Just a point, what was our justification for going into Iraq. Was it “Sadaam is a bad, bad man” or “Sadaam is a bad, bad man with weapons of mass destruction”? If there are no weapons, the son of a bitch still lied to the country. If there were weapons (of course, there weren’t), why are we safer now that we caught the bad, bad, man, and have no fucking idea where the potentially lethal agents are. C’mon, people, revisionist history is beneath you, it’s beneath all of us.
But what a perfect occasion for bush to sneak a little more civil liberties violating power into the executive branch. Right as his approval ratings are guaranteed to soar. God I need to emigrate.
http://www.sacurrent.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10705756&BRD=2318&PAG=461&dept_id=482778&rfi=6
“Lied?” Try “was wrong.” (Along with the rest of the world.)
The idea that the Administration wants to “sneak a little more civil liberties violating power” in — for no reason, save fun? — is just hysteria.
Okay, where to start. One, “the rest of the world”. You must not be including france, germany, russia, or a significant chunk of the US and UK populations (not mention a significant chunk of the rest of the population of the planet Earth) when you say “the rest of the world”. I was at the peace protests. I read the signs. An awful lot of us said the weapons of mass destruction were bullshit. “The rest of the world” is an example of the revisionist history I was talking about.
I am however, willing to grant the possibility that in his speeches, Bush was wrong, and did not lie. This requires him to have fallen for cooked intelligence. Take, for instance, the aluminum tube note, which has been shown to be fake, with very little effort. Someone cooked that intelligence, and it was not error checked before it was used as a major part of the justification for war. So, we’re talking willful deception (possibly of Bush, possibly by Bush) or gross negligence.
And when an ambassador pointed out that it was malarky, a senior administration official blew the cover of his wife, a cia agent working under cover, on the proliferation of womd. There has been no disciplinary response that we’ve been told about. There certainly hasn’t been any change in cabinet. Now it’s treason somewhere in the cabinet, and at best negligence on Bush’s part for not working harder to address it. Well, maybe Bush is being blackmailed or threatened by whoever did it. Which do you prefer?
Note, that I never said Bush in my original post, it’s because the more accurate “Bush or the cabinet members he selected and has not dismissed” is a bit of a mouthful.
And finally, are they doing this for fun? I do not attempt to guess their motivations. Maybe they haven’t read the Bill of Rights. They might even believe this will make us safer from terrorists, because, of course, authoritarianism is always the right response to terrorism. Then again, perhaps they just hate freedom.
Are you confusing ‘aluminum tubing’ with ‘yellowcake’? (Or are they one and the same false “scandal.”) Joseph Wilson, a retired diplomat, went to Niger, drank tea with his counterparts, and determined that there was no yellowcake transaction.
As Bush said, did the British at the time believe the transaction took place? Yes.
Next, the WMD issue. Fine, I’ll allow that the guys holding signs and hoisting the giant puppets “knew” there was no WMD. However, at the very least, the prior US Administration believed he had them. Certainly, it’s very well documented that the USA provided him with probably 5% of his arsenal. Ask “the rest of the world” about the rest of the weaponry. What government of what nation stated that Hussein was clean? A more responsible question would be to ask, “Where are they now?”
Finally, if you want to believe that the Administration is hell-bent on removing freedoms just for the sake of it, it certainly doesn’t matter what Acts are signed, and despite the lack of evidence of the Acts being used to abuse citizens. You’re free to believe whatever conspiracy theories you like (the Acts don’t even have to exist, for that!) but I’ll continue to consider it much ado about nothing.
A final question: if you’re concerned with the make-believe trampling of the Bill of Rights, where would you emigrate? Some place where they never enjoyed those freedoms to begin with?
Yes, I was confusing the uranium and the tubing, thank you for the correction. The tubing was an unrelated issue, where it was claimed that they were being used for refining uranium, and neither the iaea nor the un inspectors bought it.
Wilson’s methodology aside, which you so innacurately represented, do you think that the forgery claims relating the letter used to support the Niger uranium claim were themselves false?
Please not the distinction between “tony blair signed on to it too” and “the uk believed it as well”
see also http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/19/iraq/main564084.shtml
Also, I never claimed that the marchers “knew” there were no weapons. Bush claimed he knew there were, and yet following the leads he gave, none were found, and no compelling evidence of their production either, both by un inspectors before invasion and by us soldiers after invasion. Given that, what convinces you that there ever were weapons? (Between the investigators being pulled out in 98 and the us invasion) Someone in a position of authority said so?
I believe they are hell bent on removing protections because of their actions. How about amendments 4 through 6, plus amendment 8. Reasonable search and seizure involving warrants for specific items, at specific places, and specific times, as opposed to searches w/o warrants and subpeona-ing library records on the sly. Grand jury indictments required for citizens not currently serving in the military, v military tribunals for citizens not currently in the military. Speedy trials and access to counsel, as opposed to indefinite detentions sans counsel. And, no cruel and unusual punishment vs guantanamo bay. The bill of rights has never been wholly sacred, more’s the pity, but this is the most blatant pissing all over it we’ve had since the civil war or maybe the japanese detention camps in world war 2.
Canada seems to be doing well in terms of respecting its citizens. Is their right of free speech absolute? Nope, but it sure ain’t here, either. Not that canada is free of stupidity. But at least it’s not in any danger of becoming the 4th reich.