Why does America hate America so much?

June 3, 2005 10:09 AM

Rep. John Conyers has a petition on his congressional website urging constituents to sign on to a letter to President Bush requesting he answer the questions about the "Downing Street Memo" posed to him by 89 Members of Congress. Going even further, Ralph Nader, and former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark among others, are calling for impeachment. Recently, Reps. Kucinich & Abercrombie wrote a USA Today Op-Ed calling For US withdrawal from Iraq. Meanwhile, approval ratings for President Bush and the war in Iraq continue to plummet. Does this represent a sea change in public opinion and a coming shift in the political landscape?
posted by stenseng (123 comments total)

Does this represent a sea change in public opinion and a coming shift in the political landscape?

No. Have you watched the last four years? The dude is made of teflon. This will slide right off him like everything else has.

Also, say Nader's wet dream comes true, and we get President Cheney. Does that sound better or worse? Is that at all any different?
posted by mathowie at 10:12 AM on June 3, 2005

we get President Cheney. Does that sound better or worse? Is that at all any different?

The only difference would be in the presentation. We'd get the same policies, but without Bush's empty platitudes, just the Dick Cheney go-fuck-yourself steamroller.
posted by psmealey at 10:23 AM on June 3, 2005

Agree with mathowie. Perhaps the only way we could get him kicked out is with some sort of nasty sex scandal that involves the whole adminstration. Anybody got any dirt?
posted by fungible at 10:26 AM on June 3, 2005

Well, realistically speaking, we more or less have a Cheney administration already, so on that point, I'm going to call it a push. Regardless what happens, we'll have to ride out this administration in some form until 08. The ideal outcome however, is to hang the fallout from this clusterfuck fiasco around the necks of the Republican party leadership like the rightful millstone it is, so we don't see another administration willing to pull shit like this for at least another fourty years.

Bush, like any scoundrel, is only made of teflon so long as people keep saying it's so.

No one gets away with any more in life than the people around them allow them to get away with.

It's crucial to the long term social, economic, and national security viability of the US that we can be again trusted and respected, and not seen as a superpower with a mad driver asleep at the wheel. This means there's GOT to be some accountability for lying to congress, lying to the American public, and getting a good number of Americans and a cubic shit-ton of Iraqis killed over an utter and complete fabrication.

If the fallout turns into a democratic sweep in the 06 midterms, all the better to block any further malfeasance from these corrupt thugs in the short term.

Remember that for years everyone thought Tricky Dick was untouchable too, and we know how that story played out.
posted by stenseng at 10:27 AM on June 3, 2005

Does this represent a sea change in public opinion

no

and a coming shift in the political landscape?

maybe, yes.
Capitol Hill politics are indeed local -- an erosion in the popular support for the war will have consequences. no matter how much the White House insists, congressmen will listen to the constituents who have the power to fire them in '06. scaring America shitless with orange alerts doesn't seem to be working anymore.

and if enough Congresspersons stop to pretend that Iraq Attaq was a good idea, the "anti Iraq war = lily-livered pansy-ass terrahist lover" equation that badly fucked up the Democrats in '04 will finally die the painful death it deserves. and maybe something similar to a reasonable political debate on how you can protect America will begin again.

say Nader's wet dream comes true, and we get President Cheney. Does that sound better or worse? Is that at all any different?

well, you cut out the middleman, it's always better that way -- you get your neocon, pro-military-and-energy-complex policies straight up.

I also strongly disagree that Nader has any wet dreams at all, we know he hates "gonadal politics" (Ralph's words).
posted by matteo at 10:32 AM on June 3, 2005

Where's a good Deep Throat when you need one?

Linda Tripp, we have a job for you...
posted by jsavimbi at 10:32 AM on June 3, 2005

Let me also remind you that from a legal standpoint, deliberately lying to congress (as is indicated in the Downing St. memo,) not "getting the facts wrong", or making an "intelligence blunder," but knowingly, intentionally, deliberately, and repeatedly lying to the congress of the United States EASILY qualifies as a "high crime or misdemeanor" and is thus just and appropriate grounds for impeachment proceedings.
posted by stenseng at 10:33 AM on June 3, 2005

While I think the answer is yes, one must remember that a "shift in the political landscape" is a slow, gradual thing that happens over time.

It seems to me that public opinion is slipping away from the right as a whole as a culmination of negatives stacks up against the Republican party: the bogus war on Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, rising prices of petroleum, rising costs of home ownership, growing inflation, high unemployment, scandals in the House of Representatives (al la Tom DeLay), other scandals like the missing $10 million in coins in Ohio, the John Bolton troubles, and that's before we start thinking about their forceful religious indoctrination by way of gay-hating, book banning, and intrusion in personal affairs like Terri Schiavo...

These guys won the majority in almost every part of the government, and they got so excited about the newfound power that they figured they could get away with anything and set about trying to prove it.

The general public is uninformed, and maybe even ignorant... but we're not stupid. Once the facts start to become clear, everyone gets on board to make change.
posted by randem at 10:34 AM on June 3, 2005

"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." - Edwin W. Edwards"
posted by klangklangston at 10:35 AM on June 3, 2005

the only way we could get him kicked out is with some sort of nasty sex scandal

you'll never kick out a President because of war crimes -- it'd say something very nasty about America and Americans -- a majority of them at least -- don't want that. Nixon wasn't kicked out because of Vietnam or Cambodia, after all. the Watergate's very bad stuff was indeed minor if you compare it to war crimes. same for Bush, he'll never go down because of a war. a big financial scandal, maybe. a war, never.

Americans seem to be ready to concede that their leaders can be crooks, or philanderers, not war criminals. war criminals are, like, foreigners from the Balkans or Rwanda or whatever, it's an important difference
posted by matteo at 10:39 AM on June 3, 2005

Perhaps I've become too cynical in my old age, but I've little hope for a turn around in this country. As the middle class disappears, I believe there isn't much chance for an increasingly disenfranchised impoverished lower class to have much impact...they are just out-gunned!

I keep hearing the statistics about when systems will fail, when resources will run out, when the whole fucking thing falls apart... and I breath a sigh of relief knowing that I'll probably not live long enough to watch it all crumble..

I'm very sad for those of you who are younger than I.

Mind you, I haven't given up trying to make the change happen, just less hopeful that it is possible.
posted by HuronBob at 10:39 AM on June 3, 2005

Is this petition intended only for constituents of Michagan's 14 Congressional District, or can anybody play, basically?
posted by alumshubby at 10:42 AM on June 3, 2005

14th
posted by alumshubby at 10:42 AM on June 3, 2005

> If the fallout turns into a democratic sweep in the 06 midterms, all the better to block any further malfeasance

I'm for bringin back "Stamps for Cash" Rostenkowski and "Flim-Flam" Whitewater Bill Clinton myself.

> deliberately lying to congress

Congres lies to us, why shouldn't we lie to them?

Say, didn't one of those guys above do a little lying UNDER OATH???
posted by dand at 10:44 AM on June 3, 2005

As the realization sets in, even among conservatives, that the war in Iraq was perhaps ill conceived and is quite expensive in lives, dollars and stress upon the military infrastructure some may turn away from GW. Nevertheless, the people are still scared of those evil terrorists and will likely support pols willing to take a tough stance, even if that tough stance proves ineffective in actually keeping them safer. I don't see a sea change, but rather just more tarnish on GW's legacy.
posted by caddis at 10:45 AM on June 3, 2005

It seems to me that public opinion is slipping away from the right as a whole as a culmination of negatives stacks up against the Republican party:

IT may seem that way to you, from where you're sitting, but let me tell you something. I was in Houston for a wedding last weekend, and despite desparately trying to avoid political discussions of any kind, over the buzz of otherwise pleasant conversation I heard a large number of (otherwise well educated) people say things like "despite it all, Bush is a good man, a great leader" and "Democrats are morally corrupt and defend lazy free-loaders". There are some things that seem utterly intractable at this point. There's a view that Republicans stand for God and the American Way that will easily take generations to change. In fact, given current progress: it will never change.

Would that it weren't so, I just don't share your optimism.
posted by psmealey at 10:46 AM on June 3, 2005

well, we may be stuck with the little prick until his term expires, but we could look forward to him becoming so vilified that he has to retire in isolation to his faux ranch, where crowds of true patriots will pilgrimage for years to come in order to fling feces at the house he'll never be able to leave.
posted by quonsar at 10:46 AM on June 3, 2005

I dislike Bush intensely, but I don't think that there's as strong a case for his impeachment as there was for Nixon. The difference, as I see it, is that during Nixon's election, he commited acts which the electorate could not possibly have been aware of. He was elected under false pretenses. However, when Bush was elected, the public was perfectly capable of seeing that the Iraq war had gone bad, and that there were no WMDs to be found. They knew of Abu Graib, and of Guantanamo. They chose to vote for Bush anyway. I disagree with them, but that's the choice that they made. It is one thing to remove a president who got into office under false pretenses, but it is another to remove one who was chosen by the electorate only 9 months ago by an electorate who, had they chosen, were fully capable of judging Bush's war tactics in the voting booth.
posted by unreason at 10:50 AM on June 3, 2005

jsavimbi: if I can live the rest of my life without hearing, reading or even knowing about "Linda Tripp" and "Deep Throat" in the same sentence, I will be just fine, thx.

Now i need to wash my brain out.
posted by indiebass at 10:51 AM on June 3, 2005

Also, say Nader's wet dream comes true, and we get President Cheney. Does that sound better or worse?

Much better. It would discredit their entire imperial campaign and certainly cost them elections in 2006 and 2008. I speak as a P&F party member.

It's hard to imagine the long run, say 100+ years, but I still say it's better to impeach. It's justice. I generally agree with stenseng, aside from the Democratic party stuff.

As the middle class disappears, I believe there isn't much chance for an increasingly disenfranchised impoverished lower class to have much impact...they are just out-gunned!

Out-gunned yes, but as long as we can maintain (or reinstate) transparent elections, people still have power. All it takes is critical mass. I think beliefs and political movement affect change a lot faster than you might think, especially in an era of high-speed communication.

The difference, as I see it, is that during Nixon's election, he commited acts which the electorate could not possibly have been aware of.

unreason, the same could certainly be true here. We won't get them for any of the bad stuff so far, but they way these guys operate, there must be other skeletons in the closet. All it takes is one credible defector to the side of truth.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:53 AM on June 3, 2005

... Perhaps the only way we could get him kicked out is with some sort of nasty sex scandal that involves the whole adminstration. Anybody got any dirt?
Ask Gannon/Guckert.

and what mrgrimm said.
posted by amberglow at 10:57 AM on June 3, 2005

It is wonderful that you are all so blind in your hatred for President Bush that you cannot see that the real reason that this administration is in office is because its views are actually consonant with those of a majority of voting Americans. Heaping calumny on President Bush -- ha! the Cheney Administration! good one! -- only underscores how out of touch you all are on fundamental issues. More important it underscores how out of touch contemporary liberalism is with mainstream America.

President Bush did not lie about Iraq. Everybody -- from the Clinton Administration to Tony Blair to the French to the New York Times -- thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. In fact, he used them, remember? It is crazy how Republicans used to have to push the line that President Clinton's intentional deceptions in sworn grand jury testimony was a lie, even though it was difficult to discern an inaccurate statement, but now Democrats are jumping on President Bush for a statement that turned out to be inaccurate even though there is not a shred of evidence that there was any intent to deceive. It's bizarre.

In all events, please continue to chatter away about how immoral and awful and stupid and dangerous President Bush is. It is very effective and I am sure that some day you will all be proven prescient, right? Shift in public opinion? Sure, the public will be clamoring for tax increases and stronger labor unions and gay marriage any day now. Just stay the course, by all means.
posted by esquire at 10:57 AM on June 3, 2005

fungible, a sex scandal like a gay escort planted in the White House press corps? That could never happen.

There's a very strong case for Bush intentionally and deliberately misleading the American people to entrench us in a war that his own father said was a mistake to engage in.

The US would not take well to President Dick "Go Fuck Yourself" Cheney in charge. He's got none of the charm and about ten times the viciousness of Bush. It would be a really bad time for the country but it would also expose how craven and just plain mean the Republican party has become. They are the party of jackboot on your throat now.
posted by fenriq at 10:57 AM on June 3, 2005

All it takes is one credible defector to the side of truth.

That's it in a nutshell. That's the only thing missing from this equation. A John McCain or a Colin Powell switching parties would put a monkeywrench in the Republican machine. Or, as stated above, one Deep Throat...
posted by randem at 10:58 AM on June 3, 2005

unreason, the same could certainly be true here.

Yes, if you came up with something clearly different from what we already knew at election time. What I'm saying is that it's not reasonable to impeach based on Iraq and prisoner abuse scandals when the voters clearly knew about these things when they chose the Shrub over Lurch.
posted by unreason at 11:00 AM on June 3, 2005

No, esquire, you're wrong. I, at least, heartily agree that Bush's "views are actually consonant with those of a majority of voting Americans." That's what's so fucking depressing. They (and you, apparently) don't give a damn that he lied, because he was telling them what they wanted to hear.
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:02 AM on June 3, 2005

esquire writes 'President Bush did not lie about Iraq. Everybody'...

(does esquire live under a bridge?)
posted by indiebass at 11:03 AM on June 3, 2005

I think beliefs and political movement affect change a lot faster than you might think, especially in an era of high-speed communication.

They have already begun to nip that in the bud.

Do you suppose they would use selective enforcement to keep the swift boat/LGF crowd heard, while jailing/shutting down/fining out of existance the dailyKOS, Democratic underground, whatreallyhappened, and Metafilters of the web?
posted by Balisong at 11:04 AM on June 3, 2005

"President Bush did not lie about Iraq."

Jesus F. Christ...how deep in that hole do you have your head anyway?

on preview...what indiebrass said
posted by HuronBob at 11:05 AM on June 3, 2005

posted by ericb at 11:06 AM on June 3, 2005

I agree with stenseng that "Bush, like any scoundrel, is only made of teflon so long as people keep saying it's so." Smart people like mathowie should stop repeating the Teflon Mantra and start remembering that America is a great country that has been nearly broken by a small group of extremists who have managed to manipulate the media, and thus a large portion of the electorate, but that it can still be fixed -- as long as people who have not been successfully manipulated work really hard to fix it. People who post "move along, nothing to see here" after each new revelation of the Bush administration's misbehavior are some of the most powerful allies that the GOP has. It's extremely important that each transgression against democracy is uncovered and widely publicized using every means at our disposal. Change will come in ways that we can't predict, assisted by the slow but inexorable gathering of evidence that happens in places like MeFi.
posted by digaman at 11:06 AM on June 3, 2005

Well, at least we'll have ParisParamus on our side, right?
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:13 AM on June 3, 2005

It is wonderful that you are all so blind in your hatred for President Bush that you cannot see that the real reason that this administration is in office is because its views are actually consonant with those of a majority of voting Americans.

No. They're not.-- ... Six in ten Americans say the president does not share their priorities, while just 34 percent say he does – the lowest numbers for Mr. Bush since the eve of his first inauguration. ...
posted by amberglow at 11:21 AM on June 3, 2005

even though there is not a shred of evidence that there was any intent to deceive.

esquire, there's this little shred of evidence known as the Downing St. Memo that's been making the rounds. The one that more or less explicitly states that the Bush admin knew full well that there were no wmds in Iraq, and were in fact actively cooking false evidence to the contrary as justification for a pre-planned invasion. You might have heard of it?
posted by stenseng at 11:26 AM on June 3, 2005

esquire: by all means, continue to live in your own little fantasy. Not a shred of evidence? Maybe because the cherrypicking and politicking didn't make the mainstream news, and your head remains firmly buried in the sand, you feel comfortable with that. Bush has been cheating and lying since _before_ day one of his term, and he hasn't stopped since.

The nation clamoring for higher taxes? Maybe when our debts push inflation up, or some red states have to go without subsidies from blue states, they will. Clamor for gay marriage? Hey, you're right. F*** all those gay people, right? I mean, they're no better than the blacks, or those uppity girls who want to vote. Yeah, S*** on the civil rights movement alltogether, eh?

Come out from under your rock. Liberals always win in the long run, and conservatives always lose, because you're hanging on to the past like frightened children, while we're out in the sun creating the future.
posted by modernerd at 11:27 AM on June 3, 2005

"President Bush did not lie about Iraq."

Isn't a necessary precondition for lying, actually believing something to be the truth and deliberately misstating it? One could argue that he didn't lie, he was just parroting what he'd been told.

On preview: that line from esquire is totally canned Freeper/LGF line. IOW, anyone who opposes Bush is a "moonbat" who has a pathological, blind hatred for Bush and can't give him credit for anything. You know, quite a bit like how the GOP treated Clinton in the 90s.
posted by psmealey at 11:27 AM on June 3, 2005

Moonpie, the point is that he didn't lie. Not any more than President Clinton lied or the New York Times lied or Tony Blair lied or CNN lied or Hans Blix lied or anyone else lied when they thought that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction. He actually USED chemicals weapons on his own people, and you think Bush was lying when he said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Did you just forget about everything that happened before 2003?

Or did you completely miss/ignore my point about intent to deceive. Do you have evidence that there was some wide-ranging conspiracy among all the people I mentioned above to deceive people about: (1) Iraq's past use of weapons of mass destruction; or (2) the possibility or even the probability that Iraq still had those weapons?
posted by esquire at 11:30 AM on June 3, 2005

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
posted by trey at 11:32 AM on June 3, 2005

Indiebass: nice response. Shows that you know exactly what you're talking about, what with all the citations and information and what-not. Under a bridge! Zing!

Let me ask you and modernnerd -- who talks about what the mainstream media is not telling us -- an important question, though: does the tin foil go on the inside or the outside of the helmet, because wouldn't the radioactive moon waves fry the outside of your helmet if you put it on the inside?

Seriously, did Saddam Hussein not use chemical weapons in Halabjah? If I am wrong about that, let me know. Also, if he had them and used them then, why should we not worry about him still having and using them (especially considering that some weapons of mass destruction are capability of being hidden in a vial or canister the size of a jar of grape jelly)?

I know you hate republicans because you are high-minded idealists or artists or bohemians or whatever the heck you hippies are calling yourselves nowadays, but please do come back to earth from time to time.
posted by esquire at 11:34 AM on June 3, 2005

Isn't this a big non-event. I mean, aren't most American's walking and talking like esquire? That is to say, Bush could eat babies on television and the nation would let out a collective, "meh." Or am I being too hard on the country? It seems that there is a thread expressing outrage at the president every couple weeks here, and it also seems like no one gives a fuck.
posted by chunking express at 11:35 AM on June 3, 2005

not a shred of evidence that there was any intent to deceive

Despite the determination by its own intelligence analysts, two months earlier, that the documents were fake, on Dec. 19, 2002, the State Department issued a fact sheet entitled "Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council" which listed Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Niger as evidence that Iraq was misleading the Security Council.

not a shred of evidence that there was any intent to deceive

In the weeks leading up to the war, senior administration officials repeatedly stated that Iraq had attempted to acquire more than 100,000 highstrength aluminum tubes for gas centrifuges to be used for enriching uranium. Highly enriched uranium is one of the two materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons.

This claim was made by National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, and finally by President Bush on September 12, 2002, in his address to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. The president repeated this claim on several occasions, including his State of the Union address to Congress in January 2003. The contention was also featured in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s speech to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

The question before the intelligence community was whether these tubes, which in fact never reached Iraq because of a successful U.S. intervention, were meant to be used for centrifuges or for another purpose: motor casings for short-range rockets. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) advocated the view that the tubes were intended for centrifuges, and argued that the tight tolerances on the tubes’ dimensions and finish could have no other interpretation. However, a set of technical experts from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Oak Ridge, Livermore, and Los Alamos National Laboratories reviewed the CIA analysis and disagreed with this interpretation because the tube dimensions were far from ideal for this purpose. In fact, the dimensions and the aluminum alloy were identical to those of tubes acquired for rockets by Iraq in the 1980s. Furthermore, the Iraqis had developed and tested centrifuges before the first Gulf War that were much more capable than those that could have been built with the imported tubes. The DOE experts also pointed out that if these tubes were actually intended for centrifuges, there should be evidence of attempts by the Iraqis to acquire hundreds of thousands of other very specific components, but no such evidence existed. This critique of the CIA interpretation was seconded by the State Department’s intelligence branch and, independently, by an international group of centrifuge experts advising the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

not a shred of evidence that there was any intent to deceive

Shortly after the first anthrax victim died in October, the Bush administration began an intense effort to explore any possible link between Iraq and the attacks and continued to do so even after scientists determined that the lethal germ was an American strain, scientists and government officials said.

But they said that largely secret work had found no evidence to back up the initial suspicions, which is one reason administration officials have said recently that the source of the anthrax was most likely domestic.

For months, intelligence agencies searched for Iraqi fingerprints and scientists investigated whether Baghdad had somehow obtained the so-called Ames strain of anthrax. Scientists also repeatedly analyzed the powder from the anthrax-laced envelopes for signs of chemical additives that would point to Iraq.

"We looked for any shred of evidence that would bear on this, or any foreign source," a senior intelligence official said of an Iraq connection. "It's just not there."

The focus on Iraq was based on its record of developing a germ arsenal and also on what some officials said was a desire on the part of the administration to find a reason to attack Iraq in the war on terrorism.


not a shred of evidence that there was any intent to deceive

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
posted by bashos_frog at 11:36 AM on June 3, 2005

I can't believe, in the year 2005, esquire just referred to someone as a "hippie."
posted by trey at 11:36 AM on June 3, 2005

If you really want to impeach Bush connect him to something illegal, other than war crimes, that will resonate. For instance, there were some very serious allegations of voter suppression during the last election. Tie Bush and Cheney to this directly and you might have something. I would think that the acts would have to be clearly illegal under the Voting Rights Act or other Federal law and the evidence pretty damning.
posted by caddis at 11:37 AM on June 3, 2005

wow!


okay.

President Bush told the American people that we were invading Iraq because Iraq currently posessed weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to the United States,yet the British govt. folks say Bush admin folks KNEW FULLWELL IRAQ HAD NO WMDS AND WERE COOKING UP EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN INVASION THAT HAD BEEN IN THE PLANNING SINCE BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE.




What part of that means he told America and Congress a big fat bald faced lie don't you understand?
posted by stenseng at 11:38 AM on June 3, 2005

esquire, others have made a pretty clear case. Clinton et al. were mistaken. Bush lied. There's a difference.

chunking express, I agree with you. Sometimes I just can't help myself, though.
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:38 AM on June 3, 2005

Isn't a necessary precondition for lying, actually believing something to be the truth and deliberately misstating it?

One could also argue that he showed a reckless and willful indifference to the plentiful evidence that what he believed was wrong.
posted by bashos_frog at 11:39 AM on June 3, 2005

the real reason that this administration is in office is because its views are actually consonant with those of a majority of voting Americans

And, gosh, the opinion of the American "majority" is never fickle, right? We owned slaves less than 150 years ago, for god's sake.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:42 AM on June 3, 2005

Esquire,

You are so right. We should be invading every country whose leader has shown a predilection for homicide by unconventional means. And without any meaningfully thought- out plan. And without consulting the history texts. Or our allies. Or our generals.

But what does anyone on the left know if all they do is sit around all day stuffing patchouli sachets up their asses and hugging trees?
posted by docpops at 11:43 AM on June 3, 2005

Only on the leftie side of MeFi would the confluence of Ron Conyers, Ralph Nadar, Ramsey Clark and Dennis Kucinich be presented as evidence of a "sea change in public opinion and a coming shift in the political landscape?" You guys are really quite amusing.

psmealey: I agree, the Bush-hate in places like this reminds me exactly of the fever-dream of Clinton-hate the right indulged in back in the 90's. And it's working for the Left just about as well, too.
posted by mojohand at 11:44 AM on June 3, 2005

The Downing Street Memo clearly shows that he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. Then, we were told there by-God were WMDs, and we went to war.

It's like saying you didn't steal my car and then going to the mall in it. If you can't see that . . .I would say I despair, but I despair anyway.
posted by Medieval Maven at 11:45 AM on June 3, 2005

did Saddam Hussein not use chemical weapons in Halabjah?

There is, or was, some controversy about this. Juan Cole believes he did, others believe he did not.

ABSTRACT - Op-Ed article by Stephen C Pelletiere, senior CIA political analyst on Iraq during Iran-Iraq war, lays out facts in allegation that Saddam Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds in Halabja in March 1988; says all that is known for certain is that Kurds were hit with poison gas that day, during battle with Iranians; explains that US Defense Intelligence Agency's report found both sides used gas during battle, and blamed Iranians for Kurdish deaths; notes Kurds died of cyanide-based gas that Iran, but not Iraq, had at time; explains that Iran sought control of key dam near Halabja, part of impressive Iraqi waterway system that is most extensive in Mideast; adds that Bush administration owes Americans full facts before going to war.
posted by bashos_frog at 11:46 AM on June 3, 2005

Stensteng -- I just looked at it, and the memo says no such thing. Even the part about intelligenced being "fixed" around the conclusion that war was the best option on Iraq has nothing to do with the allegation that the U.S. had "fixed" (i.e., doctored) intelligence. Even without giving the Administration the benefit of the doubt, the memo says, at worst, that the Administration was determined to go to war with Iraq even with the recognition that Iraq may not have been the biggest threat facing America, and that they had focused the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Big deal.

Explain to me why that shows intent to deceive, and explain to me whether CNN, President Clinton, Tony Blair, and everyone else who had previously said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was complicit in that deception, m'kay?
posted by esquire at 11:47 AM on June 3, 2005

mojohand,

You can mobilize the right with any argument, no matter how specious, by tying it to Jesus.

Clinton was a convenient foil. Even you should know that.
posted by docpops at 11:47 AM on June 3, 2005

C'mon esquire, say what you mean: Bill Clinton is really Saddam Hussein. And he hates puppies. Really hate 'em. Especially Jesus-loving ones.
posted by bardic at 11:49 AM on June 3, 2005

Trey -- yes, I was curious about what hippies are calling themselves nowadays. I would like to refer to them by their name of preference when I have to tell them to get out of the way of the Starbucks entry during IMF protests.
posted by esquire at 11:49 AM on June 3, 2005

psmealey: I agree, the Bush-hate in places like this reminds me exactly of the fever-dream of Clinton-hate the right indulged in back in the 90's. And it's working for the Left just about as well, too.
posted by mojohand at 2:44 PM EST on June 3 [!]

Hmmm... Let's assume for a second that they two are equivalent. Clinton was impeached, the Republicans won control of both houses of Congress, a far-right Republican was elected in 2000 and 2004, and Republicans continue to gain hold in the House and Senate. I'd say that the Clinton-hating worked pretty well for the Right.

Now, let's assume they're not equivalent. First of all, I'm a leftist who dislikes Clinton as well as Bush. When Republicans hold up Bill Clinton as the end-all be-all exemplar of a "Democratic" President, I can't help but laugh. Clinton's second-term was essentially one of a moderate Republican. Second of all, I'm not sure why Bush's decision to send America to war (twice), lose thousands of American lives, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani lives invovles Clinton at all. It's not a matter of "You got our guy, now we're going to get yours."

Clinton made his own mistakes and was "punished" for it. Bush lied, thousands of people died, and now it's time for him to own up to it.
posted by trey at 11:51 AM on June 3, 2005

Amberglow -- nice point. I bet you really, really wish that your poll was a substitute for an election. If that were the case, then you might not have to complain and hate on the President so much.
posted by esquire at 11:52 AM on June 3, 2005

Here's an idea. Instead of wasting time on a doomed attempt to impeach Bush, how about focusing on the next election, which might actually be winable? How about trying to get a Democrat in office in 2008 and more Democrats in congress in 2006 rather than persuing a strategy that will, at best, replace one ultra-conservative with another?
posted by unreason at 11:52 AM on June 3, 2005

esquire: So, based on that logic, the American public is not allowed to assert their opinion about their elected leaders except on Election Day? "Well shit, I can't stand this guy anymore, but he was elected, so I might as well sit here quietly until 2008."

unreason: I'm not sure that putting a Democrat in office in 2008 will accomplish anything. That aside, why not concentrate on both? It's a false dichotomy.
posted by trey at 11:54 AM on June 3, 2005

To be honest with you, I don't give two shits what Clinton, Blair, or CNN did or did not have to say about wmds and Iraq, because not one of them bear the responsibility of and accountability for the United States knowingly invading a soveriegn nation on false pretenses and lying under oath to congress to do so.
posted by stenseng at 11:55 AM on June 3, 2005

Seriously, did Saddam Hussein not use chemical weapons in Halabjah?

yeah, in 1988. Rumsfeld gave the wmd's to Saddam, you know (Saddam was your buddy back then). but I'm surprised you have a problem with that -- he killed lots of brown people after all, since when you care about them?

oh, and "hippies" is fun.
posted by matteo at 11:55 AM on June 3, 2005

Bardic -- you don't get me at all. I don't hate President Clinton. In fact, I am rather fond of him. I have a picture of me and him in my office, and when I met him, he made me feel like a million dollars.

That's what is different between me and the hippies who are writing ridiculous, incredible screed on MeFi: they truly hate President Bush, and they do not care about facts or truth or anything that would upset their narrow world-view that our president is a liar, even though they have no evidence that President Bush intentionally deceived the public, and no explanation for the fact that EVERYONE except for crackpots and apologists thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003.
posted by esquire at 11:56 AM on June 3, 2005

trey, I don't disagree with you. My original point was not to equivocate right-wing Clinton bashing with left-wing Bush bashing. I was merely trying to accent how hypocritical (as if I need help) the right is when then accuse the left of blindly hating Bush. Did we all suddenly develop amnesia?

The GOP conducted a 6 year multi-million dollar fishing expedition, aided by media attack dogs like Rx Limbaugh with regard to Bill Clinton, and got lucky, so to speak. The left should be so lucky to have anything as well organized or as well funded to go after the really damaging lies of the Bush Administration.
posted by psmealey at 11:57 AM on June 3, 2005

psmealey: Okay, so on the one hand, anyone who thinks that President Bush didn't lie is "living under a bridge" or "has their head in the sand." And then on the other hand, anyone who thinks that President Bush did lie is a moonbat? Nice. Very conducive to discussion. Sheesh.
posted by esquire at 11:59 AM on June 3, 2005

Esquire, if you give me your address, I'll send you a box of knuckle bandaids for christmas this year! =)
posted by stenseng at 11:59 AM on June 3, 2005

I'm not sure that putting a Democrat in office in 2008 will accomplish anything.

Oh? so you're saying that Gore would've gone to war in Iraq, done just as incompetant a job, and overseen the stripping of civil liberties? The Dems may suck, but they're better than Bush and company.

That aside, why not concentrate on both? Because you can only focus on so many things at once. Putting your guys in office takes a lot of time, work, and PR. You stand a much lower chance of success if you have to split your resources with a long impeachment campaign that can easily be spun by the Republicans to their advantage.
posted by unreason at 12:00 PM on June 3, 2005

Yeah, all the American's crying over Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, where was your condemnation back then? You invaded the country a little bit late. Dumb asses.

He also gassed Iranian solidiers during the 10 year long war with Iran. America also didn't seem too bothered then.

I love your countries not quite morals. They are GREAT.
posted by chunking express at 12:00 PM on June 3, 2005

docpops -- Maybe you did not read my post carefully, but I don't recall saying that we should invade countries led by homicidal maniacs. What I did write was that President Bush did not lie, and what I meant by that is that it is just childish, overheated rhetoric to scream that he did. Whether it was a good idea to invade Iraq is a separate question entirely.
posted by esquire at 12:00 PM on June 3, 2005

For everything Esquire just said about me, he did admit I had a great one-liner. I think most of the other folks around here are doing a pretty good job presenting the 'hard facts' as you seem to need them. Personally, i have a metric crap-load of work to do so i'm checking in intermittently, BUT if its zingers you want its zingers you shall have:

ESQUIRE =
posted by indiebass at 12:02 PM on June 3, 2005

Trey -- no, but election day is what counts. So if you really want to help liberal causes, you would be better served not to cite fanciful polls about how 6/10 of the 1,000 people interviewed by phone one weekend don't think "the President shares my priorities." Seriously. Get a grip on reality. It's not that President Bush and a massive right wing conspiracy usurped the White House; what happened is that one set of ideas got trounced on election day.
posted by esquire at 12:03 PM on June 3, 2005

I think the Dems have a shot at picking up seats in 2006, but both parties need to address their own ideological divisions. The Republicans are alienating small-government conservatives to the point where, while they'd never openly speak against Dear Leader, they aren't so hot on donating money and working to get the Rapture crowd into office. The Dems need to learn to get their act together and stay on message. And as much as I like Hillary, I think she'd be a disaster as a candidate. America just isn't ready, unfortunately.

/Can't help but picture esquire as a 70 year-old wearing a camouflage "Angry White Male" shirt./
posted by bardic at 12:03 PM on June 3, 2005

psmealey: There are some things that seem utterly intractable at this point.

Yeah...I have to agree. The Right is treating George the same way the Left treated Clinton. "Yeah, he may be an "X", ( where X is philanderer, unethical bastard, criminal, crook, the font of all that is evil, whatever), "but damn it, he's *our* X!"

I don't see the Republicans losing the midterms. Unless they trot out someone like Santorem as the Presidential candidate, I think they'll probably will in '08.

Because...let's face it, the Democratic Party has obsoleted itself. It's irrelevant. It has no point, no message, no target demographic...it's a doddering, tired, old recorded message that plays over and over until people just start ignoring it. The only message they have is "Vote for Us, we're not the Other Guy." (I still like them better than the party of Absolute Evil ^tm...but sweet Mary, they've pissed me off with their wasted opportunities and dropped balls.)

The Dems are so addicted to the money machine at this point that they wouldn't know progressive if it bit them on the corporate-teat-sucking mouth. Old, fat, rich, mostly white, mostly men, sitting around pretending that they know what's best for the lower class. As though any of them had ever been any closer than driving over the ghetto on their way to a $10,000 a plate fund raiser. Please.

They rolled over and showed their bellies the second the Right growled at them. They're cowards, they're hypocrites and they're liars. A pox on them. A pox on the Right too. A pox on both their houses.

There is no organized resistance to the Right. There is no guerrilla resistance to the Right. There IS NO FUCKING RESISTANCE at all, other than show. And that is why they will keep winning.

Oooh Woooo! We're so angry, we're going to sign petitions. That'll show em. *rolls eyes* I know, we'll paint signs, make clever costumes and storm the streets...only to be completely ignored by the media so only 2% of the country's population knows we're out here. That'll work. I mean, we've only been doing it for 5 years, and the "free speech zones" keep getting farther and father away from Dear Leader and the National Mouthpiece Media Inc.

We'll Vote With Our Hearts and Minds! On machines owned and operated by Republicans. Federally MANDATED machines that have no way to audit them. Machines that have created the first untraceable, untrackable, unprovable elections in the history of the United States. But yeah...voting, that's gonna make a difference.

I would also like to say here, that in my opinion, the Republican party should drop the name and come up with something else. That party is no more the party of Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower than Jeff Gannon is a journalist.
posted by dejah420 at 12:04 PM on June 3, 2005

Bardic -- nice picture, but my firm has strict rules about what we can wear on casual Friday.

Indiebass -- I forgot that sarcasm does not work on the internets. Please replace my last post with this: you are not very funny and it's the rest of the library's turn to use the computer now, m'kay?
posted by esquire at 12:05 PM on June 3, 2005

some weapons of mass destruction are capability of being hidden in a vial or canister the size of a jar of grape jelly

Evidence, please.

My guess is you are thinking biological agents, but even so, a delivery and dispersal system that fits in a jar of grape jelly would not likely be able to cause enough casualties to rise to the level of 'mass' destruction. Even a a liter (that's a quart to you, esquire) of sarin only managed to kill 12 people in a crowded subway.

Maybe you thinking of one of those 55 gallon grape jelly jars that they sell at your local Wal-Mart?
posted by bashos_frog at 12:06 PM on June 3, 2005

Chunking: it was unclear from your post whether you were saying that you supported the war, only earlier? If so, then you and I are in violent agreement. You're not one of those people who only support wars when they are in the interest of other countries, are you?
posted by esquire at 12:07 PM on June 3, 2005

And as much as I like Hillary, I think she'd be a disaster as a candidate. America just isn't ready, unfortunately

That's one of the things the Dems need to deal with, actually. Believe at or not, when you don't like a Democratic candidate, sometimes it's just because they don't like them, not because they're a woman or minority, and "aren't ready for them". People don't dislike Hillary because she's a woman. People dislike Hillary because she's Hillary.
posted by unreason at 12:08 PM on June 3, 2005

Trey - I must not have been clear. The equivalence I perceive isn't between the Presidents, it's in the angry self-defeating irrationality of their opponents. I think it's quite striking.

On preview: Unreason - evidence that grownups visit MeFiWorld on occasion
posted by mojohand at 12:09 PM on June 3, 2005

I'm in the 'wait and see' crowd. At this time corruption is rampant within this administration at many branches and states. Look at the scandal in Ohio, where the last prez election had controversy re rigged votes. Look at the mess the Reed/Norquist/Abramoff scandal is generating. Look at the resistance within this guy's own party towards the Bolton nomination and a few other things. I think some Republicans are either growing a heart like The Grinch or are starting to measure themselves for prison pinstripes and not liking the fit and turning on their own.
Who knows, perhaps this could end up like the end of McCarthyism where all these republican dingbats fall all over themselves imploding and implicating each other to the point that no one will give them any credibility or allow any of them to substitute in Bush's place. Cheney's out of the running because of his Halliburton ties, same with all the others in line for seccesion. That just leaves the janitor . . .
I, for one, welcome our new janitor prez-dink.
posted by mk1gti at 12:12 PM on June 3, 2005

*hugs dejah, mixes her a chocolate martini*
posted by matteo at 12:12 PM on June 3, 2005

Esquire - Iraq last used chemical weapons 20 years ago, in the 1980's. The program never became self-supporting, and none were used during or after the Kuwait war.

When House of Commons leader Robin Cook resigned in 2003, he did so in part because he had seen intelligence assessments describing the low quality of Iraq's chemical weapons. The active ingredients were unstable, so storage for more than a few weeks was impossible. Only a 'make and use' strategy was feasible. Iraq had not had any functioning chemical weapons factories for several years in 2003, therefore it did not have chemical weapons.

Cook knew it because that is what the intelligence services told him. Any very well informed person would have known the same. Blair knew it, but chose to lie. Bush knew it, and chose to lie.
posted by apodo at 12:13 PM on June 3, 2005

Do any of you hippies want to hang out and get high this weekend?
posted by bardic at 12:13 PM on June 3, 2005

Whoops, meant to link to this for scandal in Ohio
posted by mk1gti at 12:14 PM on June 3, 2005

bardic
Count me in, name the place and I'll be there. Hmmmm, time to warm up the Learjet . . .
posted by mk1gti at 12:14 PM on June 3, 2005

esquire: I agree with you about the Downing St. Memos. I don't think they prove outright deception (though I don't think the administration is above such tactics, I don't see there being true evidence for that yet), but even if they say what we agree they say, I still think it's proof of a huge wrong. What's wrong with attacking a bad country even though it's not the #1 (or even #2) threat? That whole arguement ignores probably the wisest thing Bush ever said: "We go to war because we have to, not because we want to."
posted by absalom at 12:15 PM on June 3, 2005

By esquires logic, we realize of course that the dirty hippie we step over on our ways into Starbucks is actually very probably a productive conservative member of society that through some fantastic chain of circumstances it would take a novel to explain, (beginning with a brutal mugging at the hands of foreigners) ended up looking exactly like what he is most violently oppsed to.
posted by 31d1 at 12:15 PM on June 3, 2005

Esquire, sorry no. I think America should have not sold weapons to Iraq AND to Iran. That's how I think they should have handled themselves oh so many years ago.
posted by chunking express at 12:16 PM on June 3, 2005

i suspect revulsion over taxpayer funded abortion prevents many americans from getting the least bit excited about a few dead sand niggers whom they believe God will ultimately rub out anyway.
posted by quonsar at 12:17 PM on June 3, 2005

I'm too busy bad-mouthing my country and burning flags to hook up, bardic. Maybe next weekend?
posted by psmealey at 12:17 PM on June 3, 2005

By esquires logic, we must realize that of course the dirty hippie we step over on our way into Starbucks is actually very probably a productive conservative member of society that through a fantastic chain of circumstances - it would take a novel to explain, beginning with a brutal mugging at the hands of foreigners - ended up looking exactly like what he is most violently opposed to.
posted by 31d1 at 12:17 PM on June 3, 2005

Amberglow -- nice point. I bet you really, really wish that your poll was a substitute for an election. If that were the case, then you might not have to complain and hate on the President so much.
I was just proving that your statement was wrong. This administration doesn't share the views or priorities of Americans. From Social Security to tax cuts for the wealthy to Iraq. They ran for office on God, and demonizing us gays--using the Christian right, who now wants their pound of flesh. They lied us into war in Iraq, and an occupation that is harming our very future. Impeachment is too good for them--they should be sent to Abu Ghraib for some "frat-boy" hijinks. Dangerous powerful people who do not act in our best interests when that is their only job are deserving of complaint and hate.
posted by amberglow at 12:17 PM on June 3, 2005

Oh NOES!!!!! Its almost as if Esquire isn't paying attention to the substance of what I said and typing without listening to opposing arguments. And I'd be darned if I've never seen that before! < /sarcasm>

Actually, No... I take that back. In fact: < sarcasm>





NOW < /sarcasm>
posted by indiebass at 12:20 PM on June 3, 2005

And the story behind my double post is even better, involving a vast left wing conspiracy to invent a vast right wing conspiracy to make hippie crackpots seem disorganized and thus therefore make them (the good guys) seem less pleasant than they really are.
posted by 31d1 at 12:21 PM on June 3, 2005

Indiebass, I find esquire as annoying as you, but quit it with the images. This isn't FARK.
posted by unreason at 12:25 PM on June 3, 2005

Do any of you hippies want to hang out and get high this weekend?

No man, cause the man...dude the man is always watching us.... *peers around suspiciously* Like, totally, I hate to say anything...but I'm like almost positive that the Esquire dude is totally a narc.

A wink is as good as nudge to a blind bat, know what I mean?
posted by dejah420 at 12:28 PM on June 3, 2005

*sigh*
That was a low blow, unreason. =(
posted by indiebass at 12:30 PM on June 3, 2005

Waay off Topic....

Unreason - I agree, but disagee, too. It used to piss me off to no end to have my dislike of HRC dismissed as an inability to tolerate strong women rather than a (in my view) principled rejection of her Paleo-Democrat (my perception) politics. But if it means anything, I've done a 180 on that subject. She's been an outstanding Senator, and would be a damn fine President
posted by mojohand at 12:30 PM on June 3, 2005

Man there are some great comments in this thread...

/grabs popcorn and settles in for the day
posted by shoppingforsanity at 12:31 PM on June 3, 2005

not a shred of evidence that there was any intent to deceive

The Smoking Bullet in the Smoking Gun

It only takes one member of Congress to begin an impeachment process, and Conyers is said to be considering the option. The process would certainly be revealing. Congress could subpoena Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard Myers, Gen.Tommy Franks and all of the military commanders and pilots involved with the no-fly zone bombings going back into the late 1990s. What were their orders, both given and received? In those answers might lie a case for impeachment

Why the fuck not? The ridiculous Clinton impeachment didn't hurt the Republicans.

How about trying to get a Democrat in office in 2008 and more Democrats in congress in 2006 rather than persuing a strategy that will, at best, replace one ultra-conservative with another?

Do you not think that cutting off the head of the beast will have a tremendous impact on 2006 and 2008 elections? If Bush goes down, the Republicans will not just keep rolling merrily along.

EVERYONE except for crackpots and apologists thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003.

Then color me and 5 billion other people crackpots, I guess.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:32 PM on June 3, 2005

psmealey, save your flag-burning for the 4th of July.
posted by ijoshua at 12:32 PM on June 3, 2005

I've got a killer Ween bootleg. And a freezer full of hotpockets.

/sighs wistfully thinking of the joys of college/
posted by bardic at 12:33 PM on June 3, 2005

mathowie writes "Also, say Nader's wet dream comes true, and we get President Cheney."

At least then the President wouldn't think that "disassemble" means "tell lies".

Otherwise, let's face it, Cheney's already been in charge since 2001, so there wouldn't be any substantial change.
posted by clevershark at 12:35 PM on June 3, 2005

bardic: I got an awesome sound....goin' down....I got a pork roll, egg, cheese and bacon...jimmy
posted by schyler523 at 12:38 PM on June 3, 2005

nb: Randi Rhodes is reporting that this petition has over 100,000 signatures.
posted by trey at 12:39 PM on June 3, 2005

our joy in visual humor trumps unreason's need to feel smugly superior to fark any day of the week.


posted by quonsar at 12:40 PM on June 3, 2005

A+++++++++++++++++++++
posted by elisabeth r at 12:43 PM on June 3, 2005

posted by stenseng at 12:47 PM on June 3, 2005

Thx Quonsar!

*indiebass and quonsar slap high-fives*

[on preview]

I'm going on a LOLLLLLLERCOASTER!

*slaps high-five with stenseng*
posted by indiebass at 12:48 PM on June 3, 2005

Do you suppose they would use selective enforcement to keep the swift boat/LGF crowd heard, while jailing/shutting down/fining out of existance the dailyKOS, Democratic underground, whatreallyhappened, and Metafilters of the web?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the SECOND bloggers or reporters start being tried/jailed/silenced without reason (or, quite possibly, even disappearing from the face of the Earth overnight), I'm outta this country. A couple of years ago, I would have said, "No way that could ever happen - this is AMERICA after all!" Now, with all this shit coming to light - "them" wanting to patrol the internets, the beefing up of the Patriot Act, media control (and if you don't believe that we practice intense media control, watch the movie Control Room) - I'm really getting nervous that it may happen after all...
posted by shoppingforsanity at 12:49 PM on June 3, 2005

Bardic, I could possibly hook up this weekend, but only if docpops brings some patchouli sachets and that we loiter in front of a Starbucks after smoking up.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 12:50 PM on June 3, 2005

some weapons of mass destruction are capability of being hidden in a vial or canister the size of a jar of grape jelly

Colin Powell addressing the UN:

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq [PDF], President Bush was required to determine that:

1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

His March 18, 2003, letter to Congress claimed he had determined those things. In Feburary 2003, France, Germany, and Russia proposed more robust inspections (full text) that called for beefed-up inspection teams and increased aerial surveillance of Iraq.

Bush chose to reject this alternative, which was a violation of his obligation under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq to pursue a diplomatic and peaceful solution.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:51 PM on June 3, 2005

Esquire: "Bardic -- you don't get me at all. I don't hate President Clinton. In fact, I am rather fond of him. I have a picture of me and him in my office, and when I met him, he made me feel like a million dollars."

Hmmm. I feel exactly the same way about Bush. As a person, he's probably an absolute BLAST to hang out with - kind of like a good-natured frat boy. Drinking, snorting coke, that kind of thing. But as a leader, HE SUCKS BUTT. Clinton, I didn't really care for because he always seemed kind of smarmy to me - maybe it was the whole getting-blown-in-the-oval-office thing. But Bush, well, Bush is a hypocrite - and not just your good-old run-of-the-mill hypocrite like every other politician on the boat, but an ignorant, spoiled-brat, thinks-he-knows-what's-best-for-everyone, scared-of-what-he-doesn't-understand hypocrite - and those kind are the scariest. And I'm not trolling, just stating a fact.

I also really-like-to-use-hyphens.

That is all.
posted by shoppingforsanity at 1:12 PM on June 3, 2005

did Saddam Hussein not use chemical weapons in Halabjah?

Did we not sell them to him?

Yes. There were chemical weapons in Iraq as late as 1988, when Donald Rumsfeld and others from George HW Bush's inner circle went over there (other sources say we didn't stop selling weapons to Iraq until 1992). We were supporting Iraq in it's conflict with Iran at the time, and that gas that was used on the Kurds? If it was like most of the rest of the US's chemical arsenal in the 80s, it was made in Tennessee.

There is not, never has been, and never will be a shred of evidence that Iraq was ever capable of producing chemical or nuclear weapons. Because it wasn't.

But we went to war anyway. 1670 american soldiers have lost their lives. Over 12,000 have been wounded. And the only biological agent that any have been exposed to was when they got their innoculations in boot camp.

It's time to reinstate the draft. The only way to get Americans to start paying attention is if more of them thought that they might end up in Iraq (or Syria, or wherever we decide to invade next as we try to spread Jesus^H^H^H^H^H Democracy into a culture that is older than Jesus and Democracy combined)

Blessed are the peacemakers.
posted by toxic at 1:19 PM on June 3, 2005

"All it takes is one credible defector to the side of truth"

No, there have been lots already, but they were immediately and systematically slimed into oblivion. It didn't matter that the slime was usually pure BS, people think that where there's smoke, there's fire, and an impecable 40 year career is no defense against that.

There is no such thing as "credible" any more. I can't imagine anyone, real or imagined, "credible" enough to withstand Rove's discreditability machine.

"You survived the Fire Swamp, so you must be very brave, but no one withstands The Machine."
posted by -harlequin- at 1:31 PM on June 3, 2005

Actually toxic, the people in Iraq (on both sides) are exposed to the depleted uranium from shells that the American troops use. For the record.
posted by LukeyBoy at 1:42 PM on June 3, 2005

MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

God, what an ass.

This Russert interview is a real hoot.
posted by belling at 2:44 PM on June 3, 2005

I guess us libur'l Democrats are a lost cause...at least according to pill-popping Rush Limbaugh: "Making Election Day a holiday won't help Dems because "[m]ost of their voters don't work anyway."
posted by ericb at 2:58 PM on June 3, 2005

Just to correct apodo's statement about the last use of chemical weapons by Iraq. I wrote here about it before. My source is the book A Problem from Hell by Samantha Powers.

Before the revisionist noise gets too loud, remember that the real push to war was not the generalized WMD that consisted of Iraq's exhausted chemical weapon supply, but the so-called smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud. Coercive sanctions would have removed any doubt, but were never even considered by the Bush Admnistration and undermined the concept of war as last resort.
posted by john at 4:50 PM on June 3, 2005

Even the part about intelligenced being "fixed" around the conclusion that war was the best option on Iraq has nothing to do with the allegation that the U.S. had "fixed" (i.e., doctored) intelligence.

WTF?
posted by c13 at 5:06 PM on June 3, 2005

from TMW:

Stephen Colbert: That’s right, Jon, it just no longer has the credibility.
Stewart: The media?
Colbert: No, the truth."

posted by geckoinpdx at 5:31 PM on June 3, 2005

Hotpockets!!
I am so totally there!! I have a new color changing bubbler I need to break in!
posted by Balisong at 10:59 PM on June 3, 2005

Regardless of whether or not Bush lied, he has failed to take any responsibility for the consequences of his many miscalculations, mistakes in judgement, and errors in fact.

Even if you supported the war, that ought to give you pause.
posted by orthogonality at 12:32 AM on June 4, 2005

So I guess we'll just keep bickering about it. Bicker Bicker. It's not like anyone would want to take some personal responsibility and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Though I'm nothing but words myself. I don't have the personal resources* to have a summer long bbq in DC informing people.

If only Bush would take responsibility.. if only the media would take responsibilty.

Holy fuck. Go BBQ the guy out if you're all worked up over some war crimes.

*if there are any well-to-do bickerers out there who want to fund a summer long bbq, lets talk. I'm getting hungry.
posted by futureproof at 2:57 AM on June 4, 2005

Decembrist: Clever Rhetorical Tricks: ...And then a few days ago, John Kerry told an editorial board the following:
"When I go back (to Washington) on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," he said of the [Downing Street] memo, which has not been disputed by either the British or American governments. "I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home. And it's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion.
So, over on redstate.org (still the best conservative site), Kerry's call for discussion of the memo gets turned into the idea that Kerry has joined the "moonbat" call for Bush's impeachment. Kerry didn't mention impeachment at all. All he mentioned was a memo that someone else (Nader, and possibly others) had mentioned in the context of impeachment.
But now any mention of the memo makes you automatically a nut calling for impeachment. And instead of discussing the memo, we'll argue about impeachment.
Very clever. But there's a limit to these tricks, and I think it's been reached.
posted by amberglow at 10:40 AM on June 4, 2005