Mr. Bush, You Are A Liar By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Perspective Friday 11 July 2003 There was a picture on the front page of the New York Times on Tuesday, July 8. It showed several American soldiers in Iraq sitting in utter dejection as they were informed by their battalion commander that none of them were going home anytime soon, and no one knew exactly when they were going home at all. PFC Harrison Grimes sat in the center of this photo with his chin in his hand, staring at ground that was thousands of miles from his family and friends. A soldier caught in the picture just over PFC Grimes' shoulder had a look on his face that could break rocks. 212 of PFC Grimes' fellow soldiers have died in Iraq, and 1,044 more have been wounded. The war created chaos in the cities, and it seems clear now that very little in the way of preparation was made to address the fact that invasion leads to social bedlam, not to mention a lot of shooting. Last Sunday, CNN's Judy Woodruff showed a clip of a Sergeant Charles Pollard, who said, "All we are here is potential people to be killed and sitting ducks." According to the numbers, almost two thirds of the soldiers killed in Iraq since May 1 died in "non-combat related" mishaps like accidental weapons discharges, accidental detonations of unexploded ordnance, and questionable car crashes. There are some in the world who might take comfort from the fact that only one third of the dead since May came from snipers or bombs or rocket-propelled grenades. Dead is dead, however. There is no comforting them. A significant portion of the dead and wounded came after Bush performed his triumphant swagger across the deck of an aircraft carrier that was parked just outside San Diego bay. Those dead and wounded came because the Bush administration's shoddy planning for this whole event left the troopers on the firing line wide open to the slow and debilitating bloodletting they have endured. A significant portion of the dead and wounded came after Bush stuck his beady chin out on national television and said, "Bring 'em on!" When a leader sends troops out into the field of battle, they become his responsibility. When his war planning is revealed to be profoundly faulty, flawed in ways that are getting men killed, he should not stick his banty rooster chest out to the cameras and speak with the hollow bravado of a man who knows he is several time zones away from the violence and bloodshed. Such behavior is demonstrably criminal from a moral standpoint. The events that led to this reprehensible display were criminal in a far more literal sense. Bush and the White House told the American people over and over again that Iraq was in possession of vast stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Bush and the White House said over and over again that this was a direct threat to the United States. Bush and the White House told the American people over and over again that Iraq was directly connected to al Qaeda terrorism, and would hand those terrible weapons over to the terrorists the first chance they got. Bush and the White House told Congress the same thing. Very deliberately, Bush and the White House tied a war in Iraq to the attack of September 11. It was all a lie. All of it. When George W. Bush delivered his constitutionally-mandated State of the Union Address in January 2003, he stated flatly that Iraq was attempting to develop a nuclear weapons program. "The British government has learned," said Bush in his speech, "that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa." He delivered this proclamation on the basis of intelligence reports which claimed that Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger. Vice President Cheney got the Niger ball rolling in a speech delivered August 26, 2002 when he said Saddam Hussein had "resumed his effort to acquire nuclear weapons." As the data clearly shows, Mr. Cheney was a central player in the promulgation of the claim that Iraq was grubbing for uranium in Africa. This statement was the opening salvo. CIA Director George Tenet made this same claim in a briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee on September 24, 2002. This briefing was the deciding factor for a number of Senatorial fence-sitters unsure about voting for war. Bush, in a speech delivered on the eve of the Congressional vote for war on Iraq, referenced the Niger uranium claims again when he raised the specter of a "mushroom cloud" just three sentences after evoking "The horror of September 11." That sealed the deal. Congress voted for war, and a clear majority of the people supported the President. In the last week, a blizzard of revelations from high-ranking members of the intelligence community has turned these Bush administration claims inside out. It began with a New York Times editorial by Joseph Wilson, former US ambassador to several African nations. Wilson was dispatched in February of 2002 at the behest of Dick Cheney to investigate the veracity of the Niger evidence. Wilson spent eight days digging through the data, and concluded that the evidence was completely worthless. The documents in question which purportedly indicated Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium were crude forgeries. Upon his return in February of 2002, Ambassador Wilson reported back to the people who sent him on his errand. According to his editorial, the CIA, the State Department, the National Security Council and the Vice President's office were all informed that the Niger documents were forged. "That information was erroneous, and they knew about it well ahead of both the publication of the British white paper and the president's State of the Union address," said Wilson in a 'Meet the Press' interview last Sunday. "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat," Wilson wrote in his Times editorial. "A legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses." He elaborated further in a Washington Post interview, saying, "It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war. It begs the question, what else are they lying about?" Ambassador Wilson's claims are not easily dismissed. Wilson is a 23-year veteran of the foreign service who was the top diplomat in Baghdad before the first Gulf War. In 1990, he was lauded by the first President Bush for his work. "What you are doing day in and day out under the most trying conditions is truly inspiring," cabled Bush Sr. "Keep fighting the good fight." A great hue and cry has been raised as to the timing of the data delivery to the policy-makers. Don Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice have both claimed they knew nothing of the forged Niger evidence, claiming the information was buried in the "bowels" of the intelligence services. Vice President Cheney's office has made similar demurrals. Obviously, the administration is attempting to scapegoat the CIA. Given the nature of Wilson's claims, and given who he is, and given the fact that he was sent to Niger at the behest of Dick Cheney, it is absurd to believe the administration was never given the data they specifically asked for over a year before the war began, and eleven months before Bush's fateful State of the Union Address. 27-year CIA veteran Ray McGovern, writing in a recent editorial, described a conversation he had with a senior official who recently served at the National Security Council. "The fact that Cheney's office had originally asked that the Iraq-Niger report be checked out," said the official, "makes it inconceivable that his office would not have been informed of the results." Wilson is not alone. Greg Thielmann served as Director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research until his retirement in September. Mr. Thielmann has come forward recently to join Ambassador Wilson in denouncing the Bush administration's justifications for war in Iraq. "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq," said Thielmann on Wednesday. During his press conference, Mr. Thielmann said that, as of the commencement of military operations in March of 2003, "Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States". Mr. Thielmann also dismissed the oft-repeated claims of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude," he said. Thielmann could have saved his breath, and Wilson could have saved himself a trip, if the Bush administration had bothered to pay any attention to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA's chief spokesman, Mark Gwozdecky, said on September 26, 2002 that no such evidence existed to support claims of a nascent Iraqi nuclear program. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer on July 8 stood before the press corps and said the President's statements during the State of the Union address had been "incorrect." Let us look at the timeline of this and consider the definition of "incorrect": · February 2002: Ambassador Joseph Wilson is dispatched by Cheney to Niger to investigate Iraq-uranium claims. Eight days later, he reports back that the documentary evidence was a forgery; · August 26, 2002: Dick Cheney claims Iraq is developing a nuclear program; · September 24, 2002: CIA Director Tenet briefs the Senate Intelligence Committee on the reported Iraqi nuclear threat, using the Niger evidence to back his claims; · September 26, 2002: The IAEA vigorously denies that any such nuclear program exists in Iraq; · October 6, 2002: George W. Bush addresses the nation and threatens the American people with "mushroom clouds" delivered by Iraq, using the same Niger evidence; · October 10, 2002: Congress votes for war in Iraq, based on the data delivered by Tenet and by the nuclear rhetoric from Bush four days prior; · January 2003: George W. Bush, in his State of the Union Address, says, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa." · March-April 2003: War in Iraq kills thousands of civilians and destabilizes the nation; · April-July 2003: No evidence whatsoever of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons can be found in Iraq. 212 American soldiers have died, and 1,044 more have been wounded, as a guerilla war is undertaken by Iraqi insurgents; · July 2003: Amid accusations from former intelligence officials, the Bush administration denies ever having known the Niger evidence was fake. The Bush administration knew full well that their evidence was worthless, and still stood before the American people and told them it was fact. Bush sent the Director of the CIA to the Senate under orders to use the same worthless evidence to cajole that body into war. That is not being "incorrect." That is lying. In the context of Bush's position as President, and surrounded by hundreds of dead American soldiers piled alongside thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, that is a crime. They know it, too. A report hit the Reuters wires late Tuesday night announcing the arrest of an Iraqi intelligence official named Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. An unnamed "US official" claimed al-Ani had reportedly met with 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta in Prague just months before the attack. The old saw about Iraq working fist in glove with al Qaeda to bring about September 11 was back in the news. According to the story, neither the CIA or the FBI could confirm this meeting had taken place. In fact, a Newsweek report from June 9 entitled "Where are the WMDs?" shows the FBI was completely sure such a meeting had never taken place. The snippet below is from the Newsweek article; the 'Cabal' statement refers to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his coterie of hawks who have been all-out for war on Iraq since 1997: "The Cabal was eager to find a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, especially proof that Saddam played a role in the 9-11 attacks. The hard-liners at Defense seized on a report that Muhammad Atta, the chief hijacker, met in Prague in early April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence official. Only one problem with that story, the FBI pointed out. Atta was traveling at the time between Florida and Virginia Beach, Va. (The bureau had his rental car and hotel receipts.)" Amid the accusations that have exploded surrounding the revelations of Wilson, Thielmann and other high-ranking intelligence officials, comes now again reports of the infamous Iraq-al Qaeda connection, an administration claim meant to justify the war. As with the Niger forgery, however, it is too easily revealed to be utterly phony. It reeks of desperation. This administration is learning a lesson that came to Presidents Nixon and Johnson with bitter tears: Scapegoat the CIA at your mortal peril. There are many who believe that blaming George W. Bush for the errors and gross behavior of his administration is tantamount to blaming Mickey Mouse for mistakes made by Disney. There is a great deal of truth to this. Groups like Rumsfeld's 'Cabal,' and the right-wing think tanks so closely associated to the creation of administration foreign policy, are very much more in control of matters than Bush. Yet Bush knew the facts of the matter. He allowed CIA Director Tenet to lie to Congress with his bare face hanging out in order to get that body to vote for war. He knew the facts and lied himself, on countless occasions, to an American people who have been loyally supporting him, even as he beats them over the head with the image of collapsing towers and massive death to stoke their fear and dread for his own purposes. In doing these things, he consigned 212 American soldiers to death, along with thousands of innocent bystanders in Iraq. Given the current circumstances, there will be more dead to come. There is no "The President wasn't told" justification available here, no Iran/Contra loophole. He knew. He lied. His people knew. They lied. Death knows no political affiliation, and a bloody lie is a bloody lie is a bloody lie. The time has come for Congress to fulfill their constitutional duties in this matter, to defend the nation and the soldiers who live and die in her service. The definition of 'is' has flown right out the window. This 'is' a crime. George W. Bush lied to the people, and lied to Congress. There are a lot of people dead because of it. One Congresswoman, Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, released a statement on July 8 that cuts right to the heart of the matter: "After months of denials, President Bush has finally admitted that he misled the American public during his State of the Union address when he claimed that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium in Africa. That is why we need an independent commission to determine the veracity of the other so-called evidence used to convince the American people that war with Iraq was unavoidable. "It is not enough for the White House to issue a statement saying that President Bush should not have used that piece of intelligence in his State of the Union address at a time when he was trying to convince the American people that invading Iraq was in our national security interests. Did the president know then what he says he only knows now? If not, why not, since that information was available at the highest level. "What else did the Bush Administration lie about? What other faulty information did Administration officials, including President Bush, tell the American people and the world? Did the Bush Administration knowingly deceive us and manufacture intelligence in order to build public support for the invasion of Iraq? Did Iraq really pose an imminent threat to our nation? These questions must be answered. The American people deserve to know the full truth." The voice of Rep. Schakowsky must be followed by others both within and without the majority. If nothing is done about this, American justice is a sad, sorry, feeble joke. ------- William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of truthout.org. He is a New York Times best-selling author of two books - "War On Iraq" available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," now available from Pluto Press at www.SilenceIsSedition.com.
I posted the article since it gave a time line for the Nigerian yellowcake deception. The article aslo states via a Newsweek quote that the FBI knew the Iraq-9/11 link to be false. The Bush Admin appears to be an equal opportunity ignorer. They ignored the FBI on the Iraq-9/11 link and the CIA on the Nigerian yellowcake forged document.
Joe Conason's Journal President Bush's astonishing new reason for the war with Iraq: Saddam wouldn't let weapons inspectors in. - - - - - - - - - - - - July 15, 2003 | A "darn good" quote that almost nobody quoted "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." George W. Bush uttered that amazing sentence yesterday to justify the war in Iraq, according to the Washington Post. What? Yes, I promise that's what the man said. (And by "him," the president clearly meant Saddam Hussein -- not Kim Jong Il, who actually has refused to let international inspectors into North Korea.) Now a presidential statement so frontally at variance with the universally acknowledged facts obviously presents a problem for the White House press corps. He wasn't joking, and he didn't sound disoriented or unwell. Although Dana Priest and Dana Milbank wrote the story as delicately as they possibly could, they couldn't make it seem less weird: "The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective." Appeared to contradict the events leading up to war? Indeed, that's an exceedingly mild description of what Bush said. There's no plausible explanation, unless the president suddenly flashed back to his Yale sophomore philosophy seminar, grappling with the argument that everything we perceive is mere illusion. For the moment, however, let's just assume reality does exist. What possessed the president to make an assertion that everyone on the planet knows to be untrue? And who is going to take the responsibility for this one? Did George Tenet vet Bush's statement? Do the British have a secret dossier proving that Saddam never actually admitted Hans Blix and the UNMOVIC teams? Will Condi Rice or Donald Rumsfeld show up on Fox News next weekend to explain why Bush's statement is "technically accurate," even though he shouldn't have said it? As hard to explain as what Bush said is the press corps' failure to report his stunning gaffe. The sentence quoted above doesn't appear in today's New York Times report, for example. Yet there is no question about what he said -- undoubtedly to the amazement of both Kofi Annan, who was sitting beside him at the time, and the dozens of reporters who were present during their brief joint press conference. Anyone who doesn't believe me (or the Post) can watch Bush say the exact words quoted above here, toward the end of the White House's own videotape of his remarks, under the headline "President Reaffirms Strong Position on Liberia." Another recent president once said something that was blatantly untrue, if fairly trivial, and the videotape of his statement was replayed again, and again, and again, and again ... [10:52 a.m. PDT, July 15, 2003]
Wow that is almost surreal. It's almost like those of us on this board claiming that we aren't allowed to post on it. There are too many Hunter S. Thompson quotes that are fit here for me to name just one.
The only mistake Bush made was saying the source was questionable. This story off the AP wire from the Brits says they still believe this intel to be true, but they were unable to disclose the source due to national security. So how is saying that a source is questionable because you don't know who the heck they are constitute lying? British Foreign Secretary Defends Iraq Uranium Charge http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91746,00.html I know many of the Bush-haters will not read that because of where it comes from, but the article is straight from the AP wires. And what is this story, another one from the AP wires? U.N. Inspectors: At Least 22 Pounds of Uranium Compounds Possibly Missing From Iraqi Plant http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92018,00.html Guess that answers the question, where are those WMDs? Iraq has no need for uranium, so why was there uranium there in the first place? I doubt it was for nuclear power. In the story it states that some experts say that: "The quantity and type of uranium compounds dispersed are not sensitive from a proliferation point of view." What was that "yellowcake" used for?
The brits: Yes the govt. is sticking by their story. That's to their discredit. Their dosier also claimed that the IRaqis could mobilize and use their chem weapons in 45 minutes. Their evidence can be just as bad or false. The Uranium is highly doubtful. Fox has reported WMD finds at least three times and maybe more already. Fox also reported a rumor about six Iraqi agents loose in the southern U.S. or MExico possibly with a dirty bomb. We do know that at some point the Iraqis did have a nuke project.
Do you see my point about that the only reason the info would be in doubt is because the Brits, the smart chaps they are, refused to compromise their sources? That's not a lie. Maybe he should've put probable, but it would've offended the Brits and made further intel sharing problematic and embarassing for our closest ally. That story is straight from the AP wire, I just found it on the Foxnews site. The need to find evidence of Saddam's WMD is not to satisfy all these little critics trying to make political hay from nothing, but to make sure these weapons are accounted for and disposed of properly to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands.
is that their report in which they swiped ~12 pages from a college senior's thesis from the early 90s and didn't reference the poor kid. ROTFLMAO
I strongly doubt it. Their intel folks are top notch, but like all spooks, the less people know the identity of your agents (foreign nationals who provide information), the better chance you have to get good intel. And you have to remember, the intel business is rather problematic because the kind of people who sell out their country and/or employer are usually unsavory characters who are doing it for money, not for ideological reason. So passing on false info is always a possibility in that business.
bama, it appears that I had the anecdote wrong anyway (the british dossier that swiped ten pages from a grad student's paper that was based on 12 year old material was written apparently before Powell's speech (though I haven't found the correct date... I'm inferring this from this article as well as my memory that has deteriorated due to alcoholism)): an article off of cnn LONDON, England -- The British government has been accused of basing its latest Iraq dossier on old material, including an article by an American post-graduate student. Large chunks of the 19-page report -- highlighted by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the U.N. as a "fine paper ... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities" -- contains large chunks lifted from other sources, according to several academics. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's office, which posted the dossier on its Web site, said the report was "accurate" and that the government never claimed exclusive authorship. Academics told Britain's Channel 4 news on Thursday that the "bulk" of the report was lifted from three sources, an article in the Middle East Review of International Affairs by Ibrahim al-Marashi, a research associate at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, California. Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Cambridge University, told Channel 4 that large chunks of al-Marashi's paper had been copied to form parts of the UK dossier, entitled "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation." "The British government's dossier is 19 pages long and most of pages 6 to 16 are copied directly from that document word for word, even the grammatical errors and typographical mistakes," Rangwala said. "Many of the words and phrases I recalled from another context, so I searched around the articles I had read about Iraq's military and security organisations and realised that large sections of the government's dossier were actually copied. Al-Marashi's article, published last September, was based on information obtained at the time of the 1991 Gulf War, Rangwala said. "The information he was using is 12 years old and he acknowledges this in his article. The British government, when it transplants that information into its own dossier, does not make that acknowledgement. "So it is presented as current information about Iraq, when really the information it is using is 12 years old." A spokeswoman for No. 10 Downing Street told CNN: "This was a government briefing paper which was compiled from a number of sources including intelligence material. "The first and third sections of the report went to the issues of Iraq's non-compliance with United Nations resolutions. This information was largely intelligence based. "Section Two dealt with historical background on Iraq, and some of it was based on material written by Dr Ibrahim al-Marashi. In retrospect we should have acknowledged any references to material we used that had been written by Dr Ibrahim. We have learnt an important lesson. "But this issue does not take away to any degree from the accuracy of the information in the report nor does it negate to any extent the core argument put forward that Iraq is involved in deliberate acts of deception," she said. International affairs expert Dan Plesch of the Royal United Services Institute in London told Channel 4 that the alleged plagiarism was "scandalous." "This document is clearly presented to the British public as the product of British intelligence and it clearly is nothing of the kind." He said it was "dressed up as the best MI6 and our other international partners can produce on Saddam." "The word 'scandalous' is, I think, greatly overused in our political life but it certainly applies to this." Shadow defence secretary Bernard Jenkin of the opposition Conservative party said: "The government's reaction to the Channel 4 news report utterly fails to explain, deny or excuse the allegations made in the programme. "This document has been cited by the prime minister and Colin Powell as the basis for a possible war. Who is responsible for such an incredible failure of judgment? "The Channel 4 report clearly suggests that the intelligence has been embroidered from other sources. Who is the author and who gave their approval? "We need a clear assurance that the government's published information is based on the best available sources and is not just spin." The document claims that Iraqi agents have been hiding vital material from UN weapons inspectors under houses and mosques. It also argues that UN inspectors are outnumbered 200 to one by Iraqi agents trying to obstruct them.
bama, here are the other charges of plagiarism re:the dossier from 09/02. another article off of cnn Fresh UK Iraq dossier questions LONDON, England -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing fresh allegations that a September 2002 dossier on Iraq lifted old information from the Internet. The Independent newspaper reported Saturday that the dossier contained at least six separate items on Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction that were lifted from reports up to 21 months old. Blair's government has already acknowledged it made a mistake in failing to credit work by an American doctoral student used in its discredited February 2003 dossier. But it has stoutly defended the integrity of the September document. Earlier this week, Blair told a parliamentary committee he stood by the first dossier, insisting it supported the need for military action. The Independent claimed that the earlier dossier drew heavily on sources already in the public domain. They were a January 2001 briefing paper by William Cohen, U.S. Defense Secretary in the Clinton administration; a February 2001 appearance before a Senate intelligence committee by CIA Director George Tenet; an unclassified CIA report to Congress covering the period July 1 to December 31, 2000; and a report on Iraq by the International Institute for Strategic Studies published in London last September. These pieces of evidence included references to ballistic missiles, unmanned drones, nuclear programs, "dual use" of civil materials, maps showing how British bases in Cyprus were within range of Iraqi missiles, and Saddam's supposed plan for regional domination. Blair's office declined to comment in detail on the fresh claims of plagiarism. A spokesman noted that during his appearance before the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this week Blair stood by the intelligence material presented to the public. "We have said all we have to say on this," the spokesman added. --------------------------- So in closing, the "top notch British intelligence" is pilfering our hard earned work. Hopefully Hatch will put an end to it, and blow up their computers. Also, this harkens back to a time in which I conjectured some rumor about a friend of mine to another friend. Months later that friend conjectured the same rumor to me... aha the rumor was confirmed!! The fact that the US government is appealing to the British govt for authority in this matter is meaningless. The Big "British govt" is referencing our docs of conjecture and other docs in the public domain. The president is a liar... (man I'm tired of being right).
This story will not end. Bush will go down in the books as one of the biggest scoundrels in American history. They will not succeed in rewriting history on this one. Unbelievable he stole the election and then he lied to start a major war which alienated essentially the whole world except Israel and Tony Blair against the United States. People underestmate the effect of what we are seeing, the essential publication to the whole world that the United States has become an unjust rogue nation that lies to the whole world and its own people in order to goes thousands of miles to start an war against international law.
No, no, no , no, no. You are incorrect. Bush never stole the election and that's one of the great myths of the left. If you want to talk about stolen elections, ask Nixon about Kennedy and how his dad got old Mayor Daley to "deliver" Chicago to him. If anyone was trying to obsfucate and steal anything, it was Gore, Mr. Buddhist Temple illegal fundraiser himself. I could do a post on that topic alone. Who cares what the world thinks? France and Russia did what they did to further their own national interests, which include us not being the world's only superpower. Who cares if they don't like us? I don't. How are we a rogue state? We are a sovereign nation that has the power to do what it wishes to do. In our chaotic international system of sovereign nation-states, there is no higher authority for them to answer to, definitely not the irrelevant and corrupt UN. Law is only relevant if there is a consequence for breaking it and who's going to punish us? Without us, the world economy would collapse. Koffee at One is not my president, nor will he ever be. The one thing I like about Bush is the fact that finally we have grown a set of brass ones in our foreign policy. I'm tired of us running away like a bunch of p***y-asses every time someone threatens us. I'm tired of those North Korean bastards waving a nuclear sword at us in their attempts to blackmail us into supporting their dying regime that can't even feed its own people because it spends all its money on weapons. Jeez, the entire male population of that little country is under arms, nearly! We can and should not be at the beck and call of the stupid, toothless, hypocritical UN, the same UN that puts Libya as the chaircountry of the Human Rights Convention, just for one example. We should maintain the right to wage war on any country harboring terrorists and shut them down whether we have their cooperation or not. Lastly, you're calling Bush a scoundrel when Clinton/Gore took campaign money from front companies and cut-out men for the goddamned People's Republic of China? Later they changed the authority over the release of sensitive technology from the DOD to the Commerce Dept, which proceeded to allow its sale to the PRC and thus allow the PRC military to leapfrog 30 years in satellite technology and make their nukes more accurate. They also allowed by not increasing security at our weapons labs despite repeated warnings from the DOE the Chinese to steal our nuclear secrets and advance their nuclear capability to the ability to build weapons as lethal as ours. That's just treachery for CLinton, one of the many violations of his oath of office he committed. And you call Bush a scoundrel? Give me a break!!!
I'm not gonna read the article now since it's late, but even if Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program, BIG IF - the world is a much better and safer now that Saddam isn't in control anymore.
that depends on who takes over Iraq after we leave (we are leaving right???) it might become a case of the devil you know.
