HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Credit Due for Failed GOP...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 12:13 PM

Credit Due for Failed GOP Policies

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:11 PM - Edit history (5)

CREDITS TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

Even today, just lately, I've heard flippant remarks trying to defend the GOP record, comments about how George W. Bush compared to President Clinton, promoting the bumper sticker mentality that "W never lied".

Being the party of supposed "Integrity" and "Family Values", Conservatives, hope you're speaking figuratively when you try to defend the record of W/Cheney Incorporated, with such firm FAITH and conviction.

Apparently engaging in unnecessary, pre-emptive WAR is an acceptable part of that party platform, doesn't conflict with their ideals of personal and National integrity.

Morality must be quite flexible, subject to "Wishful Thinking" at that edge of the universe, not that I agree with or even begin to understand that level of sustained confusion/hypocrisy.

But just for fun, how about a short review of the past several years, the ones governed by George W. and Dick Cheney.

Several Belated Credits for GOP Supporters:

Remember the discussion before US wiretapping became publicly known, George W on national television stating that "constitutional protections are in place"?

In fact they'd already waived those requirements to protect the corporate reps. that cooperated. Electronic surveillance measures were well underway, 4th amendment protections had long since been breached.

Public privacy had actually been compromised well before FISA court approval had eventually been waived, while "Constitutional Protections were in place" according to George. That would fit the definition of a "Disingenuous Statement" in legal parlance, no court review necessary

The process continued without FISA review or approval, not LEGALLY, of course.

Cooperative companies would eventually be protected, you understand. Permission would be granted by government agencies (Homeland/National Security) after the fact, while the process itself continued.

Meanwhile, the FISA court review system was certainly NOT in place, would not be for several years. Oversight of the wiretap "process" had become CONDITIONAL at that time and would remain so for the foreseeable future.
Thanks to "RetroActive" immunity.

Careful, it's a PDF!

http://groups.law.gwu.edu/LR/ArticlePDF/78-1-Wagner.pdf

Thanks George, Dick! Who needs the 4th amendment, right?

What about treatment of POWs?

What other assertions were made by George, Cheney, and their illustrious staff? Under the general classification of Disingenuous or Improper declarations, I mean, in order to mislead the public.

Wait, I know, the "rendition" they claimed to be completely within legal requirements but that had to take place outside of the Geneva Conventions, derived from standards that were used to convict prison guards during the Nuremberg trials after WW2.

Removal of constitutional protections under "Homeland Security" and "Patriot Act" provisions (see above!), removal of Geneva Conventions protections to allow for prisoner "Rendition" tactics, all for our own good, right?

We the public were being "protected" by those policy changes, without our approval or consent, of course.

http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/accountability-for-torture/

In our own supposed best interests, right? Not that many of us would have agreed with those methods, which were implemented well before that information was leaked to the public.

So public approval of rendition obviously wasn't necessary or desired as far as that administration was concerned. Like so many other Bush policy decisions.

Members of the former Bush presidential staff also have standing warrants against them for war crimes in several other countries for policies ranging from preemptive war to "rendition", neither of which has ever before been U.S. policy in the history of this nation.

http://www.bushtothehague.org

WAR Policy and further GOP Deception:

George and his staff made several misleading pronouncements before we invaded Iraq.

Foremost were continuous "Conflations" regarding Saddam Hussein and supposed involvement with 9-11.

If you review white house statements preceding our Iraq invasion Bin Laden was continually mentioned in the same sentence as Saddam Hussein, as was 9-11. No actual connection, no evidence or justification, just the impression given.

Reinforced across several weeks like some extended repetitious drone, phrased to be a call to war by design.

As recently reviewed by Rachel Maddow.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/hubris-rachel-maddow-pres...

Supported by threats of "Mushroom Clouds" and press releases that implied absolute proof beyond our reach, we the public.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised" ~George Bush~
March 17, 2003

Evidence not available to the public, yet conclusive, because of "Gathered Intelligence", right?

Classified beyond our level of access, protected in the interest of National Security. Evidence that simply did not exist.

But these were just preliminary tactics, preparation for the invasion to follow.

Onward to glorious WAR!

Further deception from that administration?

OK. What about nationally televised statements by George, Dick, and Condoleeza a few weeks before we crossed the Iraqi border about how "war is a decision of last resort". Implying that we were prepared for a war should that be necessary, that we were not planning to attack, not eager to engage in one.

But BBC "Downing Street" documents leaked from official sources (not denied by Britain or Tony Blair) have surfaced saying that Bush was planning to invade months before that.

Per these reviews and referenced documents, inconclusive evidence against Saddam Hussein was in fact being contrived to fit the "Policy of War", since substantial WMD "intelligence" couldn't be legitimately produced.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/03/iraq.usa
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2...

Just ask Valerie Plame or her husband Joe Wilson. Maybe "Scooter" Libby could fill you in about WMD "Evidence" being contrived to fit plans for war.

http://www.npr.org/series/4961847/locating-the-source-of-the-plame-leak

Thanks Again George! You too, Dick.

0 replies, 733 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Reply to this thread