-
joebidenmytime
Nick is a rock star in most respects, but the Libertarian's weakness is in foreign policy. The believe in the quaint 18th century admonition to not enter into entangled alliances with foreign governments. The problem is that the world is “flatter” than ever, and it is unavoidable to be involved, proactively at times, in order to preserve security and stability. Paleoconservatives such as Pat Buchanan sometimes fall into this vein as well.
-
Brandon
I haven't checked them out with the source. I know many on the hard left still want to have trial for Bush and Cheney because they claim it was a deliberate lie. It's never going to happen in the real world.
But if it did they would be able to call a lot of Democrats for witnesses. Here are a few <a href=”http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/”Pre-War Quotes from Democrats
These ones may be the same. I didn't put much energy into this (links still residing on my computer after all these years), although I see Tony Blair is having to answer some questions and there is a leftist grassroots movement to have him tried.
-
davidthorough
COMMENT MODERATED. Any more of this and davidthorough will be banned.
-
therightscoop
If you don't like me, don't come to my site. Take your garbage attitude somewhere else.
-
Tyler
Look. Here's something you've got to consider. There's a HUGE difference between say…WAR WITH A COUNTRY (such as Iran) and a “WAR ON TERROR.” You're fighting a STATE OF MIND with WEAPONS?? That's RETARDED.
Now, OF COURSE Hussein was an evil man and the people LOVED that he was out, but Islam countries RULE BY ISLAM LAW. Democracy DOES NOT account for that and we CANNOT IMPOSE that on another people.
HOW MANY TIMES did Bush CHANGE HIS REASONS for being there. First, it was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. When THAT was botched, he said “we're gonna keep peace,” and then he said that we were gonna “give them freedom.”
What is FREEDOM to US…is NOT FREEDOM to SOME. There are people who are WAY worse than Saddam EVER was who STILL keep TORTURING people in underdeveloped countries. WHY AREN'T WE THERE if it was EVER about “getting the bad guy?”
I'm NOT gonna say that Bush DID or DID NOT engineer 9/11 just to give us a reason for us to invade the Middle East even though is IS SIMILAR to Hitler's false flag operation in 1933 which was used as an excuse to invade Poland.
What I AM going to say is that we SHOULD NOT ALLOW the government to TRAMPLE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS solely in the name of “preventing another attack.”
If you think about it, OBAMA'S administration did this with PRECISION. They made it LOOK like a “weakness in terrorist handling” so that they could suddenly BECOME TOUGHER THAN EVER…so you'd wanna think. The Patriot Act has been EXTENDED…domestic wiretapping has INCREASED…and NSA partnered with Google so they can monitor our internet activities.
Just…THINK FOR YOURSELF. DON'T take Nick's word for it, DON'T take MY word for it, but MOST IMPORTANTLY….DON'T just take the GOVERNMENT'S word for it. Our president has PROVEN TO BE A LIAR. Why WOULDN'T the REST of his administration lie to us as well??
-
nelsoncit
great article from American Thinker “Who Lied About Iraq?”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/who_lied… . In the first paragraph “The US was fully justified to use military force against Iraq, even knowing what we know now — especially knowing what we know now.”I have kept up on this issue for a very long time. And I strongly disagree with Mr Gillespie that President Bush lied. And although disagree with libertarians regarding foreign policy to a large extent, we could certainly get by with a whole lot less involvement overseas.
-
Che is Dead
There's a HUGE difference between say…WAR WITH A COUNTRY (such as Iran) and a “WAR ON TERROR.” You're fighting a STATE OF MIND with WEAPONS??
That's right, we are fighting a state of mind. We are saying that the use of terrorism in the pursuit of political ends is unacceptable, period. And understanding that terrorists need state financing and support in order to operate, we are saying that if a state supports terrorists, as Saddam Hussein did, they are a legitimate military target. Reagan proved the efficacy of this approach when he bombed Libya after they sponsored several terrorist acts. Libya has been very quiet on the terrorist front ever since.
Islam countries RULE BY ISLAM LAW. Democracy DOES NOT account for that …
I think that you mean Sharia Law. And, yes, democracy is compatible with Islam at least according to some of it's most influential and highly regarded scholars including Al-Farabi and the Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani of Iraq. Muslim countries like Kuwait, Turkey and Malaysia have democratic institutions.
… and we CANNOT IMPOSE that on another people.
Tell that to the Japanese who had a militant religious theocracy requiring citizens to take an oath stating, “… we offer ourselves courageously to the State”, before we imposed democracy on them. Seems to be working out just fine.
HOW MANY TIMES did Bush CHANGE HIS REASONS for being there.
None. Read his speeches.
Further, investigation of Bush's use of intelligence before the war cleared him of any charges of “lying”: 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple, Washington Post
There are people who are WAY worse than Saddam EVER was who STILL keep TORTURING people in underdeveloped countries. WHY AREN'T WE THERE if it was EVER about “getting the bad guy?”
Way worse than Saddam? You apparently have no idea of just how sadistic Saddam's regime was. But even if this were true, Saddam presented a clear threat to American interests in a vital part of the world.
See this article: Putin says Iraq planned US attack, BBC. The Russians had a log standing relationship with Saddam and the KGB was intimate with his security apparatus. If Bush had ignored these warnings and Saddam had acted on his terrorist fantasies, people like you would have been calling for his impeachment.
I'm NOT gonna say that Bush DID or DID NOT engineer 9/11 just to give us a reason for us to invade the Middle East even though is IS SIMILAR to Hitler's false flag operation in 1933 …
I'm not gonna say you're a complete nut job though the evidence does seem to be mounting. Funny you should mention Hitler: Peres to Bush: If only what you did to Saddam was done to Hitler, YnetNews
… we SHOULD NOT ALLOW the government to TRAMPLE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS solely in the name of “preventing another attack.”
Every time that Bush's intelligence policies were brought before a court they were found to be consistent with the Constitution. Explain exactly how your Constitutional rights have been “trampled”. Give us specific examples of American citizens who have suffered at the hand of the State.
Just…THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Reciting talking points from Loose Change, Code Pink and MoveOn.org is not thinking for yourself. You seem to have a very strong inclination toward conspiracies and a very slight knowledge of the facts. On the other hand, you have figured out where the CAPS key is on your keyboard, so maybe there's hope.
-
6carbonfootprins
It is really interesting to go back and read what the Founding Fathers said about entangling alliances. The were not isolationists, but did advice against getting to entangled in other countries business. Every war we have been in since WW-, the war to end all wars- has been because we have been too entangled with other countries, beyond fair trade. A lot of this would not be a worry if we were energy independent. The Founding Fathers were wise beyond their time.
-
ez2please
I agree, and I am glad that you listed facts not only feelings. There is always a right reason for war, and it is only when we are trying to free people from the tyrants that rule them, that it is justified.
-
Tyler
You can use mainstream media articles all you like to try and convince me that Bush told the truth, but seeing the videos of the WTC bombings with my own eyes is enough to continue to believe that either his administration or somebody engineered it. The manner in which the buildings came down were demolition style. You don't need conspiracy theorists to tell you that. Just watch the videos and compare them with building demolitions. I believe a good portion of the building could come crashing down to the ground from a plane hit, but no way could the entire structure actually fall.
But hey. I'm just a nut job, so I'm gonna stop using CAPS and just concede on this argument since you'd rather take information for face value than to actually deconstruct it. I will continue to question everything whether it's mainstream or if it's Loose Change (which I didn't see just so you know).
Let's just say that I didn't hear with my own ears Bush changing his reasoning each time his original reasoning went to heck. I actually served 5 years in the U.S. Army and served 2 of those years in Iraq. Saddam was taken out of power before my first deployment. During my second deployment, he was finally handed back over to the Iraqi people after our trials and he was hung.
Having spoken to dozens of Kurdish people personally, I am well aware of Saddam's atrocities. I don't question the need for evil to be rooted out. After Saddam died, I was with a unit who basically helped train Iraqi police to bring order to the towns that they were in. What we have found since is simple corruption from local mayors and local extremists. What is left there as we speak has nothing to do with Al-Quada and has not had anything to do with them since 2007. We are there “playing police” as I have stated before. We could have sent all the troops there to Afghanistan and Pakistan where Al-Quada was actually known to be and directly going after them instead of acting like some sort of democracy-bringer to others.
Eric Holder's mishandling of the underwear bomber. If you don't see this for the false flag operation that it is, then you are blind as a bat. It's supposed to look like we're being too soft on the terrorists when in fact because of such accusations, Obama has extended the Patriot Act, building FEMA “emergency camps,” and now allow the NSA to monitor our internet searches.
Will anyone be any safer from this? I highly doubt it.
I'm gonna stop wasting my time on this. Take the arguments from both sides and determine for yourselves. If you still want to allow the Obama administration more power to monitor our lives in the name of “fighting terror,” then so be it. I take no emotional stakes in the outcome of our planet anyway. I just believe in turning on the light switch and letting whatever light shine do so.
-
Ken
“I believe a good portion of the building could come crashing down to the ground from a plane hit, but no way could the entire structure actually fall.”
This is an absurd statement. If any part of the building were to come down, the whole building would come down. That's because no floor was designed to support the weight of two floors, so if one floor collapsed on the floor below it, that second floor would collapse, so on and so forth. By the design of the building the interior support structure gave way before the outer structure. The outer structure provided the main support of the building accounting for the building collapsing inward. The interior structure was much weaker than the exterior structure.
By “[j]ust watch the videos and compare them with building demolitions” without actually knowing anything about design of the WTC, then stating that it had to be a demolition job just means you're not interested in research, engineering or physics. The History Channel provided a pretty detailed analysis of the structure of the buildings, along with the plane collisions, and the design flaws the contributed to the buildings' collapses.
Nick Gillespie: The Bush Administration Lied about Iraq
The Right Scoop
on February 6th, 2010 in Uncategorized | 11 Comments
The Bush administration lying about Iraq is normally a quip I hear from people on the hard left; I didn’t expect to hear it from Nick Gillespie. I’ll admit that for most of my life I’ve never cared about politics until recently (2008 or so), but in doing my own research on why we went into Iraq, I’ve never found anything that remotely looks like an intentional lie. Certainly we were mistaken about the WMD’s, but we weren’t the only ones. Much of the world believed that Hussein was trying to get them. In fact, it was the Clinton administration who passed a law that said that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. They knew that Saddam Hussein was dangerous and believed he was in fact a threat to the United States. And after 9/11, the time of being passive was over. We went to Afghanistan and then turned our eyes onto another ‘sleeping’ threat, Iraq. Certainly it turned into a huge debacle of mismanagement until the renowned surge, but I’ve never believed that Bush lied to take is us into war and I just can’t find the evidence to support it.
Nick has a great head on his shoulders and I agree with him on many many things, but I do find it disconcerting that he believes that Bush lied about Iraq.
To see the interview in it’s entirety, which has nothing to do with the war in Iraq, go here.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.