Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Rip Van McGovern wakes up and says "Bush must go"
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, January 06, 2008

George McGovern is convinced Bush and Cheney must go. And he's conviced they deserve to be impeached. The reasons he outlines include these:
It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks — another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson's observation: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
Speaking of blatant falshoods, how many do you see in that paragraph? I've underlined 3 obvious one.

I mean this is so "2004" it's laughable.

Go back to sleep George.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Bush must go? We’re in the process of picking his successor. It’s a little late in the game for that sort of rhetoric, isn’t it?

At any rate, while I’m sure the usual suspects will flock here and try to prove him correct, I really REALLY wonder why everyone is so hot to try to fight that argumement over and over again, especially when they lost it initially, then lost it the 2nd time. Now that we’re into a potentially successful operation over there, the run up to war certainly is a burning question!

I guess it’s the only thing about Iraq that liberals want to discuss now. Suddenly all the hoo-ha over Iraq is suddenly all gone.

I wonder why?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Wait a second, here! I thought George McGovern had died!

I would too, if I had to listen to that unabashed commie dickwad talk.

Remind me, someone, why McGovern lost 49 states in 1972?
 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
Obama is Kenyan.
 
Written By: Blad
URL: http://
Remind me, someone, why McGovern lost 49 states in 1972?
RethugliKKKAn Dirty trciks, I’d think.... I don’t know a single smellie Hippie that voted for Nixon, and yet he "won" the election.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Obviously, George just wanted to see his name up on this site.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Speaking of blatant falshoods, how many do you see in that paragraph? I’ve underlined 3 obvious one.
You’re right, McQ. In the run-up to the Iraq war, the Bush administration never mentioned nuclear weapons, 9/11, or that Saddam presented any realistic, immediate threat to the United States. Not once.

I’m not saying McGovern has any special insight on what the public believed, but there’s even less reason to believe that you do.


From USA Today, 9/6/2003
Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists’ strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it’s likely Saddam was involved.

As usual, you will simply ignore facts to the contrary. Or claim that it wasn’t the Bush administration that led people to believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Or some other nonsense.

To which on can respond only that your disconnection with reality is so 1/20/01 to 1/20/09. Geez, even Huckabee doesn’t buy your way of thinking anymore.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
As usual, you will simply ignore facts to the contrary. Or claim that it wasn’t the Bush administration that led people to believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Or some other nonsense.
Yes, yes, here we go again...now MK just shut us Neo_con Rethuglicans up by simply finding an AP, Reuters, UPI, WaPo, NYT, LAT, ChiTrib, Strib quotation WHERE ANYONE IN THE ADMINISTRATION SAID SADDAM HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. After all about 15% of the people believe Bush LIHOP or MIHOP for 9/11. Now does that make it TURE, or simply what people believe?

You keep this story line up and you’re going to keep getting called on it. Sorry the "Big Lie" approach to writing history isn’t going to wash here.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
At any rate, while I’m sure the usual suspects will flock here and try to prove him correct.....
DING DING DING DOING!

MK shows up, we have our first winner!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Err, don’t you mean ’loser’?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
"There has been some debate over how “imminent” a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!"
— John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"But I do think that the more serious question going forward is, what are we going to do? I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States — they’re dictatorships, they’re involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.

And I think they — as a result, we have to, as we go forward and as we develop policies about how we’re going to deal with each of these countries and what action, if any, we’re going to take with respect to them, I think each of them have to be dealt with on their own merits.

And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat."
John Edwards: Fed 24 2002
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider