Buying German

That's because the lobbyists that put him there have made great deals of money exploiting cheap foreign labor. And BTW, in response to the title of this thread... I thought I was buying German and it turns out that I bought Mexican ('01 Jetta Wolfsburg). So at least he'd be happy I'm taking advantage of NAFTA (although I know it wasn't his idea). After all, that, too, is making his handlers very wealthy (while our nation bleeds to death).

Hey! Who are you referring to - do you mean Bush or some ramvw poster?

Richard Schulman used to pop up and tell us how irresponsible Germany was for not supporting America during the run up to the war.

I guess it just sucks that they were right.

After reading all that stuff in your post, it's funny that you're calling him the zealot.

No, I'm not a zealot, I'm just really upset that no one is calling the administration to account for bald faced lying. It's one thing to be genuinely in error, but that isn't what happened.

I just had to comment, even if this is way off the subject of VW's, even if you hook up the oil issue and the German refusal to go along with Bush.

I am no fan of the Bush. I support the bumper sticker I saw the other day "Let's kick the son of a Bush out." BTW I was a fan of his father.

However I am responding to the misuse of the two quotes. The two quotes are NOT conunterdictory (sp?). Sadam was not allowing the full inspection that he had agreed to. Inspectors were not being allowed into all the areas they should have been, even if they were allowed in the country.

I totally disagree with the decision to go to war at the time it was made. If it had not been made, I expect it would have had to been and would have been made later, but we will never know.

Again the suggestion that the two statements make Bush a liar is not correct. ( I am not sure he is not a liar, but not in this case.)

Bush as done enough to be ashamed of, without inventing something he did not do.

Contradictory.

You could be right, but I don't recall Hans Blix complaining about it. They all seemed very confident that there wasn't much to be found.

Fair enough.

As I recall it as well.

As Joseph Meehan says, even if this is way off the subject of VW's...this last statement makes no sense. If you are searching for something, but are denied access to parts of your search area, how on earth can you be "very confident that there wasn't much to be found"?

What I'm saying is that I don't recall hearing Hans Blix complaining about significantly reduced searching areas, with the exception of palaces and ministry buildings.

Hey, no worries, at least we aren't calling each other names yet! ;)

Gotcha...I misunderstood

Tony

I don't recall hearing Hans Blix complaining that he couldn't get into the country *at all* until US forces were deployed to the region to enforce the UN resolutions. You're not alone in your dislike of Bush but you need to give credit where credit is due.

Good thing...my wife has been after me to clean up my language since we have two little ones around. My name calling has therefore lost much of its bite...poop head just don't cut it in a good flame war!

Seeing as they had solid intelligence that the WMDs had been destroyed as early as '95, it's kind of a moot point, isn't it?

Bush's approach was never about enforcing the UN's resolutions, it was about invasion from day one, which is why they went to such lengths to tie Saddam to bin Laden, despite the fact that the only thing those two had in common was a hatred of the US.

Bleating distortions repeatedly doesn't make them true - except in the mind of a confused zealot. I guess this makes you the resident neo-con(fused) zealot.

Have you heard the name "Hussein Kamel" before?

?From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,? says O?Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

?From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,? says Suskind. ?Day one, these things were laid and sealed.?

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ?Go find me a way to do this,?" says O?Neill. ?For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.?

Bleating distortions? Like the existence of Iraq's WMDs? Or it's nuclear weapons program?