Mr. President: Peter David from www.peterdavid.net. In the past you have repeatedly criticized “activist judges” who have been, in your opinion, playing fast and loose with the Constitution in order to further their own agendas. Yet you, who twice took an oath to protect the Constitution, signed into law a historic curtailing of habeas corpus that many are decrying as blatantly unconstitutional. Would it therefore be reasonable to accuse you of being an “activist president?”
PAD
UPDATE FROM GLENN, 9/26: Apparently, Betty The Crow News is collecting questions for their reporter to ask Tony Snow. Feel free to click here and cross-polinate.
• 
Also, on the WMDs, the burden of proof was NOT on Bush.
Excuse me?
Bush starts a war on lies, for war profit, and at the cost of taxpayer dollars, and the onus is on Saddam?
What a complete joke.
Next you’ll be telling me that when a murder goes on trial, it’s the dead person who has to prove they weren’t a victim.
It was on Saddam, to PROVE that he had no WMDs, no WMD programs, no WMD materials
Which Saddam tried to do, did do, and Bush ignored it, just so he could have his little war.
Facts are never good enough for Bush; only political propoganda and innuendo.
There was no way, in Bush’s eyes, that Saddam could prove had no WMD, even though he’d proven it to the inspectors, both before our invasion and after.
I truly find it hard to believe that people such as yourself, Jay Tea, think the way you do.
The burden is not on Bush? God, that’ll keep me laughing for a week or more.
Mr. President,
Can you please explain to me, with very specific examples, how I am indeed safer than I was before 9/11/01? Because when I look at all the evidence, I come to the opposite conclusion.
Declassify the informatoin and be specific. I want names, dates, places, and objectives…LOTS of them.
After all, when you’ve got a credibility problem, you’ve just got to provide some evidence. I’m skeptical, and I’m asking you to convince me you’re right. I’ve got an open mind here. Bring it on.
Kawherp
Unh, hunh.
Mmm, hmmm.
Nerve, meet finger. Finger, meet nerve.
When it comes time to pay for the debts Bush is racking up, where do you think those “refunds” will go?
Let me guess: it’s a “death tax,” not the “Paris Hilton Tax Cut.”
Dude, even Warren Buffet (WFB!) is attacking the fiscal agenda of a Republican president. An heir pays no taxes while taxi drivers continue paying the taxes? If my analogy does anyone a disservice, I’m guessing it’s the pimp.
An heir living off of interest, that is.
Mr. President, Tom Galloway of the Asker Of Inconvient Questions Press. A multi-parter if you please; first, could you define haebius corpus and explain its significance when it was first installed in government via the Magna Carta. Second, why do you consider it undesirable to the point where, under extremely vaguely defined circumstances which you could potentially apply to everyone in this room, you choose to advocate for and sign a bill denying it perpetuity to some?
Personally, I’d bet he couldn’t make it past the first part.
Also, on the WMDs, the burden of proof was NOT on Bush. It was on Saddam, to PROVE that he had no WMDs, no WMD programs, no WMD materials. He reapeatedly cheated and lied and evaded on that.
1) How does someone prove a negative? For example, I say you have 6 shirts that are green, purple & orange. You say you don’t. Prove you don’t.
2) The bush administration made the accusations with no proof. It should then be up to them to provide proof of their claims.
3) The U.N. weapons inspecters were in Iraq for months until bush pulled them out.
I actually went back to Bush’s speeches and statements, and the actual focus of them were freeing the Iraqi people, bringing democracy to the Middle East, and ending Saddam’s support for terrorism
The original drive for the invasion was WMDs. Saddam had them, was going to use them on us, there would be mushroom clouds over U.S. cities, etc.
Sadddams support for terrorism was the non-existant link between Iraq & Al-Quieda, a link that had no basis in reality.
Freeing the Iraqi people was, at best, a secondary reason for the invasion; & bringing democracy to the mideast was added when it became obvious that Saddam didn’t have the WMDs that he was accused of having.
=====
Also, if we’re invading to bring democracy to the mideast, why start with the area’s only secular government? Why not with Saudi Arabia which is a monarchy and not a democracy? Or Pakistan which has a military government instead of a democracy?
And After we invaded to bring democracy, why did we stop the Iraqi people from organizing elections until we were decided to allow them to do so?
Mr. President, Sean Scullion from the Nightblade Productions News, two questions:
First, how do you respond to the reports that your administration was seeking to go after Iraq and Hussein from the moment you got into office, along with the documentation saying this? And second, how do you jusitfy building all new schools for children in Iraq when many children in this country are badly in need of new schools right here?
Haven’t we read most of the posts on this thread dozens of times over and over again? Couldn’t this time be dedicated to something important like wondering why Chevorlet is using the song “American Pie” in their commercials. Sure, the song mentions a chevy, but the song is about murdering the current flame of your ex. No, these aren’t questions for the President.
…why Chevorlet is using the song “American Pie” in their commercials. Sure, the song mentions a chevy, but the song is about murdering the current flame of your ex.
Wha-huh? Is that true? I’d always heard it was about Buddy Holly. Explain, good sir. I’m all about learning the deeper meaning about song lyrics. hey, did you know that “Shannon” is about a freaking dog???
Ok, ok, I know, it’s obvious when you read the lyrics MAYBE SHE’LL FIND AN ISLAND WITH A SHADY TREE
JUST LIKE THE ONE IN OUR BACKYARD
but I’ll be dámņëd if I didn’t sing those words about 100 times without ever once picking up on the whole “We’re singing about our dog” message.
And don’t get me started on “the Night the Lights went out in Georgia”. Makes NO freaking sense, at all.
Peter’s liberal readership: notice how the conservatives start playing tag-team to preserve their own denial.
First Bill gets all formal in my face, asking me to substantiate my nerve-striking analogy. Which is fine until I flabbergast him by introducing the logic he asked for but doesn’t even know he’s starving for in his own life. Then they begin introducing nonsense of their own. “Logic” is all the rage… until it starts telling them stuff they don’t want to hear.
Mr. President – You returned from a vacation on your ranch to be in Washington in case your signature was needed on legislation regarding the fate of Terry Shiavo but, when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans you felt it appropriate to delegate responsiblity for federal response to others – what message are you sending to the American people by such behavior? Do you think it is an emblematic of the skewed priorities of your administration? How can you justify your decision when the two are compared side by side?
Mr. President, Glenn Hauman here from the Purple Parrot.
Can you explain how our nation’s standing in world opinion went from 90% in the wake of 9/11 to below 30% today?
Similarly, can you explain how your own personal popularity as President has gone from 92% to 32% in the same time period? And do you believe there is any connection between the two?
“Also, on the WMDs, the burden of proof was NOT on Bush.”
No. Bush does not get a free pass on having to show proof of facts before STARTING A WAR.
Not that facts mattered to him. Bush had Powell and others, pre-invasion, play heavily on the disclosure of Iraq’s unconventional weapons programs by defector Hussein Kamel to support the claim that Iraq was just floating in WMDs. This was, so they went on, “case closed” type of stuff. Funny, but he failed to tell anyone to point out that Kamel had also said, when asked where the stuff was, that those same weapons had been destroyed. Case re-opened.
But does truth matter in Bush’s “proof”?
“For Bush, Facts Are Malleable”
Washington Post, 10/22/02.
Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank noted two dubious Bush claims about Iraq: his citing of a United Nations International Atomic Energy report alleging that Iraq was “six months away” from developing a nuclear weapon; and that Iraq maintained a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used, in Bush’s words, “for missions targeting the United States.”
Those assertions were dubious, if not outright wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lacked the range to come anywhere close to reaching the United States and that there was no such report by the IAEA.
But, hey, Saddam could have avoided all this by showing us his hand, folding his cards and leaving. He was told by Bush & Co. that his stepping down and leaving the country would put an end to our invasion plans. Right?
Pre-War speech:
George W. Bush, March 17:
“Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.”
So, Saddam could have just left and none of this would have happened.
March 18, New York Times:
“Allies Will Move In, Even if Saddam Hussein Moves Out” by Michael Gordon.
“Even if Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq within 48 hours, as President Bush demanded, allied forces plan to move north into Iraqi territory, American officials said today.”
Well, oops. Maybe not.
And you want Bush to get a free pass?
“Sure, the song mentions a chevy, but the song is about murdering the current flame of your ex.”
Huh????????
Peter’s liberal readership: notice how the conservatives start playing tag-team to preserve their own denial.
What the flying @#$% are you talking about, Mike?
Jeff in NC made a comment that was a little off topic, Bill responded. It has jack squat to do with denial or anything else. Between this comment, and the stuff with Bill Myers (another liberal), I’m beginning to wonder if you’re a bit off your rocker atm.
As another liberal, I’m supporting Bill here: since when is “American Pie” about “murdering the current flame of your ex”, as Jeff in NC stated?
Mr. President.
Lee Houston, Junior; Editor-In-Chief, News for the e-zine The Free Choice at http://www.thefreechoice.info.
You’ve stated on several occassions that this country never need be fearful of anything ever again. Yet several Republican candidates in the upcoming elections are using this very platform to make voters think voting Republican is the only option open to them. How do you explain that, sir?
Mike,
I’m no conservative. I’ve argued points with you. I’ve argued points with Bill.
“Peter’s liberal readership: notice how the conservatives start playing tag-team to preserve their own denial.
First Bill gets all formal in my face, asking me to substantiate my nerve-striking analogy. Which is fine until I flabbergast him by introducing the logic he asked for but doesn’t even know he’s starving for in his own life. Then they begin introducing nonsense of their own. “Logic” is all the rage… until it starts telling them stuff they don’t want to hear.”
So….. You’re out logicing Bill and flabbergasting him with your arguments thus far.
🙂
Bwaaaaahaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa
:l
No…. really…. heh… Bwaaahaahahaaa
;p
… gasp… ribs hurt….
😀
Funniest thing I’ve read on the site all week.
Every day Former Gov. Gray Davis looks up Bush’s approval rate online and mutters “It’s just not fair.”
Mr. President, how long until you appoint your limo to the Senate?
Mr. President, the Other Jonathan, Lakewood Weekly Shopper.
You are repeatedly described as “conservative”, yet you support policies that massively expand our government (the new Department of Homeland Defense, for instance), propose heavier spending than your liberal predecessor, and favor government intrusion into Americans’ private lives, even going so far as to push a Constitutional amendment to alter the Constitution’s Article IV. How do you reconcile these?
(As an aside, the song “American Pie” is indeed about the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and J. P. “the Big Bopper” Richardson. That’s why the lyrics repeatedly reference “the day the music died”.)
Posted by Mike at October 22, 2006 10:53 PM
Nerve, meet finger. Finger, meet nerve.
No, you still haven’t touched a nerve. I’ve cited verifiable facts (the Tax Relief Act of 2001 is a matter of public record) that refute your argument. The only one getting hot under the collar here is you, because you’re losing the argument.
Posted by Mike at October 22, 2006 10:53 PM
When it comes time to pay for the debts Bush is racking up, where do you think those “refunds” will go?
Some of them will go out the window, I’m sure. Who said otherwise? Although I think any president, Republican or Democrat, will have trouble rolling back the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion. Too many people will cry, “War on the poor!”
Posted by Mike at October 22, 2006 10:53 PM
Let me guess: it’s a “death tax,” not the “Paris Hilton Tax Cut.”
The “death tax” is a slang term for the estate tax. Totally separate issue. Try to focus, Mike.
Posted by Mike at October 22, 2006 10:53 PM
Dude, even Warren Buffet (WFB!) is attacking the fiscal agenda of a Republican president.
So have I. As I said, it’s moronic to be cutting taxes during wartime. And I’ve already acknowledged that Bush’s policies favor the rich more than anyone else.
Nevertheless, you have yet to refute any of the facts I’ve cited — facts that tear your argument to shreds.
By the way, Mikey, I wish people like you would stop exaggerating Bush’s misdeeds. It forces people like me to spend time correcting you for the sake of logic. It’s unfortunate, because all that does is help steer the argument away from the truly šhìŧŧÿ things Bush has actually done.
Posted by Mike at October 22, 2006 11:48 PM
Peter’s liberal readership: notice how the conservatives start playing tag-team to preserve their own denial.
First Bill gets all formal in my face, asking me to substantiate my nerve-striking analogy. Which is fine until I flabbergast him by introducing the logic he asked for but doesn’t even know he’s starving for in his own life. Then they begin introducing nonsense of their own. “Logic” is all the rage… until it starts telling them stuff they don’t want to hear.
Mikey, you seem to be confusing me with Bill Mulligan. Go back and read our respective posts. Mine have my name in the header. Bill Mulligan’s have his name in the header. Our last names are different because we are different people. The differences in our last names should make it easy to differentiate us. If not, I suggest you start hitting “Hooked on Phonics” in a hurry.
Bill Mulligan is a smart man. I’ve lost arguments with him as a result of that. He’s not afraid to address these issues, he’s just having fun. If he wanted to argue with you, he’d tear you to shreds. The fact that he hasn’t leads me to suspect he has come to the conclusion that you’re not worth his time. Proving, perhaps, that Mr. Mulligan is smarter than me as well.
By the way, Mikey, I am a liberal who has never voted for Bush. This must confuse the living hëll out of you.
Please continue to post your nonsense, though. I need a good laugh every now and again.
Re: Saddam’s obligation to prove he didn’t have WMDs.
After his surrender in the first Gulf War, Saddam agreed to publicly account for and destroy all his WMDs, WMD material, and WMD research. A fair analogy would be a parolee having to frequently submit to drug tests — in both cases, the person has been already judged guilty of a crime, and a condition of their freedom is to continually “prove” their innocence through testing. Saddam reported whole bunches of WMDs were destroyed, but he “lost/misplaced/his camel ate” the required proof. He repeatedly blocked the inspections, leading to repeated confrontations and demands that he comply with the agreement — or else. Kindly recall numerous attacks on Iraqi assets during the Clinton administration. (Including one missile attack on the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence, timed to happen at night so the only people who might be killed would be the cleaning staff — real effective, that one.)
Saddam also had committed numerous acts of war against the United States, including firing on our aircraft and attempting to assassinate a former US president as revenge for actions said president had taken in office.
BTW, there WERE documented links between Saddam an Al Qaeda, meetings and letters and the like, working towards a common goal. There was absolutely NO linkage between Saddam and 9/11, of course, but that can easily be explained by operational security on Al Qaeda’s part — there was no good reason to let him know it was coming, and plenty of reason to keep the knowledge to as few people as possible.
Finally, let’s also remember that in 1998, Congress passed and the president signed a bill calling for the overthrow of the Iraqi government. Regime change was OFFICIAL US POLICY for roughly 5 years before we invaded.
Apart from all the other reasons, our invasion of Iraq gave us a foothold right between two other major players in the terrorist world (Iran and Syria) and gave us a chance to introduce the most dangerous known virus to tyranny — democracy. Iraq has had three significant elections since then, with voter turnouts higher than we in the US have had in a long time.
It is in the interest of every dictatorship in the Middle East (which is nearly every nation) for the US to fail in Iraq. OF COURSE it’s going to be difficult. It might even be impossible. But I, personally, think it’s worth trying. God knows doing nothing, or “doing business” with the tyrants simply because that was the easiest thing to do at the time, hasn’t achieved a tinker’s dámņ towards actually HELPING the average person in the Middle East.
Hey, I managed to avoid using the B-guy’s name all through that. That’s because I don’t give a faded fart about him or who is in the office — just the policies matter to me. He’s right on some, wrong on others. But the sheer factual errors in some of the loaded questions drove me nuts.
I’ve been a PAD fan for years, have said so several times on my own blog (even proudly posting the picture of me with PAD while he’s waving MY copy of “Writing For Comics With Peter David, at http://wizbangblog.com/2006/07/10/padding-my-resume.php ), but his politics drive me bonkers. As long as you keep your politics out of your writing, I’ll keep buying your stuff.
I’m not worried, though. Above all else, PAD is a professional.
J.
Wait…
…and I’m the one avoiding facts?
I’m sorry Bill, but when I said ‘When it comes time to pay for the debts Bush is racking up, where do you think those “refunds” will go?’ I thought we were still talking about the middle class. I’m sorry I gave you more credit for sticking to the topic than you deserve.
Or is the “key fact” that was lost on me that recipients of the EIC are middle class?
Oh, I guess you were saying families earning $18,000 a year are middle class. It’s worse than I thought. You sure you still want to nominate yourself as the poster boy for logic?
No Billy. Notice this little bit of logic: What I wrote is true knowing you and Bill Mulligan aren’t the same person.
And I’m stopping you… how? 1) Jay Tea comes here claiming to not shill for Bush while demonstrably shilling for Bush, 2) I reply,
And Jay Tea’s dollar of inconsistency (demonstrably shilling for Bush while takng credit for not being a Bush shill) gets a pass, while my not-even-an-inconsistency gets the Vulcan Bad Housekeeping Seal of Disapproval from you and your girlfriend’s father? Who told you to attack me?
Let me guess Bill Myers (so you know I haven’t stopped talking to you, since a second Bill in the room seems to confuse you): you stopped being a journalist 10 years ago to make more money.
Which is fine, but then you come to places like here, which is also fine, and tell people you were a journalist. So you can get credit for the expertise without having to continue to produce that pesky dedication.
And now you tell people who aren’t journalists that you used to be a journalist to cause people to place your “logic” above all the other smurfy talk.
Think about the key facts you cite to “refute” me. You know, for the sake of logic. Make it a first.
Posted by Jonathan (the other one)
(As an aside, the song “American Pie” is indeed about the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and J. P. “the Big Bopper” Richardson. That’s why the lyrics repeatedly reference “the day the music died”.)
Well, it’s about rather more than that; it’s about the entire history of music (and its place n history) in the Sixties. “The day the music died” is also Altamont (“No Angel born in Hëll could break that Satan’s spell”), the ’68 Democratic convention, the deaths of Janis (“I met a girl who sang the blues and i asked her for some happy news…”) and Jimi, and a lot of other sthings as well. (“I went down to the sacred store, where i heard the music play before…” is about the ending of tours at Sun Studios, for instance…)
It’s sort of like Lennon’s remark “…all rock stars die in plane crashes…” — even when they don’t, they do.
Could we please have less arguing and more questions now?
Please?
Posted by: Mike at October 23, 2006 05:50 AM
Oh, I guess you were saying families earning $18,000 a year are middle class. It’s worse than I thought. You sure you still want to nominate yourself as the poster boy for logic?
Well, I’m sure as hëll not going to get any competition from you. I don’t know where you pulled that $18,000 figure from, but it has nothing to do with the reality of the Child Tax Credit. Income doesn’t become a factor unless you are: a married couple filing jointly with a combined Adjusted Gross Income of $110,000 or more; single, head of household, or qualifying widow(er) with an AGI of at least $75,000; or a married person filing separately from his/her spouse with an AGI of at least $55,000.
It’s all right here in this publication from the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p972.pdf
So, yeah, the Child Tax Credit benefits the middle class. By expanding it as he did, George W. Bush provided tax breaks to the middle class.
Posted by: Mike at October 23, 2006 05:50 AM
No Billy. Notice this little bit of logic: What I wrote is true knowing you and Bill Mulligan aren’t the same person.
Mikey, look at what you wrote: “First Bill gets all formal in my face, asking me to substantiate my nerve-striking analogy. Which is fine until I flabbergast him by introducing the logic he asked for but doesn’t even know he’s starving for in his own life. Then they begin introducing nonsense of their own. “Logic” is all the rage… until it starts telling them stuff they don’t want to hear.”
You start complaining about how “Bill” (that is, me) introduced “logic” into the argument, and then start ranting about what “they” do, without specifying who “they” are. Either you were indeed confused by the fact that Mulligan and I share the same first name, or you can’t write a coherent paragraph to save your life. Neither’s worth bragging about.
Posted by: Mike at October 23, 2006 05:50 AM
Let me guess Bill Myers (so you know I haven’t stopped talking to you, since a second Bill in the room seems to confuse you): you stopped being a journalist 10 years ago to make more money.
Which is fine, but then you come to places like here, which is also fine, and tell people you were a journalist. So you can get credit for the expertise without having to continue to produce that pesky dedication.
And now you tell people who aren’t journalists that you used to be a journalist to cause people to place your “logic” above all the other smurfy talk.
No, I mentioned it because I thought people might find it interesting. I acknowledged that it’s been, y’know, over ten years since I was a professional journalist and that I don’t have a “leg up” on anyone else here.
I am sorry you feel threatened by the revelation that I was a journalist. That was not my intention, and there is no need for you to feel that way.
Posted by: Mike at October 23, 2006 05:50 AM
Think about the key facts you cite to “refute” me. You know, for the sake of logic. Make it a first.
Well, kiddo, I’ve already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong about the facts. I can’t wait to hear what you have to say about that. I expect it to be “Smurfy.”
Posted by: Aaron Thall at October 23, 2006 07:07 AM
Could we please have less arguing and more questions now?
Please?
I’d been wrestling with this myself. The main post did ask for questions, after all. But, Aaron, it’s Peter’s call.
Peter, I will refrain from any more debating in this thread ’til you settle this. Is debating OK in this thread, or would you prefer we restrict our posts to asking “fantasy press conference” questions for the president? It’s your blog, and therefore I’ll respect your wishes.
Bill (Myers)–what was that old line about never trying to teach a pig to dance? It wastes your time and annoys the pig…
Mike-
Peter’s liberal readership: notice how the conservatives start playing tag-team to preserve their own denial.
Sadly, Peter’s liberal readership probably doesn’t take itself as deadly seriously as you do. Yeah, it’s a vast rightwing conspiracy by Jeff in NC and I to hijack this thread before it manages to single-handedly make the Republicans lose the upcoming election–which, btw, is something I think I’ve mentioned they richly deserve.
In fact, the only thing that might possibly save the GOP is if the voters get turned off by seeing too many humorless, snide, not nearly as smart as they think they are liberals. You know the type.
As for your argument with Bill Myers…Mike summed it up fairly well. You’re annoying liberals and amusing conservatives (a little). Keep it up and people will start to think you’re a Republican plant. When in a hole, stop digging.
“Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines. And Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there’s no crisis there. How are you going to work – you’ve said you are going to reach out to these people – how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?”
Mr. President, in April of this year you unveiled a plan that was designed, in part, to ultimately reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. As part of this plan, you proposed an increased reliance on coal.
President Bush, where in hëll do you think coal comes from?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 23, 2006 07:15 AM
Bill (Myers)–what was that old line about never trying to teach a pig to dance? It wastes your time and annoys the pig…
Point taken, my friend.
Well, I should hope so, considering you started this.
I said:
..and, yes, I should have left it there.
But just because I didn’t leave it there, that doesn’t mean your citation of the EIC wasn’t as much a flub as anything I’ve said.
I’ve been at least been trying to quote you. But I didn’t pull a non-sequitor like the EIC out of my ášš like you did.
As for the Child Tax Credit: give back a month’s rent to a family, give a mansion back to Donald Trump. Pump up the national debt so that — with the tax moving from progressive to flat — the family pay their month’s rent in taxes anyway but Trump doesn’t even lose all of his mansion while he still has 3 others?
And poor Republicans who defend Bush aren’t like a prostuitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her… how?
You heard it here folks: pronouns are illogical. Thanks for clearing that up, Billy.
Mike, if I’m “demonstrably” shilling for Bush, would you care to “demonstrate” an example?
I’ve defended policies and challenged misstatements. I’ve cited facts and evidence. You seem to believe that once you’ve called me a “shill,” you need not bother with such niceties as actual points.
And just to rub salt in your wounds, Mike, I’ve got PAD’s autograph on TWO books. Opportunity willing, I’m going to get him to sign my hardcover version of Dark Mirror again, but this time I’m going to get him to sign page 339 as “David Peters.” I was a fan of his before I knew who he was, and will stay so. I admire and respect him both as a writer and as an individual — but NOT as a political analyst.
There’s no “tag-team” going on here, just that PAD’s writing attracts a LOT of people from all over the political spectrum.
J.
Jay Tea –
BTW, there WERE documented links between Saddam an Al Qaeda
*shakes head* Even your worthless president has finally said there were no such links.
But, not surprisingly, most of the brainwashed missed that.
Saddam also had committed numerous acts of war against the United States, including firing on our aircraft
If that’s ‘numerous acts of war’, then surely Clinton could’ve convinced the Republican Congress to go to war 10 years ago?
But then, we continued to force ourselves over Iraqi airspace long after the Gulf War ended. Sounds more like continual acts of war on our part.
and attempting to assassinate a former US president as revenge for actions said president had taken in office.
Ahh, revenge is now apparently the correct political response. Just like forcing Powell and several other highly decorated generals out of the military was the propert political response (ie, revenge) for their disagreeing with the war in Iraq.
Again, what a joke of an argument on your part, Jay.
Mr. President, what have you to say about the fact that, after 9/11, your Administration constantly insinuated that there was a link between Hussein and Al Qaeda and that, long after you yourself finally admitted no such link existed, an unhealthy percentage of Americans still believe it?
Mr. President, isn’t it true that your policies have made your neocon more Democrat than those Democrats you constantly rail against?
Mr. President, since you’ve now reduced the Bill of Rights to the Bill of Right, what are the chances that you’ll finally remove the last bastion of the conservative voter, out of fear that said voter will finally revolt against the outrageous government you’ve lead these last six years?
And, Mr. President, since you so “gallantly” side-stepped the question earlier, it should probably be asked again: how DO you sleep at night?
our invasion of Iraq gave us a foothold right between two other major players in the terrorist world (Iran and Syria)
Yeah, because fighting a war on 2 fronts is such a good idea.
Mike, if I’m “demonstrably” shilling for Bush, would you care to “demonstrate” an example?
2004: 9/11 Commission says no link existed
2005: CIA says no link existed
1/2003: Bush himself says he cannot claim to make such a link
Two months ago: Bush in his own words
How much more evidence do you need? Not how much do you want – do you need – to show that Bush was lying through his teeth on this issue, and every other during his Administration?
Mr President, what made you decide to become a traitor?
Mike, if I’m “demonstrably” shilling for Bush, would you care to “demonstrate” an example?
I had a nice post typed up, with links and all, to demonstrate just that. Alas, spammers have all but made it impossible to post comments with links in them (most times I’ve tried lately, they’ve been lost to the void).
So, I’ll just say it again: Bush himself has said there was never a link. The CIA has said it. The 9/11 Commission said it.
I’m just wondering what it takes to reverse the Bush brainwashing.
Taking on your only points of substance, Craig:
Clinton contented himself with little token gestures that made him look tough and boost his polls (and, occasionally, drew attention from his own problems). But this little thing called “9/11” happened and changed the world. The old rules of favoring “stability” and “preserving the status quo” and “don’t rock the boat” went right out the window.
The “attempted assassination of a former president” isn’t about revenge. It’s about making sure that future presidents don’t have to weigh their own personal safety (and that of their families) once they leave office against the duties of the presidency. We can not and will not tolerate another nation threatening the life of a president — past or present — for their conduct while in office. Their actions are not their own, but done in the name of and on behalf of entire nation, and we need to preserve that principle. It is an act of war, plain and simple, and the fact that Bill Clinton shrugged it off at the time is a black mark on his record. Hëll, simply on the basis of his own self-preservation, he should have taken it far more seriously.
As far as “force ourselves over Iraqi airspace” — that was part of the terms of his surrender, the No-Fly Zones and the enforcement thereof. Is that another part of Saddam’s surrender from the first Gulf War that you choose to ignore?
Michael: yes, fighting a two-front war is often stupid. But sometimes it’s the right move. We fought a two-front war in World War II, and that worked out all right.
Also, notice we’re not AT WAR with Iran and Syria right now. Nor are we about to any time soon — they are NOT about to attack us directly in Iraq. And Iran itself has the US on both sides, with Afghanistan to their east, so the “two-front war” rule applies to them as well. (Three sides, if you also include the Persian Gulf, where we maintain a very sizable naval force.)
Hmm… I never got around to asking my own question. I should do that.
“Mr. President, Jay Tea of http://www.wizbangblog.com. In regards to the Harriet Myers nomination to the United States Supreme Court, I have to ask this:
“What the hëll were you thinking?
“And if I’m allowed a followup, sir, what is the story with Vicente Fox? Does he have pictures of you with a sheep or something?”
J.
Geez, and I thought the real press corps were a bloodthirsty bunch.
If a train left New York at 300 miles per hour, and accelerated in speed 15 miles per hour, and traveled a distance of 683 miles, tell me sir: what time would that train reach Chicago?!
Clinton contented himself with little token gestures that made him look tough and boost his polls
Well, guess what, the burden is now on you to prove your statement.
Clinton has said he did more than Bush ever did to get bin Laden, and all things considered, I’ll take his word over yours or Bush’s.
The old rules of favoring “stability” and “preserving the status quo” and “don’t rock the boat” went right out the window.
As did logic, reason, and any goodwill this country had received freely after 9/11.
Particularly since IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
Thank you, Mr. Bush.
It’s about making sure that future presidents don’t have to weigh their own personal safety (and that of their families) once they leave office against the duties of the presidency.
You’re kidding, right?
I guess we should prepare to invade US states then, seeing as how most US presidential assassinations and attempts were made by US citizens.
Is that another part of Saddam’s surrender from the first Gulf War that you choose to ignore?
The No-Fly zones were a joke.
We promised to aid the Kurds, and then turned our backs on them. Saddam didn’t suffer. His government didn’t suffer. Hëll, we surely didn’t suffer from those mythical lines in the sand.
The people of Iraq suffered.
And nobody in this country gave a dámņ. Bush certainly didn’t give a dámņ when he came up with the crap about WMD.
And Iran itself has the US on both sides, with Afghanistan to their east
Another laughable notion. We have more troops in South Korea than we do in Afghanistan, last I knew. And, as Al Qaeda has shown, Afghanistan has a far more porous border, both with Iran and Pakistan.
We can’t control Iraq or Afghanistan, yet you think we could do anything about Iran?
Mr. President, with all do respect, how can you and your administration be so f***ing stupid?
Jay Tea –
BTW, there WERE documented links between Saddam an Al Qaeda
*shakes head* Even your worthless president has finally said there were no such links.
But, not surprisingly, most of the brainwashed missed that.
Craig, not that I necessarily doubt you but can you point to where he said that? I remember him saying there were no 9/11–Iraq links but not anything about Iraq/Al Qaeda. That would contradict several accounts I’ve seen from sources far removed from the usual Karl Rove crowd.
You heard it here folks: pronouns are illogical. Thanks for clearing that up, Billy.
Wow, it’s almost like having John Byrne on the board…SOMEONE sure touched a nerve but it doesn’t seem like it’s the guy who’s claiming he did it…
Bill Mulligan –
Craig, not that I necessarily doubt you but can you point to where he said that?
*sigh* The site isn’t letting me post links right now without my comments going for approval – and, for whatever reason, I’ve never had such a post approved. 🙁
So, the one video I found of Bush was at Think Progress. It is dated 8/21/2006, and it titled “Bush Now Says What He Wouldn’t Say Before War: Iraq Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With 9/11”
In that video, Bush was asked what Iraq had to do with 9/11. His response? “Nothing.”
Yet, the whole war was based on the insinuation that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, and, by logical extension, Al Qaeda. After all, if Saddam really wanted to get at us, wouldn’t he be involved in their attacks? Yet, Saddam wasn’t.
There’s also the small (and apparently unimportant) fact that bin Laden wanted nothing to do with Saddam.
There’s a great writeup on Wikipedia under “Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda”.
In fact, that article has a hilarious quote from bin Laden: “Bin Laden told his biographer that “the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is fûçkìņg his mother.”
Not the quote of somebody you’re inviting over for dinner. 🙂
Yo Bush! Um, sorry, I mean “Mr. President”…you see, I just assumed that if that were an acceptable way to address the Prime Minister of England, it was an acceptable way to address the President of the United States of America.
Rob Brown, Toronto Star. Could you please explain exactly what you’ve meant when you’ve “We’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here?” Maybe this is an intellectual failing on my part *cough*doubt it*cough*, but I fail to understand how a military presence in Iraq can possibly prevent a handful of Al-Qaeda members from catching a plane to the U.S. and wreaking havoc, particularly when their base of operations isn’t even in Iraq. We already know that it doesn’t take very many people to do this; we saw them do it in London, and in Spain. Operatives planting bombs in Europe while other operatives were harassing troops in Iraq. Even though they were being fought “over there”, they still managed to launch attacks elsewhere.
Tell me, Mr. President, does the U.S. troop presence in Iraq actually do anything to reduce the chances of another attack on American soil? If so, what?
Anybody else suprised there haven’t been any questions about placing pretzel companies on watch lists? And forget about asking him to define habius corpus, I want to see him pronounce it.
And Jay–two things, one of which I’ve said here before.(Though not to you) If you are not personal friends with the former ruler of Iraq, please don’t act as though you’re on a first name basis with him. And second, how do you define “token gestures?”
Mr. President: Who would win in a 4 way knife fight: The Smurfs, the Snorks, the Fraggles, and the Littles?
Mr. President would you like a pretzel?
Craig, yeah, I knew about the “no 9/11–Iraq link” but you specifically said Iraq/al qaeda connection (and were none too kind to anyone who didn’t accept it as absolute fact).
If one can prove ANY prior to 9/11 links between Al Qeada and Iraq it would not, to my mind, be the same as proof that Saddam was involved in 9/11.
But it makes no sense to me to categorically deny the possibility that Saddam and Bin Laden managed to overcome their dislike for each other in the face of a commen foe (ie, us.) Hitler and Stalin managed to get along for a while (to the utter shock of those who foolishly thought it could never happen). Keep another thing in mind–after killing a million or so Iranians Saddam actually sent his Air Force to safety in Iran during the first Gulf war. Circumstances can make the bitterest enemies partners.
Or to put it another way–if you believe that saying Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 means that they had nothing to do with Al Qeada, does that mean if it ever is shown that they DID have something to do with Al Qeada you will then HAVE to accept that they did have something to do with 9/11?