A Message for President George W. Bush
[Guest post by DRJ]
For some time, Democratic Rep. John Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has been receptive to prosecutions of Bush Administration personnel who participated in wiretapping, interrogations, detentions, and other allegedly illegal actions undertaken in the War on Terror. Democratic House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi also seems receptive.
So I have a message for President Bush:
Pardon anyone and everyone in your Administration who participated in wiretapping, interrogations, detentions, and related efforts. Don’t depend on the vague, indecisive words of Barack Obama and his surrogates. Just as you depended on them, the people who helped you combat terrorism are depending on you.
Do it now.
— DRJ
Shorter DRJ: laws, schmaws.
Republican principles in action.
sandra (0eea94) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:03 pmIsn’t it obvious what the plan is?
As the democrats and Obama’s administration plunges into scandal after scandal, and incompetence after incompetence, and the American people recall that Bush served 8 years with no scandal of importance, Pelosi and Obama will use prosecutions of Bush’s administration as a way of saying ‘Democrat scandals are OK because the Republicans also had scandals’.
For tens of millions, it won’t matter that the Bush prosecutions are borne from protecting the US and the Obama/Rangel scandals are borne from personal greed, because NBC won’t make that distinction for them. In fact, I would fully expect every trumped up charge for wiretapping to have REPUBLICAN stamped on it dozens of times, while democrats are tarred anonymously.
Joco (4cdfb7) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:05 pmIMO Dodd and Franks should be impeached for the Housing fiasco. But of course everything is Bush’s fault. W won’t even pardon those two border patrol agents.
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:09 pmSandra, what laws were broken? The FISA court said that the wiretaps were legal.
You just want to prosecute to relieve yourself of the burden of you delusional hared of the man, even though no one will be convicted.
BTW, he should also pardon Libby.
Dr. K (4dd7c3) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:10 pmsandra,
I assume you strongly oppose Eric Holder for Obama’s Attorney General since he was instrumental in the FALN and Marc Rich’s pardons. After all, if you can’t see any reason to pardon the Bush officials, what defense would the FALN terrorists or a fugitive like Marc Rich have?
DRJ (345e40) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:11 pmHear, hear. I hope Bush does it.
Vaultenblogger (91c4b7) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:13 pmPelosi is picking her battles with the retarded left of her party. Meaning the committee chairs. She knows this is retarded, but she has plenty of time to let it play out before it comes to be generally perceived as so obviously and apparently and inarguably as fascist as it is that there would be an actual danger of Baracky’s media reporting it that way.
happyfeet (4eacbc) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:25 pmAlso I don’t agree, really, at least to this extent. CIA people in jail. Hah. Great precedent I think. The CIA did more to undermine the war on terror than anyone but the media and George Soros. Screw ’em.
happyfeet (4eacbc) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:27 pmA message for George Bush? Third term?
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:28 pmBeyond the harm that might come to those who have already served, I fear that such persecutions would deter others from doing the work of their nation. Or maybe that is the ultimate goal of the Dems…
in_awe (bc82df) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:29 pmIn the Dems want to pursue a witch hunt against former GOP officials, I am sure it will be returned in kind when the GOP takes control of the White House (and congress) again in the not too distant future.
Mark Turner (4b3607) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:51 pmActually, the GOP does not respond in kind to Dummycrat travesties. It’s a “law and order” v “do as thou wilt” mentality.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:56 pmThis is a left-over, unintended consequence from the Nuremburg Trials.
At the end of WW-2, there were many (including Churchill) that counseled that the war-crimes trials not be held, just take them out and shoot them (as had been done historically).
But, No!
Now we have a precedent, and we will be hoist by it, even when it does not, or should not, apply.
TML!
AD (1593f9) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:56 pmAnd, no, GWB should not preemptively pardon people who have not committed crimes. To pardon an innocent person is to say that innocent person committed a crime. Much moreso if that innocent person hasn’t even been charged with the non-crime.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/18/2009 @ 2:57 pmThis was suggested on RedState a week or 2 ago. He absolutely should do it, and my bet is he won’t. He’s lost the intestinal fortitude he came to the presidency with. If he doesn’t do it and they do actually fire up criminal investigations…hmmm, maybe he’s daring them to.
Peg C. (48175e) — 1/18/2009 @ 3:00 pmsandra,
Gee, you won’t have to worry about this because there won’t be an Obama Administration. McChimpy Halliburton has already put “Operation Grand Slam” into effect. The coup will take place on Monday evening and I, as a super-secret operative, will receive my coded message (“John has a long moustache”) from Sean Hannity when the he blinks it out in Morse Code just before the bottom of the hour break.
But you know all that already, Sandra, didn’t you?
MarkJ (7fa185) — 1/18/2009 @ 3:02 pmJohn,
Obviously I disagree or I wouldn’t have written this post, but I sympathize with your point that there is nothing to be pardoned. I think that philosophical issue is overridden by the practical need to protect people from criminal prosecutions, from the crippling cost of hiring attorneys to defend them, and from the stress that dealing with all that entails.
DRJ (345e40) — 1/18/2009 @ 3:03 pm… the practical need to protect people from prosecutions that are criminal…
I understand this view and I definitely see the value in this view. It will definitely deflect undue criminal hardship foisted on people with integrity. Those calling for convicting these innocent people will not shut up if these innocent people are not run through the image-of-legal ringer through a pardon. They will scream louder and will get more bang for the buck for their “Republicans are vile criminals” shrill screaming.
It is despicable what these unethical, dishonest liberal revisionists (but that’s a 4-way redundancy) are willing to do to gain and consolidate power. It is equally despicable what the flocks of bleating sheep are willing to mindlessly follow and support.
But I stand by my position that preemptive pardoning of the innocent should not be done.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/18/2009 @ 3:14 pmSince Eric Holder helped Marc Rich and FALN, Bush can and should preemptively pardon everyone in the war on terror who MAY have cut legal corners.
Is that the argument?
Pardons for wiretapping and “enhanced interrogation” surveillance would call attention to alleged criminality. Many – if not most – on the receiving end would testify freely to a truth commission, if one is set up. The more preemptive pardons Bush signs, the more likely such a commission.
That will really cauterize the wound.
steve (719e6c) — 1/18/2009 @ 3:15 pmnote: I adjusted DRJ’s statement to make it more accurate. The adjustment is wholly mine and is not an attempt to build a straw-man, but an attempt on my part to clarify the actual situation.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/18/2009 @ 3:16 pmsteve, that’s not the argument. That’s the response to the hypocrisy demonstrated by sandra above.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/18/2009 @ 3:16 pm“Surveillance” is extraneous in #19.
steve (719e6c) — 1/18/2009 @ 3:17 pmTorture should be pardoned because we all love “24.”
And of we don’t we should be sent to Gitmo.
David Ehrenstein (96f436) — 1/18/2009 @ 3:22 pmI disagree.
Not only is it a bad precedent but Obama will not go after them.
Short explanation: He now owns any successful attack on the US.
Long explanation here.
Datechguy (b2c7e4) — 1/18/2009 @ 3:26 pm[…] suggests a preemptive move: Pardon anyone and everyone in your Administration who participated in wiretapping, interrogations, […]
It’s all smoke « DaTechguy’s Blog (4797e5) — 1/18/2009 @ 3:43 pm“Do it now.”
Quite a difference from Ike’s farewell, no?
imdw (f636ac) — 1/18/2009 @ 3:52 pmIs Monica Conyers is the slammer yet for her antics in Detroit?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:54 pmThis is wise advice. I disagreed with Rummy and Chenney on a host of issues, but I do not want to see witch trials in Washington, DC. I had enough of that crap with Fitzgerald. It is BS politics. No one is above the law, but prosecuting people trying to protect America (even if you disagree with their tactics) is a bad mistake–especially when it was done pursuant to what was perceived to be legal.
Joe (17aeff) — 1/18/2009 @ 4:59 pmI see where you are coming from, DRJ, but if I had served in the Bush Administration and if I had participated in duties that I thought were legal and necessary to defend the country, I would pointedly NOT want a pardon.
We saw how the establishment left treated George H.W. Bush’s pardon of Casper Weinberger under similar circumstances. They have successfully spun that as an admission of guilt when all Bush41 was trying to do is spare him the emotional and financial burden of a lengthy show trial. Should Bush43 preemptively pardon those in his Administration the same lefty clowns will declare that as being proof of guilt.
JVW (bff0a4) — 1/18/2009 @ 5:14 pmAllah Akbar!
Joe (17aeff) — 1/18/2009 @ 5:18 pmI am starting to think I see the endgame for the Dems in this. Conyers issues his little subpoenas (or are they indictments? I don’t know how it works when it is Congress) to various Bush Administration officials like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, etc. The far left rejoices that justice will finally be done. Obama furrows his brow and says that while no one is above the rule of law, his administration wants to look forward not backward. The kangaroo court is convened and just about when the show trials are set to begin, Obama pardons each and every one of them. The Congressional Dems therefore look good to the far left base for attempting to hold the evil Bush Administration officials accountable, while Obama gets to burnish his credentials as a healer of the breach. Obama will be happy to take the temporary hit from the far left if it allows him to look statesmanlike and post-partisan to moderate Dems, independents, and gullible Republicans.
JVW (bff0a4) — 1/18/2009 @ 5:32 pmOne of the reasons for the fall of the Roman Republic was the habit of the political opposition in bringing legal action against almost every incumbent officeholder on completion of their term of office. If Caesar had returned to Rome as a private citizen, he would have been placed on trial – so he returned with his Legions and the Republic was no more.
It was common practice in the England of Henry VIII for officeholders to receive a pardon from the King upon completion of their term of office. The “alleged killer” of the two princes held various positions under both Henry VII and Henry VIII. He asked for and received pardons upon the completion of each and every term of service.
The Liberals want to criminalize the perfectly legal acts of Republican officeholders. Even when those officeholders prevail in court, it will ruin then financially unless they are extremely wealthy. Another way to insure that plebian Republicans will not sit in those seats reserved for the Democratic elites.
longwalker (ce69ff) — 1/18/2009 @ 5:40 pmHe won’t.
rrpjr (da7d17) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:01 pm#18 (John)
So you would prefer that the lives and personal savings of these people should be at risk because of the taint of guilt a preemptive pardon would presume?
If it were me, I’d say give me the pardon, and I’ll keep my cash, thank you very much.
Dr. K (4dd7c3) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:07 pm#30 (JVW)
Obama ain’t that smart and ain’t got the guts for it.
He’ll just vote present.
Dr. K (4dd7c3) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:11 pmCan undercover CIA or other personnel be openly pardoned? Names listed? Won’t that essentially (well, totally) end their operative careers?
And also open them up to potential harrassment from left wing internationalist types using lawfare to go after them? Not to mention AQ agents seeking revenge.
This is a tough one.
My guess is that Bush would have pardoned them earlier if he could.
SteveMG (d49b31) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:11 pmFor President Bush to issue such pardons, he would have to think that some of the actions in which his Administration engaged in the war against Islamic fascism was illegal. I don’t think he believes that at all.
The realistic Dana (556f76) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:12 pmThen if that were the case, I’d be packing my bags to a country that has no extradition treaty.
Dr. K (4dd7c3) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:16 pmI have to agree with an earlier poster — seeing some of the Gov.t scum-bags who undermined our President in jail is not so bad.
CIA and State are good places to start.
Da'Shiznit (df1dcc) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:19 pmCan undercover CIA or other personnel be openly pardoned? Names listed? Won’t that essentially (well, totally) end their operative careers?
Not to mention provide information to hostile countries about our agents. E.g., they can use the names of the pardoned officers/personnel and try and trace their activities, contacts, et cetera.
Quite an intelligence coup.
Recall that the government was opposed not primarily to the publication of the Pentagon Papers themselves but to the addendum and index which listed the names of contacts and assets and methods that were used to acquire information/intelligence used in the history.
SteveMG (d49b31) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:23 pmFirst, there is no way – simply none – that the Obama Justice Department will prosecute ordinary officers and personnel for engaging in activity that they were told was both legal and authorized.
They won’t be able to get a conviction even if the jury is made up of Keith Olbermann groupies.
Second, the evidence is clear that Bush and others received legal advice that told them that the treatment was legal and not a violation of any US laws or treaties.
Again, unless you have a jury entirely of pure Bush haters, a conviction would be near impossible.
Third, because of the complexity of the cases involved – US laws, legal advice, wartime footing – there is simply no justification to use Justice Department resources – limited as they are especially now – on such a witchhunt.
Pelosi is simply playing to her base. Obama knows the can of worms any prosecution would entail. The best that they’ll do is leak any damaging information to the press to further ruin the reputations of the Administration. That’ll be done by the thugs Conyers and Waxman.
SteveMG (d49b31) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:36 pm[…] thinks that Bush should pardon anyone who may have been involved in wiretapping, interrogations and other activities: Pardon anyone and […]
Democrats To Engage in Witch-Hunt | Axis of Right (4bdcf7) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:42 pmDr. K, if no laws were broken, then no pardons are necessary. DRJ is suggesting we do an end-run around a criminal justice system that investigates whether or not laws were broken. Laws, schmaws, she says.
sandra (0eea94) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:46 pmI smell logic fallacies.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:53 pmsandra your an idiot, from the first post to this last one,
they will try to prosecute these people. they will cause them an incredible amount emotional stress and financial hardship. some will take plea bargains because the fight is so expensive and long (scooter libby) those that are acquitted will still have their lives ruined in some cases. all so the left can intimidate people from participating in politics against them.
they are the ones who are thugs, trying to criminalize politics to prevent participation by those who disagree w/ them. those are the people you support sandra. have you no shame?
chas (779a03) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:53 pmDRJ is suggesting we do an end-run around a criminal justice system that investigates whether or not laws were broken.
Pardons don’t prevent the government from investigating whether laws were broken.
Some people don’t simply want an investigation; they want a pound of flesh from people who were told that what they were doing or authorizing was legal.
During a time of war. With threats on the horizon.
SteveMG (d49b31) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:56 pmFrom where, exactly, does the Presidential power of pardon derive, sandra? Do you know?
Pablo (99243e) — 1/18/2009 @ 6:58 pm44 chas +1. The FISA Court has stated that what wiretapping was done was legal. There was no torture of terrorists at GITMO so there is no need to pardon anyone. But like chas said, these Dems are thug bullies who want a pound of flesh from the Bushies and they will do everything they can to make their lives a living hell to get at them and to intimidate anyone else who ever might cross the Dems. The Dems are the fricken NAZI’s.
J. Raymond Wright (e8d0ca) — 1/18/2009 @ 7:07 pmThe FISA Court has stated that what wiretapping was done was legal
As far as I can tell, it didn’t say that. The FISC ruling was that the recent 2007 law allowing warrantless monitoring was constitutional.
Not that the prior actions were constitutional.
And there was a recent allegation that the 20th hijacker on 9/11, Qahtani, was “tortured” at GITMO.
SteveMG (d49b31) — 1/18/2009 @ 7:13 pmMuch as I appreciate the strategic thinking of JVW@#30, I think SteveMG actually gets to the nut of it @#40 (and of course is correct in #48)
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 1/18/2009 @ 8:00 pm[…] Patterico has a message for him: Pardon anyone and everyone in your Administration who participated in wiretapping, interrogations, […]
I Hope George W. Bush Reads Blogs | The Blog of Record (0fdfb4) — 1/18/2009 @ 8:09 pmSteveMG,
Re: a jury of Bush haters.
Let’s assume charges are brought in Washington, D.C. Are you still confident any prosecutions will be unsuccessful?
JVW,
I assume the recipient of a pardon is free to decline it but the larger issue is whether accepting a pardon constitutes a legal admission of guilt. I don’t know the answer but, if so, that would probably change my opinion. The purpose of a pardon is to make things better for the recipient, not worse.
DRJ (345e40) — 1/18/2009 @ 8:21 pmI don’t think accepting a pardon constitutes admission of guilt in a formal legal sense (but then again, I am not a lawyer). What it almost certainly does, however, is constitute an admission of guilt in the court of public opinion. Just ask any lefty about Cap Weinberger if you don’t believe me.
JVW (bff0a4) — 1/18/2009 @ 9:06 pmDRJ: this was actually litigated in the 1860s. Congress had passed a law saying that people whose land had been confiscated during the war could get it back if they demonstrated that they had not offered aid or comfort to the rebellion. The Supreme Court ruled that people with presidential pardons could get their property back. Congress tried to by statute order that pardons be taken as proof of guilt; the Supreme Court told them to butt out of judicial matters … and, in dicta, essentially affirmed that the President’s pardon power is absolute and, legally speaking, wipes the slate clean.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 1/18/2009 @ 9:11 pmPardons are a legal measure, of course, so pardoning someone is not running around the law… it is the law.
Of course, while Bush would be scorned for pardoning our heroes, Clinton pretty much got no flack at all for pardoning real criminals and murderers. Sandra isn’t condemning Clinton’s pardons… yet another sure sign of the democrat culture of corruption…
And it’s not like we haven’t already seen what kinds of investigations would take place. What did Scooter Libby do? He screwed up his account of what went on in an event where he didn’t break any laws, and the dude who did break the laws wasn’t prosecuted. Cute.
Bush can issue some kind of blanket pardon covering anyone who did x,y,z, and not pardon himself, explaining that the buck stopped with him, not the people who prevented countless other 9/11s.
A side effect of this political bullshit is that it has already made the USA less safe. If you were a CIA agent needing information from some monster who wanted to blow up the inauguration, you would a bit less likely to wiretap, waterboard, whatever… because it’s clearly something Conyers wants heads for. Can Obama fix this?
Joco (4cdfb7) — 1/18/2009 @ 9:32 pmThere will be no prosecutions of the Bush administration. The new President can’t risk that. I don’t agree with his policies, but he’s not stupid. He knows he can’t give up precedent for expediency.
Congress may try, but it will go nowhere. The new President will stop it. It may not be public, but he will.
The current President may pardon folks, but unless I’m proven wrong, it won’t be the people the left expects.
Except, I hope, for Scooter Libby. And that’s because he wasn’t convicted for what the left accuses him of doing.
Ag80 (a1430f) — 1/18/2009 @ 9:35 pmaphrael,
Thanks for the legal history, one of my favorite subjects. I have a feeling you like that, too.
DRJ (345e40) — 1/18/2009 @ 9:44 pmMaybe if the Dems believed many would come to Washington, armed, if they dared indict one Bush Administrative person, they would back off the stupid idea and avoid civil war.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (6dfddf) — 1/18/2009 @ 11:07 pmHe won’t do it.
Bush is at heart a good man, a kind soul, and a trusting one. He doesn’t self-aggrandize or monologue. He’s not in love with his image.
He didn’t even fight that hard for his policies, assuming that over time, facts and history would bear them out
Hawkins (7cd223) — 1/18/2009 @ 11:41 pmDRJ: yes, quite. 🙂 I absolutely adored The Constitution in Congress, Prof. David Currie’s history of Congressional interpretation of the Constitution. (It’s quite interesting, too, rereading it after a year and a half of law school; it strikes me quite differently than it did when I read it five or six years ago).
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 1/19/2009 @ 12:37 amsandra has NOT read the Constitution?
Shocka!!!
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/19/2009 @ 1:09 amThank . . . GOD that Errorstein, the professional writer, came along to parrot the “conservatives think ’24’ should be real” talking point.
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/19/2009 @ 1:28 amUnfortunately,I’m not even sure he could issue a pardon before charges are brought forward.
Not to mention the can of worms he would open for these dedicated individuals who served this Country with excellence….It would kind of be like branding them all with a scarlet letter and a huge bullseye for retribution.
Drider (23b9cf) — 1/19/2009 @ 4:01 amI just read a post on what the new leadership would do if a group was caught planning an eminent attack at the inauguration….and what they would do,as well as what their followers would except.
The truthful answer is this and I’m honestly not going to embelish this fact…..If an attack was truly going to happen, they would pull out the pliers and blowtorches to advert tarnishing this historic event, the followers wouldn’t bat an eye…..mainly because the media would clamp down so hard on the story so hard that none would know it happened.
In fact, we can expect this alot over the next four years to varying degrees.
Drider (23b9cf) — 1/19/2009 @ 4:11 amNothing will stop the unrelenting, nonstop stream of Unicorns, rainbows and BJ’s coming our way.
#63:
Tell that to Ford when he pardoned Nixon before any charges were filed.
Dr. K (f196bc) — 1/19/2009 @ 4:12 am#65, I stand corrected sir, people have been pardoned before charges are filed, as you reminded us about.
Drider (23b9cf) — 1/19/2009 @ 4:14 amWhat the libs seem to forget is that programs like “Rendition” started on Bill Clintons watch. Are the libs going after Clinton & Gore too? I realize the statue of limitations has expired for Clinton & Gore. My point is, not a peep out of the libs ever in regards to enhanced interrogation in the Clinton administration.
The libs are fond of quoting the Democratic play book & claiming “enhanced interrogation does not produce actionable results.” The fact is enhanced interrogation produced information on a terrorist plot against the LA Airport.
The libs would have you think this is being done to every prisoner in Gitmo when the truth is it has only been done to a small number of high value terrorists.
What are we talking about here? Sleep deprivation, being forced to strip in front of a female, a little water poured in their faces. To me, that seems very humanitarian compared to what the terrorists do to our captured military personnel. How many have been returned alive? Not many.
I’m not fond of the idea of torturing prisoners but in the rare instances it is used (with presidential approval) if that’s what it takes to save American lives I’m fine with it. If you don’t ant bad things to happen to you, don’t jihad against the USA. It’s pretty simple really.
Stan Switek (7cfd24) — 1/19/2009 @ 6:08 amStatute, LOL
Stan Switek (7cfd24) — 1/19/2009 @ 6:09 amStan Switek: I was seeing complaints on liberal email lists about rendition in the 1990s. They didn’t get magnified in the way that complaints in this decade did, in part because the internet was younger then and had less reach.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 1/19/2009 @ 8:00 am#69,, An obscure email list is far different from what members of congress are doing. It does not even compare in the least. Liberal email list.. Spare me.
Stan Switek (7cfd24) — 1/19/2009 @ 9:15 amStan: many liberals will tell you that most of the ‘liberals’ in Congress aren’t liberals, just as many conservatives will tell you that most of the ‘conservatives’ in Congress aren’t conservatives.
I imagine you would prefer that Conservatives not be judged by the behavior of Lindsay Graham, for example. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/19/2009 @ 10:46 ami’m okay with the Donkey’s doing a witch hunt. the more time they spend on it, the less they can spend on stealing my money and my freedoms.
redc1c4 (9c4f4a) — 1/19/2009 @ 11:20 amBTW: if “enhanced interogation” *didn’t* w*rk, the lieberals wouldn’t whine about it.
they only do so to protect those they support.
redc1c4 (9c4f4a) — 1/19/2009 @ 11:21 amGeorge W. Bush should be criminally prosecuted for all his actions during his reign of terror as El Presidente. over 3000 lives lost in the Sept 11th attacks – He is responsible for. He dropped the ball – happened on his watch.
The lying about the WMD’s that began a war which had nothing to do with 911 and cost over 3000 lives. The ignoring of Osama Bin Laden. Allowing Bin Laden to stay free. Bush is a lousy war president. Couldn’t handle the job. Committed crimes…Bush needs to go to jail. Period.
Jake H. (3176cf) — 1/19/2009 @ 1:53 pmJake, the only lies I see are in your comment.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/19/2009 @ 1:56 pm#75
Hear, hear!
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/19/2009 @ 1:57 pmThat’s because you are blind SPOR….keep drinking the Kool aid….
Jake H. (3176cf) — 1/19/2009 @ 2:02 pmEven Indiana voted for Obama….that’s how bad Bush was as president. Indiana voted for a black man as president!!!!!!!!! LOL
Jake H. (3176cf) — 1/19/2009 @ 2:04 pmI voted for Alan Keyes in the ’04 primary, I think it was. What’s your point, Jake?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/19/2009 @ 2:07 pm#60 aphrael — 1/19/2009 @ 12:37 am:
Thanks for the recommendation. I put it on my wish list to buy this month. What about similar Currie books for other time periods — do you have any recommendations on them?
DRJ (345e40) — 1/19/2009 @ 2:11 pmTotally racist Indiana voted for Obama!!
Hey Jake, was Bush on the ballot in Indiana? He wasn’t on mine, so I’m wondering.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/19/2009 @ 2:14 pm#74
Are you sure about that? Take a look at the articles below. These are unclassified accounts. The Iraqis had 3 months to move anything they had while we piddled with the UN.When the classified stuff eventually is declassified Bush’s choice may be vindicated quite handily.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4771882/
voiceofreason2 (f237cf) — 1/19/2009 @ 2:15 pmhttp://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=764
#82
And I read a book in ’06, written by a self-proclaimed liberal female former member of the US Army who was deployed to Iraq. In it, she said there were many accounts of having found all sorts of tools to create WMDs, including a chem/bio-weapons lab built inside a vehicle.
In my own view, there were too many of these labs and other various evidences of capability and intent to discount any claims of WMDs. The time between demand and action was more than enough to allow for the removal of those WMDs to another kingdom.
(I just wish I could remember the book or the author. My daughter bought it in HI and I read it in the mornings while waiting for her to wake up.)
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/19/2009 @ 2:22 pmDRJ: I liked the entire series, and was just linking to that one as an opener. 🙂
I was very disappointed to hear that the series won’t be finished because Prof. Currie died in 2007. 🙁
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/19/2009 @ 2:23 pmJake, No, its because I actually know what I’m talking about. And you do not.
Bipartisan intelligence committee reports concluded that Bush was not lying about WMD in Iraq. The connection between the Iraq operation and the war on terror is obvious to those who have any intelligence at all – the Bush administration did not claim that the Iraq war was a direct response to 9/11. Bush did not “drop” any ball for 9/11 – the ball was dropped by intelligence agencies still operating under Clinton era restrictions.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/19/2009 @ 2:27 pmNo difference between McCain and Bush…except for the fact that McCain pick a complete moron as his running mate in 2008 as did Cheney in 2000 and 2004.
Jake H. (3176cf) — 1/19/2009 @ 2:28 pmI have no Love for Clinton…However, it was during the Bush admin that 911 happened. Lets not forget this. The terriosts waited for the weaklings to be in office for the big attack. For the boneheads who would react just as they wanted.
I have no idea what Obama will do as president. I do know that my grandmother can do a better job than Bush and she has been dead for 25 years.
Jake H. (3176cf) — 1/19/2009 @ 2:32 pm“Totally racist Indiana voted for Obama!!”
Thank you for making my point….
Jake H. (3176cf) — 1/19/2009 @ 2:34 pmI leave you now…I leave you with President Barack Hussein Obama….Enjoy….
Jake H. (3176cf) — 1/19/2009 @ 2:36 pmThank you for making mine. I’ve always loved satire.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/19/2009 @ 2:43 pmJake, you are confused. The terrorists did not “wait” for Bush to be President to make their attack, they started their preparations long before his election.
The moron that was picked for Vice President was Joe Biden. Called “Slow Joe” for a reason.
You really don’t seem very well informed – or at least no less informed than your grandmother.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/19/2009 @ 3:17 pmJake’s work is done.
AD (c9522d) — 1/19/2009 @ 4:26 pmNo, Jake’s work are done.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/19/2009 @ 4:31 pmI say let’em indict a few and then maybe the repubs will finally get the idea that the dems can’t be trusted and that they’re insane.
jcw46 (3ae7e3) — 1/19/2009 @ 5:45 pmComment by jcw46 — 1/19/2009 @ 5:45 pm
It is not the Republicans that need to be convinced of your argument,
AD (c9522d) — 1/19/2009 @ 6:26 pmbut the Independents.
Actually, AD, many Republicans actually do need convinced. The conservatives who vote Republican do not need convincing.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/19/2009 @ 6:32 pmI have a message to Democrat Thugs: As you persecute, so shall you be persecuted as you leave office. Yea, even unto your supporters like Levi.
PCD (7fe637) — 1/20/2009 @ 6:16 amThe terriosts waited for the weaklings to be in office for the big attack. For the boneheads who would react just as they wanted.
Say what?
I don’t think the terrorists planned on having both governments of Afghanistan and Iraq deposed, if they did then Bush fell into their trap quite nicely and war never goes nicely or as planned.
The bright side of Iraq, 20,000 plus dead terrorists and 1 dead evil dictator.
ML (14488c) — 1/20/2009 @ 6:44 am#98 ML:
…and over 500 chemical WMDs recovered, 550 metric tons of uranium yellowcake sold to the Canadians (to be fair, we knew that Saddam had the yellowcake…we just weren’t exactly sure what he was going to do with it. Although I have a pretty good idea…)
…and the list goes on…
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 1/20/2009 @ 8:30 amBut…But…
AD (8f1f13) — 1/20/2009 @ 8:47 amThere were no WMD’s in Iraq…(sputters uncontrollably)…it’s a lie, planted evidence, BushHitler.blah.blah.blah….
Ezra Levant has some comments about the Canadian / Syrian rendition controversy.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/20/2009 @ 9:17 am#100 AD:
A favorite relative of mine explains that there couldn’t have been any WMDs in Iraq because it would have been a HUGE story in Teh Press…
You know, just like the gigantic coverage that the O!ne’s illegal overseas campaign contributions garnered by turning off credit card verification for online donations got!
(Those contributions got me to wondering if a President could be impeached before inauguration, but it seems a moot point now…)
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 1/20/2009 @ 9:23 amLike Bush is ever going to read this.
[I don’t believe this is the “Allah” that most people assume. It is, I believe, not Allahpundit from Hot Air, but rather some random dude using that name. — P]
Allah (dfbca9) — 1/21/2009 @ 4:48 pmMr. president ,first i just want to say thank u God bless you & family , you r one in a bilions, i really like your confidence, strength,,,, for me you r the real president of the World.
Dawit Guyo (7d2c8c) — 1/25/2009 @ 3:10 pmGod Bless You, and your family
from Dawit Guyo , Ethoipia . Awassa