Comments on: Dean Comments on Bush http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387 A rough draft of my thoughts... Mon, 08 May 2024 15:36:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.2 by: Steven http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9121 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9121 There is some irony yes. However, we have dealt with any number of dictators over the years, and many of the crimes that led Rumsfeld to later brand Hussein a mass murderer hadn't happen yet, although I would agree that in 83 he was still a brutal dictator, but at the time we saw him as the lesser of two evils vis-a-vis Iran. It is a common story, like or not, in or history. It is called living in an imperfect world. The part that I found ludicrous was the suggestion the Rummy should have arrested him in 83. There is some irony yes. However, we have dealt with any number of dictators over the years, and many of the crimes that led Rumsfeld to later brand Hussein a mass murderer hadn’t happen yet, although I would agree that in 83 he was still a brutal dictator, but at the time we saw him as the lesser of two evils vis-a-vis Iran. It is a common story, like or not, in or history. It is called living in an imperfect world.

The part that I found ludicrous was the suggestion the Rummy should have arrested him in 83.

]]>
by: digi http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9120 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9120 I'm just telling you what Rumsfeld said. When asked where were the WMD, Rumsfeld answered "We got Saddam Hussein. He's been a brutal dictator for three decades. He IS a weapon of mass destruction." Now if Saddam has been a brutal dictator for three decades, and therfore a WMD, why did Reagan send Rumsfeld to meet Saddam in a cordial ceremony where Rumsfeld shook hands with Hussein, whom Rumsfeld says was a WMD? Wasn't 1983 within the three decade time frame given by Rumsfeld? One way or another, Rumsfeld is trying to have it both ways, and in so doing has implecated himself and the Reagan-Bush Administration with coersion of a brutal dictator--a WMD. Can't you see the irony? I’m just telling you what Rumsfeld said. When asked where were the WMD, Rumsfeld answered “We got Saddam Hussein. He’s been a brutal dictator for three decades. He IS a weapon of mass destruction.”

Now if Saddam has been a brutal dictator for three decades, and therfore a WMD, why did Reagan send Rumsfeld to meet Saddam in a cordial ceremony where Rumsfeld shook hands with Hussein, whom Rumsfeld says was a WMD? Wasn’t 1983 within the three decade time frame given by Rumsfeld?

One way or another, Rumsfeld is trying to have it both ways, and in so doing has implecated himself and the Reagan-Bush Administration with coersion of a brutal dictator–a WMD.

Can’t you see the irony?

]]>
by: Steven http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9119 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9119 Are you seriously suggesting that Rumsfeld could have arrested Saddam in 83? That is rather hard to take seriously. Are you seriously suggesting that Rumsfeld could have arrested Saddam in 83? That is rather hard to take seriously.

]]>
by: digi http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9118 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9118 Please forgive the triple posts. I don't know how I did that, sorry. Please forgive the triple posts. I don’t know how I did that, sorry.

]]>
by: digi http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9117 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9117 How many of the 9 did Reagan and Bush appoint? Reagan named Renquist (a Nixon appointee) Cheif Justice; also O'Connor; Scalia; didn't he appoint Kennedy, too? Bush took care of Souter; Thomas. That's six, with one to spare for close votes末Souter's vote was for people to say "see Souter dissented." Nice try... Bush said Iraq had WMD. Rather anyone believed Bush is irreleveant because Bush never showed any eveidence that Iraq HAD WMD. Never! Certainly not enough to get support of the majority of nations to go to war. Look at the historical record of the Reagan-Bush Administration. Most of what Saddam bought was financed by the US. Not to mention whatever the corporate arms and munitions manufacturers could sell or broker. When Saddam was ready to get his newly constructed nuclear power plant online in the early 80's, the Israeli airfoce blew it to hell. Reagan scolded the Israelis, because US companies helped build it. Was Saddam a WMD back then? Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand within the same time frame (3 decades) that he claimed the brutal dictator WAS a weapon of mass destruction. Why is that not an issue, in light of all the dead Americans that could have been spared if Rumsfeld just arrested Saddam in '83. How many of the 9 did Reagan and Bush appoint? Reagan named Renquist (a Nixon appointee) Cheif Justice; also O’Connor; Scalia; didn’t he appoint Kennedy, too? Bush took care of Souter; Thomas. That’s six, with one to spare for close votes末Souter’s vote was for people to say “see Souter dissented.” Nice try…

Bush said Iraq had WMD. Rather anyone believed Bush is irreleveant because Bush never showed any eveidence that Iraq HAD WMD. Never! Certainly not enough to get support of the majority of nations to go to war.

Look at the historical record of the Reagan-Bush Administration. Most of what Saddam bought was financed by the US. Not to mention whatever the corporate arms and munitions manufacturers could sell or broker.

When Saddam was ready to get his newly constructed nuclear power plant online in the early 80’s, the Israeli airfoce blew it to hell. Reagan scolded the Israelis, because US companies helped build it. Was Saddam a WMD back then?

Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam’s hand within the same time frame (3 decades) that he claimed the brutal dictator WAS a weapon of mass destruction. Why is that not an issue, in light of all the dead Americans that could have been spared if Rumsfeld just arrested Saddam in ‘83.

]]>
by: digi http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9116 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9116 How many of the 9 did Reagan and Bush appoint? Reagan named Renquist (a Nixon appointee) Cheif Justice; also O'Connor; Scalia; didn't he appoint Kennedy, too? Bush took care of Souter; Thomas. That's six, with one to spare for close votes末Souter's vote was for people to say "see Souter dissented." Nice try... Bush said Iraq had WMD. Rather anyone believed Bush is irreleveant because Bush never showed any eveidence that Iraq HAD WMD. Never! Certainly not enough to get support of the majority of nations to go to war. Look at the historical record of the Reagan-Bush Administration. Most of what Saddam bought was financed by the US. Not to mention whatever the corporate arms and munitions manufacturers could sell or broker. When Saddam was ready to get his newly constructed nuclear power plant online in the early 80's, the Israeli airfoce blew it to hell. Reagan scolded the Israelis, because US companies helped build it. Was Saddam a WMD back then? Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand within the same time frame (3 decades) that he claimed the brutal dictator WAS a weapon of mass destruction. Why is that not an issue, in light of all the dead Americans that could have been spared if Rumsfeld just arrested Saddam in '83. How many of the 9 did Reagan and Bush appoint? Reagan named Renquist (a Nixon appointee) Cheif Justice; also O’Connor; Scalia; didn’t he appoint Kennedy, too? Bush took care of Souter; Thomas. That’s six, with one to spare for close votes末Souter’s vote was for people to say “see Souter dissented.” Nice try…

Bush said Iraq had WMD. Rather anyone believed Bush is irreleveant because Bush never showed any eveidence that Iraq HAD WMD. Never! Certainly not enough to get support of the majority of nations to go to war.

Look at the historical record of the Reagan-Bush Administration. Most of what Saddam bought was financed by the US. Not to mention whatever the corporate arms and munitions manufacturers could sell or broker.

When Saddam was ready to get his newly constructed nuclear power plant online in the early 80’s, the Israeli airfoce blew it to hell. Reagan scolded the Israelis, because US companies helped build it. Was Saddam a WMD back then?

Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam’s hand within the same time frame (3 decades) that he claimed the brutal dictator WAS a weapon of mass destruction. Why is that not an issue, in light of all the dead Americans that could have been spared if Rumsfeld just arrested Saddam in ‘83.

]]>
by: digi http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9115 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9115 How many of the 9 did Reagan and Bush appoint? Reagan named Renquist (a Nixon appointee) Cheif Justice; also O'Connor; Scalia; didn't he appoint Kennedy, too? Bush took care of Souter; Thomas. That's six, with one to spare for close votes末Souter's vote was for people to say "see Souter dissented." Nice try... Bush said Iraq had WMD. Rather anyone believed Bush is irreleveant because Bush never showed any eveidence that Iraq HAD WMD. Never! Certainly not enough to get support of the majority of nations to go to war. Look at the historical record of the Reagan-Bush Administration. Most of what Saddam bought was financed by the US. Not to mention whatever the corporate arms and munitions manufacturers could sell or broker. When Saddam was ready to get his newly constructed nuclear power plant online in the early 80's, the Israeli airfoce blew it to hell. Reagan scolded the Israelis, because US companies helped build it. Was Saddam a WMD back then? Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand within the same time frame (3 decades) that he claimed the brutal dictator WAS a weapon of mass destruction. Why is that not an issue, in light of all the dead Americans that could have been spared if Rumsfeld just arrested Saddam in '83. How many of the 9 did Reagan and Bush appoint? Reagan named Renquist (a Nixon appointee) Cheif Justice; also O’Connor; Scalia; didn’t he appoint Kennedy, too? Bush took care of Souter; Thomas. That’s six, with one to spare for close votes末Souter’s vote was for people to say “see Souter dissented.” Nice try…

Bush said Iraq had WMD. Rather anyone believed Bush is irreleveant because Bush never showed any eveidence that Iraq HAD WMD. Never! Certainly not enough to get support of the majority of nations to go to war.

Look at the historical record of the Reagan-Bush Administration. Most of what Saddam bought was financed by the US. Not to mention whatever the corporate arms and munitions manufacturers could sell or broker.

When Saddam was ready to get his newly constructed nuclear power plant online in the early 80’s, the Israeli airfoce blew it to hell. Reagan scolded the Israelis, because US companies helped build it. Was Saddam a WMD back then?

Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam’s hand within the same time frame (3 decades) that he claimed the brutal dictator WAS a weapon of mass destruction. Why is that not an issue, in light of all the dead Americans that could have been spared if Rumsfeld just arrested Saddam in ‘83.

]]>
by: Steven http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9114 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9114 David Souter, a Bush appointee, was one of the 4 in the 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision. And, the legal reasoning in the Texas sodomy case was far from conservative, even if one could argue (as would I), that there was a liberty issue at hand. Indeed, the ruling was more libertarian than conservative. Indeed, it is rather hard to argue that it was in any way conservative. I think you need to review your history in regards to precisely where most of Iraq's amr camwe from (Russia (USSR) and France) Plus, you are changing the subject: your initial claim was that it was all lies about WMDs, now you agree he had them? David Souter, a Bush appointee, was one of the 4 in the 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision.

And, the legal reasoning in the Texas sodomy case was far from conservative, even if one could argue (as would I), that there was a liberty issue at hand. Indeed, the ruling was more libertarian than conservative. Indeed, it is rather hard to argue that it was in any way conservative.

I think you need to review your history in regards to precisely where most of Iraq’s amr camwe from (Russia (USSR) and France)

Plus, you are changing the subject: your initial claim was that it was all lies about WMDs, now you agree he had them?

]]>
by: Steven http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9112 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9112 Yes, that radical right-wing SCOTUS which decided the BCRA case and the Texas sodomy case. They are oppressively conserative. And, of course, President Clinton, the UN and Europeans government (including those who did not support the war) <i>all</i> believed that Saddam had WMDS. Care to try again? Yes, that radical right-wing SCOTUS which decided the BCRA case and the Texas sodomy case. They are oppressively conserative.

And, of course, President Clinton, the UN and Europeans government (including those who did not support the war) all believed that Saddam had WMDS.

Care to try again?

]]>
by: dgid http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9111 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=2387#comment-9111 Bush is every bit as dangerous as Tricky Dick... even more so with his conservative Supreme Court, a Republican Congress and the full and complete backing (financial and otherwise) of the entire military industrial complex. He lied blatantly to the American people to send our troops to war. This wasn't no lie about rather or not he cheated on his wife.. Bush's lies are killing Americans while his rich corporate buddies profit off their blood while the bodies are still warm. Yes, Dean is right, if not understating it! Bush is every bit as dangerous as Tricky Dick… even more so with his conservative Supreme Court, a Republican Congress and the full and complete backing (financial and otherwise) of the entire military industrial complex.

He lied blatantly to the American people to send our troops to war. This wasn’t no lie about rather or not he cheated on his wife..

Bush’s lies are killing Americans while his rich corporate buddies profit off their blood while the bodies are still warm.

Yes, Dean is right, if not understating it!

]]>