Bush's supreme court pick

[EWolfe]

RedNuts Supreme pick

[mattp]

PP:

 

I don't really care whether there was some arguable difference beteween immminent and gathering - get it? The plain fact is, they said that we might see a mushroom cloud over Manhattan before any U.N. inspectors could do their work. They said we had to attack Iraq right away and couldn't wait, and their justifications for this assertion were lies. Stir the mud and inflate all the smokescreen all you want, but it boils down to LIES.

 

They KNEW their own intelligence was telling them they were lying but they didn't want to believe it so they rejected anything that didn't support their arguments for war (and that is being generous -- more likely they out-and-out lied rather than fooled themselves into lying). How many agents or analysts have come out and said "I told them there were weapons?" None. How many have said "I told them there were not?" Several. And virtually all the published or reported information from the time, except for the claims of a very small number of Iraqui "ex pats" on the U.S. payroll, said that any claims that they posed a threat, and any actual threat, were at best, weak.

 

It is really very difficult to see how you might still believe they legitimately believed what they were saying. Your talk of a "canard" is just a dodge (I still wonder if this is some kind of duck?).

[Peter_Puget]

I see that you now conceed that there is at least an "arguable difference beteween immminent and gathering" that's a step up from nonsense.

 

I wonder why you continue to post the party line on whether they lied or not. Just another opportunity to reiterate the talking points I guess.

 

The plain fact is, they said that we might see a mushroom cloud over Manhattan before any U.N. inspectors could do their work.

 

Let's see the actual quote and context in which it was said (written?) and see just how this quote fits in with both our scenarios.

 

Cheers,

[cj001f]

I think that the ultimate goal of every well-managed corporation is profitability, actually.

If we make the assumption that all corporations are well managed, can we not make the same assumption about all governments?

[JayB]

Que?

[cj001f]

Que?

Retour a la normal

[mattp]

PP:

 

Yes, they lied. That HAS become the party line, and it is about time in my opinion. The American public should have been more clearly informed of this BEFORE the last election but it is never too late to reassess things when your government is run by crooks.

 

Those who have been paying attention have known what a pack of liars the entire Bush government was since before he even made that State of the Union speech. I started calling Bush a liar right after 9/11 and, in a February 2003 thread I pointed out the lies with the Uranium purchase, aluminum tubes, etc. on this board and it is my story and I'm sticking to it as long as somebody like you tries to argue otherwise.

 

Do you actually contend they were not lying? Yes or no? Not "well, if only you would consider my semantic pedanty, obfuscation, and misdirection...."*

 

 

 

 

 

*apologies to KK.

[Stonehead]

We know that our past governments have distorted intelligence to support the rush to war. Somehow our government thought there was motive enough to take the step of sacrifice of men and money and future. I think it's when it's dressed up as a noble cause that bothers me. To paraphrase someone, "You can put makeup on a pig but it's still a pig."

 

So, as the opposing evidence begins to pour in when do we reach the 'tipping point'? Are we naive to think that a Republican-controlled Congress will step up to the task of admonishing their own party? Will the Democrats who hastily voted for war see the light also? I don't see this as a failure of a particular party but of our elected representatives in Congress. This should really signal that a change needs to take place, shouldn't it? Or, is this just a moot point to argue as the bullets continue to fly, that the harsh reality is that this has boiled down to partisan politics and the real losers are not in government but on the front lines.

[Stonehead]

Ok, can we rely on the men who hold the lanterns to pursue the inquiry into and make public the distortions of intelligence that led to a rush to war? I mean, these are the same Republicans who pushed for an inquisition into the suicide of Vince Foster. Can we rely on them to put the same vigor into an investigation of this grievous affair?

[chucK]

ChucK -

Any deceptive marketing practices utterly destroy the administration ‘s new theory of pre-emptive action.

 

Thank you Peter, for graciously conceding to our point that the alleged deceptive marketing practices committed by the Bush administration would, if true, lay low their justifications for this war.

 

Of course, I would go a bit further and remove the alleged from the deceptive marketing practices (for another example, see Stonehead's second link).

 

I'm not sure if you wish to argue that the Bush administration was not being deceptive at all because they carefully distinguished between imminent and whatever you're saying they said. Though I may not understand it totally (your previous post does help though, thanks!), I will concede your point of imminent versus whatever. I think there are still ample grounds to call bullshit on much of this administration's justifications for war.

 

So feel free to say that many democrats (including yours truly) don't really understand your "imminent" argument. But also understand that most of us don't really care much about this careful distinction, in the face of the ever clearer storyline that the crooks in the Whitehouse lied their asses off to get us into this war.

[chucK]

So getting back to the topic of this thread (Supreme court justice).

 

I'm no legal scholar, but reading in the main stream media leads me to believe that Alito, if confirmed, would be pretty far to the right of most of the current justices.

 

Now, I was thinking, this (Alito's rightness) in itself won't really guarantee that all hell is going to break loose in terms of our lofty lefty values. What is really going to matter is who is going to be the next swing justice? Who will be bumped into O'Connor's place if Alito is confirmed?

 

Whoever of the nine has 4 on his/her left and 4 on his/her right is gonna be the one to be deciding a lot of issues.

 

So c'mon you Court afficionados out there, who will it be? Are we in trouble? What's it mean?

[chucK]

Sorry just me again . Check this out. And hey, while you're here, read my other two brilliant posts above

 

Here's a good read!. Bushco lies all compiled into one essay! Scary/funny.

[Stefan]

ChucK -

Any deceptive marketing practices utterly destroy the administration ‘s new theory of pre-emptive action.

 

Thank you Peter, for graciously conceding to our point that the alleged deceptive marketing practices committed by the Bush administration would, if true, lay low their justifications for this war.

 

Okay, so there was lying by the administration. I have my reasons, but I want to hear yours.

 

WHY did the Bush administration lie about going to Iraq?

 

WHAT was their motivation?

 

(if you have already said this, please point a link...)

[Stonehead]

US does not torture, Bush insists

 

Why then is the Vice President's office lobbying for a CIA exemption from Senator McCain's amendment which passed in the Senate?

[Stefan]

These are the thoughts behind the motivation to go to war in Iraq. Ideology. The paper was written in 1992...but the thoughts had evolved before then...they just had not been in paper form. That is why the administration was pushing for anything to go to war. 9/11 was the golden child for them. Yes, the paper was redrafted....but only due to political pressure.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html

 

So who organized this whole fiasco? The Hawks. George Bush went along for the ride. No one understands how important Mr. Schultz's role was in this:

 

"The second crucial, but little-known example of Shultz's importance is his role in putting together the team behind the Presidency of George W. Bush. According to author James Mann, who wrote the Rise of the Vulcans book about Bush's inner Cabinet, Shultz initiated a discussion with George W. in the Spring of 1998, whereby the future President sat down in Shultz's living room on the Stanford University campus, in order to be vetted (in effect) to run for President. At that meeting were Martin Anderson, the former advisor to both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan; Abraham Sofaer, a former Shultz aide; John Cogan and John Taylor, two economics professors; and Stanford's provost, and Shultz protégé, Condoleezza Rice. After the "scholars" associated with the Hoover Institution indicated that they thought Bush would make a good Presidential choice, Bush invited Shultz, Rice, and Anderson down to Austin, Texas for a follow-up meeting in the Summer. Out of that meeting, which was joined by Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, came the public decision for Bush to run for President."

 

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/site_packages/econ_hitmen/3148shultz1.html

 

I want to know how Iraq was discussed in these original meetings with George W.

 

So why did George W decide to join?

 

Wouldn't you join if Saddam was still in power but your daddy only got one term, and that good for nothing Clinton got two terms? And let's not forget this little motivator for George W.:

 

"...in response to an American determination that Iraqi intelligence, under the command of President Saddam Hussein, had plotted to assassinate former President George Bush during Bush's ceremonial visit to Kuwait in mid-April 1993..."

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content?020930fr_archive02

 

If somebody's gonna take out your daddy, why not take out the person who ordered it?

[chucK]

That sounds believable (though I am a bit concerned about your Larouche link). Certainly more believable than anything that Bushco has proferred. As for why they lied, it's probably because they made a command decision that they didn't think the American public or the world would go for fairly unprovoked aggression. And most of the world didn't buy it!

 

And by the way, Stefan's post about the pre-2000 aspirations for invading Iraq bring to mind another blatant Bushco lie to add to Matt's collection

 

Ari Fleisher January 2003

 

"FLEISCHER: Well, clearly the president does believe the more pressure on Iraq, the more the chances of resolving this peacefully. And the president still hopes that this can be resolved peaceful.

 

Nobody, but nobody is more reluctant to go to war than President Bush. Nobody understands what this entails like the commander in chief whose duty and mission it is to meet with the families, to look them in the eye and to be with them at a time prior to the going off to war and hopefully to greet all when return from war. He's seen it in Afghanistan about the suffering this has caused American families, families of service men and women who are asked to carry out the ultimate sacrifice.

 

He does not want to lead the nation to war. He hopes it can be averted. But he is also clear about the fact that one way to save American lives is to prevent Saddam Hussein from engaging in something that could be far, far worse than the price that we've already seen on September 11."

[JoshK]

I can just picture the eye roll and the "why do I have to waste my time with this?" reply when one of Bush's aides tells him he needs to meet with a dead soldier's family.

[Couloir]

One day into the job and it looks like he's already following his marching orders!

Whoa! Wait a minute! No, he's actually interpreting the constitution based on the facts of the case!?!? WTF?

[whidbey]

god/bush told him to do so. how could you ever think to argue against that.. might be labled as a traitor and get your phone lines monitored. Bush needs to FUCK OFF. Now i'm screwed.

[whidbey]

ah what the hell... fuck you bush!! Live life on the edge.

[Dechristo]

Live life on the edge.

 

Dats where itzzat