The Lies.com Blogroll
Listed below are some of the sites I’ve been visiting lately.
blogs
a tiny revolution
bag news notes
boing boing
first draft
mark a. r. kleiman
onegoodmove
philosoraptor
talking points memo
truth about false confessions
washington monthly (kevin drum)
workbench
news
cnn
google news
mother jones
the bbc
the new york times
the washington post
time
working for change
meta
blogdex
daypop
popdex
technorati
photoblogs
daily dose of imagery
chromasia
misc
gywo
mcsweeney’s
the onion
the memory hole
use perl journals
wikipedia
June 5th, 2004 at 7:34 pm
I thought I would find lots of lies described at this site. Looking over many pages, it seems that less than 5% of this site’s words are about lies.
I have plenty to describe, but it seems your site http://www.lies.com is interested in other things, not lies.
sincerely,
jeff
August 4th, 2004 at 2:05 pm
I want to make mention of a few lies that were aired on the August 3rd show. The Varsity Panel was composed of a gentleman journalist from England, a caucasian lady tollster and a black gentleman who is a journalist with Rolling Stones Magazine. Where to begin–the lady pollster commented that Former President Bill Clinton said that he was the first black President. President Clinton never said this. The popular author Toni Morrison made this remark during an interview. This comment did not bother me as much as the black gentleman (I have to apologize, but I did not catch any of the guests names); however, he obviously was not prepared for the forum, but he did not even register a correction. He then went into an embarrasing explanation identifying political black figures into different degrees of blackness. As a black man, I was horrified. The pollster then made a comment that the democrat party selects qoutas of different groups of people so that the party looks diverse. Once again, no one on the panel answered this statement.
I enjoy a good debate and yes spin as much as the next person. But, if you are going to further the conversation in this country, you must put people on the panel that can articulate a clear message. The selection of the journalist from Rolling Stones was a disgrace to all African Americans.
September 7th, 2004 at 3:48 pm
We have now passed the 1000 mark for US deaths in Iraq. Thank you George W. Bush (somehow Clinton will be blamed for this too). Sadly more husbands, wives, sons, daughters, mothers and fathers will be missed. How many children have lost their mother or fathers ? I am deeply saddened – I served during the first Gulf war and now have children. I cannot support any President that send Americans to their death for NO reason. Don’t give me that 9/11 crap either – the 9/11 commission reported the truth that we alreadly knew – there are no connections between 9/11 and Iraq. And please, those supporters of the war – we invaded because we had overwhelming proof of WMD.
“Repub we stand” – Under Gore’s watch, 9/11 would have not happened. The threats of terroism were ignored by Bush (or were they ???). I do not know any terrorist plans that Bush has prevented – but Clinton’s administration prevented several – namely the y2k plan. So please do not put Bush on such a high pedestal. When he was here in Texas as governor, no good came then and no good has come now from his presidency. I sure as hell don’t want my leader to be sitting on is ass listening to children’s stories while the country is being attacked – imagine if this were a nuclear attack – the entire country would have been destroyed during those wasted minutes. At least I know from their previous experiences in Vietnam, that John Kerry does not twiddle his thumbs when attacked – he rises to the challenge. Bush twiddled his time during the vietnam war and twiddled his time at the elementary school. If you want Bush on your side, God help you – because he will not be there.
So here are the lies/deceits of the Administration:
1. 9/11 and Iraq – implicit/direct connection repeated – LIE
2. Iraq had WMDs – not just a few but several hundred tons – LIE
3. Bush Administration hid the fact that North Korea had nuclear weapons during the Iraq Resolution debate in congress. Once the resolution was passed – the administration released this information.
4. Medicare actuary threatened to be fired if he released information to Congress (which just announced today that action was illegal).
5. Abu-Ghraib – No more needed here
6. Memos/Documents of torture that led to Abu-Ghraib.
7. Patriot Act
8. EPA employees threatened if information released.
9. Free-speech zone
10. Haliburton/energy commission.
11. Authorized flying saudis/bin ladens out of the country on 9/13 – and don’t give me that Richard Clarke crap (rhetoric) – someone above him told him to do it.
12. Banner on aircraft carrier “Mission Accomplished” – This was done by the Bush Administration – not the navy.
13. Bush AWOL (during the vietnam war and during his presidency)
14. Links between Bush’s adminstration/family to oil/energy/saudis
Patterns, Patterns, Patterns – The Bush Administration has very discernible patterns of behavior. Intimidate, threaten, coerce, hide, lie to achieve their end goal. With great power, comes great responsibility and great accountability, which this administration has shown neither. The “go it alone”, “bring them on”, break the rules (geneva convention), “preemptive” approaches defines this adminstration. Not just to other countries but to our own citizens.
They do what they want, abuse our civil liberties (for the sake of protection), refuse to release information without being held accountable – this administration is the ENRON for the government world. Except there are no methods of investigation because they refuse to release the information.
Franklin said (this is coming from memory) – “Those that sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”.
I can only hope for our country’s security, prosperity and liberty that Bush loses this election.
September 16th, 2004 at 2:02 pm
You would not know the truth it came up and bit you on the ASS. Saddam needs your assitance.
September 17th, 2004 at 8:07 am
So, if the site claims to be about lies, but is not, then it seems to have a fitting name.
September 26th, 2004 at 12:43 pm
George W. Bush was a cheerleader in high school, a drunk late into his thirties, and oh yea, he used drugs such as cocaine. Some of you may argue that no he didnt use cocaine but when you ask Georgey, he replies my past is irrelevant to the future why wouldnt he just simply say no if he didnt crack the coke??? Four years ago Dubya took office , since then the economys been down the crapper, 3 million jobs vanished, health care lost by the millions, we havent caught Osama, 10s of thousands have died in Iraq, and for what? for WMD ? for support for al quaeda? Its a damn shame none of that WMD turned out to be true, and the support for al quaeda was just a flat out lie. 1000 american soldiers dead now, Muslim groups who have hated each other for centuries are now uniting against the US, so yea , I guess Georgey is a uniter, not a divider”, accept hes only uniting more against the US, and dividing our allies away from us. What about the 24 bin Ladens quickly being evacuated out of the country days after 9/11? What about Abu Ghraib? What about Cheney making millions off the war in Iraq through Halliburton? What about over half of all americans not even knowing who attacked us on 9/11? What kind of a leader is this? What about the tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of americans? If I were making over 200,000 bucks a year , I wouldnt be bitchin about taxes. The PATRIOT Act? Maybe if weve already given up our liberties and freedoms as americans, then the terrorists have already won, if anyone would like to discuss this with me , please do, my AIM is jomomma4433, and my e mail is jomomma4433@juno.com Defeat the chimp my friends, defeat the chimp.
October 14th, 2004 at 2:48 am
my baby 3 years old has been coach to lie, could you tellme how did they do it, is very important to resolve a case, t
thanks for ever be professional if you have an answer please.
thanks
November 1st, 2004 at 9:48 am
Was Osama lying when he first told that he nor al-Qaeda were involved in 9/111 and he actually did not know it was planned, separarting himself from the incident completely? He swore his statement on his Muslim faith, that he was not a liar.
Now, we have him claiming to have known about the plan and implied that in some way, he collaborated with Atta. He fully implicates himself and al-Qaeda.
My concern here is, why would a religious fanatic like Osama, whose platform is promoted as righteous, needlessly lie on the honor of his faith, for an action that he would later claim was a noble act?
Perhaps I am reading this wrong. But I suspect any info coming as it did on a Friday, the last one of the month, on the eve of Halloween, and just days before the election.
May 1st, 2005 at 10:20 am
I am going to post my entire report here to prove to you that you are in fact the one being lied to. It is not completely finished but i fell the need to correct you.
On September 11th, 2001 America became the victims of terrorism. That day will live with us all forever, although it seems that many have already forgotten; in Europe and even in America. Many seem to believe that the problem will solve itself, that terrorism and the horror it brings will vanish if we only ignore it. Some somehow think that protests for peace will keep this country safe. Their logic is to stay away from and not bother terrorist figures like Osama bin Laden and those connected to terrorism, so as not to upset them. That is not the way America works. We will not cower in fear at dastardly terrorists who have already attacked us and still threaten to do worse. No, instead we will exact strict justice on these so called men so that no more innocent lives will be lost. “Fight them now or fight them later? These two choices are the only ones. Cowering at their potential displeasure is not an option at all, I find I’m glad to say” (Hitchens 13). And President George Bush knows that this is not an option. On June 1, 2002 at West Point, President Bush delivered his commencement address, declaring that,
“the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worse threats before they emerge”
(Sullivan 44). The first of the two major groups involved in the September 11th attacks were the Taliban, a terrorist organization which ran Afghanistan, littering it with terrorist training camps and becoming a harbor for terrorists worldwide, including al-Qaida. It would seem to any semi-intelligent person that the removal of the Taliban and other terrorist organizations in that harbor was necessary for the safety of the region and the world. However, when President Bush announced that this would be the starting point for the “War on Terror,” there was large protest. Many claimed that an attack on Afghanistan would lead to “…widespread unrest in the Muslim world, the uprising of Islamic ultra- fanatics, and the rise of one hundred ‘Osama bin Ladens’” (Hitchens 54). All of these predictions were one hundred percent wrong. Instead, Afghanistan was rid of all terrorism, the Taliban was and is nearly destroyed, and al-Qaida lost their main safe haven. Yet, no one has taken back any of the former remarks. Instead, the same people are making the same arguments against the War in Iraq, even two years after the fact. Some antiwar critics have changed their opinion, claiming that “there are still warlords and criminals in Iraq and Afghanistan” (Hitchens 13) and pointing out that bin Laden is still not caught. “Such perfectionism, to make any sense at all, would have to demand more intervention and not less” (Hitchens 13) says Christopher Hitchens. The fact is, that we have moved on from a successfully liberated Afghanistan to Iraq, which used to be run by a man who made Baghdad into a terrorist harboring city. Bin Ladenists, including bin Laden side-kick Abu Musab Zarqawi took refuge in Baghdad after Afghanistan had been invaded with obvious approval from Hussein. So the question. Why Iraq? Why Saddam Hussein? “ He is a ‘bad guy,’ but only one among many” (Hitchens 8). This is a common misconception which is absolutely not true. Saddam Hussein is not one “bad guy” of many. He has separated himself from most and gotten his status to a Hitleristic point. “[Saddam Hussein] has been compared to Stalin for the efficiency of his state- sponsored terror machine, to Hitler for his megalomania and dreams of foreign domination, and to Tito for his ability to impose order on unruly provinces” (Sullivan 22). Saddam Hussein has been under scrutiny from the United States for a long time, and especially since Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991 when he should have been overthrown. He has committed so many atrocities before and since then, that it is a wonder how he was permitted to do it. Hussein’s attacks on his own people were disgusting motiveless acts of violence, committed just for the sheer point of seeing what the effect would be. His support, and financial and physical aid to terrorists indicate that he has indirectly killed thousands outside of Iraq, if not more. His complete disregard of international law show his ignorance and prove he was a menace to society who did not understand deterrence. There is also much conflict domestically and internationally on the War in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein’s blatant and obvious violent aggression towards the people of Iraq have been ignored for well over a decade. Just because we have ignored this growing problem in the past does not mean that we can’t right a wrong. There have been various times when Hussein has used biological and chemical weapons. For some reason these weapons are not considered “weapons of mass destruction,” but that is precisely what they do; cause mass destruction of human life. Thermonuclear devices, which Hussein has provably sought to acquire illegally, devastate infrastructure, and are what is considered “WMDs,” but it is hard to see why the use of biological and chemical weapons, which inflict just as much damage to human life as WMDs, are not reason enough to take action against Hussein. Another misconception is that it is not proven that Hussein has used these weapons. It is not doubted by anyone knowledgeable on the subject, that he has used them, and would have continued to use them. The most famous of Hussein’s illegal utilizations of these weapons was the bombing of the Kurdish city of Halabja with chemical weapons in which he killed over 5,000 civilians. United Nations inspectors have found mass graves and evidence of testing on political prisoners. There are three reasons for Hussein’s brutality that prove he needed to be taken out of power. First, his complete disregard for human life. Second, the fact that he feels the need to suppress the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq who have come so far in their societies. “In these areas of Iraq,” according to Christopher Hitchens “there are dozens of newspapers, numerous radio and TV channels, satellite dishes, and internet cafes. [In Kurdistan] four female judges have been appointed, and almost half the students at the University of Suleimaniyah are women” (Hitchens 56). The third reason combines the first two. He does it for experiment, to see the devastation, to see the reaction, to see the horror and pain and suffering. He does it to show “who’s boss” and to prove he is “not afraid” as he puts it. These are the signs of an axis of evil that few have met the criteria for. But Hussein’s attacks on his people do not end there. It is known that Hussein repeatedly tortured and murdered members of his own government and family. He did this, once again, to show “who’s boss,” even though that was not questioned by his family or government. Right after Iraq’s war with Iran, Hussein had all his government officials meet with him. During the meeting he casually read out random names of “traitors,” many of whom were later executed. He has killed political prisoners and prisoners of war, which is a war crime. Dozens of mass graves have been found, some believed to be from Hussein’s weapons testing, and some believed to be from mass executions of POWs and political prisoners. In 1994 a mass grave was found near an Iraqi biological weapons center by UN inspectors called Salmon Park. The remains that they found were either of Kuwaiti POWs, or “human guinea pigs exposed to lethal germ agents” (Auster 1). Records that would confirm what the remains were of, are missing, as are many other records. It has been pointed out that it seems a little too convenient that records of exact dates of suspected human chemical testing are missing. This is proof that Hussein is hiding something. There is also definite proof of chemical weapons testing on animals such as monkeys, donkeys, and dogs. Also, former Chief Inspector Rolf Ekeus said, “the UN found inhalation chambers large enough to hold humans” (Auster 1). There are personal accounts from those who worked on bombs for Hussein and later fled Iraq, and also from those who were forced to hide them from inspectors. War critics claim that the missing documents, mass graves, and eyewitness accounts are either a coincidence, or in the case of the various eyewitnesses, lies. There is too much evidence and too many things that hint toward Hussein’s use of these weapons on humans for it to be a coincidence, and in fact, the only reasonable explanation is that Hussein regularly practices the use of chemical agents such as anthrax on humans. During inspections, UNSCOM; United Nations Security Commission; has destroyed “39,000 chemical munitions, 690 tons of chemical agents, 817 scud missiles, and equipment and chemicals used to make the banned weapons” (Sullivan 43) all in Iraq. This fact alone is enough to go to war.
Saddam Hussein’s involvement in terrorism is one that posed a very serious and imminent danger to the United States and the rest of the world. The evidence against Hussein, proving he is a terrorist patronizer, is overwhelming. There have been various connections made between al-Qaida and banks that Hussein was in association with. In regards to September 11th, the most popular belief at this point, is that Hussein “gave assistance for whatever al-Qaida came up with” (Wheeler 1), although he very well could have been more involved. He gave this assistance in many ways, including financial support through banks in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Italy, and other places that are connected to al-Qaida. Financial institution, al-Taqwa, was one of the major organizations which streamed money from Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida and vise versa. A lot of times the connections seem unclear between Hussein and terrorism, because he tried to hide it. For instance, Youssef M. Nada, a board member of Nada Management, (formerly al-Taqwa Management, and “part of al-Qaida’s money-laundering activities” (Wheeler 1-2)) was a “known associate” of both Saddam Hussein and Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida’s “second in command” and Osama bin Laden’s “deputy.” Wheeler states that Mohammed Atta, who is thought to be the ringleader of the September 11th terrorist attacks, had frequent meetings with members of the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization directly funded by Saddam Hussein. Also, all members in Spain of al-Qaida, where the Madrid train bombing took place in 2004, are members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood as well. This evidence is overwhelming towards Hussein’s connection to al-Qaida, and also connects him to bin Laden and the Taliban, who he sheltered after the US invasion of Afghanistan. In another form and group of terrorism, Saddam Hussein has openly promoted Palestinian suicide bombings. He publicly announced to Palestinians that the suicide murders were honorable, and at one point “ offered a $25,000 reward to the families of suicide bombers. This is 15 times more than the average Palestinian makes in a year” (Sullivan 44). Is this a man we want ruling a country which controls many of our investments and resources, I don’t think so.
Probably the major, and most credible reason for war, in terms of the UN and international community, is Saddam Hussein’s blatant disregard of international law. This is the reason why Europe compares him to the likes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini. Almost every agreement, and every compromise, and every international law has been broken by Saddam Hussein. He has made deal after deal in order to maintain his regime, keep it intact, and remain dictator of Iraq, but when it came down to fulfilling any of these agreements, he ignored it. Hussein was forbidden to attempt to acquire a nuclear capacity by the US and UN, yet there are firsthand accounts of the people who were forced to build these weapons. Hussein was told, and agreed, to completely disarm in order to prevent US or UN military intervention, yet UN inspectors found and destroyed thousands of chemical weapon munitions, hundreds of tons of chemical agents, and hundreds of scud missiles in Iraq. His violation of the genocide convention by killing thousands in Kurdistan in 1988 was the worst case of peacetime genocide since Hitler’s holocaust. There have also been dozens of mass graves found; proof of genocide. Some of the graves are thought to be filled with prisoners of war from Kuwait, this, a war crime and violation of worldwide law that has, after seventeen years, only recently been dealt with. Hussein’s oppression of the Kurds and Shiites before and after the “no-fly” zones were put into place after the Gulf War, has been condemned by the US many times. (The no-fly zones over a huge population of Kurds in North Iraq, and a huge population of Shiites in South Iraq were put into place by the US, (and were not supported by the UN) to prevent more acts of genocide by Saddam Hussein.) Their firing of missiles at US aircraft guarding the no-fly zones, are an obvious breach of agreement. The haphazard use of torture to install fear, Hussein’s harboring and financial and physical aid to terrorists, and finally the most blatant and obvious act of using civilians; men, woman, and children, as a human shield are all in violation of international law. It is a wonder that this has been allowed to go on for so long.
The international community has become part of the problem in Iraq, and have been part of the problem in Iraq. But, there are also those in the international community who have become part of the solution. There are about fifty countries publicly involved and committed to the coalition in the War in Iraq, the most involved being the United States and then Great Britain. “Every major race, religion, and ethnicity in the world is represented, and the coalition includes nations from every continent on the globe.” All of these countries have some type of troops deployed in Iraq. There are many United Nations countries that are involved in the coalition, but the UN itself has repeatedly turned down the use of force in Iraq, despite its defacement of numberless UN resolutions and laws. United Nations Countries like France and Germany have held back any effort to compromise under any condition. Although for France it seems that there is a condition. Widely unknown are France’s policies and actions headed by President Jacques Chirac which are completely unethical and corrupt. This statement was made by Christopher Hitchens:
“Here is a man who had to run for reelection last year [2002] partly in order to preserve his immunity from prosecution, on charges of corruption that were grave. Here is a man who helped Saddam Hussein build a nuclear reactor [in Iraq] and who knew very well what he wanted it for. Here is a man at the head of France who is, in effect, openly for sale” (Hitchens 64). Chirac and his foreign
minister, as well as many others in the administration, state that, “force is always the last resort.” This is where Germany’s abstinence from the war is legitimate, because this actually is their policy. However, in the case of France, Chirac supported the French view and action of sending troops to
“Rwanda to try and rescue the client regime [meaning a regime which bought its way into power] that had just unleashed ethnocide against the Tutsi [‘a member of a people living in Rwanda and Burundi, where they are one of the minority ethnic groups’(Encarta dictionary).] It is not, one presumes, the view of the French generals who currently treat the people and nation of Cote d’Ivoire as their fief. It was not the view of those who ordered the destruction of an unarmed ship, the Rainbow Warrior, as it lay at anchor in a New Zealand harbor after protesting the French official practice of conducting atmospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific”
(Hitchens 64). Chirac’s statement that “force is always the last resort” is one he
does not himself believe in. The fact is, that Chirac and his administration are mostly concerned with money,(because they would not attempt to take out Hussein before their dues were paid back from him, which would most likely not happen anyway based on Hussien’s past record. And because of an almost acceptable state of bribery being performed in France.) and with making their so-called “allies” look stupid, so as to look smart. France’s stubbornly, ignorantly, corruptive policy has also effected the UN in a huge way. They somehow, became the principal UN nation against the war. Their reasoning is not to “keep the peace” though, it is only for self-gain. Chirac’s policy in regards to UN inspections is also startling, and are in the interest only of France. Chirac and his administration vetoed a proposal by the UN to appoint Rolf Ekeus of Sweden as Chief Inspector, so as to allow the French Hans Blix to remain in that position. “Is it because Ekeus had a record as a serious, committed inspector after 1991, while Hans Blix certified Iraq and North Korea as good international citizens” (Hitchens 5)? The reason is that Chirac and his France only care about their own prestige, and do not give a damn about the UN or the international community, and certainly do not care about “keeping the peace.”
Domestically, as well in Europe, the argument against the war in Iraq are based on lies and false arguments, rumors, and stupid slogans. There is no argument against it that can’t be answered simply, there is no rumor that cant be cleared up, and none of the
one-liners, created by antiwar fanatics, make any sense in the first place. The first thing that should be cleared up is the issue of the media. The saying “don’t believe everything you hear” or “don’t believe everything you read” sum it up, although if you are referring to the news or newspapers, then the word “everything” should be changed to “much of anything.” In the media, various newspapers and television news programs, have been caught in blatant lies, but mostly half truths and rumors are what is being spread. Through the radio, TV, and internet, these half truths, and also flat out lies are spread, and when the general public hears it on the 10 O’clock news, it is thought to be fact. This deception is of course illegal and there have been many lawsuits, none of which have been majorly successful. The war, on television, has many times been looked at as a disaster by the media, when it is, in fact, going well and shown positive and almost no negative repercussions. In Europe, the president is being portrayed as “evil,” and in some extreme cases a comparison has been made to Hitler. This negative propaganda is brainwashing some of the public, although the November elections in the US proved that most Americans are smarter than that. The second thing, is the constant contradictions from war critics. They warned us of Saddam Hussein’s wrath, and his power in the region. They told us that, if we invade Iraq, the Muslim world will rise against us and terrorism will become a bigger threat to America. On the other hand, they also said that there was no need to remove Hussein from power because he was not involved with terrorism. Critics say that that the war is to distract the public from seeing that Bush had failed to defeat al-Qaida, and then they say that Bush sounds “panicky” while addressing the nation (and warning the nation) that al-Qaida and terrorism have not yet been defeated. These contradictions provide these critics with easy answers for every issue on the war, but they are contradictory and subjective statements. The Third issue is the argument that Bush is fighting Iraq because of his father. Those who believe that George W. Bush has a bone to pick with Hussein after his father’s conflict with him, could not be more wrong. There is absolutely no connection between the policies of George W. and Bush Senior, and in fact, George W. disagreed with his father on several issues involving the Gulf War. The mistaken belief is that there was a gap of conflict (between the United States and Iraq) since the Gulf War in 1991 until 2003 when war was declared again. Actually, the Clinton administration was constantly in conflict with Iraq. Clinton dealt with Iraq in a more relentless, secretive, and compared to Bush, politically incorrect manner. In just one instance of conflict, during Clinton’s impeachment process, Clinton had Baghdad bombed every day until his trial was over. Unlike Bush, he did this as a distraction, and unlike Bush, he did it “without resorting to the UN, without consulting congress, and without even telling several of the Joint Chiefs” (Hitchens 34). Bush’s conflict in Iraq is a continuation of American policy, not a continuation of his father’s policy. Finally, the issue of peace rallies. Whether intended or not, “peace,” and lack of action on the part of the US results in more violence and more innocent deaths, and that is the reason for “The War on Terror.” America’s lack of action, or hope for it, is what terrorists base their recruitment on. They recruit on the bases that the Americans are cowards who cannot and will not fight their ancient “culture.” Really, what is the effect of a peace movement that wants to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power and continue to kill more innocents? What is the effect of a peace rally that doesn’t want American companies to legally make money off the rebuilding of Iraq, and would rather have no type of humanitarian assistance at all? The people who attend and attended these peace rallies did not think it through, or attempt to understand the dire consequences if they were successful. To those who believe that nothing should be done to combat terrorism, and those who patronize it, it would seem you have forgotten September 11th, 2001.
Saddam Hussein’s despicable acts against the people of his own nation were unjustifiable. His support of terrorism is unacceptable. His disregard if international law proves the danger he presents. The huge scale international movement against Hussein and the common anti-Americanism internationally, are the pros and cons of working with the world. Domestically, America has proven that they will not waver, and are in support of the war, because of Bush’s reelection. The overwhelming evidence against Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi regime, clearly justify the action taken against him. The world has become a safer place since he was removed. There is less of a threat to the Middle East, now that another country has been democratized and constitutionalized by America. There is also less of a threat to America, now that another terroristical tyrant has been removed from power, and in this case will most likely be sentenced to death by a jury of Iraqi citizens. There is freedom in Iraq and it is hard to imagine that feeling of newly won freedom, considering we live in a country that has always offered it. The people of Iraq will no longer live in fear. Instead, they will decide their own future. The question should not be, why did we remove Saddam Hussein from power, that is evident. The question should be why did we not act sooner, and where do we install freedom next? If you must ask the first question though, the simple answer is this: to remove a tyrant and terrorist who has inflicted so much pain and terror. And that is the war we are continuously fighting, one of a conquest of freedom, liberty, and justice. These are our ideals and this is worth fighting for, isn’t it?
January 24th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
“Domestically, America has proven that they will not waver, and are in support of the war, because of Bush’s reelection.”
That’s right. All 51% of America that reelected him. Such a small 49% minority voted against him it’s hardly worth mentioning. It’s not like New York, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia voted against him or anything. I mean, that might make it seem like after all Bush’s 9/11 drumbeating, the areas that were actually involved in the attacks tried to vote him out of office.
“The world has become a safer place since he was removed. There is less of a threat to the Middle East, now that another country has been democratized and constitutionalized by America.”
You’re right. The Sunni, Shia and Kurdish sectors of the country are so filled with the spirit of democacy that they might just form their own countries! We should pat ourselves on the back for all the good work we’ve done stabilizing Iraq after we invaded and bombed everything.
“and in this case (Saddam Hussein) will most likely be sentenced to death by a jury of Iraqi citizens.”
And I’m sure it will be a fair and just trial. Really, I do. Especially now that the chief trial judge and his advisor left. I’m sure the new Kurdish judge from Halabja will do just fine.
“Finally, the issue of peace rallies. Whether intended or not, “peace,” and lack of action on the part of the US results in more violence and more innocent deaths, and that is the reason for “The War on Terror.””
Peace rallies? Are you serious?
“And that is the war we are continuously fighting, one of a conquest of freedom, liberty, and justice. These are our ideals and this is worth fighting for, isn’t it?”
….a conquest of freedom, liberty, and justice? I .. oh nevermind, I give up.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:02 am
The illegal invasion of Iraq, and the resulting occupational failure, have spawned more anti-americanism and future terrorists then Osama Bin Laden ever could have dreamed of.
Yes, Bush has made the world more dangerous, not less.
All the while ignoring domestic issues and cutting social programs to pay for his mess in Iraq.
Probably one of the worst presidents this country will ever see. History books will vadlidate that.
I mean the mere notion that you can spread freedom by dropping bombs, abusing prisoners, subverting consitutional rights and spreading propaganda is frighteningly absurd.
Please keep this site archived, as in 5, 10 or 20 years from now I would like to refer to these posts. Thanks.
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:01 pm
It’s not just Osama or Saddam who would be proud of Bush. Tojo would have died for a propoganda victory as complete as this.
February 13th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
The truth of the matter is that Bush’s past IS irrevelant to his future. You are not your past. Have you been perfect all of your life?