Lots of fuss over the documentary ‘Hubris’
Here’s a little bit of the documentary ‘Hubris,’ which some of us have been going back and forth over last night and this afternoon. Rachel Maddow does a great job, as usual. The Iraq war apologists will never believe this stuff, though.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
February 19, 2013 - 4:17 PM
Hi Dan,
In order to provide a little rain for the “happy libs parade with rachel maddow”, I think it makes sense to show my fellow bloggers what the libs had to say during president clinton’s administration, and after, concerning WMDs…during the lead up to the war in Iraq.
And, it will be familiar reading for the informed, and a good reminder for those not afflicted with “Bush is evil” syndrome.
Enjoy.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
entary ‘Hubris,’ which some of us have been going back and forth over this last night and this afternoon. R
Thanks, akhaddd. Fixed!
That members of Congress were repeating the “intel” they had been spoon fed by the Bush Administration after 9/11 has never been in dispute. The people who are responsible for that intel being cherry picked and handed to them, without full disclosure that ONE person was giving them all that not so solid intel and that there were voices of dissent in the intelligence community, was specifically NOT being disseminated to the Congress or former Presidents.
–
Frank, it might behoove you to read the rest of that Snopes© story.
–
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline
–
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-21/us/iraq.weapons_1_nuclear-weapons-hans-blix-iaea?_s=PM:US
“Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as “shaky,” and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
–
“I think they chose to ignore us,” Blix said.“
Here’s a video from General Wesley Clark himself, explaining the Iraq fiction from the Bush administration! (Runs a fast 8 minutes.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha1rEhovONU
#1 Its not so much as Bush being a evil thing but what he did. In the Bronx we call it cooking the books and in this case it was his Intel.
History in about maybe 50 years or so I think Bush will go down as one of the worst President we’ve had.
sandi, are you serious? you get your “facts” from a mother jones hit piece on Bush? Really?
Did bill clinton REALLY sign the Iraqu Liberation Act on 10/31/98….to effect regime change?
Bill Hudson,
Bush used the same intel as gathered from the same sources as led bill clinton, carl levin, jay rockefeller, madeline albright, sandy berger, john kerry, etc., etc. to issue repeated calls for saddam’s ouster…..while bill clinton was in office…not Bush.
Did bill clinton sign the Iraq Liberation Act on October 31, 1998? Was the bill’s purpose to effect regime change in Iraq?
Did bill clinton initiate Desert Fox in December, 1998? Was his reasoning reflective of his belief that the intelligence strongly indicated that Iraq had WMDs?
Frank,
We could have given the Israeli Mosad a few billion and they would have taken care of Saddam for us in a heartbeat. A lot cheaper and with significantly less loss of life on both sides.
I love it when people claim to have factual proof to refute someone’s opinion and then the evidence they cite is another opinion. You can’t make this stuff up.
If indeed Bush was working off the same “intel” as Clinton, the fact is only Bush felt compelled to dump a trillion dollars and few thousand American lives over there. There can be a debate whether Bush was evil or just stupid and easily led, but there’s no debating the difference in their responses.
Frank, did you watch the documentary?
“If indeed Bush was working off the same “intel” as Clinton, the fact is only Bush felt compelled to dump a trillion dollars and few thousand American lives over there. There can be a debate whether Bush was evil or just stupid and easily led, but there’s no debating the difference in their responses.”
Kristen and Sandi and Bills Hudson and Perdue (and some others) understand. Ya gotta wonder why some others don’t. This is not rocket science.
Whatever intel Bill Clinton saw, we know for a fact that it wasn’t alarming enough for him to order an invasion of Iraq. Because it is a fact that Clinton never ordered any such invasion. The other Dems who supported Bush on Iraq got fooled. Getting fooled is bad, but it’s not anything like cooking up justification for war from bad intelligence supplied by liars. That is what the Bush Admin did.
#8 By many in the Intel world can show you there were no WMD. Like I said Bush and his crowd wanted to invade that county..
There was big money to be made for some at the cost of so many human lives. Here is hoping carma works.
Bill Hudson,
As evidenced by the continuation of the democrats’ clamoring about Iraq’s WMDs following Desert Fox,and continuing during the time up to and after clinton left office, and continuing after Bush was elected….Bush wasn’t the only person in elected U.S. political office who believed Iraq had WMD.
If you want to learn more, please check out the evidence of what I say as contained in the link in post #1.
Dan,
I have a GREAT idea! Please show the evidence that Bush NEW that Iraq had no WMDs, but invaded Iraq anyway.
I’m waiting….
Cold, Frank didn’t watch the doc.
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
hey frank is determined to rid SW Virginia of every windmill that dares to spoil our beloved landscape.
i guess we were too busy in ’09 to pay attention to this story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-1527749.html
“When no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq, President Bush insisted that all those WMD claims before the war were the result of faulty intelligence. But a former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller — a 26-year veteran of the agency — has decided to do something CIA officials at his level almost never do: Speak out.
He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president’s determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not.”
Frank, you won’t see any evidence because Obama doesn’t want to blow the whistle on a president who might have committed war crimes. That just would not be good for the country.
You should thank him.
IOW, Frank is saying that Clinton was smarter than Bush.
HayFrank, your “Democrats did it, too” defense is lame. Ever heard of the
Redden Group? Nah, didn’t think so.
Clark, Hillary and Murray were lied to like the rest of the country, Henry.
Let’s try that again.
Gdad, bless HayFrank’s heart…even he can figure out that Clinton’s brain is twice the size of Bush’s.
Art,
There’s a bunch of unsubstantiated, 3rd person or greater, stuff in your link. It’s interesting, to be sure, but not as reliable as the material from Snopes which includes years worth of “who said what, when”, with cites.
There is no proof that Bush lied. If there is, it would have been divulged by Dan Casey long before now. If he had it, he and sandi would be singing it at the top of their lungs from the roof of the RTs.
There is plenty of proof that the Clinton and Bush Administrations were on the same page regarding saddam, Iraq, and WMDs. Clinton’s tactical efforts via Desert Fox failed. The cacophoney of comments and letters from both sides of the aisle in congress following Desert Fox, and extending into the Bush Administration, tells most informed folks that there was real concern about Iraq’s WMDs eminating from lots more folks than just Bush and Cheney…including a plethora of libs.
Hey dan,
I have a GREAT idea! Why don’t you provide the proof that Bush lied about Iraq’s WMDs. And, please follow that up with an explanation for why Bush and Cheney have not yet taken the perp walk that you and your like-minded folks dream about.
You say “Bush lied”. I say “bull-twinkies, prove it”.
Hi Henry,
Dan and his legion have nothing. The Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, and Patty Murray quotes you worte out must be devastating to Dan. Holy cow, Dan is suggesting that Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, and Patty Murray would actually succumb to a lie by a dastardly republican who stole the election from algore! You know, I always thought Patty’s light never shined when her switch got flicked on, and now ol’ Dan agrees with us! He thinks she and the others are so dumb that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney could hood-wink’em! I’m serious! We can’t make this stuff up!
hiya over there, steve c,
glad you stopped by.
I never claimed he lied, Frank. Go back and read my posts. That’s not there.
It’s very intetesting that you’re denying it so vehemently.
Hi Dan,
Let’s see if I understand what you’re saying….Am I to believe that you are NOW saying that “Bush DIDN’T lie to the American people about WMDs in Iraq?”
Dan, regarding your post #23 above….who were you suggesting to Henry actually did the “lying to Clark, Hillary, and Murray, and the rest of the country” about Iraq having WMDs?
Sheesh, Ron, why didn’t Clinton think of that? He’s so much smarter than Bush, some say. After all, he did sign the Iraq Regime Change” bill in 1998, didn’t he? Oh. Oops. I forgot. He also had his mind on other things during that time, didn’t he?
“…not as reliable as the material from Snopes… “
Ah, so now Snopes is reliable, make up yer mind. (And your defense is still lame.)
“Let’s see if I understand what you’re saying….Am I to believe that you are NOW saying that “Bush DIDN’T lie to the American people about WMDs in Iraq?”
–FRank
Frank, your memory is failing you again. Go back to last Thursday. This is what I wrote, in response to you then:
“This is what Bush said in his 2003 SOTU address: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
That was false, Frank. The British government had “learned” no such thing. Someone had tried to palm such false information off on them, but the Brits didn’t believe it. No other intelligence operation in the world (including our CIA and our state department) believed it, either. But whoever wrote that in the speech was scared to go there, because he/she knew it would be too easy to disprove if framed as American intel. The problem there was, it directly contradicted our own National Intelligence Estimate from 2002.
What we got instead was a quite carefully phrased statement that deliberately ignored the enormous suspicions surrounding the intel. As such, it was a lie.
At the least, Bush REPEATED a lie, which had been personally and painstakingly crafted by Dick Cheney. In retrospect (after Joe Wilson called their bluff, and after the Bush Administration retaliated against his wife’s job) EVEN BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS later conceded should never have been in that speech.
. . .Bush repeated obviously and ridiculously false information that was enormously consequential in his SOTU. It was a lie, and it was a basis under which we later started a war that killed thousands of American troops, maimed tens of thousands, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. All of it was needless.”
The Bush Administration cooked up the pretext for war Frank. Then they fooled many (not all) Democrats in Congress into falling for their line, along with all the other Republicans.
Holy Smokes, Dano! You are saying in post 33 above, “Bush lied” because he repeated a lie crafted by Dick Cheney who also got the lie plugged into Bush’s SOTU speech! You inferred that “at the least, Bush repeated a lie”. So, which is it? Did Bush lie, or not? Did he know he was repeating a lie, or not?
You also inferred Bush lied in your post above at #23…or was that Cheney?
Lets clear this up by naming names, Dan. Who did you claim lied? And, who didn’t you claim lied?
And, please list your first person accounts of what you allege. There aren’t any, are there? If there were, we’d all know about them, wouldn’t we?
You know, with all this word-smithing you’re doing, I bet we’ll somehow get down to what the meaning of the word “is” is. Better call in steve c for what’s next.
For petes sakes, all you have to do is look at what was taking place to see there were no reasons for the war Clinton had so bottled up Iraq that they had nothing. Bush’s General planed for a cake walk. It was indeed a cake walk over Sadamn’s troops. Bush knew they hadnothing and planned for them having nothing. In fact planned so poorly that they had no plan as to what to do once we had kicked out Sadamn. A tragedy that was railroaded by the Neocons for profit and military bases. We never got either.
How bout this for a explanation for Bush’ actions in invading Iraq:
Confirmation bias.
It’s different from lying, although it is essentially lying to oneself. Bush was convinced that Iraq was somehow connected to Al Qaeda and represented an external threat and found plenty of ambiguous information on which to focus to confirm his belief.
What any President should know is the CIA has a long history of getting things completely wrong. Read Tim Weiner’s “Legacy of Ashes” for some insight on the track record of using intelligence to inform Presidents. Spoiler alert: It isn’t good.
This experiment in nation building form the “we shouldn’t be in the business of nation building” President was/is a monumental mess. The part that I find particularly offensive is the use of the nation’s Visa Card for this unfortunate war. Used to be that national resolve also required sacrifice on the part of its people. Bush had the political backing to fund the war, he just ignored the economic consequences of it. The bill is coming due.
Somebody feed Frank some lorazepam. Whew.
I would hope that Ms. Maddow – and other partisan Dems – will hold Obama to the same standards of conduct with regard to international affairs. The .. destruction of Libya – an African success story once upon a time – was a shameful act, one encouraged and executed by the Western intelligence services and Salafist/al-Qaeda jihadists. That these same groups are destabilizing Syria presently is likewise unhelpful. That Obama might *now* be on the right track is indicated by his nomination of Chuck Hagel to head Defense. And Hagel’s harshest critics (Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, ad nauseam ..) represent a virtual who’s who of apologists for Saudi Arabia, global sponsor of the Wahhabi cult. Perhaps Obama’s legacy can be .. not bringing on another disastrous war. Time will tell ..
“Clark, Hillary and Murray were lied to like the rest of the country, Henry.”
They got their info from a different source than Bush. Congress has separate intelligence from the Executive Branch. All the intelligence pointed that way.
Tell me exactly what Bush said that was a lie. I’ll wait patiently.
Oh and while you are at it, prove there were no WMD’s in Iraq when the war started. We’ll really love to see that info.
Hi Beason,
Since you say “Clinton had so bottled up Iraq that they had nothing”…do you also believe that Clinton and Clinton, Kennedy, Levey, Kerry, Algore, Graham, Rockefeller, et al all LIE to the American people after Clinton left office?
Please post a link to the report which said that “Clinton had Iraq so bottled up that they had nothing”.
Mike Scott,
You offer a good understanding of what might have actually been. I ask you, why do many libs so glibly chant “Bush lied, people died” as a mantra?
I believe that Bush did what he thought was the right thing under the circumstances. He may have made a poor choice about keeping the cost off-budget, but I don’t know much about how the U.S. accounted for other wars budget-wise), such as Korea and Vietnam.
The democrat party appears to be filled with nefarious and low-browed, uninformed people who love to believe and spread lies. “Bush lied, people died” is a horrible whopper if there ever was one.
I think its funny how those who somehow support Bush and his crimes give every excuse in the book on why he invaded. Facts are a stubborn thing like John Adams once said. The neo-cons had their monument in the sun but their days are long over, its just they don’t know it yet. Maybe they will never as was demonstrated by the last election.
hiya gdad!
did obama lie when he said the sequester will cause thousands of teachers and educators to be laid off?
S. Barrios, just how committed are you to brutal dictatorship in the Middle East (yes I know Libya’s not the middle east), and do the people there have the right to overthrow their oppressors? Does the word “Lockerbie” mean anything?
If we can get rid of people like Assad and Quadaffi by proxy, why not? Compare that strategy to Bush’s in Iraq, and Obama’s going to win every time.
And I’d say Hagel’s naysayers are apologists for Israel, not the Arabs. Not that that’s any better.
What crime did he commit, Bill?
OK, let’s do look at that Snopes link Frank offered above:
–
“All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in “degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein’s ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.”
–
In the section below where we highlight these quotes, we’ve tried to provide sufficient surrounding material to make clear the context in which the quotes were offered as well as include links to the full text from which they were derived wherever possible.”
–
All is just not as Frank and friends present it… Imagine that?
Bill Hudson | February 19, 2013 at 7:02 pm
“History in about maybe 50 years or so I think Bush will go down as one of the worst President we’ve had.”
Bill, I agree. The unfunded and illegitimate Iraq war, the blatant use of torture, and the erosion of respect for the United States were the most grievous mistakes by President Bush.
Squandering a budget surplus with unnecessary tax breaks was also ill-advised. Talk about giveaways. President Bush gave quite generously to his wealthy constituency via tax breaks and an illegitimate war that generated millions form the private sector.
In fairness, he helped steady this country as it was reeling in the days after the attacks of 9/11/2001, and he provided much needed AIDS drug money to Africa. In total, however, he left this country in much worse shape than when he assumed leadership, and he will be judged accordingly.
“All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction.”
No more calls, we have a winner. The Democrats said those things. Snopes just doesn’t like that they said it. So much for that “Bush lied” crap. If Bush lied, the Democrats lied too.
“he left this country in much worse shape ”
Bush had 4% unemployment until the Democrats took over Congress in late 2006. Obama’s unemployment rate is 8%. I wish we were in that bad shape again. We need the jobs.
All these cries and teeth gnashing that “The Democrats believed it, too!!!!!” are a long stretch, Henry. The Democrats who supported Bush’s decision to invade were among those DECEIVED by the Bush Administration. Lots of people were. And unlike the Republicans, the Dems were hardly unanimous about their belief in the nonexistent threat. Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy didn’t buy it, among many others.
# 48 its no big secret who’s side Bush was with , big money right wing people who still think we all should think like them. The one word that keeps popping in my head is arrogance. And its all caught up with them. The right wing neo cons is a thing of the past. Even the GOP knows that, or do they? Well if not they will have handed the Democrats another win.
Bush was never a friend to working folks.
Frank | February 20, 2013 at 9:49
“I believe that Bush did what he thought was the right thing under the circumstances.”
-
Frank, I see it much differently. I think President Bush and his advisors were badly mistaken. At the time, there were plenty of intelligence assessments that cast great doubt on Iraq’s possession of WMDs. Did the Bush administration willfully ignore these contrary intelligence assessments? If they did, then they did manipulate us into war. If they did not, then they were woefully inadequate. Either way, the result was the same. Some of the best and brightest US citizens lost their lives needlessly because of the hubris of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Thousands of Iraqi citizens lost their lives because of the hubris of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. This is the greatest tragedy.
-
Iraq had not attacked the US or any of its allies. Iraq was not making any noise indicating any type of aggressive action. They were not connected to Al Qaeda or the attacks on 9/11. They did not have WMDs. There simply was no reasonable justification for waging war against Iraq.
hi sandi,
I’m glad you read the snopes material I posted, which at least provides the basis for what they print for you to read. By the way, try comparing Snopes’ disclosures with “stuff” from places like mother earth.
I am so glad that you provided the highlighted material above! I like to play these games! Here we go….
As a prelude to initiating Desert Fox with the British, Bill Clinton said the following on February 4, 1998: “One way or another, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
Several years following what the folks in your highlighted material above said concerning Desert Fox’s purported “success”, none other than the esteemed and inestimable John F. Kerry, obama’s Secretary of State, had THIS to say, on January 23, 2003:”We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for…a …number…of…years (i guess ol’ Kerry didn’t think much of Desert Fox’s purported “success…” haha!), a developing capacity for the production and storage of WMDs. Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat os Saddam Hussein with WMDs is real.”
Sandi, let’s keep this going, ’cause you’ve got nothing, …because you and folks like you are afraid of the truth. All folks like you have got is that blatantly false, disgusting …chant.
hi bill hudson,
did the Bush you mention ever lower the tax rates of working folks?
So does the new format purposely limit the number of past posts that are visible? I only see two for this thread, even thought the link says there are 52. An a different thread that says there are 71 comments, I only see 21.
Jason,
There are a whole lot of libs who most certainly did not agree with your sentiment back in the late 1990′s and early 2000′s. monday morning quarterbacking is what we’re doing here after the fact…with the libs chanting, “bush lied, people died”.
Bush …may… have been mistaken. But in the world of lib-dom, that means “Bush lied”. Pretty sick thinking, if you ask me.
By the way, you forgot to mention the on-going and failed UN efforts (and after multiple resolutions…) to inspect Iraq’s sites for nuclear activities and materials…for years. You do remember that, don’t you? Also, you do remember that saddam bombed his kurds with wmds, don’t you?…so he clearly didn’t fear any reaction he got from the world on that, did he?
Bush went to congress, and got their approval. congress was with him every step of the way. And, Congress didn’t “just take Bush’s word for it”, as Dan Casey would have you believe. As a lib “opinion” writer, Dan twists things so that libs get his opinion that Bush and Cheney created and handed out all of the information they wanted Congress to have in order to support what they wanted to do. Now I ask you…does THAT sound like the libs in congress to you? …that they’d just take the information from Bush and not question it? Seriously? I mean, I think many of the libs in congress are in fact not the sharpest knives in the drawer….but even I don’t think they’d be THAT stupid.
“Bush lied” is a paper tiger lib chant. Period.
I like to think that, now that Frank has taken over the role of verbose-yet-senile Walmart greeter role on the blog, it’s deliberately purging itself after a certain level of stupid has been reached. It’s Artificial Intelligence acting in a self-defense capacity.
Oddly enough in Frank’s “world” of con-repb, it is fine when his words say “Obama lied”, regardless of the issue or situation, but that is somehow not “Pretty sick thinking” to him. And he never even notices the problem.
–
I have not forgot “to mention the on-going and failed UN efforts (and after multiple resolutions…) to inspect Iraq’s sites for nuclear activities and materials…for years”, I mentioned Hans Blix and his conclusion that their efforts were “ignored” by the Bush administration, and no actual “deliberations” took place, just yesterday.
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml
–
Congress does not have an independent CIA and intelligence briefings separate from what the White House offers. Yes, Bush went to congress, and got their approval for “military action” if needed, but as you so often like to point out on the issue of the Budget, it is the job of Congress to “declare war” and THAT never happened.
–
Plenty of people questioned Bush, from day one. 23 Senators voted against the “Iraq Resolution” and 133 did in the House. As a conservative blogger you twist things so that Bush and Cheney can escape the blame they so richly deserve, which is hilarious because you never allow such a pass to Obama.
–
“Obama lied” is also a “paper tiger” but it is still the number one right winger “chant”.
It is a glitch with the new system Chuck, they are working on it.
yeah so now we can chant, obama watched them die in Benghazi, except this chant is true !!
hi sandi,
When obama says that sequestration is going to result in the layoffs of thousands of teachers and educators…is he lying?
Suddenly I’m seeing all the comments.
Frank, if federal money to education is cut, how do you know that will not “result in the layoffs of thousands of teachers and educators”? Hint: You don’t. So no, Obama is not lying.
Oh good lord, Frankie has another idiocy to flog across every thread on the blog. I think Kristen is right about the senile Walmart greeter thing.
Frank, the poison gas attack in Halabja occured in 1988. To use this incident as a justification of war in 2003 is desparate, at best. You do remember Operation Desert Storm in 1991, don’t you? We pushed Iraq back from Kuwaiti borders, but President George H. W. Bush refused to go into Baghdad? Wonder why? Could it be that GHWB knew that a full-scale invasion of Iraq would result in a protracted war costing, needlessly, many US lives. Sounds like GHWB’s administration had some “critical thinking skills” that Hans Blix identified as absent in the GWB administration.
-
And Frank, I didn’t agree with any of our elected officials, regardless of party affiliation, who supported war in 2003. You might continue to spin this issue, but that will not change the fact that the actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney led to an illegitimate war that needlessly and tragically cost the lives of over 4,000 US citizens and tens of thousands Iraqi citizens.
#64 That was damn funny and could not help but laughter.
As to the subject and this film, I cannot for the life of me understand why some think that Bush and bunch had good intentions as to that war. If I was to repeat 9/11 did not have anything to do with Iraq many times, there are some that will not believe it.
How the right wing comes up with with so many goodies like global warming is not real thing, Obama was not born in the US, and lord only knows what else.
Bush was not a friend of the working man. His kind of parties people like me would’nt even get in the door.
Frank, your disparate and futile attempts to save the Bush administration from blame for the Iraq war are just that — desperate and futile. Your suggestion that Clinton had the SAME intel is complete BS and everyone know it, no matter what statement Clinton ever offered up about it.
Why don’t tell us this: give us the verbatim quote from Clinton’s speech in which he EVER suggested Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore. You got one? I didn’t think so.
That is what the Bush administration suggested, and Bush did it in a State of the Union speech. Whether he knew it was a lie or not, it was, and he repeated it in his biggest speech of the year.
And it was that (fabricated) hint of a nuke weapons program that was underlying the entire move to war. We didn’t give a crap about chem/bio weapons. We knew Saddam had had those for years and we even indirectly encouraged him to use them his war with Iran.
What happened is, neocons had to shift the meme from nukes to WMDs in the wake of A) former Bush I-appointed ambassadro Joe Wilson exposing their fraud and B) Hans Blix meeting at the White House in the summer of 2003 and explaining to Bush that there were no nukes, no chem weapons, no biological weapons.
The RW media helped the meme-transition along by not calling Bush out on it.
Here is a comprehensive list of the architects of the Iraq War and how their incompetence and in some cases, outright deceit was dealt with by Bush.
http://thinkprogress.org/report/the-architects-where-are-they-now/?mobile=wp
One of many “Key Quotes” from this article: “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” [Bush, 10/7/02]
Either Bush was lying or he was dumb enough to believe the crock his trusted advisors were feeding him.
I’ll ask my simple question again today: “was the Iraq War worth it?”
“hi sandi,
When obama says that sequestration is going to result in the layoffs of thousands of teachers and educators…is he lying?”
–Frank
Frank, it doesn’t take a lot of reasoning skill to understand how sequestration could cause the layoffs of thousands of teachers.
Did you see the op-ed in today’s paper from Jonathan Morgenstein, the former U.S. Marine and defense official? He cites an analysis by George Mason University that sequestration would cost 136,000 defense-related jobs in Virginia and suck $12 billion/year (3 percenet) from the state’s economy.
I don’t want to get too complicated, but: It’s gonna result in a huge drop in state tax collections, Frank. If you think that won’t result in layoffs for a lot of teachers in Virginia ALONE, you’re not thinking correctly. And we’re only one of 50 states.
Hell, hundreds and hundreds of teaching positions have been eliminated across VA in the last 4 years WITHOUT sequestration, Frank. I promise you it will be worse with it. And if you can’t wrap your mind around that, you’d best give up trying. It’s not rocket science.
” I ask you, why do many libs so glibly chant “Bush lied, people died” as a mantra?”
The comments are back! Hallelujah!
Dang.. don’t know how I hit the submit button on 70.
“I ask you, why do many libs so glibly chant “Bush lied, people died” as a mantra?”
Because the political opposition doesn’t like Bush. Same reason people make up crap about Obama.
I think the whole Iraq war was a terrible mistake. I blame Bush. I blame the political opposition who was complicit in ignorance, I blame the press for not asking more questions and I blame the American public for blindly accepting what our leaders told us. I was not vocal in opposition to the war, and I should have been. It was a terrible decision.
We kept the Soviet Union in check for an entire generation. We could have protected ourselves from Saddam with five drones and economic sanctions.
Well said Mike!
Dan,
How long does morganstein project that sequestation will last? One month? Five months? One Year? Are his slashed costs and impact analysis reflective of one month? Five months? One year? Its a typical lib effort to obfuscate facts and reality into a fantasy world created by them, to suit their purposes. IF sequestration happens, it won’t happen for long, and obama’s rhetorical efforts to inflame the populace is nothing more than a continuation of his campaign. He doesn’t govern. He campaigns. He doesn’t negotiate. He campaigns. According to Bob Woodward, obama’s white house, Lew and Nabors, suggested to harry reid Sequestration…who then proposed to to the House.. It is OBAMA’s WHITE HOUSE IDEA. And, in September, 2011, he threatened to veto ANY attempt to get rid of spending cuts agreed to in sequestration. NOW, he says, republicans want sequestration to happen! Is he serious? Nope. He’s a liar. And naive lib opinion writers like Dan lap up everything which oozes from obama’s mouth….doesn’t matter what or when…just whatever it may be…. then they pass whatever the word may be to their their uninformed readers…what a cycle!
Let’s recap. Obama comes up with the idea of sequestration.
Then in September 2011, threatens to veto any attempts to rid automatic spending cuts from sequestration.
Then he balames republicans for wanting sequestration in the first place…and for wanting it now. If anything, the repubs are willing to follow obama driving the bus over the cliff. I hope it happens. Its what obama wants.
True dat Mike Scott.
Add the fact that those responsible will not be held accountable because Obama has promised not to open that can of worms. You’d think the neocons would be grateful to him and not trying to do the same to him that they did to Saddam.
There will be no evidence or truth revealed about what Bush really knew or if he knowingly lied because Obama does not want the world to know the (possible) truth. The ramifications of a Bush regime investigation are stunning to say the least.
has anybody noticed that rachel maddow and peyton manning have the same high forhead? that thing on her looks garantuan! his just looks normal.
Frank, Obama used sequestration as a negotiation tool to bring the fools in congress on both sides to compromise on spending and revenue.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 “passed in the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)”-PolitiFact
So, no matter who proposed it, Our EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE GOVERNMENT OWN IT. BOTH parties OWN it.
Once again, We the People, Will PAY for IT.
WHY is Congress and our President on VACATION? Frankly, they BOTH suck at Governing. They BOTH are playing CHICKEN with OUR lives. Why are there no protests outside of Congress and the White House demanding action of this BS?
We are a nation of fools and children.
Cold n P, I don’t disagree. Ok….I agree. We got a sad bunch of folks in elected office. If our grandparents’ and/or parents’ generations were the “greatest”, I shudder to think how history will deem the flower child generation.
We got the best Government “Money” can buy. That’s how history will remember the flower child generation. The generation that sold out America to the highest bidder.
“Obama does not want the world to know the (possible) truth.”
Obama knows America couldn’t handle the truth. I’m surprised no one has introduced PNAC to this discussion.
You just did Art. America can’t afford to control what goes on around the world.
PNAC needs to close its doors. Just walk away. Bad idea.
Frank, your misogynistic comments and failed wit are just making you look like a boor. Do you completely forget that you started out here using your whole name? Grow up or go away. You do not deserve civil answers to your inane questions if your Beavis and Butthead routine has to continue.
I hope your day gets better, Sandi.
Your condescension is duly noted, Frank…and summarily dismissed.
NEXT!