These neocons were insturmental in getting Bush elected in the first place. Thet knew he was stupid,ignorant,and knew nothing about foreign policy or world affairs. They also knew that Bush was arrogant and stubborn and could easily be manupilated. Plus he had name recognition. He was the perfect stooge to impliment a plan that they had in the works for years. Why else would Cheney choose himself as Vice President. Bush being the moron that he is didn’t see any of this coming. He was a Texas cowboy just going along for the ride. Just read the speeches and do what they tell me,that’s all Bush knew. And because of that, the entire world is paying the price for a few neocon nuts who hijacked the presidency along with the president

Steve,

Are you trying to miss the point?  Resolution 1441 - - which the US supported - - specifically states that it would be the UN which would determine whether Iraq was in violation of the resolution, not that the US would (or could) make that determination.  Indeed, by signing onto the resolution, the US agreed it would NOT make that determination unilaterally.  The UN never determined that Iraq violated 1441. President Bush, as part of his ad campaign, concluded that.  President Bush, in the country’s name, signed onto 1441, and then blatantly violated it, again in the country’s name. If you ever get around to wondering why our word means so little all around the world today (a day when, little noticed, it emerges that Britain, our oldest and best ally, is pulling out of Iraq), you might consider President Bush’s sleight of hand on 1441 as a decent enough starting point.

The facts speak for themselves! Bush knew eight months before 9/11 that we, the United States might be attacked. He was president at the time. Our military went to war due to the lies W. and Cheney told us. Many joined up because they believed the lies most now know were pure fiction, ‘No WMD’ Unfortunately, many lost their lives and those who have returned will live with the horror of war till the day they die. Fact is Bush and Cheney never went to war;Unless you consider W. defending his barstool in Texas or Cheney’s four deferments because as he said “There was no reason for him to go to war.” While these jerks shirked their duty my older brother, husband, and their friends were getting their butts shot off and watching their friends die.
Only those who have never gone to war are so eager to start wars.
This entire administration is a disgrace.
God must really like stupid people since he made so many, which are those who still believe the lies of Bush, Cheney, and friends.

I realize this may offend those with “noble ears and pure brains free of colloquial English”, but back in the 60’s one of my college roommates made up a US Army recruitment poster that showed a young, handsome, afro’ed black man, standing in flack jacket and tattered helmet, an M-16 hanging by its strap from his strong hand, looking nobly off into the distance, his camo boots sunk to the ankles in pure white beach sand. A beautiful Vietnamese woman clinging to his leg, her pajama clad succulent young body stretched behind him. Off in the far distance a fiery mushroom cloud could be seen rising up into the clear sky. Blazoned across the bottom of the poster in red, white, and blue letters: JOIN the US ARMY and FUCK the WORLD OVER!!

#32784 - genie

You wrote regarding UN Resolution 1441, “...when the United Nations…determined that Iraq was in non-compliance with the demands of the resolution…” then UN Resolution 1441 would justify the US going in and removing Saddam.  Well, in case you forgot, Iraq did violate 1441 and 17 others…that was the point. 

Then you stated, “...they (Iraq) was in violation of Int’l law…” which would then also justify again removing Saddam.  Don’t you feel that violating 17 resolutions justifies?  What good is the UN if they will not follow through with their resolutions?  Bush did the right thing.

Why does everyone jump to the conclusion that if Saddam had WMDs our invasion would have been justified?
MAD worked during the entire Cold War. 
Does anyone actually think Saddam would have been so crazy that he would have launched his pathetic 3 or 4 nukes at us. Or would he give nukes to terrorists and lose all control of his destiny?

How is it thAT Bill Maher got to being a liberal commedian from being a front for the fringe RW on his since defunct Not Politically Correct show: eg. Young Americans for fascism err Freedom; GOP apologists et al ; (remember when he had the ultra-con “Give War A Chance” PJ O’Rourke on and they both agreed that they were “libertarian” as in the Ludwig von Mieses’ “Libertarian Party” trickle-down-economics/Chicago School of Econ. variety??).  On his show he would have on one side   the right who were always serious and on the “left” they were either light weights or commedians. Go figure.  He looks like the same guy who interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald in N.O. years ago.  Anybody know who I’m talking about?  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

#32679 - James V

Please James, you’re kidding right?

So, according to your reasoning, Saddam was “trapped under weight of crippling sanctions…”  Really?  That would be a true statement if Germany and France upheld their agreement, not to mention Kofi, and held true to their words and maintained the integrity of the food for oil program…which they didn’t. 

Lies, lies and nothing but lies you also state.  Really?  Where’s your documentation?  Russia, China, France, Germany, Jordan Egypt and others agreed that Iraq was a national security issue not to mention Clinton as well (11 documented times on the record in fact).  This would be the largest conspiracy known to mankind.  Regardless of all of that.  Saddam still grossly violated UN Resolution after UN Resolution and nobody did a darn thing about it.  Forget about WMD’s (which many were located), it’s about humanity and how he ran that country is a crime.  He was far worse than Milosovich.

It all boils down to this.  The Middle East has been a problem, not just for the US, but the entire world for decades.  A passive stance will not and has not solved the problem.  Appeasement is weak.  Remember that Time magazine cover shot of Hillary Clinton kissing Arafat?  That’s appeasement.  Appeasement is likened to putting a band-aid over a cut without treating the wound.  Infection is inevitable.  It “seems” to help for a time but….”

Bill is a funny satirist - that’s for sure.  His piece is well constructed and humerous.

But he takes every comment made by anyone who supported the war in Iraq (conspicuously, none by the 60% of Dems who did) and makes it sound like that was the official expectation of the administration and of Necocon policy makers.  It wasn’t.

No question we didin’t expect an insurgency this potent.  No question we expected to find WMD.  Both are unfortunate facts of life.

But Bill’s cavalier conclusion, that we should withdraw now, would lead to far worse than is happening now.  How he thinks the chaos would right itself if only we weren’t there is beyond me.

Steve,

You have your finger on the problem,  but it seems unwittingly.  UN Resolution 1441 did NOT authorize the invasion of Iraq.  To the contrary, it withheld the use of force until such time as it, the UN, and not any member state, determined that Iraq was in noncompliance with the demands of the resolution.  The concluding provision of 1441 provided that the UN, not the US, would “remain seized of the matter.” It is the clear violation of resolution 1441 that has led so many international lawyers to conclude that the unilateral invasion of Iraq at a time when it was NOT authorized by the UN, was, and continues to be, a violation of international law.  1441 is readily available on the net and I encourage you to read it, confident that you will see the war in Iraq was not authorized by it.

Well, you have to multiply yourself brother!  Surprisingly, too many stupid and narrow minded people freedom and democracy has produced so far in America!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill Maher should run for political office if not the President.

He has more insight into what is REALLY going on than most people I know.

Keep up the good work and I salute you for trying to make this place a better world for our kids.

Sincerely,

Jonna A. Boelke

THE BEHOOVERMIN GROVE IN$TITUTE
“A Gannon-gaited Think Tankery with Pleasure instead of “Thought” in Mind—
Earthy, Faith-ba$ed Elite-designed
for Takirs of High-end Chances, Movers & Shakirs,
Harvesters, as it whir,—of American Blood & Treasure.
“By far frankly: most of us are, in Fact, GOP…”

Dear Bill,

God bless you for speaking out the truth!!!  My family and I would never miss your Friday evening show for anything in the world!  Please keep on speaking out the truth ... and also ask them “Why are they building these gigantic permanent military bases and a gigantic embassy (the size of the Vatican) if they are not planning to STAY in Iraq”????  I haven’t heard anyone bring this out!!!

Dear Steve,

In your first series of questions, directed at Bill Maher, you ask: what did he expect and what timeline does he want. Let us take a second to look at what this administration TOLD us to expect, and what they TOLD us THEY wanted. We were told that there were weapons of mass destruction programs in the works and we had to stop them. We were told that there were direct links to al-Qaida and we had to shut them down. We were told Saddam had a hand in 9-11 and he must be punished. We were told that the Iraqi people wanted us to attack and we’d be greeted as liberators. We were told that the money from Iraq’s oil would offset the cost of an invasion. Then we were told: “mission accomplished”, the insurgency was in it’s “last throes” and there was no “civil war”. And if you remember “bringing Democracy to Iraq” was NOT an official reason in the beginning of this mess, it came later, after all of the other reasons were revealed as the lies they were. I don’t know what to say to you Steve, but after being TOLD all of that, what did YOU expect? I was in the opposition camp from well before we fell on this sword. I listened to all of the informed but marginalized voices that said this was wrong, that they were lying and that this was a bad idea. So I am horrified at the mess we’ve created but I’m certainly not surprised.

Then you do us a favor Steve and “boil it down” to the UN. You ask that if the UN were truly united and if it backed it’s 15-0 vote on Resolution 1441 then what’s the problem? What’s the problem? Are you serious? Do you mean the Resolution agreed to based on misinformation and lies? The same misinformation and lies used to peddle the war to our country? Are you talking about the UN to which we appointed an ambassador who has publicly voiced outright contempt for the organization and it’s members. You point out that everyone supported the removal of Milosevic from power back in 1998 and correctly point out the fact that he was of “no threat to [our] national security”. The irony in this is that Sadaam also posed no threat to our national security. Your rash inference that “liberals” gave him a free pass is outrageous. Your citing that he defied every UN Resolution (you cite the number as 17 “to be exact”) is equally deceptive. While it is a certainty that Sadaam had contempt for the UN, he was trapped under the weight of crippling sanctions, no-fly-zones, and constant aerial bombardments. He had no weapons program to speak of so I’m curious as to how many of those 17 violations actually stand up to the test of reality. Certainly some were valid. But a threat to the international community? A threat to our national security? Justification to launch a war? Highly doubtful. And the fact that more than a few of the “violations” were based on our lies just further tarnishes any supportive position to this war.

But what about the 330,000 people Sadaam killed with chemical agents. Yes, those deaths are horrific. And yes Sadaam deserves to be punished for them. So do the nations that provided him with those agents and the technology to use them…that would be much of the west, including us. And how many Iraqis have WE killed in this war? Do you remember when this war started and our President announcing that we wouldn’t even be keeping track of them? How about the recent announcement that the current, arguably powerless, government in Iraq will now be “clearing” the release of any further casualty figures? Did you read what those current figures are? It is not lost on the world when we scream about human rights violations or nuclear treaty violations while committing those very things ourselves. It is not lost for one moment.

Much of the world was opposed to our attacking Iraq, do you not remember that? Our coalition was a paper tiger and more a PR stunt than a real united endeavor. The reason for this was that our arguments to justify attacking Iraq were false ones. They were lies, and people around the world saw that and wanted no part of it. And if Dante was correct, then Minos is going to have one heck of a time deciding which circles many of our politicians and “Think Tank visionaries” are going to reside.

If we are not able to have an open mind, what is the point of Freedom??
Listen to other people’s views and listen to your own, your mind will expand and create a universe of possibilities.

Best Wishes Mr. Maher

What does Maher want?  What did he expect?  Did he or anyone else expect a complete change in Iraq’s system of government to be fast and easy?  What time frame did Maher have in mind?

It really boils down to this:  If the United Nations were truly united, and if they truly backed the US by signing 15-0 for UN Resolution 1441 to go into Iraq, then what’s the problem?  It seems that in 1998 everybody was behind the UN kicking out Milosovich who showed no threat to national security, but everybody was on board to get rid of him and put him on trial.  But Sadaam gets a pass from liberals.  He basically gave “the finger” to the UN for 12 years and defied every UN Resolution (17 to be exact).  Not to mention, the 330,000+ people he murdered with chemical agents.  AND NOBODY CARES?  Yet Bush get criticized for not going into Iraq with UN Troops.  Now that’s liberal logic.

I watch Bill Maher on HBO, which gives him free reign
on subject matter and how it’s portrayed.
He hit a home run with that statement.  Anyone who has been able to watch CSPAN and catch Cheney blather on at one of those million dollar fundraisers would certainely agree with Mr Maher that the only ideas coming from that crew are about which greenskeepers at the local country club overseed to much.

BRAVO BILL! Maybe Maher should run for President?
At least we know we would get the truth with a spoon of sugar. Love ya Bill! Keep up the GREAT work! Sincerely, An American Voter

Spinoza:  In that case, you SHOULD NOT watch Bill Maher.
Helpfully,

Mrs. Premise

Bravo Bill Maher for your well placed rebuke of the so-called “neocons think tanks!”
 
In fact, when I first heard about this idea of “think tanks” I had an instantaneous and natural repulsion, exactly as the repulsion I had when I first heard about “collateral damage” to justify killing innocent people in wars.
 
This feeling further intensified when I started hearing about “neocons think tanks.” The way I looked at it is that these are gangs of think-alike non-thinkers, brought together to cheer a stupid president who can’t think for himself. No wonder that this term gained prominence when the neocons came to power lately.

A think tank, in my opinion, is a nice word for a propaganda, misinformation and brainwashing machine. It is a way to legitimize evil besides being a way for the political establishment to safeguard itself from future legal actions.

For example, say groups of people in the future would want to file charges against Bush for crimes against humanity, their charges would be dismissed on the basis of “I didn’t do this on my own accord, I had think tanks telling me what to do.” Case closed! How can you prosecute thought, even if it was wrong and evil and was done collectively?! Yet, when a police state wants to control dissent it will prosecute people based on their thought. History provides abundant examples, even in the most democracy-bragging countries of the world.

I don’t like very serious subjects, matters of life and death, turned into jokes even if the jokes are aimed against the evil ones.  When something is turned into a joke the topics seriousness is diminished!!!

This is short, quick, and devastatingly to the point. Kudos.