If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   David Kay tells Bush to "come clean" you dirty, dirty man   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 857
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

20994 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2004 at 11:25 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



857 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-03-03 12:15:02 PM
Question: Why is anyone who does not like Bush labeled a 'liberal'?
 
2004-03-03 12:15:05 PM
To the Bushiates who scream "Well Clinton thought he had WMDs too!"

Clinton had the same info, and he didn't freak out and launch a full-scale war, did he? Obviously, like so many others,(France & Germany come to mind), he recognized the intelligence was incomplete.

Who was the smarter guy?
 
2004-03-03 12:15:17 PM
Theburner
I agree, it was the current elected officials that started the war. My point was the war was started on the same intelligence that BOTH parties believed to be true, that was the presence of WMD's. It is hypocritical of the democrats to now come out and say that the Republicans mislead America. Besides, had Clinton not had all of the scandals to occupy his time, who knows what he would have done?

If you agree then stop trying to say that I or some others disagree. We're not Democrat politicans. I'm not secretly John Kerry, hanging out with my Senate buddies Edwards, Clinton, and Kennedy. We're all plebeians discussing what our government is doing and we're all getting pissed off at the patricians that are misleading us.

Now, if the Democrats started their statements with a "Hey, we were wrong/got duped about Iraq and now we want to do right thing" then I think that could go a long way. Too bad they're being arrogant asshats too.
 
2004-03-03 12:16:54 PM
Name calling on this thread from the left: 139
Name calling on this thread from the right: 25
Lame picture post that takes forever to load even on a cable modem: 2

/not a righty or lefty
 
2004-03-03 12:17:08 PM
Four More Wars!
Four More Wars!
Four More Wars!
Four More Wars!
 
2004-03-03 12:17:29 PM
dmnstr8

Point made, but I said if he had the chance to blow us all to hell, he would. I don't think any WMD that Iraq could have would be able to hurt us, but for other nations that aren't, you know, world superpowers, they're a threat. Of course, I still think America should have remained neutral as Washington wanted, but hey, if we're going to muddle in foreign affairs, I say we do it well.
 
2004-03-03 12:17:45 PM
I think President Kerry has a nice ring to it.
 
2004-03-03 12:18:19 PM
HowlingFrog

And I'm sure you're just a tree-hugging dirty hippy.
Please be less contrived and refrain from stereotyping--it only makes you appear bitter and unintelligent.

Throw around less vitriol, it's better for us all.
 
2004-03-03 12:18:27 PM
Confabulat

Smarter? This from an administration who ordered a pharmaceutical company to be destroyed. A guy who ran out of Somalia at the first hint of strong resistance. And then there was the Chinese embassy getting blown to bits.
 
2004-03-03 12:18:46 PM
BarJockey

I don't think anyone would disagree with you that there was bi-partisan support for the Iraq war at the beginning. However, at the time the only information most people had was what the Bush Administration was selling...and that info seems to be, at best, faulty.

Supporting an idea when it's a good idea and then changing your opinion after you find out maybe it wasn't such a good idea in the first place is not waffling or being wishy-washy. It's common sense.
 
2004-03-03 12:19:06 PM
GooGooBunnySnax
Thanks for getting my back. I was afraid for a moment my post wasn't typed in the standard language of this thread. There's no other explanation for Theburner's post.

No prob. Teh Intarweb is a notorious place for misunderstood statements.
 
2004-03-03 12:19:15 PM
Linewalker
No way we will ever get an apology. That may be construed as a sign of weakness in the global economy. Remember, we are the Global 911.
Not to mention the fact of what this is doing with regards to the credibility of the CIA. Remember the little boy who cried wolf?
 
2004-03-03 12:19:17 PM
BennyBoy
Because you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists.
 
2004-03-03 12:19:56 PM
DRIVINGHIGHWAY61

I don't think it's too much to ask of someone to be forthcoming, whoever it may be. I think with all the problems this administration has CREATED, that is especially important now.

Sadly, I'll agree that some kind of superhero image has changed what the presidency is. After Bush's "heroics" from 9/11 to now, he might as well wear a cape and mask around. I guess a flight suit will have to do.
 
2004-03-03 12:20:13 PM
Confabulat

Not as nice a ring as President Kucinich would have had...come on man, Kucinich is the future, we all just don't know it yet.

/Kucinich vs. Nader in 2008
 
2004-03-03 12:20:14 PM
Bush sucks. Shouldn't the President not suck?
 
2004-03-03 12:20:19 PM
Question: Why is anyone who does not like Bush labeled a 'liberal'?

It makes people feel better to group and label everyone.
 
2004-03-03 12:20:32 PM
GooGooBunnySnax

Made the mistake of multitasking and misread. Color me red.
 
2004-03-03 12:21:15 PM
BennyBoy

"Question: Why is anyone who does not like Bush labeled a 'liberal'?"


For the same reason that someone who supports Bush (me) gets labled as a 'conservative'. Happens to me all the time...it drives the opposite side bonkers that a moderate could actually support Bush.
 
2004-03-03 12:21:18 PM
GooGooBunnySnax
That was tongue-in-cheek, but yeah, you're right.
 
2004-03-03 12:21:22 PM
iraq was about way more than WMD. get over it. WMD was just something to put on the banners so the common folk could understand it.

besides, who's to say saddam didn't move them to syria or destroy them once he knew things were going bad for him. he obviously knew he was going to get caught or killed, and his position right now is *way* better than if we had found the WMDs.
 
2004-03-03 12:21:24 PM
Bush either lied or made a huge mistake. Either way he has proven that being in charge of a country is too much for him. He should step down.
 
2004-03-03 12:21:38 PM
The same reason that someone who doesn't think he's a scheming evil little monkey is a right wing wacko...
 
2004-03-03 12:21:50 PM
priestholmes
Bush sucks. Shouldn't the President not suck?

Didn't you hear? Nixon had that changed.
 
2004-03-03 12:22:03 PM
Theburner

BAM! You're red. No worries, you just had me confused :)
Truce.
 
2004-03-03 12:22:04 PM
2004-03-03 12:16:54 PM tensionfilter

Hehe...
 
2004-03-03 12:22:12 PM
No matter what you affiliation, it is clear that he is obfuscating the truth. Whether you define that as a lie or not is irrelevant, though I would define that as a lie. We need to hold our politicians accountable.
 
2004-03-03 12:22:42 PM
Theburner
No way we will ever get an apology. That may be construed as a sign of weakness in the global economy. Remember, we are the Global 911.

Frustrating, isn't it? Since the current administration won't let itself be held accountable, we (the voters) need to show it they are accountable: vote them out. Fortunately, most of my local representatives/senators have been doing what I consider is "the right thing."
 
2004-03-03 12:23:05 PM
Somewhere, Scott Ritter is laughing his ass off...
 
2004-03-03 12:23:14 PM
Muta

Show me one human being who has never lied or made a mistake, and I'll remind you that you're in a movie theatre watching a Mel Gibson film.
 
2004-03-03 12:23:19 PM
I'm not sure what it is he is being asked to "admit." No one has seriously claimed that the intelligence didn't suggest the presence of WMD in Iraq. The U.S. Congress overwhemingly approved the military action in Iraq based, in large part, on their access to the same intelligence the President had available to him. Previous U.S. administrations believed it to be true based on their intelligence reviews. Our allies believed it to be true based on their intelligence reviews. It certainly appears that the intelligence was flawed, given that no WMD have yet been found. The implication of many of the posts (Bush lied...) is that the President knew that the intelligence was flawed. Fine. Say it if it makes you feel better. For the sake of your own mental health I hope that you will keep in mind that there is no evidence suggesting that what you are saying is true.

Why President Bush should "admit" that there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the war is beyond me. It equally escapes me how it is that his failure to do so has any effect whatever on the inquiry into the apparent failures of intelligence. That WMD have not been found is obvious. Whether they yet will be is an open question. If not, fine. If so, fine. Neither eventuality will effect what Kay seems to be concerned with - the inquiry into the intelligence failures.
 
2004-03-03 12:23:21 PM
HowlingFrog

With these kind of threads, it difficult to tell what's tongue-in-cheek and what's boot-to-head.
 
2004-03-03 12:23:27 PM
It makes people feel better to group and label everyone.

Like you did with conservatives, earlier?

No, not that, I gather.
 
2004-03-03 12:23:46 PM
Question: Why is anyone who does not like Bush labeled a 'liberal'?


Because so many different groups of people hate Republicans that it would take all day to call them all out by name.

So they made up a word.
 
2004-03-03 12:23:47 PM
drivinghighway61 wrote:

"chumpchange

You can think Bush is a schmuck all you want, this is America. But, I don't see where you're getting that they'd decided to go to war long before...what was the reasoning for it beforehand, and from what source did you find this?"

I hate to drag up the whole Project for the New American Century (PNAC) thing again, but if one wanted a reasonable answer to this question they could go to the PNAC website and peruse their materials circa 1996 forward.

Look, a lot of people believe that this PNAC argument is tinfoil-hat material (and to be sure there are tinfoil-hatters who freak out about PNAC) but let's be clear, this is no cloak and dagger project. I mean, the PNAC isn't exactly a secret society. They really exist, right there out in the open. They've got a website and a think tank and they publicly advocate policy positions.

The PNAC published a public call for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by military force, justified as a piece of an over-all strategy to remake the political balance in the Middle East, and they did this during the Clinton administration. Some of the authors, signatories and/or proponents of this report now occupy high ranking positions in the Defense Department, State Department and Office of the Vice President. Is it wrong to think that the PNAC is sincere in its advocacy of this and other policy positions? Is it wrong to think that those associated with the PNAC at the time of its report may continue to support the policy solutions and underlying rational contained therein? To me, thinking that, for example, Paul Wolfowitz (current Under-Secretary of Defense) continues to believe in the correctness of PNAC policy positions that he help author is a reasonable idea to entertain, especially when the policy actions (if not the public rational) of the administration so closely follow the recommendations of the PNAC.

To be sure, the Administration is not a monolithic entitiy of former PNAC authors. But the fact is that there are numerous people within the administration who are both closely associated with PNAC and hold influential positions high within the administration. It seems likely to me that there were a number of voices on the inside of the decision making structure advocating these very policies and motivated by these very ideas, and at a minimum, these ideas were very influential in forming the administrations policy with regard to Iraq.

PS, Sorry in advance for any typos, I don't have time to proofread.

PPS, Agh. Well, guess it took too long for me to type out the above and it's buried. But I've already written it so it's going up.
 
2004-03-03 12:24:49 PM
Now Iraq may be free enough to have a civil war that will result in a totalitarian Theocratic state that will sponsor terrorism.

I'd prefer to hear apologies to the members of the UN for Powell's lies and the spying, the French for the behavior of the Senators that mocked a long time ally, and to the families of the September 11th attack for using their loss as a tool to start a war that had nothing to do with terrorism.

Preemptive Liberal Defenses:
Yes, Saddam was bad but if Iraqis get their way it may be worse.
I support our troops too, I wish the administration would do more for them.
I know France had financial interest in Iraq before the war, but thanks to the war we've gained access to Iraq's markets.
 
2004-03-03 12:24:54 PM
"2004-03-03 12:15:02 PM BennyBoy


Question: Why is anyone who does not like Bush labeled a 'liberal'?"


Because most people are politicaly ignorant, learned everything they know about political discussions from Rush or O'Reilly, and think that the word "Liberal" means something bad.

Like the "Imagine No Liberals" shirt we see advertized on the Fark page. That is the stupidest thing I see all day.

Liberal and Conservative are DIRECTIONS people, not destinations.

To say "Imagine No Liberals" is to say "Imagine I have zero idea what I am talking about, and I consider myself a Conservative, which means nothing if there is no such thing as Liberal."

All you are hearing is media sponsored name calling.
 
2004-03-03 12:25:27 PM
mr fabuluous

You would seem to not be in my target audience.

(translation: you're an idiot)
 
2004-03-03 12:25:37 PM
linewalker

The frustrating part for me is the knowledge that who we are voting into office may be no better than what we just voted out. Remember when voting used to be based on "The Best Man (no sexism intended) for the job". Now it seems like we are voting for "The other guy".
 
2004-03-03 12:26:25 PM
Like you did with conservatives, earlier?
No, not that, I gather.


Yes, precisely like that. Ass.

(I thought I was clearly addressing a group of Bush supporters who like to point out Democratic offenses as if that somehow excuses Republican lies and mistakes...but apparently that was lost on you.)
 
2004-03-03 12:26:57 PM
2004-03-03 12:05:27 PM Morrigan Sedai
I'm guessing that the neo-cons are mostly christians, and it's a well-known fact that hardcore christians can't see shades of grey...


Actually, most of the actual neocons in the Bush administration who are pushing Dubya's foreign policy(Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, etc.) are Jews, rather than "hardcore Christians." It's about time we stopped using "neocon" as a synonym for "right-winger," because there is a big difference between the two. The Bush adminstration does have its share of influential neocons, but most of the Dubya ass-licking cult members on Fark are traditional right-wingers, not neocons.
 
2004-03-03 12:27:12 PM
Its impressive how people trust the media more than their own memories. One thing after another, Bush pulled justifications out of his pants for the Iraq war. And, one after another, they were all revealed to be so much bunk.

And Bush did lie. He said he had rock-solid evidence to support the invasion of Iraq. Plus, the people who gave him this obviously shoddy "I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy" evidence were chosen by him - so their fark-ups are his fault. Don't want a scumbag running the government? Don't appoint one.

This shiat is his fault, any way you slice it. Hundreds of Americans and thousands upon thousands of Iraqis are now dead that would not be dead if not for him. If he were a man of any other nation with a record of violence that bad with as little justification, we would not flinch at seeing him killed Moussolini-style.

But he's the PUSA, and a charismatic republican at that. And while the Dems have a monopoly on what's "compassionate" - the Republicans have always been the ones who get to choose whats right and wrong in the eyes of the American public.
 
2004-03-03 12:28:16 PM
While I am a Bush supporter, one of my biggest beefs with him is his stubborness. When he's wrong on something he believes strongly about, he avoids admitting he's wrong. Even worse, sometime it seems he refuses to believe he was wrong to begin with.

Judging by past examples, I bet Bush will stay stubborn for a while longer...and then give in to what David Kay rightfully wants. He should just save the heartache and get it over with now.
 
2004-03-03 12:28:16 PM
MrPerspicacious

Dude, wow. Viewing your bio, I think you are my political twin. Nice.
 
2004-03-03 12:28:44 PM
How could bush admit being wrong if so many of his ass lickers in this thread could never do it?
 
2004-03-03 12:29:07 PM
2004-03-03 12:21:22 PM manderx
iraq was about way more than WMD. get over it. WMD was just something to put on the banners so the common folk could understand it.

I think you are 100% correct. And I think that sometimes, "the people" have to be hoodwinked a little bit in order to do the right thing. Like FDR getting us into WWII, or Lincoln violating some constitutional rights in the Civil War.

The only question that matters is whether you should put your trust in this or that leader when they pull that kind of shiat. I, for one, would sooner put my trust in a random person on a given sidewalk than GWB. He has been wrong with virtually every decision he has made so far.
 
2004-03-03 12:29:53 PM
ablank

Good post. The only article supporting war with Iraq from Cheney I found there, though, was a speech he gave supporting pre-emptive strike on Iraq from 2002. I'm too lazy to look around for more administration members having articles there. It's an interesting point, but I'm just not sure how valid it is.
 
2004-03-03 12:30:06 PM
milk_plus

How about an apology from France, Russia, and China for allowing Saddam wiggle room? Seems to me, if they would have stood firm, rather than gaurding their illegal contracts with Iraq, Saddam may have let the UN inspectors have full reign. Why do you suppose Saddam wouldn't let inspectors in anyway? It's not like he had something to hide....or did he? Hmmm.
 
2004-03-03 12:31:04 PM
Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, etc.) are Jews, rather than "hardcore Christians."

I knew it. It was the ZOG all along. With support from Skull and Bones.
 
2004-03-03 12:31:19 PM
I thought I was clearly addressing a group of Bush supporters who like to point out Democratic offenses as if that somehow excuses Republican lies and mistakes...but apparently that was lost on you.

Generally, one addresses a group by stating exactly who that group is, instead of overgeneralizing and calling someone an ass when they point that out.
 
Displayed 50 of 857 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report