 masbury says: And says, "So what?" The Guardian comments: "it is still surprising that so many reporters can be polite and deferential with someone who has turned the US Federal Reserve into a giant Ponzi scheme and broken the world's strongest economy. They defer humbly to someone who has contrived the deaths of 4,200 US servicemen and women in Iraq" Uhm...we didn't go to the middle east until AFTER 9/11 so trying to change history and say we went there to stop the Saddam threat is a big lie. This is even after disregarding the lie that Saddam WAS a threat. Ironic that the main excuse was Saddam was killing innocents in his own country - how many have American bombs and soldiers killed and maimed as collateral damage? And today we have the BBC taking a 'middle way' over the Gaza air attacks. The US regime in Iraq was far more indiscriminately cruel than that of Saddam. Saddam tortured his enemies; we did all that, plus dropped bombs on anyone close to them. More Iraqis died under George W. Bush than under Saddam Hussein. And - not to conflate 9/11 with Iraq, except in Bush's utilitarian imagination - More Americans died as a result of the orders of George W. Bush than as a result of the orders of Osama bin Laden. One is still being sought; the worse, about to slip into happy retirement. Oortcloud Uhm...we didn't go to the middle east until AFTER 9/11 9/11 is a criminal act by Bush and his regime. you have to go though technical reports. Al-Qaeda took its stand in Iraq. We went into Iraq to go after Saddam--al Qaeda went in behind us to battle us; we can't be held responsible for a terrorist organization that goes into a country after we go into it just to battle us. We went into Iraq, the people were happy; the outsiders, al Qaeda, came in and stirred things up. Want to put the innocent deaths on someone, put it on the head of al Qaeda, not Bush. What about the WMDs? In order to get support for the invasion, Americans were lied to. What else are they lying about? And I guess not responsible for the mess you create. And the majority of the people fighting the Americans are Iraqis not foreign jihadist. And when where the Iraqis happy, before or after the looting started or the car bombs started going off, or maybe when the U.S. forces decimated Fallujah? Perhaps they really cheered when they where dragged to Saddam's former prisons to be tortured by Americans. I bet that may them jump for joy! "made" Why can't Bush be tried as a war criminal? He is a war criminal! Bush did not lie--the CIA got it wrong, and wrongly told Bush. The CIA was not the only intelligence agency that got it wrong--so did Germany, France, and Russia. But then again, they had deals with Saddam for kickbacks. Bush is not a war criminal. What is a war criminal anyway? What laws did President Bush violate when he defended the US against Islamists bent on following through with instructions from the Quran about killing those who would not convert to Islam? I call B.S., they lied. Cheney manipulated the intelligence when the CIA did not go along with the neocon pipe dreams of WMDs in Iraq. Please stop with the lies on the lies, ummkay? And the "everybody got it wrong" excuse doesn't fly either, since nobody but Cheney/Bush decided that going to war with Iraq based on that intelligence was a good idea. Besides WMDs were an excuse, one that the neocons abandoned as soon as the "situation on the ground changed" that is, they found diddly squat. james: 1. example: Tenet removed the reference to yellowcake in Niger (and thus the entire possibility of nuclear Iraq) from Bush's talking points because its evidence was so flimsy; Bush put it back in for the State of the Union. German intel was amazed that the President of the US would say such a thing. 2. A war criminal is a violator of the Geneva Conventions. Since the US has signed them, they are, according to our Constitution, part of US law. They include things like torture, standards for imprisonment, imprisonment of minors, and many others. 3. No serious scholar of religion believes the Quran teaches murder of non-Muslims. Saying it does is tantamount to saying the Hebrew/Chris... we can't be held responsible for a terrorist organization that goes into a country after we go into itWhy not? Al Qaeda appearance in Iraq was a direct result of the US invasion. They were there because we were there. It was yet another unanticipated, unplanned-for result of this Keystone Kops Chief Executive's bad choices. We went into Iraq, the people were happyHardly! The Sunnis, you'll recall, wouldn't even participate in government with the US handover of power to the Shiites; the insurgency was underway before US troops arrived in Baghdad. Al Qaeda, of course, is a Sunni outfit. It was not just "oh, all intelligence agencies,' got it wrong or merely a subjective, cherrypicking of intelligence - it was a deliberate fabrication of a false story that was used to promote the Iraq War. The deliberately fabricated false intelligence was created by the CIA at the White House request: The false story about Saddam Hussein seeking to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger. A book titled: The Italian Papers, was one of the first books about this but now there are others. Google search around this idea and more info will come up. The exposure of this lie was initially voiced by former ambassador Joseph Wilson. This lead to the whole so-called "CIA Leak Case," which got called th... |
View the Top Clips from December 27, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||
