H. Kenney: Bush's clear line

Steven Reed's letter to the editor, published Sept. 16, was partially right when he wrote "President Bush presented a clear line to Congress only after the United Nations voted on sanctions against Iraq."

Bush presented a clear line of deception. There were no weapons of mass destruction. None, nada, zero. It was only by that deception, presented to the U.N. (and the world), that the U.S. could strike Iraq.

A trillion dollars later, and damage to the nation's credibility that has crippled U.S. efforts for peace in Syria, it is Russian President Vladimir Putin who now leads the peace dance.

Hazen Kenney, Norway

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



 's picture

What is a lie?

American English Dictionary: noun - an intentionally false statement

When GWB flew to Iraq for Thanksgiving and had his photo taken holding a fake turkey centerpiece, every Bush hater in the country started bleating: Look! He's lying again.

The WMD kerfuffle was also promoted by a bunch of turkeys. The key word always ignored is: intentionally.

Get over it! Obama has told, and sold, so many lies, he makes GWB look like GW reincarnated.

 's picture

Like what

Bush lies were intentional and documented. All Republicans can do to counter the truth is vague statements about some other lies without specific lies or sources or proof.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Isn't it odd how no one from

Isn't it odd how no one from the left has any concerns over the absence of proof that the gassing in Syria was actually committed by Assad and not the rebels? In fact, the WMDs in Syria are probably the very same ones that were in Iraq before Hussein had them moved to Syria prior to our arrival.
You ask, "What is a lie", Mike? It's been said that to a liberal, truth is but a lie undiscovered. So, I guess one could surmise that to a liberal a lie is truth.

 's picture

mix unfounded conjectures with pure lies what do you get;

"WMD's is Syria are probably the very same ones that were in Iraq". First, no proof and no evidence that any WMD's were in Iraq. Second, no proof and only evidence one statement from Israel that WMD's were moved from Iraq to Syria. Third, Israel destroyed a WMD plant in Syria not weapons some years ago. Syria was and is quite capable of producing WMD's all by itself.
Only the Assad has said that the Russians have evidence that the gas was fired from an area controlled by the rebels. Now that's an independent source. That's like Bush saying that Great Britain was certain Hussein had WMDs.
Would you like to offer some facts? No, thought not.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

No need to be a smart ass,

No need to be a smart ass, Jon.
Where is the proof that Assad gassed his own people. Proof, Jon, proof.

Bruce Hixon's picture

It is the lessons of the past

that will intelligently guide the solutions of the future. Ignoring these lessons makes arguments easier, but ineffective.

 's picture

When does the intelligent guiding start?

For five years it's been nothing but blame the past - and, yes, that's ineffective.

Bruce Hixon's picture

quick change

I should have said "contemporary arguments" sorry!

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Here we go again. Bush is

Here we go again. Bush is gone folks. Focus on the contemporary.

 's picture

Yea, ignore history, ignore facts, take the contemporary

completely out of context because why, because to admit to the past you would have to admit that views, opinions, and outlandish conclusions like yours are the source of our contemporary problems.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Simply blaming Bush without

Simply blaming Bush without putting history in contemproray context is simply blaming Bush. History is not being used to guide contemprary polices.

Simply blaming Bush is not using history in a constructive manner. Hence, the need to say "here we go again."


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...