Bush administration made over 900 false statements in lead-up to Iraq

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer

 

Hans Blix should have done Saturday Night Live.

 

Just because some Democrats may have believed something in 1998 does not necessarily make it true in 2003, or now. I didn't think we needed to remind conservatives of that, but it's something many of us liberals believe.

In 1998, the bombing campaign -- made after many of Boom's greatest hits of quotes, by the way -- destroyed the basis for any possible WMD programs, according to weapons inspectors.

In 2002-03, we had those inspectors in Iraq, thanks to the saber rattling by Bush, to determine if post-1998 capacity for any WMD had been rebuilt. They found that it hadn't, but instead of acting on that new information, the Bush administration took us to war anyway.

There is a persistent myth that "everyone" believed Saddam had WMD before the war, because that's what the intelligence community said in the Clinton years. Very convenient, because it allows Bush's sycophants to try and wriggle him off the hook.

But it isn't true.

On February 24, 2001, Colin Powell said this about Saddam:

I realize that Powell sang a career-ending different tune in front of the UN Security Council in 2003. But he made that statement in 2001 because the intelligence supported it.

For the same reason, on July 29, 2001, Condi Rice said this:

After 9/11, Bush decided to attack Iraq and the intelligence was used -- to put it, ah, charitably -- selectively.

To me, it shows the difference between two presidents and two parties.

Clinton believed Iraq had WMD and engaged in prudent, measured responses that removed Saddam as a threat and disarmed him.

Bush believed Iraq had WMD and started a war that cost billions, the lives of 3,000 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis, increased terrorist acts, reduced oil output and destabilized the region.

The difference is that the Democratic strategy worked well, and the Republicans changed that strategy and fucked everything up.

(That is, of course, if one believes that the Iraq invasion was really about WMD or terrorism or Saddam or national security or any of the ever-changing reasons the current administration has given us. But that's a whole different post.)

 

I'm as liberal as anyone, but I'm not in favor of impeachment. Not because it's not warranted, but because of the damage it would do to the Democratic majority.

In short, the best antidote to seven years of Bush/Cheney would be a Democratic president and the worst thing would be another Republican prolonging their policies/ideas. Impeachment proceedings would hurt Democratic chances and help the Republicans.

I know what some polls say, but I just think people would get pissed at Congress/Democrats.

It sucks but we have to accept the fact that people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld won't go to jail or get impeached for their lies. It just doesn't happen to powerful men like them. Cynical? Maybe. But that's life.

 

Could we at least waterboard them?

 

They could be sentenced to 10 years as Wal-Mart greeters.

 

Well Hillary certainly greenlighted it -- and much of the agenda she is now campaigning against -- by voting for it. But then again, that doesn't matter -- she was "lied" to.....LOL

And this "landmark" study is silly -- it concludes that Colin Powell and George W. Bush said "weapons of mass destruction" hundreds of times! And stop the presses -- politicians lied to get their agenda pushed through. My God, that has never happened, well, not at least in the last five minutes....

And I'm sure the study by FAIR was fair because, hey that groups name is fair! Forget for a moment that it itself is a bunch of liberal whackos and thus the motivation for its study -- just like the motivation for the study by two left-leaning organizations and two liberal journalists -- is very questionable and thus the results are fruit of the poision tree.

I mean, I'm sure Fenian Bastard and company would accept as gospel a study by Ralph Reed's organization or Newsmax that chronicled all of the lies of the Clintons in the last 20 years........

I mean, go ahead, defend (or more accurately try and rationalize) this.......

http://sonic.net/maledicta/clintons.html

http://prorev.com/hillary.htm

http://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyonline/2006/08/bill_clinton_li.html

 

Pure sewage from cite No. 2.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/WWDEATH.HTM

It's not worth it any more.

 

Good idea. We could all get punchy nicknames! Hey, Sport. Welcome to Wal-Mart.

 

So a war is now an "agenda?"

He, if you lie your way into war (like James Polk in Mexico) all is forgiven if you win.

If you get quagmired up, you sink in your own BS.

 

No I think if you read some of the facts in the blue box it isn't sewage. There is a very clear pattern of Hillary Clinton's misdeeds involving fundraising and insider trading. And there are some very interesting little items on that page.

But again -- you just proved my point, of how easy it is to dismiss studies about your favorite politicians that come from groups who sit on the other side of the aisle and how willing you are to pick and choose and quote studies from left-wing groups and accept them as gospel.