Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > June > 06 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USThey terrorized their own people…
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
A long-delayed committee report — promised but never delivered when Republicans ran the Senate — has documented the deception, exaggerations and outright lies employed by the Bush administation to terrorize this country into backing the invasion of Iraq.
“WASHINGTON — A new Senate report gives a fresh shot of adrenaline to the election-year debate over the Iraq war. President Bush and his top officials deliberately misrepresented secret intelligence to make the case to invade Iraq, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The panel put a new spin on old charges, comparing claims made in five speeches by top Bush administration officials with intelligence reports. The committee says officials wrongly linked Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks and al-Qaida; claimed Iraq would give terrorist groups chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, and said Iraq was developing drone aircraft to spread chemical or biological agents over the United States.
None was borne out by intelligence.”
Of course, administration officials then compounded that deception with gross incompetence in actually running the war they forced upon us. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice — the history books will not be kind to them.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By Taxpayer
June 6, 2008 7:44 AM | Link to this
I hear what you are saying, Mr. Bookman. At one time, I actually trusted this administration. I even voted for Bush. Given the information that we now have along with this administration’s performance, I believe I made a poor choice. The problem for me though is that I still don’t believe that Gore or Kerry were “better” choices for president. I would vote for someone like Ron Paul now over any of the other options. It’s not even an issue of whether I align with all or even most of his beliefs. It’s much more basic than that. I believe he is being honest. I just don’t see that in the other Republican and Democrat candidates — at least, not yet. An I missing something.
On a lighter note, I see that Mr. Wooten uses bold blue type for his name when he posts comments. Have you considered, for example, using a bold red type for your name in order to make your posts stand out more?
By Copyleft
June 6, 2008 7:51 AM | Link to this
The really depressing part of this story is that no questions were asked IN TIME to avert this tragedy. The media lapped it all up obediently, the public (by and large) accepted the claims without question, and everybody except a few “nutcases” (i.e., people willing to THINK and ASK) was pretty much on-board for this fiasco.
Here’s hoping America never gets suckered into another phony war again.
By Charles
June 6, 2008 8:05 AM | Link to this
All you need to do is connect the dots on this report and look at the members of the committee:
With the Democratic majority it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out this is “mud slinging” time with the Presidential race in full swing and the attempts to somehow associate the Republican’s candidate (also a Republican only by title, not actions) to a fabricated “lie”.
By Copyleft
June 6, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
Riiiight, Charles. And Saddam turned out to have WMDs after all, and he really WAS behind 9/11 like they claimed.
It’s gotta be a fun and fascinating world you live in!
By blady
June 6, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this
Charles, what are you smokin’?
By war crime
June 6, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this
American plans to loot Iraqi oil and other Bush war crimes Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
June 1, 2008
Though Bush has given every other lie and cover story to justify the US war of aggression against Iraq, the real reasons for the ‘war’ are now openly admitted. An article in American Daily proposes that the oil fields of Iraq be seized and plundered to pay off America’s national debt of some 9.3 trillion dollars. I am shocked by the implication that they haven’t been so plundered already! I am outraged that the author expects the victims of US aggression pick up the tab for Bush’s capital crime! The article proposes that the US commit yet another war crime.
As immoral as anything put forward by Bush/Cheney, this plan differs only in the distribution of booty. Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force would conspire to further enrich the robber barons of big oil, themselves now war criminals under international conventions to which the US is legally bound whether Bush likes it or not! The alternative plan is a ‘neat’ rationalization and equally reprehensible.
We should create a taxpayer-owned oil company (Perhaps, call it US Oil?). It would require a long-term (maybe a 99 year) lease on a portion of Iraq’s oil fields. The price of such a lease?...The spilled blood of American servicemen! Since the oil fields are up and running, that oil should be sold on the open market for $20 a barrel. The revenues from the oil sales would go directly and solely to pay off our debt. In addition, with a large volume of the world’s oil being sold at $20 a barrel, the price would plummet worldwide, translating into affordable fuel prices once again. The taxpayers would be repaid for the treasure we have lost in Iraq, and a long-term solution to our growing need for oil would be accomplished without any further drilling in this country. It would also provide time to increase long-overdue and meaningful fuel efficiency standards in our automobiles, as well as making alternative energy solutions practical to most Americans. --Dave Gibson, Analysis with Political and Social CommentaryAmerican Daily has proposed the immoral theft of resources that do not belong to the United States. Bluntly, Mr. Gibson, what you have proposed is a war crime.
b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. --Declaration of the Jury of Conscience, World Tribunal on Iraq - Istanbul, June 23 - 27, 2005Secondly, Dick Cheney’s cronies —consisting of Halliburton, Exxon Mobil, Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil, BP America Inc, having lied, schemed and waged bloody war —would never agree! Dick Cheney and George W. Bush did not invade Iraq in order to pay off the national debt; nor did Dick Cheney and George W. Bush conspire with the elite base in order to lower the price of gasoline at the pump. Moreover, the transcript of US Ambassador April Glaspie’s ‘interview’ with Saddam Hussein proves that the US ‘lured’ Saddam into attacking Kuwait because Saddam had wanted to lower the price of oil. Hussein’s attack of Kuwait was the pretext needed by Bush.
Bush was determined to wage war on Iraq. Nothing could have been done to prevent it. The UK Daily Mail reported that Hussein had agreed to exile for a paltry $1 billion but Bush, hellbent on war, refused. It was, in fact, the inevitable result of war fever and greed. Investors, smelling ‘oil profits’ and ‘defense contracts’, bid up the prices of Boeing and Raytheon stocks. It was a heady time for war profiteers and robber barons.
That the author of the ‘American Daily’ article believes that his proposed ‘oil lease’ is already paid for with the ‘blood of American soldiers misses the point that aggressive war is aggressive war, that the theft of a nation’s resources is a war crime whether it is perpetrated by Dick Cheney’s consortium or by a collective of ‘the people’! Theft is theft and, in this case, it is also a war crime. That the US finds itself in a position in which it must scheme to plunder is proof that the US is poised for collapse as was Rome when its mercenaries sought out the foreign booty to be looted in Briton, Dacia, and other resource rich targets of conquest.
As Gore Vidal pointed out in his book —The Decline and Fall of the American Empire —the founders sought to create an oligarchical state in which two wings of a single party would preside over the distribution of ‘bread an circuses’. That’s certainly what we got. The only issue of concern to a ruling class, Vidal writes, is whether ‘to coerce or to bribe’ a powerless majority. Vidal is correct. The fall of American empire will resemble that of Rome in every major trend.
* Like Rome, American society is increasingly characterized by absurd inequalities of wealth and income * Like Rome, modern America is beset by weird and kooky cults * Like Rome, America's biggest export is conquest and death * Like Rome, America distracts its teeming citizenry with 'bread and circuses' * Like Rome, America's currency, by the time of its ultimate fall, will be utterly worthlessWarnings go unheeded. The American robber baron class is assured the greater part of the spoils of aggressive war and, for quite a long time, the middle class indulged the belief that, one day, they too would achieve great riches, wealth would trickle down, and a hollow, corporate culture of SUVs and suburbs would rule forever. It was all smoke and mirrors. Since Ronald Reagan offered up a vision of a right wing ‘promised land’, wealth has failed to ‘trickle down’. They have not fallen off the ladder, the ladder itself simply slips into an economic black hole that swallows it from the bottom up. So called ‘middle class tax cuts’ are, therefore, meaningless.
The middle class is disappearing. Already, the upper one percent of the population is worth more than everyone else combined. They are America’s imperialist establishment which now openly proposes that the oil resources of Iraq be plundered for their benefit. Thus —America became a banana republic though our industry is not bananas but death. We are ruled by ruthless oligarchs —an imperial establishment like that of Rome —whose living is made by state-sponsored, industrialized murder. The apparatus of state has been bought and paid for. ‘Democracy’ is but the illusion that pacifies us. It will take a real revolution to change things.
In 1968, Robert Kennedy sought to rescue the party and his own ambitions from the threat of real change that came from an alliance of the civil rights campaign and the anti-war movement then commanding the streets of the main cities, and which Martin Luther King had drawn together until he was assassinated in April that year. --From Kennedy to Obama: Liberalism’s Last FlingThat ‘threat’ of real change is as close as this nation had come to real revolution. I am asked if ‘ailing’ empires ever recover. The fate of western empires indicates —no! The ‘nation’ might ‘recover’ —-but not the empire. Rome, for example, is often said to have ‘survived’ but in the form of the Catholic Church. America will not be that lucky. There is no ‘American’ church to survive its fall. There is no analogous American institution that might survive a total economic melt-down. When a future ‘Gibbon’ writes a multi-volume, analytical history of America’s short-lived empire and precipitous fall, the ‘religious establishment’ will share the blame but will not survive as an institution.
The fall of American empire shares many characteristics with that of Rome. Like Rome, ‘America’ has become an enterprise for which death is a ‘product’. Our Praetorian Guard is called ‘Blackwater’. It is in the Military/Industrial complex that one finds the larger analogy to Rome.
It had been able to dominate the Italian peninsula. But Rome as the ruler of the entire civilized world was a political impossibility and could not endure. Her young men were killed in her endless wars. Her farmers were ruined by long military service and by taxation. They either became professional beggars or hired themselves out to rich landowners who gave them board and lodging in exchange for their services and made them "serfs," those unfortunate human beings who are neither slaves nor freemen, but who have become part of the soil upon which they work, like so many cows, and the trees. --Hendrik van Loon, The Story of MankindOf America’s fall, Gore Vidal implies that the manner of our fall is implicit in our beginning.
Our only political party has two right wings, one called Republican, the other Democratic. But Henry Adams [Brooks' older brother] figured all that out back in the 1890s. 'We have a single system,' he wrote, and 'in that system the only question is the price at which the proletariat is to be bought and sold, the bread and circuses.'" --Gore Vidal, The Decline and Fall of the American EmpireRome as a military power house was finished by the time the last emperor was driven off the ‘throne’ in the year 475. Rome was in serious decline by the time the Battle of Adrianople was fought almost one hundred yeas earlier in 378. The Emperor Valens could not even raise an army of Romans; the battle consisted of pro-Roman barbarians under Valens command vs anti-Roman barbarians arrayed against him. Adrianople was Rome’s worst defeat since Hermann’s German victory of AD 9 in the Teutoburger forest. For many it seemed as if the world had ended. St. Ambrose it “the end of all humanity, the end of the world.”
Though the battle is often said to have been the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire, there is solid evidence that Rome’s decline had begun much earlier. In Nero’s day, the slums of Rome were a picture of a top heavy society in decline, dependent upon conquest to sustain a spoiled ‘nobility’. By the time the Praetorian Guard (Blackwater of its day) auctioned off the empire to a ‘nobleman’, one Didius Julianus, the sale was completed in Greek Drachmas —not worthless Roman sestercius.
These several ‘themes’ are found today in Bush’s America. It was said of Nero that he ‘fiddled’ while Rome burned. In fact, there were no ‘fiddles’ at that time; Nero played a lyre and often boasted that, if forced to, he could make a living at it. While New Orleans drowned, Bush cannot be said to have ‘played’ a guitar. He punished it.
Long before starting this blog, I wrote elsewhere that ‘terrorism’ was a tactic —not an enemy that could be defeated militarily. ‘Terrorism’ is not a nation against whom war can be waged and won. ‘Terrorism’ is not an ideology against which propaganda may or may not be effective. ‘Terrorism’ is the means by which those who have been marginalized, robbed, made helpless or shut out fight back! Events have borne this out. Bush’s ham-fisted Bush approach, like that of every other GOP regime, has made terrorism worse and I have the cold hard verifiable stats to prove it. [See: Terrorism is Worse Under GOP Regimes] But those facts mean nothing to the Straussians and neocons and other cults embraced by the GOP. The Bush administration is, rather, a ‘hologram’ controlled by a ‘man behind a curtain’. The goal was the theft of oil and the ‘plan’ is now openly discussed in the wake of Bush’s trillion dollar blunder in Iraq.
Like that of Rome, America’s imperialist establishment is dependent upon conquest. The US, a nation once rich in resources, no longer leads the rest of the world in the production of steel, cars, electronics or even service ‘industries’ like computer programming. In most areas, we now pull up the rear. How then are the lifestyles of the rich and famous to be paid for? The old fashioned, Roman way. Conquest and plunder
By sid
June 6, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this
Charles, are you a right wing religious nut who wants rapture in Israel so you can go to heaven? The spacecraft on two wheels with the angels in white is only a phone call away. please give post your address and I will make it happen!
By jimmy
June 6, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
The policy move was valid. 12 years of Saddam playing cat and mouse with the inspectors was enough. Everyone b*tches about us not connecting the dots with respect to 9/11 but then wants to be a Monday morning armchair quarterback when we do connect dots related to Iraq.
Saddam could have allowed unfettered access to the inspectors and could have shown where the weapons were destroyed (if they ever were destroyed). Saddam could have dismantled the programs rather than squirreling around with duel purpose factories and burying uranium enrichment equipment in scientists’ gardens. Saddam could have disavowed Osama Bin Laden and his ilk rather than maintaining high level intelligence contacts, offering asylum and funding terrorist attacks on our allies. Saddam could have ceased his repeated violations of the 91 cease-fire agreement discontinuing his attacks against our air-craft patrolling the no-fly zone.
The fact is that it would have been irresponsible not to have taken Saddam out. Bush’s mistake was going the diplomacy route in the first place; both in America and abroad. The move gave credence to the critics and offered substantial meat with which they could use fragments of the argument to discredit the whole. He should have just pulled a Clinton and started firing missiles.
That said, Bush will be judged by history… very positively if there is any justice.
Jimmy Hogan, Nashville.
By Bfarar
June 6, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this
Don’t forget that the AJC and the rest of the major for-profit media is culpable as well. The White House fabricated the lies, and the papers spoon-fed them to us.
By Richard Sullivan
June 6, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this
Charles….Charles…Charles. The world you live in is sad. Anyone with intelect and a heart saw through this Administrations BS before it was accepted. Its a shame that people like you helped paved the way for the crisis we are in now. Misery loves company!
By Richard Sullivan
June 6, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
Charles….Charles…Charles. The world you live in is sad. Anyone with intelect and a heart saw through this Administrations BS before it was accepted. Its a shame that people like you helped paved the way for the crisis we are in now. Misery loves company!
By Jesse
June 6, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
taxpayer, You ask “am i missing something”. My answer is that your judgement is suspect if you have ever put your trust into G. W. Bush. There are many of us who, not simply out of partisan bias, could read that man well before he took office, and we knew and took to the streets en masse as his criminal war was being promoted. We may have been characterized as hippies, but our grievances were knowledge of exactly the things which have come to pass. These things were not unknowable. In fact the deceptions were obvious.
No candidate is perfect, but Barrack Obama shared our foresight, and does represent real change. Sound judgement on the Iraq war, gas tax holidays, a real willingness to give tough diplomacy a chance, recognition of the urgent priorities of energy, the environment, health care, and transparency /accountability of government (we must restore our badly erroded checks and balances! we must reduce the influence of special interests!).
As a fellow skeptical American who has NOT been deceived, I say come join us!
By Matthew
June 6, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
Poor you, Jay. I’m sorry that they forced this war on you.
But in fairness, it has probably been a good thing for your career, right? I imagine even you’d have to admit that you’re relatively inept when it comes to political knowledge, so the war provides easily repeatable talking points you can regurgitate on a daily basis. You and Keith Olbermann should probably craft a letter thanking Bush.
By Fix-It
June 6, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
Hey, War Crime, are you angry, or frustrated? Do you need to right a book? I can sum up your diatribe very neatly, whoever is in office now, republican and democrats alike vote them out! Then let’s put some people in office that did not grow up during the civil war! Oh and balance the budget or you don’t get paid, how can we pay these idiots if there is no money in the bank, simple economics.
By Matthew
June 6, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
Jesse, you’re right, Barack represents real change.
He represents massive government intervention which will strip Americans of autonomy, and the most socialistic economic leanings of any American leader. He will undoubtedly bow to international pressure regarding American interests, and will sacrifice our safety in so doing.
It is real change, yes. But I, unlike many American liberals, am not excited about becoming a European-like state where political correctness is the only god allowed. Cowering to terrorism, that’ll be a change, indeed.
By Crafty
June 6, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
Fix-It, Right a book? Don’t you mean WRITE a book?
Copyleft, Please get a job and a life. I see you on these blogs more than anyone else. Must be nice of your parents to let you live in their basement and not have to pay rent.
By Thor
June 6, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
Senator’s Warner and Hagel are good men; I know of nobody who would question their integrity regarding this report.
By jasper
June 6, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
Folks, the truth of the matter is that our whole government led us into this war, and we let them. All this committee is trying to accomplish is to pin all of the blame on Bush, to save their own skins.
The cause for War should always be a slam dunk and not a gut feeling. However we started it and we must finish it with some sense of honor, leaving as soon as we can, but not creating a bigger problem than was originally there.
The political posturing that is going on with this issue now is no different than they way our government and press sold it to us in the first place. Just another attempt to feed the people crap and get us to beleive what they want us to believe to benefit their interests. And those interests now serve the democratic party and their presumptive nominee.
I’m tired of the arrogance our government and press stooges have for us little people, playing us for the fool and trying to manipulate our opinion inasmuch as it benefits their cause. Think for yourself. Its part of a healthy state of self-reliance. Or let the government be your Daddy.
By Wdr
June 6, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this
Jimmy,
You are ignorant, plain and simple! Is it possible for you to think for yourself. And please, do not repeat on this blog, the same old propaganda Bush used to convince you folks of the need to go to war. I don’t know where you were nor what you were doing when Bush declared this illegal war, but I will tell you that I was a Soldier, in the Army, with over 25 years of serving my country. During my Army career, I served under five Commander-in-Chiefs. My plan was to continue serving my country at least for another 5 years. However, I made a deliberate decision to leave the Army, mainly because I could no longer serve under a Commander-in-Chief who cared nothing about my life. Many of us in uniform knew there was no need to take us to war in Iraq; we were ready to go to Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. Now, with that said, we as Soldiers do as we are told; we pledge to support our constitution and our leadership. In return, we expect our leaders to provide good leadership and not use us for personal gain. This Commander-in-Chief has provided the worst leadership of any Commander-in-Chief in the history of the United States Army. So please, we have all heard your propaganda before and it all was a lie. And by the way, I knew back in 2004, that eventually, he and his administration would be caught in their lie; Too many people were involved for it not to get out. Now we need only to here from Colin Powell, because, Bush probably would not have been re-elected had it not been for the Military votes. Those votes were directly contributed to Colin Powell’s presence in that administration, only to have him quit after the election. What a setup! Now, who’s the armchair quarterback, rookie?
By tar
June 6, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
Jimmy,
You are totally wrong in regards to Iraq. The UN Inspectors said there was no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell also said it and then change after Pres. Bush kept contradicting him. Yes, the mistake was when Congress gave Pres. Bush the authority to go to war. I knew and they should have known that he was going to war no matter what. To give a fool a loaded gun, they should have expected him to shoot. Also, the economy was down and he wanted to be reelected. Past history has shown that Presidents do not change during war. So as of this day, 4,092 U.S. soldiers, and many Allied soldiers and Iraqis have lost their lies, or severly wounded physically and mentally, because Pres. Bush wanted to be reelected and leave a legacy.
After no weapons of mass destruction was found, Pres. Bush changed the reason for the war, he said that we were going to liberate Iraq. Iraq did not ask to be liberated.
North Korea told the U.S. that they had nuclear weapons, but Bush did not invade them. Do you know why? North Korea is a poor country. Iraq is an oil rich country. Sen. McCain let slip in one of his speeches that when he become president, he will have an energy policy so that no more soldiers would have to lose their lives over oil.
So Jimmy, it is easy for you to say go to war, because your life and the lives of children are not on the line.
By Charles
June 6, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
Hmmmmm …. I wonder what Saddam used to kill his fellow countrymen? It couldn’t have been WMD’s, could it? Morons like Copyleft think he must have used oil to drown them (since they think that’s the only reason we enforced the U.N. resolutions).
By RealityKing
June 6, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
57 million people liberated from the tryanny and oppression of a few. A noble cause indeed..
By Copyleft
June 6, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
You don’t enforce UN resolutions by defying the UN, Charles. Even Bush abandoned that excuse long ago.
By BDAtlanta
June 6, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Charles, Saddam used guns and ammo to kill his people. The guns and ammo we sold him.
By tar
June 6, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
RealityKing,
How can you say 57 million people liberated? What do you call liberated? Iraqis men, women, and children are getting killed everyday. They can not go outside of their homes. The country and their lives are destroyed. There is nothing noble about it.
I wonder if you would feel liberated if someone come and destroy your home and make it unsafe for you to leave your house? The Reality is that is not liberation.
By Crafty
June 6, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this
Copyleft, What should the country do when the UN never enforces it’s own resolutions? There have been tons of resolutions with North Korea and Iran. They still have nukes. Saddam kicked out UN inspectors in 1998. Even Clinton said that the UN was impotent. Too many idiots and anti Americans running the place. How about the UN peacekeepers raping women in Haiti and South Africa? Yeah,the UN is great.
BDAtlanta, No, he used most of his weapons that were sold by Russia my friend. Iran is currently using Chinese and Russian weapons to kill our soldiers.
By Wdr
June 6, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this
Crafty,
You too are ignorant. Our government did provide Saddam weapons; they were provided as a means to protect themselves from the then, Soviet Union. Why on heavens earth do you think we were so sure that he had WMD. Duh! We provided them. BDAtlanta, you were right-on!
By Crafty
June 6, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
Wdr, You are too ignorant. Duh! Duh! Duh! Can you write anything other than the same verbiage over and over again? I’ve heard parrots say more intelligent things.
By jasper
June 6, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this
Are you libbies all in the same public library today. Seems like you’re all repeating the same misinformation. Don’t they excercise a limit on how long you can be on the internet. Or is it the monthly Jay Bookman fan club meeting. Remember to stay away from sharp objects after you’ve worked yourselves into an agered frenzy.
By trick
June 6, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
If being a liberal includes wanting to stop hearing about American’s being killed overseas…then count me in. There’s no debating w/ the “bushies”. They have no argument & just default to calling people liberals and unpatriotic. Who’s the real patriot if you are OK w/ thousands of Americans dying thousands of miles away from home while oil companies reap record profits. Or its all just a pleasant “coincidence” to you. Or you’re a stockholder & you’re OK w/ blood money as long as the bottom line is healthy. Whatever keeps you believing i guess. What about Bin Laden? he’s the REAL perpetrator of 9/11 and all anyone talks about is Iraq…meanwhile the REAL KILLER is still at large and I’m supposed to be worried that Barak won’t make us safer. Are we really any safer when the head of Al Qaeda is still leading his organization? or am i to believe the guy w/ the broken down army & economy who came crawling out of a small whole in the ground was the real threat to America? Oh thats right, when they didn’t find WMD’s…he was no longer a threat…we were “spreading democracy”. It took like a week to wipe out Saddams army. If Bush (err Cheney) was truly interested in protecting Americans - they wouldn’t have diverted resources and attention from the real perpetrator of 9/11. Instead, we have given the extremists what they want. A chance to kill American’s without leaving the middle-east. I’m sure occupying a middle-eastern country for 5 years has done nothing to help anti-american sentiments globally & enhance animosity from extremists who didn’t like us 5 years ago. Now they have plenty more ambition to hate american’s & plenty of opportunities to kill Americans while we remain in Iraq. Well done G-dub…well done…
By tar
June 6, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this
Crafty,
Your comeback to WDR was as stupid as your posting. I guess your only answer was to be insulting. I guess that shows your true intelligence. I would not equate you with a parrot, because that would be an insult to the parrot.
Next time you might want to do some research before posting an inaccurate blog. The U.S. did supply Iraq with weapons. Remember, the first Bush was Saddam friend and supplied him with all kinds of weapons and training. He wanted Iraq to have a democratic government. Saddam was the first leader to be elected democratically. Unfortunately, the Bushes could no longer control Saddam, so the war was a way to gain back control of Iraq.
By RealityKing
June 6, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
“Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice — the history books will not be kind to them.”
As we see in Colorado, universities today have an undiversified 800 to 23 progressive vs traditional tenure. So it would not be surprising to see some of their liberal revisions being slip into the history books, much like this new biased Senate report. Of course, we all know what the world thinks of our progressive education system..
By Crafty
June 6, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
tar, She called me ignorant so I fired back. How does sticking your nose in our business concern you? Saddam was a dictator. Get your “facts” straight. Iraq was never supplied with weapons to fight Russia. It was supplied to fight Iran. Have a nice day, ma’am.
By AJCbias
June 6, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this
Jay Bookman, Do you actually have an opinion and can you write an entire article instead of posting other news articles? I wish I got paid for reporting other peoples work. Then again, liberals are too dumb to actually do their own research.
By jasper
June 6, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
trick - I guess you would feel better if Americans were dying closer to home, say in high rises, shopping malls, or stadiums. Just imagine how much more you would hate Bush if there would have been addtional terrorist attacks in this country. Are we any safer? What a stupid question. How many attacks have occurred on US soil since 9/11? And Why are you people so concerned with what the rest of the world thinks of us. Did your Mommy not love you enough. You live in the greatest country in the history of mankind. Quit whining and get out there and maximize your opportunities. Or let the goverment be your Daddy.
By demwit
June 6, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this
Jay has a political opinion!?
By trick
June 6, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this
Thanks for confirming the lack of a reasonable debate. OF COURSE I WANT PEOPLE DYING CLOSER TO HOME :) Did you hear something go by? That was my point that you missed.
And no my mommy didn’t love me enough as she was killed in a car crash when I was 8 years old. Please leave her outta this. Do you think our threats are American’s that don’t like Bush…noooo…it would be people from “around the world” that don’t like our foreign policy proliferating an anti-american mentality that leads to attacks like 9/11. Thats why some of us actually DO care what others think.
We were attacked on U.S. soil for the first time since Pearl Harbor on “Bush’s watch”. I’d feel safer taping a scene with Fire Marshall Bill. But I’m supposed to thank him for making us “feel” safer.
And apparently its no bother to you that Bin Laden hasn’t been captured. You guys had 8 years of Bush & you still act like the underdogs and blame the liberal media for everything. My biggest frustration w/ American politics is the total & complete lack of accountability. As proven by so many (not all) Bush supporters never being able to admit a mistake. Have some humility once.
Maybe if i typed slower some of this could sink in for you.
Regards Jasper
By tar
June 6, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
Crafty,
First of all anyone can reply to a blog, that is why you are posting such ridiculous nonsense. Secondly, your problem is that you do not have any business. Thirdly, you are ignorant. According to Random House College Dictionary, Ignorant is lacking in knowledge about a particular subject.
You first said that Saddam used nuclear weapons on his people. When it was pointed out that he used guns supplied by the U.S., again you did not agree. Afterward you became insulting, and continue to be.
Sometimes you can learn from the blogs, I know I do. So Crafty, you have a nice day, and that is my business.
By Crafty
June 6, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
tar, When did I say he used Nuclear Weapons on his people? You ma’am, need to actually READ! I said Chemical Weapons. Big difference. Maybe you can look on Dictionary.com and check out the word Troglodyte because that sums you up pretty well. Saddam used Chemical weapons on his people. FACT that even the UN will acknowledge. So, stay out of my business and go back to delivering pizzas.
By jasper
June 6, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
I’m changing my call sign to “DaGubmntAintMyDaddy”, don’t worry, I’ll still be the same old racist bigoted neocon you’ve all come to love and admire.
Trick - I’d like to engage you in some town hall debates so you can dazzle me with your steel trap intellect. Let’s start at College Park so you won’t have to walk far.
By trick
June 6, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this
Jasper…consider ME dazzled with the incredible points that i never considered before….err…nevermind…i must have dreamt that…
sorry i cannot pick up on the college park reference…a shame to waste such witty banter on me ;)
have a good weekend…
By WhatWillLauraDo?
June 6, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
Bookman complains about Bush’s “deception, exaggerations and outright lies” but he himself won’t acknowledge his role in covering up the same when it comes to the discipline problems in Atlanta Public Schools.
APS submits falsified data saying there were ZERO discipline incidents in 40 schools? The AJC allows Kathy Augustine to explain it away by saying “perhaps our reforms are working so well, there are no discipline problems to report”. 40 schools? ZERO discipline problems? And the AJC editorial board let that statement go unchallenged?
Where was your voice Mr. Bookman?
And how can you claim any right to complain about Washington, where you have no influence, when you stay silent on the deception, exaggerations and outright lies here in Atlanta where your voice could make a difference.
40 schools? ZERO disipline problems? Deception, exaggeration, and outright lies to cover it up. Official censure from the Dept. of Education. And you stayed silent.
Where was your voice Mr. Bookman?
By tar
June 6, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this
Crafty,
I have told you before, that you do not have any business. Again, since you do not have an intelligent answer, you become insulting. For your information, I do not deliver pizza. I make over $94,000 a year and that is not counting my husband income.
Also, if you arrow up to your blog, you will see that you said that Saddam still had nukes. You did not mention chemical weapons. So Crafty, you learn how to read.
You replied to Fix it, telling him that you are glad his parents let him stay in their basement. Copyleft you told him to get a job. You also insulting replied to wdr, BDAtlanta and me. Now none of those people were talking to you, until you got in their business.
Now I know you are probably jealous because you live in a single wide trailer on cement blocks, but do not take it out on us. Hang in there, you might move up to doublewide.
I am through with you because some people do not have the capabilities to learn, and I guess that is you Crafty. I do not have the time of the energy to try and teach a mentally handicapped person.
Now you have a good day.
p.s. Don’t blame me because you can not even get a job delivering pizzas.
By yankee
June 6, 2008 5:35 PM | Link to this
I believe everything you people write. All of you, all the time.
By Crafty
June 6, 2008 6:24 PM | Link to this
tar, No, I SAID IRAN! I-R-A-N AND NORTH KOREA. Never mentioned Saddam having nukes. You have issues with reading that need addressing. Could care less if you make $94,000. You must be insecure about that because people usually don’t tell others about what they make. My responses to those other people were in retaliation to their insults. Again, learn how to comprehend comments before you make a fool of yourself.
ps: You’re delusional. Can you read that? Pizzas? No, that’s your territory.
By the way, here is what I wrote about nukes: There have been tons of resolutions with North Korea and Iran. They still have nukes. Saddam kicked out UN inspectors in 1998.
See? Nothing about Saddam having nukes. Only Iran and N. Korea. Saddam did kick the UN inspectors out.
By Me
June 7, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
John D Rockefeller’s sin wasn’t being rich, it was how he got that way.
By stateelectricwaterheatercori
August 10, 2008 5:44 PM | Link to this
The www.ajc.com is amazing resource, respect, admin. see this http://reminderroeb.150m.com/state_water_heaters.html > state water heaters
By pxbhdir bdkhwn
October 26, 2008 4:08 AM | Link to this
yhcwnegm bvtajrqw tfwgmnypz nhvj knwveud yswpa jbilfadov
By pxbhdir bdkhwn
October 26, 2008 4:10 AM | Link to this
yhcwnegm bvtajrqw tfwgmnypz nhvj knwveud yswpa jbilfadov
By pxbhdir bdkhwn
October 26, 2008 4:11 AM | Link to this
yhcwnegm bvtajrqw tfwgmnypz nhvj knwveud yswpa jbilfadov
By rxulv
December 5, 2008 11:44 PM | Link to this
hello, good site.
By uxrnbmp gjpmeuf
February 19, 2009 2:47 AM | Link to this
acftnlye ogkhb mlyot vjywkgsmr gkfqewsny xqmzfb sviohd
By uxrnbmp gjpmeuf
February 19, 2009 2:47 AM | Link to this
acftnlye ogkhb mlyot vjywkgsmr gkfqewsny xqmzfb sviohd
By uxrnbmp gjpmeuf
February 19, 2009 2:49 AM | Link to this
acftnlye ogkhb mlyot vjywkgsmr gkfqewsny xqmzfb sviohd
By uxrnbmp gjpmeuf
February 19, 2009 2:50 AM | Link to this
acftnlye ogkhb mlyot vjywkgsmr gkfqewsny xqmzfb sviohd