having privatized democracy (private corporations make and maintain the voting machines, whose software is proprietary and closed-source), the Busheviki have partially privatized the military, too.
Which world? I mean, which planet are you living on?
Please explain.
If that was perfect cover, I am the Kangxi Emperor of China. It was transparent and had holes in it large enough to drive a truck through -- and that was the state of affairs ever since 9/11.
Inside information! [lips protruded and rounded for mocking voice]
For crying out loud, the UN inspections led by Hans Blix didn't find any WMD!!!
From the very beginning, I was amazed at how many Americans did believe that. Did the UN inspections not get into TV in the USA, or what?!?
Why do you call that evolution?
Huh? Of course. It's neither moral nor immoral, so it's amoral. Evolution is not a person. ~:-|