Reply
Mon 29 Sep, 2003 10:42 pm
After the highest politicians in this land have deliberately and cynically lied to commit criminal and illegal atrocities resulting in large-scale death and destruction, does anyone believe that they would suddenly undergo a miraculous conversion, turn over new leaves, admit their guilt and cease their lies, thus destroying their lucrative careers?
Logic suggests there is more chance of Elvis being found alive and well and working in Walmart!
In other words, everything said by Bush and his Administration today to maintain that their past actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were in everyone's best interests, are no more than the words of skilled and professional experts in deception, saying all that is required, no matter how distant from reality, to avoid the justified impeachment of the Administration and to retain their unjustified incomes and lifestyles - and they will continue doing it till Hell freezes over.
And when one lie is exposed, they simply replace it with a new one (on an almost daily basis) to keep the voters happy.
If they were not above the law through control of the criminal justice system, on the available evidence, all would be jailed for war crimes (preferably in Quantanimo Bay).
Of course, it will never happen. After all, they didn't get where they are today by allowing themselves to get arrested!
Something tells me the the President has delegated a little to much and perhaps trusted some of his staff a little to much.
We will surely get a special counsel out of this latest gaff.
Don't try telling perception or Italgato. That pair believe every word Bush spews up.
Yikes that is scary. I have a cousin like that - stilll believes Nixon did not do anything wrong.
Hay Wilos good to see you.
Some people just can't see through their rose coloured glasses.
Hey Jo. :wink:
The Lessons Of History!
"Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials, 1946
SAYS IT ALL?
JW, the administration seems to believe Goering's advice wholeheartedly. That they embrace other aspects he advocated must remain merely my opinion.
Professor Hobitbob must not have taken any classes which pointed out that a good historian tries to give evidence. Professor Hobitbob seems to be excessively fond of the "bon-mot" but in his case there is no 'bon" about it.
Goering's advice?
What about this yummy quote?
"So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work towards the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people"
William Clinton in his speech on December 16, 1998.
Professor Hobitbob is not a historian but, rather, a polemicist. He avoids any evidence that contradicts his twisted theories.
Brand X,
Is misreading a bluff a valid casus belli to you? I'd note what is either real possesion of nukes by Israel or a bluff when framing your answer.
an anthem for Bush & his best buddy, Blair.
thankyou Tom Petty
Well I wont back down, no I wont back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I wont back down
Gonna stand my ground, wont be turned around
And Ill keep this world from draggin me down
Gonna stand my ground and I wont back down
Hey baby, there aint no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I wont back down.
Well I know whats right, I got just on life
In a world that keeps on pushin me around
But Ill stand my ground and I wont back down
Hey baby there aint no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I wont back down
No, I wont back down
Craven de Kere wrote:Brand X,
Is misreading a bluff a valid casus belli to you? I'd note what is either real possesion of nukes by Israel or a bluff when framing your answer.
There was no way to know if the sadistic lunatic was bluffing, that is hardly a valid argument to say we 'misread a bluff' IMO.
It would seem an incredible lapse by the security agencies, if they were unaware that Saddam had to imply continued strength to his neighbours, to deter another invasion from Iran (or even one from Israel)?
Craven de Kere wrote:Brand X,
Is misreading a bluff a valid casus belli to you? I'd note what is either real possesion of nukes by Israel or a bluff when framing your answer.
If Iraq was a freely elected democracy and American ally, we wouldn't have cared if they had nukes. But, since they weren't, I believe that we should have bought into Saddam's bluff because I would rather be safe than sorry.
Based on the reasoning expressed herein and the supposed justification for the invasion of Iraq. We should be invading both North Korea and Iran any day now.
John Webb<
Dubya and his colleagues seem to act as if they are above the law. Time will soon point out to them the error of this faulty thinking.
Brand X wrote:
There was no way to know if the sadistic lunatic was bluffing, that is hardly a valid argument to say we 'misread a bluff' IMO.
There are lots of things we have limited abilities to discern. IMO basing a pre-emptive casus belli on such shakey ground is not the safest of procedures. My criticism is not for the degree to which I believe the administration should have been able to access the situation but rather the actions they were insistent about despite such limitations.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace