April 8: Democrats back away from Iraq troops withdrawal demand

Also on the Sunday shows: Gingrich says it's best for Gonzales to Go; Huckabee says he's the man to take on Clinton; Thompson lists Iraq principles

For the second straight weekend, top Senate Democrats shrunk further away from core principles they had set out in the Iraq war debate, signaling Sunday that they were prepared to drop a timetable mandating the withdrawal of U.S. troops, should President Bush fulfill his vow to veto current war funding legislation.

Last Sunday, senior Democrats said that they would not hold back funding for the war if the president vetoed a bill including an Iraq withdrawal timetable. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, reiterated that point on ABC's "This Week." He said, "We're not going to vote to cut funding, period."

Sen. Carl Levin (AP Photo/ABC News, Lauren Victoria Burke)

After a veto, he said, "there's a number of options. Either we can keep the benchmarks part of the bill without saying that the troops must begin to come back." And if that doesn't work, "what we will leave will be benchmarks, for instance, which would require the president to certify to the American people if the Iraqis are meeting the benchmarks for political settlement, which they, the Iraqi leaders, have set for themselves."

Democrats also suggested their strategy would be to portray Bush as the one who is denying funds to the troops.

"Should he veto this bill, which means he will be vetoing the money for the troops, we will try to come up with a way, ... trying to compromise with the White House, that both supports the troops and yet changes the strategy in Iraq, which we feel is misguided," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on "Fox News Sunday."

"And by the way, 70 percent of the American people feel it's misguided. If a change in strategy means not supporting the troops, then 70 percent of the American people don't support the troops."

The House and Senate have both passed $100 billion spending bills to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afgahnistan. The House bill would require U.S. combat troops to leave by Sept. 1, 2008, while the Senate bill asks that troops begin to leave in 120 days, a process to be completed by March 31, 2008. House and Senate negotiators are to work on a compromise bill to send to the president when the House comes back from recess in a week.

Some Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), have vowed to pursue legislation that would cut off funds for combat operations on March 31, if Bush continues to keep a large troop presence there. That would go much further than the bills currently being considered, which Democrats have emphasized would not cut funding.

Levin suggested that the more far-reaching bill, co-sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) would not go anywhere if it contains measures to cut funding. "Harry Reid acknowledged that that's not going to happen. He has a personal position, which he said was not the caucus position. He was very clear when he joined a bill which would cut off funding under certain circumstances."

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Republican Conference, said the Congress should send the president a war spending bill without conditions. "The point here is that when you send the president a bill that has a big poison pill in it like that ... he's going to veto it. This is a very risky strategy," Kyl said on ABC's "This Week." "Every day of delay is a day when we're not sending troops the body armor they need, the humvees that they need and all of the other things that they need.

Also on the foreign policy front this morning:

-- On Fox, Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.),who is mulling a presidential bid, had harsh words about the response to Iran's seizure - and return - of 15 British Navy personnel: "The West was humiliated. The British were humiliated. The Europeans were humiliated. The United Nations was humiliated. ... We should be actively seeking to replace that government by bringing every kind of non-military pressure to bear we can, to destabilize that government and help the people of Iran, replace it with a moderate government."

-- On CNN, Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with the Democrats, switched partisan roles discussing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent visit to Syria, in spite of administration wishes.
"She has a very prominent constitutional role in determine what's going to happen in the Iraqi war. Syria is very much involved with respect to the funding," Specter said.

Lieberman disagreed: "Her visit to Syria was a mistake, that it was bad for the United States of America and good for the Syrians. And I say this because Syria -- we're in a war. We're in a war against the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/01. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism."

U.S. Attorney Firings: No lenience for Gonzales

This morning, it became pretty clear that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is lucky Gingrich is no longer the speaker of the House of Representative.

Gingrich suggested that it would be best if Gonzales resigned in the mounting congressional probe into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys,

Newt Gingrich (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

"I cannot imagine how he is going to be effective for the rest of this administration," the former speaker said. "Thanks to our good friends in the Senate side, they're going to be involved in endless hearings, which is going to take up an immense amount of time and effort. I think the country, in fact, would be much better served to have a new team at the Justice Department, across the board."

Campaign 2008: Mike Huckabee

On this relatively quiet Easter Sunday, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee , a Baptist pastor running for the GOP presidential nomination, had his time under the sun as the sole guest on CBS's "This Week." And he spoke with sky-blue clarity about his political positions on abortion, the role of Christian conservatives in American politics and Iraq.

Mike Huckabee(AP)

When the topic came to the reality of running a presidential campaign, however, the discussion got a little more muddied. Host Bob Schieffer asked about the "obscene" amounts of campaign cash the three leading GOP hopefuls raised in the first three months of the year -- nearly $50 million combined, or 100 times the half-million Huckabee took in.

"This is a time when people are talking about $100 million before the end of the year. If that's the case, do you really want someone in charge of the federal treasury who burns $100 million before the first vote is cast?" Huckabee said.

Huckabee said the real question is how much he can raise in the future, perhaps using a bit of hyperbole to suggest what's possible. "This is the kind of environment in which a candidate can catch fire, and people go to the Web site that he has and make contributions over the Internet. And I could raise $20 million overnight if everyone watching this show just simply went and said, I'll make a $100 contribution. The point is that things can change so rapidly."

Schieffer interrupted, "That's kind of a big if. I mean, you know, they always say, you know, the dog could have caught the rabbit if he hadn't stopped to make that phone all. ... You're going to have to have a tremendous s of money to even have a chance. I'm not saying that's fair. ... It's simply the golf course that politics is played on these days. It's not clear to me how you can get from there to here."

Huckabee said, "Well, again, if I thought that I had raised all the money I was going to realistically raise, I'd be out of it today. But what I'm telling it is that we're on the front end of our fund- raising, not on the back side."

Schieffer also asked about laudatory comments Huckabee made of one of the Democratic candidates, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) - that she's focused, disciplined and brilliant.

Was he angling for a cabinet post in a Clinton administration? Schieffer wondered.

Huckabee said he's not - "I don't think I'd accept" - but he did say he knows her the best of the GOP candidates and "that's why I'm the best candidate on the Republican side."

"I know ... how dangerous she can be as a candidate," Huckabee said. "That's one of the reasons that I believe my candidacy offers the clearest contrast, and an opportunity for America to have maybe a real, solid choice."

Other notes from Huckabee:

-- He thinks Christian conservatives should engage Republicans and Republican politics with the same critical eye on social and family issues they did President Clinton in the 1990s.

-- He thinks displays or religion on public property - the nativity scene on Capitol grounds, for example - are just fine.

-- He thinks the United States must win in Iraq and doesn't think a timetable for removing troops is a good idea.

Campaign 2008: Tommy Thompson

Another GOP presidential hopeful, four-term former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson , spent a few minutes on CNN.

He said his strategy for Iraq has four parts: 1. Protect the troops. 2. The Iraqi government must have a vote on whether the U.S. should stay in the country and the U.S. should follow whatever they say 3. The 18 territories in Iraq should elect their own leaders and operate like U.S. states. He didn't get to the fourth part. 4. An equitable distribution of oil revenues.

The health and human services secretary during Bush's first term, Thompson also said he's pro-life and would like to see the federal government regulate nicotine as it does so many other drugs.

By Zachary Goldfarb |  April 8, 2007; 3:06 PM ET
Previous: April 8th Preview: Iraq, U.S. Attorneys and 2008 | Next: April 15 Preview: Cheney on "Face the Nation"


Please email us to report offensive comments.

This is not our war as current sentiment in Iraq demonstrates. Support our troop, keep them alive, bring them home NOW.

Posted by: lauren achitoff | April 8, 2007 5:08 PM

The President is in charge of Foreign Policy Period.

He is not stupid he is bright and the right man at the right time for the job.

The Dem are Demigod's and can't get over the Clinton embarrassment in the oval office. Thank God we have a real man in the whitehouse.

Posted by: Donald J Lewis | April 8, 2007 5:14 PM

I thought it was the innocent Iraqis that are supposed to be hiding behind the brave soldiers. lokks like it's the damn politicians. Bring back the troops. They can perhaps do a better job stopping the glaciers from melting.

Posted by: suresh manian | April 8, 2007 5:17 PM

"...four-term former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson , spent a few minutes on CNN."
"He said his strategy for Iraq has four parts: "1...." "2...." "3...." "...He didn't get to the fourth part."

I guess he does not get to be President, if he could not even remember his fourth point! HAHAHAHA!!

These guys think that someone will vote for them.

Posted by: Unbelievable! | April 8, 2007 5:18 PM

i don't know whats worse a Dem with no balls or a Rep.that lies.

Posted by: ipod46 | April 8, 2007 5:26 PM

I haven't seen the Democrats back off at all when it comes to Iraq. I've heard a lot of chatter from the Republican noise machine saying that is what the Democrats are going to do, but I've seen no proof whatsoever. The Dems are not going to give Bush a Iraqi spending bill on his terms. It is wishful thinking that Bush vetoing the current bill is going to automatically force the Democrats to send him a bill on his terms. Not going to happen. Keep putting that talking point out ad nauseum, though, Republicans.

Posted by: ErrinF | April 8, 2007 5:26 PM

The troops need this funding, and it is NOT Congress' job to decide when troops should come home. Bush is allowing his Generals to do their jobs, and he will not allow Congress to step in the way of the people who are actually there doing their jobs.

Posted by: evan | April 8, 2007 5:26 PM


We are going to have to kill a few million jihadis before they choose to leave us alone. Iraq is as good a place as any to kill a bunch, and better than many (like the streets of New York?) This will, unfortunately, kill several 10's of thousands of our troops. Get over your whining, and do something that makes our country safer in the face of implacable enemies.

Posted by: dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 5:28 PM

And what might that job be, Evan?

Posted by: suresh manian | April 8, 2007 5:29 PM

The Democrats predictably threw their tantrum and are now running for cover.
There's a simple point none of them have the courage to make: if Congress withholds funds and Bush sends unprepared soldiers into harm's way anyway, HE will be responsible for what happens to them. He wouldn't dare.

Posted by: eric | April 8, 2007 5:34 PM

As a Veteran and career military I say this. Do not hide behind the "I support the troops, so bring them home" slogan to then say you are against the war...just say it, and by doing that demonstrate your ignorance of the big picture....that this world is STILL a very primitive and violent world, and that it is now clear (with the new Hostage Iran incident, British sailors) that it is up to the U.S. to be out there fighting the forces of Muslim extremism basically alone! And if the U.S. does not, the forces of this current threat to Democracy in this world will go on and on until, like they said, we either "convert or else"!:


We have no choose, we must change the Middle East, and push for Democracy, since our Democracy and their form of Muslim extremism is totally incompatible! And until those forces are defeated, now fighting us in Iraq, etc, we will not have peace and security in this world!

Why is this knowledge so hard to accept?

It is the fact right in front of your faces people, accept it. we have to be in Iraq and we have to win it, to say otherwise is just been stupid!

That is all!

Posted by: Luis T Puig | April 8, 2007 5:35 PM

It's good to see that Democrats do have SOME sense, it it still seems rather silly. They know the president will veto their bill as long as it contains timetable lagnuage, yet they won't refuse to fund without a timetable, so why not just save a lot of time and angst and just hand in some legislation that the president is willing to sign?

Posted by: Christopher (Fipher) D. Osborn | April 8, 2007 5:38 PM

The occupation of Iraq is illegal. It was a pre-emptive strike on a country that did not attack us. It was sold to the American people based on lies. One of these lies is that Iraq had ties to the 9/11 attack.

The true evidence of September 11th seems to be completely ignored by mainstream media. I have been researching 9/11 for over four years and there are serious unanswered questions from that day.

I will propose 5. I hope you investigate these for yourself.

1) Never in the history of steel structures has a building collapsed from fire yet 3 did on 9/11; WTC tower 1,2 & 7. all three buildings came down at free fall speed with no resistance, tower 7 was never hit by an airplane yet came down symetrically in seven seconds? Additionally odd, tower 2 fell before tower 1 although tower 1 was hit first and tower 2 was hit with a glancing blow. The explosion/ collapse in tower 2 started above where the plane hit the tower? The explanation by NIST and Popular Mechanics says that the jet feul weakenned the steel and caused a pancake collapse, one floor falling on another. This does not account for the free fall speed of the collapse from both towers? Additionally, jet fuel burns at only about 1500 Degrees Fahrenheit in the open air and structural steel does not melt or even get significantly weakened until more than a thousand degrees hotter with a melting point of near 3300 degrees F.

2) There is no large plane wreckage in front of the Pentagon from the 757 that hit it. Taking from the official story, the 757 that hit the pentagon flew over a highway, parallel and 15 to 20 feet above the ground and impacted the pentagon between the 1st and 2nd floor. (official story) The airplane did not leave any markings or large debris (ex wings) on the front of the pentagon. the 757 suppossedly was sucked into a 16ft by 24ft hole, before the ceiling collapsed a 1/2 hour later, and incinerated. how did this plane hit only 15 ft above the ground after descending so rapidly without ever hitting the ground and flown by an amateur pilot? The 3 slides the pentagon released to the public shows a small shaped device flying horizontally, very low to the ground and leaving a small smoke trail. How come the Pentagon has not released video from the cameras mounted on the roof? lastly, after travelling through three rings of the Pentagon, the plane or whatever it was left a small circular exit hole in the third ring.

3. All four hijacked planes flew for an average of 40 minutes, 1 hour 50 minutes total, without any fighter jet intercept over NY and Washington. As you are aware, NY and Washington are some of the most protected airspace in the world.

4. Where is the plane wreckage from the plane crash in Shanksville, PA? in pictures and video all you see is a small ditch with no fires, plane debris, seats, bodies, etc.?

5. How was the Patriot Act and the War on Terror so quickly developed after 9/11? Was this new program a reaction to 9/11 or something that was worked on before September 11th and just conveniently ready for a terrorist attack?

9/11 was an inside job, a false flag operation. Sadly, the sophistication of this operation points more towards state sponsored terrorism than a small group of bandits inside a cave. As you touched on in your article, how often have our leaders evoked the memory of 9/11 to rally our people for certain causes (i.e. Iraq)?

fight on in peace. I hope you decide to investigate the truth of 9/11 for yourself.

Shawn Cooper

PS For a summary and the best documentary of 9/11 I recommend watching Loose Change 2. You can watch it for free here-


or visit www.wtc7.net or www.st911.org and start your own research...

Lastly, alot of the public does not know that Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen are not the only ones questionning the official story of 9/11. Hundreds of scholars, public representatives, high ranking officials and survivors are questionning it as well. please see www.patriotsquestion911.com for more on this.

Posted by: Shawn Cooper | April 8, 2007 5:38 PM

Every one of our troops are VOLUNTEERS! They knowingly chose a path that requires them to raise their right hand and swear to lay down their lives, if necessary, to achieve our country's objectives. Our objective is to defend ourselves from Radical Islam, who would kill all you whiners first, when they take over. (They'd have to pry my smoking gun out of my dead hand.... I think they will pick on you first.)

Be honest enough to admit that you don't have the spine to resist these enemies, and then get out of the way of us that support both the United States, and her troops.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 5:42 PM

Excuse me,.... "... WE that support..."

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 5:48 PM

The occupation of Iraq is illegal. It was a pre-emptive strike on a country that did not attack us. It was sold to the American people based on lies. One of these lies is that Iraq had ties to the 9/11 attack.

The true evidence of September 11th seems to be completely ignored by mainstream media. I have been researching 9/11 for over four years and there are serious unanswered questions from that day.

I will propose 5. I hope you investigate these for yourself.

1) Never in the history of steel structures has a building collapsed from fire yet 3 did on 9/11; WTC tower 1,2 & 7. all three buildings came down at free fall speed with no resistance, tower 7 was never hit by an airplane yet came down symetrically in seven seconds? Additionally odd, tower 2 fell before tower 1 although tower 1 was hit first and tower 2 was hit with a glancing blow. The explosion/ collapse in tower 2 started above where the plane hit the tower? The explanation by NIST and Popular Mechanics says that the jet feul weakenned the steel and caused a pancake collapse, one floor falling on another. This does not account for the free fall speed of the collapse from both towers? Additionally, jet fuel burns at only about 1500 Degrees Fahrenheit in the open air and structural steel does not melt or even get significantly weakened until more than a thousand degrees hotter with a melting point of near 3300 degrees F.

2) There is no large plane wreckage in front of the Pentagon from the 757 that hit it. Taking from the official story, the 757 that hit the pentagon flew over a highway, parallel and 15 to 20 feet above the ground and impacted the pentagon between the 1st and 2nd floor. (official story) The airplane did not leave any markings or large debris (ex wings) on the front of the pentagon. the 757 suppossedly was sucked into a 16ft by 24ft hole, before the ceiling collapsed a 1/2 hour later, and incinerated. how did this plane hit only 15 ft above the ground after descending so rapidly without ever hitting the ground and flown by an amateur pilot? The 3 slides the pentagon released to the public shows a small shaped device flying horizontally, very low to the ground and leaving a small smoke trail. How come the Pentagon has not released video from the cameras mounted on the roof? lastly, after travelling through three rings of the Pentagon, the plane or whatever it was left a small circular exit hole in the third ring.

3. All four hijacked planes flew for an average of 40 minutes, 1 hour 50 minutes total, without any fighter jet intercept over NY and Washington. As you are aware, NY and Washington are some of the most protected airspace in the world.

4. Where is the plane wreckage from the plane crash in Shanksville, PA? in pictures and video all you see is a small ditch with no fires, plane debris, seats, bodies, etc.?

5. How was the Patriot Act and the War on Terror so quickly developed after 9/11? Was this new program a reaction to 9/11 or something that was worked on before September 11th and just conveniently ready for a terrorist attack?

9/11 was an inside job, a false flag operation. Sadly, the sophistication of this operation points more towards state sponsored terrorism than a small group of bandits inside a cave. I keep hearing government and military officials saying we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq and globally. Does this mean as the lone superpower we suppossedly were attacked by this rag tag group on September 11th and have been fighting them for the last 6 years without 'mission accomplished'? c'mon. How often have our leaders evoked the memory of 9/11 to rally our people for certain causes (i.e. Iraq)? Wakeup, they are using fear to sell the war program to the American people.

fight on in peace. I hope you decide to investigate the truth of 9/11 for yourself.

Shawn Cooper

PS For a summary and the best documentary of 9/11 I recommend watching Loose Change 2. You can watch it for free here-


or visit www.wtc7.net or www.st911.org and start your own research...

Lastly, alot of the public does not know that Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen are not the only ones questionning the official story of 9/11. Hundreds of scholars, public representatives, high ranking officials and survivors are questionning it as well. please see www.patriotsquestion911.com for more on this.

Posted by: Shawn Cooper | April 8, 2007 5:49 PM

I think your problem is that you think you are superior everybody else. To you the way to win peace is through force and only force. I think that's brilliant. Slap the crap out of everybody that disagree, that's the way to make friends. Or maybe it's the way to remake everybody so they look like america. Cus' America is the best country in the world and everybody wants their country to look like america. and on the subject of the troops, i'm against the troops but for the war.

Posted by: Gabbe | April 8, 2007 5:49 PM

I think your problem is that you think you are superior everybody else. To you the way to win peace is through force and only force. I think that's brilliant. Slap the crap out of everybody that disagree, that's the way to make friends. Or maybe it's the way to remake everybody so they look like america. Cus' America is the best country in the world and everybody wants their country to look like america. and on the subject of the troops, i'm against the troops but for the war.

Posted by: Gabbe | April 8, 2007 5:50 PM

The Democrats just don't get it. They are seemed weak on foreign policy. Just look at the Speaker of the House cuddling with terrorist. If that is not a picture of how the Democrats would ruin our country I don't know what else. The Democrats and their Political Correctness are going to destroy our country. Thank God we have a President that is able to see that. America wake up and send the Democrats and the Terrorist a message of no retreat!!!

Posted by: A/Texas | April 8, 2007 5:55 PM

Bush Jr. couldn't get into law school in Texas when Daddy was President. Kind of makes me wonder how bright he is!! Of course, had the lawyers let him in maybe the rest of us wouldn't have had to put up with his egomania.

Posted by: High Speed Hagan | April 8, 2007 5:56 PM

Bush is emasculating Congress and the Will of the People. He is an irrational fundamentalist who unswervingly believes that his values are right even if he cannot articulate or justify them. Congress must assert itself to ensure that Bush does not set a precedent for other authoritarian Presidents to thumb their nose at Congress.

Posted by: Robert James | April 8, 2007 5:59 PM


I AM superior to one that wants to kill me without cause, or would relegate me to an inferior position because of my beliefs. And I WILL kill someone who tries to harm me or my family. I would hope that you would too?

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 6:07 PM

Get the troops out of Iraq and we won't need more funding! What happened in Viet Nam when we got out??--the war was over! Same situation here. The Iraqis want Iraq, not world domination!
Bush a real man?? What did he do during his tenure in the military? Actions speak louder than words!
Democrats?? . . . just as worthless as Republicans! Ba humbug!!

Posted by: George | April 8, 2007 6:08 PM

The argument that you "support the troops" by funding this war is an Orwellian canard. You don't support the troops by enabling the Bush administration to keep them in harm's way. You betray them! Most of the funds do not go to the "troops." They are flowing to Bush's base, "the haves and the have-mores" who are profiting so hansomely from this illegal war of aggression--the military/industrial complex, Halliburton, Bechtel and the "army" of private mercenaries led by Blackwater USA.

The same neocon sociopathic hypocrites with the flags on their lapels who are so quick to question the patriotism of anyone who opposes this imperial adventure have been more than happy to play Scrooge when it comes to furnishing so much as body armor for the working class stiffs who have been cajoled into serving in the U.S. armed forces in Iraq as a way out of Wal-Mart-ized, low-wage labor, only to return home pscyhologically damaged and physically disfigured, left to rot in rat-infested Walter Reed. As the sad song goes, "I'm just another poor boy fighting in a rich man's war."

The only proposal in Congress that makes any sense is H.R. 1234 (Kucinich) that would cut off funds, use the funds already in the pipeline to extracate our troops, replacing U.S. troops with international peace keepers under the aegis of the UN, closing all U.S. bases, mandating that all foreign contractors (including the Blackwater mercenaries) leave, returning Iraq's economy and its oil to its rightful owners, the Iraqi people.

As a Vietnam veteran I understand only to well what is at stake. Good men and women are dying every day, yet the so-called "Democratic leadership" lacks the courage, wisdom or both to do what the American people elected them to do last November--get out of Iraq, now!

For more info on H.R. 1234, go to Kucinich.us.

Posted by: Ernest Canning | April 8, 2007 6:16 PM

I wish the democrats stop whimping out! This war in Iraq needs to end now. If it means cutting the funding to the war, then so be it. When does supporting the troops mean supporting the President's policies? Because that's what will end up happening if we stay in Iraq.

Posted by: Gerald Shields | April 8, 2007 6:16 PM

It doesn't take much to figure out that the US is in deep economic trouble. There are large corporations going bankrupt, spending time closing stores, and re-organizing to stay afloat. It is not the lack of support of our troops or the president that is in question here. It is the state of the union that is in sorry shape, and people keep falling for the old "through the dog a bone" routine presented by the press and the bush cabinet. First: The terrorist that attacked the US are the Taliban not the Alkida. Second: it was Osama Bin Laden not Sadam Husain who was responsible for the attacks. Third: and probably most important here is that we will never win the war while fighting the wrong enemy. My friends that is just basic stuff. I feel like the show "are you smarter than a 5th grader" goes to show the sorry shape of todays education level. Most people "are not" smarter than a 5th grader, as can be demonstrated by the lack of concentration on a single subject, such as terrorism. A "C average" President running the US is smarter than 90% of the "Educated Class" and that is the sorry dark shape of the declining educational institutions of the US. It is time to bring our troops home not to admit defeat nor to defeat forign policy, but rather to begin rebuilding the US. It is time to call a war we allready "won": "finished".

Posted by: Kerry Voss | April 8, 2007 6:17 PM

bush cannot win this war because we are not in a war with a enemy that can identified. The American people spoke out in november and said we no longer believe in this blank check war that has so much war profiteering it is a disgrace to be a soldier. They are not spending the money on humvees or body armour they are giving billions unquestioned to companies like halliburton. I can say this because I am a desert storm vet. bush lies.

Posted by: chris g | April 8, 2007 6:23 PM

Endless war only benefits the War Machine.
The War Machine has made the Bush Family (and others)very,very rich. Anyone who doesn't understand this is naive.

We should have spent what will amount to a
trillion dollars(that's a thousand billion) on energy independence, rebuilding New Orleans and border security, not the caveman response of war.

Posted by: falconium | April 8, 2007 6:28 PM

We have no enemies my friends...Governors do! Wake Up My Friends!!!...and fight the ultimate fight! and keep your children out of thier childish fights for money and power. This goes for all Countries and Governments that are creating people who hate them,...our troops, THE HUMAN SHIELD!! for a few rich mafia, who hide behind the American Flag or thr plag of their country ...WE HAVE BEEN HIJACKED!!!...WAKE UP!!! WAKE UP!!!! I LOVE YOU.

Posted by: Truth Seekers | April 8, 2007 6:39 PM

the only tool congress has to control the actions of the president is money. we invaded iraq under police action under the auspecies of searching for wmd, none found. then it was a case of ousting hussein, he was found and hanged. then it was to indoctrinate iraq on the benefits of becoming a democracy, never happen. now our troops remain there to help stablize the entire country by reluctant request, but they are killing eachother and our troops. this has nothing to do with what happened on sept. 11, 2001. the administration keeps spewing out fear and its working. these terrorist wont come here because we have nothing they want. maybe some farmland thats not being used, but subsidized by the government. after the u.s. governments spending billions and billions of dollars on this senseless debacle, they could have subsidized our oil usage for years to come. the biggest success bush has accomplished is to loose the trust of the majority of this country.

Posted by: LINDA FRANKE | April 8, 2007 6:40 PM

I am so sick in tired of these GUTLESS democrats screwing around trying to make them selves FAMOUS and not support our PRESIDENT.What i want everyone to think about is that with all that the democrats are doing they have killed more of our TROOPS.It has come a time when this counrty needs to stick together and win this thing and stop playing POLICTICS. We have lost men and women because of this and it dont seem to matter to these democrats as long as they get there names in the news. What they should do is put these people thar our responable for this in jail or just shoot them. and the list of trouble makers are Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton,Chuckie Schumer, John Kerry and Harry Ried. All these people just want to be in the news and dont care about what the President is doing or what is right. No one wants to stay in Iraq any longer then possible but these people just keep making it harder to resolve this problem in Iraq. they are just looking for votes using mis-leading information to infect the public. Let them lose a son and then have them say that we shouldnt be there or we are wrong in what we are doing. the best thing these people could do is either support our president and get this over or shut up or even better shoot yourselfs. I am tired of having our country run through the dirt by people that just want to get votes for themselves and not even have a idea on how to proceed without throwing in the towel. the make me sick.

Posted by: Dennis Heath | April 8, 2007 6:42 PM

The President is in charge of Foreign Policy Period.

He is not stupid he is bright and the right man at the right time for the job.

The Dem are Demigod's and can't get over the Clinton embarrassment in the oval office. Thank God we have a real man in the whitehouse.

Posted by: Donald J Lewis | April 8, 2007 05:14 PM

you are nothing more, and nothing less than a disgraceful, embarrasing dipsh**.

Posted by: evangel | April 8, 2007 6:46 PM

What great historical students you all are.
Like the French in every war since Waterloo, QUIT before you lose. Oh, by the way they have lost at least 5 in a row; one was Vietnam another was in Morroco.

Yes the EU realy is committed to peace, surrender now and you will be free of conflict.

Posted by: john lock | April 8, 2007 6:48 PM

Regards to john lock you are another fool

Posted by: Dennis Heath | April 8, 2007 6:51 PM


We live in a world that needs leadership, and leadership does not come from rants of superior morality and rightness--with complete indifference to history or current reality.

What set me off to write my comment is the above comment that the Viet Nam war ended when the U.S. army pull out. With all do respect, the several million dead indiviuals in south-east Asia following the U.S. pull-up would surely have a different definition of the end of the war.

Folks, we have a president--whether I voteed for him, or not. He is and cannot be all things to all people, but I believe we must accept and respect his office and authority. And, the attempt to current overt actions to cripple him and his office is disgracely in the least.

In the end, it bothers me greatly that so much effort is put into crippling and disgracing the man and his branch of government. I worry even greater that it does not matter who the man is, but rather it is bitter divisiveness now deeply rooted in our country and exposed by individuals who feel they can so easily state what is right and what is wrong, how much smarter they are, and dictate life for others.

I spend each Memorial Day at Arlington Cemetery listening to the President speak, and strolling the cemetery and mall after words.

Kindest regards.

Posted by: David M. | April 8, 2007 6:52 PM

democrats want to keep us in iraq, they whine and complain but ultimately their corporate, aipac, and media masters keep them putting up a good fight but losing in the end. as the war gets worse their ultimate goal will be a draft to compel us to fight arabs. both parties have to go.

Posted by: gatriot act | April 8, 2007 6:52 PM

Bush has done a great job of convincing people that "cutting funding for the troops" means that all of a sudden the troops will have to throw rocks at the enemy. If Congress doesn't approve funding, that doesn't mean that troops won't have armor or that humvees will run out of gas, it means that the President can't use any of the money in the defense budget for the war in Iraq. In such a case, he will be forced to withdraw the troops. The ever-expanding power of the presidency has left the legislature with this single end-run play of refusing to approve funding for military adventures. This is what most Americans want, but then they hear "cut funding for the troops" and not "cut funding for the war" and they get their panties in a bunch.

Posted by: Ted R. | April 8, 2007 6:53 PM


You are proof of the failure of our schools. Make a personal attack when you have no facts or evidence that explain your total fear of success.

Posted by: john lock | April 8, 2007 6:56 PM

LOL I will try to get back the thousands I spent going to school, ya know i thing that i have realized is that its not education that makes a good person it's just having good morels and a faith in GOD and our country

Posted by: Dennis Heath | April 8, 2007 7:02 PM

I have to agree that the Dems just don't have any balls and the Reps just keep on lyin' like a rug! There is no hope left in American politics. The poor in the usa will continue to grow because the politicians cannot use the money to straighten things out that have been wrong for a long time. Now with Iraq, which was a lie to begin with, they can keep shoving the important things needed for the american citizen to the back burner and keep wasting money in an endless hole in Iraq. The terrorists love it!!

Posted by: David Qualey | April 8, 2007 7:03 PM

This is really sad....most Americans want their children, husbands, sons, daughters,out of Iraq...it is about getting our families back....however damaged they have been by this insane invasion. Why does getting our children home equate to not supporting our troups...I would like to see the President's children, or any of his family, or any children of the Senators or Congress, that have served in this war in Iraq be listed so that the American people can see that they understand the sacrifice. WHERE IS THE LIST?? No one has served from either body...while you are asking certain members of the service and national guard to serve over and over again , risking everything...life... body parts, mental trauma, home, career...this is a huge disgrace..worse than Walter Reed, our commander in chief does not even know what it is is to serve...I am sickened to see the chaos that he has created!!!!

Posted by: carlene35 | April 8, 2007 7:03 PM

This war on terror is all about radical Islamists hating Jews and started with Arafat in 1948 when the UN 'made' the nation state of Israel.
America is 'hated' also because it is supporting Israel and its 4,000,000 Jews and is itself 'home' to 9,000,000 Jews.
Radical Islam must be destroyed wherever it exists.

Posted by: david pearson | April 8, 2007 7:03 PM

To bad, we elected this democratic house and congress to end this war and bring our troops home. Looks like we will need to support a party that can govern as the people whom elect them desire. END THIS STUPID WAR NOW AND BRING OUR SONS, DAUGHTERS, MOTHERS AND SISTERS HOME NOW!

The only thing the Republicans have gotten correct in the last 6 years is when they describe the Democrats as "weak".

Posted by: Mark Jensen | April 8, 2007 7:04 PM

I did not make it past the second comment. Anyone who still thinks Bush is the right man for America is a large part of the problem.

Posted by: farmasea | April 8, 2007 7:07 PM

Every single time I hear about blocking the surge I am waiting for the one person to stand up on the Republican side or even on the Democratic side and say "Hey, wait fellas the surge is showing small signs of progress but now comes the time for the heavy lifting on our part and the part of the President and the Iraqi government in the form of a concerted effort directed at bringing all the parties to the table. To get a decent solution so that everyone can go home with honor."

But for the life of me I haven't heard of anyone outside the Iraq Study Group advocating this position. Where was this position and need to come to a solution last month at perhaps a very good missed oppurtunity during the Iraq Summit? Where is it each time when the Iraqi parliament gets together to force out of a session yet more grid lock on everything from repair of the electric grid to sharing of oil dollars? Where is it when the Congress leaves on holiday? Where is it when Mr. Bush heads back to Texas for yet another holiday?

Its just.. not there. The American public supports the troops. Why don't the diplomats, Repersenatives, Senators, and Presidents of both nations?

You know why because no one has lit a fire underneath them since the election. Maybe the need a ticking clock in thier head or hell even the Jeopardy theme might be nice right about now.

Posted by: Yet another frustrated American | April 8, 2007 7:10 PM

To David Quiley, tyhe terrorist actually love the division the issues have caused inside America. Conquer from within, that is how they will win.

Posted by: John Oatly | April 8, 2007 7:11 PM

I support the troops 100%. Here is how much I support them. I want them all home now! The admin is now responsible for killing more Americans than were killed in 9/11. How many more must we burry.

Vietnam veteran not a Vietnam era veteran.
In country.

Posted by: Terry | April 8, 2007 7:12 PM

Farmasea... if I'm part of "the problem", I'd like to know what the problem is.

Posted by: Tim | April 8, 2007 7:15 PM

Just in case anyone missed it, we had a full and open debate several years ago, at which point the Dems had their chance to say their peace. It was and is incumbant on them, after a fair, and free debate, to get in line, or face the real charge of being unsupportive of the troops. Many Democratic representatives voted for this war. It is clear, that many lives have been lost, as a result of the left giving aid and comfort, by their treasonous actions, to the enmey. Should we have spoken with one voice, since the beginning of the war, it would most likely have been over by now. As always, we will continue to lose wars, unless we let the military fight the way they need to, in order to win the war. It won't be pretty, and many prisoners will wear underwear on their heads, but we will prevail, if only the left would take a breath, and see what they are doing to this country. If we pull out before we finish the job in Iraq, America will rue the day.

Posted by: Kevin | April 8, 2007 7:16 PM

Congress has to keep the time line in the bill or stop funding this oil war... Bring our troops home.... Bush declared this war of his over and complete after we got their dictator for them... Civil War in another country is up to that country to fight not us...

It could be that some of you did not read what the commanders on the ground had to say about this, but even they say, no one can say the surge is making progress right now...They won't know until late sometime this year, and even if it does show it's working, the government IS NOT WORKING TOGETHER TO MAKE A LASTING GOVERNMENT... According to the Commanders on the ground, we would still have to stay in Iraq for another 5, 10, or 15 years to keep order IF they succeeded...

All these would be , want to be RAMBO'S that want to keep the war going, should understand that we were suppose to be there to get their dictator and give them free elections.... WE DID THAT....BUSH SAID MISSION COMPLETE BACK IN 2004...NOW IT IS TIME TO GET THE YELL OUT AND BACK HOME... WE ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO BE FIGHTING ANOTHER WAR FOR THEM... CIVIL WAR IS NOT WHAT WE ARE THERE FOR, OUR JOB IS DONE....

If the government of Iraq refuses to work with each other and want TO KILL EACH OTHER THEN THAT IS THERE PROBLEM...If Iraq is so Damn important to the other Arab counties why aren't they doing something about it? If it is so important to all of Europe why is England withdrawing their troops? Why must America fight the fight alone and pay for it alone?

If someone comes here to fight, we as Americans would all pick up arms and fight for OUR LAND AND COUNTRY.

We can not afford to pay for a war unending... not for Iraq or Bush nor Channey... Bush and Channey lied to America AND THE WORLD to get their war, and for what O I L, to inrich their families. At the cost of American lives as well... I am not willing to watch as one of my grandchildren lays his life down in another country for oil to enrich Bush or Channey... Nor I'm I willing to watch them die for a government that refuse to be a government, and only wants to kill eacxh other...

So to Congress and Senate I say....



Posted by: judithferren2@earthlink.net | April 8, 2007 7:19 PM

Posted by: Kevin | April 8, 2007 07:16 PM

I agree with you 100% we all have lost dearly.

Posted by: Dennis Heath | April 8, 2007 7:23 PM


Your logic is amazingly shallow. So, following your line of reasoning, Truman and Lincoln must be evil mosters for have sent so many solders to their deaths.

Your statements betray you as yet another blind idealogue.

Posted by: Johnny O. | April 8, 2007 7:23 PM

You go, Dan. A breath of fresh air in the midst of dangerously naive la-la-land stink.

Posted by: mhs | April 8, 2007 7:24 PM

I feel it is necessary to lay a foundation so that a discussion of current events can be more accurately focused on facts and not political propaganda, erroneous history and manufactured intelligence.

There is nothing more frustrating than a "cartoon like" view of history. I would urge anyone who voted republican that, if they are indeed interested in the real history of the Bush family (which I suspect they are not) starting from well before WWII, that for starters they read the Eisenstien book "Drawing the Line" which is widely regarded as the pre-eminent historical record of post war Europe and the Marshall Plan.

As far as real history goes.. here it is. Everything in the following timeline is independently verifiable, has never been disputed, and is a matter of public record.
This information has been culled from: The U.S. Justice Dept Archives, The FBI through the Freedom of Information Act, The LOC, The National Archives, Interpol, The Hague, as well as other US agencies. There are over 17 million official documents to support the following timeline.



The American press and lower learning institutions have indeed gone out of their way to overlook the public and historic fact that through Union Banking Corporation (UBC), Prescott Bush, and his father-in-law, George Herbert Walker, along with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, financed Adolf Hitler before and during World War II.

The US government knew early on that many large American companies, such as Standard Oil, General Motors and Chase Bank, were aiding and doing business hand-over-fist with the Nazis - commerce and support which was legally proscribed after Pearl Harbor under the Trading With The Enemy Act.

Prescott Bush's banks were not just financing Hitler, but, in fact, there was a distinct business link.

A classified intelligence file leaked by Dutch intelligence, along with newly surfaced information from U.S. government archives, "confirms absolutely" the direct links between Bush, Thyssen and genocide profits from Auschwitz. This information reveals how Prescott Bush and UBC, which he managed directly, profited from the Holocaust.

In 1942, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley, signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing the property of Prescott Bush under the Trading with the Enemy Act. At the time, the order, published in obscure government record books and kept out of the news, explained nothing about the Nazis involved - only that the Union Banking Corporation was run for the "Thyssen family" of "Germany and/or Hungary" - "nationals ... of a designated enemy country."

The Timeline:
(Abbreviated form)

1833: The secretive Skull and Bones Society is formed at Yale University. [Both John Kerry and George Walker Bush are members. -- JW]

April 20, 1889: Adolf Hitler is born in Braunau, Austria.

1897: The Union Pacific Railroad (UPR) goes bankrupt.

1898: The Union Pacific Railroad is sold to Edward Henry Harriman & his partner, Judge Robert Scott Lovett, in a deal managed by the Kuhn Loeb brokerage where Felix Warburg is a partner.

September, 1900 -- Hitler begins high school in Linz Austria. A poor student, Hitler wants to become an artist and attend classical school, but his father, who more realistically hopes his son will become a government worker, sends him to a technical high school.

1902: Paul and Felix Warburg immigrate to the United States.

1904: German Alfred Ploetz founds the Archive for Racial and Social Biology, which becomes the chief journal of the German eugenics or 'race hygiene' movement. Ernst Haeckel popularizes eugenics in Germany.

John D. Rockefeller issues "Occasional Letter No.1" detailing plans to mold the people, reduce national intelligence to the lowest common denominator, destroy parental influence, traditions and customs, and eliminate science and real learning, "in order to perfect human nature".

An advanced eugenics laboratory is constructed by Charles B. Davenport at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, NY, also near the estates of both Dulles brothers. The facility is funded in excess of $11 million by the Harrimans and the Rockefellers.

1907: Samuel Bush is elected President of Buckeye Steel Castings Co. in Columbus, Ohio. For his entire career, Samuel Bush supplies Wall Street railroads with castings. He later becomes a close advisor to President Hoover, and first president of the National Manufacturers Association. (NAM). NAM, in its turn, establishes a history of supporting union-busting and fascism. In the 1950s, Robert Welch and other members of NAM form the John Birch Society.

After failing the entrance exam to Vienna's Academy of Fine Arts, Hitler takes a variety of jobs and often sleeps on park benches. A German-speaking Austrian, Hitler develops a hatred for non-Germans, and a belief that government cannot succeed if it treats all racial groups equally.

Indiana passes the first eugenics law.

1909: The Rockefeller Foundation is established. The Rockefellers support the strong eugenics movement of this time, including the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Germany.

1911: John Foster Dulles joins Sullivan and Cromwell.

1913: The Federal Reserve, a private banking cartel, is created. Paul Warburg serves as a governor of the Reserve during WW I during the same period that his brother Max was head of the German Secret Service. Ninety years later, in 2003, the Reserve remains in private hands, despite popular misconceptions that it is part of the US government.

1914: With war close at hand, Percy Rockefeller takes control of Remington Arms & appoints Samuel F. Pryor as CEO.

When World War I begins, Hitler serves in the German army, where he eventually rises to the rank of corporal.

1915: Dulles' uncle Robert Lansing is appointed Secretary of State. Lansing recruits his nephew to go to Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama on the pretext of company business, but in reality to sound out the Latin Americans on aiding the US war effort. Costa Rica, at the time, is led by vicious dictator Federico Tinoco. Dulles advises Washington to support the dictator on grounds that he was anti-German. Dulles also encourages Nicaragua dictator Emianiano Camorro to issue a proclamation suspending diplomatic relations with Germany. In Panama, Dulles offers to let Panama waive the US tax on its annual canal fee, so long as Panama declares war on Germany.

1916: The "Great War" is spinning out of control, grinding away at Germany's resources and economy. At age 74, German industrial magnate August Thyssen sees his company, Thyssen & Company, buckling under the war's pressure. With 50,000 German employees workers and an annual production of 1,000,000 tons of steel and iron -- the main supplier of the German military -- Thyssen realizes Germany will be defeated once the US enters the war.

Thyssen looked to his first born son. Educated at the finest technical business schools in Europe, Friedrich ('Fritz') Thyssen, was destined to inherit his father's estimated $100,000,000 fortune and the family's industrial empire, headquartered at Muehhlheim in the Ruhrgebiet, Germany's main industrial area.

August had previously laid out precautionary plans for his second son Heinrich. At the outbreak of the war, Heinrich Thyssen discreetly changed his citizenship from German to Hungarian, marrying Hungarian aristocrat Baroness Margrit Bornemisza de Kaszon. Soon, Heinrich changed his name to Baron Thyssen Bornemisza de Kaszon.

Near the end of World War I, August Thyssen opens the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart in Rotterdam. Neutral Holland was the perfect location to launder assets from the August Thyssen Bank in Berlin when the financial demands of the Allied forces surfaced. But the war ended sooner than Thyssen calculated, catching him very much off guard.

1917: Prescott Bush joins the Skull and Bones society at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. Both his son and grandson (George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush) will likewise become Skull and Bones members. Brown Brothers Harriman boasts an exceptional number of Skull and Bones members ('Bonesmen') during the 1930s.

November 10, 1918: German socialists take over Berlin.

November 11, 1918: Germany surrenders to the WW I Allies. In his autobiography 'I Paid Hitler', Friedrich recalls "At the time of the Armistice and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, my Father and I were deeply saddened by the spectacle of Germany's abject humiliation." According to some sources, the authenticity of this autobiography is now contested.

December 7, 1918: Armed militia of the socialist Spartacists League come knocking on the door of the Thyssen Villa. August and Fritz are arrested and dragged from jail to jail across Germany for four days. Along the way, they are lined up in mock executions designed to terrorize them.

Fritz's younger brother Baron Thyssen Bornemisza de Kaszon moves to Rotterdam and becomes the principal owner of the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart.

1918: Robert Scott Lovett is elected president of Union Pacific Railroad. Samuel Bush is appointed to the facilities division of the US War Industries Board, chaired by Bernard Baruch and his assistant, Clarence Dillon.

1919: George Herbert Walker forms W. A. Harriman & Company, with himself as president and CEO. W. Averell Harriman, son of Edward Harriman, is the chairman. Averell would later serve as US Ambassador to the USSR in 1943-1946, as US Secretary of Commerce in 1946-1948, and as Governor of New York State in the 1950s.

The Dulles brothers are involved in the Versailles Treaty negotiations after the war. The Treaty takes crucial German territory in the coal-producing and industrial Ruhr valley, and decrees that Germany must pay enormous reparations.

Hitler helps form the National Socialist German Workers Party, known as the 'Nazis'. The group's main principles include uniting all Germans into one nation, creating a strong central government, and cancelling the Versailles Treaty.

1920: Averell Harriman and George Walker gain control of the German Hamburg-Amerika shipping line. The deal, arranged through the chief executive of German Hamburg-Amerika, William Cuno, and through one of the shipping line's bankers, M. M. 'Max' Warburg. The name of the firm is changed to American Ship & Commerce Corporation. After being involved in the deal, Samuel F. Pryor of Remington Arms is named to serve on the board of the renamed corporation. William Cuno later becomes a heavy contributor to Nazi Party funds.

July 29, 1921 -- Hitler becomes leader of the Nazi party. He is introduced for the first time as the Party's "Führer" (the German word for 'leader').

1922: George Herbert Walker remains President of W. A. Harriman & Company. Averell Harriman opens the Berlin branch of the firm. A U.S. government memorandum to the Executive Committee of the office of the Alien Property Custodian, dated October 5, 1942, later indicates that at the time, Harriman met with German multi-millionaire industrialist 'Fritz' Thyssen, and that Harriman agreed at that time to set up a bank for Thyssen in New York. This bank would later be called Union Banking Corporation (UBC) and would be placed under the management of Prescott Bush. The US government memorandum also indicates that Thyssen's agent; H. J. Kouwenhoven, had traveled to New York sometime prior to 1924 pursuant to these plans.

The Model Eugenics Sterilization Law is published by Harry Laughlin. This law, permutations of which were adopted in several US states, led to the sterilization of over 20,000 people. It later served as the basis of the 1935 Nuremberg Laws adopted by the Nazis.

October, 1923: Fritz Thyssen visits one of Germany's great military heroes, General Erich Ludendorff. During the 1918 socialist rule in Berlin, Ludendorff had organized a military resistance against the socialists, and the industrialists were thus in great debt to him. They discuss Germany's economic collapse. Thyssen was apocalyptic, fearing the worst was yet to come. Ludendorff disagreed. "There is but one hope," Ludendorff said, "Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist party." Ludendorff respected Hitler immensely. "He is the only man who has any political sense." Ludendorff encouraged Thyssen to join the Nazi movement.

After hearing Hitler speak, Fritz Thyssen begins to contribute substantial funds to the Nazi party -- initially 100,000 gold marks (roughly $25,000). Others in the steel and coal industries soon followed Thyssen's lead, although none came close to matching him.

November 9, 1923: Perhaps emboldened by his newfound corporate support, Hitler engineers the 'Beer Hall Putsch' -- a plot to bring down the post-WW I German government. After learning that Bavarian leaders would be the guests of honor at an event taking place at a Munich beer hall, Hitler leads more than 2,000 Storm Troopers on a march to seize them. The effort fails, and Hitler is sentenced to five years in prison for treason.

1924: W. A. Harriman & Co invests $400,000 in setting up the Union Banking Corporation to act in partnership with the Thyssen-owned Bank voor Handel en Scheepvart in Holland. Prescott Bush, the son of Samuel Bush, is brought into the firm by George Herbert Walker, his father-in-law, to manage Union Banking Corporation (UBC). UBC is now in the position to transfer funds back and forth for Thyssen's United Steel. Subsequent investigators conclude that "the Union Banking Corporation has since its inception handled funds chiefly supplied to it through the Dutch bank by the Thyssen interests for American investment." Walker and Harriman's firm eventually sells over $50,000,000 in German bonds to American investors, who profited enormously from the economic boom in Germany.

Coinciding with the Dawes Plan, which is discussed elsewhere in this chapter, John Foster Dulles arranges a large loan for Krupp. For the loan, Dulles had called Leland Harrison, assistant secretary of state, on a Saturday to soft-pedal the item in the news. Harrison was infuriated because the department had issued a circular asking to see foreign loans before American funds were exported. Dulles knew, however, that Harrison had no authority to stop the loan. Dulles wanted to avoid the State Department's scrutiny as to whether German factories were producing military hardware. At Dulles' behest, Sullivan and Cromwell accepted the assurances of Krupp that all military hardware had been destroyed.

Ethyl Corporation is formed jointly by Standard Oil and General Motors.

In prison, Hitler begins writing 'Mein Kampf' (My Struggle). The book encapsulates Hitler's beliefs and plans for Germany's future. After serving only nine months in prison, however, he is released and begins rebuilding his party.

1925: By 1925, I.G. had established powerful allies inside the Republican administration. The then Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover appointed a nine-member board, Hoover's Chemical Advisory Committee. Seated on the committee were Walter Teagle (Standard Oil of New Jersey), LaMotte du Pont, Frank Blair (President of Sterling) and Henry Howard (Vice-president of Grasselli). Despite the extensive ties the four had with I.G. they sat on a committee whose role was to help America's chemical industry fight off the I.G. cartel

1926: Prescott Bush is promoted to Vice-President of W. A. Harriman & Company. August Thyssen dies at the age of 84, leaving Fritz in control of one of the largest industrial families in Europe. With the aid of Clarence Dillon, of Dillon Read, Thyssen creates the United Steel Works (USW) or German Steel Trust, the biggest industrial conglomerate in German history. Through this merger, Thyssen brings Friedrich Flick, head of another German family juggernaut, into the US/German collaboration. Flick owned coal and steel industries throughout Germany and Poland, and desperately wanted to invest into the Thyssen empire. One of Thyssen's and Flick's purposes in their massive corporate merger was to suppress the new labor and socialist movements. Dillon Read handled the Trust's corporate banking in return for two Dillon Read representatives being placed on the board of the German Steel Trust. Albert Voegler was the chief executive of the German Steel trust, and was another industrialist instrumental in bringing Hitler to power. Voegler held directorships in Thyssen's Dutch bank and the Hamburg-Amerika Line. Union Banking Corporation moved into in partnership with part of Flick's empire, Silesian Holding Company -- Walker, Bush and Harriman owned a third of Flick's holding company and called their holdings Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation.

American I.G. is founded as a holding company controlling I.G. Farben assets in the United States. Some of its board members were Edsel Ford, Charles Mitchell (President of Rockefeller's National City Bank of New York, now known as CitiBank), Walt Teagle (President of Standard Oil), Paul Warburg (Federal Reserve chairman and brother of Max Warburg, financier of Nazi Germany's war effort and Director of American I.G.) and Herman Metz, a director of the Bank of Manhattan (now Chase Manhattan Bank), which was controlled by the Warburgs. Three other members of the Board of Governors for American I.G. were later tried and convicted as German war criminals.

Allen Dulles joins Sullivan and Cromwell.

1927: John Foster Dulles becomes a director of GAF Company (American I.G.) until 1934.

Hitler and the Nazi party are broke. New members and donations were sparse after the German economic recovery. Desperate for cash; Hitler tells his private secretary Rudolf Hess to 'shake down' wealthy coal tycoon and Nazi sympathizer Emil Kirdorf. Kirdorf indeed pays off Hitler's debt that year.

1928: Hitler designs to purchase the enormous Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, the most aristocratic section of Munich, to become the Nazi national headquarters. He tells Hess to contact Thyssen. After hearing the Hess appeal, Thyssen feels it is time to give Hitler a second chance. Through the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart, Thyssen "placed Hess in possession of the required funds" to purchase and redesign the Palace. Thyssen later says the amount was about 250,000 marks, but leading Nazis would claim that the re-modeling alone cost over 800,000 marks (about $2 million in today's funds).

Hitler and Thyssen became close friends after the purchase of what Hitler re-names 'Brown House'.

1929: Standard Oil and I.G. Farben begin cartel negotiations

Harriman bank buys Dresser Industries, supplier of oil-pipeline couplers to Standard and other companies. Prescott Bush became a director and financial czar of Dresser, installing his Yale classmate Neil Mallon as chairman.

October 29, 1929: The Wall Street stock market collapses, sending Germany -- dependent on foreign trade and American loans -- into severe depression. Germans search for a solution as they are cast into poverty. The government begins to unravel, and Hitler and his German and USA industrialist and capitalist backers see the perfect opportunity for capturing the attention of the German people and safeguarding -- if not maximizing -- profits.

1930: Dulles arranges for a wealthy Czech family, the Petscheks, to sell their interest in Silesian Coal to George Mernane, in order to hide the Petscheks' interest. Dulles then sells the shares to his friend Schacht, the Nazi economic minister. After the sale, Dulles becomes director of Consolidated Silesian Steel Company, whose sole asset was one-third interest in Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Company. The remainder of the shares remain controlled by Friedrich Flick.

September 14, 1930: On election day in Germany, the Nazis receive 6,371,000 votes, over eighteen percent of the total. Thus entitled to 107 seats in the German Reichstag (parliament), the Nazis become the second largest political party in Germany.

1931: W. A. Harriman merges with the British firm of Brown Brothers. Thatcher Brown, Prescott Bush and the two Harriman brothers become senior partners in the new firm of Brown Brothers Harriman. Robert Lovett, son of Robert Scott Lovett and a close friend of Prescott Bush, becomes a partner in the new firm. Lovett would later serve as Assistant Secretary for Air during the war, as Under Secretary Of State (1947-1949), as Deputy Secretary of Defense (1950-1951), and as Secretary of Defense (1951-1953).

Prescott Bush runs Brown Brothers Harriman's New York office, while the London office of the new firm is run by Thatcher Brown. The firm's partners include well-known Nazi sympathizer Montagu Collet Norman, governor of the Bank of England, and a close friend of Prescott Bush, who often stays with the Bush family on his visits to New York. Norman's grandfather had been boss of Brown Brothers during the Civil War, when Brown Brothers were directly responsible for shipping seventy five percent of slave-produced cotton from the south to England.

Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker host the Third International Congress of Eugenics. The purpose of the event was to call for the sterilization of fourteen million Americans.

The Bank of International Settlements is formed.

December 1931: Fritz Thyssen officially joins the Nazi party. The party is rapidly gaining critical mass in Germany.

September 1932: Thyssen invited an elite group of German industrial tycoons to his castle to meet with Hitler. They spent hours questioning Hitler, who reportedly answers all their questions with the'"utmost satisfaction," as Thyssen later remembers. Industrialist money pours into Nazi campaign coffers.

November 1932: Under the slogan "Freedom and Bread," Hitler runs against Paul von Hindenburg for the German presidency. Hindenburg wins, but not by an absolute majority.

, so a re-election takes place on April 12th. Though Hitler and the Nazis are very popular, Hindenburg, 85, is elected to another seven-year term.

January 4, 1933: Hitler is invited to the Schroeder Bank by a group of industrialists. The industrialists gave Hitler the money to overcome his financial problems, in turn for a pledge to break the German trade unions. Present at this meeting were two Americans -- John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles.

January 30, 1933: Von Hindenburg appoints Hitler Chancellor of Germany, and the Nazis immediately move to seize dictatorial power through a national emergency-based coup d'etat. They begin planning to burn the Reichstag and take over the government.

March 23, 1933: Hitler becomes dictator of Germany after his proposed act, "Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich," is passed 441 to 84. The law essentially suspends freedoms, legislates democracy out of existence, and establishes his legal dictatorship.

Max Warburg is selected by Prescott Bush to be the American Ship & Commerce Line official representative on the board of the Hamburg-Amerika Line. Warburg was a long time advisor of Hjalmar Schacht, the Nazi's Economic Minister and an executive in the Reichsbank. Warburg was also a close friend with Montagu Collet Norman.

An agreement to coordinate all trade between Germany & America was reached in Berlin after negotiations between Hitler's Economics Minister, Hjalmar Schacht & John Foster Dulles. As a result Oliver Harriman, Averell's cousin, formed a syndicate of 150 firms to conduct all business between Germany and the United States.

North German Lloyd Co. merged with Hamburg-Amerika Line in Hamburg. Christian Beck, a long time Harriman, executive was placed as manager of 'freight & operations' in North America for this newly-merged company. Emil Helfferich, an ardent Nazi, was appointed chairman of this new company called Hapag-Lloyd. Nazi security guards were now on all ships of the company.

William S. Farish was appointed chairman of Standard Oil by John D. Rockefeller. Farish was close friends with Hermann Schmitz, chairman of I.G. Farben. Farish hired Ivy Lee, to write pro-I.G. Farben and pro-Nazi propaganda and get it into the U.S. press. He hired Nazi German crews for Standard Oil tankers. In addition, he hired "Emil Helfferich," chairman of the Hamburg-Amerika Line, as chairman also of the Standard Oil Company subsidiary in Germany. Karl Lindemann, board member of Hamburg-Amerika, also became a top Farish-Standard executive in Germany. The interlock placed Farish and Prescott Bush in a small group of Hitler supporters. Both Emil Helfferich and Karl Lindemann were authorized to write checks to Heinrich Himmler, chief of the Nazi SS, on a special Standard Oil account. This account was managed by the German-British-American banker, Kurt von Schroeder. According to U.S. intelligence documents reviewed by author Anthony Sutton, Helfferich continued his payme
nts to the SS into 1944, when the SS was supervising the mass murder at Standard-I.G. Farben's Auschwitz and other death camps. Helfferich told Allied interrogators after the war that these were not his personal contributions -- they were corporate Standard Oil funds.

March 19, 1934: Prescott Bush reportedly hands Averell Harriman a copy of that day's New York Times: The Polish government is applying to take over Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation and Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Company from'"German and American interests" because of rampant "mismanagement, excessive borrowing, fictitious bookkeeping and gambling in securities." The Poles require the owners of the company, which accounted for over 45% of Poland's steel production, to pay at least their full share of back taxes. Bush and Harriman eventually hire attorney John Foster Dulles to help cover up any improprieties that might arise under investigative scrutiny.

August 2, 1934 -- Hitler is now head of a one-party fascist German state, and thus officially assumes the title of German "Führer".

1934: The US Senate Nye Committee hearings revealed Samuel Pryor, chairman of Remington Arms & founding director of both the UBC & the American Ship & Commerce Corp. had joined in a cartel agreement with I.G. Farben. The committee also uncovered that the Nazis were armed with mostly American arms.

E. W. Webb, president of Ethyl Corporation was advised that Washington had learned of the intention of "forming a German company with the I.G. to manufacture ethyl lead in Germany. The War Department indicated that there was considerable criticism of this technological transfer. The Ethyl Company was then advised by the Army Air Corps that "under no conditions should you or the Board of Directors of the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation disclose any secrets or 'know-how' in connection with the manufacture of tetraethyl lead to Germany.

With Hitler in solid control of Germany, the profits from the Thyssen-Flick union soar to over a hundred million dollars a year. Both Union Bank and the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart are overflowing with money. Prescott Bush becomes managing director of Union Banking Corporation and takes over the day-to-day operations of the German plan.

John Foster Dulles was publicly supporting the Nazi philosophy. In 1935, he wrote a long article for the Atlantic Monthly entitled "The Road to Peace." He excused Germany's secret rearmament as an action taking back their freedom. Knowing what he did about Inco and Germany's munitions industry, Dulles was misleading in asserting Germany's, Italy's, and Japan's desires for peace. Later in the 1930s, Dulles helped organize the American First group. A month before Pearl Harbor he donated $500 to the group. Later he would claim no association with the group. Dulles continued his support of the Nazi line right up to the time Germany invaded Poland. Dulles' excuse for the Poland invasion was much like blaming the victim for the crime.

1935: The German Nazi party and fascist government pass the Nuremberg Laws, persecuting the German Jews.

Ethyl Corporation signed a joint production agreement with I.G. Farben in Germany to form Ethyl G.m.b.H. and with Montecatini in fascist Italy for the production of tetraethyl lead. The directors of Ethyl Gasoline Corporation at the time of this transfer: E.W. Webb, president and director; C.F. Kettering; R.P. Russell; W.C. Teagle, Standard Oil of New Jersey and trustee of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Georgia Warm Springs Foundation; F. A. Howard; E. M. Clark, Standard Oil of New Jersey; A. P. Sloan, Jr.; D. Brown; J. T. Smith; and W.S. Parish of Standard Oil of New Jersey.

John Foster Dulles narrowly misses being indicted in a case involving Union Electric Company of Missouri, a subsidiary of the North America Company. The Securites & Exchange Commission had discovered the company operated a slush fund to bribe legislators. The fund received kickbacks from its local lawyers and an insurance company. The firm had bribed the entire Missouri legislature. SEC general counsel Travis Lane cynically attributed that the failure to the grand jury to indict Dulles was due to his 'charm'.

The Nuremberg Laws are passed in Germany, paving the way for the Holocaust.

1936: The Schroeder Bank in New York merges with the Rockefellers to form Schroeder, Rockefeller & Company, Inc. Carlton P. Fuller of Schroeder Banking Corporation became president and Avery Rockefeller, became vice president.

1937: By the end of January 1937, Dulles had merged all his cloaking activities into one client account, Brown Brothers Harriman-Schroeder Rock. Schroeder, of course, was the Nazi bank on whose board Dulles sat. The 'Rock' was the Rockefellers of Standard Oil, who were already coming under scrutiny for their Nazi deals. At the request of Prescott Bush, Dulles had by now cloaked the Bush-Harriman dealings with the Nazis.

February, 1938: Hitler becomes commander of the German army (Wehrmacht). Many army officers do not trust the German dictator, but lack the courage to oppose him.

November 9, 1938: The Nazis execute their first mass persecution of the Jews, reportedly destroying 7,500 Jewish businesses, burning 267 synagogues, and murdering 91 Jews. The destruction later comes to be known as Kristallnacht, "the night of broken glass." Soon after, a dozen of the Nazi party's most radical anti-Semites meet and decide to eliminate Jews from German economic life.

September 1, 1939: World War II begins when Hitler invades Poland. By this time, concentration camps for war-related slave labor are being established throughout Germany, Poland, and Russia. However, a plan to use Soviet prisoners of war as forced labor falls through, and the Nazis begin shipping Jews, communists, gypsies and other "undesirables" to the concentration camps.

The Bush-managed Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation was located near the Polish town of Oswiecim -- re-named Auschwitz by the German conquerors -- and I. G. Farben decides to build one of the slave labor camps there. The Auschwitz camp benefits from locally-abundant supplies of coal, which could be processed into aviation fuel. According to a Dutch intelligence agent, Prescott Bush personally manages a portion of the slave labor force in Poland.

Farish's daughter Martha married Averell Harriman's nephew, Edward Harriman Gerry.

1940: Allen Dulles served on the board of the Schroeder bank. John Foster Dulles served as the legal counsel for Schroeder Bank. Schroeder Bank in turn acted as a financial arm of the Nazis.

December 7, 1941: Pearl Harbor is bombed and war is declared.

December 13, 1941: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, and US Attorney General Francis Biddle signed the Trading With the Enemy Act, which bans any US business interests or arrangements with US enemies of war. Yet Prescott Bush continues with 'business as usual', aiding the Nazi expansion in Europe and supplying massive resources for weaponry that would eventually be turned on American solders in combat against Germany.

January 20, 1942: At the Wannsee conference, the Nazis reportedly make the 'Final Solution' decision -- to exterminate all of European Jewry.

March 25, 1942: U.S. Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold announces that Bush eugenics protege William Stamps Farish has pleaded "no contest" to charges of criminal conspiracy with the Nazis. Farish had been the principal manager of a cartel agreement between Standard Oil and I.G. Farben to build an industrial plant to produce artificial rubber and gasoline from coal at Auschwitz, taking advantage of the concentration camp's supply of slave labor.

At this time, Deutsche-Amerikanische Petroleum A.G. (DAPAG), the Standard Oil subsidiary in Germany, was 94-percent owned by Standard Oil of New Jersey, which was represented in the inner circles of Naziism by Karl Lindemann (director of DAPAG and member of Himmler's Circle of Friends) and by board member Emil Helfrich, who was an original member of the Keppler Circle. Karl Lindemann's connections extended into the international banking area as director of several banks, including the Dresdner Bank, the Deutsche Reichsbank, and the private Nazi-oriented bank of C. Melchior & Company.

August, 1942: Leo Crowley, the US Alien Property Custodian ordered the seizure of all property of Hapag-Lloyd.

October 1942: Ten months after entering World War II, as the USA prepares its first assault against Nazi military forces, Prescott Bush, father of George Herbert Walker Bush and grandfather of the current President, George Walker Bush, remains managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, now one of the USA's largest brokerages and investment firms, and CEO of Union Banking Corporation, where he managerially controls the Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation. His 18-year-old son George Herbert Walker Bush, the future U.S. President, is in training to become a US navy fighter pilot.

October 20, 1942: The US Government's Alien Property Custodian seizes the stock shares of the Union Banking Corporation, whose shareholders at the time were:

Prescott S. Bush -- senior managing partner in the firm on behalf of E. Roland Harriman and Averell Harriman. Averell will later hold many public offices, including Governor of New York State.
E. Rowland ("Bunny") Harriman
Cornelis Lievense (banking functionary for the Nazis)
Harold D. Pennington (of Brown Brothers Harriman)
Ray Morris (of Brown Brothers Harriman)
Johann G. Groeninger (An industrial Exec. In Nazi Germany).
H.J. Kouwenhoven (As financial emissary of Fritz Thyssen, and in mid-1920's negotiations with George Walker and Averell Harriman, Kouwenhoven founded the UBC. He was also managing director of UBC's Netherlands affiliate under Nazi occupation, and director and chief foreign financial executive of the German Steel Trust)

During the same month, the United States government seizes two additional companies: Seamless Steel Equipment Corp. & Holland-American Trading Corp.,

The seizure orders described this stock and assets thusly: "all of which shares are held for the benefit of ... members of the Thyssen family, [and therefore] property of nationals ... of a designated enemy country ..."

October 26, 1942: Only six days after the Bush/Harriman/Thyssen stock seizures, U.S. troops are under way for their first direct ground combat with the German army in North Africa.

October 28, 1942: The US government issues orders seizing two Nazi front organizations run by UBC; the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation, both of which are under Prescott Bush's management..

November 8, 1942 -- U.S. forces land under heavy Nazi fire near Algiers, North Africa; heavy combat rages throughout November. Further Bush-Nazi interests in the Silesian-American Corporation, which has long been managed by Prescott Bush and his father-in-law George Herbert Walker, are seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act on November 17, 1942. In this action, however, the government announces that it is seizing only the Nazi interests, leaving the Nazis' U.S. partners -- including Bush and the Harrimans -- to carry on the business.

These and other actions taken by the U.S. government in wartime were, tragically, too little and too late. The Bush Presidents' father and grandfather, Prescott Bush, had already played a central role in financing and arming Adolf Hitler for his takeover of Germany; in financing and managing the buildup of Nazi war industries for the conquest of Europe and war against the U.S.A.; and in the development of Nazi 'eugenic' genocide theories and racial propaganda, with their well-known results.

Bush's share holdings in UBC will later be returned to him. In fact, Thyssen's and the other holders' ownership shares are eventually returned too. Today, the Thyssen group has absorbed Krupp Steel -- another notorious WW II user of concentration camp slave labor -- and ThyssenKrupp is the largest industrial conglomerate in Germany.

1943: Though he retains ownership of his UBC stock, Prescott Bush resigns as CEO of the banking firm. But politicians don't bite the hand that feeds them ... in an indication of his and his financial cronies' continued steadfast support at the highest levels of US government, Bush is immediately 'rehabilitated', subsequently becomes chairman of the National War Fund, and.helps to raise millions for dozens of war-related causes.

July 20, 1944: A few weeks after Allied forces invade Europe, several high military and civilian officials, including Field Marshal Erwin von Witzleben and the mayor of Leipzig, try to assassinate Hitler with a bomb. Hitler is injured, but not killed.

March 19, 1945: As the Red Army approaches Berlin, Hitler orders the destruction of what remains of German industry, communications and transport systems, in the belief that if he does not survive Germany should also perish.

April 30, 1945: Ten days after his 56th birthday, Hitler commits suicide in his Berlin bunker. The day before, he marries his mistress, Eva Braun, and issues a last statement: "I charge the leaders of the nation and those under them to scrupulous observance of the laws of race, and to merciless opposition to the universal poisoner of all peoples, international Jewry."

June 7, 1945 -- Nazi Germany surrenders.

1945: The U.S. Treasury Department revealed to congress that United Steel produced the following percentages of war munitions for the Nazis: Pig iron 50.8%; Pipe & tubes 45.5%; Universal plate 41.4%; Galvanized sheet 38.5%; Heavy plate 36%; Explosives 35%; Wire 22.1%. This is the same firm Prescott Bush acted as banker for. In effect, Prescott Bush was Hitler's American banker.

Allen Dulles seeks out a young Naval Officer, raised a Quaker, who had been put in charge of some captured Nazi documents. If the documents had surfaced, it would have revealed Dulles as a traitor. In a deal to bury the documents, Dulles agreed to finance the young man's first political race on a platform of anti-communism. This was the beginning of the political career of Richard Milhaus Nixon.

Project Paperclip begins to import Nazis into the United States.

1946: Nixon defeats Jerry Voohris for congress with the help of an influx of money from New York centered banks.

1947: Following the war, authorities seeking to locate the Dutch Royal family's jewelry discover the transaction papers of the Silesian American Corporation in the books of Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart. The bank manager, H. J. Kounhoven, comes under intense scrutiny and is quoted as being "shocked" by the discovery. Kounhoven subsequently travels to New York to inform Prescott Bush of the investigation. Two weeks later, the otherwise healthy Dutch banker dies of a heart attack.

1948: Fritz Thyssen's life is in ruins. He has been jailed by the Nazis, jailed by the Allies, and interrogated by US investigators. Thyssen and Flick are ordered to pay reparations, and serve time in prison.

1950: Prescott Bush is defeated in his first political race, due to his background association with the American eugenics movement.

February 8, 1951: Fritz Thyssen dies in exile in Argentina at the age of 78. The Alien Property Custodian releases the assets of the Union Banking Corporation to Brown Brothers Harriman. The remaining stockholders cash in their stock, quietly liquidating the rest of UBC's blood money. Prescott Bush receives $1.5 million for his UBC holding. Bush uses that money to help his son, George Herbert Walker Bush, set up his first royalty firm, Overby Development Company, that same year.

1952: Prescott Bush is elected to the U.S. Senate, and is instrumental in the Republican Party's selection of Richard Milhaus Nixon as vice presidential candidate.

1953: John Foster Dulles is appointed Secretary of State.

Allen Dulles appointed Director of the CIA.

With money from Brown Brothers and Harriman, George Herbert Walker Bush forms Zapata Petroleum, a front for the CIA.

1954: The CIA, under the direction of Allen Dulles, helps plan a coup against Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala to aid the United Fruit Company ('Chiquita Banana'). Schroeder Bank is partnered with United Fruit in the banana business. Allen Dulles is a sitting board member of Schroeder Bank. Both John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles have investments in firms which have heavily capitalized United Fruit. In addition, the American ambassador at the UN is a stockholder of United Fruit, and President Dwight Eisenhower's personal secretary is the wife of United Fruit's public relations director. The Dulles brothers convince Eisenhower that Arbenz is a threat to American national security, and get his approval to develop a plan to get rid of the Guatemalan President.

1961: C. Dillon appointed Secretary of Treasury.

The Bay of Pigs fiasco. Two of the ships were named Houston and Barbara. The CIA code name for the Bay of Pigs was Operation Zapata, tying George H.W. Bush to the operation. Additionally in 1981, the year before George Bush was elected vice president, all of the SEC records for Zapata Petroleum from between 1960 and 1966 disappeared.

John Kennedy fires Allen Dulles after the Bay of Pigs.

1963: John F. Kennedy signs legislation returning to the government of the USA the right to mint its own currency, a direct affront to the 50-year-old privately-held Federal Reserve banking cartel.

Kennedy is assassinated. Sources later implicate Cuban and Cuban-American elements in the CIA and/or affiliated with the Cosa Nostra (Italian Mafia), who were disenchanted with Kennedy's decision not to support the failed Bay of Pigs invasion with air power. The Cosa Nostra had lost enormous gambling interests during Castro's takeover of Cuba, and were anxious to re-establish the gambling industry there. However, other sources and rumors point in the direction of US capitalist interests threatened by Kennedy's currency reform initiative. Later reports indicate that numerous big-money 'contracts' on Kennedy's life were circulating widely in the CIA/Cosa Nostra 'soldier of fortune' culture of mercenaries and 'hit-men' at the time.

On the very day of Kennedy's assassination, George Herbert Walker Bush, in Houston, is reportedly heard to speculate on that possibility, saying that he knows of people who want Kennedy killed.

1964: George Bush campaigns against the Civil Rights Act in his bid for election. He loses the election.

1966: George Herbert Walker Bush is elected to congress.

1968: Richard Milhaus Nixon elected President.

1969: Zapata attempts to buy out United Fruit ,another company with strong ties to the CIA and involved in the overthrow of reformed-minded Central American countries.

1969: George Herbert Walker Bush tells the House of Representatives that unless the menace of human population growth is "recognized and made manageable, starvation, pestilence and war will solve it for us." Bush repeatedly compares population growth to a disease. In remarks to the House July 30, 1969, he likens the fight against the polio virus to the crusade to reduce the world's population. Urging the federal government to step up population control efforts, he said: "We have a clear precedent: When the Salk vaccine was discovered, large-scale programs were undertaken to distribute it. I see no reason why similar programs of education and family planning assistance should not be instituted in the United States on a massive scope."

Congressman Bush helps found, then chairs, the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population,.which churns out a steady stream of propaganda claiming the world is already seriously overpopulated. The task force tries to rehabilitate the eugenics movement, seeking to accredit the idea that the human race was being "down bred," or reduced in genetic quality. A kind of 'Malthusian vanguard' organization, they hear testimony from "race scientist" William Shockley at Bush's invitation, pointing up the arrogance of Bush's commitment to eugenics.

Shockley had caused a furor during the 1960's by advancing his thesis, already repeatedly disproven, that blacks were genetically inferior to whites in cognitive faculties and intelligence. In the same year in which Bush invited him to appear before the GOP task force, Shockley had written: "Our nobly intended welfare programs may be encouraging dysgenics -- retrogressive evolution through disproportionate reproduction of the genetically disadvantaged ... We fear that 'fatuous beliefs' in the power of welfare money, unaided by eugenic foresight, may contribute to a decline of human quality for all segments of society." Shockley advocated a program of mass sterilization of the unfit and mentally defective, which he called his "Bonus Sterilization Plan." The special target of Shockley's prescriptions for mass sterilizations were blacks, whom he saw as reproducing too fast. "If those blacks with the least amount of Caucasian genes are in fact the most prolific and the least intell
igent, then genetic enslavement will be the destiny of their next generation," he wrote. Looking at the recent past, Shockley said in 1967: "The lesson to be drawn from Nazi history is the value of free speech, not that eugenics is intolerable."

1971: George Bush is appointed as ambassador to the United Nations.

Nixon reverses Kennedy's currency initiative, and takes the dollar off the gold standard. Henceforth, the dollar is no longer backed with precious metals, but rather -- in effect -- by the USA's control over the world's capitalist means of production, especially the oil industry.

1971: In a published article, longtime Bush family eugenics protege William Draper likens the developing nations to an "animal reserve", where, when the animals become too numerous, the park rangers "arbitrarily reduce one or another species as necessary to preserve the balanced environment for all other animals. "But who will be the park ranger for the human race?",' he asked. "Who will cull out the surplus in this country or that country when the pressure of too many people and too few resources increases beyond endurance? Will the death-dealing Horsemen of the Apocalypse -- war in its modern nuclear dress, hunger haunting half the human race, and disease -- will the gaunt and forbidding Horsemen become Park Ranger for the two-legged animal called man?''

1972: The Watergate scandal erupts during Nixon's reelection campaign.

George Bush appointed chairman of the Republican Party. Bush proceeds to set up the ethnic heritage groups in the party. In short, these groups are nothing more than a haven for Nazi émigrés from Eastern Europe. Members of the Republican Heritage Groups Council includ Lazlo Paszor, a Hungary Arrow Cross member, Radi Slavoff, a Bulgarian fascist, Nicolas Nazarenko, a former SS officer in the Cossack Division, Florian Gaddu, a Romanian Iron Guard member, and Method Balco, a Slovakian fascist. Both Allen Dulles and Nixon believed these émigrés were useful in getting out the vote.

1973: OPEC raises oil prices, engendering massive economic upsets and gasoline shortages. This will later result in the USA 'making the Saudis an offer they can't refuse' -- either accept only dollars for the purchase of crude oil, or lose US military protection. The House of Saud and OPEC decide they don't want their governments overthrown, and the 'petrodollar' is created, making trafficking in crude oil the primary commercial valuation behind the dollar.

1975: Colby reveals information about secret domestic operations by the CIA: 'Mockingbird', 'Mk-Ultra'. Cheney seeks Colby's removal.

1976: George Bush is appointed CIA director by President Gerald Ford, a former member of the pro-Nazi group, American First.

George Bush allowed the execution of Chilean dissident Orlando Letelier by the fascist regime of Pinochet. Bush was fully informed of the operation of the Chilean Operation Condor program to execute dissidents. Operation Condor was an extensive operation by several South American countries led by Chile to conduct worldwide assassinations of dissidents to the fascist military regimes in South America.

1980: George Bush is elected vice president, and places his father's family inheritance in a blind trust. The trust is managed by his old friend and quail-hunting partner, William "Stamps" Farish III. Bush's choice of Farish to manage his patriarchal wealth is quite revealing -- it demonstrates that the former president might know exactly where some of his inheritance originated.

1984: Arbusto Energy Inc, having been founded by George W Bush, is sold after financial failure.

1988: Silverado Banking Savings & Loan is shut down by regulators. Neil Bush, son of the Vice President and candidate for President, was a director. The seizure and investigation had been delayed to after the election.

Fred Malek, a well-known Nazi collaborator, was part of Bush's campaign for President. Malek would again serve Bush in his 1992 race for reelection. Several Bush campaign staffers forced to resign after it was disclosed they were ex-Nazi war criminals including Laszlo Pastor and Yaroslav Stetsko.

William Draper serves as head of Bush's campaign fund-raising. Draper's grandfather had founded the Pioneer Fund to promote eugenics.

1989: George Bush takes oath of office as President. He places his assets in a blind trust managed by William Farish, grandson of the Wiliam Farish that supplied Hitler with Zyklon B gas.

1990: Following the Gulf War, Bahrain awarded an offshore drilling contract to Harken Oil; a firm affiliated with George W. Bush the son of the President. George W. sells his stake in Harken and one week later the share price collapses.

1992: George Bush pardons all of the principal players in the Iran-Contra scandal.

1996: George Bush, the 'poppy' praises Sun Myung Moon in Buenos Aires. The Moon organization is full of ex-Nazis and is closely affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League, which is also full of ex-Nazis.

2000: George W. Bush appointed President by 5-4 vote of the U.S. Supreme Court.

2001: The USA PATRIOT Act passes restricting our constitutional freedoms at the urging of George W. Bush.

2003: George Walker Bush, during an official state visit to Auschwitz, utters the immortal words 'History tells us what's possible."


Over the course of his lifetime Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) went from Socialism -- he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper -- to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" [after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used as a totem of power in ancient Rome]

It was Benito Mussolini who said:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism, because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State ...

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone ...

"... For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people ... who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude.

"But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement ... and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century -- repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order.

"If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it."

One of the reasons we have such difficulty perceiving our current conditions is our aversion to this single word: fascism. While there is no hesitation by politicians to draw parallels with the Holocaust to justify whatever foreign adventure appeals to them, or for the media to make similar analogies at the drop of swastika on a wall, we seem only able to understand -- or even mention -- the climax of fascism rather than its genesis. Why this reluctance? Perhaps it is because we are much closer to the latter than to the former.

In any case, it is one of the most dangerous forms of political myopia in which to indulge. Italians, who invented the term fascism, also called it the 'estato corporativo': the corporatist state. Orwell rightly described fascism as being an extension of capitalism. It is an economy in which the government serves the interests of oligopolies, a state in which large corporations have the powers that in a democracy devolve to the citizen. Today, it is no exaggeration to call our economy corporatist, which has been described by British academics R.E. Pahl and J. T. Winkler as a system in which the government guides privately owned businesses towards order, unity, nationalism and success."

"Let us not mince words, they said. "Corporatism is fascism with a human face." The Nazis had their own word for it: wehrwirtschaft, semantically linking wehr (for defense, bulwark, weapon) with wirtshaft (for housekeeping, domestic economy, husbandry) to describe an economy based on the assumption of warfare. The concept was not new, however. William L. Shirer points out in 'The Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich' that 18th and 19th century Prussia devoted 70% of its revenue to the army and "that nation's whole economy was always regarded as primarily an instrument not of the people's welfare but of military policy." In Hitler's Germany even the pogroms were part of national economic planning, seizing Jewish shops and companies and replacing Jewish workers with the Aryan unemployed.

Hitler argued that "private enterprise cannot be maintained in a democracy", and denounced "the freedom to starve", in a country which had known as many as six million without jobs. Wrote Shirer, "In taking away that last freedom, Hitler assured himself of the support of the working class."

The link between business and fascism was clear to German corporatists. Auschwitz was not just a way to get rid of Jews, it was also a major source of cheap labor [and of Bush family profits.]. As Richard Rubenstein points out in The Cunning of History, "I.G. Farben's decision to locate at Auschwitz was based upon the very same criteria by which contemporary multinational corporations relocate their plants -- in utter indifference to the social consequences of such moves." I.G. Farben invested over a billion dollars in today's money at Auschwitz and, thanks to the endless supply of labor, adopted a policy of deliberately working the Jewish slaves to death.

In such ways do economics and freedom become intertwined. Those who think it can't happen here should consider that four days before Mussolini became premier, he met with a group of industrialists and assured them that his aim "was to reestablish discipline within the factories and that no outlandish experiments .... would be carried out." In Friendly Fascism, Bertram Gross notes that Mussolini also won "the friendship, support or qualified approval" of the American ambassador, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Thomas Lamont, many newspapers and magazine publishers, the majority of business journals, and quite a sprinkling of liberals, including some associated with both the Nation and The New Republic."

Orwell understood fascism. One of the characteristics of his '1984' inner party, the ten percent who controlled the rest, was that there was no sexual or racial discrimination. He understood that ethnic eradication, while characteristic of nazism, was not required for fascism. Even earlier, Aldous Huxley set up a similar non-discriminatory dystopia in 'Brave New World'.

In closing, my purpose for this short history is, again, to build a foundation so that a discussion of current events can be more accurately focused on facts and not political propaganda and manufactured intelligence.

Posted by: HB | April 8, 2007 7:24 PM

How old are you 12.


Posted by: Terry | April 8, 2007 7:25 PM

And this treatise means what? Pompous arses who copy and paste tomes of data are merely tiresome. You've added nothing, proven nothing, illustrated nothing except you know how to use Conrol/C.

Posted by: ohgawd | April 8, 2007 7:26 PM


It is unfortunate that you would likely consider any person I would vote for to be an "outlaw". You seem to be terribly bitter and disrespectful.

Posted by: David | April 8, 2007 7:30 PM

Posted by: HB | April 8, 2007 07:24 PM

WOW Do you smoke that stuff or shoot it? we are talking about today 4/8/07 and dont need a history lesson

Posted by: Dennis Heath | April 8, 2007 7:32 PM

i think if you want to go to iraq find a guy with a ak and say hey im your friend a demorat why cant we be friends. see how long you keep your head

Posted by: w tobias | April 8, 2007 7:34 PM

I hate to sound like a bible thumper but in Genesis chapter 16 God lays out the fate of Ishmael son of Hagar and Abraham, in the following chapters he lays out the promise of Isaac, Abrahams son with his wife Sara. It says in scripture that Ishmael will be a great donkey of a man and his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand will come against him. Ishmael represents the countries we are now at war with.

President George Bush, who claims to be a spiritual man; who obviously fell asleep when they covered Isaac and Ishmael in Sunday school apparently believes that we as arrogant Americans think we can change something God foreordained. If that isn't enough just peruse the history of these nations, they have a long track record of being at war with each other and other nations to little or no avail, just ask Russia, I believe Afgahnistan was costly to their regime. How about Korea, or Vietnam what did we truly change in those wars? How much money will be enough, how many lives will be enough?

Where is Osama Bin Laden, he may not be living comfortably but I believe he is enjoying how much this is costing America. I believe we should support our troops and we can not immediately withdraw but this situation is a quagmire for America and we went in based on "faulty intelligence" and my childrens children will be paying the debt. Maybe by then we will have done someting about the damage of Katrina, and hopefully for the next generations we will not be as dependent on foreign oil, so this type of "faulty intelligence" does not happen again.

Posted by: gretchen c. | April 8, 2007 7:39 PM

No Terry, however, I can understand why you ask. The problem was a serious lack of due diligence in reviewing my spelling; I'm not a great typist in the first place. Cheers

Posted by: Johnny O. | April 8, 2007 7:42 PM

If congress pass this 100 Billon + funding bill this year, what will it do nest year? Is this to be a permanent 100 billion tax on the American People? I have heard that we are building permanent bases in Iraq and that we never intend to leave.

Posted by: John Diatte | April 8, 2007 7:43 PM

The troop funding "crisis" is actually a very interesting microcosm in itself.

The Commander in Chief is a fellow whose war planning is so pathetic that even this small delay in funding would completely cripple the operation and apparently force the soldiers to sell their body armour to buy food. We should clearly let him continue making all the Tough Decisions(tm).

And we wonder about an exit strategy. Should we not worry about an *entrance* strategy first?

Posted by: roo | April 8, 2007 7:47 PM

Dennis Heath, you are in serious need of a reality check. I assume you cut-and-pasted that from Moveon.org. And, I'm surprised you did not mention your belief the conspiracy that on 9/11 the Bush family destroyed the World Trade Centers and fired a missile at the Pentagon.

Yet another conspiracy wack-o!

Posted by: Judy Mullen | April 8, 2007 7:47 PM

To Donald J Lewis who said
"The President is in charge of Foreign Policy Period.
He is not stupid he is bright and the right man at the right time for the job.
The Dem are Demigod's and can't get over the Clinton embarrassment in the oval office. Thank God we have a real man in the whitehouse."
He's NOT stupid? Have you ever heard him speak? His grasp of foreign policy is elementary at best. As for the Clinton embarrassment, I assume you are talking about Monica Lewisky. Last time I checked that "so called" embarrassment left no one dead. If GW is such a real man perhaps he should enlist in the US military or convince his young daughters to sacrifice what other Americans have for HIS "so called" noble cause.

Posted by: Antony | April 8, 2007 7:50 PM

First of all, I would like to say thank-you to all of our military who have served for our country. With out your willingness to lay down your life on behalf of us who couldn't, I'm able to enjoy the freedoms I have today. THANK YOU! Yes maybe not everything our country does is perfect, we still hold to a Deo-Christian ethic of right and wrong. Some will argue with me on this point while others will agree. But because of the men who where willing to be a man and fight for the rights of those who are weak, others have been blessed. Yes, even those nations who tried to destroy America, we have held out a hand of forgiveness, and helped to rebuild their war ravaged lands. Why? Because we as a nation have seen that men where created in the image of God (which gives them dignity and value). As a parent, if someone attacks and hurts my child, I'm going to rise up in anger to make sure that justest is done! Our president has done the same thing when 9/11 happened (it's his duty as president to protect our nation, 'even as a father his children does'). Does that make him perfect? No more than you or I! But, it's still his responsibility as president to protect our nation and it's freedoms we hold dear for the last two hundred years!
The freedom you and I may take for granite, where paved by the blood of those who where willing to lay down their lives on your behalf, because they saw beyond themselves, and knew it was right!

Posted by: Dale | April 8, 2007 7:53 PM

in regards to Posted by: Judy Mullen | April 8, 2007 07:47 PM

I think you got me confused with somebody else? you lost me completely

Posted by: Dennis Heath | April 8, 2007 7:54 PM

Antony, GW is the man many Americans voted for, and apparently you did not. I'm afraid to ask you what qualifies someone for the Presidency, as it will likey reflect your rosie colored via of Bill and Hillary Clinton. SAT scores is not high on my list.

Posted by: Judy Mullen | April 8, 2007 7:56 PM

Stop the funding, don't pass a bill. End it now. The only peole who want to fund the war are the people so committed to the established order. We need change, and to end this.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 8, 2007 8:00 PM

My apologies Dennis Heath. I not only got the wrong name, but the wrong side of the aisle. Thank you for the kind correction.

Posted by: Judy Mullen | April 8, 2007 8:00 PM

HB (NOT Dennis Mullen -- sorry), you are in serious need of a reality check. I assume you cut-and-pasted that from Moveon.org. And, I'm surprised you did not mention your belief the conspiracy that on 9/11 the Bush family destroyed the World Trade Centers and fired a missile at the Pentagon.

Yet another conspiracy wack-o!

Posted by: Judy Mullen | April 8, 2007 8:01 PM

in regards to Judy Mullen who the hell are you talking to? I support my President and you should really read what is going on before writing anything? I lost in 9/11 and in 7/13/06 in Iraq and dont need you to tell me anything, period. I stand behind my President

Posted by: Dennis Heath | April 8, 2007 8:02 PM

Um, I support the soldiers and their efforts over there. But support for the troops is not the same as supporting the war. They are there, regardless of their own point of views, at the orders of their Commander in Chief. Whether or not they desire to be over there doesn't matter, they were ordered. And I still support them regardless.

The conduct of the war is squarely the fault of President Bush. And I don't support him. I'm sorry, but I don't see how this whole conflict falls neatly along party lines like so many people in here think it does. The American people have voiced their opposition to the war on numerous occasions and Bush keeps the same course he always has, despite even advocating the Iraq Study Group himself.

If you think the war is justified, good for you. I just hope you can understand that Bush and his cronies did not initiate Iraq for any American principle (except for capitalistic ventures), especially not those of spreading democracy and ridding the world of tyranny.

I'm sorry, but I've been to Iraq twice and the same situation presented itself both times to me. The Iraqis don't want America there, they are more interested in killing each other; America doesn't America there, but Bush is more interested in letting this war run out until it's no longer his responsibility; and America's allies have voiced concern or outright condemnation exactly why they have to be involved in Iraq or why we're over there at all.

And particularly to David M: yes the world does need a superpower leading it. The United States was doing far better than it is now before the Iraq War. If you honestly believe the war is being conducted on some ideal basis, then I salute you. But answer me this: what war, ever, in the history of the United States, was ever fought for the virtues of freedom and liberty? Oh, those were side benefits to military campaigns in freeing countries and establishing allies, and it worked well. Especially in Iraq where they obviously don't want us there, why do we have to keep sacrificing soldiers to a cause *the world over* has condemned?

As I said, I support the troops 100% and think withholding funds for them is downright criminal, but I'm not foolish enough to think support for soldiers carries over as support for President Bush and his overseas escapades.

Posted by: Sean | April 8, 2007 8:03 PM

so the bush family is responsible for the world trade towers the hurricane in new orleans and world war two hey maybe he hates dogs and cats to .

Posted by: w tobias | April 8, 2007 8:06 PM

While I stridently disagree with GW on many issues, I'm thankful for a man who has conviction and fortitude. This is in stark contrast to many in Congress who change their rhetoric based upon polls, and who react for political gain. And, I believe war management by committee is wrong... dead wrong.

Although I too want the troops out of Iraq, I respect the decisions of President Bush.

Posted by: Judith Mullen | April 8, 2007 8:08 PM

Dennis, I appreciate your position. Hopefully you caught my correction and apology, as I was talking to HB.

Posted by: Judiy Mullen | April 8, 2007 8:14 PM

Posted by: Luis T Puig

"..it is now clear (with the new Hostage Iran incident, British sailors) that it is up to the U.S. to be out there fighting the forces of Muslim extremism basically alone!"

THe UK resoved it's 'hostage' incident with no 'help' from the US, as a matter of fact, the the UK told the US to stay the f-ck out of it, because *we* are '...STILL a very primitive and violent..' (I'll mention culturally ignorant as well) people who only know how to settle international dilemmas with bullets & B-1s.

If we are fighting 'alone', it because our government has PROVEN itself to be a threat to world peace and a global pariah, like we accused Saddam Hussein of being... But for real.

Speaking of comparisons:

Thuggery, American Style - The American 'Mugabe'... George W. Bush

American Mugabe

By David Michael Green

Most Americans really don't understand their president.

And, no, I'm not even talking about the thirty percent or so who still give him a positive approval rating. I'm not sure those folks understand anything.

Among the remaining seventy percent, however, I would estimate that the vast bulk still have not fully apprehended what we're dealing with here.

Because what we're dealing with is nothing short of an American Mugabe.

Even among the vast majority who disapprove of Bush's performance as president, the typical sentiments expressed toward him are exactly that - essentially characterized by a disapproval of his performance. It's easy to see Bush as inept, unintelligent, stubborn, lazy and dogmatic, because he is certainly all those things, and he should therefore be seen in that accurate light.

But this view of Bush is also, paradoxically, highly inaccurate, because it is so radically incomplete. It is as if one were to observe a vicious dog once only, while it was at rest. Since it is true that the animal sometimes rests, the perception of it as a (sometimes) peaceful creature would in one sense be quite accurate. But, by virtue of what was omitted, that perception would also be simultaneously woefully incomplete, and therefore woefully inaccurate.

Bush is an arrogant and incapable buffoon, ridiculously puffed up with his rigidly held assurance of his own greatness by definition (as in, "I know I'm doing the right thing - and God agrees when I talk to him - so therefore I am, any and all evidence to the contrary.") Most Americans now see that, even if they were embarrassingly slow to get there (and they were).

But what is more distressing is that the crimes of this president run infinitely deeper than this, to the point where, ironically, his more mundane failures actually serve as something of an alibi and a cover for what 'surges' powerfully below.

Failure, laziness, arrogance - these are crimes of character and ability. And while most Americans wouldn't want a casual acquaintance - let alone a president - to possess those qualities, they still don't come anywhere near to defining the essence of George W. Bush, because they ignore the question of motive. To see only these aspects of Bush, however unflattering they truly are, is to see the dog at rest. There is much, much more to observe.

But Americans are well-positioned to not make those observations, for at least three powerful reasons.

The first is our training. We are raised to revere our presidents, generally. Americans have no equivalent to the British Queen or the German president as head of state. There is no symbolic position here that sits above politics and embodies the hopes and aspirations of the nation. All of that, along with the more tangible governing powers of a chief executive, are invested in our president, and while we may often disagree with the president, or disparage his moral failings, most of us are quite unprepared to imagine that his motives are other than pure.

Very few of us could conceive of a president who was unpatriotic or, worse yet, a traitor, unless faced with massive empirical evidence which was undeniable. (And which many of the thirty percent would, in fact, nevertheless still continue to deny - provided, of course, that the president in question continued to mutter the proper religious shibboleths, and bought-off the right members of our pathetic Pantheon of Piety.)

The second reason that we are unable to fully perceive the true nature of George W. Bush is because Karl Rove has picked up from where the default starting place of this presumptive presidential reverence leaves off and pumped us to the gills with a full-court press Madison Avenue mega-campaign, extolling the fabricated virtues of this particular president. Every other reference, in every single speech, is to 9/11. Every photo-op has soldiers and flags in the background. (Though maimed troops are carefully excluded. But thanks for your service, guys. Really!)

If you didn't know better (which is precisely the intent), you'd think that George Bush was a tough combat veteran (he's not) who flew headlong into danger on 9/11 without regard for his personal safety (he didn't), in order to begin his undaunted mission to guarantee America's security (he isn't). You're also meant to believe that he bravely went to Iraq to fight terrorism over there rather than here at home. Never mind that there wasn't any there before, and that our own intelligence agencies have concluded that we have created the world's most efficient terrorist factory by our invasion of the country.

In fact, the only reason Dear Leader himself ever went to Iraq was to get his picture taken holding a plastic turkey, before getting the hell out of there as fast as he could. It would not surprise me in the slightest to learn that the man holding the plastic turkey was a plastic presidential stand-in as well. Don't forget that this is a president who ran from Vietnam to the Texas Air National Guard, ran from 9/11 to Nebraska, and had to have his presidential debate responses radioed in to him. Like Strawberry Fields, when it comes to this guy, nothing is real. Forever. Rove has this faux hero pumped full to the brim with patriotism enhancement drugs, the political equivalent of Barry Bonds.

As if all that doesn't make it hard enough, there is a third reason we don't think of Bush as anything more than inept, foolish and arrogant, and that is because many of us just can't go there. When very young Americans experience their initial political socialization, their first awareness is of the president. And, as we know from research findings, that apprehension is of a daddy figure who will keep us safe and protected.

In much the same way, therefore, that a father molesting his child represents the deepest possible violation of the trust that the vulnerable invest in their supposed protector, few Americans are psychologically prepared to imagine their president as something far, far worse than a fool. That scary possibility cuts deep, right to the existential core, and too many of us have too many layers of psychological Kevlar protecting that vulnerable center to ever penetrate. Cave, hic dragones.

That possibility is a lot more easily contemplated, however, when considering somebody else's president. So let us strip away these obstructions to visual clarity, let us begin with a fresh piece of paper, and let us recast this presidency on the basis of its record. And let's do so without biasing suppositions of any sort influencing our vision, much as we might were we to observe the leader of a foreign state of whom, and of which, we know little.

Say, Zimbabwe, for example.

Imagine that you knew nothing about the president of Zimbabwe, but that you were informed that he liked to steal elections.

Imagine that you also learned that he was destroying civil liberties in his country, jailing people without charge, without legal counsel, without habeas corpus rights. And spying on tens of thousands of citizens without warrants.

Imagine that you found out that this Zimbabwean president was torturing and even murdering innocent captives in illegal prisons.

What if, additionally, you found out that he was kidnaping foreigners and dumping them in secret jails elsewhere, so that they could be tortured even more egregiously?

Suppose you also learned that this president refused to fight for his homeland when he was a young man, but was now fabricating from whole cloth justifications for sending his countrymen off to war.

And that he talked all day long about what great heroes these soldiers were, and how anyone who criticized his policies was not supporting the troops, while simultaneously failing to provide sufficient armor and equipment to protect them.

But that he was nevertheless doling out heaping scoops of the public treasury (and borrowing more) to well-connected mercenary and construction companies who do nothing and are paid exorbitantly via no-bid contracts.

What if you heard that this president staffed his administration with cronies who would do anything he asked of them, but nothing for the people?

Imagine that these cronies stole everything in the country that wasn't bolted down, and gave it to the president's already über-wealthy supporters.

What if this president rearranged the tax structure so that in the future the middle class would have to pay today's and tomorrow's taxes for the wealthy, plus interest?

What if he told the most outrageous lies about the environmental destruction he was supporting, in order to protect the profits of massively rich oil companies?

What if he was too lazy to do anything about the warnings he received prior to his country being attacked, and instead remained on vacation for a solid month?

What if he remained on vacation again, when one of his country's greatest cities drowned, and was left to struggle on its own thereafter?

Suppose his policies made Zimbabwe one of the most reviled countries of the world.

What if those policies encouraged the international proliferation of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction?

Imagine all of these things, and then ask yourself: What would you call someone with a record like that?

No matter where he lived, you'd call him a predatory kleptocrat. And a traitor.

If this president lived in Zimbabwe, you'd call him Robert Mugabe.

But he doesn't. He lives here.

So call him American Mugabe.

And what is more, he knows it, too. Americans may be fooled (by him), but this president knew exactly what he came to Washington to do, and exactly what would happen if he got caught at his pillaging of the commonweal.

Anyone who thinks the latest scandal concerning the firing of the US Attorneys is some random anomaly of some sort hasn't been paying attention. It is perfectly of a piece with everything this administration has done since coming to office.

Before they had even located the men's room of their new office suites, they had already withdrawn the United States from the International Criminal Court treaty. Not content with that, they then began hammering vulnerable countries throughout the world to exempt Americans within their borders from jurisdiction of the Court, using extortion racket techniques any two-bit thug from Brooklyn would find painfully familiar.

Next, Bush unilaterally changed the traditional rules for the handling of presidential papers, issuing an executive order giving himself complete control of his papers, and those of every other president, for as long as he wants.

Then this junta proceeded to conduct the affairs of their administration with probably more secrecy than any presidency in American history, making the regime in North Korea look like a battered information-leaking sieve by comparison.

Since then they've loaded up the courts with right-wing Borkians whose main qualification for office is a fawning adoration of unlimited executive power (as long as Bush is the executive, of course). Does anyone seriously question that that was Harriet Miers' only real 'qualification' earning her a Supreme Court nomination?

Now they're firing US Attorneys who aren't quite Bushist enough, and replacing them with any unqualified hack who can be found, provided they possess unshakable loyalty to the Dauphin.

Hmmm. Anybody seeing a pattern here?

If Americans could get beyond their training, beyond Rove's marketing campaign, and beyond the psychological horrors of first degree cognitive dissonance, what they'd see is a president who - like Mugabe in Zimbabwe - came to town to fill his pockets, and just as fast as he could.

And they'd see a president who knew precisely what he was doing, and as such took every conceivable precaution to make sure his tracks were covered, and that no criminal justice institution could touch him.

But justice might just find him, after all.

I don't think the American public is in any mood now to make him Senator for Life, with full immunity privileges, like Chile did to buy out Pinochet. And I don't think the next president - even a Republican (yeah, right) - is going to be much inclined to throw a pardon in the direction of this radioactive sinking ship of a larcenous former president, this Enron of the Oval Office.

Watch out. With any luck, American Mugabe might just become American Milosevic.

David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (email redacted) but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond.

Posted by: Bob Mugabe | April 8, 2007 8:22 PM

this is all just babel, dan. babel is a new term for me and i see it used more and more frequently in certain circles and in certain contexts, dan. i dont like it. *** Operation Babylonia Freedom exists to confuse us: osama bin laden is Public Enemy Number One. we need to knock on Pervez Musharaffs door.

Posted by: egalitaire | April 8, 2007 8:24 PM

Thank You Judiy, I have lost a cousin on 9/11/01 and a son 7/13/06 in Iraq I find it hard to read that we shouldnt be there or we are fighting for the wrong reasons, if we dont stop the terriost there we will be fighting them here in the usa as we are now but much more then anyone realizes. This is not a war that will ever end in my opinion it is just the start of something very terrible and we need to take drastic measure right now if we ever expect to get a hold of this.

Posted by: Dennis Heath | April 8, 2007 8:28 PM

Lies, to say the least, have gotten us where we are in the eyes of the worlds and American public..The liars, it seems, have taken advantage of a grossly uninformed/misinformed,American public..In my opinion,we will not succeed in regaining a 1970's styled world trust or the trust of our own people in our government in the coming decades.The American neighborhood is gone and America's love of peace and fair play has been out sourced, and revised like many of it's jobs. Has America been betrayed, by political greed and Christian styled ignorance, and a junkie's need for oil? Has reduced availability of natural resources,ie. gas water,oil,friendly/intelligent people and friendly environments,and environs, put our children's future in the hands of racist,greed interest political and social capitalist...What good can come it this? Our problem is not who we elect..It's why we elected them..We need a better world view..An oil change.

Posted by: Arzinia Richardson | April 8, 2007 8:28 PM

All hail King Richardson!!! He/she will make the world a better place, as it is so bad right now.

First foreign policy directive??? First domestic objective??? What is right and what is wrong???

Posted by: Johnny O. | April 8, 2007 8:39 PM

Contrary to this article, Governor Thompson did discuss the fourth part - the sharing of oil revenues among the federal government, the territorial governments and Iraqi citizens. Did you stop watching?

Posted by: GOPmw08 | April 8, 2007 8:39 PM

bush antichrist

Posted by: who care | April 8, 2007 8:44 PM

I understand now why some comment streams enforce a word limit..... my mouse finger is sore from SCOLLING PAST comments of those that don't seem to be able to think for themselves!

To those that think we'll be 'left alone' when we tuck tail and run from Iraq, (the Rodney King version of foreign policy... "Can't we all just get along?"): Do your best to rationalize the World Trade Center bombing, the murder of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro, the 1983 bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut, the '94 murders aboard Air France Flight 8969, the '96 murders at Khobar Towers, the '02 Bali nightclub bombing, the '05 murders of 36 Christians in Demsa, Nigeria, the 64 murdered in 2005 at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt...... and the 100's of other outrages perpetrated in the name of "The Prophet"......

And if you don't know what most of these are.... you probably shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion......

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 8:45 PM

"Lies" have yet again betrayed a response as yet more conspiracy babbling by a bitter wack-o.

We are all human and falable. However, it is plain dishonorable to revise history -- e.g. voting records and remarks leading into the Iraq war -- and use this revision and other events to claim moral high-ground today.

This is rather a pathetic debate style in my mind.

Posted by: Johnny O. | April 8, 2007 8:46 PM

WE Americans voted-in this Democratic Congress in 2006 to do a job "Get us out of Iraq." End of mandate! Anything short, would be considered not doing the will of the people, more of the same, and cowardist.

Posted by: AMERICano | April 8, 2007 8:46 PM


My heart goes out to you in respect and gratitude that you raised and offered a son for me and my family. Thank you for your sacrifice.... I am sorry for your loss.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 8:48 PM

Robert James wrote: "Bush is emasculating Congress and the Will of the People." And, "Congress must assert itself to ensure that Bush does not set a precedent for other authoritarian Presidents to thumb their nose at Congress."

Robert, it is the new Congress which is emasculating this country. You need to read the Constition and Articles of Confederation. You are so far off base.

Posted by: Judy Mullen | April 8, 2007 8:51 PM

David, if you think our selected president is "bright", what planet are you from? He has no foreign policy, even the Republicans have seen through his game plan (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=183463) to destroy our constitution and our freedom along with our reputation. I only wish he had as much respect for our nation and our people that you seem to have for him. Bush has already gotten rid of all the Generals that didn't agree with his illegal invasion of Iraq. This country has not declared war on Iraq or any other nation that I know of, yet there we are .. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in the past year alone. More than 3,270 American soldiers have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion. This "bright" president turned his back on Americans suffering in the Gulf states after Katrina, cursed our Constitution: "Just a GD piece of paper", Illegally invaded another country, illegally holding people in Gitmo, lies through his teeth with a stupid smirk, steals our freedom with a so-called Patriot Act .. I could go on and on but I'm sure you get the idea that this guy is anything but "bright."

Posted by: Virginia F | April 8, 2007 8:52 PM

It seems the ONLY factor that determines when the americans will get out of iraq is the number of dead american soldiers i.e. bodybags. Muqtada Al Sadr seems to understand that. The longer we stay there the higher the number of bodybags.

Clearly the Republicans and turncoat Democrats like Levin and his poodle Lieberman are responsible for American deaths. Americans are not foolish and they will see this and vote accordingly .... hopefully !

Posted by: reddy | April 8, 2007 8:54 PM

AMERICano, with all do respect, I did vote heavy Democratic for the Democratic Congress in 2006, but it was NOT to "Get us out of Iraq."

I suggest you speak for yourself and not the rest of the U.S. You have no authority or ability to do so.

Posted by: Johnny O. | April 8, 2007 8:55 PM

A solid majority of American's are with the Democratic Party and AGAINST Bush. So grow a pair Democratic Party EXCLAMATIONPOINTEXCLAMATIONPOINT

Posted by: Jason | April 8, 2007 8:56 PM

A majority of American's support the Democratic Party's policy regarding Iraq. Grow a pair Democrats.

Posted by: Jason | April 8, 2007 9:04 PM

Know Bush, Know War.
No Bush, No War.

Impeachment and criminal trials for ALL ELECTED lawmakers (and media executives)covering-up the GOP planned "fake attack" on America on 9/11 in underway.

The evidence is HUGE!!!!!!!!

The world's biggest scam and mass murder!!!!

In the end, there is nothing but the truth. (and I dont mean US GOV fairytales either. Just 100% scientific PROOF.)

Blocking the 9/11 truth is a crime and justice will be served!!!

Call your elected officials who are there to serve YOU, "WE THE PEOPLE!" It's better to give-up now for less prison time!

Posted by: Von Myer | April 8, 2007 9:07 PM

I am suprised that we won World War II with the Dem's in power. Or maybe their values and beliefs have changed.

Posted by: Jim L | April 8, 2007 9:10 PM

I'm just going to echo the comment made by Donald J. Lewis further up the thread, because it's concise, and to the point, and true (thanks Don, for letting me use it):

"The President is in charge of Foreign Policy Period.

He is not stupid he is bright and the right man at the right time for the job.

The Dem are Demigod's and can't get over the Clinton embarrassment in the oval office. Thank God we have a real man in the whitehouse."

Posted by: Mike Gainor | April 8, 2007 9:12 PM

Sorry Jason, you are still likley misreading and over-simplying my November vote. And, using such shallow and misguided analysis is rather self-serving.

Yes, polls show Americans wish us to leave Iraq, but to equate this to the November vote is faulty in the least. Also, it is terribly wrong to use 10-20 poll questions to guide foreign policy.

I for one am glad we do not govern day-to-day by polls.

Posted by: Johnny O. | April 8, 2007 9:12 PM


You think this group of Democratic wimps would authorize the use of nuclear weapons.... for ANY reason? Roosevelt and Truman would not recognize today's Democratic Party. Hell, Scoop Jackson, Jack Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson would be embarassed by them.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 9:13 PM

To: Donald J. Lewis

You have got to be the biggest idiot that God has ever allowed to express an opinion. "Bush is the right man for the job?" 3,280 good men and women dead...for what? Man...2009 can't come soon enough.

Posted by: Bob R. | April 8, 2007 9:18 PM

Why is everyone blaming the democratic congress? You can't just put the blame solely on Congress without putting the same blame on the President. The President is the one who is refusing to sign the bill and therefore our troops are not getting the funding they need. It is not that congress doesn't want to fund our troops. All they ask is to have our troops come home. Is that too much to ask for? For all those who don't believed in a withdraw timetable, what the heck are you doing here? If you support this war so much, why aren't you enlisted and go fight for a war that was started with lies.

Posted by: Vince | April 8, 2007 9:19 PM

Only a looser would continue to read a story about a pet goat after he's been told that: "AMERCIA IS NOW UNDER ATTACK!"


Anyone who thinks bush is a great president obvioulsy is a sissy just like him.

And soon to be behind bars for a long time.

What a bunch of tragic loosers and crminal thugs.

Posted by: Von Myer | April 8, 2007 9:25 PM


If they would take me at 49, I would enlist and fight. Is there ANYTHING you would fight for? Tell us what that would be. I doubt that you would risk sunburn for our country.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 9:29 PM

Vince, you seem to be intentionally and innocently deceptive with your defense of Congress. I sense a closet wack-o.

Posted by: Johnny O. | April 8, 2007 9:34 PM

It's bad war strategy to announce when we leave. A surprise pull out would be better but right now is not the time. Politicians who's butts are not on the line are not the ones we want making tough unpopular decisions.

With Iran next door, I like the idea of having troops next door, and yes, I have served in the military and retired from it.

Posted by: Dave | April 8, 2007 9:40 PM

Dan Herbison,

If the fight was worth wile I would absolutely sign up! WWII, a war worth while. But we have the worlds largest terrorist running our country. He's sending American troops over seas to fight so he can financially benefit from it on a personal level. Democracy has nothing to do with this. The way king george is acting we are losing democracy in our own country. He is destroying our country. I support the democrats 110% in their effort to get the troops home. Also alot of people don't seem to realize there is a HUGE difference in supporting the war and supporting the troops. The I do not support. The troops however I do support. Not all of them knew this tryrant would take office when they signed up for the armed forces. The president is here to respresent the American people, not his own greed. Its been proven the vast majority of this country is against the war in Iraq and extremely dislikes george bush. He needs to pull the troops out of Iraq now and resign as President. This "man" is a disgrace to our country and the human race!

Posted by: Jay | April 8, 2007 9:42 PM

I find it hard to believe people really think cutting of war funds would endanger American troops. We have transport aircraft; we have reserves of jet fuel. That's all that's needed. Bring them home and they're safe and need no further funding. Certainly they're doing no good in the middle east, and never have.

I propose we set up a public collection: everyone can call in and commit to buying a soldier an airline ticket. Deliver the tickets to the White House and say, "There's your funding."

Posted by: scotts13 | April 8, 2007 9:47 PM

Iraq is big big mess. It is a lose-lose situation for the Americans and the Iraqis. Americans may as well stay there and continue to bleed or leave and see Iraq disintegrate into something nobody knows. It is choice that is tough to make, but it seems Democrats alone will not make that choice and Bush still thinks he can win his war. God save the world.

Posted by: KH | April 8, 2007 9:48 PM

Dear Dan Herbison, please say what Iraq had to do with any of the terrorist incidents you listed. In fact, Iraq had nothing to do with any of these incidents, invading Iraq had nothing to do with any of these incidents, and our withdrawing from Iraq need not necessarily have anything to do with any future incidents. On the other hand, if you care about avoiding furture incidents, we need to put our resources elsewhere than Iraq. Duh.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2007 9:49 PM


you say you favor keeping US soldiers in Iraq because Iran is next door. What purpose would that achieve?

Posted by: KH | April 8, 2007 9:57 PM

Dennis Heath said:
LOL I will try to get back the thousands I spent going to school, ya know i thing that i have realized is that its not education that makes a good person it's just having good morels and a faith in GOD and our country

Hey Denis,
You should get that money back. Unless, of course, you do have good mushrooms. Morels are French mushrooms.

Posted by: me | April 8, 2007 9:59 PM

Let him veto the bill, and when he does, do nothing. Don't work out a new one, don't drop the conditions, do nothing. It's a take it or leave it deal. You take what's on offer or throw the temper tantrum that he's been throwing for a while now and end up with nothing. They can't say that the Dem's don't support the troops when they gave him the money he asked for only for him to reject it cause he didn't like the wrapping it came in!

I guess he'll just have to find another way to finance it, like running the government as it should be run in the first place.. EFFICIENTLY!

Posted by: Graham | April 8, 2007 10:04 PM

In reply to Robert James and his statement that President Bush is emasculating congress and the will of the people. That's a big word for a liberal to use...so let me tell the real story...to my family, friends, the military and all other patriots of the United States. TERRORISTS...THE PEOPLE TRYING TO KILL YOUR FAMILY AND MINE... ARE THE PEOPLE HE HAS AND WILL CONTINUE TO EMASCULATE UNTIL HIS LAST DAY IN OFFICE. EMASCULATING LIBERAL DEMOCRATS AND MAKE BELIEVE CONSERVATIVES IS JUST A NECESSARY BY-PRODUCT OF THE WAR WE ARE FIGHTING. His congressional emasculation will be completed in 2008 when the people that really love this country vote in November of that year. The other emasculation will take longer and will be successful...because the liberal mistake that is our congress now will be no more.

Posted by: Phil Kirpakis Sr. | April 8, 2007 10:08 PM

On the day of Jesus's resurrection, how sad he must be at how little we listen to his word. Such sinners we are for WANTING to kill people we don't understand. We American's are so powerful, yet so frightened and have such short memories! I remember the Domino theory during Viet Nam. The communists would win one country after another until they took over. Well, now they just own Walmart and 800 billion US dollars. Remember, the meek shall inherit the world!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2007 10:16 PM

I offer a trivial comment, yet one that should matter to someone at the Post. The past tense of "shrink" is "shrank", not "shrunk". Thus, this posting should instead read, "For the second straight weekend, top Senate Democrats SHRANK further...".

If we have no other dignity, may we at least preserve our Anglo-Saxon irregular verbs. We now return you to political debate ad nauseum.

Posted by: Mark | April 8, 2007 10:21 PM

Dear "Afraid to sign your name"...

If you don't see the connection, I'm suprised you fund your way out the door in the morning.... perhaps you don't.

I'll make it really simple for you....

1. There are a bunch of crazies out there that want to kill you and me, but becuse we are who we are, not because of anything we've done.

2. They have killed a lot of people who haven't harmed or threatened them. (Thus the list.)

3. They will kill you of you don't kill them.

4. Where we kill them is somewhat immaterial, but it's better to do it in Iraq than Peoria. We'll probably have to kill a bunch more in Afganistan, Iran, Singapore, Syria, etc. before the job is done. (A couple of million should do it....)

5. We're doing a good job of killing them in Iraq, but you whiners don't have the stomach to finish the job.

6. If we don't kill them in (fill in your preferred country infested with jihadist vermin), they'll kill us in Peoria.

7. You prefer to not fight in (your preferred hive of jihadist vermin), want to cut off funds, thus you prefer for secretaries and grandmothers to die in Peoria than professional soldiers in Iraq.

Get it now?

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 10:22 PM

Dear High Speed Hagen:
President Bush didn't get admitted to law school becaues he knew what the defintion of "is" was. He didn't have the "oral" skill of a Bill Clinton to bamboosal the admisions office.

Posted by: Phil Kirpakis Sr. | April 8, 2007 10:22 PM

Dear Graham:
You must not keep up on current events. The liberal Democrats are already caving in. They don't want the responsibility of the next terrorist bomb blowing up in the mall your family shops in.

Posted by: Phil Kirpakis Sr. | April 8, 2007 10:28 PM

Dan, I'm confused. How are the Jihadist going to get to Peoria. I'm from Illionis and I don't see how they are going to mobilize into the midwest. I think they can barely make roadside bombs in Bagdad. Not to make light of this, those bombs kill our troops daily, but I don't see how they can build an army and come here and fight from NY to Illionis. I think we would push them back. But maybe you know something I don't. Do they have a Navy?

Posted by: Peter Dolph | April 8, 2007 10:32 PM

Folks, it's the oil, it is always the oil! It is not about terror, or national secuity,or saving another people, it is about oil.
The current powers that be needed a way to justify an invasion to the oil fields they want to control and thus was born the 9/11 idea. It started with how to get someone in the White House, someone sempathic to oil. They could not get in by a vote of the people so they had him installed by the Supreme Court. I for one lost all respect for the White House and the voting system when this was done.
September 11th comes along, and while reading to a group of kids in their class, he is told of the event that has just unfolded. He shows no concern! The BBC is soon telling of the incident as the information is released to them, explaining that tower number 7 has gone down, yet it has not yet fallen!!. The other towers go down as they would under a controlled blast. Very curious that this should happen from the way the damage was shown to have occurred.
WMD, terror on our land, Iraq is behind this, ... I am still waiting for the truth to be stated as to why we must have our young men and women killed in the numbers that have come to be. To pad their pockets and take control of the oil fields under the sand will probably never be admitted to, but this is the primary reason for their actions and lies to the American people and others.
OK, he got the man that did his daddy wrong and he is running out of time to secure the rights to the oil fields they want. Please, no more lies to us. The majority of the public has said enough, it is time to pull back. The powers that be will keep this show going until the next administration is put in and, if they can ,they will find a way to expand the current waste of our fiat currency to further pad their pockets by getting us deeper into conflict, perhaps in South America again, or ?

Posted by: Randy | April 8, 2007 10:33 PM

To Unknown Poster:
THE DOMINO THEORY DID WORK! Just ask Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, East Germany, Serbia, etc.

Posted by: Phil Kirpakis Sr. | April 8, 2007 10:38 PM


The same way they killed 3000 on 9/11.

Our borders are porus (we probably have a significant number of terrorist sleeper cells in the country already); fertilizer and fuel oil are readily available, even in Peoria. Guns are pretty readily available; I doubt it would take much to poisen Peoria's water system, etc.

How many more successful attacks would it take to convince you we meet a capable advisary?

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 10:39 PM

I am ashamed to be a Democrat today. The leaders I entrusted to carry out my will are a bunch of cowards, and will not stand up for what is right, and that is, to end this senseless and ill managed war.

Posted by: Eric | April 8, 2007 10:40 PM

Nobody seems to remember all the porks that are contained in the war bill. Is this how the democrats want to sanitize the congress by buying over votes? I wish our news media will remind us about the porks and the high tax.

Posted by: Al | April 8, 2007 10:41 PM

Sorry Phil, I'm new at blogging and I forgot to add my name.

I'm not following your statement about the Doimino theory. Could you give me some more detail.

Posted by: Peter Dolph | April 8, 2007 10:41 PM


We can all take comfort that our leaders take an oath to "... preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution...", not to carry out every dimwit's "will".

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 10:44 PM

Dear Randy:
Do you drive a car or use oil heat? If this is all about the oil, why am I paying almost $3 a gallon for gas to drive and oil to heat my house? You need to get off the conspiracy liberal B.S.!

Posted by: Phil Kirpakis Jr. | April 8, 2007 10:44 PM

Gee Dan, I'm afraid you're the one that doesn't get it. There are indeed terrorists out there, and the war in Iraq is getting in the way of dealing with them. We need to change our course, get out of the Iraqi civil war, and put our resources where they can do some good.

I noticed you didn't answer my question. That's because Iraq has zip to do with the real problem of controlling international terrorism.

As for my name, what good would it do you?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2007 10:48 PM

Of course I do use oil and I am not about the world not using oil that we have, I would wish for the people that got us into this situation to at least fess up to the fact that the oil is what they want to get. And as for the $3.00 gas price, well that pads the pockets

Posted by: Randy | April 8, 2007 10:51 PM

Dear "Ashamed of his name, and I would be too!"

And where and how would you kill them? But you'll "give a pass" to all those in Iraq? I wonder where their next "staging area" will be after you tell them we won't go after them in Iraq?

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 10:51 PM

Dear Eric:
"Living in the USSR...You don't know how lucky you are." Remember the Beatles? I bet you do. But do you remember the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? I'm of Lithuanian descent and I can't forget.

Posted by: Phil Kirpakis Sr. | April 8, 2007 10:51 PM


Posted by: US CITIZENS | April 8, 2007 10:54 PM

They're still out there, albeit, fewer of them, and most of them seem to be semi-literate. I'm talking about the FFB. FOOLS FOR BUSH!!

Posted by: tom pondysh | April 8, 2007 10:54 PM

Dear Randy:
How much Iraqi oil has the USA imported since the war began? Maybe you should quit pulling into those CITGO gas stations and sending your money to that jerk head of state that smelled sulfer the last time he was at the United Nations. Do you feel more secure giving him your money?

Posted by: Phil Kirpakis Sr: | April 8, 2007 10:59 PM

There is simply no defense for Bush and his butt kissers. They are guilty of crimes at home and abroad that will only continue to rote at the core of America. Anyone who believes other wise is a bigger fool than Bush. It don't matter how big or powerful a country is because all it takes is a handful
of bad apples to bring it down to the ground. Bush and his gang will rightfully take their place next to Hitler in the pages history.

Posted by: Tyler Cash | April 8, 2007 10:59 PM

Bush can go to hell, as far as I am concerned. He wimped out on doing the job, and has probably sqandered a good chance at victory. But we STILL must have victory over these jihadist vermin. Those that want to cut and run (which the Dems SWORE they wouldn't do before the election) are obligated to tell us how they would effectively combat our enemies. The national Dems and the slugs on this post haven't ponied up an alternative. Put up or shut up.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 10:59 PM

Since day one George Walker Bush has not supplied the troops with body armor and vehicle armor which at this point could have saved many soldiers lives and prevented some of the grievous wounds suffered by our troops. There is something desperately wrong in the media which quotes Bush day in and day out saying tying funds for his war to bench marks will deny troops the armor they desperaretly need. Since day one the needed armor was never supplied by George Walker Bush. Media, except Fox, wake up and smell the coffee for God's sake, report the truth of this matter or get out of the business. Men
and women of our armed forces have been unnessarily killed and wounded for lack of needed armor since day one and are still being killed and wounded for lack of armor.

Posted by: russell ayers | April 8, 2007 11:00 PM

Dan, you present an interesting dilemma. Since they are already here, they are like a virus. The problem with a virus is that you can kill the patient trying to kill the virus. Now if it's malignant cancer, that will kill you and you need to do everything to attack it. If it is a non-malignant cancer, you need to be preventitive but you don't attack it. You keep track of it and watch it carefully. My concern is you consider these tribal jihadists a malignat form and want to kill it! I don't want my daughter being killed by a jihadist, but to wage war in an attempt to kill this virus can very possibly kill the patient ie. our free and domocratic philosphy. Unfortunatly, I think we have gone too far. Too many Iraqis children and mothers and grandmothers are already dead. They feel the same as you do. Simple people who loose relatives don't care about politics. They are just frightend and probaly want us Dead! So I guess to make sure we kill that virus, we'd better kill every one of them, since we can't identify who the 'bad guys" are. However, if we do that, I'm afraid we will kill ourselves as a country.

Posted by: Peter Dolph | April 8, 2007 11:05 PM

Dear USCitizens and Tom Pondysh:
I could do the same you liberals do and call you names and disrespect you like you do us. But I'm going to be nice to you and vote on election day so you can call me more names. And it will not matter whether the liberals win or not. Either way they won't have any idea how to stand up to terrorists-but you will continue to degrade and call names to the people who do. Aren't you glad for the way those people preserve your inalienable right to remain an idiot?

Posted by: Phil Kirpakis Sr: | April 8, 2007 11:10 PM

Dear Dan, as to where and how we would kill them, in the first place there is no them. There are a bunch of different groups operating in the Middle East with different goals that have embraced terrorist tactics at various times. If you're talking al Quaeda here, there is no single place to fight them anymore, they are dispersed and it is going to take good police effort everywhere to deal with that threat. If you're talking Syrian sponsored efforts, the best way to deal with that terrorism is to settle the Palestinian issue. If you are talking about militant Islamism in general, the best place now to make a stand is in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2007 11:11 PM


Yes, we are in a pickle. We slept far too long after the initial symptoms appeared. I fear many Americans will die because of our lethergy, perhaps my son or your daughter, or perhaps both of us.

I get the impression many of us want to wish the problem into being benign. All cancer patients go through a similar period of denial. And wishing doesn't change the reality. If there are sleeper cells, they will be activated when it suits our enemies, not because of anything we do. (That's the fallacy of the "be nice, so we don't upset the ax murderer in the next room" pathology.)

You may be ready to just give up, give in, pay your non-Muslim tax, and cloak your daughter. I think American can still win this, but not with most of the leaders we now have, Bush included.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 11:14 PM

David, if you think our selected president is "bright", what planet are you from? He has no foreign policy, even the Republicans have seen through his game plan (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=183463) to destroy our constitution and our freedom along with our reputation. I only wish he had as much respect for our nation and our people that you seem to have for him. Bush has already gotten rid of all the Generals that didn't agree with his illegal invasion of Iraq. This country has not declared war on Iraq or any other nation that I know of, yet there we are .. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in the past year alone. More than 3,270 American soldiers have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion. This "bright" president turned his back on Americans suffering in the Gulf states after Katrina, cursed our Constitution: "Just a GD piece of paper", Illegally invaded another country, illegally holding people in Gitmo, lies through his teeth with a stupid smirk, steals our freedom with a so-called Patriot Act .. I could go on and on but I'm sure you get the idea that this guy is anything but "bright."

Posted by: Virginia F | April 8, 2007 11:14 PM

I am in Iraq right now. I am on my second tour here, and despite what all the above comments offer I will offer up only one piece of information: Iraq is a better place now than what it was the last time I was here. The plan is working. The media only focuses on the bad things, and I don't think the American public is well-informed about all the good things that are happening here, like making life better for Iraqis. So whether or not you agree with the cause, the democrats, republicans, or hate bush, try to find the good that is coming out of this war.

Posted by: Nick | April 8, 2007 11:17 PM

Dear Russ:

Posted by: Phil Kirpakis Sr. | April 8, 2007 11:17 PM


Thanks for your service. I think there is more support for what you and other brave men and women are doing than you hear from the media. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 11:19 PM

So many of the pro-Bush comments here operate under the false assumption that there is just one monolithic enemy in Iraq--one that might "follow us home." There isn't! Get that thru your heads! Al-Qaida is only one element of the violence there--and small by comparison to the militias. Bush is keeping our trips there to referee a civil war, as part of his hallucination (he calls it a "plan") that Iraq will be a functioning democracy sometime in the next decade. In truth, he's just holding out for the remainder of his term, and will hand this historic mess to the next guy--of either party.

Posted by: TimUVA | April 8, 2007 11:25 PM

To all you liberals out there:
There is a great bunch of guys and gals fighting and serving to protect everything you blog. Just remember, they deserve our respect just like they respect our right to say anything we want. I'm sure we can agree on that!

Posted by: Phil Kirpakis Jr. | April 8, 2007 11:29 PM


I'm not under the impression there is one organization we are fighting. There are common characteristics, however, including their desire to subjugate non-Muslims, abhorance of Western values (like freedom of speech to write in a blog?), and hatred of America. Our mere existance is an irritant to all of these folks. They all need to be opposed, and many of them killed, preferably on foreign soil.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 11:29 PM

War sucks! Whining anti-Americans need to shut up and get over themselves!

Posted by: Realist | April 8, 2007 11:31 PM

Given the heterodox nature of the jihadists, and the fact that offense is cheaper than defense (they have to succeed only a few times, we must stop them almost every time), we can't afford a "judicial" approach to whom we eliminate. In war, innocent people always get killed. The leaders that accomodate the jihadists in their country brings this on their own population. It's a real pity, but I won't let my pity for the innocent doom America to defeat. I hate that Hiroshima was destroyed, but I'm glad that it was.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 11:38 PM

Hey TimUVA:
Do you really believe that or do you just like the sound when you say "Monolithic?"
Try saying the word "DEAD." That's what we will all be if the liberals remain in charge of our government.

Posted by: Phil Kirpakis Sr. | April 8, 2007 11:43 PM

Dan, your political analysis of terroism is wanting, but the point is that Iraq is getting in the way of fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As for the various terrorist groups, they work in different ways so dealing with them wants different strategies. Iraq figures into none of the important cases. On the other hand, our presence in Iraq is making several of these groups stronger. The war in Iraq has become counter-productive to the goal of decreasing the incidence of terrorism. We should get out of Iraq. We don't have to worry about Peoria. The Iraqis are going to have their hands full with each other for a long time. We need to get out of the business of making new anti-American terrorists by killing Iraqi civilians.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2007 11:46 PM

Dan Herbison: Please do us all a favor and enlist in the Army. Or if you are past 45, convince all of your children and grandchildren they are worth the sacrifice.

Posted by: Eric | April 8, 2007 11:50 PM

"You, who won't be able to hide behind an anonymous blog when the jihadists win",

You are right, I don't care about the fine points of political difference or motivation among the groups that hate us for no reason. We just need to kill them where they are, sapping their strength (which is finite) so they are less able to come here. But how do we find who to kill? We put troops over there to get shot at (I don't really care where), and then pulverize the bastards that shoot, and most everybody around them. It won't take long until the jihadists are unwelcome in any community. We won't be well liked, either, but we'll be feared and respected.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 11:54 PM


I have encourged my son to join the military, and have told him it's an honorable profession, and that America is a special, unique, and valuable thing. I'd be very sad if he were killed in action, defending your right to be a coward, but would consider his life to been given for something larger than both of us. You live in freedom because of men you have no understanding of, and aren't worthy to shine their boots.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 8, 2007 11:58 PM

Dear Dan and Phil,
How will anything you say get you into heaven?
How is anything you write giving glory to God, putting to work the talents he gave you?
Are you guys writing that if I say leave Iraq now, I won't get to heaven?

Posted by: Ted | April 9, 2007 12:05 AM

Dear Dan, regarding your Hirshima comment, just remember that what goes around comes around. The adage that those who live by the sword shall die by the sword definitely applies here.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 12:06 AM


Nothing any of us do or say will get us to heaven. If any of us get there, it is by God's grace and forgiveness.

I'm putting my engineering talent into designing better nuclear missiles. How about you? Are you doing anything to make our country more secure?

And do nations have a right of self defense? Or are you a Quaker? Perhaps a Mennonite?

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 9, 2007 12:09 AM

Dear Dan, how can you speak of sapping their strength when in reality our continued presence in Iraq only uselessly multiplies their number?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 12:13 AM

To all of you Supporters of, "We need to stay the course, follow our Nazi president, Get a hold on this war." I say this to you.

World War III , Ready or Not?

Posted by: James | April 9, 2007 12:14 AM

"Mr no name, no argument",

And what makes you think us being there "multiplies their number"? Any data, or just your warped imagination?

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 9, 2007 12:15 AM

TO all who hate the war,
There was a fair debate in congress several years ago, when we went into Iraq. At the time, all sides were heard and there was a vote. This isn't like grade school, you don't get to take it back (the vote for war). Now that we fairly decided to go to war (by a democratic vote), its time to get with the program, and actually support the troops, and it is implicit if you don't support the mission, you are not supporting the troops. The democratic party has been hijacked by ultra-leftists, and has been driven off the cliff of treason. Its not even close, they are the party of treason, and should be dealt with accordingly. Unless the rest of the country, whom is righteous in the pursuit of this war, understands that the leftists (democrats) are at least as dangerous as the jihadists, we will pay the price. The next time we pay al Queda's piper, it will probably be much worse than 9/11. Figure it out, 100 million is cheap to keep them on that side of the ocean...it has been estimated that 9/11 cost 100 billion. The next time something bad happens in this country, it will be time to hunt down leftists, just as much as jihadists. At least we all know the leftists won't shoot back, as they all are without guns. Once they are disposed of, it will be easier to see who the real enemy is, and deal with them appropriately. If you doubt that these leftists are not as dangerous as these jihadists, it is easy to read their derange, anti-american ideas, right here in these comments. It's coming to be high time to deal with the fifth column in our country, as it is either them or us.....

Posted by: Kevin | April 9, 2007 12:16 AM

James, we may well be in WW III. And not of our own choosing. And probably not ready...... yet.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 9, 2007 12:17 AM

As a Vietnamese who came to the US at the end of the Vietnam war, I like to add another perspective of the Iraq war.

The US invasion of Iraq has destabilized the country and set the stage for fighting by extremists. If the US leaves Iraq now, millions of Iraqui who just want to feed their children and who do not care if their neighbors are Sunnis, Shia, Kurdish, American, Christian, Muslim, black or white will die getting caught in internal fighting by these factions.

If you believe invading Iraq is a mistake, the responsible action is for America to make restitution by restoring law and order in Iraq before leaving.

If you believe invading Iraq is to protect your children here in the US, America has long term interest by restoring law and order in Iraq.

Posted by: Don P. | April 9, 2007 12:22 AM

Dan Herbison: You mentioned you asked your son to join the military, and I infer he refused. First, I see that your son is much more intelligent than you are, and second, if you cannot convince your own children to enlist, then why should anyone else listen to you? By the way, neither George Bush nor Dick Cheney have been able to convince their children to enlist in the military either. Quite fascinating, isn't it?

Posted by: Eric | April 9, 2007 12:22 AM

What's with HB and these other narcissistic twits who post their tiresome and over-long diatribes on this site. Don't they know that nobody is going to read that tripe? If you can't say it in under 150 words, don't bother, you're just wasting your time.

Posted by: mikeasr | April 9, 2007 12:23 AM

God has given us His grace and forgiveness. Whether we accept Him and Jesus and live like Jesus told us to, determines if we will be allowed into heaven. If nothing we say or do gets us into heaven, then it would seem to matter not if we are like Hitler or Mother Teresa.
My priorities are God, family, work.
I am Catholic.

Posted by: Ted | April 9, 2007 12:24 AM


You are wrong. I did not "ask" my son to join, and he did not "refuse". He is 18, in college, and may yet join. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.

The point is, men like my son and I are WILLING to fight and die for cowards like you.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 9, 2007 12:26 AM

Shawn Cooper--

I consider your post an Eloi manifesto.

H.G. Well's Time Machine: The Eloi were so stupid and treasured "peace" so much, they allowed the Morlocks to prey on them; a quid pro quo kind of cannibalism --kinda' like what Rad Islam wants to do to the world.

Remember, the BIG difference between Christianity and Islam is CHOICE.

American's fought for freedom of choice in the name of our Lord, and therefore many faiths have found safe harbor in the US.

Islam does not tolerate that kind of freedom. EOM

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 12:27 AM

Dan Herbison: You've encouraged detonating a nuclear weapon against our 'enemies' on at least two occassions above. You sir are exactly what is wrong with the right wing extremists that have hijacked our great country. We voted to take the keys away from you nut jobs in 2006, so please crawl back in your bunker and stay there until someone tells you it's safe to come out.

Posted by: Eric | April 9, 2007 12:29 AM

Dan Herbison: What is your son doing in COLLEGE? He is sorely needed on the front lines in Iraq.

Posted by: Eric | April 9, 2007 12:31 AM


So you agree with the Catholic doctrine of a "just war"?

Your question was "How will anything you say get you into heaven?"

Our behavior may well determine IF we "get into heaven", but it doesn't "get us there". Christ's vicarious sacrifice, and God's grace "get us there". When we have done all that we can, we are still "unprofitable servants", in need of grace and forgiveness. Obedience makes us fit candidates for grace, it does not obligate God to forgive us. If Mother Theresa "makes it", it won't be because she earned it, or deserved it. Neither for you or I.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 9, 2007 12:32 AM


Your reading skills are apparently as attenuated as your logic. Quote the post where I "encouraged detonating a nuclear weapon against our 'enemies' on at least two occassions", or withdraw the charge.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 9, 2007 12:35 AM

Dan Herbison: You want me to quote your insane ramblings? The one where Democrats are 'wimps' for refusing to detonate a nuclear weapon, or that you work to design 'better' nuclear weapons, or that you are 'glad' Hiroshima was destroyed by a nuclear weapon? You are a complete basket case. God help us all if you are really a nuclear engineer.

Posted by: Eric | April 9, 2007 12:42 AM


And how are ANY of those references (but not quotes; words mean something) fairly interpreted to be "encouraging" the detonation of a device? Let's see if you can reason and write.....

And I am not a nuclear engineer.... I'm an electronics, modeling, and simulation engineer.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 9, 2007 12:46 AM

Our obedience is to God and his Word.
We must do what He has commanded us to do.
We are not commanded to be obedient to authority on Earth, because that authority will be different for everyone, whether it be the Romans, the Egyptians, communists, human constructs such as "just war".
We can not condone our human behaviour by dismissing it with God will do what he wants.

Posted by: Ted | April 9, 2007 12:51 AM


How strange. I hadn't heard that Catholics had repudiated Romans 13. I guess that one went out with the passages about not having "graven images"?

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 9, 2007 12:58 AM

And as I understand Catholicism, a good Catholic is also obedient to Catholic teaching, whether or not it is in "His Word" (the "Church" holding equal authority with the Word, and acting as authorized interpreter of the Word.)

And a "just war" is recognized by authoritative Catholic doctrine. See http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 9, 2007 1:07 AM

Graven images? Why do you write in riddles?
If the authorities referenced in Roman 13:1-2 include communists, the National Constituent Assembly, etc. then so be it.
Catholics are obedient to God's Word and to those few infallible decrees of the Pope. Just war is not an infallible decree.
Getting back to my first point, if you believe that your words here or your work as an engineer to make nuclear missiles (as opposed to putting your engineering talents to restoring electricity to Iraq, for example) have given glory to God or that it doesn't matter, that's fine by me. Why not state it that way?
I am not held accountable for your words, thoughts or actions.
GB and good night.
It is late.

Posted by: Ted | April 9, 2007 1:27 AM

I see the Christian wackos are here, reading a book written by illiterate goatropers 3000 years ago, and telling us that it has some relevance today.

This is why Christianity should be suppressed.

Posted by: Data guy | April 9, 2007 1:53 AM

What has Bush accomplished? Is our country safer? More respected? Stronger?

Waging war against even the most radical Muslim's isn't going to solve the problem, nor is it going to make them change their religious beliefs. Killing them all is not a viable option because killing only causes hate.

The US Staying in Iraq is not going to end the conflict. The only ones that can end the conflict are the Iraqi themselves. I have to ask. How does leaving now show lack of support for our troops? And sending them into a war without an end using flawed information shows them respect? How does having our troops fight against both sides in a civil war show them our support? Doesn't re-assigning them to fight in the real war on terror make more sense? Our President is our elected official, however he seems to have his own agenda and maybe if there were something positive that was being accomplished, it would be ok, but I see us in a war that wasn't necessary while things at home are not being properly handled.

Posted by: ocnorb | April 9, 2007 1:59 AM

I hear both side of the story, and you know what, your both right!

One: Willing to fight, take action, and die for country. Great!

Two: Pull out, Pull out, War is bad and will not solve anything.


Whats Wrong here is that being in a democracy, Majority should rule. But the Majority isn't ruling because we have "BUSH" who won't listen to the people.

70% of Americans wants to stop this now, I don't care which party your from, weather you left or right, up or down, I consider that the majority.

You all know how much we care about Democracy, ever since were little we say "Majority Rules" when faced with a decision.

If that Majority rule isn't enforced, theres something wrong with the government. Namely Bush.

Posted by: James | April 9, 2007 2:05 AM

All of these pro war comments are from Jews or people working for them.Iraq is a Jew war.Ask some of these Reservists and Guardsmen on their second or third tour and can't get out how they like fighting for Israel.Go to davidduke.com and listen to his radio broadcasts.The Jews have been trying to shut him down for years.The jews monitor this paper and others and make sure that they get their comments in.The C.I.A. helps them monitor the media.The C.I.A. and Pentagon are heavily infiltrated by the Mossad.

Posted by: Ricardo | April 9, 2007 2:37 AM

I'm glad this withdrawal idea has ground to the halt it deserves. We can not just up and leave. The fact is that in order for us to be able to leave, the Iraqi people must have good peace in their community and a functional civil society to be able to deal with conflict effectively. There need to be jobs for people to do too, there energy being put into blowing things up in new and different ways needs to go towards building and manufacturing things in new and different ways. I do not think there is anyone left who would not rather that the US not be stuck in the middle of a pseudo-religious civil war, and it is not anything any rational person wanted to see happen either. We should not lose sight of the progress we are making, and look for absences of problems either. With the change in US and coalition security strategy, the Iraqis are finding more chances to reform community where people of bad intent were trying to drive them away from it. The Iraqi forces that are deploying are showing marked progress with an instinct for professionalism that was long repressed under the dictatorial aspects of Saddam's former rule. It is reasonable to expect the lurching around to continue, but there is direction forming in Iraq itself finally. We are seeing more and more situations rear their heads where the people around Iraq know that the US military goal is to be able to leave with them having a decent society. In a place where this is counter-intuitive to their understanding of the use of military force, the idea takes awhile to understand it seems. How Iraq moves forward is what matters, and getting stuck in the past serves people in the US no better than it does the people of Iraq.

A hundred years from now we may see an Iraq that is part of an area of the globe that has figured out how to use the energy resources it has to use clean power to act as energy vendors to other regions. But any future is up to the nation of Iraq.

Posted by: Gentry | April 9, 2007 3:04 AM

#1 - most of americans supported President Bush's actions in entering Iraq, including Congress.

#2 - Iraq HAS been mis-managed, resulting in most americans withdrawing their support of President Bush and Iraq.

#3 - in my honest opinion, claiming to support our troops but not the war is just political doublespeak that does nothing more than devalue the daily hardships and sacrafices of our troops that are over there, by telling them you support them but not their actions, you support them but not their cause, you support them but... What the hell kind of message is that?!?! If you truly support our troops, just say THAT. You support our troops. (emphasis on the period) Tie a yellow ribbon on a tree and shut the hell up. There is NOTHING more demoralizing to our troops than making them think we dont believe in them or their actions.


Posted by: usn.vet | April 9, 2007 4:14 AM

*While I stridently disagree with GW on many issues, I'm thankful for a man who has conviction and fortitude.Posted by: Judith Mullen | April 8, 2007 08:08 PM*

Quit putting lipstick on a pig. Bush is an arrogant rich man with a sense of entitlement about a mile long. Conviction and fortitude my ass.
These rightwingers and their blind devotion to Bush. When will they understand that he's just some power-obsessed rich boob that doesn't give a damn about them?

Posted by: ErrinF | April 9, 2007 4:17 AM

I love how the spoonfed lemmings of the right think they can call into question everybody else's courage and patriotism.
If the rightwingers actually took the time to ponder why they lost so bad in 2006, maybe they'd figure out their bad behavior was part of the GOP's problem. But no... they pretend losing last November never happenned, and continue belligerently alienating the rest of the electorate. Keep it up, conservatives, and just watch how 2008 turns out for the GOP.

Posted by: ErrinF | April 9, 2007 5:01 AM

HB - Very well done. Bravo. The only problem is length - do you honestly think the 30 percenters-Bushie crowd has the attention span required to read your concise yet through examination of the Bush family interests in promoting fascism? I wish that they all would and show the initiative to investigate the truths behind your time line.

Posted by: fool_superior | April 9, 2007 5:39 AM

Gingrich says nonsense on Europe and: *help the people of Iran, replace it with a moderate government.* The Shah????

Posted by: Fisch, BN, Germany | April 9, 2007 6:57 AM

This is why people hate democrats....they are idiots.

Posted by: Jason | April 9, 2007 7:12 AM

If we aren't careful, those gosh darn Democrats are going to keep dialogin' with those middle-easterners and end this war before we're ready. We've made promises to any number of private firms that there's lots more money to be made over the next couple of years and we should stick to our guns, literally! How are we Republicans going to hang on to the White House and what's W's legacy going to be if we let the Dems come up with a diplomatic solution to this mess? We just gotta keep paintin' this as a black/white and red,white & blue issue so we can keep America scared. Remember, God is on our side. He told me so last night.

Posted by: Jacko | April 9, 2007 7:14 AM

Posted by: HB | April 8, 2007 07:24 PM,

what does this say? Money and politics go together? What a surprise.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to prevent a revolution in the US after 9/11?

La societe du spectacle, maybe.

There is only nice detail missing, maybe you are from Poland and hate Jews anyway, Warburg etc, the Charcow case from the 1920s, Germany vs. Poland on that Upper Silesia company.

Germany did win, and the rule of that case is the base of the new Shiite strategy in Iraq: For an illegal act, then Polish actions against the company, now this war of aggression, there must be compensation. The US must pay the damages it has done in Iraq. Pretty expensiv!!!

Posted by: Fisch, BN, Germany | April 9, 2007 7:36 AM

Well, it is the Chorzow Factory case, lets see whether this blog likes URLs:


I dont see any way for the US to evade jurisdiction.

Posted by: Fisch, BN, Germany | April 9, 2007 7:48 AM

We are not begging the spinless Dems to fund our troops.The entire world is waiting and watching to see how spinless Dems will betray the US military and undermind the war on terror.

Posted by: tony | April 9, 2007 9:08 AM

We are not begging the spinless Dems to fund our troops.The entire world is waiting and watching to see how the spineless Dems will betray the US military and undermine the war on terror.

Posted by: tony | April 9, 2007 9:11 AM

Dems thought this President was weak and tried to blackmail him and didn't think he would dare veto this bill. They were wrong now they have to backtrack. Just pass a clean bill and move on.

Posted by: Angel | April 9, 2007 9:21 AM

I AM superior to one that wants to kill me without cause, or would relegate me to an inferior position because of my beliefs. And I WILL kill someone who tries to harm me or my family. I would hope that you would too? Posted by: Dan Herbison UNQUOTE Spoken like a true Jihadi. Nice.

Posted by: SMRT | April 9, 2007 9:26 AM

This nation is weak, and displays it by following this administration although they lie, and incite international turmoil. This war has never been about protecting the people of this nation, or the homeland. It has always been about imperialistic greed, and American*s are too prideful to admit they have been duped. The Dems are part of it, and the sheepish Bush-o-matics convince themselves that they somehow spread democracy by dropping bombs and making Lockheed Martin richer. This is not about supporting the troops, and it should not be so. This is about ending Bush*s war for oil. Cut the stinking funding Congress, or you have failed the People. Do not give this despot, Bush, one more cent.

Posted by: Mark | April 9, 2007 10:05 AM

The Dems have Bush in a box. Why would they want to let him out? Just remember, it's not most Dems who want to end the time table. It is only the Dems who are members of the Military, Industrial, Bipartisan Congressional, K-Street Complex. They are no better than Lieberman.

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | April 9, 2007 10:30 AM

What Levin needs to understand is that we the people will be getting rid of gutless democrats along with the republicans that still support Bush come 2008. When you have 70 percent support for something you don*t back down. That*s a betrayal of the people that gave you the majority Carl. Oh, by the way, lose the combover. It looks rediculous, and people are not going to trust someone that tries to hide something that obvious in plane sight. If you are willing to try and hide the fact that you are going bald, what else are you willing to hide.

Posted by: Hank | April 9, 2007 10:41 AM


And you WON'T protect yourself (or ask others to do so) when someone tries to harm you or your family?

Why not publish your address, so the scrounges of this world know where the easy pickings are?

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 9, 2007 10:45 AM

Dear Dan,
Why would Smrt have to fight to protect himself (not his family and himself) in the context of this discussion?
President Bush started a war that was not Just. Saddam Hussein was as much of a danger to his people and the world as China, North Korea, Sudan, Rwanda, Cuba etc. Yet President Bush did not attack them.
Smrt will now have to protect his family because of the huge mistake made by President Bush. This was not the case a little over 4 years ago.
And back to last night point, what does it matter the way of one's death to God, wheteher it be from dying to protect ones family or not?

Posted by: Ted | April 9, 2007 11:14 AM

Time to end this war now. cut funding. It was the most colossal mistake by any US president ever, to invade Iraq. It was wrong then, it is wrong now, and any number of attempted wrongs will never equal a right. We were lied to about Iraq. The bush admin conned us for their own dubious reasons, into invading someone that had as much to do with 9/11 as Fiji did.

The same pathetic management style that the Bush administration has exhibited in katrina, social security policy, harriet meyers, brownie, dubai ports deal, alberto gonzales mess... (long list of ineptitude) are evident here. It's so far away that we don't see it as glaring as it really is.

The Bush administration could not manage itself out of a wet paper bag, and would have been fired looong ago if they were running a company in the same pathetic way.

Posted by: marco | April 9, 2007 11:32 AM

Although I feel this war is awful and I want our troops to come home right away I just don't think we can just pull out our troops with out having so kind of plan for the aftermath of this decision. That is why I think Senator Biden is a great choice for our next president!!! He is the only candidate talking about a detailed plan. The rest of the candidates are trying to fake it till they make it. Keep up the pressure Senator Biden!!!

Posted by: Tom L (NJ) | April 9, 2007 11:49 AM


Smrt needs to protect himself because there are people that want to kill him. They wanted to kill him well before we entered Iraq.

Until you tell me if nations and individuals have a right of self defense, I see little point in debating theological questions with you. You and Smrt appear to be pacifists, but you won't give a straight answer as to whether you are.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 9, 2007 11:50 AM

I do not agree that Congress should cut funding and STRONGLY AGREE with their strategy that ANY legislation related to the troops needs to state a withrdrawal date. Congress should not budge on this issue--if it has to get down to it, it is Bush's war so why should the whole country pay for it--let him write a personal check if he thinks it is so important to stay. better yet, send the first twins as hostages and let us see how long he wants to stay the course in that scenario

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 12:09 PM

No Name,

And what will happen after we turn tail & run?

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 9, 2007 12:11 PM

to tobias, i dont think he was responsible for the things you mentioned, but i do think he hates dogs and cats

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 12:20 PM

Dan Herbison said: "The point is, men like my son and I are WILLING to fight and die for cowards like you."

So why aren't you, and your 18 year old, healthy, strong, son enlisted and ready to fight? The only thing you two are WILLING to do is sit in the comfort of your living room and type hypocritical messages on the Internet. I bet your son is also having a hell of a time partying hard in his first year at COLLEGE, dreaming of the days when he will be able to experience the vast joy of bloodshed, murder, (and don't forget conquest) in Iraq.

Posted by: Eric | April 9, 2007 12:32 PM

"And what will happen after we turn tail & run?"

1. US soliders will stop dying.

2. The Iraqi people will rejoice like they've never rejoiced before.

3. The Iraqi people will come together for the common cause of rebuilding their country from the ruins that the Bush Administration left. They will do this out of a sense of pride that is centuries old.

4. The Democrats will restore the diplomacy to the region and people will start takling and cooperating, instead of being paranoid they are about to be invaded by a foreign force.

5. Peace will begin to flourish in the region as everyone in the world reflects back on the last 4 years of utter chaos and decide they will never again allow right wing extremists to hijack American foreign policy.

Posted by: Eric | April 9, 2007 12:39 PM

The President's foreign policy is his own for his administration. He does not "set" the foreign policy for America, this is why the President is given the power to declare war and the Congress is charged with funding it. Bottom line is you can't have a war without money to fight it. The President and Congress must agree to fight a war...so far they are in agreement.

Nobody talks about how George Bush is cutting his own funding by vetoing this bill. It's nothing new to have additional spending for non-war items in war-funding bills. Also, the Republicans would not be having this issue if they had addressed these needs while they had control of both the House and Senate. The Democrats are simply finishing the business the Republicans refused to. And talk about PORK! The Republicans "bridges to nowhere" and other improper spending is EVERYWHERE!

Besides, it's not about the pork, it's about the timetable.

The Democrats would be wise to allow the "Surge" (I hate that damn word...it's right up there in stupidity with the notion of a "War on Terror") to prove or disprove it's effectiveness until August, at which time the Republican Party should turn away from this president, and "real" veto-proof bills with bipartisan support that contain real restrictions for Bush could be sent to his desk.

Also, the more Republicans stand behind the president's policies, and therefore against the will of the American people, the less likely they are to win in '08. I can't believe they don't see that.

I think America is SICK of BUSH - Reps and Dems alike! LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE!


Posted by: Tom | April 9, 2007 12:45 PM

President Bush took us to war in Iraq because there were people in that country who wanted to kill Smrt (us)?
Yet they are still there and more so. Now, over 50% of the people condone attacks on American troops.

As for theological questions, I am discussing life. Our lifes are not compartmentized. We can't say we follow Jesus on Sundays and the evenings, but at work we don't. There is the New testament verse about cutting off the appendage that causes one to sin.

Posted by: Ted | April 9, 2007 1:06 PM


You forgot to mention the sprouting of spring flowers, Bin Laden coming over to hug you, and the dawning of the "Age of Aquarius".

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 9, 2007 1:12 PM

Conservative:is the quality or condition of being stupid, or lacking intelligence, as opposed to being merely ignorant or uneducated. This quality can be attributed to both an individual (e.g. Penny Person is stupid) or a person's actions, words or beliefs (e.g., Penny Person's policies are stupid). The term can thus also refer to poor use of judgement, or insensitivity to nuances in a person who is otherwise intelligent. The determination of who is stupid is relatively difficult, despite attempts to measure intelligence (and thus stupidity) such as IQ tests.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 1:17 PM

Sadly, America has become an ignorant, lazy, self absorbed, morally bankrupt nation. It's amazing how many people out there, who evidently couldn't think their way out of a paper bag, still cling to the fantasy that George W. Bush has "balls" because he's sending other people's children to die in an illegal war that was never necessary or even useful.

Posted by: Stevieb | April 9, 2007 2:40 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 2:46 PM

A couple of points seem to jump out at me.

1." We broke it, we own it" However inept this administration ran this war. Beyond the lies, cherry picked intelligence,PNAC etc. Very few representatives showed any courage in the runup. Like it or not we own it.

2. This is Bush's war, plain and simple, he gets the credit and the blame. (Lots of blame). I'm OK with the funding Bill without timelines. In studying the recent history only one leader showed any semblance of how to fight a guerilla war, Patreus. He should get his chance. ONE CHANCE!

3. Full accountability must be realized if we are to learn anything. We need ALL the facts on this debacle on display for the American people. This neocon agenda has destroyed any semblance of what this country used to stand for. Torture, loss of habeus corpus, we have become what we fear.

I've heard numerous times lately from war vets dont say "you support the troops but not the war". Granted.

If we indeed have the democracy in place Bush/Cheney touted with blue thumbs. Its time to let them vote one more time. Do you want the US to stay?

Posted by: Mike K | April 9, 2007 3:16 PM

Regarding the pullout of Iraq: Most Iraqis don't want us there. Most Iraqis think it is ok to see Americans killed. Most of Iraq is now sympathetic to those you hate us. But, at the same time, most Iraqis hate A.Q. and most Iraqis are cool with secular government. But our involvment has forced Sunnis to collaberate with A.Q. and push Iraqis into the theocracy camp. Solve this all at once and we leave or at least reform at the Iranian border, protect oil infrastructure, let Iraqis blame A.Q. and liquidate them. And let Allah, the mullahs and clerics, take responsibility for Iraq. We then need to sacrifice Bush and the half-wit foreign policy he represents in order to start the great American redemption.
Perhaps in a generation or two we can hold our heads up proudly again in the world.

Posted by: Rich Rosenthal | April 9, 2007 3:29 PM

Shawn Cooper

Get back on the prozac. There was no 9/11 conspiracy and just because some idiot actors, who like you have only seen pictures, say so does not give it any more credibility. I will back up the incompetence of the Bush administration to your so-called evidence anyday to show you this was not an inside job.

Posted by: Tired of it all | April 9, 2007 4:21 PM

As I have read through all the comments and disagreements, the one out of many I have found to be the most amusing is the post about having our president write his own personal check to get us out of this mess he has created. I wonder how much differently this war would have been handled if it was he or his company, not us as taxpayers who would be left holding the bag. I wonder? He doesn't seem in a big hurry to risk his family fortune or his daughters.

Posted by: gretchenc | April 9, 2007 10:19 PM

Quote" #1 - most of americans supported President Bush's actions in entering Iraq, including Congress.

#2 - Iraq HAS been mis-managed, resulting in most americans withdrawing their support of President Bush and Iraq.

#3 - in my honest opinion, claiming to support our troops but not the war is just political doublespeak that does nothing more than devalue the daily hardships and sacrafices of our troops that are over there, by telling them you support them but not their actions, you support them but not their cause, you support them but... What the hell kind of message is that?!?! If you truly support our troops, just say THAT. You support our troops. (emphasis on the period) Tie a yellow ribbon on a tree and shut the hell up. There is NOTHING more demoralizing to our troops than making them think we dont believe in them or their actions.


Response to #1...ehhh....we were lied to by Bush, ...hello?!?!?!? We followed our commander and chief based on his LIES!!Once we found out it was a lie, whats wrong with changing our mind?!?!?

Response to #3 See, thats exactly the stratagy that Bush used. "If your not with us, then your against us." If you don't support the war then you don't support the troops. Mother F**** you sent them to their death in the first place and you want the public to support you?!?!?! And can you PLEASE explain to me how wanting to end the war is not Supporting the Troops. You think the troops like leaving their family and be stuck in the desert getting shot at??!?! It just frustrates me soo much to have soo many idiots who thinks keeping the troops there is supporting them.

And if you really make me choose between the two, If not supporting the war is not supporting the troops, then FINE, I don't support the Troops. Cut Funding and send them home.

US troops are sent there by Orders, you think everyone of them is happy to go?? They have their own mind and thoughts, and I bet a Majority of them thinks the war is wrong too. So WHY can't people form their opinion on the war

Posted by: James | April 11, 2007 10:11 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company