DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on May 28, 2008, 11:21:46 AM
-
White House press release:
Disgruntled ex-employee and possible gay child molester Scott McClellan has pitifully penned a "tell-all" book in which he makes wild and delusional claims of "propaganda" and "self-deception". It is unclear to the White House exactly why McClellan has fallen into the clutches of the terrorists who have brainwashed him into hating America; but we know that the American People, who clearly DO love America and Support The Troops?, will have the decency and honor to ignore McClellan's left-wing tome of conspiracy theories.
The real reality is that the President and his staff all told then-Press Secretary McClellan to quit playing up WMD, smoking gun mushroom clouds and Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorists but he would go out to the reporters again and again telling them whatever he felt like! We just couldn't control him! He was like a mad dog out there! We mean, this guy was out-of-his-tree nuts! In the end, that's why he got fired because he just kept lying and lying all the time! Now, he's just pissed and out there trying to make a dollar by painting our beloved "president" in a poor light. (Did you hear the "president"'s now only polling with 69% negatives? That's like a .05% drop! America loves him! Clearly, this means that McClellan is a liar out to make a dollar.)
We're sure he needs the money what with how he's blowing it on, what some call, child porn productions. Oh well, we're just going to stay above it.
Reality found at this link...
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/05/28/bombshell_book_rocks_white_house.html (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/05/28/bombshell_book_rocks_white_house.html)
News of the extremely critical memoir from former Bush spokesman Scott McClellan dominates the headlines this morning. What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception
New York Times: "President Bush 'convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment,' and has engaged in 'self-deception' to justify his political ends, Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, writes in a critical new memoir about his years in the West Wing."
Washington Post: "Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated 'political propaganda campaign' led by President Bush and aimed at 'manipulating sources of public opinion' and 'downplaying the major reason for going to war.'"
Wall Street Journal: "The White House took part in an 'endless effort to manipulate public opinion to their advantage' in promoting the invasion of Iraq, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan declares in a new book."
Los Angeles Times: McClellan writes, "No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."
-
'downplaying the major reason for going to war.'"
What does he say this was?
-
?I still like and admire President Bush,? McClellan writes. ?But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. ? In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html
Darn those advisers! If only we had someone higher up than them....someone who would make tough decisions....who had a moral compass, and good judgment...
-
Darn those advisers! If only we had someone higher up than them....someone who would make tough decisions....who had a moral compass, and good judgment...
I hear Obama is mounting a high intensity search through all 57 states for the best and the brightest to serve in his administration.
-
;D
-
Darn those advisers! If only we had someone higher up than them....someone who would make tough decisions....who had a moral compass, and good judgment...
I hear Obama is mounting a high intensity search through all 57 states for the best and the brightest to serve in his administration.
I wish someone would provide a link to the transcript for that quote about the 57 states.
-
"I wish someone would provide a link to the transcript for that quote about the 57 states"
Are you denying the moron said it?
Or are you going to try to weasel out and say it was out of context?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws[/youtube]
if video doesn't work click link below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws)
-
I guess we have to face facts Brass. Based on your parameters, Obama is a moron
-
Ouchie!
The book begins with McClellan's statement to the press that he had talked with Rove and Libby and that they had assured him they "were not involved in ... the leaking of classified information." ...
"[President Bush] too had been deceived, and therefore became unwittingly involved in deceiving me. But the top White House officials who knew the truth ? including Rove, Libby, and possibly Vice President Cheney ? allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie."
McClellan also suggests that Libby and Rove secretly colluded to get their stories straight at a time when federal investigators were hot on the Plame case. "There is only one moment during the leak episode that I am reluctant to discuss," he writes. "It was in 2005 during a time when attention was focusing on Rove and Libby, and it sticks vividly in my mind. ... Following [a meeting in Chief of Staff Andy Card's office] ... Scooter Libby was walking to the entryway as he prepared to depart when Karl turned to get his attention. 'You have time to visit?' Karl asked. 'Yeah,' replied Libby.
"I have no idea what they discussed, but it seemed suspicious for these two, whom I had never noticed spending any one-on-one time together, to go behind closed doors and visit privately. ... At least one of them, Rove, it was publicly known at the time, had at best misled me by not sharing relevant information, and credible rumors were spreading that the other, Libby, had done at least as much."
-
I guess we have to face facts Brass. Based on your parameters, Obama is a moron
===================================
Definitely true, according to the official rules of Sirsball?
-
No, that'd be according to Brass's parameters for what constitutes a moron, and then reinforced by yourself.
-
No, that'd be according to Brass's parameters for what constitutes a moron, and then reinforced by yourself.
==========================================================================
Bullshit! I have never stated that Obama is a moron, and do not, in fact believe that this is so. You are on some sort of demented adolescent ego trip. Your opinions are exclusively your own, and I share none of them with you.
-
As prophecied....
Quote of the Day
"Scott we now know is disgruntled about his experience at the White House... It's sad. This is not the Scott we knew."
-- White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, quoted by NBC News, on former colleague Scott McClellan's new book, What Happened.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/05/28/quote_of_the_day.html
-
No, that'd be according to Brass's parameters for what constitutes a moron, and then reinforced by yourself.
========================
Bullshit! I have never stated that Obama is a moron, and do not, in fact believe that this is so.
Never said that. I said according to the parameters you & Brass place at defining what a moron is, so hastily applying it to Bush, happens to fit nicely on Obama as well. Try to keep up.
-
Never said that. I said according to the parameters you & Brass place at defining what a moron is, so hastily applying it to Bush, happens to fit nicely on Obama as well. Try to keep up.
I've never listened to Obama and thought, "this guy is a moron". Therefore he is not a moron.
-
But back to Scott McClellan's tell-all book that serves as an eyewitness to what those of us with half a brain have been saying since 2002, clearly NOW, surely at long last, you guys will ADMIT in full that Bush and his guys are a bunch of propaganda-spreading liars.
Surely now, right?
-
Never said that. I said according to the parameters you & Brass place at defining what a moron is, so hastily applying it to Bush, happens to fit nicely on Obama as well. Try to keep up.
I've never listened to Obama and thought, "this guy is a moron". Therefore he is not a moron.
LOL........what a shocker
-
Surely now, right?
Dunno
McClellan supposes that Libby and Rove colluded to get their stories straight. Even he admits he doesn't know that for a fact.
Sorta like today. I met with another councilperson on the green and a citizen came up and asked if we were having a secret meeting, as we sit on the same committee and two makes a quorum.
Fact is we weren't talking about city business at all.
-
Never said that. I said according to the parameters you & Brass place at defining what a moron is, so hastily applying it to Bush, happens to fit nicely on Obama as well. Try to keep up.
I've never listened to Obama and thought, "this guy is a moron". Therefore he is not a moron.
So the links to the U-tube of his 57 states quip isn't working for you?
Obama makes the same type and frequency of mistake as Dan Quale got famous for, not a tiny bit less.
Bush is prone to spoonerisms and oversimplifacations , perhaps you just hate Spoonerisms more thna you dislike errors of fact.
-
Bush is prone to spoonerisms and oversimplifacations , perhaps you just hate Spoonerisms more thna you dislike errors of fact.
I can't think of one thing Juniorbush has said that could be called a "spoonerism". This is where the first counds of two words are swapped.
Examples of spoonerisms: "bass ackwards", "Runny Babbit, a Billy Sook".
Juniorbush is prone to mispronunciations, like noocuelar for nuclear, and dumb statements like the mention of how ehe wants top help poor people "put food on their families".
-
Bush is prone to spoonerisms and oversimplifacations , perhaps you just hate Spoonerisms more thna you dislike errors of fact.
I can't think of one thing Juniorbush has said that could be called a "spoonerism". This is where the first counds of two words are swapped.
Examples of spoonerisms: "bass ackwards", "Runny Babbit, a Billy Sook".
Juniorbush is prone to mispronunciations, like noocuelar for nuclear, and dumb statements like the mention of how ehe wants top help poor people "put food on their families".
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/spoonerisms-mondegreens-eggcorns-and-malapropisms.aspx
Malapropisms
Finally, there are malapropisms?the only one of these errors without a fun story behind the origin of the name. ?Malapropism? is derived from a French phrase meaning ?badly for the purpose.? It came into popular usage to describe the silly misuse of words after the playwright Richard Sheridan named one of his characters, who had a habit of ridiculously mixing up words, Mrs. Malaprop. (The play is called The Rivals.)
Malapropisms occur when someone substitutes a similar-sounding word for another word. For example, George Bush was reported to say, ?nuclear power pants? instead of ?nuclear power plants? in 2003,
So...
Spoonerisms are what you get when a speaker mixes up sounds, making phrases such as better Nate than lever.
Mondegreens are what you get when listeners mishear words; for example when people think the song lyrics are Sweet dreams are made of cheese instead of Sweet dreams are made of this.
Eggcorns are what you get when people swap homophones in phrases, such as spelling here, here H-E-R-E instead of H-E-A-R.
Malapropisms are what you get when someone substitutes a similar-sounding word for another, such as He's the pineapple of politeness instead of He's the pinnacle of politeness.
I liked this one...
http://estnyboer.com/bush/term2_2008.htm
You will like this one....
http://slate.msn.com/id/2100064/
And I am corrected , "Spoonerism " describes only a few of President Bushes malapropriate sayings. He isn't glib , we must agree , but I have learned a more precice understanding of the term " Spoonerism".
What catagory do most of Barak Obama's errors of speech fall into?
-
Just watching CNN interviewing the White House staffers as they circle the wagons and parts of it were hilarious. First, Scott's old boss (sorry, can't think of his name) "It just wasn't the Scott I knew," "Didn't sound like Scotty." etc. and then on to Ari Fleischer, "Didn't sound like Scott," I mean are these guys all on message or what? Who rehearses them?
So the interviewer, Campbell Brown, finally gets exasperated with this line of obvious BS and asks Fleischer, "Oh COME ON, Arie, what are you really saying? That aliens took over his body?"
It was a pretty funny moment, but maybe you hadda be there.
But seriously folks, this is very disturbing. I mean . . . uh, well, if you take any of this stuff seriously . . . I, I, I mean, what is this Scott person saying? That Bush lied us into war? B-B-B-but that just can't be!! I mean, he's LYING, right? Scott McLellan is lying, isn't he? Isn't he?
-
But seriously folks, this is very disturbing. I mean . . . uh, well, if you take any of this stuff seriously . . . I, I, I mean, what is this Scott person saying? That Bush lied us into war? B-B-B-but that just can't be!! I mean, he's LYING, right? Scott McLellan is lying, isn't he? Isn't he?
If he wasn't then, then he is now.
-
And if he was then, then he isn't now.
##########################
But maybe he was just duped? Like Bush. I mean, Bush wasn't lying. How could Bush lie? He BELIEVED what they told him. BELIEVED that Iraq was a deadly threat to the United States of America. Who wouldn't? Who wouldn't believe that tiny Iraq with its 23 million armed and dangerous fanatics was about to attack the U.S.A.? Or worse yet, that they'd give their hard-to-come-by nuclear weapons to un-named "terrorists," religious fanatics who hated them and everything about them, just so that said "terrorists" could nuke the USA and never ever tell anyone where they got the nukes from? Those are very likely scenarios. They make a LOT of sense. I could see where even a wise, peace-loving, gentle soul like George W. Bush could be taken in by such stories.
So my point is, If Bush could believe a whopper like that, that tiny Iraq was a "threat" to the U.S.A., surely poor old Scotty could have believed anything that Cheney or Rove or Libby told him, about who spoke to whom, and who said what when, right?
-
But back to Scott McClellan's tell-all book that serves as an eyewitness to what those of us with half a brain have been saying since 2002, clearly NOW, surely at long last, you guys will ADMIT in full that Bush and his guys are a bunch of propaganda-spreading liars.
Surely now, right?
Good luck.
McClellan has said that Bush did not go to war over any possible WMD, that it was always about reshaping the Middle East.
You think Sirs will ever admit to that? They can provide documents and tapes of W talking about the idiots believing his story, and 25% or so will still defend him until they die. It becomes more than whether it is true or not, it becomes a personal crusade.
-
They can provide documents and tapes of W talking about the idiots believing his story, and 25% or so will still defend him until they die. It becomes more than whether it is true or not, it becomes a personal crusade.
While I agree with you JS, I'll also say that knife cuts both ways. If Bush were to act saintly (or had acted saintly, as we're nearing the end of his term) there would still be 25% who would hate his guts. That's why elections are generally decided by the people in the middle.
-
McClellan has said that Bush did not go to war over any possible WMD, that it was always about reshaping the Middle East.
Been my rationale for supporting the war since day one.
No surprise there.
-
McClellan has said that Bush did not go to war over any possible WMD, that it was always about reshaping the Middle East.
Hmmmm....
Well ,since we had been standing on Saddams wrists for more than a decade that seems like a good idea.
What elese would do so well at cutting the root causes?
-
They can provide documents and tapes of W talking about the idiots believing his story, and 25% or so will still defend him until they die. It becomes more than whether it is true or not, it becomes a personal crusade.
While I agree with you JS, I'll also say that knife cuts both ways. If Bush were to act saintly (or had acted saintly, as we're nearing the end of his term) there would still be 25% who would hate his guts. That's why elections are generally decided by the people in the middle.
Fair point Fatman. Very fair.
-
But back to Scott McClellan's tell-all book that serves as an eyewitness to what those of us with half a brain have been saying since 2002, clearly NOW, surely at long last, you guys will ADMIT in full that Bush and his guys are a bunch of propaganda-spreading liars. Surely now, right?
Good luck. McClellan has said that Bush did not go to war over any possible WMD, that it was always about reshaping the Middle East. You think Sirs will ever admit to that? They can provide documents and tapes of W talking about the idiots believing his story, and 25% or so will still defend him until they die.
Lemme see, believe 1 disgruntled ex employee, or the vast majority of the Global Intelligence agencies, the NIE, the Prior administration, and a whole host of Intelligence agents intimate with the information. Ooooooo, this is a hard one. But I do look forward to such documents & tapes. Currently there are......0, right?
::)
-
Lemme see, believe 1 disgruntled ex employee, or the vast majority of the Global Intelligence agencies, the NIE, the Prior administration, and a whole host of Intelligence agents intimate with the information. Ooooooo, this is a hard one. But I do look forward to such documents & tapes. Currently there are......0, right?
::)
What about Richard Clark? That would make 2 disgruntled employees, wouldn't it?
Oh yeah, and then there's that Paul O'Neill guy. Still that's only 3 disgruntled employees.
But then that Scott Ritter guys says their liars too.
And Paul Bremer kind of tried to drop hints that Bush and the gang were liars when his book came out.
And wasn't Scooter like put in jail for obstruction of justice? That's like lying right?
Of course, there have been a lot of polls lately that show that the majority of the public believes that the "administration" lied about their reasons for the war. 'Course they're not really on the inside and have nothing to base that opinion on other than being brainwashed by the media right?
And didn't the guy who headed up the search for WMD in Iraq before the war say that Bush and the gang wanted to go to war no matter what?
There sure are a lot of sourgrapers out there just lying about the Bush "administration". Wonder why that is?
-
Lemme see, believe 1 disgruntled ex employee, or the vast majority of the Global Intelligence agencies, the NIE, the Prior administration, and a whole host of Intelligence agents intimate with the information. Ooooooo, this is a hard one. But I do look forward to such documents & tapes. Currently there are......0, right?
::)
What about Richard Clark? That would make 2 disgruntled employees, wouldn't it?
Oh yeah, and then there's that Paul O'Neill guy. Still that's only 3 disgruntled employees.
But then that Scott Ritter guys says their liars too.
And Paul Bremer kind of tried to drop hints that Bush and the gang were liars when his book came out.
And wasn't Scooter like put in jail for obstruction of justice? That's like lying right?
Of course, there have been a lot of polls lately that show that the majority of the public believes that the "administration" lied about their reasons for the war. 'Course they're not really on the inside and have nothing to base that opinion on other than being brainwashed by the media right?
And didn't the guy who headed up the search for WMD in Iraq before the war say that Bush and the gang wanted to go to war no matter what?
There sure are a lot of sourgrapers out there just lying about the Bush "administration". Wonder why that is?
And still no proofs ?
Sells books , that is a lot of temptation.
Only President Bush is held to such a standard , what President never did lie?
An ability to lie is practicly on the job description.
And with several people well motivated by the availibility of payment that they odviously want , there is still no proof .
Suppose Barak Obama is caught in ONE lie , .... disqualified?
-
It seemed like they were lying to me when they were lying about all the horrible weapons Saddam was supposed to have acquired under a very heavy set of restrictions. Saddam was not competent at much of anything except staying in power, so it sure didn't seem he was competent.
It is pretty damn clear that Juniorbush and Cheney were lying like rugs from the git-go. Now thousands are dead and have been driven out of their homes, their lives wrecked forever because these lies were believed. And then there are the thousands of US servicemen maimed and turned into vegetables for life because of these incompetent, stubborn, lying ratbastards.
But Plane thinks that this is all right because he suspects that Obama might, at sometime in the future, tell an untruth.
-
Well let see, Brass has about 4, sirs has about 400+, when you add on all the politicos and intelligence agents refuting the lied us into war garbage. Yea, that's a toughie, but I think I'm still going to have to go with the 400+ with the much greater intimate knowledge of the situation
-
FOUR HUNDRED people say that Juniorbush did not lie?
I doubt that this is anywhere close to accurate.
Observe that the truth is not true because of it being put to a vote.
Things are true because they are true. The truth is independent of polls and opinions.
For centuries, it was believed by a majority that disease was caused by demons.
You have apparently established another important rule for Sirsball.
-
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii16/LIZV2008/14afloridabkdresscropnicech.jpg)
-
When not even your flunkies are loyal, you have a problem.
-------------------------------------------------
If you consider McClellan to be a Judas, then that would make Juniorbush a JESUS? :D :D :D
Are you seriously arguing that Juniorbush is the Messiah? A Perfect Being? ::) ???
That would make Olebush, as Juniorbush's father the Supreme Being. Or at least, a respected carpenter.
Let us all pause for a moment as we consider the possibility that Barbara Bush is the Blessed Virgin... ::)
From your poster, we have been made aware that there are ample Swiftboaters waiting in the wings.
-
FOUR HUNDRED people say that Juniorbush did not lie?
I doubt that this is anywhere close to accurate.
Considering your level of "obvious", I seriously doubt your supposition. My "400" was an arbitrary #. Could be alot more. But I'm presuming to add up the members of the prior administration who were on record as to believing what the state of Saddam's WMD were, the NIE, the nations leaders who's intel agencies also told them what they believed the state of Saddam's WMD were, those intel agencies & their agents as well. Considering simply the # of congress critters we have, 400 is probably too low a #, but I was going to be conservative
Observe that the truth is not true because of it being put to a vote. Things are true because they are true. The truth is independent of polls and opinions.
Yet strangely it's the left and anti-war folks who keep referencing polls regarding those who are against the current war or think the president lied us into war, as if that's proof. While folks like myself will reference actual people who have had access to such intel and official conclusions made from it, such as the NIE, outside of the 3-4 Brass has referenced. Imagine that
-
Lookit.
Everyone KNOWS that Juniorbush was dead wrong about the WMD's. There was no threat of WMD's being launched against the USA.
The allegation that the war was essential to defend the USA was totally bogus.
It is bloody obvious to all but the lamest of mind and the dullest of wit than what happened was that the data was cherry-picked to favor invasion. Juniorbush was planning to invade Iraq from the moment of his unfortunate selection to the presidency, and used the 9-11 attacks and the outrage against them as a motivation to get the sheeple to agree to his warmongering.
If there was such an agreement in world opinion that invading Iraq was desirable, then why did not France, Spain, Canada, Mexico or any Arab state, agree to it?
-
Lookit. Everyone KNOWS that Juniorbush was dead wrong about the WMD's.
Let's correct statement #1: Everyone knows NOW, that the Global intelligence agencies, the current administration, the prior administration, the NIE, the UN, and a multitude of Foreign leaders were "dead wrong about the WMD's."
There was no threat of WMD's being launched against the USA.
Let's correct statement #2: There was NEVER a threat of Iraq attacking the U.S. with WMD, and was NEVER the reason we went into Iraq
The allegation that the war was essential to defend the USA was totally bogus.
That's just plain wrong, as it was an essential step, given what everyone THOUGHT they knew at the time, and following the events of 911
If there was such an agreement in world opinion that invading Iraq was desirable, then why did not France, Spain, Canada, Mexico or any Arab state, agree to it?
They had no 911 happen to them
-
As Brass very sagely pointed out, this exposure of the Bush regime's criminal pattern of lies and deceptions goes much deeper than Scott McLellan. Richard Clark, Paul O'Neill, Scott Ritter, Scooter Libby, Paul Bremner, the list seems to be running kind of long for such a truthful, honest administration. One by one, the whistle-blowers pop up into the spotlight, enjoy their 15 minutes, and then fade away.
Lying politicians and their supporters know that they can count on this collective public amnesia, aided by a cooperative MSM. Not once in the media coverage I've seen of Scott McLellan was any mention made of any of his predecessor whistle-blowers (or of Scooter for that matter) and the focus was exclusively on Scott McLellan, as if he were the only one ever to have come forward: Was Scott lying or telling the truth? Why would he lie? Why would he wait until now?
I believe that the list of whistle-blowers, plus the example of the Scooter, is more than enough evidence of a lying and corrupt administration whose lies were deliberate and calculated to embroil the nation in a disastrous war, the cost of which has been estimated at OVER three trillion dollars plus a few thousand dead morons. Mostly American morons, I hasten to add. I'd mention also the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, but they apparently don't seem to count for much in these calculations. It's not as if they were actually human beings, I guess, in the eyes of those who favour this war.
As each insider steps forward to reiterate what most of us already know - - that Bush and his crew lied the country into an unnecessary disaster, the cost of which is becoming more apparent with every passing day - - the last-ditch defenders of the criminal administration predictably begin shrilling the usual "disgruntled ex-employee" and "book sales" lines that are about the only "defences" left to them. My question to them is: Why THIS administration? Did no previous administration leave ex-employees in its wake, some gruntled and some disgruntled? Why does this administration have SO MANY lying, back-stabbing, book-flogging disgruntled ex-employees? Did it hold some particular attraction for the treacherous and the greedy? Was there no market for tell-all political books prior to the 21st Century?
The questions of course are rhetorical, underlining the absurdity of these truly desperate and pathetic attempts to defend the indefensible.
-
"Everyone KNOWS that Juniorbush was dead wrong about the WMD's.
There was no threat of WMD's being launched against the USA"
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them[/b]."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country[/b]."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force "if necessary" to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
-
"Everyone KNOWS that Juniorbush was dead wrong about the WMD's.
There was no threat of WMD's being launched against the USA"
===============================================================
Against this quote - - largely true, of course allowing for the literal universality of the rhetorical "everyone" - - CU4 marshalls an apparently diverse collection of quotes from people NOT in the Bush administration who seem to go along with the farce.
Closer inspection reveals that all of these folks are Clinton administration officials. DEMACRATS if you will.
Wittingly or not, IMHO, CU4 has just delivered a powerful indictment of the so-called "two-party" system in the U.S.A. The pathetic fact is that there is no "two-party" system where foreign policy is concerned. There is a War Party/Military-Industrial Complex Party/Republocrat Part or whatever you want to call it, which has been bought off and remains the property of the special interests (armaments, Big Oil, Finance, Zionism) which pay for it. At the fringes of this single party stand a few hapless outriders with virtually no chance of ever exerting any influence whatsoever on national affairs - - Dr. Ron Paul in the Republican wing of the party and Dennis Kucinich in its Democratic wing. (There are others of course - - Ted Kennedy, Chuck Hagel come to mind - - but effectively the two parties follow the same path.) Truly oppositional points of view (Nader, Chomsky) are well outside either of the so-called mainstream political parties.
None of this is meant to excuse the Bush administration for its deliberate lies and deceptions. Whatever bullshit the Democrats may have had to spout to appease the Zionist and other lobbies, they did not take the country to war on their lies. They committed other crimes and atrocities (Serbia for example) but none of them turned out to be the financial, political and humanitarian disaster that this one Iraqi war has become.
-
I have been looking and looking , where does Scott McLellan actually say that George Bush was lieing?
" Everyone KNOWS that Juniorbush was dead wrong about the WMD's. "
Maybe, but that is diffrrent than lieing.
-
<<I have been looking and looking , where does Scott McLellan actually say that George Bush was lieing?>>
I didn't see the book, but from the media coverage, I gather that he says Bush used "propaganda" to "manipulate" the people into the war. I take it that "propaganda" is something less than truth and "manipulation" is something less than honest argument.
It's good enough for me. If a leader tells his country they needed to go to war and people died because they went along with him, I'd expect the truth and and honest argument from him on that and anything less would be a lie.
No matter, I'm sure the die-hards will still defend what Bush did. Good luck to them.
-
And still no proofs ?
Sells books , that is a lot of temptation.
Only President Bush is held to such a standard , what President never did lie?
An ability to lie is practicly on the job description.
And with several people well motivated by the availibility of payment that they odviously want , there is still no proof .
Suppose Barak Obama is caught in ONE lie , .... disqualified?
Last I heard the best evidence in a court of law is an EYEWITNESS.
The problem with Bush's lies (as I suppose with some others like LBJ and Nixon) thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of non-Americans have died or been maimed because of their lies.
If Obama (or Dean or Kucinich or anyone else you think I idolize) is caught in a lie, then they will be judged accordingly. My judgement of them will be equally harsh should anyone I "like" be caught lying that results in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
-
You'll note none of those people actually sent troops in to illegally invade Iraq.
In fact, Clinton refused to invade Iraq.
Better yet, when he was catching hell from his friends for not taking the opportunity to follow Saddam's troops into Iraq and take him out, Bush 41 (and his advisors) wisely refused to do so. I just watched the American Experience documentary on Bush 41 and James Baker flatly stated that friends and associates were constantly badgering him about why they didn't go on in and his punchline to that was: "Well, no one asks me that question anymore."
-
You'll note none of those people actually sent troops in to illegally invade Iraq.
In fact, Clinton refused to invade Iraq.
Which is even worse!
To admit such a threat is there and do nothing is worse.
At least Bush seeing the threat that all of them admitted was there responded.
-
Last I heard the best evidence in a court of law is an EYEWITNESS.
Tell that to all the people convicted based on eyewitness testimony, only to be released later based on forensic evidence (usually DNA).
Any decent prosecutor will tell you that eyewitness testimony is usually pretty bad.
-
Last I heard the best evidence in a court of law is an EYEWITNESS.
Tell that to all the people convicted based on eyewitness testimony, only to be released later based on forensic evidence (usually DNA).
D'OH
-
<<To admit such a threat is there and not do anything is worse.
<<At least Bush seeing the threat that all of them admitted was there responded.>>
To see (or to pretend to see) the threat is one thing. I don't believe that any of the folks you referred to as "seeing the threat" advocated taking no action, nor did they ever claim that there was no alternative to invasion. Bush pretended to see a threat. I say "pretended" because it is absurd for a nation as powerful as the U.S.A. to be threatened by Iraq. So did all the other Republocrats, pandering as usual to their Zionist and other patrons, some also very closely connected to the oil and construction businesses about to profit so handsomely from the invasion.
But it was Bush, not all the others, who led the nation when the decision to invade was made. It was Bush and his criminal administration who had the responsibility at that critical moment, when hundreds of thousands of lives, American and Iraqi, hung in the balance, to act in the real interests of the American people, not for the Zionist lobby, not for the oil industry and not for KBR. And Bush, asking for public support of his war, "persuaded" the American people with (according to Scott McClellan) "propaganda" and "manipulation" and "shading the truth."
You keep saying that Bush was "responding to a threat." The other POV, of course, is that there was no threat, he knew there was no threat, and he LIED about the existence of a threat in order to justify an illegal and immoral act of unprovoked aggression that has now taken hundreds of thousands of human lives and cost the American people more than three trillion dollars.
Americans have a choice - - to vote for a continuation of the Bush administration in the person of John McCain, or to hope (and I don't put it any higher than a "hope") that Barak Obama will deliver a change in the direction of the country AWAY from the Bush-McCain path. I just see it as a personal choice - - if you're satisfied with what Bush has done, if you want to stay on that path, then fine: vote McCain. This is obviously plane's way, and sirs' way and probably yours as well. Hell, plane doesn't care even if Bush DID lie - - "Don't all Presidents lie?" he asks rhetorically, and goes on to state that it's part of the job description. Well, go vote for Bush's guy, then, the "maverick" John McCain. He's off to a good start in the lying, cheating and swindling field, he's a Charter Member of the Keating Five. More recently he pulled the same shit with Paxson, another dicey contributor he did favours for. Is Obama just an empty suit with a great slogan and some really slick PR? I'm starting to think that's the case, but in him, you have a chance to vote for someone who MIGHT be different. Or might not. Not the greatest of choices, but I know which one makes more sense.
-
"But it was Bush, not all the others, who led the nation when the decision to invade was made. It was Bush and his criminal administration who had the responsibility at that critical moment, when hundreds of thousands of lives, American and Iraqi, hung in the balance..."
What would have been better if Bush had chosen otherwise?
It is clear that leftists wopuld have liked him no better , but that isn't my point .
What would have been better about leaveing all of those people for Saddam to kill instead of us?
-
Tell that to all the people convicted based on eyewitness testimony, only to be released later based on forensic evidence (usually DNA).
Any decent prosecutor will tell you that eyewitness testimony is usually pretty bad.
My van is white.
-
Tell that to all the people convicted based on eyewitness testimony, only to be released later based on forensic evidence (usually DNA).
Any decent prosecutor will tell you that eyewitness testimony is usually pretty bad.
My van is white.
If someone asks me later what sort of vehicle you have I can tell them that your van is white.
This is known as heresay , which a lot of Scott McLellen's book seems to be.
Isn't one of his storys that he saw two guys talking ?
He seems to have formed a lot of this opinion after he started writeing this book , perhaps after he had an advance.
Not much evidence of this sort of thinking before money is involved .
So basicly you are right to say "Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out"
-
<<What would have been better if Bush had chosen otherwise?>>
Well, Iraq would have been spared the hundreds of thousands of deaths and maimings that resulted from the invasion and its anarchic aftermath. Would have been spared the tens of thousands of corpses still turning up daily with "marks of torture" on them. Spared the arrests in the middle of the night of dozens of thousands of Resistance members and suspected Resistance members, spared the tortures of Abu Ghraib and wherever these poor buggers are now being transported to be abused, raped, tortured and murdered in the dark. Spared the rapes, the murders, the insults of racist redneck Marines. America would definitely have a better image in the rest of the world, saved three trillion bucks . . . a whole lotta things would have been a whole lot better, plane.
<<It is clear that leftists wopuld have liked him no better , but that isn't my point .>>
Well, I'm a leftist, and I can tell you in all honesty, I never liked the guy but I never hated him as much as I do now, and that hatred is purely due to his war crimes and atrocities. If there was some kind of loathing scale, rating "the left's" loathing for Bush, I think it's entirely fair to say that the indicator was within reasonable bounds before the invasion and at this point it's way over the top.
<<What would have been better about leaveing all of those people for Saddam to kill instead of us?>>
Probably would have killed and tortured less than got killed and tortured due to the invasion and you'd still have the three trill and there wouldn't be millions of forced exiles and millions of internally displaced and homeless. Most of the Iraqis I know look back nostalgically at their life in Iraq before the First Gulf War. And every one of them is a refugee from Saddam Hussein.
-
<<What would have been better if Bush had chosen otherwise?>>
Well, Iraq would have been spared the hundreds of thousands of deaths and maimings that resulted from the invasion and its anarchic aftermath.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Purely speculative , I speculate exactly the other way with good reason.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][]
<<It is clear that leftists wopuld have liked him no better , but that isn't my point .>>
Well, I'm a leftist, and I can tell you in all honesty, I never liked the guy but I never hated him as much as I do now, and that hatred is purely due to his war crimes and atrocities. If there was some kind of loathing scale, rating "the left's" loathing for Bush, I think it's entirely fair to say that the indicator was within reasonable bounds before the invasion and at this point it's way over the top.
[][][][][][][][][][][][]
I never noticed a reasonable bound , what was that like?
[][][][][][][][][][]
<<What would have been better about leaveing all of those people for Saddam to kill instead of us?>>
Probably would have killed and tortured less than got killed and tortured due to the invasion ......"
Quite the contrary , Saddam was very prone to make war , he seldom left his Own population alone and he often attacked his neighbors the casualtys of our whole invasion period do not equal yet the number killed in any one year of his eight year fight with Iran. I think your speculations are very poorly founded.
"...and you'd still have the three trill and there wouldn't be millions of forced exiles and millions of internally displaced and homeless. Most of the Iraqis I know look back nostalgically at their life in Iraq before the First Gulf War. And every one of them is a refugee from Saddam Hussein.
[/quote]
You haven't met any one who had to leave Iraq because Americans were chaseing them out?
If we are so much worse than Saddam , then why did Saddam produce many refugees and we produce few?
-
<<If we are so much worse than Saddam , then why did Saddam produce many refugees and we produce few?>>
I can't speak for the American refugee process, but in Canada, a refugee has to bring himself or herself within the definition of the UN Convention on Refugees, which basically requires them to prove a "well-founded fear of persecution" due to religious, racial or political identity, gender persecution, etc. Under Saddam Hussein, many people, Christians especially, were easily able to prove their entitlement to refugee status.
Today, Saddam is gone, and "officially" the country is a "democracy" and doesn't persecute anyone. There are obviously people being killed daily for their religion, but the problem with their seeking refugee status is that they have the "internal flight alternative" option inside Iraq. In Canadian law, if you can avoid persecution in your own country by "internal flight" - - i.e., by moving to a safe area within the country - - you won't qualify as a refugee. So a Sunni in a mixed area who can achieve relative safety by moving to an all-Sunni area has an "IFA" which disentitles him to refugee status. This is why most of our Iraqi refugees in Canada came in as refugees from Saddam's time, not afterwards.
You actually have produced millions of Iraqi refugees, but they are living in other middle eastern countries, Syria for example, Jordan too. Hundreds of thousands (illegally) in Greece and Turkey. They're all over the place but we don't see them much in North America. This invasion is a fucking catastrophe for millions and it's just amazing how little Americans know of the extent of it.
-
If someone asks me later what sort of vehicle you have I can tell them that your van is white.
I was really only curious whether or not Ami would try to tell me it was not white. He seems to only ever want to disagree.
-
"You keep saying that Bush was "responding to a threat."
The other POV, of course, is that there was no threat"
Quit playing silly ass games.
I am saying Bush was "responding to a threat" in regard to the quotes i posted.
Those quotes clearly show many of the Democratic Party leaders also believed there was a threat.
-
<<Quit playing silly ass games.>>
Can't quit cuz I never started.
<<I am saying Bush was "responding to a threat" in regard to the quotes i posted.
<<Those quotes clearly show many of the Democratic Party leaders also believed there was a threat.>>
They show no such thing. One day you should learn the difference between "saying" and "believing." Especially with regard to American politicians.
There is a group of special interests that wanted war with Iraq. They spend hundreds of millions on politicians to get them on board. When politicians like Cynthia McKinnon stand up to them, they spend what it takes to get her opponent elected and her turfed out. Most politicians know the lesson of Cynthia McKinnon and most will say what their paymasters tell them to say. Few have the courage or the resources to stand up to them.
You heard from the people they bought. All of them, Albright, Clinton, etc.You like to quote from the whores, but not from the people who can't be bought, not from the Ron Pauls, the Ralph Naders, the Noam Chomskys, the Cynthia McKinnons.
-
They show no such thing.
Yes the quotes do show many of the democratic party leaders stating
rather clearly the threat from Iraq.
One day you should learn the difference between "saying" and "believing."
Oh it's time for the big conspiracy again to connect the looney dots?
You heard from the people they bought. All of them, Albright, Clinton, etc.
So Democratic President Clinton, Democratic Senator Kennedy, Democratic Speaker Pelosi,
Democratic Vice President Al Gore, Democratic Congressman Waxman, they are all in on
the big conspiracy too? ::)
You like to quote from the whores, but not from the people who can't be bought
Gosh how crazy of me to quote people like the twice elected Democratic President Of the United States, the Democratic Secretary of State of the United States, the Democratic United States Presidential Nominee, the Democratic Speaker of the US House of Representatives, and the 2nd longest serving Democratic Senator in the United States. Yes the big conspiracy involves them all and may be directed from Venus or Mars. ::)
-
<<Quite the contrary , Saddam was very prone to make war>>
VERY prone? This is a joke. He attacked Iran with U.S. encouragement and assistance. He invaded Kuwait with a green-light from the American ambassador. And pulled out of Kuwait when threatened with American force. At the point in time where the U.S. attacked him, he was extremely unlikely to have received further U.S. incentives to attack any of his neighbours, and so, was extremely UNLIKELY to have made war again. So the spectre of all the people who would have died in new Saddam wars had he been left to his own devices is not only pure speculation, but poorly grounded speculation at that.
<<he seldom left his Own population alone >>
You are kidding me, right? What dictator ever does? There's no evidence he was any more vicious and murderous towards his own population than any other Middle Eastern dictator in repressing revolts and perceived plots. What you can say about Saddam in that respect you can say of every other Middle Eastern dictator. The difference that I can see being that the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party under Saddam delivered first-class education and health care to its people, equality for women, education for women and forcible repression of all religious extremism.
<<he often attacked his neighbors the casualtys of our whole invasion period do not equal yet the number killed in any one year of his eight year fight with Iran. >>
Yeah, for which you can probably thank the U.S. for in the first place. Funny how that attack on Iran took place shortly AFTER the Iranian Revolution had gotten rid of its initial secular middle-class front-men and taken a major anti-U.S. turn, isn't it? BTW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War minimum casualty estimates (both sides total) 750,000 and maximum (both sides total) 1,500,000 and Lancet estimate of casualties to date in Iraq I believe was 600,000. In addition to the casualties you also have to factor in the level of homelessness and internal and external refugees produced by the invasion and the sectarian killings that followed in its wake. The homeless and the refugees number well into the millions.
Apart from all of that, the likelihood of Saddam launching any new wars at the time of the American invasion, with no prospect of American support or encouragement, is less than zero, so the whole discussion of potential war dead is really pointless since there was no realistic prospect of future Iraqi attacks on their neighbours.
<<I think your speculations are very poorly founded.>>
Yeah, well thanks for your opinion. I've got my own opinion of YOUR speculations, as you might have gathered.
-
<<So Democratic President Clinton, Democratic Senator Kennedy, Democratic Speaker Pelosi,
Democratic Vice President Al Gore, Democratic Congressman Waxman, they are all in on
the big conspiracy too? Roll Eyes>>
LOL
You are the one who raises the "big conspiracy" theory.
All I said was that they all answer to their corporate and special-interest donors. They carry their water. I guess you find it really surprising that politicians can be bought, eh?
I bet you were really, really SHOCKED when the "anti-war" Nancy Pelosi, once in a position to do so, utterly failed to cut the purse-strings to the Iraqi War which she so vehemently opposed during the elections. OMG, she's anti-war but she's NOT anti-war! How can that happen? ::)
Welcome to the real world.
-
I was really only curious whether or not Ami would try to tell me it was not white. He seems to only ever want to disagree.
I only disagree when I know you're wrong.
I think you've mentioned your van being white previously, but I have no solid information one way or the other.
-
Today, Saddam is gone, and "officially" the country is a "democracy" and doesn't persecute anyone.
They're still locking up homosexuals in Iraq. The recent amnesty proposal would allow for the release of suspected terrorists and murderers, but would not allow the release of homosexuals.
That's not persecution?
-
<<Quite the contrary , Saddam was very prone to make war>>
VERY prone? This is a joke. He attacked Iran with U.S. encouragement and assistance. He invaded Kuwait with a green-light from the American ambassador. And pulled out of Kuwait when threatened with American force. At the point in time where the U.S. attacked him, he was extremely unlikely to have received further U.S. incentives to attack any of his neighbours, and so, was extremely UNLIKELY to have made war again. So the spectre of all the people who would have died in new Saddam wars had he been left to his own devices is not only pure speculation, but poorly grounded speculation at that.
All right , Saddam bears no responsibility for the millions he killed , because he slavishly followed American orders?
With no American orders he would have done no wrong?
I don't see it.
The Iranians were prepareing a war before Saddam attacked them, the US could not have prevented that war. However we could supply both sides with weapons to ensure that the fight would drain the strength from both countrys , neither of which was a freind.
Is that unscrupulous or canny?
-
<<They're still locking up homosexuals in Iraq. The recent amnesty proposal would allow for the release of suspected terrorists and murderers, but would not allow the release of homosexuals.
<<That's not persecution?>>
I said "officially" there's no persecution and I put "officially" in quotes for a reason. Sure there is persecution in Iraq, persecution for religious and political reasons across the board. I wasn't actually aware of persecution of GLBT in Iraq, though, official or unofficial. You sure you are not thinking of Iran, fatman? Iran has some of the most barbaric laws in the world regarding the GLBT community - - about a year ago, they publicly hanged two teenage boys from a crane for homosexuality.
In Canadian law it does make a difference if the persecution is official or not. If the discriminatory law is on the books, the victim is (unless there's some other problem) home free as a refugee claimant. But if the persecution is unofficial, he or she has to prove that redress was sought by complaining to the proper authorities about the illegal persecution and that the authorities turned their backs on the guy and refused to help. Or else that people who had made similar complaints tended to wind up dead at the hands of unknown assailants.
-
<<All right , Saddam bears no responsibility for the millions he killed , because he slavishly followed American orders?
<<With no American orders he would have done no wrong?
<<I don't see it.>>
???????
Are you having a good time arguing with yourself? Because you're certainly not addressing any point that I ever argued.
<<The Iranians were prepareing a war before Saddam attacked them, the US could not have prevented that war.>>
Where'd you get THAT from?
<<However we could supply both sides with weapons to ensure that the fight would drain the strength from both countrys , neither of which was a freind.>>
Uh, actually, you provided Iraq with technical assistance and advice and in the closing days of the war shot down an Iranian civilian airliner on takeoff killing all 200+ passengers on board, pretending that it was all a big mistake.
<<Is that unscrupulous or canny?>>
Neither, it's simply false. You helped the Iraqis but not the Iranians.
-
Neither, it's simply false. You helped the Iraqis but not the Iranians.
Perhaps that is because we had an embassy in Iraq but no longer had an embassy in Iran.
-
<<All right , Saddam bears no responsibility for the millions he killed , because he slavishly followed American orders?
<<With no American orders he would have done no wrong?
<<I don't see it.>>
???????
Are you having a good time arguing with yourself? Because you're certainly not addressing any point that I ever argued.
<<The Iranians were prepareing a war before Saddam attacked them, the US could not have prevented that war.>>
Where'd you get THAT from?
<<However we could supply both sides with weapons to ensure that the fight would drain the strength from both countrys , neither of which was a freind.>>
Uh, actually, you provided Iraq with technical assistance and advice and in the closing days of the war shot down an Iranian civilian airliner on takeoff killing all 200+ passengers on board, pretending that it was all a big mistake.
<<Is that unscrupulous or canny?>>
Neither, it's simply false. You helped the Iraqis but not the Iranians.
You haven't heard of Oliver North?
-
<<They're still locking up homosexuals in Iraq. The recent amnesty proposal would allow for the release of suspected terrorists and murderers, but would not allow the release of homosexuals.
<<That's not persecution?>>
I said "officially" there's no persecution and I put "officially" in quotes for a reason. Sure there is persecution in Iraq, persecution for religious and political reasons across the board. I wasn't actually aware of persecution of GLBT in Iraq, though, official or unofficial. You sure you are not thinking of Iran, fatman? Iran has some of the most barbaric laws in the world regarding the GLBT community - - about a year ago, they publicly hanged two teenage boys from a crane for homosexuality.
In Canadian law it does make a difference if the persecution is official or not. If the discriminatory law is on the books, the victim is (unless there's some other problem) home free as a refugee claimant. But if the persecution is unofficial, he or she has to prove that redress was sought by complaining to the proper authorities about the illegal persecution and that the authorities turned their backs on the guy and refused to help. Or else that people who had made similar complaints tended to wind up dead at the hands of unknown assailants.
I apologize MT, I didn't realize that you were speaking of official policy, I had thought it was more of a blanket statement. Anyways, I also had a couple things wrong in my post, evidently they still aren't allowing murderers out. And yes, this is in Iraq and I am aware of the despicable policies in Iran. Google "Iraq gay" and you'll see quite a bit about militia squads targeting homosexuals also. It kind of leads me to wonder which direction we should take in this war, on one hand I'd like to pull out if the government is locking up gays, on the other, I'd rather stay in so that the militias don't kill off every homosexual in Iraq. Here's the full text of the amnesty bill that passed in Iraq, preceded by a (what I think) pretty good blog report:
Full text of Iraq's recently passed amnesty law
Iraq's new amnesty law was passed on February 13 by Iraq's parliament as part of a package of three bills (the other two were a provincial elections law and the 2008 budget). Iraq's Presidency Council ratified the amnesty law last week, so it is now set to become the official law of the land. This law was one of the U.S. benchmarks, and its ratification is important.
When this legislative package was originally passed, Ambassador Crocker and Gen. Petraeus described the provincial powers law as a ?landmark law? in which ?Iraqi legislators have reached an historic compromise.? Of course, Crocker, Petraeus, and the rest of the Bush crew ended up with egg on their faces when the provincial election law was vetoed by Iraq's Presidency Council on February 27.
Iraq's amnesty law was meant to provide "limited" amnesty, and differs markedly from the Chieu Hoi "surrender" program during Vietnam, which was basically an American-administered effort to alter the perception of Viet Cong guerrillas from freedom fighters to common criminals, and then to release them back into the Vietnamese population hoping they would help evaporate the ocean of popular support in which guerrillas swim, to use Mao's famous metaphor. Although the United States undoubtedly pressured Iraq to pass the amnesty law, it does not have the ostensible stamp of American propaganda efforts that Chieu Hoi had.
Although, as Cora Sol Goldstein wrote and I blogged about, U.S. public diplomacy and "information control" failures have been criminal since March 2003, and maybe a little more propaganda in Iraq and a little less propaganda here in the states would be a good thing.
Couldn't help but be troubled by Article 2 (H): people guilty of "crimes" of homosexuality are not eligible for amnesty? I am sympathetic to cultural relativist arguments, although I don't buy into the majority of them, but homosexuals are persecuted badly in Iraq. In 2006, Iraqi police killed a 14 year old boy for being homosexual, and Grand Ayatollah Sistani issued a fatwa on his website calling for the execution of gays in the "worst, most severe way."
I know that Iraq's legal system and governance, if it is to have any chance of succeeding, must be authentically and indigenously Iraqi; otherwise, the Iraqi government will be perceived as nothing more than a puppet for the United States. But this bit about homosexuality in the amnesty law is troubling, and perhaps Ambassador Crocker should have tried to run a bit of interference.
Text of the amnesty law follows.
Law number (19) for the year 2008
The Amnesty Law
Article 1
A general amnesty applies on convicted Iraqis and on (convicted) people who were residing in Iraq, for the time remaining in sentences. They are released in compliance with a provision stated by the committee that has been formed in accordance with Article 5 of this law.
Article 2
The following (individuals) are excepted from of the provision of Article 1 of this law:
First: Those sentenced to death in accordance with the Iraqi penal law number 111 of the year 1969.
Second: People who are convicted of the following crimes:
A. The crimes provided for in Paragraph 2 of the Article 1 of the Iraqi High Criminal Court law, number 10 of the year 2005.
B. Terrorist crimes, if they caused a death or permanent disability.
C. Crimes of voluntary killing.
D. Crimes of involuntary manslaughter in which those related (to the crime) people refuse to abandon their personal rights.
E. Crimes of abducting people.
F. Crimes of theft associated with aggravating circumstances.
G. Crimes of embezzlement of state funds or despoiling of them.
H. Crimes of rape or of homosexuality.
I. Crimes of incest.
J. Crimes of counterfeiting Iraqi or foreign currency or of forging official documents.
K. Crimes (related to) drugs.
L. Crimes of trafficking in artifacts.
M. Crimes which are laid out by the Military Penal Law, number 19 of the year 2007.
Article 3
A. Conclusive cessation of the legal procedures taken against the accused people in all crimes, with the exception to the crimes that are mentioned in Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of this law, whether their cases are in investigation stage or trial stage, (as well as) the release of detainees by the decree of the committee to be formed in according with Article 5 of this law.
B. The committee which is to be formed in accordance with Article 5 of this law must release any detainees who have been held for more than six months and who have not been brought before the investigating magistrate, or (the detainees for whom) more than a year has passed since their arrest and (their case) has not been referred to the relevant court.
Article 4
If any individual who received amnesty in accordance with the provision of this commits a premeditated crime from the crimes mentioned in Article 2 of this law within five years from the date of amnesty, the penalties for the crime for which he received amnesty will be implemented, and punitive procedures will be taken against him even if the individual received amnesty while he is in a trial or in the investigating stage.
Article 5
First: The formation of a committee or more by an order from the president of the Supreme Judicial Council in each area of appeal, presided over by judge of the first class, and with the membership of three judges to be in charge of executing the provisions of this law. One of the members of the public prosecution, to be called the Chief Public Prosecutor, represents (the prosecution) before the committee.
Second: The individuals covered by the provisions of Articles 1 and 3 of this law, or their relatives, have the right to submit an application to the committee formed in accordance with Article 5 of this law to take into consideration the possibility of having the amnesty law covering their cases, and the committee is obligated to consider these requests.
Third: The committee formed in accordance with Paragraph A of this article is responsible for vetting the files of the individuals who have been covered under this law, and for issuing its decisions in accordance (with the provisions of this law), and its decisions are subject to challenge before the appeals court of the area, according to its discretion.
Article 6
The Iraqi government is committed to take the necessary measures to move the arrested people from the prisons of the Multinational Forces to the Iraqi prisons to implement the provisions of this law to their cases.
Article 7
The provisions of this law applied on crimes that occurred before its implementation.
Article 8
The Supreme Judicial Council to issue instructions to facilitate the executing of the provisions of this law.
Article 9
This law is to be published in the official newspaper and to be effective starting with the date of its issue.
Motives and reasons
For the purpose of allowing the opportunity, to those Iraqis or those residing in Iraq, who strayed to commit certain crimes, to return to the right, and to join the social life, and (for the purpose of) spreading the spirit of forgiveness and to reform those who strayed from the straight path by granting them amnesty, to allow all the Iraqi people to build their homeland, and to set free those convicted or detained because of their committing of crimes covered by the amnesty, this law is passed.
Iraqi insider (http://theiraqinsider.blogspot.com/2008/03/full-text-of-iraqs-recently-passed.html)
-
<<You haven't heard of Oliver North?>>
Ooops, ya got me there, plane. North DID help the Iranians with weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. Forgot all about him.
My first inclination was that it's highly immoral to arm two sides to a conflict but when ya think about it, why not? Suppose it were a German civil war between the SS and the SA? I'd LOVE to give 'em both all the weapons they want and then sit back and watch the slaughter. Or Nazis vs Ukrainian Nationalists.
You know what? It IS immoral. Because while the bad guys are killing each other, a lot of innocent civilians get killed. It's fun to engage in fantasy battles where all the bad guys kill each other, but no way can you avoid in real life the central reality that war is hell. We gotta get to a mental place where war truly IS the "last resort." (But having said that, I still support both the Iraqi and the Palestinian armed resistance - - I think, for a people living under military occupation, there is no other resort.)
-
<<You haven't heard of Oliver North?>>
Ooops, ya got me there, plane. North DID help the Iranians with weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. Forgot all about him.
My first inclination was that it's highly immoral to arm two sides to a conflict but when ya think about it, why not? Suppose it were a German civil war between the SS and the SA? I'd LOVE to give 'em both all the weapons they want and then sit back and watch the slaughter. Or Nazis vs Ukrainian Nationalists.
You know what? It IS immoral. Because while the bad guys are killing each other, a lot of innocent civilians get killed. It's fun to engage in fantasy battles where all the bad guys kill each other, but no way can you avoid in real life the central reality that war is hell. We gotta get to a mental place where war truly IS the "last resort." (But having said that, I still support both the Iraqi and the Palestinian armed resistance - - I think, for a people living under military occupation, there is no other resort.)
There is indeed another resort , not fighting at all.
Do you think that Japan would have been better off with a stronger resistance to occupation?
-
<<Do you think that Japan would have been better off with a stronger resistance to occupation?>>
no, they had nothing to resist. General MacArthur was a great overlord and social reconstructor and they all recognized that. They lucked out. They would have been nuts to resist. Maybe they should have resisted his leaving.
-
<<Do you think that Japan would have been better off with a stronger resistance to occupation?>>
no, they had nothing to resist. General MacArthur was a great overlord and social reconstructor and they all recognized that. They lucked out. They would have been nuts to resist. Maybe they should have resisted his leaving.
Is that a bad example to cite?
Or is our exploitation of Japan diffrent from our exploitation of other countrys in some way I am missing?
-
<<Or is our exploitation of Japan diffrent from our exploitation of other countrys in some way I am missing?>>
In the first place, General MacArthur was a near-genius. Unlike a certain Presidential candidate I can think of, Douglas MacArthur not only stood first in his class at West Point, but reportedly, only one other cadet had attained higher academic standing, a fella called Robert E. Lee. You are unfortunately all out of General MacArthurs and have been for a long time.
Japan was totally defeated, fed up with its former ways, very admiring of America and looking to be shown a new way. There was no resistance. America's prowess in war had been decisively demonstrated and Japan had been decisively defeated. No one fucks with the A-bomb. And because of their former conduct, I think the Japs knew that nobody was going to think twice about dropping another one.
In every way, Iraq is the opposite - - the American administrators are morons, the troops are raping, murdering thugs (yes, despite all the "GI-with-local-kids propaganda pictures" which fool nobody) the Iraqis, far from being decisively defeated, have fought the Americans off for five years, longer than their WWII involvement, at a cost of three trillion dollars, which everyone knows, CANNOT be sustained and so they know if they just hang on . . . NOBODY has discredited the former regime (people now know that even the "joyous crowd" celebrating the fall of Saddam's statue was trick framing) and in fact polls show that more Iraqis think life was BETTER under Saddam and certainly no one is looking to the Americans to show them a better way, and finally anyone who isn't a moron knows that the Americans came to steal their oil.
So in short, if you think that Iraq in 2008 = Japan in 1945: it doesn't.
-
at a cost of three trillion dollars, which everyone knows, CANNOT be sustained and so they know if they just hang on . . .
Yes I also think that without this factor they would have quit a cupple of years ago. They expected us to fold quickly.
But a trillion more or less is not what it used to be. In practical terms we could sustain this level of loss forever , if it looked like we were determined to stay till the job was done , it would probably be done already.
Japan benifited then ,from being beaten more thouroughly ?
We better remember this next time.
-
<<But a trillion more or less is not what it used to be. >>
Stop complaining, plane. If you just tighten your belt a little, it should be more than enough for you.
<<In practical terms we could sustain this level of loss forever. . . >>
In practical terms, you're already circling the drain. Your dollar is in trouble and your balance of trade sucks.
<<if it looked like we were determined to stay till the job was done , it would probably be done already.>>
Well, in the REAL world, it DOESN'T look like you are determined to stay till the job is done. In the real world, it looks like your citizenry is getting pretty God-damned fed up with a war that has cost three trillion (against initial estimates of $50 billion,) created bottomless hatred for the U.S.A. across the planet, lasted for longer than your WWII involvement (against a country of only 23 million people!!) and shows no foreseeable end in sight. In the REAL world, anyone who can read a newspaper or follow an election campaign understands perfectly well that your clock is running out.
<<Japan benifited then ,from being beaten more thouroughly ?>>
Japan benefited because its people were forward-looking, anxious to become a part of modern Western civilization (while keeping important elements of traditional culture) and in being occupied AFTER they were thoroughly beaten from the air.
<<We better remember this next time.>>
Remember it all you like, you still won't be able to replicate the conditions I just set out. What you'd do better to remember is the ass-kickings you received in Korea, Viet Nam and now Iraq. It'll save you a world of pain. Not to mention national bankruptcy. You still haven't even paid off your Viet Nam debts.
-
"You still haven't even paid off your Viet Nam debts."
Who do we owe them to?
-
"You still haven't even paid off your Viet Nam debts."
Who do we owe them to?
==================================================
T-bill holders, I would guess. Bond-holders. Plus holders of whatever other financial instruments the U.S. raises loans with.
-
"You still haven't even paid off your Viet Nam debts."
Who do we owe them to?
==================================================
T-bill holders, I would guess. Bond-holders. Plus holders of whatever other financial instruments the U.S. raises loans with.
The longest debt instrument the US Government issues is 30 year bonds. According to my calculations, the Vietnam War ended more than 30 years ago.
-
In practical terms, you're already circling the drain. Your dollar is in trouble and your balance of trade sucks.
You know ,don't you ,that a low dollar will fix our balance of trade , and once we fix the dolar the balance of trade will go red again.
A bad trade balance is a sign of strength , like too much.
-
<<The longest debt instrument the US Government issues is 30 year bonds. According to my calculations, the Vietnam War ended more than 30 years ago.>>
Chew on this, wunderkind - - when the first series falls due, another series is issued to pay them off, and when that series falls due, another one. What you should be looking at is the total indebtedness of the U.S.A. and whether it is growing or shrinking.
-
You know ,don't you ,that a low dollar will fix our balance of trade , and once we fix the dolar the balance of trade will go red again.
A bad trade balance is a sign of strength , like too much.
======================================================
Geeze, what is this, 1984 again? War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength. And so, apparently, is a bad balance of trade.
A sinking dollar is a BAD sign, it means no one wants your money cuz its no good. Your money shrank because your credit's no fucking good and your balance of trade is down because nobody wants what you have to sell. Other countries can make it cheaper and sell it cheaper.
-
You know ,don't you ,that a low dollar will fix our balance of trade , and once we fix the dolar the balance of trade will go red again.
A bad trade balance is a sign of strength , like too much.
======================================================
Geeze, what is this, 1984 again? War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength. And so, apparently, is a bad balance of trade.
A sinking dollar is a BAD sign, it means no one wants your money cuz its no good. Your money shrank because your credit's no fucking good and your balance of trade is down because nobody wants what you have to sell. Other countries can make it cheaper and sell it cheaper.
No you can't have it both ways.
Many things are equivelent like Georgian, Costa Rican and Canadian plywood.
The relitive cost of the domestic product improves withthe falling dollar and we import less plywood.
-
Chew on this, wunderkind - - when the first series falls due, another series is issued to pay them off, and when that series falls due, another one. What you should be looking at is the total indebtedness of the U.S.A. and whether it is growing or shrinking.
Doesn't seem to be a problem with Social Security. Didn't you say that "investing" all the extra SS funds in 30 year loans to Congress was an ok thing to do?
-
Many things are equivelent like Georgian, Costa Rican and Canadian plywood.
===============================================
I would imagine that Costa Rican plywood would be made of Costa Rican trees, which are not Douglas fir, Tamaracs or other northern softwoods such as Canadian plywood is made from.
Allow me to suggest this thought: when your money is worth less, you have less potential to buy things. This is, for you, not a good thing.
-
Many things are equivelent like Georgian, Costa Rican and Canadian plywood.
===============================================
I would imagine that Costa Rican plywood would be made of Costa Rican trees, which are not Douglas fir, Tamaracs or other northern softwoods such as Canadian plywood is made from.
Allow me to suggest this thought: when your money is worth less, you have less potential to buy things. This is, for you, not a good thing.
This is true for international products , domestic products take the same pay cut I do.
Costa Rica has some very good trees and so does Canada , the falling dollar is good for American lumberjacks who eat American food.
-
Many things are equivelent like Georgian, Costa Rican and Canadian plywood.
The relitive cost of the domestic product improves withthe falling dollar and we import less plywood.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is the first time I have seen an argument that a falling dollar is good for America. Of course, if you focus on specific areas of trade, there will be some sectors which benefit: possibly, as you point out, plywood exports. The falling dollar is bad for other sectors: oil imports. What's the big picture?
America has a huge trade deficit. Imports much more than it exports (measured in dollar volume) and that situation long pre-dated the fall of the dollar. The cause is not hard to find: things that you used to export can be made better and cheaper elsewhere. That isn't going to change. If your currency lowers to make your exports more attractive to foreign buyers, you are making it correspondingly more expensive to buy foreign imports. Since you import much more than you export, and since some imports (like oil) are absolutely essential to your economy, the NET EFFECT of a falling dollar is going to be damaging to the U.S. economy. Also, since many of your exports (plywood) depend on imported fuel to run the processing and transport of the raw materials and finished products, the benefits of a falling dollar (expanded markets) are wholly or partially offset by the increased production and transportation costs to the manufacturer.
So even without factoring in the Iraq war, you are fighting a losing battle against a very unfavourable balance of trade and a falling dollar. Now superimposed on this mess, you have a three trillion dollar debt run up by the Iraq War. (Some of which, true enough, may already be reflected in the existing budget deficit.) A war that was originally costed out at a mere $50 billion. I think at this point very, very few people realize or wish to publicly admit the sheer immensity of the stupidity which has brought you to this point. Even many who claim, correctly IMHO, that George W. Bush is the worst President in all of American history, do not fully appreciate just how big a fiscal catastrophe is about to hit you because of these colossal fuck-ups. A country as deep in the hole as yours is, has only one practical way out, print more money. And that's the shortest of short-term fixes. The more you print, the less it's worth. Everyone, particularly every currency speculator, can see what's coming way down the road, the cycle of printing and devaluation, each step of which postpones the inevitable adjustment. In very short order the currency is worthless and the day of reckoning arrives. A new dollar is printed and its value upheld, not by your currency reserves (which have long ago run out in vain attempts to maintain the value of the dollar against recurrent waves of speculative selling) but by government promises to foreign creditors of a drastic period of "belt-tightening." Slashing credit. Slashing imports. Slashing government services and entitlements. Slashing military expenditures and particularly foreign military adventures. Leading to, of course, to high unemployment, reduced welfare and SS payments, deteriorating public sector, more crime, less police . . .
That's what the fall of your dollar really means, plane. By no stretch of the imagination is this good for the country, although I admit some plywood manufacturers may well enjoy some of the temporary benefits. That would be only a very small part of the total picture.
-
<<Didn't you say that "investing" all the extra SS funds in 30 year loans to Congress was an ok thing to do?>>
Sounds to me like a very stupid, reckless and irresponsible thing to do. Not only do I not recall saying any such thing, I can't even imagine myself ever saying so, and if I did, I must have been very, very badly mistaken.
-
Many things are equivelent like Georgian, Costa Rican and Canadian plywood.
The relitive cost of the domestic product improves withthe falling dollar and we import less plywood.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is the first time I have seen an argument that a falling dollar is good for America. Of course, if you focus on specific areas of trade, there will be some sectors which benefit: possibly, as you point out, plywood exports. The falling dollar is bad for other sectors: oil imports. What's the big picture?
America has a huge trade deficit. Imports much more than it exports (measured in dollar volume) and that situation long pre-dated the fall of the dollar. The cause is not hard to find: things that you used to export can be made better and cheaper elsewhere. That isn't going to change. If your currency lowers to make your exports more attractive to foreign buyers, you are making it correspondingly more expensive to buy foreign imports. Since you import much more than you export, and since some imports (like oil) are absolutely essential to your economy, the NET EFFECT of a falling dollar is going to be damaging to the U.S. economy.
So do you get why China pegged its currency below the dollar to ensure that it would not rise in value against the dollar for years?
The currency being very strong made exports expensive to furreners , now less so. The balance of trade will be directly affected . This is like all of us takeing a pay cut to produce a few extra jobs in exports.
It is bad I don't deny , but it is not all bad and you can't insist on having it both ways , the trade deficit is a consequence of a strong dollar , mostly ....
So Exporting industrys will benefit , imports will decline the "balance" of trade will look better.
All in all I prefer the imbalance that a strong currency gave us ,but the full employment a weak dollar is likely to cause will be nice too.
-
<<So do you get why China pegged its currency below the dollar to ensure that it would not rise in value against the dollar for years?>>
No, I'm not all that familiar with China's economy and its needs, but China's situation is very different from America's and what's good for China is not necessarily good for the U.S.A. There are so many differences between China's economy and that of the U.S. that this question can get us both sucked into discussions of the Chinese economy which, at least on my part, and I suspect yours as well, will be rendered pretty useless due to my and perhaps your basic ignorance of the subject.
<<The currency being very strong made exports expensive to furreners now less so. The balance of trade will be directly affected . This is like all of us takeing a pay cut to produce a few extra jobs in exports.>>
Well, yes, except that the hardship experienced by the vast majority of the population in the form of increased prices for energy vastly outweighs the economic benefits to the export sector. This in fact is the "belt-tightening" scenario that I depicted in my post - - there will be horrible domestic effects, lost jobs and businesses due to sky-rocketing fuel costs, freezing homes in winter, cuts to all services and entitlements, ballooning crime rates - - and at the same time an increase in export volume IF the rising costs of imported energy and transportation don't nullify any increased sales due to a weaker dollar.
<<It is bad I don't deny , but it is not all bad and you can't insist on having it both ways . . . >>
But I didn't. I conceded the possibility of some parts of the export sector benefitting from the weaker dollar.
<< . . . the trade deficit is a consequence of a strong dollar , mostly ....>>
Absolutely not. A weak dollar is a response to a negative balance of trade. A positive balance of trade means more foreigners bidding for U.S. dollars in the world currency markets, which drives up the price of the dollar against the currency of any country whose people are bidding for dollars. Conversely, weak U.S. exports weaken the demand for U.S. dollars and drive the dollar down.
<<So Exporting industrys will benefit , imports will decline the "balance" of trade will look better.>>
Sure the balance of trade will "look better." But the standard of living will look a lot worse. That is always the case with countries requiring drastic currency readjustment. "Imports will decline" will make the balance of trade "look better" but in real life that means less petroleum for business and recreational transport, less power for home heating and less raw materials for manufacturing. Less petroleum (or, same thing, more expensive petroleum, therefore available to fewer people) means that businesses dependent on transportation adjust to the higher cost of fuel by laying off workers, raising prices and/or slashing the paycheques of the workers and/or owners and managers. These folks now have less money to pay for higher-priced food. Don't confuse a "better looking" balance of trade with a higher standard of living. When the basic cause of both is a falling dollar due to profligate spending and declining exports (a fatal combination IMHO) then the good-looking balance of trade (really just a piece of paper, a means of score-keeping) is a very poor compensation for the real-life misery caused by inflation and declining living standards.
<<All in all I prefer the imbalance that a strong currency gave us ,but the full employment a weak dollar is likely to cause will be nice too.>>
For the reasons outlined above, of course, your weak dollar will likely not be able to produce full employment and there will be nothing nice about the sharp decline in the standard of living, which will never be off-set by the relatively minor increases, if any, in the export markets.
-
For the reasons outlined above, of course, your weak dollar will likely not be able to produce full employment and there will be nothing nice about the sharp decline in the standard of living, which will never be off-set by the relatively minor increases, if any, in the export markets.
Well, we will see.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/home.asp
-
When Nixon buggered the dollar in the 1970's, it was followed by a recession and depression, which poor Jerry Ford and all the WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons could not resolve. That brought on the election of Jimmy Carter, who was set up by Kissinger to be screwed by the Iran hostage mess. Carter put solar panels on the White House and wore cardigan sweater so the thermostat could be raised.
Carter did manage to enact Zero Based Budgeting, and then Reagan got credit for how well it worked when the stock market finally rose again. Reagan then borrowed and borrowed like there was no tomorrow and blamed Congress.
Reagan showed contempt for Carter's economizing by ripping the solar panels off the White House. I imagine that Nancy raised the thermostat, though.