I think he meant to say that Bush was easily (and frequently) "UNDER the influence".
About Iraq
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Hugh Shelton's credibility and judgment was called into question long before his account of Bush's administration and the Iraq War:
http://par
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I seem to remember that the President is allowed to lie in cases involving national security. I know for sure the police can lie to you while they question you about a crime, so it wouldn't surprise me.
==========
"Allowed"?
By whom?
And the answer is that there's nobody "allowing" it -- Both a president and police lie at their own peril, and at the risk of betraying the trust of the American people and the Congress and Courts of the United States. The police lying do so at the risk of ruining the integrity of a district attorney's case.
Lying is NEVER recommended, and in a democracy it's deadly toxic.
About Iraq
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Wikileaks documents said that the majority of those deaths were caused by OTHER IRAQIS
==========
Some, & the result of US troops not protecting Iraqi civilians. Meaning, when we weren't killing Iraqi civilians, we were letting others kill them. That's a war crime, dearie.
Lancet Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000
Epidemiologists estimate that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would've died if the invasion hadn't occurred.
It's more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that Bush gave in a speech in December. It's more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based IraqBodyCount research group.
The surveyors said they found a steady increase in mortality since the invasion, with a steeper rise in the last year that appears to reflect a worsening of violence as reported by the US military, the news media & civilian groups. In the year ending in June, the team calculated Iraq's mortality rate to be roughly four times what it was the year before the war.
Of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence & the rest from disease & other causes, according to the study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country.
http://www
Wikileaks vindicates the findings by the Lancet study which Bush officials condemned when it was originally published.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
To believe as you do, you have to be doing as Janet Parshall is doing in this clip ( http://www
The only authorization Bush had to use military force against anyone was for the culprits of 9/11. And Saddam Hussein clearly had no connection, and Bush was told that by every intelligence agency in the world.
This cr@zed policy against Iraq and Saddam Hussein has destroyed the US. Why would you still be defending it?
About Iraq
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The same is true of Obama. He got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton. He convinced centrists that he was a centrist. He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist.
First and foremost, though, Obama's a lawyer (and I mean that in the worst sense of the word), choosing his words very carefully (lawyer-speak) during the campaign, giving people the sense of what they wanted to hear to get their vote. It's why even among his most ardent admirers, they still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican.
Doing what is good for transnational corporations is what Obama (and the Clintons) is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican, "What's good for GM is good for America."
About Iraq
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
By the way, you won't see any real liberal defend Bill Clinton on his Iraq policies, the daily bombings, or much of anything else that Clinton did.
Clinton wasn't a liberal. As Alan Greenspan said, "Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while."
Conservatives' continual posting of Bill Clinton's policies as some sort of defense for what Bush & Cheney did (shouldn't that be a clue to you that Clinton wasn't a liberal?) only goes to show that conservatives don't know what they're talking about.
No Democratic Party operative is going to clarify the issue for you because ALL political operatives thrive on not clarifying issues, keeping voters in a state of confusion.
Most Hillary and Bill supporters think that the Clintons are liberals. Most of the Clinton supporters don't know what the DLC is. Most have a romantic view of the Clintons that conveniently ignores Clinton policies that no self-respecting liberal would associate themselves with.
About Iraq
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
You have to be so far right that your spine is a corkscrew to believe that Clinton is a liberal.
Do you know what the DLC is, and who is in it?
About Iraq
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
"The president of the United States caught conspiring to create a modern-day version of the sinking of the Maine? Talk about an impeachable offense."
-- David Corn, referring to a Jan. 2003 memo of a conversation between George Bush and Tony Blair
http://www.huf fingtonpos
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The Bush Administration Conspired with Britain and Used Deliberate Deception to Make its Case for War with Iraq
"Never in our wildest dreams did we think we would see those words in black and white...and beneath a SECRET stamp, no less. For three years now, we in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been saying that the CIA and its British counterpart, MI-6, were ordered by their countries' leaders to "fix facts" to "justify" an unprovoked war on Iraq. More often than not, we have been greeted with stares of incredulity. It has been a hard learning . . . that folks tend to believe what they want to believe. . . Thanks to an unauthorized disclosure by a courageous whistleblower, the evidence now leaps from official documents . . . this time authentic, not forged. . . "
-- Veteran CIA analyst Ray McGovern, referring to the July 2002 Downing Street Memo
http://www
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer
http://www
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
What happened at PresidentBush's very first NationalSe
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that SaddamHussein was a bad person & needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid & sealed.”
As TreasurySecretary, PaulO'Neill was a permanent member of the NationalSe
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of preemption, that the US has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next NationalSe
O'Neill got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January & February of 2001.
http://www
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
