Comments (27) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   dtroutma said, 4 months ago

   Let’s hope the chains represent Christmas future.

2. 

   tracht47 said, 4 months ago

   Sometimes you can’t go forward until you clean up the past.

3. 

   harleyquinn said, 4 months ago

   Oh no we are not going to do anything about W and Dick.
   Unemployment is up again and predicted to hit over 10% after you said the stimulus was going to keep it under 8.
   Hey look we can now get Cheney on………..
   Hey isn’t there a new Ghostbusters in the works?

4. 

   believecommonsense said, 4 months ago

   perhaps we need to thoroughly investigate VP Cheney and his secrets and actions in office before the next Cheney, VP’s daughter, runs for office.

5. 

   Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

   Obama has said he doesn’t want to waste time and dollars investigating the crimes of the Bush/Cheney administrations.

   But Cheney seems intent on having those investigations take place.

   Oh well…

6. 

   eksteen said, 4 months ago

   Are we really surprised? This is the same guy who refused to inform the people who he was meeting with on the Energy task force. What a shame that Republicans have to defend this ‘strong’ man. Bury him under a rock.

7. 

   Simon_Jester said, 4 months ago

   It only seems that way to the Bush worshippers ANandy.

8. 

   motivemagus said, 4 months ago

   Let’s take this one head-on. I didn’t hate Bush – until he launched an illegal and immoral war which distracted us from real nuclear threats like North Korea, gave out huge no-bid contracts openly to his friends at oil companies, destroyed our relationship with the world, let Ken Lay dictate our “energy policy,” removed civil rights, introduced a massive bureaucracy that keeps us no safer, nearly killed the airline industry with burdensome and useless “security,” spied on Americans and demanded the right to do so at will, demonized anyone who disagreed with him, even SAID it would be easier to be a dictatorship - if he was the dictator, and, ultimately, was arrogant enough to think he was entitled to do so despite this piece of paper called the Constitution.
   Why shouldn’t we hate a sleazy, arrogant, dictatorial jerk of a human being like that?

9. 

   charliekane said, 4 months ago

   These ponderous chains I forged during my term of office, link upon link …

   Now whatcha gonna do about it?!

10. 

    HOWGOZIT said, 4 months ago

    He launched a legal war with the consent of Congress. It did not become “illegal” until Democrats saw it as a means to gain in the political game.

11. 

    fennec said, 4 months ago

    The Iraq invasion was only “legal” in the very narrow terms of the letter but not the spirit of US law. By any standard of international law (to which we claim to ascribe), it was illegal.

12. 

    Buzzy-One said, 4 months ago

    Howie, no The Veep and his cronies didn’t start a war for political gain. It was for personal gain. Think not then why has the Haliburton Gang moved “off shore”?

13. 

    HOWGOZIT said, 4 months ago

    Watch Senor BS–bet a Repub will be president before you expire. Labeled a traitor by a democrat liberal would be flattering.

14. 

    senorbullwinkle said, 4 months ago

    ^ I was referring to your comment on the war.You said Dem’s gave their consent. I say, under duress. Your repubican congress bullied Dem’s into going along with them, for fear the bush propaganda machine would label them traitors and terrorist. A new era of McCarthyism of which I’m sure you’re proud of, and proud to be labeled a McCarthyist, You have my blessing.
    .
    How quickly you forget, Dem’s are called traders and terrorist, repubicans want America to fail !

15. 

    Corosive Frog said, 4 months ago

    Bush had his chance, he screwed it, live with it.

16. 

    fritzoid said, 4 months ago

    And Congress’s consent was obtained fraudulently, based on unsubstantiated rumor presented as fact, as well as outright falsehoods.

17. 

    HOWGOZIT said, 4 months ago

    Perhaps he “misread” or was given “incomplete info” as the present duo claim in their unsuccessful endeavors.

18. 

    HOWGOZIT said, 4 months ago

    Doing okay Frog–despite last November’s election results–I will live with it!

    Fritzoid, is it hared to breathe under all that sand?

19. 

    fritzoid said, 4 months ago

    In what way is my head in the sand, as you imply?

    Do you believe that the “intel” upon which Bush/Cheney made their case for the invasion of Iraq was accurate? Do you believe that the ADMINISTRATION believed it was accurate? Do you believe that Bush/Cheney believed that Saddam Hussein was “exporting terror” or was in any way connected to the events of 9/11? Do you believe that they in no way represented to Congress and the American public (and our global allies) that these were in fact established truths? Do you believe that the Administration’s stated motives and objectives for the invasion of Iraq were their true motives? Do you believe there was no conflicting evidence suggesting that the sources of the intel upon which they were relying might in fact be unreliable? Do you believe that Bush/Cheney exercised a reasonable duty to disclose any doubts about the reliability of the intel?

    Do you beileve that current reports that Cheney had been instructing the CIA to falsify and withhold information are entirely without foundation, or perhaps that this practice began only AFTER the invasion of Iraq had been approved?

20. 

    churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

    ^ yes,yes,no,yes,yes, no, yes, no, yes

21. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

    So per that first yes, you believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, even though Bush and Cheney later admitted that Iraq didn’t?

22. 

    fritzoid said, 4 months ago

    Bush’s letter to Congress 3/21/03:

    “”I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

    Bush, 5/1/04:

    “The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding.”

    Cheney, “Meet the Press”, Sept. 2004:

    “If we’re successful in Iraq … then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”

23. 

    churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

    I agree with each of those statements, when viewed in full context and historical perspective. Fact Check and the 9/11 commission can’t reach a conclusion either way, yet the left is smarter than them, so they can.

    Fact Check also disputes most of “Bush lied about WMD” claims.

    The fact is the left hates Bush. They never saw 9/11 as that big a deal. Anything that was done afterward was an overreaction.

    According to the left we went into Iraq for oil, *to avenge his daddy, *for his buddies to make $, * for Chaney’s Halliburton to make $, Chaney is a monster who controls stupid Bush and likes to kill people *Bush was so smart he fooled everybody and likes to kill people *to hasten armageddon for religious views * all of the above and more.

    I think he went in to keep America safe. Period. No ulterior motive. Even I can monday morning quarterback as to whether it was worth it. But his heart was in the right place. And if Iraq turns out to be a stable democracy and ally in the ME, and serves as an example for it’s neighbors to throw off their oppressive gov’ts, then history will judge Bush well.

    One more thing. I’d rather fight them there than here. (the left hate that)

24. 

    fritzoid said, 4 months ago

    “According to the left we went into Iraq for oil, *to avenge his daddy, *for his buddies to make $, * for Chaney’s Halliburton to make $, Chaney is a monster who controls stupid Bush and likes to kill people *Bush was so smart he fooled everybody and likes to kill people *to hasten armageddon for religious views * all of the above and more.”

    Yes, yes, yes, yes, overstated but not far off, no, yes…

    “One more thing. I’d rather fight them there than here. (the left hate that) ”

    Ummm… So al Qaeda was planning on invading the U.S., with Saddam heading the charge, and Bush/Cheney’s actions foiled this dastardly plan?

25. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

    Wait, Fritz, I don’t understand. I thought it was well known that Saddam hated Al Qaeda, and it wasn’t until we overthrew him that Al Qaeda not only got a toe-hold in Iraq, but in fact got a recruiting boon beyond their wildest dreams?

    Maybe Church can elucidate?

26. 

    fritzoid said, 4 months ago

    “They never saw 9/11 as that big a deal. Anything that was done afterward was an overreaction.”

    I acknowledge that 9/11 was a big deal, but invading Iraq in response to it wasn’t just an overreaction, it was a total non-sequitur. SADDAM HUSSEIN AND IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!!

    The only link between the two that has been shown is that Bush/Cheney IGNORED the known threat of Osama (“He’s planning something! Using airplanes as weapons!”) because they preferred to focus on Iraq.

    And it’s an even bet whether Iraq will end up a “stable democracy” and “an example to it’s [sic] neighbors”, or whether it will end up another Islamist theocracy like Iran (or Saudi Arabia, speaking of “oppressive gov’ts”). And of course, Saddam WAS our “staunch ally” in the Middle East until he became “a new Hitler.” Why did our friendship with Saddam turn sour? Oh right, it was because in the 1980s we told him “You can do what you like with Kuwait; the U.S. won’t interfere”, and he was silly enough to believe us.

    I understand that a re-make of “Red Dawn” is in the works, but they should probably scrap that and start on “Green Dawn”, where Americans wake up one morning to find that towel-headed foreigners have landed a massive invasion force, and are forcing us good Christians to bow down towards Mecca 5 times a day. It’s up to good, gun-toting, right-believing Real Americans to protect the spineless, traitorous, freedom-hating Liberals from reaping the harvest of their fuzzy-headed peacenik sowing (naturally, after letting the invaders thin out their ranks a little bit). “WOLVERINES!!!”

27. 

    M Henri Day said, 4 months ago

    No, Iraq in 2003, as well known to the UNO weapons inspectors and all others who cared to know, did not possess what are somewhat vaguely termed «Weapons of mass Destruction», but that begs the point - according to international law, is launching a war of aggression against a country that possesses such weapons legal ? If it is, than those residing in that country which possesses more of these weapons than any other - and which, moreover, shows little compunction about (threatening) their use (options «not off the table» and all that sort of thing) might want to reconsider their positions….

    Henri