NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently the writer of this is a Libertarian

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/192327_williams26.html

Well stated, in my mind, but does not go far enough.

America, please wake up. The Bush team lies. Their lies are huge and far-reaching, and yet America has swallowed their sales pitch whole. Please, for the love of America. For the love of your fellow man. For the love of the future.

Do not vote for Bush.

I especially like the way he closes the piece. The reasons to vote against Bush in the upcoming election go beyond partisanship. The nation has become an entrenched plutocracy ruled by immensely wealthy individuals and the leaders of corporate America. It closely resembles the Gilded Age of a hundred years earlier with its concentrated wealth and robber barons. I truly fear for my country -- not because of the threat of terrorist attacks but because the nation's constitutional framework is being destroyed.

I do not believe the destruction is purposeful on Bush's part. Nonetheless, that he sees himself as a patriot defending the nation does not refute the hard evidence that his misguided policies, based on now-disproved theories, are in fact destroying the American republic created by the Founders.

And whether or not the destruction is purposeful or not doesn't matter to me--that it is happening is the important part. Whether Bush is evil or merely incompetent is irrelevant. He needs to go.

Apparently the writer of this is a Libertarian

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/192327_williams26.html

Well stated, in my mind, but does not go far enough.

America, please wake up. The Bush team lies. Their lies are huge and far-reaching, and yet America has swallowed their sales pitch whole. Please, for the love of America. For the love of your fellow man. For the love of the future.

Do not vote for Bush.

Correction: All politicans lie.

Correction: All politicans lie.

Yes, but they do vary in the scope and frequency of their lies.

Bush lies...A LOT...About life and death issues...as a matter of policy.

Wow, Walter Williams earns the Michael Moore award for evasive maneuvering of the truth.

Congratulations Walter... keep up the good work!!!

Wow, Walter Williams earns the Michael Moore award for evasive maneuvering of the truth.

Congratulations Walter... keep up the good work!!!

Hey there, OneRule. You should know better than to make a comment like that without citing the examples to which you are referring. You know you're gonna get called on it!

So come on. What, specifically, to you take exception to in this article?

I especially like the way he closes the piece.

And whether or not the destruction is purposeful or not doesn't matter to me--that it is happening is the important part. Whether Bush is evil or merely incompetent is irrelevant. He needs to go.
i totally agree with the sentiment you bolded. it's like my country's been hijacked out from under me, not by men in turbans but by men in suits who seem intent on flying this place right into the ground, and collecting on all of our life insurance policies in the process. they use words like 'freedom' a lot. they've ruined that word for me. now, whenever I hear the word 'freedom', I reach for my wallet, just to make sure my arms haven't been blown off.

*sigh* I am still hopeful.

The Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia to read up on history, before and during the Iraq war to see so many failures of policy, that it is beyond me how anyone can consider nominating Bush a 2nd term.

Iraq did have WMD capability afterall. Bush genuinely thought that there were, because there was no way he was being told by every inspector that there wasnt.....

Iraq did have WMD capability afterall. Bush genuinely thought that there were, because there was no way he was being told by every inspector that there wasnt.....
welcome to Bush logic:

The smoking gun will not come in the form of a mushroom cloud, a blast of toxic bioweapons, or a pile of WMD. The smoking gun will come in the form of a completely disassembled gun that is not smoking because it exists only in the form of a future potential possibility of creating the conditions that may evenutally lead to the assembly of the gun which may one day smoke. At which point you may die!!!

welcome to Bush logic:

The smoking gun will not come in the form of a mushroom cloud, a blast of toxic bioweapons, or a pile of WMD. The smoking gun will come in the form of a completely disassembled gun that is not smoking because it exists only in the form of a future potential possibility of creating the conditions that may evenutally lead to the assembly of the gun which may one day smoke. At which point you may die!!!
Yep. That's about the size of it. The longer this election period goes on, the more convinced I am of the truth of Janeane Garofalo's statement a few months back: "By this point, a vote for George Bush is a character flaw." There's really no other way to describe it accurately.

welcome to Bush logic:

The smoking gun will not come in the form of a mushroom cloud, a blast of toxic bioweapons, or a pile of WMD. The smoking gun will come in the form of a completely disassembled gun that is not smoking because it exists only in the form of a future potential possibility of creating the conditions that may evenutally lead to the assembly of the gun which may one day smoke. At which point you may die!!!

**laughs** Oh, well done!

convinced me big time. he has been doing that for the last 4 years and finaaly this statement come from a senior official. i like it. i like it a lot.

Hey there, OneRule. You should know better than to make a comment like that without citing the examples to which you are referring. You know you're gonna get called on it!

So come on. What, specifically, to you take exception to in this article?
lol.. Besides the whole thing? Alright you asked for it......
I had to keep in mind while reading this piece, that it was only an opinion piece.

During his first term, George W. Bush has inflicted more damage on the nation's people than any other president in the post-World War II era. Not only has the Bush administration failed, it has been far and away the most dangerous presidency in this period.

I would like to know Walter's definition of damage and dangerous. Also, what is he alluding to that Bush's administration failed?

No other administration has seen itself above the law or so disregarded the Constitution by attacking the venerable institutions created to uphold democracy.

He makes the claim of disregarding the Constitution by attacking the venerable institutions created to uphold democracy. Yet he never backs up that particular statement, rather he leaves it up in the air because he knows people will swallow anything of this particular ideological bent.

After Congress requested the actuary's numbers, the administration threatened to fire him if he turned over his projection. He did not.Later the administration's threats that blocked the actuary were adjudged illegal. Yet the lawless behavior won the day, with the legislation acclaimed as a great triumph for the president. Deception became the administration's primary weapon.

I can't accept this on face value. Perhaps if he included an article or 3 covering the actual happenings. It makes more sense to me that the Presidents "enemies" would never let something like this slip by uncommented on. James Carville not screaming for the impeachment of Bush over this? I, of course, reserve the right to change my mind if some evidence (other than Carville or moveon.org) were presented. Since the whole thing doesnt make sense to me, I just cant believe it on it's face.

The answer is the administration's gross mismanagement stemming from ideologically driven incompetence and lawlessness. The lawlessness of this administration far exceeds that of any postwar presidency, including that of Richard Nixon.

This is pure partisan rhetoric.

The second was the unshakeable neoconservative belief that Iraq was the epicenter of worldwide terrorism.

Anytime someone uses the term neoconservative my hackles get raised. I don't recall anyone ever saying that Iraq was the epicenter of anything. He's exagerating for effect. While effective, hardly accurate.

What follows is a tirada against the tax cuts.
They have ignored the overwhelming evidence that the first tax cut had been too deep and repeated the error with more tax cuts the next two years. Bush's tax policy turned a budget surplus in 2000 of $236 billion, or 2.4 percent of GDP, into a Congressional Budget Office-projected deficit of $477 billion, or 4.2 percent of GDP in 2004.

Perhaps the tax cuts had something to do with this, but he fails to mention any of the other factors affecting the surplus/deficit other than spending, which is the congressional baliwick. While the tax cuts might have had some affect (I can't seem to find anywhere with actual numbers reflecting government revenue for the periods in question) the dotcom bubble burst, 9/11 attack and the affect on tourism in NYC and in the world as a whole, the normal cycle of economic factors, none of these were addressed as possible factors for the turn around. Walters just want's his audience to focus on his point, that Bush is the criminal to blame.

Finally, comparing the beginning of his piece to his closing....
No other administration has seen itself above the law or so disregarded the Constitution by attacking the venerable institutions created to uphold democracy. In addition, the Bush presidency pushed through its policies by employing a calculated lawlessness that featured both deception and secrecy.
I do not believe the destruction is purposeful on Bush's part. Nonetheless, that he sees himself as a patriot defending the nation does not refute the hard evidence that his misguided policies, based on now-disproved theories, are in fact destroying the American republic created by the Founders.

He does in fact see the Bush administration as lawless, disregarding the Constitution, above the law, deceptive and secrative. Can't get much more purposful.

Iraq did have WMD capability afterall. Bush genuinely thought that there were, because there was no way he was being told by every inspector that there wasnt.....

1) Iraq did not have WMD capability. The latest conclusion by post-war inspectors is that he may have been planning to rebuild WMD programs if/when the sanctions were lifted, but that he had nothing in the way of any actual programs.

2) find me ONE inspector that has NOT said that there were no WMDs.

3) Bush was told by his own people that there was no evidence of WMDs, so he told them to go back and try again until they told him what they wanted to hear. If he genuinely believed that they were there, it must have been through a vision or something. As it turns out, a false vision.

1) Iraq did not have WMD capability. The latest conclusion by post-war inspectors is that he may have been planning to rebuild WMD programs if/when the sanctions were lifted, but that he had nothing in the way of any actual programs.

2) find me ONE inspector that has NOT said that there were no WMDs.

3) Bush was told by his own people that there was no evidence of WMDs, so he told them to go back and try again until they told him what they wanted to hear. If he genuinely believed that they were there, it must have been through a vision or something. As it turns out, a false vision.
haven't you heard? the new Bush policy is to claim they were never really interested in WMD anyhow, it was really about getting rid of icky old Saddam, and Bush doesn't care that they didn't find WMD because he's made all the Iraqis so happy through the non-occupation of their totally free and democratic nation. it's sort of like how he isn't really interested in where Osama might be, and doesn't worry about the Taliban...why worry, when you could be spinning?

wheeeeeeee!

haven't you heard? the new Bush policy is to claim they were never really interested in WMD anyhow, it was really about getting rid of icky old Saddam, and Bush doesn't care that they didn't find WMD because he's made all the Iraqis so happy through the non-occupation of their totally free and democratic nation. it's sort of like how he isn't really interested in where Osama might be, and doesn't worry about the Taliban...why worry, when you could be spinning?

wheeeeeeee!

If only we could hook up Bush's spin to a generator we'd produce enough energy to ween us off of the Middle East oil.

Apparently the writer of this is a Libertarian

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/192327_williams26.html

Well stated, in my mind, but does not go far enough.

America, please wake up. The Bush team lies. Their lies are huge and far-reaching, and yet America has swallowed their sales pitch whole. Please, for the love of America. For the love of your fellow man. For the love of the future.

Do not vote for Bush.



Unfortunately, the writer himself is deluding people, which is not an uncommon occurence in Seattle. All his fiscal remarks on a budget surlus at the beginning of Bush's term relies on continued collection of medicare and social security taxes without the congress (who approves the budget) gaurunteing (?) actually paying the "beneficiaries" of either program. Remember, only one person has ever made a profit from social security and she died soon after. Now that is a conspiracy. Add unemployment taxes, and you have a trifecta of money going to the gov that does not have to be accounted for. In my state we also have L&I which seems to spend more money defending it's mismanagement in court than paying claims.

I'd talk about the other issues, but let's limit each post to a theme.

P.S. the writer is not Libertarian, he is a self proclaimed Sims (the former democratic gubernatorial candidate) supporter.

*sigh* I am still hopeful.

The Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia to read up on history, before and during the Iraq war to see so many failures of policy, that it is beyond me how anyone can consider nominating Bush a 2nd term.


The Wikipedia is a great source in demonstrating the US does not or want to control the world. If it did all posts to it would eventually be biased in favor of whatever politician in the US had the most power.

The Wikipedia is a great source in demonstrating the US does not or want to control the world. If it did all posts to it would eventually be biased in favor of whatever politician in the US had the most power.
Oh I don't think that it is suitable to prove the aim of the US just yet. Alas the US administration (or influential parts of it) prove their stance on world domination themselves as members of the PNAC.

Oh I don't think that it is suitable to prove the aim of the US just yet. Alas the US administration (or influential parts of it) prove their stance on world domination themselves as members of the PNAC.

Oh christ, not another US government conspiracy! For how much people complain the government is screwed up you actually believe the maintain a well run conspiracy? Let's see... PNAC stands for People Negating Actual Compensation. THey killed that lady!!!! I told you it was a government conspiracy! Do I have to die now? I wish this was sarcasm but I would have to suppose levity on your part also.

If only we could hook up Bush's spin to a generator we'd produce enough energy to ween us off of the Middle East oil.


Tell ya what, shut down california refineries. Interrupt the pipelines into California. Tear down the powerlines sending power into california. See how fast California screams like the last time with Davis. Remember him? I'm still paying. California is the first at the teat and never leaves, just demands more cinnamon and suger in their milk.

Tell ya what, shut down california refineries. Interrupt the pipelines into California. Tear down the powerlines sending power into california. See how fast California screams like the last time with Davis. Remember him? I'm still paying. California is the first at the teat and never leaves, just demands more cinnamon and suger in their milk.

I love how Enron defrauding California is somehow Davis' fault.

haven't you heard? the new Bush policy is to claim they were never really interested in WMD anyhow, it was really about getting rid of icky old Saddam, and Bush doesn't care that they didn't find WMD because he's made all the Iraqis so happy through the non-occupation of their totally free and democratic nation. it's sort of like how he isn't really interested in where Osama might be, and doesn't worry about the Taliban...why worry, when you could be spinning?

wheeeeeeee!

Exactly how many Iraqi Shiites, Kurds and Iranians have Saddam killed with chemical weapons since the US invaded? Trick question. After the fist gulf war he was still using them, even with UN inspectors in country (they just weren't in place yet to inspect). Sources? CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR. I didn't start watching Fox until last year.

Exactly how many Iraqi Shiites, Kurds and Iranians have Saddam killed with chemical weapons since the US invaded? Trick question. After the fist gulf war he was still using them, even with UN inspectors in country (they just weren't in place yet to inspect). Sources? CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR. I didn't start watching Fox until last year.
Sources = actual readable proof from websites such as CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Wikipedia :)

Oh christ, not another US government conspiracy! For how much people complain the government is screwed up you actually believe the maintain a well run conspiracy? Let's see... PNAC stands for People Negating Actual Compensation. THey killed that lady!!!! I told you it was a government conspiracy! Do I have to die now? I wish this was sarcasm but I would have to suppose levity on your part also.
PNAC stands for Project For The New American Century. (condensed: project for american world hegemony through nazi fascist means)
Grow up and accept that it is a publicly known and not secret think tank with prominent members of the Bush administration. Their plans long before released are slowly materializing. Ignoring it, will not make it go away.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

I love how Enron defrauding California is somehow Davis' fault.

California may have been defrauded by Enron, Davis and his party prior to and past 2000, but the rest of the country had to pay, and are still paying your bills because you wanted cheap energy. We had to pollute our air with emergency diesel generators and incinerators so california could keep it's billboards lit. Meanwhile neighborhood streetlights had to be turned off to conserve energy. Davis and the party were in cahoots long before the bush. What really scares me is the Enron, Livermore and Los Alamos connections.

Exactly how many Iraqi Shiites, Kurds and Iranians have Saddam killed with chemical weapons since the US invaded? Trick question. After the fist gulf war he was still using them, even with UN inspectors in country (they just weren't in place yet to inspect). Sources? CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR. I didn't start watching Fox until last year.
They'd be the chemical weapons that the US supplied him in the eighties wouldn't they? And wasn't he doing this because they rose up against him when Bush Snr promised them US support if they did. Then sat back and let the atrocity occur, because the US was suddenly worried that if Saddam was deposed, a radical Cleric might take his place and turn Iraq into a fundamentalist Muslim country.

I agree with much of what was put into the article. Bush did make several costly mistakes, and covered them up with something that could make sense. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Osama was the reason for 9/11? Sure lets go kill/capture him. Good deal. However, there was no reason to attack Iraq. They were complying with the UN, and no evidence was found that weapons were being made, or even that the components of said weapons were anywhere near each other, let alone becoming large dangerous weapons - and unless I missed something, we haven't found any either.

And while it is true that wars are able to help the economy in general, it is also true that they have to last longer, or be on a more mass scale to make said effect. It is true that the President has no direct control over the economy, but their are many ways that the President can help the economy, and eventually stabalize it. During Bush's presidency, many many Americans lost their jobs, and have had to pay more for gas. This may or may nor be his fault, yet the majority of Americans will associate it with him.

We are no longer in a real war, tourism has picked back up, and 9/11 was a couple of years ago, yet the economy is worse than ever. Bush did mess up, yet he refuses to take the blame. Most people would probably like him alot better if he just said "Well America, I was wrong, I f**ked up pretty bad. I won't do it next time" or somthing along those lines.

Sources = actual readable proof from websites such as CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Wikipedia :)

Wikipedia by it's evolving nature can not be a source, my previous point. Any post can be morphed by a controller.

BBC. Reliable source?

CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC are not print media. Are you saying I imagined the UN autenticated deaths of thousands of people in Iraq and Iran as well as in the holocast in Poland, Italy, Russia, Greece et al?

To paraphrase, those who forget history have no reason to remember it.

I love how Enron defrauding California is somehow Davis' fault.
No, what was Davis fault was the long term, secret power contracts that locked California rate payers into high energy prices long after the problem had corrected itself.
Davis completely mismanaged the whole deregulation thing.

They'd be the chemical weapons that the US supplied him in the eighties wouldn't they? And wasn't he doing this because they rose up against him when Bush Snr promised them US support if they did. Then sat back and let the atrocity occur, because the US was suddenly worried that if Saddam was deposed, a radical Cleric might take his place and turn Iraq into a fundamentalist Muslim country.

So you are saying the US actually shipped chemical weapons to Iraq?

If not, name the person identified with the illegal transfer of chemical weapons from US control.

The chemicals used against the Iranians and Shiite are comparable to Soviet formulas. The Kurds, Bulgarian type products.

Bush I followed his mandate to repulse Iraq from Kuwait. He did not nor was offerred a UN mandate to protect the Shiites. He was prohibited by inaction of the Security Council. The same Security Council that facilitated balkins, Rwanda, Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia and now the Sudan and Iran.

PNAC stands for Project For The New American Century. (condensed: project for american world hegemony through nazi fascist means)
Grow up and accept that it is a publicly known and not secret think tank with prominent members of the Bush administration. Their plans long before released are slowly materializing. Ignoring it, will not make it go away.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Are you with the same people who came up with the Zionist Doctrine? You must have read something in a French book. What's next? Skull and Bones? Both Kerry and little Bush were members at the same time! Little bush at least acknowledged it.

As a US citizen, taxpayer and veteran (who protected europe's butt along with other world areas) excuse me if I believe that a natural born US citizen should be president as our constitution dictates. I looked at the website. What's your point? Haven't you heard about free speech? My parents gave it to you almost 50 years ago. What did you do with it?

So you are saying the US actually shipped chemical weapons to Iraq?
If not, name the person identified with the illegal transfer of chemical weapons from US control.
The chemicals used against the Iranians and Shiite are comparable to Soviet formulas. The Kurds, Bulgarian type products.
Bush I followed his mandate to repulse Iraq from Kuwait. He did not nor was offerred a UN mandate to protect the Shiites. He was prohibited by inaction of the Security Council. The same Security Council that facilitated balkins, Rwanda, Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia and now the Sudan and Iran.
Considering the US has veto power over any and all Security Council resolutions (which they've used more times than everyone else put together), how could the SC stop the US from doing anything?

BTW Rwanda massacre occurred precisely because the US vetoed the security resolution to increase the UN peace-keeping force there. Read the book "Shake hands with the Devil" by the poor Canadian General who was in command there and who repeatedly begged for extra forces to sent there (he only asked for a few hundred as he knew a show of force was all that was necessary to preven the violence erupting) only to have the US veto it consistently. He could do nothing but sit and watch hundreds of thousands get butchered and then was blamed for not stopping it. He had a breakdown later I recall.

As for the shipment of weapons grade chemicals to Iraq, you better of asking Rumsfield about that, not me. He was the one in th 80s that met with Saddam and organised such things.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021001-iraq3.htm

US government documents showed that from 1985 to 1989 pathogenic, toxigenic, and other hazardous materials were legally exported from the United States to Iraq.
The list of biological items legally exported during that period includes botulinum toxin, anthrax, gas gangrene, and vials of West Nile fever virus and Dengue fever.

PNAC stands for Project For The New American Century. (condensed: project for american world hegemony through nazi fascist means)
Grow up and accept that it is a publicly known and not secret think tank with prominent members of the Bush administration. Their plans long before released are slowly materializing. Ignoring it, will not make it go away.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Have you noticed who the contributers are? In this here country of the United States, they are refferred to as the liberal press, Washinton Post, New York Times, San Jose Mercury ... yeah there are right wing contributers too.

I agree with much of what was put into the article. Bush did make several costly mistakes, and covered them up with something that could make sense. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Osama was the reason for 9/11? Sure lets go kill/capture him. Good deal. However, there was no reason to attack Iraq. They were complying with the UN, and no evidence was found that weapons were being made, or even that the components of said weapons were anywhere near each other, let alone becoming large dangerous weapons - and unless I missed something, we haven't found any either.

And while it is true that wars are able to help the economy in general, it is also true that they have to last longer, or be on a more mass scale to make said effect. It is true that the President has no direct control over the economy, but their are many ways that the President can help the economy, and eventually stabalize it. During Bush's presidency, many many Americans lost their jobs, and have had to pay more for gas. This may or may nor be his fault, yet the majority of Americans will associate it with him.

We are no longer in a real war, tourism has picked back up, and 9/11 was a couple of years ago, yet the economy is worse than ever. Bush did mess up, yet he refuses to take the blame. Most people would probably like him alot better if he just said "Well America, I was wrong, I f**ked up pretty bad. I won't do it next time" or somthing along those lines.


You missed something, some idiot used a live binary sarin artillery shell to make an IED. At least once.

Considering the US has veto power over any and all Security Council resolutions (which they've used more times than everyone else put together), how could the SC stop the US from doing anything?

BTW Rwanda massacre occurred precisely because the US vetoed the security resolution to increase the UN peace-keeping force there. Read the book "Shake hands with the Devil" by the poor Canadian General who was in command there and who repeatedly begged for extra forces to sent there (he only asked for a few hundred as he knew a show of force was all that was necessary to preven the violence erupting) only to have the US veto it consistently. He could do nothing but sit and watch hundreds of thousands get butchered and then was blamed for not stopping it. He had a breakdown later I recall.

As for the shipment of weapons grade chemicals to Iraq, you better of asking Rumsfield about that, not me. He was the one in th 80s that met with Saddam and organised such things.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021001-iraq3.htm

Are they teaching you or have they taught you the concept of critical thinking? Don't focus on just IRAQ. Those very diseases you listed were being studied by various nations under the UN auspices of Public Health and the treatment and eradication of those diseases. Query WHO they are still doing it today. Those shipments were approved by the UN and were not weapons grade. Weapons grade West Nile Virus? What are you saying?

Are you with the same people who came up with the Zionist Doctrine? You must have read something in a French book. What's next? Skull and Bones? Both Kerry and little Bush were members at the same time! Little bush at least acknowledged it.

As a US citizen, taxpayer and veteran (who protected europe's butt along with other world areas) excuse me if I believe that a natural born US citizen should be president as our constitution dictates. I looked at the website. What's your point? Haven't you heard about free speech? My parents gave it to you almost 50 years ago. What did you do with it?
No I am not with any "Doctrine". I don't care about "Skulls & Bones". I don'tcare about the US constitution - make president whoever you wish. But your parents did not give us free speech. Your parents returned the country to it. Thanks for that.

Considering the US has veto power over any and all Security Council resolutions (which they've used more times than everyone else put together), how could the SC stop the US from doing anything?

BTW Rwanda massacre occurred precisely because the US vetoed the security resolution to increase the UN peace-keeping force there. Read the book "Shake hands with the Devil" by the poor Canadian General who was in command there and who repeatedly begged for extra forces to sent there (he only asked for a few hundred as he knew a show of force was all that was necessary to preven the violence erupting) only to have the US veto it consistently. He could do nothing but sit and watch hundreds of thousands get butchered and then was blamed for not stopping it. He had a breakdown later I recall.

As for the shipment of weapons grade chemicals to Iraq, you better of asking Rumsfield about that, not me. He was the one in th 80s that met with Saddam and organised such things.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021001-iraq3.htm

1. Who was President? nuff said. With the US, do not suppose the presidents morals and ethics are naturally in tune with the US people. That's why we have elections even during wars.
2. Cite a website from the times, 1980's. Gigatron tried to diss me the same way. You can't, the websites did not exist at the time.

No I am not with any "Doctrine". I don't care about "Skulls & Bones". I don'tcare about the US constitution - make president whoever you wish. But your parents did not give us free speech. Your parents returned the country to it. Thanks for that.

I'll pass it on to my mom and aunt. They are the only ones left. You should care about the US Constitution. Even though it ferments the concept of US government conspiracies, it actually prevents them. It has prevented the US from Imperialism. Look at the Phillipines. We have been trying to cut Puerto Rico loose to make a decision but they like the idea of poverty and no taxes. ( I don't blame them as I lived in poverty and had to pay taxes). We could have really done a different job in Iraq, but it comes back to our constitution. Remember it was written by a bunch of womanizing, leacherous, deceitful alcoholics.

No, what was Davis fault was the long term, secret power contracts that locked California rate payers into high energy prices long after the problem had corrected itself.
Davis completely mismanaged the whole deregulation thing.

By the way, thank you.

Considering the US has veto power over any and all Security Council resolutions (which they've used more times than everyone else put together), how could the SC stop the US from doing anything?

BTW Rwanda massacre occurred precisely because the US vetoed the security resolution to increase the UN peace-keeping force there. Read the book "Shake hands with the Devil" by the poor Canadian General who was in command there and who repeatedly begged for extra forces to sent there (he only asked for a few hundred as he knew a show of force was all that was necessary to preven the violence erupting) only to have the US veto it consistently. He could do nothing but sit and watch hundreds of thousands get butchered and then was blamed for not stopping it. He had a breakdown later I recall.

As for the shipment of weapons grade chemicals to Iraq, you better of asking Rumsfield about that, not me. He was the one in th 80s that met with Saddam and organised such things.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021001-iraq3.htm

No, he could have done his job instead of taking pictures and notes for his book. Too bad he had a breakdown, the people he failed to protect didn't live so he could return to comfort to write a book on " his Horriffic Experience due to someone else". He was the friggin commander. Why send more troops if nothing is happening. His troops were safe. He was in command.

g'day folks

Apparently the writer of this is a Libertarian

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/192327_williams26.html

Well stated, in my mind, but does not go far enough.

America, please wake up. The Bush team lies. Their lies are huge and far-reaching, and yet America has swallowed their sales pitch whole. Please, for the love of America. For the love of your fellow man. For the love of the future.

Do not vote for Bush.

WOW!! I think all of these "serious" issues have been brought forward in these threads and meet with quick rebuttal by die hard Bush fans that fail to see the destructive nature of the present Administration.

Four more years of Bush = :headbang: :headbang:

haven't you heard? the new Bush policy is to claim they were never really interested in WMD anyhow, it was really about getting rid of icky old Saddam, and Bush doesn't care that they didn't find WMD because he's made all the Iraqis so happy through the non-occupation of their totally free and democratic nation. it's sort of like how he isn't really interested in where Osama might be, and doesn't worry about the Taliban...why worry, when you could be spinning?

wheeeeeeee!
Did you say OSAMA?

OSAMA who?

Oh I know, the OSAMA that is hiding in some cave somewhere, waiting for Bush to send him a Cristmas card?

Where has Bush failed? He has kept the masses placated. He has kept the populace behind him. What leader does not lie cheat and steal for his own legacy? Where will Kerry be any better?

They are polititions. They lie. Its in the job description.

Where has Bush failed? He has kept the masses placated. He has kept the populace behind him. What leader does not lie cheat and steal for his own legacy? Where will Kerry be any better?

They are polititions. They lie. Its in the job description.


He's kept the masses placated? The country is more openly partisan and divided than it's been for 30 years! His approval rating is around 50%, which sounds okay, but is actually horrible for a sitting president.

Where will Kerry be any better? Where could he be worse? Kerry is a politician, which means there will be some lying and cheating and backroom deals, yes. The sheer magnitude of the Bush malfeasance is staggering though. We at least know Kerry isn't going to start any trumped up wars.

War on Iraq = Less safe from Al Qaida

Wow, Walter Williams earns the Michael Moore award for evasive maneuvering of the truth.

Congratulations Walter... keep up the good work!!!
I love the way people like you sau that. Please note I said people like you, so I'm not stereotyping, I literally mean you. You have failed to cite a single peive of evidence for this claim and infact should you have put any effort into your comment may have noticed us Liberals prefer to rely on a little thing called facts. Evasive maneuvering of the truth, you say? How about your complete lack there of. However, you have served one definate purpose. That is to prove us right, to prove that some people will swallow rhetoric even when confronted with facts. Do not try to deny it, because that is exactly what you did. You saw facts and responded with rhetoric. You have managed to swallow the Republican nonsense that any non-GW comment must be a manipulation of the truth, even when all reason says otherwise.

Congradulations, you win the George W Bush award for the stark lack of facts.

I hear Reuters ran an article that pretty solidly slapped down W's "rosy" picture of Iraq.

I hear Reuters ran an article that pretty solidly slapped down W's "rosy" picture of Iraq.
yup. they didn't flat out call him a liar, but they pretty much established that he lied...i'll settle for that :).

Exactly how many Iraqi Shiites, Kurds and Iranians have Saddam killed with chemical weapons since the US invaded? Trick question. After the fist gulf war he was still using them, even with UN inspectors in country (they just weren't in place yet to inspect). Sources? CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR. I didn't start watching Fox until last year.
How many Iraqiis has US killed during the war? Min 12943.
Alright Saddam was worse, but you asked only to coutn the kills after US invasion...
anyway the sanctions against Iraq killed more oraqiis than Saddam and Bush together

How many Iraqiis has US killed during the war? Min 12943.
Alright Saddam was worse, but you asked only to coutn the kills after US invasion...
anyway the sanctions against Iraq killed more oraqiis than Saddam and Bush together
How many of those 12943 Iraqis were killed by terrorists with their IED's or VBIED's (read road side bombs) or mortar attacks?
The sanctions did not kill a single Iraqi. Saddam, through his withholding supplies to his own people so he could furnish his palaces caused those deaths due to sanctions you are talking about. Oil for food money did not go towards food for his people.