Bush should be locked up.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA

Why do you guys ignore the testimony in December 1999 where it was stated clearly that 100% of his WMD manufacturing apparatus and up to 95% of his stockpiles were destroyed. Further it was the testimony that the remaining 5% would be decayed.

He may have still had some basic arsenal for use in a domestic attack, but the WMD that was used to threaten the US by GWBush wasn’t mustard gas, or even nerve gas, it was Nuclear. Don’t gloss that shit over now with petty talk about simple WMD supplies that would only kill those in a few yards radius of an attack.

And just because the Bush Admin and their well wired cohorts lied over and over doesn’t mean that everyone lied, that’s stupid, sorry. There were countless agencies all but screaming, WE AREN’T GOING TO FIND ANYTHING.

I’m freakin fed up with hearing, “everyone believed” when I didn’t, and most of the people I was reading and talking with at the time didn’t. Most critical voices were being masked on the MSM, but not overall. Al-Baredei was sure, Scott Ritter was sure.

The logical outcome of the Bush bullying was Saddam had no out because invasion was inevitable. They were determined to go to war in Iraq, and even Iran back then.

This has been well documented by the principles in the case, Cheney, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Schmidt, etc. They wanted this war, they got this war.

And Kenneth Pollack is an idiot, so quoting him doesn’t do much. He now pretends to once being a critic of going to war, which is utter bullshit. He may have been critical of the execution, but so has Bill O’Reilly and Tucker Carlson, so what. They even lie that they didn’t support going to war. My video tapes don’t lie though. His latest little pile of crap with Michael O’Hanlon was shot down the moment it posted. They’ve never been critics of going to war. O’Hanlon ain’t much betta. And it doesn’t matter what administration they were in. The world isn’t just two.

A FLAWED BLUEPRINT?

jeezuz, examine what you smear when you smear as you smear.

Your brain should charge your fingers with treason or your heart should charge your brain with treason.

If you set someone back by giving them fake plans they think would work…
How to build a nuclear bomb
First, find nuclear material
Second, pack it tightly into a shell
Third, bake at 450 until toasty or until you can stick a fork in it.

genius

In a July 17 column in the Star Tribune, Johnson attacks the Bush administration for allegedly blowing Plame’s cover and concludes with these words: “At the end of the day, Wilson was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the Bush administration that pushed that lie, and because of that lie Americans are dying. Shame on those who continue to slander Joe Wilson while giving Bush and his pack of liars a pass. That’s the true outrage.”

Of course, if the Bush administration lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction (WMD), then every major intelligence agency in the world lied, Arab leaders lied, and the Clinton administration lied for eight years. Clinton’s top expert on Iraq, Kenneth Pollack, had to be a liar since in The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq (2002) Pollack claimed, among other things, that “The German intelligence service, using methods it won’t divulge, estimated in 2001 that Iraq was three to six years from having a nuclear weapon.” Pollack’s book was written with the imprimatur of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). CFR’s board of directors includes at least six Clinton administration officials, including Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke.

If the Bush administration lied about Iraq having WMD, then there is yet another person who lied. Visitors to Wilson’s own web site can find several columns that he has written over the past few years. On October 13, 2002, Wilson wrote a column entitled “How Saddam Thinks” for the San Jose Mercury News. In this column, Wilson asks, “Can we disarm Saddam this time without risking a chemical attack or a broader regional war that threatens our allies?”

Risk a chemical attack from a country that posed no threat because it had no WMD?

Wilson also referred to Iraq’s WMD in a February 6, 2003 column in The Los Angeles Times: “There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.” This column was published just nine days after President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address, the address in which Bush said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” However, Wilson made no mention of Niger, uranium, or the president’s address. (Note: The Butler report, “Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction,” which was released in the United Kingdom in July 2004, concluded that “the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003…was well founded.”)

if you read this board for more than 2 hours who would know who Taters is..
jeez once a week we get a know-it-all that comes here and spouts thier version of BS.
Ok so larry has already put you in your place so no need to pile on here so i won’t.
Wait..ok i will alittle..
Larry..come clean about the CIA..
that has got to be the dumbest statement i have ever heard..are you serious? go away troll..

Nevertheless, I have faith that Iran has NOT sought nuclear weapons before now, instead having lived by the still current FATWA, by Khomenei years ago, which declared Nuclear Weapons to be UN-Muslim.

I wonder how many of these armchair strategists even realise that if Iran is a radically religious as they want to believe, then they are the most likely to take a Fatwa by the highest religious authority among them, seriously. Iran is subject to a Fatwa now of many years standing in which they forswear neclear weapons.

There is NO proof that Iran supports any terrorism. They do support Hisb’ Allah and Hamas, but these are only terrorist groups in name. Both groups exist to defend their homeland against incursions by violent, even genocidal foreign powers. The attackers call their victims terrorists, but facts are not altered by misusing words. In this Iran is merely supporting two groups of freedom fighters. Their actions in doing so are no less mature, considered or legitimate than the support given by the USA to various regimes, many of which are without any doubt terrorists and brutal human rights violators.

Technically speaking if we shall judge without reference to religion or skin colour, then the truest examples of terrorists are the two states, USA and Israel. This is NOT debateable, unless you assign different values to life depending upon nationality or religion.

If you sincerely believe that 100 Arab lives are worth but ONE American or Israeli life, then things are about equal, neither side is more grotesquely violent and destructive than the other.

The other extreme is that if you believe instead, as most religions teach, that every life is equally precious, then Israel and the USA are about one hundred times more violent and murderous than their Arab, VICTIMS, and Victims is not an unreasonable word to use in this case either. I tend towards believing that any human life, on balance is of equal worth at least in the eyes of God.

There is a loyal opposition in this country but it’s not found in the form of the Democratic Party. It consists of people like you, Plame, others in and out of government, the 70% of citizens who disapprove of Bush, and a potent minority in the corporate media.

There’s no reason to tolerate Bush or his enablers one more minute by holding back on who they actually are – criminals supported by those who enable the crimes to continue.

Thanks to Valeria Plame and the other members of the most loyal opposition.