MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKS

For some reason, even though he’s been out of office 17 months, George Bush’s name seems to come up in here a lot. I’ve always felt that history will judge whether invading Iraq was the right thing to do and I’ve also been amazed at the Democrats’ hypocrisy.

Look at what the Democrats were saying about Iraq before and during George W. Bush’s presidency.

Bush was the head coach and it was 4th and one. Everybody was screaming for him to go for it. He did. Things got a little tougher than everybody thought they were going to be and all the screamers started saying he should have punted.

That’s understandable. It happens all the time. What amazes me is that these hypocrites are/were never called on it by the dinosaur media.

Virtually every person in power in D.C. felt the same way about Iraq but only one guy was faced with the choice of punting or going for it.  I’ll always believe that every person on that video would have done the same thing given the same information and circumstances because they would have considered it a no brainer to err on the side of protecting the country.

And, by the way, Obama’s nominee to be the new head of intelligence believed that Hussein had WMDs and moved them to Syria before the invasion.

Where’s the outrage over Obama appointing a nut job like him?

  • Joe Bunda III

    I called it on the first comment and I was 100% correct. Does this mean I can consider myself a psychic? 🙂

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      Where will the Pirates finish this season?

      • Joe Bunda III

        I’m going to go out on a limb with this one, dead last.

  • Ochotexto

    I love it when conservatives call you unpatriotic because you have a differing viewpoint. I call them Faktriots., yinz all know that guy in the neighborhood who has about 27 flags around his house and carburetor parts on the front lawn., yep., they all vote Republican.
    Anyone who spoke out against Bush and these wars he’s created is a patriot. Anyone who follows any of their leaders blind is foolish.

    • Naper

      Ocho,

      Just a small request. In as few words as possible, please give your description of what the world would be like if your “plan” had been followed.

      • Ochotexto

        A cliffnotes version would be tough Nape but if you want it in a nutshell everything points back to the ineptitude of one George W Bush., I think I’ve mentioned that here a time or two. To try and list all his f******s detailed in short order is impossible.
        Put it this way., if he invested in funeral homes., people would stop dying !

        • Naper

          George W. Bush was a caring President who was constantly on the job. He seldom played golf. He seldom left his post. Don’t give me any crapolla about Crawford. The only thing different was the building and the manicured lawns. If you ever saw the set up at Crawford, you would know what I am talking about. It was Whitehouse II. You never saw President Bush running off to New York City for dinner. You didn’t see him hobnobbing with the Hollywood Dandies. He took the job seriously not as a gadfly. Your answer hardly addresses the issue because you have no real substance.

          • Ochotexto

            He was too stupid to socialize. But what did yinz think of tough guy Cheney ( the real boss) shooting harmless defeathered quails while hobnobbing at the country club ., then getting drunk and shooting his buddy ?

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            I’m not a big admirer of people who kill birds for fun.

    • Chad Farthouse

      This reminds of something I heard once. The gist of it is that of course all conservatives are not racists, but I’ll bet that most racists are conservative..

      • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

        Most criminals are democrats. Most dictators are leftists. What’s your point?

      • Naper

        Actually, over a long history, most racists were democrats. That only changed superficially when they saw an opportunity for votes. Nice try but no banana.

  • Naper

    June 22, 2010, the date of the canonization of the newest American Patriot. General McChrystal, come on down.

    Now, where I can I find a copy of the latest Rolling Stone.

    • Mike

      You want your country BACK. I want if FORWARD.

      PS. Publicly criticizing the President or various other officials is a criminal offense under the UCMJ. Plus he offered to resign. Some Patriot.

      • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

        He should resign.

  • randy newman

    sorry we did far mor damage than saddam and his sons. just all the iraqi child prostitutes in syria. to say nothing of the you know hundreds of thousands of dead. simply put any “democracy argument is bankrupt because iraq is a nation of 12 million. there would be bigger abusers than the iraqis, more quantitative freedom per effort expended elsewhere…think about what we did…by percentage of population we would have to lose about 8 million people to equal how many we killed. simply put there is nothing we can gain, no outcome to justify what we did.

    you are massively lying to yourself if you believe anyone other than dead eye dick and the turd blossom posse would have sent us into that war. you can’t cobble together quotes, even those made at the time, designed to compel saddam to comply with weapons inspectors(a context you choose to ignore in this fantasy) that indicate the active acts of fraud, and disregard for international law, the geneva convention, everything….would have been done by anyone else but the person who did them.

    your argument is like the pedophile saying to the judge, c’mon judge she’s 13, but look at her, tell me you wouldn’t…

    (and here is where i bait you to scream in dittohead fashion about polanski and the hollywood left, to show you are simply a volunteer for the echochamber)

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      Randi, I’m just happy to give you a chance to rant. You are one strange woman.

  • Naper

    let’s look back. Kennedy/Johnson made it fashionable to fight a jungle war with one hand tied behind our back. It took Nixon to end it. Jimmy Carter made it fashionable to take American hostages and let the Muslims rub our noses in it. Ronald Reagan put a stop to Gadafi and his nonsense along with Noriega. George H. Bush put a stop to Hussein’s territorial expansion. Bill Clinton made it fashionable to plan terrorist attacks on American soil. George W. Bush showed they would pay a price for that. The Won made it fashionable to have America apologize to the countries in the Mideast and to stand in the way of Isreal. I’ll take my winning side any day of the week.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      Very well put.

      • Ochotexto

        If yinz ain’t rewriting the Constitution you’re rewriting history.

    • randy newman

      actually didn’t ronald reagan make it fashionable to deal arms to that very same country, the country that eisenhower made it fashionable to overthrow the elected government of, to install a puppet, who then would reverse the nationalization of oil wells owned by our old friend british petroleum…you have to get over the muslim thing, they hated us because we unduly fornicated with them, as evidenced by the non-hardliners who want rid of the theocracy at any expense not including american, or foreign involvement…

      but let’s get back to reagan, i’m sure its not the least bit curious to you that the iranians waited til after the election of reagan and waited til his inauguration to release them. you can’t buy that type of synergy, or maybe you can. especially when the same people we dealt arms to, under reagan, were the ones who took those hostages. then we shipped the money to narcoterrorists who also were given a free market in the u.s. not only for cocaine powdered for the rich, and concentrated into crack and bargain priced for the poor. that is a triangular war with american citizens as collateral damage…freaking beautiful… how about reagan funding the taliban , hamas, and saddam…and if you want to play the enemy of my enemy card, well then you have explained away vietnam so what was your point? oh yeah even recent history must be a “liberal” thing because conservatives flunked it.

      • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

        Who do you like?

      • Naper

        Name the last great liberal American patriot. This ought to be good.

        • Chad Farthouse

          Naper,
          How about Pat Tillman? “Good” enough for you? Conservatives don’t hold a monopoly on patriotism. The tension between the left and the right, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, whatever you want to call it makes democracy work. Try reading a book instead of parroting Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Palin, and Steigerwald. You might end up getting a clue.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            Depends on what books you read.

          • Chad Farthouse

            Well, according to his mother, he was an atheist, a liberal, and a fan of Noam Chomsky. He even requested a meeting with Mr. Chomsky at the time of his death. He was against the war in Iraq, and if you did some research on the subject (that doesn’t come from Faux News), I think it would be difficult to defend the Bush Administration’s reprehensible treatment of Mr. Tillman’s family, image, and legacy.

          • Naper

            Baloney.

          • Jimmy

            Limbaugh and Hannity didn’t tell you about that did they? Must come as a shock.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            Lame.

          • Jimmy

            I once heard Hannity confronted with the fact that Tillman was a Chomsky fan and, like Naper, replied “I don’t believe it.” They also don’t like the fact that he openly opposed the strategy when he was over there and when he returned, in addition to meeting with Chomsky, he planned to lead a veterans against the war group that would have surely swung the election to Kerry. But before he could he was shot in the head by his own guys.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            You a big Chomsky fan?

          • Jimmy

            Nah, too intellectually stimulating and high minded. I like to keep it shallow and dumbed down. Why do think I come here?

          • Chad Farthouse

            Rudimentary research will prove my point. You can say “baloney” all you like, but the facts say otherwise. Typical conservative response, so it isn’t surprising coming from you Naper. Look it up, you may learn something, but your infantile and naive image of the “real Americans” of the Bush Administration will be shattered if you have anything close to an open mind. I doubt that you possess that quality however.

          • Chad Farthouse

            How about Thomas Paine, Ben franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison?

          • Naper

            did you ever meet Mrs. Tillman?

          • Naper

            Pat Tillman?? First of all, he was a conservative before he was annointed a liberal in death. You really had to search for that one. Keep trying. I’ll bet you find at least one.

          • saneman

            Get your facts straight. He was definitely not a conservative by the time he volunteered for the war. How liberal he was, I am not sure. We can safely assume he was not ideological with no hatred towards liberals. Conservatives keep asking liberals why they hate the country. Last time I checked, conservatives hate the country when they keep bashing the east and west coasts as not the real america, they bash anyone who is not a conservative, who does not believe in God, Why do conservatives hate America? (See how easy it is to turn around such a claim?) Anyone who bashed Bush wasa traitor. Remember when the Dixie Chicks got banned by stations. Yet we had some conservatives openly side with Israel, a foreign country, against Obama on one of the issues instead of discussing with Obama in private. So how is that different from the Dixie Chicks bashing Bush and his war on foreign soil?

        • Jimmy

          How about George McGovern you sanctimonious jackass?

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            George McGovern is a war hero. He was a bomber pilot at 21–an unbelievable story. Then he tunred into a whining liberal lunatic. Who can explain that?

    • saneman

      You conveniently forgot that Reagan oversaw the Lebanon disaster. You forget that part of Taliban’s rise owes as much to Gen Zia and the mujaheeden – both of who got support during the Reagan era with no forethought as to how to contain them once they served our needs against the Russians. It’s like someone drowning you with water after they put out a fire in your house. Who needs that kind of help?

      • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

        The Russians were our friends in WWII. How did that work out? Afghanistan helped bring down the USSR. Overall, I’d say that it was worth it.

        • saneman

          One needs to learn to contain unused dynamite once you are done with the job. The Reagan administration did nothing with potentially dangerous islamic looneys once the Russians were driven away. They were asleep at the wheel (as were the Clinton people) when Saudi Arabia was funding Madrassas with Zia at the helm in Pakistan. Our politicians thought the region would be self contained. Like I said, one can’t think one step at a time. Zia was a despicable man , probably worse than the likes of Castro. Yet Reagan called him a great friend. THat is beyond diplomatic speak. It’s no different from misguided leftists supporting Castro. The right is lucky the left doesn’t know how to use similar rhetoric when a republican supports a right wing despot the way the right calls leftists unpatriotic and communist.

  • saneman

    Salon and other online magazines were putting out articles written by insiders and ex-insiders about the Bush administration(especially Cheney) were cherrypicking intelligence reports way before it became fashionable to come out against the Iraq war. It is insulting to imply that most people in the know were against it only in hindsight. Richard Clarke was pretty much vocal in his opposition to it as soon as he left the administration. Face it. Iraq war was a massive cluserfuck. Even if some supports the side goals stated for the war, like bringing democracy and all, was the cost worth it??? Let me use your libertarian speak and ask “WHY ARE MY TAX DOLLARS GOING TO SUBSIDIZE SOMEONE ELSE”S FEARS AND/OR FANTASIES?” I was not worried about Iraq. It was not my concern. Yet trillions of my shared wealth with other Americans was going to line the pockets of Blackwater, and other war profiteers for a cause that really hasn’t benefited me in any way.

    As far as OBama not being bashed? Just check the liberal blogs to see how Obama has been getting bashed by the left far more than Bush was bashed by the right on the conservative blogs. Go to mydd and you will see many diaries bashing Geithener and Obama for appointing him. Obama is getting bashed for Afghanistan strategy. He is getting bashed for not cutting enough of the defense budget.

    So yes, there is consistency. Let us not create a fake controversy here.

    When Ron Paul espoused his anti-Iraq war stuff, he was roundly ridiculed in the Republican debates, especially by the likes of Guiliani whose contributions to the war on terror included helping his corrupt buddy Bernie Kerik get prominent positions .

    We can keep coming up with the war on terror may be vindicated in the future. That is just analogous to the Pirates asking us to be patient about their plans for the future. Bullshit. We already know the war in Iraq was not worth it.. We don’t need to wait another decade to know that.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      There are lots of legitimate reasons to criticize the Iraq War, but national defense is a legitimate function of the federal government. Midnight basketball is not. So, the “libertarian argument” against tax dollars being spent on things that don’t benefit me is weak. There are just as many “insiders” who will defend the action. Given my druthers, I would leave all the countries over there to their own devices and let them kill each other. The more of them that would disappear the better. Unfortunately, that would require us to find our own oil, which the existing government won’t allow. You also forgot to mention the UN resolutions–17 of which were ignored by Hussein. I would prefer Obama making a phone call some time in the next 15 minutes and kicking everybody affiliated with the UN out of the country, but we’re not only a memeber, we pay for most of its nonsense. Bush didn’t ask to be in the UN. He made the argument at the time that you can’t expect to have any credibility if you keep letting countries violate sanctions and resolutions.

      • saneman

        Someone would say keeping potential criminals(and I don’t mean this just as a black thing) with too much idle time occupied with midnight basketball is a national security thing because it gives them something else to do other than raiding the neighborhood Korean shop.

        And the Iraq war was not a national security thing for most of us. If Saddam was a direct threat to us, then I would argue that we can quibble about the money spent on ways to defend such a threat, but we cannot deny the federal government the discretion to defend us. So we are onboard for national security being a federal function. But a lot of money was spent on reconstruction in iraq that made private companies obscenely rich despite evidence of lot of fraud by such companies. Yet we get pissed at similar infrastructure projects over here domestically.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          You are talking about mostly black kids and that doesn’t make you a racist.

          I’m an isolationist. I would prefer bringing all out troops home from Japan, germany, korea etc. My point is that Bush was president when we were attacked. He had to take the position that we couldn’t afford to wait to be attacked again. he had information that this maniac in Iraq was developing WMDs. He had used them before. You and I don’t know what he knew and I’ll bet Obama git quite an awakening when he was made aware of things that you don’t get to be aware of until you’re president.

          Hussein had tried to assasinate a former president. It happened to be his old man, but that doesn’t matter. It showed how that maniac felt about America. I’ll say it again. Every one of those people would have done the same thing. If he hadn’t done something as a reaction to Iraq’s ignoring the UN, he should have left the UN. I don’t see how you can have it both ways.

      • Chad Farthouse

        I could be wrong, but didn’t the U.N. condemn the invasion? If so, you can stop using the 17 ignored U.N. violations as a rationale-unless you’re a hypocrite.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          Maybe they did but Bush told them that they had no credibility if they kept making threats and refused to back them up. He was right. I’m all for dropping outof the UN and tunring their headquarters into a nice condo.

      • Anthony

        Cease defense funding, disband the army, outlaw guns.

        Wouldn’t the world be a better place if all our countries could do that? And no bullcrap not possible stuff. Humans have a choice. Either we’re going to stop fighting or we’ll all die.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          Yeah if we could just convince those pesky criminals who are criminals because they don’t obey laws to obey the ones about no guns.

  • Naper

    Now, here’s what you call a real lie:

    “Then there is Obama’s decision to impose a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf. This penalizes companies with better safety records than BP’s and will result in many advanced drilling rigs being sent to offshore oil fields abroad.

    The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly “peer reviewed” by “experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.” But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn’t include any recommendation for a moratorium. Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and “counterproductive” to safety.

    This was blatant dishonesty by the administration, on an Orwellian scale. In defense of a policy that has all the earmarks of mindless panic, that penalizes firms and individuals guilty of no wrongdoing and that will worsen rather than improve our energy situation. Ineffective thuggery.”

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama_s-thuggery-is-useless-in-fighting-spill-96684389.html#ixzz0rVggWaLo

  • Ken

    If you want an interesting read that tells much about the runup to the Iraq war, try “Shadow Warriors” by Kenneth R. Timmerman.

    It’s a bit tedius to read, very detailed and footnoted. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that weapons were moved to Syria.

    The main thrust of the book is about how the career people at State, Defense, CIA, etc. pretty much do what they want. And they never agreed with the Bush administration and they did much to undermine it. The lesson is that when a president takes office, he should clean out the holdovers in these offices.

    This book also has some very interesting stuff about WMDs that were found. About the ten of thousands of pages of Iraqi documents, most of which are still untranslated, that detail the weapons programs.

    Not an easy read, but worth the effort.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      I had him on my KDKA talk show. Very interesting.

    • Ochotexto

      Kenneth., you’re a tedious read !
      Sorry buddy., you put it on a tee for me., I had to.
      Happy Fathers Day to you if it applies.

      • Ken

        I guess that was easy. But as long as you’re still reading, I’m happy. Give the book a shot, you might find it pretty interesting.

        Thanks, but it doesn’t apply to me. Sure makes me remember how much I miss my Dad though.

        And I hope you did have a happy Father’s Day, Ocho.

  • http://sh Carl Marx

    Hes great…HAPPY FATHERS DAY!

  • http://sh Carl Marx

    John you should stick with sports related topics or do a little more home work before you start a new political thread. No matter how much you think you know about politics some other loser will crawl out from under a rock and know more. News all day every day,,its an angry lifestyle. Anyway this right vs left BS is mind numbing..If you had any real stones you would start a thread about religion then we can have some real fun.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      Things seem to be going pretty well here but thanks for the input. How’s Groucho?

  • VinceL

    I remember back in 1991 after liberating Kuwait,many wanted us to “finish the job and take out Saddam”And if WMD’s were found after we took him out I can imagine what the conspiracy minded would’ve said:”Oh,the diabolical Bush-Cheney planted them.”

  • Paul

    Gee where’s the usual gang of lefties…why have they gone all silent?

    • Pat

      Lefty here — except in matters of the military. I had a job that allowed me to be in the know on WMD from back to the first Gulf War. Speaking for myself, and others in my line of work, I can say that a good 90% of us did not think they were anywhere near possessing nukes. We thought he had chems and maybe some bios, but definitely not nukes. That information was passed up the chain of command where it was, evidently, ignored. Cheney speaking about “mushroom clouds” had a profound effect on the public’s reaction and Cheney knew Iraq was nowhere close to having nukes because we knew it.

      • Ochotexto

        Let’s not forget Cheney profiteered from the war also.
        I guess I’m lefty and unpatriotic for pointing that out.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          How?

          • saneman

            Do you think Cheney made millions as Halliburton CEO because he is a management genius? Halliburton stock fell when Cheney took over despite Cheney’s numerous connections. He has made his fortune off of the defense industry. It doesnt have to be something as simplistic as a gift right after the favor. It could be a lifelong series of give and takes.

            What I want to know is this . While Bush was asking other families to be prepared for sacrifice for the war, what sacrifice did the proponents of the war go through? if they really believed inthe war so much, shouldn’t they be at the top of donating to the war effort in terms of personal sacriice via family members involved directly on the field, or money to veteran groups, or family members donating money . What did the Cheneys sacrifice for any of the wars in their lifetimes? He gave one of his unqualifid daughters a position related to middle east analysis.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            That “your kids should go first argument” is stupid. You can do better than that.

          • saneman

            I did not say that it was the only way they could sacrifice. But one of the ways. What I fail to see in these families is any kind of sacrifice other than the one by Bush Sr when he was a young person. Once you get past Bush Sr, there is nothing in the Bush family that says sacrifice with the war effort. And with the Cheney family, forget even that. At least, I believe there is some sense of honor in parts of the Bush family that I do not see in the Cheney family with respect to the military. i have no problem bashing liberals who support public schools blindly but end up putting their kids in private schools even if there are no security problems with their status. When no one in the Cheney family, that makes lots of money from war issues via think tanks and employment at some point in a defense related company, I would like to see some sort of sacrifice with a war effort at some point in their lives. You can do it by taking part in the war directly(if you really believe your country is in danger, why not)? Or you can do it by enlisting in a support non combat role. Or if you are too scared for that, why not donate a few million earned from participating in an industry where you made money off of war efforts paid by our tax dollars.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            I don’t know if he’s contributed a lot of money to charity. I know that the people who are notorious for being generous with other people’s money are also notorious for giving very little to Cheney. Gore and Obama being prime examples.

          • saneman

            Right now , Gore is being held to scrutiny over his global warming consuming mansion. If the consumption is not better than the norm for someone building a house in his neighborhood, then more power to his critics on that. Cheney has defined himself through the defense industry in his public life. If he wants to sell us on the need for sacrifice for a war HE BELIEVES IN, and not me, then he needs to lead by example.

          • Darrel

            I can’t stand Dick Cheney, but have to support him here. He actually donated his Halliburton dividend money to charity. I don’t know if he donated all of it, but his tax returns are public, so I looked at them a few years ago and he did donate a lot more money than he actually made from Halliburton while he was VP. One year I believe he made over a million dollars and donated something like 6 million.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            I thought I had seen something like that but wasn’t sure. Thanks.

          • saneman

            Thanks for the info. I will look into that too. If a lot of that went to military families who helped Hallburton and his other defense buddies get rich, then more power to hm and I stand corrected.

            If it went to some buddies ideological cause that promotes his own ambitious agenda for whatever he wanted to accomplish, then my opinion of him doesn’t change much. Since I obviously do not for sure, I will reserve any further comment on this part until I know for sure.
            Thanks for the reply.

      • Chad Farthouse

        Bush was going to invade Iraq from Day One. What was his motivation? Daddy issues? Greed? Hubris? PNAC? Who knows, but people like Richard Clarke, and others were trying to warn Bush and DICK about Bin Laden, but they were too consumed with Iraq to do anything about it. However, I’m almost positive that you probably think Clarke is a liar because his account doesn’t jibe with your world view, even though he was in a bi-partisan position and worked under presidents from both parties.

        Anyway, when 9/11 happened,despite existing warning signs, Bush, DICK, Condie, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and Powell took it and ran with it. They exploited the attack to sell their war to the American people and Congress with phony connections between Iraq and Bin Laden that were cultivated from TORTURING KSM and others. DICK went so far as having a letter drafted that was planted in Iraq that “proved” a Bin Laden/Iraq connection. They are all liars and war criminals and belong in prison. Do not even get me started on the profiteering. There are so many heinous things that the previous administration did, that I find it amusing that you guys call Obama’s administration tyranny-it is laughable and embarrassing.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          You got proof of any of that?

          • Paul

            They don’t need that ‘proof’ stuff. Libs just “KNOW” things….

        • Darren

          Here is a question that conspiracy lunatics like the esteemed “Mr. Farthouse” have never answered about this: If they were “lying” and completely creating the scenario to invade. Why. Did. They. Stop. Lying?

          All of these elaborate schemes you wackjobs push to this day yet you expect me to believe that they couldn’t or wouldn’t plant some WMD “evidence” somewhere in the desert and say “look at this! We found them!”?

          Adjust your tinfoil hat and get back to me on that one.

          • saneman

            They already achieved their goal of geting into the war. What is the need to lie anymore. Plus there have been many reports coming out exposing the lies. Why keep looking foolish by denying it? Cheney was not accountable. So he did not give a damn at that point. All he had to say was show up on friendly shows and say he was right. Or he lets his idiot daughter do the talking for him.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            Obama hired a guy to head up intelligence who believes the WMDs were there and were moved to Syria. What is he turns out to be right? It’s early.

          • Darren

            Sorry Saneman. “They didn’t think they needed to anymore” does not work. I went round and round through this issue when it was happening. There are not “many reports exposing the lies”. Unless you are like the multitudes of lefties who do not know the definition of the word “lie” and think that if the people you hire to keep a lookout tell you there is a bear in the woods and you then tell everyone there is a bear in the woods that makes you a liar if there is no bear in the woods.
            Bottom line: If this was some big “Conspiracy” and intentional lying from the beginning, they would have kept lying. To do otherwise makes no sense at all. Unless you are an unhinged conspiracy theorist. Then no matter what happens, it fits right into your conspiracy theory.

          • saneman

            What is the point of persisting in saying the same lies in a news media environment which fails to follow up on old controversies? How many times did some Republicans say they never linked Iraq to 9-11, but then Daily Show would dig up clips where they would do just that? Cheney being one of the main culprits. They still kept lying to some degree. it’s just that they changed the nature of the lying. Later, it became how they never linked it to 9-11. Initially, they were doing all they could to imply that link and on a couple of occasions even made the explicit claim there was a link.

  • Ochotexto

    It was hardly second guessing ., BO voted against the war., Chris Matthews ripped Bush a new ahole “before” and the UN said no. You may disagree or dislike those sources but it was “hardly” second guessing or Monday morning QB ing.
    A lot of military types will agree sight unseen for fear of being seen as a dissenter or unpatriotic. They aren’t paid to think but to take orders.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      Obama was in the Illinois senate and Matthews is a democratic operative. The people on the video were in POWER at the time. They were saying Saddam had to go when Bush was governor of Texas. And they were saying it before 3,000 people died in the worst attack ever on American spoil. The dynamic kind of changed after that.

      • Jimmy

        Describing Chris Matthews as a Democratic operatives is ignorant. He hates Bill Clinton with a passion and attacked him on his show during his presidency to the point that Clinton threatened to sue him. Liberal, yes. But he gives it to Dems just as hard as republicans. Watch is commentary following Obama’s Oval office speech. Anyone that compares Matthews to Hannity never watches his show.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          Matthews was unmerciful on Clinton over Lewinsky. He said Obama gave him a thrill up his leg during the campaign. You’re right about the oval office speech. Most of the left trashed Obama for that. Hannity killed Bush on Harriet Meyers and amnesty for immigrants.

          • saneman

            Sorry, but you really lost me here. While you are accurate in what you say, you leave out something important. Chris Matthews uses similar language to praise Bush during the Mission Accomplished era. About how presidential Bush looked and how macho he looked. Just look up old blog criticisms of Matthews during the early Iraq war buildup.

            There was even a leak of a Matthews cozying up to Tom Delay after his interviews. Once Chris Matthews realized what a fool he was, it was only then he started to turn against Bush.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            He put his finger to the wind.

  • http://justwatchthegame.com Bobzilla

    After 9-11, it was payback time, and Ben Laden was/still is the one responsible. But instead of focusing on Ben Laden, Bush went straight for Hussein, who to my knowledge had nothing to do with 9-11.
    I didn’t understand it then, and I understand it even less today, other than Hussein was easier to find, while the WMD were trumped up to justify going after Hussein.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      Were the WMD “trumped up” by both Clintons, and all the other people on the video BEFORE Bush took office because they knew he was going to be president and they were laying a trap for him? Bush came into office at a time when EVERYBODY who was anybody was saying that Huseein was a major threat to the US and the rest of the Middle East. Then on 9/11 we found out that there were people out there who could kill lots of us. Absent 9/11 maybe Bush does what Clinton did and just keeps his eye on Huissein and tells the world what a bad guy he is. After the attack, any one of those hypocrite second guessers would have felt compelled to knock out Hussein.

      • Anthony

        Actually foresight of 9/11 was passed on. That wasn’t a trap. You know the memo passed from the Clinton administration named “Bin Laden Determined To Attack US” or close to that.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          Clinton was offereed Bin laden bu the Sudanese and said no thanks.

  • randy newman

    no, there wasn’t a single reason for the war in iraq. there was no 4th and 1 there was no decision that needed to be made. there was, in the background deadeye dick and the turd blossom posse, before bush ever went to the supreme court to get elected, had decided they wanted to get elected…

    they were like kent st or some shitty mac school deciding that they could become big time, if they scheduled all their games on tuesday night, or friday morning, because none of their players or students have class then, and they could get on espn because no one else was playing….

    the democrats on iraq; with fradulent intel, created by war criminal means and no access or transparency to refute the data went along…
    i will give the media credit, they weren’t the least bit critical, but they beat a hell of a wardrum, they made it politically risky as hell to speak out. thus sadly, and i will admit it was a great failing, but the politics of cheney’s ruse, the angry ill-informed public, the intentional lies parroted ad nauseum by an uncritical media, it was a sad chapter in american history.

    one that will likely forever cost us credibility in the region, and in the un, one that cost us more lives than 9/11, one that murdered hundreds of thousands more iraqi’s than saddam ever did, one that cost us a trillion dollars, and really it was for nothing, nothing was to be gained at all…at least in the fact that you are asking why democrats supported it, you have begun to realize what a collusal waste georgie’s pet war was. next step realize thaty terrorism may always be around and we should freak out next time, because it causes us to do stupid things.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      Clinton, Albright et al were saying Saddam had to go because of WMDs when Bush was governor of Texas and Cheney was working for the evil Haliburton. What do you mean the dems “went along?” Bush went along with THEM. There were 17 UN resolutions violated. I think the UN is a joke, but if you’re going to be in it, don’t you have to back up the sanctions and resolutions? Otherwise, why bother?

      • randy newman

        clinton and albright favored the weapons inspectors.

        this is a huge point you have forgotten, which is a shame because it just happened. what dead-eye dick and the turd blossom posse did, was decide the weapons inspectors and the u.n. might never let them get their war-glorious-war, so they forced the issue with torture, to create false evidence to tell the democrats, the american people, and ultimately the u.n., even at that the u.n. didn’t authorize the war they wanted…but its miles away from clinton, albright, etc and it was on false pretenses, media hype, and by mass hysteria that the dems went along….

        but at least you are admitting that it was a bad idea, that all of bush’s foreign policy, that most right wing foreign policy ideas are stupid when the only brush you can paint them with, or try, is “see the dems did it too” piss poor excuse making, always has been always will be, what do you expect from pants pissing baby boomers though, btw how many deferrments did you take?

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          I wasn’t saying, “See the dems do it, too.” I was saying the dems—based on the same information—would have done the same thing. And they would have. It’s the blatant second guessing that they get away with that bothers me. I’m not admitting it was a bad idea because I think it’s too early to judge. It may end up being an even worse idea than you think it was and it could turn out to be a good idea. Depends on what ultimately happens to Iraq. What would have been happening the last four or five years if Sadaam and his sons were still putting people in shredders? I’m actually more of an isolationist and would like to see those countries left to fight it out among themseleves. That would require us figuring out where to get more oil. Read George Will’s recent column on Afghanistan. He’s been opposed to the war for a long time. He wrote about the stupid rules of engagement that prevent out troops from completing their mission and cost lives. I could never understand the restraint that was shown in Viet Nam and way back then I was in favor of either ending it quickly and winning or getting out. I feel the same way about Afghanistan.

          • saneman

            There is a different level of proof the Clintons would have asked for if they were actually planning to act in terms of waging war versus just warning Saddam that these are things they heard and he is well advised not to pursue such things. What the Bushes did was use the 9-11 attacks to build up a case of war against Iraq. At that point, it was his job to hold all the intelligence reports that linked Iraq to WMDs and imminent threat to greater scrutiny because they were planning on going to war versus just a verbal warning. And when I say WMDs, I mean enough to actually threaten us, not a few here and there.

            What Cheny did was the opposite. He downplayed any intelligence report that did not serve his purpose and heightened any little fragment that would help his case and placed them out of context. In some cases, they even paid confirmed liars like that guy from Iraq who was expoed on 60 minutes as taking our money to provide false information. (Chemical ali??forget his name).

      • saneman

        While i personally think many Democrats were derelict in their duty by not opposing the Iraq war, I gotta say that there is some truth to the asssertion by Randy Newman, even if I lay more culpability than him on the Democrats. I think cowardice is a worse sin in supporting the war compared to neocon craziness that supported the war.

        having said that, it is clear that Cheney was rigging the situation to encourage support for the war and making the opposing people look like crazy peoiple. As a journalist, you have to be aware that the liberal NYT (the conservatives favorite paper to bash) was used by Cheney via Judith Miller to spread false information on Iraq. Why do you think Judith Miller is so reviled?

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          The NY Times lost all credibility a long time ago.

  • Naper

    Here’s a second front on Obama. The dems made hay against Bush on Katrina. He looks damn good today when you consider this:

    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N19189717.htm

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      It’s Bush’s fault.

    • Anthony

      Don’t forget that Katrina was a natural disaster only the government needed to deal with. The gulf spill is a private organizations stupidity and they should be paying.

      • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

        They are paying. It’s been in all the papers.

        • Anthony

          I mean they should be footing the entire bill for cleanup. No government dime should be spent on this. I could care less abou BPs stock. Use the money to give to the needy, fund education etc.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            So you don’t care about thousands of BP jobs of the people all over the world whose retirements depend om BP. They are paying for the cleanup, by the way.

          • saneman

            You work for a private corporation and reap in the benefits of bonuses when times are good, you take the risk of things going bad. You really support Barton apologizing for BP? For the record, I hate the way Bush-Paulson-Obama-Geithner-Bernanke dealt with the financial bailouts. I believe you do not bailout BP either by letting them off easy.

            It is clear BP and other oil companies cooked up the contingency plan proposals by coming up standard boilerplate identical plans instead of custom proposals. They need to pay for that negligence. Also , the MMS sould pay for their negligence with more firings. One firing is a start. We need more. Salazar, by the way, was one of the more conservative dems, chummy with the oil and gas companies. So do not blame liberals for that. Guess what, it was under his supervision that reforms were slow to take place. The 8 years of Bush destroying these regulatory agencies were no better. Cronies were hired. Obama is a moron for nominating someone like Salazar in the first place for the Secretary Of interior.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            BP should pay for every dime’s worth of damage but the President –no matter how evil BP may be—doesn’t get to pull a number out of his ass and say that BP will pay X amount. It will have to come by way of lawsuits and fines based on that inconvenient thing called THE LAW.

          • saneman

            Unfortunately that LAW is influenced by the millions companies like BP infuse into the system. Why do you think many Republicans and some Democrats have opposed raising the 75M cap on certain kind of damages? Politics is a drity game. I am just glad Obama has not acted like a wuss for a change after his passive first month.

            Besides 20B is not the final number. That is a good faith number Obama wanted from BP to start off with. I have no problem with such politics. It’s not like Obama gave an edict what the final damages would be.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            There’s nothing wrong with the number. What is wrong is for anybody to think that the president can just wave his hand and make a company pay any amount of money foe any reason.

          • Darrel

            He’s not doing that. He’s being smart and hearing what people are telling him, which is BP could be in serious financial trouble very soon if this thing keeps getting worse. If the courts wait months and years to determine how much BP needs to pay out, they could be in bankruptcy by then and there will be no money. What he’s doing now is asking BP to put $20B in escrow now so that it can be available now and later. It’s a very smart move. BP has already cut their dividend, had their credit rating lowered 4 levels, so who knows what could be next. Hopefully not bankruptcy, but you never know.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            Asking is fine. Ordering is not.

  • Joe Bunda III

    Your common sesnse and logic will be completely lost on far left zealots.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      I can’t believe anybody can look at that tape and think that Bush “rushed” into Iraq.

      • Jimmy

        If you watch youtube videos all day you probably would believe Bush acted properly. If you read any journalistic accounts of the invasion you would know the truth. You’re head in the sand routine on this is getting really old.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          And you think your journalistic accounts are the only ones that have it right? After watching those second-guessing hypocrites you still think Bush “lied” and people “died”?

          • Jimmy

            I have journalistic accounts, you have youtube videos. Your willful ignorance on this subject is stunning. Read a goddamn book on the subject not written by a right wing hack and you will learn a lot. They will make your ignorant notion, gleaned from a video of political posturing soundbites, that anyone who was president would have invaded Iraq and we would be there 8 years later, laughable.

            Ted Kennedy gave a passionate speech opposing the war and it was ignored by every media outlet. He could, he wasn’t running for anything. Your best defense for the war seems to be that Hillary Clinton would have done the same thing as Bush if she were president. While that is ignorant, even if she did she would go down in history as a terrible president for starting a disastrous war. The war is a disaster, Bush was a disaster. Clips of Democrats positioning themselves politically will never change that.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            I have plenty of journalistic accounts. How many books have you read on the subject written by right wing hacks? Obama just appointed a guy to be his intelligence chief who is on record as saying that Hussein had WMDs and moved them into Syria before the invasion. It wasn’t just Hillary. It was Bill Clinton. Reid, Rockefeller, Biden. Were they all lying for political reasons? Would that include the present VP?

          • saneman

            When it comes to matters like this, you can’t be surprised that Democrats will say whatever is politically expedient. There were quite a few dissident Democrats like Feingold.One reason why Hillary lost the primary was she held on to the “No Regrets on the Iraq vote ” stance way too long. You don’t think she was afraid to look weak on defense and took the easy way out early on?It helped her short term, but cost her long term.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            I get all that. My point is that all of those weasels would have done the same thing had they been president. Bush was the only person on the planet who had to act or not act on that information. I don’t think there’s a president who would NOT have done the same thing,

          • saneman

            There is a difference between going ALONG with the an action already underway versus creating a war. I think many of the Democrats that went along with the war would not have gone through the trouble of drumming up support for the war. Intelligence will usually come up with a diversity of “facts”.. You have to sift the nonsene from the real deals. I doubt Democrats would have been putting pressure on intelligence agencies like Cheney did to create reports to skew things a certain way. An example is this: There was much made about some iraq

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            You’re missing the point. They weren’t going along. Bush was governor of Texas when those people were telling anyone who would listen that Hussein had WMDs and he had to go. Bush them became president and we were ATTACKED. He was the only guy who had to make a decision based on all the information. They all got to second guess him.