posted on February 13, 2004 05:38:23 AM new
neroter12 - Just because Bush has an 'honorable' discharge doesn't mean he spent his days in the military honorably.
We're talking about the accusation that he was a deserter. He was not. No proof...only allegations which have no basis. Just another smear tactic from the left who supported their draft dodger whole-heartedly. lol An 'honorable' discharge is NOT given to deserters no matter how you wish to try and make your case. It just doesn't happen. It just DIDN'T happen.
posted on February 13, 2004 10:52:48 AM new
The deluge of letters and e-mail prompted by last week's column demands another look: Did George Bush go AWOL?
Reacting to my recital of evidence that Lt. Bush didn't show up for a big chunk of his National Guard duty in Alabama and Texas, from May 1972 to May 1973, outraged readers pounced.
He received an honorable discharge, they argued. Plus, Alabama's Gen. William Turnipseed backed off his claim of never having seen Bush on base. And the White House finally released records that prove he served his time. Would I make a retraction? The answer is: No, no and no.
The honorable discharge proves nothing. Radio talk-show host Don Imus told listeners about getting in trouble, including punching a sergeant, while in the Marines. His superiors told him they'd give him an honorable discharge on one condition – that he promise not to re-enlist. Sometimes, Imus points out, honorable discharges are given just to get rid of people.
In fact, according to Separation and Retirement Procedures for today's Air National Guard, those eligible for honorable discharge include people who fail to comply with requirements for a medical examination; who abuse drugs; who have unsatisfactory participation; or whom the service is unable to locate. Nobody knows under what rubric Lt. Bush was discharged.
Yes, Gen. Turnipseed, commander of the Alabama Air National Guard when Bush was assigned there – who originally said he never saw Bush report for duty – now adds that he was traveling and not around much at the time. But that doesn't mean anything. One man's absence doesn't prove another's presence.
Remember: To date, despite the offer of a reward, not one guardsman has come forward to say he served with George Bush in Alabama. And the White House can't name one, either. Perhaps because there aren't any.
On "Meet the Press," President Bush promised to release his entire military files. This week, the White House reneged. Instead, they released only selected pay stubs and the record of a dental exam which, they say, prove Bush served his time in Alabama. Not on your life. Far from resolving the issue, they just add to the confusion.
Here's what the White House documents show. First, that Bush was not paid at all from April 1972 till October 1972. Which means even the White House admits he did not report for duty in Alabama, as required, for at least six months. Second, that Bush was paid for nine appearances, a total of 25 days, between October 1972 and April 1973, but they don't say where. Third, that Bush received a dental exam at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Montgomery on Jan. 6, 1973.
That's it. The sole piece of evidence that Bush ever showed up at a National Guard base in Alabama: He went to the dentist. Once. Whoop-de-do!
Documents released by the White House still shed no light on why Bush did not take his annual physical, as required, in August 1972. But they also raise a more serious question.
Pay stubs show Bush on duty the weekend of May 1-3, 1973, at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Yet that very same weekend, on May 2, his two superior officers at Ellington signed a report saying they could not complete his annual evaluation because "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report."
Who's lying?
George Bush himself left no doubt why he joined the National Guard: to get out of Vietnam. In May 1984, he told the Houston Chronicle: "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
So Bush, a son of privilege, used his congressman father's connections to get into the Guard. After learning to fly, he used his father's political connections to get assigned to a Republican Senate campaign in Alabama. Then he used his father's connections to get out of the Guard five months early, so he could attend Harvard Business School.
And now President Bush has the audacity to suggest that anyone who questions his military record is denigrating the National Guard. No, Mr. President, the person denigrating the National Guard is not the one asking the questions. It's the one who says he did his duty, but didn't.
posted on February 13, 2004 01:00:36 PM newYou've never heard of photoshop, bear? What nonsense.
Yes I have heard of Photoshop. Also heard it's a liperals best friend.
Massachusetts is about to become the first state to allow gays and lesbians to marry. Now here's the part I don't understand -- why would a gay guy want to marry a lesbian? ....Jay Leno
posted on February 13, 2004 05:34:57 PM new
The simplest way to solve all the questions on this would be to interview men who were there when he was. In his unit. His commanding officer. Somebody, anybody, who could say yea or nay on the matter.
Someone above said something to the effect that noone would be able to remember. Hogwash. People are celebrity mad. When he was running for president and when he was elected (heck, even when he was a Governor) you can bet there were lots of folks saying "hey! I knew him! We were in school together...I knew him when...I was at a dinner with him once...etc., etc. etc."
So where are all the people he served in the Guard with? With all the brouhaha going on, if he'd been where he was supposed to be, doing what he was supposed to do, someone should be stepping forward and saying "I was there with Bush when..."
Maybe the new take will be that Bush so ticked off his old comrades & is hated by them so much that all of them are refusing to step forward & corroborate his story....
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 13, 2004 06:53:24 PM newThe White House released all of Bush's Nat'l Guard records today.
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, trying to calm a political storm, released his Vietnam-era military records Friday to counter Democrats' suggestions that he shirked his duty in the Texas Air National Guard. But there was no new evidence that he was in Alabama during a period when Democrats have questioned whether he showed up for service.
Hundreds of pages of documents - many of them duplicates - detailed Bush's service in the Guard from 1968 until 1973.
Bush's medical records, dozens of pages in all, were opened for examination by reporters in the Roosevelt Room, but those documents were not allowed to leave the room.
The records showed that Bush, a pilot, was suspended from flying status beginning Aug. 1, 1972, because of his failure to have an annual medical examination. His last flight exam was on May 15, 1971.
Democrats have questioned whether Bush showed up for temporary duty in Alabama while working on a political campaign during a one-year period from May 1972 to May 1973.
Reports differ on which months Bush was in Alabama, but generally, it's believed that he asked for permission to continue his duties at the 187th TAC Recon Group, Montgomery, in May 1972 and returned to his Texas unit after the November election. The White House says Bush went back to Alabama again after that.
There were no new documents Friday about Bush's serving in Alabama.
Bush's military record has been an issue in each of his campaigns as far back as 1994 and resurfaced this year when Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Bush had been AWOL - absent without leave - during his time in Alabama.
Democrats hope to undermine Bush's election strength on national security issues by contrasting his service in the Guard, where he did not see combat, with that of Sen. John Kerry, the decorated Vietnam War veteran who is the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush had fulfilled his pledge to release all his records. "Our understanding is that this is the entire file," he said. "The record documents that the accusations by some are false."
Democrats kept up their criticism.
"Hopefully these are all the documents," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Debra DeShong. "Each revelation of material from the Bush White House has raised more questions than it has answered. It remains to be seen if these newest documents will provide any answers."
Thirteen pages of payroll records and retirement point summaries released earlier in the week showed Bush was paid for 25 days during the period from May to May, 1972-73.
But those records did not say where Bush served or what duty he performed.
He was not paid for any service during a more than five-month period in 1972, from April 17 to Oct. 27. He was paid for two days in late October of that year, four days in mid-November and no days in December. He was paid for additional days in 1973.
The White House also earlier in the week released a copy of a dental exam Bush received at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Alabama on Jan. 6, 1973, as proof that Bush had physically been at the base and served there.
His medical checks, from 1968 through 1971, show no signs of illness at the time except for a brief episode of hemorrhoid symptoms.
"Examinee denies loss of consciousness, motion sickness or other significant medical or surgical history," the examining physician concurred. All tests listed as performed, including an EKG, chest X-ray and ear test for altitude, came back normal; neurological, psychiatric and other checkoffs were normal; blood tests showed no signs of infection.
His flying exam expired on his birthday, July 6, 1972, said White House communications director Dan Bartlett.
He didn't take his next exam because "he was in non-flying capacity in another state" and knew he'd be there for months. "There was no need or reason for him to take a flying exam.
Allegations that he ducked that physical are "just outrageously false," Bartlett said.
A performance evaluation at Ellington Air Force Base in Texas, covering the period from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973, could not rate Bush because, wrote Lt. Col. William D. Harris, Jr., "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report."
"A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Ala. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp. Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama," it said.
Meanwhile a retired Alabama Air National Guard officer said he remembers Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972, reading safety magazines and flight manuals in an office as he performed his weekend obligations.
"I saw him each drill period," retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Daytona Beach, Fla., where he is preparing to watch this weekend's big NASCAR race.
Calhoun, whose name was supplied to the AP by a Republican close to Bush, is the first member of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group to recall Bush distinctly at the Alabama base in the period of 1972-1973. He was the unit's flight safety officer.
posted on February 13, 2004 08:26:48 PM newDemocrats hope to undermine Bush's election strength on national security issues by contrasting his service in the Guard, where he did not see combat, with that of Sen. John Kerry, the decorated Vietnam War veteran who is the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Exactly...they hope. LOL It didn't work when used against him when he ran for governor. It didn't work when he ran for President, AND WAS ELECTED ANYWAY, and it won't hurt him this time. Nothing but rehashed old news. Yawn...
Bush's strength on National Security Issue has already been proven. Kerry's voting record on National security will be the issue. The majority of American's thought President Bush handled the 9-11 attacks brilliantly. No need to 'prove' himself....he already has. A great, established record for taking care of business. Unlike clinton who left everything to be dealt with my this administration.
posted on February 13, 2004 08:50:59 PM new
No surprise that you aren't worried, lindak
After all, worry requires some thought.
The Real National Security Threat: The Bush Economy
By Ian Williams, AlterNet
January 13, 2004
A lot of liberals accuse George Bush of cowardice. It's a preposterous accusation to level at a president who is running at least two staggeringly expensive wars at the same time, even as he threatens to take on more, not to mention planning an invasion of Mars and cutting taxes on all your rich friends. And all this in the face of the world's biggest ever trade and budget deficits. Now that takes cojones ... unless, of course, you think that the president keeps his brains in the same general area of his anatomy.
Most Americans, who have been hearing endless reports about the so-called economic "boom" on TV, may not realize that the country is, in fact, worth a third less than it was a few years ago. With the dollar plummeting in value, the U.S. economy is far poorer when measured in terms of Euros or pounds.
For 30 years, wealth inside America has been shifted from the working poor to the stock-optioned rich, and the White House and the media expect us to celebrate – as though a booming stock market is going to cheer up the single mother who has been thrown off welfare and forced to look for a minimum wage job. But with the dollar falling so precipitously, it's time to pay close attention to just how badly our economy has gone awry.
The secret to the looming catastrophe is our bloated deficits, trade and budget. Last year, for example, we bought over $100 billion more stuff from China than we sold them. China took a leaf from Japan's book and bought U.S. treasury bonds with the surplus. This in turn kept our external payments in balance, and gave George W. the money he needed for the Iraq war and beloved tax cuts. Neat, huh?
It is not just China and Japan, but also South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan that are reinvesting their trade surplus in treasury bonds. In other words, fast as you can sing "the West is in the Red," the U.S. budget deficit is now entirely dependent on Asian capital flows.
Here's the catch: What flows in could just as easily flow out.
In the long term, it does not make sound economic sense for these nations to keep their money in low-interest dollar bonds that annually lose ten percent of their value for every percent they earn in interest. It's the reason why most of the Asian central banks have publicly endorsed the idea of balancing their currency reserves by investing in Euros. Some of their analysts think even old-fashioned gold is a better bet as it continues steadily to gain value against the dollar.
Any shift in this pattern hinges on investor confidence. Across the world, people buy dollars because they think the U.S. economy is basically sound, and that the U.S. government is stable and rational in its management of its economy and currency. Given the Bush administration's policies in recent years, both assumptions look shakier than ever.
The most ominous sign of trouble came from an unlikely source, the International Monetary Fund, which in the good old days was the sharp crusading edge of Washington's export of capitalism. Yet it is the IMF that is now crying foul at the administration's economic plans. Last week, a team of economists from the fund predicted that the U.S. could owe 40 percent of its total economy within a few years – a statistic that will take the United States to an Argentinean scale of indebtedness. Quite apart from the effect of this massive debt on the U.S., the IMF is worried about what will happen to the world economy when things come unstuck. The economists do not envisage a soft landing with a deficit on this scale.
Indeed, the United States' position is worse than it looks since its problems run deeper than the national level. Thanks to a federal system of government, much of the money that central governments control in other countries is spent in this country by state, county and city governments. And they are all facing growing deficits. It all adds up to a fiscal nightmare.
There are few reasons in the long run for foreigners to want to put their money in a rapidly depreciating currency that pays lousy interest rates. What's more, the Bush foreign policy doesn't exactly inspire confidence. The more the U.S. government acts as a solo rogue elephant in world affairs and disregards international law, the less secure foreign investors will be that they can get their money back on demand. There has already been an outflow of Arab money as the Sheikhs worry that between John Ashcroft and ambulance-chasing lawyers, their holdings can be easily frozen or confiscated.
And if the investors all get the jitters together, the U.S. will experience a snowball effect, similar to the meltdown in South East Asia and Argentina.
A run on the bank is a real possibility, and, as we know, these get out of control. It led to breadlines in Buenos Aires recently, and our very own Great Crash of 1929.
So why is George W. not more worried? As it turns out, in typical style, administration officials have seized this very scenario as yet another justification of their radical foreign policy. Some neoconservatives suggest that since the decline of US economic supremacy is imminent, it is more important than ever to extend our military control around the globe while we still can, even if it accelerates our economic decline.
It is a highly short-sighted view, but hardly surprising given that these are the same people who designed the Iraqi exit strategy. When it comes to national security, military bases are unfortunately unlikely to do the trick in this era of globalization. The Chinese don't need their nuclear arsenal to devastate the United States. All Premier Hu Jintao needs to do is to pick up the phone and shout "sell." Selling the T bonds would be far more effective and incur far less damage to China than a military confrontation. Of course the Chinese economy would suffer, but it would survive thanks to its relatively centralized, isolationist system.
The other group of people who could pose a similar threat are the oil-producing countries, the same folks who gave us the 1973 oil crisis. The U.S. is more dependent on oil imports than ever before. Since the demise of the British sterling as a reserve currency, almost all of them have accepted dollars in payment. They bank them abroad, invest them, or spend them on American arms when allowed.
While it is unlikely, it is not totally impossible that the Bush administration's policy of locking up anyone called Mohamed and favoring Israel might drive the Arab countries to try an oil embargo again. It is, however, quite feasible that they may simply decide to follow in the footsteps of Saddam's Iraq and demand payment in Euros in the future. The math is simple: If they had done so a year ago, for every 85 cents (one Euro, at the time) they put in the bank, they would now have earned a $1.30.
Thanks to my-way-or-highway approach of the U.S. government recently, it wouldn't be surprising if other nations rubbed their hands with glee at the prospects facing the U.S. Luckily, even the Germans and the French are more mature and responsible, and like the IMF, worry about the effects of Bush policy on the world economy.
But it is only a matter of time before the rest of the world begins to tire of financing the administration's military, fiscal and economic irresponsibility. More importantly, these nations have aging populations of their own. There is no way that their governments are going to finance the huge impending Medicare and Social Security deficits that Bush is brushing under the carpet.
Ian Williams is a regular contributor to AlterNet. He is also the UN correspondent for the Nation.
posted on February 13, 2004 09:34:46 PM new
The Nation???? Like they'd ever say anything that wasn't anti-Bush. Won't cut the mustard....the economy is getting better, the stock market is going up, people are seeing more money in their pockets because of the Bush tax cuts and the unemployment rate is continuing to decline.
All positive news.
The war in Iraq will decide this election. Those who feel Saddam being removed was a good thing will support President Bush. Those who support Saddam remaining in power will continue to whine for another four years. I can hardly wait.
Sure vote for a democrat they [b]promise[/i] to raise your taxes by eliminating the tax cuts.....they promise to raise your taxes even more to pay for a National Health Care plan....take a good hard look at the health plan Kerry's proposing...it will give you a good laugh.
Yep....vote democratic....and vote for a weaker military...vote for higher taxes....vote for more social programs...and watch the decifit grow even more.
In an effort to explain Bush's absence from service for five months and failure to take the physical exam, several questions have occurred to reporters.
This effort by Helen Thomas to receive a simple yes or no answer from McClellan only serves to increase suspicion about Bush's absence.
posted on February 14, 2004 08:54:36 AM new
The bottom line is that we had it much better under a democratic president with Clinton.
Regardless of what one thinks of Kerry, Anybody but Bush is the voting publics mantra.
BTW, FOX news is attempting to use the Household survey to claim that jobs have actually had a net gain under Bush.
What they fail to tell their viewers is that Greenspan in his latest testimony before Congress said that the survey is quite useless and flawed. It is a flawed survey of only 60,000 households. Greenspan uses the payroll taxes to gauge the employment picyure.
posted on February 14, 2004 09:26:44 AM new
Files released by the White House Friday night.
The records show Bush was an eager fighter pilot who said he wanted to spend a lifetime in aviation. But they provide no evidence that he did any military service in Alabama, to which he had requested a transfer in May 1972 to work on a Senate campaign that ended in November 1972.
Then comes the "uh-oh" paragraph (if you're Karl Rove, that is):
And the records showed officials from Bush's home base in Texas declining to provide details of his activities between May 1972 to April 1973, even though such documentation was requested by National Guard headquarters.
posted on February 14, 2004 11:00:13 AM newThe bottom line is that we had it much better under a democratic president with Clinton.
YOUR bottom line doesn't appear to remember that clinton didn't have to deal with 9-11 like this President has had to.
YOUR bottom line doesn't appear to remember that when the economy started turning around, during the clinton administration, it was ONLY AFTER a republican congress had gained control and was calling the shots. It was NOT clinton ecomonics any longer...but decisions made by the Republican Congress.
[plus the technology boom]
How quickly we forget the FACTS.
More auto workers in the northeast are losing their jobs, they're going to Mexico.....thanks to clinton signing NAFTA.
The blame for job loses needs to be put on the shoulders of the administration, clinton's, that started this mess.
posted on February 15, 2004 12:42:38 AM newSo can we now agree that Clinton is not running for president.
Nope...not yet. She who ran the WH before might still run again.
Can we now agree that Bush hasn't done squat for working people, except get their kids killed in Iraq.
Nope...we sure can't. He's done a great job giving the tax cuts which have provided pretty much the only economic stimulation the economy has received. Even Greenspan thinks they should be renewed.
Can we now agree that Bush ran up the debt with Repubs controlling BOTH HOUSES?
We can agree that there were circumstances which caused a lot of unusual spending because of 9-11, HomeLandSecurity, two necessary wars and the Medicare Bill....all of which would have been incurred with the dems in office. And we would have had a more expensive Medicare bill had the democrats passed their own version.
Can we now agree that we have lost over 2 million jobs and Bush hasn't a clue how to use his office to manage the economy?
Nope....those jobs would have been lost under a dem administration. Clinton saw to that both with NAFTA and his 'deals' with China.
It's look like now you'll be voting for anybody but Bush too !!!
posted on February 15, 2004 12:49:22 AM new
See Linda flit from thread to thread with meaningless drivel! See Linda avoid answering questions which she had the bad sense to stick her nose into! See Linda make not one factual statement to support her rock-hard themes!
posted on February 15, 2004 01:23:36 AM newCan we now agree that Bush ran up the debt with Repubs controlling BOTH HOUSES?
We can agree that there were circumstances which caused a lot of unusual spending because of 9-11, HomeLandSecurity, two necessary wars and the Medicare Bill....all of which would have been incurred with the dems in office. And we would have had a more expensive Medicare bill had the democrats passed their own version.
Linda, this is revisionist history. The fact is that LONG before 9-11, Bush's gutting of our surplus was ringing alarm bells & he was being called on it. His famous so-called tax rebate (that netted most folks a munificent $100- $300 if they saw anything at all, whoop-de-doo) started the ball rolling & it went downhill from there. And while he was giving out that "rebate" he was, if you will recall, loudly stating that it would not use the whole surplus, would leave plenty left over for "new Spending." The postal stamps were barely dry on the envelopes when we were all informed that, uh, sorry--the surplus was gone....
And while I agree that Afghanistan was justified, Iraq certainly was not. Bush out and out lied to get us into this war. He may say now that Congress read the same reports he did, & that they voted for it, yadda,yadda, yadda ...but the plain truth is that he, Cheney & Rumsfeld pushed & pushed & pushed for the war, whipping up a frenzy & practically accusing anyone that didn't jump on their bandwagon of being un-American.
As for Homeland Security & the Patriot Act, those are the biggest bunch of crap in the world.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 15, 2004 01:36:53 AM new
Yes, bunni - This President was of the mind set that the overpaid tax money should be returned to those who paid it. Most unlike any democratic president who only raises taxes or spends the extra on more social programs.
And I know you've mentioned the small refund you received. Not sure why that would be except that families get more. If the tax cuts are changed one of YOUR democratic candidates said it would mean a $1400.00 tax increase to a family of four. So....obviously some are getting more than others according to their income and their deductions/dependents.
And I know we disagree on the issue of being lied to. I still hold the position we weren't lied to and fully expect the investigating commissions to give that in their summary. The world thought Saddam had womd....it wasn't just Bush alone.
Re-elect President Bush!!
edited to add: a family of 4 with a $40,000. income.
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 15, 2004 01:40 AM ]
posted on February 15, 2004 02:17:45 AM new
I was speaking of Bush's tax REBATE, made early in 2001. As for the tax decrease, that another "whoop-de-doo"--if, as you say, a family of four were to receive an extra $1400 per year, that works out to about $117 per month, or $29.25 per person. Single people or folks without kids would get far, far less, if anything at all. BTW, I make a pretty good income (a tad less than $60,000) and pay pretty high taxes, so you'd think I'd get a good bit back. Such is not the case.
BTW, surely you've wondered just where Bush is going: he keeps saying that he is going to slash this taxes here and make rebates there--yet all the time he keeps announcing new ways he is going to be spending more. Just where is he going to get the $ to finance all the stuff he says he wants to do? I'm beginning to think he saw "It Grows On Trees" and mistook it for a documentary.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 15, 2004 02:44:34 AM newso you'd think I'd get a good bit back. Such is not the case. I know...under our tax system singles really do get $crewed. My youngest son makes more than you, is still single and until 2002 didn't have a large mortgage/house tax deduction to help out, and he paid through the nose too. But that's what's still a mystery to me because under the tax cuts my son is clearing more than he was. And in July, this year, the next tax cut is do to show up. And the tax brackets were lowered.
yet all the time he keeps announcing new ways he is going to be spending more. I know...it worries me too. I do feel many of these increases have been necessary, and most already established programs have only received very minor increases..... But take note each time he announces he's going to cut a program....the screams from the democrats are eardrum piercing. Or he's being blamed for not spending enough on special interest programs. Just can't please everyone.
I'm beginning to think he saw "It Grows On Trees" and mistook it for a documentary. LOL Looks that way sometimes, doesn't it.
His administration has been quoted as saying IF the economy picks up enough the deficit can be eliminated in 5 years. But who really knows what the future will bring. Also from what I've observed over my voting lifetime....all sitting presidents spend, spend, spend in an election. Supposed to make the voters think everything is just fine.
posted on February 15, 2004 05:21:03 PM new
"Also from what I've observed over my voting lifetime....all sitting presidents spend, spend, spend in an election. Supposed to make the voters think everything is just fine."
So... from experience, Linda, you're acknowledging that you're a little bit worried about the economy?
Knowing that Bush is just 'spend spend spending' for fun?
posted on February 15, 2004 06:31:55 PM new
Okay Kiara - I'll word it another way.
Saddam had many countries and the UN Security Council continually involved for more than 12 years trying to get him to disarm OR prove he didn't have the weapons, they knew he once had.
Better?
If they didn't think he had them, they sure wasted a lot of time, money and energy.
posted on February 15, 2004 06:39:11 PM new
More SPEW!
Go read what the U.N. Weapons Investigators really said, Linda. Better yet, since you're apparently on a spewing spree, go answer questions I've left for you in other threads. What's that? You don't have to? You'd rather SPEW unsubstantiated crap?
Well, you go right ahead on, scuppernong, but do so knowing that your credibility around here is at the Twelvepole mark...
posted on February 16, 2004 09:09:02 AM new
Have the neocons killed a presidency?
George W. Bush "betrayed us," howled Al Gore.
"He played on our fear. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure, dangerous to our troops, an adventure that was preordained and planned before 9-11 ever happened."
Hearing it, Gore's rant seemed slanderous and demagogic. For though U.S. policy since Clinton had called for regime change in Iraq, there is no evidence, none, that Bush planned to invade prior to 9-11.
Yet, the president has a grave problem, and it is this: Burrowed inside his foreign-policy team are men guilty of exactly what Gore accuses Bush of, men who did exploit our fears to stampede us into a war they had plotted for years. Consider:
In 1996, in a strategy paper crafted for Israel's Bibi Netanyahu, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser urged him to "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power" as an "Israeli strategic objective." Perle, Feith, Wurmser were all on Bush's foreign policy team on 9-11.
In 1998, eight members of Bush's future team, including Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, wrote Clinton urging upon him a strategy that "should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein."
On Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9-11, Wurmser called for U.S.-Israeli attacks "to broaden the [Middle East] conflict to strike fatally ... the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Teheran and Gaza ... to establish the recognition that fighting with either the United States or Israel is suicidal."
"Crises can be opportunities," added Wurmser.
On Sept. 11, opportunity struck.
On Sept. 15, according to author Bob Woodward, Paul Wolfowitz spoke up in the War Cabinet to urge that Afghanistan be put on a back burner and an attack be mounted at once on Iraq, though Iraq had had nothing to do with 9-11. Why Iraq? Said Wolfowitz, because it is "doable."
On Sept. 20, 40 neoconservatives in an open letter demanded that Bush remove Saddam from power, "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [9-11] attack." Failure to do so, they warned the president, "would constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."
While Bush had taken office as a traditional conservative skeptical of "nation-building" and calling for a more "humble" foreign policy, after 9-11, he was captured by the neocons and converted to an agenda they had worked up years before. Suddenly, he sounded just like them, threatening wars on "axis-of-evil" nations that had nothing to do with 9-11.
And here is where Bush's present crisis was created.
Though he had internalized the neoconservative agenda for war, he had no rationale, no justification, no casus belli. Iraq had not threatened or attacked us.
Enter the WMD. Neoconservatives pressed on Bush the idea that Iraq must still have weapons of mass destruction and must be working on nuclear weapons. And as Saddam was a figure of such irrationality – i.e., a madman – he would readily give an atom bomb to al-Qaida. An American city could be incinerated.
Therefore, Saddam had to be destroyed. Bush bought it.
The problem, however, was this: While there is much evidence Saddam is evil, there is no evidence he was insane. He had not used his WMD in 1991, when he had them. For he was not a fool. He knew that would mean his end. Why would he then build a horror weapon now, give it to a terrorist and risk the annihilation of his regime, family, legacy and himself, a fate he had narrowly escaped in 1991?
Made no sense – and there was no hard evidence on the WMD.
Thus, when the CIA was unable to come up with hard evidence that Saddam still had WMD, or was building nuclear weapons, neocon insiders sifted the intelligence, cherry-picked it, presented tidbits to the media as unvarnished truth, and persuaded Powell and the president to rely on it to make the case to Congress, the country and the world. Powell and the president did.
Now the WMD case has fallen apart. Powell has egg on his face. And the president must persuade Tim Russert and the nation that Iraq was a "war of necessity" because we "had no choice when we looked at the intelligence I looked at."
But, sir, the intelligence you "looked at" was flawed. Who gave it to you?
To its neocon architects, Iraq was always about empire, hegemony, Pax Americana, global democracy – about getting hold of America's power to make the Middle East safe for Sharon and themselves glorious and famous.
But now they have led a president who came to office with good intentions and a good heart to the precipice of ruin. One wonders if Bush knows how badly he has been had. And if he does, why he has not summarily dealt with those who misled him?
posted on February 16, 2004 09:41:54 AM newgo answer questions I've left for you in other threads. What's that? You don't have to? You'd rather SPEW unsubstantiated crap?
Pat - I have always enjoyed presenting the 'other' side of the issues here. And I don't see my views as "unsubstantiated crap", thank you anyway.
But to answer your questions above no, I don't have to continue to respond to your demands, rudeness and insults to every post I make. I have always believed adults are quite capable of disagreeing/debating and still remaining civil to one another. And lately, you insult, on a personal level, every poster who doesn't hold your same mindset. I will no longer be a part of your abuse.
Or he's being blamed for not spending enough on special interest programs. Just can't please everyone.