Yep, you and the pres have the same viewpoint I guess. Maybe that is why I find him disgusting.

Start an unnecessary war and then call everyone wuzzies for not celebrating it.

Hide the truth and still pretend to wear the white hat.

maybe, just maybe, it is that attitude over the last fifty years that has gotten us into the mess we find ourselves now.

Newsflash PPOT: Hancock and Lendaddy are spotted participating in a LIBERAL circle jerk! Thankfully, there will be NO pictures in the 11 pm report :). My parent's always taught me to tell the truth despite the consequences... I wish many of our military leaders and politicians shared the same values. I'm not a liberal Tim, but you are correct in that I have no stomach for this fiasco in Iraq. I'm a "live & let live" kind of person, but let someone attack me (or mine), and my pacifism will cease immediately. I do not share that feeling regarding Iraq, and imo our being there is making a nasty situation worse with every passing month. GW has until the end of his term imo (everything in between is just DC politics as usual) to show some REAL progress, and if not, we need to come to our senses (i.e. "cut & run" for the bumper sticker crowd) and leave. Respectfully....

ps: I'm not a liberal, but I am a leftie...I couldn't throw right-handed if I had to :)

It IS Bush's fault. Who is ultimately responsible for issuing the directives to the CIA (and other agencies) to fabricate intelligence data to "justify" the war? Who stuck Colin Powell in front of the UN under orders to lie, mislead and present known fabricated intelligence, sacrificing a decorated soldier's previously impeccable credibility on the altar of oil? Who stood on that aircraft carrier and boasted about how it was "Mission Accomplished"? Who was it that insisted over and over and over that there was a link between Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda/OBL? Who was it that insisted over and over and over that the war in Iraq had something to do with a "global war on terror"? Who was it that claimed that Iraq represented ". . . a grave and gathering danger. . ." (without WMDs or a means of delivery and with an aging, mostly conscripted military)? And who is it that proudly waves the banner of "Commander in Chief" when it suits him, yet hides when accountability for overt and exposed lies over the likes of Hillman and Lynch comes knocking on his door?

Bush is a criminal, a dimwit and a coward. He has done more to undermine the office of the President of the United States than any to hold the office before him - including Clinton. He has done more to damage our international standing and credibility than any to hold the office before him. He has done more to weaken our military readiness, bankrupt our kids' futures and stoke the fires of anti-American sentiment in the biggest hotbed of violence in the world than any to hold the office before him.

Mission Accomplished indeed.

Commander-in-Chief = ultimate responsibility. No more of this "Mistakes were made" deflections. Admission that I and my administration have made mistakes, we will not attempt to blame others and will take responsibility. It is now time to learn from these mistakes and move on".

Wouldn't THAT be refreshing?

Your post is the equivilent of someone claiming Clinton had Hubble shot, raped Juanita Broaddrick, and sold Nuke secrets to the Chinese for campaign funds.

Equal amounts of conspiracy theory, fabrication and hyperbole.


Carry on.

We have ALWAYS been lied to about friendly fire incidents and they have always existed. Over 21K in WWII. Is anyone really surprised?

Your response is the equivalent of someone claiming Hitler's transgressions were excusable due to his having a rough childhood, Pol Pot was just doing what he thought he had to and Pinochet was actually a nice guy.

Equal parts conjecture, rationalization and denial.

Except for his first assessment, I think you would have a hard time disputing the rest.

"On September 13, 2004, Powell testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee,[9] acknowledging that the sources who provided much of the information in his February 2003 UN presentation were "wrong" and that it was "unlikely" that any stockpiles of WMDs would be found."

Bush and company let him carry the ball and replaced him ASAP to distance themselves.

Wussification of America? I would classify bending over and taking whatever your government dishes out because of "patriotic loyalty" as wussified.

If Franklin, Jefferson and the rest of them were around today they'd be marching down Pennsylvania Ave with pitchforks and torches. They were not about taking crap from a governing body.

We don't have the stomach for the ugliness of war? I hope we never do. War is ugly and we should know it's ugly. We should avoid war whenever possible and we should resort to war when all other options have failed. We have a right to know what is being sacrificed in OUR names.

monk:

You bring up an interesting question: Do our elected officials work for the citizens or do the citizens work for them? We seem to be entering a "looking glass" world and some of us seem to be OK with that.

So to you that proves:

"[Bush] stuck Colin Powell in front of the UN under orders to lie, mislead and present known fabricated intelligence, sacrificing a decorated soldier's previously impeccable credibility on the altar of oil?"

Good grief, easy crowd.

Mmmmmmmm...."Its a possibility....." To quote an old comedian....

Nothing can be totally excluded in this world of topsy turvy logic.

I don't think they would have ordered Powell to lie.

I do think they lied to Powell and let him get in front of the UN to lie, mislead and present known fabricated intelligence, sacrificing a decorated soldiers previously impeccable credibility on the alter of their egos.

exactly. He would not have followed that order. He would have resigned sooner.

If there were any proof that they lied they would be on trial. But we can "believe" anything we want without penalty.

No deep thinking here, folks....nothing to see......move on.........

Bob, explain yourself for once instead of following me around humping my leg.

Are you saying there is proof they lied or what?

The proof that they lied is there is no proof.

len:

Respectfully:

Accusations are made without any proof whatsoever, and when these accusations are questioned, the individual making the accusation in the first place then asks for proof. Circular reasoning. However, I do not expect you to see that flaw in your arguing technique.

The thing that bothers me most about some trains of thought is their internal inconsistency and the ability of the opiner to have two or more contrary beliefs simultaneously. Sanctity of life/all out war; anti abortion/death penalty. I could go on, but I am sure you get the idea.

I have referred to the situation in Washington and indeed the world as a "Looking Glass World". Do you see it differently? Do you accept all that has been said re: the world situation by our leadership as true? Do you not see inconsistency in the stands taken over the past 4 to 6 years? Do you truly believe things have improved globally since 2001? Perhaps you do not. If so, I envy you for having such a clear black-and-white viewpoint. But, on the other hand, I would miss the nuances and subtle shades that reality provides.

I am an optomist. Things will shake out, although it will, as usual, not be overnight or perhaps even in the way we, as a nation, might like. However, in the short run, I do not see things improving. I see the next 18 months or so to be the worst for us since Nixon, Watergate and Vietnam.

No, that's proof that they were wrong, not that they lied. A major distinction to be sure. Just an honest debate......