We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories ... And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.-- George W. Bush. May 30, 2003
No manipulation of intelligence reports would account for saying we found "weapons of mass destruction" when none existed. President Bush must have known these were lies when he was saying them. The American public continues to be misled by him and his administration.
When will we wake up? He has lied to us for 8 years straight about everything he's been doing involving the Middle East. The result? The United States of America is either ignored or despised by the majority of the world. Our former allies want nothing to do with us and our sinking ship of a nation. If we don't turn this country around soon we will be left behind by a world that is beginning to realize that it doesn't revolve around our country.
9 comments:
Careful about damning others when what you're saying could easily be called a lie as well. I'm not here to fight, after all this is your turf and regardless of what I write or think, you have the final word, but I do want to provide some fact on the issue. Regarding the statement that "The United States of America is either ignored or despised by the majority of the world," unless you can define "the majority of the world" or explain better just where this hatred is located what you just wrote, in effort to wake us up, could just as easily be called a lie.
The History News Network historians recently declared the Bush administration to be a failure. They provided three reasons as evidence. The third being "Alienation of nations around the world"
Larry Elder wrote an article adressing this issue, he writes,
"Take a look at the globe. France's newly elected President Nicolas Sarkozy praises Bush, dismissed his country's opposition to the war as "French arrogance," and says his countrymen's anti-Americanism "reflects a certain envy of (America's) brilliant success." British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel and Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper all support Bush, and maintain close ties with America. Italy's enthusiastically pro-Bush prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who sent troops to Iraq, left office in 2006. His predecessor withdrew the troops. But guess who's now back, in a landslide victory? Berlusconi.
As a result of Bush's commitment to democracy and his initiatives combating HIV and AIDS, the President enjoys near rock-star status in many African countries. And NATO, thanks to Bush's prodding, swelled from 19 members to 26, admitting in 2004 Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
And what about Bush's war on Islamofascism, which allegedly provokes alienation and a backlash against America? Support for homicide bombing among Muslims in predominately Muslim countries worldwide shows a dramatic decline. Support for "suicide bombing" in Lebanon, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, dropped 50 percent or more in the past five years. Similarly, support for Islamist political parties -- linked or sympathetic to the Taliban or al-Qaida -- has dropped dramatically. In Pakistan, for example, Islamist parties garnered only 3 percent of the vote, down from 11 percent in the previous general election. "The Islamist defeat in Pakistani," writes Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri in The Wall Street Journal, "confirms a trend that's been under way (in Muslim countries) for years." Muslim support for Osama bin Laden in Pakistan fell in the six months before February '08 by as much as 50 percent -- to 24 percent -- with some former followers now renouncing him. In Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province, where many believe bin Laden hides, polls show support for him falling to single digits."
America is not hated. America is not ignored. People still elect leaders who run on a pro-America platform, America still reaches out and helps nations in need of assistance, and regardless of whether or not we should have gone to Iraq, it is not a lost cause with no positive outcome.
Link to entire article:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2008/05/22/historians_write_off_bushs_presidency?page=full
CIA report:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052904116_pf.html
It's easy to come up with sources that support your cause, especially when your two listed sources are a website (townhall.com) which prides itself as being the first conservative web community, so of course they will be Pro-Republican and Pro-Bush--- and The Washington Post, which has supported the Iraq invasion without question since day one, and has banned its writers from criticizing the Bush Administration. - Wikipedia articles "Townhall.com" and "The Washington Post"
In particular the article you cite from The Washington Post is basically an interview with Michael Hayden, the man hand selected by Bush to replace Porter Goss when Goss wouldn't toe the line about gutting the CIA's intelligence analysts like Negroponte wanted. Just like every other high-ranking official in the Bush administration, when they start thinking for themselves they suddenly resign and a new order-following lackey is installed in their place. So it is absolutely no surprise to me that he is spouting the current Bush agenda of "We're actually winning, we promise we're not lying this time."
Oh, and Canada supports us? They did just list the USA as a country where foreigners could be subjected to torture. Of course the Prime Minister quickly apologized and made sure the US was removed from the list; but we already know how they really feel about us.
Lies, Torture, and Lies about Torture- anyone that voted for Bush either time ought to be completely ashamed of themselves.
I went and read the entire interview where you took that quote from President Bush. I think you’re missing the point of what he was saying. You have to remember that the quote was said in May 30, 2003. Some context would help. Before going into Iraq NOBODY knew that Iraq no longer had WMD’s. Not even *high ranking Iraqi officials thought that Hussein no longer had any WMD’s. The fact is that he once did, he used them to kill hundreds of thousands of people, he was trying to develop more, and he was misleading UN inspectors about WMD’s. And what Pres. Bush said IS true. They did find biological laboratories used to make WMD’s and trucks used to transport WMD’s. And he had every reason to believe that they would find more (and they did find more proof that he once had them and was seeking to develop more along with other minor illegal weapons).
What is the definition of a lie? A lie is when you know the truth but tell people falsehoods. It is NOT a lie to be wrong. If Bush had every reason to believe (and world leaders everywhere of many political affiliations believed the exact same thing) that Saddam had WMD’s and then he says that they do, not knowing that at one point the WMD’s were hidden, sold, and/or destroyed, this is NOT a lie and it is wrong for you to call it a lie.
It is also important for you to understand something. The world does NOT hate America. The world’s Left hates America (as Becki Johnson pointed out in the above comment). That is an important distinction. But I won’t call you a liar for saying otherwise…
*Further explanation:
http://adamj321.blogspot.com/2008/04/important-point-about-wmds-saddam-and.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html
Just because a fact (especially one that is easily confirmed like who is a country's elected leader) is reported on a conservative site does not make it immediately wrong. You cannot dismiss Becki's argument just because the site it was taken from is conservative.
And what evidence do you have that the surge is not working and that Al Qaeda is not now weaker than it was? Your blinding hate for Bush does not make anything and everything someone says near Bush a lie.
And I am grateful to God that Bush is our president and not John Kerry. Bush is an honorable man. I'm sorry that you hate him so much. History will show that those who claim Bush was a lying, evil, power-hungry President were exceedingly foolish.
It is absolutely incredible to me that you can be so blindly faithful to a tyrant like George W. Bush.
The war on Iraq was planned before Bush was even elected, then he needed to come up with an excuse. So he had one made up. On October 7, 2002 Bush says, "It [Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people." There was no evidence that they had biological weapons (which they didn't). All of the evidence available says that all Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weaponization programs were shutdown in the early-to-mid 90's.
The only successful WMDs which Iraq had were chemical weapons, which they had only acquired through the aid of United States, when we were helping Iraq fight Iran. We gave them the necessary knowledge to create the chemical weapons.
Saddam Hussein definitely was a strong dictator, which is exactly why suggesting Iraq was supporting terrorism is absurd, it would have been difficult to control at best. Bush continually pushed a link between Hussein and al Qaeda at least through June 2004, despite all Intelligence reports refuting such a link did our even could exist.
Regardless of the fact that they had chemical weapons, Bush was claiming Iraq had, or would soon have, nuclear weapons-- which is what everyone was so scared of. It wasn't until these claims were exposed to be completely false that the administration then defaulted to the chemical weapons (which we gave them) as the WMDs we were looking for. Then when that didn't make any sense, it was that we actually invaded Iraq to bring freedom to an oppressed people. As it turns out the Iraqis really weren't that bad off (except for the failed rebellion which was put down, and often cited as example of Hussein's inhumanity... guess what would happen to you if you tried to start a rebellion in the US, oh wait we already know, you get slaughtered until you give up. See US Civil War.).
Which leaves us with no good reason to invade Iraq, except that Bush wanted.
Honorable? Honorable is not what you are when you bring about the death of thousands of US soldiers for no good reason (and having tens of thousands more returning home injured physically and/or psychologically, including friends of mine from high school). Honorable is not what you are when you erode the civil rights that made this country different, and great, every chance you get. Honorable is not what you are when you authorize torture of prisoners. Honorable is not what you are when you authorize illegal spying on US citizens.
At least John Kerry fought in a war and knows what it's like to be in battle (earning 2 purple hearts and a silver star) rather than using his daddy's political connections to instead spend his time running political campaigns. I can't imagine anyone that's been under enemy fire sending troops so carelessly into battle as Bush has.
---
To address another point, you claim senior Iraq officials thought they had WMDs. Wrong. Jafar Dhia Jafar who ran the Nuclear program for 25 years was one of the people upset when it was shut down in 1991. He felt they needed a nuclear deterrent to prevent an invasion from hostile western countries (which apparently they did, since we don't dare touch North Korea, a country that _does_ have nuclear weapon capabilities).
I predicted how this invasion would play out before it even happened, my speech was printed in my local paper. If a dictator has control of WMDs and we threaten him with removal and likely death, there will be no reason for him to not use those weapons on invading forces every chance he gets. So if Hussein did have WMDs at his disposal Bush was insane to invade after telling Hussein that we would remove him from power. The only logical conclusion is that Bush believe Hussein did not have WMDs and thus the invasion would progress without them being used, and thus everything he had said about WMDs prior to that was a lie.
As for how the rest of the world feels about the US. Let's use the same organization you cite, becki. In June 2007 the Pew Research Center released the results of an international survey:
"The country where America's image is worst is Turkey, a NATO ally, where only 9 percent now have a favorable view, down from 52 percent before the United States went into Afghanistan in late 2001.
In Germany, traditionally one of the closest U.S. allies, only 30 percent now have a positive view, down from 78 percent before Bush took office in January 2001.
There has been serious slippage as well in Britain, America's most reliable ally and its chief partner in the war in Iraq. A slim majority of Britons - 51 percent - now hold favorable views of the United States, down from 75 percent in 2002, before the Iraq invasion."
"Over the last five years, favorable ratings of the United States have decreased "in 26 of the 33 countries for which trends are available," Pew said."
"Support for America's so-called war on terrorism has plummeted since 2002, especially in Europe, where U.S. practices against inmates at the Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons have been harshly condemned."
"There is a widespread perception that the United States acts unilaterally in making international policy decisions. This view is especially powerful in Europe, shared by 90 percent in Sweden, 89 percent in France, and 70 percent or more in Britain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Russia, Slovakia and Spain. A full 83 percent of Canadians believe that their neighbor to the south ignores their interests. Middle Easterners overwhelmingly share this view, as do many Asians, including South Koreans and Japanese."
Looks to me like most of the world, including our European allies, view us as arrogant and that we do whatever we feel like that serves our interests regardless of who it may harm.
You assume Canada truly does hate America, but why remove us if they are really more interested in ignoring and despising this "sinking ship?" And where is your majority?
Whether or not the source was conservative the truth remains. The people of our former and current allies elect leaders who are not only pro America and pro Bush but run openly as supporters of Bush and America.
That's my point. Even without Canada a majority of countries aren't anti-american, particularly countries we WANT on our side.
Anyway, that's all, I won't comment again. I know your opinions are cemented, I just want to defend another side for anyone else reading your blog interested in knowing some truth and not just lies used to defeat other lies.
over and out.
Now I lied, I will comment again.
For someone to think us arrogant is not to ignore and despise.
I think you're arrogant and I don't despise nor (clearly) ignore you.
Sadly I have to continue to correct you even on your interpretation of what I write. You were the one to use the word "hate", I never did. I said "despise", which is exactly what the world does feel. "Despise -- condemn: look down on with disdain". The majority of the world clearly condemns the action and continued arrogance of our government. They are forced to deal with us, and at least pretend to be friendly toward us, because we are still a powerful nation. Our seat on the UN Security Council means we can't be completely ignored, yet. (Since clearly we don't think much of the UN or the Security Council, since we ignored both entire entities when we invaded Iraq).
Yes, history will decide how Bush's reign is viewed. Most historians at the moment believe that the overall view will be negative. A president who capitalized on a national tragedy to achieve his own goals, all the while driving his country into an economic hole, which we'll be lucky if it doesn't turn into an outright depression; and converting the country's reputation of a friendly older brother to a menacing Orwellian big brother.
Post a Comment