Letters to the Editor

Where’s the outrage?

June 9, 2008

Advertisement

To the editor:

There is a disturbing aspect to former presidential press secretary Scott McClellan's recent book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception." In it, he asserts allegations of wrongdoing in the Bush administration (none of which has been denied).

On one hand, nothing new was revealed. But McClellan adds an insider's voice confirming the mass of previous evidence that the American people were sold an unnecessary and illegal war.

For me, the disturbing aspect of the book's publication and review was the press' general acknowledgment that what McClellan said was true, it is common knowledge. Where is the outcry? Where the outrage? Tens of thousands have died because of these lies!

I worry for our republic when Bush's actions, which in past times of our history would have been seen as treasonous, impeachable and war crimes, are now greeted with a yawn and a general comment of "big woop." God help us.

Daniel Patrick Schamle,

Lawrence

Comments

cato_the_elder 6 years, 9 months ago

The "outrage" that this letter writer describes must really be intense for him to have told us as many times as he has how he feels about the subject.

ilikestuff 6 years, 9 months ago

Daniel,This isn't a situation people don't care about but rather one we've heard 1000 times already. Besides, what should we do about it now? He'll be out of office in a few months. Also, people are more interested in the upcoming Presidential election of a new thug instead of what the lameduck one did. Finally, people have more pressing matters such as gas prices jumping $0.30 per week, groceries going through the roof, etc. I for one don't respect McClellan. As an advisor, he should have spoke up and been heard, fired or whatever. Instead, he quits and then makes his views known in the latest, "Tell All" book about a President.

Kookamooka 6 years, 9 months ago

Dan, There are so many things to be outraged regarding this presidency we don't know where to start. I want to believe that change can come in this next election but I believed that after the last one, too. I'm highly suspicious of the Bush administrations tactics to retain power. I'm worried about the fact that Bush is sitting in the catbird seat with a Cheshire grin because he and his cronies have already picked their heir apparent and its just a matter of an October "surprise" attack on America to secure a lasting regime. (Mark my words-in a few months you'll think I'm prescient)It isn't the first time he's stolen an election and it won't be the last. I just hope journalists and independent investigators and insanely outraged Americans, can uncover his fraud, his "conspiracy" for lack of a better word, and set this country right.

christy kennedy 6 years, 9 months ago

Daniel,I'm with you. Actually I've been wondering this for a very long time now. I've said it a million times, that if someone like me could sit at a computer in the fall of 2002 and find out that what Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. were saying wasn't true-most of what we're "learning" now was all there-why wasn't the media (save for a few souls with spines) doing their job? Why wasn't Congress doing its job? And why the hell is the general public so blind and apathetic?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

My bad-- I didn't check the date, so didn't notice that it was his statement about a previous report with similar conclusions.Nevertheless, his opinion remains substantially the same, despite the desperate attempts to spin it otherwise.http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775"Yes, it would have taken a great deal of imagination to script a scenario in which someone puts anthrax in an envelope, addresses it, puts a stamp on it, and mails it."Which someone can still do-- the invasion was unnecessary and pointless in preventing it, and a lie as a rationale for war.

Jay_Z 6 years, 9 months ago

Notajayhawk....right on! That was pretty damn funny...and a good summary.

Speakout 6 years, 9 months ago

Restore. you are jumping all over a person who has no national impact and defending a person who also lied and has destroyed a country, killed over 4000 of America's best, and spend hundreds of billions when we can use it here. Her white lie, if there was one, pales greatly in comparison. Don't jump on her, jump on GWB and harshly.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

I guess you want me to respond in some way, Tom, but your love of breath and roses is pretty irrelevant to the topic.

christy kennedy 6 years, 9 months ago

Cato,Are you NOT outraged by needless death and suffering, lies and incompetence, and the damage to our country reputation-wise, morally, militarily, fiscally, and otherwise? The fact that heinous wrongdoing has been going on for a while should not diminish one's outrage. Injustice doesn't have a shelf life. Right and wrong don't change after a little time passes.

christy kennedy 6 years, 9 months ago

Restore,You can dig up supporting arguments for the rest of your days but it doesn't change actual reality.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

BTW, cato, many of those in BushCo got their start in the Reagan/Bush I and Nixon administrations, whose war crimes are well known.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

Yea, jay_z, the BushCo sycophants don't leave much to work with when it comes to coherent, logical discussion.

christy kennedy 6 years, 9 months ago

restore,I said "whatever SD had in his storehouses" because I wasn't going to claim 100% certainty although I believed the weapons inspectors' reports of not finding WMD and thought their requests for more time were valid. And "whatever" SD had to unleash if we invaded included the retaliation that was NOT the predicted "cake walk" which DID indeed inflame those who are engaged in retaliating against our troops and others to this day. My predictions, from just what I could learn from searching the Internet, were way better than our dear leader's. So what's your point?

BrianR 6 years, 9 months ago

C'mon Christy, you know Kevin never lies.

BigAl 6 years, 9 months ago

  1. The war will be paid for with Iraqi oil. 2. We will be treated as liberators.3. We will build a large coalition of nations.4. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.5. Mission Accomplished.Yep, I would say it all went pretty well to plan. McLellan is obviously nuts.

christy kennedy 6 years, 9 months ago

"You don't start a war for not good enough reasons. It was wrong. It still is wrong. They lied going in and they're lying still. Are you ok with that?"I'm not okay with your lying here. Even the highly partisan Rockefeller report does not use the "L" word. ------------So the debate today is about outrage, or lack thereof. You have turned handsprings trying to prove I was lying when I said I thought the Bush administration was lying in 2002. I did believe they were lying. And it turns out they were. You've made an exhaustive attempt to catch an inconsistency between what I am saying today and what I said in a letter in 2002, and I don't think you've done it. Again, the question of the day is about outrage. Are you that outraged at what you think is an inconsistency on my part when events have proved what I believed to be true? Are you really more outraged at that than an illegal, immoral, and unnecessary war set into motion by lying and incompetent individuals who either barely served or didn't serve at all?You're right about one thing. The Rockefeller report isn't all that it should be, all the truth will come out in time.

christy kennedy 6 years, 9 months ago

Restore,What do I have to lie about? The "yellow cake" was a lie using forged documents and we knew that in 2002. That's what Powell took to Congress to sway the vote and that's what scared the bejesus out of people who were not paying attention. It was a lie. Any qualification in my letter was to clarify that no, I did not know for sure what was in every cubby in every building in all of Iraq, but we knew that our own government was lying and cherry picking intelligence, determined to invade a country for not good enough reasons. You don't start a war for not good enough reasons. It was wrong. It still is wrong. They lied going in and they're lying still. Are you ok with that?

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

The World According to bozo (or, his Native American name, "Clown-rants-from-bus")(Part II)-Several thousand dead Americans is no big deal.-Several thousand dead Iraqis is an atrocity.-Unless those several thousand dead Iraqis died at the hands of their own despotic ruler, then it's no big deal either.-The president of the United States is a liar.-Because a disgruntled former subordinate who was fired and decided to cash in on the BDS rage by publishing a book is telling the gods-honest truth.-What Rockefeller said in the official report was just covering his butt.-What he said to CBS was what he really meant to say in his official report, not just covering his butt.-Capitalism is baaaaad.-Socialism is goooood.-Racism by whites is bad.-Racism by African-Americans is fine.-Anyone who disagrees with the ideology of the boz is wrong.-Anyone agrees with the idiot-logy of the boz is right (excuse me, is 'correct,' as the clown objects to anything that's 'right').-Oh, and let's not forget that biological weapons such as anthrax are not weapons of mass destruction.Hope that helped.

repaste 6 years, 9 months ago

RR It was the manipulation of this info, the cherry picking. That report is a joke and I think that is widley held. Most of the Mass distruction info was from one man with visions of future power in Iraq. The CIA itself disdribed the man as unreliable and of questionable intent, his information, unlikley and unsubstantiated.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

The lie that BushCo was telling was that they were "sure" that Iraq had WMD, when the best evidence available to them said exactly the opposite. And even if they did have them, they had no way to deliver them. The "lie" they were telling was that the reason for the invasion was to prevent the use of those WMD, but rather than allow inspectors who were on the ground, with access to the entire country, to finish their inspections, they instead launched an imperial war whose primary purposes were ideological and larcenous (oil, oil, precious oil.) This followed by an occupation that was as corrupt as it was incompetent.Those who still support this administration and its policies and actions demonstrate a pathology that is truly frightening.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

Rockefeller's covering his ass for taking the politically expedient (at the time) position of swallowing whole anything BushCo said.He's still swallowing, as are you.

JohnBrown 6 years, 9 months ago

The reason there is no "outrage" is because there is no workable political solution. If the Dems impeached Bush then Cheney would become president. If the Dems impeached both, then Pelosi would become president. The Senate would not convict, given that outcome.I do believe Bush and Cheney are criminally culpable. It's my hope that after they leave office they may be charged, but I'm unsure about the legal venue, if any.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

Yea, Cato, it really takes a genius to figure out that proposing the invasion and occupation of another country in violation of international law wouldn't entail mass murder and war crimes. So even if they hadn't actually committed the crimes yet, the conspiracy to do so had been underway for many years. (you know, PNAC and all.)

cato_the_elder 6 years, 9 months ago

Restore, you're living up to your name today. Very entertaining exchange.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

No accusation of homosexuality intended. But I think it's very clear that RR's admiration is primarily emotionally, not rationally, based.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

"You're very confused on more than one count. When has Mexico violated numerous UNSC resolutions, invaded a neighbor (recently), been a state sponsor of terrorism, or developed and used WMD?"Just like your bogus bin Laden rationale for invasion, each of these is just as bogus. A long string of bogus reasons adds up to one thing-- bogus.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

I am glad the democrats never tell lies and get away with anything. All politicians lie, especially to get elected.

gogoplata 6 years, 9 months ago

RestoreReason, I do mean the leadership in both parties. Our rule of law is the constitution not the UNSC. There is no constitutional authority to fight undeclared wars. We should not expend this countries resources to enforce UN resolutions.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

"The committee did not call that a lie. If you believe it's a lie, would you also consider the following lies?"The consensus of intelligence services throughout the world, as of late 2002 and early 2003, was that the statements you cherry picked were not indicative of the relationship (or, more accurately, the lack thereof) between Iraq and al Qaeda.It's been shown quite conclusively that Saddam Hussein (a secularist dictator) saw Osama bin Laden (a religious zealot who wants to destroy all secular governments within the Muslim world) as a threat to his power, which is why there were never any serious or lasting connections between the two.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

Actually, I failed to check far enough into the Rockefeller report, and took the misinterpretation of it by BushCo sycophants as somehow being a fair representation of what it said. Here's Rockefeller's statement about the report--"The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war,'" Rockefeller told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. "Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said 'my vote was wrong.'"

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

If McClellan's book contradicted the plethora of evidence already available about the mendacity of BushCo, I'd have my doubts about its accuracy. But it doesn't, and I don'tThat doesn't mean I respect him. He shouldn't have had some cajones years ago.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

Too bad you're more outraged at McClellan getting paid for the book deal than the outrageous actions and lies of BushCo he confirmed in it, k778.

Weezy_Jefferson 6 years, 9 months ago

Restore_Reason is simply using a tactic that most Bush supporters have been using ever since the war started: poo-poo the main issue and turn the focus on the anti-Bush person. It never ceases to amaze me that the Bushies will dig up anything and say anything to support Bush's actions, no matter how heinous the actions are. Clinton and other liberals may have initially supported Bush in his mission to dethrone Sadam. However, like most of this country's population, their support they gave rapidly deteriorated once they found out that the mission was never accomplished and that Bush was continuing to send our troops to die in a pointless war. Now, I'm sure Restore_Reason and other Bushies will grab a line or two from my post here and run with it, trying to somehow justify their point of view. It doesn't matter. To have them admit Bush's errors would discredit their own values, so it's much easier to keep attacking those of us who disapprove of Bush than to concede.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

"No it didn't. Even the Rockefeller report notes that the intelligence at the time overwhelmingly was in line with what the Bush administration was saying."You're being completely dishonest (primarily with yourself-- do you have a therapist?) It's been well-documented that the vast bulk of the intelligence available said that there were no WMD. It took intense cherry-picking and very creative interpretation to support the threat of WMD from Iraq."Yes, it would be so difficult to put WMD in a suitcase and enter the U.S."As a matter of fact, this is a very difficult thing to do, even if you have the WMD to put into one-- which they didn't have-- and anthrax, while potentially very dangerous, is not a WMD."Han Blix himself believed Saddam was lying about his WMD because the Iraqis were not cooperating with the inspectors."Patently false.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm"Iraq probably destroyed its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the early 1990s, the former United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said.Speaking to the BBC's World Service, Mr Blix said he was more certain than ever that there was no WMD in Iraq.Mr Blix said the capture of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was important, as he may reveal at what stage he might have destroyed them."

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

OK, Tom, you've clearly demonstrated that you've mastered the art of the irrelevant. I need no further convincing.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 9 months ago

The sinister side of the aisle has been in a state of outrage for nearly 8 years now. Perhaps they're getting tired.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

BushCo has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be lying, mass murdering war criminals. Most of us, with the exception of sycophants like RR/Kevin, have known that's what they are since before the war began. The events of the past 6 years have confirmed that, and McClellan is but the latest insider to have confirmed that.But some on this board (and all over Faux News) are so stuck in their ideological/religious brainwashing that they'd rather argue over what the meaning of "is" is.

kansas778 6 years, 9 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: and McClellan is but the latest insider to have confirmed that.*******And make a handsome profit as well....

rgh 6 years, 9 months ago

What most republicans won't admit to (and I am republican), is that we had 6 years of a republican controlled White House and Congress to screw things up, but the democrats in Congress will have only had 2 years (less actually) to try and fixt things.I don't like Bill Clinton as a person, but we were in great shape economically. Give Obama and a democratic congress 4 years to change things, and if it doesn't happen then let's go back to good ole conservative ways and elect republicans back to offices. We need to wake up of the rich will get richer, and the middle class and poor will get poorer. Gas, grocerciers, and jobs will suffer unless something changes and changes in a hurry. War usually produces good economic times (look at history), but this war has done the opposite. We can't sit back and let third world countries run the world, it's time to get diplomatic. No one dropped a bomb on Pearl Harbor and those who bombed NYC are still out there. Sure we got rid of Sadaam, now what about Bin Laden?Ronald Reagan (God rest his soul) secured democracy in the former Soviet Union and Germany with diplomacy, we didn't have to invade Russia to get it!

chet_larock 6 years, 9 months ago

"Restore. you are jumping all over a person who has no national impact and defending a person who also lied and has destroyed a country, killed over 4000 of America's best, and spend hundreds of billions when we can use it here."-- hey speakout, kevin has a man-crush on gwb. and the "reason" referred to in his current (906th ?) screenname actually means "blind allegiance to george w bush". so, you know, there you go.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

bozo...There you go making up facts and saying crazy things just b/c you don't like Bush. I agree that to there is a degree of incompetence in some areas of policy, and b/c he is a politician he is somewhat corrupt (but no more than some, and less than Clinton).I have not stated that since they meant well they bear no responsibility, in fact I have stated just the opposite several times if you actually read before you fly off the handle. However, the failed policies are not sufficient to impeach him since he was acting in his capacity as head of the Executive branch. In our republican form of government if we don't like the job someone is doing we vote them out of office, we don't put them in jail. Otherwise no one would want to be elected since anytime they make a mistake in their official duties they would be put in jail. What he has done does not amount to a "high crime or misdemeanor"

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

I think the main problem many liberals have is the distinction between giving information that turned out to be incorrect, and giving information knowing it was incorrect (lying).

christy kennedy 6 years, 9 months ago

Yeah, bozo, what a lot of dancing around they have to do to not even make a coherent point. I was just checking back in to see how things are going and as usual, the Bush supporters are spinning off on the edge of reason and everybody else continues sincerely but in vain, trying to reason with them. I'm going to get to work now. Oh wait that reminds me, speaking of irrelevant and off point, I'm apparently one of those "@%$#ing hippies" who should "get a job." Bye now. Off to work.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 9 months ago

Bozo, if you believed that President Nixon was impeached, you need to take a break for the rest of the day, read a history book, and return tomorrow with an appropriate book report.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

Duplenty:.I never indicated that anyone made the claim that Democrats never lie; please read carefully. I am pointing out how many people are hypocrites since they will condemn a Republican for seemingly lying but when Democrats lie it is justified or minimalized. Under Clinton there was everything from lies, to renting out the Lincoln bedroom for campaign contributions, to murdering a member of his own cabinet. Or how about FDR and social security, and the New Deal, I would like that deal back. Or LBJ and his "Great Society". Those have caused more harm to this country this conflict in Iraq. Or if you only count military conflicts, how about JFK getting us in the Vietnam war, or bay of pigs debacle.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

Gosh, we need more manly men with manly narratives for their lives, Kevin, cause doing things in a well-planned and rationale way is for effeminate wimps.

Curtiss 6 years, 9 months ago

Jeez, Kevin, just registered yesterday and already 38 posts?I guess your new name means your last old name was kicked off, like all the others, huh? And, I guess business isn't doing so good, since you have so much time all of a sudden for your life's work convincing the world that everything bad is Clinton's fault.So many Bush-haters; so many people who need to be belittled and insulted. It's a big job, huh?Take some time off, get some counseling. Really.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 9 months ago

Bozo, you state that even before our invasion of Iraq you and others had known that President Bush and the members of his administration were "mass murdering war criminals." I understand your opinions about the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, but in what specific historically recorded event or events did the members of the Bush administration participate prior to our invasion of Iraq that would have given them the opportunity to act as "mass murdering war criminals?" Precisely how, when, and where did this occur? Please enlighten us.

paavopetie 6 years, 9 months ago

Prediction:McCain will win by a one-state margin, and that at least four states will be decided by one-percentage point or less with McCain winning them all.I love how these coincidences kept mounting up for Bush and I anticipate them for McCain as well.

Jay_Z 6 years, 9 months ago

Reading the comments here, merely holding a coherent, logical discussion with some liberals is a chore.

zbarf 6 years, 9 months ago

AND THE WINNER IS ---- RestoreReasonRestoreReason has single handedly defeated the entire liberal onslaught. Congratulations! I would give you a 95% positive rating on logic, reason, sourcing, and clarity. The 5% negative is name calling like ndmoderate said but I know that is hard not to when faced with blatant ignorance.Do you think they will learn from this beating? I doubt it.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

Kevin, you're still arguing about what the definition of "is" is. Even if we play your little game of semantics, Iraq still didn't have even sarin or anthrax, or any way to deliver it. But this has nothing to do with WMD. It's about protecting your silly little sophomoric sense of tribalism. The team you identify with got called for very obviously violating every rule in the book, and all you can do is try to convince us all that not only are the refs blind, but everyone else with eyes is too.

kansas778 6 years, 9 months ago

Bozo, I'm suggesting that I don't believe him because his motives are less than noble. What reason do you have to believe a guy who didn't speak up about it or quit when he had all these moral qualms with Bush. Why would you believe a man who is a turncoat looking for money? Several books were written about Clinton by former staffers--do you believe what they say? The press certainly didn't. This is what was said about one tell-all book about Clinton:"it will be known as the latest example of disloyalty at the top, an attempt to cash in on trickle-down celebrity with an instant book."http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,21447,00.html?iid=chix-sphereThere's no reason to think that this book is anything more than another attempt to cash in.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

Sorry, Kevin, I should have known that you'd be quick to jump the trivialities as a way to avoid the larger point. Yes, Nixon quit before he could get fired (but only after he made a deal with Ford to pardon him.)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

So, you're saying that anything that might kill more than a dozen people is a weapon of mass destruction?

Jay_Z 6 years, 9 months ago

RestoreReason: It's apparent Bozo's (and some other liberals who post here) hate for Bush causes him/her to lose sight of the facts. Bozo has no logical answers for the questions you ask. If I had to guess Bozo will have some smug reply that addresses none of the points you brought up.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

Maybe you should read the report, Kevin--http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775"The Committee's report cites several conclusions in which the Administration's public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include: Ã' Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence. Ã' Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information. Ã' Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products. Ã' Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing. Ã' The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information. Ã' The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed. "

Jay_Z 6 years, 9 months ago

RR asked if anthrax is a WMD, not whether Iraq had the capability to use it. So, is it a WMD or not? I guess bozo doesn't want to answer that question.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

"Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq."Hmm, northern Iraq would be in Kurdish controlled territory, within easy access of American forces. Dontcha kinda wonder why he wasn't taken out if he was such a threat?"That rationale was also given when the Clinton administration launched its preemptive attack on Iraq in 1998. Was that rationale bogus then?"Yes. Clinton regularly had to out-tough the Republicans to keep them off balance. It was just as cynical when he did it as when they do.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

I suppose under some "24" television script it could, RR, but Iraq lacked the capability to do that, meaning that using it as the rationale for the war was a lie.Funny how it always comes back to lying, and you still want to swallow the lies and expect others to be as gullible as you.

BigAl 6 years, 9 months ago

  1. We will be treated as liberators.2. The war will be paid for with Iraqi oil.3. We will build a coalition of nations.4. Mission Accomplished.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says: "but in what specific historically recorded event or events did the members of the Bush administration participate prior to our invasion of Iraq that would have given them the opportunity to act as "mass murdering war criminals?" Precisely how, when, and where did this occur? Please enlighten us."Really, cato, I would have thought by now that the bus-riding clown-prince needed no explanation. But in case there are others who are as yet unfamiliar with the boz, here's a little primer detailing the (short) list of 'facts' that are the basis of his rants:The World According to bozo (or, his Native American name, "Clown-rants-from-bus")-Republicans who analyze the best available intelligence and come to a conclusion are 'lying.'-Democrats who analyze the same information and come to the same conclusion are 'lied to.'-Fox News and anything run by Rupert Murdoch are hopelessly biased.-MSNBC, as well as anything in Ted Turner's (the former Mr. Hanoi Jane) holdings, are paragons of objective journalism.-Republican presidents who take forceful action to protect our national interests are war criminals.-Democratic presidents who wimp out and turn a blind eye to attacks against Americans are preserving the peace.-Anyone who supports the sitting president (or any other Republican in history) is a sycophant.-The mindless drones who blindly swallow whatever pabulum the media and Hollywood decide to spoon feed them today are enlightened.(Continued in Part II)

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

duplenty...I included the bit about Vince Foster since it seems like libs crazy theories are applauded, but Conservatives are not allowed to have similar theories. Again pointing out the hypocrisy.It is interesting how you fail to counter any of my real arguments.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

RestoreReason:While I agree with you, for the most part, that the language and terms of the pre-emption policy was substantially similar to that of the previous administration; I think Bush modified the degree and level of threat required before we should respond, the definition of "actionable intelligence," and what an appropriate response to such a threat should be. (I find unlikely, outside the scope of 9/11, that Clinton would have toppled Saddam with the same amount of intelligence, given the threat at the time.)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

Interestingly, similar to the BushCo rationale for the war, the only place you can read the statements is in blogs and editorials cherry-picked by right-wing apologists from a 170-page report, while nearly all the news reports on this report say that it is quite critical of BushCo's march to war.Cherry pick much, Kevin?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

" The only reason they have not is because there is no such evidence."No, the reasons they don't are 1) they are going to win the presidency and control of both houses come next election, and they don't want to rock the boat 2) they are dependent on the same corporate sponsors as the Republicans, who are concerned with how that would affect their investments, so they don't want to rock the boat 3) the impeachment of Clinton was largely retaliation for the impeachment of Nixon, so they don't want to rock the boat and give the Republicans a reason for more tit for tat impeachments.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

RestoreReason...I assume you were being sarcastic about the Bay of Pigs involving diplomacy. Unless you count bombers and mercenaries as diplomacy. Maybe it was just aggressive negotiations.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

Get over yourselves-- the impeachment process was well under way, and it was a foregone conclusion that if he hadn't resigned he would have been impeached and convicted. This rankled many hardcore Repugnicans, and it wasn't till Clinton that they had the opportunity to retaliate.

ndmoderate 6 years, 9 months ago

"Now it might make you feel better to call others "idiots,""-RR"Well, I guess if the facts are not on your side, an ad hominem attack is tempting. Seems to be a lot of that from the left these days."-RRIn the same thread as:"Looks like BigAl is stuck on stupid."-RR"You ARE a bozo! Incredible."-RR"You really are ignorant, bozo. I'm sure glad we don't have anyone as stupid as you on the conservative side."-RRPractice what you preach, man.

JHOK32 6 years, 9 months ago

RestoreReason: If we all were deaf & dumb enough to continue to support this mass murdering, totally lying administration, you & your kind would allow them to completely take over the world! How much more proof do you need? Total idiots!

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

Bozo...The other alternative is that Bush got more agressive with suspected terrorist b/c thousands of innocent Americans died by the hands of terrorist. He felt it was his duty to protect America and sold the war to the American public because he believed it was the right thing to do. Just like he tried to sell the American public on immigration and social securty reform.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

McClellan's book can be understood as; Bush didn't lie so much as he just did a great sales job of the war. And now we all have buyer's remorse. We all should have asked more questions and been more skeptical, everyone agrees on this. But as McClellan points out, Bush convinced himself it was the right thing to do, and the majority of the public agreed. He was not trying to deliberately deceive anyone. Having said that, it was clearly a mistake and he should be held accountable for his lack of oversight. Why weren't "We the People" more skeptical; because we were all remember what Saddam did in the past and we all were fearful that we as a Nation would be attacked again. While many of the initial reason we had for going into Iraq turned out to be incorrect (except that there were terrorists allowed safe harbor), we still were able rid the Iraqi people of a horrible dictator. We cannot turn back the clock, and if we are going to hold Bush accountable, we should also hold the Congress , the media and ourselves just as responsible. But I guess it is easier to point fingers at just one person (scapegoat) than the to hold everyone accountable.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

Did Bush, Congress, the media, the general public believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? YesWas Bush too eager to go to war after our country was attacked? Yes, however this is somewhat understandable. On 9/11 Bush stated that we would not make a distinction between the terrorist and the countries that gave them safe harbor. On that day, and when we invaded Afghanistan the vast majority of Americans agreed with this (otherwise we could not have attacked Al Qaeda and given justice to the thousands that were murdered that day). This is the same policy which lead us into Iraq. After 9/11 the stance this administration took was to not wait until we are attacked, but to pre-emptively strike if there is actionable intelligence that someone with WMDs plans to use them. This policy was largely supported especially against Saddam b/c of our nation's previous conflict with him, and our fear that we as a Nation would be attacked again either by him or by terrorists that were harbored in Iraq. In retrospect this latter policy was largely due to a real fear that Bush did not create, but was wrong.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

RestoreReason..You hit my main point exactly. 9/11 and the fear it caused in the American public had more of an effect on us going to war than Bush doing a good job selling the war. However, I think it is ignorant to say mistakes weren't made in the decision to go to war and the aftermath. Those mistakes deserve accountability, but are not sufficient for impeachment or war crimes, or anything else the crazy libs demand.

gogoplata 6 years, 9 months ago

I agree that this is outrageous. This war has hurt America and Iraq both. Thousands of US servicemen dead, tens of thousands wounded, families forced to deal with the death and absence of their loved ones, the toll on the people of Iraq, and the serious blows to the US economy. War should be the very last resort. Instead our leaders lied to us so we would rally behind them to start a war. How can we be the greatest nation on earth and not put an end to this kind of behavior?

bearded_gnome 6 years, 9 months ago

ScottM was well described by Bob dole, who is respected in these parts, as a wiesel, that there's weisels like him in every administration who take advantage of being near to power. read Dole's letter, he puts it down straight.regarding the war against saddam:hours before the fall of baghdad, we have radio intercepts of saddam's commanders calling for deployment of the WMD's...they believed they were there!!!and a couple days after the fall of baghdad, published even in the new york times Jihad times0) our forces found 250-tons of yellow cake uranium! shizzayam!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

Kevin, you can blame Clinton all you want, and while he certainly deserves some blame for engaging in militaristic chest-beating designed to placate American jihadists like yourself, at least Clinton knew when to restrain himself-- we certainly didn't find ourselves in a quagmire like Iraq under his administration.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

"You don't hear as people going crazy about the war in Afghanistan even though that isn't exactly going smoothly because we feel justified in toppling that regime. It is all about buyer's remorse."The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is nearly as big a mistake as the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It's only purpose was to strike out in anger at someone, anyone. Just like Iraq, there was no plan for what would happen afterward, and that's why conditions for the people there are no better now than prior to the invasion. If it weren't for the fact that Iraq has turned out to be a blunder of such monumental proportions, people would be quite outraged about what's happening in Afghanistan."There you go making up facts and saying crazy things just b/c you don't like Bush."I've made up nothing."I agree that to there is a degree of incompetence in some areas of policy, and b/c he is a politician he is somewhat corrupt (but no more than some, and less than Clinton)."The corruption and incompetence in Iraq is at least a 9 on a scale of 10, and that's a current in every aspect of the executive branch. Clinton merely continued a tradition of corruption that started with Johnson, took a slight hiatus under Carter, resumed with Reagan. and Bush took that tradition to a whole new level.

Mike Blur 6 years, 9 months ago

Jeez. How many times will Kevin Groanhagen's sock puppets be deleted from the LJWorld forums before his IP is barred altogether?What Groanhagen, Bush and Shewmon et al. need to realize is that one day, the day you die, you will meet Saint Peter at the pearly gates. (Yes, I'm a lib that believes in God.) On that day, Pete will give you the thumbs up or down. It's up to you to determine the outcome.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

I think it is naive and child-like to always assume someone you don't like always has bad motives for any actions they take.Or maybe it just comes with the territory when you are a liberal.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 9 months ago

As is discussed in the Cashill article cited by Restore, it has been arguable for some time that a President Gore would have sought the invasion of Iraq, perhaps sooner than President Bush did. The reasons: 1. Gore would have been dealing with Saddam and Iraq, directly or indirectly, since well before 1992 and was astutely aware of the very serious problems posed by Saddam's regime.2. Moderate and conservative Democrats would have been anxious to return the Party to having an appearance of being reasonably supportive of military success or, at least, not anti-military in its views, and the prospect of a victory would have been enticing to them. Most Republicans would have been supportive, and during the early years of the Republican administration that ultimately did hold office there were very few prominent Democrats (among them Gore himself - more on that later) who were opposed to the invasion.3. As a result, many far-left Democrats, who from the beginning of the war have vehemently wished for an American defeat or incomplete victory in Iraq due to their hatred of President Bush following the results of the 2000 election, would not have had the same motivation to protest an invasion under a President Gore or desire that our efforts in Iraq not succeed.4. Many people today seem to have developed selective amnesia as to how Saddam was viewed among those in power in Washington during both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Great efforts were made internationally to get Saddam to comply with a host of U.N. resolutions, to no avail. While some conservatives view Gore as a milquetoast who would have let the U.N. dance go on forever, I disagree. There was a clear consensus that Saddam posed a real danger to much of the rest of the world, Gore would have recognized his duty and his position in history, and would not have hesitated to move forward.5. It is not surprising to have observed Gore, who had lost the 2000 election and was still serving as a member of the opposition party, sharply questioning the Bush administration's Iraq policies leading up to the invasion, which Gore opposed, and the conduct of the war after he left office in 1993. Had he been elected president, with the concomitant responsibilities inherent in the office, it is entirely likely that it would have been a different story. If one looks back at the situation as it existed within our government prior to our invasion of Iraq and gives Al Gore his due for having at least a modicum of courage, it is virtually certain that he would have made the decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein.I realize that some conservatives may believe that I am giving Gore too much credit, but had he won the election and been inaugurated as president he would very likely have had a different view of the responsibilities of the office than the one he publicly articulated after President Bush was inaugurated.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

That's got to be one of the silliest things you've ever posted, Kevin.By that logic, if bin Laden attacks us again, and says it's because we have done Mexico wrong, our response would have to be to invade and occupy Mexico.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

"bozo calls himself a bozo."More accurately, we're all bozos on this bus-- especially including you, Kevin.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

"Saddam had control over the entire Kurdistan region in 1996 and he never lost that control after then"No, he didn't have control. He took the capital, and made life miserable for lots of Kurds, but he by no means controlled the region.BTW, this all started because I said that BushCo could haven't taken out Zarqawi when he was in Kurdistan."Bush turned down chances to kill Zarqawi: ex-CIA spyA former top CIA spy says the United States deliberately turned down several opportunities to kill terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the lead-up to the Iraq war.Mike Scheuer headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for six years before resigning in 2004.He has told the ABC's Four Corners program the Bush administration had Zarqawi in its sights almost every day for a year.He says a plan to destroy Zarqawi's training camp in Kurdistan was abandoned for diplomatic reasons."http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1627197.htm

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

"So you disagree with Brokaw and Koppel's conclusion that Clinton would have removed Saddam from power if 9/11 had happened on his watch?"Who cares? I know you're desperate, so you'll resort to one more attempt to blame this all on Clinton, but if he invaded Iraq, he'd be as wrong as BushCo."Given the mistakes you have made today on Nixon being impeached and Kurdistan being within reach of our troops prior to March 2003,"Still stuck on that impeachment thing aren't you. You really are desperate.BTW, Kurdistan was completely out of Saddam's control ever since 1991. Yes, American forces could have taken out that camp if they had wanted.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

"I think it is naive and child-like to always assume someone you don't like always has bad motives for any actions they take."No, it's naive and childlike to ignore the evidence of a corrupt, incompetent, and wantonly violent administration, and say, "Aw, shucks, they meant well."

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

RestoreReason...I am not debating that Iraq was not an issue when Bush entered the White House. (I am not sure why you are debating this with me.) I am saying that b/c of 9/11 Bush got more aggressive with all of our enemies, and the we as the American public agreed with him. You don't hear as people going crazy about the war in Afghanistan even though that isn't exactly going smoothly because we feel justified in toppling that regime. It is all about buyer's remorse.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

Bozo..Yeah, Clinton knew how to restrain himself, like using military force against Slobdan Milosevic to destract the American public from his Monica Lewinsky nightmare. I guess I am crazy for saying this, but you are perfectly sane.It is definite Clinton would have attacked Afghanistan and quite possible he would have attacked Iraq.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

bozo...You are by far in the minority about Afghanistan, which proves you just hate anything Bush does without looking at the reason or the result. I do not have time to debate why the war in Afghanistan was justified, suffice it to say 9/11. Conditions in the country have improved for some. I think it is odd that a success of an entire nation is causually linked to the U.S. We can support and influence, but we don't dictate. We could have the best plan in the world, but it would not avail us if the Afghanistanees don't cooperate. They are the major reason why their country doesn't improve (not every single citizen but the majority).

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

"9/11 and the fear it caused in the American public had more of an effect on us going to war than Bush doing a good job selling the war."Bush and the neocons had been wanting to go to war in Iraq for at least five years before 9/11. Bush's "selling the war" was nothing more than fear-mongering. They cynically used the events of 9/11 to get something they otherwise couldn't have.

ndmoderate 6 years, 9 months ago

Nope, not trying to change the topic, RR. Just dropping in to point out hypocrisy. Also, since I haven't read the Senate's report or McClellan's book, I can't help you there. But you've already come to your immutable conclusions anyway, so it's not worth the bother.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

bozo proves my point exactly. Planning the war for 5 years, sure... I am sure he can give me "evidence" just like I could give you evidence that the Clintons were involved in Vince Foster's death.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

You keep expecting me to defend Clinton, Kevin. That ain't gonna happen any sooner than my giving Bush wet kisses like you do.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

Oops, speaking of the Clown-rants-on-bus primer, here's one I forgot:-Those who dare to disagree with the boz are lying or mistaken, even when they back up their assertions with quotes, citations, and links to verify the sources and the context.-clownie is always right because his posts are based on whatever he can extract from a rearward-facing orifice.(Really, has anyone ever seen the boz post a link to any of this 'information' he spouts? I have, and it usually isn't pretty - although it usually is amusing and generally proves the opposite point he is trying to assert.)

JHOK32 6 years, 9 months ago

Russia has nuclear & biological weapons.....why doesn't Bush invade Russia? Same reasoning, right? How about North Korea, why not invade them too? Same reasoning, right? Bush invaded Iraq because of "WMD's" & Saddam was a tyrant. First he had WMD's, now it's no WMD's. He killed Saddam. So I forget, tell me again RestoreReasoning, why are we still there killing our kids?

Daytrader23 6 years, 9 months ago

Anonymous userRestoreReason (Anonymous) says: North Korea is a state sponsor of terrorism.Really?? I never head of fundamentalist Islamic fighters coming out of North Korea, because thats what terrorists are right? Fundamental Islamic people with turbines on their heads? Well who is right to define the difference between Terrorism and Militarism? Depends on which side are you on or who's shoes you are walking in. So is Israeli militarism worse or better than Palestinian terrorism? Hmmm? So far militarism has killed more people. And what was this article about anyways? Oh yeah, Bush and the uneducated right are a bunch of goons. Yes we all knew that already.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

Let's start a new topic. I wonder if the strategy the Dems will use in the 2008 Presidential Race is the same failed strategy they used in 2004; "George Bush is bad, George Bush is a Republican, therefore vote for us (change)."

ndmoderate 6 years, 9 months ago

There's nothing funny about calling someone a traitor.

JHOK32 6 years, 9 months ago

So we have agreed that North Korea is indeed a terrorist state. So again I ask my question: Why doesn't Georgie boy invade them as well? Could it be the glaringly obvious that they have no oil? If we invaded North Korea it probably would not have doubled the price of gas, so we'll let them off the hook?

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

f'duplenty (Anonymous) says: "While notajayhawk (thanks pal, we don't want you) tries to lay this assertion on bigal, doesn't it actually fit more with the actions of big dub?"Who's bigal? Um - maybe you didn't read my post before your weak attempt at retort, but I'm pretty sure it says - several times - that it was about bozo. Try to keep up."Let's see: Did Iraq have a single thing to do with 9/11? No."Let's see: Did I say they did? Anywhere? You might have noticed (again, if you read my post), that it was a synopsis of the dogma from which bozo derives his 'arguments.' Care to try again? With an effort to read first, post afterwards?"What planet do you live on, notajayhawk?"One in which reading comprehension is held in high regard. You might want to join us on it sometime."'Cuz that would make sense."Probably more sense than someone as illiterate as f'duplenty posting to (or trying to, anyway) a newspaper's website. But hey, 'thanks for playing.'

Corey Williams 6 years, 9 months ago

"The tactic of childish name calling and personal attacks is often resorted to when someone fails to have any solid logical argument or reliable evidence."Is that why you put "Daytraitor23" instead of "Daytrader23"?

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

No, that was a joke.Perhaps you missed all my arguments that preceded the joke.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

duplenty...Perhaps once you have learned to read English and understand logic you will discover the carefully hidden arguments I have consistently made.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

Daytraitor23...I am not sure the semantics of defininig a terrororist are applicable to the main point of RestoreReason's point which is that North Korea is a threat like Iraq was; but America doesn't attack North Korea because there are important differences between them and Iraq under Saddam. "And what was this article about anyways?"RestoreReason was responding to a comment/question, not this article."Bush and the uneducated right are a bunch of goons"The tactic of childish name calling and personal attacks is often resorted to when someone fails to have any solid logical argument or reliable evidence.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

duplenty..."satirical, you're so deep that anyone who thinks that perhaps you're just ignorant musn't have mastered the arts of reading and thinking!" I think the when someone calls me a name such as ignorant and doesn't substantiate the claim doesn't know how to make an argument."If your points were valid in the least, why do they need to be "carefully hidden"?"That was a joke (no one seems to appreciate humor since they are so blinded by attacking the messenger rather than the message). My arguments are plain, clear and obvious, the opposite of carefully hidden.Personal attacks matter little to me, so you can stop wasting your time and start discussing the issues.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

The portion of my post you copied was written with the intent to create a context leading up to my argument, not the actual argument. Do you understand the difference?Also, you keep making statements such as "Insanely false, and simplistic" in response to any statement I make, without substantiating it.You also act like I am arguing that; in retrospect Bush was justified in invading Iraq. However, I have not made this argument, and in fact rejected this argument which you quoted, "but it was wrong".It is frustrating trying to have an argument with someone who doesn't seem to be able to read or comprehend plain English. I have tried to dumb down what I type since I recognize the audience, but perhaps I should use even smaller words for your benefit.

supertrampofkansas 6 years, 9 months ago

Speaking of economics, I thought of this conversation between Higgins and Turner at the end of the movie "Three days of the Condor".Higgins: "No. It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In or years-- food, plutonium, and maybe even sooner. What do you think the people are going to want us to do then?Turner: "Ask them!"Higgins: "Now? Huh-uh. Ask them when they're running out. Ask them when there's no heat and they're cold. Ask them when their engines stop. Ask them when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. Want to know something? They won't want us to ask them. They'll want us to get it for them."Maybe we are just playing games. What do you think RR?

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

duplenty...In order to make this as simple as possible for you, here are a few of the actual arguments I have made. I copied and pasted them just for you. If you are going to make a counter argument that is not fallacious please substantiate anything you write. Ex: Argument (1) is wrong BECAUSE...(1) "McClellan's book can be understood as; Bush didn't lie so much as he just did a great sales job of the war. And now we all have buyer's remorse."(2)"9/11 and the fear it caused in the American public had more of an effect on us going to war than Bush doing a good job selling the war."(3)"We cannot turn back the clock, and if we are going to hold Bush accountable, we should also hold the Congress , the media and ourselves just as responsible. But I guess it is easier to point fingers at just one person (scapegoat) than the to hold everyone accountable."

JHOK32 6 years, 9 months ago

So we invaded Iraq because it was "easier" than invading North Korea? Do you realize how absurd this sounds? And it had nothing to do with big oil? It's just happenstance I suppose? It's also just happenstance that big oil is making outlandish profits under Bush? It's also just happenstance that gas has doubled in price & the country is being financially raped by big oil with buddie Bush's blessing? He can give billions of dollars to the Iraqies (i.e. big oil), but not a dollar more to extend the unemployment benefits of millions of his own? That's an awful lot of "happenstance." I for one do not swallow an ounce of this B.S.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

This post has become pointless. I feel like I am arguing with 16 year olds who think they are the only ones that "really" know what is going on in the U.S. and understand complex foreign policy by watching The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.You have 'duplenty', who either doesn't contradict any argument I make and either; repeats exactly what I say, believing he has somehow refuted me, or labels an argument without any substantiation.You have' JHOK32' and 'cool' who are under the delusion that the Iraq war was started solely as a means of profiting Bush and his friends (how many times have we heard this idiotic argument); even though if we got out of Iraq today, or never even went into Iraq, the prices would be substantially similar (see Supply and Demand, please read a book sometime or watch an economic report on the idiot box).Then we have 'Daytraitor23' who claims s/he doesn't hate America but thinks we are just as bad as North Korea, and essentially believes we are evil. Fails to understand history or the American Revolution, the definition of terrorism, and believes overthrowing the government is not being a traitor.If only I could get a rational adult with a different opinion to have an intelligent discussion with. Instead I feel like I am teaching High School.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

Quick, cool, without Googling it, how much of our oil comes from Iraq?

Daytrader23 6 years, 9 months ago

malcolm_x_obama (Anonymous) says:daytraitor23,Where have you been? North Korea is a terrorist state. They export terror, train terrorists, kidnap foreigners, counterfit money, bomb airplanes, tried to assassinate the south korean president and infiltrate operatives to conduct terrorist attacks on the south. They are exporting WMD technology and missile technology.You need to get up to speed or shut up.Damn, I can take your entire argument but place the word America instead of North Korea. Maybe I should spell this out. Please define the difference between Militarism and Terrorism. Both are wrong. Militarism wants to force its agenda amongst a people that don't want it. Which sounds more like terrorism. Terrorism is killing innocent and voiding all human rights which is what America has been doing in that region for decades. So really whats the difference? How would you feel if you were a Palestinian or an Iraqi or even Iranian? Who would you consider to be the terrorist?P.S I heard this funny joke yesterday, sad but trueWhy does America go to war? To teach it's people geography. HA-HA FREAKING HA

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

What is the point you are trying to make supertrampofkansas?

Daytrader23 6 years, 9 months ago

Just so you know I am not Anit-American, in fact I am proud to be an American. But I am Anti-U.S foreign policy. We are considered to be the bullies of the world and if you only knew of half of what U.S policy and C.I.A was throughout this world you probably would be as well. We have lost most of our rights and freedoms as Americans to a government that is too big and over powering over its own people and a lot worse when it deals with countries that do not agree with them.Correct me if I am wrong but is this not the same type of government our fore fathers fought against? And won Independence from? So back then someone with those views were considered to be patriots but today they are considered traitors? Well then call me a traitor all you want.

uncleandyt 6 years, 9 months ago

The rats are jumping ship. The sheep are awaiting instructions to applaud. Make space in your home for quite a few war-criminal chickens to roost. The "right" is wrong on War Business.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.