PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Dean dissected
    The PoliBlog prof takes Dean to task for his comments on Dubya’s “dangerousness.” Well done professor. Just more double-talk from Dean. I mentioned before how Dean is almost Clintonian in his ability to say whatever he thinks someone wants to…

    Trackback by Go Dubya! — Wednesday, December 31, 2003 @ 10:35 am

  2. I could make the argument that the Bush Administration is the most irresponsible in my lifetime, but “dangerous” is overdoing it. Although, after following Dean for awhile, I am not surprised at his hyperbole.

    I do see a danger mounting in this administration that is not the fault of Bush, but rather of our present view of the Executive Branch. I believe that the Legislative Branch (a branch any true conservative should prefer to be strong and healthy) is slowly giving power to the Executive Branch. Given our Constitutional framework, that is a dangerous thing.

    Comment by Anthony — Wednesday, December 31, 2003 @ 11:06 am

  3. In a polarized nation between conservative & liberal , this kind of rhetoric is common place. Since Dean was speaking to the caucus-goers in Iowa, he was speaking to the party faithful, who don’t think to highly of Bush.

    Let’s face it. Bush didn’t exactly win points in the sense department by speaking at Bob Jones university.

    Comment by Eric — Wednesday, December 31, 2003 @ 11:42 am

  4. 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!

    Comment by dgid — Wednesday, December 31, 2003 @ 12:25 pm

  5. 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?

    Comment by Steven — Wednesday, December 31, 2003 @ 2:11 pm

  6. 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?

    Comment by Steven — Friday, January 2, 2004 @ 8:46 pm

  7. 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––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.

    Comment by digi — Saturday, January 3, 2004 @ 7:11 pm

  8. 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––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.

    Comment by digi — Saturday, January 3, 2004 @ 7:12 pm

  9. 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––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.

    Comment by digi — Saturday, January 3, 2004 @ 7:12 pm

  10. Please forgive the triple posts. I don’t know how I did that, sorry.

    Comment by digi — Saturday, January 3, 2004 @ 7:24 pm

  11. Are you seriously suggesting that Rumsfeld could have arrested Saddam in 83? That is rather hard to take seriously.

    Comment by Steven — Saturday, January 3, 2004 @ 8:37 pm

  12. 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?

    Comment by digi — Sunday, January 4, 2004 @ 1:13 pm

  13. 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.

    Comment by Steven — Sunday, January 4, 2004 @ 2:48 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.191 Powered by Wordpress