As Scottie Sowed, So Is He Reaping

McClellan has apologized to Richard Clark, but the fact remains that there is a lot of smoke around this Bush fire. The evil and corruption of the current administration knows no bounds.

 

Don't expect any right-wing support, regardless of the facts!

 

Oh, I don't. Bushco could murder their mothers, and they'd find a way to rationalize it.

 

Seriously?

 

Talking about a political axe to grind! Please, you've gone too far. Saying those kinds of extreme things score no points, but do raise questions about the soundness of your mind.

 

I have trouble calling fascists right wingers seeing as how they're every bit as socialistic as y'all are. :smilewinkgrin:

 

If Newt Gringrich can publically wish for the state to allow more terrorist attacks on our home soil to rally people behind neocon policies then MP can call the neocons murderers because he's telling the truth about them. I question the soundness of everyone's mind who could allow a group of "crazies" to wish for more American death's to further their "cause".

MP isn't the one going to far here it's the neocons and their "faithful" followers who are.

 

The only ones that have gone too far is this administration. In fact, they have murdered mothers, both American and Iraqi, in their invasion of another nation that posed no threat to the U.S.

 

It wasn't U.S. interests that were threatened MP you are right about that. It was the "international communitie's" interests NWO for short that was threatened. The threat itself was Iraqi sovereignty. The NWO cannot not tolerate any nation that claims or seeks self rule.

In my signature there is eight definitions of terrorism. Our own state and mass media are just as guilty of it using on us (U.S. citizens) as any Islamic radicals. The neocons by their own admissions are guilty and the democrats the supposed "opposition" party are just as guilty because they go along with it unwilling to expose the whole sick truth of it.

 

Yep. Just ask:

1) Richard Clarke ("Now he never said, 'Make it up,' ... But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.”)

2) Colin Powell ("I tried to avoid this war. I took him [Bush] through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.")

3) Army Lt. Col. Antulio J. Echevarria ("The administration 'either misunderstood or, worse, wished away' the difficulties of transforming that victory into the larger political goal.")

4) Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill ("President Bush 'was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people' during Cabinet meetings.")

5) Powell's Deputy Secretary of State Richar L Armitage ("The message I think from the electorate is that fear doesn't work. You've got to go back to what is traditionally ours, and we've got to go back to those things that made us important in the eyes of the world.")

6) Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith (He claims administration officials were "politicizing" intelligence.)

7) Former CIA Director (under Bush) George Tent (He claims Bush lied about his alleged claim that Iraq was a "slam dunk.")

The list could go on... but I doubt the President's defenders would care. At the very least, the people who broke with this administration either exercised good judgment in doing so, or the President systematically exercises horribly poor judgment in who he appoints to serve under him. Either way, Bush comes out on the losing end of history.

 

What what he said, I believe he is acting out of conscience or religious belief.

 

That would depend on who writes the history I suppose. If the globalists write it as I suspect they will Bush will be a great hero. But if Americans get to write it which I doubt Bush will be a traitor to his country by selling it wholesale to the globalists. The neocon's chickens are coming home to roost there are only two events that can save them now, another terror attack on U.S. soil or another invasion of a sovereign country which would most likely have to be precipitated by another violent attack on the "homeland".

At this point I think the oligarchy view Bush and the neocons as a detriment to their goal of one world government. I look for a limited hang out to please the masses, the installation of a fresh puppet and another attack on the "homeland" to rally the people behind their new "leader".

 

Here's a tip: personal attacks really don't give you much in the way of credibility. If you want to respond to a point, then respond to it. But questioning the "soundness" of one's mind actually takes away from any point you are trying to make.

I have a question for any of the Bush apologists: what would it take for you to change your opinion of the POTUS? How many people have to come forward before you decide that something just doesn't add up? What would it take?

An honest question,
BiR

 

Not defending Bush, but Clinton made regieme change in Iraq official U.S. Policy, in like 1993. Bush merely carried it out, with bi-partisian support, I may add. If the Bushies are going to be called out to be honest, then everyone should be. Both the dems & repubs got us into this mess. and now we beat each other up, blaming the other side. It's almost comical.


Ivon, great list, but every administration has plenty of turncoat tell alls. I think Bush's biggest blunders occurred once inside Iraq, and his unbelievable arrogance in the face of irrefutable facts. It is really mind blowing. Completely indefensable. But nobody should be fooled, we would have gone into Iraq, no matter who the president was.

 

The Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 and President Clinton signed it.

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf

 

Thank you, Ken. I knew I was way early, but my point stands.

 

Here's another way to wipe out your credibility: intellectual dishonesty.
Hate is a word that was not used anywhere in this discussion.

Amazing.......