In essence, we did the same damn thing the Eisenhower administration did when they overthrew the Guatemalan government to protect the interests of United Fruit.
Of course, Arbenz was democratically elected and not a bastard like Hussein. But if we use this kind of reasoning (back then it was the “communist threat”, now it’s “terrorism and WMD”), what’s to stop us from doing it again.
SHAME ON BUSH! And shame on anyone who thinks it’s okay that he lied.
“Now, how did that make you feel?”
“Dirty all over.”
“You get used to it.”
Drs. Bob Kelso and Perry Cox, “Scrubs”
-Joe
Has it been substantially established that he lied yet?
If so, what was the lie exactly?
I’d love to have that info.
thanX
I’m saying, if people say, “So what if he lied-it was for a good cause!”
Did he lie? Well, that’s what we’re trying to find out.
If he didn’t commit the sin of commission…he commited the sin of ommission.
I admit it, I stole the weapons I dislike Bush that much 
You give yourself too much credit.
I wasn’t aware that you had any other mode.
So was Salvador Allende. So was, to a lesser extent maybe but it’s not totally clear, Daniel Ortega.
The other night on this TV show “The Agency,” some heroic Americans were portrayed sabotaging an election in Indonesia. A former President played by Brian Dennehy found out about it and threatened to spill the beans, but a heroic CIA guy convinced him to play along. At the end of the show the election was successfully corrupted. This was portrayed, to my absolute amazement, as being a good thing. The fact that the people of Indonesia were having their democratic voice subverted was portrayed as being a minor inconvenience that only an idealistic fool would care about. I know it’s only a show, but it used to be that the U.S. government would at least try to hide the fact that they did this sort of thing, and Americans would get upset at even the suggestion they did. Now it’s the stuff of prime time heroics. George Bush lied about African uranium? Oh, no big deal. He lied and killed five, maybe ten thousand people, over nonexistent WMDs? Oh well, who cares about Iraqi women and kids? Let’s blame the French for… uh, nothing, but we’ll act like they’re mean!
I have to hand it to the USA; it seems the powers that be there don’t give a shit about democracy and freedom for anyone else in the world, but at least they’re honest about it, sort of. They used to lie and SAY they cared about it.
Now, at least, we know for sure the USA can’t be trusted.
RickJay, that is extremely creepy.
That’s really, really creepy. As a leftist I find that when I present people with some revelation about bad doings by the government, it goes through two stages:
1.) “Oh, puh-leeeez. That was probably reported in Z Magazine, quoted from the Village Voice. How could you possibly be so gullible as to believe such an extreme claim? Anyone with half a brain knows our government would never dream of doing something as evil as that.”
Then, when my claims move to the realm of being indisputable:
2.) “Duh! Of course the government does that kind of thing! What’s the big deal?”
Come to think of it, that reminds me of what happens when I try to prove Rush Limbaugh is racist. I tell a story about something racist he said, and then I get one of two replies:
1.) “Rush Limbaugh isn’t racist. Ergo, he wouldn’t have made that blatantly racist remark. Ergo, he never said it. So your ‘proof’ that Limbaugh is racist falls apart.”
2.) “That’s not racist. You liberals are just touchy.”
Beneath the smilie’s a list of the various alleged irresponsible misrepresentations made by the Bush admin gathered together in one convenient place.
:dubious:
I am probably going to regret posting this but…
Fact: Iraq had at one time chemical and biological weapons
Fact: Iraq has used those same weapons on her own people
We have all seen the video evidence of this so hopefully this at least isn’t disputed
The world ever since the first Iraqi war has told Saddam to get rid of those WMD and right up to the start of the second Iraqi war he has not
OR he did destroy all his WMD but kept it hidden from EVERYONE
As far as I know there has been NO reports of finding the site(s) where those weapons were destroyed
So many of you are solely focused on the fact that no one has found those WMD that no one is asking…if they WERE destroyed there ought to be evidence of THAT then
What occurs to me is which would I take more care hiding?
The evidence I destroyed those weapons or the actual working weapons themselves?
Until someone somewhere finds where those weapons were destroyed and checks the site to see absolutely that this IS the real place they were destroyed and hopefully they’d be able to determine that ALL of the WMD were destroyed there I think I’ll be keeping an open mind about how much a liar Bush is(on THIS subject anyway)
I’ve often thought that as far as reasons go to invade a country Bush certainly could of claimed something a little less concrete was his main determining factor to start a war. Instead of the whole WMD thing he could of said Saddam was supporting terrorists(al Qaida is not exactly the only terrorist orginisation who hates the USA).
After 9/11 the American people wouldn’t of taken all that much convincing to support him squashing Saddam. So why would they make a claim that the MAIN reason we are going in is because Hussein was a direct threat and he had those weapons unless they REALLY believed it?
Despite so many of you who claim that Bush is a moron…even those who hate Bush THAT much cannot think that EVERYONE in Bush’s administration is a moron can you?
As time goes on and no one is finding either thing…the weapons OR the evidence they were destroyed I am inclined to think this is a case of perception becoming reality.
After all if Saddam for whatever reason in his twisted mind hid the fact he got rid of those weapons SO well that no one can find anything after this amount of time…how can any REASONABLE person expect Bush to have known they were in fact destroyed?
Therefore his stated reason for the war is still valid in my opinion even if next year they find proof positive Hussein got rid of his illegal weapons years ago
Don’t forget the gloating you-war-protesters-were-wrong threads that popped up after Baghdad fell.
Probably.
Uh, no. Try “The UN inspectors in Iraq were finding and destroying Iraqi WMDs up until the end of 1998.” By the UN’s own reckoning, 99% of Iraq’s WMD stockpiles and facilities were destroyed until the inspectors left. Contrary to what you wrote, Iraq’s WMDs haven’t been sitting around unmolested from the end of the first Persian Gulf war, with the UN demanding they be destroyed and Saddam saying “No way, Jose” the whole time.
There’s also the very real possibility that, even if Saddam had some WMDs stashed away after the inspectors left in '98 (see above), they expired in the time between 1998-2003. Chemical and biological weapons aren’t like guns and knives; they must be kept properly refrigerated and stored to be viable – and even then, they only have a shelf life up to 3 years or so.
Actually, I think folks bring this up whenever Bush claims that Saddam destroyed his WMDs right before the American invasion, but the Bush apologists never give a convincing answer when pressed.
So you think that Saddam Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, the Numero Uno Evil Dude in the Axis of Evil™(R), when confronted with 250,000+ American forces camped on his border, all with orders to take him dead or alive, decided “Nah, I don’t wanna gas the Americans, let’s hide all my stuff in a remote and inaccessible location where I can’t use it even if my life depended on it”? 
Unfortunately for Bush, the only terrorists Saddam was known to support were either anti-Israeli suicide bombers or anti-Iranian terrorists.
As for supporting terrorists, when US forces found a bunch of those anti-Iranian terrorists in Iraq last month, we told them that we’d leave them alone as long as they don’t harass the American troops. Not exactly taking the moral high ground there, are we?
Nah, I think the rest of them (Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld) are a bunch of evil manipulative bastards who are the powers behind the throne. They just tell idiot-boy George what to say, and giggle when he stumbles on “nucular” for the four thousandth time.
Does the name “Hans Blix” mean anything to you? He was the guy pokin’ around Iraq trying to determine whether they actually had any of those WMDs, remember?
False. In fact, the Bush administration used photos of equipment destroyed in the first stint of inspections as evidence for Saddam’s present ownership.
False again. Iraq had pointed out several such sites and was working with UN inspectors on developing methods to verify its claims of having disposed of the weapons there as of March.
Except of course that it was precisely these tests that Bush prevented with his war.
Because unless you consider the entire world a US colony, the opinion of the American people could not be of any less relevance when it comes to Iraq.
In fact, just last night, I saw a former CIA member talk of the ‘Crazies’ that Bush sr. managed to keep at arm’s length, but which had achieved a stunning degree of influence under the new administration.
On your side, yes, since most specific evidence provided by the Bush administration has already been proven to be fabricated before the war.
So what you say is that it’s ok to slaughter people on sheer assumption of guilt, regardless of any evidence, and that it is ok to do so even if their innocence is established later?
Precisely what was so bad about Saddam in your eyes? Your methods are quite similar.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html
"Here is a transcript of the exchange:
CLARK: “There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.”
RUSSERT: “By who? Who did that?”
CLARK: “Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, ‘You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.’ I said, ‘But–I’m willing to say it, but what’s your evidence?’ And I never got any evidence.”
Well, if the people you’re arguing with have even heard of Z Magazine, that’s pretty amazing all by itself.