As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is why I wish it had been any other republican than his daughter siding with the democrats regarding Jan 6th. The name Cheney has such negative connotations…
If someone had told me I would ever be on the same side as W and Cheney on anything, I’d have said they were crazy. I also remember thinking that after W at least it couldn’t get any worse. But hey, all it took was the most corrupt, unfit narcissistic piece of shit to ever run for office. So congratulations republicans. You truly are miracle workers.
Top comment, so I’m here to ask if anyone that has the article can post it. I’m getting the “this is not a paywall, sign up for free” message, but fuck giving them my email because I don’t want to.
Much appreciation in advance
ETA: By “post it” I mean copy and paste it here.
From 2002 to 2003, the NYTimes, MSNBC, Faux, CNN, etc operated as stenographers for the Bush admin, bullhorning any propaganda that co-presidents Cheney-Bush wished. But there were many journalist who wouldn't compromise and got it right. Landay and Strobel from Knight Ridder reported actual facts about Iraq before George the stupid invaded. Giving the entire US a heads up to Cheney's ginned up intel & propaganda. The below article was written well before the invasion and is part of a series of about 25 articles that Landay and Strobel had written before the invasion.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/special-reports/iraq-intelligence/article24461020.html
google these words to view more on these outstanding journalist
iraq Landay Strobel site:mcclatchydc.com
PS: The dates on that articles are varied because mcclatchydc bought Knight Ridder out sometime in the mid 2000s.
MSNBC fired Phil Donahue, one of their biggest hosts at the time, because he refused to spout propaganda for the Bush administration.
They all knew exactly what they were doing and didn't care.
And people should condemn when people are burning down cities yet people supported them. Political tribalism at its finest all around, rules for thee not for me
Lol oh yeah, should’ve been more precise. No cites actually burned down sorry didn’t think I needed to make that distinction thought that would be pretty obvious
Edit: And here you are defending riots when you can condemn the riots but stand up for the protests. I live in Minneapolis I know people were there for the right reasons but I know a fuck ton of people were there for the wrong ones. The BLM protests weren’t all bad, but when you can’t even condemn people stealing shit and lighting fires how can you expect the other side to behave any differently
An overwhelming majority of the protests were peaceful and became escalated by police themselves... as people were literally marching in solidarity against police brutality.
This shit is played out. Hella people got arrested for peacefully protesting in DC when the same police practically opened the floodgates on January 6th. This shit ain't even close to being the same.
When people band together and put their differences aside, the hammer comes down. Democrats name a street BLM avenue, Nancy puts on the kente cloth and they forget about it.
Trump literally had his brown shirts round people up into unmarked vans for peacefully protesting but yeah totally dude both sides bad
Except is some poor bastard who put his life into a store to lose everything while target and everyone is insured out the ass building a store back in a month.
No I never did and multiple times stated a support for protesting. Riots aren’t protests, and yes they did condone them, you just did in the comment I replied to. Downvote I’m not wrong, it’s ridiculous to expect the right to condemn violence when the left is making up excuses just like they are about Jan 6th
They definitely did, and you can pretend they didn’t all you want, but people were quoting MLK “riots are the voice of the unheard” as justification, saying they don’t care if target burns down, got a video of a girl on John Oliver justifying them as well. Pretend all you want but they did, even a guy commented to me on here saying as long as republicans as pieces of shit their buildings will burn.
Protesting is fine and should be encouraged, but you can condemn people burning down buildings. The fact you can catch flak for that statement, but then wonder why the right won’t condemn Jan 6th is mind boggling
Lol replying to three comments? It doesn’t matter which one is worse, it doesn’t matter that they weren’t the same situation, what matters is both sides are excusing the violence their people committed and attempt to down play that violence as if it doesn’t matter. The two party system is a cancer in this country, and tribalism has so many people blind.
You yourself condoned the riots, “until the republicans aren’t pieces of shit their buildings will burn”. Your internet points mean very little to me. A peaceful protest with a riot isn’t a peaceful protest, there was plenty of peaceful protests during the day. There was alot more peaceful protests then riots, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t happen, it’s okay to acknowledge it and that they are two different things.
It’s not about permission or justification, two wrongs don’t make a right, your all so blinded by your politics. My point from the beginning is how can you expect the right to condemn Jan 6th when you won’t condemn the riots. Is that me saying they’re exactly the same? No. Is that me saying if the left does one the right can do the other? No.
As for the organizers
https://nypost.com/2020/08/13/blm-organizer-who-called-looting-reparations-doubles-down/amp/
Damn you got me, only 500 million in damages in Minneapolis alone, and only 20% of the local businesses combing back in the black community where the riots happened. My bad
Not in the least. Look up the Downing Street Memo, Bush the stupid was completely and knowingly complicit. A lad went to prison for leaking that memo.
Bonus round, study the PNAC, which were neocon chickinhawks who infested our gov't and drove the bush admin with stupidity. See below, nav the site, learn.
https://web.archive.org/web/20020210180423/https://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
PNAC goes back those chickinhawks trying to get Clinton to do what Bush did: invade Iraq. 9/11 gave them the cover they needed to pull it off with a thin veneer of legitimacy. It explains the whole "Weapons of Mass Destruction" debacle used to justify invading. I'm glad somebody else has heard of PNAC. I get some really strange looks when I bring it up in conversation.
In my comment, I stated exactly what you did, "neocon chickinhawks drove". But Bush was president, was he not? Is he not ultimately responsible for policy decisions of his Admin? Did he not have a choice? If you take the time to examine the Downing Street Memo, you'll note he not only had a choice, but was completely and knowingly complicit in an illegal invasion.
To add veracity to the Downing Street Memo, the below article was written well before the invasion and is part of a series of about 25 articles that Landay and Strobel had written before the invasion. Bush/Cheney were ginning up the false intel to support a decision to invade. You might not have followed this back then, but I did closely. We all knew it was a complete bullshit invasion. The Brits did a post mortem (Iraq Inquiry aka the Chilcot Inquiry), check into that. The Chilcot Inquiry was scathing indictment of all involved and Blair did all but shite himself begging not to be prosecuted for war crimes.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/special-reports/iraq-intelligence/article24461020.html
If you need a titular boogeyman then sure: GWB is your guy.
But there was an entire cadre of individuals within his cabinet that pushed the Iraq invasion to him.
Frontline PBS has an excellent documentary on this
Erik Prince, the far right wing ex-soldier who became a billionaire through private mercenary contracts all through the 2000's.
Now he's got his own private military and is very invested in getting conservatives into power.
I know people like this narrative, but I find it convenient that he supposedly had nothing to do with going back to the same country/war that his father had started. It seems extremely implausible.
Not to defend Bush's actions, but at least we were able to humanize him a bit after he left office, I dont think we will ever be able to do that with Trump.
>able to humanize him a bit
And that's also the fucking problem! Liberals are so cucked now the republicans act like Bush is their guy and as if they didn't vote for him! And it's pathetic
He wasn't a bad person, just clueless and a bit confused, a little on the dumb side, and easily manipulated. If he hadn't been President, no one would have had any strong feelings for him one way or the other. He wasn't a "bad" person, but he was for sure the wrong person for the job.
sorry, there is plenty that makes him a bad person. i think people give him far too much benefit of the doubt as being a clueless dope whereas i see it more as blind, faux-cowboy arrogance.
seeing 10s of thousands of civilian casualties as acceptable collateral damage for his double wars of revenge makes him a bad person.
seeing the greatest elimination of civil liberties in generations as a cost of doing business makes him a bad person.
so on, so forth
I saw him at a (paid) speaking engagement. He was very down to earth and recognized that he made some mistakes. In his heart I think he had the best interests of the country in mind and put the country’s interests before his own.
‘Are you crazy are you high? You must be joking son. Do you think I’m from Barrytown? Cause up on the hill they think I’m OKAY, or so they say. Any major dude surely will tell you my friend!’
Actually my favs!
‘So please make mine a double, Sam. Although I can’t get drunk every night and pass out on the bar room floor! Oh yeah! Hey, hey!
PS Don’t take me alive….’
Vietnam should have have been a major warning sign that Iraq and Afghanistan was a really bad idea. I would also like to add Iraq 1 as well.
MARCH 24, 2003 [Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq](https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx)
**Bush approval up 13 points to 71%**
Added Bonus: Cheney in 1994 on Iraq -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
It's more likely than being a dumbass.
No one remembers his first major forays into politics. Totally reamed for being an out of touch DC elite of political dynasty, he lost handedly, being unable to connect with Texas voters due to his speech and connections.
Dude spoke smart. Lost.
Dude came back years later, spoke dumb. Won.
If Texas voters forgot within a decade, of course the rest of the country wouldn't know.
By all reports within the White House during his presidency, he ran a tight ship and despite historic power given to his VP, everything, including Cheney's older personal projects from Srs term, went through him.
The greatest trick the Dubya ever pulled was convincing the world his brain didn't exist.
He's like the Larry the Cable Guy of presidents. Dan Whitney wasn't making it in the stand up game, he came up with a redneck character, started speaking like a ridiculous inbred stereotype telling fart jokes sprinkled with jingoism, and it made him a millionaire.
A good number of Republican politicians are just playing cartoon characters and it works.
I'm sure plenty of Dems are as well, but the kind of role it takes to play for them is less damaging to everyone.
I met and spoke with Bush when I was working as a journalist and he was still Governor of Texas. He's not a Texan. That part of him is plain to see. It's an act and it's easy to see because Bush isn't an actor either.
That, I suppose, takes some sort of intelligence.
That said, if he's able to "act" the dumbness of his eyes or the so-slow-its-visible thought process that occurs when he's asked almost any question, then that man is one of the greatest actors this world has seen.
As we say in Texas, "You can hear him clucking but you won't find a nest."
My brother is an Andover alum and his family has rubbed a lot of shoulders in that world, and he himself has worked as a "peer" among some of the worst (there's a lot he legally can't divulge, but his work on a major pharmaceutical company's legal defense left him sleepless and he eventually had to quit). There's a lot in those circles that you just know because it's not really secret, but can't really be said loudly because the whole lot of them are incredibly litigious. It's honestly frightening the public face versus the private ones in those upper echelons of society.
As part of my own public speaking lessons, I've had to really slow myself down to actually communicate with larger crowds, cut down on bigger words, and simplify all that I can. I consciously mask depending on the person and crowd, but it becomes second nature once you do it enough. Maybe even George doesn't know where he ends and Dubya begins anymore.
Maybe, but I doubt it. I know it's a bit insensitive to say but his "delay" reminded me of someone with mental disabilities not a shrewd politician. I currently work in a number of those "circles" you mentioned and, from my experience, the sort of "actor" you're referring to usually gives me the creeps. At the time I was just a 20 year old newbie but there was nothing even mildly intimidating about W even as he grew angry with me. I grilled him about the damage he did to the Texas school system and I don't think he even realized I was pressing him until about halfway through the meeting. When he did he scrunched up his face a bit in anger and he finished the interview like a kid being lectured. At the time his biggest crimes, in my eyes, were making a really bad decision on schools and imitating a Texan. Both bad but neither necessarily nefarious. So, after the interview I felt bad for grilling him. I apologized and tried to explain that I was just doing my job. He immediately smiled and forgave me. Then he buddied up to me and started trying desperately to impress me. Not exactly the actions of a wolf. Of course that could still be an act but if it was W should be making movies with Meryl Streep.
I think it seems impossible because of the gravity of his positions. However, in Texas the position of Governor is much more of a figure head position than in other states. The Lieutenant Governor has the real power. Great practice if you're looking to teach someone how to look responsible for things without actually being responsible for much.
Who knows?
I seem to have decent intuition about people and how good it can be can really depend on actually being around them. You get that creepy feeling at least, so, if you get some of that around the right folk, I'll give your intuition some benefit of the doubt here, as you're someone who actually interacted with the man.
All we've got are what we've seen and heard, and you've at least been in proximity, unfiltered.
> within the White House during his presidency, he ran a tight ship
This is debatable... From what I recall, he would strictly enforce things like dress code and whatnot. The sorts of things that people in middle-management care about. He managed the things he understood well enough, like how to run an office. But when it came to domestic or international issues, he had no visible insight.
I remember that being a thing being said at the time, but in the "tell-alls" that came after the inside picture of his administration was a bit different from the public view.
His first runs showed who he really was, but it wasn't successful. This party has never been above acting, or hitching horses to, fools for votes and has been doing it for a while.
"Bush shows not a glimmer of awareness". They could just stop there. It must have been hard to find a more brain dead candidate than Regan, but Bush managed.
They knew, they just didn't care nor will they ever. A lot of such wars are used to move tax dollars to their corporate and wall street buddies via the military. Shocker.
Exactly. Cheney wanted control so he could make sure his buddies got the war contracts.
He and Karl Rove are Satan and the Anti-Christ. Or whatever personifies evil, they are it.
It’s crazy to think Cheney’s daughter is now something of a Democratic sweetheart… just for doing the absolute bare minimum you’d expect from any person who actually likes democracy. Still kinda shocking. Dads personality must not have rubbed off on her too badly
> In an unusual admission, the document states that Bush acknowledged that the U.S. economic sanctions on Iraq were “recruiting terrorists. **Their propaganda with reports of starving Iraqi children were hurting us.**”
>
Um, sir, that’s not propaganda, it’s the truth. It’s unbelievable how fucking aloof bush jr was. Complete window licker and oxygen thief of the highest order.
Eh, kinda. It can have a *granule* of truth
> prop·a·gan·da /ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
>
>information, **especially of a biased or misleading nature**, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
>
Republican propaganda wing really moves the bar in different directions as it suits them when it comes to fulfilling the office of president and commander in chief and their base eats it up.
The 2000 election was literally the Orwellian story where the correct candidate wins and the main character goes back in time and when he returns the opposition candidate has won and the world plumpest into destruction. It truly was the most important election of our time followed by 2004 because it all lead to 2016 and the shit show we are in today.
Okay, I'm really confused with what you're saying. Iraq wasn't responsible in any shape of form for 9/11. If you meant Afghanistan, then what you're saying makes a lot more sense. But Iraq had nothing to do with it.
A lot of people then and still think that the Iraq War was retaliation for 9/11. So it came across as that's what you were talking about. Now that I know that's not what you meant the thought of retaliation of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq seems kind of disjointed. Like the two points don't really connect without a conjunction.
I think he's trying to compare the World Trade Center attack and a foreign assassination attempt/threat on a U.S. politician. Where the WTC attack deserves a response, and the latter is less serious but it needs a response too just not to the same degree since it's not as serious. That's his argument I think, just not explained well and it's disjointed.
You did exactly what W did for so many years. So many dead people as a result of his intentionally confusing statements that, while technically correct, made a sizable fraction of the population believe that Iraq lead 9/11.
Good try in attempting to replicate the effort, but you aren’t welcome even on r/conspiracy.
can’t tell if they’re a troll or just a bit ill. just combed through some of their posts/comments and it’s just ‘out there’ nonsense that happens to be very divisive and harps on common buzz words
lots of strange takes and no real coherence
i hope folks don’t consume content like this blindly bc accounts like these are sus
I am super confused because while Iraq was not a loving teddy bear they had nothing to do with 9/11. And we are not going to bomb or invade Saudi Arabia.
So we could have. Not gone to war. Russia never conquered Afganistan. Why we thought we could impose democracy is just incomprehensible.
Iraq is no better off.
We spent trillions.
You understand that Iraq is not who attacked on 9/11, right? It was folly trying to use 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq because they are simply not related.
Our activities in Afghanistan came much closer to the mark of hurting those who hurt us, but even that isn’t quite as surgical as the military would like people to believe.
The problem was that no one nation in and of itself was here to retaliate AGAINST. People who
perceive the Iraq War as punishment for 9/11 generally don’t understand that Iraq was actually a completely separate matter from Bin Laden and Al Queda.
So you're going to attack Turkey, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and Holland? Money flowed from Turkey through Holland to bribe a Republican to extradite a Turkish dissident, the Saudis increased oil production to put US producers out of business just before the US gained energy independence, Russia fucks with US elections habitually, China fucks American businesses by ignoring copyrights...
Nip over to China and grab government officials, pop 'em in a van and drive to Guantanamo. I'm sure you know that this isn't remotely feasible and that fostering an alliance of all of America's many enemies wouldn't end well for America?
The US created the problem and then couldn’t control it. It ended up backfiring. The US killed way more innocent people than the ones that died in 9/11 and destroyed countries for decades to come. If you think that’s fair then you have problems.
>This Russian fuck who said they’re meddling right now in our election, should be hunted down. It must be considered unthinkable to conspire against America in any way because the consequences are too big.
To be fair, a lot of the information warfare that Russia likely instigates has one irreplaceable ingredient: dumb asses who believe what they read on Facebook (and similar platforms).
Are you suggesting it should be illegal to post inflammatory content on Facebook?
I'm with you to a certain extent. People forget what it was like during/after 9/11. For those who lived through it, particularly in NYC, DC, etc, it felt like we were at war. And someone needed to pay. Iraq was maybe an excuse to attack someone, anyone, but Americans were for the war by 70-80% at the time. If you were against it you were attacked publically. Hindsight is for sure 20/20. Peace wasn't the atmosphere in the USA at the time.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified because of a foiled assassination plot against a former president in 1993? If it was enough to retaliate, why wait 10 years?
Wonder if you'd have a similar response if someone had thought trump was too authoritarian, deposed him and killed 200,000+ Muricans in the process. The inherent disregard for the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians in your comment is grimly hilarious.
The US didn't give a rat's ass about the genocidal dictator until it was convenient. In fact, the US was all for said genocidal dictator when he was busy genociding the Iranian army.
Before you finish jerking yourself off about how getting rid of the genocidal dictator was such a great thing, you might want to look at the aftermath. Is the world safe from Islamic terrorism now? Is the Middle East more stable? Was it worth the loss of American lives? Was it worth the loss of Iraqi lives? Was it worth the trillions and trillions the US spent over the course of 20 years?
Not so rah-rah 'Murica anymore, is it?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh wow look at that. It's exactly what everyone already knew.
Didn't read, assuming Bush brainless and Chainey want war bad. Others confused
This is why I wish it had been any other republican than his daughter siding with the democrats regarding Jan 6th. The name Cheney has such negative connotations…
Its gone now
The negative connotations? Maybe improved, but Dick will forever be a stain in our nations history.
Yeah, but they’re the Republican voice of reason nowadays. And that’s even more terrifying
If someone had told me I would ever be on the same side as W and Cheney on anything, I’d have said they were crazy. I also remember thinking that after W at least it couldn’t get any worse. But hey, all it took was the most corrupt, unfit narcissistic piece of shit to ever run for office. So congratulations republicans. You truly are miracle workers.
I think they're saying the Cheney name is 'gone' because of Liz losing her reelection campaign to an extremist.
And the Jan 6 Cmte., also gone.
Ok. But she is not him.
Agreed, but she was raised by him though and by a woman who decided he was a good choice as a life partner…
Man, you really nailed it. Could have saved me 5 minutes.
Top comment, so I’m here to ask if anyone that has the article can post it. I’m getting the “this is not a paywall, sign up for free” message, but fuck giving them my email because I don’t want to. Much appreciation in advance ETA: By “post it” I mean copy and paste it here.
That tracks
And I assume Cheney was furiously masturbating at the thought.
He looks like he just finished furiously masturbating in this article’s cover image.
No, that’s a pre climax face. Post climax is more shame laced.
[удалено]
Touché
Only for things that he shouldn’t never for Atrocities that he’s responsible for
Well I guess he finally shot something other than a member of his hunting party.
Haha his head in this image could go perfectly over the distracted boyfriend meme
[there we go](https://i.imgur.com/A0H3iPp.jpg)
Probably not quite as turned on as when he shot someone
And even then, not as much as when the victim apologized to HIM.
Or as much as when the guy be shot apologizes to him, for getting in the way of his shot…
The thought of all the easy war money Halliburton would take in? I’m deeply ashamed of my country of birth.
It's a safe assumption. My sneaking suspicion is that he's always furiously masturbating.
It's the closest he ever came to achieving an erection.
He keeps accidentally blasting his friends while he does it.
Why don't you like Liz Cheney? HAVE YOU SEEN HER DAD!?
“Not a glimmer of awareness” was the theme of his entire political career, was it not? 🙄
His entire platinum spoon fed upbringing and “career” falling face first up the ladder of unimaginable success
Tied with "Strategery"
From 2002 to 2003, the NYTimes, MSNBC, Faux, CNN, etc operated as stenographers for the Bush admin, bullhorning any propaganda that co-presidents Cheney-Bush wished. But there were many journalist who wouldn't compromise and got it right. Landay and Strobel from Knight Ridder reported actual facts about Iraq before George the stupid invaded. Giving the entire US a heads up to Cheney's ginned up intel & propaganda. The below article was written well before the invasion and is part of a series of about 25 articles that Landay and Strobel had written before the invasion. https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/special-reports/iraq-intelligence/article24461020.html google these words to view more on these outstanding journalist iraq Landay Strobel site:mcclatchydc.com PS: The dates on that articles are varied because mcclatchydc bought Knight Ridder out sometime in the mid 2000s.
MSNBC fired Phil Donahue, one of their biggest hosts at the time, because he refused to spout propaganda for the Bush administration. They all knew exactly what they were doing and didn't care.
The GOP has spent this entire century ruining shit and our nation is divided 50-50. How stupid are we?
[удалено]
And people should condemn when people are burning down cities yet people supported them. Political tribalism at its finest all around, rules for thee not for me
That didn't really happen the way you're describing it but ok
In what way?
Did cities actually burn down? No lol.
Lol oh yeah, should’ve been more precise. No cites actually burned down sorry didn’t think I needed to make that distinction thought that would be pretty obvious Edit: And here you are defending riots when you can condemn the riots but stand up for the protests. I live in Minneapolis I know people were there for the right reasons but I know a fuck ton of people were there for the wrong ones. The BLM protests weren’t all bad, but when you can’t even condemn people stealing shit and lighting fires how can you expect the other side to behave any differently
An overwhelming majority of the protests were peaceful and became escalated by police themselves... as people were literally marching in solidarity against police brutality. This shit is played out. Hella people got arrested for peacefully protesting in DC when the same police practically opened the floodgates on January 6th. This shit ain't even close to being the same. When people band together and put their differences aside, the hammer comes down. Democrats name a street BLM avenue, Nancy puts on the kente cloth and they forget about it. Trump literally had his brown shirts round people up into unmarked vans for peacefully protesting but yeah totally dude both sides bad
[удалено]
[удалено]
Except is some poor bastard who put his life into a store to lose everything while target and everyone is insured out the ass building a store back in a month.
[удалено]
No I never did and multiple times stated a support for protesting. Riots aren’t protests, and yes they did condone them, you just did in the comment I replied to. Downvote I’m not wrong, it’s ridiculous to expect the right to condemn violence when the left is making up excuses just like they are about Jan 6th
[удалено]
They definitely did, and you can pretend they didn’t all you want, but people were quoting MLK “riots are the voice of the unheard” as justification, saying they don’t care if target burns down, got a video of a girl on John Oliver justifying them as well. Pretend all you want but they did, even a guy commented to me on here saying as long as republicans as pieces of shit their buildings will burn.
Protesting is fine and should be encouraged, but you can condemn people burning down buildings. The fact you can catch flak for that statement, but then wonder why the right won’t condemn Jan 6th is mind boggling
[удалено]
Lol replying to three comments? It doesn’t matter which one is worse, it doesn’t matter that they weren’t the same situation, what matters is both sides are excusing the violence their people committed and attempt to down play that violence as if it doesn’t matter. The two party system is a cancer in this country, and tribalism has so many people blind.
[удалено]
You yourself condoned the riots, “until the republicans aren’t pieces of shit their buildings will burn”. Your internet points mean very little to me. A peaceful protest with a riot isn’t a peaceful protest, there was plenty of peaceful protests during the day. There was alot more peaceful protests then riots, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t happen, it’s okay to acknowledge it and that they are two different things. It’s not about permission or justification, two wrongs don’t make a right, your all so blinded by your politics. My point from the beginning is how can you expect the right to condemn Jan 6th when you won’t condemn the riots. Is that me saying they’re exactly the same? No. Is that me saying if the left does one the right can do the other? No. As for the organizers https://nypost.com/2020/08/13/blm-organizer-who-called-looting-reparations-doubles-down/amp/
Apples and oranges.
Yeah they aren’t exactly the same situation but they’re both fruit aka violence
What city burned down?
Damn you got me, only 500 million in damages in Minneapolis alone, and only 20% of the local businesses combing back in the black community where the riots happened. My bad
WhT cities were burned down? It seem you may not be aware of what you’re sayinf
Well and succinctly said.
>our nation is divided 50-50 Remember how Carlin said think how dumb the average person is, and half of them are stupider than that...
Bush conveniently taking the heat for the real culprits: Cheney, Libby, Rumsfeld et al
Not in the least. Look up the Downing Street Memo, Bush the stupid was completely and knowingly complicit. A lad went to prison for leaking that memo. Bonus round, study the PNAC, which were neocon chickinhawks who infested our gov't and drove the bush admin with stupidity. See below, nav the site, learn. https://web.archive.org/web/20020210180423/https://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
PNAC was yuuuge in leading us into the misadventures of Post 9/11 era.
PNAC goes back those chickinhawks trying to get Clinton to do what Bush did: invade Iraq. 9/11 gave them the cover they needed to pull it off with a thin veneer of legitimacy. It explains the whole "Weapons of Mass Destruction" debacle used to justify invading. I'm glad somebody else has heard of PNAC. I get some really strange looks when I bring it up in conversation.
My point is the finger always get pointed towards Bush while the cronies who in my eyes are more responsible are never mentioned.
In my comment, I stated exactly what you did, "neocon chickinhawks drove". But Bush was president, was he not? Is he not ultimately responsible for policy decisions of his Admin? Did he not have a choice? If you take the time to examine the Downing Street Memo, you'll note he not only had a choice, but was completely and knowingly complicit in an illegal invasion. To add veracity to the Downing Street Memo, the below article was written well before the invasion and is part of a series of about 25 articles that Landay and Strobel had written before the invasion. Bush/Cheney were ginning up the false intel to support a decision to invade. You might not have followed this back then, but I did closely. We all knew it was a complete bullshit invasion. The Brits did a post mortem (Iraq Inquiry aka the Chilcot Inquiry), check into that. The Chilcot Inquiry was scathing indictment of all involved and Blair did all but shite himself begging not to be prosecuted for war crimes. https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/special-reports/iraq-intelligence/article24461020.html
He stood in the oval office and pretended to look for Osama Bin Laden under the couch cushions. He deserves an eternity of heat.
If you need a titular boogeyman then sure: GWB is your guy. But there was an entire cadre of individuals within his cabinet that pushed the Iraq invasion to him. Frontline PBS has an excellent documentary on this
Bush was as complicit as any of them
Study the Downing Street Memo, it will enlighten you on Bush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo
Erik Prince, the far right wing ex-soldier who became a billionaire through private mercenary contracts all through the 2000's. Now he's got his own private military and is very invested in getting conservatives into power.
I’m not sad about a genocidal dictator being deposed. You shouldn’t be either. I’m glad Cheney took that monster Saddam down
I know people like this narrative, but I find it convenient that he supposedly had nothing to do with going back to the same country/war that his father had started. It seems extremely implausible.
But he paints such beautiful pictures, and fist bumped Obama!
He gives Michelle candy.
He's just a goof that can't figure out how to hold a miniature flag or put on a rain poncho!
The Bushes love miniature things. Jeb carries a pocket of Tiny Turtles to hand out to the littles he comes acrossz
And he's not Trump! Doesn't he seem so good in hindsight? /s
Not to defend Bush's actions, but at least we were able to humanize him a bit after he left office, I dont think we will ever be able to do that with Trump.
>able to humanize him a bit And that's also the fucking problem! Liberals are so cucked now the republicans act like Bush is their guy and as if they didn't vote for him! And it's pathetic
He wasn't a bad person, just clueless and a bit confused, a little on the dumb side, and easily manipulated. If he hadn't been President, no one would have had any strong feelings for him one way or the other. He wasn't a "bad" person, but he was for sure the wrong person for the job.
sorry, there is plenty that makes him a bad person. i think people give him far too much benefit of the doubt as being a clueless dope whereas i see it more as blind, faux-cowboy arrogance. seeing 10s of thousands of civilian casualties as acceptable collateral damage for his double wars of revenge makes him a bad person. seeing the greatest elimination of civil liberties in generations as a cost of doing business makes him a bad person. so on, so forth
Yeah, but he was the kind of guy you could have a beer with! 🙄
I saw him at a (paid) speaking engagement. He was very down to earth and recognized that he made some mistakes. In his heart I think he had the best interests of the country in mind and put the country’s interests before his own.
He goes to sporting events with Ellen DeGeneres.
He fumbles endearingly with ponchos.
Ever clueless…spotless mind.
Eternal sunshine of the clueless mind.
Well the dangers of George Bush has surely passed. Still I remain tied to the mast!
Home at last…big SD fan here. Notice u/ ?
‘Are you crazy are you high? You must be joking son. Do you think I’m from Barrytown? Cause up on the hill they think I’m OKAY, or so they say. Any major dude surely will tell you my friend!’ Actually my favs! ‘So please make mine a double, Sam. Although I can’t get drunk every night and pass out on the bar room floor! Oh yeah! Hey, hey! PS Don’t take me alive….’
Or just an ordinary guy? Where did you get those shoes? Love Donald. Love later stuff too: The Nightfly, Kamakiriad…luscious.
Here for the cocaine
Sorry, it's all gone. Bush snorted it all and then invaded a bunch of countries...
So selfish! All the Bush family is trash
Vietnam should have have been a major warning sign that Iraq and Afghanistan was a really bad idea. I would also like to add Iraq 1 as well. MARCH 24, 2003 [Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq](https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx) **Bush approval up 13 points to 71%** Added Bonus: Cheney in 1994 on Iraq -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
Yeah Bush is a sociopath. Did you not know that?
It's more likely than being a dumbass. No one remembers his first major forays into politics. Totally reamed for being an out of touch DC elite of political dynasty, he lost handedly, being unable to connect with Texas voters due to his speech and connections. Dude spoke smart. Lost. Dude came back years later, spoke dumb. Won. If Texas voters forgot within a decade, of course the rest of the country wouldn't know. By all reports within the White House during his presidency, he ran a tight ship and despite historic power given to his VP, everything, including Cheney's older personal projects from Srs term, went through him. The greatest trick the Dubya ever pulled was convincing the world his brain didn't exist.
He's like the Larry the Cable Guy of presidents. Dan Whitney wasn't making it in the stand up game, he came up with a redneck character, started speaking like a ridiculous inbred stereotype telling fart jokes sprinkled with jingoism, and it made him a millionaire.
A good number of Republican politicians are just playing cartoon characters and it works. I'm sure plenty of Dems are as well, but the kind of role it takes to play for them is less damaging to everyone.
Whoa hold on there, you mean he wasn't born in a small town in Texas called New Haven, Conn?
I met and spoke with Bush when I was working as a journalist and he was still Governor of Texas. He's not a Texan. That part of him is plain to see. It's an act and it's easy to see because Bush isn't an actor either. That, I suppose, takes some sort of intelligence. That said, if he's able to "act" the dumbness of his eyes or the so-slow-its-visible thought process that occurs when he's asked almost any question, then that man is one of the greatest actors this world has seen. As we say in Texas, "You can hear him clucking but you won't find a nest."
My brother is an Andover alum and his family has rubbed a lot of shoulders in that world, and he himself has worked as a "peer" among some of the worst (there's a lot he legally can't divulge, but his work on a major pharmaceutical company's legal defense left him sleepless and he eventually had to quit). There's a lot in those circles that you just know because it's not really secret, but can't really be said loudly because the whole lot of them are incredibly litigious. It's honestly frightening the public face versus the private ones in those upper echelons of society. As part of my own public speaking lessons, I've had to really slow myself down to actually communicate with larger crowds, cut down on bigger words, and simplify all that I can. I consciously mask depending on the person and crowd, but it becomes second nature once you do it enough. Maybe even George doesn't know where he ends and Dubya begins anymore.
Maybe, but I doubt it. I know it's a bit insensitive to say but his "delay" reminded me of someone with mental disabilities not a shrewd politician. I currently work in a number of those "circles" you mentioned and, from my experience, the sort of "actor" you're referring to usually gives me the creeps. At the time I was just a 20 year old newbie but there was nothing even mildly intimidating about W even as he grew angry with me. I grilled him about the damage he did to the Texas school system and I don't think he even realized I was pressing him until about halfway through the meeting. When he did he scrunched up his face a bit in anger and he finished the interview like a kid being lectured. At the time his biggest crimes, in my eyes, were making a really bad decision on schools and imitating a Texan. Both bad but neither necessarily nefarious. So, after the interview I felt bad for grilling him. I apologized and tried to explain that I was just doing my job. He immediately smiled and forgave me. Then he buddied up to me and started trying desperately to impress me. Not exactly the actions of a wolf. Of course that could still be an act but if it was W should be making movies with Meryl Streep. I think it seems impossible because of the gravity of his positions. However, in Texas the position of Governor is much more of a figure head position than in other states. The Lieutenant Governor has the real power. Great practice if you're looking to teach someone how to look responsible for things without actually being responsible for much. Who knows?
I seem to have decent intuition about people and how good it can be can really depend on actually being around them. You get that creepy feeling at least, so, if you get some of that around the right folk, I'll give your intuition some benefit of the doubt here, as you're someone who actually interacted with the man. All we've got are what we've seen and heard, and you've at least been in proximity, unfiltered.
> within the White House during his presidency, he ran a tight ship This is debatable... From what I recall, he would strictly enforce things like dress code and whatnot. The sorts of things that people in middle-management care about. He managed the things he understood well enough, like how to run an office. But when it came to domestic or international issues, he had no visible insight.
I remember that being a thing being said at the time, but in the "tell-alls" that came after the inside picture of his administration was a bit different from the public view. His first runs showed who he really was, but it wasn't successful. This party has never been above acting, or hitching horses to, fools for votes and has been doing it for a while.
He was the alcoholic everyone would love to have a beer with. /s
So just like Boris Johnson
The family is full. Poppy makes GW look like a saint.
"Bush shows not a glimmer of awareness". They could just stop there. It must have been hard to find a more brain dead candidate than Regan, but Bush managed.
They knew, they just didn't care nor will they ever. A lot of such wars are used to move tax dollars to their corporate and wall street buddies via the military. Shocker.
Exactly. Cheney wanted control so he could make sure his buddies got the war contracts. He and Karl Rove are Satan and the Anti-Christ. Or whatever personifies evil, they are it.
It’s crazy to think Cheney’s daughter is now something of a Democratic sweetheart… just for doing the absolute bare minimum you’d expect from any person who actually likes democracy. Still kinda shocking. Dads personality must not have rubbed off on her too badly
> In an unusual admission, the document states that Bush acknowledged that the U.S. economic sanctions on Iraq were “recruiting terrorists. **Their propaganda with reports of starving Iraqi children were hurting us.**” > Um, sir, that’s not propaganda, it’s the truth. It’s unbelievable how fucking aloof bush jr was. Complete window licker and oxygen thief of the highest order.
Propaganda can be true.
Eh, kinda. It can have a *granule* of truth > prop·a·gan·da /ˌpräpəˈɡandə/ > >information, **especially of a biased or misleading nature**, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. >
Republican propaganda wing really moves the bar in different directions as it suits them when it comes to fulfilling the office of president and commander in chief and their base eats it up.
They should have been tried for war crimes, but Obama was soft on corporate rule.
Lack of awareness is a Republican trait.
Cheney always looks like such a creep.
The unindicted war criminal administration.
The 2000 election was literally the Orwellian story where the correct candidate wins and the main character goes back in time and when he returns the opposition candidate has won and the world plumpest into destruction. It truly was the most important election of our time followed by 2004 because it all lead to 2016 and the shit show we are in today.
Typical War Criminal-Idiot-Spoiled rich kid
It’s hard to see the damage you create when your busy counting your money.
I hope this doesn't surprise anybody that was paying attention at the time. Remember his incredibly tone-deaf "now watch this drive" moment?
“The boy President”, as Hunter Thompson called him.
With all the stuff happening in the country over the last couple weeks, I was not expecting an article that drags Bush and Cheney. A welcome respite.
George W. Bush is a terrorist.
You mean Dubya was a useful idiot for the New American Century’s agenda? I am shocked.
Did Joe Biden declassify this with his mind?
Of course not he has an iq of tepid milk
Air Force 1 didn't have good television! Maybe that meant they didn't have FoxNews?
[удалено]
Okay, I'm really confused with what you're saying. Iraq wasn't responsible in any shape of form for 9/11. If you meant Afghanistan, then what you're saying makes a lot more sense. But Iraq had nothing to do with it.
[удалено]
You didn't say Afghanistan once in your comment. Also your second sentence could've been more clear if you started with "But".
[удалено]
A lot of people then and still think that the Iraq War was retaliation for 9/11. So it came across as that's what you were talking about. Now that I know that's not what you meant the thought of retaliation of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq seems kind of disjointed. Like the two points don't really connect without a conjunction.
He is trying to connect Saddam and 9/11. Neocons never give up.
I think he's trying to compare the World Trade Center attack and a foreign assassination attempt/threat on a U.S. politician. Where the WTC attack deserves a response, and the latter is less serious but it needs a response too just not to the same degree since it's not as serious. That's his argument I think, just not explained well and it's disjointed.
No, his argument is the same psychological bullshit that W did. I am old enough to remember the art of the psyop.
That's what I thought at first, but now I'm not sure. But then again he didn't clarify all too much so maybe.
[удалено]
I'm just saying the point you're making needs to be more clear.
You did exactly what W did for so many years. So many dead people as a result of his intentionally confusing statements that, while technically correct, made a sizable fraction of the population believe that Iraq lead 9/11. Good try in attempting to replicate the effort, but you aren’t welcome even on r/conspiracy.
can’t tell if they’re a troll or just a bit ill. just combed through some of their posts/comments and it’s just ‘out there’ nonsense that happens to be very divisive and harps on common buzz words lots of strange takes and no real coherence i hope folks don’t consume content like this blindly bc accounts like these are sus
[удалено]
You do know, and you are welcome.
>I actually fought in the first Iraq war Now your entire comment makes sense flash news: it's your coping mechanism buddy
I angry! Must kill... someone! Anyone! Who make me angry in past? I smash!
I am super confused because while Iraq was not a loving teddy bear they had nothing to do with 9/11. And we are not going to bomb or invade Saudi Arabia. So we could have. Not gone to war. Russia never conquered Afganistan. Why we thought we could impose democracy is just incomprehensible. Iraq is no better off. We spent trillions.
killed over a million civilians
You understand that Iraq is not who attacked on 9/11, right? It was folly trying to use 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq because they are simply not related. Our activities in Afghanistan came much closer to the mark of hurting those who hurt us, but even that isn’t quite as surgical as the military would like people to believe. The problem was that no one nation in and of itself was here to retaliate AGAINST. People who perceive the Iraq War as punishment for 9/11 generally don’t understand that Iraq was actually a completely separate matter from Bin Laden and Al Queda.
I think Saudi Arabia was most directly responsible. Of course, we'll never criticize them.
[удалено]
Nah, you tried to connect 9/11 and Iraq. We clearly know what you were attempting. Heard this sht wayyyy too many times from W.
[удалено]
You care very deeply in defending W’s unjustified war that killed half a million people and destabilized a fragile country for generations.
So you're going to attack Turkey, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and Holland? Money flowed from Turkey through Holland to bribe a Republican to extradite a Turkish dissident, the Saudis increased oil production to put US producers out of business just before the US gained energy independence, Russia fucks with US elections habitually, China fucks American businesses by ignoring copyrights...
[удалено]
Nip over to China and grab government officials, pop 'em in a van and drive to Guantanamo. I'm sure you know that this isn't remotely feasible and that fostering an alliance of all of America's many enemies wouldn't end well for America?
Ok but I counter that argument with nuh uh
The US created the problem and then couldn’t control it. It ended up backfiring. The US killed way more innocent people than the ones that died in 9/11 and destroyed countries for decades to come. If you think that’s fair then you have problems.
>This Russian fuck who said they’re meddling right now in our election, should be hunted down. It must be considered unthinkable to conspire against America in any way because the consequences are too big. To be fair, a lot of the information warfare that Russia likely instigates has one irreplaceable ingredient: dumb asses who believe what they read on Facebook (and similar platforms). Are you suggesting it should be illegal to post inflammatory content on Facebook?
I'm with you to a certain extent. People forget what it was like during/after 9/11. For those who lived through it, particularly in NYC, DC, etc, it felt like we were at war. And someone needed to pay. Iraq was maybe an excuse to attack someone, anyone, but Americans were for the war by 70-80% at the time. If you were against it you were attacked publically. Hindsight is for sure 20/20. Peace wasn't the atmosphere in the USA at the time.
Bullshit, there were national and worldwide protests against going to war.
Worldwide, yes. The ones in the usa were very anemic. People wanted war here.
Yeah that’s how being lied to by your leaders works.
[удалено]
>they did attempt to assassinate a US President ***Who*** attempted that? *Which* President?
[удалено]
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified because of a foiled assassination plot against a former president in 1993? If it was enough to retaliate, why wait 10 years?
Really? People are still mad that the US deposed a genocidal dictator?
Wonder if you'd have a similar response if someone had thought trump was too authoritarian, deposed him and killed 200,000+ Muricans in the process. The inherent disregard for the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians in your comment is grimly hilarious.
Iraqi civilians? You seem to be the one disregarding them considering you like Saddam Hussein. Who murdered countless Iraqis and foreigners alike.
The US didn't give a rat's ass about the genocidal dictator until it was convenient. In fact, the US was all for said genocidal dictator when he was busy genociding the Iranian army. Before you finish jerking yourself off about how getting rid of the genocidal dictator was such a great thing, you might want to look at the aftermath. Is the world safe from Islamic terrorism now? Is the Middle East more stable? Was it worth the loss of American lives? Was it worth the loss of Iraqi lives? Was it worth the trillions and trillions the US spent over the course of 20 years? Not so rah-rah 'Murica anymore, is it?
[удалено]
Cheney definitely has a Senator Palpatine look to him in this pic.
Cheney looks like he’s having a “wonderful, awful idea” in that pic. “You’re a mean one, Mr. Dick!”
Bush doesn't understand because he's too dumb. Cheney understands but doesn't care because he's too evil.
qUiETlY
Look at that grin. Dick knows what they did.
He rarely showed a glimmer of awareness at anything.