"I believe that George Bush is surrounded by some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias. I believe that they were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida, and that they have sought to disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents."
"I believe, too, that the Bush government seized the opportunity provided by the attacks to pursue a longstanding plan to invade Iraq and reshape the Middle East, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush deliberately misled the American people about the links between 9/11 and Iraq and about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He is responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis."
George Monbiot, Tuesday February 20, 2007
2007-03-02 06:20:54 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
yeah, im ashamed to be from a country ran by such a person, god damn bush and all those who support him
2007-03-02 06:23:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 8⤋
Nope...just sounds like more opportunistic stridency masquerading as rational debate...
In school we were once taught to avoid language describing anyone as "the most..." or "the worst..." because we, as individuals, are not qualified to judge absolutes without substantial documented support.
Of course political discourse today is all about immediacy, self-promotion and emotional manipulation, so this type of rant would probably run in any major news outlet.
Has the administration mishandled things? Absolutely. Was George 4.3 itching to go after Saddam to make George 4.1 proud? Possibly. But any legitimate points are lost amongst the Sturm and Drang of showy vitriol.
2007-03-02 14:39:50 · answer #2 · answered by a_man_could_stand 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, the problem with your analysis is, that the Clinton administration is responsible for a lot of this.
They ignored threat after threat. All the signs that everyone like you blames Bush for, were there for Clinton, but he and his people did little or nothing about it at all. But of course, I'm sure you love Bill, so he can do no wrong...
And as far as saying Bush deliberately mislead us about WMD's.
This is absurd in logic, and in fact.
EVERYONE including Kerry, the Clintons, Harry Reid, Gore, Edwards etc., made speeches about how Saddam had to be taken out, as their justification for voting FOR the war, not just WMD's.
They conveniently switch their story aftewards, but there's tons of video of them making speeches talking about how Saddam was evil and had to be taken out.
For Bush to DELIBERATELY have lied about WMD's, (as opposed to being mistaken) would mean that he KNEW there weren't any, which is absurd..
So, you think he went over there in his spare time and searched every sand dune, garage and bunker and therfore knew there was nothing there?
The U.N. inspectors said he had them, all the democrats now saying Bush lied said he had them, the entire world said he had them, and guess what?
AT ONE TIME HE DID?
All those Kurds were murdered by poison gas. That is WMD's. Saddam did it.
HE HAD WMD's, but he either hid them, smuggled them out, and was stupid enough not to let the inspectors in to verify that the were no longer there.
Big mistake.
I'm tired of all you simple minded morons who fall for this simplistic propaganda that the left pulls just to get votes. And it works every time.
Don't you ever ask yourself why almost every Democrat voted for the war? And now that they're in power, they haven't done anything to get us out? It's because they are FOR the war, but don't want the political fallout.
2007-03-02 14:38:04 · answer #3 · answered by dork 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Facinating the same group of people continue to swing back and forth between the skill the Bush people use to manipulate everyone and their stupidity.
How about if one group of people just sees the thing differently from the other and get on with it?
2007-03-02 14:24:28 · answer #4 · answered by wizjp 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
So wait, those intelligence about potential attacks, do you mean the two U.S embassy, U.S.S cole bombing, and World Trade Center bombings that clinton ignored? 18 of the 19 hijackers where in the U.S before George Bush swore in. How is this his fault more than Clintons?
2007-03-02 14:25:20 · answer #5 · answered by Relax Guy 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
It is a well known fact that the CIA was told by the Bush administration to collect intel connecting Iraq to 9/11 and that intel disputing this assumption was disregarded. You are 100% correct.
2007-03-02 14:24:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
I'm not even sure about 9/11. Hear about the BBC tapes? Just a few days ago a clip of a BBC reporter came out, saying that WTC 7 had fallen -- but WTC 7 was in the background behind her, as smoke poured from the site!
The clip was removed from Google.
BBC reported their 9-11 tapes mysteriously missing soon after that.
Check it out: http://www.prisonplanet.com
2007-03-02 14:25:57 · answer #7 · answered by A Box of Signs 4 · 6⤊ 5⤋
Bold statements. I like them a great deal and its interesting just how many people are going to want to get their hands on you for writing it. I'll stand on your side of the fence however.
2007-03-02 14:26:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
George Monbiot is correct
2007-03-02 14:25:41 · answer #9 · answered by jj raider 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
ea Humanist, this is one of your better questions. There is a strong possibility, this could hold weight. I don't fully agree but it has possibility.
2007-03-02 14:28:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
i agree and i think Bush is just as responsible. i say 9-11 was an inside job to begin w/.
2007-03-02 14:25:05 · answer #11 · answered by i hate undies! 4 · 5⤊ 4⤋