Columbia, you are letting your hatred for Bush get in the way of objectivity. You called the President a monkey, referred to his Christian supporters as "his insane christian clown posse" and accused Bush of snorting coke with his parent's rolled up c-notes. You were probably not around when fascism was here with Hitler and Mussolini so you don't know how out to lunch you are in referring to fascist town hall meetings. Bill Clinton, the UN, France, Germany, Russia, etc., all said that Saddam had WMDs so there was no falsifying information (i.e. lies). The Senate voted 95-0 opposing the Kyoto Treaty because it forces the U.S. to make drastic changes but requires China and other countries nothing. All after-election investigations (including the Washington Post) showed there was no stealing of the election in Florida and I'm not aware of any investigation showing an election steal in Ohio, merely accusations by people with no data to back it up. I could also go on for days.
Bush won two elections and "the people that vote for this monkey" are real people who liberals might see if they stopped looking down their noses at them.
Columbia did respond emotionally (who can blame him after watching the continuous coverage from N.O. the last 10-12 days or so) but he was not inaccurate.
Like his posse of Christian right supporters, GWB is a "born again" Christian who tells us that Evolution hasn't been proven and we should teach "Intelligent Design" in schools as an alternative theory. He and his collegues have also fought against condom distribution and use in the US and around the globe in the fight against AIDS because of their inane religious beliefs.
As for the Cocaine accusation, Bush himself has acknowledged that he "made mistakes" before he was 40 when he stopped drinking and using drugs and was born again. He is a lot like Jason Giambi, who apologized like crazy but never actually admitted what he was apologizing for.
. Bill Clinton, the UN, France, Germany, Russia, etc., all said that Saddam had WMDs so there was no falsifying information (i.e. lies).
This is one of the most deceitful manipulations of information in the Iraq war. First of all, we should never use the term WMD because it is so dangerously misleading. There are three components:
1. Biological Weapons - that have never been used effectively by any nation on earth.
2. Chemical weapons - these are awful, but no more lethal than, for example, America's giant "daisy cutter" conventional bombs.
3. Nuclear Weapons. This is really what everyone thinks of when the term WMD is used. They are exponentially more lethal than any other weapon on earth and can kill millions at a time.
To say that the US and other countries still thought Iraq might have remnants of its WMD program around is accurate, but it is one thing to believe there might be some left over stockpiles of mustard gas, and another thing entirely to claim that nuclear weapons are close to being operational, Iraq is seeking Uranium from Nigeria, and they are working closely with Al Qaeda to distribute them. Dick Chaney repeatedly claimed that Iraq was involved with 9/11 and Condi used the famous "Smoking gun is a mushroom cloud" gross distortion. Those are lies... flat out lies of which they were aware at the time and since.
If you wish to be intentionally vague and misleading -- as this administration did -- you could say that many countries thought Iraq had WMD, when they really simply believed there might be some left over chemical weapons. Neither Clinton, Russia, France or anyone else (except lap dog Tony Blair) said they believed Iraq was an imminent threat with nuclear weapons -- and went on to use that as justification for starting a war. A war -- not of necessity -- but of choice. The Nigerian Uranium claim was an absolute lie based on documents the CIA had in its possession for 6 months that were proven to be fraudulent by the UN within a few hours, once they were finally delivered in evidence. how can that be? And why smear Ambassador Wilson and his CIA wife for telling the truth about it?
So yes, it is completely accurate to say that Bush and his administration lied about WMD. To justify a war, absolute certainty about nuclear weapons and their imminent use would be a minimum requirement. The US clearly never had that. Moreover, it has been reported from highly credible sources such as long time Republican and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil that the Bush team was planning to invade and occupy Iraq from the day they took office.
Since when did it become OK for the United States of America, the leader of the free and democratic world, proponent of the rule of law, to initiate a war -- even with some justification, which we did not have. And since when is it appropriate for the USA to suppress information on how many Iraqis are being killed, and to dishonor our own soldiers by refusing to allow photos of their flag draped coffins, or for the President to attend even one memorial service for a lost soldier?
Chaney is still lying by saying the Iraqi insurrection is in its "final throes". how absurd is that? we might as well have "Baghdad Bob" still providing us the news from Iraq.
As for the Kyoto Treaty, the reason the US was asked to make the most cuts in producing the gasses that lead to global warming is because the US creates the most -- and by a very wide margin.
But even if you buy all the arguments about why that particularly treaty might need amending, that does not justify the total abandonment of ANY attempt to develop a global plan to deal with emissions and global warming. Bush said the "science was fuzzy" and needed to be studied. But he did not initiate any studies and indeed, hired a former Exxon employee to work in the White House environmental office to edit out all the global warming evidence and implications from official Government scientific studies. Bush also backed out of his campaign promises to cut emissions -- some might call that a flip flop, some might call it an outright lie.
To this date, there have been thousands of studies by scores of nations around the globe -- including the USA and the UN -- that have indicated Global Warming is a real event with devastating implications and the longer we delay dealing with it the harder it will become. On the other hand, there has not been a single reputable study by anyone that indicates this isn't true. So why does the Bush-Chaney team, with its long and deep connections to the oil industry and the Saudi Family, keep denying it? and doing nothing?
As for the two elections, he actually had fewer popular votes the first time. And while many studies have looked at counting the votes that were cast in FL, there are a great many reports of intentionally holding down the voter turnout in black neighborhoods that favored Gore -- those studies are much harder to prove, but there is a lot of evidence. Similar reports came out of Ohio. So yes, there is at least an argument to be made about the legitimacy of both elections.
None of this is a matter of "liberals looking down their noses". It is a question of Americans who value REAL American values -- honesty from our government, integrity in how we conduct foreign affairs, openness in admitting mistakes and working with other nations in the world.
And if anyone looks at the disgraceful performance by the US govt. in response to Katrina -- even allowing for the errors made by city and state authorities -- there is absolutely ZERO excuse. It is quite clearly tangible proof of the utter incompetence of this administration.
The most encouraging news I have heard recently was last night. The president of the Pew research organization said their latest polls are showing that 40% of Republicans are finally acknowledging that Bush did an awful Job in dealing with Katrina. That is a VAST increase over a week earlier, when an ABC News/W.Post poll showed 74% of Republicans thought Bush did a great job on Katrina. That was unfathomable.
Instead of looking at "liberals" as the enemy, it would be much more productive for the country for Republicans to look honestly at what is happening.. at how our country is being led down the wrong path in so many areas, and of how our president and administration has been the most divisive in my lifetime, maybe ever. That is NOT what America is about. The sooner we collectively realize that and try to work together, the better off we will all be.