From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
About 5 years ago, George Bush stood at ground zero and told the American people that we would get the people who had attacked America. He was wrong. Osama is still at large. Shortly thereafter, anthrax was used as a weapon against Americans. We never caught anyone for the crime despite boastful statements. Almost 4 years ago, George Bush was running around the country telling us Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMD's and was just a yellowcake transaction away from a nuclear bomb. He was wrong about all of that. Meanwhile, his cronies were selling this message along with fear mongering and false allegations about 9/11 and Iraqi ties.

Then after we pre-emptively invaded, George Bush stood on a US naval ship in a flight suit costume and declared "Mission Accomplished" when nothing had really been accomplished except allowing the Iraqi militants to bunker down in their familiar turfs so they could pick us off and blow us up at will. The Supreme Court have told the administration that their tactics which mainly involve circumventing any law or constitutional point of order are illegal and must stop. But that doesn't stop the Rove driven propoganda bus. Nothing does, because it's all about control and power with them as their agenda can't survive when anyone challenges it and can debunk most of their theories with good ol common sense.

Since then, Bush and his administration, along with the right wing talking heads have made about every mistake and miscalculation that one could make. They destroyed the Iraqi military and govermental infrastructures only to have that create a country with no leadership or institutions to build on and improve. Today's "security force" (why can't they call em an army?) has virtually no officers or personel with any significant experience and the capabilities to actually lead anyone or anything. All the "good soldiers" seem to be working for the sunni and shiite militias except for the ones they send in to infiltrate the regular "security force."

Claims of "last throws" and "dead enders" havve peppered the American political vernacular like birdshot flying towards a good friend's face. Critisism has been squelched by accusations of treason and unfair comparisons of Nazi's and other unpopular historical groups. Domestically, the administration showed just how unprepared and incompetent we were when a long predicted hurricane was treated like an inconvenient surprise.

Can these guys get anything right?

Now, Bush is going to Republican fundraisers and eroneously framing any dissenting opinions. he is claiming once again, "do as I say, or bad things will happen."

My first question has to be about their track record. My second has to be considering the track record, why should we believe you now?

The blatant politicizing and propogandizing of every single issue mixed with facts that aren't facts, red herring and scarecrow arguments against any dissent and their "shape the evidence around what they want to be true" policy has totally shot any credibility this administration ever had. The neoconservative "chess game" agenda coupled with a radical religious fervor has gotten us where we are and enough is enough.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not a Democrat and have nothing inherently against Repulicans or real conservatives. There are issues I agree with the right, and sometimes I side with the left. Sometimes, I think both are wrong. But this is no longer a GOP v s DEM thing. We're well beyond that. Yes, Karl Rove and company would have you believe it is, but that is the only way they can pursue their reckless agenda. That is, continuing their stranglehold on a party they hijacked in the early 90's. The 2000 supreme court decided election solidified their iron grip and since then Rove and Company have used every opportunity to scare everyone, including good repulicans into letting them run the show, as if no one else could. I liken that to a coach who consistanty loses almost every game in every season. It doesn't take a lot of skill.

The fact is, just as the Iraqi people need to stand up and run their own country and find the skills and people needed to do so, so does the Republican party here at home. Back when this all started, I and others commented on the administrations ties with oil. Beyond Bush's close family ties with the saudi's and Cheney's Halliburtion collusions, they had an NSA advisor who's biggest claim to fame was having an oil tanker named after her. And there were others, but that's another article. Point being, many of us were concerned, not with the party affiliation of those in charge, but with the business and personal affiliations withthose in charge. Unfortunately, those concerns were legitimate. And beyond that, these guys just aren't very good at running anything. Bush has proved he is no better at running a country than he was the baseball team he ran into the ground or the ironic failures of his Texas oil biz.

Cheney's "One % doctrine" has made us into a country that is fighting the terrorists last tactics, and causing unnecessary fear with the American people. Bush's "all hat, no cattle" cowboy antics has destroyed any short term hope of much diplomatic progress on the world stage at a time when we could really use some good faith credibility with our allies and the world's players. Because of this administration, Americans can't admit to being American when traveling abroad. How sad is that? Because of this administration, America will have to work for years to restore some of the credibility we have lost in just a few years under this leadership.

Now, Bush predicts that things would be a disaster if we left Iraq. Newsflash,,,,things already are. He speaks of certain actions "emboldening the enemy." Newsflash,,,,the enemy couldn't be any bolder, just ask Iran, North Korea or Hezbollah. While we have been mislead and had our vital recources drained because of this administration misleading us into an unnecessary war and a distraction from those who ACTUALLY attacked us, ALL of our enemies hve been strengthened. We now look like a bully and an aggressor, hardly the postion we want to be in. It's kind of hypocritical to be preachin freedom and democracy while you are busy blowin up 2 countries and some are eager to invade a 3rd or 4th.

Yes, the tactic of terrorism is a dangerous weapon, and those who endorse and support it are dangerous. But it's time people faced the fact that a strategy like terror can't be defeated militarily. There is no way, short of absolute genocide to eliminate every terrorist in a region. And by their very nature, that genocide will only create new people willing to die for their cause and avenge theri deaths. One of the biggest falsehoods that perpetuates our dialog on the subject is that "terrorists hate us for our freedom." They don't. Some of the leaders may, as their grip on power can't have any dissent either. But the "rank and file" members of these various groups are willing to die because they believ in their cause. Just as the suicide bombers we knew as kamakazi's did. Just as the IRA members who were willing to die for N. Ireland's independence did. They may be absolutely 100% wrong, but they do believe in it. And while at 1st glance, that may seem to be the same thing as hatin us for freedom, it isn't. Think about it. If your neighborhood was invaded by ANYONE, you'd fight to the death to send em back over the ocean. The passengers of flight 93 proved it. 2 minutes after the "take planes and run em into buildings" strategy was implemented, the passengers defeated that strategy causing the plane to fall into a less populated place and failing to reach any of it's prospective targets. They sacrificed their lives because they believe in America and wouldn't have anyone, regardless of their philosophy have any chance in defeating it. And I dare say, if anyone tried that tactic again, it would be defeated just as the passengers of flight 93 defeated al qaeda.

Attacking terrorism militarily only enboldens it. The only way terrorists can be defeated is for them to lose their rank and file members to better ideas. That's not a very sexy or testosterone driven tactic, but it is effective. The war against terrorism can be fought covertly, and with sound intelligence and can be minimilized with good PR (over a long period of time, one sales pitch ain't gonna do it). Terrorism can be squashed where opportunity exists, but we have done a horrible job in the mid east on that front for decades. We have supported , and still do support many facist regimes (just ask pakistan) in the arab world. We don't insist the people know where all the aid they get comes from. The people don't see all the good we have done in the arab world since WWII because of our need to support their facist leaders like the Shah of Iran, The Saudi Royal Family et al...

That needs to change. As does many other things we do in the world arena. Otherwise, all the world will see is an Imperialist power aggresively attacking everyone who is different from them...like a terrorist. I'm in no way saying we are what they see, but perception is reality in this case and will continue to be. So we need to change the perceptions. Instead of shunning hollywood, maybe Washington could be using them much in the way we used hollywood in WWII to spread our messages and show the world why we're #1. Maybe every time we cut a check to Egypt or Jordan etc, it should be made widely known that we are the generous nation trying to help them make a better life for themselves. I'm thinkin it might work better than blowing up a village to show how wonderful freedom is. It might not satisfy the ego as much as goin round, tryin to "kick everyone's ass" but it just might be more effective and yield more positive long term results.

One thing is for sure, if this administration is saying something will happen, based on their track record, it probably won't. It's time for some new ideas as trying to be "the good guy" and the world bully just don't work together.






Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Aug 31, 2006
I don't want to get into a political argument here because I am not American and do not know the "Big Picture".

However it seems to me, as a layman, that the President of the USA has a 9/11 post-partum depression and he considers himself
the saviour of America, the "terrorist-buster", the Bin Laden hunter and the Middle East expert.

When we look at his record in the future we may find that he will go down in history as the man who decided to meet a traumatic event with force.
That force, well-intentioned as it may be, has disrupted the Middle East peace process and made the USA look like fools. He (and his buddy Blair),
talk about a road map, even now, but they allowed Israel to decimate Lebanon while they were on holiday--and they allowed incursions into Palestine at the same time. There is no road map.The occupying force has turned Iraq into civil war (yes it has), and that force has brought a resurgence of the Taliban. And there is still no Palestinian state.

I do not care how you see the World today but the World tomorrow looks grim and Dubya has a lot to answer for.

Let us hope that 2008 will see a President who has the sense to mediate, instil peace and forget about 9/11being the one reason to disrupt peace everywhere. We have to forget 9/11, tragic and traumatic as it was and look to stabilising this planet.



I know all the stories (Give the road map a chance; We have to look at the bigger picture as far as the Middle East peace process is concerned: Hizbollah started it;
on Aug 31, 2006
Sorry, that comment wasa bit discombubulated, but I hope you get the message.
on Aug 31, 2006

I feel the exact same way about how America has been driven into the ground by this administration.
I think by looking at the polls you can see Americans are not buying the shit Bush has been spoon feeding us for the last few years.

Well said.
I think history will shine unfavorably on Bush and his administration.

I do expect the local Right wing Posse to ride by any minute and call you a Liberal Coward though.
on Aug 31, 2006
I agree that things are not looking to good for the US, I however only ask if you gonna use information against Bush, hows about you do it properly and without bias. Here's what I mean:

About 5 years ago, George Bush stood at ground zero and told the American people that we would get the people who had attacked America. He was wrong. Osama is still at large.


He wasn't the only one responsible and the Taliban got what was coming to them, even if they are hiding in those mountains, so please give the whole picture, it would still prove your point.

Shortly thereafter, anthrax was used as a weapon against Americans. We never caught anyone for the crime despite boastful statements.


And who did you expect them to catch since they do not know who did it. I guess catching someone, reguardless if guilty or not is better than nothing right?

Almost 4 years ago, George Bush was running around the country telling us Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMD's and was just a yellowcake transaction away from a nuclear bomb.


I've seen several reports about finding stuff, may not have been huge stockpiles like they claimed but something was found, including some yellow cake. Again give the whole story, it would still prove your point.

Meanwhile, his cronies were selling this message along with fear mongering and false allegations about 9/11 and Iraqi ties.


Many times it's been said that Bush never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, I will never understand why people continue to say this. It has been proven on this site alone time and time again.

Then after we pre-emptively invaded, George Bush stood on a US naval ship in a flight suit costume and declared "Mission Accomplished" when nothing had really been accomplished except


Funny, I thought Saddam had been captured and his army disarmed, which was their mission, sounds like mission accomplished to me.

The Supreme Court have told the administration that their tactics which mainly involve circumventing any law or constitutional point of order are illegal and must stop. But that doesn't stop the Rove driven propoganda bus.



Maybe you don't know but the judge did not stop the use of these wire taps, they were allowed to continue till a court appeal.

This is what I mean. You may be right about Bush, but just like Col gene, you use the wrong tactics to prove a point and end up getting slammed by alll those "Bushies", "Bush followers", "Bushmen", "neocons", etc. Can't you just do what you gotta do with the full facts instead of just nit-picking?
on Aug 31, 2006
That's fine Charles C. but those are not my quotes! And I think this whole thing is far bigger than nit-picking. This is a viewpoint on a serious issue.
on Aug 31, 2006
charles...i was being brief in some of the descriptions,,,granted.

but i would like to clarify a few things,,, (numbers corresond w/ charles's quotes)

1) al qaeda was led and is led by osama bin laden,,,bush said we would catch him, and we haven't. yes, he was in cahoots with the taliban so he could have safe haven in afghanastan and they did get a good pop in 2001-02. but i think if ya check the latest reports, you will find the taliban is back in control in much of afghanastan. our distraction in iraq is part of the reason for this happening. and yes, further explanation would further prove my point. and no, i'm not explaining everything to the "inth degree" but i guess i assumed the reader to be up to speed on the events.

2) again, if one is up to speed on the events, this wouldn't be an issue. fact is we did go after some innocent people "just to make headlines" as it turned out. meanwhile, it was never widely reported that the egyptian doctor (al qaeda's #2) was running a weaponized anthrax lab in afghanastan. our soldiers found the lab. we never caught any of the perpetrators, which the evidence would suggest (stronger evidence than ANYTHING that took us into Iraq) that al qaeda DID IN FACT HAVE A SUCCESSFUL 2ND ATTACK against the US. our leaders just won't admit it. they won't cause they had or have no clue who pulled it off in this country and those folks are prob still in this country, at large.... and that means, it could happen again.

3) the only WMD's found in Iraq were made in the USA. and most of em were defunct and useless due to age. there are claims of programs, but that was hardly a reason to invade...we have biological and chemical weapons programs, as does just about every country in the world. and on the yellowcake thing, saddam already had about 500 lbs of yellowcake. it was unweaponized and saddam has not the technology or the disposable means nor the transportation device to deliver such a weapon. he was not only at least 10 years away from anything nuclear, he was BILLIONS away from anything nuclear. funny, no one likes to talk about the fact it would be silly to go to Niger for a "softball size" piece of unweaponized yellowcake uranium when he already had a couple freezers full of the stuff that he couldn't do anything with.

4) read what i wrote please. i was very careful not to fall into the "bush said" trap there. we all know it was cheney, rice, rumsfeld, o reilly, hannity, coulter, et al...who spread most of the fear mongering. the lawyers at the white house worked overtime to keep george's statements "plausibly deniable" we all know that...and look past it. it was a game and a hoax played on the american people.

5) when bush declared mission accomplished, we had not caught saddam, or even his sons,,,that would take another couple years and almost 2000 lives ended, and another 20,000 lives permantly messed up (and that's just americans, we haven't even begun to discussthe iraqi losses). and disbanding the iraqi military was a catastrophic blunder, one that we are still paying for today.

6) again,,,,ya need to read up. the supreme court ruled that our guantanamo bay operation was unconstitutional and have made one other ruling against bush's people and their conduct... actually, they haven't ruled on the wiretap thing...that was a lower court. the case is sure to get there, but won't probably till next year at least. sen. spector has called for hearings on his excessive and gratuitous "signing statements" that he attaches to bills and many other constitutional arguments are being susccessfully made against this administration. and i suspect many more will be successful as well.

i don't believe i was nitpicking,,,more like highlighting (the article was long enough without endless retreading and detail i thought) and i am more than happy to discuss any more issues in the responses here. the articles's purpose is to start a dialog, which has happened. and that's a good thing. i don't know the col. so i can't comment on te comparisson.

thank you very much for your comments charles. i appreciate the oppurtunity to expand on some of those ideas.

what i am hoping for is a more honest debate about what is going on in the world. not this alpha male driven war mongering and chest thumping which has only gotten us deeper in the crap. again, i have nothing against republicans, and am related to and know many. i hold some conservative and republican views as being correct. my problem is with this faction of religious zealot / neocon "10%'ers" who have the GOP under their thumb. i would like to see the dems take at least 1 house of congress this year, but really, things can't progress until the repulicans "liberate" themselves from this headlock they are in that bush, rove et al are squeezing.

yes, toughness counts in any war. but brains are far more effective and we need better brains in charge of this war. that is the bottom line. i truly believe that support for the war would skyrocket if rumsfeld resigned and a guy like lieberman or better yet, sam nunn took over as sec of defense. or bring back william cohen. a republican who worked for clinton. or there's several other guys who could do a better job from both sides of the aisle.


on Aug 31, 2006
World in Motion

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nQItOROYlc

Express yourself
Create the space
You know you can win
Dont give up the chase

Beat the man
Take him on
You never give up
Its one on one

Express yourself
Its one on one
Express yourself
Its one on one
Express yourself
You cant be wrong
When somethings good
Its never gone

Loves got the world in motion
And I know what we can do
Loves got the world in motion
And I cant believe its true

Now is the time
Let everyone see
You never give up
Thats how it should be
Dont get caught
Make your own play
Express yourself
Dont give it away

Express yourself
Its one on one
Express yourself
Its one on one
Express yourself
You cant be wrong
When somethings good
Its never wrong

Loves got the world in motion
And I know what we can do
Loves got the world in motion
And I cant believe its true

Loves got the world in motion
And I know what we can do
Loves got the world in motion
And I cant believe its true

Youve got to hold and give
But do it at the right time
You can be slow or fast
But you must get to the line
Theyll always hit you and hurt you
Defend and attack
Theres only one way to beat them
Get round the back
Catch me if you can
Cos Im the england man
And what youre looking at
Is the master plan
We aint no hooligans
This aint a football song
Three lions on my chest
I know we cant go wrong

Were playing for england {in-ger-land}
Were playing the song
Were singing for england {in-ger-land}
Arrivederci its one one one

Were playing for england {in-ger-land}
Were playing the song
Were singing for england {in-ger-land}
Arrivederci its one one one

Were playing for england {in-ger-land}
Were playing the song
Were singing for england {in-ger-land}
Arrivederci its one one one

Were playing for england {in-ger-land}
Were playing the song
Were singing for england {in-ger-land}
Arrivederci its one one one


watch this video: movies.crooksandliars.com/OlbermannBlastsRumsfeldOnFacism.wmv

on Sep 01, 2006
Oh you must be a BLEADING HEART LIBERAL that think's if we ask them to be our pal's they will just say OK we will stop trying to destroy Isreal and any Christian believer on the planet.Don't you realize if Socialism was to take over (or those sand n......)we would be in a soup line nealing down and praying to Mecca and the SICK Iranian Leader.They have been doing this since the 70's so don't jump on the Liberal talking point's and blame it on President Bush! Have you lost your mind and soul?And about the WMD they will not report (CBS,CNN,ABC,NBC or PMSNBC) because they don't want the Dem's to get completely blown away in November Election's, which they will despite all the BULLSHIT spewing by all you Bleeding Heart Liberal's.People know what Dem's really want and that's Divide and Conquer the exact theory and philosophy of the old Russian Empire.Oh excuse me it was only a Blow Job and nobody's bidness but him and his BITCH,right.Yeah you probably would vote for that worthless peace of shit again! Oh he just missed getting Osama bin Laden back in his dream's after a Monica Party one night.Yeah right he was not even interested at all if the TRUTH was known he helped the BASTARD get away.Remember Osama was in Vegas at Billy boy's asking year's ago to see our site's and attraction's but the LIB'S wont dare make a point of that.That would destroy Billy(hill's) legacy.Well I have vented enough and HOPE it was enough to really piss you and all your Lib friend's off to the MAX.That is if you really read this.Have a great Republican Party for the (six) or so seat's they will pick up in November.Poor Lieberman was left by his Party because he spoke the truth and supported Mr.Bush.That show's the Demonic style of all Liberal's,do as we do or your ASS is grass and we got the mower.He'll win as one of the few Independent's and they'll say it was STOLEN again.You Liberal's think the Voter's don't know you ASSHOLE'S.They don't want Socialism,PERIOD.



on Sep 01, 2006
Great insight !!!!! Politicians are politicians. No permanent friends, no permanent enemies but permanent interests. Allies now, enemies later. Enemies then, close ties now. That's pure and simple politics !!!!!
on Sep 01, 2006
I don\'t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UmxPYiP9go



President George W Bush has said victory in Iraq is essential to the US winning the \"war on terror\" against the Islamist groups ranged against it.

The US would not leave Iraq until victory was achieved, he told military veterans in Salt Lake City, Utah.

He said those who brought down the World Trade Center in New York five years ago were united with car bombers in Baghdad, Hezbollah militants who shot rockets into Israel, and terrorists who had recently attempted to bring down flights between Britain and the US.

\"Despite their differences, these groups form the outline of a single movement, a worldwide network of radicals that use terror to kill those who stand in the way of their totalitarian ideology,\" he said.

\"And the unifying feature of this movement, the link that spans sectarian divisions and local grievances, is the rigid conviction that free societies are a threat to their twisted view of Islam.\"

The United States faced a choice, he said. \"We can allow the Middle East to continue on its course -- on the course it was headed before September the 11th -- and a generation from now, our children will face a region dominated by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons,\" Bush said.

\"Or we can stop that from happening by rallying the world to confront the ideology of hate and give the people of the Middle East a future of hope. And that is the choice America has made,\" he said.

\"I\'m making my decisions based upon the recommendations of commanders on the ground. Polls and focus groups will not decide the Iraq policy in the global war on terror.\"


watch this BBC documentary:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3649090417189127240
on Sep 01, 2006
the President of the USA has a 9/11 post-partum depression




Post-partum depression means "post-pregnancy" depression. Did George Bush give birth to the airplanes that crashed into the WTC? Come on, buddy.
on Sep 01, 2006
charles...i was being brief in some of the descriptions,,,granted.


That is all I really asked for. I just like to get the whole story rather than just a one sided point of view. I am nor a Liberal nor a republican because I try to see things from both sides and reach a conclusion that fits my ideals. According to a website someone was once nice enough to link I descovered I was a centrist. I'm new to the whole US politics and always though of myself as a Republican cause they seem to have the kind of ideals I do. But now I know that I share many ideals from both sides of the field. I am not liberal or Republican because my parents were one or the other, I'm not either because I was raised around people from one or the other. People should chose according to what is best for them and the country not because you just belong to one side or the other.

1) al qaeda was led and is led by osama bin laden,,,bush said we would catch him, and we haven't. yes, he was in cahoots with the taliban so he could have safe haven in afghanastan and they did get a good pop in 2001-02. but i think if ya check the latest reports, you will find the taliban is back in control in much of afghanastan. our distraction in iraq is part of the reason for this happening. and yes, further explanation would further prove my point. and no, i'm not explaining everything to the "inth degree" but i guess i assumed the reader to be up to speed on the events.


There is no need for details of the details, just the whole story. Like when a story comes out about soldiers killing innocent people but the part where they were fighting against insurgent and these innocent people got caught in the middle is left out. That's what I mean.

Yes Bush did say we would capture him, nothing is sure in loife except death. Osama is not exactly a dumb person, you didn't really think he would be that easy to capture? But then maybe you should think that we do know where he is, but to capture him know would put a stop on all that Bush is doing. I agree this is not good leadership for us, but we don't know it and he could be doing what he thinks is best for him and the country.

2) again, if one is up to speed on the events, this wouldn't be an issue. fact is we did go after some innocent people "just to make headlines" as it turned out. meanwhile, it was never widely reported that the egyptian doctor (al qaeda's #2) was running a weaponized anthrax lab in afghanastan. our soldiers found the lab. we never caught any of the perpetrators, which the evidence would suggest (stronger evidence than ANYTHING that took us into Iraq) that al qaeda DID IN FACT HAVE A SUCCESSFUL 2ND ATTACK against the US. our leaders just won't admit it. they won't cause they had or have no clue who pulled it off in this country and those folks are prob still in this country, at large.... and that means, it could happen again.


I'm sorry but unless you actually work in the Gov't and have access to this kind of information, which would most likely be secret, you're gonna have to give me more than these rumor types of stories. Things like this need more than just what someone said or saw. proof is in the pudding, and you my friend are lacking pudding ATM. People don't go to jail because evidence suggest things. It has to be concrete, solid and well presented.

3) the only WMD's found in Iraq were made in the USA. and most of em were defunct and useless due to age. there are claims of programs, but that was hardly a reason to invade...we have biological and chemical weapons programs, as does just about every country in the world. and on the yellowcake thing, saddam already had about 500 lbs of yellowcake. it was unweaponized and saddam has not the technology or the disposable means nor the transportation device to deliver such a weapon. he was not only at least 10 years away from anything nuclear, he was BILLIONS away from anything nuclear. funny, no one likes to talk about the fact it would be silly to go to Niger for a "softball size" piece of unweaponized yellowcake uranium when he already had a couple freezers full of the stuff that he couldn't do anything with.


You do realize that all this info you are presenting to me is a conclusion after the invasion. Not something we could have proven, well maybe not us people and media (prossibly the Gov't could have) unless we actually went in and saw it with our own eyes. This is my problem with people who think this way, somehow every action taken by someone has to yeild good results. How many times have the police busted into peoples homes only to find that they were clean? But how could we have known that they didn't have anything unless we actually checked if we had evidence that pointed to them having something? Again, evidence suggested but not always right. Your kind of mentallity is that of "let's wait for them to do something first, then we have an excuse to do something about it". I'm not all for waiting for my kids to be hurt before I start a campaign to stop violence in my area.

4) read what i wrote please. i was very careful not to fall into the "bush said" trap there. we all know it was cheney, rice, rumsfeld, o reilly, hannity, coulter, et al...who spread most of the fear mongering. the lawyers at the white house worked overtime to keep george's statements "plausibly deniable" we all know that...and look past it. it was a game and a hoax played on the american people.


Does it really matter who said it? As far as many hear are concerned they are all just Bushmen, Bushies, Bush's puppets. Anything they say comes back to him.

5) when bush declared mission accomplished, we had not caught saddam, or even his sons,,,that would take another couple years and almost 2000 lives ended, and another 20,000 lives permantly messed up (and that's just americans, we haven't even begun to discussthe iraqi losses). and disbanding the iraqi military was a catastrophic blunder, one that we are still paying for today.


My bad, I meant to say toppled. But it wasn't 2 years later, Saddam was captured just a few months after the speech and his sons were also killed a few months later. But you can see things how ever you like. It's is one of those luxuries we have here in the US.

6) again,,,,ya need to read up. the supreme court ruled that our guantanamo bay operation was unconstitutional and have made one other ruling against bush's people and their conduct... actually, they haven't ruled on the wiretap thing...that was a lower court. the case is sure to get there, but won't probably till next year at least. sen. spector has called for hearings on his excessive and gratuitous "signing statements" that he attaches to bills and many other constitutional arguments are being susccessfully made against this administration. and i suspect many more will be successful as well.


First of all you need to stop with the "read up" line when you post "and have made one other ruling against bush's people and their conduct". You're not exactly giving me details here as if you read it yourself. Second, I understood you were talking about the wire tap thing, but like I pointed out before you give very little, if none, datail and leave half the stuff out so it can be hard to determine anything from what you post. Bush is not perfect, we all know that already and we should not let him act as if he is almighty, I agree.

i don't believe i was nitpicking,,,more like highlighting (the article was long enough without endless retreading and detail i thought) and i am more than happy to discuss any more issues in the responses here. the articles's purpose is to start a dialog, which has happened. and that's a good thing. i don't know the col. so i can't comment on te comparisson.


What you have to understand is your "highlighting" comes across as "out of context". I simply ask that when people give a story, which they may be right as in this article, give the whole story and not just the bad side of it. It's like me saying that you are a bad person because you 100 MPH, but I failed to mention that you are a race car driver and that you drive 100 MPH on a race track. See my point?

The col thing, if you don't know him maybe you are better off that way, or you could just get a kick out of his loonatic mentality. Trust me, this article falls short of what Col can come up with and that is why I am simply saying things here as oppose to insulting and making fun of you.

what i am hoping for is a more honest debate about what is going on in the world. not this alpha male driven war mongering and chest thumping which has only gotten us deeper in the crap. again, i have nothing against republicans, and am related to and know many. i hold some conservative and republican views as being correct. my problem is with this faction of religious zealot / neocon "10%'ers" who have the GOP under their thumb. i would like to see the dems take at least 1 house of congress this year, but really, things can't progress until the repulicans "liberate" themselves from this headlock they are in that bush, rove et al are squeezing


Yes, we agree. Even I admit that Bush has been just one blunder after another. But I also think that some things just had to be done and that even though the reasons behind them may not have been legit to many, something had to be done either way. Saddam was a threat, maybe not today, maybe not weeks or even months later, but he was a growing threat that together with the rest of the muslims leaders who are against the US would have been a dangerous team to deal with all together. He was also an easier target than the other leaders and that's why I think we chose him first. But that's just my thinking.

yes, toughness counts in any war. but brains are far more effective and we need better brains in charge of this war. that is the bottom line. i truly believe that support for the war would skyrocket if rumsfeld resigned and a guy like lieberman or better yet, sam nunn took over as sec of defense. or bring back william cohen. a republican who worked for clinton. or there's several other guys who could do a better job from both sides of the aisle.


I tend to think that there are more brains in this administration tham most would believe. It takes a genius to do what Bush has done and get away with it. It takes a smart person to follow Bush and take all the hits from the media and the people and benefit from it in the process cause I doubt that Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld or any other political person who follows Bush does not benefit from what is happening today around the world where we are involved.
on Sep 01, 2006
That's fine Charles C. but those are not my quotes! And I think this whole thing is far bigger than nit-picking. This is a viewpoint on a serious issue.


I don't think I was refering to you. Especially when everything I replied to was nothing you had posted. Yes, it's a serious issue, agreed, however if you gonna point out the bad things of a person don't take it out of context. Example, if I was to take this: "this whole thing is far bigger than" from your post, I could go really far making fun of you. BTW, it's not my intention to do so at the moment, just an example.
on Sep 01, 2006
In case you didn't notice, Prs. Bush isn't running for office again, nor can he... So, while your analysis is interesting, your conclusion that "it's time for some new ideas" is a constitutionally guarenteed outcome.
on Sep 01, 2006
thanks for your insight charles. i don't think we really disagree on too much, and the main point being a change in direction, which you seem to be on board with. so i don't wanna get into a pissin contest. as far as some of the details above,,,we can quibble over months and dates and such,,,it really doesn't matter and i think we are just saying sim. things in different ways in the end...

one point and reccomendation i would make,,,,you asked about if i worked for the fed...i don't...but i do have sources within including family and long time friends. most of them have very high security clearences (my wife has extremely high clearance, the kind it takes like 2 years for the FBI to do...no exaggeration, and that was pre 9/11) but that is not my primary source here.

my primary source when it comes to the anthrax attack is Ron Suskind's 1% doctrine. that book is sourced by pretty much all intelligence people who were there and are intimately familiar with what was going on. no, i or no one else can "prove it" as the info is still classified i believe and Bush & co. are not gonna admit we got attacked successfully a second time when it has been there campaign slogan that we have not. it would be more than embarrassing for every one of those congressmen and senators who have claimed the "we haven't been attacked again" as their mantra that they should be re-elected.

but even if you discount that...and for sake of argument, we can for now....the facts remain:

1) after 9/11 we were subject to a biological weapon attack,,,a terrorist attack.
2) we don't know who did it
3) the fact that the person or persons are unknown doesn't change the fact that the attack happened.
4) it is worse that we don't know who was responsible
5) when the attacks stopped,,,this govt. did everything they could to get us to forget it ever happened. a quick, false arrest was made...after that, most people thought "case closed" which it wasn't. the person who was falsely accused was released, quietly and since then no public announcements have been made on any progress on the case.
6) we have forgotten
7) that forgetfulness is being used by people who perpetuate the lie that we haven't been attacked since 9/11..cause we clearly were.

again charles,,,thank you for your feedback, much appreciated:)

sean:)


we can argue about who did it all day long,,,it is irrelevant.
2 Pages1 2