Nov. 12, 2005 - 20:08 MST

OUT LOUD

The writhing of a Bush knows no bounds it seems. He keeps spouting words, trying to drown out the blather he has shoved down our throats for some number of years. Made me want to barf, the article in this morning's Rocky Mountain News. By Deb Riechmann of the Associated Press. Short -- in part:

COMBATIVE PRESIDENT DEFENDS IRAQ WAR POLICY

'False charges' raise hackles of Bush

"TOBYHANNA, Pa. -- "President Bush strongly rebuked congressional critics of his Iraq war accusing them of being "deeply irresponsible" and sending the wrong signal both to America's enemy and to U.S. troops."

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges," Bush said in his most combative defense yet of his rationale for invading Iraq in March 2003."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The article goes on at some length with both sides chiming in at appropriate and perhaps some inappropriate times.

Seems to me that it all goes back to 9/11 and the paranoiac fear fostered by the administration which saddled us with the Patriot Act (what a misnomer that is). So to me, we were 9/11'ed into believing that Saddam had . . . . . . huge amounts of WMD and intended to use them on (Are you ready for this ?) US ! So Mr. Bush and company seemed to think the appropriate thing to do was use the idea of preemptive war, in other words, "Hit him hard before he has a chance to use the WMD's you think he might have."

I remember seeing several times statements by administration officials saying that it was a proven fact that Saddam had vast amounts of nasty WMDs. And that we just had to go wipe him out.

There might be some small justification for the Gulf War, but little that I can see which would lead a "Democratic" country to invade another country because they thought Saddam "might" do something bad.

+++++++++++++++++

Mike Litwin in his column today said this: "Bush says some Democrats now claim that he "manipulated" intelligence. But what would make them hypocrites is that they must have thought that all along, or at least suspected it. Certainly, there was evidence, even if Judy Miller couldn't find it. That had to have known that when Bush spoke his 16 little words, that when Condi Rice was talking about mushroom clouds, that when Dick Cheney tried to tie Saddam to 9/11, that when Colin Powell went to the United Nations with his satellite photos, there was room for skepticism." - - - - - "I'ts not enough to say now, as Bush does, that everyone, up to and including Bill Clinton, thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It's whether those undiscovered WMDs ever threatened America. It's whether the Bush administration wilfully exaggerated the case, and why the Republican-controlled Congress keeps blocking a full-blown inquiry."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

"I was reading, in a place or two that the administration could care less about poll results. That they were going to continue to do what they wanted to do regardless of poll results. And it seems true to me.

The thing that I worry about is what do his men and machinery have in the mill for the next Republican president to do for big money, corporations and "faith based" anythings. Or is he going to cook up a big "emergency" and try for another term at the helm of the ship-of-state ?

It worries me that our "purer than the driven snow" administration keeps trying to see that some arm of our government can have the right to torture - - - - - - - what kind of Democracy are we living in ? And how much faster will it change ?

It has no real bearing, I think, what predecessors "thought" about WMDs -- it is that Bush and cohorts stated it as a proven fact that Saddam had WMDs and was going to use them on us. I heard them say it OUT LOUD . . . . . . . . . .

Blog