home

An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out

by TChris

The president who switched from searching for weapons of mass destruction to searching for weapons of mass destruction-related program activities (suggesting that's what he was looking for all along) is now accusing his critics of attempting to “rewrite the history of how that war began."

< Waas: Rove Still In Legal Jeopardy | Judge Overturns San Diego Guilty Verdict >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    Ok all you libs...let's hear the spin you put on this speach. You all know what he said was true! Go ahead...spin away! Blowhard Teddy K. was the first to open his blowhole...what a waste, and you all mock Bush? ...LMAO

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#2)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    BB forgets that people can remember the media blitzkreig in 2002, the fact that WMD's were being forced down our throats on every network and in every paper. And this propagadna began with the White House. The Democratic Senators who rolled over did so out of political fear, and every American knows that too. That some of them are coming out, finally, and admitting they made a mistake is the best thing for us all. It shows character, growth, integrity.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    glanton... BB forgets that people can remember the media blitzkreig in 2002 No...B.B. didn't forget...all the people that saw the evidence forgot! That's the point... All the Dems want to rewrite history now. Well, I got news.. the people of this country know better... You can change your stripes now...but we 'remember' your true colors! It's ok...keep talking sh*t and keep losing elections.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    Bush also rewrote the history of the war in the same breath, claiming that Democrats voted "to support removing Saddam from power," when actually they voted to give the President the authority to do that if it was necessary. He then spent several months saying that Saddam could stay in power if he would just cut it out with the nukes...

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#5)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    BB, sniping aside and in all seriousness, do you really believe: A) that the Senators saw the same exact evidence that Bush had and that; B)that there was no political pressure on Tenet and others to present the evidence in such a way as to facilitate war?; and finally C)that the Dems who voted for the resolution did so out of conviction rather than out of cowardly deference to the media blitzkreig? If your answer to all of these questions is yes, then I envy you. I wish I could trust those in power so wholeheartedly.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    All we have to do is endlessly remind the Preznit and the minions of his flip flops on the war.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    Glanton... If your answer to all of these questions is yes, then I envy you. Yes... History will bare this out. If you like, I can reprint all the 'big cheese' Dems speeches & letters at various times saying they saw the evidence and support going to get Saddam. It's a shame on how many (in their efforts to get Bush) are now trumping up sh@t to make themselves look good & Bush look bad. The bigger shame is all of you buying into it! How soon we forget...huh?

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#8)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    Can I make a humble suggestion before this degenerates further into "he said he said, she said he said"? Don't post to this thread unless you can quote somebody to back your claims about either A) what X said or B) what Y said that X said.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#9)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    I surely remember that 'media blitzkrieg'all fueled by Cheney, Powell, Bush, Blair, Straw, of alleged evidence; there was no evidence. I saw a headline on Reuters with a quote about irresponsibility.
    "But, he added, "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."
    That's laughable coming from the epitome of irresponsibility.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    BB, in a thread about revisionism, tries to catapult the propaganda with a favorite scapegoat -- it's all Ted Kennedy's fault. Because he's Catholic. Or unintentionally killed a woman in a car accident. Unlike Bushliar, who isn't Christian, wouldn't know Jesus if Hermann Goering bit him on the face, and has killed about 30,000 (innocent) women. They think they can revise history, because they think the whole world is their base. They got that half-right: they're base. Hard-drives BULGE with Bushliar's treason. Their political machine is sputtering, and the opposition to their treason and their policies is becoming universal. What a good day for a whistling walk past the graveyard, eh, BB? Maybe you can gull some people in the base, but the rest of us? Dream on. blockquote> "The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to (the rightwing's) hopes." --Thomas Jefferson blockquote

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    The president said what he had to say to get his money-making war. The senate said what they had to say to get re-elected. The American people wanted blood after 9/11, and any senator who didn't grant the president unlimited war powers would have been villified. The true history is they all let us down and got a lot of people killed. What else do you expect from politicians? The anger of those same senators now is laughable. 3 years to late fellas.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    Paul Wolfowitz-: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Get that? The non-existent WMDs were just an excuse. Justice Department's Office of Inspector General - "None of the 1,200 foreigners arrested and detained in secret after September 11 was charged with an act of terrorism. Instead, after periods of detention that ranged from weeks to months, most were deported for violating immigration laws. " How's that for you habeus haters?

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#13)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    kdog, obviously you are mostly right about the Senators, but are you not willing to credit those who come forward and acknowledge their mistake for what it was? I maintain that admitting one's own failings is among the most honorable actions a human being can take, and that our nation benefits greatly whenever its high government officials demonstrate the capacity for such a thing. Why it should be so hard I will never understand--those of us in the real world find ourselves needing to admit our mistakes, and to atone for them, quite often. If your course is wrongheaded, staying the course aint nothin but wrongheaded.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    June 1 2003:
    THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.


    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#15)
    by Steven Sanderson on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    Right-wing vacuity reminds me of the adage, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#17)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    I don't care what bush says. Does anyone after all the lies? He's still a war criminal marionette.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#18)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    Do you all honastly think Bush got the info...munipulated it his way,... then showed it to all the Dem baffoons? That is truly laughable! If you think that is what happened, no wonder you are all so paranoid.
    BB, the White House's manipulation of intelligence is well documented. You need to read this.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    BB, do the world a favor, use condoms.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    Nolo... the White House's manipulation of intelligence is well documented LOL... Well documneted by Bush hating lefty sites! Do you honestly think that linking to a "lefty" web site proves your case? I can link just as many 'righty' sites that say the opposite... Jesus... use your own brain man. (Remember what I said about Lemmings?) But, let's just say that this is true... Explain to me how ALL the great leaders of the Dem (left) are such nitwits that they all went along? Shouldn't you all be spitting your venom at them? You all go on & on about how stupid GW is....well if what you say (think) is true... he's smarter than all of them combined? LMAO on that one! jlvngstn.. Too late... I have 4 boys just like me.... Anything else (pertinent) to say except the typical nastyness? Didn't think so....

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:00 PM EST
    bb-Most of America must be reading those "leftie sites" cause your champ is taking a big dive.
    Well documneted by Bush hating lefty sites! Do you honestly think that linking to a "lefty" web site proves your case?
    America's current opinion proves the case. They are not as dumb as you oh devoted one.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:00 PM EST
    BB - How can I argue with a man that demonstrates such a strong command of the english language and who clearly articulates the complex issues so deftly. I have something to add, Bush and you and Quayle should all get together and form the intelligence equivalent of a turnip.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:00 PM EST
    Too late... I have 4 boys just like me....
    It's not too late for all 5 of you to go to Iraq before you breed any more like you.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:00 PM EST
    The bozo has jumped the shark, his credibility is nil, the more he runs his mouth the faster he falls in public esteem - all of this "pushback" tosh is for naught, as this administration has gone well beyond the tipping point. At this late date to even argue the merits of the jejune "pushback" assertions is a monumental exercise in time-wasting...the public record now emerging in its totality condemns irrefutably the need-for-war claims as half-truths, elisions, exaggerations, dubious argumentation, etc., etc. It's Ballgame, people.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:00 PM EST
    Wait...strike that. If they are just like you then they are not willing to back up their talk with any action, either.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#27)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:00 PM EST
    It is "end game" not "Ballgame." Gads, how I hate for non-sports people trying to toss a cliche into the old stew pot... PPJ, your ignorance is showing. When the guy hits the game-winning, walk-off home run, you say, "That's the ballgame." You say that because the game ends with the losers still standing on the field.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:00 PM EST
    A few years ago I worked with a gearhead who had this library of *.wav files, one of which roared out BALLGAME!, whenever he'd crash an application...I hold that the usage is appropriate in the context of my post, full stop.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:00 PM EST
    repack - Problem is, he didn't write that. Now I know why you believe Wilson. Eric - Wrong... But as the Foo Bird Said... If the Foo Sh*ts, wear it. Or if we had some ham we'd have some ham and eggs if we had some eggs.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:00 PM EST
    Glanton: Are you a Dem true-believer or just naive as all hell!? Kdog is right on the money. And BB is right on the money as well, at least when it comes to our dear friends, those quislings in the Dem party. You think the Dems sudden about-face has ANYTHING to do with they're actually admitting that they f$%^ed up!!?? Um, no. Not by a long shot! It's ALL about two simple things, neither of which has anything to do with any moral high ground. The first is that the Dems, while still (!!!)spineless, ain't morons. They smell blood in the water and, with Bush constantly shooting himself in the head, and with his numbers tanking, they are doing what any opportunistic bottom-feeders would do. The second is that midterms are coming along soon and Iraq is fast becoming the nightmare that the far left has ALWAYS claimed it was (that would be me). There is NOTHING moral or charitable or anything approaching ethical in what the Dems are doing now. Mea culpas? Yeah, right! I'm sure the families of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of dead feel the Dems' purported pain and remorse! Where were these mea culpas BEFORE Bush's numbers started to tank!!!!!???? Please! And, for the record, as an American, I find it absolutely appalling that Americans in general are now having the epiphany that, gee, invading Iraq really was a bad f*&^ing idea - and then have the gall to cite only to the billions spent on this nightmarish imperialist jaunt or the 2000+ AMERICAN soldiers and marines killed in action. So, the righteousness of an invasion of a sovereign, non-threatening country is to be judged on how much comes out of our pockets and how many of our boys buy it? Really? So, if the invasion either cost substantially less or the AMERICAN body count was substantially less, would the American people or the fairweather Dems be so damned gung-ho to see this whole abortion as wrong!? Sad to say, I doubt it very, very much. But, hey, at least prices at the pump would be lower!!!! Woo hoo!! I have yet to hear a SINGLE American politician, Rep, Dem or Indep state CLEARLY that this invasion was LEGALLY WRONG, PERIOD. It was/is not wrong BECAUSE it is so costly. it was/is not wrong BECAUSE of the AMERICAN body count. No, it was/is wrong because democracies do not engage in pre-emptive war (if they hope to remain democracies). IT WAS/IS WRONG BECAUSE IT WAS/IS ILLEGAL!!!!! Yet, not a single politico will admit this simple truth, for fear of being vilified by the jingoistic right. Remember - the whole world is watching!

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    If these current Dickensian times do not scream out for the urgent need of a third party in America, then nothing ever will. Or, to quote John Lennon; "just gimme some truth!" The angrier I get about all of this, the more serious I am becoming about getting involved in politics myself. How the f*&k hard is it to be a person of simple integrity and just speak truth to power!!!??? So, it might get you voted out of office! So the f*&k what!!!!!????? If these senators and reps weren't treating their jobs as life-long sinecures, but as the short-term, patriotic roles they were originally intended to be, we actually might get us some representative democracy! Republican democracy? No, try an oligarchic duopoly. For a nation of purported capitalists, isn't it just a bit odd that these lovers of competition aren't enamored of it in their politics?

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    Lavocat spins a pretty good lie. But: 1. The Dems did NOT vote in favor of the Resolution as a block. The actual vote was a full-fledged fight within the party, both in House and Senate. 2. The House Dem vote was SIXTY PERCENT NAY, with a change of House leadership to the Nay side. 3. The Senate Dems split their vote, as is normal for the Senate. The split the political risk of voting for such a hairbrained idea as giving Bush the power he already had. 4. NO SENATE IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY has blocked a resolution of war powers after an attack on the country. There is no precedent for a nay vote in the Senate -- the 45% Dem NAY vote is/was historic. 5. The collapse of our impeachment rights is the direct result of the R party, which refuses to do oversight or investigation into a coup that they are making a lot of money on. Dems are no where near as culpable. 6. Clinton is no longer in power. When he made most of those statements was around Desert Fox, when it was necessary to build a case for an attack on Iraq, an attack that was ROUNDLY criticized, reviled, and lampooned by the R party, which saw no reason not to profit politically from Clinton's efforts. 7. Subsequent to Desert Fox, UNSCOM was able to fully disarm the already substantially disarmed Hussein. 8. At the time of the Resolution, Bush and Powell both made it 'clear' that regime change was not the policy. THEY LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH. 9. The inspectors had FULL ACCESS to Iraqi sites, including palaces, by December 2002. They were not finding anything in those sites, and BEGGED for time to finish their work. 10. But Bush wanted airbases, and knew he couldn't get them legally. 11. NORAD somehow completely failed to respond to the Nine-eleven hijackings. Two fighter jets eventually responded...from Nebraska. The PNAC paper spoke of the need for a "New Pearl Harbor." Mission accomplished. 12. The treasonous acts of omission, conspiracy, and negligence on that evil day have no corollary in Clinton's term. Bush is a traitor. Bush Must Resign.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    Talk about rewriting history. Bush and his minions do it often. Let’s look at history. The Bush minions wanted to invade Iraq since 1998. They wrote a letter to then President Clinton urging him to invade, but Clinton was smart enough not to. Bush became president and the minions went with him to Washington. 9/11 happened. The Bush minions made a show of invading Afghanistan, but didn’t find Bin Laden. They then saw that this could be their chance to finally invade Iraq. First they had to whip the people up. Bin Laden started morphing into Saddam. Every time a Bush minion talked on TV it was Saddam is evil, Saddam is trying to destroy us, Saddam gassed his own people (they leave out that this happened in the 80’s), Saddam and Bin Laden are in it together, Saddam has WMD, and then finally when nothing else worked – Saddam will use a nuclear weapon on US. Bush gave his famous State of the Union speech to put it altogether. Bush needed a resolution from congress. Read the resolution. It says:
    (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that— (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
    This was also in one of Bush’s speech before the resolution passed:
    Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked congress to authorize the use of America’s military, if it proves necessary, to enforce UN Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.
    See Bush said that the resolution did not mean WAR. The war is Bush’s, he is the commander in chief. The resolution did not say – Bush you have to invade Iraq, let them loot, spend a lot of money NOT rebuilding their country, blur the lines when it comes to prisoners, make sure the terrorists finally do come to Iraq, etc., etc. Bush is the commander in chief, right? When there were no WMD’s, Bush and his minions rewrote history by making the Iraq invasion the central front in the “war on terror”. Then for awhile the war was about freedom for the Iraqis. When that didn’t fly, people might feel that 2,000 of our people didn’t need to die to free Iraqis. Then they rewrote history again and made it that we were fighting to give Iraqis God’s gift of freedom. That’s better blame it on God

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    "The Bush minions made a show of invading Afghanistan, but didn’t find Bin Laden." INCORRECT. They found Bin Laden, trapped at Tora Bora, and then THEY LET HIM GO. How? First by underdeployment, next by shifting forces to the upcoming Iraq Imbroglio, and finally by entrusting the Pak border side of the caves to "FORMER" TALIBAN warlords -- who let OBL escape into Pakistan easy as you please. Good thinking! "I don't think about him at all." -- GWB, wearing the dunce cap and the drunkard's red nose, at the same time.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    debbie - Bush said:
    Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.
    It wasn't imminent, or unavaoidable. But, the prospect was clearly there. Everyone knew it. Clearly stated in many previous statements. If "x" didn't happen, war would follow. BTW - The connections between OBL and Saddam are clear to any reasonable person, including the Clinton JD who, on 11/4/98, issued this indictment that said:
    In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
    Link

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    You're right Jim, Bush lied when he said that approving the resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. He knew that he would invade Iraq after he got the resolution passed, and now he is "rewriting" what the resolution said. The war is Bush’s, he is the commander in chief. The resolution did not say – Bush you have to invade Iraq, let them loot, spend a lot of money NOT rebuilding their country, blur the lines when it comes to prisoners, make sure the terrorists finally do come to Iraq, etc., etc. Bush is the commander in chief, right?

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#39)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    "F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

    It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.


    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#40)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#41)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    Once again, Bush is accusing those Americans actually engaged in an act of freedom (vehemently saying "No!" to your government) for being the real problem. Orwellian to say the least, and utterly contemptuous of the actual meaning of freedom. This is a man who couldn't think of a single mistake he'd made. A classic spoiled pr*ck and garden variety as*hole, whose acute sociopathy and megalomania are now chewing away at the national psyche like no president since that other sociopath Nixon.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:02 PM EST
    Posted by Jim: "It wasn't imminent, or unavaoidable. But, the prospect was clearly there. Everyone knew it. Clearly stated in many previous statements. If "x" didn't happen, war would follow." 'X' was allowing the inspectors free rein. They got that, and then Bush prevented them from finishing, because that would weaken the war rhetoric. Bush also failed THREE TIMES to attack al-Zarkawi when he was in US gunsights because it would weaken the war rhetoric. Bush also failed to accept Hussein's offer to leave Iraq and go into exile, because it would weaken the war rhetoric. Bush also failed to accept Afghanistan's offer of Osama Bin Laden extradited to the US, because it would weaken the war rhetoric. "BTW - The connections between OBL and Saddam are clear to any reasonable person," Except for the Nine-eleven Commission. "including the Clinton JD who, on 11/4/98, issued this indictment" An indictment is not evidence.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#43)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:02 PM EST
    At this point, I think even most members of Bush's base know that there is no shred of evidence connecting Saddam with Bin Laden. Not too long ago Jim cavalierly quipped something to the effect of "all wars are started for political reasons." There may be a modicum of truth to that, but eventually Bush's particular political reasons will be revealed. I'm still betting it was a move to shore up the 2002 election, an impeachable offense if ever there was one. But only time will tell. BTW: Republicans hate and fear historians because they cannot control them to the vast extent that they can control, with their money and by tinkering FCC regulations, current discourses.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#44)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:02 PM EST
    p.s. "to shore up the 2002 election" should read "to shore up the 2002 and 2004 elections.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:02 PM EST
    debbie - Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Perhaps they can repair their own country. Now. I have shown you where Mr. and Mrs. Wilson were wrong in their claim that Bush said Saddam "purchased..." And I have shown you where Clinton's JD said Saddam and OBL were mobbed up. And you have been shown that dozens and dozens on Democratic politicans and hanger ons thought Saddam had to go... And yet you don't believe? I think you protest too much. I think you know you are wrong. glanton - Yes I did. And bin Ladin started the WOT for political reasons. He wants to have Islam as the world wide religion. Remember what he said to Peter Arnett. PIL - An indictment is not evidence? How many people do you think had to sign off on that indictment. Can you say, CIA, State, Defense.. So, does this mean you are ready to defend Libby???? And the 9ll commission said there were links. Why do you tell tall tales?
    Bush also failed to accept Hussein's offer to leave Iraq and go into exile, because it would weaken the war rhetoric.
    I missed that one. Links??

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:02 PM EST
    PILA: No need to be such an apologist for the Dems, dude. After all, the party is currently full of them (and IT). Frankly, if it weren't so pathetic for the country at large, it would be funny as hell to see the Dems squirm like the spineless worms that they are.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#47)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:02 PM EST
    PPJ: Funny that you mention bin Landen. In fact you keep mentioning bin Laden but you consistently give DUbay a free pass for declaring his indifference towards capturing that murdering bastard. Meanwhile we have the Iraq war. Which was a war started by George W. Bush--not by Osama bin Laden or even Saddam Hussein. And Dubya's political reasons? Well, one can only assume that the American elections are at the heart of it all. You cast the President as a romantic hero in some sentgimental narrative. But you're smarter than that. And eventually, you'll see.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:02 PM EST
    Jim, you have shown me nothing, nothing, nothing. You say dumb things like "maybe they can rebuild their own country". DDUUHHH!!!!! They could, but they aren't. We are spending a lot of money NOT rebuilding their country. You have shown me nothing about the Wilsons. We have been over this before. Bush never said "purchased" and the critics never said "purchased". Bush said "sought" and the critics discredited the "sought". In your mind for some reason, you believe that the "left" is saying Bush said "purchase", your don't show links. Wilson in his piece in the New York Times said:
    The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country..
    and
    Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
    and
    The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.
    See the words "efforts" and "attempt". The "sought", the "effort", and the "attempt" was discredited. Bush himself has said that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
    Distancing himself from remarks by Vice President Cheney, President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — disputing an idea held by many Americans.
    About Saddam and OBL being mobbed up. Clinton didn't invade Iraq. If they were so mobbed up, why is the reason for war changing all the time? You do know that the reason given now is to spread God's gift of freedom. Jim, OBL is a religious fanatic and Saddam is an infidel. The dems didn't invade Iraq. I don't believe what you or anyone else says without checking it out for myself. I think for myself, and you have not shown me any proof to change it.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    Even speaks-from-both-sides-of-his-mouth Senator John McCain believes dissent and criticism is acceptable, unlike this administration. This morning National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on CNN with Wolfie repeatedly hit on the Republican talking point that it was 'unfair' (boo hoo) to question whether the Prez (both of them) lied the American people, and troops, into war. If they had nothing to worry about, if they were confident this never happened, they should be happy the press, dems and critics are off chasing ghosts, if indeed these criticisms amount to nothing. If they have nothing to fear, they should welcome the inquiries. They should throw open the files, the (non-classified & declassified) materials and BEG for transparency in order to get this behind them. But transparency, much less honesty, has never been a strength of this administration. In fact, quite the opposite as most of the other half of America is finally starting to realize.

    Re: An Expert on Rewriting History Speaks Out (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    "PIL - An indictment is not evidence?" Correct. An indictment is NOT evidence. "How many people do you think had to sign off on that indictment. Can you say, CIA, State, Defense." Signatures are NOT evidence. "So, does this mean you are ready to defend Libby????" Of course not, because the indictment of Libby was for CRIMES TO THE GRAND JURY. See if you can understand that simple point. Libby, Cheney, Bushie, Donnie, Condi -- all WAR CRIMINALS AND TRAITORS. Is that an indictment? You damn well bet it is. But it isn't based on itself, or on signatures. It's based on a WEALTH of evidence in the public domain. Put them on trial in a fair court, and they will spend decades in prison, no doubt about it. If they can keep their heads. Posted by Lavocat: PILA: No need to be such an apologist for the Dems, dude." Gee, dude, how about you FRO? In case you don't get the reference, RO stands for 'right off.' I AM a Democrat, life long -- I don't have to apologize for the Dems because I have one of the best Senators in the history of the country, and several local representatives who are worthy of considerable pride. You blame the Dems for a coup. I do not. I send representatives to Congress to participate in a lawful government, which George 'Never Saw a Grandmother I didn't Hate' Bush has no clue about. Restore our impeachment rights. Then we'll see what kind of government we have left. The R party -- what does the R stand for? -- has blocked impeachment, as it has railroaded two invasions without ANY oversight whatsoever. Republican party, turned into Rightwing party, is heading over a cliff. The Dems will come out of the debacle just fine, thanks. Our country -- not so much. Thanks, George, you pig.