The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Rebecca Gordon Archive
On the Rehabilitation of George W. Bush
Say It Again: The Enemy of Our Enemy Is Still a War Criminal
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

He received a prestigious award from the West Point Association of Graduates. He published a “runaway” bestselling autobiography. Last February, a lavishly produced book celebrating his paintings of Americans who served in the military was, as Time put it, “burning up the Amazon charts.”

Still, the liberal media wasn’t ready to embrace George W. Bush — not at least until he made some oblique criticisms of the current tenant of his old position, suggesting that, in the present political climate, “bigotry seems emboldened.” Seems? Have you been to Charlottesville lately, Mr. Bush?

The former president was less tentative on the main subject of his address to a conference on “democracy” he’d organized in New York City: the importance of free trade and the need for a large American footprint in the world. “We see a fading confidence in the value of free markets and international trade,” he said, “forgetting that conflict, instability, and poverty follow in the wake of protectionism.” More on that speech later.

Not the First Rehab Job

George W. Bush is hardly the first disgraced Republican president and war criminal to worm his way back into American esteem. Richard Nixon remains the leader in that department. He spent his later years being celebrated as an elder statesman and a master of realpolitik in international relations. In the process, he managed to shake off the dust of Watergate.

In those years, few even remembered that his was the first administration in which both the president and vice president resigned. In 1973, that disgraced vice president, Spiro Agnew, pled guilty to a felony count of tax evasion, but not before he’d bequeathed the English language a few of its most mellifluous sobriquets, among them the “nattering nabobs of negativism” and the “effete corps of impudent snobs” (aimed at those who opposed the Vietnam War).

Nixon’s rehabilitation not only reduced the Watergate scandal in American memory, but also essentially obliterated his greater crimes, among which were these:

* while still a presidential candidate in 1968, he opened a secret back channel to the South Vietnamese government to keep it out of peace talks with the North that might have benefited his Democratic opponent;

* in the war itself, he oversaw the expansion of the CIA’s Phoenix Program of torture and assassination in which, as historian Alfred McCoy has described it, “the formalities of prosecution” of suspected Viet Cong were replaced “with pump and dump — pumping suspects of information by torture and then dumping the bodies, more than 20,000 of them between 1968 and 1971”;

* he also oversaw an expansive, illegal, and undeclared war in Cambodia (which, when it was about to come to light, he described as a brief “incursion” into that country);

* he oversaw the saturation or “carpet” bombing of the North Vietnamese capital, Hanoi, and that country’s major port, Haiphong;

* and he presided over the “first 9/11,” the 1973 military coup that murdered Chile’s elected president, Salvador Allende, ushering in years of terror and torture under General Augusto Pinochet.

And don’t think that Richard Nixon is the only other example of such a post-presidential rehabilitation. Ronald Reagan is now remembered by friend and foe alike as a kind, folksy president and a wily strategist who ended the Cold War by forcing a cash-strapped Soviet Union to keep up with U.S. defense spending and then negotiated directly with Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev. When he died in June 2004, the New York Times was typical in the largely fawning obituary it ran, describing him as “the man who restored popular faith in the presidency and the American government.”

That obituary did at least mention the Iran-Contra conspiracy in which President Reagan approved the (illegal) sale of arms to Iran to fund his (illegal) support of the Nicaraguan Contras, the murderous rebel force that sought to overthrow that country’s leftist Sandinista government. “The deception and disdain for the law,” commented the obituary, “invited comparisons to Watergate, undermined Mr. Reagan’s credibility, and severely weakened his powers of persuasion with Congress.” An odd set of observations about a man being hailed for restoring faith in the presidency, but consistent with the contradictions inherent in any lionization of Reagan.

Lest we forget, he was also the president who began his first term by attacking unions, starting with the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, a move which so many years later still results in regular flight delays, thanks to a 27-year low in the number of air controllers. Reagan also inaugurated the mania for deregulation that led to the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and ultimately to the subprime mortgage crisis and financial meltdown of 2007-2008. His presidency reinforced what would become a never-ending slide in the value of real wages and his tax policies were the starting point for what has, in our own time, become not an inequality gap but an inequality chasm that has now left three men with the same amount of wealth as 160 million Americans. (Not surprisingly, depending on who’s calculating it, the United States either has the world’s highest or perhaps fourth-highest Gini score, a measurement of economic inequality.)

Nixon had to wait many years for his rehabilitation and Reagan’s was largely posthumous. At a vigorous 71, however, Bush seems to be slipping effortlessly back onto the national stage only nine years after leaving office essentially in disgrace. He will evidently have plenty of time to bask in history’s glow before the first of those nostalgic obituaries are written. And for that, he can thank Donald Trump.

W. Redux?

During that October 17th speech in which he criticized Trump without mentioning his name, George W. Bush touted the “Spirit of Liberty: At Home, in the World.” There, he bemoaned the degradation of political discourse by “casual cruelty,” noting that “bullying and prejudice in our public life sets a national tone, provides permission for cruelty and bigotry, and compromises the moral education of children.” Like the rest of his family, Bush does not share Trump’s aversion to immigrants, so he added that this country seems to be forgetting “the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America.”

Articles in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and even the Guardian eagerly reported Bush’s implicit criticisms of the president as a hopeful sign of resistance to Trumpism from the “responsible” Republican right. Politico simply labeled the event a “George W. Bush speech on Trumpism,” although much of it was about the decline of democracy in Europe and the value of free trade.

It’s certainly true that his speech included oblique critiques of the man who repeatedly insulted his brother Jeb as “a very low-energy kind of guy” and knocked him out of the race to be the third Bush to sit in the Oval Office, but it’s worth reading the whole address. It’s vintage W. — that is, vintage W. as a war criminal. He began, for instance, by reprising the lie that “since World War II, America has encouraged and benefited from the global advance of free markets, from the strength of democratic alliances, and from the advance of free societies.”

As Alfred McCoy demonstrates in his recent book, In the Shadows of the American Century, that is a particularly disingenuous description of a 70-year history in which Washington supported and, in a remarkable number of cases was directly involved in, the destruction of free societies. A list of examples would perhaps begin with the 1953 British and U.S.-backed coup against the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh that would install the despotic Shah in power in that country. It would certainly continue with the 1954 U.S. and United Fruit Company coup against Jacobo Arbenz, the democratically elected president of Guatemala (an early instance of Washington’s post-World War II “encouragement” of anything-but-free-trade); the 1960 CIA-backed coup against, and the murder of, Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba; and the 1973 military coup in Chile. An honest history would also include the active “encouragement” of societies that were anything but free, including those run by juntas, dictators, or military governments in Greece, Brazil, Argentina, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Uruguay, Iraq, and South Korea, to name just a few.

Of course, George W. Bush is hardly the first president to lie about the post-World War II record of the United States. Nor is he the first to suggest that “American security is directly threatened by the chaos and despair of distant places,” which he attributed in his speech to the lack of the democracy Washington put so much effort into destroying in more than 70 countries across the planet.

And don’t forget that it was precisely the pretext of a direct threat to American security that led to the most criminal lie of his career: the insistence that Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that the U.S. invasion of his country was justified by a (legally questionable) case of preemptive self-defense. By initiating a war of aggression, by loosing “shock and awe” on the capital of a nation that had not attacked ours, President Bush committed a war crime. Indeed, it was the first in the list of crimes for which the leaders of Nazi Germany were indicted at Nuremberg after World War II: the ultimate crime against peace.

Few Americans have ever heard of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, but in 1928 the United States signed it and the Senate ratified it by a vote of 85-1. The 50 signatories of that treaty renounced war as a means of settling international disputes and, as the authors of The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World have argued, by implication made aggressive war a violation of international law. The U.S. Constitution states in Article 6 that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” By invading Iraq, Bush broke both international and U.S. law.

In addition to his crimes against peace, Bush and his administration were also the authors of such traditionally recognized war crimes as torture and the use of chemical weapons. One of the uglier aspects of the U.S. military’s battle for the Iraqi city of Fallujah was its use of white phosphorus, an incendiary munition. Phosphorus ignites spontaneously when exposed to air. If bits of the chemical attach to human beings, skin and flesh burn away. The burning continues as long as there is oxygen available, sometimes right into the bone.

In short, isn’t it a little early to begin rehabilitating the man responsible for indefinite detention at Guantánamo, “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and at least 150,000 Afghans — not to mention the trillions of U.S. dollars shoved down the memory hole in pursuit of the futile wars that followed?

Leda and the Swan

The same year that the Kellogg-Briand Pact was signed, William Butler Yeats published a collection of poems called The Tower. It contains what many consider his masterpiece, the harrowing sonnet “Leda and the Swan.” In it, Yeats recreates the moment in Greek myth when Zeus, the ruling god of Olympus, having taken the form of a swan, rapes the helpless human woman Leda, leaving her pregnant with a daughter. That daughter became Helen of Troy, whose abduction was the casus belli for the Trojan War.

The poet begins with the victim’s shock and awe:

“A sudden blow: the great wings beating still
Above the staggering girl, her thighs caressed
By the dark webs, her nape caught in his bill,
He holds her helpless breast upon his breast.

In the final stanza, Yeats writes:

“A shudder in the loins engenders there
The broken wall, the burning roof and tower
And Agamemnon dead.”

In those brief words can be read an entire history of war and death, recounted more fully in the 15,693 lines of the Iliad, all somehow encapsulated in that first act of violence.

In his poem, Yeats implies that Zeus knows full well the final outcome of his act. Similarly perhaps, the “swans” of Washington in 2003, which was at that time the planet’s own imperial Olympus, had more than an inkling of the broken walls, the burning roofs and towers their invasion of Iraq might engender. As early as 1996, future Vice President Dick Cheney’s fellow hawks Richard Perle and Douglas Feith — who would later join the Bush administration as adviser on the Defense Policy Board and under secretary of defense for policy — helped write a report for Benjamin Netanyahu, who was then running the Israeli government for the first time. Titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” it urged the leaders of Israel’s right-wing Likud party to leave behind the nation’s previous geopolitical strategy by abandoning peace negotiations with the Palestinians and using military means to actively restructure the Middle East in their favor.

“Israel,” the authors argued, “can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.” Such a campaign would begin by “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” The ultimate goal was a realignment of power in the region, with Syria destabilized, a monarchy in Iraq, and a new regional alliance among Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.

It would prove to be the geopolitical equivalent of a movie preview. In the wake of 9/11, the same cast of characters would take a similar path in Washington and, in the end, that “rolling back” operation would shake or destroy country after country from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya and Yemen. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Syria has certainly been destabilized in ways almost impossible to imagine, through the rise of ISIS (born in an American military prison) and a vicious, multi-sided civil war that, by early 2016, had left more than a tenth of its population killed or injured. In the process, more than 10 million people, including untold numbers of children, were turned into internal or external refugees.

Netanyahu, in fact, would reject the “clean break” proposal (perhaps because it also suggested that Israel make a clean break with its dependence on U.S. aid), but the neocons were undeterred. In 1998, they resurrected the plan as part of a new pressure group they formed, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and presented it to Bill Clinton in a letter encouraging him to direct “a full complement of diplomatic, political, and military efforts” to “remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

Nor were they overly concerned about the legality of such a move, writing that “American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the U.N. Security Council.” In other words, the country should not be “crippled” by adherence to the U.N. Charter, whose Article 51 prohibits unilateral war making without Security Council approval, except in cases of immediate “individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.”

Like Netanyahu, Clinton ignored their suggestion. However, the signatories of the letter included many figures who would become key players in the Bush administration, among them Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Undersecretaries of State John Bolton and Richard Armitage, Reagan hold-over Elliott Abrams, and Zalmay Khalilzad, who among other roles served as Bush’s special envoy and ambassador at large for free Iraqis. And it included, of course, Cheney adviser and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who had prepared a draft of a 1992 Defense Planning Guidance document for President George H.W. Bush in which he argued for the importance of U.S. readiness to take unilateral military action, whether approved by the United Nations or not.

In other words, the top officials of the Bush administration took office already planning to attack Iraq. It only awaited 19 mostly Saudi terrorists hijacking four American commercial airliners on September 11, 2001. That would be the pretext to launch what has become a “generational struggle” that would eventually destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen (and almost as a side dish, Afghanistan), and which now threatens to engulf the entire Greater Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Asia, from Afghanistan to the Philippines, in a set of never-ending wars and spreading terror movements.

All that suffering sprang from the actions of one feckless president and his crew. So what if — after 16 years of fruitless war, 16 years of disintegrating American infrastructure, 16 years of almost unprecedented inequality — George W. Bush does find Trump’s rhetorical style distasteful? Is that really any reason to turn a presidential war criminal into a liberal hero?

Rebecca Gordon, a TomDispatch regular, teaches in the philosophy department at the University of San Francisco. She is the author of American Nuremberg: The U.S. Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes. Her previous books include Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States and Letters from Nicaragua.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 113 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    This just goes to show that Ideology is secondary to Ethnology in the game of politics.

    W. is globalist, for open borders, against American nationalism, and a puppet of Neocons.

    Trump is less of those things. So, W is suddenly useful again.

    No wonder people become more cynical.

    No real conservative has any respect for W.

    No real liberal can respect W the dummy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DON-AKANIDO
    nice post bro
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/on-the-rehabilitation-of-george-w-bush/#comment-2088112
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I always thought Bush the Younger was probably a fairly likeable guy in person, even though he was probably the worst US president of all time with the appointment of Condoleeza Rice to advise him on national security, followed by 9/11, the massive mistake of the invasion of Iraq, bringing back torture, and then the economy collapsing at the end of his 8 years in office as the final coup de grace.

    If he is to be remembered by posterity it is more likely to be for his paintings than for his time in the White House.

    As a POTUS he will probably play Nero to Trump’s Caligula or Hamlet to Trump’s Lear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Michelle
    I absolutely agree with every blessed thing you just said. He is a very sweet guy who is also a mass murderer and a destabilizer of almost the entire world, God help us all!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Erik K says:

    I have no civil words to describe that disgusting lump of shit and the crew of criminally-intent freewheeling buccaneers he captained. Rebecca Gordon does a fine job of skewering Bush 43′s Johnny-come-lately pretensions to statesmanship and summarizing how his aggressive determination to invade Iraq – come what may – resulted in the disastrous unravelling of the Middle East that followed (a legacy of horrors which that snake in the grass who succeeded him in the White House, Barack Obama, greatly expanded and aggravated).

    Actually, there’s been hardly a single president since the end of the 19th century who hasn’t deserved both a thorough debunking and interment in a pit of lime.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Dan Hayes says:

    If there is anyone who deserves an up-to-date Nuremberg War Crimes Trial it certainly is George W.

    What has this country done to deserve such a witless and dangerous leader?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    He was the president we deserved. Why is everyone acting like the American people are so virtuous?
    , @random rand
    Hillary should also be put on trial for Libya.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Kruton says:

    Bush and Nixon were simply incompetent progressive scum.Progressives don’t know how to fight war’s and always lose and get our men killed for nothing. Bombing and killing communists is a good thing the only good thing those two idiots did right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. What Weinstein et al. have done to shiksas in Hollywood so their peers Wolfowitz, Kristol and Abrahms et al did and are doing to the American people. Raping them. Forcing themselves and their agenda upon them without the consent of the people.

    Completing Rebecca Gordon’s Sack of Troy analogy; the final outcome, the end product of a siege of any ancient city was murdering the men and raping the women who then became the victor’s household concubines and slaves. In this the Jewish neocons’ plans are proceeding apace. White Euro-men have been incapacitated. They are paralyzed and have been rendered incapable of protecting not only their women and children but their nation’s sacred Laws as well. The Bill of Rights is confetti. Lady Justice is being raped by the victors of our cultural wars.

    What was that drivel we read the other day in a Sailer piece about some new feminist translation of the Odyssey? Something to the effect that the enslaved condition of the palace housemaids was the REAL story, due consideration of which put the traditional plot in the shade?

    Well someone should tell this alleged “classical scholar” that household servants were prizes of war. Has she forgotten that it was Agamemnon’s seizing Achilles’ war “prize” Briseis which provided the spark for the “wrath of Achilles” that was the theme of the Illiad? In her naive, womanly way she imagines all disputes as being settled by committees of Jewish Patriarchs. Moron. Talk about being blinkered by one’s own cultural milieu.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hank Rearden
    Bush Sr. believed that Americans owe Jews mucho shekels for giving Whites the eternal hope of a cisgender-free utopia. All it takes is hating your blood and forsaking your soil, and those who don't agree should not be "considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under"—well, a Jewish deity! Certainly not under Gott.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @ThreeCranes
    What Weinstein et al. have done to shiksas in Hollywood so their peers Wolfowitz, Kristol and Abrahms et al did and are doing to the American people. Raping them. Forcing themselves and their agenda upon them without the consent of the people.

    Completing Rebecca Gordon's Sack of Troy analogy; the final outcome, the end product of a siege of any ancient city was murdering the men and raping the women who then became the victor's household concubines and slaves. In this the Jewish neocons' plans are proceeding apace. White Euro-men have been incapacitated. They are paralyzed and have been rendered incapable of protecting not only their women and children but their nation's sacred Laws as well. The Bill of Rights is confetti. Lady Justice is being raped by the victors of our cultural wars.

    What was that drivel we read the other day in a Sailer piece about some new feminist translation of the Odyssey? Something to the effect that the enslaved condition of the palace housemaids was the REAL story, due consideration of which put the traditional plot in the shade?

    Well someone should tell this alleged "classical scholar" that household servants were prizes of war. Has she forgotten that it was Agamemnon's seizing Achilles' war "prize" Briseis which provided the spark for the "wrath of Achilles" that was the theme of the Illiad? In her naive, womanly way she imagines all disputes as being settled by committees of Jewish Patriarchs. Moron. Talk about being blinkered by one's own cultural milieu.

    Bush Sr. believed that Americans owe Jews mucho shekels for giving Whites the eternal hope of a cisgender-free utopia. All it takes is hating your blood and forsaking your soil, and those who don’t agree should not be “considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under”—well, a Jewish deity! Certainly not under Gott.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Until Bush the lesser is excommunicated for his crimes against humanity, the Church is guilty of abetting the war crimes and the war criminal. The scoundrel used to belong to Methodist Church. That the Southern Methodist University in Dallas has been housing this criminal’s “library” is an enormous stinky stain on the SMU and the American Christian community at large.
    American political class of so-called Christians: No principles, no respect for the sanctity of life, no respect for the international law.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. There are many things about myself with which I am not pleased, but one of them is not my faculty of historical judgment, with which I have been endowed by the grace of God; and I can safely say that as more and more time passes, as the events of that abominable presidency become more objective and relegated to history, the more so do I despise George W. Bush.

    It is with regret that I must admit to voting for him, twice. His first election was also the first one I was old enough to vote in. I had recently moved, so I was still registered at a poling place a rather inconvenient distance from where I was then living. I did not have a car or a driver’s license, and I was very sick at the time. I had to call up my sister to give me a ride, and I trekked out to the polls with a raging sore throat and 103 degree fever to vote for W.

    As I watched the returns roll in that night, fortified by NyQuil and vodka, and witnessed the aborning drama which would become the Florida recount fiasco, I was glad I had done so. I thought I had really done my part for conservatism and country.

    I don’t want to go further down the path of personal anecdote right now, which could be elaborated at some length. Suffice it to say that I never agreed with the Iraq War, I balked at Neoconservatism as the doctrine took shape in the administration, reluctantly voted for Bush again in 2004 for domestic policy reasons, and by 2005 had completely repudiated his presidency. I knew the 2006 midterms would bring a decisive sweep of Republicans out of Congress and I basically agreed with that sentiment, but one of the worst things W. ever did was bequeath us Barack Hussein Obama as his successor. For that alone he should swing.

    Between W., Obama, and Clinton before them, those 24 years of Boomer misrule have completely destroyed any vestige of the form and grace of the old republic. Now the future will be nothing but a thankless and bitter rebuilding effort just to get back to some level of decency. We know that this country is ruined, and that’s before we even take note of his war crimes abroad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. His daughters were on Today this week plugging away, hoping for a latest Bush bestseller to further rehab their dad (no mention of their butt-pinching grandfather).
    Look I’ve said it before. I think things are going to end very badly for Trump. We know Nixon –a talented man– ran his presidency into vile muck and mire. But neither had or will have a worse presidency than G.W.Bush. That is the esteem with which I hold his neocon-riddled war-filled two terms.

    He is not redeemable and will never assume an elder statesman role.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. “In 1973, that disgraced vice president, Spiro Agnew”

    The CIA had to oust Agnew before the Watergate coup to remove populist Nixon, hence the “tax evasion” charge they can pin on any American. Nixon upset the CIA by ending their profitable war in SEA, and making peace with China and the Soviets. Agnew was replaced by Warren Commission lackey Ford, who became President within a year.

    Anyone who cares to read learns that Bush evaded the Vietnam war via family connections that gave him a fun job in the Texas Air National Guard. But there was that cocaine possession arrest that was secretly mediated into a few hours of secret community service in Houston. Then Bush failed a military drug test so he went AWOL and never finished his contract term.

    All this was simple for Dad HW Bush to manage as a career CIA operative, who was photographed in downtown Dallas during the JFK coup. Did you know his company provided ships for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, to include one named for his wife Barbara?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. WHAT says:

    >muh c`ville
    >le gasp

    Those very explicitly white people were there with full permission of the law, standing for their rights. Then pigs in blue betrayed them on the orders of their BLM mayor – was anyone surprised at that? – and antifa scum started attacking them outright.

    So much for “bigotry”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. MEexpert says:

    What a lousy hit job on the republican presidents with nary a mention of the two of the scumbags that preceded and followed Bush. To leave out Clinton and Obama from this article shows the author’s bias. That makes the article nothing but trash.

    Can anyone forget Madam Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, who thought the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was “worth it?” Bill Clinton firing 73 cruise missiles at Afghanistan to divert attention from Monica Lewinski scandal or bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.

    How about the Obama’s Secretary of State? Hillary destroyed a peaceful and prosperous Libya and had Muammar Ghaddafi murdered and gloated, “We came, We saw, and he died.”

    But of course, democrats can’t do anything wrong. They are sooooooo Nice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Bush the lesser is a Shame of America; this article does justice to the ignorant, irresponsible, and criminal brat. We, the readers, would be glad to see your analysis of the despicable Clintons and Obama the Fraud.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Regurgitation of ’19 Saudi airline hijackers’ drivel somewhat taints the veracity of your narrative and invalidates your geopolitical analysis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Same for the crap about The Nuremberg Show Trials.

    much more:
    https://codoh.com/search/?q=nuremberg+&sorting=relevance

    scroll down

    , @NoseytheDuke
    Agreed. Thank you for being diligent on this very important matter. It should never be left unchallenged.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Realist says:

    The genetics of the Bush family are very screwed up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jasper Been
    More than you realize!! Dubyas mother Barbara is rumored to be the daughter of Aleister Crowley.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    As long as the MSM keep pushing this Big Lie about 9/11…

    It only awaited 19 mostly Saudi terrorists hijacking four American commercial airliners on September 11, 2001.

    The USA will continue to be run by a motley collection of Zionist and NeoCON war mongers, waging endless wars for Apartheid Israel and those TBTF Wall Street banks.

    There’s also another Zionist paper that outlined what Israel wants and must do to achieve hegemony over its ME neighbors and allow it to steal more land, that was written by Oded Yinon, called “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf

    That too is being followed by American traitors and lackeys who have sold out Americans in order to serve Apartheid Israel.

    Until we finally realize that 9/11 was an Israeli masterminded False Flag with help from traitors in the WH, the Pentagon, CIA, FBI and NSA. With generous help from the Lying MSM, we will continue our downward spiral of decay and degradation, brought on by fighting endless wars for the glory of Apartheid Israel.

    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloak And Dagger

    Until we finally realize that 9/11 was an Israeli masterminded False Flag with help from traitors in the WH, the Pentagon, CIA, FBI and NSA. With generous help from the Lying MSM, we will continue our downward spiral of decay and degradation, brought on by fighting endless wars for the glory of Apartheid Israel.
     
    Now that we know more about the secret Saudi partnership with Israel, it is easier to understand the role of the 19 hijackers as not being distinct from Israel's involvement, remembering Mossad's proximity to the alleged perps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. The article provides a decent recapitulation of the crimes of the clowns, but does the author, or anyone for that matter, really have any credible evidence for this conspiracy theory?

    It only awaited 19 mostly Saudi terrorists hijacking four American commercial airliners on September 11, 2001.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Rebecca Gordon–who is gay, a diehard ‘progressive’ Democratic, and possibly Jewish–plays the familiar role of liberal gatekeeper in this partisan overview. Sure, GW Bush qualifies as a war criminal. So what? This ‘news’ is 15 years past its due date. Indeed, Gordon’s toothless ‘war criminal’ indictment also applies to a good hunk of America’s entire governing class (not to mention past presidents) as well as their Big Media co-conspirators. So why does Gordon focus on Bush and the GOP?

    Is Gordon is pulling her punches and showing her poltical bias?

    Indeed, Gordon even runs soft interference for Bibi Netanyahu and Bill ‘Sticky Fingers’ Clinton claiming that Netanyahu “rejected” the pro-Israel ‘Clean Break’ strategy and so did Clinton. But this is baloney in the grand scheme of things.

    “Clean Break’ and PNAC (Project for a New American Century) both had the same malevolent objectives: wipe out Israel’s foes using US power.

    And Israel eventually got what it wanted.

    Indeed, for decades Israel has lobbied and maneuvered for Washington’s annihilation of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Iran. This fact is well-documented. Another facet of Israel’s master plan is the cruel, US-enabled conquest and cleansing of Palestine. Why does Gordon ignore this festering cancer? Is it because Israel’s ruthless expansion has been subsidized by the leaders of both parties?

    Indeed, the implementation of neocon (and neo-liberal) policies that targets the above nations has been at the heart of America’s two ‘manstream’ political parties since LBJ. So why doesn’t Gordon–who teaches politics in SF at the college level–communicate this broader world-view?

    These permanent, pro-Zionist policies are all part of the same kosher conspiracy. Yes, it is a conspriarcy (a secret plan) and the covert, pro-Israel objectives never change. This is what a grand conspiracy looks like.

    Leftists like Gordon hate to acknowledge uncomfortable facts if they involve the world’s foremost victims. But facts are facts.

    Liberals like Gordon also tend to reject plain truth if it sounds ‘anti-Semitic’. For her, hard facts are no excuse for affirmg conclusions that are politically incorrect. After all, Israel is America’s special, sacred, democratic ally! (Repeat).

    Thou shalt not doubt.

    ‘Progressives’ like Gordon want instead to blame everything on the ususal suspects: Republicans, (white) racism, the patriarchy, and the usual collection of right wing deplorables. This worldview constitutes real prejudice.

    Sorry, Rebecca, the universe of corruption in Washington is far larger than what you describe. And to get the full picture, we must be willing to examine the dominant network of lavishly-funded, coordinated, and highly-placed pro-intervention Zionists that stretches from the Jerusalem to the City of London to Brussels to Wall Street to Hollywood and on to Washington. This global alliance includes not only US-based neocons, but Bibi, Hillary, Schumer and their countless international co-conspirators. They’re all part of the same Zio-centric recket.

    Bibi and his US-based armada of kosher operatives long sought Saddam (Iraq) eliminated and the same goes for Khadafy’s anti-Zionist Libya and Assad’s Syria–which remains at war with Israel and whose land (Golan Heights) was stolen by Israel in 1967 and ‘annexed’ by the Jewish State in 1980. All these foreign policy disasters are covered with Zionist fingerprints.

    Have you not noticed, Ms. Gordon?

    Ideed, kosher warmongering never ends in America. It’s ubiquitous. GW Bush is merely one chapter in this sorry saga. Meanwhile, Americans are hammered by pro-war Zio-prop each and every day.

    The inexperienced GW Bush merely headed one administration that was under this lobby’s thrall. But none are immune. This phenomena preceeded Bush and it’s with us now. It’s permanent feature in Amerian culture.

    The US-based Zionist brigade typically wraps itself in democratic clothing but they are the largest foreign element within America’s Deep State. And they clamor tirelessly for wars which benfit Israel. This harms America. And the problem is far bigger than any one presidency.

    Read More
    • Agree: Z-man, Cloak And Dagger
    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
    Agree
    Well said
    , @wayfarer
    "Most excellent, dude!"
    , @Verymuchalive
    The inexperienced GW Bush merely headed one administration that was under this lobby’s thrall. But none are immune. This phenomena preceeded Bush and it’s with us now. It’s permanent feature in Amerian culture.

    Neoconservatism and Neoliberalism have never been permanent features of American culture. Some of us are old enough to remember when things were very different.
    And things can change again, very quickly.
    You are far too pessimistic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. wayfarer says:

    “Israel Designed 9/11 to Spread Islamophobia”

    Read More
    • Replies: @prusmc
    If Israel designed 9-11 to spread Islamophobia it either did a very poor job or the consquences were opposite what was projected. Islam is now sanctified and above any criticism in tbe US. Just raising the specter of non-existing anti-Islamic backlash is the get-out-of jail free card pretty much anywhere in the western world todsy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Zumbuddi says:
    @Mark Green
    Rebecca Gordon--who is gay, a diehard 'progressive' Democratic, and possibly Jewish--plays the familiar role of liberal gatekeeper in this partisan overview. Sure, GW Bush qualifies as a war criminal. So what? This 'news' is 15 years past its due date. Indeed, Gordon's toothless 'war criminal' indictment also applies to a good hunk of America's entire governing class (not to mention past presidents) as well as their Big Media co-conspirators. So why does Gordon focus on Bush and the GOP?

    Is Gordon is pulling her punches and showing her poltical bias?

    Indeed, Gordon even runs soft interference for Bibi Netanyahu and Bill 'Sticky Fingers' Clinton claiming that Netanyahu "rejected" the pro-Israel 'Clean Break' strategy and so did Clinton. But this is baloney in the grand scheme of things.

    "Clean Break' and PNAC (Project for a New American Century) both had the same malevolent objectives: wipe out Israel's foes using US power.

    And Israel eventually got what it wanted.

    Indeed, for decades Israel has lobbied and maneuvered for Washington's annihilation of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Iran. This fact is well-documented. Another facet of Israel's master plan is the cruel, US-enabled conquest and cleansing of Palestine. Why does Gordon ignore this festering cancer? Is it because Israel's ruthless expansion has been subsidized by the leaders of both parties?

    Indeed, the implementation of neocon (and neo-liberal) policies that targets the above nations has been at the heart of America's two 'manstream' political parties since LBJ. So why doesn't Gordon--who teaches politics in SF at the college level--communicate this broader world-view?

    These permanent, pro-Zionist policies are all part of the same kosher conspiracy. Yes, it is a conspriarcy (a secret plan) and the covert, pro-Israel objectives never change. This is what a grand conspiracy looks like.

    Leftists like Gordon hate to acknowledge uncomfortable facts if they involve the world's foremost victims. But facts are facts.

    Liberals like Gordon also tend to reject plain truth if it sounds 'anti-Semitic'. For her, hard facts are no excuse for affirmg conclusions that are politically incorrect. After all, Israel is America's special, sacred, democratic ally! (Repeat).

    Thou shalt not doubt.

    'Progressives' like Gordon want instead to blame everything on the ususal suspects: Republicans, (white) racism, the patriarchy, and the usual collection of right wing deplorables. This worldview constitutes real prejudice.

    Sorry, Rebecca, the universe of corruption in Washington is far larger than what you describe. And to get the full picture, we must be willing to examine the dominant network of lavishly-funded, coordinated, and highly-placed pro-intervention Zionists that stretches from the Jerusalem to the City of London to Brussels to Wall Street to Hollywood and on to Washington. This global alliance includes not only US-based neocons, but Bibi, Hillary, Schumer and their countless international co-conspirators. They're all part of the same Zio-centric recket.

    Bibi and his US-based armada of kosher operatives long sought Saddam (Iraq) eliminated and the same goes for Khadafy's anti-Zionist Libya and Assad's Syria--which remains at war with Israel and whose land (Golan Heights) was stolen by Israel in 1967 and 'annexed' by the Jewish State in 1980. All these foreign policy disasters are covered with Zionist fingerprints.

    Have you not noticed, Ms. Gordon?

    Ideed, kosher warmongering never ends in America. It's ubiquitous. GW Bush is merely one chapter in this sorry saga. Meanwhile, Americans are hammered by pro-war Zio-prop each and every day.

    The inexperienced GW Bush merely headed one administration that was under this lobby's thrall. But none are immune. This phenomena preceeded Bush and it's with us now. It's permanent feature in Amerian culture.

    The US-based Zionist brigade typically wraps itself in democratic clothing but they are the largest foreign element within America's Deep State. And they clamor tirelessly for wars which benfit Israel. This harms America. And the problem is far bigger than any one presidency.

    Agree
    Well said

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. TG says:

    But look at all the firsts the United States has had!

    Barack Obama was our first multicultural half-black president. Ronald Reagan was our first Hollywood actor president. And George W. Bush was our first retard president!

    But how to describe Trump? First president without a super-ego?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sowhat
    The Bushes smell like The Rockefellers. And, now more than ever, the neocons and the Socialists Globalists have an increasingly foul oder. All Executives are actors and puppets, if you wish. The concept of giving them any, ANY, honors is purely propaganda. WE have always lived, at least since 1933, in a sort of pychofantic Corporate-ocracy that, in reality, could care less about this country's Proles and only care about profits. I've become more and more cynical since the internet has provided more reading sources and I have had more information with which to answer the "Who benefits from this?" question. The world is run by a Cabal of Mafioso and "Religious" truly mental cases and why the Proles don't rise up and take it back, crushing their whole banking system in the process tells me that men are sheep. If there is a God, he won't have that many in The Kingdom. LUCIFER, on the other hand, will have many with which to stoke the fires.
    , @Truth

    But how to describe Trump?
     
    First N****r President.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Z-man says:

    Rebecca Gordon–who is gay, a diehard ‘progressive’ Democratic, and possibly Jewish

    WTF do you mean possibly??? ROFL.
    I applaud her though for ripping ‘Dumbo Dubbya’ another a-hole, however small it was. His speech was an embarrassment to his race, his party and his family and further cemented the end of the Clinto-Bush dynasties! If one of Jeb’s half breed children get anywhere near the WH…what am I saying, the Unites States, as we know it, will be long gone by the time anybody would seriously consider that possibility!
    Putin Trump 2017-25!! Ok 2018-25? No? How about 2018-20? Damn not even that? Ok launch the missiles. 1st strike-The Zionist nuclear missile sites. 2nd strike- Commando operations on all the NEOCON think tanks in DC/NY. 3rd strike-The top Hedge Fund manage…Shylocks! Send them to an island far, far away, or Afghanistan whichever is worse. Ah one can dream no?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Looked in vain for any mention of Obama. Interesting….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. wayfarer says:
    @Mark Green
    Rebecca Gordon--who is gay, a diehard 'progressive' Democratic, and possibly Jewish--plays the familiar role of liberal gatekeeper in this partisan overview. Sure, GW Bush qualifies as a war criminal. So what? This 'news' is 15 years past its due date. Indeed, Gordon's toothless 'war criminal' indictment also applies to a good hunk of America's entire governing class (not to mention past presidents) as well as their Big Media co-conspirators. So why does Gordon focus on Bush and the GOP?

    Is Gordon is pulling her punches and showing her poltical bias?

    Indeed, Gordon even runs soft interference for Bibi Netanyahu and Bill 'Sticky Fingers' Clinton claiming that Netanyahu "rejected" the pro-Israel 'Clean Break' strategy and so did Clinton. But this is baloney in the grand scheme of things.

    "Clean Break' and PNAC (Project for a New American Century) both had the same malevolent objectives: wipe out Israel's foes using US power.

    And Israel eventually got what it wanted.

    Indeed, for decades Israel has lobbied and maneuvered for Washington's annihilation of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Iran. This fact is well-documented. Another facet of Israel's master plan is the cruel, US-enabled conquest and cleansing of Palestine. Why does Gordon ignore this festering cancer? Is it because Israel's ruthless expansion has been subsidized by the leaders of both parties?

    Indeed, the implementation of neocon (and neo-liberal) policies that targets the above nations has been at the heart of America's two 'manstream' political parties since LBJ. So why doesn't Gordon--who teaches politics in SF at the college level--communicate this broader world-view?

    These permanent, pro-Zionist policies are all part of the same kosher conspiracy. Yes, it is a conspriarcy (a secret plan) and the covert, pro-Israel objectives never change. This is what a grand conspiracy looks like.

    Leftists like Gordon hate to acknowledge uncomfortable facts if they involve the world's foremost victims. But facts are facts.

    Liberals like Gordon also tend to reject plain truth if it sounds 'anti-Semitic'. For her, hard facts are no excuse for affirmg conclusions that are politically incorrect. After all, Israel is America's special, sacred, democratic ally! (Repeat).

    Thou shalt not doubt.

    'Progressives' like Gordon want instead to blame everything on the ususal suspects: Republicans, (white) racism, the patriarchy, and the usual collection of right wing deplorables. This worldview constitutes real prejudice.

    Sorry, Rebecca, the universe of corruption in Washington is far larger than what you describe. And to get the full picture, we must be willing to examine the dominant network of lavishly-funded, coordinated, and highly-placed pro-intervention Zionists that stretches from the Jerusalem to the City of London to Brussels to Wall Street to Hollywood and on to Washington. This global alliance includes not only US-based neocons, but Bibi, Hillary, Schumer and their countless international co-conspirators. They're all part of the same Zio-centric recket.

    Bibi and his US-based armada of kosher operatives long sought Saddam (Iraq) eliminated and the same goes for Khadafy's anti-Zionist Libya and Assad's Syria--which remains at war with Israel and whose land (Golan Heights) was stolen by Israel in 1967 and 'annexed' by the Jewish State in 1980. All these foreign policy disasters are covered with Zionist fingerprints.

    Have you not noticed, Ms. Gordon?

    Ideed, kosher warmongering never ends in America. It's ubiquitous. GW Bush is merely one chapter in this sorry saga. Meanwhile, Americans are hammered by pro-war Zio-prop each and every day.

    The inexperienced GW Bush merely headed one administration that was under this lobby's thrall. But none are immune. This phenomena preceeded Bush and it's with us now. It's permanent feature in Amerian culture.

    The US-based Zionist brigade typically wraps itself in democratic clothing but they are the largest foreign element within America's Deep State. And they clamor tirelessly for wars which benfit Israel. This harms America. And the problem is far bigger than any one presidency.

    “Most excellent, dude!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Rayband says: • Website

    George Bush always cool at dropping adage. He’s my mentor since day one. Bless up fam.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. GWB is a war criminal and a domestic criminal for his part with the neocons and Israel in the destruction of WTC and the pentagram on 911 which took the lives of some 3000 Americans and gave the excuse for destroying the Mideast for Israel.

    The Zionist control over America is proven by the fact that the Zionists and their puppets ie GWB and Cheney etc., etc., have gotten away with the largest mass murder in American history, which led to thousands of American and millions of civilian deaths in Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan and Syria in an ongoing slaughter with no end in sight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. segundo says:

    Utterly biased hitjob.
    Quick summary: “White Republicans bad.”
    No mention of WJC’s sanctions against Iraq that killed at least half a MILLION Iraqi children. Nothing about Barack “The Bomber” Obama’s fetish for drones, his short-sighted (and dare I say it, ungrateful) backing of Qaddafi’s ouster and murder or BHO’s ramping up of the police state. Nothing. Globalist operatives just like the Bush dynasty.

    I’ve loathed Dubya since early 2002 at the latest. Gordon is obviously his enemy. That sure doesn’t make her my friend.
    Crawl back to your echo chamber and keep telling yourself lies, Rebecca. You’re part of the problem and wouldn’t know a solution if it bit you on your old, globalist ass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. @Mark Green
    Rebecca Gordon--who is gay, a diehard 'progressive' Democratic, and possibly Jewish--plays the familiar role of liberal gatekeeper in this partisan overview. Sure, GW Bush qualifies as a war criminal. So what? This 'news' is 15 years past its due date. Indeed, Gordon's toothless 'war criminal' indictment also applies to a good hunk of America's entire governing class (not to mention past presidents) as well as their Big Media co-conspirators. So why does Gordon focus on Bush and the GOP?

    Is Gordon is pulling her punches and showing her poltical bias?

    Indeed, Gordon even runs soft interference for Bibi Netanyahu and Bill 'Sticky Fingers' Clinton claiming that Netanyahu "rejected" the pro-Israel 'Clean Break' strategy and so did Clinton. But this is baloney in the grand scheme of things.

    "Clean Break' and PNAC (Project for a New American Century) both had the same malevolent objectives: wipe out Israel's foes using US power.

    And Israel eventually got what it wanted.

    Indeed, for decades Israel has lobbied and maneuvered for Washington's annihilation of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Iran. This fact is well-documented. Another facet of Israel's master plan is the cruel, US-enabled conquest and cleansing of Palestine. Why does Gordon ignore this festering cancer? Is it because Israel's ruthless expansion has been subsidized by the leaders of both parties?

    Indeed, the implementation of neocon (and neo-liberal) policies that targets the above nations has been at the heart of America's two 'manstream' political parties since LBJ. So why doesn't Gordon--who teaches politics in SF at the college level--communicate this broader world-view?

    These permanent, pro-Zionist policies are all part of the same kosher conspiracy. Yes, it is a conspriarcy (a secret plan) and the covert, pro-Israel objectives never change. This is what a grand conspiracy looks like.

    Leftists like Gordon hate to acknowledge uncomfortable facts if they involve the world's foremost victims. But facts are facts.

    Liberals like Gordon also tend to reject plain truth if it sounds 'anti-Semitic'. For her, hard facts are no excuse for affirmg conclusions that are politically incorrect. After all, Israel is America's special, sacred, democratic ally! (Repeat).

    Thou shalt not doubt.

    'Progressives' like Gordon want instead to blame everything on the ususal suspects: Republicans, (white) racism, the patriarchy, and the usual collection of right wing deplorables. This worldview constitutes real prejudice.

    Sorry, Rebecca, the universe of corruption in Washington is far larger than what you describe. And to get the full picture, we must be willing to examine the dominant network of lavishly-funded, coordinated, and highly-placed pro-intervention Zionists that stretches from the Jerusalem to the City of London to Brussels to Wall Street to Hollywood and on to Washington. This global alliance includes not only US-based neocons, but Bibi, Hillary, Schumer and their countless international co-conspirators. They're all part of the same Zio-centric recket.

    Bibi and his US-based armada of kosher operatives long sought Saddam (Iraq) eliminated and the same goes for Khadafy's anti-Zionist Libya and Assad's Syria--which remains at war with Israel and whose land (Golan Heights) was stolen by Israel in 1967 and 'annexed' by the Jewish State in 1980. All these foreign policy disasters are covered with Zionist fingerprints.

    Have you not noticed, Ms. Gordon?

    Ideed, kosher warmongering never ends in America. It's ubiquitous. GW Bush is merely one chapter in this sorry saga. Meanwhile, Americans are hammered by pro-war Zio-prop each and every day.

    The inexperienced GW Bush merely headed one administration that was under this lobby's thrall. But none are immune. This phenomena preceeded Bush and it's with us now. It's permanent feature in Amerian culture.

    The US-based Zionist brigade typically wraps itself in democratic clothing but they are the largest foreign element within America's Deep State. And they clamor tirelessly for wars which benfit Israel. This harms America. And the problem is far bigger than any one presidency.

    The inexperienced GW Bush merely headed one administration that was under this lobby’s thrall. But none are immune. This phenomena preceeded Bush and it’s with us now. It’s permanent feature in Amerian culture.

    Neoconservatism and Neoliberalism have never been permanent features of American culture. Some of us are old enough to remember when things were very different.
    And things can change again, very quickly.
    You are far too pessimistic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Greg Bacon
    As long as the MSM keep pushing this Big Lie about 9/11...

    It only awaited 19 mostly Saudi terrorists hijacking four American commercial airliners on September 11, 2001.
     
    The USA will continue to be run by a motley collection of Zionist and NeoCON war mongers, waging endless wars for Apartheid Israel and those TBTF Wall Street banks.

    There's also another Zionist paper that outlined what Israel wants and must do to achieve hegemony over its ME neighbors and allow it to steal more land, that was written by Oded Yinon, called "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties"

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf

    That too is being followed by American traitors and lackeys who have sold out Americans in order to serve Apartheid Israel.

    Until we finally realize that 9/11 was an Israeli masterminded False Flag with help from traitors in the WH, the Pentagon, CIA, FBI and NSA. With generous help from the Lying MSM, we will continue our downward spiral of decay and degradation, brought on by fighting endless wars for the glory of Apartheid Israel.


    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

    Until we finally realize that 9/11 was an Israeli masterminded False Flag with help from traitors in the WH, the Pentagon, CIA, FBI and NSA. With generous help from the Lying MSM, we will continue our downward spiral of decay and degradation, brought on by fighting endless wars for the glory of Apartheid Israel.

    Now that we know more about the secret Saudi partnership with Israel, it is easier to understand the role of the 19 hijackers as not being distinct from Israel’s involvement, remembering Mossad’s proximity to the alleged perps.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. AndrewR says:
    @Dan Hayes
    If there is anyone who deserves an up-to-date Nuremberg War Crimes Trial it certainly is George W.

    What has this country done to deserve such a witless and dangerous leader?

    He was the president we deserved. Why is everyone acting like the American people are so virtuous?

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Bard of Bumperstickers
    “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
    — H. L. Mencken.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Bush Had Perfect WMD Intel

    Carlton Meyer
    August 20, 2004

    The author is a former Marine Corps officer and editor of the G2mil web-based magazine at http://www.G2mil.com

    Am I the only American who can remember a major news event from less than three years ago? If you recall, as US forces built up to invade Iraq, President Bush demanded that Saddam Hussein permit UN inspectors “free and unfettered access” to search Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Saddam surprised everyone by agreeing, and UN inspectors were allowed to roam Iraq at will and check all the locations which Colin Powell had told the UN assembly were actively producing illegal weapons. After several weeks, the dozens of UN inspector teams had found nothing, and the dirty, rusty conditions of the suspect sites showed nothing had been made there for years.

    The Bush administration insisted they had other proof that WMDs were in Iraq, so Hans Blix publicly stated that if they would send him a clue, he’d have UN teams inspect the next day. Saddam even proposed that US military officers join the UN inspectors. So the USA had PERFECT intelligence that Iraq had no WMDs. The US military had complete freedom to fly anywhere in Iraq to observe activity, and UN inspectors on the ground who checked all possible sites and were permitted to stay in Iraq as long as they liked to pursue new leads. All this confirmed what General Hussein Kamel, Iraq’s weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995, told U.N. inspectors, that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles. So for whatever reason the Bush administration invaded Iraq, it was not because of WMDs.

    The “we were fooled by bad intelligence” ploy is one of the most successful disinformation campaigns this decade, and the American media has played along to a point where most Americans accept this as fact. In addition, many Americans think former CIA Director George Tenet told the President it was a “slam dunk” that Iraq had WMDs. Tenet never confirmed that, and resigned shortly after those allegations appeared in Bob Woodward’s book. The “slam dunk” story came from senior members of the Bush administration who allowed Woodward hours of their time for interviews. President Bush gave him more than two hours, more time than he spent with the 9-11 Commission. By all accounts, President Bush came off as a leader in Woodward’s book, Tenet was given the Iraq blame for “bad intelligence”, and Woodward made a million dollars from book sales.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "The “we were fooled by bad intelligence” ploy is one of the most successful disinformation campaigns this decade, and the American media has played along to a point where most Americans accept this as fact."
    What sane person would believe the 17 (!) intelligence agencies that currently operate in the US and abroad? As for the American media, it is nothing but a tool of international "haves."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Hank Rearden
    Bush Sr. believed that Americans owe Jews mucho shekels for giving Whites the eternal hope of a cisgender-free utopia. All it takes is hating your blood and forsaking your soil, and those who don't agree should not be "considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under"—well, a Jewish deity! Certainly not under Gott.

    Until Bush the lesser is excommunicated for his crimes against humanity, the Church is guilty of abetting the war crimes and the war criminal. The scoundrel used to belong to Methodist Church. That the Southern Methodist University in Dallas has been housing this criminal’s “library” is an enormous stinky stain on the SMU and the American Christian community at large.
    American political class of so-called Christians: No principles, no respect for the sanctity of life, no respect for the international law.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    Until Bush the lesser is excommunicated for his crimes against humanity, the Church is guilty of abetting the war crimes and the war criminal.
     
    And Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Don't talk about crimes against humanity unless you include these three. The intel GWB had before 9/11, Bill Clinton had it before him but chose not act upon it. He was handed Osama bin Laden on a sliver platter but he passed on it. I will not forgive GWB for what he did in Iraq and Afghanistan but I am not going to give free pass to the Nobel Laureate who was the bigger fraud and war criminal than GWB.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @MEexpert
    What a lousy hit job on the republican presidents with nary a mention of the two of the scumbags that preceded and followed Bush. To leave out Clinton and Obama from this article shows the author's bias. That makes the article nothing but trash.

    Can anyone forget Madam Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, who thought the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was "worth it?" Bill Clinton firing 73 cruise missiles at Afghanistan to divert attention from Monica Lewinski scandal or bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.

    How about the Obama's Secretary of State? Hillary destroyed a peaceful and prosperous Libya and had Muammar Ghaddafi murdered and gloated, "We came, We saw, and he died."

    But of course, democrats can't do anything wrong. They are sooooooo Nice.

    Bush the lesser is a Shame of America; this article does justice to the ignorant, irresponsible, and criminal brat. We, the readers, would be glad to see your analysis of the despicable Clintons and Obama the Fraud.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert
    I guess you did not read my post carefully before hitting the reply button. I gave you a short glimpse of the despicable Clintons and Obama the fraud. If you want more I would be very happy to oblige you.

    Bush's problem was that he was manipulated by evil Dick Cheney. In reality, Cheney ran the white house. Only once did he show some cojones when he refused to bomb Iran. Bush sealed his fate when he spoke about Palestinian rights. After that he was toast. Cheney and the neocons took over the white house. After 9/11 Cheney kept him out of Washington. Not because he wanted to protect him but he did not want Bush to give any orders.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Carlton Meyer
    Bush Had Perfect WMD Intel

    Carlton Meyer
    August 20, 2004

    The author is a former Marine Corps officer and editor of the G2mil web-based magazine at www.G2mil.com

    Am I the only American who can remember a major news event from less than three years ago? If you recall, as US forces built up to invade Iraq, President Bush demanded that Saddam Hussein permit UN inspectors "free and unfettered access" to search Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Saddam surprised everyone by agreeing, and UN inspectors were allowed to roam Iraq at will and check all the locations which Colin Powell had told the UN assembly were actively producing illegal weapons. After several weeks, the dozens of UN inspector teams had found nothing, and the dirty, rusty conditions of the suspect sites showed nothing had been made there for years.

    The Bush administration insisted they had other proof that WMDs were in Iraq, so Hans Blix publicly stated that if they would send him a clue, he'd have UN teams inspect the next day. Saddam even proposed that US military officers join the UN inspectors. So the USA had PERFECT intelligence that Iraq had no WMDs. The US military had complete freedom to fly anywhere in Iraq to observe activity, and UN inspectors on the ground who checked all possible sites and were permitted to stay in Iraq as long as they liked to pursue new leads. All this confirmed what General Hussein Kamel, Iraq's weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995, told U.N. inspectors, that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles. So for whatever reason the Bush administration invaded Iraq, it was not because of WMDs.

    The "we were fooled by bad intelligence" ploy is one of the most successful disinformation campaigns this decade, and the American media has played along to a point where most Americans accept this as fact. In addition, many Americans think former CIA Director George Tenet told the President it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMDs. Tenet never confirmed that, and resigned shortly after those allegations appeared in Bob Woodward's book. The "slam dunk" story came from senior members of the Bush administration who allowed Woodward hours of their time for interviews. President Bush gave him more than two hours, more time than he spent with the 9-11 Commission. By all accounts, President Bush came off as a leader in Woodward's book, Tenet was given the Iraq blame for "bad intelligence", and Woodward made a million dollars from book sales.

    “The “we were fooled by bad intelligence” ploy is one of the most successful disinformation campaigns this decade, and the American media has played along to a point where most Americans accept this as fact.”
    What sane person would believe the 17 (!) intelligence agencies that currently operate in the US and abroad? As for the American media, it is nothing but a tool of international “haves.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    America started to go to hell after 1973, Nixon was better than the 8 that followed. The psyop was unfortunate, but Americans were trained to hate upon Tricky Dick by the oppressive press. We’re now trained to hate upon a new generation of bag men by the CIA. Whatever it takes, keep posting sheep!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. MEexpert says:
    @Anon
    Until Bush the lesser is excommunicated for his crimes against humanity, the Church is guilty of abetting the war crimes and the war criminal. The scoundrel used to belong to Methodist Church. That the Southern Methodist University in Dallas has been housing this criminal’s “library” is an enormous stinky stain on the SMU and the American Christian community at large.
    American political class of so-called Christians: No principles, no respect for the sanctity of life, no respect for the international law.

    Until Bush the lesser is excommunicated for his crimes against humanity, the Church is guilty of abetting the war crimes and the war criminal.

    And Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Don’t talk about crimes against humanity unless you include these three. The intel GWB had before 9/11, Bill Clinton had it before him but chose not act upon it. He was handed Osama bin Laden on a sliver platter but he passed on it. I will not forgive GWB for what he did in Iraq and Afghanistan but I am not going to give free pass to the Nobel Laureate who was the bigger fraud and war criminal than GWB.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. When I saw that picture of GWB leaning back, eyes closed and smiling, onto the breast and shoulder of Obama’s smirking wife, any shred of sympathy or respect I had for the man went right out the window. Grotesque image of cuckservative self-abasement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. @Realist
    The genetics of the Bush family are very screwed up.

    More than you realize!! Dubyas mother Barbara is rumored to be the daughter of Aleister Crowley.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Son, not daughter; but +1, Buddy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. vx37 says:

    oversaw the saturation or “carpet” bombing of the North Vietnamese capital, Hanoi, and that country’s major port, Haiphong;

    Never happened. Brings other “facts” in this piece into question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. @AndrewR
    He was the president we deserved. Why is everyone acting like the American people are so virtuous?

    “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
    — H. L. Mencken.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. MEexpert says:
    @Anon
    Bush the lesser is a Shame of America; this article does justice to the ignorant, irresponsible, and criminal brat. We, the readers, would be glad to see your analysis of the despicable Clintons and Obama the Fraud.

    I guess you did not read my post carefully before hitting the reply button. I gave you a short glimpse of the despicable Clintons and Obama the fraud. If you want more I would be very happy to oblige you.

    Bush’s problem was that he was manipulated by evil Dick Cheney. In reality, Cheney ran the white house. Only once did he show some cojones when he refused to bomb Iran. Bush sealed his fate when he spoke about Palestinian rights. After that he was toast. Cheney and the neocons took over the white house. After 9/11 Cheney kept him out of Washington. Not because he wanted to protect him but he did not want Bush to give any orders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Agree with you on Cheney. He has got a very special fame.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. every time I hear there’s some new startling truth about Pres Nixon tat seals his fate as a scoundrel, I rad it some concern only to discover –

    it’s not new. it’s not revelatory and

    it’s no less speculative than the original claims and nattering sew jobs.
    Anna Chennault, has given numerous interviews and there wan’t much , if anything threatening to any peace negotiations. And it was unlikely that peace would have occurred. Just for the record — it takes two parties in a conflict to agree to a peace — North Vietnam had no intention at the time of agreeing to anything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. Mulegino1 says:

    Which occupant of the White House (since Herbert Hoover) has not been a war criminal who would be a perfect occupant of the dock for a new and improved Nuremberg Tribunal, without that eponymous forum’s vae victis kangaroo court and ex post facto show trial attributes? Maybe Jimmy Carter? Is Trump yet redeemable?

    Unless and until we Americans disabuse ourselves of the legend of the “good wars” fought to destroy Germany and Russia, make the world safe for “democracy” (read instead pipelines, oil, opium, markets and corporate hegemony) we will always elect war criminals. The shedding of blood appears to be a virtual sine qua non of the chief executive officer of the Atlanticist Zionist Empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
    Agree.

    Especially since your timeframe includes the ninny W Wilson, St Delano, sire of opium profiteers, and especially George H W Bush.
    H W spoke at the 1979 conference when Bibi outlined GWOT.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Sowhat says:
    @TG
    But look at all the firsts the United States has had!

    Barack Obama was our first multicultural half-black president. Ronald Reagan was our first Hollywood actor president. And George W. Bush was our first retard president!

    But how to describe Trump? First president without a super-ego?

    The Bushes smell like The Rockefellers. And, now more than ever, the neocons and the Socialists Globalists have an increasingly foul oder. All Executives are actors and puppets, if you wish. The concept of giving them any, ANY, honors is purely propaganda. WE have always lived, at least since 1933, in a sort of pychofantic Corporate-ocracy that, in reality, could care less about this country’s Proles and only care about profits. I’ve become more and more cynical since the internet has provided more reading sources and I have had more information with which to answer the “Who benefits from this?” question. The world is run by a Cabal of Mafioso and “Religious” truly mental cases and why the Proles don’t rise up and take it back, crushing their whole banking system in the process tells me that men are sheep. If there is a God, he won’t have that many in The Kingdom. LUCIFER, on the other hand, will have many with which to stoke the fires.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. nsa says:

    2006 snapshot of mainstream zio propaganda in a jooie colony: 85% of US soldiers in Iraq said the role of the US mission in Iraq “was to retaliate for Sadam’s role in the 911 attacks”, and 77% said the major reason for the war “was to stop Sadam from protecting Al Qaeda in Iraq”. Mission accomplished……the destruction of the ME at the behest of the bloodthirsty jooies without the conniving jooies having to lift a finger. Thank you for your service, goy morons……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Michelle says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    I always thought Bush the Younger was probably a fairly likeable guy in person, even though he was probably the worst US president of all time with the appointment of Condoleeza Rice to advise him on national security, followed by 9/11, the massive mistake of the invasion of Iraq, bringing back torture, and then the economy collapsing at the end of his 8 years in office as the final coup de grace.

    If he is to be remembered by posterity it is more likely to be for his paintings than for his time in the White House.

    As a POTUS he will probably play Nero to Trump's Caligula or Hamlet to Trump's Lear.

    I absolutely agree with every blessed thing you just said. He is a very sweet guy who is also a mass murderer and a destabilizer of almost the entire world, God help us all!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. He is a very sweet guy who is also a mass murderer and a destabilizer of almost the entire world, God help us all!

    So how does he differ from the the president in office at the time of his birth, and the one just the year before, the latter was even put on a coin? They killed more in single days than Bush did in eight years, yet are held up as heroes.

    The true impetus for accusing Bush has been the same as for Reagan, Nixon, Hoover, and Harding: he belonged to the wrong party. (Same reason Southerners are so much more “racist” today than in the 1930s.)

    The other party has topped all of their supposed crimes, and the only one who ever paid any price for it was LBJ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Michelle
    The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry! "Differing" makes no difference. It is the effect that matters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Zumbuddi says:
    @Mulegino1
    Which occupant of the White House (since Herbert Hoover) has not been a war criminal who would be a perfect occupant of the dock for a new and improved Nuremberg Tribunal, without that eponymous forum's vae victis kangaroo court and ex post facto show trial attributes? Maybe Jimmy Carter? Is Trump yet redeemable?

    Unless and until we Americans disabuse ourselves of the legend of the "good wars" fought to destroy Germany and Russia, make the world safe for "democracy" (read instead pipelines, oil, opium, markets and corporate hegemony) we will always elect war criminals. The shedding of blood appears to be a virtual sine qua non of the chief executive officer of the Atlanticist Zionist Empire.

    Agree.

    Especially since your timeframe includes the ninny W Wilson, St Delano, sire of opium profiteers, and especially George H W Bush.
    H W spoke at the 1979 conference when Bibi outlined GWOT.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mulegino1
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. anon says: • Disclaimer

    The video of Madeleine Albright saying it was “worth it” to starve to death half-a-million Iraqi children has appeared on this forum several dozen times.

    Yet seldom is the connection made that George H W Bush set that in motion.

    Bush Jr is the simpleton seed who finished off what his criminal father started.

    Bush Senior had the unique opportunity to collect the “peace dividend” at the fall of Berlin wall.
    He squandered it, preferring instead to wage more war in order to perpetuate what he said was, in effect, a continuation of WWII.

    Thus, he conceded that the destruction of Germany & Japan was in fact the deliberate strategy of USA to establish itself as the world’s hegemon — Masters of the New World Order.

    Bush, Sr. pivoted to imperialism but did not have the balls to do it militarily in 1991; he chose, instead, to wage war against children, and left the mop-up operation to his spawn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I guess one can challenge the first gulf war motives. And I am not sure that one can pin hi efforts merely on imperial ambition, but what is clear is that he used the military to accomplish the task to great effect.


    As I recall that was an international effort, that included several mid east states participation.

    , @Anon
    "Bush Senior had the unique opportunity to collect the “peace dividend” at the fall of Berlin wall. He squandered it, preferring instead to wage more war in order to perpetuate what he said was, in effect, a continuation of WWII."
    Agree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @anon
    The video of Madeleine Albright saying it was "worth it" to starve to death half-a-million Iraqi children has appeared on this forum several dozen times.

    Yet seldom is the connection made that George H W Bush set that in motion.

    Bush Jr is the simpleton seed who finished off what his criminal father started.

    Bush Senior had the unique opportunity to collect the "peace dividend" at the fall of Berlin wall.
    He squandered it, preferring instead to wage more war in order to perpetuate what he said was, in effect, a continuation of WWII.

    Thus, he conceded that the destruction of Germany & Japan was in fact the deliberate strategy of USA to establish itself as the world's hegemon -- Masters of the New World Order.

    Bush, Sr. pivoted to imperialism but did not have the balls to do it militarily in 1991; he chose, instead, to wage war against children, and left the mop-up operation to his spawn.

    I guess one can challenge the first gulf war motives. And I am not sure that one can pin hi efforts merely on imperial ambition, but what is clear is that he used the military to accomplish the task to great effect.

    As I recall that was an international effort, that included several mid east states participation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    I DO challenge GHWB's motives, on sound evidence, but even if motives were pure -- to get Saddam out of Kuwait -- why were no fly zone and killing sanctions imposed? They suggest the motive was regime change. In fact, Bush's advisors fully expected the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam and rush to the side of USA.

    An "international effort" can be bought if the right hands are greased with the right payoff.

    Many of the ME states begged Bush to butt out & let them solve the situation among themselves. Gorbachev gave Bush Sr. the same advice, repeatedly. But Dog Bush needed territory to mark; he got Saudi Arabs to request his intervention and offer to pay for it, which they did. Jr. was not quite that smart.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Michelle says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    He is a very sweet guy who is also a mass murderer and a destabilizer of almost the entire world, God help us all!
     
    So how does he differ from the the president in office at the time of his birth, and the one just the year before, the latter was even put on a coin? They killed more in single days than Bush did in eight years, yet are held up as heroes.

    The true impetus for accusing Bush has been the same as for Reagan, Nixon, Hoover, and Harding: he belonged to the wrong party. (Same reason Southerners are so much more "racist" today than in the 1930s.)

    The other party has topped all of their supposed crimes, and the only one who ever paid any price for it was LBJ.

    The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry! “Differing” makes no difference. It is the effect that matters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @EliteCommInc.
    I guess one can challenge the first gulf war motives. And I am not sure that one can pin hi efforts merely on imperial ambition, but what is clear is that he used the military to accomplish the task to great effect.


    As I recall that was an international effort, that included several mid east states participation.

    I DO challenge GHWB’s motives, on sound evidence, but even if motives were pure — to get Saddam out of Kuwait — why were no fly zone and killing sanctions imposed? They suggest the motive was regime change. In fact, Bush’s advisors fully expected the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam and rush to the side of USA.

    An “international effort” can be bought if the right hands are greased with the right payoff.

    Many of the ME states begged Bush to butt out & let them solve the situation among themselves. Gorbachev gave Bush Sr. the same advice, repeatedly. But Dog Bush needed territory to mark; he got Saudi Arabs to request his intervention and offer to pay for it, which they did. Jr. was not quite that smart.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    I DO challenge GHWB’s motives, on sound evidence, but even if motives were pure — to get Saddam out of Kuwait — why were no fly zone and killing sanctions imposed?
     
    The only motive for 1991 war was to get a foot back in the gulf. US had lost this position after the fall of Shah. Hence April Gillespie (sp), the US ambassador to Iraq, was used to set up Saddam to invade Kuwait. He made the mistake of trusting the US. He did not expect the ferocity of the US attack and backed off quickly. There were no no-fly zones imposed. Read General Schwarzkopf's book. He was watching Saddam's helicopters attacking the Shias in the south but was under orders not to interfere. He saw the slaughter and wanted to disobey orders but like a good soldier didn't.

    They suggest the motive was regime change. In fact, Bush’s advisors fully expected the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam and rush to the side of USA.
     
    After invading Kuwait, Saddam, on orders from US marched towards Saudi Arabia. It scared the desert Kingdom and they begged the US to come and save it. US got the foot in the door it wanted. The Gulf states did not want Saddam removed and therefore he was left in power. Yes, G. H. W. Bush is responsible for the slaughter of Shias in the south and the Kurds in the north. He gave them signals to overthrow Saddam but did not help them with weapons. Gulf states wanted Saddam left in place to counter Iran.

    Many of the ME states begged Bush to butt out & let them solve the situation among themselves.
     
    What are you talking about? Where are you getting your information? The Gulf States were terrified of Saddam. When have the Gulf States solved any problem among themselves? Say, Qatar? Technically, Saddam was within his rights to invade Kuwait. The British carved off part of Iraq and gave it to the emir and established the state of Kuwait.

    My friend, you need to learn the true facts of what went on in the gulf. Unfortunately, there is not enough space for me to go into details. The US played on the fears of the gulf monarchies to re-establish herself and will keep the wars going to maintain that position. As long as the state of Israel wants US to stay in the ME, get used to her presence there.
    , @EliteCommInc.
    Now I may have my dates incorrect, but the"coalition forces " flew sorties repeatedly and throughout the Presidency of Of Pres Clinton.

    The primary purpose of the Kuwait invasion was to oust Iraqi forces. There was hope that maybe the people of Iraq might revolt. But there was no intention for the US to have invaded Iraq for regime change. They knew what we should have held as sacred -- an invasion would have been problematic on many fronts.

    This enterprise was the an international effort. And while most of the human rights propaganda was nonsense, Iraq had invaded another country that was friendly to US and other western states interests.

    And while I think we are ignoring the issues surrounding that invasion by Iraq, I have to place on the back burner a "global economic agenda" as primary cause for that international effort.

    As for Iraq II, despite my fondness for Pres Bush and the Bush family in general -- no and I man no one with a HS diploma should have supported that effort. It was not the intelligence on te table. It was the intelligence that wasn't.


    There are times when we need to engage in the fearful business of war -- that was not such a time. And anyone making direct comparisons for the nonsense that has gone on about Vietnam by liberals since 1963 is operating in a very fanciful world. Very few comparison can be made between those conflicts directly.

    A conflict the US won.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Wally says: • Website
    @bliss_porsena
    Regurgitation of '19 Saudi airline hijackers' drivel somewhat taints the veracity of your narrative and invalidates your geopolitical analysis.

    Same for the crap about The Nuremberg Show Trials.

    much more:

    https://codoh.com/search/?q=nuremberg+&sorting=relevance

    scroll down

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @MEexpert
    I guess you did not read my post carefully before hitting the reply button. I gave you a short glimpse of the despicable Clintons and Obama the fraud. If you want more I would be very happy to oblige you.

    Bush's problem was that he was manipulated by evil Dick Cheney. In reality, Cheney ran the white house. Only once did he show some cojones when he refused to bomb Iran. Bush sealed his fate when he spoke about Palestinian rights. After that he was toast. Cheney and the neocons took over the white house. After 9/11 Cheney kept him out of Washington. Not because he wanted to protect him but he did not want Bush to give any orders.

    Agree with you on Cheney. He has got a very special fame.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anon
    The video of Madeleine Albright saying it was "worth it" to starve to death half-a-million Iraqi children has appeared on this forum several dozen times.

    Yet seldom is the connection made that George H W Bush set that in motion.

    Bush Jr is the simpleton seed who finished off what his criminal father started.

    Bush Senior had the unique opportunity to collect the "peace dividend" at the fall of Berlin wall.
    He squandered it, preferring instead to wage more war in order to perpetuate what he said was, in effect, a continuation of WWII.

    Thus, he conceded that the destruction of Germany & Japan was in fact the deliberate strategy of USA to establish itself as the world's hegemon -- Masters of the New World Order.

    Bush, Sr. pivoted to imperialism but did not have the balls to do it militarily in 1991; he chose, instead, to wage war against children, and left the mop-up operation to his spawn.

    “Bush Senior had the unique opportunity to collect the “peace dividend” at the fall of Berlin wall. He squandered it, preferring instead to wage more war in order to perpetuate what he said was, in effect, a continuation of WWII.”
    Agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Where were all these Johnny-Come-Lateleys when virtually the whole country was calling us a “terrorist supporter” for wanting evidence presented to extradite Bin Laden like Afghanistan requested? It made no sense on the face of it to overthrow Afghanistan in order to capture Bin Laden. As compared with just capturing him: a clear and attainable goal.

    Boy, was it great watching every day the drum-beat “Iraq, WMD’s, Saddam Hussein, 9/11, Mushroom Cloud…” or seeing Colin Powel show cartoons of mobile WMD labs to the UN. Any objection to this juvenile railroading, and you got destroyed.

    Bush was re-elected after it was already clear he lied us into war. It is more the American people’s character, not Bush’s in question here. He was elected. Twice. After clear data on what an unprepared coward he was – a dolt with no capacity beyond following his handler’s photo-op schedules.

    Reading that story book in front of children in that classroom – after knowing his country is under attack for certain. Is that Washington? Hamilton? Jefferson, Lincoln, or is he the worst president of all time? Then he decides it’s a great time to knock over Iraq. Wow, what could go wrong? Why even think about what happens after he’s overthrown?

    That term “Regime Change” has ever since been tossed about as if it were a delightful little enterprise for Americans to show how much they care.

    After invading an innocent country, Bush said he didn’t know where Bin Laden was. He didn’t care. Good God he said that publicly and got away with it. What kind of respect am I supposed to have for people who accept this?

    The one person Bush and the rest of my country insisted was guilty, we just ignored him until he died and needed to be resurrected by Obama in a staged theater event for re-election. There is no physical proof whatsoever that Bin Laden was killed as claimed. That’s why: because it didn’t happen.

    Hillary Clinton covered her mouth in shock while pretending to see Bin Laden being whacked, that’s how ridiculous this propaganda production was. All these people – the Clintons, Bushs, Obama, etc. – they’re all war criminals. Acting out in unison the most asinine storyboard narrative before the American people.

    Bush accomplished more carnage and mayhem, unleashed more savage gangsterism in the Middle East than the others. Lasting to this day. But the others – just more of the same disgusting psychopathy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Bush was re-elected after it was already clear he lied us into war. It is more the American people’s character, not Bush’s in question here.
     
    From Wiki:

    In the election, Bush carried 31 of 50 states, receiving a total of 286 electoral votes. He won an absolute majority of the popular vote (50.7 percent to his opponent's 48.3 percent).
     
    The invasion of Iraq completed in May 2003.
    The elections were in November 2004.

    Maybe that constant smirk on his face was about:
    "I know you. I'll do my part of the game, get some fun along, and I really do not care whatsoever what you think about me. Because.....I know you all".

    Sometimes I do think that he was/is actually a good guy.
    He couldn't keep straight face while playing his role. No decent man would.

    So.....makes you think about all those playing the game with straight face.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. peterAUS says:
    @Backwoods Bob
    Where were all these Johnny-Come-Lateleys when virtually the whole country was calling us a "terrorist supporter" for wanting evidence presented to extradite Bin Laden like Afghanistan requested? It made no sense on the face of it to overthrow Afghanistan in order to capture Bin Laden. As compared with just capturing him: a clear and attainable goal.

    Boy, was it great watching every day the drum-beat "Iraq, WMD's, Saddam Hussein, 9/11, Mushroom Cloud..." or seeing Colin Powel show cartoons of mobile WMD labs to the UN. Any objection to this juvenile railroading, and you got destroyed.

    Bush was re-elected after it was already clear he lied us into war. It is more the American people's character, not Bush's in question here. He was elected. Twice. After clear data on what an unprepared coward he was - a dolt with no capacity beyond following his handler's photo-op schedules.

    Reading that story book in front of children in that classroom - after knowing his country is under attack for certain. Is that Washington? Hamilton? Jefferson, Lincoln, or is he the worst president of all time? Then he decides it's a great time to knock over Iraq. Wow, what could go wrong? Why even think about what happens after he's overthrown?

    That term "Regime Change" has ever since been tossed about as if it were a delightful little enterprise for Americans to show how much they care.

    After invading an innocent country, Bush said he didn't know where Bin Laden was. He didn't care. Good God he said that publicly and got away with it. What kind of respect am I supposed to have for people who accept this?

    The one person Bush and the rest of my country insisted was guilty, we just ignored him until he died and needed to be resurrected by Obama in a staged theater event for re-election. There is no physical proof whatsoever that Bin Laden was killed as claimed. That's why: because it didn't happen.

    Hillary Clinton covered her mouth in shock while pretending to see Bin Laden being whacked, that's how ridiculous this propaganda production was. All these people - the Clintons, Bushs, Obama, etc. - they're all war criminals. Acting out in unison the most asinine storyboard narrative before the American people.

    Bush accomplished more carnage and mayhem, unleashed more savage gangsterism in the Middle East than the others. Lasting to this day. But the others - just more of the same disgusting psychopathy.

    Bush was re-elected after it was already clear he lied us into war. It is more the American people’s character, not Bush’s in question here.

    From Wiki:

    In the election, Bush carried 31 of 50 states, receiving a total of 286 electoral votes. He won an absolute majority of the popular vote (50.7 percent to his opponent’s 48.3 percent).

    The invasion of Iraq completed in May 2003.
    The elections were in November 2004.

    Maybe that constant smirk on his face was about:
    “I know you. I’ll do my part of the game, get some fun along, and I really do not care whatsoever what you think about me. Because…..I know you all“.

    Sometimes I do think that he was/is actually a good guy.
    He couldn’t keep straight face while playing his role. No decent man would.

    So…..makes you think about all those playing the game with straight face.

    Read More
    • Agree: Delinquent Snail
    • Replies: @Backwoods Bob
    I cannot conscience calling him a good guy.

    An entitled, lazy coke-head who slouched his way to a gilded throne. I had people tell me they liked him because he was "just like them", you know: a proudly ignorant fool.

    The scale of the killing we've done is so immense, it is our key political family issue because the whole Bill of Rights hangs in the balance. The war on terror is the war on the bill of rights.

    How can we call anyone good who has ushered in an era of revocation for things going as far back as the Magna Carta? A new Dark Age.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Taras77 says:

    Let me ask the stupid question as to who is behind this reprehensible effort to “rehabilitate” bush the simpleton.

    Invariably, the zionists.

    Maybe an idea on the road to rehabilitation is to let him do clean up chores in the true rehabilitation clinics where the kids who have been maimed by his “fight for freedom” are still trying to learn how to live without arms, legs, brains scrambled. A then, we have the multiple suicides on a daily basis.

    The idea that this person received an award from West Point is vomit inducing:
    .
    “Duty, Honor, Atrocity
    George W. Bush Receives a Character Award at West Point”

    No, I do not think that “rehabilitation” for this rum dumb war criminal is a good idea!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. MEexpert says:
    @anon
    I DO challenge GHWB's motives, on sound evidence, but even if motives were pure -- to get Saddam out of Kuwait -- why were no fly zone and killing sanctions imposed? They suggest the motive was regime change. In fact, Bush's advisors fully expected the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam and rush to the side of USA.

    An "international effort" can be bought if the right hands are greased with the right payoff.

    Many of the ME states begged Bush to butt out & let them solve the situation among themselves. Gorbachev gave Bush Sr. the same advice, repeatedly. But Dog Bush needed territory to mark; he got Saudi Arabs to request his intervention and offer to pay for it, which they did. Jr. was not quite that smart.

    I DO challenge GHWB’s motives, on sound evidence, but even if motives were pure — to get Saddam out of Kuwait — why were no fly zone and killing sanctions imposed?

    The only motive for 1991 war was to get a foot back in the gulf. US had lost this position after the fall of Shah. Hence April Gillespie (sp), the US ambassador to Iraq, was used to set up Saddam to invade Kuwait. He made the mistake of trusting the US. He did not expect the ferocity of the US attack and backed off quickly. There were no no-fly zones imposed. Read General Schwarzkopf’s book. He was watching Saddam’s helicopters attacking the Shias in the south but was under orders not to interfere. He saw the slaughter and wanted to disobey orders but like a good soldier didn’t.

    They suggest the motive was regime change. In fact, Bush’s advisors fully expected the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam and rush to the side of USA.

    After invading Kuwait, Saddam, on orders from US marched towards Saudi Arabia. It scared the desert Kingdom and they begged the US to come and save it. US got the foot in the door it wanted. The Gulf states did not want Saddam removed and therefore he was left in power. Yes, G. H. W. Bush is responsible for the slaughter of Shias in the south and the Kurds in the north. He gave them signals to overthrow Saddam but did not help them with weapons. Gulf states wanted Saddam left in place to counter Iran.

    Many of the ME states begged Bush to butt out & let them solve the situation among themselves.

    What are you talking about? Where are you getting your information? The Gulf States were terrified of Saddam. When have the Gulf States solved any problem among themselves? Say, Qatar? Technically, Saddam was within his rights to invade Kuwait. The British carved off part of Iraq and gave it to the emir and established the state of Kuwait.

    My friend, you need to learn the true facts of what went on in the gulf. Unfortunately, there is not enough space for me to go into details. The US played on the fears of the gulf monarchies to re-establish herself and will keep the wars going to maintain that position. As long as the state of Israel wants US to stay in the ME, get used to her presence there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    What are you talking about? Where are you getting your information?
     
    King's Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East
    by Jack O'Connell

    The Gulf States were terrified of Saddam.
     
    Iraq was broke. That was the crux of the conflict.

    Secret Dossier: The Hidden Agenda behind the Gulf War
    by Pierre Salinger and Eric Laurent


    ------

    The Iraqi no-fly zones were a set of two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by U.S., British, and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no explicit authorization. The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal" in a later interview with John Pilger. -wikipedia

    , @EliteCommInc.
    I am only going to reference your first comment. Given the relationship between the US, and Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait, the US was already firmly in the region.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @bliss_porsena
    Regurgitation of '19 Saudi airline hijackers' drivel somewhat taints the veracity of your narrative and invalidates your geopolitical analysis.

    Agreed. Thank you for being diligent on this very important matter. It should never be left unchallenged.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @MEexpert

    I DO challenge GHWB’s motives, on sound evidence, but even if motives were pure — to get Saddam out of Kuwait — why were no fly zone and killing sanctions imposed?
     
    The only motive for 1991 war was to get a foot back in the gulf. US had lost this position after the fall of Shah. Hence April Gillespie (sp), the US ambassador to Iraq, was used to set up Saddam to invade Kuwait. He made the mistake of trusting the US. He did not expect the ferocity of the US attack and backed off quickly. There were no no-fly zones imposed. Read General Schwarzkopf's book. He was watching Saddam's helicopters attacking the Shias in the south but was under orders not to interfere. He saw the slaughter and wanted to disobey orders but like a good soldier didn't.

    They suggest the motive was regime change. In fact, Bush’s advisors fully expected the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam and rush to the side of USA.
     
    After invading Kuwait, Saddam, on orders from US marched towards Saudi Arabia. It scared the desert Kingdom and they begged the US to come and save it. US got the foot in the door it wanted. The Gulf states did not want Saddam removed and therefore he was left in power. Yes, G. H. W. Bush is responsible for the slaughter of Shias in the south and the Kurds in the north. He gave them signals to overthrow Saddam but did not help them with weapons. Gulf states wanted Saddam left in place to counter Iran.

    Many of the ME states begged Bush to butt out & let them solve the situation among themselves.
     
    What are you talking about? Where are you getting your information? The Gulf States were terrified of Saddam. When have the Gulf States solved any problem among themselves? Say, Qatar? Technically, Saddam was within his rights to invade Kuwait. The British carved off part of Iraq and gave it to the emir and established the state of Kuwait.

    My friend, you need to learn the true facts of what went on in the gulf. Unfortunately, there is not enough space for me to go into details. The US played on the fears of the gulf monarchies to re-establish herself and will keep the wars going to maintain that position. As long as the state of Israel wants US to stay in the ME, get used to her presence there.

    What are you talking about? Where are you getting your information?

    King’s Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East
    by Jack O’Connell

    The Gulf States were terrified of Saddam.

    Iraq was broke. That was the crux of the conflict.

    Secret Dossier: The Hidden Agenda behind the Gulf War
    by Pierre Salinger and Eric Laurent

    ——

    The Iraqi no-fly zones were a set of two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by U.S., British, and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no explicit authorization. The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones “illegal” in a later interview with John Pilger. -wikipedia

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    The sanctions against Iraq were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council on Ba'athist Iraq. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, stayed largely in force until May 2003 (after Saddam Hussein's being forced from power),[1] and persisted in part, including reparations to Kuwait, through the present
    wikipedia

    ----

    Bush's team fully expected the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow Saddam

    Into the Desert, ed. Jeffrey Engel

    , @MEexpert
    These may be big names but I know my facts. It is one thing to write sitting in a Paris or New York Hotel, it is quite different to talk to people who went through the ordeal in person.

    Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones.
     
    I guess they must have been toy planes that were killing those Shias in the south and gas balloons that were gassing the Kurds because Saddam had to observe the n0-fly zone. Right!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anon

    What are you talking about? Where are you getting your information?
     
    King's Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East
    by Jack O'Connell

    The Gulf States were terrified of Saddam.
     
    Iraq was broke. That was the crux of the conflict.

    Secret Dossier: The Hidden Agenda behind the Gulf War
    by Pierre Salinger and Eric Laurent


    ------

    The Iraqi no-fly zones were a set of two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by U.S., British, and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no explicit authorization. The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal" in a later interview with John Pilger. -wikipedia

    The sanctions against Iraq were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council on Ba’athist Iraq. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, stayed largely in force until May 2003 (after Saddam Hussein’s being forced from power),[1] and persisted in part, including reparations to Kuwait, through the present
    wikipedia

    —-

    Bush’s team fully expected the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow Saddam

    Into the Desert, ed. Jeffrey Engel

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Truth says:
    @TG
    But look at all the firsts the United States has had!

    Barack Obama was our first multicultural half-black president. Ronald Reagan was our first Hollywood actor president. And George W. Bush was our first retard president!

    But how to describe Trump? First president without a super-ego?

    But how to describe Trump?

    First N****r President.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Truth says:
    @Jasper Been
    More than you realize!! Dubyas mother Barbara is rumored to be the daughter of Aleister Crowley.

    Son, not daughter; but +1, Buddy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @peterAUS

    Bush was re-elected after it was already clear he lied us into war. It is more the American people’s character, not Bush’s in question here.
     
    From Wiki:

    In the election, Bush carried 31 of 50 states, receiving a total of 286 electoral votes. He won an absolute majority of the popular vote (50.7 percent to his opponent's 48.3 percent).
     
    The invasion of Iraq completed in May 2003.
    The elections were in November 2004.

    Maybe that constant smirk on his face was about:
    "I know you. I'll do my part of the game, get some fun along, and I really do not care whatsoever what you think about me. Because.....I know you all".

    Sometimes I do think that he was/is actually a good guy.
    He couldn't keep straight face while playing his role. No decent man would.

    So.....makes you think about all those playing the game with straight face.

    I cannot conscience calling him a good guy.

    An entitled, lazy coke-head who slouched his way to a gilded throne. I had people tell me they liked him because he was “just like them”, you know: a proudly ignorant fool.

    The scale of the killing we’ve done is so immense, it is our key political family issue because the whole Bill of Rights hangs in the balance. The war on terror is the war on the bill of rights.

    How can we call anyone good who has ushered in an era of revocation for things going as far back as the Magna Carta? A new Dark Age.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    John 8:7
    “Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone.."

    The fact:
    We was re-elected, for the second term, by "31 of 50 states, receiving a total of 286 electoral votes. He won an absolute majority of the popular vote (50.7 percent to his opponent’s 48.3 percent)."

    So...how come that all those people voted for a "bad guy"?

    They didn't know he was a bad guy. Really? A year and a half after that invasion. Even more after 9/11, "Patriot Act", Guantanamo, renditions and such?
    Of course it's easy to buy.
    It's also not true.

    They didn't care about all that. More likely I'd say. If true, what does that make of that "voting block" then?

    All this blah blah against Bush reeks of hypocricy.
    , @Anon
    "The war on terror is the war on the bill of rights." - Absolutely. That's the main legacy of the privileged mass murderer with "godly" ambitions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. MEexpert says:
    @anon

    What are you talking about? Where are you getting your information?
     
    King's Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East
    by Jack O'Connell

    The Gulf States were terrified of Saddam.
     
    Iraq was broke. That was the crux of the conflict.

    Secret Dossier: The Hidden Agenda behind the Gulf War
    by Pierre Salinger and Eric Laurent


    ------

    The Iraqi no-fly zones were a set of two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by U.S., British, and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no explicit authorization. The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal" in a later interview with John Pilger. -wikipedia

    These may be big names but I know my facts. It is one thing to write sitting in a Paris or New York Hotel, it is quite different to talk to people who went through the ordeal in person.

    Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones.

    I guess they must have been toy planes that were killing those Shias in the south and gas balloons that were gassing the Kurds because Saddam had to observe the n0-fly zone. Right!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Give the proper due to the "organizers" and "deciders:" https://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17/how-reagan-armed-saddam-with-chemical-weapons/
    "...not only did Ronald Reagan’s Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime’s repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq’s Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

    http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1283 "The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983)."

    First the US squashed a democratic movement in Iran by overthrowing the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and installing the Shah. When Iranians rebelled and removed the puppet, the US encouraged Iraq to gas the Iranians. Today, the ZUSA squeals about WMD in Iran and about “existential danger” for Israel. The apartheid Jewish State wants to ruin both Iran and Syria, as if the 4 million slaughtered civilians of all ages (courtesy US/EU ziocons and other Friends of Israel - like Saudis) are not enough for the war criminals in DC and Tel Aviv.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. peterAUS says:
    @Backwoods Bob
    I cannot conscience calling him a good guy.

    An entitled, lazy coke-head who slouched his way to a gilded throne. I had people tell me they liked him because he was "just like them", you know: a proudly ignorant fool.

    The scale of the killing we've done is so immense, it is our key political family issue because the whole Bill of Rights hangs in the balance. The war on terror is the war on the bill of rights.

    How can we call anyone good who has ushered in an era of revocation for things going as far back as the Magna Carta? A new Dark Age.

    John 8:7
    “Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone..”

    The fact:
    We was re-elected, for the second term, by “31 of 50 states, receiving a total of 286 electoral votes. He won an absolute majority of the popular vote (50.7 percent to his opponent’s 48.3 percent).”

    So…how come that all those people voted for a “bad guy”?

    They didn’t know he was a bad guy. Really? A year and a half after that invasion. Even more after 9/11, “Patriot Act”, Guantanamo, renditions and such?
    Of course it’s easy to buy.
    It’s also not true.

    They didn’t care about all that. More likely I’d say. If true, what does that make of that “voting block” then?

    All this blah blah against Bush reeks of hypocricy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    And do not forget that Bush the lesser has been a darling of American Christians.
    Look at his "library" at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
    The Southern Methodist University in Dallas, namely the Bushcenter, should have simply installed a giant stature of devil on the campus to commemorate the amazing exploits of Bush. If there were real Christians in the US and Vatican, the criminal Bush should have been excommunicated long time ago.
    Sanctity of life is the last thing the sanctimonious government of Texas cares about. The government and Bushcenter – and its idol Bush the lesser – are as anti-life as only the worst of humanity can be. They are just business people, and they approve good busness (such the business of killing a lot of people, including huge numbers of children, during illegal wars of aggression) which brings good gesheft: http://www.bushcenter.org/about-the-center/southern-methodist-university.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. prusmc says:
    @wayfarer
    "Israel Designed 9/11 to Spread Islamophobia"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7_6YJlY964

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxQz1rOCYAAKoL1.jpg

    If Israel designed 9-11 to spread Islamophobia it either did a very poor job or the consquences were opposite what was projected. Islam is now sanctified and above any criticism in tbe US. Just raising the specter of non-existing anti-Islamic backlash is the get-out-of jail free card pretty much anywhere in the western world todsy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Backwoods Bob
    I cannot conscience calling him a good guy.

    An entitled, lazy coke-head who slouched his way to a gilded throne. I had people tell me they liked him because he was "just like them", you know: a proudly ignorant fool.

    The scale of the killing we've done is so immense, it is our key political family issue because the whole Bill of Rights hangs in the balance. The war on terror is the war on the bill of rights.

    How can we call anyone good who has ushered in an era of revocation for things going as far back as the Magna Carta? A new Dark Age.

    “The war on terror is the war on the bill of rights.” – Absolutely. That’s the main legacy of the privileged mass murderer with “godly” ambitions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @MEexpert
    These may be big names but I know my facts. It is one thing to write sitting in a Paris or New York Hotel, it is quite different to talk to people who went through the ordeal in person.

    Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones.
     
    I guess they must have been toy planes that were killing those Shias in the south and gas balloons that were gassing the Kurds because Saddam had to observe the n0-fly zone. Right!

    Give the proper due to the “organizers” and “deciders:” https://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17/how-reagan-armed-saddam-with-chemical-weapons/
    “…not only did Ronald Reagan’s Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime’s repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq’s Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

    http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1283 “The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would “probably” include “an eventual nuclear weapon capability,” harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).”

    First the US squashed a democratic movement in Iran by overthrowing the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and installing the Shah. When Iranians rebelled and removed the puppet, the US encouraged Iraq to gas the Iranians. Today, the ZUSA squeals about WMD in Iran and about “existential danger” for Israel. The apartheid Jewish State wants to ruin both Iran and Syria, as if the 4 million slaughtered civilians of all ages (courtesy US/EU ziocons and other Friends of Israel – like Saudis) are not enough for the war criminals in DC and Tel Aviv.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @peterAUS
    John 8:7
    “Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone.."

    The fact:
    We was re-elected, for the second term, by "31 of 50 states, receiving a total of 286 electoral votes. He won an absolute majority of the popular vote (50.7 percent to his opponent’s 48.3 percent)."

    So...how come that all those people voted for a "bad guy"?

    They didn't know he was a bad guy. Really? A year and a half after that invasion. Even more after 9/11, "Patriot Act", Guantanamo, renditions and such?
    Of course it's easy to buy.
    It's also not true.

    They didn't care about all that. More likely I'd say. If true, what does that make of that "voting block" then?

    All this blah blah against Bush reeks of hypocricy.

    And do not forget that Bush the lesser has been a darling of American Christians.
    Look at his “library” at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
    The Southern Methodist University in Dallas, namely the Bushcenter, should have simply installed a giant stature of devil on the campus to commemorate the amazing exploits of Bush. If there were real Christians in the US and Vatican, the criminal Bush should have been excommunicated long time ago.
    Sanctity of life is the last thing the sanctimonious government of Texas cares about. The government and Bushcenter – and its idol Bush the lesser – are as anti-life as only the worst of humanity can be. They are just business people, and they approve good busness (such the business of killing a lot of people, including huge numbers of children, during illegal wars of aggression) which brings good gesheft: http://www.bushcenter.org/about-the-center/southern-methodist-university.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @anon
    I DO challenge GHWB's motives, on sound evidence, but even if motives were pure -- to get Saddam out of Kuwait -- why were no fly zone and killing sanctions imposed? They suggest the motive was regime change. In fact, Bush's advisors fully expected the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam and rush to the side of USA.

    An "international effort" can be bought if the right hands are greased with the right payoff.

    Many of the ME states begged Bush to butt out & let them solve the situation among themselves. Gorbachev gave Bush Sr. the same advice, repeatedly. But Dog Bush needed territory to mark; he got Saudi Arabs to request his intervention and offer to pay for it, which they did. Jr. was not quite that smart.

    Now I may have my dates incorrect, but the”coalition forces ” flew sorties repeatedly and throughout the Presidency of Of Pres Clinton.

    The primary purpose of the Kuwait invasion was to oust Iraqi forces. There was hope that maybe the people of Iraq might revolt. But there was no intention for the US to have invaded Iraq for regime change. They knew what we should have held as sacred — an invasion would have been problematic on many fronts.

    This enterprise was the an international effort. And while most of the human rights propaganda was nonsense, Iraq had invaded another country that was friendly to US and other western states interests.

    And while I think we are ignoring the issues surrounding that invasion by Iraq, I have to place on the back burner a “global economic agenda” as primary cause for that international effort.

    As for Iraq II, despite my fondness for Pres Bush and the Bush family in general — no and I man no one with a HS diploma should have supported that effort. It was not the intelligence on te table. It was the intelligence that wasn’t.

    There are times when we need to engage in the fearful business of war — that was not such a time. And anyone making direct comparisons for the nonsense that has gone on about Vietnam by liberals since 1963 is operating in a very fanciful world. Very few comparison can be made between those conflicts directly.

    A conflict the US won.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "A conflict the US won"

    Are you a Cheney acolyte? - The "conflict" was a supreme crime of war of aggression, which was accompanied by massive violation of the US Constitution. The scoundrels have committed high treason against the United States of America and her citizenry.

    Btw, how is your "mission accomplished" after 16 years of fighting the third world country and after the loss of $6 trillion of US dollars on the invasions and medcare for veterans plus the "missing" $6trillion dollars that Pentagon could not account for? There are some in the FedReserve, MIC, and the US government, who have become very wealthy thanks to the “lost and missing” trillions of dollars. These war profiteers are not interested in visiting the young disabled veterans, aren't they? The four millions of slaughtered civilians (including thousands and thousands children) are of no concern for the war profiteers as well.
    Only Israel-firsters could be happy with the disaster that has fallen of the US and on the formerly functioning secular states of the Middle East.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Dan Hayes
    If there is anyone who deserves an up-to-date Nuremberg War Crimes Trial it certainly is George W.

    What has this country done to deserve such a witless and dangerous leader?

    Hillary should also be put on trial for Libya.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The USA wages war. That’s really it in a nutshell. You could blame one guy, one administration, a few documented incidents – but the conclusion should be that the USA wages war.

    The only real debate for one political party (or the other) seems to be which party is conducting a war, never the war itself.

    If we’re to blame anyone for war if would have to be our press, the most important asset to militarism the country will ever know. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Nation and Tom’s Dispatch all engage in conditioning, demonizing a so-called enemy, disinformation, half-truths, and vagueness as direct participation in war. Especially the wars that you don’t know about. The real threat is the vacuum of controlled opposition.

    If a hundred progressive, left, right, and every color of the rainbow websites appear to be against war by offering repetition, oversimplification and the usual suspects of good propaganda – will that make war more successful? Of course.

    Confused? Need a refill? Refer to Code Pink or David Swanson for stuff that Goebbel’s could only dream about.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. As Chomsky said, based on Neurenberg jurisprudence, any USA president could be hanged.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Backwoods Bob
    Exactly so.

    It makes me physically ill to see once again a sitting president simply look away from brazen crimes by predecessors.

    Obama said he was going to "look forward", his euphemism for a defacto blanket pardon for the Bush Crime Syndicate.

    Trump has already told us. People are not listening. He said Hillary had suffered enough.

    I am sick of seeing dupes falling for the relentless conveyor belt of fake news regarding Hillary's imminent indictment. Her boot is hiding an ankle bracelet, and so is her daughter and partner in crime John McCain.

    Oh sure, all these sealed indictments are for Hillary, McCain, Chelsea, et al. Wikileaks released a new bombshell, she's going down this time for sure. A new witness appears, Hillary's goose is cooked.

    Bullshit. Trump could have had her indicted his first day in office. The fact he hasn't by now tells people with eyes what they need to know. He thinks she has suffered enough.

    Trump can fire anyone summarily for refusing to follow through with indictments on Hillary's classified information crimes alone.

    But to hang one, you have to hang them all. So nobody gets hanged. I disagree. Hang them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @MEexpert

    I DO challenge GHWB’s motives, on sound evidence, but even if motives were pure — to get Saddam out of Kuwait — why were no fly zone and killing sanctions imposed?
     
    The only motive for 1991 war was to get a foot back in the gulf. US had lost this position after the fall of Shah. Hence April Gillespie (sp), the US ambassador to Iraq, was used to set up Saddam to invade Kuwait. He made the mistake of trusting the US. He did not expect the ferocity of the US attack and backed off quickly. There were no no-fly zones imposed. Read General Schwarzkopf's book. He was watching Saddam's helicopters attacking the Shias in the south but was under orders not to interfere. He saw the slaughter and wanted to disobey orders but like a good soldier didn't.

    They suggest the motive was regime change. In fact, Bush’s advisors fully expected the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam and rush to the side of USA.
     
    After invading Kuwait, Saddam, on orders from US marched towards Saudi Arabia. It scared the desert Kingdom and they begged the US to come and save it. US got the foot in the door it wanted. The Gulf states did not want Saddam removed and therefore he was left in power. Yes, G. H. W. Bush is responsible for the slaughter of Shias in the south and the Kurds in the north. He gave them signals to overthrow Saddam but did not help them with weapons. Gulf states wanted Saddam left in place to counter Iran.

    Many of the ME states begged Bush to butt out & let them solve the situation among themselves.
     
    What are you talking about? Where are you getting your information? The Gulf States were terrified of Saddam. When have the Gulf States solved any problem among themselves? Say, Qatar? Technically, Saddam was within his rights to invade Kuwait. The British carved off part of Iraq and gave it to the emir and established the state of Kuwait.

    My friend, you need to learn the true facts of what went on in the gulf. Unfortunately, there is not enough space for me to go into details. The US played on the fears of the gulf monarchies to re-establish herself and will keep the wars going to maintain that position. As long as the state of Israel wants US to stay in the ME, get used to her presence there.

    I am only going to reference your first comment. Given the relationship between the US, and Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait, the US was already firmly in the region.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    I am only going to reference your first comment. Given the relationship between the US, and Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait, the US was already firmly in the region.
     
    Yes, the US had relations with Saudi Arabia but there was no base in the Gulf after the fall of Shah. The US desperately needed a home so they scared the pants off of the Kingdom via Saddam and got Saudis to allow the US to station forces in the Kingdom.

    A year later when things calmed down, the Saudi public demanded that the US leave the kingdom, so the US used Saddam again. Out of the blues Saddam started towards Saudi Arabia and the Saudi begged the US to stay.

    For your information, after the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam's forces were knocking at the door of Kingdom but they stopped at the border. If Saddam really wanted to invade Saudi Arabia, he could have marched to Riyadh before the US could mobilize any forces. It was just a ruse to scare the Saudis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @jilles dykstra
    As Chomsky said, based on Neurenberg jurisprudence, any USA president could be hanged.

    Exactly so.

    It makes me physically ill to see once again a sitting president simply look away from brazen crimes by predecessors.

    Obama said he was going to “look forward”, his euphemism for a defacto blanket pardon for the Bush Crime Syndicate.

    Trump has already told us. People are not listening. He said Hillary had suffered enough.

    I am sick of seeing dupes falling for the relentless conveyor belt of fake news regarding Hillary’s imminent indictment. Her boot is hiding an ankle bracelet, and so is her daughter and partner in crime John McCain.

    Oh sure, all these sealed indictments are for Hillary, McCain, Chelsea, et al. Wikileaks released a new bombshell, she’s going down this time for sure. A new witness appears, Hillary’s goose is cooked.

    Bullshit. Trump could have had her indicted his first day in office. The fact he hasn’t by now tells people with eyes what they need to know. He thinks she has suffered enough.

    Trump can fire anyone summarily for refusing to follow through with indictments on Hillary’s classified information crimes alone.

    But to hang one, you have to hang them all. So nobody gets hanged. I disagree. Hang them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @EliteCommInc.
    Now I may have my dates incorrect, but the"coalition forces " flew sorties repeatedly and throughout the Presidency of Of Pres Clinton.

    The primary purpose of the Kuwait invasion was to oust Iraqi forces. There was hope that maybe the people of Iraq might revolt. But there was no intention for the US to have invaded Iraq for regime change. They knew what we should have held as sacred -- an invasion would have been problematic on many fronts.

    This enterprise was the an international effort. And while most of the human rights propaganda was nonsense, Iraq had invaded another country that was friendly to US and other western states interests.

    And while I think we are ignoring the issues surrounding that invasion by Iraq, I have to place on the back burner a "global economic agenda" as primary cause for that international effort.

    As for Iraq II, despite my fondness for Pres Bush and the Bush family in general -- no and I man no one with a HS diploma should have supported that effort. It was not the intelligence on te table. It was the intelligence that wasn't.


    There are times when we need to engage in the fearful business of war -- that was not such a time. And anyone making direct comparisons for the nonsense that has gone on about Vietnam by liberals since 1963 is operating in a very fanciful world. Very few comparison can be made between those conflicts directly.

    A conflict the US won.

    “A conflict the US won”

    Are you a Cheney acolyte? – The “conflict” was a supreme crime of war of aggression, which was accompanied by massive violation of the US Constitution. The scoundrels have committed high treason against the United States of America and her citizenry.

    Btw, how is your “mission accomplished” after 16 years of fighting the third world country and after the loss of $6 trillion of US dollars on the invasions and medcare for veterans plus the “missing” $6trillion dollars that Pentagon could not account for? There are some in the FedReserve, MIC, and the US government, who have become very wealthy thanks to the “lost and missing” trillions of dollars. These war profiteers are not interested in visiting the young disabled veterans, aren’t they? The four millions of slaughtered civilians (including thousands and thousands children) are of no concern for the war profiteers as well.
    Only Israel-firsters could be happy with the disaster that has fallen of the US and on the formerly functioning secular states of the Middle East.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Uhhh excuse me.

    But I opposed the the second invasion of Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

    Both were unnecessary and Afghanistan was barely justified.

    I paid a heavy price for that opposition. And yet, I would not shift those positions to this day.

    My opposition was extensive and on the record. In fact, I thought that would be clear by earlier comments. In referencing no fly zones, I am noting the period before the second invasion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Anon
    "A conflict the US won"

    Are you a Cheney acolyte? - The "conflict" was a supreme crime of war of aggression, which was accompanied by massive violation of the US Constitution. The scoundrels have committed high treason against the United States of America and her citizenry.

    Btw, how is your "mission accomplished" after 16 years of fighting the third world country and after the loss of $6 trillion of US dollars on the invasions and medcare for veterans plus the "missing" $6trillion dollars that Pentagon could not account for? There are some in the FedReserve, MIC, and the US government, who have become very wealthy thanks to the “lost and missing” trillions of dollars. These war profiteers are not interested in visiting the young disabled veterans, aren't they? The four millions of slaughtered civilians (including thousands and thousands children) are of no concern for the war profiteers as well.
    Only Israel-firsters could be happy with the disaster that has fallen of the US and on the formerly functioning secular states of the Middle East.

    Uhhh excuse me.

    But I opposed the the second invasion of Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

    Both were unnecessary and Afghanistan was barely justified.

    I paid a heavy price for that opposition. And yet, I would not shift those positions to this day.

    My opposition was extensive and on the record. In fact, I thought that would be clear by earlier comments. In referencing no fly zones, I am noting the period before the second invasion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You wrote, "But there was no intention for the US to have invaded Iraq for regime change." - Are you serious? Still believing in "democracy on the march?" - One can hear Condi's voice in your words.

    Here is your another statement: "Afghanistan [war] was barely justified." – Could you explain how it was justified?
    Meanwhile, let's examine the results of the war. Since the U.S.-led illegal invasion of Afghanistan, opium production has increased 35-fold, Taliban is back to power, and life has worsened significantly for women and girls.
    https://www.alternet.org/world/taliban-back-power
    http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2016/11/22/horrific-cases-of-women-abuse-in-afghanistan.html
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-saifee/the-war-on-opium-in-afgha_b_9828506.html

    "Afghanistan’s civilian casualties hit record high in 2016. Deaths and injuries of children soar from unexploded ordnance, aerial operations." -- But we can be sure that American war profiteers made a nice gesheft on the human misery. Including profits on opium production. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/06/afghanistans-civilian-casualties-hit-record-high-2016

    As for a "heavy price for your opposition" - Have you lost a son or a daughter to the illegal wars?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @EliteCommInc.
    Uhhh excuse me.

    But I opposed the the second invasion of Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

    Both were unnecessary and Afghanistan was barely justified.

    I paid a heavy price for that opposition. And yet, I would not shift those positions to this day.

    My opposition was extensive and on the record. In fact, I thought that would be clear by earlier comments. In referencing no fly zones, I am noting the period before the second invasion.

    You wrote, “But there was no intention for the US to have invaded Iraq for regime change.” – Are you serious? Still believing in “democracy on the march?” – One can hear Condi’s voice in your words.

    Here is your another statement: “Afghanistan [war] was barely justified.” – Could you explain how it was justified?
    Meanwhile, let’s examine the results of the war. Since the U.S.-led illegal invasion of Afghanistan, opium production has increased 35-fold, Taliban is back to power, and life has worsened significantly for women and girls.

    https://www.alternet.org/world/taliban-back-power

    http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2016/11/22/horrific-cases-of-women-abuse-in-afghanistan.html

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-saifee/the-war-on-opium-in-afgha_b_9828506.html

    “Afghanistan’s civilian casualties hit record high in 2016. Deaths and injuries of children soar from unexploded ordnance, aerial operations.” — But we can be sure that American war profiteers made a nice gesheft on the human misery. Including profits on opium production. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/06/afghanistans-civilian-casualties-hit-record-high-2016

    As for a “heavy price for your opposition” – Have you lost a son or a daughter to the illegal wars?

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Laugh . . . No picking on my girlfriend Miss rice. My comments are in reference to the first gulf invasion --- on the discussion of no fly zones. Clearly, regime change was the order of the day in 2002/2003. I opposed the matter


    I also opposed the invasion of Afghanistan as unnecessary. The goal should never have been regime change or democracy creation. It was a mission that should remained limited to the capture arrest and or extradition.

    At most a covert ops operation involving small. very small footprints.

    Nor did I support the EU/US press for a violent revolution in the Ukraine. It didn't make sense to me.

    Being a conservative actually means thinking and acting conservative as often and consistently as possible.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. MEexpert says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I am only going to reference your first comment. Given the relationship between the US, and Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait, the US was already firmly in the region.

    I am only going to reference your first comment. Given the relationship between the US, and Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait, the US was already firmly in the region.

    Yes, the US had relations with Saudi Arabia but there was no base in the Gulf after the fall of Shah. The US desperately needed a home so they scared the pants off of the Kingdom via Saddam and got Saudis to allow the US to station forces in the Kingdom.

    A year later when things calmed down, the Saudi public demanded that the US leave the kingdom, so the US used Saddam again. Out of the blues Saddam started towards Saudi Arabia and the Saudi begged the US to stay.

    For your information, after the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam’s forces were knocking at the door of Kingdom but they stopped at the border. If Saddam really wanted to invade Saudi Arabia, he could have marched to Riyadh before the US could mobilize any forces. It was just a ruse to scare the Saudis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I am not a believer in US omnipotence to cause other states to be other than who they are. In my view, several tank regiments racing to my border would cause me some concern. Now I think t is fair to say that the Saudis had every reason to be concerned.

    There were other disagreements between the Saudis and Pres Hussein's admin. One of course was whether Pres Hussein had in fact, stunted the Iranian Islamic revolution. What exactly were the original borders before the colonial carve outs - I think it is safe to note that Pres. Hussein wanted to establish an old world Persia, Kuwait was part of that argument.


    O would not dispute that the establishment of military base is not part of the overall game plan in spreading capital systems and democracy -- ref. "Pentagon's New Map."

    However, that is not the only factor in play.

    I am not contending against your observation, but I would push back about the suggested puppetry of Saudi Arabia. Yemen was not a US gambit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. So we have Reagan to blame for current flight delays? A claim that is preposterous and in no way supported by the linked article. I would expect better from the Unz Review.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Bush looked great when he threw out a pitch during game 5 in this years World Series. That ol’ wiley double take thing that he does. It’s too bad he can’t be President again. Just think how good things were when he got elected. No 9/11, no Iraq/Afghanistan wars and no financial crisis. Conclusion? If America is to be made great again we must go back in time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. @MEexpert

    I am only going to reference your first comment. Given the relationship between the US, and Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait, the US was already firmly in the region.
     
    Yes, the US had relations with Saudi Arabia but there was no base in the Gulf after the fall of Shah. The US desperately needed a home so they scared the pants off of the Kingdom via Saddam and got Saudis to allow the US to station forces in the Kingdom.

    A year later when things calmed down, the Saudi public demanded that the US leave the kingdom, so the US used Saddam again. Out of the blues Saddam started towards Saudi Arabia and the Saudi begged the US to stay.

    For your information, after the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam's forces were knocking at the door of Kingdom but they stopped at the border. If Saddam really wanted to invade Saudi Arabia, he could have marched to Riyadh before the US could mobilize any forces. It was just a ruse to scare the Saudis.

    I am not a believer in US omnipotence to cause other states to be other than who they are. In my view, several tank regiments racing to my border would cause me some concern. Now I think t is fair to say that the Saudis had every reason to be concerned.

    There were other disagreements between the Saudis and Pres Hussein’s admin. One of course was whether Pres Hussein had in fact, stunted the Iranian Islamic revolution. What exactly were the original borders before the colonial carve outs – I think it is safe to note that Pres. Hussein wanted to establish an old world Persia, Kuwait was part of that argument.

    O would not dispute that the establishment of military base is not part of the overall game plan in spreading capital systems and democracy — ref. “Pentagon’s New Map.”

    However, that is not the only factor in play.

    I am not contending against your observation, but I would push back about the suggested puppetry of Saudi Arabia. Yemen was not a US gambit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The US gambit in Ukraine:http://thesaker.is/the-lugansk-republic-situation-mid-note-to-the-dos-concerning-myrotvorets/
    "In Ukraine, the Defense Ministry issues a permission of beards for the militants serving in their armed forces. This can mean only one thing, that our suspicion about militants who until recently fought for the US and allies’ proxy army in the Middle East called “ISIS” are being relocated to Ukraine."

    What a beautiful mélange of ISIS "freedom fighters "and Ukrainian neo-Nazis, supported and guided by the Zionist institution of the United States military: https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2017/11/20/u-s-military-zionist-organization/
    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/11/have-the-us-militry-gone-zionist.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @EliteCommInc.
    I am not a believer in US omnipotence to cause other states to be other than who they are. In my view, several tank regiments racing to my border would cause me some concern. Now I think t is fair to say that the Saudis had every reason to be concerned.

    There were other disagreements between the Saudis and Pres Hussein's admin. One of course was whether Pres Hussein had in fact, stunted the Iranian Islamic revolution. What exactly were the original borders before the colonial carve outs - I think it is safe to note that Pres. Hussein wanted to establish an old world Persia, Kuwait was part of that argument.


    O would not dispute that the establishment of military base is not part of the overall game plan in spreading capital systems and democracy -- ref. "Pentagon's New Map."

    However, that is not the only factor in play.

    I am not contending against your observation, but I would push back about the suggested puppetry of Saudi Arabia. Yemen was not a US gambit.

    The US gambit in Ukraine:http://thesaker.is/the-lugansk-republic-situation-mid-note-to-the-dos-concerning-myrotvorets/
    “In Ukraine, the Defense Ministry issues a permission of beards for the militants serving in their armed forces. This can mean only one thing, that our suspicion about militants who until recently fought for the US and allies’ proxy army in the Middle East called “ISIS” are being relocated to Ukraine.”

    What a beautiful mélange of ISIS “freedom fighters “and Ukrainian neo-Nazis, supported and guided by the Zionist institution of the United States military: https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2017/11/20/u-s-military-zionist-organization/

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/11/have-the-us-militry-gone-zionist.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    As a conservative, I actually think it's a good idea to think and act conservatively as often and consistently as possible


    My team: Pres Bush, VP Cheney, Sec Powell, and Sec/NSA Rice, I suspect were none to happy with my opposition.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Anon
    You wrote, "But there was no intention for the US to have invaded Iraq for regime change." - Are you serious? Still believing in "democracy on the march?" - One can hear Condi's voice in your words.

    Here is your another statement: "Afghanistan [war] was barely justified." – Could you explain how it was justified?
    Meanwhile, let's examine the results of the war. Since the U.S.-led illegal invasion of Afghanistan, opium production has increased 35-fold, Taliban is back to power, and life has worsened significantly for women and girls.
    https://www.alternet.org/world/taliban-back-power
    http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2016/11/22/horrific-cases-of-women-abuse-in-afghanistan.html
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-saifee/the-war-on-opium-in-afgha_b_9828506.html

    "Afghanistan’s civilian casualties hit record high in 2016. Deaths and injuries of children soar from unexploded ordnance, aerial operations." -- But we can be sure that American war profiteers made a nice gesheft on the human misery. Including profits on opium production. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/06/afghanistans-civilian-casualties-hit-record-high-2016

    As for a "heavy price for your opposition" - Have you lost a son or a daughter to the illegal wars?

    Laugh . . . No picking on my girlfriend Miss rice. My comments are in reference to the first gulf invasion — on the discussion of no fly zones. Clearly, regime change was the order of the day in 2002/2003. I opposed the matter

    I also opposed the invasion of Afghanistan as unnecessary. The goal should never have been regime change or democracy creation. It was a mission that should remained limited to the capture arrest and or extradition.

    At most a covert ops operation involving small. very small footprints.

    Nor did I support the EU/US press for a violent revolution in the Ukraine. It didn’t make sense to me.

    Being a conservative actually means thinking and acting conservative as often and consistently as possible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Anon
    The US gambit in Ukraine:http://thesaker.is/the-lugansk-republic-situation-mid-note-to-the-dos-concerning-myrotvorets/
    "In Ukraine, the Defense Ministry issues a permission of beards for the militants serving in their armed forces. This can mean only one thing, that our suspicion about militants who until recently fought for the US and allies’ proxy army in the Middle East called “ISIS” are being relocated to Ukraine."

    What a beautiful mélange of ISIS "freedom fighters "and Ukrainian neo-Nazis, supported and guided by the Zionist institution of the United States military: https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2017/11/20/u-s-military-zionist-organization/
    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/11/have-the-us-militry-gone-zionist.html

    As a conservative, I actually think it’s a good idea to think and act conservatively as often and consistently as possible

    My team: Pres Bush, VP Cheney, Sec Powell, and Sec/NSA Rice, I suspect were none to happy with my opposition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    As a conservative, I'm hoping that you can inform me of anything conservatives have actually conserved during your lifetime. Thank you in anticipation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @EliteCommInc.
    As a conservative, I actually think it's a good idea to think and act conservatively as often and consistently as possible


    My team: Pres Bush, VP Cheney, Sec Powell, and Sec/NSA Rice, I suspect were none to happy with my opposition.

    As a conservative, I’m hoping that you can inform me of anything conservatives have actually conserved during your lifetime. Thank you in anticipation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. The question is fairly vague. Conservative in my view means

    holding fast to that which builds, bonds, maintains and extends community

    it does so in manner that is prudent and fair – it can and does embrace change, but it does so in a manner that acknowledges objective truths and realities and changes wo as to avoid major disruptions

    1. It does not mean that the society at large will hold to them. One would that I the case, but there are no guarantees that they will hold to those standards. If your definition of conservative means that people will

    2. not embrace same relational behavior and equate it with heterosexual dynamics — that is not an outcome one can guarantee.

    3. I can’t guarantee that churches will not begin to embrace ideas wholly antithetical to Christ himself.

    4. I cannot tell you that women won’t begin a full court press again family and traditional family models and to that end begin to dismantle the role and purpose of manhood or men.

    5. I cannot tell you that members of the community will not embrace practices that pit outsiders in a bid to have more at the expense of the fellows.

    In a world where expediency trumps integrity a conservative will lean more on integrity. I like our declaration of independence and our constitution, but built into it is the that original hypocrisy that shaped the nation — there is no pretending that it severed the value of the its intent. We will have to deal with those consequences.

    The conservative cannot guarantee a conservative society. The best he or she can do is advocate for its maintenance as and value. I cannot hold a gun to the Supreme Court Justice head and say,

    Based on the science, same ex conduct is not a biological certainty. The science points the opposite direction. Now obey the science and rule correct. A conservative cannot go back in time and force the founders to remove any ethos in practice or ideology that certain persons are property, thereby tearing asunder, very concept they claimed to be fighting for.

    A conservative cannot go back undo prayer in school which served if nothing else a s symbol for higher principle by which a society lives a to accountability.

    I cannot undo deliberate inequality. Note my issue here is not separate, it is the inequality.

    So to the extent that I hold fast and true to my conservatism and while I may advocate for conservative principle, I can only assure conservative thought and practice unto myself and hope there are enough others who hold to the same to have a functioning community.

    If as your comment suggests, conservatism is based on what it produces, then one is swimming against the wind of a tornado. Because a conservative cannot guarantee that anyone will hold fast and firm to conservative ethos. Which explains why there are so few conservative. If you care to put forward something you think is conservative, I would address it. The current attempt to wrap conservatism in a cloak of skin color is determined to prove rather tissue paper.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "...conservative ethos"
    It is obvious that the US Constitution has been irrelevant for the self-proclaimed "conservatives" - Cheney, Bush, their coterie, and a cohort of advising ziocons.
    Your statement, "In a world where expediency trumps integrity a conservative will lean more on integrity" has been shown empirically to be wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Chronology of Failure

    Bill Clinton, serial philanderer, falls into honey trap with Monica Lewinsky.
    Evidence gets shared with public, threats made in private of more damning items.
    Then he tries to distract people with foreign problems.
    Many Americans are disgusted with Clinton and his debasement of the Presidency.

    Republicans still smarting from 1992 election loss of sitting president Poppy Bush vow revenge.
    They raise millions to field fairly unknown George W. Bush, famous mostly for his last name.
    W’s brother Jeb! reduces likely Democrat voter rolls in Florida.
    Americans get W, the President they deserve.
    9/11 just happens, leading to Patriot Act, TSA, ongoing nightmares and rights forfeitures.

    Dems vow revenge for Florida voting, hanging chad, you name it.
    Obama comes out of nowhere to speak at 2004 Dem Convention.
    Hillary repulses voters, Obama wins against loony McCain/Palin, then against plutocrat Romney.

    Reps vow revenge, raise money for somebody, anybody, fielding 16 idiots and self-funded Trump.
    System of money-raising, honey traps, media manipulation losing effectiveness.

    For want of a nail, a shoe was lost. For want of a blowjob, a nation was lost.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @EliteCommInc.
    The question is fairly vague. Conservative in my view means

    holding fast to that which builds, bonds, maintains and extends community

    it does so in manner that is prudent and fair - it can and does embrace change, but it does so in a manner that acknowledges objective truths and realities and changes wo as to avoid major disruptions

    1. It does not mean that the society at large will hold to them. One would that I the case, but there are no guarantees that they will hold to those standards. If your definition of conservative means that people will

    2. not embrace same relational behavior and equate it with heterosexual dynamics -- that is not an outcome one can guarantee.

    3. I can't guarantee that churches will not begin to embrace ideas wholly antithetical to Christ himself.

    4. I cannot tell you that women won't begin a full court press again family and traditional family models and to that end begin to dismantle the role and purpose of manhood or men.

    5. I cannot tell you that members of the community will not embrace practices that pit outsiders in a bid to have more at the expense of the fellows.

    In a world where expediency trumps integrity a conservative will lean more on integrity. I like our declaration of independence and our constitution, but built into it is the that original hypocrisy that shaped the nation -- there is no pretending that it severed the value of the its intent. We will have to deal with those consequences.

    The conservative cannot guarantee a conservative society. The best he or she can do is advocate for its maintenance as and value. I cannot hold a gun to the Supreme Court Justice head and say,

    Based on the science, same ex conduct is not a biological certainty. The science points the opposite direction. Now obey the science and rule correct. A conservative cannot go back in time and force the founders to remove any ethos in practice or ideology that certain persons are property, thereby tearing asunder, very concept they claimed to be fighting for.

    A conservative cannot go back undo prayer in school which served if nothing else a s symbol for higher principle by which a society lives a to accountability.

    I cannot undo deliberate inequality. Note my issue here is not separate, it is the inequality.

    So to the extent that I hold fast and true to my conservatism and while I may advocate for conservative principle, I can only assure conservative thought and practice unto myself and hope there are enough others who hold to the same to have a functioning community.

    If as your comment suggests, conservatism is based on what it produces, then one is swimming against the wind of a tornado. Because a conservative cannot guarantee that anyone will hold fast and firm to conservative ethos. Which explains why there are so few conservative. If you care to put forward something you think is conservative, I would address it. The current attempt to wrap conservatism in a cloak of skin color is determined to prove rather tissue paper.

    “…conservative ethos”
    It is obvious that the US Constitution has been irrelevant for the self-proclaimed “conservatives” – Cheney, Bush, their coterie, and a cohort of advising ziocons.
    Your statement, “In a world where expediency trumps integrity a conservative will lean more on integrity” has been shown empirically to be wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I don't think so. Notice I used the word lean. That because I must give room to making error f judgement, even for right motives. While I did not support the case for war in Iraq, I certainly understood why the country wanted revenge and why the leadership on both side of the aisle ought it on behalf of the country. 9-11 unhinged most of the US and recovery is taking some time. We may never recover. Unless there was an inside conspiracy, I tend to think that the leadership was genuinely angry and acted out of patriotic and revenge motives to end a message to all Muslims - period.

    My comments are not intended to justify unjustified action out of anger.

    Aside from that precipitating event, the men in question seem to have behaved or leaned to a conservative ethos.

    Further, suppose they acted outside of the conservative mindset most of the time, that would only mean that their lean was not conservative and they would not be labeled as such.

    And mot importantly, conservatives are an increasingly small breed of humans in the US , that said, the examples you note is far too small a sample size to by which to indict conservatism in general.

    But I tend to think that those men just erred, as opposed to abandoned their conservative ethos. I can certainly look to my own life and note non-conservative action or thought a opposed to where I lean.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Anon
    "...conservative ethos"
    It is obvious that the US Constitution has been irrelevant for the self-proclaimed "conservatives" - Cheney, Bush, their coterie, and a cohort of advising ziocons.
    Your statement, "In a world where expediency trumps integrity a conservative will lean more on integrity" has been shown empirically to be wrong.

    I don’t think so. Notice I used the word lean. That because I must give room to making error f judgement, even for right motives. While I did not support the case for war in Iraq, I certainly understood why the country wanted revenge and why the leadership on both side of the aisle ought it on behalf of the country. 9-11 unhinged most of the US and recovery is taking some time. We may never recover. Unless there was an inside conspiracy, I tend to think that the leadership was genuinely angry and acted out of patriotic and revenge motives to end a message to all Muslims – period.

    My comments are not intended to justify unjustified action out of anger.

    Aside from that precipitating event, the men in question seem to have behaved or leaned to a conservative ethos.

    Further, suppose they acted outside of the conservative mindset most of the time, that would only mean that their lean was not conservative and they would not be labeled as such.

    And mot importantly, conservatives are an increasingly small breed of humans in the US , that said, the examples you note is far too small a sample size to by which to indict conservatism in general.

    But I tend to think that those men just erred, as opposed to abandoned their conservative ethos. I can certainly look to my own life and note non-conservative action or thought a opposed to where I lean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "...I tend to think that the leadership was genuinely angry and acted out of patriotic and revenge motives..."

    Then you need to re-evaluate the known facts, for instance, "O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11:" http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/ http://zfacts.com/p/775.html
    "New Documents Show Bush Administration Planned War In Iraq Well Before 9/11/2001:" https://crooksandliars.com/karoli/new-documents-show-bush-administration-plan
    "Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq -- Mushroom clouds, duct tape, Judy Miller, Curveball. Recalling how Americans were sold a bogus case for invasion." http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/

    "Patriotic" leadership? While Mr. Douglas Feith had been weeding out experts in the Middle East, such as the honorable and highly knowledgeable Colonel Patrick Lang? -- Very doubtful.
    Here is General Wesley Clark revealing a genuine preparedness of the "conservatives" to initiate the wars of aggression in the Middle East: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @EliteCommInc.
    I don't think so. Notice I used the word lean. That because I must give room to making error f judgement, even for right motives. While I did not support the case for war in Iraq, I certainly understood why the country wanted revenge and why the leadership on both side of the aisle ought it on behalf of the country. 9-11 unhinged most of the US and recovery is taking some time. We may never recover. Unless there was an inside conspiracy, I tend to think that the leadership was genuinely angry and acted out of patriotic and revenge motives to end a message to all Muslims - period.

    My comments are not intended to justify unjustified action out of anger.

    Aside from that precipitating event, the men in question seem to have behaved or leaned to a conservative ethos.

    Further, suppose they acted outside of the conservative mindset most of the time, that would only mean that their lean was not conservative and they would not be labeled as such.

    And mot importantly, conservatives are an increasingly small breed of humans in the US , that said, the examples you note is far too small a sample size to by which to indict conservatism in general.

    But I tend to think that those men just erred, as opposed to abandoned their conservative ethos. I can certainly look to my own life and note non-conservative action or thought a opposed to where I lean.

    “…I tend to think that the leadership was genuinely angry and acted out of patriotic and revenge motives…”

    Then you need to re-evaluate the known facts, for instance, “O’Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11:” http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/ http://zfacts.com/p/775.html
    “New Documents Show Bush Administration Planned War In Iraq Well Before 9/11/2001:” https://crooksandliars.com/karoli/new-documents-show-bush-administration-plan
    “Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq — Mushroom clouds, duct tape, Judy Miller, Curveball. Recalling how Americans were sold a bogus case for invasion.” http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/

    “Patriotic” leadership? While Mr. Douglas Feith had been weeding out experts in the Middle East, such as the honorable and highly knowledgeable Colonel Patrick Lang? — Very doubtful.
    Here is General Wesley Clark revealing a genuine preparedness of the “conservatives” to initiate the wars of aggression in the Middle East: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I have Treas. Sec. O'Neil's book around here somewhere. It is accurate that the admin made plans for dealing with Iraq, but I think they also they also made plans for Iran, and N. Korea with designs on others. I have no doubt that had Irq gone smoothly, Iran would have been next.


    Note; All admin as practice engage in war plans and designs for certain scenarios.


    But 9/11 gave them excuse in their minds.

    That didn't make the matter any less in error. In fact, the discussion between Pres Trump and CIA director Tenet, make it clear bad on what was available even after 9/11 Pres Bush, expressed that based on the intel, there was not enough to go to war. I have attempted to defend Dir Tenet in his replay, but my initial interpretation was wrong --

    The "slam dunk" reference sealed the deal for the Pres in my view and he chose a course I suspect he knew was tenuous.

    Minus 9/11 invading Iraq had no cause, even as wrong cause.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Anon
    "...I tend to think that the leadership was genuinely angry and acted out of patriotic and revenge motives..."

    Then you need to re-evaluate the known facts, for instance, "O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11:" http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/ http://zfacts.com/p/775.html
    "New Documents Show Bush Administration Planned War In Iraq Well Before 9/11/2001:" https://crooksandliars.com/karoli/new-documents-show-bush-administration-plan
    "Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq -- Mushroom clouds, duct tape, Judy Miller, Curveball. Recalling how Americans were sold a bogus case for invasion." http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/

    "Patriotic" leadership? While Mr. Douglas Feith had been weeding out experts in the Middle East, such as the honorable and highly knowledgeable Colonel Patrick Lang? -- Very doubtful.
    Here is General Wesley Clark revealing a genuine preparedness of the "conservatives" to initiate the wars of aggression in the Middle East: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

    I have Treas. Sec. O’Neil’s book around here somewhere. It is accurate that the admin made plans for dealing with Iraq, but I think they also they also made plans for Iran, and N. Korea with designs on others. I have no doubt that had Irq gone smoothly, Iran would have been next.

    Note; All admin as practice engage in war plans and designs for certain scenarios.

    But 9/11 gave them excuse in their minds.

    That didn’t make the matter any less in error. In fact, the discussion between Pres Trump and CIA director Tenet, make it clear bad on what was available even after 9/11 Pres Bush, expressed that based on the intel, there was not enough to go to war. I have attempted to defend Dir Tenet in his replay, but my initial interpretation was wrong —

    The “slam dunk” reference sealed the deal for the Pres in my view and he chose a course I suspect he knew was tenuous.

    Minus 9/11 invading Iraq had no cause, even as wrong cause.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    “All admin as practice engage in war plans and designs for certain scenarios.”

    Of course. In the particular instances of Iraq and Iran, the US administration had planned the wars of aggression.
    “9/11 gave them excuse in their minds” — to be more precise, 9/11 freed the administration’s hands for initiating the supreme crimes (according to Nuremberg protocols) in the Middle East.
    The plans and designs for the crimes have been heavily influenced by ziocons and approved wholeheartedly by various war profiteers – banksters, oilmen, weapon manufacturers, and Pentagon dealers ($6 trillions here, $6 trillions there…http://www.mintpressnews.com/audit-pentagon-cannot-account-6-5-trillion-dollars-taxpayer-money/219246/).
    As we have been informed, the US military has become Zionist: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/11/have-the-us-militry-gone-zionist.html
    It is fair to say that Bush/Cheney administration has sold the US (and the US Constitution) to the highest bidder: “the United States government is being progressively Zionized because of the free hand that Israel and its supporters have, which gives them the ability to seek benefits for Israel that they would be unlikely to pursue for the United States.” http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/fighting-israels-wars/
    The US is a country of business – such trifles as patriotism and principles are of no concern for the higher-ups. As a business model, it focuses on return on investment (the sooner the better) – hence the state of our education, health care, infrastructure, and ecology. And the deteriortion of morals — see opiod epidemic https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/Factsheet-opioids-061516.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I can only restate my position.

    I thought the was: Afghanistan and Iraq mistakes. I have state my reasons. I think the inability to pull back and reconsider our policies subsequently have also been mistakes.

    Iraq fell apart under US occupation and constitutes one of only two losses the US has suffered. If Afghanistan goes the way it is headed, it will count as a loss. As it will fallen under our occupation.

    Loss count; War of 1812, Iraq II and Afghanistan(?).

    My view on all business of elected and appointed official is this - no elected person should be permitted to own stocks or bonds of any entity over which the US regulates, the same shall not be on boards, panels or in any manner a party to business transaction of business entities that the US regulates until said service to country is compete and five(?) years hence.
    Any other relationship is a conflict of interest.

    If they are incapable of living on the salary for said position -- then they best not take said position. The word public service -- should mean public service.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Anon
    "All admin as practice engage in war plans and designs for certain scenarios."

    Of course. In the particular instances of Iraq and Iran, the US administration had planned the wars of aggression.
    "9/11 gave them excuse in their minds" -- to be more precise, 9/11 freed the administration’s hands for initiating the supreme crimes (according to Nuremberg protocols) in the Middle East.
    The plans and designs for the crimes have been heavily influenced by ziocons and approved wholeheartedly by various war profiteers – banksters, oilmen, weapon manufacturers, and Pentagon dealers ($6 trillions here, $6 trillions there...http://www.mintpressnews.com/audit-pentagon-cannot-account-6-5-trillion-dollars-taxpayer-money/219246/).
    As we have been informed, the US military has become Zionist: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/11/have-the-us-militry-gone-zionist.html
    It is fair to say that Bush/Cheney administration has sold the US (and the US Constitution) to the highest bidder: "the United States government is being progressively Zionized because of the free hand that Israel and its supporters have, which gives them the ability to seek benefits for Israel that they would be unlikely to pursue for the United States." http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/fighting-israels-wars/
    The US is a country of business – such trifles as patriotism and principles are of no concern for the higher-ups. As a business model, it focuses on return on investment (the sooner the better) – hence the state of our education, health care, infrastructure, and ecology. And the deteriortion of morals -- see opiod epidemic https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/Factsheet-opioids-061516.pdf

    I can only restate my position.

    I thought the was: Afghanistan and Iraq mistakes. I have state my reasons. I think the inability to pull back and reconsider our policies subsequently have also been mistakes.

    Iraq fell apart under US occupation and constitutes one of only two losses the US has suffered. If Afghanistan goes the way it is headed, it will count as a loss. As it will fallen under our occupation.

    Loss count; War of 1812, Iraq II and Afghanistan(?).

    My view on all business of elected and appointed official is this – no elected person should be permitted to own stocks or bonds of any entity over which the US regulates, the same shall not be on boards, panels or in any manner a party to business transaction of business entities that the US regulates until said service to country is compete and five(?) years hence.
    Any other relationship is a conflict of interest.

    If they are incapable of living on the salary for said position — then they best not take said position. The word public service — should mean public service.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Fair.
    What is your view on the dual (Israeli-US) citizens occupyng important positions in the US government?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @EliteCommInc.
    I can only restate my position.

    I thought the was: Afghanistan and Iraq mistakes. I have state my reasons. I think the inability to pull back and reconsider our policies subsequently have also been mistakes.

    Iraq fell apart under US occupation and constitutes one of only two losses the US has suffered. If Afghanistan goes the way it is headed, it will count as a loss. As it will fallen under our occupation.

    Loss count; War of 1812, Iraq II and Afghanistan(?).

    My view on all business of elected and appointed official is this - no elected person should be permitted to own stocks or bonds of any entity over which the US regulates, the same shall not be on boards, panels or in any manner a party to business transaction of business entities that the US regulates until said service to country is compete and five(?) years hence.
    Any other relationship is a conflict of interest.

    If they are incapable of living on the salary for said position -- then they best not take said position. The word public service -- should mean public service.

    Fair.
    What is your view on the dual (Israeli-US) citizens occupyng important positions in the US government?

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    United State interests first and last.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Anon
    Fair.
    What is your view on the dual (Israeli-US) citizens occupyng important positions in the US government?

    United State interests first and last.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Make belief?
    The reality: http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/fighting-israels-wars/#comment-2096653
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @EliteCommInc.
    United State interests first and last.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. I am very familiar with the author you reference. I have been reading is material for several years.

    In spite of that familiarity, my position remains the same. It is my understanding that having dual citizenship is legal. I myself could apply with respect to several foreign state. In my view there may come a time when one ha to decide and a house divided . . .

    So it is my expectation that US citizens act in the interests of the fellow US citizen. And that is regardless of income, state loyalty, skin color, class, ethnicity and faith when it does not conflict with scripture.

    Our immigration policies do not
    Support or no support for Israel does not
    baking a cake and by so doing participating in a ceremony prohibited by Christ does, in my view and according to my conscience.

    The US first.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Ah -- "see no evil..."
    Hope that you support FARA for the Lobby.
    Also, have the numerous violations of the US Constitution by the Cheney/Bush regime affected your conscience?
    , @Anon
    an illustration for the problem: http://thesaker.is/for-those-of-you-who-thought-that-tillerson-was-any-better/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @EliteCommInc.
    I am very familiar with the author you reference. I have been reading is material for several years.


    In spite of that familiarity, my position remains the same. It is my understanding that having dual citizenship is legal. I myself could apply with respect to several foreign state. In my view there may come a time when one ha to decide and a house divided . . .

    So it is my expectation that US citizens act in the interests of the fellow US citizen. And that is regardless of income, state loyalty, skin color, class, ethnicity and faith when it does not conflict with scripture.


    Our immigration policies do not
    Support or no support for Israel does not
    baking a cake and by so doing participating in a ceremony prohibited by Christ does, in my view and according to my conscience.

    The US first.

    Ah — “see no evil…”
    Hope that you support FARA for the Lobby.
    Also, have the numerous violations of the US Constitution by the Cheney/Bush regime affected your conscience?

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I am not at all sure what you are talking about.


    I have no clue why my opposition to the Patriot Act and its subsequent NSA, Terrorism protocols would lend me to having a guilty conscience.

    I am not a big fan f the public, but I can scarcely think of a time when I supported violating the US Constitution or any who did so.

    All agencies representing foreign interests should register, allies or not.

    I paid a very very very very heavy price for not supporting the invasions. I say that not for sympathy, but because you continue to press as though I supported out responses after 9/11. I thought some quick emergency measures to be sure and -- done.

    I don't regret my positions, despite the price
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @EliteCommInc.
    I am very familiar with the author you reference. I have been reading is material for several years.


    In spite of that familiarity, my position remains the same. It is my understanding that having dual citizenship is legal. I myself could apply with respect to several foreign state. In my view there may come a time when one ha to decide and a house divided . . .

    So it is my expectation that US citizens act in the interests of the fellow US citizen. And that is regardless of income, state loyalty, skin color, class, ethnicity and faith when it does not conflict with scripture.


    Our immigration policies do not
    Support or no support for Israel does not
    baking a cake and by so doing participating in a ceremony prohibited by Christ does, in my view and according to my conscience.

    The US first.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    A couple of response to Sec Tillerson. He would not have been my first choice or the running at for the Sec of State position given that hi position opposed the foreign policy agenda put forward by Pres Trump. The US cannot without justification invade, another country's sovereign borders because we don't the like their leaders. I doubt there's much legitimacy in fomenting civil wars inside those borders. Given the case we are making on immigration and the need to protect our own sovereignty, the practice is especially grievous.

    There is substantial cause to reject that the Assad admin launched chemical attack against the revolutionaries -- ever.

    The human rights violation was encouraging a civil war in a nation tat was not a danger to the US. And Sec Tillerson's attempt to cloak our interventions into cases for sovereignty is in my view error.

    I do that that Sec Tillerson's views on our interventions have mellowed into a more realistic mode now that he is in office. One hope that he sees the case for war with North Korea over missile tests and over the top plus nearly impossible to justify.

    I do think is Iran is an issue, but then, that's the price for removing Pres Hussein, the shia and their Islamic revolution will march on. our bet response is to shore up our friends in the region (those that remain)

    I guess, that's more than few comments. I just don't grasp that you know my positions are regarding our response to 9/11 as you continue to press me on the actions of Pres Bush and VP Cheney. I think it is pretty clear -- had I been on staff -- I would have been gone before the Treasury Sec.

    I would that Pres Bush had listened to hi instincts based on what he heard concerning war, instead he was led by dicey intel, ill advised counsel and a misreading of how christians are to respond to the role of Israel in the end times --- especially the role of christians in government leadership. Tere lie a very real danger of getting it completely askew and putting the cart before the horse, which may include never having applied cart or horse in the first place.


    My view ---
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Anon
    Ah -- "see no evil..."
    Hope that you support FARA for the Lobby.
    Also, have the numerous violations of the US Constitution by the Cheney/Bush regime affected your conscience?

    I am not at all sure what you are talking about.

    I have no clue why my opposition to the Patriot Act and its subsequent NSA, Terrorism protocols would lend me to having a guilty conscience.

    I am not a big fan f the public, but I can scarcely think of a time when I supported violating the US Constitution or any who did so.

    All agencies representing foreign interests should register, allies or not.

    I paid a very very very very heavy price for not supporting the invasions. I say that not for sympathy, but because you continue to press as though I supported out responses after 9/11. I thought some quick emergency measures to be sure and — done.

    I don’t regret my positions, despite the price

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Anon
    an illustration for the problem: http://thesaker.is/for-those-of-you-who-thought-that-tillerson-was-any-better/

    A couple of response to Sec Tillerson. He would not have been my first choice or the running at for the Sec of State position given that hi position opposed the foreign policy agenda put forward by Pres Trump. The US cannot without justification invade, another country’s sovereign borders because we don’t the like their leaders. I doubt there’s much legitimacy in fomenting civil wars inside those borders. Given the case we are making on immigration and the need to protect our own sovereignty, the practice is especially grievous.

    There is substantial cause to reject that the Assad admin launched chemical attack against the revolutionaries — ever.

    The human rights violation was encouraging a civil war in a nation tat was not a danger to the US. And Sec Tillerson’s attempt to cloak our interventions into cases for sovereignty is in my view error.

    I do that that Sec Tillerson’s views on our interventions have mellowed into a more realistic mode now that he is in office. One hope that he sees the case for war with North Korea over missile tests and over the top plus nearly impossible to justify.

    I do think is Iran is an issue, but then, that’s the price for removing Pres Hussein, the shia and their Islamic revolution will march on. our bet response is to shore up our friends in the region (those that remain)

    I guess, that’s more than few comments. I just don’t grasp that you know my positions are regarding our response to 9/11 as you continue to press me on the actions of Pres Bush and VP Cheney. I think it is pretty clear — had I been on staff — I would have been gone before the Treasury Sec.

    I would that Pres Bush had listened to hi instincts based on what he heard concerning war, instead he was led by dicey intel, ill advised counsel and a misreading of how christians are to respond to the role of Israel in the end times — especially the role of christians in government leadership. Tere lie a very real danger of getting it completely askew and putting the cart before the horse, which may include never having applied cart or horse in the first place.

    My view —

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Thank you for the detailed response.

    Two points:
    1. “I do think is Iran is an issue, but then, that’s the price for removing Pres Hussein, the shia and their Islamic revolution will march on. our bet response is to shore up our friends in the region (those that remain)”
    — The invasion of a sovereign country of Iraq in order to “remove” president Saddam Hussein was a supreme crime of aggression and violation of international law as it articulated by Nuremberg protocols. Neither Iraq nor Iran has been any danger for the US. If the US is indeed first (and not the second re our “friends”– Israel and Saudis), then the war against Iraq presents an anti-US adventure.

    2. “I would that Pres Bush had listened to hi instincts based on what he heard concerning war, instead he was led by dicey intel, ill advised counsel and a misreading of how christians are to respond to the role of Israel in the end times — especially the role of christians in government leadership.”
    — That the “intel” was a lie was widely known at the time — and not only to experts. Michael Ledeen strenuous efforts to deceive US government with his “yellow cake” stupidity should have been punished already with a lengthy prison terms if not a death penalty. The anti-government activities of Douglas Feith, who had been weeding out the real experts in everything related to Arab world in order to clear the way for the US invasion of the Middle East, should have been investigated and punished accordingly. The Cheney-Armitage-Libby affair, which had resulted in outing an intelligence network in the Middle East, was a high treason. These crimes (and many more — like torture and blanket surveillance) happened on Bush watch. In the old times, when a new bridge was ready for exploitation, the main engineer would stand underneath during the first run– that was a behavior of real men. Bush the lesser was and is a spoiled brat who made America second.

    As for Bush’s “religiosity,” the following is a response of his brethren in Christ — “We, the undersigned, do hold that George W. Bush, a member of Park Hill United Methodist Church (UMC) in Dallas, Texas, and Dick Cheney (local membership unknown) are undeniably guilty of at least four chargeable offenses for lay members as listed in 2702.3 of the 2000 Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church. These offenses are: crime, immorality, disobedience to the Order and Discipline of The UMC, and dissemination of doctrine contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The UMC. For these offenses, we the undersigned call for an immediate and public act of repentance by the respondents. If the respondents do not reply with sincere and public repentance for their crimes, we demand that their membership in the United Methodist Church be revoked until such time that they sincerely and publicly repent.”
    “Methodists Call for Expulsion of Bush, Cheney from Church:” https://bushlibraryblog.wordpress.com/methodist-debate/methodists-call-for-expulsion-of-bush-cheney-from-church/

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    A. While I am going to tread lightly on how much of the case was manufactured from naught, I would agree that it was insufficient for a case for war. I am not sure the country i prepared to place the WH and Congress in international criminal proceeding or how easy it would be to make the case. Our invasion was a violation of international law.

    B. As I note, I believed the President listened to unwise counsel and there were plenty of voices in that regard that served as presidential advisers. It is not that he didn't get wise counsel, it's he chose the opposing views.

    C. President Bush is an evangelical. That means much of faith and practice rests on scripture understanding -- directly. Mainstream Methodist ethos would have some weight, but in light of scripture -- hardly a jury of his ecumenical peers.

    As for VP Cheney, that is an issue between himself and his former Methodists fellows. I am a little concerned that their objections were heavily weighted on secular legal ground as opposed to fait based. And further curious weather they followed the prescription for handling disagreements among members according to the Churches process. layed out by the Apostle.

    Overall I think both men responded in defense of the country -- in error -- but I have already stated the anger response, revenge motive of themselves and most of the country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Anon
    Thank you for the detailed response.

    Two points:
    1. "I do think is Iran is an issue, but then, that’s the price for removing Pres Hussein, the shia and their Islamic revolution will march on. our bet response is to shore up our friends in the region (those that remain)"
    --- The invasion of a sovereign country of Iraq in order to “remove” president Saddam Hussein was a supreme crime of aggression and violation of international law as it articulated by Nuremberg protocols. Neither Iraq nor Iran has been any danger for the US. If the US is indeed first (and not the second re our "friends"-- Israel and Saudis), then the war against Iraq presents an anti-US adventure.

    2. "I would that Pres Bush had listened to hi instincts based on what he heard concerning war, instead he was led by dicey intel, ill advised counsel and a misreading of how christians are to respond to the role of Israel in the end times — especially the role of christians in government leadership."
    --- That the "intel" was a lie was widely known at the time -- and not only to experts. Michael Ledeen strenuous efforts to deceive US government with his "yellow cake" stupidity should have been punished already with a lengthy prison terms if not a death penalty. The anti-government activities of Douglas Feith, who had been weeding out the real experts in everything related to Arab world in order to clear the way for the US invasion of the Middle East, should have been investigated and punished accordingly. The Cheney-Armitage-Libby affair, which had resulted in outing an intelligence network in the Middle East, was a high treason. These crimes (and many more -- like torture and blanket surveillance) happened on Bush watch. In the old times, when a new bridge was ready for exploitation, the main engineer would stand underneath during the first run– that was a behavior of real men. Bush the lesser was and is a spoiled brat who made America second.

    As for Bush's "religiosity," the following is a response of his brethren in Christ -- "We, the undersigned, do hold that George W. Bush, a member of Park Hill United Methodist Church (UMC) in Dallas, Texas, and Dick Cheney (local membership unknown) are undeniably guilty of at least four chargeable offenses for lay members as listed in 2702.3 of the 2000 Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church. These offenses are: crime, immorality, disobedience to the Order and Discipline of The UMC, and dissemination of doctrine contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The UMC. For these offenses, we the undersigned call for an immediate and public act of repentance by the respondents. If the respondents do not reply with sincere and public repentance for their crimes, we demand that their membership in the United Methodist Church be revoked until such time that they sincerely and publicly repent."
    "Methodists Call for Expulsion of Bush, Cheney from Church:" https://bushlibraryblog.wordpress.com/methodist-debate/methodists-call-for-expulsion-of-bush-cheney-from-church/

    A. While I am going to tread lightly on how much of the case was manufactured from naught, I would agree that it was insufficient for a case for war. I am not sure the country i prepared to place the WH and Congress in international criminal proceeding or how easy it would be to make the case. Our invasion was a violation of international law.

    B. As I note, I believed the President listened to unwise counsel and there were plenty of voices in that regard that served as presidential advisers. It is not that he didn’t get wise counsel, it’s he chose the opposing views.

    C. President Bush is an evangelical. That means much of faith and practice rests on scripture understanding — directly. Mainstream Methodist ethos would have some weight, but in light of scripture — hardly a jury of his ecumenical peers.

    As for VP Cheney, that is an issue between himself and his former Methodists fellows. I am a little concerned that their objections were heavily weighted on secular legal ground as opposed to fait based. And further curious weather they followed the prescription for handling disagreements among members according to the Churches process. layed out by the Apostle.

    Overall I think both men responded in defense of the country — in error — but I have already stated the anger response, revenge motive of themselves and most of the country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    You wrote:

    Overall I think both men responded in defense of the country
     
    Then please explain why Pres. George W. Bush remained seated in his chair, and took no action at all, after being informed by Andrew Card that "America is under attack." Please explain too why Bush lied about it later with his cock 'n' bull story about watching the first crash on TV.

    Like Gen. Douglas MacArthur's failure to respond, or take immediate action after learning of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Bush's failure to jump up and do something, anything, when informed the nation was being attacked, provides strong circumstantial evidence that he was in on the plot.

    In both cases--Gen. Douglas MacArthur in the Philippines, Pres. George W. Bush on 9/11--failure to take immediate action is tantamount to treason.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Kweli says:

    It is especially challenging to attempt analyzing and understanding American foreign policy outside the context and framework of blatant racism. This is one institution that receives scant attention in the MSM — despite its crucial role in the conduct of foreign policies, mainly because the overwhelming majority of purveyors of political narratives are White and who also monopolize the denial narrative. Added to the unchallenged global US hegemony, racism will continue to fuel American foreign policies dealing with non-White societies with devastating results. Consider for a moment the destruction wrought on numerous countries in the ME and now spreading to Africa, we are fed with lurid details of American (mostly White) loss of life, and more likely, scant to no mention in the MSM of the thousands dead in countries targeted by US criminal acts of aggression. It should therefore come as no surprise that the US is in lockstep with her racist ally, Israel, in pursuing foreign policy objectives, at the behest of her master, Israel. Thus, the rehabilitation of George W. is part of the process of normalizing racism. The overriding object is of course to maintain the big lie of America being a force for good. Try selling that bullshit to families who lost a million or more in Iraq, thousands in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and coming soon to a theater near you, Iran.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. Geo W would have been so much better off if after his presidency he had slunk off to some deserted island, never to be heard from again. It is with deep regret that I voted for him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  108. Sparkon says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    A. While I am going to tread lightly on how much of the case was manufactured from naught, I would agree that it was insufficient for a case for war. I am not sure the country i prepared to place the WH and Congress in international criminal proceeding or how easy it would be to make the case. Our invasion was a violation of international law.

    B. As I note, I believed the President listened to unwise counsel and there were plenty of voices in that regard that served as presidential advisers. It is not that he didn't get wise counsel, it's he chose the opposing views.

    C. President Bush is an evangelical. That means much of faith and practice rests on scripture understanding -- directly. Mainstream Methodist ethos would have some weight, but in light of scripture -- hardly a jury of his ecumenical peers.

    As for VP Cheney, that is an issue between himself and his former Methodists fellows. I am a little concerned that their objections were heavily weighted on secular legal ground as opposed to fait based. And further curious weather they followed the prescription for handling disagreements among members according to the Churches process. layed out by the Apostle.

    Overall I think both men responded in defense of the country -- in error -- but I have already stated the anger response, revenge motive of themselves and most of the country.

    You wrote:

    Overall I think both men responded in defense of the country

    Then please explain why Pres. George W. Bush remained seated in his chair, and took no action at all, after being informed by Andrew Card that “America is under attack.” Please explain too why Bush lied about it later with his cock ‘n’ bull story about watching the first crash on TV.

    Like Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s failure to respond, or take immediate action after learning of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Bush’s failure to jump up and do something, anything, when informed the nation was being attacked, provides strong circumstantial evidence that he was in on the plot.

    In both cases–Gen. Douglas MacArthur in the Philippines, Pres. George W. Bush on 9/11–failure to take immediate action is tantamount to treason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Bush’s failure to jump up and do something, anything, when informed the nation was being attacked, provides strong circumstantial evidence that he was in on the plot.
     
    plus

    Pres. George W. Bush on 9/11–failure to take immediate action is tantamount to treason.
     
    is wrong..
    I'll repeat, to make it clear: WRONG.
    Especially

    ...to jump up and do something, anything,

     

    That is actually the last thing you'd want from a president of the world superpower.

    A good post, actually.

    I am not quite sure whether you don't like Bush so much that you'd use anything to make him look bad, or, worse, you really believe that's how a Commander in Chief of a superpower must behave/react.


    If former, it's sort of OK in a mean way; if later it could maybe explain why all this is so messy. I mean, if an average citizen has such expectations from top leadership.
    Trump launch on Syria now looks more..........reasonable....I guess. among other things.

    Instead of getting into heated "debate" here, why don't you read up how the top decision makers behave in crisis?
    Plenty of examples through history of human conflict/crisis.

    Agree with your assessment of MacArthur's behavior then, but it has nothing in common with the President behavior then and there.
    Speaking of that era commanders a good example would be to read up behavior and decision making process of Admiral Spruance during the Battle for Midway. Give it a go one day.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. DON-AKANIDO says: • Website
    @Anon
    This just goes to show that Ideology is secondary to Ethnology in the game of politics.

    W. is globalist, for open borders, against American nationalism, and a puppet of Neocons.

    Trump is less of those things. So, W is suddenly useful again.

    No wonder people become more cynical.

    No real conservative has any respect for W.

    No real liberal can respect W the dummy.

    nice post bro

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. peterAUS says:
    @Sparkon
    You wrote:

    Overall I think both men responded in defense of the country
     
    Then please explain why Pres. George W. Bush remained seated in his chair, and took no action at all, after being informed by Andrew Card that "America is under attack." Please explain too why Bush lied about it later with his cock 'n' bull story about watching the first crash on TV.

    Like Gen. Douglas MacArthur's failure to respond, or take immediate action after learning of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Bush's failure to jump up and do something, anything, when informed the nation was being attacked, provides strong circumstantial evidence that he was in on the plot.

    In both cases--Gen. Douglas MacArthur in the Philippines, Pres. George W. Bush on 9/11--failure to take immediate action is tantamount to treason.

    Bush’s failure to jump up and do something, anything, when informed the nation was being attacked, provides strong circumstantial evidence that he was in on the plot.

    plus

    Pres. George W. Bush on 9/11–failure to take immediate action is tantamount to treason.

    is wrong..
    I’ll repeat, to make it clear: WRONG.
    Especially

    …to jump up and do something, anything,

    That is actually the last thing you’d want from a president of the world superpower.

    A good post, actually.

    I am not quite sure whether you don’t like Bush so much that you’d use anything to make him look bad, or, worse, you really believe that’s how a Commander in Chief of a superpower must behave/react.

    If former, it’s sort of OK in a mean way; if later it could maybe explain why all this is so messy. I mean, if an average citizen has such expectations from top leadership.
    Trump launch on Syria now looks more……….reasonable….I guess. among other things.

    Instead of getting into heated “debate” here, why don’t you read up how the top decision makers behave in crisis?
    Plenty of examples through history of human conflict/crisis.

    Agree with your assessment of MacArthur’s behavior then, but it has nothing in common with the President behavior then and there.
    Speaking of that era commanders a good example would be to read up behavior and decision making process of Admiral Spruance during the Battle for Midway. Give it a go one day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Sparkon says:

    That is actually the last thing you’d want from a president of the world superpower.

    The last thing? What then would be the first thing? Just sit and do nothing? Your ideas are so idiotic I shouldn’t even bother to respond.

    Bush’s presence at the school was public knowledge. He was a sitting duck in that classroom. Presumably, neither he nor his secret service detail had any way to know the full extent of the attacks, how many jetliners had been hijacked, or even if one had Shrub’s number on it, and was bearing down on that school at that very moment, but in your deluded world, tin commander, it’s better to just sit and let the enemy have a good crack at taking out “the president of the world superpower,” than to do something crazy like getting out of harm’s way, and moving his sorry tail-bone out of there.

    But at least Pres. Bush was able to enjoy watching his reading program “that works!” without being distracted by honor and duty–stuff like that–and sure, that’s what Americans want their president doing at a time of crisis, rather than taking charge, because, you know, that might have upset the little kiddies.

    At 9:05 on 9/11, Card came into the Florida classroom and whispered in Bush’s ear. The Pentagon attack didn’t happen for more than another half-hour at ~ 9:38, but for some reason, the Pentagon failed to defend itself, just like Pres. Bush.

    I guess we’ll never know whether or not the Pentagon might have put up a better fight–any fight–if your hero, the courageous and resolute veteran Bush, had jumped up, and taken charge of the defenses of the world’s most powerful military on Black Tuesday, September 11, 2001, but clearly, neither Dick Cheney nor Donald Rumsfeld was up to the job, and as it turned out, George W. Bush wasn’t either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Your ideas are so idiotic I shouldn’t even bother to respond.
     
    Probably.
    But it feels so good to lecture, doesn't it. With a bit of names calling too of course. That's why you are here in the first place. I mean, in real life you can't do that. Don't feel as a type. But here, no prob.

    Bush’s presence at the school was public knowledge. He was a sitting duck in that classroom. Presumably, neither he nor his secret service detail had any way to know the full extent of the attacks, how many jetliners had been hijacked, or even if one had Shrub’s number on it, and was bearing down on that school at that very moment, but in your deluded world, tin commander, it’s better to just sit and let the enemy have a good crack at taking out “the president of the world superpower,” than to do something crazy like getting out of harm’s way, and moving his sorry tail-bone out of there.
     
    Yeah.
    As soon as he heard anything about hijacked planes he should've run for cover.
    Like in movies a? Run with agents around him from that classroom, through corridors, out in a schoolyard into waiting, revving cars?
    I mean, that's what your types would do on a first sign of trouble, of course. Panic and run for cover.
    Did it occur to you that, just maybe, something/somebody could've waited along that path?
    That the President by running for cover would exactly get into a harm's way.
    Maybe the President's team there just wanted a better picture before doing anything?

    Now, you let that slip "veteran" so let me guess (you know, name calling and such):
    You'v never been in police/military?
    You've never been under fire?
    Actually...thinking about this...you've, probably, never been just in a good street fight?

    I am sure you've read all about that, though, and, obviously, have a very strong opinion about all that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. peterAUS says:
    @Sparkon

    That is actually the last thing you’d want from a president of the world superpower.
     
    The last thing? What then would be the first thing? Just sit and do nothing? Your ideas are so idiotic I shouldn't even bother to respond.

    Bush's presence at the school was public knowledge. He was a sitting duck in that classroom. Presumably, neither he nor his secret service detail had any way to know the full extent of the attacks, how many jetliners had been hijacked, or even if one had Shrub's number on it, and was bearing down on that school at that very moment, but in your deluded world, tin commander, it's better to just sit and let the enemy have a good crack at taking out "the president of the world superpower," than to do something crazy like getting out of harm's way, and moving his sorry tail-bone out of there.

    But at least Pres. Bush was able to enjoy watching his reading program "that works!" without being distracted by honor and duty--stuff like that--and sure, that's what Americans want their president doing at a time of crisis, rather than taking charge, because, you know, that might have upset the little kiddies.

    At 9:05 on 9/11, Card came into the Florida classroom and whispered in Bush's ear. The Pentagon attack didn't happen for more than another half-hour at ~ 9:38, but for some reason, the Pentagon failed to defend itself, just like Pres. Bush.

    I guess we'll never know whether or not the Pentagon might have put up a better fight--any fight--if your hero, the courageous and resolute veteran Bush, had jumped up, and taken charge of the defenses of the world's most powerful military on Black Tuesday, September 11, 2001, but clearly, neither Dick Cheney nor Donald Rumsfeld was up to the job, and as it turned out, George W. Bush wasn't either.

    Your ideas are so idiotic I shouldn’t even bother to respond.

    Probably.
    But it feels so good to lecture, doesn’t it. With a bit of names calling too of course. That’s why you are here in the first place. I mean, in real life you can’t do that. Don’t feel as a type. But here, no prob.

    Bush’s presence at the school was public knowledge. He was a sitting duck in that classroom. Presumably, neither he nor his secret service detail had any way to know the full extent of the attacks, how many jetliners had been hijacked, or even if one had Shrub’s number on it, and was bearing down on that school at that very moment, but in your deluded world, tin commander, it’s better to just sit and let the enemy have a good crack at taking out “the president of the world superpower,” than to do something crazy like getting out of harm’s way, and moving his sorry tail-bone out of there.

    Yeah.
    As soon as he heard anything about hijacked planes he should’ve run for cover.
    Like in movies a? Run with agents around him from that classroom, through corridors, out in a schoolyard into waiting, revving cars?
    I mean, that’s what your types would do on a first sign of trouble, of course. Panic and run for cover.
    Did it occur to you that, just maybe, something/somebody could’ve waited along that path?
    That the President by running for cover would exactly get into a harm’s way.
    Maybe the President’s team there just wanted a better picture before doing anything?

    Now, you let that slip “veteran” so let me guess (you know, name calling and such):
    You’v never been in police/military?
    You’ve never been under fire?
    Actually…thinking about this…you’ve, probably, never been just in a good street fight?

    I am sure you’ve read all about that, though, and, obviously, have a very strong opinion about all that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?