I used to look up to America as the epitome of democracy, but since the Nixon administration, I believe that the executive is rotten to the core. R I P democracy.

I couldn't believe it when the Americans re elected G W Bush for another term. But when towards the end of the electioneering,old Osama bin Laden was flashed on US TV screens , it was obvious that this was intended to shepherd the sheep into the correct pens. It was no coincidence. And it worked.
Unfortunately for the Yanks and the rest of the world.

I was astonished by George W Bush's first election, let alone the second. It really tests one's belief, apparently shared by those running political campaigns, that people vote according to rational criteria.
It was simply fortuitous that Hurricane Katrina exposed the inadequacy, not only of the Bush43 presidency, but of US national government.
The Democrats? I recall a saying, used I think by Nye Bevan about the American parties:- "The same bottle with different labels and identical contents-- both empty". Note that John Kerry, like Bush, was at Yale and in the same (exclusive) undergraduate club. I saw Gen Wesley Clark as the Democrat who may have been a great force for change because he had genuine national security and economic credentials, and a measure of idealism. Rare in a career soldier but that was one case.
We need a US political culture that sees world leadership as setting an agenda for a better world, not as an opportunity to throw one's weight around to keep others in their place. From a young age, most of us have been quite skilled at discerning the difference between leadership and bullying. Americans, exercise some discernment and act on it. The world is sick of your country's behaviour.

9/11 did indeed give Bush the opportunity to generate the popular leadership only possible by manufacturing an endless war (in Iraq). 3,000 dead in New York is a justification, but was Iraq a culprit and why stay there?

Afghanistan is a different case and its invasion was justified.

Hurricane Katrina failed to provide Bush with a popular invasion and in that sense it is a political tragedy.

I'll be sexist for a second in asserting that the Valerie Plame case has more to do with her obvious Beauty http://cryptome.org/plame-photos.htm and Rove's obvious Beastliness than any humanitarian or legal concern with protecting a CIA agent's identity. If Valerie had been old, balding, pugnacious and male like Rove I don't think people would have worried about her being outed.

The only thing that may save Bush is another event justifying continuing occupation of Iraq or another invasion.

Although the US Democrats and our ALP can be relied on to kick own goals if at all possible.

Having written policy for politicians their cynicism is frequently as bad as the above - but it wins elections.

And to think that our Prime Minister supports this bumbling, incompetant pile of [censored].

The slow reaction and flagrant apathy of the Republicans just goes to show how much right-wing governments give a cr*p about the lower classes of their societies. Or dare I say - how racist they are.

The 2000 "election" was fixed and then the witch burning, gun crazy, imbred, psycho christians made sure that he was re-elected in the 2004 "elections". An episode that can be described as 'questionable' at best.

Plantagent:
While there was good cause to invade Afganistan and remove the Taliban, don't forget the main reason for invading - to finally build a gas pipeline through the country that the Taliban wouldn't allow. Don't ever be fooled into thinking that America enters wars without it's own selfish reasons.

The Bush administration has demonstrated just how far the Republicans are willing to go to line the pockets of a few rich men.

God bless conservatives.

HOW COULD 50 MILLION PEOPLE BE SO DUMB?

Fleet Street headline follwing Bush's re-elction.
Says it all, really.

Invading Afghanistan would have been OK, to rid the place of the Taliban,had it been the UN doing the invasion.
The same could be said of Robert Mugabe. Or some of the other vicious African states which have no respect for human rights.
But the US should not have the right to pre empt invasion of any country unless in unison with the UN.
It is a pity that the UN is such a toothless wonder, it could be such a power for good.

Wow. Talk about an ideologically driven propoganda piece.
'Bush revelled' 'easy division' 'a cause notably absent' 'americans, stupified' 'illogical support' 'so many failings'

Yeesh Bede. And that was just the first 5 sentences.

Of course. Liberals and lefties seem unable to comprehend that others have a different worldview, value different things and approach problems in a different manner. Why this leads them to brand conservatives as irrational or stupid is anyones guess, but it makes them come off as elitist and arrogant.

"On the same day that Miers left Washington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, was indicted for his involvement in leaking the identity of undercover CIA agent Valery Plame in 2003."

I'm sorry Bede, but this is just patently false. Libby was indicted on charges of perjury and the like, NOT on any involvement in the leak.

At least the rest of your article was close enough to the truth to appear accurate.

Oh well, let the propanda continue...

Alan Gray:
"Why this leads them to brand conservatives as irrational or stupid is anyone’s guess"

Oh boy! Where do I start?

The reason it leads them to brand conservatives as stupid is because...

- Neglecting America's poorest in their greatest time of need is stupid;
- Lying to the world about WMD in order line the pockets of a few rich men is stupid;
- Claiming to be liberating a country while there's rampant poverty and gang warfare in your own is stupid;
- Blowing $221 Billion on an illegitimate war while that money could fully fund global anti-hunger efforts for 9 years is stupid.
- Blowing children to bits while claiming to be doing God's work and inadvertently exacerbating international terrorism is stupid;
- Holding short term profits over global sustainability as a priority is stupid.

I could keep going but I have to keep it to 350 words.

There's just as much if not more misleading right-wing propaganda.

P.S. Sorry if common sense sounds elitist.

Thanks Mr Man. You have shown in clear detail my point.
Btw, the idea that Bush and the Administration lied about WMD is obviously nonsense. Perhaps you should read a little less left wing screeds and a little more factual articles.

I would suggest starting here
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html

The article to which Alan Gray refers was written by Norman Podhoretz - member of the far right - hardly objective.

Norman Podhoretz (born January 16, 1930) is considered to be a prominent neo-conservative writer. From 1981-87, Podhoretz served with the U.S. Information Agency. He is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He is believed to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and is connected with the Project for the New American Century.

The Project for the New American Century is a star chamber devoted to spreading American dominance in world affairs.

Check out the website for yourself:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Alan Gray - try to present some objective evidence for your claims than the highly spurious link you provided.

Scout,
Norman Podhoretz did not give us expert opinion, but simple, verifiable historical facts.
You ad hominem attack on him is irrelevant to those facts.

That you ingore the facts shows how weak your argument is

Gray - an ad hominem attack is a personal attack (suggest you check your dictionary) - I did not attack Norman Podhoretz personally. I merely pointed out his affiliation with the neo cons of the USA - a verifiable fact. Check Wikipedia.

If what he claimed in his article is true - where is the evidence? All I could find was a distinct agenda of pro-right wing politics that used dismission as argument.

Alan Grey,

You advise me to read more factual material and then lead me to an article written by a radical right-winger.

Yes, I had heard a lot of that before and for the record, I read a lot of right-wing and so-called unbiased material as well. It would be ignorant of me to only listen to one side of the story. Both sides can make good points.

But who's to say the article in your link isn't as misleading or false as the left-wing material out there?

Both the Left and the Right will push a point and claim it's gospel. Some of it's true and some of it's not. But as far as the war in Iraq is concerned, it amazes me that conservatives like yourself can't comprehend some basic points. For example...

- Eleven of the fifteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia not Iraq;
- North Korea flaunts their nuclear weapons program yet the response is almost non-existent. Coincidentally, they have no oil;
- India and Pakistan - two nuclear armed countries - continually threaten each other, yet no one cares;
- Africa is riddled with oppressive dictators, yet no one cares; despite the "fact" that it is now democracy that we're trying to spread - yeah, well at least it is now that the WMD excuse failed anyway;
- $221 billion may very well have caught Bin Laden by now and severely fractured Al-Qaeda.

Let's assume that the article in your link is 100% fact. I'd serious doubt that it brings much comfort to the family and friends of the over 2000 US soldiers or 100 000 Iraqi civilians that are now dead.

Launching a war without a direct threat shows the ignorance and incompetence of a fraudulent "President" who displays no knowledge of history; and therefore, was destined to repeat it.

Scout,
You referred to Norman as ‘a member of the far right – hardly objective’ and highlighted his membership in the PNAC. You then go on to call his article ‘highly spurious’.
As you did not address any of the facts he provided, I can only assume you are referring to his associations and political outlook as the deciding factor in dismissing his work.
This is indeed an ad hominem attack.

To summarise his points on WMD
1)Every major intelligence agency believed Saddam had WMD
2) The previous (clinton) administration thought Saddam had WMD
3) The iraq seeking uranium in africa comment in the state of the union address was true.

Norman supported all these with quotes from the appropriate people.

If all you see in this is no ‘evidence’ and the distinct agenda of pro-right wing dismission (an ironic statement if there ever was one) then there is no hope in prying you away from your bias.

Somehow, even though everyone agreed that Saddam had WMD, Bush lied about Saddam having WMD. Please.

Mr Man,
Norman’s article had a lot of factual content. Including many quotes. I don’t care if an article comes from left or right. It is the facts that are important. You can verify any of those facts if you want to.

What cannot be verified is many of the assertions of left-wing moonbats. Please, show me the facts that Bush lied about WMD. I don’t want simple assertions, I want reasonable proof that Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq, and that the 2 bipartisan committees created to investigate the very question and that found no such dishonesty were also wrong. Until then, all you are doing is making false allegations. As you say you read material from both left and right, I can only assume you are deluded or lying yourself.

Here is a link to one of the committee’s reports. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

That you try to put forward the woefully wrong 100,000 Iraqi civilian death figure is more reason to doubt your credibility.

Alan Grey,

OK. I'll admit it. I got that exaggerated figure in haste from a site that is very left-wing biased. I researched further into it today and have found that the figure is around 30 000. My mistake.

But that doesn't blow away any of my other arguments, or my point that it is foolish to launch a war on a country that poses on immediate threat.

Your logic is strange - one incorrect figure and suddenly everything else must by cr*p. I invite you to prove my other points wrong. Or at the very least, give valid excuses for them.

I realise that we're being told that Bush, Howard and Blair went in based on flawed intelligence but you don't seem to question why that intelligence was flawed.

I DO in fact read some right-wing stuff but I've got to admit, it's mostly for comic relief.

I just love how conservatives harp on about issues such as illegal immigrants, how the greenies are some how aiming for world domination, the "evils" of rock music and how Harry Potter books are turning children into devil worshipping witches. While at the same time, we have corporate giants ruthlessly exploiting and financially destroying people buy the millions around the world without a shred of guilt. And we never a word about this from The Right!

I find conservatives strangley quite on the larger issues.

...oops accidentally clicked Post.

What I was about to say (before that slip up) was that the only reason the intelligence was flawed was because the Bush administration had deliberately fixed it. But if you don't believe that then argue it with the CIA veterans. Here's an example...

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/proof_bush_fixed_the_facts.php

Grey,
> "What cannot be verified is many of the assertions of left-wing moonbats."

Hardly…

A simple Google search for 'wmd intelligence fixed' will result in many articles on the subject. A lot of them factual and from credible sources. So much so that not only do they raise serious question as to whether or not Bush knew that the WMD may not have existed, but that in fact it may have Bush himself - along with his cronies - who were behind the flawed intelligence all along.

The fact that you are asking for proof of the WMD lie shows your bias.

Grey - I really don't wish to debate semantics with you - total waste of my precious time.

However, I will state this:

Expecting an American neo-conservative to present an unbiased, objective report on the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, is like expecting John Howard to admit that his IR changes will not lower wages for the majority of unskilled workers.

Now if you could present proof from a completely unbiased source then I would give consideration to your argument.

BTW - referring to people as "left-wing moonbats" simply because of a differing POV - says more about your maturity and bias, than anything else you have posted.

Cheers m'dear

Scout
My comment -> That’s ad hominem
Your comment -> You are wrong because of…
My comment -> No, I am right because of …
Your comment -> I don’t want to debate semantics with you….

Lol. If you didn’t want to debate semantics, you shouldn’t have claimed I was wrong.

“Now if you could present proof from a completely unbiased source then I would give consideration to your argument.”

You have not provided proof from an unbiased source for the claim that ‘Bush Lied’. Why should I have to do more?

As for ‘Moonbats’, I didn’t call anyone that because they have a different POV, I call them that because they have a tenuous connection with reality due to their inability to think even remotely objectively about all things Bush.

For the record, I think Bush has made many mistakes, but comparing him to Hitler is moonbatery. It isn’t just a different POV it is clearly ludicrous.

Just as people who rattle off ‘Bush lied’ have not shown even remotely this is the case. When the strongest piece of evidence is the downing street memo’s, which is at best ambiguous hearsay and contradicted by multiple bipartisan investigations, it is pretty obvious they are clinging to the Bush lied thing not on the evidence but on their own irrational hatred for Bush. This is further evidence by the claim that ‘The fact that you are asking for proof of the WMD lie shows your bias.’ It seems to even question the moonbats is evidence of bias.

I would say you are less included in these sort of people Scout, but your comment about the lack of evidence in the article I linked is a bit dodgey, considering the number of referenced quotes by the appropriate people that were in there.

To clear confusion about my claim regarding Lewis Libby, I urge interested readers to check his official indictment record:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/10/28/indictment.pdf

Thank you.