Big News Orgs Help Bush Whitewash History Of Iraq War

Bush is trying to get his revisionist sermon in while he still has a pulpit.  The believers will still believe regardless. 

I read that Mrs. Bush is going to "miss people" when she and her husband leave the White House.   I guess I'd miss people too if I had to hide from the public... forever.

.

Let's go over this very slowly. For Bush to blame the failure of intel for his decision to invade is not a concession at all, and it is not an admission of failure on his part. Rather, it is the opposite of these things. It is an evasion of responsibility for what happened.

Pssst:

Anyone remember when asked about drinking and driving at 31...

"youthful indiscretion"

He never changed. This is why I don't buy his sobriety either. He always circumnavigates responsibility. He won't allow any of his staff to take responsibility either, or else that would mean part of it he would own.

And for anyone who has criticised Bill "Bubba" Clinton for his redefinition of the word "is", this is just as bad.

Libertarian party is the way to go. Time to get the crooks out.

Libertarianism=Anarchy.  You guys dress a lot more conservatively than the punks, but you believe in the same thing.

No one in the Washington and media Establishment wants to set the snowball of justice rolling, it will crush all their constructs and lies - and the Establishment itself.So the media is well adviced to play along with the Bush version of events.

We who were outside the Washington and US media sphere of influence had no trouble at all accessing contrary information and the idea that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9-11 never reached us at all. The Powell UN presentation was torn to shreds in our local papers the day after it was held, and even as I looked on, I didn't accept his flimsy "evidence" for a second. I reckoned it could only be accepted by people who were already convinced or who were enamoured of the man himself.

The ferocity of the US attacks on the French and in part the Germans who did not play along on Iraq was meant as a warning to others. It cost the French several billions in lost exports to the US. This has taught me that the harder the counter-attack, the closer you are to uttering truth.

El Baradei later got the Alfred Nobel Prize for peace. The closest little Norway has come to slapping Bush in the face. No wonder the neo-cons hate the UN, too bad they have managed to convince so many of you Americans to do the same. But that's another story.

The United Nation has no balls. The United Nations should be aborted. Reagan had it right when he did not pay any dues to that American hating organization that has no teeth. The UN also threatens the national security of the USA.

The UN is also unconstitutional.

Trying to convince you of the advantages of having a world forum like the UN reminds me of hard work, something I try to avoid.This statement, equating legal processes, the UN and terrorism pretty much says it all when it comes to prevailing neocon attitudes:

National Security Strategy of the United States of 2003: "Our strength as a nation-state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes and terrorism."

You American seem to be having some problems with your constitution lately. I keep hearing about various transgressions. Maybe a document from the 18th century is getting harder and harder to fit into the realities of today's world. Ours, the Norwegian one, is several decades younger,(1814), but still the second oldest working constitution. Yours is the oldest, so I can imagine trying to interpret it an aligning it with "realities on the ground" is getting very hard. The English manage to do without one and the French are on their 5th republic. I think.