Former Reaganite Calls for Impeachment

[PoohnPglet]

Convenient of you to deem such things irrelevant.

Ok then. But what the heck was that bombing of an aspirin factory in Iraq all about? Iraq didn't attack us.

Are you sure that factory was in Iraq? And if memory serves, it wasn't against SH but OBL.

 

[Charade]

Are you sure that factory was in Iraq? And if memory serves, it wasn't against SH but OBL.

Oops!! You're right. It wasn't in Iraq. It was in the Sudan. But I don't recall being attacked by the Sudan.

 

[Disney Doll]

America is a wonderful country. We all have the right to state our opinions without fear!

 

[chadfromdallas]

America is a wonderful country. We all have the right to state our opinions without fear!

Which has nothing to do with Bush

 

[Planogirl]

Oops!! You're right. It wasn't in Iraq. It was in the Sudan. But I don't recall being attacked by the Sudan.

Can you explain how Sudan even remotely has anything to do with Iraq? I realize that you're trying to deflect the criticism but this line of thinking is too 'out there' to follow as far as I can tell.

 

[Island_Lauri]

Glad to see that someone admits that there is bias in the liberal media.

Interestingly, a recent accounting of the number of times the MSM used the words "conservative" and "liberal" in news reports was shocking. The "C" word was used about 5-10 times as much as the "L" word (that's not the same "L" word as the TV show).

Makes one wonder. At least it should.

Makes one wonder?!

What Became of Conservatives?
by Paul Craig Roberts

I remember when friends would excitedly telephone to report that Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy had just read one of my syndicated columns over the air. That was before I became a critic of the US invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration, and the neoconservative ideologues who have seized control of the US government.

America has blundered into a needless and dangerous war, and fully half of the country’s population is enthusiastic. Many Christians think that war in the Middle East signals "end times" and that they are about to be wafted up to heaven. Many patriots think that, finally, America is standing up for itself and demonstrating its righteous might. Conservatives are taking out their Vietnam frustrations on Iraqis. Karl Rove is wrapping Bush in the protective cloak of war leader. The military-industrial complex is drooling over the profits of war. And neoconservatives are laying the groundwork for Israeli territorial expansion.

The evening before Thanksgiving Rush Limbaugh was on C-Span TV explaining that these glorious developments would have been impossible if talk radio and the conservative movement had not combined to break the power of the liberal media.

In the Thanksgiving issue of National Review, editor Richard Lowry and former editor John O’Sullivan celebrate Bush’s reelection triumph over "a hostile press corps." "Try as they might," crowed O’Sullivan, "they couldn’t put Kerry over the top."

There was a time when I could rant about the "liberal media" with the best of them. But in recent years I have puzzled over the precise location of the "liberal media."

Not so long ago I would have identified the liberal media as the New York Times and Washington Post, CNN and the three TV networks, and National Public Radio. But both the Times and the Post fell for the Bush administration’s lies about WMD and supported the US invasion of Iraq. On balance CNN, the networks, and NPR have not made an issue of the Bush administration’s changing explanations for the invasion.

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh and National Review think there is a liberal media because the prison torture scandal could not be suppressed and a cameraman filmed the execution of a wounded Iraqi prisoner by a US Marine.

Do the Village Voice and The Nation comprise the "liberal media"? The Village Voice is known for Nat Henthof and his columns on civil liberties. Every good conservative believes that civil liberties are liberal because they interfere with the police and let criminals go free. The Nation favors spending on the poor and disfavors gun rights, but I don’t see the "liberal hate" in The Nation’s feeble pages that Rush Limbaugh was denouncing on C-Span.

In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush.

The Iraqi War is serving as a great catharsis for multiple conservative frustrations: job loss, drugs, crime, homosexuals, pornography, female promiscuity, abortion, restrictions on prayer in public places, Darwinism and attacks on religion. Liberals are the cause. Liberals are against America. Anyone against the war is against America and is a liberal. "You are with us or against us."


If you are interested in reading the rest, you can find the complete article here at http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts81.html or at least another dozen++++ sites to be found by google.

 

[Viking]

Somehow, they only see the few good things he does it seems. Its like all the bad stuff is just glass

So very odd...

Those people appear to me like those jerks in Germany who say 'Hitler wasn't all bad, at least he built teh Autobahnen'

 

[Viking]

Oops!! You're right. It wasn't in Iraq. It was in the Sudan. But I don't recall being attacked by the Sudan.

And when did Iraq attack you or what justification do you have for attacking it?

 

[Charade]

And when did Iraq attack you or what justification do you have for attacking it?

Did we have as much justification attacking the Sudan as we did Iraq?

That is, based on the intel at the time.

Hind sight is a wonderful thing.

 

[Blondy876]

gotta ask.....................WHY????????

Well, for one thing my other choice was Kerry.

Second, I don't blame Bush for the mess that the former administration started.

 

[dcentity2000]

Oops!! You're right. It wasn't in Iraq. It was in the Sudan. But I don't recall being attacked by the Sudan.

What's the Sudan got to do with anything?



Rich::

 

[Planogirl]

What's the Sudan got to do with anything?



Rich::

That's what I asked. It appears that attacking a factory in the Sudan somehow made it OK to invade Iraq. Or something.

 

[Island_Lauri]

Did we have as much justification attacking the Sudan as we did Iraq?

That is, based on the intel at the time.

Hind sight is a wonderful thing.

Don't you get it?! It has nothing to do with "hind sight" except that we are only learning the truth now!

Then again you might not have heard about this memo as the so called "liberal media" is too focused on the MJ story or the Newsweek apology or any of the other BS they are focused on to avoid reporting on any real news.



"It was 9am on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion began and long before the public was told war was inevitable. "

The secret Downing Street memo


SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY


DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:


To read the rest..... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

 

[DawnCt1]

Ah, another President Bush bashing thread! How unique!

 

[Laura]

This thread is too funny! I just love all the "wonderful" arguments that the right is putting up here in this debate.

I must say, although the idea of impeaching Bush is attractive, one thing stops me: President Cheney.

 

[DawnCt1]

This thread is too funny! I just love all the "wonderful" arguments that the right is putting up here in this debate.

I must say, although the idea of impeaching Bush is attractive, one thing stops me: President Cheney.

This thread just demonstrates how desperate the left is. That to me is even more laughable.

 

[DawnCt1]

What's the Sudan got to do with anything?



Rich::

Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan, but that went unnoticed by the left.

 

[Laura]

This thread just demonstrates how desperate the left is. That to me is even more laughable.

Didn't know Paul Craig Roberts was a lefty.

 

[dcentity2000]

Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan, but that went unnoticed by the left.

Tank oo.

The rabid right and the loony left - I love it



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

This thread is too funny! I just love all the "wonderful" arguments that the right is putting up here in this debate.

I must say, although the idea of impeaching Bush is attractive, one thing stops me: President Cheney.

Rich::