Thursday, June 25, 2009

George W. Bush: Back In The News & It Ain't Good

Our illustrious former leader, the first President to be known only be an initial, came out of retirement recently, and probably should think better of it. Early on in the Obama Administration, W. demurred and said the newer Commander In Chief deserved his silence. This, of course, ended as of last week.

However, it has now come to light that there was a second Downing Street memo. If you recall, the first Downing Street Memo, which was written by former UK PM Tony Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, said unequivocally that the intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy of invading Iraq.

Translation: President W. was creating out of whole cloth the casus belli to invade Iraq. In other words, the basis for our invasion of Iraq was a fraud. I hate to bring this up again, but hey, it's a goddam war crime.

So the new Downing Street Memo, written January 31, 2003, before the March invasion, indicates that both PM Blair and President Bush were aware that United Nations inspectors were not going to find any illegal weapons [notwithstanding the hyperventilating fear mongery going on daily; see: mushroom clouds; reconstituted weapons programs, etc.]

So, in order to manufacture a casus belli, President Bush put forth a plan to fly U-2 spy planes over Iraq, in the hopes they would be shot down. The memo also said that the invasion was already scheduled for March 10, when the bombing would begin.

If it needed to be any clearer, our former President was in an illegal conspiracy, with knowledge aforethought, to commit a war crime via the illegal invasion of a sovereign, albeit unsavory, nation.


Now for some lighter fair, during the recent weeks, with the compelling news of the protests over the faulty vote in Iran, it has come to my attention that former President George W. Bush might just be Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!!

First of all, they both have a penchant for claiming presidential victories in obviously faulty elections, and require old men in dark robes to install them into office. But have you ever looked at them closely?

Do you see what I see? Big ears, dopey mouth, and the same squinty, beady eyes? And considering the animosity that the Iranians had for the Iraqis, there is no question to me that Mahmoud is really just W. in disguise.

Still don't believe me? Well, then why don't you find one single photo of them together. Because you know as well as I do that you cannot!


  1. Here are some inconvenient truths:

    There were 23 reasons to invade Iraq that both the House and Senate agreed upon in the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq," passed on October 11, 2002. They are stated in the "Wheras" clauses here:

    28 Democrat Senators voted in favor of the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq," including Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Schumer, Reid, Edwards, Dodd and Bayh. Click here if you don't believe me:

    Luckily for all of us, Bush had the courage to make a tough decision and lead when things were going bad. When things got tough, every one of the Democrats who voted for the Resolution later said they made a "mistake" in what was essentially the most important matter they ever voted on. Maybe worse, some tried to say that they were "misled" by a man the liberal establishment deems a moron. It's funny how the our media watchdogs never called any of them out on these two ridiculous excuses for political cowardice.

    The bottom line is that we haven't had a terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11, and we won in Iraq. Whether it was intended or not, what we did gave Iraqis the choice between Al Qaeda and us, and they chose us and a democratic system of government.

    This was a monumental ideological victory for us in the "Muslim World". Just because the New York Times doesn't report it, and Obama doesn't understand it, doesn't mean the "Muslim Street" doesn't realize it. If Bush was a Democrat, the media would be gushing about how the uprisings in Iran are directly related to what we accomplished in Iraq.

    Its amazing that liberals continue to trash a former President who took good faith actions to defend us, rather than focus their attacks on Americas real enemies.

  2. he failed in protecting us before 9-11, though, didn't he? and if we hadn't gone to Iraq there wouldn't even be a question of winning (debatable as it is). the Iraqis don't like Al Qaeda anyway, wrong sect, remember?
    those democrats who voted for the war DID make a mistake and should have had more sense. of course, the neo-cons branded anyone not agreeing with them as traitors, and not many had the guts to stand up to them.
    there were no WMD in Iraq, there was no connection between Sadam and Al Qaeda, and the guy that attacked us is still free. thanks, W.


  3. Bill Clinton was the one who turned down the offer to have bin Laden delivered to us.

    Its a shame that racial and gender grievance studies have replaced history courses at our high schools and universities. If American history was still tought properly, most people would know that were allies with the Soviet Union under Stalin during World War II. Given that we were able fight with a Communist tyrant who killed tens of millions of his own people, liberals wouldn't put so much faith in a misguided notion that Sunnis and Shiites can't be allies.

  4. well, it still happened on W's watch. the buck has to stop somewhere, but never with the "party of personal responsibility". and if you want to go back in time, let's think about who armed Osama back in the 80s... that would be Bush, Sr. so perhaps the man who gave the the means to fight should be blamed?

    of course not, he was fighting the commies at the time, not us, right?

    your argument about Communists and Muslims is misleading at best, but that seems to be what conservatives actually do best these days, sadly. that and fearmongering.


  5. To Tom: I must respectfully disagree. President Bush laid out a false case for war, using fear mongery and lies. He entered into a war, which you claim as a victory. How so? What is your definition of victory? That we will likely be engaged in that country for another decade in order to keep it stable? Not to mention the stain on this nation's honor. You may not want to see it, but the United States is not seen as a hero in the Middle East.

    And can we please dispense with the specious argument that we have not been hit by another terrorist attack? This is a patently disingenuous line of argument, unsupported by logic. The biggest terrorist attack in history occurred on his watch, after being given a detailed memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack The United States."

    September 11 was an excuse for America to go to war in Iraq, and neither had anything to do with each other beyond that. We expended our blood and treasure in furtherance of the vainglorious attempt of one president to best his father in unseating a petty dictator.

    As for the Democrats who voted for the war, I ask you this: what would you have done if the Administration was crying to high heaven about the imminent danger of Saddam Hussein, in light of the recent destruction in New York? The real sin is the utilizing of that terrific tragedy for political gain.

    And why were you not calling for the head of W. on 9/12? It was only the greatest national security failure since Pearl Harbor.

  6. 1) Rock on Tom! Nice to read someone else who isn't drinking the "I hate W" Koolaid!
    2) Amazing how such a frat boy moron could snooker the entire congress and get the world's intelligence organizations to go along with the US. Of course it was all Dick Cheney pulling the strings, right guys? LOL
    Are those black helicopters you're hearing?

  7. Go tell the soldiers who fought and died over there that their sacrifices are a "stain on our nation's honor."

    With all due respect, I’m not going to waste my time shooting down the collection of ridiculous conspiracy theories and despicable New York Times/Daily Kos rhetoric regurgitated in the founder’s post. Take some pride in your country, and stop reading those Anti-American, self-flagellant publications like they are the bible. They look at the United States through the eyes of jealous Europeans and third-world barbarians, and their plummeting revenues show it.

    The only other thing I’ll say is that if Bush hadn’t taken out Saddam Hussein, most Democrats would have hammered him that you can’t wage a “War on Terror” without removing an irrational dictator who invaded two neighboring countries, used chemical weapons against his own people and was paying the $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Moreover, the intelligence services of every major country believed Saddam had WMD, and if you look at the findings of the post-invasion inspectors, Iraq still had the technical know-how to quickly reconstitute its WMD program after the post-Gulf War sanctions and inspections regime broke down.

  8. To Tom: I guess you never got around to reading the Downing Street Memo or anything? Or was that just another conspiracy theory?

    This has nothing to do with the troops who sacrificed when they were called. They never should have been called in the first place. Why does that not resonate with you? Why do you, as did our former president, need to conflate the wrongful war with the honor of the troops? I guess by that reasoning The First World War was wholly justified by the millions of dead troops over there.

    Ya know, the GOP, or Conservatives, do not have a monopoly on patriotism.

    And that's a specious argument, regarding what the Democrats would have complained about. Everyone was on board with [rightly] flatteing the Taliban and Al Qaeda where they all were, in Afghanistan.

    And please, try to shoot me down. Because I know you cannot. I do have pride in my country, and I get upset when I feel it goes astray. That's because I am, as a member of the electorate, and for my part responsible for it.

  9. The Downing Street memos were written by a British bureaucrat. They are the perfect example of trying to indict American actions through foreigners' self-interested judgments.

    The British weren't the target of a the most barbaric terrorist attack ever committed, so you couldn't have expected them to have had the urgency to take actions and set examples in the aftermath of 9/11.

    For 40 years during the Cold War, we relied on the concept of mutually assured destruction to deter the Soviet Union from launching an attack on our cities. 9/11 made clear that the doctrine of MAD does not apply in dealing with these Islamic fanatics. The Bush Administration had to develop a response that would show the world that terrorist attacks on the United States were unacceptable. In that context, an "irrational response" of deposing a menace like Saddam Hussein, even though he had no connection to 9/11, was a way of demonstating that if an attack on the United States occurred, every regime we have a problem with better watch out. It's the equivalent of a drill seargent making the rest of the platoon do pushups for one soldier's transgressions. It has a self-policing effect, and I guarantee you the leaders of Iran would have s*it the bed if another terrorist attack occurred in the US during Bush's presidency.

    Obviously Bush couldn't say this was one of the purposes of invading Iraq, but history will ultimately vindicate it.

  10. then why is Osama Bin Laden still alive and still at large? why didn't Bush finish that job like he promised to do?

    he wanted to invade Iraq. and then he had his people manufacture the evidence so he could do so.

    I know you won't admit to that, any more than you will blame Bush for the letting the worst terrorist attacks in our country happen, and that's OK.

    the citizens saw through it, finally and got rid of the neocons. and if the GOP doesn't get rid of them, they will go the way of the Whig party.

    which would be bad, as we need a two party system in this country.


  11. Unfortuntely, if bin Laden was caught today we'd be reading him Miranda rights and making sure he wasn't made uncomfortable in any way, lest we be accused of "torture". We'd give him a Koran, a prayer rug and culturally appropriate food. If we did kill him, the NY Times and their drones would be whining that we made him a martyr and that his "assasination" only served to "inflame" the Muslim world and act as a "recruiting tool" for Al Qaeda.

    Bush wanted bin Laden dead as much as anyone, but what the "moron" recognized is that defeating the ideology bin Laden espouses is more important than killing the man himself.

  12. didn't the "moron" (your words) say "dead or alive, we will get you"? what happened to that promise?

    as far as your nonsense about the NYTimes et al, do you REALLY believe that? I mean, really think they are someone that un-American? do you think ALL liberals are?

    we certainly don't think that about conservatives (most of them, anyway).


  13. There is no doubt that the NY Times is an Anti-American publication. Go look at their editorials from now through the 4th of July and tell me if you can discern a hint of American pride from them. That once great paper still carries alot of influence with many people who read it like the bible and it has been hijacked by radical statists. (Statists are people who believe that government is the answer to almost all problems.)

    I respect Joe Liebermann, who is a bona fide liberal almost all social and taxation issues. Nonetheless, he recognizes that we are in a death match with Islamic radicalism and he was run out of the Democratic party for it.

  14. To Tom: Just so I am clear: you agree that George W. Bush contrived a false casus belli to invade Iraq? Just checking.

    Because that means we made hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise innocent Iraqis pay for the acts of 16 Saudis and 3 Egyptians. Wow, now that's a drill seargent. Where can I sign on for more of this brilliant, well thought out and compassionate foreign policy?

    I also notice you do not really argue to undermine the content of the Downing Street Memo. Your silence is deafening.

    As for Joe Lieberman, you are rewriting history. He actively campaigned against Democrats, so he left his own party. Hey, you lie down with dogs, you end up with fleas.

    And just for the sake of argument, why didn't we attack an actual sponsor of terror with well known stocks of WMD and the wont to sell them, Kim Jong-il? The Bush years only strengthened his despicable regime.

    Finally, your claims about Iran staining their shorts rings hollow. By removing the biggest counterweight to Iran in the region we have made them a de facto regional superpower, with the ability to attack our own troops and Israel at its leisure via proxy forces. We are unable to [air forces aside] threaten military engagement there as the totality of our ground forces are either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or rebuilding from foreign deployment.