Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Bush Regime is squirming nicely

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:11 PM
Original message
The Bush Regime is squirming nicely
on Iraq, check it out

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/politics/07ASSE.html?pagewanted=1&th

Some excerpts:

But in recent days, it has been obvious in Washington that something has also gone awry in a White House that prides itself on never wavering from its message, especially when the subject is Iraq. At moments, Mr. Bush and his national security team — badgered for explanations about whether the country would have gone to war if it knew then what it knows now — have sounded as if these days, it is every warrior for himself.

Rather than uniform and disciplined, their answers have been ad hoc and inconsistent. And the result is that the president appears very much on the defensive just at a moment when his aides thought he would be reaping the political benefits of ridding the world of Saddam Hussein.

The change in pitch began with Mr. Bush himself, who in the heady days after Mr. Hussein's fall regularly declared that it was only a matter of time before weapons of mass destruction would be found. When the chief American weapons inspector, David A. Kay, emerged from Iraq and punctured whatever remained of that confidence, Mr. Bush shifted, declaring that the war there had been the right one to fight, for reasons having little to do with any Iraqi weapons that could have been imminently used. Yet he declared his unwavering confidence in the intelligence that lands on his desk every morning at 8, and in the people who provide it.

Mr. Bush has not gone as far as his secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, who caused more than a few winces in the White House this week when he told The Washington Post that had he known there were no stockpiles of weapons, he is not sure he would have recommended going to war. Mr. Powell stated the obvious: "It was the stockpiles that presented the final little piece that made it more of a real and present danger and threat to the region and the world." And, he noted, "the absence of a stockpile changes the political calculus."

---------------------End----------------------------------------------
So are the weapons going to magically turn up now or closer to election time? My prediction is the weapons (made in USA and planted by Bush) will turn up over the summer and Osama will be pulled from a spider hole in Pakistan in September or October.

That much bullshit is too much to keep fooling America, so Bush is going down. Regime change starts at home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. kick
because I can
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. They are losing their confidence as the sheep start
to bolt from the flock in all directions.
Rove and Co. is trying to figure out how
to get the sheep to stay under their spell.

People are feeling the pain and fear of
job losses, health care losses, underfunded
schools, lost pensions, corporate greed.

People are feeling less confident in their
blind trust in AWOL as they find out more
and more of the lies that got us into an
unnecessary war.

People are hearing that bush has another
name....AWOL! They ask, "could this be true?"

People keep hearing how great the economy
is doing yet they don't see any improvement
in their personal lives as their property
taxes go up, their groceries go up, their
gas goes up and their wages go stagnant.

Yes....the White House is scrambling to get
the sheep back in control....but it isn't
working anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBHam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. How desperate will the BFEE get?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
4. Rummy tries to orchestrate goose-stepping and the unknown knowns
or known unknowns



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJCher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. good laugh, cosmicdot
What a loon he is.

Cher



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
6. they aren't squirming at all
They know that even if they get out of office, they won't even get so much as a slap on the hand for their actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. That's the sad part
I believe you are right. Should the Dems win, I am afraid there'll be no thorough investigations into the crimes of the current gang of crooks and war profiteers. There'll be the usual excuses such as "It's time to move on. Let bygones by bygones. Investigations into Bush administration malfeasance will be too divisive for the country at this time" etc. As a result the powerful moneyed interests who attempted to hijack the US Constitution and install an even more overt Rule by Corporation than that which currently exists will lie low and reorganize for the next takeover attempt. Perhaps the next time they'll also manage to select a more capable figurehead President to front for them.

Remember members of this current gang were operating illegal and unconstitutional operations under Ronnie's reign. Just because a Democrat got elected for two terms in the meantime, didn't mean they went away for good. Like the little girl says, "THEY'RE BAAAAAAACK!"


President Bush," the Washington Post reported on March 25, "is quietly building the most conservative administration in modern times, surpassing even Ronald Reagan in the ideological commitment of his appointments, White House officials and prominent conservatives say."

<snip>

Three nominations that should have raised a noisy clatter from the nation's presses are:


John Negroponte, as ambassador to Honduras from 1981-85, covered up human rights abuses by the CIA-trained Battalion 316. He is Bush's choice for U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and, as Extra! went to press, was expected to clear Senate confirmation hearings.

Elliott Abrams, an assistant secretary of state under Reagan, pleaded guilty in 1991 to two counts of withholding evidence from Congress (i.e., lying) over his role in the Iran-Contra affair. Bush I pardoned him; Bush II has appointed him to the National Security Council as director of its office for democracy, human rights and international operations. The post requires no Senate approval.

Otto Reich's nomination as assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, the top post for Latin America, was predicted to draw the most congressional fire. Reich was head of the now-defunct Office for Public Diplomacy (OPD), which the House Committee on Foreign Affairs censured for "prohibited, covert propaganda activities" (Washington Post, 10/11/87).


http://www.fair.org/extra/0109/iran-contra.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 05:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC