E-Mail 'Bush-Aznar pre-Iraq war conversation exonerates Bush, contrary to the claims of the usual suspects' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Bush-Aznar pre-Iraq war conversation exonerates Bush, contrary to the claims of the usual suspects' to a friend

Loading ...

17 Responses to "Bush-Aznar pre-Iraq war conversation exonerates Bush, contrary to the claims of the usual suspects"

Dymphna says:

September 27, 2007 at 8:52 pm

Very good fisk of this “story.” Thanks.

The thing is, they could find a translation of Bush saying The Our Father and it would be grounds for impeachment.

Is that site Truth Out still around? In 2003, they were sure he’d be beaten. In 2004, they swore he’d be impeached by May, 2006, quoting Dem Senators…

…Bush is certainly no orator, but he’s not stupid and the Bush Doctrine remains viable. He’s simply getting the treatment that this same faction gave Lincoln during his tenure. I never thought it would get as every-day ugly as Lincoln’s presidency was, but here we are.

Thanks for this post.
camojack says:

September 28, 2007 at 3:47 am

Very interesting… 😕
PCD says:

September 28, 2007 at 8:00 am

As far as impeaching Bush, the real crime as far as the left is concerned is that Bush assumed office, period. They don’t care about anything else. Bush assumed office and they were shut out of power. To the left, this is an impeachable, if not executable, offense.
Kareling says:

September 28, 2007 at 9:22 am

Let me see if I have this straight: The article clearly exonerates Bush and his motives for going to war, but Juan Cole and his ilk insist that even without this information, Bush still would’ve invaded Iraq on some trumped up pretext anyway, in which case he still deserves to be impeached, tried in The Hague, yada yada ad nauseam.

Heck, even if he hadn’t gone to war, I daresay they still would’ve demanded impeachment simply on grounds of intent. Because even if he didn’t really do it, he was still thinking about it!

And what is that called? Thought crime?
NC Cop says:

September 28, 2007 at 9:48 am

Heck, even if he hadn’t gone to war, I daresay they still would’ve demanded impeachment simply on grounds of intent.

Exactly Kareling. If it wasn’t the Iraq war it would have been the Patriot act, or the surveillance program, or even the Alberto Gonzales circus. Just like PCD said, the very fact that he won in 2000 and 2004 is an impeachable offense because the left cannot understand how they could possible lose.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this war began in 1979, Iraq is just the latest battle and it’s the only time we fought back BEFORE any attack.
NC Cop says:

September 28, 2007 at 9:52 am

Care for some more outrage with regards to Iraq? May I present to you the dangers of political correctness:

Wiretap delay hurts search for missing soldiers
PCD says:

September 28, 2007 at 10:01 am

NC Cop, We can start fighting the war on terror by denying the Kennedy family intoxicants to prevent them from legislating while intoxicated, and keep them from driving while impaired.
PCD says:

September 28, 2007 at 1:10 pm

I cited this post on another blog and a far leftwing commenter with psychotically pronounced BDS called our dear Sister a B***h.

ST, with this post you really are getting to the left.
Kareling says:

September 28, 2007 at 1:43 pm

PCD, if that’s the best that moonbat can come up with in response to this–a vitriolic personal attack that has nothing to do with the issue at hand–then the debate is over and the Left has lost.

Go ST!
PCD says:

September 28, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Kareling, Other than to tell conservatives that He and his ilk are going to take back what Conservatives have stolen from the country, this jerk is not good for much else, but the other libs on that board aren’t disowning him either.
Great White Rat says:

September 28, 2007 at 11:29 pm

Haven’t seen this reported too much in the MoonbatStream Media, what with all their attention being focused on Im-a-damn-nut-job from Iran speaking to the UN, but another foreign leader also addressed the UN this week.

Money quote:

In a broader warning against the dangers of appeasement, the new French leader said: “Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war.”

Words which ought to be forcibly programmed into the memory of anyone from any party who is even thinking about running for President. Withdrawing in the face of the enemy in the Middle East will only assure us of having to face them again on worse terms.
NC Cop says:

September 28, 2007 at 11:34 pm

Wow, there’s a new sheriff in France!!

I find it interesting how nobody seems to notice the fact that several of our biggest critics, including France and Germany have voted in right wing, pro-American governments since the Iraq war.

But I thought the world hated us because of Iraq??:-?
realism says:

September 29, 2007 at 10:07 am

Are you saying that France is going to join us in the war? Because I specifically remember Sarkozy being against the war.

To the point however…
“The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it.”

“If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in.”

“We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March.”

“We would like to act with the mandate of the UN” (as opposed to “We will only act with the mandate of the UN”)

“We can’t allow Saddam to drag his heels until the summer”

“This is like Chinese water torture. We must put an end to it.”

I also noted where Bush announces his intention to use economic coercion to force other countries to agree to the resolution.

It is clear to any RATIONAL person that these comments indicate that Bush had decided to go to war, and was just working out the details of his post-hoc justification.

As far as the fact that Saddam was offering to go into exile with WMD information, I find it laughable that you are making the huge leap from the fact that he had WMD info to the assumption that he actually had WMD’s. I mean, I have a screensaver of a Ferrari on my PC, does that mean that I actually have one in my driveway? Nobody ever denied that Saddam had WMD info. I’m sure that he’s had it at least since the Reagan Administration was selling him chemical weapons. However, since operation Desert Fox, when Clinton destroyed his remaining WMD capabilities in 1999, over the strenuous objections of Republicans, Saddam has been neutered.
NC Cop says:

September 29, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Are you saying that France is going to join us in the war? Because I specifically remember Sarkozy being against the war.

Only time will tell, but it’s obvious that even France is beginning to recognize the threat that Iran poses. Unlike many here in the U.S.

It is clear to any RATIONAL person that these comments indicate that Bush had decided to go to war, and was just working out the details of his post-hoc justification.

I see, so to disagree with you is irrational, is that it? Frankly, I don’t care if he did decide to do invade Iraq in his first month in office. Iraq had been a problem for 12 YEARS, since the end of the first Gulf War. Pretending he was harmless and ignoring him is not a strategy, it’s living in denial.

As far as the fact that Saddam was offering to go into exile with WMD information, I find it laughable that you are making the huge leap from the fact that he had WMD info to the assumption that he actually had WMD’s.

Oh, I see. Well, perhaps you can give a RATIONAL explanation as to why Saddam would want to take all the info on WMD’s with him. Did he want to wallpaper his new bedroom with them? Perhaps he was planning on getting a new puppy and needed them to line the kitchen floor. The only thing laughable is how people like you dismiss the evidence coming out of Iraq that Saddam was involved with WMD’s ,was not cooperating with inspectors, nor was he abiding by the several UN resolutions that were imposed on him in 1991.

However, since operation Desert Fox, when Clinton destroyed his remaining WMD capabilities in 1999, over the strenuous objections of Republicans, Saddam has been neutered.

Thanks man, I need a good laugh. So basically Bill Clinton saved the day!!! LOL!! I’d love to see a link to that story, my friend. I look forward to it.

By the way, you may want to change your screen name. For some reason “realism” seems to be the last thing that you grasp.
Great White Rat says:

September 29, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Are you saying that France is going to join us in the war?

No. Your reading comprehension skills aren’t too good, are they? All I took note of is that appeasement doesn’t work, and Sarkozy understands that. Unlike, say, Obama, Edwards, Clinton, and the rest of the pack of leftists trying for the Democrat presidential nomination. That bunch ranges from garden-variety appeasers to the pre-emptive surrender types like Kucinich.

I mean, I have a screensaver of a Ferrari on my PC, does that mean that I actually have one in my driveway?

Your logic skills aren’t any better than your reading comprehension. If you have a Ferrari screensaver because you admire the car, fine – are you then saying Saddam only had the instructions on how to mnufacture WMDs because he liked to look at them? That’s the only way your poorly-drawn analogy holds up, and frankly, it sounds like something Saddam’s old mouthpiece Baghdad Bob would have come up with. It doesn’t pass the laugh test.

On the other hand, if you have that Ferrari screensaver because you’re building one in secret in your back yard…

Oh, by the way, wasn’t Saddam supposed to have surrendered all his WMD documents to the IAEA? At least, that’s what you leftists claimed during the run-up to the Iraq war. Then again, you probably didn’t know Saddam had things like copy machines and flash drives either.

since operation Desert Fox, when Clinton destroyed his remaining WMD capabilities in 1999, over the strenuous objections of Republicans, Saddam has been neutered.

Oh, is that what the left-wing loose-leaf history book is claiming today? In point of fact, Clinton did almost nothing except lob a few weapons at aspirin factories – and then only to wag the dog – and nobody on the GOP side would have objected to a more vigorous stance against Saddam. Fact is, Clinton’s Middle East policy tilted strongly in favor of the islamists – witness how Yassir Arafat was his guest at the White House more than any other foreign leader.

Oh, you also forget that preventing Saddam from acquiring and using WMDs was only one of the reasons for going to Iraq. No serious person denies he once had them and used them and was constantly trying to get them again. We prevented this. You, on the other hand, would have been perfectly happy to see him continue his policy of mass murder and torture, all the while continuing to work on building up the WMD arsenal. And in the last analysis, you’d be fine with giving him a billion dollars and all the instructions on WMD-making, which he could then distribute to AQ. Yeah, there’s a ploicy that makes sense… l-)

Suggestion: change your handle to “SURrealism”. It’ll be a lot closer to the truth.
Great White Rat says:

September 29, 2007 at 1:42 pm

LOL, NC Cop!! Looks like we had the same idea about the leftist’s screen name!!
NC Cop says:

September 29, 2007 at 1:47 pm

GWR, they make it so easy. It would be nice to have someone with a logical thought and some evidence to back it up.

Hey, realsim, got some more for you. I actually found an article on Operation Desert Fox.

Operation Desert Fox

Here’s an interesting quote from that article:

“We haven’t destroyed his total capability, but we have
certainly reduced his assets,” Shelton said.

As far as the Republicans objecting, the only thing I saw was Republicans questioning the timing of the strike. You know, seeing as how it coincided with the IMPEACHMENT debate that was going on. Coincidence? Only in your IRRATIONAL mind.

Comments are closed.