Comments on: SMALL MINDS CAN’T SEE THE BIG PICTURE

By: Lefty

Lefty — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:49:30 +0000

It is great to have comments such as the ones posted above to look back on. Now that the real Iraq story is actually unfolding it is hard to be as blindly optimistic about Iraq’s future as you all were isn’t it? It is also clear that you had no clue about the relationship between Iraq and terrorism (or the lack thereof). Here is some more information for you. The war on Iraq started about 2 months before you realized. It was a covert, illegal war. While Bush was creating the false impression that he was working with the UN, we were already dropping hundreds of tons of bombs on Iraq. Do you wonder whether Bush has any other secrets he’d like to keep from you? This story was just released in the Times Online (a british newspaper). Tomorrow it will hit the US press. Here is a tiny excerpt.

Ministry of Defence figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that virtually none were used in March and April; but between May and August an average of 10 tons were dropped each month, with the RAF taking just as big a role in the �spikes of activity� as their US colleagues. Then in September the figure shot up again, with allied aircraft dropping 54.6 tons.

If this was a covert air war, both Bush and Blair may face searching questions. In America only Congress can declare war, and it did not give the US president permission to take military action against Iraq until October 11, 2002. Blair�s legal justification is said to come from UN Resolution 1441, which was not passed until November 8, 2002.

Last week one US blogger, Larisa Alexandrovna of RawStory.com, unearthed more unsettling evidence. It was an overlooked interview with Lieutenant-General T Michael Moseley, the allied air commander in Iraq, in which he appears to admit that the �spikes of activity� were part of a covert air war.

From June 2002 until March 20, when the ground war began, the allies flew 21,736 sorties over southern Iraq, attacking 349 carefully selected targets. The attacks, Moseley said, �laid the foundations� for the invasion, allowing allied commanders to begin the ground war.

By: Serb National

Serb National — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 01:09:10 +0000

Brian, Bush inherited an economy on the downfall – its the nature of our system of economics, that there are periodic recessions. What Bush did, however, was (though not in a way I agree with) to stop the recession as soon as he possibly could, and turn it right back around. If you watched the debates, you saw that Mr. Kerry brought up that Bush had lost around 1 million jobs, but Mr. Bush corrected him in saying that he had also gained back around 500 thousand of those lost jobs. Mr. Bush stopped the recession sooner than many other Presidents might have, and then turned it right back around in four years.

By: Brian Galvin

Brian Galvin — Sat, 11 Dec 2004 06:27:06 +0000

What a Huge load of horsesh*t! Next after you have explained the “war on terror” so one sidedly please explain the virtues of a jobless recovery of our economy. Bush is wrong and too much of a putz to admit. His followers are too foolish to realize you cant preach freedom on one hand and support puppet governments (S.A.) with the other. Dont forget the meddling in Iran so quickly. They are this way ’cause the US tried its nation building there. You are all clowns and ruining things for the rest of us.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:39:52 +0000

Mr. Evinger,
U claim we dont like war, we dont want to be at war is what you say but you openly name other countries for subsequent invasion(s). A large part of what people are scared about is the president has not told us of his Big Picture. Representing the Western Civilization, we are openly attacking countries that have not initiated war with very little guidance to the american people. If Bush was not so keen to go to war the next one would have followed naturally. Instead he forced the hand and turned the spotlight on himself. What is american freedom when Bush will not ever leave the states again without security. We dont know whats next and were scared because Bush is at the helm of our great war machine.

By: Suzanne Katz

Suzanne Katz — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:09:10 +0000

To Buck Evinger and also JD
First, Buck, wonderful, loved every word you wrote, wish I could write so well,
Now to JD
I was blowing off steam, I always vote and did vote and for Bush, but thank you for your comment.
Suzanne

By: Jonathan Ferguson

Jonathan Ferguson — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:06:51 +0000

Now, on the other hand, if Rather had called the lemmings who call themselves conservative who are supporting a neo-fascist regime stupid, he would have been on to something.

By: Jonathan Ferguson

Jonathan Ferguson — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:05:44 +0000

Sorry, typed too fast, my last post should read ‘appointed president by the supreme court’

By: Jonathan Ferguson

Jonathan Ferguson — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:04:48 +0000

You’re right Bonnie, Rather was wrong to call Il Dubya stupid. Dubya is a corrupt fascist dry drunk, but anyone who can get themselves appointed to the supreme court after they lose an election, can preside over the worst administration in history, and has a 50-50 shot of winning the next election is definitely NOT stupid.

By: bonniem

bonniem — Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:38:00 +0000

I heard Dan Rather putting down Pres. Bush right after he was elected. Just happened to scan the stations on my radio, and I could not believe how stupid he was calling our President. I lost respect for him right at that moment and will not listen to him on any program he is on. Rather is the biggest ego for someone who who thinks he is so very smart – but has proven how ignorant he is.

By: JD

JD — Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:26:53 +0000

Listen to what Dan Rather has to say: “Even in the best of times, under the best of circumstances, Americans do not welcome intervention in their democratic affairs, particularly not their presidential elections.” How true. If only he could see himself in that sentence.