Comments for Willful Denial, Arrogance and Stupidity »
Posted By Radiofreeeuropa 10 months, 4 weeks ago in Political NewsSince we are a democracy, the consequences of our failure to recognize the bad things that our government does means that our government will therefore be enabled to continue to do those things with impunity.
The vast majority of Americans approve of our holding the Nazi war criminals accountable for starting World War II. Yet, substantially smaller numbers approve of holding George Bush accountable for his equally illegal invasion of Iraq. I defy anyone to explain how Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 was more legal or moral than Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939, for which we sentenced several Nazi war criminals to death.
Read Full Story at journals.democraticunderground.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 92
-
92%
berkeley10 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"On June 14th, 2005, Senator Richard Durbin exposed, on the floor of the US Senate, the Bush administration treatment of its prisoners by reading directly from an FBI report.
Reply
For this courageous act, Durbin was subjected to a torrent of abuse from the Republican Party, called a traitor, accused of stabbing our troops in the back, and eventually pressured into apologizing. "
excellent article.-
15%
Endoscopy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Very typical super biased hate mongering piece of liberal rants. Ignores the following facts about starting the Iraq War.
Reply
1. We were backing up the UN mandates against Saddam Hussein.
2. The US congress voted to give Bush the power to act which made it perfectly legal under our law.
3. 22 other nations sent soldiers with our soldiers.
Durbin and others like him on this site make it sound like those thing were and are continuously happening. No dates are given. When those things came to light to the officers people were punished. Why is no note taken of that. The hate filled rants try to smear our soldiers all of the time. They make out they are just going around killing all sorts of people, taking prisoners willy nilly for no reason, and torturing all of them all of the time.
HATE RHETORIC FROM THE LEFT.-
100%
time4change10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The UN designate Hans Blick confirmed that there were NO WMDs in Irag....The Congress voted based upon Bush/Powell lies and the other nations were duped as well. These are not liberal rants....they are facts....Bush et al cherry picked intelligence and ignored the truth to invade Iraq as planned.
Reply-
10%
Endoscopy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There go the liberal lies again. If Bush lied then why did the Clinton administration say the same lie. Why did the congress under Bush say the same lie with the Representatives and Senators on some committees having access to the EXACT SAME information that Bush had. All of those people lied I guess.
Reply
The UN made resolution after resolution demanding that Hussein allow Hans Blick free access to all locations in Iraq that he wanted to go. That was NEVER given to him. The UN made a couple of resolutions that allowed member states to enforce those resolutions if he did not comply. Bush told him that we would force the issue. Bush received the approval of Congress for doing that.
All of the other nations had their own intelligence agencies telling their governments the same thing ours was telling Bush and congress. But Bush lied. Why do you ignore the rest of what was said back then.
the leaders of most of the western countries were saying the same thing that Bush was saying. But Bush lied.
In Mein kampf Hitler talked about making a big lie that is easy to make people believe. It could be easily checked but people would not check it because it is so big that people wound not think that someone would make a lie so big. Little lies would be checked and found out.
Why does the left keep up the BIG LIE that Bush lied. It is easy to check by going and seeing what the leaders of the governments were saying and what the Clinton administration was saying and what the people in congress was saying at the time. With all of those people saying the same thing makes it obvious that Bush DID NOT LIE. But the big lie is going around the left and nobody on the left wants to check it out. They want to believe it.
They want to believe it because in their view Bush is evil just like all conservatives. Conservative speech is considered hate speech.
Then you talk about cherry picking the facts. You made one true statement about Hans Blick but left out all of the resolutions relating to Saddam's refusal to let him do his job. Then one lie based on the lie that Bush lied but leaving out the fact that WMD warheads were found. Also tons of yellow cake was found and brought to the US by way of Canada in 2008. It made it into the Canadian papers but was only footnoted in US papers. And the left says there is no media bias.-
-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes Clinton warned about Bin Laden and terrorist attacks...no Bush paid no attention. I recall the republicans being obsessed with Clinton's sex life and claiming attempts to remove alqaeda training camps in Afghanistan as "wagging the dog". Blix and the international community begged Bush to wait til the inspections were done. The 9-11 attack really could have been thwarted " who could have imagined they would fly planes into buildings" well numerous intel memos emerged that warned specifically just that. Please reference where this yellowcake was found as I can find NO evidence of such a find.
Reply
Maybe the media is biased towards proof and sources that are reputable...they are owned by corporations that have not been friendly towards the left why would GE or Westinghouse who has major contracts with the military be biased toward the left? Get real.-
100%
Will131310 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RFE....
Reply
actually in July of 2008 the US helped remove 600 tons of yellowcake and shipped it to Canada.. just as my good friend Endoscopy stated... he must have inadvertantly left out the follow info .. I'm sure it was just an honest mistake on Endo's part.. .. he would never try to deceive intentionally..
Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
I'm sure it was just an honest mistake on Endo's part.. .. he would never try to deceive intentionally..
-
-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endoscopy:
Reply
"If Bush lied then why did the Clinton administration say the same lie. Why did the congress under Bush say the same lie with the Representatives and Senators on some committees having access to the EXACT SAME information that Bush had."
1) When the Clinton administration was concerned about the same intel Bush used to justify invading Iraq, that intel had not yet been discredited. When Bush used it, it had been disproved. There were five years between those time periods.
2) Not all of the representatives and senators on those committees did have access to the exact same information. Though they were supposed to have that access, the White House did not give it to them all. -
100%
Sabretooth10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo , you lying piece of trash, many nations supplied you with intel that countered that bs your terrorist leaders were trying to spoon feed your ignorant populace. You had to buy allies for the second war which is why Canada sent troops into Afghanistan but would not aid you in Iraq since we are not terrorists like you.
Reply
You are the biggest liar i have ever seen post here but in the end your God will hold you accountable. -
-
-
-
100%
fsev4110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo, why were the officers and enlisted men "punished" but nothing was done to the president, vice-president, and attorney general who authorized the "enhanced interrogation techniques" (aka torture) ? The troops were only doing what they were told was OK. Nobody is smearing our soldiers, they are smearing those who authorized the treatment in the first place. Place the blame where it belongs, at the top of the command.
Reply
-
-
frank5787Comment removed: Spammer
-
-
95%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Our leaders and ruling elites have a number of tools for keeping us in denial about the bad things that they do. Corporate domination of our national news media, along with their refusal to talk about such things as Bush administration war crimes, is one of their most important ones. But widespread availability of the Internet has certainly reduced the effectiveness of that tool."
Reply
Yes and marginalizing anyone who speaks out is another one. -
-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user11 Replies
-
Shankari25Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
94%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why is it askew? Or why would we do this?
Reply
It is askew for numerous reasons, a country with that much of it's resources going into it's military is far more likely to use it for one. By being the world's police force we give other countries a huge advantage by not having to waste their resources defending themselves. We simply can't afford it.
Why do we do it? Go back to Eisenhower and his farewell address 1961-
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/i...-
0%
ppiittuu10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
yeah. ok. nothing is new here. but don't know how long we would last if our military capabilities dissapeared. how much would you like the US to spend on the military?
Reply
military spending has given us: the internet, GPS, voice recognition, radar, increased computer technology, simulation technology, graphics boards, ...
i suppose this list is pretty long...
-
-
-
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/02/...
Reply
We have no real idea how much has been sunk into Iraq, with all the soldiers of fortune and subcontracting going on we may never know, suffice it to say it has cost far more than both world wars and viet nam lumped together, though that is a guess.
Before Iraq, the US accounted for 48% of all military spending in the world, as you can see from the newest information, we are well over the 50% mark now.
So mrfantasy, whose pants are flaming? Mine are quite comfortable thankyou.-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Honestly, I can't fault mrrealestate though, I don't want to admit this any more than he. But denial is not a river in Africa, it is perhaps a defense mechanism, yet one that must be confessed in order to progress. It's nice to live in a safe little bubble where facts like this don't interfere with our illusions, but it is not real and it is not honest. I suspect if more Bushies at least knew the facts they too would be appalled. But it is that denial that prevents catharsis.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here are the facts!
Reply
http://bp2.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/R3t3jkRTJlI/AA...
I expect a full apology mrreality. -
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
95%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Although it is probably human nature to deny that which is too painful to admit to, allowing much of what has transpired over the last 8 years to go unchallenged is bad for the national psyche in the long term. And it encourages more "bad behavior" from future administrations. Cheney has out and out admitted to prosecutable war crimes.
Reply -
100%
Charlson10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When you criticize the government, you're called unpatriotic and unamerican. And these critics are the same ones who demand unflinching loyalty to a failed policy. I'd call these jerks the real enemies of America. They're determined to see America go down the wrong idealogical road than to admit they were wrong.
Reply -
-
19%
buckncindykill10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Apparently, radio didn't read the UN Security Council resolutions about Iraq. Does he remember the ones that authorized the use of force unless Saddam Hussein complied? I guess not. Does he not think it is a good idea that Saddam Hussein is now dead, put to death by an Iraqi court? Did he prefer it when the dictator was in power, torturing and raping the population? Probably...radio propbably has never met a dictator he didn't like. Freedom and liberty is not something that is a high priority at the U.N. Never has been. Or could it be that he's upset that the UN's pockets are no longer being lined by Saddam Hussein from the U.N.'s oil-for-food rip off?
Reply
Read UN Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. Read together, these resolutions did the following:
1. Demand that Saddam Hussein leave Kuwait.
2. Demand that Saddam Hussein immediately dispose of all weapons of mass destruction
3. Require that Saddam Hussein provide ample proof to the United Nations that these weapons have been destroyed and that no active weapons program for such weapons exists.
4. Allow any member nation of the United Nations to take military action against Saddam Hussein if the provisions of these resolutions are not completely complied with.
Saddam didn't comply. The U.S. is a member nation of the United Nations. The U.S. compelled compliance through the use of military force, as authorized by these resolutions. End of story.
What's more alarming here is this story's idea that someone else should be in a position to decide when the United States can legally use military force in its own defense. That, by the way, is a view shared by most Democrats.
By this measure, Hitler would have gotten away with what he did. Why? Because the UN would have twiddled around for years trying to decide what they should do with him.-
-
9%
buckncindykill10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm trying to answer the question posed by the idiot of this story. That Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 was more legal or moral than Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939, for which we sentenced several Nazi war criminals to death.
Reply
We sentenced several Nazis to death, not for the invasion of Poland, but for the concentration camps that killed 6 million people. Totally irrespective of the other, and mutually exclusive.-
100%
ybdogsct10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You had better read the UN Charter and UNSCR Resolutions again. UNSCR 1441 was NOT a war resolution. In fact, the only reason why France China, and Russia agreed to sign UNSCR 1441 was because it ended with the words "The UN Security Council decides to remain seized of the matter" were included in the resolution. They were determined to include language in the resolution specifically stating that UNSCR 1441 was not to be used as a trip-wire to initiate an attack on Iraq.
Reply
Bush violates UN Charter in unilateral decision to attack Iraq.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate."
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
And from Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
Bush violates the UN's decision to allow inspectors to finish their jobs by forcing inspectors to evacuate prematurely
(UNSCR 1441): "UNSC decides to set up an inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process. UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, undrestricted and immediate movement"
Bush violates UN's decision to remain seized of the Iraq issue by taking Iraq out of the UN's hands and invading unilaterally without a UNSC war resolution
UNSCR 1441: "Requests all UN Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates. Decides to convene upon receipt of a report to consider the situation and the need for full compliace with Council resolutions. DECIDES TO REMAIN SEIZED OF THE MATTER "
-
-
-
94%
djn3nunez310 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
4. Allow any member nation of the United Nations to take military action against Saddam Hussein if the provisions of these resolutions are not completely complied with.
Reply
Hogwash! Nothing in any one of those resolutions (alone or in conjuction) allows for any member nation to take military action against Iraq without the approval of the UNSC.
What's more alarming here is this story's idea that someone else should be in a position to decide when the United States can legally use military force in its own defense. That, by the way, is a view shared by most Democrats.
Wow what a bunch more crap and completely untrue. No Democrat believes that "Someone else" should decide when the US can military force. The Joint Resolution Authorizing force against Iraq spelled it out clearly, (which the Bush Administration ignored) there must be a significant threat posed by Iraq or there must be some connection to the 9-11 attacks. Furthermore this resolution required that all UN resolutions be carried out including 1441.
Which it was not.
What clause in what resolution do you claim that authorizes any member to use force against Saddam? -
8%
buckncindykill10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area, and thus provided the basis under international law for the allies' military action in the Gulf War. The determination in Resolution 1441 that Iraq is already in material breach of its obligations under Resolution 687 provides a basis for the decision in paragraph 4 of Resolution 1441 that any further lack of cooperation by Iraq will be a further material breach.
Reply-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
GB I had the common sense to understand the international coalition wanted the return of Kuwait to it's previous state...nothing more. There was no such coalition, and nowhere would one of reason extrapolate from the language of the original resolutions dealing with Kuwait-Iraq that any member of that coalition could unilaterally invade Iraq on the flimsiest whim.
Reply
Indeed he understood a contained Saddam (basically mayor of Baghdad) was far more preferable than an Iranian style theocracy. Something the later PNAC zealots failed miserably to understand.-
-
-
-
11%
Endoscopy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When the hate rhetoric stops. I get so tired of the same old lies that are easily disproved byu taken by the hate filled people as gospel.
Reply
Bush lied. If he did then the previous administration and the people in congress under both told the exact same lie. But Bush lied.
Bush waited for Congress to give him the go ahead which the constitution requires but he destroyed the constitution.
Bush just went to war for no real reason. Clinton was making words about Husein but that is ignored. The UN kept resolution after resolution and finally the wording was such that the go ahead for member nations enforcing it was there but Bush went to war outraging the world community.
Bush never got a group of nations together but just went alone. Doesn't matter that 22 other nations sent troops there and there was no outrage except in a few biased places.
We capture people for all the wrong reasons. But when a small group was let loose 30 of them were killed there fighting our troops, captured, or suicide bombers. But we had no real reason to hold them.
A few incidents of mistreatment of prisoners happened but the left turns that into a full court press that makes it sound like our troops are continuously doing that.
The death toll of people in Iraq goes from extremely high numbers of several million down to hundreds of thousands. They make it sound like our troops killed people all over the place. Who did most of the killing? Terrorists. Usually by blowing themselves up along with others. In firefights with the terrorists there are dead bodies. It is made out that all non uniformed people killed are civilians when most of them are terrorists.
Lies lies lies!!!!!-
100%
Sabretooth10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes endo, you are full of lies, please list the 22 countries that went in with you and the amount of troops they sent. Then i can check on how much financial aid was given or how much debt was forgiven to them. You are nothing but a terrorist sympathizer and you are one of the most immoral people that i have ever had the displeasure of dealing with. I feel the need to disinfect my keyboard each time i post in response to your hate filled trash.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
buckncindykill10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"There was no such coalition, and nowhere would one of reason extrapolate from the language of the original resolutions dealing with Kuwait-Iraq that any member of that coalition could unilaterally invade Iraq on the flimsiest whim."
Reply
Right. Until Saddam kept thumbing his nose at the world and the UN (actually secretly receiving kick-backs from the UN in the Oil for food scandal), requiring more resolutions, and more veiled threats until a leader with gonads said enough! If you're unwilling to do what is required, then we will.
Don't forget. We just went through 9-11. If there was a time or reason to strike back at terrorism, now was our chance.
-
-
100%
Candida10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
buckncindykill,
Reply
Here is part of the text of Resolution 1441. Read the last point (14). The Security Council "Decides to remain seized of the matter." That means that they wanted to see the reports of the weapons inspectors and decided to make the decision regarding further actions themselves. They did not delegate it to member nations.
When it became clear that the UN would not authorize an invasion because not enough members of the Security Council would support it and there were at least one, and possibly two, vetoes waiting, the US interrupted the inspections and, invaded Iraq. You don't have to believe me. Feel free to check it out. Let me know if you need some help. I'll provide some links.
"SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)
Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
...
The Security Council,
...
“11.Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
“12.Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
“13.Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
“14.Decides to remain seized of the matter.”
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc....
-
-
83%
StevieGee10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To buck and cindy killers...
Reply
1. Saddam Hussein left Kuwait years before the invasion.
2. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.
3. Saddam Hussein provided Bush with an itemized list of all of his weaponry.
4. Since 1., 2., and 3., were complied with, number 4 doesn't apply what so ever.
-
-
94%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Buckncindykill-
Reply
You confuse two different military actions and 2 king georges.
How was invading Iraq a matter of the defense of the US?
It was not. Iraq posed no threat whatsoever, even Bush admitted so. He admitted there was NO connection to 9-11. So what was the rational again...oil? Get rid of mean a dictator we installed??
Really?
Oh and "radio" didn't author the article.
Nor does "radio" care for dictators, especially the home grown ones who attempt to dismantle that "God**** piece of paper" as Bush refered to it...the US constitution.
It would behoove you to stick with what "you" think rather than pretend to speak to what "radio" thinks.
Radio can speak for himself, and wishes to point out that you have no clue what "radio" thinks and no right to speak for him.
Fair enough?
End of first person references... -
94%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here are the real problems that should be investigated-
Reply
The creation of a propaganda campaign and lying to the American people and to Congress in order to build a false case for war against Iraq; then invading and occupying Iraq, in violation of U.S. and international law and in the absence of any good reason whatsoever; then failing to provide our troops with the body armor they needed, falsifying accounts of US troop deaths, and establishing permanent military bases in Iraq.
Exposing a covert CIA agent.
Providing immunity from prosecution to criminal contractors in Iraq and recklessly wasting US tax dollars on contractors in Iraq with direct connections to the Bush administration.
Indefinitely detaining our prisoners, including children, without charges or any legal rights, torturing them, and kidnapping people and transporting them to other countries to be tortured.
Lying to the American people and Congress, with the goal of overthrowing the Iranian government.
Creating secret laws.
Violating the Posse Comitatus Act
Spying on American citizens in violation of our 4th Amendment.
Announcing intent to violate duly enacted laws with signing statements.
Failure to comply with Congressional subpoenas.
Tampering with free and fair elections and corruption of the administration of justice.
Misleading Congress and the American people in an attempt to destroy Medicare.
Failure to prepare for or adequately respond to Hurricane Katrina.
Obstructing efforts to address global climate change. Muzzling scientists whose work does not support the Bush administration's positions.
Failure to respond to the 9/11 attacks on our country.
Endangering the health of first responders and obstructing investigation into the attacks.
How is that for starters?-
90%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
-
20%
buckncindykill10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We are diametrically opposed radio. The only thing left to say is this;
Reply
If all what you say is true, then isn't it up to Congress to carry out a "punishment" of the president? Shouldn't Congress step forward and prosecute him for his "crimes"? If your answer is yes, then why hasn't this Congress done that? Do they think they are complicit as well? Or, more likely, they themselves steered us into your democrat abyss.
For example: In 1998, when Bill Clinton was in the White House, Daschle was telling the media that we "knew" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that it was imperative that the U.S. make certain that Saddam Hussein is disarmed. Daschle's opinions changed with administrations. In 2003, with a Republican in the White House, Daschle was openly questioning whether Saddam had those weapons and fighting against Bush's plans to enforce U.N. Resolution 1441.
So I ask you. Should we also charge Daschle with his criminal offenses of 1998? And Clinton, and Gore, etc.?-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't recall Clinton unilaterally invading any sovereign nations, his policy in Iraq was to keep Saddam isolated in Baghdad. He did attempt however to take out certain terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, and was chastised by the right for doing so...you are aware I'm sure "alqaeda" was actually created by the US to annoy the Soviets....
Reply
There were plenty of people who believed Sadam had these weapons but only Bush who simply used 9-11 as an excuse to do what was on the agenda anyway, was in too big a rush to wait for data. The execution of the war, the idiocy of not sealing the borders was, in my view a crime against our own military.
So we may be be of opposite opinions here, and that's fine, nothing personal.
I can not explain congress's lack of oversight, perhaps it's why they are SOO unpopular. And perhaps they do fear being complicit. But for the nation to be in denial about the "wrongness" of this invasion is pretty much self evident.
You know, Endoscope and others jump to the conclusion that I am a democrat, and I did support Obama in this election but until 2008 I was a registered independent and often supported libertarians. I am a libertarian in matters of personal freedom vs government but I do believe the Federal government does have a right to own property and has a role to play defined in the constitution as "provide for the general welfare" which involves more today than it did in 1812. It is a huge mistake to think those who oppose GWB's administration are "democrats" . In most districts, GOP voter registration declined dramatically in the last 2 elections. So MANY who oppose the policies of this last administration are in fact Republicans, or at least former Republicans.-
0%
buckncindykill10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All good points radio. I credit your civility at the outset of our discussion. Much better then mine I'm afraid!
Reply
Clinton also believed that Saddam had WMD's, and for that, he apparently lied, misled the American people, and misled the new incoming administration. However, it's far too simplistic to suggest that GWB did not believe he was acting in the best interest of the American people. You obviously disagree, but if he did believe that, then you should only fault him for not thinking the way you do. Much as I disagree with Obama's $1 trillion dollar spending plan, but am far from villifying him.
I consider myself a conservative/traditionalist, which usually gets my head torn off on Propeller. My experience is, that if you oppose the policies of the sitting administration to such a point that it calls for a war crimes tribunal, that individual is a far left, socialist, atheistic, progressive nut job that stands in opposition. On the other hand, if you try to explain/defend GWB's reasons and positions for taking the stand that he did, you're a right wing, neo-con, fascist, religious wind bag.
I opposed many of his actions; especially immigration and the bailout fiasco. But I certainly do not want him imprisoned and destroyed because he believed in what he was doing. If the far left would let go 2000, then progress could be made between libs and cons.
Let me ask you something. Obama is for change right? Of his cabinet appointments, who qualifies as bringing significant "change"? Clinton? Pinetta? Daschle? Emanuel?-
-
100%
Candida10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
buckncindykill: "you should only fault him for not thinking the way you do."
Reply
No, his fault is not that he didn't think the way Radio or I did. His fault is that he disregarded all the nations who disagreed with him and who reluctantly gathered up enough courage to block the mighty United States in the Security Council. When it became clear that a UN authorization wouldn't be forthcoming, he simply decided to thumb his nose to the whole international community and invade a country without provocation. That is a war crime. -
100%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fair enough. I will however refrain from commenting on Obama's choices for the moment, as I am not particularly pleased with many of them either. He did say all through the campaign that there would be no yes men in his cabinet so I am holding off judgment until actual policy is hammered out. I won't defend Reid or Pelosi, they never struck me as leaders of any measure. I don't believe we will be seeing any prosecutions of the Bush admn. from Obama, he seems to want to just put it behind him and move on and I really do believe he will be a compromiser, will listen to all ideas from right or left. But we'll have to wait and see. Though we disagree, I enjoyed the civil discourse and have learned a thing or 2 from the encounter, best to you buckncindykill ( I wouldn't mind hearing the story of your propeller "handle" if you want to PM me.)
Reply
I suppose we may disagree on future threads but I will keep in mind you are no "bad guy" I promise!
Peace-
100%
crespi10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama can't really start off with the prosecutions. The Cons would harp on it and it might block his effectiveness at cleaning up their giant messes. Besides it's not his area.
Reply
Let the Justice Department (who Bush screwed over royally) carefully gather the facts and let's see what they have accumulated in a few years.
There is still time to prosecute.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Candida10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
buckncindykill: "Daschle was openly questioning whether Saddam had those weapons and fighting against Bush's plans to enforce U.N. Resolution 1441."
Reply
He was absolutely right in doing so. A lot of things changed between 1998 and 2003. For one, the weapons inspectors were in Iraq in 2003, and their nuclear arm reported that they had found nothing. The others wanted to continue hte inspections. Second, as I've pointed out above, Bush had no authority to enforce UN Resolution 1441. Only the Security Council did.
-
-
-
-
-
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo, I am hardly a hate filled person. But I am angry about what this administration and their supporters have done to this nation and the world. I don't believe it should be forgotten or forgiven. If these Bush supporters, such as yourself were to admit their error perhaps forgiveness could be offered, but as long as there are those who "would do it again" if they could, I can not find forgiveness, only diligence and a watchful eye on future malignant activity.
Reply
Your boys were effective, I will give them that. They intended to fleece the nation and they did effectively and completely.
In that sad sense they were successful.-
88%
Ciera-Marie10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Radio another good submission by you.
Reply
Sometimes people don't want to see the truth...even when it's right in front of them, or when their heroes (due to pressure more than anything else) admit they were wrong. They're still defended. Heck there are some right wing defenders on here saying history will vindicate Bush and Cheney.
All we can do is keep bringing the truth to the light. -
50%
buckncindykill10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll hand it to you Radio, we may disagree, but at least you defend your convictions. I admire people that do that, even if their statements and actions make me cringe :)
Reply
If you're ever in Richmond, VA, I'll spring for a Sammy A. of your choice. -
-
-
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
Neutral
watchingU66710 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
uh like-i never guessed, i bet his lawyers come with happy-meals and someone to run block for any bush questions,i hate him (busch) so much and i think his life should be erased from history,in the annals of history from now on no body in America can never say its name only to be referred to as;that,him/her prefer"it" and we don't tell any of the other countries (even Canada) at first they'll be like Americas fuc#in with us then after a week or two the others will be like They lost bush hey did any other countries find him Mexico is like "sheeeeet thay aint lookeeeng".then when a month has gone by the rest of the world starts getting scared cause now it looks like the guy who has the biggest gun is crazy.
Reply -
frank5787Comment removed: Spammer
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.