By Raoul

November 29, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this

It’s not a story and I could care less if you buy it or not. When you can tell us all what specific demented and warped neocom policies you harp on actually are, your views might make for an interesting debate. Instead, you are no more interesting than a guy holding a ‘Bush Lied’ sign. Israel took out a nuke plant in Iraq, and Saddam used WMD’s on his own people. For you to pretend otherwise reveals much. You remind me of the folks Lenin referred to as ‘useful idiots’. They were the American communist sympathisers that thought Marxism would lead to a utopia on earth. Lenin knew better. The neocoms may not have gotten it right, but there is nothing demented or warped about their thinking. Sooner or later it always comes down to force. Saddam himself would agree.

By mwm

November 26, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

Your story does not hold water. I am not opposed to war. I am, however, opposed to wars based upon lies, deceptions and propaganda. That is the case with the war in Iraq. Iraq NEVER had the WMD’s as professed by Bush, the neocons and their minions. It is quite apparent that the neocon agenda was to spread there distorted and demented view of “democracy” through force. They were misguided ideologues. The concept of the war in Iraq, based upon the existence of WMD’s of the nuclear variety was to scare and inimidate the american public. No war, based upon lies is worth the fight. 4000+ of our GI’s dead, tens of thousands maimed for life, plus probably 100,000 or more Iraqis dead, or maimed for life. The way to spread democracy is to set an example and, show the world the goodness of democracy. Bush and the neocons chose another path. They chose to force an ideology. That is wrong. They also lied to the american public; also wrong. As stated, there were no WMD’s in Iraq prior to the war. They lied and they know it. Too bad we can’t put Bush, Cheney, Woolfowitz, Rice, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft on trial for war crimes.

By Raoul

November 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

Like so many others mwm you miss the point completely. No matter if WMD’s were there in the run up to the war or not, the entire world knows that Iraq had them and used them at one time. The point is, Saddam was given the opportunity to come clean; the proof of existence being in doubt. Had he come clean, or let us in to verify, he could have saved his regime. There remains to this day ample data to support a very high level of suspicion about his WMD program, and virtually everyone agrees that he very much desired WMD’s, including nukes. You can give up your ‘Bush bashing’ now with the comfort of knowing that Saddam is just a bad memory. It is worth noting that the people who have the biggest problem with removing Saddam are American lefties like you. Where is the outcry from the rest of the world? They may not like Bush, that is true, but nobody is shedding any tears for Saddam, and neither should you.

By mwm

November 24, 2008 5:19 PM | Link to this

The WMD’s of the “nuclear” variety never existed in Iraq. Therein is the lie pushed by Bush, the neocons and their minion. Iraq never had the infrastructure to produce said weapon systems and, the Bush administration used lies, deceptions and propaganda in order to instill fear in the public. The WMD issue is the modern day version of the Gulf of Tonkin. A lie used to pursue war. The neocon agenda is to spread their warped version of democracy through any means; including force. It is an ideology that does more damage than good. PNAC and the Woolfowitz docrine are examples of this flawed ideology.

By Rauol

November 24, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this

MWM, I guess the outpouring of love and affection around the world for Saddam Hussein is proof of your ‘Bush lied’ propaganda. As I see it, Bush did exactly what he said he would do…give Saddam time to prove whether he had WMD’s or not, or be taken down. He didn’t try, so Bush took him out. Where exactly does the ‘Bush lied’ part come in? I am intrigued about this neo-com conspiracy as well. Are we to believe that our President and his administration took out Iraq based on deceit and lies so we could then……..What? Kill all the Iraqi’s, build fast food restaurants and siphon off all the oil? Conspiracy plots are a lot more interesting when there is an actual motive; otherwise, they just sound dumb and un-intellectual.

By mwm

November 23, 2008 6:23 PM | Link to this

It’s your trip man. If you want to believe that Bush actually had a reason to invade and occupy Iraq, so be it. But, facts are facts. No WMD’s existed in Iraq and Bush used the neocon agenda as his mode to spread their warped and demented view of democracy by force. It did not work. You and the other neocons have to understand that the only way to spread true american democracy is to show them. If we can show true democratic process by our own actions and deeds, then the other countries may see the light. The neocon agenda is a failure in the process. Thank god that people like Bush will be gone Jan. 20!

By TRS

November 23, 2008 5:51 PM | Link to this

Yea - right. Rates right up there with the Council of Foreign Relations and 11 Oligarchy families, the 9/11 inside job theorists and the Kennedy assasination folks. Like them, you have no proof, only loosely drawn together and hand picked circumstantial evidence to support a conspiracy theory which much like the other conspiracy theories I mentioned.

By mwm

November 23, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

The only “conspiracy theory” is the neocons actually THINKING they could get away with using lies to start a war and imposing their warped sense of democracy on a foreign country with force. Actually, one must congratulate the neocons for their propaganda machine. They must have learned from Goehring and the nazi party. Next time, neocons, do not underestimate the power of Americans opposed to your ideology.

By TRS

November 22, 2008 11:39 PM | Link to this

Much could be said, but only two words will do - “yea - right”. Nice conspiracy theory.

By mwm

November 22, 2008 6:12 AM | Link to this

The neocon agenda was and is still the use of force to spread their demented view of “democracy”. At any cost. This would include and did include using lies, deceptions and propaganda in order to invade and occupy Iraq. There never were any WMD’s in Iraq. And, we all know that the Bush propaganda machine pushed that subject.. just to give a reason to invade. PNAC and other groups were intent on the neocon agenda. Problem is, their entire program fell apart when people started to realize they were lied to. The occupation of Iraq under the ploy of “spreading democracy” is something that Scowroft and others talked about. The lies about the existence of WMD’s was the reason given to the american public. When a government lies to the public and the military, they will get caught. In this case, they did. That is why a majority of the public is now opposed to the war. One thing for sure, a military draft will not happen. And, if it did, you will see rebellion that will make the final years of vietnam look like a picnic.

By TRS

November 22, 2008 1:10 AM | Link to this

Scowcroft parted ways with the neocons because he didn’t see democractization of the Middle East as feasible. It was no secret that they believed that all men yearn to be free, including Arabs, and democracy in that area of the world would be a change for the better. I believe that as well; but, I wouldn’t condone a war for that reason alone and neither did the President. I very much disagree with your contention about no bad intel. There is a mountain of evidence which supports the fact that bad intelligence and bad analysis of intelligence led to bad conclusions. Most of the world’s intel services believed as we did and were used to either augment or verify our own information. 60 Minutes, no conservative bastion, did a piece about how the CIA erroneously believed the story of an obscure Iraqi engineer code named “curve ball” about the WMD claims and Tenet then told the President that it was a “slam dunk” that the Iraqis had WMDs. The President and those surrounding him believed the intel. Colin Powell spent 4 days reviewing it to prepare for his UN speech. Was he in on the plot? A number of Congressmen and Senators from both parties believed the intel. Even Scott McClellan believed the intel and confirmed that everyone else did as well at the time. From what I can find, Scowcroft makes no claims that anyone ever wanted to occupy and make a puppet state of Iraq or anyplace else. Those are only conclusions and opinions based on one’s own intepretations and bias. Find fault in the decision making process or disagree altogether - not a problem; but, there was no conspiracy to go to war to create a puppet state - there were only erroneous conclusions drawn from erroneous intel. Interestingly, at the end of the day it looks like we will indeed have a democratic Iraq, a Libya who has renounced its old ways including its nuclear program, a Pakastan finally going after the terrorists and if Pres Elect Obama handles Afganistan well, another democracy in that part of the world as well. Considering Bush came into office with Saddam in Iraq, Bin Ladin and terrorist camps in Afganistan and Libya pursuing a nuclear program, history may treat the President kinder than his foes of today.

By mwm

November 21, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

Trs, you have absolutely no proof that Bush based his decisions on “bad intel” Scowcroft came out and talked about the delusions of grandure perpetrated by Bush and the neocons. Included in his words were references to the same visions as PNAC and the neocon agenda of spreading their distorted view of democracy through occupation and control of a country in the middle east. So, the effect was that Bush lied. And, you cannot find any evidence of a “bad intel” situation. The neocons are the true world terrorists. So, the republican agenda is a bunch of garbage.

By TRS

November 21, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

MWM - I’m not to worried for the Republican ratings will go up as the unrealistic expectations Obama will go down and I have no doubt that Reid and Pelosi will screw things up. You continue to point to the moral failings of a few Republicans while at the same time ignoring the same in a few Democrats. That simply shows that your “opinions” and that is all they are lack any objectivity. There are no facts in your “lies” accusation - it is simply a conspiracy theory as you revealed in another post recently. Anyone who thinks Bush lied because he wanted to make Iraq a puppet is state is either delusional or paranoid. I don’t care what you believe, but when you state such lunacy as fact, then you become what you accuse others of - a liar.

By mwm

November 21, 2008 3:49 AM | Link to this

And yet, the republican party is still being shown to have a terrible rating. Due to their own incompetence, their own lies and their own crimes. Statistics. And facts. Next time, don’t use lies to start wars, don’t cling to your lobbyists, don’t look for gay sex in airports or lurid tex messages to teens on staff, don’t accepts illegal gratuities, don’t have secret energy policies, don’t out a CIA agent, and don’t lie to cover everything up. And, don’t claim moral authority or “patriotism” while doing it! That is facts.

By Susan

November 21, 2008 1:56 AM | Link to this

Steve Austria was the fool who rushed the Adam Walsh Act (SB 10) through the Ohio House and Senate reclassifying dangerous sex offenders as low level offenders -and- low level offenders as high risk offenders. Which are which is anyone’s guess! He also enacted legislation to send officers to offenders houses tens of thousands of times each year to simply verify their addresses - yet now we don’t have money for regular sheriff’s patrols. Austria keeps wasting our money and endangering us - so he can get reelected. Shame on him!

By TRS

November 21, 2008 12:10 AM | Link to this

Clarification - the issue with the Zogby poll is the in large part the fact that the legacy media failing to inform. The only exception might be whose in charge of Congress. Seems to me that most everyone should at least know that one.

By TRS

November 20, 2008 11:37 PM | Link to this

Gee - I wonder if the same applies to the Presidential race. Cut/pasted is a Zogby poll as follows: 512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points 97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions 57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing) 71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing) 82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing) 88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing) 56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing). And yet….. Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!! Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct. Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we “gave” one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

By KAF

November 20, 2008 8:19 PM | Link to this

Mr. Austria owes his election to a gerrymandered district that ensures a Republican victory. The vast majority of his constituents couldn’t tell you one thing he did in the Ohio Legislature. LIV = low information voters, comprising about 60% of the electorate, make elections like Austria’s possible

By mwm

November 20, 2008 6:45 PM | Link to this

the republicans currently have a 34% rating. Hopefully Austria will use some brains and not listen to idiots like Boehner.