Consolidated, George Bush and his cabinet are evil Thread

[Casanova[OCAU]]

Ok, seeing as I'm getting sick of making new threads everytime, something new to support the above hypothesis is revealed, I'll just create one thread where I can post all the articles into, and we can all discuss it. So here's the new one!

Uncovered: How Iran was supposed to be lured into war

Cheney mulled luring Iran into war with Israel

24 September

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US Vice President Richard Cheney has considered provoking an exchange of military strikes between Iran and Israel in order to give the United States a pretext to attack Iran, Newsweek magazine reported in its Monday issue.
But the weekly said the steady departure of neoconservatives from the administration over the past two years had helped tilt the balance away from war.

One official who pushed a particularly hawkish line on Iran was David Wurmser, who had served since 2003 as Cheney's Middle East adviser, the report said.

A spokeswoman at Cheney's office confirmed to Newsweek that Wurmser left his position last month to "spend more time with his family."

A few months before he quit, Wurmser told a small group of people that Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz -- and perhaps other sites -- in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out, the magazine reported, citing two unnamed "knowledgeable sources."

The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran, Newsweek reported.

When Newsweek attempted to reach Wurmser for comment, his wife, Meyrav, declined to put him on the phone and said the allegations were untrue, the report said.

A spokeswoman at Cheney's office told the weekly the vice president "supports the president's policy on Iran."

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...vsbZmxR4QXNQGw
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...RAN-CHENEY.xml
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906386.html

Isn't it amazing what oil can make people do? But oh, it's not the oil! They're protecting freedom and democracy and liberating those poor Iranian sods from their oppressive dictatorship! *rolls friggin eyes* War Mongering at it's finest!
Guess what the call wouldv'e been after this? Oh noes the poor jews, let us Christian brothers go to help our poor jewish brothers in Israel from the horrible oppressive Muslims.

[Sinister]

It makes no since to cry, he'll be gone by the end of next year. Though I can't really call George Bush evil without falling into his habit of going around calling things evil and assuming moral mandates.

Can't say that I liked him as a president. Can't say I knew him as a person. Though I admired the idea of trying to spread democracy to the middle-east when the history books are written...he was a ****ing idiot. I don't even know what would have happened if he hadn't had D-ick Cheney. It's like his Father's presidency was reversed. All of sudden the Quayle-equivalent was president and the brains was the Vice Pres.

You know how you look back over history and there were Kings and Cesars and Pharohs that made the lists. Khufu, Nero, John. You know, the asshats? His name shall rank. Higher than Nixons and Reagans.

The relief should pour in. The damage is done. Albeit, the assessment will last into the next century. But honestly, what could he possibly do with one more year in office? *biggrin*

[Govinda]

Vote democrat, please, is all I really have to say.

Not for you, not for America: for the rest of the ****ing world. We're fed up with America lording it over like you run this ****ing planet (you means government, not people).

We've all slagged Bush before. We've all said oil a million times, muttered illegal war once for every dead Iraqi child. Bush is abhorrent and idiotic, and not much more needs said. Keep an eye on your economy - it's going down the drain, and quickly. Whether it crashes before Bush leaves or after, it'll still be his fault.

Just get the mother****er and his neocon pals out of your government.

I hope I meet him one day though. Just to see, to hear, and smell. And to see if I could keep myself from trying to kill him, for all the lives he's taken.

[Sasquatch]

So there are three articles about the one Newsweek article that talks about how it was considered having Israel take out Iranian nuclear facilities and expecting attempted retaliation.

So what?

Iran has been a threat for decades. We don't want them to have the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons. But we're already busy -- so we say, "Hey Israel, if you want to drop a couple bombs through Iranian nuclear facilities, just like you did to the ones France set up for Iraq, go ahead. Don't worry, if they don't like it, you know we've got your back."

This is three articles about one article about something most of us have heard before, in an immature and ignorant "I bet they'll do this" rant. Whatever level of credibility you give the Newsweek article (which claims to have gathered information from two different sources, yet refuses to name either), even if it is true, it doesn't matter.

We should take Iran on anyway. But since fulfilling our military obligations will only lead to more senseless whining (to put it lightly) from the ignorant populace, our government has to tread lightly. And since the UN is completely incompetent and won't do what they were designed and emplaced to do, the responsibility must be passed on. I say let somebody else take out Iran's nuclear facilities, because that's what needs to happen -- and if Iran wants to start a fight over having something taken away that they shouldn't have had in the first place, let them.

And of course, the "this is all about oil" argument comes out again. Would somebody please tell me exactly how much petroleum the United States has gained from this war, other than what it was already buying on the free market? In fact, the only countries who actually lived up to that ridiculous "blood for oil" chant were the countries illegally providing Saddam Hussein with money, technology, and weaponry in exchange for under-the-table oil. Countries like France and Germany. No wonder they were so reluctant to go to combat. (Well, other than France, which is always reluctant when it comes to combat, for obvious reasons.)

You know, the asshats? His name shall rank. Higher than Nixons and Reagans.

Do some research, buddy. Reagan was the greatest President the United States has ever had, and Nixon had one scandal that was blown way out of proportion and made out to be a threat to national security, and that one situation ruined an otherwise decent (albeit short) Presidency.

We've all slagged Bush before. We've all said oil a million times, muttered illegal war once for every dead Iraqi child. Bush is abhorrent and idiotic, and not much more needs said. Keep an eye on your economy - it's going down the drain, and quickly. Whether it crashes before Bush leaves or after, it'll still be his fault.

Wow, at least three ignorant ideas in one short paragraph, I'm impressed. Yes, you've all said "oil" a million times, and none of those million has been with any merit, or even evidence, that this conflict is connected with oil. Yes, you've also spewed your "illegal war" BS, and again, ignorant to the true facts. (By the way, if you want to talk about dead Iraqi children, talk to the insurgents in Iraq, who target busloads of innocent people with IEDs to reflect badly on America -- much like the "Palestinians" target innocent women and children, but I suppose that's still Israel's fault, huh?) And finally, if you want to talk about the American economy, you need to learn a few things first. The economy is well on the rebound from the recession that Clinton dropped into Bush's lap, which was only made worst by the 11 September, 2001 attacks.

Oh, sorry, I forgot. 9/11 was Bush's fault, too. No, whoops, Cheney's fault. Wait, no, Israel's fault. Wait ... Ann Coulter? Rush Limbaugh? Come on, something bad happened, so the fault has to lie somewhere in there, right?

[Phantom]

I had saw a news report on t.v about Bush's choice for the next President of the U.S. He probarly knows that this is probarly going to be his last year in office. What surprized me about last night's report was that his choice was for the Democrats! He said his choice would be Harley Clinton, I was shocked when he said that, but after he said that, he said that he still thinks Republicans would have a better chance of making it in office. I for one think harley has a better chance over the other candidates, not because she would be the first female president of the United States but because she looks like she would bring hope and peace to the people. But that's just my opinon.

[Sinister]

Do some research, buddy. Reagan was the greatest President the United States has ever had, and Nixon had one scandal that was blown way out of proportion and made out to be a threat to national security, and that one situation ruined an otherwise decent (albeit short) Presidency.

I'm not your buddy. Second of all seeing as calling Reagan the greatest president is all pure opinion, research wouldn't help. And I have done research. I KNOW what Reagan did. I know his plan for economics that has yet to be proven. I know that he dwindled the federal government and let the states take destiny of that which they could not handle. He worked miracles during his presidency. I'm sure it is to that which you are refering. But many of his ideas worked some sad unfortunate longterm effects.

Nixon, however, I tend to agree with. Aside from a few persecutions... But he did go down in history as an ass and everything about that seemed right.


But you skirt the point, sir. This thread is not for you to defend every republican ever elected. It is about Bush.

[Sasquatch]

Ah, my mistake. This thread isn't for people who disagree with you to defend their opinions, it's for you and those you agree with to attack them. Something tells me if I said something about Clinton or Carter or Kennedy (or Gore or Kerry or Obama or Clinton or Kennedy ... ), we'd see people here rushing to their defense.

Reagan not only "worked miracles" during his Presidency, but well after. His fiscal policies, along with mainstream access to the internet, led to a huge economic boom in the mid-90's, something Clinton took credit for. His foreign policy caused the collapse of the USSR and intimidation to enemies of the United States (something Clinton completely reversed). Your calling Bush an "asshat" would obviously be pure opinion as well, so congratulations on that.

While I don't agree with everything Bush has done (he's not a fiscal conservative in any way), I can plainly see that he was the best candidate for the job. (Or at least better than the other reasonable candidate.) I've also realized that most of the attacks on Bush are simply ignorant (most of those that aren't misinformed are not just misunderstood but also manipulated) and spread just because they make him look bad.

[Sinister]

After you have gloriously taken things out of context I hope you feel vindicated. You were going on about Nixon and Reagan when I barely mentioned them and, ah, look up at the title again. Weird, right?

And of course my opinion of Bush as an Asshat is an opinion. No need to congrats me on my opinion. I have no problem on opinions, only when people attack you for having them. Such as you did above. Congrats on that. Bet you know my opinion of you now.

-Sin


EDIT:


Ah, the ever mature neg rep. *sigh* Whatever. Grow a thicker skin and quit lashing out at everyone who doesn't pat you on that back and agree with you.

[Walter Sobchak]

He probarly knows that this is probarly going to be his last year in office.

I had soda come out my nose. Thank you.

Partisanship is more dangerous than anyone seems to realize. Lefties claim that Reagan was a bad President and righties claim Bush is a good one. How does this happen?

A war with Iran seems to be right in front of us. And honestly, a war in Iran has a lot more merit than a war in Iraq. There are some horrible human rights violations in that land, and it will go on forever if nothing is done.

But, is it so smart for an American military to stretch their might more? History has proven that this doesn't work. Some resolution needs to come in Iraq and Afghanistan before the military becomes involved in more war. I am not saying its the best course, but its likely to occur.

[Casanova[OCAU]]

Iran has been a threat for decades. We don't want them to have the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons. But we're already busy -- so we say, "Hey Israel, if you want to drop a couple bombs through Iranian nuclear facilities, just like you did to the ones France set up for Iraq, go ahead. Don't worry, if they don't like it, you know we've got your back."

We should take Iran on anyway. But since fulfilling our military obligations will only lead to more senseless whining (to put it lightly) from the ignorant populace, our government has to tread lightly. And since the UN is completely incompetent and won't do what they were designed and emplaced to do, the responsibility must be passed on. I say let somebody else take out Iran's nuclear facilities, because that's what needs to happen -- and if Iran wants to start a fight over having something taken away that they shouldn't have had in the first place, let them.

Let's have a brief timeline of modern American-Iranian relations shall we?

From 1952-53, Iran's democratically elected nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq began a period of rapid power consolidation, which led the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to a brief exile and then into power again. Much of the events of 1952 were started by Mossadeq’s nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now British Petroleum. Established by the British in the early 20th century, an agreement had been made to share profits (85% British-15% Iran), but the company withheld their financial records from the Iranian government. Due to alleged profit monopolization by the Anglo-Iranian Oil company, the Iranian Parliament had unanimously agreed to nationalize its holding of, what was at the time, the British Empire’s largest company.

The United States and Britain, through a now-admitted covert operation of the CIA called Operation Ajax, conducted from the US Embassy in Tehran, helped organize protests to overthrow Moussadeq and return the Shah to Iran. The operation failed and the Shah fled to Italy. After a second successful operation he returned from his brief exile. Iran's fledgling attempts at democracy quickly descended into dictatorship, as the Shah dismantled the constitutional limitations on his office and began to rule as an absolute monarch.

However, beginning with the administration of liberal President Jimmy Carter in 1977, relations between Iran and the United States became strained. Jimmy Carter, unlike previous American presidents, was outspoken about his criticism of the Shah's government and its human rights record. Carter pressured the Shah to relax freedom of speech and to allow more freedom for political dissidents.[7]

Many politicians and political figures in the United States such as Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller vigorously opposed Carter's condemnations of the Imperial Iranian government, citing the importance of not weakening the Shah's position in both Iran and the region.

and the Shah was ousted for a second time. Ayatollah Khomeini became Iran's new leader and soon began issuing vicious rhetoric against the United States, describing the country as the "Great Satan" and a "nation of infidels."

The American administration under President Jimmy Carter refused to give the Shah any further support and expressed no interest in attempting to return him to power. A significant embarrassment for Carter occurred when the Shah, as of that time suffering from cancer, requested entry into the United States for treatment. The American embassy in Tehran vigorously opposed the United States granting his request, as they were intent on stabilizing relations between the new interim revolutionary government of Iran and the United States.[10]

Despite agreeing with the staff of the American embassy in disallowing the Shah's entry into the U.S., after pressure from Kissinger and Rockefeller, among other pro-Shah political figures, Carter reluctantly agreed, but the move was used by the Iranian revolutionaries' to justify their claims that the former monarch was an American puppet and led to the storming of the American embassy by radical students allied with the Khomeini faction.[11]

On July 3, 1988 the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian Airbus A300B2 on a scheduled commercial flight in Iranian airspace over the Strait of Hormuz, resulting in 290 civilian fatalities from six nations, including 66 children. On February 22, 1996 the United States agreed to pay Iran $61.8 million in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shootdown. The United States has not compensated Iran for the airplane itself to date. The aircraft was worth more than $30 million. The United States however never officially apologized.

Now. Let's see.

2003 Iranian attempt at reconciliation

In 2003, the Iranian government attempted to find a larger accomodation through an agreement to settle their differences, inlcuding an offer to disarm Hezbollah and turn it into a mere political organization. The US refused the offer.

In September 2005, U.S. State Department allegedly refused to issue visas for Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mousa Qorbani, and a group of senior Iranian officials to travel to US to participate in an International parliamentary meeting held by the United Nations. According to UN rules, US has to grant visas to the senior officials from any UN member states, irrespective of their political views, to take part in UN meetings.

You know, the more I read, the more you guys come across as a primary school bully who refuses to take responsibility for his own screw ups. The one thing I admire George Bush for, is that he acknowledged that he lied for his excuse to go into Iraq but he refuses to withdraw, despite significant local pressure, until the human beings can live in that place again. So again, why should you invade Iran, when it is you who is the greatest threat the world has ever faced to peace and security?

I want you to answer this for me. And this is most important that you do, so that I may try to understand things from your view. Why is it then, so surprising for you, that the Iranians would be so pissed off, when you have actively participated in the overthrowing of a democratic government, replaced him with a despot, shot down a civilian jet in THEIR OWN airspace, and didn't apologise? Who do you think is at fault here?

Look, I'm not attacking you guys 'personally'. I'm sure you're all nice polite people, but my god you're preaching the killing of millions because 'they may have something that could potentially harm you at some point in the future'. Everyone in America is allowed to have guns. Everyone can potentially shoot you. Why can't you extend that same policy to the globe then?

Heck no wonder there are so many gun deaths as well! I hate that guy. He hates me. I have a gun. He may have a gun. **** I should shoot him before he has a chance to shoot me!

[Casanova[OCAU]]

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espan...lpepinac_1/Tes
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001301

http://<br /> http://watchingameric...s000012.shtml]
El Pais, Spain

Bush Told Aznar that U.S. Would Be in Baghdad By March - with or Without Second U.N. Resolution

"On the 16th of March 2003, even as Bush maintained his public demands for Saddam to 'disarm or it's war,' Bush, Blair and Aznar decided to replace the U.N. Security Council and usurp its functions to declare war on their own accord."

By Ernesto Ekaizer
Translated By Douglas Myles Rasmussen

September 27, 2007

Spain - El Pais - Original Article (Spanish)

Four weeks before the Iraq invasion which began on the night of March 19-20, 2003, George W. Bush publicly put his demand of Saddam Hussein in the following terms: either disarm or it's war. But behind closed doors, Bush knew that war was inevitable. During a long private conversation held on Saturday, February 22, 2003 at his ranch in Crawford with then-Spanish President José María Aznar, Bush made it clear that the moment had arrived for Saddam's undoing. "There are two weeks left. In two weeks we'll be militarily ready. We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March," he told Aznar.

[Only a Spanish translation of transcript is now available . An English translation will follow, but here are a few excerpts translated by Harper's Magazine ].

As part of this plan and after meeting British Prime Minister Tony Blair on January 31 - Bush had just agreed to put forward one last diplomatic maneuver: the proposal of a second U.N. Security Council resolution. Its objective: to legally open the door to the unilateral war that the United States was prepared to unleash with over 200,000 soldiers that were stationed in the region and poised to attack.

Bush was conscious of Blair's domestic difficulties, and wasn't unaware of Aznar's. Just seven days before the meeting at Crawford, three million people demonstrated against the imminent war in several Spanish cities.

"We need you to help with our public opinion," Aznar requested. Bush then explains to Aznar the likely effect of the new U.N. resolution that he wanted to put forward: "The resolution will be custom-made to help you. It will offer us a little of the same." To which Aznar responds: "It would help us to co-sponsor it and be co-authors - in order to get many others to sponsor it." Aznar then offers to give European political cover to Bush, together with Blair. Aznar's dream of laying the foundations for a new relationship with the United States - following the example of the United Kingdom - was on the verge of becoming a reality.

On February 20, Aznar had traveled with his wife, Ana Botella, to the United States, making a stop in Mexico to persuade (unsuccessfully) President Vicente Fox of the need to support Bush. On the 21st, the pair, accompanied by President Aznar's entourage, arrived in Texas. Aznar and his wife stayed at the ranch's guest house.

The meeting on the following day, Saturday, included President Bush, his then-National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and the man charged with European and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council, Daniel Fried. As for Aznar, he was accompanied by his international policy adviser, Alberto Carnero, and the Spanish ambassador to Washington, Javier Rupérez. During the meeting, Bush and Aznar held a four-way telephone conversation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the President of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi.

Ambassador Rupérez translated from English for Aznar - and from Italian for Condoleezza Rice, while two other interpreters worked for Bush and his team. It was Rupérez who took the notes of that conversation in a memorandum that remained secret until today.

The conversation is impressive for its direct, friendly and even menacing tone when, for example, the discussion centers on the necessity of countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola, Cameroon and Russia (member of the U.N. Security Council) to approve the new resolution as a symbol of friendship toward the United States … or to suffer the consequences.

One notices the lack of interest in the work of the [weapons] inspectors. This after the chief of the inspectors, Hans Blix, had just a week before (on February 14) shot down with "solid well-supported data," the arguments put forward by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell before the Security Council on February 5, 2003 WATCH . The Spanish side, including the Spanish Foreign Minister, Ana Palacio, had warmly supported this information from Blix - information that the very same Powell later qualified as a "collection of falsehoods."

THE BLIX REPORT

According to Blix, Iraq was taking steps toward actively cooperating to resolve the outstanding disarmament questions. His tone had been less critical than in his previous report from the 27th of January, 2003.

"Since we arrived in Iraq three months ago, we have made more than 400 surprise inspections in some 300 locations. Up to now the inspectors have found no prohibited arms … If Iraq decides to cooperate still more closely, the period of disarmament overseen by inspections could be even briefer," the chief inspector determined.

The Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, reported on February 14 that some technical questions still remained unanswered; but he added, "There are no disarmament problems left to resolve." According to him, no proof had been found that Iraq was carrying out nuclear activities or any activities related to nuclear energy, another clear denial of what Powell had claimed about the Iraqi nuclear program.

It was as much the initial fruits of the inspection work as it was the finalization of U.S. preparations that led Bush to fix the start of military operation on the date of March 10, 2003, to which nine days were added to obtain the second U.N. resolution. The process of moral persuasion that Aznar and Palacio executed by telephone calls and bilateral meetings failed to attract more than four votes: the three sponsors and Bulgaria. Nine votes were necessary.

On March 16, 2003, the failure to secure this legal cover for the imminent war led Bush to decide, along with Blair and Aznar, to hold a summit in the Azores. This was a location suggested by Aznar as an alternative to Bermuda for a reason that he explained to Bush: "The name of those islands is associated with an article of dress that isn't exactly appropriate for the moment we find ourselves in."

There on the 16th of March, Bush, Blair and Aznar decided to replace the United Nations Security Council and usurp its functions to declare war against Iraq on their own accord. On the morning of March 17th, the ambassador of the United Kingdom announced at the United Nations in New York the withdrawal of the second resolution. A defeat in the voting would have complicated the race toward war.

Here we see more proof of what we already know from other such evidence that the inspection process was just sham for Bush to parade in front of the international community. In highest level discussion possible about the proposed draft resolution and the prospect of the invasion, not once is the opinion of Dr Blix cited, or the result of the work of UNMOVIC team mentioned, as it is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether Mr Bush can use the second resolution to give political cover to the Coalition.

We also see exposed the way the Coalition of the Willing was really put together - through base bribery - rather than any unifying principle. Military aid, free trade agreements etc., all used as bargaining chips to gain support. Even Teflon Tony Blair, who to this day is defended by some on the basis that he tried to get Bush to work through the UN, is seen by Bush as merely play acting good cop - not influencing anything.

Hopefully this will put some perspective on the Spanish public's decision to oust Mr Aznar's conservative government at the time. Many media commentators tried to leap on their decision as a case of capitulation to terror, rather seeing it for what it was: a repudiation of the government which had acted contrary to Spanish interests as a slavish proxy for Bush's war of choice.

mods:- i made two posts to keep the post length to a 'bite size' chunk. If you however, feel that the two posts should be merged, I'd be glad to do it

[Casanova[OCAU]]

Donald Trump rips into Bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a30rJQbDDno

Report contradicts Bush on Iran

December 4, 2007 - 11:41AM

A new US intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold, contradicting the Bush administration's earlier assertion that Tehran was intent on developing a bomb.

The new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released on Monday could hamper US efforts to convince other world powers to agree on a third package of UN sanctions against Iran for defying demands to halt uranium enrichment activities.

Iran says it wants nuclear technology only for civilian purposes, such as electricity generation.

Tensions have escalated in recent months as Washington has ratcheted up the rhetoric against Tehran, with US President George Bush insisting in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three.

But in a finding likely to surprise US friends and foes alike, the latest NIE concluded: "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

Washington pushing for more Iran sanctions

That marked a sharp contrast to an intelligence report two years ago that stated Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."

But the new assessment found Iran was continuing to develop technical capabilities that could be used to build a bomb and that it would likely be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame."

Iran has already been hit with two rounds of UN sanctions over its defiance. Washington, which insists it wants to solve the problem diplomatically while leaving military options open, is pushing for a third package.

The nuclear standoff has become a major issue of debate in the 2008 US presidential campaign, with candidates from both major parties weighing in on the prospects for military action against Iran.

US still sees Iranian "risk"

"Today's National Intelligence Estimate offers some positive news," Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley said in a statement.

"It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen," he said.

"But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem."

The latest NIE said: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. We also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."

The report said US intelligence had "moderate confidence" that Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program by mid-2007, but added that Tehran's intentions were unclear.

"Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so," it said.

Reuters

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...530635250.html

[Casanova[OCAU]]

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc

President Bush wants to make himself immune to possible warcrimes.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx

Study finds that Bush and Co. made over 900 false claims for going to war in Iraq. For lieing about and killing hundreds of thousands, what do they get? Jail time? Death?

[Zargabaath]

If Bush was an idiot, then what does that make Al Gore and John Kerry who both got worse college grades than him. Bush was not great at articulating his ideas but the worst president? Far from it. Grant's was scandal ridden, FDR destroyed much of the ideals our Founding Fathers believed in. So did Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. James Buchanan trying to please both the South and North made the situation worse. Just to name a few.

[Walter Sobchak]

If Bush was an idiot, then what does that make Al Gore and John Kerry who both got worse college grades than him. Bush was not great at articulating his ideas but the worst president? Far from it. Grant's was scandal ridden, FDR destroyed much of the ideals our Founding Fathers believed in. So did Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. James Buchanan trying to please both the South and North made the situation worse. Just to name a few.

I admire you for remembering Buchanan, but criticizing either Roosevelt for going against the "ideals of the Founding Fathers" is silly. The Founding Fathers argument is among the worst to make in a political discussion. We lived in an entirely different world then. They would have such a hard time getting over the fact that the blacks are walking around without shackles and the women are in Congress that their heads would explode.

We need to recognize the best post of 2007.

The economy is well on the rebound from the recession that Clinton dropped into Bush's lap, which was only made worst by the 11 September, 2001 attacks.