Homestead mailing list

["Lisa K.V. Perry" <lisakvperry AT gmail.com>]

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 10:00 AM, <Clansgian AT wmconnect.com> wrote:

>
> > >Why not?  In my book he did. Absolutely 110%. Particularly now that the
> > report has been published.
>
> In the book of the devoted anti-Bush, he is lying if he orders a
> cheeseburger
> at McDonalds.  The definition of a lie is that you know positively that it
> is
> untrue when you say it.  That is not in evidence.


When I read that the information was there and those around him (Cheney,
Rumsfelt, other advisors) were privy to the same information, but they went
ahead and *purposefully* misinformed the public (for their own agenda), what
should we call it?

>
> Congress had the same information as Bush.
>

Yes. That doesn't make it any better. But he didn't need their approval. He
had constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military (Article
II, Sec. 2). Further, he could attack under the terms of the 9/14/2001
congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism (S.J.
Res. 23).

>
> To anyone with at least half a brain it was obvious that the war was
> prosecuted to keep Iraq from setting up its own non-dollar oil burse.  The
> real cause of the war was the people's unwillingness to accept the reality
> of the 'long
> emergency' energy difficulties that were shortly to arrive around the
> corner.
> Many cannot accept it to this day.


James, no kidding. But I still think Bush lied. Gene's post came in while I
was composing mine and I agree with him.

I would have preferred for all the war billions to have been spent on
developing energy solutions that can work, on education, on health care, on
maintenance of mass transit and roads, on anything other than war. And then
there is the matter of lives lost, thousands seriously injured and all that
entails.

Thanks to Bush.

lkvp