Laugh So You Don't Cry

George W. Bush, standup comedian:

Bush put on a slide show, calling it the "White House Election-Year Album" at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association 60th annual dinner, showing himself and his staff in some decidedly unflattering poses.

There was Bush looking under furniture in a fruitless, frustrating search. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said.

Because leading your country to war under false pretenses is hiiiiii-larious. (Via Drudge.)

Comments

[Rick]

The "insult" was directed at your use of the word "Bullshit"
Ham Handed, really JB.
At least I was kind enought to employ the use of a very large French breed.

[Hydroman]

Everyone chill.
Bush was looking under the table for Saddam`s shredder.
He`s a compasionate comedian.

[Matthew Goggins]

Jean Bart:

You are correct to say that Hans Blix has said repeatedly that Iraq "may", as opposed to "does", have had WMD's.

But I was correct to say that in March of 2003, Blix thought that Iraq did have WMD's.

Here is the L.A. Times story that quotes Blix:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-blix17mar17,1,2144613.story

(I got the date wrong in my other post. The story's real date is March 17th.)

If you go to the 14th paragraph, it says:

"Blix conceded that his own gut feeling at the time, based on Hussein's past intentions and capabilities, was that Iraq did have unconventional weapons. 'I thought that there were weapons of mass destruction like everyone else.'"

[Jean Bart]

Rick,

Well, my assertion that the original statement is bullshit has yet to be countered; that's all that really counts. Again, all you have is a rather tired and silly insult to argue with. Which apparently you openly admit.

[Jean Bart]

Matthew Goggins,

Yet clearly he wasn't so convinced as to countenance an invasion in March of 2003.

[Rick Laredo]

Yet even Blix admits that he thought in March of 2003 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

Bullshit; Blix has said repeatedly that he thought that they MAY have such weapons. Indeed, the reason he called for continued inspections was to bring some surety to the issue.

Above is your original statement JB

The following is the retort:

"Blix conceded that his own gut feeling at the time, based on Hussein's past intentions and capabilities, was that Iraq did have unconventional weapons. 'I thought that there were weapons of mass destruction like everyone else.'"

"...like everyone else except JB."

Rick

[Jean Bart]

Rick,

The DGSE did not assume that they he had such weapons; indeed, they were highly skeptical of the Anglo-American claims. Thankyou for overplaying your hand though; it demonstrates that you are a troll, leaving no work for me. 🙂

[rst]

lost any shred of credibility on this issue

As opposed to whose credibility on the issue? The UN that was too busy raking in oil-for-food money hand over fist to address the ongoing and fruitless sanction-and-search routine? Iraq was a feather in the cap for the entire EU - their North Viet Nam - and none of them wanted to give it up.

Credibility my ass. If credibility meant anything to the international community they would have done something about Iraq on March 16, 1988. Or perhaps actually enforced maybe just one of the endless resolutions they've been tossing at Israel since its inception. This vaunted international community of yours is nothing more than sometime sycophants who have an ample opportunity of late to lash out at the same hand they'll be feeding from for years to come. No country in the world can lay claim to much "credibility", and every one of them including the U.S. should be goddamned ashamed of themselves that it took so few so long to do something about a person who by any rational measure belonged on the same list as Milosevic, whom European countries were ready and willing to sacrifice American lives to remove. It's not about credibility, it's about the power structure in the ME. The UN is Europe's best weapon against American "hegemony". When it is revealed as the paper tiger it has always been, you're bound to rankle the feathers of those who depended on the facade.

[Rick]

If anything JB I have underplayed it.
Nice fencing with you though.
en garde, when we meet again.

[Mike H.]

Yet clearly he wasn't so convinced as to countenance an invasion in March of 2003.

He certainly wasn't, but then again, the UN and it's inspectors had been up and down that same tired old road with Hussein for the past decade. There comes a time when one has to say, "Enoughs enough!"

Hussein-ruled Iraq was given one last chance to come completely clean and did not. It's still my view that on the WMD issue alone, the correct course of action was taken.

Many were theorizing that the UN's reluctance to directly confront Hussein was in some way "encouraging" other countries to follow suit. I realize that correlation does not imply causation, but the Libyan situation is interesting. At the very least, the US has set a precedent of "unpredictability" in regards to WMD ? and IMHO, that's really not a bad thing.

[Jean Bart]

rst,

"Iraq was a feather in the cap for the entire EU - their North Viet Nam - and none of them wanted to give it up."

Which of course explains why members of the EU (Italy, Spain, and the UK most notably) joined America in its invasion of Iraq.

"If credibility meant anything to the international community they would have done something about Iraq on March 16, 1988."

Of course the international community in that instance also includes the U.S.

"...as Milosevic, whom European countries were ready and willing to sacrifice American lives to remove."

Yes, no Europeans died during that conflict; I mean, we only committed tens of thousands of soldiers (France alone had ten thousand at point) to the occupation and hundreds of planes to the air war. After a while, you paint yourself in a corner with your shrill rhetoric.

[Jean Bart]

Mike H.,

Well, that's fine then; but my caveat is that America needs to live with that decision.

zorel,

Regarding the impeachment issue, that's not my concern nor really something I would be comfortable answering. I'm not an American; I'm not so arrogant to assume I have an answer.

[rst]

and the UK most notably

Hah. That's a reach. Pays au continent don't even pay attention to that little island up there; its membership in the EU is something both bodies could take or leave. Don't offer it up as an example of EU sentiment.

we only committed tens of thousands of soldiers

As you are wont to do when it's in your own backyard.

shrill rhetoric

You are the last who should be lecturing about shrill rhetoric.

Of course the international community in that instance also includes the U.S.

Yes as you may have noticed I wrote "every one of them including the U.S." I don't see the U.S. gov't as particularly valiant or noble, merely a body comprised primarily of corrupt and inept fools, like every other government in the world, who decided to do what the other corrupt and inept fools could or would not.

[John Q]

I'm glad the Republicans here are so able to model themselves after their intelligence-deprived, idiot leader! Not too hard, though, just listen to Rush and get today's talking points!

"Free Minds and Free Markets." Some may not realize that the former refers to the importance of critical thought and avoidance of ideology, not the virtues of toking up.

[Mike H.]

Well, that's fine then; but my caveat is that America needs to live with that decision.

Heh, yeah, I agree - how are we not living with it, Frenchy? 🙂

[Mike H.]

I'm glad the Republicans here are so able to model themselves after their intelligence-deprived, idiot leader! Not too hard, though, just listen to Rush and get today's talking points!

I'm not a Republican - I'm pro-war. The two are definitely not the same, my cranky little friend.

[Phil]

Why is everyone picking on Julian for complaining about the Bush justification for war. If you are for small government and economic freedoms, like most people on this board, then you qualify to be a libertarian. If you also are in favor of Bush's invasion of Iraq and our establishing a new government system in another country, then you are a conservative and not a libertarian, imho. Next up, someone here will admit to respecting the institution and practice of forcing people to say the Pledge of Allegiance, with or without the reference to god.

[John Q]

I'm pro-war.

Generally??? Geez, I'd rather you were a Republican.

[Jean Bart]

rst,

"Hah. That's a reach. Pays au continent don't even pay attention to that little island up there; its membership in the EU is something both bodies could take or leave. Don't offer it up as an example of EU sentiment."

Even if that is the case, it does not explain away Spain and Italy; or the Dutch, or new entrants like Poland. To be blunt, your statement is groundless and deeply flawed.

"As you are wont to do when it's in your own backyard."

Yet your argument implied that it was an America-only operation; which your statement does not bolster.

"You are the last who should be lecturing about shrill rhetoric."

Argumentum ad hominem tu qouque.

Mike H.,

Quite simply; you continue to expect other nations to share in the responsibility there.

[rst]

respecting the institution and practice of forcing people to say the Pledge of Allegiance

The pledge - and its affirmation of faith - are optional exercises.

If you are for small government and economic freedoms, like most people on this board, then you qualify to be a libertarian.

That sounds like an oversimplification. A large government is not requisite to finishing long overdue business.

It's like foreign aid...if not us then whom? The U.N.? Real effective lot they've been.

[rst]

Argumentum ad hominem tu qouque.

Hey, you're the one who brought up rhetoric. You spout it as often as anyone in here. "Bush lied," for instance, while we're talking about groundless and deeply flawed statements.

Yet your argument implied that it was an America-only operation; which your statement does not bolster.

No it didn't. It implied that Europe was willing to sacrifice Americans to protect themselves.

[Phil]

>The pledge - and its affirmation of faith - are >optional exercises.

When you line up six year olds in school and tell them that it is time to do the pledge, then that is not optional, even if they can technically say no. My gradeschool class in the 1970s released children from school once a week to walk across the street to attend Bible school at a church. (This was a public school.) While it was "voluntary," 95% of the kids went. Not going was considered weird.

[Patrick]

The pledge is indeed optional. In my senior year of highschool though, our teacher would force us to stand for it. It was to a point that three students transfered out of the class because they didn't have to power to challenge her.

[Cowicide]

Yeah, witnessing a scumbag liar is hilarious.. but only to idiots who put their children in harms way. Same type of people who love to watch innocent people suffer... sociopaths.

BTW, call ME a "pussy" all you want... I'll be glad to arrange a meeting where you can tell that to my f*cking face where I can show you pain and suffering firsthand.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

See If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0. For another Waxman quote, see this.

[Jean Bart]

rst,

"No it didn't. It implied that Europe was willing to sacrifice Americans to protect themselves."

Which is a rather strange argument given that the bulk of forces in the Balkans have always been European. Indeed, its especially strange in light of the American desire to "share the risk" in Iraq.

[rst]

then that is not optional, even if they can technically say no

When you can choose between doing something or not doing something, technically or practically, that is an optional exercise. It is the responsibility of interested parents to inform their children of that choice.

Not going was considered weird.

If you haven't the will to stand up to "popular speech" (the prevailing sentiment that not going is wierd), then acquiesce with your tail between your legs.

[Cowicide]

Did Clear Channel broadcast it? I'm sure that type of insulting, revolting behavior wouldn't get banned by the SCUM at Clear Channel.

http://home.comcast.net/~cowicide/bush/index.htm

[Douglas Fletcher]

Poor Julian, he's sooo sensitive.

[dhex]

cowcide: you're a pussy. meet me at the corner of 61st and lexington at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow. 🙂

[Jennifer]

Wanted to make a point about the Pledge: it is indeed optional for students but not for teachers, who are in many cases required by law to lead the class in it. Even those of us who are atheists.

Hmm. If the Supremes keep God in the pledge, I'll wait till I get tenure, then try the lawsuit again, only from the persepctive of protecting a teacher, not the student.

I have to leave in a few minutes so if there is any vitriol for me I won't be able to read it for several hours.

[A Different Sean]

JB,

Do you concede that Iraq was not fully complying with the UN searches? Do you concede that there were violations of the restrictions that the UN had placed on Iraq, however miniscule (e.g., the drones, the slighty-over-ranged missiles)? What was to be done about this?

Just as there wasn't evidence that there WERE weapons, there was absolutley no confidence that there WEREN'T weapons (from just about everyone, incl. Blix).

While those against the war felt that we needed to wait for something else (not sure what) before starting a war, those for the war felt that Saddam's non-compliance was a threat (which it was... it wasn't an imminent threat, but it was Saddam's way of saying "Don't touch me, you don't know what I might do").

I guess it's obvious which camp I was in. But I want to know what, in YOUR opinion, was needed before a full-blown war?

[Les]

Listening to folks here defend the administration from charges of lying is as entertaining as watching the feminists defend Clinton from charges of lying.

When Cheney, Rice, Powell, et al said that aluminum tubes were for nuclear purposes, it was after they'd been told they were probably not. That was a lie. When Cheney, Rice, Powell, et al said that there was no doubt that Hussein had WMD's, it was after they'd been told that there was. That was a lie. Because we know what they were told, we know that they lied to the American people and the world on the issue of WMD's.

An assortment of other comments can best be described as "dishonest."

Does this, in any way, suggest that removing Hussein from power was wrong? Not at all. Does it mean that there weren't a lot of other really good reasons to remove Hussein from power? Not at all. There were lots of great, REAL reasons to remove him from power.

But if you guys are SO loyal to the Republicans or SO resentful of liberals or SO anxious to have gotten rid of Hussein that you think it's sound and wise for known liars to lead a nation into war (in part based on those lies), then you should just admit that you don't care that they lied, which is a much better argument for the policies in question than these evasive and rather cowardly rationalizations.

[Citizen]

Jennifer, no vitriol, but I would submit that as an agent of the state, your personal opinion and belief are of no consequence in regard to your duty. Or should all public teachers be free to teach only what they want to? I think we both know enough fundamentalists teachers that don't believe the Big Bang Theory, and enough populist teachers that would rather their history classes read The People's History of the United States than the standard fare. Tough.

[Jennifer]

Citizen-
Are you saying my duty as a teacher is to teach the students to believe in God? I'll lead them in a secular pledge since I accept the argument that my job requires me to teach them civic virtues, but religion is NOT one of them.

[J]

Jennifer said: "I'll lead them in a secular pledge since I accept the argument that my job requires me to teach them civic virtues, but religion is NOT one of them."

What do you think of the argument that the "under God" phrase is so watered down and rote that it doesn't contain any significant religious content and is "under the Constitutional radar," as one of the justices described it? I don't think it belongs in the pledge, but I have to confess the whole argument strikes me as fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things. It seems like there are much more important issues, and when I hear about someone spending their time, money, and community reputation fighting the pledge I wonder how they pick their battles.

[Brian]

Didn't feel like wading through 79 comments' worth of "Bush lied" "nuh-uh" "did too", so I apologize if this sentiment has been expressed already, but...

Bush poking fun of himself for his lack of verbal skill is self-depricating, funny, and dare I say downright charming at times. Bush poking fun of his inability to substantiate one of the main selling points for a FUCKING WAR that involves KILLING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE is, to put in mildly, in very poor taste.

[Cowicide]

Les rocks! you summed it up pretty damn good here:

"...Listening to folks here defend the administration from charges of lying is as entertaining as watching the feminists defend Clinton from charges of lying.

When Cheney, Rice, Powell, et al said that aluminum tubes were for nuclear purposes, it was after they'd been told they were probably not. That was a lie. When Cheney, Rice, Powell, et al said that there was no doubt that Hussein had WMD's, it was after they'd been told that there was. That was a lie. Because we know what they were told, we know that they lied to the American people and the world on the issue of WMD's.

An assortment of other comments can best be described as "dishonest."

Does this, in any way, suggest that removing Hussein from power was wrong? Not at all. Does it mean that there weren't a lot of other really good reasons to remove Hussein from power? Not at all. There were lots of great, REAL reasons to remove him from power.

But if you guys are SO loyal to the Republicans or SO resentful of liberals or SO anxious to have gotten rid of Hussein that you think it's sound and wise for known liars to lead a nation into war (in part based on those lies), then you should just admit that you don't care that they lied, which is a much better argument for the policies in question than these evasive and rather cowardly rationalizations...."

Thanks Les.

As for you, dhex... I AM YOUR WMD, MFKR. Who else called me a pussy? I'll GET YOU TOO. BTW, dhex... what will you be wearing? I'll be the brown and white cow with the big, silver can of whoop ass on 61st and Lexington near the sub shop with a twitchy nozzle finger. 5:15 PM MFKR!!!

[art bandin]

Bush lied.

Nobody cares.

It's a small price to pay to be on a winning team.

[art bandin]

Bush lied.

Nobody cares.

It's a small price to pay to be on a winning team.

[art bandin]

Bush lied.

Nobody cares.

It's a small price to pay to be on a winning team.

[art bandin]

Bush lied.

Nobody cares.

It's a small price to pay to be on a winning team.

[art bandin]

Bush lied.

Nobody cares.

It's a small price to pay to be on a winning team.

[art bandin]

Bush lied.

Nobody cares.

It's a small price to pay to be on a winning team.

[TWC]

It was funny, I saw it......

Lighten up man.

[Jean Bart]

A Different Sean,

"Do you concede that Iraq was not fully complying with the UN searches?"

Blix stated such, so yes (I myself have no way of really verifying his opinion).

"Do you concede that there were violations of the restrictions that the UN had placed on Iraq, however miniscule (e.g., the drones, the slighty-over-ranged missiles)?"

I don't know if the so-called drones were ever found after the war ended; but clearly the missiles were beyond the range allowed (by a few hundred kilometers as I recall).

"What was to be done about this?"

Destroy the items found.

"Just as there wasn't evidence that there WERE weapons, there was absolutley no confidence that there WEREN'T weapons (from just about everyone, incl. Blix)."

Well, one cannot prove a negative. And in my mind this is really a debate about policy; I think invasion and "forced democracy" is bad policy, and threatens more harm than good.

"I guess it's obvious which camp I was in. But I want to know what, in YOUR opinion, was needed before a full-blown war?"

Well, a "just war" can be found along a spectrum of events; the Bush administration was on the other side of the spectrum where just war turns into a war of aggression.

[Jean Bart]

The idea of having a pledge to a God seems antithetical to a republic to me; especiually one which respects religious liberty.

[wondering]

I agree, Jean Bart, but are there absolutely no references to God in the oaths taken by politicians and government officials in France?

[rst]

Because we know what they were told

Les, we don't know what they were told. We know what other people are testifying, but this is CYA country. That you believe it is indicative of your personal politics, but not the facts of the case.

JB - the pledge is to a flag. I think it's worse that we pledge to a piece of fabric.

[Andrew]

I am surprised Bush made this joke, and it makes me think better of him-- I am not surprised he is rising in the polls...he is a lot easier to take than that self-important stick, Kerry.

I understand some states have replaced the traditional oath with a stern lecture on the penalties for perjury. I would suspect the oath does a better job of discouraging perjury.

"God" is a handy way to remind the witness of all the moral implications of giving true testimony, and is probably so understood by persons not particularly religious.

[Coxdec]

Here's a simple way to fix the pledge of allegiance as suggested by Ronald Anderson.. "..under God(s)/Mankind...." which satisfies everyone(including Buddhist, Hindus, Jains, Shintos,etc.. or plain atheist) shouldn't it? Of course, the right-wing Abraham religions would have me hanged for it

[Jean Bart]

wondering,

There is no oath to France; well, there was, but that was under the Vichy regime. The idea of pledging to the "fatherland" is fairly "fascist" to Frenchmen.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

"I am not surprised he is rising in the polls..."

Are they not "neck to neck"?

[Jean Bart]

Fox News Poll:

If the election for president of the United States were held today, for whom would you vote if the candidates were Republican George W. Bush and Democrat John Kerry?" Names rotated; respondents pushed for decision

.

George W. Bush John Kerry Other(vol.)/Not Sure Wouldn't Vote (vol.)

3/23-24/04 44 44 10 2
3/3-4/04 44 44 11 1
2/18-19/04 45 45 9 1
2/4-5/04 47 43 9 1
1/21-22/04 49 42 8 1
1/7-8/04 54 32 12 2
7/03 54 35 8 3
5/03 58 29 11 2
12/02 57 29 12 2

[Jon H]

Bush's joke is about as funny as an 18 year old soldier with no legs.

[Howard Dean]

Surely all can now agree that Bush is stupider than the Pollacks and filthier than the Jews of Old Europe.

[Ken J]

Because leading your country to war under false pretenses...ZZZZzzzzzz...

[Gawdamman]

Don't be such a fucking pussy, Sanchez!

[Matthew Goggins]

False pretenses?
Hans Blix, the U.N. weapons inspector, has been a major critic of Pres. Bush's invasion of Iraq. He was and is very upset that Pres. Bush didn't allow U.N. inspections to continue before he resorted to launching war.
Yet even Blix admits that he thought in March of 2003 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
In an interview published yesterday in the L.A. Times, Blix goes even further and says that he is convinced that Saddam Hussein himself thought he had WMD's.
Blix says that Hussein's own scientists and officers probably fooled him into thinking he had weapons that he actually didn't have.
So in what sense did Pres. Bush use false pretenses?

[Gawdamman]

Don't be such a fucking pussy, Sanchez!

[meep]

Oh, stop with the 'false pretenses' already. The mass media may have willingly forgotten that every major intelligence agency in the world agreed with the WMD assessment before the war, but I expect more from Reason. Politicians who can't laugh at themselves end up reading Noam Chomsky...and agreeing with him.

[Les]

rst,

You said, "Les, we don't know what they were told. We know what other people are testifying, but this is CYA country. That you believe it is indicative of your personal politics, but not the facts of the case."

You're mistaken on two counts here.

First, in October of 2002, Congress was apprised of a National Intelligence Estimate which was filled with certainty in regards to WMD's. The Fact Sheets the administration handed out prior to the war, summed up these definitive conclusions.

BUT! In the recently declassified version, anyone can read that many in the intelligence community disputed key contentions of the Fact Sheets. That much is in black and white.

I don't know why Greg Thielmann, a former director of the Strategic, Proliferation and Military Affairs Office at the State Department's Intelligence Bureau, who left his job in September 2002, would need to cover his ass back in August, when he said that few people thought the notorious aluminum tubes were for nuclear purposes and that he filed reports to the White House saying as much. Now, whether or not those reports still exist, we'll have to wait and see, but since we KNOW that Cheney's, Rice's, and Powell's claims that "no doubt" existed in regards to Hussein's WMDs were lies, I think they're immediately less credible than Theilman and the other agents who have been saying similar things since even before the war.

Secondly, you're mistaken about my "personal politics." If there is evidence that the Bush adminstration didn't lie, I'll accept my mistake and learn from it. There are many people who supported the war strongly for whom I have nothing but respect for. Same for people who opposed it. I am still torn on the issue of the war itself, but I do believe that those who led us into the war were not and are not ethically qualified to undertake such a venture.

[Mojo]

paraphrasing from what is in the public domain regarding pre-war intelligence on Iraq:

CIA: Iraq may have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon in five years. If they are able to procure weapons grade Plutonium from abroad, they may be able to do it in one year; however, they have been trying to do so since 1992 and have failed repeatedly.

Cheney: Iraq can build a nuclear weapon in one year.

The administration took nuanced reports, took the most sensational conjectures out of context and used them as justification while ignoring evidence that did not support the cause for war. They did so with the Nigerian Uranium, the Aluminum tubes, and several "WMD" factories. That is what is meant by "misleading" and "flase pretenses".

[Les]

I should add that when Rice claimed that no one knew anyone was thinking of using jetliners as weapons, she was either lying through her teeth or mistaken to such a degree that it suggests a staggering incompentence.

[Josh]

"Cheney: Iraq can build a nuclear weapon in one year."

If the Bush admin lies so frequently, you'd think it'd be easier to cite examples without lying yourself.

[anon]

You lefties are so freakin' humorless.

[Jon H]

In a week when Bush is furiously trying to convince people he took terrorism seriously in 2001, and on the same day that Richard Clarke gave a really classy apology for 9/11 while Bushies are still ducking and weaving, a joke about not finding WMD seems like a pretty dumb move that could come back to haunt Bush.

BTW, for anyone who brings up Kerry's joke about Quayle, the difference is that Kerry's joke, though tasteless, wasn't making light of a blunder of his own that killed hundreds of people.

[bushchimp]

NEWS FLASH!!! BUSH LIED!!!!!

[rst]

what is in the public domain

You are not privy to what is not in the public domain. Are you so daft as to think that all the applicable intel on Iraq is FOIA-available documents? Here's a newsflash: the American people are not consulted in matters of national security, nor do they have access to classified information. Anyway, the actions of the U.S. Gov't often do not jive with publicly available information. Like that piece of paper in Philly, for instance.

The statement on WMD in Iraq most applicable to every naysayer and hawk who posts here: you don't know, and you know it.

[John]

Because leading your country...blah, blah, blah.

As soon as I hear/read false, lied, etc., etc., I tune out.

Besides, Bush is damn funny when poking fun at himself.

[John]

Because leading your country...blah, blah, blah.

As soon as I hear/read false, lied, etc., etc., I tune out.

Besides, Bush is damn funny when poking fun at himself.

[John]

Because leading your country...blah, blah, blah.

As soon as I hear/read false, lied, etc., etc., I tune out.

Besides, Bush is damn funny when poking fun at himself.

[Kevin Carson]

I agree, politicians should be able to laugh at themselves. You know what would have been REALLY funny?

If Bush had pretended to start drinking again because the pressure was too much, and started dancing around naked on his desk with an empty fifth of Wild Turkey in his hand. Then Dick Cheney could have walked in, clutched his chest, and pretended to die of a heart attack.

Now THAT would have been funny!

[Hydroman]

There are those that know,and those that don`t know,and then there are those that don`t know that we don`t know that they don`t know.
AND THEN THERE`S THOSE OF US THAT DON`T GIVE A SHIT!

[pf]

>AND THEN THERE`S THOSE OF US THAT DON`T GIVE A SHIT!

The Bush voting bloc, you mean.

[Arnold Williams]

And the stupidest part is that leftists carefully focus on "imminent threat" and "WMD" when both were peripheral at best to the case for invasion.

Reading the real reasons for the invasion and answering that case is evidently beyond them. WMD come in because of the UN, and was a minor part of the case even there.

[Sam]

The WMD pretext wa not a justification for the US invasion, whether Saddam had them or not. Saddam never threatened to attack the US. Saddam could not have attempted an attack on the US without facing certain annihilation.

The WMD violations were a UN matter. The US acted as an unauthorized UN enforcer under the pretext of an immanent threat to the US (to garner citizen support).

The reason the US gov't invaded Iraq is clearly outlined in the PNAC documents. Clinton had a policy of regime change in Iraq and Bush entered the White house with the same goal.

All the reasons the administration gave for invading Iraq were more applicable to North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, etc., yet none of these countries were selected as targets.

The reason this administration is obvious. The question is: Do the actual reasons morally justify any country to invade another country.

If you are of the position that only the US may do so, then you are on very shaky ground. If you say any country may do so, then imagine such a world.

[Mojo]

"If the Bush admin lies so frequently, you'd think it'd be easier to cite examples without lying yourself."

I did not accuse them of lying, but of stretching and omitting things which did not support their case, which is misleading. They have been careful not to lie outright. Great example is the Nigerian Uranium story included in Bush's state of the Union. Though he knew the claim to be fabricated, he was able to say it without lying by citing a British intelligence report. It is not that difficult to find misleading quotes. Actually they are all over the media.

[Sam]

Sorry, incomplete.

The reason this administration invaded Iraq is obvious. The question is: Do the actual reasons morally justify any country to invade another country.

[Jean Bart]

Matthew Goggins,

"Yet even Blix admits that he thought in March of 2003 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

Bullshit; Blix has said repeatedly that he thought that they MAY have such weapons. Indeed, the reason he called for continued inspections was to bring some surety to the issue.

Arnold,

If WMD was as tertiary or less concern, then why did the Bush adminsitration stress it so much?

[Pavel]

[three months later]

Kerry: [horrible attempt at humor]

[cut to November]

VO: Bush wins.

fin.

[John Q]

AND THEN THERE`S THOSE OF US THAT DON`T GIVE A SHIT!

And that's why I sleep so well at night, knowing that so many of my fellow citizens sleepwalk through life and let the government get away with murder. Thanks!

[tex]

I agree completely with Sanchez's impression of Bush's disgusting "joke."

Link

Link

[Hydroman]

pf
Never voted for a bloc,or a Bush. Did vote for a Paul,and a Browne.

[Jean Bart]

(CBS/AP) A mysterious group that claimed to have planted bombs on the French railroad network announced Thursday that it is suspending its terror threats while it improves its ability to carry them out.

At least they are honest; we are inept terrorists; we need more training. 🙂

[Gawdamman]

Sam.....I wouldn't trust The U.N. to clean my toilet correctly let alone deal with W.M.D.-but, they're doing a great job covering up the "Food For Oil" snafu. Essentially......the U.N.is an unelected voice for the communist idiots of the world.

[Hydroman]

JohnQ
I sleep well because there is a 44 magnum pistol
under my pillow.
And I don`t give a shit and then some!!

[Jean Bart]

Hydroman,

Sleeping with a handgun under your pillow is stupid; expect a Darwin award within the next few years.

[Steve in CO]

My wife and I both looked at each other when that part came up, and we said in unison, "that isn't funny." Can you just imagine being relative of someone who has died in Iraq, how they would think of such crassness?

[Buck]

Bush's defenders are a hoot, too. ZZZZZzzzzz? Hilarious! Never seen that before. It means it bores you, right? That you've heard it all before? That it doesn't matter to you? That you don't believe it? All of the above at once?

Wait, here's one! Bush could pretend to look for real allies, you know ones that can provide money and troops and do so without threat of being defeated in elections. "I knew I had some around here -- Micronesia? Nope. Tonga, mmm-hmmm. Gimme a sec."

Bush jokes about this to defuse the fact that we have lost any shred of credibility on this issue, and we will be paying for it in money and lives for a while.

[Sam]

And I mean imminent not immanent

[JJB]

I agree with Julian - there's nothing wrong with a little self-depreciating humor, but at least select a better, more appropriate topic. And by better, I mean not one that leads your country into a war where your intelligence failures have been highlighted.

[zorel]

Julian,

Bush lied! Bush knew!! No War for oil!!!

Now go away and have some R&R - it is killing you man!

Jean Bart,

WMD is one of 4 or 5 reasons that were given (more than once) by Bush. Even if there were no WMD found, most everyone thought there were. We can go on and on about it, listing all the quotes from 1998 ... what is the point? Some believe it is good to remove Saddam in Iraq, others don't agree with that. I don't believe anyone remains open to be convinced by the other side's arguments.

Do you want Saddam back? If not, what do you want? Impeach Bush?

In another thread a couple of days ago, I had asked what you would have done about Sept 11, Al-Queda, Saddam. I will go check if you responded. If not, can you please?

[Josh]

You would think Reason might be a place you could seriously discuss actual flaws in the current administration and rationally debate political topics, but with Sanchez and Doherty here, it reads more like Indymedia without the anticapitalism.

[Hydroman]

Jean Bart
I live 38 miles from the Mex. border. Have these
"foreign exchange students" trespassing 24/7.
I`ll keep the gun and you send me the award.
VIVA COAHUILA!

[Sam]

Gawdammen,
I don't think much of the UN either, but for some reason, the US gov't insists upon retaining membership in that body.
In any case, the administration made the UN's case for invading Iraq, not the US's case.

If Iraq had actually posed the imminent threat the administration presented to the US citizen, then they were negligent in not acting upon the threat immediately. That they did not do so gives lie to the imminent threat case, the only justifiable reason one nation may invade another.

[Jean Bart]

zorel,

I did respond; you can find my answer below.

No, I do not want Saddam back; however, simply because there is a fait accompli, does not mean one should not regret the way it occurred or criticize it if one thinks that it was the wrong policy.

[Rick Laredo]

JB
"In an interview published yesterday in the L.A. Times, Blix goes even further and says that he is convinced that Saddam Hussein himself thought he had WMD's." JB Saddam was fooled by his own people. If he caught them lying he would have thrown then in the shredder. Therefore they we very brave or very scarred or very stupid or a combination thereof. So why do you believe intelligence agencies should have known anything different than what Saddam knew? Why do you believe that the US Administration along with our allies should have believed any different? With Saddams known disregard for human life what makes you believe he would not sell or even give these weapons to a group bent on attacking the US?
Why at times does you reasoning resemble the southern end of a north bound Percheron?
?Bullshit? Indeed.

[Jean Bart]

Anyone else see Russia condemning Israel for its human rights abuses? Certainly they occur, but Russia? 🙂

[Ken J]

Aww c'mon, give Julian a break. People are supposed to get more conservative when they get older. Maybe in ten years, when Julian's 25, he'll have a different point of view.

[Jean Bart]

Rick Lacredo,

Where is the quote that says Blix was convinced of their existance? That was the original claim by Matthew after all.

"If he caught them lying he would have thrown then in the shredder."

The shredder stories have never been substantiated and appear to be apocryphal.

"So why do you believe intelligence agencies should have known anything different than what Saddam knew?"

Because that's what they are paid to do.

"Why do you believe that the US Administration along with our allies should have believed any different?"

At least regarding the DGSE (France's CIA), they were highly skeptical of Anglo-American claims.

[Jean Bart]

Rock Lacredo,

BTW, if the best argument you have against me is a ham-handed insult, I suggest that you stop playing.

[Les]

neoconish libertarian,

"Bush lied. I don't care. It was a small price to pay to free the people of Iraq."

Your honesty is much appreciated.

"But tell it to one of the thousands of Iraqis that's not being raped or fed through a shredder today."

If we were to tell it to them, then I hope we can agree that it's EQUALLY important to tell it to the thousands of Iraqis who were maimed or wounded during the invasion and the families of the thousands of men, women, and children who were blown to pieces and burned alive. Not to mention the families of our servicemen and women who have been wounded and blown to pieces and burned alive. It's not MORE important, just EQUALLY so. We can agree on that at least, can't we? (I only mention the blowing up and the burning alive to underscore that we're talking about war, the gravity of which is, I think, generally underappreciated by those of us who've never fought in a war, like most of the Bush administration.)

"I'm not a Republican at all. I support George Bush only long as our interests in promoting human freedom coincide."

I think there's some evidence to suggest that George Bush's interest in promoting freedom is as limited as his understanding of history and world politics (a limitation for which there is also some evidence). I also think there's some evidence to suggest that the people who formulate the words that Mr. Bush speaks are only interested in human freedom when it coincides with their political interests or ideology.

I'm just saying there's some evidence, that's all.

[Cowicide]

> Bush's joke is about as funny as an
> 18 year old soldier with no legs.

Jon H, well put. Once again, some conservatives prove that their brain activity closer resembles that of serial killers than the rest of World's population. We medicate bi-polar people to help them with their mental issues; why not conservatives as well?

Sincrely,

A non-liberal, non-conservative cow

[Cowicide]

via boingboing.net:

FBI translator's revelations about Bush's 9-11 coverup Yesterday I pointed to a couple of articles about FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds.

Today Salon has a more in-depth article about Edmonds. She has a lot of shocking things to say about the tapes she translated, but since she's under a gag order issued by Ashcroft, she can't reveal everything.

Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. "Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie."

This week Edmonds attended the commission hearings and plans to return in April when FBI Director Robert Mueller is scheduled to testify. "I'm hoping the commission asks him real questions -- like, in April 2001, did an FBI field office receive legitimate information indicating the use of airplanes for an attack on major cities? And is it true that through an FBI informant, who'd been used [by the Bureau] for 10 years, did you get information about specific terrorist plans and specific cells in this country? He couldn't say no," she insists.

WHEN ARE YOU IDIOTS GOING TO ADMIT THIS BUSH ADMIN FAILED US AND ARE DANGEROUS LIARS?! WILL IT TAKE MORE U.S. DEATHS? YOU FUCKING MORONS!!!!

[Les]

Rick,

Not at all. As I explained, the National Intelligence Estimate that Kerry received, along with all the other lawmakers, omitted the intelligence opinions which dissented from the stance the administration was taking. His statements were based on the dishonest NIE and the "Fact" Sheets the administration handed out.

Now, if there's evidence that Kerry had access to the same information that the adminstration was getting at the time, then sure, I'd include him on my list of liars. Democrats lie just as often as Republicans do.

[M. Simon]

Not only is leading your country to war under false pretenses hilarious, it may also be a good idea.

i.e. Never let the enemy figure out what you are really up to 'til it is too late.

It is the Democracy Initiative, stupid.

And a good way to drain the swap while hunting alligators.

[rst]

ethically qualified to undertake such a venture.

Good luck finding a politician ethically qualified to so much as fill out a tax form.

The propaganda was interesting and remains factually indeterminate, but says little for the > 20 year history that has led us to this point.

[Les]

rst, I'm disappointed. I give you facts like the National Intelligence Estimate and you call it propaganda. Is it propaganda if a citizen is merely pointing out facts?

And we weren't talking about "the >20 year history that has led us to this point." We were talking about whether or not we know if members of the Bush administration lied. I provided evidence which strongly suggests they did. I expected a sensible rebuttal from you, not an evasion.

I know, it's late. I'm sure tomorrow you'll make some insightful observation about the tenuous quality of my conclusions. I won't be mad if you do. You usually make me rethink my conclusions (even if it's only for a few seconds!). 😉

[Les]

M. Simon,

I agree there's an advantage in not letting an enemy figure out what you're up to. The problem is, we live in a democratic republic where the people and those who represent them are deserving of all facts when it comes to putting our servicemen and women in harm's way. Maybe they'll still opt for war given all those facts, but they still deserve them.

So, really, waging war under false pretenses is only a good idea if you're in charge of a totalitarian state.

[kwais]

Jon H,
I think Clark loses credibility by praising Clinton, for whatever Bush's failures in preventing 911, Clintons are 10 fold, and span 8 years vs a few months.

[Ed Rausch]

I am so glad I am letting my Reason subscription run out this year.

Boy, did the inmates take over the asylum.

[Patrick]

I am not sure if this has been said yet, with all these posts, but Jean is citing Fox News to say that Bush is winning. Polls are biased based on the constituency of the sample. As Fox News is arguably the most right wing news station in the nation, you are unlikely to ever see a poll by them that shines a positive light on any democratic presidential candidate. It would be like polling Playboy Magazine subscribers to assertain whether or not lesbian sex is hot...

[critic]

Seriously, did any of us smart people really believe that Gulf War II was about WMD? Did any of us buy it at the time? Be honest.

[Rick]

Les: So according to you everyone is lying to include the following quoted individual.

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

[kwais]

I meant to address that one post to Jennifer, not Shannon. My bad.

[neconish libertarian]

Bush lied. I don't care. It was a small price to pay to free the people of Iraq.

Would I rather Bush argued more on those grounds? Sure. Does it make the war any less worth it? Maybe a tiny bit. But tell it to one of the thousands of Iraqis that's not being raped or fed through a shredder today.

I'm not a Republican at all. I support George Bush only as long as our interests in promoting human freedom coincide.

[M. Simon]

"So, really, waging war under false pretenses is only a good idea if you're in charge of a totalitarian state."

Well see I don't think we went to war under false pretenses. Bush said he was going to do all he could to go after the perps of 9/11 and prevent further attacks.

Democracy in the ME comes under the heading of preventing further attacks.

The Reason he did not make it a cornerstone of the Iraq battle is that he needed the help of some autocrats to do Iraq. Iraq in a way was obvious because Saddam was so bad and it let us build on our Kurdish success.

So yes in the narrowest sense we were lied to. OTOH Bush said what he was going to do and Iraq for me is reasonable in light of the task: catch the perps, prevent future attacks.

I hate Bush's Religious Initiatives, his war on med pot. His Gay war, etc. On the war on Islamic fascism he is doing a pretty good job. Credit where it is due.

I note Hamas decided that calling out the USA was not a prudent move. That is what I call results in the war. Good results. Compare that with the wave of bombs being found on the Euro rail systems.

I haven't voted major party in 20 years. So far for me it is Bush. Tasty.

Kerry wants to lower corporate taxes. Maybe Bush could go him one better or three.

[M. Simon]

kwais,

The Supreme Court to let the "under god" bit pass is likely to say that it has no meaning. In essence they have declared by law that saying the pledge is taking God's name in vain.

Way cool.

In reality that is always the effect of forced religiosity. After a while the words have no meaning. Score a point for the athiests.

BTW going after such a case in this war time exemplifies exactly the difference between us and our enemies.

[Thomas L.]

I'm sure LBJ doing standup on the Gulf of Tonkin incident would just crack people up, too. ("Hah, hah, just where are those lil' ol' North Korean gunboats? Nope, not here. Not here either....)...

To paraphrase an earlier poster - Bush's joke is about as funny as 550 flag draped coffins being snuck back into the country in the dead of night and a press blackout....

TPL

[J. Marlow]

Bush's joke is about as funny as an 18 year old soldier with no legs.

Yeah, Bush needs new material.

Here's some ideas from my last email to the whitehouse:

What do you call an 18 year old soldier with no legs on the floor?
Matt.

What do you call him in the pool?

Bob.

What do you call him on the wall?

Art.

What do you call him in Saddam's industrial shredder?

F*cked!

Now that's a spicey meatball.

And if LBJ did talk about North Koreans in the Gulf of Tonken, that would be pretty funny.

[M. Simon]

Thomas L.,

So no WMDs and the boys and girls died in vain?

I think it was that very attitude Bush was making fun of.

Your bitterness is entirely understandable.

[Cowicide]

What do you call J. Marlow? A coward who probably has never served his country and never will. A coward who finds humor in the deaths and wounding of American soldiers. A coward through and through. I'd LOVE to meet you in person, J. Marlow.