Beauprez trots out discredited excuses
Blithely dismissing the lies and exaggerations the Bush administration used to inveigle the United States into the current disaster in Iraq, Bob Beauprez trots out right-wing talking points, as if these had suddenly regained credibility (“Ignoring the facts,” Speakout, June 2).
He refers to congressmen who “agreed” with Bush about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, but neglects to mention the manipulation of intelligence reports that produced this consensus. He warns about “enemies of freedom” and Osama bin Laden’s “stated objective,” but either doesn’t know or doesn’t care what bin Laden actually said about his motives, which consisted of ejecting U.S. troops from Muslim holy lands.
He cites the arrest of terrorist wannabes whose schemes never got beyond daydreams, as if these substantiated a viable threat to our nation’s existence. Facts? My eye! This is nothing more than the same old Republican fear-mongering and I, for one, am “real tired” of it.
Dr. A.J. Hill, Nederland
well doc just wait as your beloved extreme far left socalist liberal dems are the ones talking of going into Iran.
speaking of talking points did the dnc and dean approve your letter before you submitted it or did you copy it from their web site?
paco used the following descriptor to attack the letter writer while steering clear of the substance:
"extreme far left socalist (sic) liberal dems"
And then went on to chastise the writer for using "talking points".
Project much?
Posted by Charles B on June 16, 2007 06:53 AMPaco's posts always have meaningless name-calling and no facts. He probably doesn't know what "inveigle" means, a word which aptly describes what Bush&Co and Faux Nooz did to us in 2002 and 2003.
(And are now doing regarding Iran.)
Good letter, doctor.
Posted by Winston Smith on June 16, 2007 07:38 AMBanker Bob BoPeep strikes again. I would much rather hear his tale regarding the $16 million he walked away from politics with. Far be it for me to suggest that all of the Mormon contractors in the Fitz project were required to their banking with BoPeep-family owned banks.
An even better read would be his, Tauer, Billie Mae Owens, Forest Cason, and Dennis Brimhall's creation of a "cash-cow" in the Fitz project solely for Denver's Mormon Church community. This band of brothers (draft-dodgers) stole all of the plum jobs and contracts in this federal funded project and gave them to construction companies owned by Mormons. When Brimhall retired (UCH and UCDHSC), the Mormons rewarded him for his fraud, waste, and abuse of federal funds, by appointing him as their new Director, International Mormon Mission's.
Black disabled Vietnam veterans saw their federal job and contracting bennies "vaporized" by these communist-siders, and to soul-brother Cason, thanks, Uncle Tom, for nothing. He would make a great cell-mate for Jefferson.
Posted by 40acresandmymule on June 16, 2007 07:41 AM40 acres,
Unfortunately, the people of Colorado are still under the impression that they send Representatives to Congress to REPRESENT THEM. BoPoop, Tancredo, and the rest of that bunch know better. The voters and constituients in their Districts - and in the State as a whole - are the VERY LEAST of their concerns; and minorities are the last of the least for them. Vide: Tancredo's attack on Denver, the very City one of whose Districts he is supposed to be "representing".
And just wait till he gets into the Oval Office!
Posted by Old Grouch on June 16, 2007 08:49 AMDoctor Hill,
While you certainly have a right to your opinion, what I find utterly distasteful from those of your ilk is the continued accusations of "Republican fear-mongering" over Saddam Hussein, Islamic Jihadists, and the Iranian Mullahs and President. John Edwards actually thinks and has called this struggle against these evils a "bumper sticker slogan". History and the facts simply don't bear that out. Saddam Hussein, Islamic Jihadists, and Iran are directly responsible for the deaths of millions, the support of international terrorism, the exporting of this virulent disease of Islamic fundamentalism through the use of violence and terror all over the globe - and particularly in the Middle East. You can disagree with the methodology of dealing with these murderous pricks, but having some fear of them is a healthy and wise thing, in my opinion.
On the other hand, what term would you use for the likes of AlGore and the church of global warming? They consistently and loudly preach about the doom and destruction about to befall us all due to this phenomenon - whether it is true or not - yet I do not know of anyone who has actually died or been killed by it yet? Is that "fear- mongering" in your opinion? It certainly is to me. The Republicans - of which I am one - actually point to an enemy that has a substantial body count and threatens more unless we act. The Democrats look for boogeymen under the bed that may or not exist and want us all to run screaming from the room to take action immediately - even though it may not do a thing but cost us all a lot of money.
My good ness...where to start. Dr. Hill must be a proctologist, cuz his facts are full of do-do. If Bush "cooked" the intell to attack Iraq, he must of worked for Bubba Clinton when he attacked Iraq in Dec 1998 (Operation Desert Fox) or in the UN to push thru 16 resolutions against Iraq, or Britain, China, Russia who all had the same intell. Oh, Doc, the US has withdrawn its forces from Saudi Arabia...yet the murder continues. And, Old Grouch, Mr. Tancredo doesn't represent Denver....And Denver certainly doesn't represent ANY of my views.
Posted by Buff Driver on June 16, 2007 09:22 AMMy good ness...where to start. Dr. Hill must be a proctologist, cuz his facts are full of do-do. If Bush "cooked" the intell to attack Iraq, he must of worked for Bubba Clinton when he attacked Iraq in Dec 1998 (Operation Desert Fox) or in the UN to push thru 16 resolutions against Iraq, or Britain, China, Russia who all had the same intell. Oh, Doc, the US has withdrawn its forces from Saudi Arabia...yet the murder continues. And, Old Grouch, Mr. Tancredo doesn't represent Denver....And Denver certainly doesn't represent ANY of my views.
Posted by Buff Driver on June 16, 2007 09:22 AMBuff Driver,
The last time I looked at the map, a significant portion of South-west Denver was part of Tancredo's District. .Sorry if that wasn't exactly clear. God help us all were he to actually represent Denver as such!
When did the US withdraw its forces from Saudi Arabia? Last I read, and heard, there was still friction over having them there; especially the women members, who could not drive off post, and were expected to almost fully don the burkha were they to venture outside the compound, always avoiding male companionship in public as well. At what date did Bush close down the bases and withdraw our presence?
Posted by Old Grouch on June 16, 2007 10:35 AMWell said, Dr. Hill. Thank you for your post.
Republicans like these commenters always fall back on the "Well Clinton thought so too" defense whenever anyone points out their frustration with BushCo cooking the intelligence to justify an immoral war. They point at European countries as well, claiming “they thought so too.” They should keep in mind that neither Clinton nor the European countries have ever advocated for a war with Iraq to deal with this issue so their opinion of the intelligence was "it wasn't actionable."
Neither Clinton nor the European counties went to the UN with bogus vials of uranium yellowcake arguing a fact they knew at the time was false. None of them stood in the State of the Union Address and flat out lied to the congress and the American people about the reasons we were going to war.
On all other matters pertaining to Clinton, BushCo policy for the first year was to do the exact opposite of Clinton’s policies. This is why BushCo incompetently ignored the Al Qaeda threat that experts from Clinton’s administration were clamoring about that first year. 9/11 could have been prevented if it wasn’t for the Bushie “anything but Clinton” mentality.
Once 9/11 hit, the Neo-cons in BushCo had their necessary excuse to go after Iraqi oil and dispose of their once and now forsaken ally Saddam Hussein. Of course Iraq had nothing to do with any terrorist attack on American soil. This never matters to the neo-cons who are adept at using demagoguery to invoke fear in the population. The ends justify the means. Now Iraqis on both sides of the civil war, both Sunni and Shia, are “terrorists” in the eyes of the Republicans because Iraqis fight an age old quarrel amongst themselves and we Americans are so damn vain we think we can stop them.
The Republicans have been successfully conned into believing we fight for freedom when in fact BushCo knew full well we fight for oil. This is why our embassy is larger than the Vatican. This is why we build permanent military bases. This is why Bush now claims we will be there for 50 years to watch over our oil interests. This is why Halliburton is moving to the middle east.
One of the benchmarks the Iraqi parliament is to inact is the Oil Revenue sharing legislation. Why have they not passed it? Because it turns over oil rights to Bush’s comporate oil partners.
I have news for you, Michael. America also has been responsible for millions of deaths, both directly in our use of our arsenal and indirectly in our support for right-wing authoritarian thugs like Mussaref in Pakistan or Hussein 20 years ago when he was skaking hands with Donald Rumsfield. How many civilians died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Michael?
Please, cut the hubris a bit when you rail against those evil islamists. Their excuse for fighting is exactly the same as yours. It's all about saving face at this point for everyone involved. We fight to prove we're right.
And this railing against Democrats who are performing their constitutional responsibilities in civilian oversight of military matters...please, quit attacking their patriotism. Why do you hate America, Republicans? See? This argument can be made against you as well. Demogoguery like this must stop.
Posted by Todd on June 16, 2007 11:43 AMMichael speaks of "the continued accusations of "Republican fear-mongering" over Saddam Hussein".
Surely, no one in his right mind would at this late date fail to see that Bush et al got us into Iraq through fear-mongering. The repercussions of that fear-mongering have been overwhelming and are not nearly over four year later.
Bush was so anxious to get started on Iraq, which had been on his mind since well before being elected president, that he would not even wait the two months the UN inspectors needed to finish their job after Saddam finally gave them reasonable access to Iraq and after the UN inspectors finally had the equipment necessary to do their job. The inspectors were quite optimistic that they would be able to determine the truth about weapons of mass destruction. If they had not been so optimistic, perhaps Bush would have let them continue, but he couldn't take a chance on a negative finding by them as that would upset his dream of taking Saddam down.
Michael continues the Bush practice of falsely conflating Saddam and bin Laden. That too is part of the fear-mongering. What Bush has obviously done is to enhance the position of Iran and deteriorate the ability of the United States to address that threat.
As far as that goes, he has also enhanced the position of the people who brought us 9/11. How much irony can we take from this fool?
There is much to fear about this man. I doubt Iran and al Queda could pay him enough for what he has done for them. And to the United States.
Todd & Truth,
Thank you both for excellent postings.
Facts are always more important than mere political sloganeering; and you have both done a fine job of detailing historical facts.
Of course, the sad thing is, simply: Those who don't want to learn, won't.
So, as we all know already, there will always be the good old, "The flying carpets are coming!", responses. But, you both are to be highly commended for your continuing efforts to bring sense to the senseless; as well as your continuing patience with them all.
Posted by Old Grouch on June 16, 2007 01:24 PMTruth, Todd, and 40 acres, and the doctor - THANK YOU.
Gah. Michael & Buff Driver - could you pls turn off Faux nooz and look up PNAC, AIPAC, OSP, 2001 Cheney Energy meetings, and WHIG?
Please stop posting nonsensical stuff about "withrawing forces from Saudi Arabia and yet the Islamofascists are still hating us, so there!"
Do you even know what fascism is? It's corporatism. And I will bet neither of you reap any wealth or power from GE, Westinghouse, Halliburton, General Dynamics, Rayethon, Lockheed Martin, Blackwater, ExxonMobile, Chevron (Rice), BP (Blair), Conoco, or Dutch Shell.
Wake up. Read Orwell's 1984. Turn off Faux.
PS - 40 acres. Can you tell me more of Bo & his financial dealings? Is he a Mormon?
Todd,Truth,and Old Grouch represent the sad new breed that dominate and will eventually bring down a once great party.
What has my Dem Party become when views like these are considered rational?
God help us all.
tcb
Posted by [Get Real] on June 16, 2007 07:19 PMtcb.......wha?
Posted by Winston Smith on June 16, 2007 08:10 PMWinston,
More like WTF happened to a strong national defense that once was the backbone of the party?
tcb
tcb - or whomever,
There is a box there for your "screen name". But that aside, you certainly don't sound like a Democrat to me.
No one of the postings to which you allude has anything in it about "strong national defense"; and certainly nothing that would indicate any attempt to do away with such.
Only a Bushite would respond to rational criticism of current White House policy by insinuating that such criticism was going to "bring down a once great party". And even then the "once great party" being referred to would not be the Democrats.
But, thanks anyway. At least you acknowledge that the Democratic Party is "great" - whatever the Republican crew might be.
Posted by Old Grouch on June 17, 2007 11:05 AMIt appears folks like Winston Smith and Old Gouch need to start watching FoxNews more often add avoid the left-wing media. To those who get flustered when we mention stuff that Bubba Clinton did/didn't do about Iraq, I have three words: Operation Desert Fox. Search the 'net and listen to the serial rapist describe why he was attacking So-damn (4 days before his impeachment started, but I'm sure it wasn't 'wag the dog'!). We announced the withdrawal of troops from Saudi in the spring of 2003 and I think all but a few trainers were gone by the summer. The truth will set you free...and keep us free.
Posted by Buff Driver on June 18, 2007 11:13 AMIt appears folks like Winston Smith and Old Gouch need to start watching FoxNews more often add avoid the left-wing media. To those who get flustered when we mention stuff that Bubba Clinton did/didn't do about Iraq, I have three words: Operation Desert Fox. Search the 'net and listen to the serial rapist describe why he was attacking So-damn (4 days before his impeachment started, but I'm sure it wasn't 'wag the dog'!). We announced the withdrawal of troops from Saudi in the spring of 2003 and I think all but a few trainers were gone by the summer. The truth will set you free...and keep us free.
Posted by Buff Driver on June 18, 2007 11:13 AMIt appears folks like Winston Smith and Old Gouch need to start watching FoxNews more often add avoid the left-wing media. To those who get flustered when we mention stuff that Bubba Clinton did/didn't do about Iraq, I have three words: Operation Desert Fox. Search the 'net and listen to the serial rapist describe why he was attacking So-damn (4 days before his impeachment started, but I'm sure it wasn't 'wag the dog'!). We announced the withdrawal of troops from Saudi in the spring of 2003 and I think all but a few trainers were gone by the summer. The truth will set you free...and keep us free.
Posted by Buff Driver on June 18, 2007 11:13 AMBuff Driver,
Well, aside from the repititions - for whatever purpose - just what is it you are trying to say? What does Fox News have to do with the remarks made by whoever was posting under the initials, "tcb"?
Your remarks about the "serial rapist" make no sense at all - even with un-necessary repititions. And, as to Operation Desert Fox, what does that have to do with anything so far posted here?
Who announced withdrawal from Saudi Arabia; and where was such announcement made? Why then are we still in the country - somewhere around Riyadh - or however it's spelled - today?
Nice slogan to end with there. But rather irrelevant all else considered.
Posted by Old Grouch on June 18, 2007 12:59 PMFunny, how the supporters rallying around Bush's final stand call themselves 'Republicans' -- for those of us seeking to rebuild the GOP into something once more credible and relevant, we need these folks to shut their traps and stop digging the hole deeper. You may think the president is doing a heckuva job, but please don't call yourself Republican, much less conservatives.
Posted by on June 19, 2007 02:30 PMLook who I’ve found on another letter. Todd, Charles B., Old Grouch and some new “progressives”. I know I’ve only been here a little while but let me guess: Bush went to war over the objections of the Democrats in congress No? My goodness that’s right they all were duped into believing Saddam violated 16 U.N. resolutions. Even worse those pictures of gassed Kurds must have been rendered by Pixar or gasp! the pentagon. Far be it for Beauprez to remind those who today tout the back bone of a party that couldn’t stand-up for their convictions when it counted. At least the Republicans were genuine. I’d agree Bush is dangerous, if he with little or no intelligence (joke) can out flank congress think what Romney or Thompson could accomplish. Too bad Hillary can’t win, then we’d see true presidential manipulation and misinformation.
Posted by kobetabber on June 19, 2007 03:23 PMkobetabber - is that you, paco?
Think for a minute that the secular Saddam regime was set up. Think for a minute there were grumblings about his switch to Euros and flooding the market with oil.
Think about how Exxon, Chvron (Rice), BP, Dutch Shell & Conoco would react.
Think for yourself and look up 2001 secret Cheney energy meetings, PNAC, OSP, WHIG, AIPAC.
Think about how Bush, in the nineties, wanted to be a war president, and push thru all of the NeoCON ideas about friends looting the Treasury and making the debt so large domestic spending would have to be slashed.
Pls turn OFF Faux Nooz!
Don't be a tool of the NeoCON Elite.
Posted by Winston Smith on June 19, 2007 07:14 PMWinnie-"progressives"-and common ilk,
I suppose burning diesel fuel didn't melt the bay area bridge either. I'm certain each of your “conspiracies” was an authentic, original thought. I’m trying to recall but I believe there was some restrictions on Iraq’s oil generated revenue. You might want to look that up. I guess Kerry didn’t measure up in the Illuminati’s eye maybe they'll pick Hillary in 08.
Posted by kobetabber on June 19, 2007 10:49 PM