- The Update: Bush spares Libby
- Bush says doesn't rule out pardon for Libby
- Editorials Hit Libby's Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card
- Bush "Is Not To Be Believed"
- Only 21% Of Americans Support Decision
- Fitzgerald: "Fundamental To The Rule Of Law That All Citizens Stand Before The Bar Of Justice As Equals"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My biggest question to everyone is "Why are you so surprised?" that Bush let ole' Scoot off the hook?
Seriously, has this Administration ever led you to believe even once that they or their henchmen could actually be held accountable for their misconduct?
I can't even pretend to be outraged anymore. I'd be more surprised if the Bush Administration would have left Scootie Puff Junior sit in prison.
Now President Bush is saying not to rule out a full pardon, well.. duh. Should we expect anything different from the Great Leader?
By the way, if Bush is going to pardon someone why isn't Bush pardoning Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso, the right wing has repeatedly called for pardons for these men as well - so why pick Libby? Oh, that's right because Libby was doing the Bush Administrations bidding by helping to oust the CIA agent Valerie Plame, so of course he deserves a pardon.
The pattern is consistent, the Bush Administration will do everything in it's power to avoid any kind of accountability at all. These men truly feel they are above the law.
Showing posts with label President Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Bush. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
White House Claims Executive Privilege After Claiming VP, Pres Not Executives
Related :
- Cheney claims a non-executive privilege
- Bush claims oversight exemption too
- House Claims executive privilege to avoid senate subpoenas
But I thought they said they were not executives?
After all it was only a few days ago that Vice President Dick Cheney claimed he did not have to comply with executive record keeping laws because he is not an executive. The next day the President made the same claim.
In Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution it is written:
"The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America."
Meaning the president is the head of the executive branch of the federal government. So not only is the President an executive, he is the executive.
So a few days ago George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not executives, but now they are executives so it turns out they have executive privilege?
This is quite a grandstanding claim to make. You can't have it both ways.
You can't claim you are not an executive but have executive privilege.
You can't claim your not an executive to avoid record keeping laws and then claim you don't have to show the records anyway because you have executive privilege. It just doesn't work that way in a system of logic and truth. It doesn't work that way in a democracy either, by the way.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Democrats need to be on every talk show in America informing the American people about the outrageous claims of the Bush Administration and making the case against the Bush Administration.
As for the media, what can I say? They have failed the American people by not enlightening them about the terribly abnormal time we are living in. They refuse to go into details thinking the American people are too stupid to understand them. They refuse to offer insightful exposes in fear of being called "unpatriotic" by the treasonous bastards who have hijacked this country and used it as a weapon of war. They fail to provide balance and wisdom, instead we get Paris Hilton and Tom Delay.
These are last ditch attempts by the Bush Administration to avoid oversight and accountability. If the Bush Administration was not doing anything illegal or unethical then it should have no problems handing over it's records.
The true problem lies in what is in the documents the Bush Administration is trying so desperately to keep secret from the rest of the government.
What is perhaps ironic is that the Bush Administration is fighting to keep documents about the warrantless wiretapping program secret, when all along the Bush Administration claimed that if Americans were not doing anything illegal then they should not be worried about all their personal emails and phone calls being monitored by the NSA.
The same logic can be applied to the documents which the Bush administration is trying to keep secret from Congress and the National Archives. If the Bush Administration was not doing anything illegal or unethical then why is it so afraid of sharing it's information with the rest of the government?
And don't even try to feed me that "national security" BS, it's not going to work.
- Cheney claims a non-executive privilege
- Bush claims oversight exemption too
- House Claims executive privilege to avoid senate subpoenas
But I thought they said they were not executives?
After all it was only a few days ago that Vice President Dick Cheney claimed he did not have to comply with executive record keeping laws because he is not an executive. The next day the President made the same claim.
In Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution it is written:
"The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America."
Meaning the president is the head of the executive branch of the federal government. So not only is the President an executive, he is the executive.
So a few days ago George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not executives, but now they are executives so it turns out they have executive privilege?
This is quite a grandstanding claim to make. You can't have it both ways.
You can't claim you are not an executive but have executive privilege.
You can't claim your not an executive to avoid record keeping laws and then claim you don't have to show the records anyway because you have executive privilege. It just doesn't work that way in a system of logic and truth. It doesn't work that way in a democracy either, by the way.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Democrats need to be on every talk show in America informing the American people about the outrageous claims of the Bush Administration and making the case against the Bush Administration.
As for the media, what can I say? They have failed the American people by not enlightening them about the terribly abnormal time we are living in. They refuse to go into details thinking the American people are too stupid to understand them. They refuse to offer insightful exposes in fear of being called "unpatriotic" by the treasonous bastards who have hijacked this country and used it as a weapon of war. They fail to provide balance and wisdom, instead we get Paris Hilton and Tom Delay.
These are last ditch attempts by the Bush Administration to avoid oversight and accountability. If the Bush Administration was not doing anything illegal or unethical then it should have no problems handing over it's records.
The true problem lies in what is in the documents the Bush Administration is trying so desperately to keep secret from the rest of the government.
What is perhaps ironic is that the Bush Administration is fighting to keep documents about the warrantless wiretapping program secret, when all along the Bush Administration claimed that if Americans were not doing anything illegal then they should not be worried about all their personal emails and phone calls being monitored by the NSA.
The same logic can be applied to the documents which the Bush administration is trying to keep secret from Congress and the National Archives. If the Bush Administration was not doing anything illegal or unethical then why is it so afraid of sharing it's information with the rest of the government?
And don't even try to feed me that "national security" BS, it's not going to work.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Republicans More Concerned About Partisanship Than Integrity Of The Justice Department
Related :
- GOP Blocks Senate Majority From Voting No Confidence On Gonzales
- Conservatives kill Gonzales no-confidence vote
Are Conservatives still so bitter over Bill Clinton they are still willing to hold the Bush Administrations head above water while the Administration is so clearly trying to drown itself?
The Conservatives are apparently willing to do this at their own expense. Because everyone knows a drowning person is likely to pull their rescuer under if the rescuer is not a strong swimmer, and it looks like the Conservatives can barely manage to doggie paddle for themselves right now. So trying to save the Bush Administration is probably not the wisest idea.
If there is one person in Washington D.C. who deserves a "no confidence" vote it is "Eternal General" Alberto " I-Don't-Recall " Gonzales who participated in what is one of the most damaging things one can do to a democracy - politicize the justice system.
Some fury towards the mainstream media, as per usual members of the MSM were quick to repeat Conservative talking points as to why the Republicans were refusing to hold Gonzales accountable, for at the very least his stupidity and at the very worse his blatant politicization of the justice system.
One's impression from the MSM is that the Democrats are just being a pain in the Presidents behind FOR NO GOOD REASON EXCEPT PARTISANSHIP.
Well, let me tell you - after the Clinton years and Republican impeachment attempts over Clinton lying about getting a BJ, after six years of impotence in Congress when everything that was slightly Liberal was constantly berated and slandered, you know it wouldn't be such a stretch of imagination to believe that Democrats were "just being partisan" and trying to "get back" at Republicans for all of the misery including the Iraq War BUT
The truth should be told, by any intelligent standard Alberto Gonzales is either
A : a meandering fool who's memory has apparently been erased who never fully understood his role at the Justice Department
OR
B : he is a very deceptive and clever man who is wearing sheep's clothing to avoid punishment.
Well, since Gonzales is a lawyer I really have to go with "B".
By this point in time it doesn't matter whether Gonzales is "A" or "B" because being either incompetent or crooked should immediately render any person unfit for the job of the top law enforcement official in this country, dammit.
I don't care if a person is a Democrat or Republican, if they are doing the wrong thing get them out. It's that simple.
Which brings me to this point : What is WRONG with this country? How come politicians are THE WORST EMPLOYEES IN THE WORLD?? If anyone else did as terrible of a job as politicians do at their jobs - they would be fired or seriously demoted. Seriously.
In the real world this "I don't recall" and "I don't remember" excuse doesn't fly very far. Usually if your memory is that sketchy then so were your activities. In the real world people are distrusted for such excuses.
Having a "no confidence" vote was perfectly legitimate and it's unfortunate the Republicans did not use this as an opportunity to try to restore trust with the American people, and frankly I don't understand why they didn't use it.
Conservatives have lost a great deal of credibility in this country and I am starting to believe they are the only ones who do not realize it yet.
Is it because Republicans are in denial? Is it because they do not care if the American people no longer trust them? Do Republicans even care, if that is the case? I don't think so.
Conservatives have yet to realize the tables have turned.
Where in the 1990's the American people felt they were being lied to by Democrats about Bill Clinton and that the Conservatives were telling the truth, today it is the EXACT opposite and the issues are much more serious and complex than sexual liaisons between two consenting adults.
Today we know we are being lied to by the Republicans about George W. Bush, the Iraq War, torture, spying, oh, and politicizing the Justice Department.
The Republicans are threatening their own very existence with shenanigans like this and they should give the American people a little more credit than trying to convince us this guy who can't recall politicizing our justice system should remain in power.
Conservatives are refusing to be objective and refusing to see how seriously they would take the same situation if any political party other than the Republicans were politicizing the justice system.
Both parties need to understand that this is a country that is built on a system of checks and balances and both parties and our nations survival is dependent on this balance. As we hold others accountable and suspect for their actions, so should we ourselves to preserve the heritage of what is right about this country.
- GOP Blocks Senate Majority From Voting No Confidence On Gonzales
- Conservatives kill Gonzales no-confidence vote
Are Conservatives still so bitter over Bill Clinton they are still willing to hold the Bush Administrations head above water while the Administration is so clearly trying to drown itself?
The Conservatives are apparently willing to do this at their own expense. Because everyone knows a drowning person is likely to pull their rescuer under if the rescuer is not a strong swimmer, and it looks like the Conservatives can barely manage to doggie paddle for themselves right now. So trying to save the Bush Administration is probably not the wisest idea.
If there is one person in Washington D.C. who deserves a "no confidence" vote it is "Eternal General" Alberto " I-Don't-Recall " Gonzales who participated in what is one of the most damaging things one can do to a democracy - politicize the justice system.
Some fury towards the mainstream media, as per usual members of the MSM were quick to repeat Conservative talking points as to why the Republicans were refusing to hold Gonzales accountable, for at the very least his stupidity and at the very worse his blatant politicization of the justice system.
One's impression from the MSM is that the Democrats are just being a pain in the Presidents behind FOR NO GOOD REASON EXCEPT PARTISANSHIP.
Well, let me tell you - after the Clinton years and Republican impeachment attempts over Clinton lying about getting a BJ, after six years of impotence in Congress when everything that was slightly Liberal was constantly berated and slandered, you know it wouldn't be such a stretch of imagination to believe that Democrats were "just being partisan" and trying to "get back" at Republicans for all of the misery including the Iraq War BUT
The truth should be told, by any intelligent standard Alberto Gonzales is either
A : a meandering fool who's memory has apparently been erased who never fully understood his role at the Justice Department
OR
B : he is a very deceptive and clever man who is wearing sheep's clothing to avoid punishment.
Well, since Gonzales is a lawyer I really have to go with "B".
By this point in time it doesn't matter whether Gonzales is "A" or "B" because being either incompetent or crooked should immediately render any person unfit for the job of the top law enforcement official in this country, dammit.
I don't care if a person is a Democrat or Republican, if they are doing the wrong thing get them out. It's that simple.
Which brings me to this point : What is WRONG with this country? How come politicians are THE WORST EMPLOYEES IN THE WORLD?? If anyone else did as terrible of a job as politicians do at their jobs - they would be fired or seriously demoted. Seriously.
In the real world this "I don't recall" and "I don't remember" excuse doesn't fly very far. Usually if your memory is that sketchy then so were your activities. In the real world people are distrusted for such excuses.
Having a "no confidence" vote was perfectly legitimate and it's unfortunate the Republicans did not use this as an opportunity to try to restore trust with the American people, and frankly I don't understand why they didn't use it.
Conservatives have lost a great deal of credibility in this country and I am starting to believe they are the only ones who do not realize it yet.
Is it because Republicans are in denial? Is it because they do not care if the American people no longer trust them? Do Republicans even care, if that is the case? I don't think so.
Conservatives have yet to realize the tables have turned.
Where in the 1990's the American people felt they were being lied to by Democrats about Bill Clinton and that the Conservatives were telling the truth, today it is the EXACT opposite and the issues are much more serious and complex than sexual liaisons between two consenting adults.
Today we know we are being lied to by the Republicans about George W. Bush, the Iraq War, torture, spying, oh, and politicizing the Justice Department.
The Republicans are threatening their own very existence with shenanigans like this and they should give the American people a little more credit than trying to convince us this guy who can't recall politicizing our justice system should remain in power.
Conservatives are refusing to be objective and refusing to see how seriously they would take the same situation if any political party other than the Republicans were politicizing the justice system.
Both parties need to understand that this is a country that is built on a system of checks and balances and both parties and our nations survival is dependent on this balance. As we hold others accountable and suspect for their actions, so should we ourselves to preserve the heritage of what is right about this country.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
WE VOTED FOR CHANGE IN IRAQ, NOT THE STATUS QUO
Do the Democrats believe that they were elected to the majority to continue to submit to the demands of George W. Bush and the Republican Party?
Do the Democrats believe that they were elected to the majority in order to protect the Status Quo?
Yesterdays vote was monumental because it proves to the American people which Democrats actually want to end the war and which Democrats say they want to end the war just to get elected.
I congratulate the Democrats who voted against the bill, who will be attacked as "not supporting the troops". Hogwash. Supporting the troops is getting them out of a civil war that has zero connections to September 11 and zero to do with real freedom and Democracy.
To the other Democrats I say "Where is your integrity? Where are your convictions? Do you actually believe cooperating with Bush is going to do you or America any good?
The Democrats just made a monumental mistake, their approval ratings will likely take a dip after backing down to Bush and the Republicans which the majority of the American people have grown to despise.
WE DIDN'T ELECT THEM TO COWAR DOWN TO THE GOP AND BUSH. WE ELECTED THEM TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THE GOP AND BUSH.
Some Democrats will say "Well, if we had voted 'no' we would have been called unpatriotic" and so on and so forth.
The reality is, no matter what way the Democrats would have voted, the Republicans already had ready made ammunition to use against them. It would not matter which way Democrats vote, Republicans have an angle to attack it from :
If Democrats vote "no" they will be accused of being unpatriotic, not supporting the troops, waving the flag to al-Qaeda, etc.
If Democrats vote "yes" the Republicans can in turn say Democrats did not even try to do what they said they would do, which was end the war. Therefore, Democrats don't do what they say they will do so why vote for them anyway?
So if the other Democrats had any brains or integrity they should have just bit the bullet like the brave Democrats who voted "no" did.
I admit that I originally thought that the Democrats should let Bush have a bill without time-lines.
But after witnessing the spoiled brat Bush dig his heels in and refuse to sign two bills, one which the time-lines could have been waived I realized that it is high time for the Democrats to put an end to this shit and fight back, see how the other side likes it.
But what happened? The Democrats backed down, or I should say the majority of Democrats backed down to the evilness that can only have power if they continue to allow it to have power.
Word of advice to the Democrats : Stop acting like the minority and stop treating the Bush GOP like they are the majority. You have the upper hand - you just have to figure out how to play it to your advantage.
The majority of the American people are thoroughly fed up and disgusted with the Bush Administration and the war, now is not the time to back down.
Do the Democrats believe that they were elected to the majority in order to protect the Status Quo?
Yesterdays vote was monumental because it proves to the American people which Democrats actually want to end the war and which Democrats say they want to end the war just to get elected.
I congratulate the Democrats who voted against the bill, who will be attacked as "not supporting the troops". Hogwash. Supporting the troops is getting them out of a civil war that has zero connections to September 11 and zero to do with real freedom and Democracy.
To the other Democrats I say "Where is your integrity? Where are your convictions? Do you actually believe cooperating with Bush is going to do you or America any good?
The Democrats just made a monumental mistake, their approval ratings will likely take a dip after backing down to Bush and the Republicans which the majority of the American people have grown to despise.
WE DIDN'T ELECT THEM TO COWAR DOWN TO THE GOP AND BUSH. WE ELECTED THEM TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THE GOP AND BUSH.
Some Democrats will say "Well, if we had voted 'no' we would have been called unpatriotic" and so on and so forth.
The reality is, no matter what way the Democrats would have voted, the Republicans already had ready made ammunition to use against them. It would not matter which way Democrats vote, Republicans have an angle to attack it from :
If Democrats vote "no" they will be accused of being unpatriotic, not supporting the troops, waving the flag to al-Qaeda, etc.
If Democrats vote "yes" the Republicans can in turn say Democrats did not even try to do what they said they would do, which was end the war. Therefore, Democrats don't do what they say they will do so why vote for them anyway?
So if the other Democrats had any brains or integrity they should have just bit the bullet like the brave Democrats who voted "no" did.
I admit that I originally thought that the Democrats should let Bush have a bill without time-lines.
But after witnessing the spoiled brat Bush dig his heels in and refuse to sign two bills, one which the time-lines could have been waived I realized that it is high time for the Democrats to put an end to this shit and fight back, see how the other side likes it.
But what happened? The Democrats backed down, or I should say the majority of Democrats backed down to the evilness that can only have power if they continue to allow it to have power.
Word of advice to the Democrats : Stop acting like the minority and stop treating the Bush GOP like they are the majority. You have the upper hand - you just have to figure out how to play it to your advantage.
The majority of the American people are thoroughly fed up and disgusted with the Bush Administration and the war, now is not the time to back down.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Who's Really Irreverent, Reckless And Unfortunate?
Jimmy Carter may have been a bad president but he tried to be a good man who exhibited fairness and honesty that is unmatched by any other former Presidents who are still living.
Indeed, although I can tolerate Jimmy Carter's simple countryman demeanor I would be likely to vote him to be one of the least successful Democratic Presidents of all time.
But as far as I know it is two Republicans, Nixon and Bush, who are still competing to be the most unsuccessful and corruption driven President's of all time.
With that written I note that recently Jimmy Carter commented that the Bush Administration was the worst Administration in American history.
Well, of course the White House fired back, calling Jimmy Carter "irreverent" and his comments "sad", "reckless" and "unfortunate".
But I challenge the White House or anyone else for that matter to find a more counterproductive and disastrous Administration in American history than the Bush Administration.
I disagree with the opportunistic soothsayers who believe that history will vindicate the Bush Administration and see President Bush as tackling Islamic extremism.
History will be leveled against the Bush Administration in a way that will likely make today's Conservative political commentators look deceitful or deluded.
The vision of history will not be tainted by the fresh emotional memories of 9/11, but based on the cold hard facts.
A President elected under controversy.
9/11, a terrorist attack that could have been prevented if the Bush Administration had heeded the warnings.
The Iraq War, preemptive invasion based on fabricated and fraudulent intelligence.
Guantanamo, a torture haven that symbolizes what is wrong with American Democracy.
Abramoff. Signing statements. Katrina. Scooter Libby. The Attorney General scandal. Illegal spying. Ashcroft in the hospital.
The impact of George W. Bush is much more significant and much more negative than any other President in recent history.
President Bush has gone far beyond the actions of Nixon and the only reason he is still in the White House is because the 109th and 110th Congress refuse to hold him accountable for his actions.
In the future historians will no longer look to Richard Nixon as being the prime example of great rises to power that were destroyed by their own scandal, corruption and overall lawlessness, it will be President George W. Bush.
Maybe Carter has become irreverent and sad in his own respects.
But it is the Bush Administration that is so wracked with failure and corruption that it is they who have become the very definition of reckless and unfortunate.
Indeed, although I can tolerate Jimmy Carter's simple countryman demeanor I would be likely to vote him to be one of the least successful Democratic Presidents of all time.
But as far as I know it is two Republicans, Nixon and Bush, who are still competing to be the most unsuccessful and corruption driven President's of all time.
With that written I note that recently Jimmy Carter commented that the Bush Administration was the worst Administration in American history.
Well, of course the White House fired back, calling Jimmy Carter "irreverent" and his comments "sad", "reckless" and "unfortunate".
But I challenge the White House or anyone else for that matter to find a more counterproductive and disastrous Administration in American history than the Bush Administration.
I disagree with the opportunistic soothsayers who believe that history will vindicate the Bush Administration and see President Bush as tackling Islamic extremism.
History will be leveled against the Bush Administration in a way that will likely make today's Conservative political commentators look deceitful or deluded.
The vision of history will not be tainted by the fresh emotional memories of 9/11, but based on the cold hard facts.
A President elected under controversy.
9/11, a terrorist attack that could have been prevented if the Bush Administration had heeded the warnings.
The Iraq War, preemptive invasion based on fabricated and fraudulent intelligence.
Guantanamo, a torture haven that symbolizes what is wrong with American Democracy.
Abramoff. Signing statements. Katrina. Scooter Libby. The Attorney General scandal. Illegal spying. Ashcroft in the hospital.
The impact of George W. Bush is much more significant and much more negative than any other President in recent history.
President Bush has gone far beyond the actions of Nixon and the only reason he is still in the White House is because the 109th and 110th Congress refuse to hold him accountable for his actions.
In the future historians will no longer look to Richard Nixon as being the prime example of great rises to power that were destroyed by their own scandal, corruption and overall lawlessness, it will be President George W. Bush.
Maybe Carter has become irreverent and sad in his own respects.
But it is the Bush Administration that is so wracked with failure and corruption that it is they who have become the very definition of reckless and unfortunate.
Monday, May 14, 2007
General Eaton Ad Unveiled
From VoteVets.Org :
"On the heels of the ad that rocked the political world, retired Major General Paul Eaton takes to the airwaves to say that the President doesn’t listen to his commanders on the ground. General Eaton should know whether the President really listens to his commanders on the ground, or not. General Eaton recently retired from the US Army after more than 33 years service. His most recent operational assignment was Commanding General of the command charged with reestablishing Iraqi Security Forces from 2003-2004, where he built the command and established the structure and infrastructure for the Iraqi Armed Forces."
"On the heels of the ad that rocked the political world, retired Major General Paul Eaton takes to the airwaves to say that the President doesn’t listen to his commanders on the ground. General Eaton should know whether the President really listens to his commanders on the ground, or not. General Eaton recently retired from the US Army after more than 33 years service. His most recent operational assignment was Commanding General of the command charged with reestablishing Iraqi Security Forces from 2003-2004, where he built the command and established the structure and infrastructure for the Iraqi Armed Forces."
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Seven Lies Multiplied By Seven, Multiplied By Seven Again
The video below is something I found on YouTube.Com and found to be incredibly creative and entertaining.
Is it hyperbolic? Is it provocative? The answer is yes, but in this case perhaps that is what makes it so entertaining.
The video below is something I found on YouTube.Com and found to be incredibly creative and entertaining.
Is it hyperbolic? Is it provocative? The answer is yes, but in this case perhaps that is what makes it so entertaining.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
General Warned Bush Not To Publicize Tillman Death
Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press.
It was not until a month afterward that the Pentagon told the public and grieving family members the truth _ that Tillman was mistakenly killed in Afghanistan by his comrades.
The memo reinforces suspicions that the Pentagon was more concerned with sparing officials from embarrassment than with leveling with Tillman's family.
Read The Full Story
Chasing The Ghost Writes:
To me, Pat Tillman always seemed like G.I. Joe, but only real. The real American hero.
What they used Tillman for was terrible. Just terrible. Look what they did to our true American hero. A man who gave up his NFL career to serve in the military was killed by friendly fire, only to have his President use him as a martyr to bolster support for the war cause.
They used his death as a political platform.
While Bush showcased the bravery and integrity of Pat Tillman, he did it knowing that Pat was not killed by the enemy, but by friendly fire.
How could Bush lie to Pat's family like that, to the Nation like that? The same way he lied to us about everything else I suppose.
They disgraced Pat, and what they did was was inexcusably cruel and maniacal. They lied to his family about how he really died to score political points. That's so dishonorable, only a scoundrel would consider it.
They said, "Look at Pat, what a hero - he died for this country - he was killed by the enemy." It made the heart swell pride and patriotism at the same time, but half of it was a lie.
Pat Tillman is a hero, he did die for his country. But the enemy didn't kill him, his own country did.
His own President disrespected his memory by making false statements and convincing people of war stories that were not true. All in the name of politics, and support for the war.
If I didn't think Bush could get any lower, I've just been proven wrong.
Rest in peace, Pat Tillman. Thank God the truth was told about your death.
Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press.
It was not until a month afterward that the Pentagon told the public and grieving family members the truth _ that Tillman was mistakenly killed in Afghanistan by his comrades.
The memo reinforces suspicions that the Pentagon was more concerned with sparing officials from embarrassment than with leveling with Tillman's family.
Read The Full Story
Chasing The Ghost Writes:
To me, Pat Tillman always seemed like G.I. Joe, but only real. The real American hero.
What they used Tillman for was terrible. Just terrible. Look what they did to our true American hero. A man who gave up his NFL career to serve in the military was killed by friendly fire, only to have his President use him as a martyr to bolster support for the war cause.
They used his death as a political platform.
While Bush showcased the bravery and integrity of Pat Tillman, he did it knowing that Pat was not killed by the enemy, but by friendly fire.
How could Bush lie to Pat's family like that, to the Nation like that? The same way he lied to us about everything else I suppose.
They disgraced Pat, and what they did was was inexcusably cruel and maniacal. They lied to his family about how he really died to score political points. That's so dishonorable, only a scoundrel would consider it.
They said, "Look at Pat, what a hero - he died for this country - he was killed by the enemy." It made the heart swell pride and patriotism at the same time, but half of it was a lie.
Pat Tillman is a hero, he did die for his country. But the enemy didn't kill him, his own country did.
His own President disrespected his memory by making false statements and convincing people of war stories that were not true. All in the name of politics, and support for the war.
If I didn't think Bush could get any lower, I've just been proven wrong.
Rest in peace, Pat Tillman. Thank God the truth was told about your death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
