Is It "Worse than Watergate"?





HNN FUND RAISING DRIVE
If you like the service HNN provides, please consider making a donation.

On June 3, 2003 New York Times columnist Paul Krugman suggested that if it can be proven that the Bush administration knowingly lied about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction,"the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history."

In this week's edition of HNN John Dean, the chief Watergate whistleblower, agrees.

Do You?

PAUL KRUGMAN

The mystery of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major British newspapers and three major American news magazines, based on leaks from angry intelligence officials, back up the sources who told my colleague Nicholas Kristof that the Bush administration ''grossly manipulated intelligence'' about W.M.D.'s.

And anyone who talks about an ''intelligence failure'' is missing the point. The problem lay not with intelligence professionals, but with the Bush and Blair administrations. They wanted a war, so they demanded reports supporting their case, while dismissing contrary evidence....

 

The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history -- worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.

But here's the thought that should make ... commentators really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings calls a ''khaki election'' next year. In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted.

JOHN DEAN

Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Proud Army Wife - 8/6/2004

Dont speak for the dead. I know for a fact, because I knew some of these men, that they dont share your views. They believed they were doing the right thing.


johnhorst - 7/19/2004

"My experience is that most people who hold Dr. Luker's views do so because they have been misled."

I don't think the intellectual elite are misled at all. It fits perfectly into their world view that guns, not the criminal are the cause of death in violent crime. The elites follow the ideal that there is not such thing as personal responsibility, that people are incapable of perpetrating violent evil acts out of practicing free will, because to the cultural relativist, terms such as evil and free will have no tangible meaning. Violent criminals act because they are misunderstood, were abused children, have been stripped of self esteem, etc., etc. This fits perfectly into the new socialist order that the Constitution obstructs, which is another reason why they like to point at Socialist societies and compare them to ours. The gun control-minded elites know exactly what they are doing.


Pfc. Roth, Curtis J. - 11/12/2003

these men did not die for you and others like you to dishonor our countries leader. they died because everyone in the world should have a chance to be free. let these names stand for freedom. not something that you or i disagree or agree upon. remember them, yes, but do not cause a division doing it. nonetheless i will continue to fight for the freedom you have to put this article on the web. i do however appreciate your forth rightness on this subject although i disagree. continue to speak freely, just do not use the names of the honorable dead to do it. thanks for listening to my opinion. feel free to e-mail me back. i would like to talk to you farther on this subject.
Pfc.Roth, Curtis J.
USMC


C.D. - 10/30/2003

I was a member of the Unification Church for about 18 years. I witnessed a lot of corruption and contradiction in the movement, but never suspected Moon himself of hypocrisy until I read his daughter-in-law Nansook's book about what really goes on in the Moon family.
He is an arch conservative,supporting Reagan, Bush, Le Pen (a French right-wing politician) - anyone, in fact, who is right of centre.
What is still more sinister, through his sect he tries to take away people's freedom in the name of God, claiming to be the Messiah, higher than Jesus, and on an equal level with God.
The "holy wine" which his followers all drink at a blessing ceremony (including George and Barbara Bush (Senior) who were "blessed" by Bush more than ten years ago)is multiplies from wine originally containing Moon's blood and sperm. This is the "magical-spiritual" way that Moon, as the "third Adam" seeks to bind people to himself as his "children". Of course, this is a closely kept secret the church: "outside people" do not know much about it. I myself only learned about the sperm after I left the movement, and was very shocked to do so.
THis movement is not Christian, it is the very opposite: it is like the devil tempting people with material things and with power if they will only bow down and follow him.
The problem is that Moon has bought the goodwill of many prominent figures.
The other problem is that most of his outspoken opponents tend to be very narrow minded fundamentalist Christians eho are themselves so dogmatic and narrow-minded that their criticisms cannot be taken seriously.
All the same, this man is quite dangerous.
He has a very cunning agenda for gaining influence and power through what is basically bribery.

There is ample material for investigative journalism there.


Elliot Altshuler - 10/6/2003


TIME LINE 1942

1941 WE WERE AT WAR WITH GERMANY,.JAPAN AND ITALY!!!

1942 0CTOBER 20
The U.S.government orders the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York which were being conducted by Prescott Bush..The U.S.Alien Property Custodian took over the Union Banking Corporation and its stock shares shares,all of which were owned by E.Roland”Bunny”Harriman,Bush,three Nazi executives and two other Bush associates.

1942 OCTOBER 28

The U.S.governmnet orders the seizure of two Nazi front organizations run by Prescott Bush and Averell Harriman:The Holland-American Trading Company and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation.

1942 NOVEMBER 17

Nazi interests in the Silesian-American Corporation,long managed by Prescott Bush and his father-in law,George Herbert Walker,are seized under the U.S.Trading with the Enemy Act.The government announces it is seizing only the Nazi interests ,leaving the Nazis’s U.S.partners,Bush and his father in-law,to carry on the business.

WOULD IT BE REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE GREAT WEALTH OF THE BUSH FAMILY CAME FROM COLLUSION WITH THE NAZI PARTY AT THE BEGINNING OF WW2?


Elliot Altshuler
Lauderhill,FL>


Elliot Altshuler - 10/6/2003

TIME LINE 1942

1941 WE WERE AT WAR WITH GERMANY,.JAPAN AND ITALY!!!

1942 0CTOBER 20
The U.S.government orders the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York which were being conducted by Prescott Bush..The U.S.Alien Property Custodian took over the Union Banking Corporation and its stock shares ,all of which were owned by E.Roland”Bunny”Harriman,Bush,three Nazi executives and two other Bush associates.

1942 OCTOBER 28

The U.S.governmnet orders the seizure of two Nazi front organizations run by Prescott Bush and Averell Harriman:The Holland-American Trading Company and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation.

1942 NOVEMBER 17

Nazi interests in the Silesian-American Corporation,long managed by Prescott Bush and his father-in law,George Herbert Walker,are seized under the U.S.Trading with the Enemy Act.The government announces it is seizing only the Nazi interests ,leaving the Nazis’s U.S.partners,Bush and his father in-law,to carry on the business.

WOULD IT BE REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE GREAT WEALTH OF THE BUSH FAMILY CAME FROM COLLUSION WITH THE NAZI PARTY AT THE BEGINNING OF WW2?


Elliot Altshuler
Lauderhill,FL>


Todd Wilson - 9/10/2003

NYGuy is correct. GW is leading his country on a path to economic security for all.

For example, I know a guy who was able to move out of the YMCA because his stock dividends will no longer be taxed.


Lil'L - 8/21/2003

God, that's for sure. I find Homer's responses typical of the defensive Right; reliant upon emotional appeal alone. Ok, Homer, facts and logical arguments be damned, let them eat empty quips!


J. Keefe - 7/11/2003

Is it worse than watergate...is that the point? Comparing one scandals to the next? Why are we still electing presidents? When is anyone going to get it in their heads that representational democracy is a capitalist joke gone on far too long?


NYGuy - 6/27/2003

Kay,

Thank you for your thoughtful message. Much depends on what one's starting point is. I am familiar with U. S. actions abroad in WW1, WWII, Korea and Vietnam and the various opinions about our actions.

This, however, was the first time we were attached, except for the War of 1812, directly and in which large numbers of our citizens, not troops, were killed and maimed. If we remain in a stationary position their is a greater danger to our country.

In my background I have seen the rapid change in technology, i.e. the 11/2 year rule in semiconductors is a good example, as well as the reduction of both time and space for the world. While my early analysis would focus only on the the U. S., I now find it necessary to look at the entire world.

I believe we needed to change the way we looked at the world, which GW and his administration is doing, as well as examing some old concepts which are becoming outdate. How should we station troops aboad is a good example. For the past 10 years we had our heads in the sand as the above factors gave courage to other countries to look at us as a paper tiger, and undertake actions in their own best interest while selling us out. The UN was in my opinion also part of that hipocracy of paying lip service to the U. S. while stabbing us in the back. Under GW many of these weaknesses have come to the surface.

Was GW right in going into Iraq? That is debatable. But, I do believe it is the type of action that is necessary if we are to protect this country and help to make this a more peaceful world.

We now have gotten a better idea of who our allies are, we are active in just about all the major parts of the world, we have set in motion the opportunity to stop the dangers of the Palestine/Israel situation erupting into a world war and there are many other favorable factors that are now emerging.

For example, in Palesting/Israel the number of people we are dealing with is about 7 million people. We are spending millions of dollars on this conflict, and if that money was used for peace, both the Palestinian and the Israels would be some of the richest peoples on the earth.

With our leadership we have sent a message out to the rest of the world that a better life is possible. With the technology revolution more people are getting to view the beneifts of a peaceful world over TV and radio, while the internet is creating greater communication among people. For example, Iran may be a bellweather of the future because of these factors.

It won't happen over night but I believe we, and the nations of the world, can now hope for a better life if we can focus on the benefits of a peaceful world and get to know each other better. Unlike our recent past, just sitting at home and doing nothing, it is a better policy to be proactive in the world and working to build a better society, which I believe helps us.

Thanks for your reply. I enjoyed hearing your opinions on GW and the others. I hope the above shows why I have a much more positive view of them and their policies.


Cheers,


Kay of Washougal - 6/25/2003

NYGuy--I have sympathy for all those who directly experienced the attacks of 9/11. I also sympathized with all those who indirectly experienced those attacks, whether through the media or through conversations with those directly attacked. I agree that Guilani did a marvelous job rallying the spirits of New Yorkers and even those way out here in the cloisters. I don't agree with Guilani's politics, but I admire his leadership during those days. I even admire Rumsfield's own personal efforts at the Pentagon site on the day of the attack, but I abhor his politics. However, I still despise Bush's response on the day of the attack and afterwards. If you can't see a qualitative difference in these three men's responses to 9/11, then you of course will find it difficult to see a qualitative difference between them and those who want both the causes and effects of 9/11 to be carefully and publicly addressed, including many families of the victims of 9/11 and many of the first-line defenders who are not getting the financial support needed to prevent terrorist attacks in the future.


NYGuy - 6/24/2003

Kay,

When Oklahoma City happened, I was not able to fully understand the feeling of the local residents. Now that we had 9/11 in my home town, I see things differently. My son saw the two planes go in and was nearby when the towers collapsed. My nephew, a Lt in the Fire Department, went into the South Tower with 8 firemen and came out with 2. Another cousin can’t go into NYC because of fear of another attack. And, I worked with several of the people who died in the WTC. My wife and I will never forget as we feared for loved ones and were on the phone constantly.

Recently my son told us of often sitting in a crowded room and seeing a “flaming stewardess”, which no one else could see. Both my brother, a retired fireman and his son the Lt. went to funerals for a several months after 9/11 to honor many brave and courageous men and women who put their lives on the line,and lost.

I do appreciate you are trying to make a political argument, but your comment about brave men and women is off base. Our community could not be stronger and we all stand behind men like Bush and Giuliani.

It is difficult for someone who was not here to characterize the importance of Bush and Giuliani in the leadership they provided for this City on that day and since. That is why both are loved and respected so much by the people of NYC. We feel uplifted by the leadership these two great politicians provided during a time of great confusion and danger, and no one I know is cowing.

Bush visited NYC yesterday and the anti-Bush crowd tried to do some protesting. They gave speeches and sang songs but the crowds were very small and since no was paying attention to them, they gave up after a few hours.

This is part of their message; it is one of three songs they sang. This one is to the tune of "London Bridge Is Falling Down>"

Civil rights are falling down,
falling down,
falling down,

Civil rights are falling down,
Where's my country?

Quality of life is way, way down,
way, way down,
way, way down,
Quality of life is way, way down,
Where's our president?

He's inside with millionaires
millionaires
millionaires
He's inside with millionaires
Groveling for their money

Come outside and meet real people
meet real people
meet real people
Come outside and meet real people
We are America.

If you are interested I also have songs to Mary Had A Little Lamb and Row, Row, Row Your Boat.

One can not sit in an Ivory Tower and determine what 10 million people are thinking after being attacked. The terrifying Twin Towers scene could be seen for miles around and in three states. We will not forget. It would be nice if others could understand. Actually they do. When I walk my dog I speak to many Americans from around the country and they understand what happened to America and are proud of our President.

Cheers and keep safe.

Regards,

NYGuy


Kay of Washougal - 6/24/2003

NYGuy--it's very clear that many of those in NYC and DC have been abused into submission by the Bush administration. Since 9/11, Bush has consistently asserted that Americans need only shop (especially for duct tape), hug their loved ones, and live in terror whenever the code is elevated. He's essentially implied that most Americans are irrelevant in the war on terror--except they do need to be terrorized, by their own government or by the media if need be. The primary media centers of New York & DC are as much affected by the administration's abuse as you and other NYGuys seem to be. I guess the east coast is no longer 'the home of the brave' anymore. How are you enjoying your life on your knees? Is kowtowing as much fun as you thought?


NYGuy - 6/24/2003

Don,

Oh ye of little faith. Reagan's tax cut set the stage for the recent long term uptrend in the economy and with the Bush tax cut you will see a longer upturn so you can look forward to a long period of Republican leadership.

Have you listened to McAuliff lately. He sounds desperate. I guess he should he hasn't much time left.


What American citizens are not making a living wage? The only ones who aren't are the cleaning people at your school or workplace or the local hotels.

A guy who makes as much money as you do with all your degrees should be able to spare $100-200/week to help them out. It would set a good example for others. Share the wealth.


Don Williams - 6/24/2003

chewing the carpet by 5 pm tomorrow -- want to place a small bet on my success or failure?


Don Williams - 6/24/2003

that might slightly amuse you. (I had grown weary of Mr Markell's
rants so I thought to twist his tail a little.) If you wish, give it a shot.


Don Williams - 6/24/2003

Latest Bureau of Labor Statistics releases indicates that there are roughly 9 million unemployed people looking for work, NYGuy. There has been an increase of 3 million unemployed since since Bush took office-- and he shows no sign of giving a damn.

So you have plenty of people willing to take you up on your promise even though I noticed that you didn't mention providing a decent living wage. Knock yourself out.


Don McArthur-Self - 6/24/2003

I don't think I said officials CANNOT be fools; rather, my statement was more along the lines of the current administration demonstrably NOT being THAT foolish. The Bush administration is pretty politically astute, whatever one thinks of the merits of their policies.

And as far as "right to rule" goes, I can think of no more alarmingly blunt statements of an executive believing in his own indispensibility than those of Bill Clinton and Al Gore in the hours and days following the House impeachment vote.


NYGuy - 6/24/2003

Don,

Bush visited NYC today and the anti-Bush crowd tried to do some protesting. The crowds were small, they sang off-key and gave up after a few hours since nobody paid any attention to them.

Seems like most people in NYC applaud the job he is doing.

Since we have gottent to know each other quite well, I got you a special rememberance of this day. Hope you can harmonize at your next get together.

To the tune of "London Bridge Is Falling Down>"

Civil rights are falling down,
falling down,
falling down,

Civil rights are falling down,
Where's my country?

Quality of life is way, way down,
way, way down,
way, way down,
Quality of life is way, way down,
Where's our president?

He's inside with millionaires
millionaires
millionaires
He's inside with millionaires
Groveling for their money

Come outside and meet real people
meet real people
meet real people
Come outside and meet real people
We are America.

If you are interested I also have songs to Mary Had A Little Lamb and Row, Row, Row Your Boat.

If your interested let me know and I will send you copies

Cheers

PS: No the slogan will not be "Let Them Starve." We will be able to put everyone to work no matter what their age. They will be able to support themselves.


NYGuy - 6/24/2003

Kay,

You may be right, but we in New York fele a lot safer because of his leadership. He may have visited NY with a bullhorn, but our Senator, Hillary Clinton didn't even see fit to go to the funerals of fallen firemen, policemen, port authority personnel, etc.

Since the funerals were going on for about 3-4 months she certainly could have found some time to comfort the victims families. She certainly has not provided any confidence that she is working to protect our country.

For me, I'll take the leadership of GW.

PS: Bush visited NYC today and the anti-Bush crowd tried to do some protesting. The crowds were small, they sang off-key and gave up after a few hours since nobody paid any attention to them.

Seems like most people disagree with you and think GW is doing a great job in getting us out of the Clinton recession and protecting our country.


Don Williams - 6/23/2003

I seem to remember something from 225 years ago:
"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "


Homer Simpson - 6/23/2003

What a train wreck is this site!

I guarantee you that nothing will come of all this hot air.

Do you yokels really take yourselves this seriously?


Homer Simpson - 6/23/2003

Yep, that's it, Anita.

It's just you yammering.

The political system didn't fail anybody. You just didn't get what you want.


NYGuy - 6/23/2003

Don,

I thought this was the smartest generation. Are you saying they can't take care of themselves with their homes, retirement plans, Social Security and investments. They should have been able to answer your question over the last 30-40 years.

Your generation has encouraged large scale immigration which has given rise to both legal and illegal aliens. You then give them, the illegals, free education (grammar school, high school, college and graduate school), free medical and other free services, including Social Security. So why are you now crying about what you have sowed.

First rule of economics is "there is no such thing as a free lunch." Now that your compasion is being realized you start crying.

The answer to your questions is, "Move to California." The people out there welcome people in need. They have a monetary problem, but no one would be callous out there and put money above people.

Your generation created the problems you discuss, they should finally learn to take responsibilty and share there wealth with others less fortunate.

Sorry I can't feel sorry for you. For over 200 years Americans have taken care of themselves, now it is time for you to learn how to do that. And with your engineering and master's degree in computer science you should be able to work until you are 85 years or so like a lot of American's are now doing.

Sorry if I don't feel sorry for you and that some of these ideas sound strange and new to you. But that is life.


Don Williams - 6/23/2003

SInce, as the departed Economic Advisor Lawrence Lindsey noted, Bush's $Trillions of IOUs are "not real assets", how are you going to provide food, shelter, and medical care to elderly baby boomers, particularly those blue collar workers and working poor who have few assets -- having given their spare money to Bush via high payroll taxes?
How do you propose the government raise the money? Or do you propose that the government should let them starve or die from lack of medical care?

Re giveaways to the poor, my understanding is that 6% of national income has shifted from the lowest 50% of the population to the upper income bracket in the past two decades. That's not Darwinism -- that's crooked politics. Ex: The $500 Billion S&L bailout. The $100 Billion airline bailout. etc. etc. Corporate America is the biggest welfare queen out there --do you think they spend millions on lobbying just for the sake of good government?


Kay of Washougal - 6/23/2003

I may live in what seems to you a cloistered area of the US, but terrorist attacks can happen anywhere. It was a Washington State resident who stopped a car at the Canadian border, a car filled with explosives headed for the LA airport. I have friends and family in the New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania areas and felt the horror as much as anyone. I still saw on those days Bush protecting the country only by flying around in safety and then by tooting on a bullhorn at those working at the cleanup. He's now not even making sure that homeland security funds appropriate equipment for first-line defense: firefighters, policeofficers, hospitals, etc. Bush's protection of the US is all sham and spin. He made it clear what he thinks of 9/11 and other events: he hit the "trifecta"-- a really great bonanza for him and his.


NYGuy - 6/23/2003

Don,

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And the facts should never get in the way of ones political believe.

1. First you don't understand Social Security. You pay into the fund for your retirement and the Democrats give these funds to other groups who have not contributed. You have no problem with that, but then you complain that puts a burden on the average tax payer.

Further you suggest three groups, but don't specify each group, the rich, the taxpayers who will now pay less taxes because of the $600-1,000 refund, and others who don't pay any income taxes. But, you want to give money to the latter group so we can restore a failed welfare system which will greatly inflate the tax burden of the average citizen. Doesn't make much sense.

3. There is only one Bush administration you can point which is the Elder Bush who turned the economy over to Clinton as it was beginning a major turn around. Clinton sqander that gift and passed a recesson on to GW. Now GW is reversing the Clinton recession and when he finishs his term we will be able to determine his record.

4, Some feel all politicians are whores, whose motto is "business is businses and love is BS. So your attempt to stigmatize the Republicans is a difference without a distinction.

Now that I have read your comments and responded to them I want to tell you how I feel about you:

I disagree with you.

I too have enjoyed the exchange. Hope we meet again.

Meanwhile, Cheers and have a good day.





Don Williams - 6/23/2003

Your bland attempts to distort reality and ignore the facts may allow you to maintain your delusions, NYGuy -- but they won't work in the next year's elections. I've enjoyed our discussions because they have confirmed that Republicans and their supporters
have no answer to the facts --that they are indeed politically bankrupt. Consider again the facts you are hiding from:


1) I've shown that Republican administrations have repeatedly given the rich huge wealth transfers via tax cuts and have financed those wealth transfers by dumping huge amounts of debt onto the middle class and workers --in one case by writing Treasury Bonds (Reagan/Bush1), in the other by stealing from Social Security/Trust Funds (Bush2).

A citizen's net benefit has to be viewed in the total -- and what Reagan/Bush1 and Bush 2 have both done is give the average citizen $600-$1000 in tax refund checks while dumping tens of thousands of debt onto the citizen.

2) Both Bush administrations have been characterized by recessions and high unemployment -- misery and poverty deliberately inflicted on US citizens by men who are whores for the rich. Both administrations have let massive cases of white collar fraud go unpunished -- the savings and loan disaster in the case of Bush1, the Wall Street stock market bubble/Enron/Worldcom in the case of Bush2.

3) Your comment re Global Crossing ducks the fact that the Republicans have controlled Congress since 1994. Should we go back and look at how Banking chairman Phil Gramm worked to "get the government off the backs" of hardworking white collar crooks in the late 1990s?

4) Some Democrats sell out to the rich just as the Republicans do. The difference is that the Republicans have a policy of sustaining massive corruption in campaign finance -- they are whores by choice. I think that the Democrats who sell out do so by necessity and as a matter of political survival.

The Democratic Party can be reformed -- the only thing to do with the Republican Party is to destroy it.

Because the Republicans are a far greater threat to this country than Bin Laden -- if you look at what's really happening, it's clear that they are the genuine evil.


NYGuy - 6/23/2003

Don,

I think I can agree with you on this remark:

"Bush is not as stupid as he looks -- he does have a low animal cunning."

You are so right, that is why he beat Gore and the Democrats. What a great leader, a young lion with great tenacity


NYGuy - 6/23/2003

Don,

I tried to educate you in economics which did not work. I am not going to work on your understanding this board. I wrote a critique and you thought it was an essay. That is why you did not understand, as usual, you didn't know what to look for.

And I was starting to have such high hope.


NYGuy - 6/23/2003

Don,

I had so much hope for you but you insisted on putting on our green shades and putting out meaningless and actually incorrect data once again. That is a step backwards.

1, Yes Don the Government can raise the debt level. What is new?

2. Yes Don, foreigners have financed a large part of our debt for decades. So what is new and what does it have to do with the Republicans?

3.Don you don’t understand Capital Markets. Banks, insurance companies, bond funds and other financial institutions hold the overwhelming bulk of bonds. Are these the wealthy bondholders you are talking about? These companies employ thousands of workers and provide them with medical care, retirement programs, etc. which benefit the workers wife, children and other family members. Your comment that Republicans are “indifferent”, however, once again betrays your ignorance of economics and is disingenuous.

4. We are talking about Fiscal Policy stimulating the economy, which Robert Reich notes was first used during WWII and resulted in strong economic growth. Did it occur or not? If it were not used would we still have the same strong economic growth? You don’t say?

6.The economy was beginning to recover when Clinton took over because of Reagan, a great economist, who cut taxes to produce the longest economic upturn that Clinton squandered. Greenspan warned Clinton about the overheated economy but Clinton was to busy and didn’t know what to do. As a result, GW had hardly finished being sworn in when the Clinton recession hit. Six months later he was hit with 9/11, again because Clinton was too busy to go after Bin Laden and failed to protect our citizens.

7.The reason employment fell is because Clinton flooded the market with immigrants, (to get their vote) and allowed the economy to overheat which produced overcapacity and resulted in thousand of employees being thrown out of work. Greemspan tried to warn him.

8.Corporate corruption began to flourish under Clinton and his buddy McAuliff made millions off the backs of poor investors, (one of the rich guys you were talking about), on a Hillary size investment. Read the Annual reports of Global Crossing, (oops, I forgot it went bankrupt and workers lost their jobs and pensions after Terry made his millions), to see how far back many of these scams went.

9.You conclude with: “The Republicans should have their teeth knocked out in next year's election. IT will take US citizens a decade to recover from the damage of the Second Bush Recession.”

10. Don, are beginning to sound like Terry McAuliff on CBS today, no ideas, no programs no leadership. Just an escalating rant against Bush because he is turning around the economy which could last for many years and prevent Hil from running for President.

11.Be careful, your crude characterizations are also what has turned voters off and put Bush in the White House. Americans are looking for integrity, decency and leadership not people who sound like thugs.


Don Williams - 6/23/2003

eom


Don Williams - 6/22/2003

attacked and invaded without UN sanction. As I noted before, hysterical rants about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a chickenshit means of deceit. THere are no "Weapons of Mass Destruction" -- Bush supporters don't want to talk about specific weapons because (a) Neither they nor Bush had shit to show for evidence, and (b) a discussion of specifics shows that Bush's invasion didn't help the situation.

Rather Bush's attack on Iraq greatly increased the threat to the US because it captured no weapons, it gave Hussein strong motivation to develop/use any biological weapons concealed in Iraq or elsewhere, and it gave much stronger nations than Iraq a strong reason to take covert measures against the US. Western Europe, China, and Russia have good reasons now to fear Bush more than Bin Laden -- and hence to covertly support Bin Ladin because every terrorist attack weakens the US economy and makes the Bush government less of a danger.


Don Williams - 6/22/2003

1) In his budget, Bush notes that the US government does not have to balance it's budget in the manner of business, since it's sovereign power gives it the power to raise whatever amount is needed via taxes.

Many banana republics have thought that -- and have been disillusioned. The dive in the dollar's value during Bush's administration should have been sufficient warning -- roughly 20% of our debt is financed by foreigners and they might not always be willing to loan us the money.

The burden of debt is real -- a large chunk of worker taxes goes every year to pay off wealthy bondholders --money that could be used to greatly improve the life of workers, to provide medical care to the poor, and to educate children. The Republican indifference to the misery caused by their policies is contemptible.

Your analogy of WWII is not applicable -- the US emerged from the war with an industrial base intact when the rest of the world was in ruins. It quickly paid down it's temporary debt with a youthful workforce -- instead of trying to sustain it for decades.
Again, look at Japan for the past 14 years.

The current recession is Bush's responsibility, not Clinton's. Clinton encountered many trials during his administration and dealt with them instead of whining about the dung pile left by Reagan/Bush. Much of the current recession is due to Bush's indifference to domestic problems and unemployment.

In exchange for campaign donations,
the Republicans raised the H-1B visa limits in 1998 and 2000 so that corporations could import roughly 1.2 million
foreign professionals through the years 1999-2003, for work terms of six years.
The Republicans undermined federal regulation of the securities industries, causing the stock market collapse as investors to fled the markets
due to fear of false accounting. The Republican panic to fix corporate regulation prior to the last election merely points up the extent to which they had undermined regulation since they took power in 1994. You'll notice that it was the New York state Attorney General, NOT the Bush SEC, who sued Wall Street and got a $Billion dollar settlement. And the Enron and Worldcom CEOs are still walking around, free as birds.

The new industries with surging growth --broadband Internet and related computer/telecommunication equipment --have collapsed because of political deadlock re telecommunication
regulation issues.

Even the Wall Street Journal, a strong Republican advocate, complained in a Feb 13 editorial
of the "Bush Administration's seeming indifference to the telecom depression". The Republicans are prolonging this deadlock because it lets them milk huge campaign donations from two competing groups -- the Bells vs AT&T and long haul fiber optic carriers. Meanwhile the Republican depression in telecom is causing a corresponding depression in computers and software.

The Republicans should have their teeth knocked out in next year's election. IT will take US citizens a decade to recover from the damage of the Second Bush Recession.





J. Kent McGaughy - 6/22/2003


NYGuy,

As for my observation that the Bush administration has made blatantly misleading comments regarding policies, there are too many to cite. Refer to the quotes from President Bush regarding chemical and biological weapons in Iraq for some immediate grist for the mill.

As for condemning Bush, yet willingly give terrorists who killed innocent civilians and government employees a slide, I have no idea where you're getting that one. Certainly not from anything I wrote. The only thing I can figure is that you're in full agreement with another one of President Bush's blatantly misleading statements: that there is some sort of connection between Hussein's government, Osama Bin Ladan, Al Qaeda, and the terrorist attack on the United States on 9/11. There was no connection. There is no connection. The president lied and he continues to keep the fiction going.


NYGuy - 6/22/2003

Don,

Good job. But your conclusion is not new:

"However, as the figures above show, the Republicans have systematically stolen the boomers wealth -- and the bleak poverty faced by the boomers is the responsibility of the Republicans."

Petger Grace the president of W. R. Grace made similar projections back in the 1960's and we still had great economic growth and eventually balanced the budget.

Meawhile, during WWII, debt as a % of GDP was 106%, so you are saying nothing new just that debt levels because of the Clinton Recession and the attack on the United States has raised the the debt limit.

Since you say we are in the Clinton depression are you now forecasting a depression or are you saying that GW is doing a great job and getting is out of the recession Clinton could not handle, even thought Greenspan warned him that a bust was coming?


Don Williams - 6/22/2003

But isn't that true of most of your posts"


Don Williams - 6/22/2003

1) Bush didn't protect us --our policemen and soldiers did. Bush is a REMF who's always worn the uniform solely within the safe confines of the continental US while stealing the credit and glory from the real warriors.

2)In fairness, it must be acknowledged that Bush wasn't a draft dodger --unlike Dick Cheney and most of the Republican leadership.
Bush merely choose to defend Texas from the North Vietnamese air force. Bush is not as stupid as he looks -- he does have a low animal cunning.


Don Williams - 6/22/2003

Since NYGuy evidently can't do arithmetic, let's do his implied calculations.

When Reagan/Bush came into power in 1980, the GDP was $2795.6 billion and federal debt was $930 Billion --
equal to 33 percent of GDP.
(Data sources: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm,
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm ,
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm )


At the end of Reagan Bush in 1992, the
GDP was 6318.9 (due to inflation) and federal debt had soared to $4064 billion or 64 percent of GDP.

When Clinton left in
Jan 2001, GDP was 9824.6 and federal debt was $5674 billion --a decline to 57.7 percent of GDP

Today, after 2.5 years of Bush, the GDP is 10704, and federal debt has soared to $6598 billion or 61.6 percent of GDP.

Bush's Feb 2003 budget projects 2008 GDP to be $13,919 billion and
debt to be $9,300 Billion -- a rise to 66.8 percent of GDP.

Note: I think the federal debt will be at least $1 Trillion higher because of Bush's recent dividend tax cut. Also, Bush's projection of a continuous 4.5-5 percent GDP growth from now to 2008 is a crock as well.

But even if you accept Bush's figures, the government's actual situation will be far worse because the huge baby boomer generation will begin entering retirement in 2008. As recently noted in the news, Bush kept an estimated $7 Trillion in Social Security liability and $34 Trillion in Medicare liability out of his budget in order to get his dividend tax cut for the rich passed.

In 1980, the large baby boom generation was young and was swelling the workforce. In 2008, that same generation will have worked
decades and be ready for retirement.

NYGuys suggestion that income tax cuts can spark a huge economic boom was deceitful "supply side" bullshit back in the 1980s -- and the reason why federal debt soared to 64 percent of GDP from 32 percent in the Reagan/Bush "we'll balance the budget" administrations.

To suggest that a prolonged boom can be sparked by an elderly workforce is even more ridiculous bullshit --look at Japan for the past 14 years.


However, as the figures above show, the Republicans have systematically stolen the boomers wealth -- and the bleak poverty faced by the boomers is the responsibility of the Republicans.

Just like at Enron, Bush and the Republicans have irresponsibly steered this country into a financial disaster -- because they and their rich friends have no real loyalty to the United States. They're probably planning to live abroad on their ill-gotten gains while the people of the US suffer through 20 years of economic depression/poverty and doctors will have to let most boomer patients die young.

Bush is just like Phil Gramm --who gave a merry wave to ten of thousands of his bankrupt constituents at Enron as he went off to a lavish Senatorial pension, a cushy sinecure at Warburg, and as his wife, a director at Enron, counted up her $1 Million.


NYGuy - 6/22/2003

Don,

Don't mean to upset you but your comment"

"I'm well aware of future value vs present value of money but I don't see the Bush economy growing enough to bother with the adjustment --we seem more likely to tip over into deflation/depression than to have a boom and prosperity. The disaster shown in Bush's numbers seems pretty obvious no matter how the Republicans try to spin it."

only shows how little you know about ecnomics. Future value vs. present value is used in "Capital Budgeting Decision" by corporations.

Good Try.

You have an opinion, which I acknowledge, but why should I believe you if you can't prove what you say. I tried to give you some clues, but I guess you have relied so much on computers doing the work, you are now not capable of doing your own analysis.

Are deficits good or bad?

I am a fraid that a computer won't give you an answer since it only processes garbage in and garbage out. We are talking about critical thinking and artifical intelligence has not been able to duplicate that.



NYGuy - 6/22/2003

Kay,

GW provide great leadership on that terrible day. Since you live in a cloistered area with no fear of a threat you can be indifferent to the 3,000+ deaths in NYC, PA and Washington.

We were so proud of GW and how he handle the situation. He represented those courageous Police, Fireman, Port Authority and other heros of that day We only wish, our Arkansas Senitor saw fit to attend the funerals of those who died that day.

GW is a leader, Hil is a politician. We have not had leadership for the prior 8 years, so it was good to have GW here. He made us proud to be Americans again.


NYGuy - 6/22/2003

J.

I see you and Kay are forming a mutual admiration society. Great to see people agree.

You raise the question:

"The initial post on HNN that this thread relates to asks the question whether or not Bush's blatantly misleading remarks about the threat Iraq posed to the United States represents a scandal worse than Watergate. To my mind, they are interconnected to such a degree that they are indistinguishable from each other."

Anyone can raise an issue but in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. J. Rockerfeller says there is no proof of your assertion as do Edwards and the the other Democratic candidates. And neither do Krugman nor dean say that Bush made a, "blatantly misleading statements" Did they? And if so would you please cite where they say so?

What is so disturbing to me is that I believe you are a compassion person who gets so upset that those who are trying to destroy the U. S. with their 9/11 bombing, etc. should be judged innocent and get all the benefits of the U. S. legal system, rather then being treated as enemy combatants or guilty of any crimes.

By when it comes to Americans you fail to show there is any proof of what you say. I believe you are using a double standard. I must confess I question your integrity.

This, however, is my opinion based upon the same minimum of proof that you feel is necessary to convict someone.

The Democrats are looking for more people like you and your Kudos soulmate.


Don Williams - 6/22/2003

1) Contrary to your statement that I provided no framework, I noted the important context:

a) The Reagan-Bush administrations had dumped a huge debt burden on Americans by 1992, equal to 4 times their annual tax payment.

b) Clinton managed to reduce that to 2.8 times their annual payment when he left.

c) Bush misled the middle class when he told them he was giving them a tax cut -- in exchange for $600-$1000 income tax cut, he shifted
an average of $26,355 in federal debt from the wealthy to the Middle-class --by stealing from the Trust Funds (to pay Treasury Bond that should have been paid by the rich's income taxes) and giving the Trust Funds nothing but worthless IOUS.

d) Bush is continuing this policy and is calling for the Trust Funds to hold $5 Trillion in IOUs by 2008 --which can only be paid off by collecting $73,209 in taxes on middle class IRA/401K withdrawals. See http://hnn.us/comments/13950.html.

NYGuy didn't contradict me on this --instead, he falsely says that I provide poor analysis while he refuses to address the numbers himself.

e) I'm well aware of future value vs present value of money but I don't see the Bush economy growing enough to bother with the adjustment --we seem more likely to tip over into deflation/depression than to have a boom and prosperity. The disaster shown in Bush's numbers seems pretty obvious no matter how the Republicans try to spin it.


NYGuy - 6/22/2003

Don,

Having an engineer with a highly focused mind set on small, local issues does not seem to be someone I want to try to discuss broad based social issues with, although I defend your right to an opinion.

I have degrees in several fields, one of which is Business and Economics. So we are at a stand off. As they say let the people decide.

I merely present my opinions and question the scholarship of others who venture into fields in which they have no experience or knowledge. To suggest that having a degree in any field makes one the master of the universe is nonsense.

But you are not the only one who doesn't understand economic analysis; both Hepatitis and West are in the same situation.

Programming a computer is, in my opinion, another necessary, but also mindless profession such as the bookkeeping and accounting fields.

I don't insult historians, I merely repeat their opinions that there should be "a thousand Mogadushu in Iraq.” That is what they teach.

Do you agree that American troops should be slaughtered to satisfy the philosophy of a radical professor. There are many other examples, but I won’t go into them now.

The basic question remains, "Are deficits good or bad?" What is your opinion and why. To answer this question one has to look to the future, not only to the past.


Don Williams - 6/22/2003

and , based on your posts, I don't think you know anything about math, business, economics, current events, or rational thought.

Which is why I think your insults of "historians" is hilarious.


NYGuy - 6/22/2003


The title of my post was "A lesson in economic Analysis.

Good luck.

By the way your are a history major and I am a business major. The difference is that I get paid to look ahead.


NYGuy - 6/22/2003

Great Reply Don,

Just proves that you are a great "Green Shade" bookkeeper. Don't they teach you how to analyze in your school's history program or is it just a feel good propaganda courses that are taught.

Good Luck,


NYGuy - 6/22/2003

Perhaps you are too young to understand the meaning of a fund raiser. Do you want to use Democrat arithmetic and spend $2200 for a $2,000 fund raiser.

Maybe the Republicans know better how to run things.


NYGuy - 6/22/2003

Hey Harrison,

You have your opinion of Bush and I am expressing my opinion of Dean. He is a great apoligist and we don't know if he is a draft dodger, but as the liberals on this board say, "if", a "big if" than I am disappointed and consider him unfit to be President.

That is what America is about, our ability to come to our own conclusions and express our ideas.

Maybe if he continues in his quest for President the truth will come out.


Kay of Washougal - 6/22/2003

Please continue your efforts. You're doing far more than tilting at windmills. Anything can help stop Bush's spinmills.


Don Williams - 6/22/2003

The source for the data I gave above on employment is the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- select "full time workers" at bottom of http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab7.htm and
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab6.htm


Don Williams - 6/22/2003

1) There were 114,330,000 full time workers when Bush entered office. In May 2003, there were only 112,821,000 -- a loss of
1,509,000.

2) The situation is much worse -- the labor force has grown since Bush took office and there are far more people who are unemployed.
When Bush took office, there were 4,731,000 unemployed looking for work --today, there are 7,523,000 , a increase of 2,792,000.

Yet the two-faced lying Republican pundits say the Democrats are being "negative" when they point this out.

Meanwhile, Bush is stealing $Trillions from workers Trust Funds and giving the money to the rich as income tax cuts--and lying to us about it.

Re Sept 11, I showed below how Bush provoked the attack by pandering to Sharon's attacks on the Palestinians -- selling Sharon the F16s with which to bomb Palestinian apartment buildings. Bush lied about that also.

The people of this country need to rise up and knock the Republicans teeth out in next years' election -- and then urge their Democratic legislators to wreak vengence on all the conservative whores who have been lying to us the past several years.


Kay of Washougal - 6/22/2003

I also noted that the Republican spokesman bragged how Republican supporters were willing to go to Bush's fundraiser and eat hotdogs. Of course, he didn't mention they had to pay $2000 each for that privilege. The Republicans keep thinking they're safe from criticism just because they say they're safe. At least the Democratics are willing to point out the dangers of an unleashed Republican Party. I want the Republican administration to more than apologize; I want them impeached.


Harrison Bergeron - 6/22/2003



That's right NYGuy, Howard Dean was on NBC, and what did Dean say about his draft deferment? He said that he went in for a scheduled military physical and the military doctors diagnosed his condition and listed him as eligible to serve in an emergency. After that, he was never called up for military service.

Dean's diagnosed condition did/does not prevent him from skiing, or from performing other outdoor physical activities. If he sits in one position for an extended period of time (driving in a car, etc.), if he runs long distance ( an activity that first alerted him to the back condition, and something which he no longer does), then the pain starts and it can be excruciating. For these reasons, the military physicians determined he would be suited for military service if deemed necessary and unavoidable.

Dean did not seek the deferment; Dean did not request the deferment--unlike Limbaugh, Cheney, G.W. Bush (no doubt by beggins Poppy Bush to pull strings and get him into the Texas Air National Gaurd from which he was AWOL), and the rest of these conservative clowns bent on destroying the nation.

I noticed your attempted smear by innuendo that so may conservatives of your ilk are so adept at--mentioning Russert asking the question, Dean responding, but totally ignoring the substance in between.

Also, did you hear that Dean has also said that his son, who's gotten into trouble concerning a burglary, will go to court and face the consequences for his actions? Oh, if only Poppy Bush had such integrity, then we might have a president who wasn't compelled to spew out lies everytime he opens his mouth and wouldn't have to take a nap after trying to put two complete thoughts together.


Kay of Washougal - 6/22/2003

Bush certainly did not protect anyone on 9/11 (although he did really well at flying above the fray himself on that day)! He's not even making sure that the investigation of the causes of 9/11 is addressed publicly. His efforts at homeland security have been irresponsible, his efforts at challenging international terrorism have been half-hearted. The Bush administration is far more concerned with rolling back time and eliminating Medicare, Head Start, EPA, Social Security, corporate regulation, and I suspect the Emancipation Proclamation, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. He and his want more than an imperial presidency, they want an imperium itself. No, I feel neither safe nor cloistered.


Bush Moon 2004 - 6/22/2003

Of course he gets a more theocratic government and that is the ultimate goal for the moonie world. He wants the world's religions to be united under his banner. He has groups all over the world working toward that end.

Think about this. Moon wants theocracy(and fascism in and former members opinions) Moon says separation of church and state is 'what Satan likes most"..do you believe in the concept of separation between church and state? I am not asking you if you think it is constitutional, I am asking if you believe in the concept. I do, I believe it is absolutely necessary for liberty in America. Bush is pushing the idea that only churches can handle our problems. He is defunding and trying to bankrupt government programs which will create a chaos in the country to where the people will run to the churches as the ONLY place to go. There are no non-newsmax type studies which say that churches do a better job of caring for the poor.

Gotten his money's worth OH YES, he has gotten his moneys worth. Keep in mind this group will not stop, they are in this for the long haul, ever inch they move is fine with them. This was a giant step. Keep ion mind Moon wants a theocratic government. The country will NOT go sown and vote on that. This will done a bit at a time, it starts with a country becoming 'more theocratic' a little at time. Now did Moon get anything for his money? This is not just a 'republican' thing, this is a conservative movement thing. (do you think getting an award at and sponsoring Bush's inaugural prayer luncheon didn't get him some additional power? Do you understand what it did for him to show that George Bush's father honors him?

A more theocratic government, slippery slope? This is the slipperiest of them all.

from:
http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs6013.htm
Reading further, they would have found out that the ALC is a project of the American Family Coalition and The Washington Times Foundation – both front organizations for the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a controversial Korean evangelist and founder of the Unification Church. The "faith-based summit" itself was sponsored by Watts (R-Okla.), Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and other top congressional Republicans, but efforts to promote it at the grassroots level were turned over to a Moon organization.

Why is the Republican Party working hand in glove with Moon front groups? The partnership stems largely from Moon’s phenomenal ability to make inroads in GOP and Religious Right circles. Despite his unorthodox theological views – Moon teaches that he is the new Messiah, sent by God to complete the failed mission of Jesus – Moon has had little difficulty penetrating the upper echelons of American conservatism.

While a number of Republican-aligned private organizations have promoted President George W. Bush’s religion funding scheme, only Moon won an official relationship with the Republican leadership to rally grassroots forces on behalf of the "faith-based" summit. This enhanced status enabled him to do grassroots political organizing – and religious recruitment – with the apparent blessing of Bush and his GOP allies in Congress.

Just a few years ago, Moon announced he was ready to give up on the United States, but the change of administrations in Washington seems to have sparked a change of heart in him. Frederick Clarkson, a journalist who has studied Moon and other far-right movements, notes that Moon specializes in the creation of "Astroturf organizations" – groups that appear to have grassroots power but that in reality speak mostly for Moon. Moon has used these groups to curry favor with Republicans for more than 30 years, Clarkson said, and is revving them up again to help the new Bush administration.

"Whenever the conservatives identify an issue as important to their agenda, Moon creates an Astroturf organization to create the appearance of grassroots support for these initiatives," Clarkson said

---

Moon's group should be made to fall under FARA.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fara/

Moon is not the messiah, he will fail in many ways, he may become more dangerous when he sees things not going right for him...the bottom line is why does the right help him try? Why do they ignore this?

Why do they help him try? I believe God is very interested in how we each view this. So far the 'christian right' has proved to be hypocritical frauds when it comes to their 'character.'

Astounding, mind boggling hypocrisy. Those who are aware and do nothing -- stab the constitution and the Lord in the back. IMHO.


NYGuy - 6/22/2003

Bush/Moon 2004,

Moon gets a country run by right wing theocrats and fascists, that is what he obviously wants.

As I read your initial statement you are saying that "Moon gets a country run by right wing theocrats, but then go on to say that he has been unsuccessful during GW's tenure as President, "that is what he obviously wants."

Then you go on a rant about the Republicans and GW. Seems a bit disingenuous to me.


Bush Moon 2004 - 6/22/2003

Moon gets a country run by right wing theocrats and fascists, that is what he obviously wants. The WT is a leader in distorted news. For instance, that is where the lie about AF1 being trashed was first reported. There are MANY examples of this. Remember Tony Snowe's article where he said "it was as if thieves had stripped AF1 clean." That was an outgrowth of Moon's deceit. Just another pack of lies the right has used to get people like nyguy to jump when he is told, or in Clinton's case, hate when they are told. This has been an ongoing deceit, subtle at times blunt at others.

The republican party under Bush has proved to be deceitful and VERY secretive. Who can trust people who think the American people have no right to know what they are doing? Bush spoke to the Moon funded theocratic Council for National Policy and HE refuses to let them release what he promised them, they gave him the nod for president based on what he said and they won't tell the American public.(the CNP said they would release the video but the Bush administration refuses to let them. Do you think secrecy of this kind is a good thing?

Please don't tell me I need to go over ALL the secretive deceitful things this administration has done to keep information from the public.

Most people make the mistake of looking for some obvious 'smoking gun'...that is not how the politics of influence always works. Moon has gotten exactly what he wants from the republican party. He has empowered, with his money and media, the religious lunatics and if you think they don't run the republican party you are wrong. This is the 'nod and a wink' administration. The little Bush has appeared to compromise is out of political necessity not out of moderation. He has to do something and the Fascist theocrats still need a few more seats to put the whole country in never ending hell.

Make no mistake, Moon has gotten his money's worth from the soul selling conservatives.

It kind of surprises me you are fighting to defend them being in bed with him. Like it is not that big a deal. It isn't just the republican party, it is all the right wing loony fronts the fake grass root frauds he has been behind. This has been going on for years. The Wall Street journal has been around longer than Moon, it took Moon to make the rights dreams come true, without him they are NOT in power. Moon is the hard politics and deceit guy for the right. He supplies the funds and the lies. The republicans IMHO really did become more deceitful after hooking up with him, in the early eighties when Reagan and Bush gave the right the nod that it was OK to honor and work with Moon's organization.

The guy, Pryor from Alabama, Bush named for a fed judge post, if you remotely think he would put the constitution ahead of the bible when deciding law, you don't know him. The right figured out that if their agenda is honestly put forward the country will reject it, deceit is the way of the right. When you see them pointing at someone else be sure they are doing worse. Bush does that all the time. Remember when he acted like he hardly new Ken Lay, what a disgusting liar.

The fascist and religious nuts will take over in what the right will call 'the rule of law' ...they will do it through the courts. The federalist society should be called the anti-federalist society because they represent, in essence, the people who LOST in the debate over the constitution.

Moon is not the only influence but he is the main influence on the conservative movement today. When most people start in on Bill Clinton, I know much of their beliefs, whether they know it or not were created by The Clinton Chronicles. The completely discredited piece of unsubstantiated propaganda sold hundreds of thousands of copies and was shown across the country in church basements. Millions deceived. It is the basis for much of the hate and false information about Clinton. (and no I don't think Clinton was perfect, that is a standard which only applies to democrats... Lord knows, if the right would just once think about what they would do if the evil Bush and their own movement was put to the to the same standard they would implode.)

Tell me, if the democrats took money from Moon worked with and honored him, what would the hypocrites on the right say to that? The right is eaten up with deceitful fascists and religious lunatics and Moon has funded and nurtured them. BTW, there are those who believe that the Clinton Chronicles was hawked by Falwell AFTER he flew to SK and cut the deal in which Moon would bail his deceitful butt out. Do you not think that Moon is getting something for his billions. I refuse to believe you are that naive.

Moon has empowered this. I repeat, the election for president in 2000 was razor thin, it would not have been if it were not for Moon's billions and influence driving this country right for the last two decades. Bush would NOT be president without Moon. That is a fact, So when you are looking for what he has gotten for his 'investment' you can start by looking at the presidency. If you are looking for proof that Moon whispered in Bush's ear what he wanted him to do you are missing the way the politics of influence works.

I do find it troubling your attitude that since you don't see anything overt, that somehow this is OK because the left has some bad characters. The left does not have people who openly admit they want to subvert the constitution in places of honor and power in their party. I know Moon and the propaganda the country has been fed makes you think that. Most of the rights belief system is tainted with Moon BS. Bush just named Moon's 'long time operative' to head VISTA.

Do you think Moon should be allowed to use the conservative movement to tip the balance of power in America? That is what he has done. While his paper criticized the left for not giving blind allegiance to star wars to protect us from 'rogue nations' like North Korea, Moon is funding NK. Do you find that a bit odd? Do you find it a bit hypocritical of the right?

You may be all for Star Wars, but do you think Moon should be the one who decides these things in our nation?

Lt. Gen. Daniel O. Graham who served on the advisory board of Moon's political arm CAUSA, went to Moon and asked for his help in getting the country to piss BILLIONS away on that. I am not arguing the merits of that, but I will say I don't buy a lot of the BS the right claims about the program. Anyway, Graham told Moon that people in the Reagan administration DID NOT support Start Wars and asked for "father's help". As Moon put it "Father gave his support and Reagan announced it as policy." Moon's organization produced a propaganda film at the cost of a couple hundred thousand and he used his paper to editorialize on the subject and the country wasted.

Graham admitted to this before he died. He said that ONLY the moon organization could have put the program together. Graham was an advisor to Reagan, do you want military advisor to the president going to Moon to influence decisions of this kind? Do you find it odd that he would even think that this is the way to manipulate the country? That he knew Moon had this kind of influence and power?

What would the hypocrites on the right say about this if the shoe were on the other foot. You know, if Barry Goldwater's movement had taken this country right it would be one thing, but this country is conservative because of years of deceit. Much of that and the money to do it is based in the Moon organization.

here be sure you read these, it may give you a better understanding of how this works.

The third article here tell about Moon and NK.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon.html

this has some of the info about Graham and tells of the early days of Moon's influence on the right.
http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/revmoon.shtml

If the democrats did this Rush and Savage wouldn't let you hear anything else for a year. The hypocritical pod people would be disgusted and screaming for someone's head. What a bunch of hypocrites.

hey, Here ya go, he got a national holiday in his honor, did you know we had a national holiday promoted by Moon and the right in essence to honor Moon? Do a search on "Parents Day Moonies"

Yep, Trent Lott on the floor of the senate proposed "True Parents Day," after the name was changed to "Parents Day" it slid through and was signed into law. Most people didn't know what it was, but the people who pushed it did.
http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/aasi/aasi0252.htm

James, you can pick at this, take just parts, you can do like the moonies and say, hey the Catholics did this and that. You can say, "Oh but there was a democrat that did this" or that, you can try and compartmentalize this to rationalize it but eventually you have to look at the BIG picture and it isn't pretty.

this might help you understand a little better how this group operates.
Check out question #40 if you want to read something interesting.
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/moonies.txt

It's kind of like this, had the conservative movement been built by Americans for Americans, say Goldwater was successful and not had to go to Moon for strength, deceit and power... I would say well, let's pack up and go elsewhere. But no this is a foreign influence of astounding proportions.

Question, you were obviously not familiar with this, do you find that at all odd? Do you think any of this deserves to be discussed openly so the American public will understand who is putting the right in power? Do you think the American public deserves to be informed?

The right does NOT. The fact that they are willing to work with and honor this group says VOLUMES about who the right is and what their character is. Their patriotism is a fraud it is in fact, nationalism.

Can you name me one person on the left, who is a cult leader, says he is the messiah and INTENDS for his group to control the world, name one that the democrats are working with and honoring? That is the kind of rationalization only nyguy and the completely trained can do.

You have to look at the big picture, picking little points to argue doesn't get it. I know the right is trained to believe everything is black and white but the real world isn't that way.

Why don't the republicans work to remove this influence in their party? Instead they honor it.

Frankly Jon, IMHO, it is too late. The permanent damage has been done, I just wish the country understood who is driving the bus and who the right put behind the wheel.


NYGuy - 6/22/2003

Terry McAuliff, Chairman of the DNC delivered the Democrats negative, bankrupt message on the CBS Morning Show this morning. During an approximately 20 minute discussion McAuliff was unable to say anything positive and failed to articulate any new ideas except those that were increasing more negative than before.

Base on the the type of analysis presented by Krugman and Dean one could reason that "if", "a big if, the leader of the DNC has no ideas and only critizes this this country then one could conclude that the Democrats "Hate America."

Meanwhile Dean was on NBC apologizing for the many misrepresentation statements that he made. He said when I make a mistake I apologize. He was also questioned on his Vietnam deferment after which he went skiing for 80 day on some difficult bumpy mountains. Like McAuliff he had nothing positive to add, and althoug he says he made a lot of mistakes he is willing to apologize. Do we want to turn the world over to another apoligist.

Look, if you want to take down this country, which many on this board want to do, get out the vote for the Democrats. That is if you favor a party with no positive ideas, no programs and no lealders, but are stand up guy who aren't afraid to apoligize.


J. Kent McGaughy - 6/22/2003


I absolutely agree that the current Bush administration has proven to be the most destructive, reckless, irresponsible, and arrogant in American history. I am amazed and appalled at how quickly this administration has turned back the clock to the late nineteenth century by its ongoing, systematic dismantling of the New Deal programs, as well as its dismissal of crafted military and diplomatic alliances that have developed over the past sixty years; and I am thoroughly disgusted by the fact that the administration has gone to such extremes with such a rousing group of cheerleaders every step of the way.

Although previous presidents have made misleading comments as well as outright lies that resulted in military action (Polk and "American blood has been spilled on American soil" prior to the U.S.-Mexican War in the 1840s; LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin incident), the current Bush administration shamelessly lies on all fronts, on all policies both domestic and foreign. Therein lies the difference.

The initial post on HNN that this thread relates to asks the question whether or not Bush's blatantly misleading remarks about the threat Iraq posed to the United States represents a scandal worse than Watergate. To my mind, they are interconnected to such a degree that they are indistinguishable from each other.

One of the fundamental causes of the Watergate scandal was Nixon's inability, his outright refusal to trust the American public and his paranoia that only he and his circle were suited to conduct affairs of state. In the minds of Nixon and his cronies, this justified all that they did in respect to the wiretapping, breaking and entering, enemies list, etc. As we all know, it failed, Nixon resigned. From this the lesson learned was not to trust the public, but rather to simply engage them in a series of lies and distortions to the point at which truth is indistinguishable from fiction. The current mess in Iraq simply illustrates how this has come to fruition.

Following Nixon's resignation, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., coined the description "the imperial president" and the implication was that Nixon's resignation signaled its end. That is clearly proving not to be the case. The current administration has gone farther than any previous adiministration toward isolating the presidency from public scrutiny--not only in respect to current policy (Cheney's energy task force), but also past adminstrations by sealing records; it has gone farther in expressing its willingness to dispose of civil liberties via the Patriot Act and its possible sequel, Patriot II; it has gone farther toward co-opting Congress to the point that Republicans in Congress are nothing but the administration's lap dog--essentially eradicating the role Congress is supposed to play as a check on executive power.

For over a decade now Watergate apologists have been reviving the characterization that the break-in that caused such a flap was nothing more than a "third-rate burglary," a view that totally dismisses the constitutional issues involved. What is often not appreciated is how similar trends were prevalent in the Iran-Contra fiasco of the late 1980s, and it continues still today.

I do not know how much play Texas-related stories get beyond our state's borders, but the disturbing scenarios are still developing. Tom DeLay has redrawn Texas House districts and has created 5-7 new House districts that will be solidly Republican. Toward this end, he has diluted urban districts (where the Democrats have proven most durable in the state) by dividing them with rural areas--a move that will, if successful, significantly strengthen the GOP's hold on the House of Representatives in the 2004 elections. Press stories have revealed Karl Rove's fingerprints all over DeLay's plan. I understand, based on a report in the Sunday newspaper, that a similar action is occurring in another state. Rove is spearheading that effort as well. To a certain extent, the debate over whether or not Bush lied about Iraq's threat to the United States or the viability of Iraq's weapons program is a sideshow in comparison to these other matters.

In May, when DeLay's redistricting plan was first presented to the state legislature, 55 Democrats fled the state to Oklahoma thus denying the legislature a quorum and effectively killing the measure. Once the Democrats were discovered missing, DeLay and state Republicans called in the the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Aviation Administration to track them down; once they were found in Oklahoma, the FBI was called to see if they had jurisdiction to arrest the Democrats and bring them back to Austin. The Democrats succeeded in May using legitimate parliamentary tactics, but apparently to no avail because Governor Rick Perry has called a special session to consider DeLay's redistricting plan for June 30. If this manuevering succeeds, then whatever changes may occur in the 2004 congressional elections in other parts of the nation are moot. Which is exactly what Delay and Rove have in mind.

The reason for this digression is to illustrate the sickened state of American democracy. Put the current events in Texas in context with the manner in which thousands of voters were systematically disenfranchised in Florida prior to the 2000 election, it becomes increasingly apparent that our democracy, our constitutional system of government is rapidly becoming nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The election of the president has become little more than a game; stack up Texas and Florida together, add a few reliable southern and far western states, mix in Ohio and Pennsylvania--there's your recipe for victory. Forget California, New York, and all the rest, you don't need 'em.

I share John Murrin's lament regarding the absense of serious discussion about not only what the current administration is doing, but also how its enacting policies that will hamstring the nation for at least a generation. The problem is, however, that those, like me, who read Murrin's post and respond, will most likely be preaching to the choir, and few constructive changes will occur as a result.

Well, cheers, here's to tilting at windmills.

J. Kent McGaughy


James Thornton - 6/22/2003

You make serious allegations concerning the campaign finances and undue influence of Presidents Reagan, Bush 41 and 43. While there is little doubt that those donations are made either by Moon himself or by his organizations acting on his behalf I don't see where influence has been exchanged for money. If anything Moon was a rabid anti-Communist who was just another Cold War pawn. Sure he owns the Washington Times, but is that paper anywhere as effective or credible as the Wall Street Journal, which also has a Conservative editorial view or the Liberal New York Times? Moon may be pumping all of his money into these Right Wing organizations but he doesn't get much in return except for an invite to an occasional luncheon. You do an excellent job of exposing Moon for the religious Charlatan he is, but thus far you have failed to convince me that he controls the agenda of the Republican Party. I lament the control the Religious Right (which isn't very Christian) has over the party, but President Bush has tried to moderate the Party's Platform and has compromised with the Dems on a plethora of issues to include education, taxes, and defense. The only area in which I strongly disagree with the President is on the environment and the diplomatic campaign to garner international support for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

President Bush was elected through one of our closest elections in our history. A lot of the people posting on this forum are clearly his political enemies. I believe they would be better served focusing on the election of 04 instead of 2000.

A final thought, just as the GOP has been hijacked by a vocal interest group in the Religious Right so has the Democratic Party been commandeered by extreme leftist Liberals who are just as distasteful. Both groups do more harm than good.


Cavaglione - 6/22/2003

You remind me of the blind leading the blind, Brett dear....


NYGuy - 6/22/2003

Don William’s attempt to discuss the deficit was basically meaningless and very similar to my story of Babe Ruth’s strikeouts. Don only produced a bunch of numbers but did not benchmark, nor frame them for further analysis. As any one who has analyzed economic data knows the very minimum effort one should use is to analyze Debt as a percentage of the economy such as GDP or GNP. Then he has to forecast what percentage debt will be of the economy over the next few years, and how these percentages compare with historical values.

As for Keynes I may not have made myself clear. I only mentioned his name once when I suggested that Don might want to understand deficit spending and the economy since Keynes was a pioneer in this field, and thought he should start with his theories.

Keynes ideas were popularize after WWII by the Harvard economists and Reich and many other economists still use his ideas. Obviously the theory was not perfect and others have build on it over the past 50 years. We also have other economic theories such as the Chicago School as well as one in which wealth should be redistribution. This latter one, however, is a bankrupt theory, which has failed miserably, and there is no need to discuss it here, even though many historians and others still believe it.

Jerry cites the Chicago School and Friedman’s Neo-Classical Theory, which deals primarily with controlling the money supply to control inflation as well as his ideas on the Philip’s Curve and limited government intervention since the economy will tend to full employment. This does not contradict anything I said, or impact or affect the weakness of Don’s post.

Reich, from a Keynesian point of view has no problems with debt levels and deficits and writes:

“Yet not until the U.S. entered World War II did F.D.R. try Keynes' idea on a scale necessary to pull the nation out of the doldrums--and Roosevelt, of course, had little choice. The big surprise was just how productive America could be when given the chance. Between 1939 and 1944 (the peak of wartime production), the nation's output almost doubled, and unemployment plummeted--from more than 17% to just over 1%.”

Do you or Don know what the percentage debt was to our economy in 1944 as compared to what the projected numbers are for the deficits over the next five years? Until Don produces this information he cannot come to a meaningful economic conclusion.

Don and you believe that it is extremely unlikely that enough growth could occur to make up the increased burden of debt Bush has added. How do you come to this conclusion without showing what your projections for economic growth are. What about Reich’s comments of how the nation’s output almost doubled from 1939 to 1944 following a period of high debt levels?

As for tax cuts stimulating the economy Reich quotes tax cuts during Johnson’s administration, which stimulated the economy, and others have cited the benefits on the economy of Kennedy’s tax cut.

But, we must look forward and GW is doing a great job of pulling us out of the recession Clinton failed to prevent and dumped into his lap two months after he took office. Six months later GW had to deal with 9/11, which put the U. S. in a state of war. During wartime deficits do increase but no one is expecting our deficits to reach the same percentage of our economy as they did in WWII.

A very important factor in our bottoming out is GW’s leadership which has restored the confidence of investors and the American people, and enabled the stock market to rise sharply this year. This has greatly increased the “wealth effect” which is another important stimulant for economic growth and as we discussed tax cuts is a further economic stimulant.

Thus I believe the economy is now bottoming out and we are at the beginning of a major economic boom.

In conclusion, because of poor analysis, Don Williams posting of debt levels,in my opinion, was meaningless and has not added anything to this discussion.


kat - 6/22/2003

It might be ok to go to war to enforce a treaty or a United Nations resolution, but when the United Nations itself did not sanction the enforcement, then where is the authority?


Dale Honeycutt - 6/22/2003

Bush's lies may be second to the deaths created by Reagan and Bush in Iran Contra. Iran probably still have some of these armaments. They may still kill more Americans.

Shreading documents in thye basement of the White House. Nothing like running a shadow government in violation to US law to keep a country free.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/022301a.html
The freewheeling Reagan-Bush foreign policy led to other secret compromises with past and present U.S. adversaries. In the early 1980s, the Reagan-Bush administration secretly permitted the shipment of U.S. military equipment to the radical Islamic government of Iran through Israel.

"It was clear to me after my conversations with people on high that indeed we had agreed that the Israelis could transship to Iran some American-origin military equipment," said Nicholas Veliotes, the Reagan administration's assistant secretary of state for the Middle East. [See Robert Parry's book, Trick or Treason.]

Those early transactions set the stage for the expanded Iran-contra shipments of U.S. missiles to Iran in 1985-86, even as President Reagan vowed that he would never compromise with terrorists such as the Iranian-backed kidnappers of Americans in Beirut, Lebanon.

On June 18, 1985, for instance, Reagan said, “Let me further make it plain to the assassins in Beirut and their accomplices, wherever they may be, that America will never make concessions to terrorists – to do so would only invite more terrorism – nor will we ask nor pressure any other government to do so. Once we head down that path there would be no end to it, no end to the suffering of innocent people, no end to the bloody ransom all civilized nations must pay.”

Again, the tough talk contrasted with the underlying reality in which Reagan authorized the shipments of U.S. anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Iran first through Israel and later through the CIA. In 1986, at the height of these shipments, Pentagon officials were alarmed the diversion of HAWK anti-aircraft missile parts into this secret Iran arms pipeline left U.S. forces in Europe vulnerable to air attack if war had broken out with the Soviet Union.

See also:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/crack.html

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0343224&mode=thread&tid=5


Corevan - 6/22/2003

There you go again Don referencing the likes of Scott Ritter who, like many Democrats, declared just as strongly that there were WMD in Iraqi when Bubba Jefferson Clinton was in office, so where is their credibility now?

Tell me are you one of those people who thought that 12 years of UN inspections was not enough, but now expect the US to find these WMD in less than 2 months? After our delays to give the UN one last chance to find these weapoms gave Saddam’s regime almost 1 year to hide them?

If you love American as much as you say you do you need to really think out the things you say, I am beginning to wonder where your loyalties really lie.


Corevan - 6/22/2003


There you go again Don siting the likes of Scott Riter, who, like many Democrates declared just as stromgl;y that there were WMD in Irqi, so where is thier crediability now?


Bush Moon 2004 - 6/21/2003

Nice to see your limbaughtomy was successful.

The investigation was done in 70's (if you'd read you'd know that) the Reagan Bush administration with the goal of working with him, mainlined him into society. Tim LaHaye, the rapturist, organized preachers to protest when Moon was jailed in 82. Don't get all excited, the Reagan administation tried to stop the case, the justice department in NY stood against Reagan and Bush on this one. It is all documented here;
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon.html

Why didn't you reply to Hepatitus? You know, where s/he called you a blowhard who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. Here's the link if you lost it.
http://hnn.us/comments/14008.html

===Thanks to GW the world now has greater respect for the U. S. once again.---

If you continue to look at the world through Rush/fox/Savage tainted glasses you will NEVER see the real world. The majority of the world thinks Bush is a dry drunk cowboy and a danger to the world. They can NEVER trust our country's word again, thanks to chimppageddan.

hahaha He has to hide when he goes overseas. Now, Clinton EVERYONE in the thinking world knows is loved by the world. Did you know Clinton's approval ratings were 76% the day he was impeached by the decietful right wing fascists. It was the religious rights first attempt at coup in america. They got it on Dec 12, 2000. Look at the world now, thanks George and the fundies. There are still pockets of respect for the country but not Bush. We are not anywhere close to the respect we had before the evil one took over.

on the right, click on 'watch the programme' learn what people who don't let rush do their think believe. hahahahahahahaha

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/wtwta/default.stm

now go point at Clinton's zipper, arf, arf, arf, arf.

Seriously, you are Karl Roves' nine year old aren't you?


NYGuy - 6/21/2003

Don,

We are back to the Babe Ruth story once again.

He struck out so many times, how could he be considered a good baseball player and put in the Hall of Fame.

You sight four people who have stuck out and now want us to chase GW out of the Hall of Fame as one of the greatest leaders to go down in history.

Wow. What strange reasoning.


NYGuy - 6/21/2003

Wow,

A 1999 article and you told us that congress had already done a study on this group earlier.

Another example that Clinton did nothing about this threat to America just like he did nothing about Bin Laden.

Thanks Bush/Moon 2004 for exposing more corruption in the Clinton Adminstration.

Aside from Monica, what was he doing to protect this country. No I don't want to hear about the aspirin factor in one of the poorest countries in the world. No wonder the rest of the world think we are bullies.

Thanks to GW the world now has greater respect for the U. S. once again.


Buah Moon 2004 - 6/21/2003

"You can judge the character of a man by the company he keeps." GW Bush

"All these people should know better. My daughter would tell me over and over how in their recruiting films they would show Moon with Bush to impress young people. They use the films of Moon and Bush and other celebrities to reassure parents that it is okay that their children are on the streets selling flowers 18 hours a day." (Washington Post, July 30, 1996)
---

"It dates back at least to the start of the Reagan-Bush era -- when Moon was a VIP guest at the first Reagan-Bush inauguration. . ."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon1.html
--

Quotes of Mr. Moon's, the man who made it happen for the conservative movement, the man without whose billions... Bush would NOT be president. Something to be prousd of if you are a republican. I guess cause this is the guy who has been leading them, whether they know it or admit it, he is the one who made it happen for them.

"Since God has been carrying on His dispensation through the Christian church, He and we are responsible to convey this message to the Christians first. Until our mission with the Christian church is over, we must quote the Bible and use it to explain the Divine Principle. After we receive the inheritance of the Christian church, we will be free to teach without the Bible." (Syung Myung Moon, The Master Speaks Chapter 7 1965)
--
Quotes from: http://www.letusreason.org/moon4.htm
“Within this world there is no individual whom God loves more than Reverend Moon. There is no one else who knows God more than Reverend Moon.” (Unification News, June 1996, p. 3).

“God is now throwing Christianity away and is now establishing a new religion, and this new religion is the Unification Church.”

"The time has come when the whole world must be concerned about me. From now on, American Christianity must follow me." (Today's World, Nov. 93, p.5)

"...I know the established Christian theology....I know the enemy, but the enemy doesn't know me. Thus the enemy has already lost the war..." (Today's World, Feb 95, p. 14)

---

These are from Time Magazine June 14, 1976. Pg. 49 Under the Title "The Secret Sayings of Master Moon"

quoting Time

Although Sun Myung Moon sometimes appears to be a Christian evangelist, he is in actuality the megalomaniacal "messiah" of the new religion. Excerpts from speeches that "Master" Moon has given to disciples in the inner sanctum of his cult:

"He (God) is living in me and I am the incarnation of himself. The whole world is in my hand, and I will conquer and subjugate the world."

"God is now throwing Christianity away and is now establishing a new religion, and this new religion is the Unification Church. All the Christians of the world are destined to be absorbed by our movement."

"There have been saints, prophets, many religious leaders…in past human history….Master here is more than any of those people and greater than Jesus himself."

"When you join the effort with me, you can do everything in utter obedience to me. Because what I am doing is not at random but what I do is at God’s command.

There is no complaint, objection against anything being done here until we will have established the Kingdom of God on earth up until the very end! There can never be any complaint!

I want to have new members under me who will be willing to obey me even though they may have to disobey their own parents and the Presidents of their own nations."

"Once our movement arouses the interest of the people in a nation, through mass media it will spread all throughout the world… So, we are going to focus our attention on one nation from where to reach the world. For that purpose I chose the U.S."


NYGuy - 6/21/2003

Kay,

You probably don't need any protection so I can understand your point.

However, it is a little selfish since over 3,000 people from all over the world were killed in NYC. And of course others died in Washingtion and a plane crash in PA.

Anyway, I hope you remain safe and cloistered.


Don Williams - 6/21/2003

1) I think the quickest way to make peace in the Middle East is to
go to Arafat and explain that the way to REALLY screw Sharon and
Likud is for the Palestinians to convert to Judism
so that Arafat can show up on Sharon's doorstep with 4 million bankrupt Jews demanding the right of return, financial assistance in resettlement from the Israeli government, and the right to vote in the next election.

Or as Bill Gates would say, "Embrace and extend".

That would really shtup that shmuck Sharon in the tokhes, wouldn't it?

I should have been a rabbi.


Don Williams - 6/21/2003

Where are the nukes?

Scott Ritter was a weapons inspector in Iraq--were you? See his report -- http://www.contextbooks.com/iraqbook/about.htm

Bob Graham, Nancy Pelosi, and Diane Feinstein were on Congress's Intelligence Commitees -- were you? They said before the war that they knew of no imminent threat to the US posed by Iraq.





Kay of Washougal - 6/21/2003

So, Bush isn't selfish? He's interested only in protecting the American people? I for one believe Bush is so self-centered and so self-protective that he can't conceive anyone else could have a legitimate viewpoint different from his own. He's concerned about protecting only those Americans who totally agree with him & with his equally mad administration.


Bush/Moon - 6/21/2003

..this is where all those billions which were spent to take us to right wing fascist hell came from...yes this where the money came from to deceive the country. This where the money came from to pay Bush Sr.... This is where the money came from to finance the moonie times efforts to manipulate the politics in our country. This where the money came from to finance the right wing think tanks and fake 'grass roots' organizations to fool and deceive the american public. This is where the money came from that put president death in power. This is where the money came from to turn NYguy into a mushheaded clinton hating robot whose life comes from being told what to think by religious lunatics and fascists. This where the billions came from to turn the republican party into the party of freaks.

IN short when clearly and honestly defined the country rejects conservitive the vision for america in most every case, this is where the money came from to deceive them.

http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/moonies/moonies_in_Japan.htm


here's currency conversion tool, the money amounts become mind boggling...Moon himself admitted losing a billion on the Washington Times several years ago. The republican party is made up of a bunch of frauds who will sell their souls for their theocratic fascist power:

http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic


James Thornton - 6/21/2003

I am repulsed by Moon and his cult, and I can't fathom why the Republican establishment would have anything to do with it other than financial contributions. It is unclear who plays the puppet and who is the master. I am leaning towards the GOP pulling Moon's strings by way of taking his check to the bank in return for an invite to official GOP functions for credibility.

I am an Independent and I back righteous men on both sides of the aisle. Lieberman certainly seems to be a pious man and just as capable of Bush as prosecuting the GWOT. If he can convince me that his economic and social policies are sound, I could easily vote envision casting a vote for him. I voted for Clinton in '92 and '96, but Bush in 2000.

It isn't that Republicans are more religious, but are more vocal about it. I strongly disagree with the Evangelicals like Hill, Falwell, Robertson, and just about every TV Preacher who make tremendous profits off of Jesus. A more moderate interest group needs to be formed to counter the influence of the Christian Coalition and similar groups that have hijacked the party.

Scorning religion will and the faithful will only make one appear to be radical and anti-american given that our civilization is founded upon Judaeo-Christian values.


J. Kent McGaughy - 6/21/2003


I absolutely agree that the current Bush administration has proven to be the most destructive, reckless, irresponsible, and arrogant in American history. I am amazed and appalled at how quickly this administration has turned back the clock to the late nineteenth century by its ongoing, systematic dismantling of the New Deal programs, as well as its dismissal of crafted military and diplomatic alliances that have developed over the past sixty years; and I am thoroughly disgusted by the fact that the administration has gone to such extremes with such a rousing group of cheerleaders every step of the way.

The initial post on HNN that this thread relates to asks the question whether or not Bush's blatantly misleading remarks about the threat Iraq posed to the United States is worse than Watergate. To my mind, they are interconnected to such a degree that they are indistinguishable from each other.

One of the fundamental causes of the Watergate scandal was Nixon's inability (outright refusal?) to trust the American public and his paranoia that only he and his circle were suited to conduct affairs of state. In the minds of Nixon and his cronies, this justified all that they did in respect to the wiretapping, breaking and entering, enemies list, etc. As we all know, it failed, Nixon resigned. From this the lesson learned was not to trust the public, but rather to simply engage them in a series of lies and distortions to the point at which truth is indistinguishable from fiction. The current mess in Iraq simply illustrates how this has come to fruition.

Following Nixon's resignation, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., coined the description "the imperial president"; the implication was that with Nixon's resignation signaled its end. That is clearly proving not to be the case. The current administration has gone farther than any previous adiministration toward isolating the presidency from public scrutiny--not only in respect to current policy (Cheney's energy task force), but also past adminstrations by sealing records; it has gone farther in expressing its willingness to dispose of civil liberties via the Patriot Act and its possible sequel, Patriot II; it has gone farther toward co-opting Congress to the point that Republicans in Congress are nothing but the administration's lap dog--essentially eradicating the role Congress is supposed to play as a check on executive power.

For over a decade now Watergate apologists have been reviving the characterization that the break-in that caused such a flap was nothing more than a "third-rate burglary," a view that totally dismisses the constitutional involved. What is often not appreciated is how similar trends were prevalent in the Iran-Contra fiasco of the late 1980s, and it continues still today.

I do not know how much play Texas-related stories get beyond our state's borders, but the disturbing scenarios are still developing. Tom DeLay has redrawn Texas House districts and has created 5-7 new House districts that will be solidly Republican. Toward this end, he has diluted urban districts (were the Democrats have proven most durable in the state) by dividing them with rural areas--a move that will, if successful, significantly strengthen the GOPs hold on the House of Representatives in the 2004 elections. Press stories have revealed Karl Rove's fingerprints all over DeLay's plan.

In May, when DeLay's redistricting plan was first presented to the state legislature, 55 Democrats fled the state to Oklahoma thus denying the legislature a quorum and effectively killing the measure. Once the Democrats were discovered missing, DeLay and state Republicans called in the the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Aviation Administration to track them down; once they were found in Oklahoma, the FBI was called to see if they had jurisdiction to arrest the Democrats and bring them back to Austin. The Democrats succeeded in May using legitimate parliamentary tactics, but apparently to no avail because Governor Rick Perry has called a special session to consider DeLay's redistricting plan for June 30. If this manuevering succeeds, then whatever changes may occur in the 2004 congressional elections in other parts of the nation are moot. Which is exactly what Delay and Rove have in mind.

The reason for this apparent digression is to illustrate the sickened state of American democracy. Put the current events in Texas in context with the manner in which thousands of voters were disenfranchised in Florida prior to the 2000 election, it becomes increasingly apparent that our democracy, our constitutional system of government is rapidly becoming nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The election of the president has become little more than a game; stack up Texas and Florida together, add a few reliable southern and far western states, mix in Ohio and Pennsylvania--there's your recipe for victory. Forget California, New York, and all the rest, you don't need 'em.

I share John Murrin's lament regarding the absense of serious discussion about not only what the current administration is doing, but also how its enacting policies that will hamstring the nation for at least a generation. The problem is, however, that those, like me, who read Murrin's post and respond, will most likely be preaching to the choir, and few constructive changes will occur as a result.

Well, cheers, here's to tilting at windmills.

J. Kent McGaughy


NYGuy - 6/21/2003

Don,

There you go again with your if statements just like Krugman and Dean who went to prison for watergate. You have provided no proof that GW is wrong, although you have an opinion on it.

Like Krugman and Dean you make a leap of fantasy into a lot of things that could happen. For political hacks there favorite scenarios are "Quaqmire" and "Watergate". It get the base all excited.

Since you agree with "if" statements would you agree that, "If pigs could fly, transportation costs could be lower and pork chops would be cheaper." Can't deny that.


Don Williams - 6/21/2003

You think that if you keep ranting long enough, people will forget
the main points:

1) Bush claimed Iraq was developing weapons that would threaten the US. Ordinary bio (anthrax) and chemical weapons wouldn't qualify -- the only valid threats would be nukes or a new form of bio.

2) If such existed, Bush should have been able to provide evidence of such by now.

3) He has not done so -- which means that he attacked a sovereign nation contrary to international law. He has made the US into a rogue state --bent on imperialist conquest. He has shown that the humane values the US has voiced in the past were only two-faced deceit --meant to hide aggression behind a veil of hypocrisy.

4) In other words, Bush has deeply dishonored the United States and has put the people of this country in grave danger. I have already shown how Bush provoked the Sept 11 attack and then lied about it. But Russia, China, and western Europe are a far greater danger than Bin Laden.

The other nuclear armed states will not submit to being conquered by Bush. The logical response is to prepare and execute a preemptive strike. When that occurs, I hope the right wing fanatics will spare us their hypocritical "why do they hate us?"
righteous.

Bush and people like you are a far greater threat to the citizens of this country than Bin Laden.


NYGuy - 6/21/2003

Bush/Moon 2004,

You are catching on.

"Finally it is obvious that Republicans are more religious than the Democrats."

Not only that. but they also have more integrity, decency and compassion. That is why the American people trust GW and like hime so much.

PS: The tone of your last post changed dramatically. Does this mean you don't like me any more.


NYGuy - 6/21/2003

Tom,
You are quite right these are two separate issues. Nixon was selfish and trying to protect himself, GW is doing his job as the President and as a leader in protecting the American people.

Meanwhile, Former White House counsel John W. Dean III was charged with obstruction of justice and spent four months in prison for his role in the Watergate cover-up. Klugman is acting like a political hack and with no evidence proceeds to try to discredit a decent American President.

To compare one to the other is just nonsense and is only being raised because the Democrats have no ideas, no programs and no leaders, except Bill and Hill.


NYGuy - 6/21/2003

j horse,

You said:

I would definitely agree with Krugman that if it can be proved that Bush knowingly lied about the WMD, this would be one of the worse scandals in US history.

Would you also agree that, "If pigs had wings they could fly and this would cut down on transportion costs and reduce the price of pork chops?"


O. J. Homer - 6/21/2003


If pitiful irrelevant insults were worth a penny each, "Homer" would be a millionaire.


Tom Toscana - 6/21/2003


I'm not going to defend Zinn, but it seems to me he is no more a
genuine historian than Daniel Pines or Judith Klinghoffer. The difference is that Zinn's non-objective preaching isn't plastered on this so-called History website week after week. If you want to criticize revisionst historians, you need to start by finding a real historian. Then figure out if she of he is a revisionist. Big job. Better stay away from this propaganda forum here or you'll never manage.



Tom - 6/21/2003

As to the question if Bush's deception about the reason for war with Iraq is worse than Watergate---my answer would be another question: Quite simply:
"How many people died as a direct result of Watergate, as compared to the Iraq war?" And the killing goes on, on both sides. There is no comparison.


j horse - 6/20/2003

If this story is true, what I would conclude is that our President is either ignorant or is willfully misrepresenting facts. The case about WMDs was weak to begin with, and with each passing day it just seems to get weaker.

By the way, I'm one of those people that thought that Saddam had WMDs. I just didn't believe that he had enough to be either a threat to his neighbors or to us. I think the fact that none were used during the war and our difficulty in finding them now seems to support the case. Regarding Bush, I am reminded of Barbara Tuchman's excellent book The March of Folly where leaders follow a policy that is counterproductive even though there is a more rational alternative. In this case the rational alternative was to continue the UN weapons inspection.

Getting back to the subject, I would definitely agree with Krugman that if it can be proved that Bush knowingly lied about the WMD, this would be one of the worse scandals in US history.


V.A - 6/20/2003

From the Nation:

Americans were duped: Evidence of Administration manipulation and mendacity just keeps rolling in.

Ever since the tragedy of Sept. 11, the Bush Administration has relied on selective and distorted intelligence data to make the case for invading Iraq. But the truth will out, and the White House is now scrambling to explain away its mendacity.

On Sunday, Condoleezza Rice admitted that President Bush had used a forged document in his State of the Union speech to prove Iraq represented a nuclear threat: "We did not know at the time--maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency--but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was information that was mistaken."

United Nations inspectors, belatedly presented with the same document, realized within hours it was a crude forgery.

While this garbage and much else like it got rushed into the light, the Bush Administration protected its continuing lie about a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein by repressing the results of interrogations of captured top Al Qaeda leaders.

As Monday's New York Times reported, Al Qaeda honchos in separate interrogations told a consistent story a year ago: The terrorist group, and Osama bin Laden in particular, had shunned any connection with Hussein and his government.

In going to war, the Administration was unable to come up with a shred of verifiable evidence linking Hussein with Bin Laden. The closest it came was a purported meeting in Prague between an Al Qaeda member and an Iraqi diplomat, which has been fully repudiated by the Czech government.

Keeping secret any information that contradicted the pro-war line of the Administration allowed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to fabricate what he called a "bulletproof" connection between Al Qaeda and Hussein. We were expected to believe that our government had hard, definitive intelligence we couldn't be shown--just as we were told to trust that UN inspectors wouldn't be able to find all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in time to avert disaster.

Thus, with the pattern established, it was not surprising last week to read in the Los Angeles Times of a leaked report from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency--secret since its completion last September--that indicated the depth of our government's confusion as to the nature of the Iraq WMD threat.

The report stated that "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has--or will--establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities," according to US officials interviewed by the Times. Yet that very month, Rumsfeld told Congress that Hussein's "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons--including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas."

Did Rumsfeld know of the DIA report? If so, did he keep that information from the President? Or did he and Bush knowingly deceive the American people? And isn't that an impeachable offense?

Unfortunately, the President still hasn't learned his lesson.

Only last week, on his trip to Europe, he pointed to two mobile trailers the United States had seized in Iraq as proof of Iraq's threatening WMD program. Yet, as emerged over the weekend in newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic, Bush's claims rest on intelligence that is again unable to withstand scrutiny: Some leading weapons experts summoned by the Administration to make the case for the ominous trailers take issue with the Bush Administration's interpretation of their design and use.

On Saturday, the New York Times, which had originally hyped the trailer story based on official US sources, published a front-page report quoting experts who repudiated the Administration's claims.

One such expert went so far as to say the government's "white paper" on the labs "was a rushed job and looks political." Others questioned myriad technical claims and suppositions in the report that led to the government's conclusion that the trailers were germ labs that could be used to cook up anthrax or other bioweapons.

"It's not built and designed as a standard fermenter," one top US scientist told the New York Times. "Certainly, if you modify it enough you could use it. But that's true of any tin can."

On Sunday, the London Observer, citing British intelligence sources, reported that it "is increasingly likely that the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987."

The British Parliament is in an uproar, but so far the US Congress has failed to exercise its obligation to hold the executive branch accountable.


V.A - 6/20/2003

This is awesome. Thank you.


Bush/Moon 2004 - 6/20/2003

---
You're rich..

--Finally it is obvious that Republicans are more religious than the Democrats--

I know you don't think about what you write, Do you ever read what you write? Now argue some technical point and make it all ok. You are like ALL right wingers you have trained to believe you are the party of God, it makes all the evil you do OK. Cults do the same thing, btw.

We call you trained because you ad NOTHING to the debate, we can turn on Savage or Rush and hear the SAME bs. Trained means you are a typical pod person, when in doubt point at Clinton and hope it passes. Throw some mud and hope it sticks.
Now go point at Clinton's zipper...trained.

I get the biggest kick out of posters who brag about what they know. You remind me of callers to Phil Hendrie all self righteous trying to convince themselves that their belief system isn't full of it. They are the all powerful OZ. You are a chump for Bush, a chump.

Have you answered Hepetitus, s/he said you were full of it too. Keynes my butt.

Again I never NEVER expected you to understand or have the honesty to face this Moon stuff. You and are party are such trained hypocrites that won't happen. Hopefully some lurkers learned and will think about their country instead of THEIR PARTY and face it.

Sorry nyguy, but people like you who have given their critical thinking to others are the problem with this country and it isn't gonna change for the Bushbots soon.

So again, don't feel all like I am trying to convince you of anything, I have better sense than to waist that time, you're a hypocrite and you are happy being that way, keep telling yourself God is on your side, Bill Clinton did all bad to you and it will make it all OK. How is your savior Moon, today Mr. Know it all.

I am still laughing, Hepititus in a way called you a blowhard and a fraud and you didn't answer, why?


Elia Markell - 6/20/2003


Claiming to have "liberated Irq" is revisionist history?

Are you seriously suggesting it was not liberated?

Only someone who has NEVER experienced totalitarianism, even in the imagination, could indulge in the luxury of pretending to have doubts about this.

We ought to start handing out a Walter Duranty Useful Idiot Award each week on HHN for obtuse complicity in excusing every and any horror that cannot be attributed to the U.S.

Now, as the bird-brained nitpicking about WMD goes on, a new revolution is building in Iran. Once again, the left is AWOL, no interest at all, consummed as it is with hatred for Bush and his America, ignoring its historic duty to defend real struggles against real oppression. The Congo, Sudan, Chechnya, Iraq, now Iran -- all pale for the left before the thought that some intelligence about Saddam may have been exaggerated. Nero fiddling and fiddling.


V.A - 6/20/2003

This is awesome. Thank you.


Mr Haney - 6/20/2003

Somehow someway, Bush/Moon 2004 can't get his message to you. How typical- the truth must be stamped out so it doesn't interfere with your programming? Is that it? Here's his reply.

You're rich..


Mr Haney - 6/20/2003

Good on you! I'm certain that all the facts will check out for you but I do encourage you to put your mind at ease and do your own research. To me, it's truly sickening that the party that cats themselevs on high moral and religious grounds has sunch intricate and hidden dealings with an amoral and possibly deranged cult leader who's supported from abroad by un-reconstructed billionaire Japanese Bushido Fascists.

Just what is it they have in store for this country and why does Moon move so easily and powerfully in the circles of the Republican Party? We need to know the truth. This "under the radar" stuff is rank B.S.

Thanks and take comfort in knowing you're doing our Lord's work.


Bush/Moon 2004 - 6/20/2003


Bush/Moon 2004 - 6/20/2003


NYGuy - 6/20/2003

Bush/Moon,

You say: “You are a trained monkey.”

You betray yourself with this statement. It is the fall back comment made by you and your group when you have nothing to say. I have been called that several times when I have used the references given to refute the false arguments presented.

Truth is I am a trained analyst and merely follow your logic with the sources you use. In most cases the sources do not support the position put forward and contradicts the argument presented..

The other technique is to accuse me of statements I never made. For example you say:

“Your Rushbot pronoucemnet of HOW RELIGIOUS YOU ARE is sickening. It shows you for a small-minded person but uit is what you are trained to say. And your ranting and raving like you are an expert on Moon makes you out to be a fool. Do you sit here by your monitor and spout crap you know nothing about every day? Did you ever answer the post where the guy called you on pseudo-intelectual ranting on economics. Showed you to be full of it.”

Please show where I said, “HOW RELIGIOUS YOU ARE”. And stop shouting it does not make your point by raising your voice.

I am also trained in business and economics.

Your group has no positive ideas and just hate. Meanwhile, we have a leader in GW something you don’t have in the Democratic Party. It is the party of complainers.


J Simeon Narins - 6/20/2003

The earth was round was determined by Religious Nuts?

No, by scientists.

Wasn't it Aristotle who calculated the circumference of the Earth within a few hundred miles?

You want to believe a super-being in the sky will send your dead soul to heaven or hell? You want to believe that a cosmic bogeyman decides who is "chosen" and who isn't? You want to believe that, either Mohammed's son-in-law or the Mu'owaeeia is the correct line of "Popes?"

GO RIGHT AHEAD!

But you are an idiot, frittering away your time on nonsense, in any of those events.

Same with you Shinto-ists, Hindus, Buddhists (although at least they are over that whole God thing), Krishnits, Taoists, Confucians and Animists.

By the way, your God told me you were evil.


J Simeon Narins - 6/20/2003


Ya know, you are right. I was confused.

Plus, I think the comparisons with Mussolinni are more apt.

Mussolini was trying to eradiate the memory of the loss of honor Italy experienced in Ethiopia in 1898 (as Bush is embarrased by the US "loss", by his father, in Gulf War I).

Mussolini was 100% about protecting the wealth of the wealthy, and there is no doubt that ending the Estate Tax is the #1 way to do that (Berlusconi, and his neo-fascii allies, have also just repealed the Estate Tax in Italy).

Mussolini was the "toast" of the military, and the bane of intellectuals, who loathed his simple-minded thuggery.

One of the greatest American heroes, Smedley Darlington Butler, was passed over for becoming Commandant of the Marine Corps because, in 1933, he said Mussolini was the kind of guy who you had to watch out for, because of his belligerent talk.

Don't worry, Sir Fascist, no nation can stop American military might. As long as Bush keeps getting re-elected, we will have plenty more wars and recessions.

How about this one, Mr 100% Historical Accuracy...

NAME ONE NATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD THAT CLAIMED FOR ITSELF THE RIGHT TO PRE-EMPTIVELY STRIKE ITS NEIGHBORS?

I only found one, origin of the term "Police State," coincidentally.

http://narins.net/history-governments-second_reich

Smedley Butler, required reading for Fascist Idiots like YOU.

http://fas.org/man/smedley.htm

Quoting USSC case "Chaplinsky Vs New Hampshire"

"Damned Fascist" "God Damned Racketeer"


Bush/Moon2004 - 6/20/2003


Nyguy, not that I am a one note Larry or whatever, if I thought you didn't know Hank Aaron could hit home runs, I would tell you that. You need to study this. There are silver linings Moon is moving on the UN so we will all have to take a look at that one again. Moon did one of his wedding blessings at the UN.
Moon and the United Nations http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/analysis/1101moon.htm


Over the years Moon has been mainstreamed in a way by the right. There are democrats who have lent their names to him, but nothing like what the conservative movement has done. It really started when Reagan held up 'News World' for the cameras when he was elected in 80. It was a NY paper owned by Moon. Then Reagan and Bush gave TWT the OK and the floodgates opened and now we have ourselves a conservative movement following a train most are too short sighted to see where it most likely will lead. More horror, IMHO, but you just go on blaming Clinton's zipper for everything. You know the right is starting to appear cartoony when they do that. I noticed you have it bad. You should do something about that, it makes you look foolish, sad to see.

Anyway, I didn't figure from the start you would get this, but I did think some lurkers would find it of interest since it has a direct effect on their future liberty. Sorry, but knowing this information just puts a whole new view of self righteous conservatives yapping. It is just so hypocritical, it is nauseating to watch it. You do it, and it isn't very becoming. "Republicans are more religious" or whatever you say. You don't have any idea what you are talking about. I think GOD will take care of deciding who is religious or not, it isn't yours or a survey or Rush Limbaugh's job to besmirch Americans like that especially when you have your crazy uncle, Moon, in your closet. Makes you out to be hypocritical frauds. I heard Limbaugh the time he spent likening Tom Dacshle to Satan. It was sickening.

wake up, break out of the fog, regain your critical thinking, your country needs you.
I'll be moving on....

btw: this is a slow load, and some of the links in the footnotes go dead for a day or so sometimes, (I noticed the Freedom of Mind site is down now) so check back. Check out the audio at the bottom.
http://www.geocities.com/nomoonies/chronicles/a_moon_primer.html

there is so much more to this story...


Bush>moon 2004 - 6/20/2003

They'll tell you Bill Clinton's zipper did it and you fall in line. Did you know the lie about Clinton trashing AF1 first appeared where? OH I know the voice of Rev. Moon and the republican party, you know the paper which backed up have the things YOU believe Moon's paper the one which helped train you into being a chump.

here ya go...this one of those 'liberal' sources you aren't ALLOWED to believe. I got news for you nyguy, if you are waiting for FOX and Savage to tell you the truth you gonna have a long wait. It's not just his influence with Bush he has manipulated the whole country thanks to the conservatives giving him credibility by honoring his paper. The one which is gonna show us about God, according to moon.

From Frontline, Mr. Whelan worked for Scaife and has impeccable conservative credentials.

http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/moontranscript.shtml
Narrator: Moon sought to influence the American political agenda by pouring more than a billion dollars into media.

Warder: "Moon looked on the media as almost the nervous system for a global empire."

Narrator: In the 1970's, Michael Warder became one of the most important Americans in the Unification movement. Warder says he had close contact with Moon for six years.

Warder: "Moon was the brain, and the media are to be, or were to be, the communications vehicle for his body politic surrounding the globe."

...

Narrator: By 1984, despite his paper's growing influence, James Whelan was unhappy.

Whelan: "When we started the paper there was never any question that it would in any fashion project the views or the agenda of Sun Myung Moon or the Unification Church — all to the contrary. We said, 'Look, we are going to put a high wall in place. It is going to be a sturdy wall. And it will divide us from you.'"

Narrator: But Whelan's wall of editorial independence was often breached.

Whelan: "Moon himself gave direct instructions to the editors...Who in fact calls the shots? Ultimately Moon calls the shots....

Whelan (at press conference): "The Washington Times has become a Moonie newspaper."

.....



Narrator: De Borchgrave has consistently denied taking orders from Moon. But the man who ran the editorial pages under de Borchgrave tells a different story — William Cheshire.

Chesire: "I protested to de Borchgrave. I went up to his office when I saw this happening, I told him this was unethical, improper, unprofessional, and it ought to stop. Also, it was dumb."

Narrator: Cheshire and four others resigned after de Borchgrave ordered an aboutface on an editorial critical of the South Korean government.

Chesire: "I said, 'Arnaud, we have a problem.' He said, 'What's the problem?' I said. 'The problem is you've conferred with the owners of this newspaper, come back downstairs and demanded a reversal of editorial policy on their say so."

---
Good guy, check this out, your party's 'go to' guy, the guy who financed the conservative movements takeover of our government. Without him the election wouldn't have been close enough to steal, does that make you proud?

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon3.html
Yet, Moon also made clear that his longer-range goal was the destruction of the U.S. Constitution and America's democratic form of government. "History will make the position of Reverend Moon clear, and his enemies, the American population and government will bow down to him," Moon said, speaking of himself in the third person. "That is Father's tactic, the natural subjugation of the American government and population."


bush/moon 2004 - 6/20/2003

You are trained monkey. You obviously are trained as to what you can believe and what you can't. Look at you just digging if you find ONE democrat and a Million repubs who work with Moon your perverted sense on proprtion will tell it is OK. YOu are trained. The Bush/conservative/republican connections has been decades going. You RERALLY are trained to defend the LEADER aren't you. Your post is non sensical because it doesn't take into account the information.

Do you find it odd how you are trained that if they say something against Bush you cannot trust NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, NYT, WP, La Times..on and on they control what you allow in and they control what you do. You are a pawn. They spent billions training you.

You're flailing away. I can tell you I have read hundreds of articles on him, several books. It's the conservatives who have given him a home. You are the party of religious extremists. Your Rushbot pronoucemnet of HOW RELIGIOUS YOU ARE is sickening. It shows you for a small minded person but uit is what you are trained to say. And your ranting and raving like you are an expert on Moon makes you out to be a fool. Do you sit here by your monitor and spout crap you know nothing about every day? Did you ever answer the post where the guy called you on pseudo-intelectual ranting on economics. Showed you to be full of it.

so typical of conservatives. Listen, do yourself a a favor, wait for Rush to tell you how to handle this, I am looking forard to hearing him defend Moon. hahaha

This about when their were real republicans not theocratic fascist.
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special25/articles/0531goldwater2.html

here read this, Goldwater lost this fight, he lost BIGTIME.
http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/quotes/ffcc042fbd8c52708525698100716fcc
--

Real republicans saw it coming, but the theocratic fascist had there way and now the republican party is the party of freaks.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon3.html
At times, Moon's penetration of conservative ranks has raised red flags among Republicans. In 1983, the GOP's moderate Ripon Society charged that the New Right had entered "an alliance of expediency" with Moon's church. Ripon's chairman, Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, released a study which alleged that the College Republican National Committee "solicited and received" money from Moon's Unification Church in 1981. The study also accused Reed Irvine's Accuracy in Media of benefitting from low-cost or volunteer workers supplied by Moon.

Leach said the Unification Church has "infiltrated the New Right and the party it [the New Right] wants to control, the Republican Party, and infiltrated the media as well." Leach's news conference was broken up when then-college GOP leader Grover Norquist accused Leach of lying. (Norquist is now head of Americans for Tax Reform and a prominent ally of House Speaker Newt Gingrich.)
----

Jesus Christ NEVER did anything to deserve what consertives and fundementalism has done to his memory, how many millions have Falwell and Robertson kept from Christ?


Mr Haney - 6/20/2003

Look Look It took hom how many posts to trot out the dreaded and feared CLENIS (credit to ATRIOS)? Is three about right before he can't defend his limbaughtomy any longer and in frustration tosses out the CLENIS? More? Less?

Hootersville wants to know!


NYGuy - 6/20/2003

j horse,

You must be a journalist major where they teach you it takes two to make a trend. Therefore you concluded what?

Since this report is 4 days old can you cite some U. S. newspapers that carried the story, or did the U. S. news media refuse to run the story like they did with Susan Estridge when she wrote about the Clintons taking all the oxygen away from the Democratic candidates.


John Kipper - 6/20/2003

"To me, this is like the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Hitler (he claimed they had invaded)"

Hitler never claimed that the Czechs invaded Germany, he claimed that Bohemia was a historical part of Germany and received "permission" from the French and British governments to occupy the area. This was the Munich Pact that Chamberlain claimed would produce "peace in our time." OOOPS, didn't work.

The faked invasion excuse was in 1939, on the Polish/German border, which (with Stalin's approval)resulted in the invasion
of Poland and the start of World War II, European episode. If can't even report (or realize) these absolute, incontrovertible facts, how can any reasonable being take your rantings seriously? If it fit your arguement, would you have the sun rise in the west? And blame it on Bush?

I was raised on a working ranch in Central Washington, where I learned the difference between a mule and a jackass. A mule is a stubborn animal that well eventually get with the program. A jackass will gratefully accept the feed and care of his master and then bray at the moon in hapless protest against the indignity of actually earning his keep. I submit, sir that your arguement is more similar to the jackass than the mule.

By the way, the vast majority of the American public supported and still support the war. So much for your braying.




Don Williams - 6/20/2003

nt


Don Williams - 6/20/2003

as a "hack". I thought Krugman was an "economist" --one of those
magical authority figures NYGuy was citing earlier to avoid my facts about Bush's budget.


NYGuy - 6/20/2003


Don,

You said:

"I'm sure that Bush's lawyers can craft all kinds of sophistry to cast a veil of legality over his action -- but their arguments are still bullshit."

Your right, that is exactly what Clinton's lawyers did, and he as a former lawyer did it with Rich.


j horse - 6/20/2003

Here's a recent story by Peter Beaumont, Antony Barnett and Gaby Hinsliff in the Sunday June 15, 2003 edition of The Observer.

"An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist."

When will the misrepresentations end? Bush and Blair are beginning to have as much credibility as used car salesman.


Don Williams - 6/20/2003

You could replace "economist" with "bug eyed witch doctor" and it
wouldn't affect NYGuy's argument -- an appeal to a supposed undefined authority as a way of ducking inconvenient facts.

What if a banker borrowed $73,000 from you and in exchange gave you a note. Suppose, after five years had passed, you started wondering what happened to your money. Suppose you looked at the note and discovered that YOU, not the bank, was on the hook to pay back the $73,000 to yourself. Wouldn't you conclude that the banker was a crook -- a con artist??

Yet that is precisely what Bush is doing with our Trust Funds. The sums involved are huge and the facts inescapable. Bush makes the Enron accountants look like Christian saints. He's stealing $Trillions from the middle class and blue collar workers and giving it to the rich.

But NYGuy pretends that he still doesn't get my point.


NYGuy - 6/20/2003


Bush/Moon,

Nice try Johnny One Note, but I think you are off key.

Interesting article by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, (AUSCS) whose philosophy includes:

Advocates for separation of church and state in the U.S. Congress and state legislatures, working with lawmakers at all levels to help them understand the importance of respecting the separation of church and state.

Since the Democrats oppose religious people, AUSCS will naturally go after the Republicans and uses the typical news slanting techniques to tar them. Here is an interesting section from the report:

“With his (Moon) South American ventures floundering, Moon may believe that it’s time to take another shot at America – especially since a Religious Right ally now occupies the White House.”

Interesting: First, although people like Bush/Moon believe Moon is a major threat because of the support he gets from the Republicans, the cited June 2001 article says:

“At the time, Moon had become increasingly critical of the United States, apparently bitter over the fact that his church never really caught on in America. “America is the kingdom of extreme individualism, the kingdom of free sex," he said during a May 1, 1998, speech in New York. "The country that represents Satan’s harvest is America. America doesn’t have anywhere to go now."

At this time GW (June 2001) was barely in office and was dealing with the Clinton recession. But, the author makes a brilliant conclusion in the second section of his this quote:

“especially since a Religious Right ally now occupies the White House.”

This is typical of the type of reporting by hacks such as Dean and Krugman as well as Bush/Moon, which is not founded on any facts or evidence but wordsmithed to create the desired effect.

I also read the third article, but the latest reference they had was to the above June 2001 article. The other “supposed critical articles” were written while Clinton was President and not very revealing of the thesis put fourth by Bush/Moon.. If Moon was doing anything wrong, then Clinton was too busy to stop it, and Gore was out visiting Temples.

Finally it is obvious that Republicans are more religious than the Democrats and have some of the leading religious figures in the country, while the Democrats support groups such as the ACLU who want to restrict religion. Which one do you think the AUSCS would go after?

Still, Bush only took office in 2001 and Bush/Moon has not provided any evidence since the above 2001 assertion by AUSCS that Moon has resurfaced as a major factor in the U. S. nor that Moon supports the Republicans more than the Democrats.

Johnny One Note you better get anther song to sing.


NYGuy - 6/20/2003

Will,

Brillant is right.

"take the offensive (if you can't outsmart em, baffle em with speedy bullshit). It's brilliant!"

But I have to tell you that we have already figured out people like you and the others who spread similar BS on this board. I am trying to remember if anyone actually had an original idea. No I don't think so. Your BS is no different from what others of your persuasion have posted.


John Kipper - 6/20/2003

"The bible is the stupid ramblings of thousands year dead morons who didn't even know the Earth was ROUND."

God, I feel better now that Josh, the Master of the Universe, has found the ultimate truth, all by himself! Of course, the fact that millions of Jews, Christians and Muslims have accepted the essential truths of the Torah, Old Testament or the Koran (in essence, all the same basic thoughts, interpreted by individual religious and lay thinkers slightly differently throughout the centuries), and have patterned their societal and
personal conduct upon these teachings is absolutely irrelevant to the self-proclaimed absolutism of Josh the Interpreter f the real meaning of the Cosmos! I stand humbled and awed by your brilliance.

Of course, I would point out that it was the scions of the morons who actually were stupid enough to believe the Bible that defintily proved the roundness of the Earth by daring explorations. Ooops, a historical fact that may have been disregarded by the Master of Universal Knowledge.

While you, Mr. Knower of All Truth, may want to POOP ON several thousand years of human growth, I must confess that I do not consider you worth the amount of efort required to urinate upon your arguement.



Hepatitus - 6/20/2003

Keynes has been repudiated by ALL modern conservative econmists, replaced by Friedman and the austrian school. Keynes' major premise was that the government should run a deficit to increase spending on social programs, and that it should increase the money supply to cause inflaton. Roosevelt is often described as a keynesian. Are you comparing Bush to FDR?

Bush is running a deficit, but he's not adding social spending, unless you are counting military spending. Having read a lot of keynes I can say it's just comical to call Bush a keynesian.


Will - 6/20/2003

These are fancy words: revisionist historian, propaganda... I refer you to the good professor Nancy Snow and her propaganda review for some comments on that issue ( - all communication is propaganda! Is there one truth??)

But,I diverge... In my humble opinion, Bush is once again practicing an art which his entire admin team has polished the last few years; it is called "Cognitive dissonance." Accuse your opponent of what you are actually doing! Or at the very least, say the opposite of what you are doing ("no child left behind"..."compassionate conservatism"... "humble role among nations"... "pay back the debt in x years"..."investigate 9/11" ..."liberate Iraq".... and on and on)

In this case, he's the one trying to revise history (i.e. his claims about Iraq). So it's time to take another play out of the playbook... take the offensive (if you can't outsmart em, baffle em with speedy bullshit). So he's done both at once. It's brilliant!


Bush/Moon 2004 - 6/20/2003

Btw: Bush gave 475 grand to Free Teens, moons front group, to teach our kids to abstain from sex. Bush named David Caprara to be director of Americorps. Here is what AU said about Mr. Caprara....see why people think the right is made up of fascists and religious lunatics?
---
http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs6013.htm
One key to Moon’s success is a longtime political operative named David Caprara. Caprara, a Unification Church member and former assistant secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development under Jack Kemp, is well connected in the nation’s capital and serves Moon in various overlapping capacities.

Caprara serves as president of the American Family Coalition, a Moon front group, as well as representing The Washington Times Foundation. He recently accepted an appointment to serve on an advisory council that Watts put together in advance of the GOP "faith-based" summit. The Washington Times Foundation then arranged to broadcast the event live via satellite to dozens of communities.

Caprara also runs The Empowerment Network, a public policy organization that promotes "faith-based" and family solutions to societal problems. Two U.S. senators, Santorum and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), serve as caucus chairmen of the organization. Its "Empowerment Leadership Roundtable" lists two men who have gone to work in Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives – Stanley Carlson-Thies and Don Eberly.

Through operatives like Caprara, Moon keeps a steady hand in Washington and thus in national affairs. Moon is able to open other doors through infusions of cold, hard cash when necessary. For example, many of the ministers who attended the "We Will Stand" events were given gold Christian Bernard wristwatches estimated to cost thousands of dollars apiece.

The Rev. Phillip Schanker, a Moon spokesman, told The Washington Post, "The gold watches are a personal expression from Rev. Moon, and the gold represents his unchanging love."

--
Oh, and don't by the crap about Moon's thing being a 'christian' religion. I don't play the anti-christ game, but it is rather odd that fundementalists christains are always on the look out for him and Moon is begging for the job and their leaders work with and honor him. go figure, I do know one thing, Bush is a fraud and the right are a bunch of chumps.



Don Williams - 6/20/2003

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,915938,00.html


Don Williams - 6/20/2003

1) My understanding is that an attack without UN sanction was illegal under international law unless there was a clear and present danger to the US and Bush had to act in self-defense
See http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0306-13.htm
See http://www.middleeastinfo.org/article2179.html

2) My understanding is the Bush withdrew the UN Resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq because it would not have been approved by the Security Council.

3) I'm sure that Bush's lawyers can craft all kinds of sophistry to cast a veil of legality over his action -- but their arguments are still bullshit.


Bush/Moon 2004 - 6/20/2003

Moon's been manipulating and guiding the right for twenty five years. He is the man behind the right's rise to power. Bush and the republican's used his org to promote Bush's Faith Based Initiative, which although eventually watered down, was at the time government funded religion, period. It is long story which has been reported and does have info on it, but hasn't been pushed by the press like Gary Condit so many know nothing about it.

Some dems have fallen into his web, he currently has a big push to manipulate black ministers. He declared himself the Messiah in papers all over the country recently. He said in the 70's Christians would follow him they are. They are chumps. The republican party gave him a home, they empowered him world wide. Bush is his favorite shill, he even helped Moon open one his camps in South America. Moon is a con. He told the naive and power hungry right he was anti-communist. He is in fact anti-democracy and has called America "Satan's harvest." He owns the Washington Times and bought UPI in 2000. He controls a college. All things he predicted he must do to manipulate the country.

George Bush sr. was CIA director when Moon was first discovered, Bush knows EXACTLY what Moon wants, world domination and Bush helps him.

The republicans have empowered him. They are chumps and have sold the country and the world down the river. Why do you think people on the left just laugh at right wingers, have been manipulated by their leaders. Republicans haven't a clue where their leaders are taking us. They think God is on their side. IN fact without Moon's BILLIONS spent propping up conservatives for the last twenty years Bush would NOT be president. Heck, Moon distributed 30 million voter scorecards for Poppy in 1988, didn't cost Bush a cent.

Moon sponsored Bush inaugural prayer luncheon, handed out Moonie propaganda afterwards. They gave Moon an award for his 'family values." You think the right wing isn't sick? They are trained, Pavlov's dog.

I could tell you many things you wouldn't believe, this is only the tip of the iceberg. The country is in deep trouble, thanks to right wing hypocrites.

here is finding #3 from 1978 congressional investigation of Moon's ties to the South Korean CIA.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/unif/Unif11.html
(3) Among the goals of the Moon Organization is the establishment of a worldwide government in which the separation of church and state would be abolished and which would be governed by Moon and his followers.

--

Yes they are sell outs, they are use to working with Moon they don't see anything wrong.
http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs6013.htm

The "faith-based summit" itself was sponsored by Watts (R-Okla.), Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and other top congressional Republicans, but efforts to promote it at the grassroots level were turned over to a Moon organization.

Why is the Republican Party working hand in glove with Moon front groups? The partnership stems largely from Moon’s phenomenal ability to make inroads in GOP and Religious Right circles. Despite his unorthodox theological views – Moon teaches that he is the new Messiah, sent by God to complete the failed mission of Jesus – Moon has had little difficulty penetrating the upper echelons of American conservatism.

While a number of Republican-aligned private organizations have promoted President George W. Bush’s religion funding scheme, only Moon won an official relationship with the Republican leadership to rally grassroots forces on behalf of the "faith-based" summit. This enhanced status enabled him to do grassroots political organizing – and religious recruitment – with the apparent blessing of Bush and his GOP allies in Congress.

Just a few years ago, Moon announced he was ready to give up on the United States, but the change of administrations in Washington seems to have sparked a change of heart in him. Frederick Clarkson, a journalist who has studied Moon and other far-right movements, notes that Moon specializes in the creation of "Astroturf organizations" – groups that appear to have grassroots power but that in reality speak mostly for Moon. Moon has used these groups to curry favor with Republicans for more than 30 years, Clarkson said, and is revving them up again to help the new Bush administration.

"Whenever the conservatives identify an issue as important to their agenda, Moon creates an Astroturf organization to create the appearance of grassroots support for these initiatives," Clarkson said.
--

here's one on the prayer luncheon:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/132/33.0.html
--

Read the third article here, the republicans 'go to' guy has finaced North Korea, check out the DIA docs at the end, Moon bought NK submarines and gave them 'tens of millions' of dollars.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon.html


BTW, don't buy the BS about The Washington Times being 'independent' of Moon. They have editors quit, good conservatives who have said that isn't true. He recently said he was going to use TWT to teach the country 'about God.'

lot's of info here
http://www.geocities.com/nomoonies/chronicles/a_moon_primer.html



Robert Guiscard - 6/20/2003

Don,
A quick point, Iraq had not fufilled the requirements of the Cease Fire from the First Gulf War. They were required to destroy all their weapons of mass destruction, end all related programs, and proove that they had complied. Even Hans Blix and the French government thought that Iraq had not complied with their obligations. The disagreement was the means to enforce compliance.
Under International law it is quite permisable to go to war to enforce either a peace treaty or a cease fire.


James Thornton - 6/20/2003

I read the articles concerning Mr. Moon and from there went directly to the Unification Church homepage (http://www.unification.org/index.html) and must admit I am deeply disturbed. As a Southern Baptist I am repulsed by his assertation that the crucifixion was a "mistake", Korea is the "third Israel", and most of all that he is the "second advent of the Messiah." I will share this information with my Pastor and Deacons and if we can establish connections to the Republican Party I can assure you we will take action. Mr. Moon's aspiration to unite the world under his twisted cult makes him an antichrist, not a saint.


NYGuy - 6/20/2003

Hi Smell the Roses,

No, Homer and I are not the same people. Just loyal Americans who love this country and want to educate the tools of the history profession to the benefits of living in this great land. Unfortuneately, Brooklyn College, Columbia, Yale and now Smith prefer to have history departments that teach young minds to hate this country. That philosophy was discredited by intelligent minds years ago. But as Barnum said, "a sucker is born every day." He was so right.

I suspect you are really a mushroom, someone who is kept in the dark and covered with horse manure. However, as an American I support your right to voice your comments. That is what makes this country great.


NYGuy - 6/20/2003

Bush/Moon

I know you are new to this board, but as I said this is not a place for sensitive people. As Truman said, "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen."

No one is telling you what to say but one can make a distinction between a lackey and someone who has something to say.

Aside from your insecure rant, do you have something of substance to add to this board.

As an American you are lucky you can say anything you want, even if it is foolish.

As I told Don, greeneyed bookkeeper provide accurate information, but completely meaningless. Seems you are another accountant.


Bush/Moon 2004 - 6/20/2003

you thinking I'm suppose to do as you tell me. haha I have read a few of your posts, why anyone pays you any mind is beyond me. Do you do this every day? One could turn on Limbaugh and get the same EXACT spew. You add nothing to the debate. In short, you are typical of all holier than thou rightwingers. How old are you 9? Ask your mommy and daddy if they knew Poppy was a shill for the moonies. Maybe she will explain it to you.

Can you hear?
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1000731


Try reading this, don't be afraid. Look at what you are helping.


http://www.geocities.com/nomoonies/chronicles/a_moon_primer.html


NYGuy - 6/20/2003

Don,
Even in college they have a department called Economics. It has very specific ideas on our debt. The fact that some book keeper tallies up a lot of number does not make him or her an economist.

Keynes was very specific on this topic. Sorry I don't have more time to educate you. Perhaps you should just stick to trying to under the past without getting involved in Political Science, another Department in most colleges and universities.

As I said your information is accurate, but completely meaningless.

Cheers


Melissa Macauley - 6/20/2003

NYGuy,
1. You never answered my questions.
2. Speaking of change: Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Your right-wing friends have never changed. They still jump in first, clueless and planless, and leave messes behind them. They are the least able to deal with our present crisis in a way that actually _solves_ (rather than exacerbates) problems. Incidentally, the right-wing also left an inordinate amount of weaponry (including Stinger missiles) in Al Qaeda/Taliban hands back in the 1980s. So spare me the sweaty rant about 9/11.

3. My brother worked in the WTC. It's not only right-wingers who care about that attack. Frankly, NYGuy, I seriously doubt you even live in New York.

4. I do work on a beautiful campus. Lucky me. I also get out every once in a while. I suggest you do the same.



Bush/Moon2004 - 6/20/2003

the pod people don't EVER see reality. They have spent BILLIONS training these people. No looking behind the curtain for NYman. They are playing them for chumps. The last thing a real American would want is to be Bush's chump, but there you have it, they like it...like drinking Kool Aid.


NYGuy - 6/20/2003

Don,

I told you about the greeneyed book keeper. The information is accurate but useless. If you have something to say, sayd it. The fact that your puppet Bush/Moon is a yes man does not give your comments any more credibility.

If you have something to say, why not just say it in simple words. Showing us a book of accounts is meaningless.

PS: Presidential candidate Edwards says he doesn't have any information to agree with your comments. What is your proof?

We like to hear your opinions but don't know what you are trying to say. As I said, the people on this board are not stupid and if you want to play with the big boys you have to ratched up your scholarship.


Bush/Moon 2004 - 6/19/2003

He was in office about three months before the Russians and the Chinese signed their first treaty in 60 years.

Bush is a national security Risk. What is so odd is that it is only he, his followers/rushbots and religious looney's who believe his BS. The rest of the thinking world is laughing at them. They are also scared because they know our government is deceitful and run by a dry drunk who never gave a hoot about the rest of the world till Poppy and Moon told him he was winner.
(he was a dismal failure in business. The baseball stadium he and his billionaire buddies ripped off the taxpaers for the profit in that...Bush hates taxes unless they are going in his and frinds pockets..HYPOCRITE.)
The hypocrisy of the right is astounding. The rest of the world is worried about us, and rightfully so.


Crystal Clear - 6/19/2003

There is so much information in that link. Thank you.
It would appear that the Bush family is beholden to Moon. His influence is everywhere in our government, our churches, businesses, and our media. Wow.

http://www.geocities.com/nomoonies/chronicles/a_moon_primer.html


Don Williams - 6/19/2003

1) It is against international law to launch an unprovoked attack on
another country without the justification of self-defense.

2) Bush claimed that Iraq was developing major weapons that posed a major threat to the US. He used the vague weasel word "weapons of mass destruction" which should have been a tipoff that he was lying.
Several months later, he's produced nada. Meaning that's he's put the US in the same position as Hussein attacking Kuwait. Much worse actually -- the US is a major superpower and had no quarrel with IRaq similar to the Kuwait-Iraq dispute over oil deposits.

3) Bush is causing major damage to US national security because (1) he shows the US government to be a pack of liars who can't be trusted (2) he's ruined any motiviation for other states to help us track down Al Qaeda and (3) Bush is going out of his way to provoke another Cold War with Europe, Russia, and China -- a COld War we can not afford.


Don Williams - 6/19/2003

1) I was quite clear in my post above:

-------------
As I explained earlier, Bush's IOUs will have to be paid off when the baby boomers start retiring in 2011. Those IOUs will have to be paid by very high tax rates on baby boomer 401K/IRAs withdrawals.
----------------
As I noted, most of those households are in the $30-$80,000 income bracket (45.904 million ). In exchange for a Bush income tax cut of $400 to $1000, that group got $26,355 of federal debt (owed by the rich) dumped onto them.
It was clear during the election what Bush was up to in spite of Bush's deceit and dissimulation about fuzzy math.

4) The situation is actually far worst than I depicted. Bush's budget indicates that the Trust Funds will be holding $5 Trillion in false IOUs as "assets" by 2008. The baby boomers begin retiring in 2011 and the IOUs have to be paid off.

$5 Trillion spread across 68.297 million households equals $73,209 per household. Do all those households in the $30,000 to $80,000 have the money to make that tax payment in addition to paying existing taxes (for ongoing federal operations?).
-----------

1)The above disaster is far more important than whether Clinton screwed Monica but don't hear the conservative pundit whores --Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter,etc. -- warning their listeners about the situation.

Just as the Republicans went on and on about Gary Hart's affair with Donna Rice in 1988 -- and George H Bush didn;t tell us until two weeks AFTER the election that he was going to steal $150 BILLION of our tax money to bail out some crooked savings and loans executives down in Texas. Actually , the amount ended up being close to $500 BILLION -- you could have bought the "welfare queens" Cadillacs for 5000 years with that amount of money.

Your remark about Clinton and economy is also off base. History shows that millions of workers are laid off and we suffer a deep recession every time we're stupid enough to elect a Bush to the Presidency.

By the time George H was kicked out in 1992, the Reagan-Bush debt was close to $4 Trillion dollars --up 400% in 12 years under the rule of men promising in 1980 that they were going to "balance the budget." In 1992, every taxpayer's share of the national debt was equal to 4 times his annual tax payment. Clinton grew the economy enough to reduce that to 2.8 times the annual tax payment by 2000. Now, Bush is deliberately plunging us deeply into debt and stealing from the Trust Funds for Social Security and Medicare
by letting the wealthy get out of paying their share of the debt run up by Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2.

The claim that tax cuts stimulate the economy is deceit -- there are several million more unemployed since Bush's income tax cut.
You might get some stimulus if you give a cut to the middle class and workers because they spend the money. The rich , on the other hand, simply take the money and buy foreign bonds because they know what Bush's policy is going to do to the value of the dollar.
Or they put the money under the mattress , as they did in 1929.
The way to stimulate the economy is to keep marginal income tax rates on the rich high so that they will invest in factories,etc. in order to get capital gains.

Again, note that the deceitful conservative pundit whores didn't mention the above either.

The word's getting out. The Republicans are going to get the living shit beat out of them in next year's election. I say that as an NRA member who used to be stupid enought to vote Republican.


Bush/Moon 2004 - 6/19/2003

thanks for this! Do the freepers know that conservatives sold out to the moonies? Poppy Bush a shill for the Moonies, pretty sickening. What hypocrites conservatives are.

http://www.geocities.com/nomoonies/chronicles/a_moon_primer.html


Wake up - 6/19/2003



I don't see you commenting on your sugar daddy. What it is like to owe thye moonies for your power? Must be fun rationalizing.

Dark Side of Rev. Moon
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon.html

You can judge the charcter of a man by the company he keeps." GW Bush.

Moon was a VIP guest at the first Reagan-Bush inauguration
http://www.geocities.com/craigmaxim/p-politicians-governorgeorgewbush2.html

Moon and his friends had been the money men, and worked closely with the Nazi/drug cartel coup leaders. But thanks to Bush, "Once again heaven turned a disappointment into a victory." declared the Unification Times, which was very pleased with Bush's comments about Moon's latest endeavors. One year later, Rev. Moon donated one million dollars to the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0001a/fortunateson.html

"All these people should know better. My daughter would tell me over and over how in their recruiting films they would show Moon with Bush to impress young people. They use the films of Moon and Bush and other celebrities to reassure parents that it is okay that their children are on the streets selling flowers 18 hours a day." (Washington Post, July 30, 1996)
http://www.freedomofmind.com/stevehassan/presskit/articles/fisher.htm

THE ODD COUPLE: SUN MYUNG MOON AND DR. LAURA
PLEASE, DR. LAURA: DO THE RIGHT THING. DON'T ASSOCIATE WITH SUN MYUNG MOON

But how much is she getting paid? And will the funds come from Moon's North Korean operations based on slave labor?

It will never be the same: Schlessinger will forever be tainted by her association with Moon. THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
http://www.usasurvival.org/moonbyslaura.shtml


Hepatitus - 6/19/2003

That's not the poitnt--I agree saddam was a vicious thug. i'm glad he's out of power. The point is, these are not the grounds on which the war was sold.


Bill Maher - 6/19/2003



Remember all those children sanctions killed in Iraq? Iraqi doctors are apparently saying something different to reporters from the Herald Sun. See report at http://www.instapundit.com
Do not go to far out on that limb.


NYGuy - 6/19/2003

Don,

Like all liberals you run scared, rehash the past and show no leadership. The economy is recovering from the Clinton recession because of GW.

If you want to spout economics why don't you start by reading a book by Keynes. I don't know what your point is because you don't give any conclusions. True you throw a lot of statistics around like a simple minded bookkeeper. Try to move to the next step and give us some interpretation. You may as well start you will have to learn how to do this in your sophomore year.

You remind me of the story of a parachutist who landed in a field in France. He sees some people biking by and asks, "where am I?" They answered, "Why sir, you are in the middle of a field in France."

The parachutist answers, "why you must be accountants."

Why yes they replied but how did you know.

Your information is very accurate, but completely useless.

Try going to the library and get a book on economics.


Don Williams - 6/19/2003

merely reminds us that he's always worn the uniform only within the safe confines of the continental United States.

The Vulcan is a long distance plane --it's hilarious to fly it only 20 miles across San Diego Bay.

But hey, if Bush could provoke the Sept 11 strike (see http://hnn.us/comments/13865.html ) and then shed crocodile tears while hugging Todd Beamer's wife, I sure he felt no shame at wearing an aviator's uniform and stealing the glory of the real warriors.


NYGuy - 6/19/2003

Hey Died because Bush Lied,

First Bush did not lie. But the real issue is you are a Sickco and have nothing to say.

I think your post speaks for itself. I thought the signs:

Bush = Hitler
Bush = F---

were bad. But you and your buddies hit a new low. The sad part is you don't even know what your doing since you are blinded by a bankrupt political philosophy. But you, as so many others on this board have said on this board they accept the Clinton philosophy where integrety and decency don't count.

Send this to your mother and father. I bet they will be very proud of our. Maybe that is your problem.


William H. Leckie, Jr. - 6/19/2003

John--

I agree with you about Bush--indeed, I'd go further and posit that he's the result of a transformation of our politics that has now left them at, alas, a dead end. Polk and Buchanan were altogether of a different type and in a different time. Still, Bush, I'd argue, represents in part the triumph of what they represented. He may in fact be even more mediocre, and certainly more sinister, an overprivileged thug (I grew up around the type in Texas and know it well) and his advisers may be the overrated charlatans I think they are, but what we have to deal with today is a technical sophistication and financial backing light-years beyond the pols of the old Slave Power!

I've been quite serious about having fun tweaking the right and occasionally going over the top in the process. What humor I have left about the matter needs ventilating from time to time, though it's running out of steam. Which brings me to the idea of a historians' debate about just how bad Bush is!

It'd be great fun! But what real difference would it make? And in what venue would it have to take place to have any impact? I must confess I'd love to see you take on the likes of an O'Reilly on Fox--I now how quick your wit is--if he let you get a word in edgewise and didn't make physical threats off-camera. Both of us are too old to take him up on them, but still, I'd envy you if you did! He needs a good mouse on his eye for his audioence to ponder.

Bush and his flacks are, in my judgment, honest-to-god authoritarians, and the likes of O'Reilly deserve a good thumping if they make intimidating threats; but the things that might bring them down I am now hearing are really echoes of the 60s: prolonged and increasingly messy war in Mesopotmia? Even back in those days, despite all the sound and fury, Vietnam was the longest-running war in our history, and the conservative mobilization whose triumph we now bear grew out of its settlement and Watergate. The right learned its lesson all too well.

Or: An economic downturn, maybe following the possible deflationary scenario some of us anticipate? The dice have been loaded in the economy against sufficient electoral mobilization should that occur, not only through the last quarter-centry's fiscal and monetary policy, but the manipulation of the electoral system (and a dampened electorate disaggregated by geography and distracted by consumption) either by expensive technical means or, as we saw in 2000, the judicial system.

And the dominant opposition electorally--the Dems--won't raise real hell because, thanks to the DLC's rise, it has joined the yellow stripes and dead armadillos--who fed from the same trough as the GOP--in the middle of the road. Our "left" doesn't even have to guts to do what needs to be done about "free speech zones," which is to say, march en masse out of them; and what would be the response today to acts of protest that went beyond them?

You and I were both on the same campus when an ROTC building was burned to the ground; we both--I hope--recall the extent to which that campus was infiltrated by local and federal agents, and the extent to which the administration was "compromised." Can you imagine the official response--with that theocratic hypocrite as AG and Patriot II--today, when that same university has paid a five-figure sum for adjunct teaching to an extreme right-wing candidate for the US Senate? When--questioning an attorney for the University of Michigan during oral arguments over affirmative action--an associate justice of the Supreme Court can seriously argue that UM give up its elite law school status to avoid litigation?

I'll bet every top university administrator sat up at that, development directors did, too. The boards go without saying. In an era when tenured positions are in short supply and real working adjuncts, with all their vulnerability, do the job in class, where is the institutional strength in academe to resist? Just what can a few "serious historians" do, and what defines that class and what happens when their seriousness is suddenly jeopardized or seen as jeopardizing a university?

The potential for repression of dissent is now de jure much more serious than in the 60s, media and police are much more attuned now to ideology rather than the obvious class resentments that characterized Vietnam-era protest. For reasons I won't go into here, I don't see much coming out of the universities. On and off for years, here in St. Louis, some of us have tried mightly to get the "workshop for social change" kids in the activist community off their duffs and into the streets in a metropolitan area whose core is absolutely abysmal and whose progresive leadership has in some cases literally been in bed with developers and speculators, pursuing an antique strategy of urban revival because it lines their pockets. What could we expect elsewhere?

I apologize for being so pessimistic. But I sincerely think the US is being transformed into that neo-totalitarian society--kept in line more by its "culture" than "political" means. Have your debate, however ironic it is, but I hope you can reach more than just a small group of serious historians and find some way to go beyond the university and enliven or re-awaken a genuine public sphere. But that might pretty much might be a daydream--I've been chided by an editor for writing reviews rated somewhere as on a 12th grade level; "everything's design and marketing driven," I was told. "The ideal book review should be 750 words." You have an audience you need to reach that hasn't even heard of Polk or Buchanan; the point isn't anti-intellectual, but rather that the hoops you have to jump through to reach it prejudge the public as not quite up to snuff, not able to process ideas or have the attention span to do so. I think my editor was wrong--and hope that isn't wishful thinking.

Bill


John Moser - 6/19/2003

The relevance lies in the fact that folks like you are trying to set a new precedent--if, on the basis of intelligence, the president says that something is true, and that turns out not to be the case, we're going to define that as lying and hence an impeachable offense. If this became an accepted practice it would effectively paralyze U.S. foreign policy, since there are many instances in which a president has to make a decision based on speculations drawn from the best available intelligence. At the same time, in a democratic system, a president must frequently exaggerate threats to national security in order to rouse the people from slumber--and wishy-washy terms like "might" or "maybe" just don't cut it. Franklin D. Roosevelt understood this, and he repeatedly and deliberately overstated the threat of Nazi Germany to the Unitd States. Harry S. Truman did the same thing in the early Cold War. And, as I already mentioned, so did Clinton, with regard to both the Balkans and Iraq.

Fortunately most reasonable Democrats realize how devastating this precedent would be. No Democrat who has even the remotest chance of becoming president one day will want to be held to this standard. They will therefore limit their investigation to what went wrong with the nation's intelligence, and leave the conspiracy-mongering to the tinfoil hat brigade.


It adds up - 6/19/2003

It all adds up. The cost of the war plus Haliburton and Poppy's gang, comes to 3.3 trillion. Don't ask for a breakdown that would be sticking your nose where it isn't allowed in conservative america.

All Hail the LEADER.


Don Williams - 6/19/2003

If you look at Bush's budget submitted in Feb 2001, it showed that federal debt in 2008 would be $6.1 Trillion, with $4.8 Trillion held as Trust Fund IOUs and only $1.3 Trillion held as public debt. See Table S-16 at the bottom of
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/budx.html#ts-16

If you look at the Bush budget submitted recently (Feb 2003) , it shows a 2008 federal debt of $9.4 Trillion --up $3.3 Trillion from what he stated only 2 years ago. Of that debt , $4.4 Trillion is held by the Trust Funds but public debt has now zoomed to $5 Trillion. Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/hist.html and select the Excel spreadsheet in Section 7, labelled "Table 7.1 - Federal Debt at the End of Year" and look at the 2008 figures.


1) $1.8 trillion is being taken from the Trust Funds (Social Security, Medicare,etc) in order to pay for Bush's income tax gift to the rich. That's a huge sum --equal to
$16,914 taken from every one of America's 106.417 million households (2000)


But many of those households are too poor to spare the money --so an even greater burden falls on blue collar workers and middle class workers making in the range of $30,000 to $80,000.


2)As I explained earlier, Bush's IOUs will have to be paid off when the baby boomers start retiring in 2011. Those IOUs will have to be paid by very high tax rates on baby boomer 401K/IRAs withdrawals.
(Recall that 401K/IRAs are "before tax" assets). There is no other source of revenue of the required scale.

However,
In 2000, there were 38.120 million households with income less than $30,000 a year.
See http://tiger.berkeley.edu/sohrab/politics/income_00.txt.
Those households will not have any 401K/IRA assets for retirement that can be taxed to pay off Bush's IOUs. Hence, the money will have to be collected from the remaining 68.297 million households ( assuming that the 22.393 million households with income above $100,000 are stupid enough to put money into the 401K/IRA money trap-- I don't think they will be but let's assume they are.)

3)$1.8 Trillion divided across 68.297 million households equals
$26,355.

As I noted, most of those households are in the $30-$80,000 income bracket (45.904 million ). In exchange for a Bush income tax cut of $400 to $1000, that group got $26,355 of federal debt (owed by the rich) dumped onto them.
It was clear during the election what Bush was up to in spite of Bush's deceit and dissimulation about fuzzy math.

4) The situation is actually far worst than I depicted. Bush's budget indicates that the Trust Funds will be holding $5 Trillion in false IOUs as "assets" by 2008. The baby boomers begin retiring in 2011 and the IOUs have to be paid off.

$5 Trillion spread across 68.297 million households equals $73,209 per household. Do all those households in the $30,000 to $80,000 have the money to make that tax payment in addition to paying existing taxes (for ongoing federal operations?).

5) Plus we recently heard that an additional $7 Trillion is needed for Social Security and $34 Trillion more is needed for Medicare in order to provide promised benefits -- and that Bush concealed that shortfall when submitting his budget and asking for yet another tax cut for the rich.


Politically neutral - 6/19/2003

"..economic mess from Clinton.."

The longest unbroken period of economic prosperity in our history. A balanced federal budget.

Such a mess to inherit!

I have pulled the lever for Republicans and Democrats, and believe that this President will go down as one of the five worst ever. Unfortunately for all of us.


Lord help us,,, - 6/19/2003


Rumsfeld thinks, our troops dying in Iraq, is the same as "violence in a big city." What an evil man.

from the fascist news network..

"They recognize the difficulty of the task," Rumsfeld said. "You got to remember that if Washington, D.C., were the size of Baghdad, we would be having something like 215 murders a month. There's going to be violence in a big city." Rumsfeld noted that Baghdad has nearly six million residents.


John Murrin - 6/19/2003

I think Krugman is right on target, not only about Iraq but about the economy, which the Bush administration is systematically undermining through massive deficits that reward only the very wealthy.

About half a dozen times in the last three months, I have found myself in a small group of serious historians and have proposed a proposition for debate: The administration of George W. Bush is the most dangerous, reckless, irresponsible, and arrogant one in the entire history of the United States. I have yet to start a serious argument, although two persons thought Polk or Buchanan might have been as bad. What do the rest of you think?


Died because Bush lied - 6/19/2003

>>>Remember our troops.

I will NEVER forget the troops.

http://new.blackvoices.com/news/ny-uswarcasualtiesgallery,0,2925246.photogallery?coll=bv-news-black-headlines

Sgt. Atanacio Haromarin died because Bush lied.
Spc. Kyle Griffin died because Bush lied.
Spc. Nathaniel A. Caldwell died because Bush lied.
Lt. Col. Dominic R. Baragona died because Bush lied.
Capt. Andrew David La Mont died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jason William Moore died because Bush lied.
1st Lt. Timothy Louis Ryan died because Bush lied.
Infantry Sgt. Kirk Straseskie died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Aaron Dean White died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Douglas Jose Marencoreyes died because Bush lied.
Spc. Rasheed Sahib died because Bush lied.
Master Sgt. William Lee Payne died because Bush lied.
Spc. David T. Nutt died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Nicholas Brian Kleibocker died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Patrick L. Griffin died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jakub H. Kowalik died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Jose Franci Gonzalez Rodriguez died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Matthew R. Smith died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Cedric E. Bruns died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Richard P. Carl died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Hans N. Gukeisen died because Bush lied.
Brian K. Van Dusen died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Marlin T. Rockhold died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Sean C. Reynolds died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Jesse A. Givens died because Bush lied.
1st Sgt. Joe J. Garza died because Bush lied.
1st Lt. Osbaldo Orozco died because Bush lied.
Spc. Narson B. Sullivan died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Troy D. Jenkins died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Andrew T. Arnold died because Bush lied.
Spc. Roy R. Buckley died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Robert W. Channell Jr. died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Alan D. Lam died because Bush lied.
Cpl. John T. Rivero died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Johnny Brown died because Bush lied.
Spc. Thomas Arthur Foley III died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Armando Ariel Gonzalez died because Bush lied.
Spc. Richard A. Goward died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Joseph P. Mayek died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jason David Mileo died because Bush lied.
Spc. Gil Mercado died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jesus A. Gonzalez died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. David Edward Owens Jr. died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Riayan A. Tejeda died because Bush lied.
Gunnery Sgt. Jeff Bohr died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Terry W. Hemingway died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Henry L. Brown died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Juan Guadalupe Garza Jr. died because Bush lied.
Sgt. 1st Class John W. Marshall died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Jason M. Meyer died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Scott D. Sather died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Robert A. Stever died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Andrew Julian Aviles died because Bush lied.
Capt. Eric B. Das died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Lincoln Hollinsaid died because Bush lied.
2nd Lt. Jeffrey J. Kaylor died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jesus Martin Antonio Medellin died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Anthony S. Miller died because Bush lied.
Spc. George A. Mitchell died because Bush lied.
Major William R. Watkins III died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Gregory P. Huxley Jr. died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Kelley S. Prewitt died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Stevon Booker died because Bush lied.
Spc. Larry K. Brown died because Bush lied.
1st Sgt. Edward Smith died because Bush lied.
Capt. Tristan N. Aitken died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Wilfred D. Bellard died because Bush lied.
Spc. Daniel Francis J. Cunningham died because Bush lied.
Capt. Travis Ford died because Bush lied.
Cp. Bernard G. Gooden died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Devon D. Jones died because Bush lied.
1st Lt. Brian M. McPhillips died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Duane R. Rios died because Bush lied.
Capt. Benjamin Sammis died because Bush lied.
Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Chad Bales Metcalf died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Wilbert Davis died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Mark A. Evnin died because Bush lied.
Capt. Edward J. Korn died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Nino D. Livaudais died because Bush lied.
Spc. Ryan P. Long died because Bush lied.
Spc. Donald S. Oaks Jr. died because Bush lied.
Sgt. 1st Class Randall S. Rehn died because Bush lied.
Capt. Russell B. Rippetoe died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Todd J. Robbins died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Erik H. Silva died because Bush lied.
Capt. James F. Adamouski died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Brian E. Anderson died because Bush lied.
Spc. Mathew Boule died because Bush lied.
Master Sgt. George A. Fernandez died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Christian D. Gurtner died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Erik A. Halvorsen died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Scott Jamar died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Michael Pedersen died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Eric A. Smith died because Bush lied.
Lt. Nathan D. White died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Jacob L. Butler died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Joseph B. Maglione died because Bush lied.
Spc. William A. Jeffries died because Bush lied.
Spc. Brandon Rowe died because Bush lied.
Capt. Aaron J. Contreras died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Michael V. Lalush died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Brian McGinnis died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. James Cawley died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Michael Curtin died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Diego Fernando Rincon died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Michael Russell Creighton-Weldon died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. William W. White died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Eugene Williams died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Fernando Padilla-Ramirez died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Roderic A. Solomon died because Bush lied.
Gunnery Sgt. Joseph Menusa died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jesus A. Suarez Del Solar died because Bush lied.
Maj. Kevin G. Nave died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Francisco A. Martinez Flores died because Bush lied.
Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class Michael Vann Johnson Jr. died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Donald C. May Jr. died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Patrick T. O'Day died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Robert M. Rodriguez died because Bush lied.
Maj. Gregory Stone died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Evan James died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Bradley S. Korthaus died because Bush lied.
Spc. Gregory P. Sanders died because Bush lied.
Spc. Jamaal R. Addison died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Edward J.ÝAnguiano died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Michael E. Bitz died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Brian Rory Buesing died because Bush lied.
Sgt. George Edward Buggs died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Tamario D. Burkett died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Kemaphoom A. Chanawongse died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Donald John Cline died because Bush lied.
Master Sgt. Robert J. Dowdy died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Ruben Estrella-Soto died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. David K. Fribley died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jose A. Garibay died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Jonathan L. Gifford died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jorge A. Gonzalez died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Nolen R. Hutchings died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Howard Johnson II died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Phillip A. Jordan died because Bush lied.
Spc. James Kiehl died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Patrick R. Nixon died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Johnny Villareal Mata died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Lori Piestewa died because Bush lied.
2nd Lt. Frederick E. Pokorney Jr. died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Brendon Reiss died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Randal Kent Rosacker died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Brandon Sloan died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Thomas J. Slocum died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Donald Walters died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Michael J. Williams died because Bush lied.
Lt. Thomas Mullen Adams died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Eric J. Orlowski died because Bush lied.
Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert died because Bush lied.
Spc. Brandon S. Tobler died because Bush lied.
Maj. Jay Thomas Aubin died because Bush lied.
Capt. Ryan Anthony Beaupre died because Bush lied.
2nd Lt. Therrel S. Childers died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Brian Matthew Kennedy died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Waters-Bey died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Thomas A. Blair died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Nicolas M. Hodson died because Bush lied.


smell the roses? - 6/19/2003

(if you aren't the same person)...ought to get paid for your 'grassroots efforts' the BIG tool of the right.

http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs6013.htm
"Whenever the conservatives identify an issue as important to their agenda, Moon creates an Astroturf organization to create the appearance of grassroots support for these initiatives," Clarkson said.


Dale - 6/19/2003

Don said(I couldn't go any further, sorry)

>>First of all, there is no indication that the administration was deliberately misleading anyone,

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

snap out of there bud, we could use you in the real world.


Homer Simpson - 6/19/2003

Yes, that's the good news.

The morons who post on this site are being roundly ignored outside of their own little hermetically sealed universes.

Americans are patriotic, religious and decent.

Just like George Bush.

Choke on it.


Hepatitus - 6/19/2003

Clinton's not president anymore, and he did not lead the war on iraq--I'm no fan of Clinton--I think he was an immoral creep. It certainly likely he was also worng about the WMD issue, and maybe he lied about it--although he did not risk American lives in a pre-emptive invasion. But he's not the issue here--the question here, again, is did Bush knowingly mislead the American people into this war? Bush led this move to war, it was his specific claim of imminent danger that convinced most Americans to support the war and consent to risk their children's lives. None of the things Bush specifically claimed existed have materialized--not a single one. Had clinton done the same thing as president I'd be makng the same claims about him, and the rght would be howling for his head

I don't know how conservatives could be so outraged at clinton's lying, and not be more concerned about deliberate lying that puts American lives at risk. but as I say, clinton is no longer the issue--it's Bush who promoted this war, for false reasons


NYGuy - 6/19/2003

Cynthia,

Write to the UN that is what they were supposed to be doing all these many years. Get them out of the swanky NY restaurants with their high priced food and expensive wines. If you can do that you will make a big step forward for humanity. Especially since you don't think the U. S. should be the policemen of the world.

You have enough people on this board and the anti-war crowd has nothing to do these days.

Good luck and keep us posted on your progress.


Check out this link - 6/19/2003

Watergate Schmatergate, the conservatives have bigger evil than that in their midst and they working with him all the way.

Meet the conservative movement's surgar Daddy. The guy who made it happen for them The guy who has manipulated us to where we are today. Thanks conservatives you are the great deceivers.
You empower REAL evil. You are pawns of your own movement.

slow load for dial up but worth the wait if you want to peel back the covers over your eyes.

http://www.geocities.com/nomoonies/chronicles/a_moon_primer.html


NYGuy - 6/19/2003

Thank You GW:

The leading economic indicators were up for the fourth month in a row in May. Stock market remains strong. GW's genius shows up again. First he restored confidence in the Ameican people and investors to generate the "wealth effect" and with the tax cut we now have the 1-2 punch for a strong economic recovery.

He inherited an economic mess from Clinton, but his leadership has turned this country around so all American's can be proud again.

Remember the Twin Towers, Remember our troops.


NYGuy - 6/19/2003

Barry,

What are you talking about? You say:

"But the "lie" in Watergate pales by comparison with what now "appears" to have been Bush's deliberate deception about Iraq" So you don't say GW did anything wrong except in your mind.

Then you add:

"What Bush & Co. "did" was manipulate Congress and the American public to drum up support for a misguided war. I thought you said it appears now you say it is so.


Don't you think you have been dishonest with your rant. You sound like so many others on this board who think everyone is stupid and you can say and do anything you want and we are expected to believe you.

But then again as many have said on this board about integrity it is less important than other values. So we can understand your post.

The response to this topic sounds like a, "great left wing conspiracy." Did you enjoy Hil's book?


Barry Biederman - 6/19/2003

Absolutely! Watergate was a dreadful violation of law, compounded by an obstruction of justice: clearly, impeachment was warranted. But the "lie" in Watergate pales by comparison with what now appears to have been Bush's deliberate deception about Iraq: that Saddam possessed nuclear weapons posing an imminent threat to the U.S. and its allies. If there was no evidence of a nuclear weapon, there was no imminent threat - and no need to bypass the UN inspection regimen. What Bush & Co. did was manipulate Congress and the American public to drum up support for a misguided war: the worst, most abusive Presidential action since LBJ pushed for the Tonkin Gulf resolution that led us into the Vietnam quagmire.


NYGuy - 6/19/2003

William,

You say:

"We have a couple of thousand years of human history to show they certainly can be, especially when they are arrogant zealots who think they have a natural right to rule."

Remember the Clintonians answer, "Everyone does it." So what is your point. What are the exceptions?


NYGuy - 6/19/2003

WW II Vet,

So what is your point? You don't like this country? Probably can't name one good thing.


John Moser - 6/19/2003

To bring up Clinton isn't dodging the issue at all. The original question suggests we should single out Bush for allegedly lying to get the United States into a war. I am suggesting that Bush is not guilty of anything of which Clinton was not also guilty.

Since we're throwing out quotes, here are a few from our beloved former president in 1998:

He told the Joint Chiefs that Iraq possessed "an offensive biological warfare capability -- notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Hmmm, I don't see a "maybe" here.

How about this one? "What if Saddam Hussein fails to comply? We fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made. Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes,' he says, 'could not be higher. Some way, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." Nope, nothing in this suggests a lack of certainty.

On December 16, 1998, he told the American people "Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed Forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and
biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and, indeed, the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear
arms, poison gas, or biological weapons." Note that he didn't end that last sentence with "which he may or may not have."

Here's one more, in a speech he gave three days later. "Our objectives in this military action were clear: to degrade
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program and related delivery
systems, as well as his capacity to attack his neighbors. It will take some time to make a detailed assessment of our operation, but based on the briefing I've just received, I am confident we have achieved our mission. We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and
protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure." Again, nowhere does he say, "Well, shucks, we don't know what he has and what he hasn't got, but let's go git him anyhow!"

And don't try to dodge this by claiming Clinton just lobbed a few cruise missiles into Iraq, and hence didn't put any Americans at risk. Bombers were sent into Iraqi airspace, which meant that crews faced the possibility of being killed by enemy fire. The difference between what Clinton did and what Bush did was, as I stated earlier, quantitative rather than qualitative.

Why didn't Clinton launch a land invasion? I suppose we could have a discussion about that, but what's clear is that his reason for not doing so had nothing to do with not being certain about the presence of WMD. I prefer to think that post-9/11 there's a feeling that the margin for error is a little narrower than it was back in the days before New York City was attacked.




William H. Leckie, Jr. - 6/19/2003

As far as I've read on this cascade of comments, no one of Bush's critics has expressed enthusiasm for the Democrats. I certainly have none, since the party's leadership has shown itself to be a weak opposition from the word "Go."

On the local level--where the party hierarchy is comprised of yups and would-be yups, it's hard for me to tell the difference between the established parties. Here in St. Louis, in fact, they're derisively called "Republicrats."


William H. Leckie, Jr. - 6/19/2003

The guys in charge can't be fools? We have a couple of thousand years of human history to show they certainly can be, especially when they are arrogant zealots who think they have a natural right to rule.


William H. Leckie, Jr. - 6/19/2003

I'm having fun, my friend.

The rapid development of a guerilla war in Iraq is hardly the materialization of a fantasy of Vidal's or Stone's. Neither is what's happening in Afghanistan. That doesn't give me any pleasure, but it does confirm both my serious and my mocking assessments of Those Who Claim to Know. It's those on the Right who should get a grip.


bklbubba - 6/19/2003

You have proven your cluelessness to me NYGUY. 70 million dollars and an 8 year investigation did not turn up much of anything against the last administration other than the president was an adulterer. He was also a liar, but nowhere near the liar that Bush is. Clinton lied about his personal life. Bush has lied to the American people about the war, his policies, his social security lockbox, and on and on. He has spoke about increases in education then turned around and cut the budget, unless it was in Florida to help out his brother.

Bush being steadfast under fire? Please! He used the rich man's dodge and a little influence to avoid the draft. Even managed to get head of the line privileges to join a guard unit that flew obsolete aircraft as added insurance he wouldn't go anywhere and he went AWOL from that.

He also refuses to face protesters of his policies by creating "protest zones" so he won't have to hear or see them. His press conferences are staged and scripted. He can't face his critics nor will he debate them. That is the tactic used by Saddam as one of the means to control his people.

A little reported fact about the start of the bust economy started with oil prices artificially inflated on the West Coast and the rolling blackouts along with the claims of an energy shortage. A number of companies, including Enron subsidiaries were caught hiking up the rates selling oil back and forth amongst each other before selling it to consumers. The press has reported very little on this and the companies that were busted made pleas and had the court records sealed to keep the facts from the public.

Let us not forget the complicity of the congress and senate in making the laws that allowed Enron like scandals to occur.

You whine about the tax and spend democrats but wait to you see what happens with our borrow and spend republicans!


Don McArthur-Self - 6/19/2003

First of all, there is no indication that the administration was deliberately misleading anyone, much less committing illegal acts like burglary and obstruction of justice.

Second of all, regardless of what one thinks of GWB, he's fairly politically astute and not at all stupid. Nor are any of his close advisors, running the spectrum from Cheney & Wolfowitz to Powell, utter fools. None of them would stake their political careers and reputations on a DELIBERATE fabrication which would INEVITABLY be revealed.

Richard Nixon had every reason to hope the publc might not know about the events of June 17-20, 1972. The Bush administration, from the president down, certainly knew that people would expect them to produce clear-cut evidence of weapons of mass destruction under close scrutiny by the media. If anything, the lack of a smoking-gun so far ought to give pause to all those who felt sure that the United States would manufacture and plant evidence for discovery. It would seem the Pentagon and the White House are reporting what actually exists - to date, not a lot of really damning evidence (of current stockpiles of banned weapons - but plenty of evidence of horrific and brutal repression).

This is not even remotely impeachable. At best (for the administration) the evidence is still out there, buried under sand someplace. At WORST, the war was "sold" on the basis of very flawed intelligence information.

That may be something to hold the administration accountable for - or may not be. The public will ultimately decide. But a comparison to Watergate? Not even remotely close!


Cynthia Tun - 6/19/2003

The hypocrisy and lies of this administration is so astonishing it takes my breath away. Not only are they hypocrites, they are liars. The writing is on the wall...the information fed to the American and British public was done in a manner that made an attack on Iraq almost unavoidable. After the claims about WMD and now the statements by people like Wolfowitz that the most expedient and saleable lines were used, how can we ever believe anything they say?
But the sad thing is that now people in support of this war say that we are so good for saving the people of Iraq from this horrible dictator. While it is a good thing, there are so many other places where people are treated with even more brutality. We only have to look to Myanmar or Rwanda. Afghanistan is losing the battle for stability, (since we have again turned our backs on that country)? The list goes on and on. So if the TRUE reason for going to war is the saving of people, why are we looking at Iran and Syria? Let's look at countries where the serious brutality exists.


WWII vet - 6/19/2003

Big deal! What else is new. Spanish American War - -"Remember the Maine" (when those notoriously clever Spaniards bombed the Maine from inside that ship); WWI - - "Lest we forget" the sinking of the Luistania by those German "animals" who were on record as saying any munitions ship headed for England would be sunk (it was not only carrying tons and tons of munitions, but was also directed to proceed the long way to port); WWII - -"Remember Pearl Harbor" (when the US administration had a ten point plan to goad the Japanese militarists into attacking and the Navy was directed to tie the Pacific fleet up at Pearl); Viet Nam -- Rember the Gulf of Tonkin attacks? (neither did anyone who was there).
All this is documented; it's there for anyone who wants to check out these activities. So what else is new?


NYGuy - 6/19/2003

Josh,

Love you as the insult dog on Conan with the cigar in you mouth and some guys hand up your backside. Boy are you funny particularly, "I poop on you." Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha.

Never know what you will say next. And your posts are just as irreverent and show how funny you can be.

When are you next scheduled for Conan? The show I liked the best was when you went to the Academy Awards. A true comic genius.


NYGuy - 6/19/2003

Josh Narins,

You say: "Luckily for Bush, most Americans are pretty damn stupid themselves."

You are so right. I remember when you were in a parade your mother turned to the person next to her and said, "Look there is my brillant son. I am so proud, everyone is out of step but him."



NYGuy - 6/19/2003

Bklbubba,

You said: “NYguy sounds like he has been warped by Limbaugh's ideals. If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes fact.”
Bravo, I see you understand what Krugman, Dean and the democrats are doing. Good work.

“The mantra of having no ideas of their own is right from Rush and simply not true.”
No I listen to “I have concerns” Tom Daschle, and what is the name of the other democratic leader?

“The democrats want to lead in foreign policy.”
Seems they want to follow the French and the U.N. wherever it takes them. Who said they have no ideas.

“As for the economy, the democrats want to increase the demand for goods.”
A little late don’t you think? GW has already restored pride in the American people and confidence in investors. As a result the “wealth effect” is growing based upon his leadership. Now with his leadership in cutting taxes we have a 1-2 punch that is getting the economy going and which will see a robust expansion over the next 3-5 years.

“As for the Corporate scandals they began on Clinton’s watch and the head of the DNC was a big beneficiary with his multimillion profits on a Hillary level of investment. Sound familiar. Clinton was also warned by Greenspan about a boom and bust economy, but did nothing and left GW with the recession which began 2 months after he took office.

As for 9/11, Clinton was too busy with Monica and giving out pardons to worry about protecting U. S. citizens. But, I know for a fact that he did feel the pain of the widows and families of the 9/11 victims.

Funny you should mention Grant. “…. maybe you would realize that we have one of the most corrupt administrations since the days of U.S. Grant.”

Grant was known for his steadiness under fire and did not run when the going gets tough. That is the type of leadership GW provides.

Oh, by the way when you speak of corruption you only have to go back to the previous President.


Josh Narins - 6/19/2003

"Is any of the gang here capable of self-inspection?"

THAT IS SO PERFECTLY IT!

Kinda what I said to the Secret Service guys who "interviewed" me for an hour, a few Sundays ago.

The Bush administration would rather present a unified front then engage in any introspective behavior.

I wonder if all these "Support the Pres in Times of War" people would be the same 33% of Americans who were "Supporting the King in Times of War" during America's War for Indepdence?

Probably.


Josh Narins - 6/19/2003


The Vietnam war was a stupid war to get into, from hindsight. If Ho Chi Minh had become a US ally (his first political speech was him quoting the Declaration of Independence, that is Thomas Jefferson, an American, for those Bush supporters out there) there would have been no doubt that the USSR would have collapsed just as quickly, and the "global war on communism" would have had the same result.

But we didn't know that then (although smart people probably did, and recall that it was Truman that put the first US troops (SigInt types) on the ground in Vietnam).

First, the Maddox WAS part DIRECTLY supporting US and South Vietnamese forces, and therefore was a legitimate target to any self-respecting opposition force.

The Maddox intercepted information that an attack would be coming to their location on a particular night. This information was relayed to Washington. An attack WAS launched on the Maddox the next day. Three North Vietnamese torpedo boats had been launched and sent to the Maddox's co-ordinates. Being a SigInt ship, they instantly knew, and instantly set sail for open Ocean (they had been 8-15 miles offshore the whole time). The torpedo boats did not catch them.

Vietnam was an entirely stupid war.

But the idea that something at the Gulf of Tonkin was "trumped up" is even stupider.

Were the Maddox SigInt missions provacative? Perhaps designed to instigate an attack to open up the war?

Then you would have to say that the EP-3/Chinese Jet collision back in the first part of Bush's term was the same thing, because the mission was identical, provacative SigInt collections at the very fringe of legal acceptability.

If you want to look at ANYONE for stepping over that line, it was Eisenhower's over-the-pole-penetrating-into-the-USSR missions. One time he sent SIX of the these SigInt puppies, all looking almost exactly like regular Nuclear Bombers, side-by-side, into Soviet airspace.

Don't let your MASSIVE ignorance keep you from talking.




NYGuy - 6/19/2003

Melissa,

As a historian, you may not have noticed that things change over time. A simple example is the Twin Towers which were attacked and destroyed as well as the attack on the Pentagon.

Do you believe that your "Chamberlain" approach to such activity would make the world safer today?

Of course you probably don't have to worry since you likely reside on a beautiful campus away from the real world and probably believe the attackers are mis-guided and we should send them more money.

By the way the authors of the articles on this board did not say that Bush mislead the American people. You probably picked it up from the posts of those who want to create this propaganda since they are bankrupt and have no constructive ideas to offer.


Josh Narins - 6/19/2003

A great comic once said...

"If I found out the Jews had killed God, I'd start worshipping the Jews"

The wiser one becomes, the more insane US Foreign Policy appears. It isn't the "man on the street" in Arabia that loathes us, the maximum hate is found among anyone who knows our MURDEROUS, MONEY-GRUBBING history in those parts.

Are Murder and Greed "Judeo-Christian" Values" Are they "American?"

How Judeo-Christian is it of us to send Saddam billions of dollars of dual-use technologies, as George HW Bush had signed a contract to do, one week before Iraq invaded Kuwait, years after Halabjah, almost a decade after Saddam's first gassings.

The bible is the stupid ramblings of thousands year dead morons who didn't even know the Earth was ROUND.

You believe Genesis? I'm sure you believe so many stupid things that you aren't even worth POOPING on.



Josh Narins - 6/19/2003

Don't reply, NYGuy, you are too stupid to pay attention to.

I will note that Dean also said IF the WMD lies (I know they were lies, and Scott Ritter's book War on Iraq is the most authoritative work you can find on WMD in Iraq) then it was bigger than Watergate.

To me, this is like the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Hitler (he claimed they had invaded)
Or the Japaqnese invasion of Manchuria in 1933 (they just walked out of the League of Nations when the League tried to condemn them, and certainly Bush has taken every effort to denigrate the UN (they sent Negroponte, for crissakes, as Ambassador, they got HUGE laughs at that one in conservative circles).

Hey, I'm not a UN Monkey. It's a forum, but not a force.

There were a lot of polls before the war...

Would you suppor the war With UN approval?
Without it?

But the question no poll asked was "Would you support the war if Bush seeks UN approval, but the morning of the vote he realized it won't pass, so withdraws the motion and starts the God Damned War anyway?"

Even taking out the blasphemy, Americans wouldn't have thought that was a particularly good idea.


Josh Narins - 6/19/2003


So far numerous GOP and Democrats (only 70 or so in both Houses voted against Authorization) have shown embarassing loyalty to the stupidest President since (at least) Truman.

The authorization bill (H Res 114, 107th Congess, look it up at http://thomas.loc.gov (they don't have permanent links)) states VERY CLEARY that the Authorization to use military force is predicated on this...

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

1. Since Iraq posed no threat (not even after we started bombing the crap out of them) #1 is bunk.
2. If Iraq had no WMD, they were in compliance with all the resolutions that said they had to disarm. The worst thing Iraq could be accused of was being unable to prove that they had destroyed the weapons the UN __THEORIZED__ they could have.

Fact is, Iraq lied originally. They held information back. Especially on VX. First they said they had no VX program, then they said they had tried and failed, then they claimed they had tried and failed to weaponize it.
The facts are they had weaponized some, and had destroyed all of it.
Why didn't they just admit to it, then? Why not just call themselves liars on the international stage to please the USA?

I guess you folks have never had to deal with a strongman regime before.

There hasn't been WMD in Iraq since 95 or 96.

They've been bombed incessantly for the last 12 years.

They weren't oppressing the Kurds anymore, they had their own Parliament, and they were protected by the no-fly zone.

Fact is, Bush made this a personal matter.

Facts are, the ONLY proof Saddam might have been behind the 1993 assassination attempt of Bush's father was the testimony of two people who only said it under the torture applied by the Jordanian Secret Police.

In other words, even the personal logic of Bush was based on crap information, which he, as the idiot he is, repeated before the UN.

Luckily for Bush, most Americans are pretty damn stupid themselves.


NYGuy - 6/19/2003

Dean and Krugman have no proof GW lied, why do you say they do?

What did Krugman and Dean really say? Seems they are not sure of what has happened but are playing to their base and goes along with the Watergate comparison to get them excited. And they succeeded; they all came out of the woodwork. But these are the same people who thought Clinton was great.

Krugman: “The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. “If” that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history -- worse than Watergate.” The great “if” word is used. So Krugman, like Dean, doesn’t know if GW did anything wrong, but they want to raise the specter of Watergate, since the democratic party is bankrupt of any positive ideas and just continue the Clinton policy of personal destruction. Nothing new from their side, since they have no answers and have to create a problem.

Dean: “Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false.”
You mean you have not made up your mind yet and something is clear but only appears. Huh. .

Dean: “And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.”
So this is not a factual report but another rant against GW based upon your ability to make up scenarios.

Dean: “So what are we now to conclude “if” Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?”
And what do you conclude “if” Bush’s statements are found to be true. Then it would be great leadership, not Watergate. Not much help from Dean here.

Dean: “ The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the president's misstatements “may actually” have been intentional lies.”
Again, you have not concluded anything, except emotionally, not intellectually, and think the President’s, (do you mean statements or did you editorialize with misstatements) “may actually” (not very sure of your own analysis are you)

Dean: “Even now, “while the jury is still out” as to whether intentional misconduct occurred,”
I thought you were telling us that the game is over for GW and he made misstatements that put him in the class of Watergate.


Dean: “To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause.”
Again the use of the word “if”, showing you have not proved your case. If pigs had wings they could fly.

Dean: “Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a president to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. “Let us hope that is not the case.”
A further admission you don’t know and are not really accusing the President of wrong doing, only creating the impression through a cleverly worded article.

Dean: “Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate.”
Even though you are not convinced the President did anything wrong, you agree with someone who equates the President with Watergate. A low trick, but then again you worked for Clinton.


Josh Narins - 6/19/2003

Objective is possible? NO!

You can't even say where any single thing is, without it being relative to something else.

History is so much larger than any of can know. What's relevant in history? Isn't that always a function of what is happening now?

There are millions of patents, each one representing an invention, there is no way an historian can include the millions in a text that covers history (of which invention has proved a critical part), so, choices must be made.

The choices express VALUES.


Hepatitus - 6/19/2003

Here, from the dean piece, are statements Bush made, followed by commentary

Here are the things Bush said--just Bush,not other people in the administration.


United Nations Address, Sept. 12, 2002:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

IF we knew they were expanding their facilities, why have we not found evidence of this expansion? Bush said they ARE expanding, not they MAY BE. If we knew the expansion was taking place, we must have known where. Where is the evidence? Again, Bush says ARE, not "may be"


Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002:

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

Here again-Iraq HAS stockpiled, IS rebuilding. Bush infers that he knows there are stockpiles, and he knows there is rebuilding. We have no evidence of either to date.

Same address:
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Why did they not use them, if they existed and if the existance was authrozed? If it was fear of the US that stopped them from using the weapons, why have captured Iraqi officers not told us this? Why haven't captured iraqi officers told us where they were supposed to get the weapons they were authorized to use?


Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, Oct. 7, 2002:

"The Iraqi regime... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

Here he claim it both "possesses" that is, it HAS chemical and biological weapons, and is actually producing more. Again, where are they--Bush claims to know, in this speech, that the weapons actually exist and are being produced. If he knew they existed and were being produced, he must have known where. Yet they have not been found


"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

Thousands of tons is a lot of material, and, Bush says, we KNOW he has procuced them. Where are they?


"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

This is particularly striking. Where is this fleet of unmanned vehicles? Surely we would have seen them, since we had complete command of the Iraqi skies and now have complete command of the ground, Again, Bush says HE HAS a "growing fleet" not, "we think he has", or "he may have"--Bush claimed that thhis "fleet' existed. Where is the fleet? Surely the same technilogy used to giude smart weapons woudl have disclosed examples of this "fleet."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

The aluminum tubes claim has been debunked elsewhere. But if "satellite photos" could SHOW that he was building nuclear weapons we must have know where. Why have we not gone to these sites and produced the evidence? Because it did not exist--if it did, we would have found it


State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003:

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

This is also very damning. Now it has gone from the claim (see above) that he actually HAS "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons to the claim that he "had" (note change of tense) the capacity (note change of term) to produce 500 tons. Talk about revisionist history! Where is that capacity?


Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Where are they, if there was "no doubt that they had them? Again, the claim is "no doubt."


This is clearly a chain of misrepresentation--none of these claims can possibly be true at this point. We may still turn up some WMD, but they cannot entirely vindicate Bush's claims--I ask you--what do YOU make of this chain of misrepresentations? I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "HAS" is. It could be Bush belived all he was told. In that case, his administration is not capable of accurately assessing intelligence, and we shoudl be highly suspicious of his claims about iraq. Or it could be he simply chose to inflate the threat. neither alternative is good

My point is that if you look at these statements, they are very close to lies if not outright lies. How, as a historian, would you judge this?


Melissa Macauley - 6/19/2003

There are those who, upon hearing the news that the Bush administration apparently misled the American public, respond with comments about the horrible mass graves being unearthed in Iraq. I'd like to ask them some questions.
First, some background. From 1967 to 1983, both Democratic and Republican administrations refused to establish diplomatic relations with Saddam's government. Whatever their faults, these administrations kept their distance from his unsavory regime. By 1983, Saddam had invaded Iran, gassed 1000s of his own people and the Iranians, harbored known terrorists, abused human rights, and was trying to develop nuclear weapons. But by 1983, Americans had a new type of administration, not just "conservative," but stridently ideological and right-wing. This administration was filled with the people who listen to no one except to those who share their rigid, provincial, world view. These right-wingers re-established relations with Saddam; our own Donald Rumsfeld did the dirty work, crawling on his belly to Baghdad and shining Saddam's shoes. And enormous amounts of military hardware and biological agents (like anthrax) suddenly began to flow from American companies under licence from the Reagan administration's Commerce Department. Although Rumsfeld has lied for 20 years about warning Saddam against using chemical weapons, recently released security archival documents have shown that claim to be untrue. Immoral and poorly planned and executed right-wing (as opposed to conventional) Republican foreign policies have led to blowback scenarios and several wars necessary to clean up the mess.
Now, my questions addressed to those who claim that the mass graves are an acceptable ex post facto justification for war: Did you oppose or support the foreign policy of the Reagan administration? Were you disgusted with the American embrace, support, and empowerment of Saddam as he filled many of those graves? Did you even notice or care? Do you think anyone except other like-minded right-wingers could imagine Saddam's procurors (the extremist foreign policy cabal led by Rumsfeld, et al.) making a credible human rights argument for war to the international community in 2003? Do you think these men who consciously built up the power of a tyrant who had already gassed thousands of people have the moral standing in the world community to judge anyone? If you answer yes to any of these questions, have you read the National Security Archival documents relating to the above events that were recently released (http:http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB.NSAEBB82/press.htm)?


Brett Kottmann - 6/19/2003

I am shocked that ANY historian would treat this subject seriously.

Do I really have to remind anyone that Bush's political opponents are merely *claiming* he lied? There is no proof that he lied.

Not to mention the fact that dozens of Democrats (and others) have said the same thing Bush has said over the past decade.

As I noted on http://www.presidentreagan.info/news_commentary.cfm in a piece titled "Liberals Are Bad Liars" the accusations that Bush lied are on the same level of veracity as unsupported historical revisionism like the Holocaust deniers, alien autopsy promoters and films like "JFK".

Let's see a little more professionalism on this issue!


Bill Maher - 6/19/2003



Get a grip. Keep calm. Try to reply like an adult. That means not rambling off into the world of Gore Vidal and Oliver Stone.


Dave Livingston - 6/19/2003

Why shouldn't Academics today lie to revise history to fit their political agenda in this day when object truth is denied as a reality?

To quote Dennis Prager, "Jewish World Review," 13 May 2003, "I spent last week at college. And not any college. Stanford University. And this is what I thought.

If you wish to learn facts, the university can be a great place. If you wish to study the natural sciences, the university is a great place. But if you want to acquire wisdomor to become a mature adult, the university is is usually an impediment.

By and large our universities are located on gorgeous land, isolated fromthe real world. The university, for a tenured professor in particular, is closer to a socialist utopia than any place on earth. He does little work, is relatively well paid, has extended time off, is surrounded by adoring young men and women...and alone among wage earners, can be wrong all the time and pay no price.

This isolation is why most of society's stupid ideas, and few of its better ones, come from professors. You...live on campus...You est there, socialize there, study there for four years...The only asdults you encounter are there, for the most part, to shape your thinking. Other adults and other ideas are largely kept out.

As for the faculty, the university is one of the only places in society where is actually a challrnge to grow up...If you have gone from kindergarten to graduate school to teaching in college without serious time in the non-academic world, it takes a major effort to be an adult. Spending your entire life with minors is a recipe for permanent immaturity...those who love such a cocoon, it is no wonder that much of the outside world (especially the middle class) is often regarded with fear and contempt..."

The American university is this country's primary incubator of anti-Americanism and opposition to Judeo-Christian values..."


Paula Carlo - 6/18/2003

Krugman, Kristof, Dean, and all those respondents who agreed with them are right. Sending our troops to fight a war under false pretenses is far worse than Watergate. I firmly believe that Bush and all of his cronies who manipulated and fabricated evidence should face impeachment proceedings. As far as I'm concerned, the blood of all those who died in the invasion of Iraq is on their hands. I'd also like to blast all the members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, who failed to question the Bush administration's "artificial" intelligence.


Leonore S Becker - 6/18/2003

I would like to have Bush impeached.


Anita Wills - 6/18/2003

The months leading up to the War against Iraq were pivotal. As a Democrate, I believed that my party would step, in and stop the insane push to oust Saddam..., but they did not. At some intervals I believed that the moderate Republicans would join with Democrats, and end the March to War, and they did not. When the Protestors against the War came out in the millions, I believed the War March would stop, but it did not. We went in their, and dropped bombs, on an unarmed population.

Saddam could have done no worse, then we did. This is not just about George Bush, but our political system that failed us. Now, we are there, and everyone is pointing the finger at Bush. But where were the voices prior to our intervention. Some people believe the War was about ousting Saddam, but getting rid of his legacy will take longer than the War. Like it or not, Iraq was a functioning society prior to us bombing it back to the Middle Ages. My opinion is the Oil made it attractive for us to go in there, and get rid of Saddam.

However, the Oil will not benefit Americans anytime soon. What the Bush Administration did not figure on was the resistance to change, and democracy in Iraq. Some of the Iraqis would rather burn the Oil there, then see it benefit Americans. That is the reality of the War on Iraq, human beings with human emotions. They are not a blip on a map, they are thinking caring human beings.

I would love to hear an Iraqi talk openly and honestly about how they feel. I mean without being flanked by American Soldiers, and intimidated by the ghost of Saddam. After all, their freedom was the reason given for this war.

I am know Bush supporter, but if he goes down, we should make a clean sweep. I am disgusted by the apathy of our government, and the inaction of our elected officials with regard to our policy on Iraq.


William H. Leckie, Jr. - 6/18/2003

The charge, Mr. Maher, isn't that Shrub "pushed the envelope" but that he and his flacks lied, and his current equivocations are far more serious than Clinton's about the verb "to be." On moral grounds, I'll take the latter and his famous cigasr any day over the ethical claims of the scion of a family with dubious business dealings, ties to right-wing Cuban terrorists and their low-intensity warfare in Florida, and--in Shrub's ase--dubious electoral legitimacy. And you conveniently neglect the implications of the administration's doctrine of "pre-emptive war." Can it undertake such martial excursions upon any pretetxt? Real or fabricated? For whatever reason happens to profound the sound bite of the moment? To risk lives--American and foreign, military or civilian, is in my book immoral...no, dare I use the word? Evil.

As for Saddam's atrocities: He was our boy, and we didn't object to his violent purging of the Iraqi Left during the Cold War. His dictatorship served US purposes. Indeed, under earlier GOP administrations, equally horrendous regimes were supported in Central America. The human rights second-tier excuse for the war rings hollow from holdovers from the Reagan-Bush One years.

Finally, to occupy two countries and allow them to collapse into anarchy raises serious doubts about this administration's competence even at the imperial enterprises that it aspires to. Little wonder it is intolerant of dissent at home.


Bill Maher - 6/18/2003


If it is wrong to lie the country into a war, is it equally wrong to lie to keep the country out of a war? Consider this quote from Samantha Powers' A Problem From Hell: "We didn't need specific intelligence to know that something terrible was going on." Richard Holbrooke observed. "In fact, the search for intelligence is often a deliberate excuse to avoid or at least to delay action. We knew what needed to be done. If we'd bombed these fuckers . . . Srebrenica wouldn't have happened." The Clinton administration in action. For what purpose? A certain mentality. David Rawson, the U.S. ambassador to Rwanda, explained: "The fact that negotiations can't work is almost not one of the options open to people who care about peace. We were looking for the hopeful signs, not the dark signs. In fact, we were looking away from the dark signs. . ."
The charge is that the Bush administration pushed the envelope and looked for the dark signs. If so, I am not overly concerned. Today, in the London Times, Ann Clwyd described the mass grave at al-Hillah where 15,000 are buried. Nat Hentoff made the same point yesterday. If the Bush administration did not play by the rules of those who never see the dark signs, it is certainly equally true that his critics have done their best - always in the name of hopeful signs and the United Nations - to tolerate those who create places like al-Hillah.


Homer Simpson - 6/18/2003

Take a guess... 1 million? 2 million?

If laughter would kill, Kriz would be Napoleon.


Homer Simpson - 6/18/2003

We should have never let women like you out of the nunnery.

Please return at your earliest convenience.


Homer Simpson - 6/18/2003

Debbie, you should learn to cook.

It would keep you out of trouble.


Homer Simpson - 6/18/2003

Liz, you're just silly.

Ever thought of becoming a housewife? Seems more suited to your abilities.


Homer Simpson - 6/18/2003

Take two aspirin and go take a nap.

The republic does not need you to save it.

The delusions of grandeur are beginning to rot your mind.


Homer Simpson - 6/18/2003

bklbubba that's about all you've got to say.

So, everybody who disagrees with you is a devotee of Limbaugh.

This kind of nonsense prevails on this board. Anybody got a brain?


bklbubba - 6/18/2003

NYguy sounds like he has been warped by Limbaugh's ideals. If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes fact. The mantra of having no ideas of their own is right from Rush and simply not true.

The democrats want to lead in foreign policy. Their ideas seem the same to simple minded people but are vastly different than GW's. Their idea is to lead with diplomacy, not threaten the world with war.

As for the economy, the democrats want to increase the demand for goods. Their republican solution for anything is to cut taxes, taxes for the rich. I still don't understand how cutting taxes for the rich will help the economy. If manufacturing has over 25% excess capacity, why would you invest in increasing that capacity when you need to increase demand? Nobody has explained this to me yet.

As for ideas, my idea is to spend 70 million dollars to investigate our current administration and their activities with Harken Oil, Halliburton, Enron, etc. We can also investigate why they allowed the events of 9/11 happen. Why didn't they warn the airlines when they were briefed on this months before?

If you read the free press and stop listening to Rush and the White House briefs, maybe you would realize that we have one of the most corrupt administrations since the days of U.S. Grant. Only this time our leader is no war hero and is part of the pack.


William H. Leckie, Jr. - 6/18/2003

The role of "revisionism" in history need not take in epistemological relativism or lack of objectivity. Maybe I'm naive, but it's public debate that refines our understanding of the past, and since none of us is ominiscient or immortal "revisionism" plays a vital part in an ongoing intellectual enterprise.

The real "revisionists"--in the perjorative sense--in the WMD debate have, of course, been Shrub and his flacks. Who've given us moving targets as they backpedal from the outrageous assertions made before the occupation of Iraq. At one point a Defense Department official--I wish I could recall his name--said that any nation with the "intellectual capacity" to produce WMDs was fair game.

But there can be no real discussion unless all parties share a broad goal--call it Truth or whatever--in common. I've already written on this website that at least one influential group within the administration adheres to a reactionary and authoritarian--nay, fascist--view that "truth" is not a requisite in making public policy anyhow.

I'd go further and argue--again as I have before--that a self-policing authoritarianism, highly evolved, now pervades this country, and it is especially dangerous because it is not just "political" but shapes the larger culture.

Progressives, liberals, those on the Left--what there's left of one--have been complicit in creating this totalizing system. Every academic who has cited Foucault, used ideas drawn from Nietzsche or Heidegger or other half-assed French "theorists" ought to realize that and recant!

One consequence is that we have no real language in common--and this in an era more or less still "postmodern"--with which to make claims for any position that can have "truth value" or make serious ethical claims.

We're left with fighting back with the same tactics and style of rhetoric that have been used so successfully by the Right. Except for the fact that I find doing so great fun, it gets us nowhere. Until we can develop ways to analyse what's evolved in this country since World War Two that aren't caught in a self-constructed prison house of ideas largely derived from the same 19th century sources as those that propel the Right, we have nowhere to go.

Then there's the matter of how to really play political hardball. I suspect most upper-middle-class folks would find themselves uncomfortable doing so. My recent experiences have suggested to me that even established "community activist" agencies--local ones, anyway--replicate the organizational culture of those they are supposed to be resisting.

Let me give a concrete instance: Here in St. Louis, for the first time in its history, there is a citywide progressive constituency that cuts across lines of race, class, sex and sexual preference. But it has so far been mobilized only on one-shot, single issue referenda, and no one seems to be interested in channeling that electorate-in-waiting into electing aldermen, a mayor, even a new school board.

A consequence has been that in a city with a housing and public health crisis (an infant mortality rate that is shameful, for instance) and a public school system in crisis, a mayor's slate of "urban professionals" (most of whom I have known personally) who are linked to the professional establishment that has replaced the corporate elite which has left and largely pursues a corporate agenda, meeting in secret and in violation of state statute and hiring a corporate "turnaround consultant" to cure what ails the schools.

This is directly relevant to the Bush regime's domestic success: Sitting on their butts, pursuing organizational rather than civic agendas, they may share our contempt for the Right, but won't budge otherwise. For example, in trying to urge the local ACORN chapter to run an candidate for aldermen in the ward in which their office is located--for a seat now held by a pro-corporate redevelopment pol--I was told it was "not one of their wards" (which is to say, not one fashionably linked to the correct local pols; bi-racial coalition building seemed heretical to them.

This and the failure to carry street action beyond theater bubbles up through the system. Hey! When I was a kid, you know what we'd have done with "free speech zones?" There seems to be a mirroring of organizational expectations of class behavior going on. Which is to say, just as progressive academia has sustained the radically skeptical ideas of 19th century continental reaction, our activists have narrowly--with single-issue preoccupations, for instance--mirrored the fragmentation of technically manipulated constituencies in a shrinking and suburbanized electorate.

That ain't the way to fight an overrate egoist like Karl Rove; he's overrated because he hasn't had any real opposition. The Right's screamers are controllers who couldn't stand a level playing field in debate; I'd love it if O'Reilly physically threatened me off-camera, but he wouldn't have the cojones outside his studio. Imagine--can we take seriously a field of Democratic candidates who're all wealthy like Bush and who get their money--les of it but still--from the same sources? Let's start on the ground: Re-think a genuine recovery of the ethical and fight the peckerwoods from the street up.

Ah! My dream is to elect a black Spanish-speaking transsexual Maoist lesbian to the St. Louis board of aldermen! Pack the aldermanic chamber with a crowd waving red banners at her swearing in! Hoot down the West End yups! "Justice! Justice! Justice!" Let the rhetoric rip! I have always felt that campus speech codes were inherently reactionary, intended to maintain order, and that conservatives who attack them are nuts or deluded (but then, they're US "conservatives"). Let's renew the vigor of our public language beyond the cue-card, Cultural-Revolution-style woodeness of the Right. Take a cue from Limbaugh's heavy metal and humor! But just tell'im to shove it. That's would be a start.

Oh well. Fun to think about.


Hepatitus - 6/18/2003

Of course there's a differnece--but rather than argue that point, why not stick to the topic, which is "are Bush's coinsistent misrepresentations worse than watergate?" Clinton's not the issue here, and dragging him in again is just dodging the question

Sure, i wish saddam was dead, and as I've said elsewhere, i would be happy to make the removal of cruel dictators all over the world the focus of our foriegn policy--as I said, it would be a good use for the world's largest army.

The point here is not "was Saddam bad" no one is arguing that he was good. the point is not "are people in iraq happier," or is clinton worse thaan Bush. the pojnt is "did Bush lie to get the war going, and if he did, is it worse than watergate." Other people may have believed Saddam had weapons, but they were not sufficiently sure to justify a full scale invasion. Bush claimed he had solid evidence, but he clearly did not. Either he cannot interpret intelligence correctly, or he willingly lied. Neither is good.

Here--look this over:

Here are the things Bush said--just Bush,not other people in the administration.


United Nations Address, Sept. 12, 2002:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

IF we knew they were expanding their facilities, why have we not found evidence of this expansion? Bush said they ARE expanding, not the MAY BE. If we knew the expansion was takng place, where is the evidence?


Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002:

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

Here again-Iraq HAS stockpiled, IS rebuilding. Bush infers that he knows there are stockpiles, and he knows there is rebuilding. we have no evidence of either


"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Why did they not use them, if they existed and if the existance was authroized? If it was fear of the US, why have captured Iraqi officers not told us this?


Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, Oct. 7, 2002:

"The Iraqi regime... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

Here he claim it both "possesses" that is, it HAS chemical and bilogical weapons, and is actually producing more. Again, where are they--He claims to know, in this speech, that the weapons actually exist and are being produced. If he knew they existed and were being produced, he must have known where. Yet they have not been found


"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

Thousands of tons is a lot of material, and, Bush says, we KNOW he has procuced them. Where are they?


"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

Where is this fleet of unmanned vehicles? Surely we would have seen them, since we had complete command of the Iraqi skies and now have complete command of the ground, Again, Bush says HE HAS a growing fleet" not, "we think he has, or he may have--Bush claimed that this "fleet' existed. Where is the fleet?

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

The aluminum tubes claim has been debunked elsewhere. But if "satellite photos" could SHOW that he was building nuclear weaposn we must have know where. Why have we not gone to these sites and produced the evidence? Because it did not exist--if it did, we would have found it


State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003:

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

Well now it has gone from the claim (see above) that he actually HAS "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons to the claim that he "had" (note change of tense) the capacity to produce 500 tons. Talk about revisionist history! Where is that capacity?


Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

where are they, if there was "no doubt" that they had them? Again, the claim is "no doubt"


Now what do YOU make of these consistent misrepresentations?


Homer Simpson - 6/18/2003

Yes, this is really the question.

What is it about this site that draws the mentally ill -- particularly those with Chicken Little disease?

Bob, how often do they let you go out on your own?


Homer Simpson - 6/18/2003

Everything Kriz says should be viewed in this context.

Takes one to know one.

Liars indeed.


John Moser - 6/18/2003

"The missile attack in 1998 as not an invasion--it put no American lives directly at risk. i thought it was a mistake then, but it was hard to oppose it--the scale was completely different. But I repeat--it was not an invasion . It didn't cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives."

The difference is quantitative, not qualitative. The pilot of every aircraft to patrol the "no-fly" zones from 1991 to 2003 was "directly at risk." The only way to avoid risk entirely would have been to withdraw completely from the region.

"The intervention in Yugoslavia came with the general suppport of the free world and the united nations, while the invasion of iraq was opposed by those who though the evidence of WMD was sketchy, and it had not backing from any but a handful of nations."

What this boils down to is that the intervention in Yugoslavia had the support of France, while the war against Iraq did not. And, of course, France had an enormous financial stake in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which it did not have in Slobodan Milosevic's Yugoslavia. I do not understand how this translates into some moral sanction.

I'm glad Hussien is out of power--I'd be happier if he were dead."

A fine sentiment, but one that is difficult to reconcile with your position on this issue. What was the alternative--to wish very hard for Saddam to have a heart attack?


bklbubba - 6/18/2003

One has to agree with Hepatitus. When Saddam was hanging by a thread in the late 80's, he used chemical weapons on the Kurds in the north since his army was already occupied in the south with Iran. This action formed the president's claim that Saddam used chemical weapons. Let us not forget that the U.S. and the British have chemical weapons and have used them too.

Our president refers to people with a different view of history than his as revisionist historians. But can't his view be considered revisionst since he leaves out the facts?


NYGuy - 6/18/2003

Hepatitus,

No one called you any names. You have every right to interpret data as you see fit. I am not questioning that.

I was speaking about Krugman and Dean. They created an illusion that a watergate situation has already occured and we should all be outraged against Bush. Despite the use of all the qualifying comments, they are carrying out a rant that we have a watergate situation, but it is something they have definitely not proved, nor do they think they have proved their premise. All we have is another opinion, just as you have an opinion. And they admit nothing wrong has occured.

You might note that about 10 knee-jerk supporters immediately jumped on this concept of Watergate to post their outrage in an attempt to make something fly. As I said with the word "if",
If pigs had wings they could fly. There are no wings on Dean and Krugman's article, just some cheap politics by people who have nothing positive to offer.

As I said I have not accused you of anything or called you names. I read your posts since I think you have something to say and we have corresponded before. You make some very good points in this post, but it is given as an opinion and to your credit you don't make a leap of fantasy to say this is a Watergate Situation. If you do make that leap, with no conclusive proof, then I would put you in the class of Krugman and Dean. My point is it is not you, it is HNN and their willingness to post an article and a title which does not reflect favorably on their editorial judgement and is a political rant rather then a historical subject.


Enemies List Member - 6/18/2003

While I hope it is not worse, I am afraid it is. I see a contempt for truth here that does not even care that it has been found out. Repeatedly. Nixon always cared about his place in history. I don't see that here. There is no way this thing is not going to stink worse and worse as time goes on, The only thing holding it back is the astounding ignorance of the now far more consolidated "news" media. While Nixon had my taxes audited and my bosses twice threatened to fire me for calling him a liar on the air, I shudder to think what forces are now being employed against any truth tellers in the media now.


Hepatitus - 6/18/2003


Here are the things Bush said--just Bush,not other people in the administration.


United Nations Address, Sept. 12, 2002:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

IF we knew they were expanding their facilities, why have we not found evidence of this expansion? Bush said they ARE expanding, not the MAY BE. If we knew the expansion was takng place, where is the evidence?


Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002:

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

Here again-Iraq HAS stockpiled, IS rebuilding. Bush infers that he knows there are stockpiles, and he knows there is rebuilding. we have no evidence of either


"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Why did they not use them, if they existed and if the existance was authroized? If it was fear of the US, why have captured Iraqi officers not told us this?


Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, Oct. 7, 2002:

"The Iraqi regime... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

Here he claim it both "possesses" that is, it HAS chemical and bilogical weapons, and is actually producing more. Again, where are they--He claims to know, in this speech, that the weapons actually exist and are being produced. If he knew they existed and were being produced, he must have known where. Yet they have not been found


"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

Thousands of tons is a lot of material, and, Bush saiys, we KNOW he has procuced them. Where are they?


"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

Where is this fleet of unmanned vehicles? Surely we would have seen them, since we had complete command of the Iraqi skies and now have complete command of the ground, Again, Bush says HE HAS a rowing fleet" not, "we think he has, or he may have=-=-Bush claimed that thhis "fleet' existed. where is the fleet?

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

The aluminum tubes claim has been debunked elsewhere. but if "satellite photos" could SHOW that he was building nuclear weaposn we must have know where. Why have we not gone to these sites and produced the evidence? Because it did not exist--if it did, we would have found it


State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003:

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

Well now it has gone from the claim (see above) that he actually HAS "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons to the claim that he "had" (note change of tense" the capacity to produce 500 tons. Talk about revisionist history! Where is that capacity?


Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

where are they, if there was "no doubt that they had them? Again, the claim is "no doubt"


NYGuy, I doubt this will change your mind. You will probably just accuse me of being a democrat with no ideas, of being disloyal, of dishonoring the troops or some other unrelated thing. But I ask you--what do YOU make of this chain of misrepresentations?

I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "HAS" is.


NYGuy - 6/18/2003

Hepatitus,

The issue is not what GW said, it is about a HNN article with the heading, "Is It "Worse than Watergate"?

But it turns out to be nothing more than a rant against GW that is not based on any facts, only reconstruction by two political hacks. Here is how Krugman arrives at his misleading headline.

"The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history -- worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra." If pigs had wings they would fly.

This is not a difference of opinions, it is a biased commentary meant to stimulate a base with no original ideas of their own.

Reading Dean we find similar types of miscontruction about Watergate. But then again we have look at who we are dealing with, certainly not very reputable commentaries, but political hacks.

I hope you note these distinctions in your classes.


Hepatitus - 6/18/2003

Historians also always qualify--the civilw was most likely caused by, the depression was probably caused by--because historical events are complex and have multiple causes

What's troublng about the Bush approach is that it was NOT multi causal, nuanced, or subtle--the administration repeatedly claimed that there were WMDs, that it knew where they were, that the evidence was incontrovertible, even when US intelligence professionals were telling them otherwise, and that they constituted a threat to the US. This is manifestly not true, and hence the lie and the scandal.

While you might be right that they are still hidden, it is certainly odd that if Saddam had WMDs, he did not use them. He was desperate, his regime hanging by a thread--if he had these weapons, and if they were as effective as advertised, then why did he not use them against American troops? A weapon so well concealed that it cannot be used is not a weapon. If I had a gun buried in a locked chet in my backyard, it would do me no good wehn burglars arrived at my door. In saddam's case, he had months to prepare--to "militarize" the weapons. but he did not. if he had them, and they were as effective as claimed, why not use them?

My belief is that he did not have them--he played a coy game in order to puff himself up--if the US hated him, he could claim a greater sense of power than if the US was indifferent: he could blame sanctions and misery on the US. He both denied he had the weapons and refused to allow proof of it. If it were proven he had no weapons, he would lose power. If it were proven he HAD weapons, he would lose power. His only strategy was to do what he did--claim he did not have them while also encouraging the belief that he did. This kept the Iranians at bay while also inflating his own sense of importance. So I think Scenario One is very likely. there are many good reasns for it, from Saddam's point of view.

If scenario three has occurred, thsen the Bush administration has committed a grave error by invading and made the US far less safe: a policy of containment or "militarized" inspections would have worked better.

Either way the initial charge against the Bush administration stands--they massively inflated the nature and specificity of the threat


James Thornton - 6/18/2003

I do not have any proof that the Administration lied or put a spin on intel nor would I ever make such an accusation. I am exercising my First Admendment right and suggesting that I may have used a different strategy in justifying a war I wholeheartedly supported. I was also shocked and dismayed that WMD was not found immediately, but I still have faith that WMD or remnants of the stockpile will be discovered.

Here are some possibilities regarding the current situation:

1. Saddam was orchestrating one of history's most elaborate and extensive deception programs and hasn't had a WMD program since 1991. He only wanted the US, his neighbors, and the people under his boot to think so as a deterrent. I find this extremely improbable because maintaining power was what Saddam was all about and he had to know that President Bush was serious about disarming Iraq. I don't think he would have passed up the opportunity to publicly humiliate the President by allowing the inspectors immediate unfettered access to sensitive sites and would have provided documentation of the destruction of his stockpile. To do so after losing power and at the risk of losing his own life just doesn't make sense.

2. While diplomacy and the UN machinations played out, Iraq hid their WMD. I find this scenario the most plausible. Those that actually did the hiding may have been executed to forestall discovery or those involved are extremely loyal to the former regime. US intelligence is NOT omnipotent like many seem think it is and it will take time to scour "a country the size of California" to find it. Perhaps even years. Again, I emphasize that Intelligence is both an art and a science is almost never exact. Signals Intelligence and Human Intelligence are subject to deceit and deception. Imagery Intelligence, unless it is Real Time, is subject to time and what was photographed a few hours ago could move. It isn't often when you get "multiple sources indicating" the total picture. More often you get flashes and bits of information and ultimately a very experienced analyst makes a very educated guess based upon the evidence at hand. There is hardly, if ever, "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the world of intelligence.

3. Saddam transferred his WMD to a third party. Some press stories are hinting at this possibility, which was the underlying purpose of the war. This possibility frightens me the most, but I question whether a huge volume could have been shipped out of Iraq unless it was somehow disguised as illicit oil, which Iraq smuggled out through numerous means to numerous destinations. If this were true then the US Government warnings about a catastrophic terror attack against a Western city involving WMD is very likely to come to fruition.

4. The US Government knows the location or fate of Iraq's WMD but for some unknown reason has kept this knowledge secret. I find this doubtful because of the political heat the Administration is currently taking. It would have to be very sensitive information that if released could harm national security.

There could be other explanations, but those four are the first that come to mind quickly.


NYGuy - 6/18/2003


Dean and Krugman have no proof GW lied, why do you?

What did Krugman and Dean really say? Seems they are not sure of what has happened but are playing to their base and goes along with the Watergate comparison to get them excited. And they succeeded; they all came out of the woodwork. But these are the same people who thought Clinton was great.

Krugman: “The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. “If” that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history -- worse than Watergate.” The great “if” word is used. So Krugman, like Dean, doesn’t know if GW did anything wrong, but they want to raise the specter of Watergate, since the democratic party is bankrupt of any positive ideas and just continue the Clinton policy of personal destruction. Nothing new from their side, since they have no answers and have to create a problem.

Dean: “Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false.”
You mean you have not made up your mind yet and something is clear but only appears. Huh. .

Dean: “And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.”
So this is not a factual report but another rant against GW based upon your ability to make up scenarios.

Dean: “So what are we now to conclude “if” Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?”
And what do you conclude “if” Bush’s statements are found to be true. Then it would be great leadership, not Watergate. Not much help from Dean here.

Dean: “ The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the president's misstatements “may actually” have been intentional lies.”
Again, you have not concluded anything, except emotionally, not intellectually, and think the President’s, (do you mean statements or did you editorialize with misstatements) “may actually” (not very sure of your own analysis are you)

Dean: “Even now, “while the jury is still out” as to whether intentional misconduct occurred,”
I thought you were telling us that the game is over for GW and he made misstatements that put him in the class of Watergate.


Dean: “To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause.”
Again the use of the word “if”, showing you have not proved your case. If pigs had wings they could fly.

Dean: “Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a president to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. “Let us hope that is not the case.”
A further admission you don’t know and are not really accusing the President of wrong doing, only creating the impression through a cleverly worded article.

Dean: “Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate.”
Even though you are not convinced the President did anything wrong, you agree with someone who equates the President with Watergate. A low trick, but then again you worked for Clinton.


Bob - 6/18/2003

To lie about the gravest decision a President can make-to send our troops to be killed for dubious reasons-is not just worst than Watergate. It's not only an impeachable offense (which a Republican Congress would never act on), but it is outright treason against the United States. What is the penalty for treason, Mr. Bush?


Hepatitus - 6/18/2003

The missile attack in 1998 as not an invasion--it put no American lives directly at risk. i thought it was a mistake then, but it was hard to oppose it--the scale was completely different. But I repeat--it was not an invasion . It didn't cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives. completely different

The intervention in Yugoslavia came with the general suppport of the free world and the united nations, while the invasion of iraq was opposed by those who though the evidence of WMD was sketchy, and it had not backing from any but a handful of nations.

It's a really clear difference. Look at th quotations from Bush--he is not saying "maybe he has them, let's invade and find out." He is saying "he has them, we know it, we know where, we know how much, and they are a direct threat to the US." Seriously--read the quotations in the Dean piece also posted here

That's why it is reasonable to say he lied--that and the reliance on obvous forgeries, and the deliberate exclusion of counter evidence

I'm glad Hussien is out of power--I'd be happier if he were dead. As a citizen of a republic, I'm outraged by such massive lying.


John Moser - 6/18/2003

So the Clinton administration was also lying when it launched airstrikes against Iraq in 1998?

And how about the intervention in the former Yugoslavia? We were supposed to be ending something called "ethnic cleansing," that was allegedly taking place on a scale that rivaled that of the Nazi Holocaust. However, when all was said and done, it turned out that the atrocities were fairly minor. Where was the moral outrage on the Left then? Where were the calls for hearings?

"Hepatitus" claims that military force should only have been authorized if the intelligence were 100 percent clear that Iraq possessed WMD. I do not believe there was any way of determining this, short of either occupying the country (which is what we ultimately did, of course), or waiting for Saddam Hussein to use one. I'm glad the administration chose the former, and I think the vast majority of Americans are as well.


Sam Stetson - 6/17/2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."


Trying to copy and paste bits of the article is ponderous so I am offering only the above quote to make my point, but the poster should know that it is routine of the statements made by the President and administration officials to resolve the nation into war without reservation.

It is precisely the barrage of non-equivocating testimony heard from administration and intelligence officials that members from both House and Senate Intelligence Committees in Congress now complain misled them into support for the administration's military objectives without further investigation.

He ought to go back and review the facts and the statements. The degree of certainty regarding intelligence estimates was absolutely without any potential for error. Certainty was expressed not just about the minimum content of bilogical, chemical, and nuclear WMD that posed an imminent threat to our national security, but as to geographical location.

If these hazards to our collective well-being are a matter of "educated guess" then the administration, in matters concerning war and peace, has a constitutional obligation to notify at least the Congress in closed-door session, if not the rest of us publicly.

In matters of war and peace, the poster should be acutely aware, expressions of certainty in intelligence reports, leaving little or no room for "educated guess", with responsible officials consciously knowing otherwise, ought to never, under any circumstances be tolerated, countenanced, or deemed appropriate in public policy.


James Thornton - 6/17/2003


No WMD has been found, YET. Congressional inquiries at this point are premature. Intelligence is not always "iron clad". I would never risk my credibility by presenting a conclusion as fact. Analysis is sometimes nothing more than an educated guess. Here's how I word my analysis:

"The enemy will do this" or "this will happen", or "the WMD is here". Only when 100% sure - very rare in intel briefings or estimates.

"Highly probable". Used for when an action or event is 99-90% likely to occur.

"Probable". Used for when an action or event is 80-89% likely to occur.

"Most Likely". Used for when an action or event is 70 - 79%.

"Likely". Used for when an action or event is 60 -69%.

"Possible". 50-59%.

"Questionable". 40-49%

"Doubtful". 30-39%

"Improbable". 20-29%

"Most improbable". 1-19%

"Impossible". "The enemey will not (or cannot)..." "{Event} will not happen" "Iraq has no WMD" Just as rare as a 100% call.

A good anaylst never allows him or herself to be backed into a corner. I always leave wiggle room so if I am asked to make a call that ultimately does not pan out I can go back and say, "See, I only said it was possible." When something goes wrong on the operational side, Intel has historically been the whipping boy, and that lesson has been repeatedly learned by intelligence professionals.

Perhaps the President should have used more ambiguous words in his speeches. In my humble opinion leaving uneasy doubt in the minds of Americans about Iraq's WMD and propensity for using them would have been as effective as raising alarm. However, President Bush has the ultimate security clearance. Perhaps the fate of Iraq's WMD is known but is not releaseable yet. The people who know where it is could be tipped off, or they are still protecting a valuable source. Recall that Secretary of State Powell was "backed up" by CIA head George Tenet, a holdover from the Clinton Administration. I doubt he could have remained in that post in good conscious knowing full well that the current administration was deceiving the American public or "spinning" intelligence. A scheme that Dean and Krugman is hinting at would implicate not only the President but probably the entire Cabinet; especially the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and most of the Senior Executive Service and mid-grade Civil Service employed within the Intelligence Community and DoD.

If I were a Democratic Presidential hopeful I would be extremely cautious at accusing the Administration of deceit at the risk of looking very foolish in the event of the discovery of WMD or revelation of it's fate. Anonymous sources cited in open press stories are usually disgruntled people with an ax to grind. I would expect another "Pentagon Papers" style leak by another rendition of Daniel Ellsberg if this were the case.


Paul Fisher - 6/17/2003

If it is proven that GW lied to the people than yes it is worse than Watergate. Watergate was a political scandal. Trying to get the scoop on a rival. This is deceiving the American people to overthrow an existing government. American lives were sacrificed to achieve this aim. Therefore if GW purposely deceived then murder charges should be brought right after the impeachment.


NYGuy - 6/17/2003

Can't believe this reaction. Just about every post is a rant against GW. Having no ideas of their own we now find the "hate GW" types coming out of the woodwork with their negative "Polusi and Daschle" philosophy. They can't present a positive idea about what they would do but have given up the battlefield to become critics. And they want to lead this country.

Let them hyperventilate and huff and puff with their meaningless chatter. They act like they never read a newspaper or had an idea.

Oh look, let us pile on GW and his group. The people love GW, support his efforts to protect our country. His economic policies are working. He has inspired Americans and investors and we are now benefiting from the "wealth effect." And with his brillant tax cut idea we have a one-two punch that will get this economy roaring back. Finally he has turned the White House into something to be proud of.

Now, these people are not happy. If they want to try to win in 2004 they, as good American's, have to tear down GW and our country.

The funny part is the Democrats are giving up the critizism and now their platform is the same as GW, protect the homeland, restart the economy, become a leader in foreign policy, strengthen the family, etc.

What those negative people on this board don't realize is we have been there, done that, thanks to GW.



Elizabeth Crocker - 6/17/2003

I agree that the lies about Iraqi WMDs is worse than Watergate. The Neocons agenda since Bush came into office was to invade Iraq and they just needed an excuse. Just like Nixon he corrupted the intelligence services. What makes this worse, is the deaths of Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers. Plus, we are left with a country in chaos that we can't seem to be able to stabilize.

Elizabeth Crocker


Stephen Kriz - 6/17/2003


Because most Republican politicians are filthy liars, John~


Ryan - 6/17/2003

Your point about all history being a revision of some sort is indeed correct. However, 'Revisionist Historians' are a different breed of people. They are not after historical truth as most historians are. Most of them have a stated goal and fashion evidence around that goal. Take for example what the 'Revisionist Historian' Howard Zinn says:

"Objectivity is impossible,... and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity."

Being objective is "undesirable"? Here we see that Zinn is saying, in not so many, that he has a certain aim and fashions history around it, hence revising history to his choosing. However, it is not undesirable that Zinn has "a social aim", yet this is not the job of the historian but a political scientist or sociologist. I am always pleased to see revisions in history because history cannot only be seen through one lens. Yet, the blatant manipulation of history, by revisionist such as Zinn, to server a ‘social’ is just propaganda.


Hepatitus - 6/17/2003

Because while all those you mention thought--incorrectly--that he had WMD, only the US and Great Britain, acting on patently false/cooked/politicized intelligence, claimed the threat of these weapons was sufficient to warrant an invasion. Nearly every other country in the world oppposed this invasion, because they were not convinced by the evidence presented that Saddam constituted a danger. turns out they were right.

The other troublin thing is how the Bush administration willfully ignored all evidence to the coutrary, and mada a whole series of claims--read the dean piece, the quotes are there--about the certainty of the iraqi WMD. This includes the famous forged nuclear documents

So Bush risked american lives on the basis of bad or deliberately distorted intelligence. Either the administration is not competant to accurately judge the threat, or the administration deliberately lied. Neither one is good--hence the scandal

"Madam. Your son needs to go to war because we know for a fact that Saddam has WMD. He will be protecting America from this threat. Oops, there was no threat. Sorry abut the whole death thing


Debbie Mills - 6/17/2003

Lying about the reason to go to war against a country that had not attacked the US or anyone is so much worse than Watergate they are not even comparable. Even using the Texas police and the office of homeland security to spy on and try to apprehend democratic legislators is worse than Watergate. The whole Republican party has gotten much worse with age.


Kathleen - 6/17/2003

Heavens yes it is worse than Watergate! Almost 200 servicemen have died because of the lies of this President who was not even elected! He is leading this country down the path to hell and he has the audacity to claim he is a man of God? Has the administration no shame or no decency?

This entire group of criminals must be held accountable! All of them! The authentic president, Mr. Albert Gore must be restored to his rightful office that was stolen from him and those poor families of the dead and injured must be vindicated before it is too late.


John Moser - 6/17/2003

Does it matter at all to any of you that France, Germany, China, Russia, the United Nations as a whole, and the Clinton administration all agreed that Iraq was in possession of WMD? Why, when a Republican says it, do you automatically jump to the conclusion that it was a lie?


Catherine Brabant - 6/17/2003

Yes, I agree that Bush's lies to get us into a war is worse than Watergate! Most importantly is that the repubs run it all and there will be no open probe unless the American people wake up. Since the US media is also run by the repubs, I doubt if the average American has a clue as to what has been going on in this very dangerous administration.

Lies about sex (Clinton): Very serious

Lies about going to war in Iraq (Bush): No big deal

I am disgusted on a daily basis as to Bush and his minions are doing to the country I love.


Stephen Kriz - 6/17/2003


Well, how many?

If Bush is such a great Christian man, why does he lie to get us into a war that results in the slaughter of thousands of Iraqi's? Answer: He is only a Christian when it is convenient to claim he is.

This filthy lying fool is far worse than Richard Nixon. At least Nixon had some foreign policy successes that didn't involve mass murder - this unChristian clown has none.


Peg MacPhail - 6/17/2003

Thousands of people have died because Bush lied about Iraqi WMD. Trillions of dollars will be given to Halliburton, Bechtel and other Bush cronies instead of to Head Start, Medicare, children's health insurance and terror defense.

Is trashing the US economy worse than watergate? Is negligent homicide worse than watergate? Is treason worse than watergate? Is the death of hundreds of American troops worth Bush's ego or the oil or the money to his friends?

Watergate was about the misuse of power and the abuse of trust. Iraq-gate goes way beyond the misue of power, abuse of trust.


Jonathan Dresner - 6/17/2003

I'm so sick of the term "revisionist historians" being used as a pejorative. All history is revision, otherwise we wouldn't keep doing research. For Bush to think that the official version would remain the only version would be childish, particularly when the official version is such a weak and one-sided case.


Kay of Washougal - 6/17/2003

I believe the Bush administration's manipulation of the media & the American public to believe in the existence of the WMD as an imminent threat is just the discovery of an taped lock on a sidedoor into the Watergate. Here's hoping that Krugman & others are serving as security guards, and here's hoping that others will break the story & investigate, investigate, investigate! The Bush administration is insane; they've been so at least since the 2004 campaign when Bush smeared McCain and when Cheney had the gall to declare that he owed nothing of his financial success to the federal government--and who is he but a classic illustration of the revolving-door relationship between public service and corporate gold? The Republicans have wrapped war in the flag; they worship Mammon deguised as Christ. Abe & Teddy & even Barry are probably weeping at heaven's gate.


Jean Mcmahon - 6/17/2003

I believe this is the financial and political demise of this country brought to you via the courtesy of the most despicable administration of our country's history. Watergate now looks like petty larceny compared to the blatant deceit of this administration. Bush, Cheyney and Rumsfeld, Pearl and Wolfowitz have been counting on this war long before Bush was selected as president. This whole adminitration is corrupt including their illegal pursuit of the White House. I cannot believe Americans are so stupid that they cannot see through the lies. We can thank the media and the newspapers for facilitating the propaganda and hypocrisy of this administration. This administration was going to war in Iraq regardless of WMD, or 911 or anything else. It's the oil stupid and Bush and Cheyney and their band of liars have not had enough raping of this country to date.
Jean McMahon


Douglas Crinklaw - 6/17/2003

I agree that this is another cover-up of the magnitude of Watergate. It is a repeat of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that Johnson pushed through Congress. The same kinds of lies and scary rhetoric that convinced the public that there was immediate danger from a 3rd rate military organization.


Maezeppa - 6/16/2003

If the data supporting the war was intentionally cherry-picked or fabricated, if it is allowed to support, unchallenged, a troubling policy of preemptive strike the answer to the question is an unqualified "Yes".

While Watergate's crime was a small assault on a more important underpinning of our nation, a criminally-supported preemptive strike policy is a much larger crime that attacks one of the lesser bases of our Constitution.



Albert Madison - 6/16/2003

John Dean knows whereof he speaks.

Our C student president today:

16-June-2003. ELIZABETH, N.J. (Reuters) - President Bush countered those questioning his justification for the invasion of Iraq on Monday, dismissing "revisionist historians" and saying Washington acted to counter a persistent threat.

"Now there are some who would like to rewrite history; revisionist historians is what I like to call them," Bush said in a speech to New Jersey business leaders.

Referring to the ousted Iraqi president, Bush said, "Saddam Hussein was a threat to America and the free world in '91, in '98, in 2003. He continually ignored the demands of the free world, so the United States and friends and allies acted."

Why did Bush and Blair (not the "US and friends and allies" -typical lie) and their supporters who were in power then manifestly NOT act in '91 and '98 ?

No one watching this website can fail to notice the ongoing torrent of occasionally relevant denunciations of "liberals", "lefties", and "academics". Fine. Clintonites are wimps, losers, and politically-correct eggheads. I agree. Exhibit A: Hilary's new book. But why are supporters of puppet president Bush so pathologically stupid ? Is any of the gang here capable of self-inspection ?

History News Network