Partisan politics and corruption; business as usual

[fortiesfun]

That's why :
Bill clinton said Iraq had WMD.
Hill clinton said Iraq had WMD.
sandy Berger said Iraq had WMD.
Maddy Albright said Iraq had WMD.
George Tenet said Iraq had WMD
John Kerry said Iraq had WMD
Howard Dean said Iraq had WMD.
Nancy Pelosi said Iraq had WMD.
Bob Graham said Iraq had WMD.
Tony Blair said Iraq had WMD.
Jacque Chirac said Iraq had WMD

The above is why Democrats should never,ever, EVER be entrusted with our nation's security .

If at first you don't succeed, quote, quote again. Truth can be invented through repetition. That's what I've learned from the last 6 years.

 

[B_JQblonde]

By the way hotBulge, where were you when saddam went on trial?

You would have taken the case pro bono I'm guessing.

It really helps a defendant if his lawyer believes everything he says and believes in his cause!

 

[B_JQblonde]

If at first you don't succeed, quote, quote again. Truth can be invented through repetition. That's what I've learned from the last 6 years.

Those quotes are false??

Maybe you can explain why every one of those people said Iraq had WMD , yet when Bush said it , he was lying??

Can you explain that?

 

[fortiesfun]

Those quotes are false??

Maybe you can explain why every one of those people said Iraq had WMD , yet when Bush said it , he was lying??

Can you explain that?

If at first you don't succeed, quote, quote again. Truth can be invented through repetition. That's what I've learned from the last 6 years.

 

[HotBulge]

As I wrote in another post, repetition is needed for those who don't understand the first time around. I refer you back to post #57. Nothing you've said refutes the historical accuracy of the situation. (In other words, you haven't presented any counter-evidence from a credible historical source).

I will also refer you to post #59 where I quote George Bush Sr. on his decision NOT to enter Iraq. The decision to enter Iraq would have been on unilateral authority. The international reality - a centuries old reality in world history, especially Europe - is one that Bush Jr. ignored. International politics still fundamentally works on a balance of power. The US, under Bush Jr., has forgotten that it is one nation among many. Even with its power and military might, it cannot act unilateraly without impugnity.

Let me refer to you Zbigniew Brzezinski book, "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower". ISBN-13: 978-0465002528.

Brzenzinki was (1) the National Security Advisor under Jimmy Carter from '77 -'79, (2) a Democrat and (3) a political Realist under International Relations theory. In other words, he is highly informed, well-experienced, and well qualified to speak about the direction the US should take in terms of foreign policy. He has evaluated Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr and given their foreign policy decisions a rating of - B, C+ and F respectively. He recommends that the USA resume a historically consistent, foreign-policy view that we are one nation among many. We've squandered a valuable window of opportunity after the Cold War, and as a nation, we must our international interests lie in gathering an international concesus. The US cannot fight the entire world alone. Some homework for you...

Silly blathering, where Saddam Hussein gets every single benefit of the doubt just to make a Republican look bad.

Hans Blix...Cheezus H Christ ...as if America should place a National Security decision in the hands of a feckless little dove like that .

Yeah no overwhelming evidence. Right.

That's why :
Bill clinton said Iraq had WMD.
....

The above is why Democrats should never,ever, EVER be entrusted with our nation's security .

Hotbulge , there is an old saying . Lead , follow or get the heel out of the way.

People who think like you should do the country a big favor and GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY !

 

[B_JQblonde]

IOW:

"No I can't explain it, but I wanna say Bush lied , I wanna I wanna ,I wanna"

 

[B_JQblonde]

As I wrote in another post, repetition is needed for those who don't understand the first time around. I refer you back to post #57. Nothing you've said refutes the historical accuracy of the situation. (In other words, you haven't presented any counter-evidence from a credible historical source).
...

sure I have. the historical accuracy is that every Democrat who would be in a position to know said IRAQ had had WMD ,same as Bush.

To then conclude that Bush was lying is ...well, frankly ,very stoopid.

But besides that , it's the worst of smear campaigns for it states that a sitting US PResident would invade a country under false pretenses. Unbelievable.

And save your sailly LW blather about squandering good will.

Typical smear tactic.Concoct a massive campaign based on lies that Bush Lied. < Blatant lie> .And then say, ' See ! the world hates us"

Yeah no shit!

 

[B_JQblonde]

Let me refer to you Zbigniew Brzezinski book, "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower". ISBN-13: 978-0465002528.

Brzenzinki was (1) the National Security Advisor under Jimmy Carter from '77 -'79, (2) a Democrat and (3) a political Realist under International Relations theory. In other words, he is highly informed, well-experienced, and well qualified to speak about the direction the US should take in terms of foreign policy. He has evaluated Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr and given their foreign policy decisions a rating of - B, C+ and F respectively. He recommends that the USA resume a historically consistent, foreign-policy view that we are one nation among many. We've squandered a valuable window of opportunity after the Cold War, and as a nation, we must our international interests lie in gathering an international concesus. The US cannot fight the entire world alone. Some homework for you...

Oh wellll . If HE said it....< chuckle>

Tell Old Zig the Us President makes decisions based on what's best for the US and stick his "global test "crapola up John Kerry's ass.

Oh and ask old Zig how big a Coalition we should have before we take action? 20 countries? 30 ?

What's acceptable to him?

 

[HotBulge]

By the way hotBulge, where were you when saddam went on trial?

You would have taken the case pro bono I'm guessing.

It really helps a defendant if his lawyer believes everything he says and believes in his cause!

JQB is still struggling how to reason with facts and corroborating evidence. His political reality is his only reality, and he's having difficulty working beyond those limitations.

Representing Saddam Hussein would be a nice academic exercise in law school, at best. Although I have enjoyed a few "moot court" exercises (legal academic exercises -- and no, I'm not a lawyer. I'm a software engineer). I cannot even defend Sussein for his alleged lying because he wasn't put on trial for "lies" to the international community.

Fact: Saddam Hussein was tried by the Iraqi people in an Iraqi court of law for crimes committed against the Iraqi state and people. He was executed because he was resopnsible for several years of mass murder of Iraqi people. Saddam didn't even make it long enough to be tried by an international tribunal.

 

[HotBulge]

Go do some reading and find out from old 'Zig! YOu may learn something from someone with an informed view.

Oh wellll . If HE said it....< chuckle>

Tell Old Zig the Us President makes decisions based on what's best for the US and stick his "global test "crapola up John Kerry's ass.

Oh and ask old Zig how big a Coalition we should have before we take action? 20 countries? 30 ?

What's acceptable to him?

 

[HotBulge]

I think a UN resolution will do. George Bush Sr. managed to wait long enough for a UN resolution; Bush Jr. never obtained a UN resolution and short-circuited UN efforts.

Face the new reality: the US is no longer the sole authority in the world. That is the lesson to be learned from the Iraq War.

Oh and ask old Zig how big a Coalition we should have before we take action? 20 countries? 30 ?

What's acceptable to him?

 

[HotBulge]

sure I have. the historical accuracy is that every Democrat who would be in a position to know said IRAQ had had WMD ,same as Bush.

To then conclude that Bush was lying is ...well, frankly ,very stoopid.

But besides that , it's the worst of smear campaigns for it states that a sitting US PResident would invade a country under false pretenses. Unbelievable.

And save your sailly LW blather about squandering good will.

Typical smear tactic.Concoct a massive campaign based on lies that Bush Lied. < Blatant lie> .And then say, ' See ! the world hates us"

Yeah no shit!

Bush Jr's so-called evidence was even suspect in 2002. Within Bush's cabinet, Colin Powell expressed reservations about the accuracy of the evidence to the President, several CIA directors expressed their misgivings. The Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfkowicz triad just generated this climate of fear and made it "Unpatriotic" to question the president at the time. The Congressional committees that have oversee national intelligence and foreign relations were fed wrong information. Their job was to make effective recommendations and decisions on the CIA intelligence, not vet the evidence themselves.

 

[dongdick]

The Ignorance of DC_DEEP is breathtaking !!! Clinton fired 93 Attorneys General when he took office. Two of the three major TV networks never even reported it, the other gave it a twenty second blurb. He subsequently fired an additional thirty during his administration including several who were investigating him, his wife, his business partners and other associates. Where was the outrage then ?
To say that Ken Starr found "nothing" in his Whitewater investigation is patently false !!! Seventeen of Clinton"s buddies went to prison and the only reason Bubba and his wife did not is that their co-conspiritors ( the McDougals among others ) refused to tesify against them, were held in contempt and went to prison to protect the Clintons from the truth.
Bubba was impeached, not for his sex life, but for lying under oath in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by Paula Jones, suborning perjury, obstruction of justice and a list of crimes that had nothing whatsoever to do with sex.
Study the record and stop repeating the myhological defenses of the Leftists.

 

[fortiesfun]

The Ignorance of DC_DEEP is breathtaking !!!

I can't wait. Where do we get tickets for this one? :newbie: alert

 

[dongdick]

"Unilateral authority "? Hot Bulge you seen not to remember that there were no less than seventeen unanimous UN resolutions demanding that Iraq turn over its WMDs and that Iraq was in material breach of the cease fire agreement that brought an end the hostilities of Desert Storm ; therefore those unanimous UN resolutions were still in effect and the invasion of Iraq was in full compliance with the United Nations Charter and International Law.
There were thirty eight nations that were members of the coalition that invaded. This is clearly not a "unilateral action" !!!!!

 

[dongdick]

The Complete And Utter Ignorance Of Dc_deep Is Beyond All Heretofore Known Examples . His Statements Are Completely False And Easily Proven So. He Is A Blithering Fool Who Who Thinks Leftist Emotional Rantings Can Somehow Change The Historical Record. May God Protect Us From Such Vicious And Malignant Ignorance.

 

[madame_zora]

The Complete And Utter Ignorance Of Dc_deep Is Beyond All Heretofore Known Examples . His Statements Are Are Completely False And Easily Proven So. He Is A Blithering Fool Who Who Thinks Leftist Emotional Rantings Can Somehow Change The Historical Record. May God Protect Us From Such Vicious And Malignant Ignorance.

:wank:

 

[dongdick]

Your mastery of articulation is emblematic of your intellectual fortitude MadameZ.
Translation: Youre a Marxist Moron !!!

 

[madame_zora]

What the blazes is that supposed that remark by MadameZ supposed to mean? I never have and never will have any private conversation with the likes of her. She is just another deluded and devious "Liberal" attempting to distort the facts.

Haha, my comment to you was the wank-off icon, the rest is my permanent signature. Get with the program.

 

[dreamer20]

"Unilateral authority "?
...

The unprovoked attack on Iraq by George W. Bush was indeed an illegal action in more ways than one:

George W. Bush: Legal Arguments for Impeachment

Excerpt from the link:

Violations of International Law
Article VI of the Constitution specifies that “all Treaties made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land,” equivalent in authority to the Constitution itself and to federal statutes. In violating treaties duly ratified by the Senate, President Bush committed an offense comparable to direct violation of the Constitution or of federal law. Moreover, in doing so, he subverted the Constitution by failing to show proper regard for its equation of its own provisions with those of international treaties. The Iraq War violated both the United Nations Charter (1945) and the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (1945) and its associated judgments.

President Bush has waged a war of aggression in violation of the UN Charter. Aggression, as defined by UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, is “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.” (4) The United Nations Charter, signed by the United States and ratified by the Senate, permits armed combat against another state only when the Security Council approves it or when it is necessary for self-defense. (5) All other wars are aggressive wars, hence forbidden.