MetaFilter posts tagged with gwb and war

US deaths in Iraq exceed 9/11 deaths today

Kickstart70 — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 10:57:28 -0800

US deaths in Iraq exceed 9/11 deaths today but of course the Iraqi deaths crossed that line long ago.

Annexing Khuzestan -

Muirwylde — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:08:21 -0800

Battle plans for Iran... resonates with the sad ring of real possibility.

God Talks to Bush

hank — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 15:33:42 -0800

BBC confirms the story That box on his back, that earpiece? He's never said exactly how God talks to him, only that He does ....

Al Gore surprises

Shanachie — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:37:19 -0800

A surprise from Al Gore: I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse . I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America's fabled "marketplace of ideas" now functions. How many of you, I wonder, have heard a friend or a family member in the last few years remark that it's almost as if America has entered "an alternate universe"? I thought maybe it was an aberration when three-quarters of Americans said they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11, 2001. But more than four years later, between a third and a half still believe Saddam was personally responsible for planning and supporting the attack.

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

Postroad — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:39:36 -0800

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along? [...]By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval. But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong? It's hard to swallow, isn't it?[...]

Medal of Freedom for Iraq

jim-of-oz — Fri, 17 Dec 2004 08:47:25 -0800

Medals of Freedom awarded and I'd like to make some smart comment about current Iraqi conditions and the award and the presenter, but why bother - make your own.

Canadian Lawyers Charge Bush with Torture

sunexplodes — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 06:45:39 -0800

LAWs instructions for starting criminal procedures against Bush Today in Vancouver, Lawyers Against the War filed torture charges against George W. Bush under the Canadian Criminal Code. The charges were laid by Gail Davidson, co-chair of Lawyers against the War--LAW, under provisions enacted pursuant to the U.N. Torture Convention, ratified by both Canada and the United States. The charges concern the well known abuses of prisoners held by US Armed Forces in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. The charges were accepted by the Justice of the Peace and referred for a hearing to decide whether Bush should be required to appear for trial. The Attorney General of Canada's consent is required within eight days for proceedings to continue, and the question of Bush's diplomatic immunity will have to be resolved by the court.

Sleeping with the president is not a good idea.

fleener — Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:18:29 -0800

Sleeping with the president is not a good idea. Bush had no answers to big questions, such as 'what happens on the morning after.' The Daily Telegraph reports that documents show Prime Minister Tony Blair signed up to the U.S. policy of regime change in March 2002, a year before the conflict started... after he was warned that postwar stability would be difficult and the U.S. had few answers. Oh, no problem. This week, Bush said he is 'pleased with the progress' in Iraq.'

'No President has lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably'

acrobat — Mon, 10 Nov 2003 03:42:40 -0800

"Now we know that no other President of the United States has ever lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably... The presumption now has to be that he's lying any time that he's saying anything." So says Ray McGovern, who worked as a CIA analyst for 27 years. Now, who still believes the P(L)OTUS?

Khaki and Camo

Mekon — Tue, 03 Jun 2003 10:15:38 -0800

Paul Krugman writes that the Bush administration will fight a "khaki election" next year, taking advantage of the general good feeling after the Iraq war. The original khaki election was the British election of 1900, contested during the Boer War. Our armed forces don't really wear khaki so much anymore and I think we need a new term. I suggest calling 2004 the "Camo Election." Any better suggestions?

"War Crimes"

homunculus — Sun, 06 Apr 2003 12:43:50 -0800

"War Crimes" is a powerful Flash video about the war. "Doctor Bushlove" is darkly comic. Both are by Eric Blumrich, and are well-crafted but quite graphic. And in the interests of fairness, Blumrich has given equal time to his critics. [Via BuzzFlash.]

Richard Perle resigns the Defense Policy Board chairmanship.

insomnia_lj — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:20:53 -0800

Richard Perle resigns the Defense Policy Board chairmanship. Richard Perle, after being accused of profiteering and conflict of interest, has resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Was this the real reason he resigned, or is the administration distancing itself from Perle due to his claims the Iraqis would be "dancing in the streets" after a US invasion, his links to an advocate for invading Saudi Arabia, or perhaps his call in the British press to get rid of the UN?
Don't start missing him yet, however. Perle will still remain on the Defense Policy board at Donald Rumsfeld's request.

The Idiot Prince will have his war

PWA_BadBoy — Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:31:34 -0800

Stan Goff puts it best in his anti-war article entitled "The Idiot Prince will have his war", outlining many of the logistical issues involved with waging war in Iraq, pointing a finger at a problem facing the United States that runs far deeper than the need for oil or the opposition of the United Nations. A fascinating and very chilling read.

Newsfilter, I just couldn't help it.

elwoodwiles — Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:58:34 -0800

The first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity. via ~~fox news~~ Times Online.

Terry Jones Monty Python Observer

thedailygrowl — Wed, 05 Feb 2003 21:31:55 -0800

Terry Jones of Monty Python fame attempts to apply the Bush administration policy to his own neighborhood.

McBain — Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:56:05 -0800

A European voice makes good case for Bush. Being ambivalent about Iraq, I found this to be one of the more thoughtful cases for Bush. Maybe if Dubya was making it this eloquently instead of lying and stonewalling people would be more supportive.

bclark — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:36:24 -0800

'The guy who tried to kill my dad.' Setting aside partisan bickering, this description of Saddam Hussein by George W. Bush today sent my mind reeling. Is this in reference to something published in the past that is just escaping my mind? The Reuters version of the story adds that it is reference to "an Iraqi plot to kill former President George Bush after the 1991 Gulf War." Anyone have a link to that older story?

Mocata — Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:34:32 -0800

In the new LRB, a pretty good attempt to answer the pressing question - why do the Bush people want to attack Iraq so much?

risenc — Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:09:49 -0800

U.S. Stops Iraq-Al Qaeda Talk From the Washington Post. Beyond the superficial significance of administration back-tracking, in regards to intelligence there seems to be two key aspects to this story: 1) The article talks about how the CIA was unable to "validate two prominent allegations made by high-ranking administration officials," implying that Bush/Cheney/etc. have been making baseless assumptions about Iraq in their pro-war arguments, and 2) it brings into question whether we know anything at all about Iraq, anyway. What if the same can be said of Hussein's nuclear plans?

sacre_bleu — Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:25:53 -0800

Does invading Iraq require more than declaring Saddam Hussein "evil"? The New York Times reports public opposition from people not easily labeled Brie-sucking scared-of-war libyerals -- people like Henry "Bombs Away" Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft. Meanwhile, hawks argue that not attacking after all Bush's rhetoric would "produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism." [registration required]

password — Sun, 16 Jun 2002 09:14:42 -0800

Why , why, why? Bush vs. Saddam. Prequel to Desert Storm II.

dack — Thu, 23 May 2002 08:26:41 -0800

While W is off building the case for a war against Saddam, senior military officials have serious doubts about the wisdom of a US invasion of Iraq. But they're keeping quiet because "they fear they would come out on the wrong side of Bush's eventual decision." Can you blame 'em?

bliss322 — Thu, 08 Mar 2001 07:07:15 -0800

Bush decides he doesn't want peace. resident bush has made it clear to the president of south korea that he will be reversing the previous administration's policy toward north korea. so the strides of peace that have been made can easily be wiped away now. i especially like the reversal of colin powell's comments from the day before.