Bush's Lunacy?

[cpt_azad]

On a high note, tomorrow we are going to see Michael moore's movie, which I have been looking forward to

i'm going on tuesday , and everything u said ruthie, i support, i just wish i can be there in washington when bush fails big time if reelected, either that or WW3 as stated a thousand times by me

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by cpt_azad@25 June 2004 - 00:12
hope i'll be fighting against america in that one

What a sad point of view to have.

You all are so wrapped up in wanting to get Bush out of office you haven’t even stopped to look at John Kerry. Do any of you know anything about Kerry?

[fred devliegher]

You all are so wrapped up in wanting to get Bush out of office you haven’t even stopped to look at John Kerry. Do any of you know anything about Kerry?

He's not Bush, and he can't possibly be worse. Only way to go is up, IMHO.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by fred devliegher@25 June 2004 - 12:54
He's not Bush, and he can't possibly be worse. Only way to go is up, IMHO.

If you don’t know anything about him then how can you make an accurate judgment?

[fred devliegher]

If you don’t know anything about him then how can you make an accurate judgment?

1 I've actually been reading up on his ideas and plans.
2 Kerry isn't an idiot - and that trumps Bush any day.
3 Kerry doesn't embarras his entire country when he opens his mouth.
4 Kerry seems to have grasped the notion of "nuance".

Now, American politics are not my forté, but so far I have not seen one good reason to support Bush over Kerry - I'll take the lesser evil, thank you.

[BigBank_Hank]

Care to start another thread and debate it? I can promise you I can shred whatever you’ve read about Kerry to pieces.

[Rat Faced]

Lets see now....



Jimmy Carter was hero worshiped when he visited here (Newcastle) on his way to Washington (about 10 miles away)

Reagan was greeted with friendship and politeness....but wasnt overdone, except in Downing Street....

Bush Snr was greeted by something like 10-20 protesters....

Bill Clinton was greatly welcomed.....



Bush Jnr was greeted by 1000's of protestors and rotten fruit, and he's being greeted the same way in Ireland today.



If thats how your Closest Allies feel, guess how the countries that dont like America feel.......


I've said it before, and i'll say it again.

GW Bush is the most dangerous man in the world bar non.

If I was voting in this election and he was going up against Satan himself... I'd vote for Satan.

The Interrogation of George W. Bush
The Plame Affair, Chalabi's lies, and the Niger uranium forgeries: connecting the dots

by Justin Raimondo

Asked about the implications of the President's interview with Patrick J. "Bulldog" Fitzgerald, the special counsel appointed to look into the "outing" of a CIA agent by hawkish government officials, White House spokesman Scott McClellan wasn't lying when he replied:

"No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the president of the United States."

Reflexive Bush-haters are quick to dismiss this as obfuscating rhetoric, meaningless noises emitted as a matter of course, like other bodily functions best unnamed. Yet I believe McClellan, if only because the President, in an important sense, is as much the victim as the perpetrator of the crimes under investigation. A lot is going on here, and yet, so far, only one or another tentacle of the monster has surfaced at a time, with the details of Fitzgerald's multi-pronged investigation kept under wraps. The interrogation of the President, however, indicates that the creature is about to surface, along with some indictments.

We don't know what was said during the interview, a little over an hour long, but we can tease out a few safe surmises from the tangle of speculation. First, whomever "outed" CIA agent Valerie Plame in order to get at her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson – a prominent critic of the Iraq war – probably didn't get their orders directly from the President. Secondly, assuming Dubya didn't personally get on the phone to columnist Bob Novak and divulge Ms. Plame's identity and occupation, it was probably one of his henchmen, or, more likely, one of Dick Cheney's minions, although we can be fairly certain the President didn't issue a direct order to that effect.

So why question the President?

The reason is because it's very likely that the investigation has branched out considerably since Attorney General John Ashcroft stepped aside and let Fitzgerald take on the case.

The "outing" of Valerie Plame – a CIA agent involved in sensitive nuclear proliferation work – came about as a result of the War Party's attempt to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who had gone public with the truth about Saddam's alleged attempts to secure high-grade uranium in the African country of Niger. The President, in his State of the Union address, had announced this evil intention of the Iraqi dictator as a rationale for going to war, but Wilson revealed that he had been sent by the CIA to that country in an effort to learn the facts, and had found no evidence for the accusation. The War Party had been caught in a rather embarrassing lie: badly stung, they struck back….

The rumor was spread that Wilson, supposedly a partisan Democrat, had gotten himself the (non-paying) job of going to Niger entirely on account of his wife's influence, and, besides that, he was said to have no special expertise in this area. That's horse-hockey: having served as an ambassador in the region for a decade, Wilson certainly had the experience and the contacts for the job. His only disqualification seemed to be that he was a professional diplomat who saw his job as reporting reality, rather than some party-lining neoconservative who sees everything through the distorting prism of ideology.

Furthermore, it turned out that the alleged documentary evidence pointing to Iraq's guilt in this matter were crude forgeries. The President of the United States had been made a fool of – which, in George W. Bush's case, may seem redundant, and therefore all the more humiliating.

When you start turning over rocks, all kinds of creepy-crawlies go skittering for cover, and if you disturb enough turf whole swarms will come pouring out of their holes, blinded by the sunlight and bumping into each other, desperate to regain the darkness. And that's what's been happening lately, with charges of espionage openly leveled against Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress (INC) by the U.S. intelligence community. Patrick Lang, former head of the CIA's Middle East desk, told Newsday that the U.S.-funded INC "intelligence collection" program had essentially functioned as an Iranian spy network:

"'They [the Iranians] knew exactly what we were up to,' he said. Lang described it as 'one of the most sophisticated and successful intelligence operations in history...I'm a spook. I appreciate good work. This was good work.'"

Eager to rid themselves of their old Iraqi enemy, and pave the way for the southward extension of their own influence, the Iranians fed Chalabi a stream of lies, possibly including the Niger uranium forgeries. The "intelligence" gleaned from these dubious documents somehow wormed its way into the President's state of the union address through some process that can only be described as treason.

Chalabi, the favorite of the neoconservatives centered in the Vice President's office and the civilian upper echelons of the Pentagon, regularly fed the White House (and the American media) dubious "intelligence" that went unvetted by the mainline intelligence agencies, and was "stove-piped" via Cheney directly onto the President's desk. If Chalabi, the Great Embezzler, ripped off the White House with fake "evidence" of Iraq's nuclear ambitions, and if this caused the administration no end of political embarrassment – remember the infamous "16 words" controversy? – then no wonder they cut off his allowance and raided his Baghdad headquarters.

But Chalabi didn't act alone: he had loyal friends and supporters inside the administration, who flew him to Iraq after the "liberation" and touted him endlessly and openly as the George Washington of his country – and the neocons defend him to this day. The Office of Special Plans, under Pentagon policy honcho Douglas Feith, functioned as a disinformation factory, taking the raw lies wholesaled by Chalabi's operation and retailing them as finished "intelligence."

If Chalabi got his hands on top secret information, and then passed it to the Iranians, then who in the U.S. government were his collaborators – and what other joint projects did Chalabi and his American fan club undertake?

Is it really a coincidence that Fitzgerald is questioning the President while FBI agents set up a polygraph machine in the Pentagon?

Whoever "outed" Valerie Plame had one goal in mind: to discredit her husband, who had exposed the Niger uranium gambit as a hoax. To suspect that the same crew knows a lot about the true origins of the Niger uranium forgeries hardly requires an imaginative leap. Back in February, when the Washington Post reported very "aggressive" questioning of White House aides, it wasn't only the Plame case FBI agents seemed concerned about:

"A parallel FBI investigation into the apparent forgery of documents suggesting that Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger is 'at a critical stage,' according to a senior law enforcement official who declined to elaborate. That probe, conducted by FBI counterintelligence agents, was launched last spring after U.N. officials pronounced the documents crude forgeries."

It seems logical to assume that George W. Bush's testimony in this matter would be far more relevant, and interesting, than his no doubt limited knowledge of the Plame affair.

In any case, what fascinates is the interconnectedness of the various scandals that threaten to engulf this administration – WMD-gate, Chalabi-gate, Niger-gate, etc., etc. All share a common narrative thread, the theme of some foreign or outside force manipulating the White House to achieve its own ends. Chalabi figured prominently in all these deceptions, but he was just an instrument in the hands of the neocons, who used him as a front man for their foreign policy agenda.

It's all very cloak-and-daggerish, with spy-versus-spy plots and counter-plots, and, with so many layers of deception, somewhat confusing. But we can see what this complicated game was all about if we look at the results, i.e. what is happening on the ground in Iraq. As Iran takes the southern provinces, and the Israelis extend their influence into the northern part of the country, where the Kurds predominate, the real allegiances of the various players stand revealed.

[BigBank_Hank]

So RF we shouldn’t vote for who we think will do the best job for our country, instead vote for someone who will be well received when they go to another country.

This is more like it BTW no more of that agreeing thing.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@25 June 2004 - 20:34
So RF we shouldn’t vote for who we think will do the best job for our country, instead vote for someone who will be well received when they go to another country.

This is more like it BTW no more of that agreeing thing.

Good, it was getting me worried

The Blame Game

Obviously, 9/11 happened on President Bush’s watch. Rather than accept any responsibility, the Bushites blame the Clinton Administration. But take a closer look at which administration really took threats more seriously. Threats against Los Angeles International Airport were taken serious enough to be proactive and thwart the tragedy. Republicans blast Bill Clinton for not doing enough in the war on terror (even though it hadn’t officially started yet while he was president). When bin Laden threatened the U.S., Clinton ordered missile strikes on one of his training camps. You may recall the time; it was during the Lewinski scandal. When he ordered the strike, Clinton was accused by Republicans of “wagging the dog” to deflect attention from the Lewinski affair.

So Clinton was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. On the one hand, the Republicans were wasting the taxpayers’ money by conducting the impeachment in the first place, which would distract anyone from doing his or her job. And on the other hand, you have a president, who, in spite of the distraction of a frivolous impeachment, continued to do his primary task. He protected the country. Yet the Republicans act as if he did nothing at all. Remember, we had not been attacked yet. How could Clinton have moved unilaterally against the Taliban and it be considered just?

President Bush was on vacation when he learned about an imminent attack on the United States. I’m sure he too was distracted… between tee time and tea time. I can even picture his pinky in the air as he sipped. But this is the guy Republicans want us to believe is the “Great Protector”. This is the president who sat in a classroom, clueless as to what to do next when we were attacked. Clinton did a lot more than George W. Bush did when he learned of an attack or plot against our country.

Just on a fundamental level, Republicans, you can’t have it both ways. The Clinton Administration attacked when there were threats and plots discovered – despite the best/worst efforts of the Republican-held Congress. The Clinton Administration also warned the Bush Administration that terror should be its main concern. President Bush ignored all the warnings, including the one that said: “bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States.” When Bush was warned, he didn’t attack or act… he stayed on vacation. Isn’t that the sort of thing you might expect of a bratty, rich kid?

So much hassle the Republicans make over a Blow Job...

So what type of man should they put there instead?

FINK: When you're talking about politics, what do you and [your father] talk about?
DUBYA: Pussy.
-- Interview with David Fink of the Hartford Courant at the Republican Convention, 1988

You know what?

Thats the 1st piece of evidence i've ever seen, to say the guy is actually sane.......err normal....



:-"

[BigBank_Hank]

Wow that little article has got me licking my chops.

Let’s begin with Clinton do his part to capture Bin Laden. Your article fails to point out the he’s was spotted on video three times and we had the opportunity to kill each time. Each time the Predator Drone was sent out and located him a call was made to the President to authorize the use of force. The first time Clinton couldn’t be found only top advisors and they didn’t have the authority to make such a call. The other times he knew about them and didn’t pull the trigger. But of course he left that out of his little book.

Secondly President Bush was not on vacation when the attacks happened. The President was out of Washington D.C. at an Elementary school reading books to children not on a golf course. He was kept up to date on things that were happening by the secret service not clueless.

And on the impeachment: I guess that we were supposed to just sit back and let Clinton do whatever the hell he wanted to do. I guess that laying your hand on the Bible and swearing to the truth carries less weight in the UK but here in the US we call that perjury. No one should be allowed to get away with breaking the law.