• anonymous said on Jan 01, 2007....

  Thats the truth what you say but who cares. Its the law of the jungle that prevails now.

• paidinblood said on Jan 01, 2007....

  --because it's a free country, and he's the president of that free country.  So you're saying people should hang him for a "war against humanity"?
  
  much respect,
  piB
  

• bloc said on Jan 03, 2007....

  @paidinblood
  he has to follow the law even as an elected president. I don't think anyone should hang, but I do feel that Bush has broken numerous laws in torturing people, denying an american citizen due process, and spying in direct violation of the FISA laws.
  

• SeeingRed said on Jan 03, 2007....

  WB- I must correct you here. Bush never said Iraq was involved in 9/11. His fears were that Saddam may have WMDs, and did according to all intelligence foreign and domestic, including acknowledgement of the Clinton administration. Should that not repudiate any logical presumption of a lie. Was a mistake made? Yes! But quite erroneous to call it a lie. After 9/11 it would have been the height of negligence of any president not to have demanded Saddam to prove to the US that he had no weapons, given the information the president had at the time, which was Saddam had WMDs. Saddam figured with the French and Germans supporting him, Bush would blink-he did not, and it has cost a lot of lives including his own. This is just historical fact my friend.

• worldbeater said on Jan 04, 2007....

  Hi SR, thanks for your comment.

  Bush always "implied" that Iraq was involved in9/11.

  Read a report from "The Guardian": "Bush exploited 9/11 in Iraq plea. Also read "Washington Post's" report that says "President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda.."

  His Vice President Dick Cheny also said the same thing about Iraq having links with al-Qaeda.

  Please also read Michale Moor's book "Dude, where is my country" and you will see how Bush fooled the entire nation while Osama got away scot free.

  Have you ever wondered that why Osama, who was directly responsible for attacking America, has never been caught and Saddam, who was "supposed to be a threat" to the US has been hanged, his sons and grandson killed?

  Where is Osama now? What is the US President doing to catch him? What is he doing to destroy Al-Qaeda as he did to destroy Iraq?

  The truth is, my friend, Bush has fooled your country to save his old business partner Osama and found another scape-goat to show off his powar. Do you know that Osama was once a state guest in Texas when Bush Jr. was the governor of that state?

  Please read as mcuh as you can about these incidents and you will see the truth, not facts presented by politicians. One more thing, How could Iraq had WMD when it has been under UN's supervision after the first Iraq war?

• bloc said on Jan 04, 2007....

  @seeingred
  "Bush never said Iraq was involved in 9/11."
  
  He implied it over and over and over again so that peopel thought it. here is just one example
  http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/
  and another
  http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/16/bush_backs_cheney_on_assertion_linking_hussein_al_qaeda/
  and another
  http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=144396&page=1
  
  
  Did bush lie? Well, that depends on how you define a lie. Did the Bush admin intentionally mislead people? I think the answer is a clear yes.
  
  "After 9/11 it would have been the height of negligence of any president not to have demanded Saddam to prove to the US that he had no weapons, given the information the president had at the time, which was Saddam had WMDs."
  
  This is interesting in a couple of ways. First, it's impossible to prove that you don't have something!!! Second, Saddam did give the inspectors full access to search for WMD and Bush invaded anyway. One former inspector, scott ritter, was very vocal before the war saying that saddam didn't have any serious weapons.
  
  Third, the WMD label is misleading. The Bush admin feared americans with talk of mushroom clouds which everyone knew saddam did not have. They then went in looking for anthrax or some such to prove that Iraq had WMD. It's extremely dishonest to conflate nuclear weapons with anthrax and mustard gas.
  

• SeeingRed said on Jan 04, 2007....

  You are still overlooking FACT and dancing around it.  Bush was told by the Clinton administration and English intell and Russian intell and FBI intell and CIA intell and Iraqi military commanders including the second in command of the Iraqi Air Force who has since written a book - that Saddam had the shit.  I will say again what was Bush suppose to do.  Listen to that far left fanatic Micheal Moore , The washington post, L.A. Times, N.Y. Times, Boston Globe, etc,etc. If you read my blogs you know what I think and feel about Main Stream Media who I call the Drive By Media. Bush and his administration is hated by these organizations and it will someday be clear for all to see and understand. But it is quite clear to anyone with and objective and concerning eye and void of any agenda but the truth. I will never direct you to a rightwing news outlet or a Bill O'riely type - do the same for me. I want to here from you and your observations and conclusion gained by ALL the information available. Not just from an agenda driven media and leftwing political machine. You teach me nothing, and worse yet yourselves.

• SeeingRed said on Jan 04, 2007....

  You are still overlooking FACT and dancing around it.  Bush was told by the Clinton administration and English intell and Russian intell and FBI intell and CIA intell and Iraqi military commanders including the second in command of the Iraqi Air Force who has since written a book - that Saddam had the shit.  I will say again what was Bush suppose to do.  Listen to that far left fanatic Micheal Moore , The washington post, L.A. Times, N.Y. Times, Boston Globe, etc,etc. If you read my blogs you know what I think and feel about Main Stream Media who I call the Drive By Media. Bush and his administration is hated by these organizations and it will someday be clear for all to see and understand. But it is quite clear to anyone with and objective and concerning eye and void of any agenda but the truth. I will never direct you to a rightwing news outlet or a Bill O'riely type - do the same for me. I want to here from you and your observations and conclusion gained by ALL the information available. Not just from an agenda driven media and a leftwing political machine. You teach me nothing, and worse yet yourselves.

• worldbeater said on Jan 05, 2007....

  Hi SR, Ok. I will not go to ANY media reports. Can you tell me, where did all those dangerous WMD dissappeared which "Clinton administration and English intell and Russian intell and FBI intell and CIA intell and Iraqi military commanders" had informed about to Bush? How come Bush has not been able to find one single WMD after having been raking Iraq for the past 3 years? I remember watching ( on TV) Colin Powell showing a test tube with some material in it in the UN. It was supposed to be the proof of Iraq having WMD. One year later, Powel accepted that his "source" was wrong and " it was "unlikely" that any stockpiles of WMDs would be found". This was his statement before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. Please also tell me, what Bush has done about Osama? How come he has not been able to even KNOW where Osama is? Why can't the "English intell and Russian intell and FBI intell and CIA intell and Iraqi military commanders" find Osama who so easily found WMD in Iraq? Can you please answer these questions.

• bloc said on Jan 05, 2007....

  "that Saddam had the shit"
  
  What shit? Please be specific. None of them said that he had nuclear weapons yet that is what the Bush admin used to scare the american people. No reliable reports said that saddam had anything to do with 9/11 yet the Bush admin implied it over and over and over again.
  
  So let's say that we believed that saddam had some anthrax and some mustard gas which I really thought he did have. Is that a justification for a war? Did it make sense to turn our attention away from al qaeda and bin laden and focus it on someone that wasn't connected to 9/11?
  
  worldbeater makes a good point about the tubes and Powel's speech. Experts said that those tubes weren't for nukes before that speech was given yet it was given anyway. Then there was the niger stuff in Bush's state of the Union. Before he gave his speech experts said that the information wasn't reliable yet the Bush admin said it anyway. Both turned out to be false. Were they lying or did they have tunnel vision? We don't know, but either way it has turned out to be a disaster and Bush is responsible for it.
  

• worldbeater said on Jan 06, 2007....

  We should not forget Tony Blair, who is equally responsible for destroying a whole nation. So many innocent lives lost beacuse of these two egoistical leaders. I was reading a report in "The Telegraph" about a TV drama that depicts Tony Blair in future, facing war crime charges and having lost his mental balance. Read it here: Television Puts Tony Blair on Trial. The Producer of this TV drama, Hal Vogel makes a very interesting comment in this report: "The sad thing is that Bush and Blair never studied history. If they had, they would have seen that no one has ever successfully invaded Iraq." Who will suffer the consequences of Bush & Blair follies? Not they, but their countrymen. alas.

Comment on "Saddam hanged, but Bush Defeated"

Currently tagged	politics CNN Saddam hussien hanging bush Iraq war NewYork Times saddam 9/11 political Osama WMD iraq blair TV drama (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously