Bush

[andyfox]

From the President's speech today:

"September the 11th also changed the way I viewed threats like Saddam Hussein."

"One of the blessings of our free society is that we can debate these issues openly, even in a time of war. Most of the debate has been a credit to our democracy, but some have launched irresponsible charges. They say that we act because of oil, that we act in Iraq because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. Some of the most irresponsible comments about manipulating intelligence have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence we saw, and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These charges are pure politics. They hurt the morale of our troops. Whatever our differences in Washington, our men and women in uniform deserve to know that once our politicians vote to send them into harm's way, our support will be with them in good days and bad, and we will settle for nothing less than complete victory."

The president is a liar.

The evidence is crystal clear that the administration saw 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, not as a reason. The administration did all it could to link 9/11 with Iraq in the public's mind. That's how it came to pass that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 only 3% thought Saddam Hussein was directly involved and on the eve of the invasion 60% did. He is still linking Hussein with 9/11 today, witness the first quotation above.

The president's most prominent critics in congress have not said we have acted because of oil or because of Israel. The president is deliberately and misleadingly linking the far left critics of his policies with his critics in Congress.

The politicians who have said he manipulated intelligence did not see the same intelligence the president saw. They do not and did not see his daily intelligence briefings. They did not pressure bureaucrats to find a link between 9/11 and Iraq, as the president himself did. They did not send Colin Powell to the UN with intelligence that should have had question marks, but instead had exclamation points. Intelligence was clearly manipulated to try to shape American and world public opinion.

What evidence is there for that criticism of the administration’s handling of Iraq harms the morale of the troops? The Democrats who voted to use force against Hussein did not vote for an occupation of Iraq. What they voted for was to user force to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

The most irresponsible charges have been made by the administration, in particular, by the President and the Vice President.

[BluffTHIS!]

Link to previous thread: If Bush Was a Liar on Iraq Then So Were the Libs (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=3934495&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1)

OK, he's a liar. File charges. Get it over with, or get over it.
Jeeze, andy.

[andyfox]

I didn't make the speech today. Once he gets over it, I will. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[cardcounter0]

{insert question about any problem here}

Bush's answer: 9/11. Evil doers. Stay the course. 9/11.

[cardcounter0]

The Democrats who voted to use force against Hussein did not vote for an occupation of Iraq. What they voted for was to user force to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.


What part are you unable to comprehend?

[elwoodblues]

Either file charges or ignore it. There is no other logical/reasonable response.

[sweetjazz]

Andy, some perspective:

First, Bush's speeches don't reflect his inner thought process at all. While the president make his decisions without reference to polls (as he claims and I find this claim plausible), all of his speeches are poll-driven. Survey groups are constantly formed, and the reasons for a policy that are given are speeches are ones that poll well. Everybody -- no matter how they feel about Iraq -- want our troops to be safe and would like them to have high morale. That's why Bush always pulls the "all criticism hurts troop morale" card. It's effective on a lot of moderate people who don't spend much time thinking about Iraq. The use of polling to sell policy has been steadily rising over the past several decades. Clinton did it more than any predecessor as far as I can tell (though Reagan may have been close). The Bush administration has just taken it to another level.

The administration repeatedly deflects criticism by mischaracterizing what their opposition says and using stupid, misleading arguments. This is nothing new and Democrats try to do it just as much. Bush is just really good at it. This is the administration which keeps talking about all the progress that has been made in Iraq -- as a convenient distraction to the fact that the insurgency has also grown in strength during the past two years. But why should that reality stop them from predicting that the insurgency is in its "last throes?" Like any good political machine, this administration is fantastic about giving Americans a false sense of security.

There doesn't seem to be anything factually inaccurate in what the president said (except perhaps the same intelligence claim -- and even that is still more or less true to a certain degree). Of course, each sentence is barely connected to the next, and so he conveniently brings up campus lefties who make the ignorant oil claims right before talking about people in Congress. He doesn't say that the people in Congress were making the oil claims, but it certainly seems that he doesn't mind if people make the association anyway.

Notice how meaningless his final sentence is. Our troops need to know that "our support will be with them in good days and bad." Of course, there has been constant support for our troops throughout the war, and rightly so. What Democrats don't support are some of the administration's strategical decisions in Iraq. Bush manages to subtly conflate support for the administration's inept policies with support for the troop's heroic efforts.

And then he adds that "we will settle for nothing less than complete victory." What does that mean? That we won't leave Iraq until every insurgent is captured or killed? That is a ridiculously unreasonable goal. What does "complete victory" mean? Conveniently, it means nothing and doesn't even make sense as a goal in Iraq. But it sounds good to imply that Democrats don't want "complete victory."

It's not that Bush tries to get away with direct lies (which would be a foolish thing to do). It's just that his administration is willing to say anything that could be construed as factually accurate if it supports their cause, and will try to deflect attention from any facts that don't help their cause. Throw in some meaningless propoganda, and you have a typical Bush speech. Most people would say that what they do fits into what is legitimate for politicians to do. Maybe so, but unfortuantely, it's not in our country's best interests. (And BOTH PARTIES do this all the time, and the general public doesn't complain loudly enough against BOTH SIDES when they do it.)

[ QUOTE ]
Either file charges or ignore it. There is no other logical/reasonable response.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you can continue whining.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either file charges or ignore it. There is no other logical/reasonable response.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you can continue whining.

[/ QUOTE ]

... coming from the folks that still haven't stopped "whining" about anyone named Clinton, now 5 years after the fact.

Put a sock in it.

If I was guilty of whining about WJC, or his wife, you'd have a reason to make your pissy post. I'm not.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
From the President's speech today:

"September the 11th also changed the way I viewed threats like Saddam Hussein."
------------------------------------------------------------
The president is a liar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't it A. Fox who said that all politicians are not to be trusted? If indeed Bush lied (and I'm far from convinced of that), it really shouldn't surprise you, no? But I don't think the quote above is a lie, or even out of place, and here's why: an encounter with a grave damaging attack ought to make you, me, Bush or anyone else more sensitive to perceived potential future threats. Just as if your home once got burgled and seriously vandalized, you might then install a more advanced alarm system and an away light-timing device (and/or perhaps a Doberman or two;-)). The event would have the potential to change the way you view potential threats of burglary and vandalism. Similarly, the 9/11 attacks opened our eyes (and Bush's eyes) in a very real way to our potential vulnerabilities. If Saddam's WMD programs had been more active (as they were thought to be) instead of mothballed or in hibernation, there would naturally have been greater cause for concern regarding Iraq after 9/11.

[ QUOTE ]
"One of the blessings of our free society is that we can debate these issues openly, even in a time of war. Most of the debate has been a credit to our democracy, but some have launched irresponsible charges. They say that we act because of oil, that we act in Iraq because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. Some of the most irresponsible comments about manipulating intelligence have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence we saw, and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These charges are pure politics. They hurt the morale of our troops. Whatever our differences in Washington, our men and women in uniform deserve to know that once our politicians vote to send them into harm's way, our support will be with them in good days and bad, and we will settle for nothing less than complete victory."
-----------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is crystal clear that the administration saw 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, not as a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

He wasn't saying above that it was a "reason." Perhaps it was in part an "excuse", but even if so, there were plenty of other good reasons to invade Iraq and depose its megalomaniacal murderous dictator and his unspeakably evil regime.

[ QUOTE ]
The administration did all it could to link 9/11 with Iraq in the public's mind. That's how it came to pass that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 only 3% thought Saddam Hussein was directly involved and on the eve of the invasion 60% did. He is still linking Hussein with 9/11 today, witness the first quotation above.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don;t recall all the verbiage right after 9/11 or in what manner it was linked. However, the first quotation above is not linking Iraq to the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks.

[ QUOTE ]
The president's most prominent critics in congress have not said we have acted because of oil or because of Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't look up all of Dean's quotes, or Kennedy's, or a few others; but I wouldn't be too sure of that if I were you--it sounds just about in character for the Deaniac or perhaps for Kennedy.

[ QUOTE ]
The president is deliberately and misleadingly linking the far left critics of his policies with his critics in Congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well as above I don't have a compendium of relevant quotes handy, but I think some of the Far Left's criticisms of Bush has been more or less echoed by Dean and perhaps by Boxer, Pelosi or Kennedy.

[ QUOTE ]
The politicians who have said he manipulated intelligence did not see the same intelligence the president saw. They do not and did not see his daily intelligence briefings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congress had access to the same raw intelligence the CIA had. They could have requested any intelligence which they hadn't read. Isn't that part of their job, when it comes to making decisions--their job is to be informed--they could have requested any intelligence reports they wished. And did they even bother to thoroughly read that which they got?

[ QUOTE ]
They did not pressure bureaucrats to find a link between 9/11 and Iraq, as the president himself did. They did not send Colin Powell to the UN with intelligence that should have had question marks, but instead had exclamation points. Intelligence was clearly manipulated to try to shape American and world public opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

All intelligence reports are eventually summed up into "findings." These findings are supposed to be the best estimates--or guesstimates--based on the available information. I will grant you that the emphasis in that particular example might have been deliberately skewed. However, Iraq HAD tried previously to purchase yellowcake in years past from an African country, so even if the more recent incident was wrong (or mis-emphasized), in essence it was not all that far off anyway. Just a matter of some years' difference, and who would have believed that Saddam actually had mothballed his WMD programs, or probably more actually, put them into hibernation. However, I will grant that this particular example may indeed be a salesman-like case of "spin." Not that bad if it was, in my opinion, though I'm sure you'll disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
What evidence is there for that criticism of the administration’s handling of Iraq harms the morale of the troops?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence? Just likelihood is all. The negative vibes come from the media incessantly and we almost never hear of the progresses being made. I can't see how that would HELP troop morale and I think it is a reasonable assumption that tons of criticism probably hurts morale (at least to some degree).

[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats who voted to use force against Hussein did not vote for an occupation of Iraq. What they voted for was to use force to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which, if things in Iraq had actually been in line with intelligence guesstimates, would have meant invading Iraq and deposing Saddam and his regime.

[ QUOTE ]
The most irresponsible charges been made by the administration, in particular, by the President and the Vice President.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think Dean (especially), and probably Kennedy, Kerry and others have made charges more irresponsible.

Damn, I thought I was going to see some NSFW pictures. I like how GW says "we will settle for nothing less than complete victory". Didn't he say "mission accomplished" two years ago? I thought the war was over.

[MMMMMM]

I split the quotes and your responses in the interest of trying to respond to and address one point at a time. If this in any way altered your meaning or emphasis (I don't think it did, but I'm not 100% sure of that), then I apologize.

Shorter MMMMMM:

I have an almost religious faith in the correcteness of right-wing talking points. So I see no need for actual evidence to show what Congressional critics actually said. Nor do I see any need for actual evidence of any harm to "morale". Bush said it, and it fits with what I want to believe, so it must be true.

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you can continue whining.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or maybe you could continue having a reasonable debate about the issue on a politics forum.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The evidence is crystal clear that the administration saw 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, not as a reason.

Pure semantics.

What evidence is there for that criticism of the administration’s handling of Iraq harms the morale of the troops?

because it plants the seed of doubt that, when the time comes to fund the war, that Congress may not take the appropriate steps to provide the means for victory.

The Democrats who voted to use force against Hussein did not vote for an occupation of Iraq.

Talk about nit-picking. Vote for force but then reserve the right to cop out when you don't agree with the tactics? Makes zero sense.


What they voted for was to user force to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.


And that is precisely what we are doing over there. Though I'd say the threat to the US is not just Iraq, but Iran as well. We need a base of operations against Iran.

This war has been brewing for most of our lifetime, Andy. We've ignored it, sticking our heads in the sand like the US did in the 30's with Germany, preferring to live in a dream world where a safe, peaceful world comes about because we wish it to be that way.

You're right. It's not Iraq that was the real threat to the US, but Iraq has always been a piece of the problem. Liberating Iraq from Saddam is not the end of the problem. It's just the first step.

I applaud Bush for taking a the first decisive step in making the world a better place for my grandson.

[ QUOTE ]
First, Bush's speeches don't reflect his inner thought process at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

LoL!!! OMG!!!

He has no inner thought process besides "I'm awesome, I could go for a cocktail." Karl Rove is in charge, Bush is a figure-head.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
The evidence is crystal clear that the administration saw 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, not as a reason.

Pure semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so. What evidence is their that Iraq or any of it's agencies have any links to 9/11. Or failing that show me how 'excuse' and 'reason' mean essentially the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
What evidence is there for that criticism of the administration’s handling of Iraq harms the morale of the troops?

because it plants the seed of doubt that, when the time comes to fund the war, that Congress may not take the appropriate steps to provide the means for victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like not supplying the numbers and equipment they need for the job. FYI, they already know.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not Iraq that was the real threat to the US, but Iraq has always been a piece of the problem. Liberating Iraq from Saddam is not the end of the problem. It's just the first step.

I applaud Bush for taking a the first decisive step in making the world a better place for my grandson.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs but if the cook sucks your grandson won't thank you for it.

[andyfox]

"If indeed Bush lied (and I'm far from convinced of that), it really shouldn't surprise you, no?"

No, of course not. That's his job, to lie. There has never been a politician of any political stripe who didn't lie when leading his country into war. You know when a war-bound leader is lying--he's moving his lips.

The statement "September the 11th also changed the way I viewed threats like Saddam Hussein" was said to insinuate that the invasion of Iraq was necessitated by 9/11 in the context of the new situation. This is demonstrably false. The key players in the administration were on public record supporting regime change in Iraq. At Camp David in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Wolfowitz made a presentation to attack Iraq. Bush himself cornered Richard Clarke and pressed him to see if Saddam Hussein was involved. (The White House for months denied that the meeting even took place, before having to backtrack and admit that it did.) Rumsfeld asked for a plan to bomb Iraq and, when queried if he didn't mean Afghanistan, said, "There are no good targets is Afghanistan." Woolsey went on record as favoring invading Iraq even if it were found it had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 was the justification for going into Iraq, not the reason.

As far as Congress doing their job, they didn't. They rubber stamped what the president wanted, not wanting to seem soft. I doubt very many members read the intelligence. And certainly their Monday morning quarterbacking reaks of politics.

What irresponsible charges have Dean, Kennedy and Kerry made that compare with those made by the administration that led to war?

[Beer and Pizza]

andy,

I'm glad you posted this. I was afraid someone was going to post about the democratic election being held in Iraq today. We don't need threads praising Bush for helping the Iraqi people live in freedom. Much better that we quabble about some events in 2003 that we have discussed before.

Good job on keeping the forum focused on the appropriate topics. The history of Bush's day to day actions in 2003 is much more important than the future of those millions of Iraqi people for years to come.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Or failing that show me how 'excuse' and 'reason' mean essentially the same thing.

If you agree, it's a "reason." If you disagree, it's an "excuse."

Ok you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs but if the cook sucks your grandson won't thank you for it.

I'll take that chance. Better than continuing to mollycoddle Islamist scum. (yes, I know Saddam was ostensibly secular)


What evidence is their that Iraq or any of it's agencies have any links to 9/11.

I'm sure they did everything in their power to prevent it. Yeah, right.

[andyfox]

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the key foreign policy players, were all on public record of beingin favor of regime change in Iraq during the Clinton administration. Wolfowitz made a presentation at Camp David the first week after 9/11 proposing an invasion of Iraq before anyone knew who was responsible for 9/11. Bush cornered Richard Clarke and pressured him to look for a connection between Hussein and 9/11. The White House first denied that such a confrontation took place, then backtracked to admit it had. Rumsfeld asked Clarke for targets in Iraq and when Clarke asked him if he meant Afghanistan, Rumsfeld said, "No, there are no good targets in Afghanistan." Paul O'Neill says that getting Hussein was a priority in national security meeting from the beginning of the Bush administration.

I don't know if the troops are aware of what would be the appropriate steps to provide the means of victory, but certinaly our troops know how the American politial system works and that a country where all march in lockstep to whatever the leader says would not be a country worth defending. I would think, therefore, that debate and critique would be welcomed by the troops.

When the Congress voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq, they probably thought the administration would know what they were doing. The administration, however, deliberately failed to prepare for the occupation, thus jeopardizing the lives of our troops needlessly. Had the Congress knew that the administration would ignore the recommendations of numerous government and private groups not to disband the Iraqi army, not to dismantle the infrastructure of government, not to allow looting, not to prepare for the inevitable counterinsurgency, not to treat the Iraqis as partners in security efforts for a year after the fall of Hussein, not to attempt to seriously train and equip Iraqi forces for proactive sceurity and counterinsurgency imssions until 2004--well, it is certainly understandable that it is having second thought on allowing an open-ended occupation.

I hope that the world has indeed been made a safer place by our invasion of Iraq. I fear that is has not, in large part because of the incompetence and willful arrogance of the administration. Whatever irresponsible criticism of the president there may or may not have been, the irresponsibiility of the administration in not being prepared for the occupation is by far the bigger problem.

[andyfox]

I didn't give the speech the president gave yesterday. A major speech, given by the President of the United States, on Iraq, in which, in addition to mentioning the intelligence failures for which he took reponsibility, he talked about the irresponsibility of his critics, would seem to be an important subject on the day he made the speech. It was the lead story in most media outlets, including mainstream, talk radio, and blogosphere.

[ QUOTE ]
andy,
I'm glad you posted this. I was afraid someone was going to post about the democratic election being held in Iraq today. We don't need threads praising Bush for helping the Iraqi people live in freedom. Much better that we quabble about some events in 2003 that we have discussed before.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes, we are so concerned over the 'freedom' of brown people we have never met who live half a world away.

Those events in 2003 are currently killing our boys and draining our treasury. history matters.

[ QUOTE ]
Or maybe you could continue having incessant squabbling/bickering/flame throwing about the issue on a politics forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've yet to see anything new brought up to "discuss." I've yet to see anything brought up to suggest how his "lies" can be proven and punishment administered.

What I do see is constant whining that's absolutely no different, IMO, than Repubs dragging up Monica L., missing file folders that mysteriously re-appear, homicide/suicide theories (Vince F), etc., etc. None of which ever got settled. And never will.

My original suggestion stands. Package the evidence. Take it to a grand jury. Get an indictment. Prosecute or impeach. Or shut up about it.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What evidence is there for that criticism of the administration’s handling of Iraq harms the morale of the troops?


[/ QUOTE ]
because it plants the seed of doubt that, when the time comes to fund the war, that Congress may not take the appropriate steps to provide the means for victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What evidence is their that Iraq or any of it's agencies have any links to 9/11.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure they did everything in their power to prevent it. Yeah, right.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is twice that Andy asked you to provide evidence for something and your answer was a total non sequitor. Why don't you just admit that there is no evidence for either of these propositions?

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Or failing that show me how 'excuse' and 'reason' mean essentially the same thing.

If you agree, it's a "reason." If you disagree, it's an "excuse."

[/ QUOTE ]

So they essentially mean the exact opposite of each other?

[ QUOTE ]
Ok you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs but if the cook sucks your grandson won't thank you for it.

I'll take that chance. Better than continuing to mollycoddle Islamist scum. (yes, I know Saddam was ostensibly secular)

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it OK to mollycoddle the Saudi Islamic Scum or is it just the ostensibly secular ones who don't do business the way the US want.

[ QUOTE ]
What evidence is their that Iraq or any of it's agencies have any links to 9/11.

I'm sure they did everything in their power to prevent it. Yeah, right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious?

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yes, we are so concerned over the 'freedom' of brown people we have never met who live half a world away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny thing about which Presidents care about people based on their skin color:

Bush41: Freed the brown people in Panama from a dictator.

Bush41: Freed the brown people of Kuwait from an invading dictator.

Bush41: Moved into Somalia to defend black people.

Clinton: Abandoned the black people in Somalia.

Clinton: Defended the white people in Bosnia.

Bush43: Brought democracy to the brown people in Afghanistan.

Bush43: Brought democracy to the brown people in Iraq.

It seems that the Bush family cares about people, regardless of their skin color. Kudos to the Bush family.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Much better that we quabble about some events in 2003 that we have discussed before.



[/ QUOTE ]

The event was yesterday and that had not yet been discussed.

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Much better that we quabble about some events in 2003 that we have discussed before.



[/ QUOTE ]

The event was yesterday and that had not yet been discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the speech was just a pretext for everybody to restate their already firmly established opinions about whether Bush lied and manipulated or not.

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
My original suggestion stands. Package the evidence. Take it to a grand jury. Get an indictment. Prosecute or impeach. Or shut up about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is your attitude toward discussion of issues that you don't happen to agree with then I very respectfully submit that a Politics forum might not be the place you spend your time.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
No, the speech was just a pretext for everybody to restate their already firmly established opinions about whether Bush lied and manipulated or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush taking yet another opportunity to broadcast his firmly established opinions is news and deserves comment else we only here one biased side of the equation.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yes, we are so concerned over the 'freedom' of brown people we have never met who live half a world away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny thing about which Presidents care about people based on their skin color:

Bush41: Freed the brown people in Panama from a dictator.

Bush41: Freed the brown people of Kuwait from an invading dictator.

Bush41: Moved into Somalia to defend black people.

Clinton: Abandoned the black people in Somalia.

Clinton: Defended the white people in Bosnia.

Bush43: Brought democracy to the brown people in Afghanistan.

Bush43: Brought democracy to the brown people in Iraq.

It seems that the Bush family cares about people, regardless of their skin color. Kudos to the Bush family.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this thread is big enough for two discussions.

Clinton is the first president since WW2 to bomb white people.

You can't have a democracy under a foreign occupation with a constitution written by appointees of the conquerer.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What evidence is their that Iraq or any of it's agencies have any links to 9/11.

I'm sure they did everything in their power to prevent it. Yeah, right.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


France didn't try to prevent 9-11 either...BOMB THEM!!!

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My original suggestion stands. Package the evidence. Take it to a grand jury. Get an indictment. Prosecute or impeach. Or shut up about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is your attitude toward discussion of issues that you don't happen to agree with then I very respectfully submit that a Politics forum might not be the place you spend your time.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has a point. When they have the goods on you, the opponents go for impeachment.

They got the goods on Nixon and he resigned rather than be impeached.

They got the goods on Clinton and he was impeached.

If they really had any goods on Bush, he would be impeached in a heartbeat. But the goods are not there, just biased speculation.

[elwoodblues]

This assumes that the only appropriate responses are impeachment or ignore. That just isn't/shouldn't be true.

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't have a democracy under a foreign occupation with a constitution written by appointees of the conquerer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you missed all the purple fingers from all the elections. The people elected the writers of the new constitution.

But its more fun to pretend that we imposed a constitution on the people. Today is the third election in Iraq this year, it would have been so much easier to impose our will than to have them have so many elections.

Damn that Bush and his insistance on actual democracy every step of the way.

The Myth of the Purple Finger:

An Iraqi government that can't secure Iraq. An American army doing the bidding of a Shia-dominated government. Hell of a plan.

"I believed -- and I said from the podium -- that as Iraqis became more politically empowered, the insurgency would become politically weakened," said Dan Senor, a top Bremer adviser. "That hasn't happened. The political process has been resilient -- and so has the insurgency."

[andyfox]

No, the speech was the lead story everywhere. It was news. Whether Bush lied or manipulated or didn't is not an opinion.

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
No, the speech was the lead story everywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you let the media run your life?

The media ignores 99% of what Bush says and you seem to think the 1% that they cover (which they picked due to their bias to present the story they want to present) is what matters. You are a puppet of the media. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the key foreign policy players, were all on public record of beingin favor of regime change in Iraq during the Clinton administration.

In and of itself, this was not a bad thing. Iraq was repeatedly thumbing its nose at the UN and violating the mandated no-fly zones, as well as stonewalling the weapons inspectors. Not to mention the other human rights violations that were SOP.

I don't know if the troops are aware of what would be the appropriate steps to provide the means of victory, but certinaly our troops know how the American politial system works and that a country where all march in lockstep to whatever the leader says would not be a country worth defending. I would think, therefore, that debate and critique would be welcomed by the troops.


I think its safe to say that some would welcome the debate and some would be demoralized.

The administration, however, deliberately failed to prepare for the occupation, thus jeopardizing the lives of our troops needlessly.

I don't know if the failure was deliberate, but I do agree that the war has been managed poorly. As much of a tax hawk as I am, I can't see fighting a real war and simultaneously cutting taxes. That makes no sense.

I hope that the world has indeed been made a safer place by our invasion of Iraq. I fear that is has not,

I suspect that in the short run it has not, but the goal is the long run and the long run is a lot longer than we probably think (sorry, had to work poker in somewhere). But if we're ever going to do the right thing for the Munich victims, Leon Klinghoffer, the Lockerbie victims, the Bali victims, the 9/11 victims and if we're ever going to do honor to the memory Anwar Sadat, this war must be fought. I don't expect it to end anytime soon. If it does, the free world loses.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What evidence is their that Iraq or any of it's agencies have any links to 9/11.

I'm sure they did everything in their power to prevent it. Yeah, right.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


France didn't try to prevent 9-11 either...BOMB THEM!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

We did that in Tripoli.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What evidence is there for that criticism of the administration’s handling of Iraq harms the morale of the troops?


[/ QUOTE ]
because it plants the seed of doubt that, when the time comes to fund the war, that Congress may not take the appropriate steps to provide the means for victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What evidence is their that Iraq or any of it's agencies have any links to 9/11.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure they did everything in their power to prevent it. Yeah, right.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is twice that Andy asked you to provide evidence for something and your answer was a total non sequitor. Why don't you just admit that there is no evidence for either of these propositions?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the first point, it's easy. I've spoken to a few returned soldiers who indicated that some people in their units were affected negatively. Is that good enough, or do you want notarized statements.

On the second point, I have no evidence, nor do I need any. Anyone who honestly believes that Iraqi officials would have taken even the smallest step against anyone connected with Al Qaeda is seriously delusional. Iraq didn't need to be directly involved with 9/11 to be viewed as being complicit.

[KellyRae]

"France didn't try to prevent 9-11 either...BOMB THEM!!! "

Finally a good idea surfaces. It may just be easier to let the wonderful muslims they welcomed into their wonderful country to take care of this for us, though.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't have a democracy under a foreign occupation with a constitution written by appointees of the conquerer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who wrote the Constitutions of Germany and Japan after WWII? Just wondering...

[andyfox]

My point was that I was not the only one who felt Bush's speech was worthy of comment. I listened to both Larry Elder and Hugh Hewitt on the way home last night and these conservative Republican commentators made it their lead as well.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Shorter MMMMMM:

I have an almost religious faith in the correcteness of right-wing talking points. So I see no need for actual evidence to show what Congressional critics actually said. Nor do I see any need for actual evidence of any harm to "morale". Bush said it, and it fits with what I want to believe, so it must be true.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not even remotely close to how my conclusions are derived. Projecting again, Elliot?