So some of y’all are actually still listening to the man?
What…Ya think he’s gonna start telling the truth now?
He and his Bush ancestors have been pulling this shit for decades, so what’s new.
BTW read my lips…
I tried once upon a time to inform folks about the Bush syndrome and got fucking crucified for it. Oh well, they say “all’s fair etc.”
Don’t confuse or assume my anti-Bush beliefs are mutual with respect to our military personnel. I give them my full support and respect. I hope they can all come home soon.
Speaking personally, it all leaves me a bit numb. I used to be surprised and outraged over Iraq, the lead up and the consequences.
Now I am just embarassed. Embarassed that our leaders (and its not just Bush and not just American leaders) treat us with such contempt and regard us as dumb ignorant cattle that they can tell any old crap to.
I believe John Mace is making a go of it in Great Debates. And Primus save us from the logical contortions we’ll be getting from Read_Neck or Dogface… :rolleyes:
I thought John Mace was just trying to imitate a bad spin by incorporating an overly romanticized view with the same factual inaccuracy that plagues W…
Primo, I am sure Bush just misspoke. True, I agree in the context of a series of statements this has a disturbing ring to it. But I would suggest putting it in this context, and not overly fixating on the simple statement. E.g. in the context of statements that tend to suggest Bush has a highly bounded and self-selected understanding of the universe of events that surrounded Iraq. That goes to the heart, misspeaking as Apos noted elsewhere is done by all. Patterns are more telling than incidents.
Secondu, I rather do believe the General’s visit is the more important if less symbolic factual item in the article.
Well, FWIW, I seem to remember that the problem was that Saddam wasn’t cooperating with the inspectors, and hampered their progress. Letting them inside the borders of your country is a completely meaningless act if you do not give them unfettered access to sites and full cooperation.
If you want to go back further in time, Saddam never ‘kicked out’ the inspectors either, he just refused to give them access to anything. Personally, I don’t really want to give the guy props for letting the inspectors view buildings with binoculars.
“he wouldn’t let them in” can be thought of as not allowing the inspectors complete access to every site they wanted, at least, that’s how I would interpret it.
**Cheesesteak
** - You’re factually wrong and very naïve on every count, at least according to (this time around) Hans Blix and (from UNSCOM) Butler and Ritter.
Clinton largely created the so-called ‘lack of co-operation’ crisis for his own Monika-related distractive reasons – note the bombing of Iraq commenced (that particular time around) the day before his impeachment hearing and ended the day after.
This time around, Saddam was fully co-operating, including allowing access to all his Palaces. Whether he was co-operating ‘slowly’ is both a subjective judgement and moot. Given that there was already a pre-existing timetable, even greater speed seems to have been an issue for Bush, but no one else, including Saddam and the French.
By Cheesesteak: "Well, FWIW, I seem to remember that the problem was that Saddam wasn’t cooperating with the inspectors, and hampered their progress. Letting them inside the borders of your country is a completely meaningless act if you do not give them unfettered access to sites and full cooperation. "
That’s how I remember it too. Like It really matters. Next election, once again I will be forced to hold my nose and make a choice. I will have to vote for the one I think is least objectionable, because there won’t be one I’d really like to have for President. Might even vote for Bush, if the Dems can’t come up with a better offering. shrug
