|
Said Cao @ 7:21 am | Permalink
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
About The Writers
Bat Guano
Bear to the Right
Bloggin' Out Loud
Cao
Cracker
Crystal
Don Surber
Faultline USA
GM Roper
John Bambenek
Kat
Kender's Musings
LA Sunset
Maggie's Notebook
Mike's America
NIF
Ogre
Parrot Check
Richard Nixon
Rick Moran
Right For Scotland
RomeoCat
Rottweiler-Puppy
Smoke Eater
Sticks and Stones
TD @ The Right Track
The Mad Tech
The MaryHunter
The Wild Duck
Third World County
Truth and Reason
Uncle Jack
Van Helsing
Beware and watch for the
- The Bush connection to the bin Laden family.
- Escorting dozens of members of the bin Laden family out of US after 9/11
- The Patriot Act having been written decades before 9/11
- The call for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ by the neocons who orchestrated the wars
- A totally invalid and false connection between Iraq and the ‘War on Terror
- Regular, politically timed terror alerts
- Toxic air quality at Ground Zero after 9/11
- The ‘junk science’ of Global Warming and its effects around the globe
- WH orders to suppress and politicize reports on by the Surgeon General
- Plans for wars with Iraq and Afghanistan that were made before 9/11
- Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMD
- Saddam Hussein’s connection to Al Qaeda
- Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11
- Saddam Hussein’s threat to the US or his neighbors
- Having NO plans for an extended occupation of Iraq or for keeping the peace
- Inadequate armor and supplies for our men and women in uniform
- Supposed ‘progress’ in Iraq, time after time
- Fudged numbers of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq
- The staged ‘toppling’ of Saddam’s statue
- The staged rescue of Jessica Lynch
- The lies about Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire
- Illegal warrantless spying on US citizens
- Torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan
- Rendition of detainees to other countries for torture
- Outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative
- White House involvement in the firing of federal prosecutors…
There are so many more lies to list, but I think you get the idea.
Comment by blue — 7/31/2007 @ 5:53 am
Even if we take Moores first anwser as fact. Since when is lying to go to war a war crime?
I think he needs o look up the definition of a war crime.
www.jcardsworld.blogspot.com
Comment by JCARD — 7/31/2007 @ 10:42 am
1. - Escorting dozens of members of the bin Laden family out of US after 9/11
His family were not the criminals, did we go arrest Hitler’s mom?
- The Patriot Act having been written decades before 9/11
Show us your proof!-
The call for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ by the neocons who orchestrated the wars
Huh?
- A totally invalid and false connection between Iraq and the ‘War on Terror
Your biased opinion only.
- Regular, politically timed terror alerts
Conspiracy theorist.
- Toxic air quality at Ground Zero after 9/11
Huh?
- The ‘junk science’ of Global Warming and its effects around the globe
Huh? What does this have to do with Bin Laden?
- WH orders to suppress and politicize reports on by the Surgeon General
Does not even make sense.
- Plans for wars with Iraq and Afghanistan that were made before 9/11
Go spend time in the military brainiac…….we have plans…multiple plans…for all kinds of wars that could happen anywhere in the world, standard procedure….its called being proactive…..
- Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMD
You lost me here with Bin Laden.
- Saddam Hussein’s connection to Al Qaeda
Supporter.
- Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11
Evil tyrant.
- Saddam Hussein’s threat to the US or his neighbors
Which part of the first Gulf war was NOT a threat to his neighbors?
Having NO plans for an extended occupation of Iraq or for keeping the peace
Where is this a Bin Laden connection.
- Inadequate armor and supplies for our men and women in uniform
False.
- Supposed ‘progress’ in Iraq, time after time
Have we been attacked here? Progress made.
- Fudged numbers of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq
I agree, Al Jazeera does report numbers much higher than reality.
- The staged ‘toppling’ of Saddam’s statue
Conspiracy theorist.
- The staged rescue of Jessica Lynch
Yea, shoulda left her there…….
- The lies about Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire
And the Bin Laden connection is……?
- Illegal warrantless spying on US citizens
Huh?
- Torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan
Yes of course…Bush himself held the camera…….(you are fast becoming an idiot)
- Rendition of detainees to other countries for torture
Wait! You just said WE torture them. Why would we need to send them elsewhere for torture?
- Outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative
Case closed. Nothing to do with Bin Laden (now you are officially and idiot)
- White House involvement in the firing of federal prosecutors…
Name a President who has not….Clinton did it too.
There are so many more lies to list, but I think you get the idea.
Oh yea! We get the idea….thanks for proving our point.
Comment by Richard Nixon — 8/2/2007 @ 4:27 pm
The “New Pearl Harbor” is what the truthers are calling 9/11. Because Pearl Harbor was supposedly a government plot, too. Most of the rest of that incoherent leftist babble belongs to the Truthers. It’s probably a cut and paste, too…because they’re unable to think on their own.
Comment by Cao — 8/2/2007 @ 7:05 pm
Even if we take Moores first anwser as fact. Since when is lying to go to war a war crime?
I think he needs o look up the definition of a war crime.
www.jcardsworld.blogspot.com
Comment by JCARD — 8/3/2007 @ 7:21 pm
I agree with JCARD. Technically, lying to the American people and Congress to gin up support for a wholly unnecessary war is not a “war crime”. It’s an “impeachable offense”. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney should be impeached by the Senate, not brought up in front of the World Court at the Hague. That’s the proper response to them violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Glad to see we’re all in agreement on that.
Comment by MasterShake — 8/4/2007 @ 10:39 am
Actually it’s not an impeachable offense - unless you want to throw all the democrats out of office who went for the justification for the war and voted for it- and the UN - whose sanctions Saddam routinely ignored. Bush didn’t just arbitrarily go and do this on his own, he had help from Congress.
How about Clinton and Gore, who never followed through on their bill to use force on Iraq? This started a long time before Bush.
Al Gore and Bill Clinton had themselves called for the removal of Saddam by force when he expelled the UN weapons inspectors in 1998, a clear violation of the Gulf truce. This was the reason Clinton and Gore sent an “Iraqi Liberation Act” to Congress that year; it is why the congressional Democrats voted in October 2002 to authorize the president to use force to remove him; and it is the reason the entire Clinton-Gore national security team, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence, supported Bush when he sent American troops into Iraq in March 2003.
Contrary to everything that Al Gore and the democrats have said for the last - I don’t know how long - Saddam’s violation of the arms control agreements that made up the Gulf war Truce - and not the existence of Iraqi WMDs - was the legal, moral and actual basis for sending American troops into Iraq.
Every statement out of the Whitehouse talked about Regime Change - not WMDs.
But go ahead and stick with Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson’s lies on the Niger thing - and the president’s 16 words if it makes you feel any better.
Comment by Cao — 8/4/2007 @ 6:02 pm
Didn’t Bill Clinton leave office in 2000?
Hasn’t Al Gore been a private citizen since 2000?
Didn’t the Iraq War start in 2003?
Didn’t President Bush and Vice President Cheney spread fabrications about Iraq’s WMDs in order to convince the Congress to authorize their war?
The answers to those questions are “Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes”.
So far as your statement that “Every statement out of the Whitehouse (sic) talked about Regime Change - not WMDs”, that is blatantly false. You forget Colin Powell ruining his reputation at the UN? Cheney’s statement about mushroom clouds rising over American cities? I doubt you forgot–you just lied. To cover up other lies. Pathetic.
Bush and Cheney knew the public wouldn’t support a war merely to remove Saddam from power. Without the bogeyman of WMDs, why would we be afraid of Saddam? What was he gonna do to us? Squat, that’s what. So they lied and lied and lied and led us into this catastrophe of their own making. Bad enough that they’re liars. Worse that they’re grossly incompetent liars. For the good of our democracy, they should both be impeached.
Comment by MasterShake — 8/4/2007 @ 10:31 pm
Using your logic MasterShake (MS) then Clinton fabricated the Baltics, and what about the baby formula factory we bombed in Sudan (convieniently after his blow job in the Oval office was discover) that tured out to be…….just a factory! Did he fabricate a conflict or act on bad intelligence?
Comment by Richard Nixon — 8/5/2007 @ 6:53 am
Uh, what you mean by “Clinton fabricated the Baltics”. No, I don’t think President Clinton manufactured Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia in a secret White House workshop.
Or do you mean the Balkans? Yes, your keen knowledge of European geography, history and politics does this site credit.
Still not sure what you might mean by Clinton manufacturing the Balkans, either. That was a NATO gig, remember? Also, the intervention was to stop well-documented ethnic cleansing and mass murder, not to eradicate a non-existent WMD program.
So far as the factory in the Sudan hit with Tomahawk missiles in 1998, that was an error both of intelligence and executive decision-making. Of course, there were also missiles launched against camps where bin Laden was possibly hiding out. Republican hysterics desperately seeking to deflect blame for their own catastrophic errors have frantically pointed a finger at Clinton for not doing more to get bin Laden before 9/11. So you can’t have it both ways–you can’t rip Clinton for launching the strike AND rip him for not launching the strike.
And of course there is the not insignificant point that no U.S. troops were killed in the strikes against the Sudanese factory, it didn’t cost tens of thousands of Sudanese lives, it didn’t cost the American taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars, we didn’t hear the same lies (and countless new ones) repeated for four years, and we’re not still trapped in a bloody quagmire there.
Other than those teeny, tiny errors, what I generously call your “logic” is impeccable.
Comment by MasterShake — 8/6/2007 @ 11:10 pm
I stand corrected on the Baltics/Balkans. I admit mistakes. Having never served in the military I understand your ideas about not losing troops, and I do not want troops lost, but your keen grasp of military history should have pointed out that unless catastophic measures are taken (nuclear) wars are won on the ground. Hitler had a dynamic and awe inspireing air offensive against Britain that failed, we did the same in 91″ and still had to send troops in (and found out air strikes were less stellar than thought). You say it was poor intel that led to the attack on a harmless factory, so why can”t we use the same excuse for Iraq? We don”t need too! He had the damn things, or does your grasp of history fail to recall the thousands of dead Kurds in Iraq after being hit with nerve gas……we did not do it. He did. So he had them, for all we know he had them buried and they have not been found yet, although that is improbable.
Comment by Richard Nixon — 8/7/2007 @ 8:31 am