Actually, it's because you're an annoying prick, Dr. Lava. Try reading "War and Decision" by Feith, and pull your simplistic head out of your neither orifice.

Nether. Damn. Need. More... Coffee....

Don't know who Bugliosi is?

Actually, I do know who Vincent Bugliosi is. He is one of the most pathetic, self-aggrandizing blowhard publicity whores in public life. The guy makes Melvin Belli look like a nun. So of course Bugliosi wrote a book arguing that Bush should be impeached. Bugliosi would write a book arguing that Elvis was kidnapped by aliens if it would get him 5 minutes TV time.

I am in a quandry about who is more pathetic: kucinich, bugliosi, or the ass-wipe lava who worships these losers. Could any of em count their balls and come up with the same number twice?

Lunatic fringe, Kazoo Kucinic know's He's out there!

Never mind all the million's of unborn Children You support the murder of Dennis, U piece of sh-t.

When Clinton had a no bid contract for Haliburton it was good.
When Clinton and other democrats spoke of WMDs in Iraq it was good and we needed to do something. (but like gasoline prices they wont do something)

Yup -

That's the Democratic way, it would seem. Never fix a problem - you may need it for political reasons later.

dr lava:

Quick question, does Bugliosi's book cover the brainwashing of the Clinton Administration (and the leading Intelligence Agencies of the entire world) by the Bush Administration? You remember of course, that Karl Rove was the mastermind of that one as well, as he knew by his direct communication line to Satan himself that Bush would become president in 2000 and 2004.

You also forgot to mention 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the Bush Administration. Your nutty moonbattery is woefully incomplete without these little "facts".

Congress passing the bill submitted by Slick Willie to remove Saddam had nothing to do with it. Congress's vote to remove Saddam submitted by Bush had nothing to do with it. Saddam's violation of the U.N. mandates had nothing to do with it. Congress having access to the same intel as the rest of the world had nothing to do with it. Bush was simply blood thirsty. Democrats are truly retarded to the point they should be locked up. Then as the Paramedics, who have to spend several days at the nut house to complete their license say, 'you can't tell the patients from the doctors'. You really can't tell the worst enemy of freedom in the world from a democrat.

Recommending a book by Dougie Feith, whom Tommy Franks referred to as "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth" is no way to make a point, JLawson. Not that I think anybody ought to pay too much attention to Dennis Kucinich.

Of course you wouldn't bother to read such a book, Hyperbolist - but if you're looking for a non-biased explanation of a lot of Bush's thinking (and I realize that asking you to look at a non-biased close source to what was going on in the White House is about like asking you to think instead of emote and recite talking points like a parrot - it's pretty much a futile request) you could do a lot worse - like reading Bremer's book, where he basically blew off all attempts by Iraqis both inside and outside the country to organize themselves into a provisional government, and extended the temporary government a lot longer than was necessary.

But that, again, requires you to read and analyze and fit together facts that just don't lend themselves well to ideological sound bites.

If any book is to be read, that book should be Saddam's Secrets, written by Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada. Sada was a member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle of advisers, and Sada claims that Hussein had WMDs removed from Iraq before the U.S. military arrived.

Why would I read a book by Jerry Bremer? I'm not interested in Scott McClellan's book either. Feith is an ideological hack, pure and simple (ever heard what he has to say about the Geneva Conventions?). I prefer investigative reporting with a broad array of sources, like Sy Hersh. I expect you hold the guy in utter contempt, though.

Say, do you like Cormac McCarthy, or Joseph Heller? I'm sure there's somebody we could agree on... :)

Dodo David--sounds like a great read! Also cannot wait for Ahmed Chalabi's tell-all (hello, Regnery!), so we can finally figure out where exactly all those WMDs were.

Sy Hersh? Vaguely heard of him.

(Quick google later...) Oh, he writes for the New Yorker. (Oddly enough, it's not mandatory reading for all citizens. Yet.) He's also a conspiracy theorist - KAL-007 was a Reagan operation. And he's done lots of 'exposing' of government plans.

Hersh makes frequent reference to anonymous sources in his reporting; some have criticized this usage, implying that some of these sources are unreliable or even made up. In a review of Hersh's book, Chain of Command, neo-conservative commentator Amir Taheri wrote, "As soon as he has made an assertion he cites a "source" to back it. In every case this is either an un-named former official or an unidentified secret document passed to Hersh in unknown circumstances... By my count Hersh has anonymous 'sources' inside 30 foreign governments and virtually every department of the US government."[26]

David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, maintains that he is aware of the identity of all of Hersh's unnamed sources, telling the Columbia Journalism Review that "I know every single source that is in his pieces.... Every 'retired intelligence officer,' every general with reason to know, and all those phrases that one has to use, alas, by necessity, I say, 'Who is it? What's his interest?' We talk it through."[27]

In a response to an article in the New Yorker in which Hersh alleged that the U.S. government was planning a strike on Iran, U.S. Defense Department spokesman Brian Whitman said, "This reporter has a solid and well-earned reputation for making dramatic assertions based on thinly sourced, unverifiable anonymous sources."Of course, unsupportable and unsourceable allegations are the meat and drink of modern journalism, aren't they. And the fact he can't/won't tell what his sources are just makes him that much more trustworthy, right? From what I see in the Wiki on him, he's trying hard to relive his glory days in Viet Nam, the My Lai massacre.

Hypie - look, I realize that we're coming from different viewpoints here - but come on. Do you apply the same skeptical thought to ALL sides of your belief system, or do you just go "Um, proper orientation, matching what I believe - yep, that's gotta be true!"

Feith's book is copiously footnoted, with verifiable sources and information. Hersch seems to throw that sort of sourcing out. And he's somehow more credible?

Anyone ever accused you of being overly credulous, Hyperbolist?

Idiocracy